Gay Marriage

People are given the freedom to make choices(free will) so with that said it shouldnt matter what they decide to do in regards to who they choose to have a relationship with. If its a sin its a sin, thats their problem. Gay marriages arent gonna end the world. I read a comment about gays getting married to save money on taxes (something like that) but its not like straight couples dont hook up for some of the same benefits. Gay couples already live together, they are already around kids and I dont really see how gay marriages will greatly change society for the worse considering whether or not they tie the knot they will still exist in everyday life. We talk about values but its not like every straight household is perfect, there are abusve couples, irresponsible parens etc etc etc. A christian once told me leave all judgment unto God so its not really my place to criticize anyone's actions.

A christian once told me leave all judgment unto God so its not really my place to criticize anyone's actions.

That has to be about the dumbest thing I've heard in long time! Sure, rapers, murderers, child molesters are all best left alone, cause they'll get what they deserve anyway. WHAT IF NOT??? Geez... But don't get me started about church here, cuse that'd be way too off-topic.

A christian once told me leave all judgment unto God so its not really my place to criticize anyone's actions.

on a churhy note, remember god created women for a purpose, its adam and eve not adam and steve

That has to be about the dumbest thing I've heard in long time! Sure, rapers, murderers, child molesters are all best left alone, cause they'll get what they deserve anyway. WHAT IF NOT??? Geez... But don't get me started about church here, cuse that'd be way too off-topic.

Where in what I typed up did I refer to rapists and all of that? What I typed was regarding gay marriages. When I talked about "a christian once told me" I was more referring to those chanting about their christian beliefs yet sit there being overly criticical about everything. It's not my place to judge who wants to marry who, thats not my business. Even with rapists or child molesters, people do what they do, that doesnt mean I support it but this is just how the world is today.

its adam and eve not adam and steve

More originiality please.

wow... Riot, your "reasons" against gay marriage are completely ludicrous.

Did you read what I wrote? This is a list of reasons I found on a site on the internet. I don't agree with most of it but my last point I did agree with.

These aren't morals. They're standards. Big difference.

I wasn't talking about having one father and one mother as being morals. I was talking about the structure of a family (1 dad, 1 mom) and then I mentioned that a lot of people think morals would go down the drain with gay marriage. The two sentences were two completely different points.

[quote[Incestual relationships? Again, not something I would do, but if they are two consenting partners, I don't think there is anything anyone should be able to say to deny them marriage.[/quote]

This is excatly what I am talking about. People start talking about gay marriage and how if "two consenting adults" want to get married they should be able to. Then someone brings up incest and the people who are pro-gay marriage have nothing to say about incestual marriage. You see what I mean? The definition of marriage has been one man and one woman for so long. If you start adding one man and one man and one woman and one woman what will stop some rednecks from wanting one brother and one sister part of that, too?

I'm not against it but if you see that the church doesn't admit it, just don't get married!
What do you gain getting married? Some couples that are not married are way happier than some married couples...I just don't see the point of gay people wanting to get married, even if they know the church doesn't admit it.

I'm not against it but if you see that the church doesn't admit it, just don't get married!
What do you gain getting married? Some couples that are not married are way happier than some married couples...I just don't see the point of gay people wanting to get married, even if they know the church doesn't admit it.

1. They save money

2. They want something to bitch about

I wasn't talking about having one father and one mother as being morals. I was talking about the structure of a family (1 dad, 1 mom) and then I mentioned that a lot of people think morals would go down the drain with gay marriage. The two sentences were two completely different points.

I'd be willing to bet, Riot, that a lot of people on these forums dont even have the "family structure" you're talking about. I bet many people live with their mom during the week and their father during the weekends, or maybe just one parent full time.

This is excatly what I am talking about. People start talking about gay marriage and how if "two consenting adults" want to get married they should be able to. Then someone brings up incest and the people who are pro-gay marriage have nothing to say about incestual marriage. You see what I mean? The definition of marriage has been one man and one woman for so long. If you start adding one man and one man and one woman and one woman what will stop some rednecks from wanting one brother and one sister part of that, too?

Seriously Riot, how can you associate gay marriage with incestous relationships? You think Rick and Jeff getting married in Maryland is going to make a brother and sister in Mississippi want to get married? Most incestous relationships happen in uneducated situations. They're people who probably dont even follow politics anyway.

