What Gay Marriage Is

[MonkeyClaw Veteran]

You disagree with me and all you can bring to the discussion is an insult.  How....mature.

Bottom line, before anyone ever brought up banning gay marriages, how many gay couples did you see express their desire to get married.  It was EXTREMELY rare.  It wasn't an issue anywhere at all.  Fast forward to government wanting to ban gay marriage and they are literally coming out of the closet again claiming that we are infringing on their rights.  Rights they had previously never cared about and never had.  They didn't care about getting married when it was about love, but all of a sudden, when someone tells them they can't, it's the most important thing in the world.  Give me a break.

Again...nothing to bring to the discussion but an insult.  You guys really crack me up.  I could care less if you disagree, but at least look like you have a reason for your belief.  Posts like that tell us you jumped on the side of the bandwagon that got to you first.  If you are for gay just say why.

I realize you guys are still young, but someday you'll realize the importance of marriage and why people like this author are making a mockery of it.  Marriage is for people who love each other, not for people who love marriage.

586606799[/snapback]

so out of curiosity are u implying that gay people dont love each other? i mean who are we to judge who loves each other and who doesnt? i mean how is it making a mockery of marriage if 2 people that love each other marry? i really dont get it.

[Diffused Mind]

so out of curiosity are u implying that gay people dont love each other?  i mean who are we to judge who loves each other and who doesnt?  i mean how is it making a mockery of marriage if 2 people that love each other marry?  i really dont get it.

586606958[/snapback]

:yes:

[Chad]

so out of curiosity are u implying that gay people dont love each other?? i mean who are we to judge who loves each other and who doesnt?? i mean how is it making a mockery of marriage if 2 people that love each other marry?? i really dont get it.

586606958[/snapback]

Whether I think they are in love or not is irrelevant. That's also a whole other topic. Don't you find it the least bit ironic that prior to all these laws to ban homosexual marriages, the number of homosexual couples attempting to marry was a very small percentage. Hell it was never even an issue. But now that we actually have laws preventing it, every gay couple and their dog wants to be married. All of a sudden, we are infringing on their supposed right to marry. Apparently they didn't take that right too seriously before. Does that tell you they want to get married because of love, or does it say that they want to be able to get married because someone told them they can't. The actions show love really isn't the main reasoning for their sudden need to be married. It's become a game of some kind.

Seems pretty clear to me.

macodin...if you are only here to attack me instead of discuss the issue, I wish you would at least do everyone else a favor and keep if off the public board. State your side and keep personal attacks out. A heads up for you: demeaning my opinion by calling it ignorant and pathetic does not make your view correct, nor mine incorrect. Last warning.

As far as women and black rights, well I really can't believe you are comparing a biological separation like sex or race to an active choice homosexuals make. Those rights were their's from the beginning. People and cultures took them away. A woman doesn't choose to be a woman, nor does a black person choose the color of their skin. Homosexuals do choose their sexual preference. They make a choice, and they want everyone else to cater to and change laws because of that choice. I choose to drive 80mph wherever I go, and I demand laws be changed. I have the right to drive that fast, why am I not allowed to exercise that right?

[curme]

Chad, at what age did you decide to like women? How long were you attracted to men before you decided? Maybe society forces people into gender roles. I mean, some people are undecided, or confused. Our society forces people into a certain field of thought, like 'boys must like girls' and then people are angry their entire life because they are forced to like something that is against their nature.

But if you change your mind and decided to like men, wouldn't you want the right to get married to the guy you love?

[metro]

Whether I think they are in love or not is irrelevant.? That's also a whole other topic.? Don't you find it the least bit ironic that prior to all these laws to ban homosexual marriages, the number of homosexual couples attempting to marry was a very small percentage.? Hell it was never even an issue.? But now that we actually have laws preventing it, every gay couple and their dog wants to be married.? All of a sudden, we are infringing on their supposed right to marry.? Apparently they didn't take that right too seriously before.? Does that tell you they want to get married because of love, or does it say that they want to be able to get married because someone told them they can't.? The actions show love really isn't the main reasoning for their sudden need to be married.? It's become a game of some kind.

