Why gay marriage is wrong to SO many.

[photo.boy]

The reasons why people (mostly Christians and other fundamentalists) have such a problem with same-sex marriage are so ridiculous and invalid. Their reasons are pathetic! Their reasons are, for the most part (as far as I've heard thus far), completely subjective and selfish. Most people against same-sex marriage truthfully have no idea why they even object to it other than for the reasons they've pulled from their religion's ancient societal rules. And for the record, I'm not gay, but I do have gay and lesbian and TS friends who I care about. They just made it illegal in California again (where I just moved from) and a few of my friends were crushed. With good fucking reason! This debate is absurd!

Here are some of the major "reasons" why people don't want gay marriage legalized:

"Being gay is not natural."
Because real Americans always reject unnatural things... like sunglasses, polyester, liposuction and air conditioning.

"Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay."
Just like hanging around straight women encourages straight men to be attracted to other men, and gay couples that hang around straight couples are encouraged to be straight.

"Legalizing gay marriage will open the doors to all kinds of crazy behavior like being able to marry a dog or other animals."
Because household pets have legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

"Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all and we should respect those traditions."
And respect that women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal because those marital traditions have not changed.

"Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed."
And the sanctity of Britney Spears 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed, and the divorce rate of 9,000 cases per year will no longer be honorably respected.

"Straight marriages are valid and practical because they produce children."
Because gay couples, infertile straight couples, and elderly couples shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages are practically empty and the world needs more children.

"Obviously gay parents will raise gay children."
Because straight couples only raise straight children, and gays don't believe in individual freedoms for others like free will or free choice.

"Gay marriage is not supported by religion."
Because, in a theocracy like ours, the values of one single religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.

"Children can't ever succeed without a male and a female role model at home."
That's why we as a society forbid single parents to raise children.

"Gay marriage would change the foundation of society. We could never adapt to such a new social form."
Just like we can't adapt to agriculture, automobiles, the internet, the monetary system, medicine, longer life spans, or science.

Anyway, to anyone who thinks gay marriage is wrong: please try to develop a brain before protesting any opinion you think you have about anything. Thanks.

And to everyone else, straight/gay/les/bi/ts... may your relationships be pure passion and your sex be hardcore and more fun and loving than any conservative religious freak can ever imagine! <3

[the3ra]

The ONLY thing i wonder about is a child being raised by two dads or two moms. Mostly because i've never heard of such a thing.
I mean, would walking in on your two dads fucking be any better or worse than walking in on your mom and dad fucking?

For the record, i support same sex marriages. Equal rights should be equal.

jokes:
I guess the kid would grow up with useful skill sets. Great fashion instincts, walking small dogs, playing acoustic guitar, personal hygiene.

[Cyclops]

Same sex unions should not be catagorized as being the same as marriage of a man and a woman.for the sole and specific reason that man and woman is the only union capable of producing children

It is not the union of same sex couples that I oppose,it is the catagorization of it together with man/woman union that I oppose.

these are two diiferent types of union ,because no man could ever get together with another man(nor a woman with another woman)and say "let's have children together.It is BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!

For this reason,and this reason alone,union of man and woman is exclusive and special.

I challenge any of you to prove that you are born from any other union than that!

If you choose to be together and want all the legal ramifications,so be it,but call it what it is.

[Teydyn]

When i read the thread title i thought "oh my god, an asshole is posting...", but i really liked your list. Call the bullshit when you see it.


It is BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!
So infertile man and women should NOT be allowed to marry by same reason?

[worldbro]

Same sex unions should not be catagorized as being the same as marriage of a man and a woman.for the sole and specific reason that man and woman is the only union capable of producing children

It is not the union of same sex couples that I oppose,it is the catagorization of it together with man/woman union that I oppose.

these are two diiferent types of union ,because no man could ever get together with another man(nor a woman with another woman)and say "let's have children together.It is BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!

For this reason,and this reason alone,union of man and woman is exclusive and special.

I challenge any of you to prove that you are born from any other union than that!

If you choose to be together and want all the legal ramifications,so be it,but call it what it is.

Here's my theory, most of the lawyers fighting for gay marriage don't give 2 shits about equal rights, they know how high the divorce rate is anyway, and how much money lawyers in America make on divorce cases. Opening up a whole new line of marriages opens up a whole new line of divorces = more money. Here's the kicker, for one to get alimony(child support I think but not sure); which of course the lawyers make heavy profits from it has to be defined as marriage in the courts not a civil union or any other word.
It comes down to $ not equal rights why do you think they are pushing the word "marriage" not for the sake of equality but for the sake of profitability.
Me personally; I think Chris Rock said it best about marriage "Gay people have just as much as a right to be miserable as straight people" Fuckkk marriage!