And why dont you go look up the definition of marriage on dictionary.com. It doesnt definine it as a man and a woman. Only the bible and other religious texts do, and they dont matter at all. If Gay Marriage is a sin, why dont we just execute anyone who violates the ten commandments? Why dont we put you in jail every time you say the lords name in vain?

Theres a seperation of church and state for a reason. Even your beloved Vice President's daughter is a lesbian who, I'm sure, only speaks out against gay marriage because of her father. Seriously, thats like a woman who doesnt want women to vote.

Anyone who's against gay marriage doesnt understand the situation and other further displays their ignorance by speaking out against it.

Seriously Riot, how can you associate gay marriage with incestous relationships? You think Rick and Jeff getting married in Maryland is going to make a brother and sister in Mississippi want to get married? Most incestous relationships happen in uneducated situations. They're people who probably dont even follow politics anyway.

And why dont you go look up the definition of marriage on dictionary.com. It doesnt definine it as a man and a woman. Only the bible and other religious texts do, and they dont matter at all. If Gay Marriage is a sin, why dont we just execute anyone who violates the ten commandments? Why dont we put you in jail every time you say the lords name in vain?

Theres a seperation of church and state for a reason. Even your beloved Vice President's daughter is a lesbian who, I'm sure, only speaks out against gay marriage because of her father. Seriously, thats like a woman who doesnt want women to vote.

Anyone who's against gay marriage doesnt understand the situation and other further displays their ignorance by speaking out against it.

I never said they were related but if you think marriage should be between, and I quote, "two consenting adults" then you will have people who will want to marry their siblings. Or maybe even having more than one wife. It's just a snowball effect that COULD happen if you use those words to describe marriage. Some people find gay marriage to be un-moral, just like most people find brother-sister marriages to be un-moral. I know a few gay people who don't give a rats ass about gay marriage. It's the stupid people who want to "celebrate gayness" and make big protests that piss me off and that really want gay marriage. They want gay marriage because they can't have gay marriage.

Silas, all Riot is saying is that if gay marriage is widely accepted, where does it stop? He's not saying that gay marriage directly relates to incest, so stop trying to argue that point.

Also, it wouldn't stop at incest. What about polygamy? Who knows? 30 years ago, who would've thought that gay marriage would become legal? We went astray from the basic principle of marriage; One Woman, One Man...incest and polygamy could very well become accepted in time with the way we're going.

I was wondering if some foreigner could get American citizenship through gay marriage. If so then therein lies the problem.

And let's try to keep the religious bullshit to a minimum. I don't think you realize how many holes your opinion has if you use religion and/or morals as an excuse.

That's stupid. Can't use your morals to guide your personal opinion? Then how can you form an opinion on a "moral" topic?

Basically, what you're saying is that you want to filter everything so that only "facts" that support your theories are allowed.

And since, I can probably logically conclude you find their "religious" or "moral" point of view as intolerant. You're telling them "If you're going to be intolerant, I'm not allowing you to speak."

Which is, and of itself, intolerant.

Just saying.

Nothing imposed by the Bible or any other religious mandate are associated with the laws of the government.

Except, almost all initial common law is derived from the Bible. Thou shall not kill, steal, all that good stuff.

Freedom of religion and freedom "from" religion merely means that the State cannot restrict your ability to practice your religion (by outlawing them) nor can it establish any official state religion. The freedoms do not outlaw a member of the government, be he President, Congressman, Desk Clerk, from using his religion to decide his point of view, method of action and so forth on any issue. If all of Congress votes 535-0 on an issue, and every single member of it states they voted that way because the Bible said so, and the President signs the bill stating the same thing, it is not overturned because of "seperation of church and state" because it does not violate either of the freedom clauses.

All that out of the way.

I am not opposed to gay marriage. I am not opposed to a man marrying his hand, cat or dog. Homer did a fine job opening that chapel in his garage.

I am opposed to the pro-gay marriage movement. And the federal anti-gay marriage movement.

Those who wish to introduce an amendment is the US constitution to ban gay marriage are idiots and fools. Such an act is nothing short of diminishing the constitution. Like balanced budget, flag burning and the various equal right amendments. All are idiotic gross extentions of constitutional oversight.

