Pages: 1 2  Next -- Posted by Lady Catastrophic at 9:51 pm on Oct. 26, 2008 Making it illegal, is it a bit too religious of the law? Why or why not? I personally view outlawing it, to be discrimination... and it seems to force religion on people who don't exactly believe the same thing? What do you think? -- Posted by Light Assassin at 9:53 pm on Oct. 26, 2008 Just let people do what they want is what I believe. -- Posted by Catalyst11 at 9:53 pm on Oct. 26, 2008 I personally view it as discrimination.  Even though the American Government was created through religion, there is nothing in the bible against homosexuals(I think) which would not make it religious at all. -- Posted by Lady Catastrophic at 9:55 pm on Oct. 26, 2008 Quote: from Catalyst11 at 10:53 pm on Oct. 26, 2008 I personally view it as discrimination. Even though the American Government was created through religion, there is nothing in the bible against homosexuals(I think) which would not make it religious at all. Actually in the bible they say that it is an "abomination", and religious people vote to make it illegal cause they have some weird thought in their head that we are "taking away" from "true" marriage. -- Posted by The Last Magister at 9:55 pm on Oct. 26, 2008 I believe it's alright to be married according to the state, I just find it unreasonable for homosexuals to demand marriage under religions that openly condemn homosexuality, such as Catholicism. -- Posted by snowfish at 9:58 pm on Oct. 26, 2008 I think that the state should stay out of marriage and only grant civil unions to both straight and gay couples. -- Posted by Catalyst11 at 10:01 pm on Oct. 26, 2008 Quote: from xsharpi at 9:55 pm on Oct. 26, 2008 Quote: from Catalyst11 at 10:53 pm on Oct. 26, 2008 I personally view it as discrimination.  Even though the American Government was created through religion, there is nothing in the bible against homosexuals(I think) which would not make it religious at all. Actually in the bible they say that it is an "abomination", and religious people vote to make it illegal cause they have some weird thought in their head that we are "taking away" from "true" marriage. Ah well then it is "religiously right" but it's still discrimination, so Im against it. Let homosexuals love who they love, it's not like they're going and killing the firstborn child of every family. Homosexuality is no big deal. people just make it into one. -- Posted by Lady Catastrophic at 10:08 pm on Oct. 26, 2008 Quote: from TheLastMagister at 10:55 pm on Oct. 26, 2008 I believe it's alright to be married according to the state, I just find it unreasonable for homosexuals to demand marriage under religions that openly condemn homosexuality, such as Catholicism. Hmm, well that religion does however preach of forgiveness and no judging? (This is why I hate religion, UGH! The corruption!) If that is what they want, then they should be allowed it. They aren't hurting each other, and they are simply in love... it's not something that they can prevent. I strongly believe they are simply born that way so why punish them for something they can't help? I mean that is like not allowing disabled people to marry >.>! (I don't mean to compare Gays/Lesbians to disabled people, I mean to compare the way both are born in that matter, and can't change themselves to fit the law. =/) -- Posted by exceedinglyrare at 11:06 am on Oct. 27, 2008 Quote: from xsharpi at 12:51 am on Oct. 27, 2008 Making it illegal, is it a bit too religious of the law? Why or why not? I personally view outlawing it, to be discrimination... and it seems to force religion on people who don't exactly believe the same thing? What do you think? Believe it or not, there are people who oppose it from non-religious standpoints. I know there are a lot of people who are opposed to the federal government making it law for all of the states rather than the states and the individuals in the states deciding for themselves. As far as outlawing it goes, you don't need to be religious to believe that marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman. Personally...I don't really think that the government has any business in marriage anyway, and that couples, regardless of relationship or gender, should be able to enter into civil partnerships with the legal benefits of marriage (read: visitation rights, that sort of thing), but that's just me. -- Posted by Blackadder at 12:19 pm on Oct. 27, 2008 Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 6:06 pm on Oct. 27, 2008 Quote: from xsharpi at 12:51 am on Oct. 27, 2008 Making it illegal, is it a bit too religious of the law? Why or why not?    I personally view outlawing it, to be discrimination... and it seems to force religion on people who don't exactly believe the same thing?    What do you think? Believe it or not, there are people who oppose it from non-religious standpoints. I know there are a lot of people who are opposed to the federal government making it law for all of the states rather than the states and the individuals in the states deciding for themselves. As far as outlawing it goes, you don't need to be religious to believe that marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman. Personally...I don't really think that the government has any business in marriage anyway, and that couples, regardless of relationship or gender, should be able to enter into civil partnerships with the legal benefits of marriage (read: visitation rights, that sort of thing), but that's just me. as soon as you start confering legal benifits, the government must - simply out of necesscity - step in. -- Posted by exceedinglyrare at 1:04 pm on Oct. 27, 2008 Quote: from Blackadder at 3:19 pm on Oct. 27, 2008 as soon as you start confering legal benifits, the government must - simply out of necesscity - step in. I agree, which is why marriage wouldn't be a legal institution at all, in my ideal world...there would just be civil unions or partnerships between any two people who wanted to have those kinds of benefits, regardless of gender and relationship. -- Posted by Event