Homosexual Marriage

1274 posts

Flag Post

On the subject of homosexual marrage, is it at all right for us to stand in the way of two people who love eachother and say “Too bad, your a man and a man.”? Some might say that the bible says that marrage is between a man and a woman, but it wasn’t quite god who wrote that. rather, the people writing the bible decided what went in and what didn’t. There seemes to be several homosexual marrages doing better than straight marrages. I’m not gay, but that doesn’t mean i wont stand up for their rights.

 
Flag Post

I don’t believe in religion, so that doesn’t influence me against it, never will. I also am not gay, no… far from it, but I do not feel the need to stop them. I don’t dislike gay people either, many can be really cool people to chill with, and many of us I am sure would be hypocrites on the matter.
For instance, I have seen a male dislike “male” homosexuality to a vast extent, yet he is fine with letting some Lesbians do what they want.

Marriage among gay people should be fine, why not? Live the life’s we have, instead of wasting time stopping others to live theirs.

 
Flag Post

Some hetero guys think woman on woman is erotic as opposed to homosexual; they view guy on guy as perverse. They just don’t realize it is the same thing.

Lots of gay people that want to be married + thousands of unadopted children = win. (Except for all the people that think to same-gender parents can’t raise a kid.)

Outside of religion, I can’t see what the problem is. It’s not like we are running out of reproductive heterosexuals. Then again, the phrase ‘outside of religion’ won’t be cropping up anytime soon in our (oosa) government.

 
Flag Post

I’m an atheist, but I’d like to address the religious argument anyway. Many religious folk say marriage is a religious ceremony as the reason gay people shouldn’t be allowed to marry, but given the wall of separation between church and state, wouldn’t it make more sense that the government should abstain from involvement in marriage itself at all (both heterosexual and homosexual), concerning itself only with secular partnerships. After all, you wouldn’t want the government to get involved with your communion or your baptism ceremonies would you? Why is marriage any different?

 
Flag Post

There seemes to be several homosexual marrages doing better than straight marrages.

Are you sure about that? I’ve seen a few reports finding that same sex marriages were more likely to break up than different sex marriages, and none to the contrary. I think even the most notable same sex marriage here in the UK (well, the first one) ended after only a year.

I think it depends on your definition of marriage, and what standing it is given in society. The only possible ‘point’ I can see to get married is to have children and be a unit, so the children can grow up feeling they are in a secure and stable environment. Any other relationship is at most a very strong friendship, ‘love’, if you wish to call it that. But there is no point, no purpose in getting married except for perhaps declaring you wish to have a family together, since if you just wish to live together and have sex, you can do this without being married, without worrying about children.

I think marriage, if it has any meaning, is for the children of a couple. To encourage this, the government could allow certain benefits to be afforded to the couple if they have children.

In the case of same sex marriage, I don’t see any point in it unless the couple are going to adopt.

For instance, I have seen a male dislike “male” homosexuality to a vast extent, yet he is fine with letting some Lesbians do what they want.

Strange isn’t it? You’d expect the opposite looking at it from a competition/resources standpoint .

 
Flag Post

Strange isn’t it? You’d expect the opposite looking at it from a competition/resources standpoint .

(Ya, but lezbianss r soo hawt. lawl)

|/

(*@*_*@*)

EDIT:

Also, if you can have sex without getting married, why can’t you have kids without getting married? I see marriage as more of an expression of commitment than anything. After all, not all heterosexuals who get married have children.

 
Flag Post

Kyriva – do you propose not allowing people who are impotent, or have no intention of having children, to get married? I don’t know how old you are, but I can tell you I planned (and did) to get married from a young age, despite having no intention of having children. Marriage is far far more than just about children.

I’d be curious to see what studies you have that show that homosexual marriage doesn’t last. However, I can assure you that plenty of homosexual marriages would indeed last in the US. I know of couples who have been together for years and years and simply were not allowed to get married. I make no claims as to percentages, but when you’re only shooting for 50% to match heterosexual marriage, I don’t think there’s that much of a chance of not hitting it. And honestly, why does it matter anyway? It’s about having the right to get married, and if they choose not to exercise it, or to go back on it later, that’s their choice.

 
Flag Post

It is incredible saddening to realize that America is so behind on such a basic human rights issue as homosexual marriage. The fact that many of our citizens would vote solely for one party, simply because of their illogical fear of two men getting married…. is pathetic.

 
Flag Post

The only possible ‘point’ I can see to get married is to have children and be a unit, so the children can grow up feeling they are in a secure and stable environment.

This is by far not true. For many homosexual people, I believe it is also about gaining the same rights, especially legal, as heterosexual wedded couples, which I think is a big reason why marriage means so much to them (the homosexuals in general), simply because they would like to be considered a part of society instead of more or less outcasts.

