Well, me and my boyfriend have been talking ( yes. a gay couple on RV, ZOMG ).. anyway.

We were laughing at how the US left it up to the states for Gay marriage to be legal or not. So. Do you think it should be legal, or illegal?

If so, post why. and I understand many will bring the bible into this, but don't base your WHOLE argument off of the bible..

__________________

__________________

__________________

I'm a member!



Who the hell do you think we are?!

Yeah, when African Americans boycotted the buses, all they wanted to be is accepted by everyone else. It ended up being, well actually it worked quite well. While a boycott may be different from a day of silence, they both show that large portions of our society are made up of some type of minority. Imagine if everyone that believed homosexuals should have rights was silent. Do you know how still our society would be standing? It may look like it's counter-productive, but it's showing that the movement is growing, and that you can't just ignore them anymore. If they just sat back because they wanted to be accepted by everyone, nothing would change. Gay marriage would not move forward, nothing would happen. Doing something out of the ordinary to bring attention to it, however can change everything.

__________________

Thanks Goten for the siggy.
Thanks Viruz for the avvy.

Well the way the question is phrased almost opens the door to a debate on states rights, but Ill leave that door shut for now.

As for gay marriage, I am not opposed to it. However, I think it is critical that the issue of civil unions be tackled first. Many people only take offense to calling it marriage, and are in favor of granting gay couples the same rights and benefits (ie inheritance, tax issues) of married heterosexual couples. I feel that making a move towards civil unions will be a huge stride towards marriage itself. I will be shocked if gay marriages arent legal in most states in the next 20 years.

__________________

Hidden: 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Doesn't really matter to me to be honest.

__________________

You claim my post is spam, yet you dont argue at all in this debate? Nice.. nice..

Thanks for the posts so far guys. Im surprised i havent heard any, NO WAIZ! yet

__________________

well if your really happy with someone you should be able to have the same marriage rights as other couples. America is supposed to be equal so why shouldn't this be acceptable?

Im saying MY post was spam lol , not your's. and I did argue, kinda. Cause it don't matter to me

__________________

I personally think being against gay marrage/civil unions is infantile. But that's just me.

__________________
Formerly known as Elric, Pure Inuyasha and Marth66

Sd nahr uo yno emith cumo otya wev ahu oy

I'm wondering if a third way would be better.

Marriage is a term that is heavily tied up in religious meaning. Government recognition of 'marriage' often conflicts with groups religious views because of that. Civil unions, on the other hand, are religiously neutral.

Already many religions refuse (or simply don't) recognise civil marriages that are in their eyes invalid (such as a Catholic who re-marries after a divorce or who is married outside of the church). The marriage is legal, and treated as such, but is not viewed as a marriage 'in Gods eyes'.

Surely drawing a stronger line between civil marriage/unions and religious marriage would be sensible. Make it so that the government only involves itself in the legal union part, and leave the question of religious marriage to the individual and their rabbi. There is no reason for the term marriage to be involved in the legal code.

Churches have had enough practice with disagreeing over such issues that I am sure this debate will last a few more decades. No reason to keep the law involved any longer than need be.

Marriage for the purpose of being recognized for tax purposes should be solely
seen as between a man and a woman in terms that they can potentialy add
to the population and whatnot.

Civil Unions moreso I'd say are along the lines of two people who care about
each other and want to continue living together and supporting one another.

The living situation is similar but, the key difference is then adding to the
population through having children rather than adopting. (not that adoption
is a bad thing it's just more redistribution rather than addition)
To me that makes logical sense why there should be a seperate definition
between the two, since they're both mechanicly different things. Yes we
could go into things like serogate mothers and whatnot, but those are also
quite expensive and also most people with serogate mothers and such have
children in this way due to the cost. The natural sort of husband wife relation
isn't really limited by the cost of paying a 'child bearer' since the whole
baby construction is done in house at only cost of food and whatnot which most
would have been anyway since people need to eat and sleep regardless of babies.

So summing up, civil unions and marriages are two seperate things entirely and
as such, the benefits of each are going to be different due to those differences.
I just see that there are enough differences between the two types of situations
that no they should not all be lumped together as one thing and the two should
not be used interchangably.

