Homosexual Marriage

[La-SombrA]

I'm not religious at all, but I still think that a homosexual couple should have the same rights as a "normal" couple.

 

I really can't find any reason why they shouldn't.

 

What's your opinion?

[miffymiffmiff]

All for it...everyone has a right to happiness...unless they've been convicted of a major felony and are on death-row of course

[Spidey.]

Who cares? I say let them do whatever. Im not trying to marry any dudes, so it's really none of my buisness.

[Forfit]

As long as they do it without letting the whole world know, and then i wont know, i could care less.

[miffymiffmiff]

But weddings are all about letting people know...otherwise, why wear rings? (insert homosexuality based pun there.....and at the start)

[gta_player5]

Just wondering wouldnt this topic fit under Debates and Discussions forums?

 

Right now I have no current thought on the topic. I have not given it much thought so I really don't know what to say about it.

[Forfit]

But weddings are all about letting people know...otherwise, why wear rings? (insert homosexuality based pun there.....and at the start)

I meant having it nationally televised for the WORLD to see and then politics debating about it because they have nothing better to do.

[miffymiffmiff]

But weddings are all about letting people know...otherwise, why wear rings? (insert homosexuality based pun there.....and at the start)

I meant having it nationally televised for the WORLD to see and then politics debating about it because they have nothing better to do.

lol, I'll let you off then

[Alternative Child]

For, as someone once said, they deserve to be as misirable like the rest of us.

[Hard Margin]

I see no reason why they haven't already been given the freedom to marry.

[Luke15]

People are marrying animals for all we know, so why should it be different for gay?

 

I dont like what they do, but it doesnt make them different from everyone else.

 

[Twuan]

for me, it doesn't really matter if they have the right to marry or not

 

 

let them, I guess

[Snares]

I could care less, it will never affect me (hopefully )

 

I'm not particulary fond of gays, but it would be very biased for me to say gay marriage is wrong. Like mentioned, as long as they don't make a big deal of it, then I'm all for it.

[E.A.B.]

I wouldn't really give a f*ck. I'm not fond of gays and can't say I'm "excited" if there were a gay member in my family. But, if my best friend turned out to be gay, just don't flaunt it all over the place, don't act REALLY gay (like wearing dresses and talking about man ass) and don't tell me your dreams and what you do to guys.

 

I say let them marry! We already let people within the same family marry (I think I saw a chart on it) and we got guys f*cking cows (seriously, we do). 'Course, if there are too many gays in the world, the population goes down. As fas as I've heard, gays can't make children.

[Sillyhed2000]

There's no problem and hence no argument in my opinion. Let 'em marry. Why shouldn't they?

 

Go to hell, the Catholic Church.

[Mr Killer]

It doesn't really affect me and it won't affect me ever.

 

In fact, not too long ago on a radio station I listen to, 2day FM (104.1) in Sydney, they had this news reader, who was getting married to this other man, the hosts of the show told everyone to call up and express their opinions, many people agreed that it was ok for same-sex marriage. The marriage was illegal but they still did it and they have been together ever since as the news reader always talks about it when he reads the news. And it doesn't seem like anybody had a problem with it.

 

 

[Lwekk]

For starters the US government should not be allowed to regulate marriage what so ever, it is a violation of church and state, and secondly in the bible there is like one or two references to homosexuality and ten times that amount against divorce so the church needs to chill the f*ck out regarding something that they believe is "intimidating" or "new". Give it 5-10 years and it will be legal.

[Monoxide]

Against

Im not a churchy or anything like that I just beleive marrige is somthing traditionally reserved for a man and a woman in love. I am sure queers around the world will all be getting legally married soon still I disagree with it. If gay/lesbian couples want to have some sort of informal wedding and where rings or whatever then thats fine nobody is going to stop them, however they should not be legally in wedlock. I guess im a bit of a traditionalist same sex marriges just arent for me.

[K^2]

Against

Im not a churchy or anything like that I just beleive marrige is somthing traditionally reserved for a man and a woman in love. I am sure queers around the world will all be getting legally married soon still I disagree with it. If gay/lesbian couples want to have some sort of informal wedding and where rings or whatever then thats fine nobody is going to stop them, however they should not be legally in wedlock. I guess im a bit of a traditionalist same sex marriges just arent for me.

But consider the following: shouldn't the homosexual couples that choose to be togehter receive the same benefits as married couples? I personally would have no problem if the Mariage would be something defined as a union between a man and a woman as long as it is not legally recognized by the state. For any type of union that is recognized by the state, it must not matter if the couple is homo- or heterosexual.

