Gay Marriage - thoughts, views, and opinions

[tartilus]

leviticus said:

pilaf said:

Yeah, you know, because just because something's been done a long time makes it infallible and right. *sarcasm*

*sarcasm duly noted* ;D

Where there is freedom of religious belief (note I didn't say religion) some of it, of course, is fallible. But they still should have the right to choose what they accept and what they don't.

-Levi

But would you be willing to accept that, because marriage has become a social construct rather than a religious one, society should indeed allow gays to experience it? There is a large difference between letting the church discriminate and letting the government do so.

[Leviticus]

Greetings Tartilus!

I agree wholeheartedly that gays should be allowed to be married in a civil ceremony, so the state and federal government will recognize and give the same benfits as they would to a heterosexual couple. Isn't that why a "marriage" is sought after? For the legal aspects concerning inheritance of pensions and such?

That does not mean that all of society has to accept it. Just like some shouldn't force their religious convictions upon others... gay marriage should not be forced upon those who choose not to accept it.

-Levi

[comike14]

I agree completely with Levi. Fortunately, I think the current issue in certain states is whether or not the state will legally recognize gay marriage, not that the church has to perform the ceremony on a religious level. If any state ever tried to force that, then it would get the Supreme Court involved.

[Leviticus]

What is the underlying basis for gay marriage to be written into law? Is it to force acceptance upon everyone? Or to obtain certain legal rights?

Ok, then what is the benefit if only certain states pass the law? The federal government still would not recognize it as a marriage and there would be no claiming that for tax purposes on their federal returns. If one spouse were to die, the other could not be entitled to recieve any leftover government pension funds.
I say... allow "civil unions" so that two men or two women, who want to live and spend the rest of their lives together, can do so and enjoy the same benfits as a married man and woman. This in the eyes of all the states and the federal government as well. But don't pass a law in order to force acceptance of this practice upon the masses.

-Levi

[Muad'dib]

leviticus said:

What is the underlying basis for gay marriage to be written into law?

That two people who love each other should be allowed to wed. If not in a church (hetero marriage) then in a civil marriage (homosexual marriage) though i'm sure civil marriages occur too, for say two atheists who marry each other but don't want to marry in a church.

Is it to force acceptance upon everyone?

Accept them as individuals? Well, everyone should have rights, and if the church isn't being infringed upon, as in, if civil marriages where two people can marry and it not interfere with the religious aspect, then I don't see the problem.

I mean, did church put a patent on marriage?

Or to obtain certain legal rights?

I guess thats probably a good part of it, yeah, i'd reckon its a way of showing each other how they feel about each other, also. Just like it is for any straight couple, like it'll be for my chosen partner and I, should I ever find her.

Ok, then what is the benefit if only certain states pass the law? The federal government still would not recognize it as a marriage and there would be no claiming that for tax purposes on their federal returns. If one spouse were to die, the other could not be entitled to recieve any leftover government pension funds.

Well, i'm not from America, but way I see it, if its not brought about on a state level, all of a sudden you'll see all the people wanting their chosen partner to be recognised as who they are married to will all move to whatever states allow homosexual marriage.

Seems logical to me.

I say... allow "civil unions" so that two men or two women, who want to live and spend the rest of their lives together, can do so and enjoy the same benfits as a married man and woman. This in the eyes of all the states and the federal government as well. But don't pass a law in order to force acceptance of this practice upon the masses.

-Levi

So, when you say people shouldn't accept it, do you mean people have the right to abuse and do whatever they please to homosexual couples?

Do you mean that heterosexual couples have the right to chase people out of town? I'm not understanding what you mean by being so open for hatred to a couple based on the gender of those in it.

[Leviticus]

Muad, how did you split up my post like that? I'd like to reply to different parts of yours but don't know how to do it.

[Muad'dib]

I was in the quote page, took what I was going to reply to, put a [/quote] at the end of that, then at the start of the next part I was replying to.

So, I divided the paragraphs... with quote tags dividing everything you said...

[Leviticus]

newbiezilla said:

leviticus said:

What is the underlying basis for gay marriage to be written into law?

That two people who love each other should be allowed to wed. If not in a church (hetero marriage) then in a civil marriage (homosexual marriage) though i'm sure civil marriages occur too, for say two atheists who marry each other but don't want to marry in a church.

The only difference is that it's legal for an athiest man and woman to marry.

