Gay marriage

[Jim]

Does anyone else think that this debate over gay marriage is rediculous?

My opinion is 'Why not!?' Let them get married. Let them experience the benefits. Who cares? It's not harming anyone!

If you want to define marriage as being between a man and a woman only, then why not create a new word with a definition of a bond between any two persons?

[tbl]

They should be able to get married for legal purposes, to adopt, joint accounts. Although there should not be religious gay marriages in churches, synagogues etc. because it's not part of the religion.

[Jon]

I think gay marriage should be legalized everywhere. It's a freedom thing and if the people are happy, noone should care.

[Deacon]

I agree to gay marriage to an extent, its okay in my books if a few gays get married, but if everyone marries gay it could have many harmful effects.

[Jim]

I'd be afraid if everyone married gay. Well, it would help lower the population I suppose.

[smub]

I think it should be allowed and there should be no prejudice against them, because they are also human. And they have same rights as any normal person. They are marrying, just like every other person and it is not going to do any harm to anybody. So why should we disallow it ??

[Nitrus]

I agree and can understand that some religions don't allow it, thats fine. But why stop them from being married in the eyes of the law?

[Huron]

I dont have any problem with gay people
I dont have problem if they get married, but the only thing i would ask is dont bother other people.
Lots of gay people like to show other people how they live or do certain things that other people may think a bit rude or maybe dislike...

But if they dont bother anybody.. its great if they can have the same rights than others

[IRoNiK]

i honestly don't like it. The first thing that comes into my mind when i think of gay marriage is this: "Thats not natural, but oak express is!!!" But seriously, its kind of grosse. I thought the whole point of marriage (at least in terms of religion) was to join man and wife so that they could make babies. Last time i checked, gay couples dont make babies... they adopt.

[Deacon]

Again, I don't really like gay marriage, I don't care if they prance around together, but I just don't think getting married like that is moral, I mean when two men get married who's gonna wear the dress?

But, seriously, I am a boy scout almost about to get my Eagle, which is a big thing colleges look at, and in our code it says to be "morally straight," and I have come to embrace that meaning and stay by it, which is why I have an anti-gay marriage opinion. So, thats my opinion on the topic.

[justanotherstayathomead]

if they want to deal with devorce, spuosal support, and who gets the [removed] dog let them, I don't care what they call it, they can't breed, they are the end of a dead genetik line already, [removed] give them a tax break [removed].

[MODERATOR MESSAGE: DO NOT SWEAR EXCESSIVELY IN ONE POST]

[unknownz]

I disagree with gay marriages taking places at religious places, because it is clearly against religion according to me (as i am aware of my religion). However, if they are atheist or anyone outside my religion, first of all i do not have a right to speak for them, but i would say that they should not be allowed to marry. There are various problems, for example: new diseases may arise.

[RageD]

They should be able to get married for legal purposes, to adopt, joint accounts. Although there should not be religious gay marriages in churches, synagogues etc. because it's not part of the religion.


Yeah.. I am not fond of gays, but the first post is right.. It's not hurting anyone at all.. But in churches and such, I would stand on the side that says "Absolutely not" because, for us Catholics atleast, gay marriages are shunned and not accepted..

-RageD

[mis_chiff]

Marriage is a preference of the 2 people involved. Man - Man or
Woman - Woman What gets me is when it's thrown in my face. I'm sorry, I believe live and let live, to each his own and so on.
But why does history have to be rewritten to satisfy the changing evolution.
Anyone know who the first gay people were....and what year??

[T.J. Wolfe]

It shouldn't even be a question of "have they the right", it should be a question of what one doesn't have the right to do, which is, in a nutshell, harm and stealing. So yes, gays have the right to marry.

[Labrocca]

I think a "civil union" is how the law should be written. A marriage is an institution of religion for the coupling of a man and woman. A man-man relationship can never be the same as a woman-man relationship...it simply can't. If 2 guys want to get it on...more power to them. But it's insulting to me personally and my values of family (besides any religious objection) to call a man-man relationship a marriage. I work hard at my marriage most people in a marriage understand this. Two men can't conceive a child or be their yin-yang. Two men are just ying-ying. I wish I could express better my gut-wrenching revulsion of the gay marriage debate. Sometimes something just feels wrong.

[T.J. Wolfe]

I'm just curious where in the bible it says that gays can't marry.

[Alonzo]

I think a "civil union" is how the law should be written.Â*Â*A marriage is an institution of religion for the coupling of a man and woman.Â*Â*A man-man relationship can never be the same as a woman-man relationship...it simply can't.Â*Â*If 2 guys want to get it on...more power to them.Â*Â*But it's insulting to me personally and my values of family (besides any religious objection) to call a man-man relationship a marriage.Â*Â*I work hard at my marriage most people in a marriage understand this. Two men can't conceive a child or be their yin-yang.Â*Â*Two men are just ying-ying.Â*Â*I wish I could express better my gut-wrenching revulsion of the gay marriage debate.Â*Â*Sometimes something just feels wrong.


But marriage is also a civil institution. A heterosexual couple can marry without dealing with religion in any way. If marriage was purely a religious institution, then that would not be possible.

I'm not sure why having homosexuals engage in a civil marriage is offensive since no one is denying that churches (or other religious organizations) have the right to refuse marriage to homosexuals. With the exception of a few liberal churches, homosexuals still would not be able to have a religious ceremony.

[Labrocca]

Which do you think came first? Religious marriage ceremonies or civil institutional marriages? Just because at some point the state decided to sanction religious marriages doesn't mean they are civil institutions. I understand it's not a requirement in most states for it to be but those wishing 'marriage' to remain a traditional religious ceremony would rather not see 'gay marriages'.

Hmm...

I just wrote the above and then I went to find out more history of marriage. Shockingly I may be wrong about many things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

It seems that marriage may first have been a civil institution. If so then I might change my mind on the subject. Hmm..need more research.

[trefer]

One of the best things made in Spain has been the gay marriage, because it allows people to leave in freedom, and it's a right important in these days.

I think teh USA would have to improve their civil rights with measures like apoving gay marriage.

[AmyNelson]

Isn't it legal in California now?

[Nitrus]

There is already a thread about gay marriage, please post there instead. The link is below. :)


http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=57

-N

[USA althe Way]

first you cant answer a statement like this till you read God's word.

its still 1 man and 1 woman the rest will end up in the fires below,

jist like the disease they spread they will die bye

[Alonzo]

You know, I can easily make an argument that the bible does not condemn homosexuality when properly read. The only strong condemnation comes when you take bits and pieces without looking into the meaning of the passages.

But if you want to explain to me why I should care what 1 religious book says, out of all the the other religious texts and religions, some which do not even mention homosexuality, let alone condemn it, then go ahead. But then you should also explain to me why religious texts have anything to do with the laws of a secular nation. Why should I, as someone who is not christian, be concerned with the word of your god?

And sexual behavior (particularly anal sex, which is practiced by all sexualities, and is not universal among gay men either) is the risk factor for aids, not sexuality. Besides, almost half of aids victims are women, hardly the object of gay mens desires.

[gingeman]

Why do so many people care about things that don't affect their lives. If they want to do it, then let them. All marriages are a farce anyway!