Gay Marriage

mikepegg44

I don't really want to start a war here or anything, but just wondering why someone opposes to people who love each other getting married.

It makes no sense to me and I am hoping someone on here can enlighten me as to why someone would be opposed to this...I cannot speak for all, but for any who reply and feel that way I will not flame you or call you names, just really have never had a discussion about it with anyone who feels differently

blackredyellow

You don't want to start a war, but you start a gay marriage thread? Might as well ad abortion or gun control to it


I don't get it either... two dudes marrying has absolutely no affect on my life or my wife and I's marriage.

polaris_x

i think i have a good idea of why people who oppose gay marriage do so ... but i'll let them speak for themselves ... i thought this anecdote would shed additional light on the situation ...

in trying to keep it brief - someone i know had dinner with our former PM of Canada (Jean Chretien) who in his time as PM had to deal with a constitutional crisis (quebec referendum), two wars (one we were part of and another we weren't) amongst other things ... he said that the hardest issue he ever had to deal with was "gay marriage" ... although many people outwardly would not say anything - in the privacy of their own homes they were adamantly against it despite it being contradictory to our charter of rights ...

know1

I'm really against the concept of government sanctioning marriages anyway. What's the point of that?

If two people want to make a commitment to each other, I don't care one way or the other.

Basically, when the debate about this was the loudest, I really couldn't make out any real logic from either side in the debate that made any sense.

Government should just stay out of it and then people can marry whomever and whatever they want.

mikepegg44

blackredyellow wrote:

You don't want to start a war, but you start a gay marriage thread? Might as well ad abortion or gun control to it

yeah I know, but I really don't... I just would like to understand it as best I can. All i have ever heard of is "sanctity" of marriage but it always comes from people who want gov't out of their lives in every other arena. I don't know, if someone feels that way it is their own deal, but I couldn't care less if a guy wants to marry a cucumber why would I stand in his way

Hugh Freaking Dillon

I think part of the big issue is marriage VS civil union. I support legalized unions, but I can understand why catholics and the like have an issue with them allowed to be married. Marriage is a religion-born institution, and if it falls against their values, then they think they should be allowed to legally block it. Unfortunately, this is the problem: church and state are one on the marriage issue. They shouldn't be. It should only be called marriage if a church does it, and any other way should be a civil union. And only civil unions should be legally binding. However, a marriage could be a civil union, but a civil union doesn't necessarily have to be a marriage.

But I guess some homosexuals may also be religious enough that they'd like their union to be recognized by the church, but if they reject your orientation, and in my opinion, rejecting the very person, then why the fuck would you want to be recognized by such a hypocritical institution?

Civil unions and marriages, my point, should have the same legal rights under law.

FiveB247x

A long time ago, god told some people some stuff, and then a long while later, another group expounded on it and wrote this book, which was later on revised and reinterpreted to tell lots of other people centuries later that gays are bad and their marriage is not acceptable. Hope that helps clear things up.

unsung

What's the difference between civil unions and marriage? If you get all the death benefits, insurance, equal rights, divorce fees, and whatever else goes into what a married man and woman get where's the gripe?

Give gay people civil unions with all benefits and let the Catholics keep marriage. Everyone wins.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

unsung wrote:

What's the difference between civil unions and marriage? If you get all the death benefits, insurance, equal rights, divorce fees, and whatever else goes into what a married man and woman get where's the gripe?

Give gay people civil unions with all benefits and let the Catholics keep marriage. Everyone wins.

there is no difference, unless you are religious.

Godfather.

it's personal believes to most,why is the death penalty so wrong to some and not to others ?
there are a few reasons I do not agree with it, one is my religious believes and the other is
it just seems so wrong...gay sex just turns my insides around.
as far as public opinion's go everybody has their own and believe theirs is the right one and as long
we all have our own opinion you will never get a true answer,live by your own believes and don't try
to convince people that they'er wrong and don't let them change your mind or believes either.

Godfather.

keeponrockin

I don't really think outlawing gay marriage will stop gay sex... It hasn't so far...