[TSCURIOUS]

I could care less about gay marriage. If 2 people in love want to marry - so be it! However, if they do, they should be under the same civil laws (married and divorced) as any other couple. Lets make it all equal - taxes, benefits, wills, and the ever so costly - divorce/alimony ect....
BTW - most gay people I know do not want that.

[trish]

Lets make it all equal - taxes, benefits, wills, and the ever so costly - divorce/alimony ect....
BTW - most gay people I know do not want that.

That doesn't fit the description of most gay people I know. I don't know any gays who want special rights or different rights from the rights that should be guaranteed by law to everyone. I agree, with you TSCurious, and all the gays I know-let's make it all equal.

[Hendrix]

In the end we are all human. Everybody should have equal rights,period.

[haffASS]

anyone who wants to be married should be able to ruin their lives as they so choose. Besides, if it is a religous thing, how many straight couples are married in completely non-religious ceremonies?

[jmt]

txxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[trish]

The purpose of a contract is not to make an agreement legitimate in any moral sense (as jmt seems to imply) but rather to make explicit the rights and obligations of the involved parties; (e.g. in many states the surviving spouse is obligated to take on the debts of the deceased spouse, just as a spouse has the contracted right to hospital visitations etc.) No one’s asking the state to recognize something different called gay marriage. The state is only being asked to extend the domain of ordinary marriage to apply equally to everybody as it should.

The fact is, the law sometimes exists to protect the rights of the few even after the bigoted have spoken.

[muhmuh]

The ONLY thing i wonder about is a child being raised by two dads or two moms.

the only somewhat sensible argument i can think of against that is that the child will almost certainly be targeted by other kids because of his parents
but then again by that logic any couple that is likely to produce a kid with the knack (http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=FlJsPa6UwcM) shouldnt be allowed to have kids either

[trish]

Well, cowboys...that explains the Canadian perspective. The interference of wealthy religious groups, in particular, Mormon money explains the recent surprise in California.

[BeardedOne]

Marriage is an institution that is desired by people that like to live in institutions. - Anon

What most people against same-sex marriage don't seem to grasp is the simple concept of property law. This isn't about children and families and procreation as much as it is about earned wealth.

I don't mean to belittle the familial aspects of it, as I know a handful of couples where the parents are gay (Gay male and gay female) that had the desire of a family but lacked the sexual identity to make it so outside of an agreed partnership. To the doubters, the children have proven exceptionally bright, affectionate, open-minded, and (As far as we know to date) 'straight'.

'Civil Unions' is bullshit! :evil: It's a lame-ass nod to political correctness that ignores the basic concept of property law and spousal consult. If I was to agree to a 'Civil Union' with another male and then die, my Social Security benefits, pension benefits, etc. would die with me because, in the eyes of state, we were not 'married'. If I had a stroke and wound up on life support, my 'Civil Partner' would have no rights as concerned my care or, if the need came, declination of life support.

Personally, I believe that the whole institution of marriage sucks ass. Anyone that truly wants it is a masochist and should be granted their wish, post haste.

[MrF]

I agree with the original post and with BeardedOne. We need equal rights for all, and the religious arguments are absurd. However, while I think its ok for some to be militantly pro-gay-marriage, it is also useful to search for "reasonable" arguments that don't offend too much, if possible. I mean, I could argue that religion is BS, thus tearing down their basic premise, but that wouldn't help me politically.

I think the argument is simple: We (in the USA) have secular government and secular courts; religion should play no role. Then it's a matter of fairness under the law. If persons A and B want to get married, why should it matter to person C who is unrelated and perhaps lives far away ? How is it possibly a threat to person C's life in a practical way ? And then you have to weigh person's C's alleged rights in this matter versus the rights of A and B to achieve happiness. Obviously it would be unfair to let person C decide the issue (especially if it is religious-based decision, since the law is secular). The issues with raising children can be proven easily based on available experience.

[Nowhere]

I'll make it very simple to everyone:

This is not about anything being "right" or "wrong".

Many people into religion get a kick out of controlling others and telling them what to do.

It's a power trip.

That's what's going on here, and why the reasons are BS.

They really don't care about the reasons or they'd be focused on that aspect of it.

They are manufacturing reasons so they can have their power trip and so that they can control and force everyone who doesn't agree with them to live their lives the way they want them to.

[Nowhere]

dp

[EyeCumInPiece]

I see it like this.....

Straight people have made such a mockery of the sanctity of marriage, that we have no right trying to protect its "definition." I personally dont give a fuck who gets married. Whether a man marries a man, woman, or goat, it has no direct connection with my own life, therefore, i dont give a fuck. I think people should lighten up. If 2 people love eachother, they should be married, regardless of their sex, orientation or whatever else.

[francisfkudrow]

"Straight marriages are valid and practical because they produce children."



This one is the key. My uncle listens to religious talk radio shows, and I remember overhearing this conservative Christian guy say that if a heterosexual married couple uses birth control every time they have sex, their marriage is illegitimate.

