|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 6:19 pm
@Syllixia: You don't know what god would do. This debate is about more than just what your religion says/thinks/does. Not every point you make has to be about god.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:44 pm
I just have one question, aren't church and state suppose to be seperate? I'm Baptist, but I beleive that gya's should be able to express thier love for one another like every other person under the sun! I think we should stop telling them how to live their lives 'cause they're not telling us how to live ours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goddess Of The Impossible
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 3:29 pm
I think there is nothing wrong with homosexual marriages. Love, just like your sexuality is not a chose. When you find the person that you want to be with it shouldn't matter if they are of the same gender.
As for homosexual marriages; there is no need for religion to be involved in a marriage at all. I was at a (heterosexuals) wedding a year ago and God was not brought up ONCE during the service. It was still a lovely wedding and no one had anything to say about it not having to do with religion (and all the family there is Jewish)
To counter marshjazz's point about more divorces; I think that allowing homosexual marriages would help to drop the divorce rate. Think about how many homosexual people are marred to a member of the opiset gender that will end up in divorce?
It is this Jew's opinion that marriage should not have to be seen as something religious and something that is just... I'm not sure what to say here, I think its just something that should be a right to EVERYONE.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:33 pm
Many interesting points made. I think we all expected the responses of "it's nasty," "who cares, it doesn't effect anyone else," and "gays deserve the same rights as everyone else." And we are all entitled to hold these opinions and to act and vote in accordance with our personal values. If you say otherwise, then you're saying people MUST think the way that you do. Aakiyana I believe that if this is the land of the free, and if what the minority wants isn't hurting the majority, then it should be allowed. But who determines whether something is "hurting" the majority? Or do you just mean whatever doesn't physically hurt the majority? People should be free to associate with whom they please and to speak their mind. But our laws should not be passed by the vague standard of "whatever doesn't hurt someone else." Marriage laws do not discriminate against individuals (I have an openly gay friend who is married to a woman), it discriminates against relationships. While the US Constitution promises that people may live their life how they wish, it does not imply that the government must endorse how they live. That being said, I agree very much with P3NGW!N. If two people are committed to one another and rely on one another, they should be able to have a legal accommodation to meet their needs. Marriage does not only confer tax benefits, but also the privileges of inheritance and hospital visitation. Even if a relationship is not romantic, if two people rely almost exclusively on one another, they should have these kinds of benefits. Like it or not, legal marriage is strongly associated with certain moral ideals. Many in this thread wish to just replace the majority's moral vision with their own. The majority view should prevail unless it takes away rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Marriage is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution. But as I said, this does not mean we should not try to accommodate people's needs. P3NGW!N insightfully notes: Quote: By the way... Gays, lesbians, and us bisexuals are not total different species, so stop treating us like it, please?
Also, just because you have friends/relatives that are gay doesn't mean you understand or are obliged to support them. I agree. People are quick to support gay marriage because they have a friend who is gay/bisexual. I have all kinds of friends, some happen to be gay/bisexual. I don't demand that laws be passed to support whatever lifestyle any of my friends live. But I do demand that they be left alone to live as they wish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:45 pm
Gedral Aakiyana I believe that if this is the land of the free, and if what the minority wants isn't hurting the majority, then it should be allowed. But who determines whether something is "hurting" the majority? Or do you just mean whatever doesn't physically hurt the majority? People should be free to associate with whom they please and to speak their mind. But our laws should not be passed by the vague standard of "whatever doesn't hurt someone else."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 3:40 am
well i do support it as long as they don't try anythin funny with me they can go and live their lives in peace as nasty as it is they are still human
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 11:04 am
azuledeath well i do support it as long as they don't try anythin funny with me they can go and live their lives in peace as nasty as it is they are still human And a straight couple isn't nasty? rolleyes Homophobe loser. As far as the serious conversation. It could tramatise a kid. A kid who was taught that homosexuality was "the devil" going out in public and seeing two gays kissing, could hurt s/he psychologically.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 6:30 pm
Gedral That being said, I agree very much with P3NGW!N. If two people are committed to one another and rely on one another, they should be able to have a legal accommodation to meet their needs. Marriage does not only confer tax benefits, but also the privileges of inheritance and hospital visitation. Even if a relationship is not romantic, if two people rely almost exclusively on one another, they should have these kinds of benefits. Why in the world is the government giving tax benefits and all sorts of other privileges to married couples only? I honestly don't think that's fair to the rest of the population that chooses to live alone. I think the government needs to quit giving these benefits to people based on soa nd so reason because no matter what they will be discriminating against SOMEONE by giving benefits to those who 'qualify'. By giving benefits to those who are married the government is discriminating against those who are not married. By giving benefits to those who have children the government is discriminating against those who have none. Why? What's the point of it? Do I have to conform myself and get married just so I can see my boyfriend in a hospital if he gets sick/injured? Do I have to have lots of babies to be able and write off some kids to get money back later? As for inheritance, people can use that in a very bad way, I mean seriously, we've all heard stories about crazy women getting married to rich husbands and then killing them off just to inherit their money. WTF? Why can't every person just write a will stating where their money/belongings go should they suddenly die? Shouldn't they get to decide who gets their belongings in the end? I don't think marriage should be a legal matter period. The government should have no say in who gets to run around telling everyone that they are married and they most definitely shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against those of us who choose not to be/or are not married. If we took away the whole "You get all these cool benefits if you get married!" aspect away from marriage then marriage would suddenly be what it has always been, MARRIAGE, an interpersonal relationship with governmental, social, or religious recognition. And that is all it should be plus whatever the two married people make it out to be. So yeah, you get married, here's your contract saying your married, now you are obligated to remain in this monogamous (or possibly polygamous/polyandrous) relationship with your partner(s) and make a life for yourselves, whether that includes children or not, it's up to you. Buy a house together/love one another/be happy/share your income/etc. Why does the government have to be involved again?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:44 pm
All good points, Pasithea. And I've brought these points up in most of my posts. They are questions that people who favor "gay marriage" refuse to answer.