Seems pretty clear to me.

586607490[/snapback]

This is somewhat true, however until the RIAA started being ###### about prosecuting people over downloading music there wasn't this big thing over "omg, i can get free stuff so i need to download the whole etherweb!!!11". The majority of people saw it as a casual way to get a little music here and there of their favorite songs and catalog them onto custom CD's and what not. Songs that they very well may have had on CD legally purchased.

Now that it is apparent the RIAA are on a witch hunt for people, we are finding more people downloading as much as they can out of spite and protest justthey cany can to stir the fire even more. I am sure that if there was something you enjoyed doing that was put in danger by the government wanting to make it illegal, you would do what you could to continue to do it, and make it known as a way to demonstrate you are angry.

I don't see any difference in this. The government has clearly stirred the emotions of people by stating they are wanting to ban something that was never an issue. The government is making it an issue, almost like a mean kid pulling the wings off of a butterfly. Sure, it was never seen as much of a deal and was something that did not widely happen but every action has a reaction, and there are people who will react this way out of protest strictly because of the nature behind it. You would probably react the same way too if it was something that affected you.

That is, unless you are a gutless conformist but I am not pointing fingers or making accusations. I know I would stand up for myself, but I don't know about others...

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

Well I'll agree that I was harsh but I fail to see how I wasn't debating the issue.

As to why they're vocal now it's because they have to. If they start losing now then real tough legislation gets passed banning it. I'd do the same thing if something I felt strongly about was about to not just be illegal but banned and also at risk of being amended to the constitution. But what does it matter the timing? That's what I don't get. I don't see how the timing affects the argument in any way.

The only thing actually relevant to the idea of marraige is whether it's a right of man or not. Not the timing, not thier faith, but it's either a right that everyone should have or not. Obviousely you disagree with me on that. I don't see how you can say that they'd make a mockery of the institution of marriage because us straight people have already done that. I don't think you can deny it on the base of it being a religouse institution because it's established that men and women of all faiths can marry, and marraige itself dates back to before organized religion. I don't think you can base it off time because that makes no sense, time is irrelevant when discussing rights or morality as they don't change over time.

So the real question is, is homosexuality a choice, and if so should they not be afforded the right to marry like the rest of us? I don't think it's a choice for most because I never had a choice to be straight, it's not like I chose my first crush or anything, it was just there, plus I've seen a gay dog and I'm loath to compare a dog's reasoning abilities and decision making skills to humans, so since I didn't have a choice and homosexuality occurs in animals in nature I'm assuming it's not much of a choice and infact natural. Now by natural I do not mean normal, and this is important, this is where I make gay people mad for some reason. While I don't think they're abominations against nature or sinners, homosexual behavior is not the norm, it's ok for them to expect equal treatment when it comes to rights and laws, but I don't think they should expect everyone to be overjoyed when they do marry, and I don't think they have a right to force religions which do not agree with homosexuality to marry them in a ceremony. I can not think of one reason why they should have an actual law barring them from getting married. Way I see it the less laws the better, and the federal government shouldn't be in the job of deciding what's right and wrong, thier only duties should be protecting citizens from theft, murder, foreign invasion, signing treaties, and the like. Where they got the idea that they needed to tell me if I can smoke cigarettes, marry, drink, not hear cusswords on TV, see no nudity on TV, or cross a road when there's no traffic, I'll never know but I'm against that.

Now I'll give you that homosexuality is probably a choice for a small minority, considering the social stigma it bears I really don't see it being a choice for most of them, I'm sure the "acting" gay is a choice. I'm sure everyone knows at least one person who was normal all until s/he came out and then changed the way they talked and dressed overnight, that's just stupid. I really don't see how it's right to continue to deny someone from doing something everyone else here can do is fair however based on what we think is outlandish by some members of that community.

Further I just don't think it's fair, and I'm all about fairness. Way I see it every single living person in this country should be afforded the same rights and priveleges as the other until they place another citizen at risk. I can't think of any way to do this and still be for a ban on gay marraige, I really think it's unfair to further drive the point home by giving certain governmental caveats to married couples but not "life partners" or whatever. If I were them, and not getting treated equally in my own country I'd stop paying taxes, heck why should they pay more than a straight couple, excluding of course the child credit? What message does that send?

