Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Most

Gay Marriages...legal or not?

Recommended Posts

quote:

At the rate of decay, I give it max 25 years, and probably less........ you and I and our children will be alive when it happens.....


Damn straight, Jag. And for some reason, some morbid part of my personality can't wait.

As for gay marriages, I don't see any problem. I don't see gay marriages as showboating their homosexual pride any more than I see marrying a woman showboating a guys heterosexual pride.

Personally, I think the whole idea of marriage is stupid in the first place. You go to a priest to be told that you're souls are bound forever and ever (aka 5 years, being optimistic), which will magically seal your relationship somehow, only to get divorced a couple years down the road and lose half of everything you own... Sounds like a great idea! Where do I sign on?

But on a more serious note, I am disturbed by the fact that a lot of you seem to consider gays to be lesser, subhuman beings. If they want to get married(stupid), let them get married(stupid). I believe it was Silk who equated gays getting married to someone marrying their dog, because obviously, anyone who favors trends or lifestyles that differ from the norm are subhuman animals, right? Of course!

And I also believe it was Silk who spat out this gem:

quote:

but it isn't a "right" to have your degenerate behavior recognized, applauded, rubber-stamped, and paraded out for the masses.


There it is again. A person doesn't correspond with the norm "nuclear family" theory, therefore they must be amoral, subhuman degenerates, right? Of course! Besides, I bet a lot of us have first hand experience that the "nuclear family" has just about gone down the shitter anyway, and it would be pretty hard to make more of a mockery of it than we already have.

And besides, who are you to say that gays won't be more respectful of the sanctity of marriage than anyone else? God knows us heterosexuals haven't, considering the 50% divorce rate, which, unless I'm mistaken, is the highest ever. You swear your undying love of your partner to god, and then a couple years later you say "Screw it, I hate you." So I fail to see how gays can do any more harm than we have.

Also, they're not shoving it down our throats, they're celebrating their commitment to each other. It is no more of showboating than when you get married to a woman (unless you are a woman in which case you get married to a man). If I have the right to show off how much I love my partner, than I feel it would be an injustice to strip that right from gays.

In summary, before you automatically dismiss gays as being somewhere around your average toe-nail fungus on the evolutionary ladder(uh oh, I hope i didn't spark another debate using the 'E' word), perhaps you should give them a chance, hmm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DeepFreeze I LIKE you. Most moderate response I have seen I think.

(But you misspelled $ilk. $ilk is $ilk with a dollar sign aka Cmdr Cooper. We also have a Silk running around here.)

This thread has gone way beyond my ability or inclination to respond to every thing.

Just a few things, maybe more, or not.

To LostInSpace A great Non Sequitor panel. I love Non Sequitor. Just for you. Grab it quick. Yahoo tends to change addresses as the panels get older and they eventually fall off the page.

Now, the first thing you have to ask is does gay marriage cause harm. I don't think so. Exactly whom does gay marriage harm? What physical damage does gay marriage cause to anyone? The AIDS argument I think is false as a monogamous gay marriage should be as disease free as a monogamous heterosexual marriage.

Again to LostInSpace: about the children issue. Should be the same as heterosexual marriage. They want marriage they take the bad with the good.

Exactly (or whatever reasonable statistic you wish to use) how much of the population is gay? It's not like you are going to open your closet and three gay couples spill out looking embarrassed.

World resources: This is almost silly but if a gay couple gets married and lives together then there is that much hmore room for someone else. Using the same house instead of two and all. And saves some (probably miniscule) amount of energy. Takes less to heat or cool one house instead of two.

Crud: lost my mouse pointer. Don't laugh. I'm gonna tab to the add reply then shut down and restart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Cmdr Chavik:

To LostInSpace
Just for you. Grab it quick. Yahoo tends to change addresses as the panels get older and they eventually fall off the page.


Wow, someone else came up with that about lawyers too! Mine was just the spurt of the moment "trying to be humorous" and "who would benefit more from this" thinking for a response to this thread. Maybe there is something to my comment after all. Thanks for the link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now I have almost lost my train of thought.

Ohhhhhhh: Survivor ships rights and medical care rights. Yes all that can be taken care of with powers of attorney, wills, and what not, but "marriage" makes it so much simpler.

That's about it I think. Directed at no one in particular unless specified.

