Gay Marriage

lyrical_mess:

Kurtni:

demon_girl_121:

FIRST OF ALL- Marrige was made way before religions were. So how can Christians and Catholics and what not just barge in and say, "this is how it is!"

SECOND OF ALL- The anthems say Land of the free, the true north strong and free, and justice for all...
Yes, justice for all. Except...

THIRD OF ALL- Whats the big deal? Dont we need population control anyway?

People should be allowed to follow their own beliefs in such a multi cultural place. I dont get this.

Religion has ALWAYS been around, and before you tell me Im wrong, I suggest you do some research. Marriage originated as a Jewish tradition.

Yeah...I beg to differ. The first marriages were actually Hindu marriages. It was and is the first complex religion with laws such as marriage and there is more than enough proof for that.

Now, how is it unfair to religious people? The government is secular. Marriage has become a civil thing. A liberty given by the Constitution. Why else do people choose to marry in courthouses? And why are marriage liscences needed? Because its a civil thing. Marriage is a legally binding contract to spend the rest of your life with a person you love deeply. If its against your religion, that is not the issue of the government.

Why don't you offer some of that proof, if there is more than enough of it.

And you basically just restated what I said. it's a religious tradition that the government regulates, which is why I think its right. The government didn't just pull that idea out of someones ears, it was and still is a religious tradition. The governments issue is to keep itself unabised and fair to everyone. Keeping marriage as part of the legal system doesnt do that.

druscilla:

I still find the religious bullshit as just that--bullshit.

Aethiests can get married; why can't homosexuals?

Because it offends the "sacred" act of marriage.

No one ever tries and to disallow other religions or people who aren't religious to get married. It's always the queers and the dykes.

I'm sick of the government trying to tell me who I can marry.

SO, you think you have the right to rework an entire religion to fit your standards? That would make you just as self centered as the government for not allowing you to have the same benifits as them.

I don't blame you for being angry with the situation, but you honestly, don't have the right to undergo a religious tradition like that. You should have all the rights that married people get however, and I find it sickly unfair that gay people don't have those. Which is exactly why marriage should no longer be a civil thing.

Mikkey;:

Bibz:

Its not a sin against god, if you believe in god then you'll believe that god made people the way they are for a reason, including homosexuals.

from a religious point of view, it is a sin against God.

Technically, the Bible says nothing about homosexual female relationships, just male. It's also an old testament law, along with being able to sell your daughter and not being able to wear clothes made of two or more fabrics. I find it amusing how hypo-Christians only pick and choose which old testament laws are important.

Kurtni:

druscilla:

I still find the religious bullshit as just that--bullshit.

Aethiests can get married; why can't homosexuals?

Because it offends the "sacred" act of marriage.

No one ever tries and to disallow other religions or people who aren't religious to get married. It's always the queers and the dykes.

I'm sick of the government trying to tell me who I can marry.

SO, you think you have the right to rework an entire religion to fit your standards? That would make you just as self centered as the government for not allowing you to have the same benifits as them.

I don't blame you for being angry with the situation, but you honestly, don't have the right to undergo a religious tradition like that. You should have all the rights that married people get however, and I find it sickly unfair that gay people don't have those. Which is exactly why marriage should no longer be a civil thing.

I'm a Christian. I have every right to marry in a church.

druscilla:

I'm a Christian. I have every right to marry in a church.

And the church has every right to deny you.

Some liberal churches would allow it. But those that don't can't have their hands forced. A relationships such as yours breaks ancient law, and sufficient time has not yet passed that all churches denounce Leviticus for what it teaches.

Bloodraine:

druscilla:

I'm a Christian. I have every right to marry in a church.

And the church has every right to deny you.

Some liberal churches would allow it. But those that don't can't have their hands forced. A relationships such as yours breaks ancient law, and sufficient time has not yet passed that all churches denounce Leviticus for what it teaches.