According to many in the religious right, the only legitimate purpose for sex--and therefore the only legitimate purpose for marriage--is procreation.

[Ts CinthyaNY]

Same sex unions should not be catagorized as being the same as marriage of a man and a woman.for the sole and specific reason that man and woman is the only union capable of producing children

It is not the union of same sex couples that I oppose,it is the catagorization of it together with man/woman union that I oppose.

these are two diiferent types of union ,because no man could ever get together with another man(nor a woman with another woman)and say "let's have children together.It is BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!

For this reason,and this reason alone,union of man and woman is exclusive and special.

I challenge any of you to prove that you are born from any other union than that!

If you choose to be together and want all the legal ramifications,so be it,but call it what it is.

The definition of marriage should be changed and then it will stop the " Categorization " of marriage and be call as it is with all the legal rights and obligation you acquire.

Marriage it was created to be a social control institution and create family as a part of the society and be like it is. Do not see anything wrong about two same sex couples having the willingness of being happy and conform part of the society itself.

[Felicia Katt]

From the Lmabda Legal Defense organization

more than 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon heterosexual married couples in the United States. By not being allowed to marry, gays and lesbians are denied these rights. Even in the state of Massachusetts, the only US state with legalized gay marriage, most of the benefits of marriage do not apply, because the Defense of Marriage Act states that the federal government only recognizes marriage as "a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife".

Here are some of the legal rights that married couples have and gays and lesbians are denied:

Joint parental rights of children
Joint adoption
Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
Crime victims recovery benefits
Domestic violence protection orders
Judicial protections and immunity
Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
Public safety officers death benefits
Spousal veterans benefits
Social Security
Medicare
Joint filing of tax returns
Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
Child support
Joint Insurance Plans
Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
Estate and gift tax benefits
Welfare and public assistance
Joint housing for elderly
Credit protection
Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans
These are just a few of the 1400 state and federal benefits that gays and lesbians are denied by not being able to marry. Most of these benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for within the legal system.

FK

[BlackMath]

The ONLY thing i wonder about is a child being raised by two dads or two moms. Mostly because i've never heard of such a thing.
I mean, would walking in on your two dads fucking be any better or worse than walking in on your mom and dad fucking?

For the record, i support same sex marriages. Equal rights should be equal.

jokes:
I guess the kid would grow up with useful skill sets. Great fashion instincts, walking small dogs, playing acoustic guitar, personal hygiene.

Studies have shown the gay parenting is equivalent to single-parenting.

[Legend]

I like how the op comes on here and tries to sound noble about gay marriage but in his other thread he can't even admit he is gay,someone who says come on boys is freakin gay.I don't have a problem with him admitting he is gay but if you are go to go on about why people can't accept gay marriage you have to accept it yourself.

[SHEMALES YUM-YUM]

The term "same-sex marriage" is a literal impossibility. I am very much for Americans rights including those of married people. Those rights SHOULD be extended to any two people wishing to be married, whether opposite or same sex. However, after reading the postings of this thread I took it upon myself to reach for my Webster's Dictionary. The definition is as stated: "The legal union between one man and one woman." This is therefore a literal defining term for the word. Hence, legal Gay-marriage is not viable under the law if it does go against the word's definition. If an apple is an apple, it can not be called an orange.

Remedy: Call it something else! Give it whatever created name the people like, like maybe Garriage. Give Garriage the same legal standing and rights as marriage. Create it to be totally and unchallenging equal under the law. This way, Homosexuals can not claim to be descriminated against because the only thing not equal is the first letter of the word itself, and right-wing Christians can not claim that the sanctity of Marriage has been violated. A win - win situation now, even for the divorce attorneys who can now make more money off of other people's sorrows.

Just an idea because I've been getting so sick of seeing this debate on my local news. And since the politicians of my state (California) can't even seem to balance a budget, maybe they haven't even considered something like this. Way to go Governator!!! I hope you won't be back.

[Schimmel]

Studies have shown the gay parenting is equivalent to single-parenting.
LOL You gonna share a source or just spout bullshit from the top of your head?

[Felicia Katt]

the term marriage has been culturally defined as exclusive. but the verb marry, on which it is based is defined as follows:

2: to unite in close and usually permanent relation

You marry engine to chassis, lyrics to music etc etc

If the only reason people object to same sex marriage is on religious grounds, they can do all they want within their religion to stick to their traditions. But in the real world, marriage is a legal relationship and there is no rational reason to limit it to one type of couple over another. Separate but equal was wrong then and is wrong now

FK

[Felicia Katt]

Studies have shown the gay parenting is equivalent to single-parenting.
LOL You gonna share a source or just spout bullshit from the top of your head?