So to recap, everyone should get the same rights, and let whatever God is true sort out the right and wrong when we die.

[tiagosilva29]

Marriage was only listed as an holy sacrament in the Roman Catholic Church by the 12/14th century (I don't remember exactly when).

To me, marriage is nothing more than social contract between two (or more) persons. Nothing more, nothing less. If you want to mix up religion in there... it's up to you, your government and your religion.

[MonkeyClaw Veteran]

Whether I think they are in love or not is irrelevant.  That's also a whole other topic.  Don't you find it the least bit ironic that prior to all these laws to ban homosexual marriages, the number of homosexual couples attempting to marry was a very small percentage.  Hell it was never even an issue.  But now that we actually have laws preventing it, every gay couple and their dog wants to be married.  All of a sudden, we are infringing on their supposed right to marry.  Apparently they didn't take that right too seriously before.  Does that tell you they want to get married because of love, or does it say that they want to be able to get married because someone told them they can't.  The actions show love really isn't the main reasoning for their sudden need to be married.  It's become a game of some kind.

Seems pretty clear to me.

macodin...if you are only here to attack me instead of discuss the issue, I wish you would at least do everyone else a favor and keep if off the public board.  State your side and keep personal attacks out.  A heads up for you: demeaning my opinion by calling it ignorant and pathetic does not make your view correct, nor mine incorrect.  Last warning. 

As far as women and black rights, well I really can't believe you are comparing a biological separation like sex or race to an active choice homosexuals make.  Those rights were their's from the beginning.  People and cultures took them away.  A woman doesn't choose to be a woman, nor does a black person choose the color of their skin.  Homosexuals do choose their sexual preference.  They make a choice, and they want everyone else to cater to and change laws because of that choice.  I choose to drive 80mph wherever I go, and I demand laws be changed.  I have the right to drive that fast, why am I not allowed to exercise that right?

586607490[/snapback]

well i think it is interesting that up until the 50's and 60's, african americans really didnt make a huge deal about there being a black only enterence and a white only enterence. but suddenly that generation decided, that what was going on then was wrong, so the leaders became leaders and voices and today we have a pretty equal society when it comes to rights.

in the end, it doesnt matter. im a firm believer that homosexuality is genetic (and science is starting to support this claim), not a choice because honestly and this is in no way a flame against the homosexuality community, but i mean who would want to choose that life style? who would want to be critizised and discriminated against for the rest of their lives by an ignorant society? i dont know of anyone that would want to. i have some gay friends, they are in support of having these rights and when i see them love each other, it is no different than when i loved my girlfriend.

you are entitled to your opinion chad, and i respect that whole heartedly, at least you have one unlike others who sit around and say i dont care.

[Envark]

Polygamy is sick, and immoral. As for gay's marrying, they've lived their whole lives trying to be happy for who they are, and they dont need an official document to bind them together in marraige. They should be happy just loving each other, I give them that

586603511[/snapback]

Why so much hate for the polys?

Not all polygamists are creepy Mormons trying to marry their daughters.

Or see who can subjugate the greatest number of women.

[R-Flex]

I am surprised that any of you consider the ignorance of rights an argument against rights themselves. If a majority of homosexuals didn't care either way before, why should the minority be subject to that? Rights are not something that should be hidden until there is an angry majority demanding it. Especially since that homosexuals want it now, it is irrevelant how they felt before.

Why so much hate for the polys?

Not all polygamists are creepy Mormons trying to marry their daughters.

Or see who can subjugate the greatest number of women.

It is Christian beliefs descending into North American society (despite Bible mentions of Chrisitian polygamists) that says that there shall be one man and one woman. For some reason, it seems that Christian fundamentalists that seem to abuse women that are the foremost polygamists.