Isn't 2000 years long enough?

druscilla:

Bloodraine:

druscilla:

I'm a Christian. I have every right to marry in a church.

And the church has every right to deny you.

Some liberal churches would allow it. But those that don't can't have their hands forced. A relationships such as yours breaks ancient law, and sufficient time has not yet passed that all churches denounce Leviticus for what it teaches.

Isn't 2000 years long enough?

evidently not. The fact that religion becomes modernized and adapts to society proves just how commerical it is, but thats another matter entirely.

I think that straights and gays should be allowed the same rights as each other. And I also think it strange that the christian faith is all about loving one another and treating people how you'd like to be treated, but then it's against homosexuality. I mean no offence to christians, as I am christian.

I think that churches in New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Vermont that refuse to marry same-sex couples should lose their tax-exempt status.

And I believe that churches in any other state that openly discriminate against homosexuals in other ways should also lose their tax-exempt status.

Uhm actually you can get married by a justice of the peace. That's how my mother and father got married- and it was called a MARRIAGE not a civil union. Marriage is as much now a state institution as it as a religious one. So the could either A. Stop calling it marriage all together unless you get married in a church, which would mean you shouldn't be allowed to get the same benefits as a normal marriage since *ding* SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. or B. Everyone gets married.

And last time i checked, commiting a murder was a sin against God, and yet murderers, rapists, child molestors, and thiefs are allowed to get married.

I support gay rights and gay marriage.
Marriage is about loving, supporting and caring for another person, so why shouldn't two people of the same gender be denied the right to openly declare that is how they feel about each other?
Love is a precious thing and when it happens, there is nothing you can do to stop it.
What two consenting adults do in their own home is no business of anyone else.

Alright...
so, under the Fourteenth Amendment, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,"

from a legal standpoint, married couples are granted a lot more privileges than those who under civil unions, which were created for homosexual couples.
...so, how does allowing one heterosexual couple the legal status as married and granting only a civil union to homosexual couple not abridging certain rights?

also, it's a very true that marriage was a religious tradition.
But like most things, it's been adapted to times and circumstances, and has become a social and legal union also. The first definitions of Merriam-Webster and American Heritage Dictionary for "marriage," mention nothing of religion. They state marriage as being, "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law," and "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife"
it's become a legal tradition more than anything over the centuries.

besides, to put it bluntly, if you don't agree with gay marriage than don't get one.

if you're in love you're in love. that's it. the catholic church teaches to love everyone for who they are yhet they won't allow same sex marriages? hypocritical

Gay marriage bill I drafted in 2004 for my American Government class.
Keep in mind I was only 16, still didn't know I was gay, and hadn't actually met a gay person yet. [Well, aside from myself...]

Quote

It is unconstitutional for the 'un'president to add a Constitutional amendment stating that same-sex couples cannot be married. A marriage is an assembly, which is protected by the first amendment. A marriage is also an expression of love and caring.

The arguments against same-sex marriage are that it goes against nature {meaning male and female, not male and male, or female and female) and that it goes against God's law. The first is crap. The second doesn't matter, according to the Constitution.

Fred and Silo are constantly seen walking in Central Park Zoo together. They have raised several adopted children, without interference from the government, and they have been together for over five years. Fred and Silo are penguins.

So, obviously homosexuality occurs in nature. Unless, of course, you're going to try and get me to believe that they bribed these penguins with fish to act gay as a ploy for this argument, over five years ago. Don't make me laugh.

As for the Bible saying that 'a man shalt not lie with another man'? Our country has a separation of church and state (or, as I like to call it, church and hate). Therefore, legally, according to the Constitution of the United States of America, we absolutely cannot have any laws founded on any holy book. It's unlawful. So, if you are using the argument that it's against God's law for two consenting, homosexual adults to get married and practice sodomy, then you are being a hypcrite because you are violating a law as well.