"The vast consensus of all the studies shows that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way," she tells WebMD. "In some ways children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures." says Ellen C. Perrin, MD, professor of pediatrics at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston

Studies from 1981 to 1994, including 260 children reared by either heterosexual mothers or same-sex mothers after divorce, found no differences in intelligence, type or prevalence of psychiatric disorders, self-esteem, well-being, peer relationships, couple relationships, or parental stress.

"Some studies showed that single heterosexual parents' children have more difficulties than children who have parents of the same sex," Perrin says. "They did better in discipline, self-esteem, and had less psychosocial difficulties at home and at school."


http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids


FK

[dan_drade]

Same sex unions should not be catagorized as being the same as marriage of a man and a woman.for the sole and specific reason that man and woman is the only union capable of producing children

It is not the union of same sex couples that I oppose,it is the catagorization of it together with man/woman union that I oppose.

these are two diiferent types of union ,because no man could ever get together with another man(nor a woman with another woman)and say "let's have children together.It is BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!

For this reason,and this reason alone,union of man and woman is exclusive and special.

I challenge any of you to prove that you are born from any other union than that!

If you choose to be together and want all the legal ramifications,so be it,but call it what it is.

I would agree with you if, and only if a woman could get pregnant only if she is married. Then your theory would hold water. But until that happens, equal rights are equal rights.

[Schimmel]

Studies have shown the gay parenting is equivalent to single-parenting.
LOL You gonna share a source or just spout bullshit from the top of your head?

"The vast consensus of all the studies shows that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way," she tells WebMD. "In some ways children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures." says Ellen C. Perrin, MD, professor of pediatrics at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston

Studies from 1981 to 1994, including 260 children reared by either heterosexual mothers or same-sex mothers after divorce, found no differences in intelligence, type or prevalence of psychiatric disorders, self-esteem, well-being, peer relationships, couple relationships, or parental stress.

"Some studies showed that single heterosexual parents' children have more difficulties than children who have parents of the same sex," Perrin says. "They did better in discipline, self-esteem, and had less psychosocial difficulties at home and at school."


http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids


FK
Appreciated.

"While further study should be done, this is important for pediatricians to know so they can learn more about variations in families and give appropriate advice in optimizing the child's development, Perrin says."

I agree that further study should be done.

[ted naves]

In the end we are all human. Everybody should have equal rights,period.


Exactly. That's all there is, and ever has been to it.

[sunairco]

Have there been any studies that have attempted to examine specifically why same sex unions are not supported beyond the tradional reasons of procreation,religious intolerance,and legal definition? Marriage in principle benefits women's security once societal mores are excluded. Do straight women feel same sex marriages threaten the conventional institution of marriage? Just as prostitution threatens female sexual power in a relationship, would same sex unions somehow undermine the hallowed status and power of women in straight unions? The larger picture suggests determining just who's vested interests are threatened and why. Excluding mores, men at best would be ambivelent to any form of social contract of marriage due to biological predisposition. By extension, even in same sex unions, men would be less inclined to choose a permanent partner then women. In previous generations when men held the balance of legal power in a marriage and women as their chattel, it could be argued that their power and status in society could be undermined. Women's rights and no fault divorce have shifted that balance. This leaves innate ego and homophobia that's characteristically male trait as a remaing factor.

Just trying to muse outside conventional mores folks. More often then not,many social issues stripped of ideology and dogma can be reduced to disenfranchisement and loss of power. Occam would have us simplifying the issue to just what straight folks have to loose should same sex unions
become equally recognized.

[lahabra1976]

I extend the right to marriage to gay people...we all have the right to be equally miserable :)

[Felicia Katt]

Appreciated.

"While further study should be done, this is important for pediatricians to know so they can learn more about variations in families and give appropriate advice in optimizing the child's development, Perrin says."

I agree that further study should be done.
Further study would only refine the findings, not refute them. There is no sound sociological basis to treat same sex families differently. If you want to beleive otherwise, that's your right, but your rationale is just wrong.

FK

[worldbro]

Fuck that, I can't legally marry 12 women who I want to be my wives in California; nobody has pity for me

[lahabra1976]

I was really surprised when California voted against it. I live in the most conservative province in Canada; we're talking cowboys, oil, and probably some cousin fuckin' going on, and still it's legal here.

I still believe it was a matter of confusion. Cause to support gay marriage you had to vote no on proposition 8. Voting no to support something isn't the ordinary way of voting so people who thought they were supporting gay marriage were voting yes in the confusion.

[lahabra1976]

According to many in the religious right, the only legitimate purpose for sex--and therefore the only legitimate purpose for marriage--is procreation.

you are creating sperm doing sex does that count?

