Do you support gay marriage?

[MsDazzler]

Some of my trans friends were opposed to gay marriage, and I think they were LOCO!!!

In my view, legalizing gay marriage would make things infinitely easier for trans women to wed men in any state. It would block troublesome in-laws trying to steal propoerty and inheritances by attemping to declare the marriage null and void by calling it "same-sex marriage", like what happened in Texas.. bless that poor trans woman's heart. :(

If gay marriage, or same-sex marriage, was legalized, then the whole issue of "man and woman" or biological sex will be moot, null, and void!

There is just no room for homophobia when it comes down to gay marriage! It will only help us trans women further!

And YES...

Can't you tell I have a dream wedding all planned out with my Prince Charming ONE DAY!! :praying:

[giovanni_hotel]

THe right to marry for adults is a civil right.

[Flaco]

I def support Gay Marriage.

[timid1]

Unequivocal "Yes"

I see absolutely no reason why two people that love each other and want to marry shouldn't , whether straight, gay,trans etc.

Maybe in the little ol' UK we're a bit more laid back , or tolerant?

I believe the uk government are supporting it in a bill to be passed next year?

[Rabbiteyes]

Now that I have the option to become legally a woman by just signing a couple papers... I kind of don't care as much about gay marriage (at least not for myself).

Morally though, the horrible bigotry and discrimination against gay people is pretty despicable. People are really quite stupid... the arguments being used against gay marriage are the same that were used against interracial marriage before. Society never truly learns anything... and they are too mentally underdeveloped to realize it.

[amanda_m]

i support it but ALL marriage is fffffed up and I understand opposing it.

Domestic marriage is a a contract of law, not love

[sherm13]

I support gay marriage. It is discriminatory to deny a certain group of people a right that another group has.

[BiBoyinBeantown]

Honestly, I'd like to see the government get out of the marriage business entirely, but we're not going to see that, so I support same-sex marriage as the next best thing. If one group of people gets a set of rights, privileges, and responsibilities, then that legal framework should be available to all. In the U.S. that's covered by the "equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

[runround04]

Yup, It doesn't effect me, so why oppose it? Its just 2 more people in the country finding each other and wanting to proclaim that openly and share a day with one another, friends and family. Its really not as big of a deal as the "Anti" folks would have us believe.

[robertlouis]

Of course. And the good news is that it will become legal in the UK next year.

[Jericho]

Of course. And the good news is that it will become legal in the UK next year.

With certain exemptions. :(

[Ilovetranny]

İt's a must for human rights. Middle east countries cant accept these things easily. But developed countries are good places for equal right.

[noble1337]

still disgusts me how so many people are still against it. Not surprising... just pathetic

[MsDazzler]

It is great to see that a lot of guys here support gay marriage - because yeah, there is a paradox here.... many guys who are into trans women do not like gay men (the ones who I have met, anyway) and some of my trans friends actually hate gay men as well

Sigh

[darkrose2000]

I support gay marriage.
I don't see anything wrong when two souls love each other and want to be together.

If someone is gay, this not mean that he is worse person...

P.S. I was thinking that they are allowed here in UK ?
Or now it is called civil partnership ?
Someone to explain me more, please ?

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
K.

[Quiet Reflections]

yes but not because I care about equality but because I don't think it is anybodies business what two consenting adults agree to do with each other.

[ghbryans1]

xxxx

[Quiet Reflections]

No. I don't see any point to a union that can't produce children. Sorry if that hurts anyone's feelings. I am however for legally designating someone outside the family the rights of said family.

We all want things we can't have, and designating them as a "right" is selfish, childish, and foolish. It also indicates a tenuous grasp of reality.
so if a male and female couple were sterile would you be against them getting married?

[gaysian71]

As a gay man I totally support gay marriage. Although I dont think I would ever do it myself. It's just too ugly if you ever decide to get a divorce. I have never witnessed a gay divorce before, but I have seen a few str8 divorce with friends and family and it gets very ugly.

[Jericho]

P.S. I was thinking that they are allowed here in UK ?
Or now it is called civil partnership ?
Someone to explain me more, please ?