Destruction of America needs to be a new thread. Social Security as well. Damme them baby boomers for not having enough kids to fund themselves through retirement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFreeze:

I am disturbed by the fact that a lot of you seem to consider gays to be lesser, subhuman beings.

That's not the point, the point is that before when you committed Adultery, Fornication, or engaged in other "Deviant" Sexual behavior, it was something that people were ashamed of, and rightly so, now it's showboated in front of the whole world to see, but that's not enough, in addition "I" must accept this behavior because otherwise I'm a "Bigot".

Heck my cousin was telling me that the other day he got an email of some woman doing it with a dog. A DOG! What's the hell is next? I'm forced to buy Filtering software to keep all the trash away from my kids, because someone else thinks he has the "Right" to send my kids Porn! Where does it end?

20 Years ago, you wouldn't see people proudly standing up and saying "I have a venerial disease!" and have other people applaud. But that's exactly what's going on with people who have AIDS these days, it's like, I got this venerial diseas and I'm proud. Give me break!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Then you have the latest and greatest new giveaway, prescription drugs. Social Security, forget about it, that ponzi scheme is going to explode in less then 5 years, the baby boomers are starting to hit, and when that happens, WHAM!! Forget about it....

Your right, this sounds like what Sir Alex Fraser Tyler Said:

quote:

Sir Alex Fraser Tytler:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world?s great civilizations has been 200 years.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Cmdr Chavik:

The AIDS argument I think is false as a monogamous gay marriage should be as disease free as a monogamous heterosexual marriage.

I remember reading this statistic somewhere. "The Average Gay man has had well over 100 sexual partners."

Why do you think that AIDS spread throughout the Gay community the fastest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

quote:

Bush is doing away with it by pushing the anti-homosexual marriage stuff.

What about the anti-marry your dog crowd - they are stopping liberty!

Marriage as an institution was founded on certain principles. When you get married it is ocnsidered "under God" and thus should follow along with God's rules hmmm?

Homosexual/Bi/Trans/Metro/Necro whatever you want to be trying to forc the same "rights" to apply to them is not for the purpose of overcoming some civil disability -

Name one thing that's changed in the lives of these gays getting married besides showing off on T.V. and getting marriage certificates signed against the will of the voters - and illegally - supported only by the obscure rulings of activist judges gone insane.

quote:

Instead, they push their meaning of it.


So they push the meaning that should be common sense considering it's been the norm for the past few millenia? And because some people get together and form a large community based on sexual degeneracy - it's only fair to alter our own belief structure to accept theirs?

I mean seriously - I'm tired of the "let's be understanding" crap. I don't care what you are going to do in the privacy of your own home. Do guys, chicks, animals, whatever. But the moment that this behavior is pushed out for us to accept as normal is where I draw the line. It's not normal.

How does it affect me? It's not physically harming me no - but it's desensitizing my children and a vast majority of the people of the world to a completely unnatural unhealthy lifestyle which is based 99.9% on sexual perversion which is something that we as society as a whole should not accept.

quote:

Though from an extremely cynical point of view, it would at least help with the overpopulation problem.

True enough - but at what cost?

quote:

I did not say that you should accept the other side without question - just that you not throw it aside without looking at it. Some things, may be inherently wrong, but that doesnt mean that those you disagree with completely wrong, either.


There are sometimes in life where things really are as plain as black and white. Some things are just plain wrong.

quote:

Also, what is NAMBLA? Not familiar with that acronym.


North-American Man-Boy Love Associate - a group of grown men who believe it's their constitutional right to have sex with young boys. Imagine that they have a support base in the same areas where these activist judges made their ruling - who knew?

quote:

At the rate of decay, I give it max 25 years, and probably less........ you and I and our children will be alive when it happens.....

Hopefully things will straighten out. I believe this upcoming election is pivitol towards deciding the future of our nation.

quote:

This Gay marriage thing is just a symptom of the disease, the disease is rampant or it would never have gotten this far.

Yeah I feel like the little boy at the sea wall holding his finger in the little hole to stop the leak while all the other leaks are busting at the seams...

quote:

But on a more serious note, I am disturbed by the fact that a lot of you seem to consider gays to be lesser, subhuman beings. If they want to get married(stupid), let them get married(stupid). I believe it was Silk who equated gays getting married to someone marrying their dog, because obviously, anyone who favors trends or lifestyles that differ from the norm are subhuman animals, right? Of course!