[MrShow52]

well, america is a democracy. So as long as the majority of americans don't want gay marriage, there shouldn't be any. Why should 99.5% of the population have to change for .5%? If it can't be passed in california, where the largest gay population resides, what makes you think it'd fly with the rest of the country. Even OBAMA your SAVIOR is against gay marriage.u

[MrShow52]

oh yeah and, god whatever happens, I hope they don't allow same sex partnerships to raise children. More "studies" need to be done? hahaha. I feel sorry for whatever poor kid gets placed in that one.

[luv2playwithTgirls]

well, america is a democracy. So as long as the majority of americans don't want gay marriage, there shouldn't be any. Why should 99.5% of the population have to change for .5%? If it can't be passed in california, where the largest gay population resides, what makes you think it'd fly with the rest of the country. Even OBAMA your SAVIOR is against gay marriage.u

By this ignorant rationale, slavery would still exist. Part of the job of the the government in a our Democracy is to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Without the gov't living up to that part of the deal, none of the major social changes of the last 250 years would have occured

Frankly, if marriage is a 'religious institution', then there is no reason that it should be a part of our legal system. Marriage, gay or straight, should be purged from the government and replaced with a civil code that encompasses the same legal rights of shared property and well being and grants it to all Americans regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. Give marriage back to the churches and let them dole out meaningless peices of paper called 'Marriage Certificates'.

Also, what about religous groups who support gay marriage? If an Episcopal minister joins two gay men in marriage, why shouldn't that union be upheld legally? I don't know if any such event has occured yet, but it's bound to happen eventually, not all christians are fundamentalist nutjobs (though they are the ones that seem to yell the loudest).

[lahabra1976]

oh yeah and, god whatever happens, I hope they don't allow same sex partnerships to raise children. More "studies" need to be done? hahaha. I feel sorry for whatever poor kid gets placed in that one.

:shrug

[russtafa]

same sex marriages are recognised in canbera ,capitol of austalia and thats where ill marry my ts wife.i pity you people in america what a stuck up country

[dan_yearsgone83]

Fuck you, some states allow it.

The Puritan blue law states know how to bring the awesome.

[dan_drade]

well, america is a democracy. So as long as the majority of americans don't want gay marriage, there shouldn't be any. Why should 99.5% of the population have to change for .5%? If it can't be passed in california, where the largest gay population resides, what makes you think it'd fly with the rest of the country. Even OBAMA your SAVIOR is against gay marriage.u

What would 99.5% of the population have to change if gays were allowed to get married?

[Schimmel]

well, america is a democracy. So as long as the majority of americans don't want gay marriage, there shouldn't be any. Why should 99.5% of the population have to change for .5%? If it can't be passed in california, where the largest gay population resides, what makes you think it'd fly with the rest of the country. Even OBAMA your SAVIOR is against gay marriage.u

What would 99.5% of the population have to change if gays were allowed to get married?
Their address, assuming a gay couple lived next door. "There goes the neighbourhood, I'm outta here."

[justatransgirl]

As a TS woman in a same sex relationship with another TS woman I'd like to thank all of you who support our right to enjoy the same civil rights "straight" people enjoy.

And to you closet faggots who come on here to whack off to free porn and disrespect TS's with your bigoted comments. FUCK YOU. What does it matter to you who I can love and what we choose to do in the privacy of our own home?

We not only expect to enjoy the same rights as all Americans. WE DEMAND IT!

As for the Mormon and Catholic churches buying the election... Isn't the Mormon church the one where old men take virgin girls as young as 12 or 13 as "wives" and fuck them until they are worn out, then get another one - and run off all the young men so they aren't a threat.

And the Catholics - aren't they the ones paying off hundreds of millions in lawsuits for their priests fucking little boys in the ass?

Yeah - let's talk morals faggots.

And as for people having to move because a gay couple moved in next door. I've lived in the same condo for 3 1/2 years. I participate in the board meetings and most of our neighbors know we are trans - and nobody gives a damn. Pretty soon there isn't going to be anyplace left for bigots to move to. It's the 21st century. Thanks to modern science and technology mankind is evolving, it's time for idiots to stop following the legends of stone age men and the Catholic church.

And I apologize it is partly my fault that we lost gay marriage in CA. We had a bunch of pussies for leaders in the GLBT community. They produced wishy washy ads that didn't say anything. I, and people like me should have stood up and spoken out when we saw this. I didn't. Now I am.

Women didn't get the right to vote until they marched on Washington. Blacks didn't get to share the bus until they marched on Washington. The GLBT community needs to take action and DEMAND equal rights. With Obama we have a window of opportunity to enact Federal law that will put all this BS behind us. NOW is our time. And NOW I am speaking out. I hope you will all stand up and be counted!

I STILL SUPPORT SAME SEX MARRIAGE,
TS Jamie

[MrShow52]

I don't care if dudes have sex with each other. I really don't care if they get married either. It doesn't matter. I have a friend who lives in SF and he got married to his partner after they made it legal, and I called to congratulate him.