They are...with certain caveats.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20680924

Another cop out by our glorious leaders :shrug

[Jericho]

xxxx


Hah, you snooze you lose, QR copped you! :dead-1:

[Chaos]

I support anyone who wants to get married.
I'll never understand why anyone needs the right to have a privilege....

[MHarrigan82]

QUOTE=Quiet Reflections;1252021]so if a male and female couple were sterile would you be against them getting married?[/QUOTE]

I agree 100 percent Quiet Reflections. Many females cannot have children so according to your logic dumb ass those women should not get married. My cousin wife cannot have kids and they are looking to adopt so I guess their marriage is not legit right. I think straight or gay should have the right to marry and I am christian. These hypocrite christian leaders make me not want to go to church with how closet minded they are.

[speedking59]

as a libertarian/anarchist/voluntaryist i believe the government has no business in the sphere of marriage. it is an agreement between individuals and should not be subject to interference by the government at any level, local, state, or federal.

[BluegrassCat]

It's Christmas Eve, not Christmas Steve.

[MHarrigan82]

QUOTE=BluegrassCat;1252083]It's Christmas Eve, not Christmas Steve.[/QUOTE]

Are you trying to be funny are serious. That is what alot of the religious people say GOD made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. I think religion is why they are so many conflicts in the world more people have been killed in GOD or Allah name than any other.

[loren]

so if a male and female couple were sterile would you be against them getting married?

Great point, I love bringing that up to all the haters.

[amberskyi]

wow did someone really say that wanting the of civil rights is selfish

[MrsKellyPierce]

I laughed...a dick sucker against gay marriage

[robertlouis]

They are...with certain caveats.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20680924

Another cop out by our glorious leaders :shrug

Yes, I omitted the fact that the Christian establishment's rights to safeguard their prejudices would remain sacrosanct.....

[robertlouis]

I laughed...a dick sucker against gay marriage

Yep, we have deniers all over this board, but that has to be the best one yet!

[Rusty Eldora]

as a libertarian/anarchist/voluntaryist i believe the government has no business in the sphere of marriage. it is an agreement between individuals and should not be subject to interference by the government at any level, local, state, or federal.

Pols got us into this mess, deciding to put Marriage into so many laws. I support the government doing Civil Unions or similar designations. I would open them up to groups of up to say 5 persons (any combination of guys and girls) where the contract can identify the rights granted and the responsibilities, the way to "divorce", etc.

There are so many places where a 3rd party made decisions about offering benefits or products such as life and health insurance based on a risk review of a group. Changing the definitions change the risk with huge potential profit or loss. Jumping into the law with a new definition changes so many laws with untended consequences.

Also forcing Religions to a new definitions is really bad form, getting there where they decide it is the right thing to do accomplishes more, doesn't have buried resentment for years. The Civil Rights movement is an example of this.

So yes to unions with all the rights and responsibilities of marriage as bestowed by government, but not force other contracts to accept it.

I would be happy to see my son marry a Tgirl or guy if that future partner has a good heart and wants to be someone.

[BeardedOne]

I support gay marriage the same as I support gay waking up, gay driving, and gay going to work.

I always thought it was just 'marriage'.

[akduck]

I believe in freedom of choice and the right to be happy

[dezz]

I see no reason why the absolute definition of marriage should come from thousand year old texts, that, really, contradict themselves at almost every opportunity: and, it's not hard to find those who question the very validity of said texts. I think government oppression of any group's rights, that don't infringe on the rights of others, should be met with scorn and won't be treated kindly by history.
I do also feel though, that if a religious institution wants to tell a group of people they can't use their buildings or ceremonies to get married that's their right. Obviously, if a religion felt that black people shouldn't be allowed to get married there would be a larger public outcry, but really you can just choose not to be Mormon and that stops affecting your life.
So can a religion tell someone they can't married inside their faith because of a lifestyle choice? Absolutely. But, the government of a supposedly progressive nation denying a right to it's citizens because of religious reasoning, with only religious dogma as support for their reasoning? Well, that's some of the stupidest shit I've ever heard

[Willie Escalade]

Um, yes...