[_cory_]

Against

Im not a churchy or anything like that I just beleive marrige is somthing traditionally reserved for a man and a woman in love. I am sure queers around the world will all be getting legally married soon still I disagree with it. If gay/lesbian couples want to have some sort of informal wedding and where rings or whatever then thats fine nobody is going to stop them, however they should not be legally in wedlock. I guess im a bit of a traditionalist same sex marriges just arent for me.

I kinda have to agree with you on that one.

 

Otherwise, what really is the point to getting married? You say I'll stay with you forever (you can say that whenever you want), you pledge to be loyal (you can do that anyway)...

 

What I'm saying is why should it be NECESSARY to have it called "marriage?"

(It's nothing that special anyways.)

 

On the other hand, I don't care too much. I mean, it's not up to me to decide how people live their lives, so... yeah.

[Donnie Ducko]

This is ridiculous! As a gay man, I myself am all for it. All these people who are against it is like saying black people can't marry!

 

[Magephil]

This is ridiculous! As a gay man, I myself am all for it. All these people who are against it is like saying black people can't marry!

 

sounds like a win-win situation

[E.A.B.]

Against

Im not a churchy or anything like that I just beleive marrige is somthing traditionally reserved for a man and a woman in love.

Yes, because we all know that gays can't fall in love .

 

Nah, but I see what you mean. You're entitled to your own opinion.

 

 

This is ridiculous! As a gay man, I myself am all for it. All these people who are against it is like saying black people can't marry!

 

 

I'll have to agree with you on that. A lot of gays have been getting beat up and killed, just because of their sexual preferences. I mean, I don't see no big thing with fags. They like the same sex, so what? But, I still don't like all that gay...stuff. I mean, two guys kissing and sh*t. But, like I said, do what you want. Give it a while, people will stop giving a f*ck about what you like .

[poopskin]

[slappers only] i'm HIGHly against gays. they should be burned at the stake.[/slappers only]

[reticulatingsplines]

The religious connotations of marriage are irrelevant unless you find a church that supports it (at last research, even Buddhists aren't fond of homosexuals either..), but as a binding contract with one another, I see no real issue with gay marriage.

 

If two people decide to take on such a choice, they should have the same rights and responsibilities as any other couple who makes the same choice. Sexual orientation makes absolutely no difference.

 

In Australia (and Queensland, to be precise) homosexual 'De-Factos' do not have anywhere near the same legal rights and protections with regards to domestic abuse as a heterosexual couple. This is a disgusting state of affairs because it shows a secular moralisation of legislation - something that should be avoided if seperation of church and state is to be protected.

[K^2]

I'm not sure if separation of church and state works at all. Most politicians still belong to one religion or other, so the majority religion still gets to set the rules. As long as the majority of the population has some form of religions problem with homosexual mariages, it is unlikely that the laws will improve.

[Breaking Bohan]

This issue is back in the news, as the governor of New York (or a NY Court) declared that NY-State would have to recognize gay marriages that were performed out of state. It looks like the trend is on - and all/most states are going to have to recognize gay marriages performed in other states (or else they will run into Constitutional challenges).

 

The one thing that bothers me about this is that the gov't shouldn't be able to define "marriage" - which to me is a religious concept first and a legal concept secondly - I think that gay persons should be able to have all the legal rights of married persons - fine by me - but if the state/government begins to force/coerce church's to recognize/sanction/perform these marriages - then I do find that to present some real problems.

[Otter]

...then the government should also be refrained from meddling with marriage at all. I'm all for that, but then the religious nutters who do have a big problem with gay marriage will have absolutely no right to say who can and can't get married - and they're not going to let that happen.

 

It comes down to a fear of becoming an outcast - if the different is celebrated then the traditional is cast aside, and no one wants to be cast aside. The problem with this sort of thinking is evident: it leads to arbitrary restrictions on human progress.

[Mad Tony]

Against

Im not a churchy or anything like that I just beleive marrige is somthing traditionally reserved for a man and a woman in love. I am sure queers around the world will all be getting legally married soon still I disagree with it. If gay/lesbian couples want to have some sort of informal wedding and where rings or whatever then thats fine nobody is going to stop them, however they should not be legally in wedlock. I guess im a bit of a traditionalist same sex marriges just arent for me.

I agree.

 

And another thing, you can bet a gay marriage would be really loud and annoying. Just look at the gay pride parades. I never understood those. Why make a parade about your sexuality? Yes, we know you're gay, so what?

[Otter]

So you think that tradition should dictate law?