Gay marriage or not??

Ok i had to ask. Do you guys believe that gays should have the right to get married?
Personally, I'm not gay myself but I don't think that we should take away someones right to get married just because they are playing for the other team. What do you guys think?

Well, realistically it's not a "right" that they had in the first place, but I agree, to each their own. I honestly don't believe they need a "law" to tell people who or who they can't marry. Their act of "marriage" doesn't change my life or anyone else's besides theirs and their family's. I say let them.

But, putting aside teh "moral" issue which I personally don't believe there should be.... the issue that really is deep rooted in the argument is should they be allowed to take part in the same things that a "standard" marriage is allowed. Should they be able to take advantage of the Married tax break. Should they be allowed to use insurance coverage as a married couple. Should they be able to adopt. Should they be allowed any of the "married couple" benefits.....

Personally, I don't see why not. It's not my cup-'o-tea, but I personally believe that teh government should try a lot harder to stay clear of other peoples business. But, as far as that argument.... I would have to say I can at least understand the opposing side's reasonings.

As far as a moral issue, I say who cares. Let them do what they want.
As far as a political issue, I personally don't care.... but I get the ideals behind them.


(although I used adoption as an example, I understand that it is a separate issue... but does carry a lot of mirrored reasonings)

The biggest issue with this is that the Christians don't like the term "marriage" being used, because the definition of "marriage" to them, is between a man and a woman.

Here's the simply fix: Allow "gay" couples to become "unified"(or any OTHER term for two people joining). They can have a ceremony of "unification" and will be given the same tax breaks/etc as a "married" couple.

I agree Shad. And although I didn't want to bring up the religious aspect, you are 100% correct.

Although, anyone who has actually taken the time to study the bible and the story of King David would most likely come to the conclusion that he, himself, was bi-sexual.

The archives used to write the story of David included his "romantic" relationship with Jonathon, the son of King Saul. It also showed the fact of his multiple marriages..... two issues things that "christians" are against. Also says in the bible that he was committing adultery with a woman and sent her husband to the front lines in a battle to have him killed. Nice guy huh? Funny how that works.

I say let them use what ever term they want.

Why are you throwing Christians under the bus?

It has nothing to do with just ONE religion... most religions are against it because they don't believe in it or allow it.

Why would a church marry two guys or two girls when they are against it?

I personally don't care about gays or lesbians. If they TRULY love each other more power to them. As long as they keep stuff to their self and don't bother me.

I'm throwing them under the bus because they're saying, "BUT THE BIBLE SAYS!!!!!!!".

Virt, you'll understand someday that when religion becomes involved in political and social topics, Christianity will be "thrown under the bus" among all others, unless the topic is terrorism, in which case the Muslims are all over that one. As for the "But the bible says" stuff, yes that's true, but to be honest that kind of stuff usually comes from Catholic "extremists", not the Christian community as a whole. A lot of Christian churches and branches have somewhat modernized themselves to at least tolerate gay marriage, even if they don't believe in it, which is their right. At least they keep their mouths shut.

As for the examples of homosexuality in the bible, that's just one example. So many powerful Catholic rulers, such as Julius Caesar himself, had several "sex slaves" that were men and women alike. Can you imagine? A huge icon for the Roman Empire, the most Catholic empire in history perhaps, committing this kind of "sacreligion." But all the Catholics that say, "Go to Hell homosexuals" don't bring that up do they? There are other examples as well if you dig into it.

As for the political aspect of gay marriage, I'm surprised TaD isn't more rigid on this. I know he said he didn't agree, but he also said he could see it from their viewpoint, which I honestly can't. I'm not usually the 'Individual Rights Advocate' around here, but as far as I'm concerned, all those opposed can stuff their 'political reasons why gays shouldn't marry' up their twat.

Those are just some of my opinions. I could go on and spiffy my walloftext up a bit, but you all get the idea.

Good post. I think you have to remember that typically, Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, and most others seem to fall under the blanket of the word "Christianity" or "Christians". I can't speak for Rush, but I assume he was using it as a more coverage term then to a specific religion. To them, it may make a difference to segregate themselves, but over all they believe in the same god and same bible.... just different written versions.