My own stance on homosexual marriage…well. I have absolutely nothing against homosexual love, and I don’t see why anybody would have, it’s their own business. In a way however, I can understand why people are opposed to homosexual marriage, because, as it was said before, marriage to some is an entirely religious thing.

To me, meh, it’s just marriage. It’s a nice way of getting some legal benefits, and making your love official, but that’s about it. And also, faceless made an excellent point.

but given the wall of separation between church and state, wouldn’t it make more sense that the government should abstain from involvement in marriage itself at all (both heterosexual and homosexual), concerning itself only with secular partnerships.

And on that note, I’d say I’m all for homosexual marriage. From my feeling about what marriage is, I simply see no reason why they shouldn’t be allowed to marry.

 
Flag Post

Also, if you can have sex without getting married, why can’t you have kids without getting married? I see marriage as more of an expression of commitment than anything. After all, not all heterosexuals who get married have children.

With divorce so common, there is not much commitment in marriage these days, except for alimony payments.

Kyriva – do you propose not allowing people who are impotent, or have no intention of having children, to get married? I don’t know how old you are, but I can tell you I planned (and did) to get married from a young age, despite having no intention of having children. Marriage is far far more than just about children.

I don’t see the point in getting married if you are not going to have children. You can live with anyone you like, have sex with anyone you like, and it won’t affect anyone. It’s only when you have children that marriage could have a purpose.

What do you see marriage as? I don’t think marriage represents anything more than moving in with someone, except for being a little harder to move out.

I’d be curious to see what studies you have that show that homosexual marriage doesn’t last. However, I can assure you that plenty of homosexual marriages would indeed last in the US. I know of couples who have been together for years and years and simply were not allowed to get married. I make no claims as to percentages, but when you’re only shooting for 50% to match heterosexual marriage, I don’t think there’s that much of a chance of not hitting it. And honestly, why does it matter anyway? It’s about having the right to get married, and if they choose not to exercise it, or to go back on it later, that’s their choice.

Having seen it on the television news, I can provide no links, except to anecdotes and some biased ranters’ blogs. I realise it has no relevance, but I just picked up on it in the original post since it contradicted what I had picked up over time.

This is by far not true. For many homosexual people, I believe it is also about gaining the same rights, especially legal, as heterosexual wedded couples, which I think is a big reason why marriage means so much to them (the homosexuals in general), simply because they would like to be considered a part of society instead of more or less outcasts.

Of course, looking at it from a selfish point of view, getting tax breaks is good reason to get married. But looking at it from the outside, why should simply living together be encouraged? I think raising confident children is something worth being encouraged, but just living together?

 
Flag Post

Why is marriage officiated by the state? I’ve never understood that. It doesn’t make any sense. There shouldn’t be such a thing as a legal marriage, just civil unions.

 
Flag Post

Kyriva – have you been to a wedding? Have you ever heard any mention of babies in the marriage vows (ok, there was a mention of one in mine, but that’s only because I didn’t want one and my wife did, so I promised her we’d have one)? The point of marriage is a lifelong commitment to someone else. For many, this is a religious commitment. For others, it is purely a human commitment, but it is a way of celebrating a significant change in your life. It’s easy to live with someone and have sex with them and never really commit. But to fully commit to someone is entirely different – and that is the point of marriage.

 
Flag Post

The fact that many of our citizens would vote solely for one party, simply because of their illogical fear of two men getting married…. is pathetic.

I could not agree more. What’s even more pathetic is that these are the same people who, from a socio-economic standpoint, are being screwed over by the very people they vote into office because of this issue.

 
Flag Post

Bible says “do not lie with men, God hates that”

But i guess, that was then, this is now, the times have changed and the modern day that we live in accepts Homosexuality… so i guess we cant do much about it.

 
Flag Post

m_dawg – what the Bible says is entirely irrelevant. You can actually get into debates about the intent of the Bible (see gaychristian.com for a couple of interpretations on both sides), but the fact is that it doesn’t matter. We live in a nation fundamentally formed on the basis of separation of church and state. In order to make a law, there must be a reason for it, a need for it. Gay marriage does no damage to anyone, and depriving them of that is denying them equal protection of the law.

 
Flag Post

Kyriva – have you been to a wedding? Have you ever heard any mention of babies in the marriage vows (ok, there was a mention of one in mine, but that’s only because I didn’t want one and my wife did, so I promised her we’d have one)? The point of marriage is a lifelong commitment to someone else. For many, this is a religious commitment. For others, it is purely a human commitment, but it is a way of celebrating a significant change in your life. It’s easy to live with someone and have sex with them and never really commit. But to fully commit to someone is entirely different – and that is the point of marriage.

I’ve been to a few, but they were in French.