[philipsfrog]

No good reason to be opposed to gay marriage

[giovanni_hotel]

THis isn't a religious issue, it's a debate about marriage/contract law. No church will ever be forced to endorse or sanction same sex marriage if they choose not to do so, but that's totally different than having same sex marriage recognized as a legal and binding document by the state.

Marriage licenses aren't issued by churches.

[rodinuk]

Marriage licences are also issued by churches in the UK as well as the State. Marriage laws vary across cultures and jurisdictions as do attitudes towards it. Like so many things it has to have safeguards to prevent it being abused i.e. sham marriages etc. however this usually impacts on the vast majority who then have to jump through extra hoops and hurdles because of it.

I'm delighted to see gay marriage sanctioned because I see no earthly reason why two people who love each other and are genuinely sincere about making such a commitment should be prevented from doing so.

However I doubt much (if any) notion of sincerity on the part of the Government in doing it just a play for political and popular capital.

As for the Churches they have been caught with their trousers down :geek:

[marquis999]

as a libertarian/anarchist/voluntaryist i believe the government has no business in the sphere of marriage. it is an agreement between individuals and should not be subject to interference by the government at any level, local, state, or federal.

As a liberal, I believe that the government, having gotten involved in the whole marriage thing and binding certain legal rights to what was previously a religious ceremony, has incurred an obligation to provide those rights to any couple choosing to engage in the civil union known as marriage. The burden to provide marriage to same sex couples is even more pronounced on the federal government because of the separation of church and state and the fact that most organized religions do not provide a means for same sex marriage.

I have a somewhat homophobic friend however who has a somewhat simpler outlook. "There's nothing wrong with gay marriage, as long as both chicks are hot."

[MrsKellyPierce]

Every American citizen should have the same rights and freedoms.

As well as the majority should not be voting on the rights of a minority.

His would you feel if your wife was in the hospital and only family and spouse could see her...but since you weren't legally married you were denied.

Or where your spouse is buried or how they are buried is taken over by the family and not you. Like many TS are buried as men or as close to that form as possible when they pass. Due to the families wishes.

The list goes on!

[tsmounting]

I support gay marriage in legal statute for the purposes of equal status and legal rights as a legitimately formed married couple but I also support the right of the church to enforce it's own cannon law which does not recognise any same-sex union. I don't agree with the the cannon law but I believe in the right of any church to apply it's own laws such as these.

[rodinuk]

Gulp! I think you mean canon law, bringing in the artillery might be a step too far :D

[Odelay]

I support gay marriage in legal statute for the purposes of equal status and legal rights as a legitimately formed married couple but I also support the right of the church to enforce it's own cannon law which does not recognise any same-sex union. I don't agree with the the cannon law but I believe in the right of any church to apply it's own laws such as these.
Church's have always been allowed to marry whomever they choose and discriminate in any fashion they choose. Since membership is voluntary, those who disagree with Church discrimination can decline to join, and marry in a church that is more accepting.

This is a fundamental fear (the gov't forcing church's to marry gays) driving much of the remaining opposition to gay marriage, and yet, it is baseless.

[Ecstatic]

I support marriage between any two adult hominids who want to enter into union together!

[Ben]

Some of my trans friends were opposed to gay marriage, and I think they were LOCO!!!

In my view, legalizing gay marriage would make things infinitely easier for trans women to wed men in any state. It would block troublesome in-laws trying to steal propoerty and inheritances by attemping to declare the marriage null and void by calling it "same-sex marriage", like what happened in Texas.. bless that poor trans woman's heart. :(

If gay marriage, or same-sex marriage, was legalized, then the whole issue of "man and woman" or biological sex will be moot, null, and void!

There is just no room for homophobia when it comes down to gay marriage! It will only help us trans women further!

And YES...

Can't you tell I have a dream wedding all planned out with my Prince Charming ONE DAY!! :praying:

Two men etc., etc., yes, of course!

[Ben]

Every American citizen should have the same rights and freedoms.