Horizon at 2:13 pm on Oct. 27, 2008 Quote: from xsharpi at 12:51 am on Oct. 27, 2008 Making it illegal, is it a bit too religious of the law? Why or why not? I personally view outlawing it, to be discrimination... and it seems to force religion on people who don't exactly believe the same thing? What do you think? Gay marriage is NOT illegal. This is a common misconception. Gay people can get civil unions quite easily and in any state. The problem lies in the fact that they can not get the legal BENEFITS of "marriage" because the definition of marriage is --basically-- "A legal union between a man and a woman, approved by the state [meaning government]." The argument to make gay marriage legal is really one to change the definition of "marriage" from man-woman, to "two consenting adults" or something along those lines. with that said, yea, it is discrimination to not allow gays to marry. -- Posted by whoami111 at 2:42 pm on Oct. 27, 2008 Pretty much what most people have already said above; it is a discrimination. Also, forgive my ignorance but does every law has to be based on the bible? -- Posted by exceedinglyrare at 3:43 pm on Oct. 27, 2008 Quote: from whoami111 at 5:42 pm on Oct. 27, 2008 Pretty much what most people have already said above; it is a discrimination. Also, forgive my ignorance but does every law has to be based on the bible? What does that have to do with anything? -- Posted by whoami111 at 3:45 pm on Oct. 27, 2008 Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 3:43 pm on Oct. 27, 2008 Quote: from whoami111 at 5:42 pm on Oct. 27, 2008 Pretty much what most people have already said above; it is a discrimination. Also, forgive my ignorance but does every law has to be based on the bible? What does that have to do with anything? I just want to know. -- Posted by exceedinglyrare at 4:30 pm on Oct. 27, 2008 Quote: from whoami111 at 6:45 pm on Oct. 27, 2008 Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 3:43 pm on Oct. 27, 2008 Quote: from whoami111 at 5:42 pm on Oct. 27, 2008 Pretty much what most people have already said above; it is a discrimination. Also, forgive my ignorance but does every law has to be based on the bible?    What does that have to do with anything? I just want to know. No one ever said that they had to, which is rather good because they're not. -- Posted by Vordhosbn at 5:31 am on Oct. 28, 2008 You've probably still seen this one before, but it still makes me laugh Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.   -- Posted by exceedinglyrare at 8:22 am on Oct. 28, 2008 Quote: from Vordhosbn at 8:31 am on Oct. 28, 2008 Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.     Psh, legal civil unions for everyone. Marriage should never have been a legal institution in the first place. -- Posted by lisma at 4:54 pm on Oct. 28, 2008 I view it as discrimination. What gives people to deny the right of people in love to get married? The divorce rate of straight couples high but some still believe that straight is the only way. You cannot deny love, and you cannot discriminate against those who express it, even though if they are of the same sex. -- Posted by Event Horizon at 5:47 pm on Oct. 28, 2008 Quote: from lisma at 7:54 pm on Oct. 28, 2008 I view it as discrimination. What gives people to deny the right of people in love to get married? The divorce rate of straight couples high but some still believe that straight is the only way. You cannot deny love, and you cannot discriminate against those who express it, even though if they are of the same sex. Again, understand the ACTUAL problem with the system. Gays can get married --they are called civil unions-- they just don't get the benefits of marriage that straight couples do. the problem lies in the legal definition of "marriage" -- Posted by superchris4000 at 12:49 pm on Nov. 7, 2008 Marrige is part of religion and if religion says no gay marrige, then there should be no gay marrige. -- Posted by Wilder at 1:06 pm on Nov. 7, 2008 Quote: from superchris4000 at 1:49 pm on Nov. 7, 2008 Marrige is part of religion and if religion says no gay marrige, then there should be no gay marrige. So since plenty of religions in the United States say yes to gay marriage, it should be legal? My signature contains a link to the correct solution. -- Posted by Prom3theus at 1:01 pm on Nov. 9, 2008 Quote: from TheLastMagister at 12:55 am on Oct. 27, 2008 I believe it's alright to be married according to the state, I just find it unreasonable for homosexuals to demand marriage under religions that openly condemn homosexuality, such as Catholicism. Even as a homosexual male, I feel that this is really true. People have the right to their own religious beliefs, and that's their own business. These people should not be forced to perform same-sex marriages if they don't want to. I believe that civil marriage is a fundamental right, however, and should be awarded to all, regardless of gender. -- Posted by mountain hare at 7:34 pm on Nov. 9, 2008 Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 8:22 am on Oct. 28, 2008 Quote: from Vordhosbn at 8:31 am on Oct. 28, 2008 Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.     Psh, legal civil unions for everyone. Marriage should never have been a legal institution in the first place. Word. People shouldn't receive financial benefits in legal civil unions, though. -- Posted by Wilder at 8:02 pm on Nov. 9, 2008 Quote: from Prom3theus at 2:01 pm on Nov. 9, 2008 Quote: from TheLastMagister at 12:55 am on Oct. 27, 2008 I believe it's alright to be married according to the state, I just find it unreasonable for homosexuals to demand marriage under religions that openly condemn homosexuality, such as Catholicism. Even as a homosexual male, I feel that this is really true. People have the right to their own religious beliefs, and that's their own business. These people should not be forced to perform same-sex marriages if they don't want to. I believe that civil marriage is a fundamental right, however, and should be awarded to all, regardless of gender. Is anyone arguing that people