I personally do see good reason for providing such benefits. All that is beside the point, though. It would be nice to see someone who supports gay marriage clearly address why benefits should be given to gay partners in particular, and to any couple in general.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 1:41 pm
Gedral All good points, Pasithea. And I've brought these points up in most of my posts. They are questions that people who favor "gay marriage" refuse to answer. I personally do see good reason for providing such benefits. All that is beside the point, though. It would be nice to see someone who supports gay marriage clearly address why benefits should be given to gay partners in particular, and to any couple in general. I agree. I think they just need to take away the benefits in general. It seems some people are marrying only for the benefits which takes away the whole point of marriage too. If the benefits are removed then people would only have their own personal reasons for marrying and not for any kind of governmental benefits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 4:47 am
@ marsh
if Syllixia wants to make everypoint about god then she should be able to without you coming around saying otherwise. But that pretty much means she's probably not going to reach the hearts of non-christians. You do this in almost every debate I've seen, it gets annoying after awhile. And I'm not going to fight with you this time, so post whatever, I don't really care. I just wish people would be more respectful of religion.
Like I said earlier, if anything, gays prove that love is more than just hormones attacking your brain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 6:48 am
What gays do or do not do is none of my business, give them their marriage just keep me out of it if I don't want involvement.
That said, I want to point out that most Western countries are supposed to be States separated from Church. I don't care what morality issues these politicians have, if you have some issues over your religion about gay marriage or relationship then you should not be in politics. Plain and simple, tax incentives to straight marriage, gay marriage, any marriage is discriminatory. People should not have to conform to a norm to be equal or have tax cuts or benefits, that is a form of subliminal oppression no matter what way you look at it.
Also in regards to marshjazz's comment to Syllixia I have to disagree. The focal point of the entire gay marriage debate is religion despite this and other countries claiming to be separated from any religion. She has the right to post up things from her religious standpoint. In the end its about God and what He would do for most people.
What God would do is unknown, especially in Christianity where there have been many changes and contradictions, on that point I can agree with you. But to just shoot down a post based on religion, especially on an issue so largely engrossed in religion is just unfair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 12:29 pm
i support gay marriage i think that if they want to be gay let them be gay and if any1 thinks the opposite way then thats their OPINION not a fact smile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 10:05 am
Mikezors87 i support gay marriage i think that if they want to be gay let them be gay and if any1 thinks the opposite way then thats their OPINION not a fact smile Well religious people seem to have this tendency where they think they own 'marriage' and that they have a right to give it whatever definition they want to and prevent certain people from marrying. :/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 4:11 am
Pasithea Mikezors87 i support gay marriage i think that if they want to be gay let them be gay and if any1 thinks the opposite way then thats their OPINION not a fact smile Well religious people seem to have this tendency where they think they own 'marriage' and that they have a right to give it whatever definition they want to and prevent certain people from marrying. :/ You sound as though you're saying most religious people think that. I don't. And I'm sure pretty much all religious people don't think that at all. Churches are just the common places people get married, probably because they're considered holy and so is marriage. It doesn't mean christians or whatever other religion thinks they own it. Maybe in the 'old days' but not now. And who said religion made the definition for marriage? With most words, different people have different thoughts on what it means. Like I think of marriage as the joining of the lovers, where as others think of it as govermental benifits. yokomotoz Also in regards to marshjazz's comment to Syllixia I have to disagree. The focal point of the entire gay marriage debate is religion despite this and other countries claiming to be separated from any religion. She has the right to post up things from her religious standpoint. In the end its about God and what He would do for most people. What God would do is unknown, especially in Christianity where there have been many changes and contradictions, on that point I can agree with you. But to just shoot down a post based on religion, especially on an issue so largely engrossed in religion is just unfair. Thankyou. You summed that up better than I did, that's for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