As for religious beliefs, there is lots of other wacky shit that's not allowed that we partake in every day, personally I don't see how letting two dudes or women to get married affects me, but that's just me.

As for churches, I feel as an institution they should be allowed to deny couples the right to get married, as it's their right as an institution. However, they should also face any backlash that comes from this. The tax free status of churches makes it difficult to call them a completely private institution, but even as an atheist, a church denying a couple the right to marry (if they got divorced, wife was pregnant, etc..) for any reason is fine with me.

Dirtie_Frank

Johnny Sitar wrote:

I think part of the big issue is marriage VS civil union. I support legalized unions, but I can understand why catholics and the like have an issue with them allowed to be married. Marriage is a religion-born institution, and if it falls against their values, then they think they should be allowed to legally block it. Unfortunately, this is the problem: church and state are one on the marriage issue. They shouldn't be. It should only be called marriage if a church does it, and any other way should be a civil union. And only civil unions should be legally binding. However, a marriage could be a civil union, but a civil union doesn't necessarily have to be a marriage.

But I guess some homosexuals may also be religious enough that they'd like their union to be recognized by the church, but if they reject your orientation, and in my opinion, rejecting the very person, then why the fuck would you want to be recognized by such a hypocritical institution?

Civil unions and marriages, my point, should have the same legal rights under law.

I think you hit the nail on the head. I think if they called it something other then marriage then there would be less problems. Marriage as defined is a union between man and wife. Make up another word for it and it might not be as much as a problem

blackredyellow

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

Johnny Sitar wrote:

I think part of the big issue is marriage VS civil union. I support legalized unions, but I can understand why catholics and the like have an issue with them allowed to be married. Marriage is a religion-born institution, and if it falls against their values, then they think they should be allowed to legally block it. Unfortunately, this is the problem: church and state are one on the marriage issue. They shouldn't be. It should only be called marriage if a church does it, and any other way should be a civil union. And only civil unions should be legally binding. However, a marriage could be a civil union, but a civil union doesn't necessarily have to be a marriage.

But I guess some homosexuals may also be religious enough that they'd like their union to be recognized by the church, but if they reject your orientation, and in my opinion, rejecting the very person, then why the fuck would you want to be recognized by such a hypocritical institution?

Civil unions and marriages, my point, should have the same legal rights under law.

I think you hit the nail on the head. I think if they called it something other then marriage then there would be less problems. Marriage as defined is a union between man and wife. Make up another word for it and it might not be as much as a problem

Yeah, I've always thought that the state issued marriage certificate should be called some general term like civil partnership certificate or something, and this could be filled out and granted to straight or gay couples. The religious people will still call it a marriage certificate, and have the ceremonies or whatever, and the non-religious people can call it whatever the hell they want to. Same form, same benefits, we all live happily ever after.

murphyJammer

unsung wrote:

What's the difference between civil unions and marriage? If you get all the death benefits, insurance, equal rights, divorce fees, and whatever else goes into what a married man and woman get where's the gripe?

Give gay people civil unions with all benefits and let the Catholics keep marriage. Everyone wins.

Why stop there? What's the difference between a colored water fountian and a white water fountain? Have two and everyone wins.

haffajappa

Godfather. wrote:

it's personal believes to most,why is the death penalty so wrong to some and not to others ?
there are a few reasons I do not agree with it, one is my religious believes and the other is
it just seems so wrong...gay sex just turns my insides around.
as far as public opinion's go everybody has their own and believe theirs is the right one and as long
we all have our own opinion you will never get a true answer,live by your own believes and don't try
to convince people that they'er wrong and don't let them change your mind or believes either.

Godfather.

well comparing the death penalty is a bit different than same sex marriage... most notably the fact that same sex couples don't necessarily involve death...

chinese food turns my insides around, but i don't think they should ban it.

ps
belieb]fs[/b

FiveB247x

The gay marriage discussion always make me scratch my head at people.

Since when has marriage become a wonderful institution that everyone needs to emulate and carry it out as the basis for which we deem good moral code? Last I recall hearing, marriage fails half of the time for roughly the past several decades...correct? The entire notion that all that is good or decent is derived from family core values or marriage is mere fallacy. The American society and morals has been eroding for decades while the marriage and divorce rates have stayed the same...so what does that tell you?