__________________
"The good warrior knows when to fight, and when to withdraw."
- Sun Tzu

I'll smith anything up to 93 smithing if you have the material for me to make it with
My Story, Horrors of Myron County
RV's Drawing archive topic, post yours or comment on others

I did read the whole thing, but you never actually confronted the actual point.

Not all marriages are between reproductive couples today. There are those between infertile couples, those between people too old to bare children, etc. Saying that marriage should only be for reproductive purposes in the case of tax breaks would require those people to be excluded.

On the other hand, gay couples can adopt children. They can bring children into the home as an extended family. This is true of all couples, not just homosexual, not just straight.

Civil unions address this by granting several of the critical rights required for couples who raise children together. For example, the passing on of custody of children at a parents death. For example, a woman who had a child who entered into a long term lesbian relationship could automatically pass custody onto her partner rather than other relatives who may or may not exist or be interested. Outside of a formal relationship or other more expensive, difficult measures, such a thing is not automatic and can leave a child in limbo at a difficult time, despite a ready and willing parent being available.

Tax breaks are a part of this.

They are different sorts of relationships, but then so are foster parents, remarried couples with children from previous relationships and all sorts of other extended or reformed families.

No.

Marriage is intended to be the union of a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others. Why should that change?

__________________

there are a lot of things that have changed that have made society better. Like slavery. If I wasn't writing a 16 page paper for psychology, i'd name hundreds more. Maybe later I'll edit this post with some additional stuffs.

__________________

People used to think that blacks were intended to be slaves of the white, and that it shouldn't change. It's the worst mentality ever.

__________________

Thanks Goten for the siggy.
Thanks Viruz for the avvy.

Slavery is one of the best things to happen in the past for black people. If that hadn't have happened, they wouldn't have the rights and comforts they have now (Under a dictatorship in Africa, E.G, Mugabe).

Not to mention that white people were enslaved too, and the first legally owned slave in America was owned by a black man. Also lets not forget that black slaves were EXPENSIVE. Shipping costs + buying the slave meant that you would want to take better care of them. I remember hearing a story about black slaves flinging cotton down into the hold of a ship for the Irish slaves to do whatever with. Someone asked their owner why the Black's were on top, and he said "Those N are expensive, the Irish are only a few dollars each".



Slavery still exists actually.

__________________

The date? 1958. The laws were only struck down in 1967, forty years ago.That was her statement on the fourtieth anniversary of the ruling striking down such laws.

Today, the arguments used against gay marriage are exactly the same as those used against miscegenation (interracial marriage). Heck, you can take those exact arguments and swap out words regarding race for sexuality and find things that could just as easily be said today.

I can't see how you could miss the point of the post completely. By your logic, all blacks would still be slaves today with no rights at all. I was calling your logic horrible.

__________________

Thanks Goten for the siggy.
Thanks Viruz for the avvy.

To me, I don't care if gay marriage is legal in every state, no state, 25 states, or whatever. People that are gay are still going to do what they do, regardless of whether it is legal or illegal. I have no problem with gay people, because according to the constitution "all men were created equal" and whatnot, so discriminating against them would be unconstitutional.

I do have something to input on homosexuality, though. I'll be flat-out honest in saying that it is morally wrong. A l ian couple can have children through artificial insemination or by adopting. A gay male couple can have children only by adopting.

The point is, whoever or whatever created humans to exist on the earth, they or it created two sexes for a reason. They or it obviously meant for two people of opposite sexes to be attracted to each other and reproduce, because if they or it had wanted us to be gay, they or it would have made it possible for us to reproduce with the same sex.

Also, I have never heard of a gay couple that lasts as long as typical heterosexual marriages. I don't see 60+ year old couples celebrating 25 year anniversaries, because many people that are gay realize that it is wrong, they are frowned upon by the rest of the community, and go back to being straight.

So although it may seem like I "hate" gay people, I don't. My beliefs are that homosexuality is wrong, however I have no problem with it being legal or illegal. The fact is, it will never affect me since I choose to be straight.

Rant away, Paidea

__________________