I fully support the rights of gays in all areas in which they currently enjoy them - 100% equal with the same rights any other person has.

Marriage is between a man and a woman - period. If a gay man wants to get married, he needs to marry a woman. If he wants to enjoy the "benefits" of marriage - he can enter into appropriate legal contracts.

The marriage issue is simply an attempt to be more "shocking" and "in your face" about the entire gay issue. Marriage IS a religious institution and should fall under the Bible. Any other kind of arrangement that gay/lesbian couples want to make falls under state or government law - but not to the extent that marriage is.

quote:

There it is again. A person doesn't correspond with the norm "nuclear family" theory, therefore they must be amoral, subhuman degenerates, right? Of course!

According to religious law which is the foundation of marriage - right-O

Note once again that I have not ruled out (and even pointed out many alternatives for the gay community to take) other arrangements that they can make - without compromising religious law through our state/government laws.

quote:

And besides, who are you to say that gays won't be more respectful of the sanctity of marriage than anyone else?

Uhhh... if you didn't understand that the sanctity of marriage refers to the biblical definition of marriage - you are now. And you are also no doubt aware (at least now) that homosexual behavior is considered a "sin" and it's pretty straight forward that things aren't inteded to be that way through so much as lust - much less making a mockery of the marital system by forcing your own.

quote:

Also, they're not shoving it down our throats, they're celebrating their commitment to each other. It is no more of showboating than when you get married to a woman (unless you are a woman in which case you get married to a man). If I have the right to show off how much I love my partner, than I feel it would be an injustice to strip that right from gays.

Thanks for clarifying that... I feel so much better! Hey guys - when I get married again, I want all of us to get on this big giant float that we can roll down Times Square in the replica of the female breasts... I'm going to have the anatomy of the vagina splayed out on a t-shirt and I'm going to have "I'm proud to be Hetero" splayed across the back of my shirt. I'm then going to make it clear in no uncertain terms to any newscaster that will listen that "It's OKAY to be straight!" and fight for my civil rights to enjoy heterosexual intercourse whenever I please with whomever I please - and I'm going to talk about it and force everyone down to your children's kindergarden teacher to tell your kids "It's okay and we must understand that $iLk is heterosexual and explain to your children the dynamics of it"

Wait a second... I don't have to do that because what I do in the privacy of my own home is *Gasp* no one's business! And it sure as hell isn't my business to MAKE it everyone else's business.

quote:

In summary, before you automatically dismiss gays as being somewhere around your average toe-nail fungus on the evolutionary ladder(uh oh, I hope i didn't spark another debate using the 'E' word), perhaps you should give them a chance, hmm?


Homosexuals are people just like anyone else - but their lifestyle is inherently wrong. There are plenty of other moral and philosophical qualms that I have against ALL people - but gays have been the subject of this thread and thus I have concentrated on their behavior. Please understand that I have no more against a gay man doing what he does best in the privacy of his own home than I do against a heterosexual man doing what he does in the privacy of his own -home and am equally appaled at either making a mockery of the institution of marriage through whatever causation.

quote:

That's not the point, the point is that before when you committed Adultery, Fornication, or engaged in other "Deviant" Sexual behavior, it was something that people were ashamed of, and rightly so, now it's showboated in front of the whole world to see, but that's not enough, in addition "I" must accept this behavior because otherwise I'm a "Bigot".


Yeah just ask my ex-wife about that one. Good post darkling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by echo:

of marriage and I will be considered to be committing audultery by the Catholic Church unless I pay them 700.00, or leave, i chose the later.

~He who is without sin cast the first stone~ I cannot comment on this subject as I myself have abused the sacrementNot sure if I quoted that right or not.


Really? Wow, that's disturbing that the Church's forgiveness has a monetary price.

On the subject of gay marriage.

Personally I don't have a problem with gays doing what ever they want to to. I am not gay and not headed that way, but what ever floats your boat as long as it doesn't harm others is OK with me.

I also think Bush is treading dangerous waters when he starts calling for a constitutional ammendment to ban same sex marriages and he may get the opposite of what he wants.

We may end up with an ammendment guaranteeing people the right to marry who ever they want regardless of race, creed, color or sexual preference.

