Now that gay marriage may become legal on a national level:

[Daverino]

We have all seen the tides of social change coming in here and even the most staunch conservative must now see that at best this can be fought off for a generation or two more. So we should all take a moment of quiet introspection and thought as to how we will all react when the shadow of gay marriage crosses over all of us as a nation. Therefore, I think it's important to discuss who, in fact, you will be getting gay-married to now so as to plan for the future.

For me, it's going to be Chris Hemsworth.

Now that Chris is off the market, who are you planning gay-marry?

 

[hal2kilo]

Thor is gay? My sensor needs calibration.

"Not that there is anything wrong with it" Jerry Sienfeld

 

[Kadarin]

I'm not gay, so I won't be marrying some random celebrity (or any other dude). However, you go ahead...

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

I honestly don't understand why gays want to get married. Marraige at it's core is a religious covenant, and that is why people oppose it. Most of the major religions state that homosexuality is wrong, thus the followers think it is wrong.
If gays would stop pushing for gay marraige, and instead opt for Civil Union, there wouldn't be as much of an uproar against it. The media and supporters of gay marraige may act like the majority of Americans support it, but the truth is plain to see. Time and time again voters are saying they do not approve of it.
Though I'm also of the mind that straight people shouldn't get married either. with marraiges hovering around a 50% failure rate, why do it at all? All it does is make things more difficult when statistically you are more likely to split up at somepoint.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I honestly don't understand why gays want to get married. Marraige at it's core is a religious covenant, and that is why people oppose it. Most of the major religions state that homosexuality is wrong, thus the followers think it is wrong.
If gays would stop pushing for gay marraige, and instead opt for Civil Union, there wouldn't be as much of an uproar against it. The media and supporters of gay marraige may act like the majority of Americans support it, but the truth is plain to see. Time and time again voters are saying they do not approve of it.
Though I'm also of the mind that straight people shouldn't get married either. with marraiges hovering around a 50% failure rate, why do it at all? All it does is make things more difficult when statistically you are more likely to split up at somepoint.

Do you seriously find it hard to believe that a large group of people want to have the same rights as everyone else, rather than being treated as second-class citizens? They pay the same taxes as everyone else, and I find it bewildering that anyone would take the position that they should be denied the same rights and privileges under the law.

I for one don't care whether we call this institution "marriage" or something else. I think one could legitimately take the view that marriage is a religious institution, not an official one, and thus the government should only be in the civil-union business, and leave it to the churches to marry whomever they want. Regardless, to the extent the government is involved in creating these official unions, they should be equally available to straight and gay people.

For what it's worth, nationwide polling now shows that more Americans support gay marriage than oppose it. It's clear the tide is turning on this issue.

 

[nehalem256]

Do you seriously find it hard to believe that a large group of people want to have the same rights as everyone else, rather than being treated as second-class citizens? They pay the same taxes as everyone else, and I find it bewildering that anyone would take the position that they should be denied the same rights and privileges under the law.

Because their is no right to a same-sex marriage.

It has nothing to do with religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Japan

Japan is not a christian nation in any sense and it does not recognize same-sex unions.

 

[Daverino]

Man, I thought someone would have claimed Bradley Cooper by now.

 

[Xecuter]

Because their is no right to a same-sex marriage.

It has nothing to do with religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Japan

Japan is not a christian nation in any sense and it does not recognize same-sex unions.

Can you please learn the difference between there, their and they're? This isn't the first time I've seen it pop up.

Anyway, to stay on topic; this is just the same debate America had concerning women during the early 1900s, the same debate America had concerning blacks during the 1960's, etc. It is a RIGHT that everyone should be granted, and fuck semantics.

 

[Wreckem]

Because their is no right to a same-sex marriage.

It has nothing to do with religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Japan

Japan is not a christian nation in any sense and it does not recognize same-sex unions.

Japan doesn't have the US Constitution and the 14th amendment.

Furthermore, I am sure the legal contract of marriage is not the same in Japan.

In the US marriage is more than just religion. In fact the majority of marriages in the US have nothing to do with religion.

But the legal contract of marriage(thats what it is) in the US plays a huge role in a lot of things like hospital visitation rights, getting insurance coverage, inheritance/probate, etc etc.

 

[yh125d]

I honestly don't understand why gays want to get married. Marraige at it's core is a religious covenant, and that is why people oppose it. Most of the major religions state that homosexuality is wrong, thus the followers think it is wrong.
If gays would stop pushing for gay marraige, and instead opt for Civil Union, there wouldn't be as much of an uproar against it. The media and supporters of gay marraige may act like the majority of Americans support it, but the truth is plain to see. Time and time again voters are saying they do not approve of it.
Though I'm also of the mind that straight people shouldn't get married either. with marraiges hovering around a 50% failure rate, why do it at all? All it does is make things more difficult when statistically you are more likely to split up at somepoint.

As long as our government grants rights and privileges based on a citizen's status as married or single, that status should be equally available to all law abiding citizens. This is why the "separation of church and state" doesn't fly. As soon as government started to give married people tax breaks, or different social security benefits, and legal rights/privileges regarding children, custody, healthcare and death decisions/policies/etc, marriage became a legal entity that everyone should have a right to, not a religious only entity that is protected under the 1st amendment

 

[nehalem256]

As long as our government grants rights and privileges based on a citizen's status as married or single, that status should be equally available to all law abiding citizens. This is why the "separation of church and state" doesn't fly. As soon as government started to give married people tax breaks, or different social security benefits, and legal rights/privileges regarding children, custody, healthcare and death decisions/policies/etc, marriage became a legal entity that everyone should have a right to, not a religious only entity that is protected under the 1st amendment

There is no law preventing gay people from getting married.