should be forced to perform same-sex marriages against their will? Never in my life have I heard someone advance such a position, but people keep consistently coming together to lash out at it. -- Posted by gronk at 2:27 am on Nov. 10, 2008 Quote: from noahjk at 4:53 pm on Oct. 27, 2008 Just let people do what they want is what I believe. getpreviewHTML('previewdiv','text1','preview');showPP(); let people kill each other and steal from each other you need laws for the greater good of the people, and to enable a society to function. Marriage is the same, marriage shouldn't be something that we can do at the drop of the hat, which is why its good to have some restrictions on marriage, both people having to be present at a wedding, give consent, having witnesses, being a certain age etc. What we don't want is a high divorce rate, or for marriages to break down. We also want to create environments in which kids can be raised so that they can have freedom. Positive freedom, not freedom to do whatever they want but freedom to flourish into their potential. To an extent the marriage debate becomes a semantic debate. How you define determines what should be done about it. One dictionary says its The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife while another says the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. or a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger. personally I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. I think thats what marriage always has been, (I know thats a fallacious appeal to tradition) but traditions are important, they create order in society. I also think intrinsically thats what marriage IS, the bond between a man and a woman that says I want to be with you till death do us part. If same sex couples want to live together, then so be it. But don't call it marriage. Call it  a de facto relationship. -- Posted by Vordhosbn at 4:04 am on Nov. 10, 2008 Quote: from gronk at 2:27 am on Nov. 10, 2008 Quote: from noahjk at 4:53 pm on Oct. 27, 2008 Just let people do what they want is what I believe. getpreviewHTML('previewdiv','text1','preview');showPP(); let people kill each other and steal from each other you need laws for the greater good of the people, and to enable a society to function. Marriage is the same, marriage shouldn't be something that we can do at the drop of the hat, which is why its good to have some restrictions on marriage, both people having to be present at a wedding, give consent, having witnesses, being a certain age etc.   What we don't want is a high divorce rate, or for marriages to break down. We also want to create environments in which kids can be raised so that they can have freedom. Positive freedom, not freedom to do whatever they want but freedom to flourish into their potential.   To an extent the marriage debate becomes a semantic debate. How you define determines what should be done about it. One dictionary says its The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife while another says the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. or a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger. personally I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. I think thats what marriage always has been, (I know thats a fallacious appeal to tradition) but traditions are important, they create order in society.   I also think intrinsically thats what marriage IS, the bond between a man and a woman that says I want to be with you till death do us part. If same sex couples want to live together, then so be it. But don't call it marriage. Call it a de facto relationship. To place sensible restrictions on marriage is one thing, to exclude an entire community from the prospects of ever being wed is another altogether. The other examples you gave (both parties being present, consent, etc) are all reasonable rules, denying two sensible people the right to wed is not. Religions should not be obligated by any means to perform same sex marriages, but what does it matter to you if they call it marriage? Does it affect you at all what they choose to call their relationship? Imagine for a moment that the tables were turned, and somebody was telling you that you shouldn't be allowed to wed, based on your choice in partner. Would you be satisfied to accept that, even though it is entirely baseless, and does not affect society in any way? Would you be happy to just go de facto based on this? -- Posted by well well well at 10:14 pm on Nov. 15, 2008 does anyone remember the constitution? equal rights and the right to happiness? -- Posted by Colleen35 at 5:43 pm on Nov. 29, 2008 @gronk: None of the limits you suggest for marriage have any bearing on why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry.  Gay people don't get together 'at the drop of a hat' any more than straight people, and there's no difference in their effectiveness as parents to create a safe environment for their children.  You're free to not approve of it, but I don't think an act which does not have any negative effect on others should be illegal because a number of people disapprove.  It's not a question of what the traditional structure of marriage is, it's a question of the government granting equal rights to all couples. @superchris: Religion, however, isn't a part of government, and so the rights granted to heterosexual couples BY THE GOVERNMENT ought also to be applied to homosexual couples.  Religions may feel free to not perform ceremonies for gay people. @the bible: Eating shrimp is given the same abomination status as being gay.  When's the last time a Christian picketed outside a Red Lobster, or a conservative legislator moved to outlaw seafood? -- Posted by gronk at 6:43 pm on Jan. 31, 2009 Quote: from Colleen35 at 12:43 pm on Nov. 30, 2008 @the bible: Eating shrimp is given the same abomination status as being gay. When's the last time a Christian picketed outside a Red Lobster, or a conservative legislator moved to outlaw seafood? God has made these foods clean, read the rest of the bible, not just a few select law commands Pages: 1 2  Next