The bible is against homosexuality in the Old Testament... which, most christians say "doesn't count cause its not in the New Testament"...... except the things they want to pick and choose like this, and the 10 commandments. (Although Jesus never made one comment about the homosexual lifestyle being a "sin" in the New Testament)

The only reason the political issue comes into light for me is..... selfishly, "What is it going to effect for me?". If gay marriages getting the same governmental benefits of a straight marriage costs me and the tax payers nothing... then more power to you. Marry a water buffalo for all I care. I do, however, see companies making changes to policies that will effect the general public. I do see this as a shitty way to "stop" gay marriages, but thats why I said I can understand the general publics side if it's based on those facts.

As far as morality..... there's no reason what-so-ever we should tell people who they can or can't marry..... or how many people at once, in my opinion.

Well it's going to be tricky to word this without offending you or others in some way, but I'll try my best.

I guess being of a new generation, and considering what I do and how I've been brought up as a whole, I suppose I would have to say that the "What is it going to affect for me" mentality just isn't there for me. I'd be happy to deal with any consequences this would bring upon me as long as gays are free to marry and be equal in all aspects of life. I'd do it because it is right and I believe in it. Now I'm not trying to say, "Hey look at me, I'm all noble and you're all assholes," that's just honestly how I feel. Now I realize there are other factors surrounding this, such as how well off people may be financially, etc., but that's just how I feel.

Let the fags, queers, homos, fudge-packers, scissor-sisters, dykes, lesbos, drags, banjees, butches, bulldykers, shaft-riders, and bone-brothers get married. As long as it offends the hell out of religious people, I could care less what they do.

rush wrote:The biggest issue with this is that the Christians don't like the term "marriage" being used, because the definition of "marriage" to them, is between a man and a woman.

Here's the simply fix: Allow "gay" couples to become "unified"(or any OTHER term for two people joining). They can have a ceremony of "unification" and will be given the same tax breaks/etc as a "married" couple.

i remember hearing about them trying that, but they want it to be the exact same as a hetero couple, title and all

If that's true, they're idiots... In today's politics, you'll never be able to get exactly what you want. Compromise is the key!

i agree completely, but they're going off of events from the past and in the past similar things have been done in various civil rights movements, and they all wanted the absolute same rights as everyone else, along with titles, and they got it, so in the homosexual's(used to make sure noone is offended) who are fighting for the right to marry mind, they should get the exact same

I don't know why the church should have any jurisdiction over who they perform ceremonies for. The church doesn't have any authority over who get married to who. The only reason the church ever got involved in marriage is because in the middle ages the priest were some of the only people who could read therefore the people who wanted to get married had to go to them to perform the ceremonies. If they don't want to perform ceremonies for gay couples then they don't have to but that does not mean the gay couples should not be allowed to wed.

churches aren't the only places you can get married in, my parents got married in a courthouse, only people there were them, the witnesses, and the justice of the peace(the guy who married them)

To add to data's comment about where people get married, he's right. My dad is legally allowed to marry people based on some paperwork he has. It has something to do with getting a card and filling out paperwork out the ass. Idk he explained it to me a while back, but its 100% legit. He married my cousin and his wife in their back yard, with no one but family and friends there. They had to get some certificate proving it actually happened, but it worked lol. Idk, i just felt like sharing my story

synn can ur dad marry me and him?

lol mikel.
imho. Leave gays/lesbians alone. If they love someone the same sex. They are still a human like everyone else. They still live and breathe the same air.

I know this is not suppose to be a spam topic... and Pornfish will delete this Im sure but....


Jon, why did your dad marry your cousin??? Sounds kinky. Especially since he married his wife as well.

i agree with max

another reason that i think it's so hard to accept is, in early america, all the laws were based on religion(christianity) and one of them was concerning sodomy(the literal definition is just anal sex, but it has become the social "norm" for it to just mean homosexuality)

I guess this is where I should post this, although it could spark a different type of debate.

As I posted on Facebook, Tennessee legislature recently made a bill saying teachers are not allowed to talk about any sexual orientation outside of heterosexuality, and then said that it's completely neutral to homosexuality.

The official who made this bill said in an interview, "my bill is neither for or against homosexuality, and is therefore neutral towards it," or something to that effect. I'm sure you could find the actual quote somewhere.

If you ban people from talking about something, you're not being neutral toward it, because the act of forbidding people(granted it's not a whole lot of people, and it only covers while they are teaching and during school hours) from talking about a topic is an indirect attack toward it.

I. Hate. Our. Elected. Officials.