Accept them as individuals?

I meant about accepting their gayness.

I mean, did church put a patent on marriage?

Yes, they did. ;D

I say... allow "civil unions" so that two men or two women, who want to live and spend the rest of their lives together, can do so and enjoy the same benfits as a married man and woman. This in the eyes of all the states and the federal government as well. But don't pass a law in order to force acceptance of this practice upon the masses.

-Levi

So, when you say people shouldn't accept it, do you mean people have the right to abuse and do whatever they please to homosexual couples?[/quote]

Of course not. They just don't have to like it.

Do you mean that heterosexual couples have the right to chase people out of town? I'm not understanding what you mean by being so open for hatred to a couple based on the gender of those in it.

Where did I ever give you that idea? I never mentioned chasing out of town or used the term hatred.

[Leviticus]

Meh, I kinda messed up on the quote tags.

[Muad'dib]

Don't worry about it

The only difference is that it's legal for an athiest man and woman to marry.

In a church?

I meant about accepting their gayness.

Accepting their gayness? As in, accepting them to be a happy couple? Well, I guess if thats the attitude of the people in certain states, i'd be surprised that gay people haven't moved out already.

I certainly wouldn't stay in a community that would so stigmatize me in what looks like something of a witch burning affair.

You know, I talk to a lot of Christians, and just when i'm starting to think "Yeah, maybe they are an accepting bunch" I get thrown a curve ball.

I mean, did church put a patent on marriage?

So, only Christians get married? Or atheist in churches? Hell, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists the whole lot get married.... In a Christian marriage? No, I don't reckon so.

Of course not. They just don't have to like it.

People don't have to like anything. Its when this disliking becomes intolerance it becomes a legal issue. And two gay people don't need to be married before a crime against them, be it slander or some other form of abuse gets somebody a time before a judge.

[Leviticus]

newbiezilla said:

The only difference is that it's legal for an athiest man and woman to marry.

In a church?

No, in a civil ceremony.

You know, I talk to a lot of Christians, and just when i'm starting to think "Yeah, maybe they are an accepting bunch" I get thrown a curve ball.

I guess there are fundamentalists in every religion who resist change. But I'm not one.

-Levi

[Muad'dib]

leviticus said:

No, in a civil ceremony.

So, is there really a problem with homosexuals doing the same? Whats the block you have with it?

[Leviticus]

newbiezilla said:

leviticus said:

No, in a civil ceremony.

So, is there really a problem with homosexuals doing the same? Whats the block you have with it?

Hehe, somewhere along the line I must have stated something badly to give you that impression. I don't have a block with that. I'll copy and paste a previous post of mine from an earlier page...

"I agree wholeheartedly that gays should be allowed to be married in a civil ceremony, so the state and federal government will recognize and give the same benfits as they would to a heterosexual couple. Isn't that why a "marriage" is sought after? For the legal aspects concerning inheritance of pensions and such?

That does not mean that all of society has to accept it. Just like some shouldn't force their religious convictions upon others... gay marriage should not be forced upon those who choose not to accept it."

-Levi

[Muad'dib]

I guess it was the following bit that got me...

leviticus said:

That does not mean that all of society has to accept it. Just like some shouldn't force their religious convictions upon others... gay marriage should not be forced upon those who choose not to accept it."

-Levi

All of society? As in, random people who are straight can say "They oughtn't be married"? That kind of thing?

And, who could gay marriage be forced on? Gay people? I'm not understanding that part at all.

[Osama Bin Laden]

Let the gays do what they want. Love is love.

[Leviticus]

newbiezilla said:

I guess it was the following bit that got me...

leviticus said:

That does not mean that all of society has to accept it. Just like some shouldn't force their religious convictions upon others... gay marriage should not be forced upon those who choose not to accept it."

-Levi

All of society? As in, random people who are straight can say "They oughtn't be married"? That kind of thing?

Yes, they have a right to speak their views. Don't forget, here in the states, both sides have a say before a bill is considered to be written into law. Again, I am not disagreeing with gays who want to be married.

And, who could gay marriage be forced on? Gay people? I'm not understanding that part at all.

I can see where my statement here could be confusing. I did not mean that as you took it. I meant that anyone who opposes the concept, should not have to be forced to like or accept it.

Forgive me if my statements are a bit confusing at times... I'm not an expert at debate.