Roger J. Magnuson, a trial lawyer, wrote a book arguing that homosexuals do not need civil rights protection. He says that gay men and lesbians already have the same (meaning equal) civil rights that every other American has. Hello! Obviously not. It's what I'm arguing for, isn't it? Equal rights are not special rights. As if that wasn't a big enough crock of crap, he says that people should retain the right to discriminate against those whose behavior they believe is immoral. Right. Where was he for the civil rights movement? If what he says is true, I should be able to discriminate against black people if I believe being black is a sin. And I should be able to shoot anyone with AIDS because they may have gained it through sin. Maybe not. Who knows? But according to Roger J. Magnuson, I can discriminate against anyone as long as I can find an excuse that their behavior is immoral. If I was discriminating against Jewish people, I would be in prison before you could bat an eye.

It was illegal for Rosa Parks not to move to the back of the bus. Does that mean it was right? It was illegal for women to vote. Does that mean it was okay? Times change. What our country believed was wrong in the past has obviously evolved. Discrimination is not legal, no matter how much George W. Bush and our government try to sugarcoat it. If ignorance is bliss, George Bush would be the happiest person in the world, second to the Christian Coalitions.

This is sad. This right should never need to be legalized. It should never have been illegal in the first place. If the government tells us who we can marry and who we can't, then what's next? Are they going to become like Chin and tell us how many kids we can have? How many times we can get married? Are they going to tell us divorce is immoral and therefore we can't divorce, forcing a woman in an abusive relationship to stay with her alcoholic husband.

There is no Constitutional basis for trying to keep people from committing themselves to marriage. If gay people were telling straight people it was against their beliefs for them [straight people] to get married you'd probably lynch them on the spot. Just because you may not always agree with something doesn't mean that you have the authority to govern other people's lives. Someone told me it was 'gross' for gay people to get married. I told them that five year olds think that when anyone kisses it's 'gross' but that doesn't make it illegal. People only think being gay is 'gross' because that's what the conservative, Protestant hierarchy of society has told them to believe. And you'd rather be brainwashed and eat your potato chips than form your own opinion and think for yourself.

People need to be taught acceptance (not tolerance) on a daily basis. The term 'gay' has been made into a joke. 'That's so gay.' If a person said 'that's so straight' you'd probably looka t them like they're insane, but that's not the case for you. Since you don't like them you get to say whatever the heck you want, right? Everybody thinks that it's okay to use terms loosely and in ways they were never meant to be used. What does it mean to say 'that's so gay' anyway? That's so homosexual? 'That shirt is so gay'. What, does the shirt fall in love with other shirts?

Hateful terms are used for homosexuals daily, and are used as insults to heterosexuals as well. And I know you know the words I'm talking about. It's things like this that make most people feel threatened, or even afraid, of homosexuals. What, are your masculinity and femininity threatened because people love others of the same sex? Is that why Matthew Shepherd was killed? Because some boys though that their masculinity is being threatened? Is that why some Bible-thumping Christians thought that it was okay to try and erect a statue in his town saying that 'The day Matthew Shepherd died he entered hell'? Why is it okay for the same people who use the Bible to argue against same-sex marriage, to judge and condemn them, something against the Bible as well.

Over the years every generation has become more accepting than the last. Past generations have had to become more used to women in the work place and other races, and we're all better for it. But our generation decided not to go become more accepting. We decide that it's okay to be bigoted, prejudiced, and discriminatory. Because, obviously if we don't agree with something then those people deserve to suffer, and even die. Obviously, we are for more superior and deserve the most rights. White people, Protestants, men, straight people. Over time these are the people of the United States who have gained the most power and oppressed anyone 'different' than them. African-Americans weren't considered to be a whole person. The Bible was the only thing taught in school. Women aren't allowed to vote or work. Homosexuals can't get married.