As well as the majority should not be voting on the rights of a minority.

His would you feel if your wife was in the hospital and only family and spouse could see her...but since you weren't legally married you were denied.

Or where your spouse is buried or how they are buried is taken over by the family and not you. Like many TS are buried as men or as close to that form as possible when they pass. Due to the families wishes.

The list goes on!

I'd add an addendum to what Kelly wrote: "Every American citizen should have the same rights and freedoms." Which is: every person on this planet. But, of course, we can't shape, say, government policy in Saudi Arabia, in Iran, in Nigeria, Somalia and Yemen.
But we can lead, we can set a good/great example for the world community, as it were.

[rodinuk]

But we can lead, we can set a good/great example for the world community, as it were.

Try folllowing the UK gun law for starters then....

[aboutthezote]

Why would anyone not support gay marriage? I can't understand anyone thinking there is a problem with it. Unless of course you are fundamentally opposed to marriage as a concept, which is fair enough.

[Christastic]

I'm going to marry Andrej Pejic when I grow up.

[wbmando]

For sure, I support it. It is a question of equal rights and protections.

[speedking59]

I'm going to marry Andrej Pejic when I grow up.
i've got eye on Zara Kane as a future ex-Mrs. Speedking

[nysprod]

I don' support any type of marriage...

[Jdeere562]

In my mind, I draw the line at 2 old fat 60 year old, hairy guys kissing and getting married. The young and smooth ones are OK. LOL :)

Just my own personal grossness factor setting in.......:confused:

[robertlouis]

In my mind, I draw the line at 2 old fat 60 year old, hairy guys kissing and getting married. The young and smooth ones are OK. LOL :)

Just my own personal grossness factor setting in.......:confused:

I hope that's a joke. There are many same sex unions that have lasted twenty, thirty years or more, just as some heterosexual marriages do. I have many middle-aged gay and lesbian friends in long-lasting faithful relationships who would love to be able to have their love formally recognised by getting married.

[Chase_Mcthirsty]

I laughed...a dick sucker against gay marriage

Sounds like he just wants to suck the cock, not put a ring on it....

Hi I'm Chase...Chase Mcthirsty. Marriage isn't for me but they can have it. And all the "grass is greener" bs they think they're missing out on.

[Christastic]

Sounds like he just wants to suck the cock, not put a ring on it....

Hi I'm Chase...Chase Mcthirsty. Marriage isn't for me but they can have it. And all the "grass is greener" bs they think they're missing out on.

If I ever propose to someone with a dick, I will definitely use a cockring.

[Stavros]

I have no opposition to people getting married, but I can see how, if the simple argument is that any two people who love themselves ought to be allowed to get married in the legal sense, it begs the questions what happens when those two people are mother and son, father and daughter, brother and sister?

The real, fundamental problem is with the hallowed status of marriage. In the first place, there seems to be a cultural norm that suggests people who are not married have in some way failed in their lives, they have not fulfilled a basic proposition: to be a man, to be a woman, you must marry and create children. I have been insulted on more than one occasion by people because I am not and have never been married, and for no other reason. That marriage should be held up as the proof that you are fully human is in my opinion feeble, and not just because so many marriages fail. It suggests that while history has often been shaped by single men and women, their status is of secondary importance to those who were responsible for creating a family, because FAMILY is supposed to be the building block of civilisation. But the estimation of a person ought not to rest on their marital status, as there are other indicators to use which are just as, if not more important.

This to me is a sterile debate, I just wish the laws could be passed so really important issues could take their place in the politics of our countries.

[MsDazzler]

So most of you agree, by supporting gay marriage, you are furthering trans people's right to marry legally by default?

[SXFX]

YES!
Just because I am looking forward to seeing two angry lesbians on gay divorce court!

[danthepoetman]

Unequivocally YES! Why wouldn't gay people have the same rights as everybody else? They should have the right to marry whom they love and whom they want to spend their life with. No if, no but, no maybe. It's just common sense on what justice and fairness should be. The fact that it still is in debate shows amazing prejudice in this society against gays. We should get over it and give these people the same rights as any other citizen.