However, I will state again, marriage is not in the bill of rights. And as long as the majority of americans (the very vast majority) don't want gay marriage there won't/shouldn't be any. Slavery ended because american's didn't want it. Some wished it to stay, that's why there was a civil war. I wouldn't mind a civil war between proponents of gay marriage and opponents of gay marriage though.

[Marilyn]

[quote="Cyclops"]Same sex unions should not be catagorized as being the same as marriage of a man and a woman.for the sole and specific reason that man and woman is the only union capable of producing children

It is not the union of same sex couples that I oppose,it is the catagorization of it together with man/woman union that I oppose.

these are two diiferent types of union ,because no man could ever get together with another man(nor a woman with another woman)and say "let's have children together.It is BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!

For this reason,and this reason alone,union of man and woman is exclusive and special.


And if the woman...or the man... can't produce kids..adopting will change their stats from marriage to union??

[GIRUGAMESH]

gj bumping a thread that's from january. unplug your computer plz :D

[10th letter]

The reasons why people (mostly Christians and other fundamentalists) have such a problem with same-sex marriage are so ridiculous and invalid. Their reasons are pathetic! Their reasons are, for the most part (as far as I've heard thus far), completely subjective and selfish. Most people against same-sex marriage truthfully have no idea why they even object to it other than for the reasons they've pulled from their religion's ancient societal rules. And for the record, I'm not gay, but I do have gay and lesbian and TS friends who I care about. They just made it illegal in California again (where I just moved from) and a few of my friends were crushed. With good fucking reason! This debate is absurd!

Here are some of the major "reasons" why people don't want gay marriage legalized:

"Being gay is not natural."
Because real Americans always reject unnatural things... like sunglasses, polyester, liposuction and air conditioning.

"Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay."
Just like hanging around straight women encourages straight men to be attracted to other men, and gay couples that hang around straight couples are encouraged to be straight.

"Legalizing gay marriage will open the doors to all kinds of crazy behavior like being able to marry a dog or other animals."
Because household pets have legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

"Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all and we should respect those traditions."
And respect that women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal because those marital traditions have not changed.

"Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed."
And the sanctity of Britney Spears 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed, and the divorce rate of 9,000 cases per year will no longer be honorably respected.

"Straight marriages are valid and practical because they produce children."
Because gay couples, infertile straight couples, and elderly couples shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages are practically empty and the world needs more children.

"Obviously gay parents will raise gay children."
Because straight couples only raise straight children, and gays don't believe in individual freedoms for others like free will or free choice.

"Gay marriage is not supported by religion."
Because, in a theocracy like ours, the values of one single religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.

"Children can't ever succeed without a male and a female role model at home."
That's why we as a society forbid single parents to raise children.

"Gay marriage would change the foundation of society. We could never adapt to such a new social form."
Just like we can't adapt to agriculture, automobiles, the internet, the monetary system, medicine, longer life spans, or science.

Anyway, to anyone who thinks gay marriage is wrong: please try to develop a brain before protesting any opinion you think you have about anything. Thanks.

And to everyone else, straight/gay/les/bi/ts... may your relationships be pure passion and your sex be hardcore and more fun and loving than any conservative religious freak can ever imagine! <3


well intended despite being a tad verbose...

a few notes...

i think ur over simplifying many issues and conceding many points..please dont ever debate this issue with a professional, hede wipe the floors with u...

for instance...

on ur point that hanging out with gay people will make u gay...hanging out with other people with a certain point of view about whats acceptable can very well lead to certain activities...i know many people (who were obviously bi) who only acted upon their gay fantasies because of the ease and the community they were in and the opportunities presented...again, that doesnt make it wrong, but it reduces ur argument and u get in a corner defending ur bad logic and not the fact that it shouldnt matter...

on ur point that the usa isnt run by one religion...terrible point, most all religions oppose homosexuality and have issues with sex in general...i dont know where ur going with this...again, ur point should be who gives a fuck what religion says, not that its a specific religion and not the plurality of it...fuck religion, ur response should be to that issue, move to iran if u want a theocracy...

ur response to success in certain homes n ur response of forbidding single parents is equally flawed, but i can go on all day...

i prefer to agree with allan dershowitz who says all marriage should be illegal, gay, straight, whatever...everyone gets civil unions, u want a fancy sign that says ur married, go to church, synagogue, or whatever...its nothing legal its a religious thing, do what u like, no one gets married anymore...the term is a religious one, it should belong to religion, ur gay n found a rabbi who does it, fine, enjoy, everyone who loves n wants to live with someone, get in line, civil unions

[NYBURBS]

gj bumping a thread that's from january. unplug your computer plz :D

Ppl bump topics here everyday, it's part of how this forum is set-up.

[MacShreach]

It is not the union of same sex couples that I oppose,it is the catagorization of it together with man/woman union that I oppose.

these are two diiferent types of union ,because no man could ever get together with another man(nor a woman with another woman)and say "let's have children together.It is BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!



