Same gender marriage

General Forums Off-topic Chat
1

By now most Americans should know that President Bush is seeking to ban same-gender marriages.

Some questions to think about:- Do you believe the government has the power to decide whether two people can or cannot be married?

  • Do we have the right to decide whether someone is happy?
  • Does religion play a role in this, and if so, should our government be affected by a certain religious belief?
  • Does homophobia play a role?

I for one have no problem with gay marriage, even though I’m not gay. I don’t believe it should be dictated by any government. This seems like one more step towards a totalitarian dictatorship (a ruling body that controls people’s personal lives).

This makes me think of all the equal rights fights of our past. First blacks, then women. Are we really going to go back in time and TAKE AWAY peoples’ rights again?

2

I agree 100%. I also am not gay, but i have no problem with people that are. It’s there own life, and it’s not like they had a choice whether to be gay; no more choice than what color there hair was or the color of their skin. To me, banning gay marriges is no different than banning marriges between black people. The gay/lesbian community has done nothing to hurt us, why should we hurt them?

3

i have NO idea why anybody would be agianst gay marriage.

i am not gay, but i still support gay marriage, WTF? why would anybody CARE??!?!? what does gay marriage do to anybody to make them agianst it?!?!?!?!? please tell me, and pleeeaasse do it without “religion” or “god”

4

Man, it’s refreshing to hear views like this. I work in a pretty conservative environment, so I hear the other side of this argument all the time.

The other side seems to think that somehow gay’s being married “redefines” their own heterosexual marriages. So somehow that is infringing on some right of theirs. It makes no sense and is obviously just a way of justifying this discriminatory act.

When bush was on his soapbox about Iraq and all that, he kept using this rhetoric about certain other people “hating freedom”. He says this and then tries to ban gay marriage. Who hates freedom really?

5

So all you ultra free people, what about dog/man marriages?

6

Have you got a dog that can say "I do’? If you do I’ll marry it, male or female!

%<

7

Homosexuality is scientifically immoral. That’s it. Really, I don’t care if they want to get married. It’s an issue beyond me. I just don’t support it. I don’t oppose it either. I don’t do anything.

I just think that opposites are supposed to attract. It exists everywhere in nature as an instinct in living things to multiply, and as a law in the most basic bulding blocks of everything physical around us. I know you’re thinking “people aren’t protons and electrons, you insensible idiot!” Of course they’re not. But still, you’ve got to realize that it’s unnatural, whether anybody cares or not.

If they want to get married and be happy, sure. They have the right to, and I’m not going to oppose that. I’m just talking from a strictly non-emotional point of view, and don’t take my opinion to heart if you believe emotion overrides physical and instinctive morality.

8

Actually, theropod, same sex relationships can be seen all through nature. First Example that comes to mind was pair of love birds my mother had. They were same sex (sorry, I don’t remember which sex they were) and yet were the most lovey and yes sexually active birds I have ever seen.

Oh and I have no problem with gay marriages, in my opinion they should get taxed just as severely as me and my husband, fairs fair after all. :stuck_out_tongue:

9

Yeah you’re right, it’s not just humans. Generally it is a corruption of instinct that can occur in all creatures.

10

What do you all think about the whole “gay gene” thing?

I had a thought the other day – if there is a “gay gene”, how has it survived natural selection? Homosexuality is not noted for reproductivity. How would a homosexual pass on his “gay gene?”

11

Alex, you might find this paper interesting:

http://www.scientists4pr.org/chemistry_of_collapse.htm

%<

12

if u guys are all sure about science and all, wut do you think about this story i heard. some scientists were performin some expirement, where they moved one atom of some thing on one side of the US, and they had an identical one on the other side, and they moved one, and the other one moved at the same time, and not just the same time, but the EXACT same time, faster than the speed of light. (sorry if i messed up the story, i dont kno the facts, but thats the basic story) is that natural?

13

I don’t give a crap about whether it’s right or not but it’s NOT RIGHT AT ALL for that stupid judge to hand out liscences when it’s illegal. It’shis job to uphold the law, not to break it and cause irreperable damage to that law. As far as I’m concerned he broke that law and that makes him a criminal and every one of the s that got marriage liscences are all common criminals, every last one.

I don’t think the government should have a right to ban it, because the only real complaints I have is that it’s against my religion. Too bad. Church and state should be seperate on this issue. However, having a priest, now THAT’S something I can’t stand. He openly defies the bible, yet claims to live and teach by it.

14

in some ways i agree with valarking.

the judge is acting illegally.

but to make a protest, to get the ground work for a revolution you need to act illegally.

jsut as the balck rigths groups did the bus boycott, they didn’t want to be able to jsut “ride the bus” (paralell to a civil union being the same but not). they wanted to ride the bus and be equal when riding the bus, as a push for a greater freedom of the person.

i ahev debated this issue all around the internet, and my most influential teachers were all gay, i had about 10 gay teachers in high school.

my chemistry teacher was lesbian, my physics teacher was gay, they were the two teachers who taught with the most effort and entusiasm, and who were dedicated memebers of society.

honestly anyone who doesn’t agree with gay marriges can go and stuff it up their bum hole (lol)

saying it degrades hetro relationships is BS. what degrades hetro relationships is society as a whole.

TV marriges, like who wants to marry a millionare

the highest divorce rates ever

one night vegas marriges (you think they are good. ha ha ha getting marired when drunk and never knowing the person)

financial marriges.

i mean seriously when hetrosexual couples can claim that they are even worthy of the word marrige then i will respect them wanting to keep it that way.

however currently 60% of all marriges end in a divorce. and i admit some of the are remarriges. but of all the people who get married only about 50% of them will remain married with that person for the rest of their lives, and an even smaller number of them will be happy in that marrige.

its a Fire trUCKING joke as it is now.

adding gay marriges isn’t gonna stuff up shit.

Alltaken

15

Wow.

Well everybody’s got an opinion. The judge is following what the mayor told them to do. The mayor is following what the constitution says, not the idiot who was not elected president, but the constitution. Freedom of choice, and freedom from religious persecution, and freedom from prejudice.

If you don’t like homosexuality, then don’t be one.

16

Well, it looks like everyone who is posting is in agreement that it isn’t the government’s right to ban it, and yet there are several votes saying it should be illegal.

I would like to hear some of the other side here. If you really think it is right for the government to ban gay marriage, please post and tell us why?

17

You kidding? Nutcase liberals and conservatives would be at each other’s throats.
Morally, I don’t give a $hit.
Legally, the judge may have been told to do so by the mayor, but that still doesn’t the the judge or the mayor right.
Oh, and quit lamenting our President for that STATE law. He didn’t make it, THEY did.

18

Bush is a fascist twit. I wouldn’t let him regulate my dogs spastic bowel, no less something such as this that requires wisdom and objectivity.

19

agreed with modrons spastic bowel coment :wink:

20

I love the wisdom and objectivity you displayed in that comment there, modron %|

I think the main argument against gay marriage is the “slippery slope” argument. What about when someone wants to marry a minor (without parent permission)? Or a child? Or three adults want to be married for that matter. Who is to say that THEY legally can’t? Eventually these will be issues, regardless of how distant they may seem to us.

Since we won’t be able to give a reason why THREE men can’t get married when two can, why don’t we stick to what is obviously natural: One male, one female. I don’t think I need to explain that. You may ask what the problem is when three men get married. Well what about when my whole village wants to marry eachother? What havoc will that wreck on the legal system?