[MsDazzler]

well, many straight men who like trans women can be still homophobic. I know of one trans girlfriend whose boyfriend forbade her to attend any Pride parades or even go out to gay bars...

[Rolando]

every body has the "right for the pursuit of happiness" if that makes them happy of coarse. I do not support the idea of a gay couple having the right to adopt children. Then they are infringing upon the rights of others (the kids) I seriously doubt that the kids would be very happy after they were able to understand the ramifications of NOT having a "normal" family. The same can be said of an inter-racial marriage. Its the kids that always suffer.



































'

[TSLillyBlue]

I don't believe in "Marriage" as is stands right now. I believe there is a fundamental problem with marriage that exists because of the lack of separation of church and state. As a result, I believe there should be two different types of marriage for everyone, not just same sex couples.

The first type of marriage would afford all of the rights married couples have now. Tax breaks, death benefits, and all of the legal stuff that come with today's version of marriage needs to be afforded to ANYONE who wants to share their lives together legally. The church should have no say in this. The civil unions offered in many states support this type of thinking, however, there is a major difference legally between civil unions and marriages as it is now and that would need to change. Civil unions could be the "procedure" for joining people together legally but they would need to become the standard rather than the alternative.

The church shouldn't be providing any kind of legal binding. I feel a marriage in a church needs to have nothing to do with legal standing as a couple and everything to do with spiritual standing as a couple. Spiritual stuff is the business of the church and the same way I feel the church needs to stay out of legal marriage, I believe the government needs to stay out this realm. This means if the Cathlic church does want to marry gays that's their perogative and they shouldn't have to but the same legal rights need to be afforded to every single person in this country. If any same sex couple has a problem with the way their church respects their marriage, they should be questioning their affiliation with that particular church rather than expecting the government to force the church to accept them.

As a former collared slave, I also believe in polyamory and would love to see legal rights extended to those in these types of relationships as well but that is way forward thinking and something I don't see happening in my life time. I do, however, see the same sex marriage issue being worked out within the next fifteen years... I hope at least.

[robertlouis]

every body has the "right for the pursuit of happiness" if that makes them happy of coarse. I do not support the idea of a gay couple having the right to adopt children. Then they are infringing upon the rights of others (the kids) I seriously doubt that the kids would be very happy after they were able to understand the ramifications of NOT having a "normal" family. The same can be said of an inter-racial marriage. Its the kids that always suffer.


Would that be the "normal" family in which the mother and father fight like cat and dog and the children are miserable? Better that children thrive in a loving same sex atmosphere rather than a "normal" family where the heterosexual parents hate each other.

Your prejudice is more about society's perceived negativity towards the children who come from same-sex relationships. I know several same sex couples, both gay men and lesbian, devoted to each other and to their children, who are accepted for what they are. Shame on you.

[Buzz]

One day laws preventing LGBT people from marrying will seem as antiquated and ridiculous as the laws that used to prevent "mixed race" couples from marrying seem now. (Yes, that was the case up until 1967 in many states in the USA!). That day cannot come soon enough.

Wikipedia: Interracial marriage in the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_in_the_United_States)

By the way, one recent step forward:
Washington National Cathedral To Perform Same-Sex Weddings (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/09/gay-weddings-washington-national-cathedral_n_2436668.html)

[fred41]

every body has the "right for the pursuit of happiness" if that makes them happy of coarse. I do not support the idea of a gay couple having the right to adopt children. Then they are infringing upon the rights of others (the kids) I seriously doubt that the kids would be very happy after they were able to understand the ramifications of NOT having a "normal" family. The same can be said of an inter-racial marriage. Its the kids that always suffer.'

So if I follow the logic of that paragraph...if it were up to you then, it would be fine for interracial couples to marry...but not have children?..lol
...because , according to you, they would suffer?( I'm not sure how you think they suffer though...many experts now claim that interracial children often have distinct advantages. ...
The same can be said of same sex parents...read the studies).