The constitution calls for the seperation of church and state and this proposed ammendment by Bush seems to me to be solely based on religious beliefs of the moral majority which is in direct defiance. Also, ammendments usually protect the rights of the people not take them away.

I haven't really considered all the monetary aspects of what this might do... medical insurance, taxes, welfare etc etc etc.

One thing for sure is that the lawyers are going to clean up sorting this all out. cha-ching $$$

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Most:

Whats your view on it?

I'm just trying to find out how the majority of people here feel about this subject.


IMO, the institution of marriage should be preserved - same sex or not.

HOWEVER, marriage is a union of two people and I have no idea how this very premise [marriage] came about, but whatever he/she/it was thinking when they came up with that - particularly - bright idea, didn't bargain for same sex unions.

What's marriage anyway these days? A couple can live together for as long as they like, without getting married. In fact, it is no longer an insurance, legal, tax or similar requisite. To the extent that there are dozens of resources, books etc all of which show the legal options open to couples who don't want to or don't need to, be married. Here are just a few from my Amazon search.

Living Together - A legal guide for unmarried couples

Unmarried to each other

Shacking Up : The Smart Girl's Guide to Living in Sin Without Getting Burned

Prenups for Lovers: A Romantic Guide to Prenuptial Agreements

Don't You Dare Get Married Until You Read This! The Book of Questions for Couples

Getting Ready for Marriage Workbook : How to Really Get to Know the Person You're Going to Marry

Intellectual Foreplay: Questions for Lovers and Lovers-To-Be

The Book of Fabulous Questions: Great Conversation Starters About Love, Sex and Other Personal Stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by $iLk:

quote:

The constitution calls for the seperation of church and state

Where?


Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marriage has changed over the years

Interesting article. Supports Grizzle's comment about property. I stumbled across while trying to find a US Government study that stated some seagulls were gay. I remember reading about it just can't find it. So much for homosexuality not being natural. At least in some cases. It only comes up for me if I type in "gay birds" in the search engine. Hehe. That's funny. As always with a Yahoo link grab it quick.

quote:

By me Chavik

Technically
probably legal.

I was mostly wrong. Read somewhere today that only 12 states do not specify that marriage should be between a man and a woman. But Most did specify in his opening statement what our opinion on it was so I think it should be allowed.

Monogamy is not natural either. Species of birds are monogamous but some aren't and a lot of mammals aren't but some are. And dogs do hump each other but I will admit it more of a domination thing. Can we drop the marry a dog thing? Dogs can't talk or make decisions the same way a free thinking adult can.

NAMBLA should be stopped. Children cannot make decisions either and tend to do what adults tell them.

I would also allow civil union that gives the same rights as marriage but the gay community seems hung up on the word marriage. Eh, give it to 'em.

So what's wrong with Gay Marriage? What makes it not right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Andergum:

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

quote:

The constitution calls for the seperation of church and state

Where?


Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Sorry Andergum, but that HAS NOTHING to do with a separation of Church and state.

All it says is the governement cannot create and official state religion, that's it, that's all.

The separation of Church and state was MADE up by activist judges.

The clause NEVER existed, does NOT exist, and was never intended by the founding fathers to exist.

The separation fo church and state is a legal fiction made up by the courts...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

Ya beat me to it Jag -

And Andergum even though I know the full definition hasn't been attacked in this thread I want to make a few points:

quote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; meaning that now law can be created to either establish a religion nor preventing anyone who already has a belief from expressing it. There is no "separation of church and state" in the meaning that libs use it. John Ashcroft (though he's an idiot *looks over shoulder for Big Brother*) was attacked because of his religious ideals during his nomination and it was said that he couldn't effectively work in government since he was religious... totally ignoring:

quote:

that "no religious test shall ever be required, as a" qualification to any office or public trust, under the "United States."

So whether an atheist or a Christian or a Muslim it doesn't really matter. There is no separation other than the fact that your religious views cannot be questioned.

All that by itself probably lends credence to the argument that gay marriage as a matter of law shouldn't be questioned - except when taking into account the following.

U.S. Code:

TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 7 > SUBCHAPTER II > Sec. 416.

Defines the term husband and wife and marriage several times

There are at least 100 other sections of the U.S. code which define husband, wife, widow, widower, etc. in relation to marriage. The above get's you started.