 

[freegeeks]

the stuff that some Americans care about is really mind blowing
same-sex civilian unions were legally stablished here in 1998
same-sex marriages were adopted in 2003 and adoption in 2006

the world is still turning and life goes on

 

[First]

There is no law preventing gay people from getting married.

Yeah there are, tard. NC just passed one. Iowa has one. Many U.S. states have them. Read up

 

[PokerGuy]

Yeah there are

Whoooooooooosh. That's the sound of his post going right over your head. He's is correct, there is no law against gay people getting married. They can marry someone of the opposite gender just like anyone else.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Yeah there are, tard. NC just passed one. Iowa has one. Many U.S. states have them. Read up

I think his point (which is true, but knowingly vacuous and disingenuous) is that there is no prohibition on gay people marrying members of the opposite sex.

To me the prohibition on gay marriage is essentially similar to laws that used to ban interracial marriage, and nehalem256's defense of the prohibition of gay marriage would apply to those too: there is no law against minority members getting married - they just can't marry white people. "Separate but equal" . . .

 

[First]

Whoooooooooosh. That's the sound of his post going right over your head. He's is correct, there is no law against gay people getting married. They can marry someone of the opposite gender just like anyone else.

I already addressed that, fellow poster who consistently wimps out of responding to posts he can't reply to and doesn't understand.

 

[PokerGuy]

I already addressed that, fellow poster who consistently wimps out of responding to posts he can't reply to and doesn't understand.

You addressed it with a link that provides the same incorrect information. Face it, you're wrong. There is no law preventing a gay person from marrying.

I have no idea what you're talking about "wimping out" or some other drivel.

 

[dmcowen674]

1st Gay President Anderson Cooper

 

[Screech]

I'm a guy, but Amber Heard is a lesbian so that works, right.....?

 

[epidemis]

Do you seriously find it hard to believe that a large group of people want to have the same rights as everyone else, rather than being treated as second-class citizens? They pay the same taxes as everyone else, and I find it bewildering that anyone would take the position that they should be denied the same rights and privileges under the law.
.

Everyone does have the same right, to marry the opposite sex. Yes, that doesn't neccesarily mean homosexuals arent repressed, since laws can apply to all yet be descriminating but you need to work on your line of reasoning.

 

[desy]

Legal?
I suppose just like that abortion thing worked itself out. . . .

 

[Moonbeam]

JeffreyLebowski: I honestly don't understand why gays want to get married.

M: You don't have to understand nor is your understanding relevant to what others do.

JL: Marriage at it's core is a religious covenant, and that is why people oppose it.

M: It is also why gays support it for themselves. It's their religious right to practice their religion. You just can't get it through your bigoted head that your religion is meaningless to other people. They believe what they believe and if you demand that their right to practice religion in their own way others will demand the same of you.

JL: Most of the major religions state that homosexuality is wrong, thus the followers think it is wrong.

M: And their opinion in a secular state that permits freedom of religion is just as meaningless and the opinion of those who think your religion is shit.

JL: If gays would stop pushing for gay marriage, and instead opt for Civil Union, there wouldn't be as much of an uproar against it.

M: If blacks just stopped pushing against segregation or women against the glass cealing....

JL: The media and supporters of gay marriage may act like the majority of Americans support it, but the truth is plain to see. Time and time again voters are saying they do not approve of it.

M: Who gives a shit. This is a secular Constitutional Democracy. It doesn't make a fuck of a difference who supports what. Rights are guaranteed even against the wishes of the majority. That is why we have freedom of religion. People bigoted against religion can't demand religion be suppressed which is exactly what you are trying to do.

JL: Though I'm also of the mind that straight people shouldn't get married either. with marriages hovering around a 50% failure rate, why do it at all? All it does is make things more difficult when statistically you are more likely to split up at somepoint.

M: Totally irrelevant to anything. The right to marry is obvious. If one person can marry another that right can't be denied by sex. That is discrimination based on sex and that's not Constitutional.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Everyone does have the same right, to marry the opposite sex. Yes, that doesn't neccesarily mean homosexuals arent repressed, since laws can apply to all yet be descriminating but you need to work on your line of reasoning.

You in turn need to work on your reading comprehension. Forgive me for quoting myself, but here goes:

I think his point (which is true, but knowingly vacuous and disingenuous) is that there is no prohibition on gay people marrying members of the opposite sex.

To me the prohibition on gay marriage is essentially similar to laws that used to ban interracial marriage, and nehalem256's defense of the prohibition of gay marriage would apply to those too: there is no law against minority members getting married - they just can't marry white people. "Separate but equal" . . .

 

[Doppel]

I'm marrying ryan reynolds.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Because their is no right to a same-sex marriage.

It has nothing to do with religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Japan

Japan is not a christian nation in any sense and it does not recognize same-sex unions.

Sweeeet, lets use one of the most xenophobic nations on earth as an example.