The federal government should not be involved in marriage in anyway, either for or against gay marriage. It is a state issue, and as a federal level compromise should stay that way. Two-thirds to three-fourths of the country is against gay marriage, but this differs state by state, states that would support should allow it. No state should elevate any ban to the constitutional level, which is why I voted against Michigan Proposal 2 in 2004 (and became one of only 4% of ballots that voted for Bush but against Prop 2...while nearly half of Kerry ballots voted for Prop 2) and convinced some anti-gay people to vote against it as well. Same-sex marriage was already against the law in Michigan, and elevating to the constitution went against the American style of constitutions. (Which in contrast to European style ones usually states restrictions on the State instead of stating "rights" of the people.) There's also praticial reasoning to this, if gay marriage is simply against the law, in 5, 10, 30 years, when/if gay marriage has 50%+1 support in a state that was 75% against, it could easily be overturned, and no longer becomes an issue.

In the meantime however. States should not be forced to recognize gay marriages or any other marriages if they don't wish to, states already don't recognize a number of hetero-marriages for various reasons. The courts should not in anyway be involved, should not be shoving gay marriage down the throats of those who oppose it. The judiciary already rules by fiat enough.

A perfect solution however would be to remove marriage benefits from the lexicon. I've occasionally made this point to some with religious opposition to gay marriage. I ask, is the State not taking marriage away from the church? What was once blessed by the church, by God, etc. is now simply paperwork from the State. Having the State ban gay marriage is as much as a weakning of marriage as the State allowing gay marriage because it enroches the State further into marriage.

They want gay marriage because they can't have gay marriage.

This is potentially the smartest thing Riot may have ever said.

And the evidence is there, as almost all those who got married when the San Francisco mayor went rogue, they had already broken up before their marriages were invalidated.

I'm going to be fair and provide some anti-gay marriage arguments...that are different from those stated. Ones that are outside the "moral" arguments and are instead pragmatic ones, and ones that are slowly growing in the non-religious/moral faction of the anti-gay marriage movement. (Yes, I read a lot, too much even, and from all sides of issues. Methinks it's the best way to discover your own opinion. Even if it doesn't wind up unchanged from where you started. It will nevertheless refine it.)

While it can't be necessarily proven, it does correlate though, cohabitation has shown to depress marriage rates. Increasing single parent "families" which correlates with increases in undesirible areas.

While 50% of marriages end in divorce and the rest in death, heterosexual marriages have the spawning factor. They may stay together for the kids, which while it can be harmful at times, more often than not is a good thing for the children if the parents aren't nutjobs. While homosexuals can ably raise children at more then likely similar success rates (which is not a promotion of homosexuals, but instead a criticism of the quality of heterosexual parents) if the child is not theirs there is a greater ease at which to withdraw from the child and any greater relationship. Something that is shown greatly in heterosexual relationships and compounded in homosexual ones.

Anyone who's against gay marriage doesnt understand the situation and other further displays their ignorance by speaking out against it.

Isn't that just wunderbar wilfull ignorance.

With your last statement, I'm trying to understand what your saying. You say since the child is not their child, it isnt the same relationship and has a much higher risk of not ending with a successful result because they parents wont be as "attached" or feel as olibgated to fufill the parent role?

Two men can't fuck each other and have a baby pop out of their anus.

That's stupid. Can't use your morals to guide your personal opinion? Then how can you form an opinion on a "moral" topic?

Basically, what you're saying is that you want to filter everything so that only "facts" that support your theories are allowed.

And since, I can probably logically conclude you find their "religious" or "moral" point of view as intolerant. You're telling them "If you're going to be intolerant, I'm not allowing you to speak."

Which is, and of itself, intolerant.

I don't want this topic to become a topic about homosexuality. We already had one of those. People who bring their religion into the picture aren't intolerant of gay marriage -- their intolerant of gays.

I truly think that anyone who uses morals and religion as an excuse is homophobic, either that or they haven't looked at all angles of the issue.

And you know what? I'm intolerant of homophobia. I'm also intolerant of murder, rape, and theft. So thank you, benji, for reminding me that I am an intolerant person, and I see nothing wrong with that.