-Levi

[WitchBoy]

One thing you seem to be juggling around is the actual term "marriage", and it's context in Judeo-Christian religions.

If you want to get technical a large amount of native American tribes had "two-spirit" males, who were recognized by females by the tribe and actually prized as wives, since they could hunt and defend the home as well as the husband.

So, in a way gay marriage was here in the states long before we ever got here. Marriage is marriage, refusing to use that term is a blatant insult.

It's like me refusing to call a -insert skin color here- a human, only a "homo sapien". They may mean the same thing, but they aren't the same.

[Gold_skywalker]

pilaf said:

But you can feel free to argue if you want of course. Bring as many of your conservative friends here as you want. I'm sure I can bring a few of them back from the dark side. It just depends on how far gone the poor dears are.

Most of them are in favor of Gay marriage, Pil. Conservatives aren't all Crosses and Prayers, and even then, there are Christians who disagree with the Catholic Church.

Also, I won't bring my RL friends here, since they are religious, and it always saddens me to see a friend's religion torn into.

Also, it's very possible we are both wrong, and another ideology is the 'Light side', which I doubt very much since there is no factual Good or Evil.

Well, i'm not from America, but way I see it, if its not brought about on a state level, all of a sudden you'll see all the people wanting their chosen partner to be recognised as who they are married to will all move to whatever states allow homosexual marriage.

Seems logical to me.

Sounds a bit like Racial Segregation, to me...

[Muad'dib]

leviticus said:

Yes, they have a right to speak their views. Don't forget, here in the states, both sides have a say before a bill is considered to be written into law. Again, I am not disagreeing with gays who want to be married.

Views are fine. Its if the views become resentment in action that it becomes a problem.

I can see where my statement here could be confusing. I did not mean that as you took it. I meant that anyone who opposes the concept, should not have to be forced to like or accept it.

So, us straight people have the right to say "They shouldn't be legally married?" to fight against civil marriages being legal?

Sorry, but if thats the case, thats basically like a vegetarian forbidding me from buying anything in a butcher, yeah. A wasted exercise.

Forgive me if my statements are a bit confusing at times... I'm not an expert at debate.

-Levi

Don't worry about it, but I will seek a clarification if I don't understand something

goldskywalker said:

Well, i'm not from America, but way I see it, if its not brought about on a state level, all of a sudden you'll see all the people wanting their chosen partner to be recognised as who they are married to will all move to whatever states allow homosexual marriage.

Seems logical to me.

Sounds a bit like Racial Segregation, to me...

Yeah, doesn't it?

Well, if the law is against ones favour in state A, but in state B they get no problem. Do see any reason why you will not see a certain group in state B in larger numbers?

Yeah its segregation, its segregation by means of law.

(Had to edit that a few times )

[Gold_skywalker]

Naturally, that's what would happen... However, there've been some cases where they do not leave, and a large number of them stay even when imminent "danger" is near.

[Muad'dib]

I guess marriage isn't that important to some people then.

[Hunessai]

thiefonaleash said:

One thing you seem to be juggling around is the actual term "marriage", and it's context in Judeo-Christian religions.

If you want to get technical a large amount of native American tribes had "two-spirit" males, who were recognized by females by the tribe and actually prized as wives, since they could hunt and defend the home as well as the husband.

So, in a way gay marriage was here in the states long before we ever got here. Marriage is marriage, refusing to use that term is a blatant insult.

It's like me refusing to call a -insert skin color here- a human, only a "homo sapien". They may mean the same thing, but they aren't the same.

Very well put, Thiefy.

[pilaf]

Marriage is overrated anyway. I personally never plan to get married. I have several close friends whose parents never married, but have lived together in happiness and harmony for many years.

It's just a ceremony. It's not for me. I want to fall in love and grow old with someone, but I don't need a certificate for that.

However, I feel it is a right that should be denied to nobody. And the time has come for the secularization of marriage across the board. It's long overdue. If we can have seperation of church and state, it's time for seperation of church and love. (Or at least a ceremony representing love)

[thaddius]

newbiezilla said:

If by better place, you mean, people having more freedom, then I don't see whats funny enough to merit laughing about.

Who ever said freedom was good?

anywho im ambivalant about the issue.

[lucia]

Well, like I told Thiefy, I was gay in 9th grade, but it didn't match my shoes, so I decided not to be. :shocked:

See, if gay people want to be married, they can choose to be straight again, and get all the tax breaks!