Our generation needs to shape up and take a stand. We need to come back from the bigoted corner we've set ourselves in and allow everyone to have equal rights. Civil unions aren't good enough. Living together isn't good enough. Being married makes homosexuals equal and is, therefore, giving them the 'equality' that all Americans have. We cannot be separate and unequal anymore! We didn't allow it before and we CAN'T have it now.

I don't care if you agree with homosexuality. What I know is that our county CANNOT be ruled by the white, Christian supremacy any longer. If you want to live in a country ruled by religion, try Iraq. You can take your bigoted and prejudiced views over there and teach the whole country why no one is equal. Tell them why you turn everyone against everyone and why you're comfortable living in the little box you’ve set yourself in.

This law MUST BE PASSED so that we can continue heading down the road to acceptance and equality.

We voted on our bills to see if they would be mailed onto people in legislature.
My bill got one vote.

Mine.

Believe:

So the could either A. Stop calling it marriage all together unless you get married in a church...

I want to get married in a church.
I want to be married.
I don't want a civil union.
I want equal rights.
I don't want a 'separate but equal' status.
I want the government to get off my ass about my sexual preference.
I want the right to marry the woman I love.

*

By the way, that was not a slam at you.
Your comment just is what made me say it.
No quarrel with you.

Everday: on some website, on the news, in a passing word spoken, talking to a friend I hear this.

If the people who follow religion don't want gay people to be married. Okay.

MAKE SOMETHING ELSE UP WITH THE SAME STANDARDS FOR EVERYONE.

I don't follow religion myself, But I know people who do. They don't hate gays. They can't tell the pope to shut up and let gay people me married, or get him to tell god to change the rules. Can they? Marriage is a the bringing together of a man and women... Okay, I can deal with that.

But why can't there be something that everyone can be under, thats not for religion? Why can't we have something like it anyway?

If I was gay, I wouldn't want my partner to not be aloud into my hospital room to say good-bye to me because we where married. I mean, how much more selfish can you get? It's not the governments choice who we love.

I say, keep marriage for those who want it, and bring something else in for those who don't.

A piece of paper means nothing. People are still going to fall in love, gay or not if we like it or not. So just let them have what they want.

Religion is never, ever going to get with the times.
They can't chop and change their 'laws' just because people want them too.

Apart from the civil part of marriage [the papers] I don't really see why the goverment, which is made up of a majority of christians, get a say anyway.

Maybe you [saying 'you' as a general statement] want to be that one person who
leads churches into throwing open their doors to lesbian couples and gay couple wanting to get married but seriously, if they havent changed in 2000 years I seriously doubt that they are going to now.

I'm going to break this down. Civil unions are not equal to marriages.

Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.

The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.

Yes, a lawyer can set up certain things like medical power of attorney, guardianship of children, wills, etc. But there are problems.

1. It costs thousands of dollars in legal fees. A simple marriage license, which usually costs under $100 would cover all the same rights and benefits.

2. Any of these can be challenged in court. As a matter of fact, more wills are challenged than not. In the case of wills, legal spouses always have more legal power than any other family member.
And you can bet somebody like my bitch stepmother would challenge my children being left to my dyke wife if something happened to me.

3. Marriage laws are universal. If someone’s husband or wife is injured in an accident, all you need to do is show up and say you’re his or her spouse. You will not be questioned. If you show up at the hospital with your legal paperwork, the employees may not know what to do with you. If you simply say, "He's my husband," you will immediately be taken to your spouse's side.

* * *

So, no, they are not equal.

* * *

Information found here.

/\ Very correct.

I would present my opinions on the matter, only they'd be redundant, as Druscilla has covered everything I could ever say.

I feel sort of compelled to say something in my own words, so here it is:
While some of you have argued that the government has no right to force change in religious organization, those religious affiliations have no right to dictate governmental law, which is what they're doing (in the US, at least. I can't speak for the legal/religious situations in other nations).
It is because of dated religious values that average, up-standing citizens are being denied civil rights.

For further insight on my opinions, please read what Druscilla has had to say.