So by your interpretation, the marriages of all hetero couples where one partner is sterile, are similarly invalid?

[MacShreach]

gj bumping a thread that's from january. unplug your computer plz :D

GTF, rookie, a six-month bump is nothing here. And it's a legit topic.

[vicky]

People we need to get government completely out of the marriage business period. What is a marriage license anyway, but a contract between 2 people. The government found a way to extort the love of 2 people for a little cash. They cabn still have the cash. just change the name of the contract.
Problem is the money that is made on this fight. And the fact that it keeps the people fighting amongst ourselves. We are easier to control when we are divided.
People are mad at the Supreme Court of California and they should not be. The Supreme Court ruled on the law itself not what the law said. They can not overturn a constitutional amendment as unconstitutional when it was approved by the citizens. The amendment has to be overturned by a vote of the people.
Again we need to get the government out of the marriage business. Take the stigma of marriage away and the fight ends.

[Rogers]

Homosexuality is natural in the animal kingdom. Or is Satan going about corrupting penguins too? :lol: According to THE story, only humans were given free-will, right?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8081829.stm

The Bible contradicts itself with every turn of the page. Clear evidence that is was written by humans as every bit as flawed as ourselves, and NOT "God".
http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm

Religious groups have used the story of Cain to support racism for centuries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain

Why should anyone straight have a problem with either homosexuality or gay marriage? The more gay guys there are the less competition there is out there, and the more acceptable gay relationships become the less deceit there will be in "straight" ones. I once heard an estimate of 20 million gay guys in sham marriages worldwide. Don't let a mouldy old book dictate the way you think... think for yourself FFS!

[gotchagood]

Personally, I could care less what happens in this raggety society, I'm not emotionally involved, but man and woman have been marrying "long" before there was a justice of the piece, written vows, ink, paper, court, alimony, etc.

It still amazes me though how people in the bush who have no outside influences, who's never seen TV, never heard of a radio, internet, a cup, pencil or a white man, still somehow choose someone of the opposite sex to marry, or jump the broom or whatever they call it. And I've never heard of a harem that were all guys or both.


Have a great day all.

[trish]

i prefer to agree with allan dershowitz who says all marriage should be illegal, gay, straight, whatever...everyone gets civil unions, u want a fancy sign that says ur married, go to church, synagogue, or whatever...its nothing legal its a religious thing, do what u like, no one gets married anymore...

The trouble with this solution is that people will co-opt the word “marriages” to mean “civil unions”. For example, to find out whether someone is available people will ask, “Is she married?” and they will mean, “Is she currently a party to a civil union?” which is not a very natural way to put the inquiry. Lexicographers will record the common usage in dictionaries and soon the word “marriage” will be the dictionary synonym of “a civil union.” Rather than have the legal jargon at odds with common usage, I say let’s just extend the domain of marriage to gays and lesbians and get it over with. Marriage, after all, is NOT a religious “thing”. For centuries marriages have been contracted for family, economic and political reasons. The state still has economic and political reasons to claim the power to grant marriage contracts, the Church has no interest except to exert its will on people who don’t belong, believe or agree with its doctrines. Screw the Church. Call them marriages. If a couple feels the need, they can ask the church to bestow an official blessing on their marriage, which is essentially the current function of a church service anyway.

[MacShreach]

If a couple feels the need, they can ask the church to bestow an official blessing on their marriage, which is essentially the current function of a church service anyway.

This is exactly what happens in France; this is from the British Embassy Consular Services page (because it's in English.)

"1 A religious ceremony cannot be performed until AFTER the civil marriage.

2 A French civil authority (maire, adjoint, or conseiller municipal) performs the civil ceremony in the town in which one of the parties to be married has resided for at least (40) days immediately preceding the marriage.

3 Publication of the banns in the town hall (mairie) where marriage will take place is compulsory in France. "

Same-sex Civil Unions (Pacte Civil de Solidarité) have been permitted since 1999. Same-sex marriage, however, is not permitted. French law states that marriage can only happen between "a man and a woman." There is no particular religious angle to the debate over this, where the Constitutional separation of Church and State is firmly applied, although, as ever, the churches let their view be known.

Interestingly, and with regard to transsexual marriage, France is in line with the famous 2002 ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, which effectively stated that a "woman" for this purpose is not necessarily someone born a biological female, (and vice versa for men) and that the definition has to be based on the person's own "sexe psycho-sociologique," or in other words, her (or his) gender. Transwomen in France therefore can freely and fully marry men (whether they be natal men or transmen) BUT not other women. (and vice versa for men.) All Signatories to the Convention on Human Rights are bound by this.

I do applaud the way that France, and several other European nations, adopted the 2002 ruling, which reversed a very long legal position, and I just wish the UK had had the balls to do the same instead of the infernal fuck-up of the Gender Recognition Act 2004.