[dreamz Veteran]

it's interesting to see the opinions on marriage, especially considering how it's essentially a purely human construct and nothing more.

in ancient greece, homoeroticism was not only accepted, it was encouraged (although regional differences with regards to this stance did hold). in fact, older men were supposed to interact with younger boys in a spiritual intercourse. what mattered then was not the gender (except to the extent that intellectual/spiritual intercourse was between men), but social class and roles (i.e. active vs. passive).

as the romans came in, the situation began to change, although it was primarily during the empire (and not the republic) that same-sex spiritualism was viewed negatively, though this was before christian influence.

and i can see no physical, naturalistic, or moral arguments that can be used to justify the subordination of one group by another.

[aristotle-dude]

Gay people can get married, they just cannot get married to each other unless if one of them was a gay man and the other was a lesbian.

This is not about sexuality or sexual preference but rather the gender of the participants and what the definition of a marriage is.

It is none of the business of any judge of elected official as to what the definition of marriage is because it was defined by human society thousands of years ago long before the founding of any of our modern nations.

Civil unions or common law unions can be defined by governments but marriage is not something any government has the right to define. It is a institution common to all human civilization, not any particular nation state.

These same sex marriages have no authority outside of a small handful of jurisdictions which mistakenly think they have a right to redefine it. Traditional marriage on the other hand, is universally recognized through out the world in every jurisdiction. That is one property of marriage these gay marriages can never have.

If these governments really want to be honest to their people, they should not call them marriages but rather civil unions because they really are not marriages in the eyes of international law but rather creations of specific nation states and only valid within the one confines of that one state.

[R-Flex]

It is none of the business of any judge of elected official as to what the definition of marriage is because it was defined by human society thousands of years ago long before the founding of any of our modern nations.

Civil unions or common law unions can be defined by governments but marriage is not something any government has the right to define. It is a institution common to all human civilization, not any particular nation state.

586615551[/snapback]

I don't think that history can define what marriages are. We don't have to sit back and listen to what others said thousands of years ago. Our society can decide what can be done; luckily, Canada has done so. Progress is a notion that should be considered, rather than living by archaic traditions and laws. So what if other countries feel differently about this "insitution?" Belgium, Holland, Spain, and Canada can have their own insitution of marriage.

[Envark]

Gay people can get married, they just cannot get married to each other unless if one of them was a gay man and the other was a lesbian.

This is not about sexuality or sexual preference but rather the gender of the participants and what the definition of a marriage is.

It is none of the business of any judge of elected official as to what the definition of marriage is because it was defined by human society thousands of years ago long before the founding of any of our modern nations.

Civil unions or common law unions can be defined by governments but marriage is not something any government has the right to define. It is a institution common to all human civilization, not any particular nation state.

These same sex marriages have no authority outside of a small handful of jurisdictions which mistakenly think they have a right to redefine it. Traditional marriage on the other hand, is universally recognized through out the world in every jurisdiction. That is one property of marriage these gay marriages can never have.

If these governments really want to be honest to their people, they should not call them marriages but rather civil unions because they really are not marriages in the eyes of international law but rather creations of specific nation states and only valid within the one confines of that one state.

586615551[/snapback]

Fine.

Have it your way.

The government should not deal with ANY form of "marriage."

They should only handle the legal contract of "civil unions."

[HadeedG]

Gay people can get married, they just cannot get married to each other unless if one of them was a gay man and the other was a lesbian.

This is not about sexuality or sexual preference but rather the gender of the participants and what the definition of a marriage is.

It is none of the business of any judge of elected official as to what the definition of marriage is because it was defined by human society thousands of years ago long before the founding of any of our modern nations.

Civil unions or common law unions can be defined by governments but marriage is not something any government has the right to define. It is a institution common to all human civilization, not any particular nation state.

These same sex marriages have no authority outside of a small handful of jurisdictions which mistakenly think they have a right to redefine it. Traditional marriage on the other hand, is universally recognized through out the world in every jurisdiction. That is one property of marriage these gay marriages can never have.

If these governments really want to be honest to their people, they should not call them marriages but rather civil unions because they really are not marriages in the eyes of international law but rather creations of specific nation states and only valid within the one confines of that one state.

586615551[/snapback]

perfectly put. wish i could use the whole thing as my sig. :)