[wiltthestilt]

I havent read the entire thread, but has anyone questioned the need for government sanctioned heterosexual marraige? Why do we really need it? If people wish to spend their lives together, thats their business. Everything else can be covered through contracts and legal documents. Private employers should be free to cover whatever kinds of relationships they choose under their benefit plans; public employers including the military should have to offer the same benefits to couples regardless of gender arrangement, i.e. every employee may designate one unrelated adult as a benificiary regardless of gender.

When it comes to children, biological parents should of course be responsible for the children they create. Otherwise, if any adult wishes to assume legal guardianship/responsibility for a child, they should be permitted to provided they have the consent of the biological parents and meet some common sense requirements.

Perhaps it is heterosexual marraige that is the problem?

[robertlouis]

I havent read the entire thread, but has anyone questioned the need for government sanctioned heterosexual marraige? Why do we really need it? If people wish to spend their lives together, thats their business. Everything else can be covered through contracts and legal documents. Private employers should be free to cover whatever kinds of relationships they choose under their benefit plans; public employers including the military should have to offer the same benefits to couples regardless of gender arrangement, i.e. every employee may designate one unrelated adult as a benificiary regardless of gender.

When it comes to children, biological parents should of course be responsible for the children they create. Otherwise, if any adult wishes to assume legal guardianship/responsibility for a child, they should be permitted to provided they have the consent of the biological parents and meet some common sense requirements.

Perhaps it is heterosexual marraige that is the problem?

It's neither heterosexual nor homosexual marriage/partnership that's the problem.

The problem lies with religions and bigots - all too often the same people. If they stopped trying to impose their misanthropic and mean world-view on the rest of us the world would be a happier and dare I say it much safer place.

[jamiethewild]

every body has the "right for the pursuit of happiness" if that makes them happy of coarse. I do not support the idea of a gay couple having the right to adopt children. Then they are infringing upon the rights of others (the kids) I seriously doubt that the kids would be very happy after they were able to understand the ramifications of NOT having a "normal" family. The same can be said of an inter-racial marriage. Its the kids that always suffer.

'

Your a fucking hypocrite ... Your all over the gay guys in the fem thread and but to your opinion it would be wrong to adopt children?? Thats just wrong. Sometimes gay ppl can be the most loving better parents than what you call "normal" family. All these rapes that you hear that goes on with this "normal" families and you think that's ok. The children are most likely better in the hands of same sex marriage with a better loving atmosphere than what you call normal. My parents never show love to each other so i never got the example of that, always arguing and hateful atmosphere. Its 2013, times keep changing for the better moron, its pretty much the new generation that is more accepting than the older. :yayo:

[Prospero]

How could any member of this site NOT support gay marriage.... and indeed let's stop calling it "gay marriage' and just insist on the right of people across the spectrum to be wed if they choose to be.

[BBaggins06]

every body has the "right for the pursuit of happiness" if that makes them happy of coarse. I do not support the idea of a gay couple having the right to adopt children. Then they are infringing upon the rights of others (the kids) I seriously doubt that the kids would be very happy after they were able to understand the ramifications of NOT having a "normal" family. The same can be said of an inter-racial marriage. Its the kids that always suffer.

Epic Facepalm - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Svwm_k9hYk)

[trish]

But if we make it legal for people to marry just because they love each other, then people will love each other just to get married!

[wiltthestilt]

Unequivocally YES! Why wouldn't gay people have the same rights as everybody else? They should have the right to marry whom they love and whom they want to spend their life with. No if, no but, no maybe. It's just common sense on what justice and fairness should be. The fact that it still is in debate shows amazing prejudice in this society against gays. We should get over it and give these people the same rights as any other citizen.

Just my opinion, but I think the irony of this debate is that marraige as an institution is a voluntary abrogation or constriction of rights, concerning both the parties involved as well as third parties who are forced to "recognize" their union. As if an antiquated law permits only white people to enter into indentured servant agreemants, and black people are offended that they may not become indentured servants as well.

I do think government should be gender neutral concerning its treatment of individuals or couples. I dont think it is necessary to grant anyone a marraige. I cant think of any good reason for two males or two females to need a state sanctioned marraige except so that they can be treated the same as a man and woman who dont need a state sanctioned marraige either. I say no marraige for anyone.