[gotchagood]

I have to disagree Trish, the reason people typically/traditionally are married in a church is because marriage is in truth ordained by God, not by man. The preacher really acts as just a stand-in to read the ceremonial words. As I stated previously, man and woman have been marrying way before paper, ink, vows, ceremonies, courts etc. I'm done with is subject. Next.....

[scroller]

I have to disagree Trish, the reason people typically/traditionally are married in a church is because marriage is in truth ordained by God, not by man. The preacher really acts as just a stand-in to read the ceremonial words.

You are free to believe in any kind of magical tooth-fairy bullshit that you so choose.

And fortunately, we are constitutionally bound in the US to keep it out of our legal system. USA for the win!

[tstv_lover]

OK, I'm going to be in the minority here.

Superficially this is a simple topic - but in reality it's far from simple.

The easy answer:
All consenting adults should be allowed to marry, irrespective of sexual orientation.
So does this mean that a brother can marry his sister....or his brother...or his mother?

When two people commit to each other and live together they should be allowed to marry
So what about a 40 year-old guy marrying a 13 year-old girl?

The reality is that we set parameters around what the community determines is acceptable. These parameters vary, depending on tradition, religion and social acceptance (e.g. polygamy accepted in some societies but not in others).

It's this final category - social acceptance - that we're currently debating, so let's focus on that and avoid sweeping generalisations that don't work.

I suspect that gap couples are no more stable or unstable, blissfully happy or messed-up, that heterosexual relationships. Certainly I have absolutely no problem with personal commitments, of the type envisaged by 'civil union', but 'marriage' is one step too far, at least for me.

Raising kids is perhaps the greatest responsibility of adults. Welfare agencies work hard to assess the suitability of families to adopt or foster kids. If gay couples are able to marry then they would demand equal opportunity to adopt or foster kids, and I have to ask - "Is this the IDEAL family environment for raising kids"?

[MacShreach]

OK, I'm going to be in the minority here.

Superficially this is a simple topic - but in reality it's far from simple.

The easy answer:
All consenting adults should be allowed to marry, irrespective of sexual orientation.
So does this mean that a brother can marry his sister....or his brother...or his mother?

I personally have no issue with that; there may be issues with possible genetic problems occurring where close relatives reproduce in repeated generations, but in fact there is very little actual evidence to support this and the evidence that comes from small island populations, where people are necessarily very closely related, suggests that this has been much overstated, probably to support the existing taboo.





When two people commit to each other and live together they should be allowed to marry
So what about a 40 year-old guy marrying a 13 year-old girl?



This is a matter of the legal age of majority; some countries still have this set such that a marriage like that would be quite legal, and in fact, such marriages are common. Throughout most of Europe the age of majority is 16 or younger; I don't have any issue at all with a women of 16 marrying a man of 40; in fact I know several cases where this has actually happened.






The reality is that we set parameters around what the community determines is acceptable. These parameters vary, depending on tradition, religion and social acceptance (e.g. polygamy accepted in some societies but not in others).

It's this final category - social acceptance - that we're currently debating, so let's focus on that and avoid sweeping generalisations that don't work.

I suspect that gap couples are no more stable or unstable, blissfully happy or messed-up, that heterosexual relationships. Certainly I have absolutely no problem with personal commitments, of the type envisaged by 'civil union', but 'marriage' is one step too far, at least for me.

Raising kids is perhaps the greatest responsibility of adults. Welfare agencies work hard to assess the suitability of families to adopt or foster kids. If gay couples are able to marry then they would demand equal opportunity to adopt or foster kids, and I have to ask - "Is this the IDEAL family environment for raising kids"?

Good--you say you want to avoid sweeping generalisations, and then you make one. Interesting tactic.

Speaking as a confirmed and successful breeder myself, I accept what you are saying about the importance of children's home environment; however I fundamentally disagree that the ability to have or raise children should be a condition on whether or not people may be permitted to marry. Many hetero couples are childless. There is more to marriage than this, and to deny this to gay couples is a flagrant disregard of their human right.

It's not that I'm a tub-thumper for marriage; we could just abolish it completely. It's the discrimination I'm against.

[russtafa]

if 2 adults want to get married its nobodys business but theirs

[bob69]

Marriage= two consenting non blood related adults committing to be together in sickness as in health (etc). Really doesn't seem that complicated to me. If they are straight/gay/white/blue/pink/goth/catholic/atheists should not make ANY difference. Many straight couples should not be having children, just like many gay couples should be allowed to adopt. Reproduction and life span should not factor into it. Besides we are talking about being married legally not religiously. The law should be equal for everyone. Religious marriage is an entirely different matter since each religion has its own traditions and their beliefs can be safely ignored by non members. The law on the other hand can't be ignored if you don't like it.