So as a matter of established law - it's perfectly legal to prevent gay marriage - considering that it's only one court's ruling (4-3) that preventing it is unconstitutional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Jaguar:

Sorry Andergum, but that HAS NOTHING to do with a separation of Church and state.

All it says is the governement cannot create and official state religion, that's it, that's all.

The separation of Church and state was MADE up by activist judges.

The clause NEVER existed, does NOT exist, and was never intended by the founding fathers to exist.

The separation fo church and state is a legal fiction made up by the courts... [/QB]


link

Not my doing, but if they can't get school prayer passed what chance do you think this would have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by $iLk:

Ya beat me to it Jag -

And Andergum even though I know the full definition hasn't been attacked in this thread I want to make a few points:

quote:

.

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; meaning that now law can be created to either establish a religion nor preventing anyone who already has a belief from expressing it. There is no "separation of church and state" in the meaning that libs use it. John Ashcroft (though he's an idiot *looks over shoulder for Big Brother*) was attacked because of his religious ideals during his nomination and it was said that he couldn't effectively work in government since he was religious... totally ignoring:

quote:


that "no religious test shall ever be required, as a" qualification to any office or public trust, under the "United States."

So whether an atheist or a Christian or a Muslim it doesn't really matter. There is no separation other than the fact that your religious views cannot be questioned.

All that by itself probably lends credence to the argument that gay marriage as a matter of law shouldn't be questioned - except when taking into account the following.

U.S. Code:

TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 7 > SUBCHAPTER II > Sec. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion416.

Defines the term husband and wife and marriage several times

There are at least 100 other sections of the U.S. code which define husband, wife, widow, widower, etc. in relation to marriage. The above get's you started.

So as a matter of established law - it's perfectly legal to prevent gay marriage - considering that it's only one court's ruling (4-3) that preventing it is unconstitutional.


Look, I don't condone gay marriage at all, but watch out, they have just begun to re-write things like this.

I think it is more likely that any ammendment concerning gay marriage will be giving that right to gays not preventing them from marrying.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Can and has been interpreted that no laws can be made that respect the wishes or beliefs of an organized religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deep Freeze; I like you too!!

As side note: I gave up being Catholic, found a less judgemental Christian Denomination

SC: Thanks for the list, might save me from a next time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welp, as a gay man (and living with my partner of almost 18 years now), neither of us want to "marry". However, it would be nice if we could be legally recognized. I don't give a flip about the religious aspect of it (your religious beliefs are just as personal as who your "sleep" with and I don't think religion should crammed down anyone's throat). How many "marriages" are performed by civil servants (outside of a church). In all the years that we've been together, we've never once encountered a problem. He was in the hospital for an appendectomy a few years back. The doctor's and staff treated me well. The doc came to me after the surgery to discuss how it went and the like. But they aren't legally bound to do that like they would be with a man/wife sitch.

I don't see the need for "marriage" but civil recognition would be nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering how many responses there are I'll just post a small something that I've been thinking over for a while.

Why should the state be legislating marriage at all? Why can we not take these benefits bestowed and name them to something such as civil unions, in all cases, or some other PC term that describes such benefits? Then allow any couple to obtain these similarly to how one obtains a marriage license.

From there they could simply let private institutions such as churches preform marriage ceremonies however they see fit. Marriage in itself is a word very mired in religion, so why can't we just let it stay that way and rename the government benefits to something other then a religious term? This way I think each side gets something they want. The gays and lesbians may obtain the same benefits, but the other side of the equation gets to keep their marriage term as applied only to ceremonies that their churches will practice, which most likely will only be between a man and a woman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with ya, Fallout2man. I must say that I don't support what is happening in the various cities in the US. We have laws...and laws can always be changed by working within the law. Citizens have always been discouraged from taking the law into their own hands and that applies here as well. Many countries in Europe (from what I hear) have separated the marriage ceremony and the civil ceremony. Thus, if you have a religious ceremony, nothing legal is implied until you have a civil service.

I do ponder something. Athiests are allowed to "marry" and no one seems to object. They certainly don't have it done in a religious institution. Civil ceremonies are becoming more and more common place (heck, go to Vegas and get hitched). So I don't really see the "beef" about letting a loving couple (meaning 2 consenting adults)enter into a legal aggreement/partnership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bah, gays only have to come in canada then, gay marriages are legal here since less than a year.

Marriage re-defined

quote:

the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of others

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×