[trish]

I do think government should be gender neutral concerning its treatment of individuals or couples.Very much agree.

I dont think it is necessary to grant anyone a marraige.Marriage partners are usually granted the power of attorney when one member is under intensive care. Family members have special rights of visitation. Marriage partners are responsible for the debts incurred by each other etc. All these things can be handled separately by individually drawn contracts, but it is convenient to have a standard institution and contract that covers all these things. I see no reason why it should not, in all cases regardless of gender, be called the marriage contract.

[jamesedwards]

I really don't buy into this or discuss it let the legal system and gays deal with it.

[amberskyi]

[QUOTE=Rolando;1259378]every body has the "right for the pursuit of happiness" if that makes them happy of coarse. I do not support the idea of a gay couple having the right to adopt children. Then they are infringing upon the rights of others (the kids) I seriously doubt that the kids would be very happy after they were able to understand the ramifications of NOT having a "normal" family. The same can be said of an inter-racial marriage. Its the kids that always suffer.[/QUOTE


That's funny because I'm an interracial child and I've never experienced any suffering because of my mixed racial heritage.in fact i think it makes me a more awesome person because I'm lucky enough to have experienced a diversity of cultures making me a more well rounded individual.
Your opinions are outdated, please feel free to step into the 21st century.






























]

[Kire89]

Sure! I think marriage is a silly institution, but I don't see why gays shouldn't be able to partake in it.

[wiltthestilt]

Very much agree.
Marriage partners are usually granted the power of attorney when one member is under intensive care. Family members have special rights of visitation. Marriage partners are responsible for the debts incurred by each other etc. All these things can be handled separately by individually drawn contracts, but it is convenient to have a standard institution and contract that covers all these things. I see no reason why it should not, in all cases regardless of gender, be called the marriage contract.

Marraige has a religious and ceremonial history that I think should be severed from the bundle of rights and duties created through a marraige contract. People, obviously, may call it what they want, just as they may call their relationship whatever they want in the absence of such a contract. Marraige has only a circumstantial relationship with love. Historically people did not marry out of love, and there is no essential reason why people who are in love should contract with one another.

The entire purpose of contract law is to allow for business between people who do not entirely trust one another. This may make sense for many couples, particularly couples in which a female gives birth, and thus may be entitled to compensation if the marraige is disolved. But I see no reason why a government marraige should be a natural progression a of romantic relationship. If people want to contract that is their business, but that should be the extent of government involvement in marraige: ordinary contract law.

Many people here want government to stop discriminating regarding who may marry; I think government should stop discriminating in favor of marraige period.

[trish]

The entire purpose of contract law is to allow for business between people who do not entirely trust one another
A purpose but not the entire purpose. As my previous post points out, the marriage contract also under what circumstances your partner should be trusted over and above anyone else; e.g. As when your partner is granted power of attorney.

I agree that romance need not naturally lead to marriage and my post #73 was in jest. I also agree that religious marriage is a separate ball of wax which largely doesn't interest me, being an atheist. But I see no reason why the legal contract, should a couple decide to enter into it along with the State, shouldn't also be called, as it currently is for oppositely gendered couples, a marriage.

[Quiet Reflections]

every body has the "right for the pursuit of happiness" if that makes them happy of coarse. I do not support the idea of a gay couple having the right to adopt children. Then they are infringing upon the rights of others (the kids) I seriously doubt that the kids would be very happy after they were able to understand the ramifications of NOT having a "normal" family. The same can be said of an inter-racial marriage. Its the kids that always suffer.
So should we sterilize all straight people that want kids just so no more gay people are produced thus saving all the children that need homes from having to live with people that love them? There is nothing I hate more than a loving couple trying to adopt underprivileged children. The nerve of them, to be born gay and want to share their love with deserving children. I think alcoholic mothers and abusive fathers should be up in arms that the kids they neglected or couldn't give a proper life are being raised by these terrible gays. And don't get me started on those mixed kids............they just live life thinking they are normal but little do they know that the racist assholes that are looking at them are the norm and well adjusted children like themselves from average everyday loving families are just abominations born of a forbidden love..:whistle:

[reformedcharacter]

100% yes

[fivekatz]

[QUOTE=Rolando;1259378]every body has the "right for the pursuit of happiness" if that makes them happy of coarse. I do not support the idea of a gay couple having the right to adopt children. Then they are infringing upon the rights of others (the kids) I seriously doubt that the kids would be very happy after they were able to understand the ramifications of NOT having a "normal" family. The same can be said of an inter-racial marriage. Its the kids that always suffer.