Starfall

A couple of things:

1. Marriage is a civil contract. That's why you can get married at city hall, without benefit of a church. Religious institutions do not have a right to the term marriage, primarily because of the separation of church and state. Religious institutions can conduct marriage ceremonies, but the marriage is not recognized by the state unless a valid marriage certificate is issued and signed. As long as the parties involved are competent adults able to enter into a contract, any couple should then be able to enter into a marriage.
2. Equal protection under the law. Marriage affords couples considerable amounts of benefits, from tax shelters, visitation rights, and inheritance or probate rights. The word "marriage" appears in numerous laws throughout the country - to establish a separate "civil union" would not confer to couples all the benefits of marriage - which would make it a a clear violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. In addition, the Supreme Court has already ruled that "separate but equal" is unconstitutional.

To paraphrase Dan Savage, "First you don't want us gays to have wanton sex, yet you want to stop us from being in monogamous, committed marriages?"

FiveB247x

You are absolutely correct, but in the real world, people's notion and idea of marriage is that of religion..

Starfall wrote:

A couple of things:

1. Marriage is a civil contract. That's why you can get married at city hall, without benefit of a church. Religious institutions do not have a right to the term marriage, primarily because of the separation of church and state. Religious institutions can conduct marriage ceremonies, but the marriage is not recognized by the state unless a valid marriage certificate is issued and signed. As long as the parties involved are competent adults able to enter into a contract, any couple should then be able to enter into a marriage.
2. Equal protection under the law. Marriage affords couples considerable amounts of benefits, from tax shelters, visitation rights, and inheritance or probate rights. The word "marriage" appears in numerous laws throughout the country - to establish a separate "civil union" would not confer to couples all the benefits of marriage - which would make it a a clear violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. In addition, the Supreme Court has already ruled that "separate but equal" is unconstitutional.

To paraphrase Dan Savage, "First you don't want us gays to have wanton sex, yet you want to stop us from being in monogamous, committed marriages?"

polaris_x

Starfall wrote:

A couple of things:

1. Marriage is a civil contract. That's why you can get married at city hall, without benefit of a church. Religious institutions do not have a right to the term marriage, primarily because of the separation of church and state. Religious institutions can conduct marriage ceremonies, but the marriage is not recognized by the state unless a valid marriage certificate is issued and signed. As long as the parties involved are competent adults able to enter into a contract, any couple should then be able to enter into a marriage.
2. Equal protection under the law. Marriage affords couples considerable amounts of benefits, from tax shelters, visitation rights, and inheritance or probate rights. The word "marriage" appears in numerous laws throughout the country - to establish a separate "civil union" would not confer to couples all the benefits of marriage - which would make it a a clear violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. In addition, the Supreme Court has already ruled that "separate but equal" is unconstitutional.

To paraphrase Dan Savage, "First you don't want us gays to have wanton sex, yet you want to stop us from being in monogamous, committed marriages?"

great post and happy birthday!

Hugh Freaking Dillon

murphyJammer wrote:

unsung wrote:

What's the difference between civil unions and marriage? If you get all the death benefits, insurance, equal rights, divorce fees, and whatever else goes into what a married man and woman get where's the gripe?

Give gay people civil unions with all benefits and let the Catholics keep marriage. Everyone wins.

Why stop there? What's the difference between a colored water fountian and a white water fountain? Have two and everyone wins.

what?

murphyJammer

Johnny Sitar wrote:

murphyJammer wrote:

unsung wrote:

What's the difference between civil unions and marriage? If you get all the death benefits, insurance, equal rights, divorce fees, and whatever else goes into what a married man and woman get where's the gripe?

Give gay people civil unions with all benefits and let the Catholics keep marriage. Everyone wins.

Why stop there? What's the difference between a colored water fountian and a white water fountain? Have two and everyone wins.

what?

I fail to see the difference between segregation of rest rooms and lunch counters and the separation of marriage rights based on arbitrary traits such as race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.