While 50% of marriages end in divorce and the rest in death, heterosexual marriages have the spawning factor. They may stay together for the kids, which while it can be harmful at times, more often than not is a good thing for the children if the parents aren't nutjobs. While homosexuals can ably raise children at more then likely similar success rates (which is not a promotion of homosexuals, but instead a criticism of the quality of heterosexual parents) if the child is not theirs there is a greater ease at which to withdraw from the child and any greater relationship. Something that is shown greatly in heterosexual relationships and compounded in homosexual ones.

I think you know that this argument sucks. It's a cop-out. We don't truly know that this would happen. And tell me what is so bad about it? Divorces happen for a reason, and as a person whose parents live in separate houses, despite being married for over fourteen years, I can honestly say they made the right decision. People make mistakes, people fall out of love. This statistic, whether it increases or decreases, does absolutely no harm.

If the child wont be brought up as well because the gay parents wont be true parents, why dont we just end all the adoption services?

If the child wont be brought up as well because the gay parents wont be true parents, why dont we just end all the adoption services?

That is a brilliant idea! Let's all write to our congressmen.

Hell, you know what they say, better to raise the child in the booze ridden drug infested problem crazed single parent family rather than have them live a good life as an adopted child.

Hell, you know what they say, better to raise the child in the booze ridden drug infested problem crazed single parent family rather than have them live a good life as an adopted child.

Hell, why not just send that poor child to Iraq to use as our own sucide bombers? I mean, you have to fight fire with fire, right?

People who bring their religion into the picture aren't intolerant of gay marriage -- their intolerant of gays.

I truly think that anyone who uses morals and religion as an excuse is homophobic, either that or they haven't looked at all angles of the issue.

Well, there's no way to say that. You can be oppposed to gay marriage without being afraid of gays, or even minding if they bump ugly with people of the same sex.

And you know what? I'm intolerant of homophobia. I'm also intolerant of murder, rape, and theft. So thank you, benji, for reminding me that I am an intolerant person, and I see nothing wrong with that.

I never said there was, but I don't want people claiming they're tolerant people and then lashing out against those they find "intolerant" as most are quick to do.

I think you know that this argument sucks. It's a cop-out. We don't truly know that this would happen. And tell me what is so bad about it? Divorces happen for a reason, and as a person whose parents live in separate houses, despite being married for over fourteen years, I can honestly say they made the right decision. People make mistakes, people fall out of love. This statistic, whether it increases or decreases, does absolutely no harm.

I was just bringing non-religious arguments to the fore.

I acknowledged that there are exceptions to divorce being the best action. However, crime rates and other undesirables correlate with single parent rates. I don't think anyone would seriously argue that society would be better off with a 100% or even 51% unmarried parent rate.

It just makes no sense for a person to say, "I'm not afraid of gays, I'm just afraid if they get married"

Most people's feelings don't make sense. Love causes people to think in ways that doesn't make sense. Other things do the same.

Well, I certainly wouldn't want to see a couple young boys one day walk by some gay men kissing and making out.
When we young, we tend to stay to the same sex.. like having a girlfriend when you was young seemed funny, but having male friends was ok. Seeing 2 males make out COULD possibly make you want to try that. When thy try it, see its OK, they might keep doing it and will possibly be gay for life

Well, there's no way to say that. You can be oppposed to gay marriage without being afraid of gays, or even minding if they bump ugly with people of the same sex.

Give me an example. I'm honestly curious of how someone can truly be against gay marriage without being against gays.

I never said there was, but I don't want people claiming they're tolerant people and then lashing out against those they find "intolerant" as most are quick to do.

I can lash out against people intolerant of gays -- they're close-minded and discriminatory. I mean, we as an open-minded society have established that being intolerant to somethings is good and that being intolerant to others is bad. I don't even think you're in favor of what you're trying to argue, as I'm sure you think it's fair to place judgement upon those intolarant of homsexuality.

I acknowledged that there are exceptions to divorce being the best action. However, crime rates and other undesirables correlate with single parent rates. I don't think anyone would seriously argue that society would be better off with a 100% or even 51% unmarried parent rate.

Question: Are we even taking into account the number of people who re-marry?

Furthermore, aren't single parent families assosciated more so with the abandonment or death of one party? I mean, they don't necessarily run hand-in-hand with divorce. Divorce is just a sub-category, and I'm honestly too lazy to find statistics on how much weight it should hold.