This is the same type of logic that proponents of segregation laws used and IMO the facts are that inter-racial marriage has not shown to a detriment to anyone. Those children seem to be just like any others, with many being successful, from business, to sports, to entertainment, right up the the POTUS. This argument in fact was what the Commonwealth of Virginia tried to use in front of the SCOTUS in Loving versus Virginia. The court unanimously ruled that the children of inter-racial couples were not at any risk that other children might not be and miscegnation laws unconstitutional.

The rights of all people who have a different sexual orientation from the majority are today's latest civil rights battle. It seems to be largely a problem for older Americans as younger people just do not see the distinctions in the same light as traditionalists and boomers in a majority.

With the make up of the current SCOTUS heavens only knows how long it might take to rid the US of this form of discrimination, but eventual this too shall pass.

Even if a majority of Americans want to deny the majority equal rights and protection to any minority of Americans, it is wrong and eventual the rights of people will IMHO prevail.

Just my take

[FreddieGomez]

Yeah why not?

it don't bother me. I'm not bothered by gays.

I have gay friends/family.

Some are mad cool peeoples

leave them the fuck alone!

[RallyCola]

i can't believe that there is actually a 9 page debate on a site like this.

transgendered people and their fans should be uniquely sensitive to such discrimination. there should be no such thing as "gay" marriage. there should only be marriage between any 2 non-consanguineous people that want to do so.

[CORVETTEDUDE]

I don't support marriage, PERIOD!!! I don't care what flavor you put on it!!!

[BellaBellucci]

I support equal misery.

~BB~

[MsDazzler]

I think this thread got derailed somehow...

What about my point about by supporting gay marriage, biological sex becomes a moot point and trans people can wed without worry of their marriages being declared null and invalid?

[robertlouis]

I support equal misery.

~BB~

Yeah, why should gays and lesbians miss out on that essential part of the human experience?

[NaughtyJane]

It is legal where I live in Washington State... I voted for it, and honestly did not have much invested in it personally. I do not see myself compromising my life that way... "I'll be home when ever I feel like it.... dear". With my 'female' legal status was never clear about marriage prior for me either.

But what surprised me when the election cleared... was my pride in myself, my home, the people I live around, do business with. It was an unexpected boost of positive thought about contemporary life. Strangely too, I look at relationships and lovers differently.

[rodinuk]

How could any member of this site NOT support gay marriage.... and indeed let's stop calling it "gay marriage' and just insist on the right of people across the spectrum to be wed if they choose to be.

Huzzah!




...That's funny because I'm an interracial child and I've never experienced any suffering because of my mixed racial heritage.in fact i think it makes me a more awesome person because I'm lucky enough to have experienced a diversity of cultures making me a more well rounded individual.
Your opinions are outdated, please feel free to step into the 21st century.


Well said :)

[rodinuk]

...marraige...

Every single time :loser:

It's m-a-r-r-i-a-g-e.... you have no respect.

[MDinMD]

Yes, I support same-sex marriage.

[Jackal]

I support marriage equality. Nobody should be treated as a second class citizen because of gender identity or sexual/romantic orientation.

[MsDazzler]

I support marriage equality. Nobody should be treated as a second class citizen because of gender identity or sexual/romantic orientation.

Funny... never heard of "romantic orientation" up til now. lol

[jamesedwards]

How did the Romans die off?

[robertlouis]

How did the Romans die off?

They didn't. Dumb question.

[Quiet Reflections]

How did the Romans die off?
They are just called Italians these days