Marriage may be a commitment for some, but if the same name is used for the competition where various famous figures try to get the shortest one ever, it tells me that something needs changing, and the best place I can see to start is by not encouraging or rewarding marriage unless it is of some benefit to the community.

I don’t question that some people do want to spend the rest of their lives together, it’s just that marriage, in it’s current form, doesn’t do that justice. It’s not a commitment comparable in any way to old marriage, where divorce was not allowed.

I just think that to discuss whether gay/lesbian marriage should be permitted, you should first define marriage. If it’s merely two people living together, then why should the government encourage it? If people want to live with each other, they will. It’s cheaper to live together anyway. It’s only in bringing up children that people could do with help.

I could not agree more. What’s even more pathetic is that these are the same people who, from a socio-economic standpoint, are being screwed over by the very people they vote into office because of this issue.

You need more parties.

 
Flag Post

I like a certain comedian on comedy central’s point of view on this subject. Well personally, I don’t mind Homosexual marrage, if you’re into that, whatever, I’m not, we all win.

Now to the comedian, he said(close enough)“The reason gay marrages work so well is, take an example. Say I was gay and married. Hey I wanna watch the game. HEY! so do I! I’m hungry wanna have steak? Yea!” Guys understand guys, so that is why I can see gay marrage working well. (dismissing any flamboyant or weird homosexuals) I don’t mind you being gay, but if you get really weird… I’m bundling you with all the other weird people I shun.

 
Flag Post

yeah, marriage is pointless. There’s no meaning to it anymore, just people seeing if they can persuade someon else to pay shitloads for a single party.

 
Flag Post

I’m amazed how disenfranchised many of you are with marriage. Marriage is not dead. Far from it. Granted, as a newly-wed, I’m a bit biased, but right now 50% of first marriages don’t break up. That means that half of them stay together for the rest of their lives. Yes, this is lower before, but that means that half of the people do make that serious commitment and hold to it. For something so profoundly life-changing, that’s a pretty high number I’d say. And it’s not that it had more meaning before – it’s just now more socially acceptable to get out of a marriage rather than live in a loveless marriage.

 
Flag Post

I’m not saying marriage is bad or dead, I’m saying that it shouldn’t be controlled by the state. From a legal point of view, all we need are civil unions.

 
Flag Post

Well, that I can agree with. :)

 
Flag Post

Marriage should not be a legal status — it should be a religious and personal status, but should offer no tax breaks or legal inequalities from anyone else. This would allow gays to be married and share the same benefits as straights: no benefits at all.

Edit: Also, grats on your newly wed status Phoenix! I don’t know how recent it was but I wish you folks luck :)

 
Flag Post

It was in July, but thanks! :-D

 
Flag Post

First of all, I would like to point that in the thread title, “marriage” is spelt wrong. To continue…

Forcing people to not be able to marry who they want to is forcing your beliefs upon them. By saying, “You can’t get married because my religion says that it’s wrong” is wrong.

 
Flag Post

I’m amazed how disenfranchised many of you are with marriage. Marriage is not dead. Far from it. Granted, as a newly-wed, I’m a bit biased, but right now 50% of first marriages don’t break up. That means that half of them stay together for the rest of their lives. Yes, this is lower before, but that means that half of the people do make that serious commitment and hold to it. For something so profoundly life-changing, that’s a pretty high number I’d say. And it’s not that it had more meaning before – it’s just now more socially acceptable to get out of a marriage rather than live in a loveless marriage.

To commit to a marriage, loveless or not, is more of a commitment than to commit to a marriage that can be ended by divorce. If divorce were not permitted, it means more for a couple to get married. They are ‘stuck’ with each other, so they had better make it work. With divorce, it’s more like ‘We like the idea of living together so we’ll try it for a while. If it doesn’t work out, we’ll call the lawyers’. To me, that’s not commitment, at least, it’s no more commitment than the couple had to each other before taking their vows.

I’m sure there are some people who would rather stand by their commitment and try to make their marriage work, no matter how bad things got, but whilst there are people taking advantage of the get out clause, you still have 50% of people not honouring the vows they want people to believe they have taken.

There is no commitment unless the couple must stay together, and there is no reason for the state to reward living with someone you love.

I’m not saying marriage is bad or dead, I’m saying that it shouldn’t be controlled by the state. From a legal point of view, all we need are civil unions.

I agree, but what do you mean by civil unions? Any special status, or is it just a title?

Forcing people to not be able to marry who they want to is forcing your beliefs upon them. By saying, “You can’t get married because my religion says that it’s wrong” is wrong.

You can’t force a priest, vicar or other to marry two people s/he doesn’t want to. That’s even more wrong. You may have a right to get married, but that’s provided you can find someone willing to marry you, and someone willing to marry the two of you.