Marrage was first done in the church there for using your reasoning the government shouldn't be involved in the bussiness of marring people. and then this arguement becomes mute.
Marrage was a church function FIRST so seeing as the govenment should be "free from religion" there should be NO legal marrage.
Kinda like the color of their skin.....I find blue people people sharing a drinking fountain with me repulsive.
They just have to live with the cards life has dealt them.
Is marriage really a right? If it's a right, then what business has the government in it? Why does one need certification from the government? Things that require the government's stamping don't seem like rights to me. It means they cross over to the social sphere. If they didn't, then the government has no freakin' biz interfering in what is a right and constitutes individuality. The government's only business is to make sure one's right is not interfered with. In this case, the government does the marriage stamping, so it definitely doesn't sound like a right to me. It's a privilege . . . it would seem.
I would definitly have to agree to let gay marriages happen. The reason is that why should it be any different for gay people or straight people. People who love to have sex don't get married and people who love each other do get married. Marriage between two people isn't about the sex its deeper then just that. Why do you think people want to get married it basically means that you want to be with this person for life and no other. Its both a sacrifice to yourself and a statement to the world.
I have no problem with gay people but I think its because I have grown up in a society where everyone is accepted. I have never been very religious but my parents used to be and they both have a similar view point. I think alot of it depends on where you grow up (I live in seattle washington) and how your parents react to certain issues on how your viewpoint on this issue really is. I would think that on the westcoast gay people are more accepted then in the middle of the country just because on the west coast we deal with openly gay people all the time and they are proud they are gay. However in the middle country there are probably tons of closet gays who can't become open because the society that they live in won't have it at all and they will be prosicuted. I think the people who don't think that gay people should be allowed to married are trying to be the upper class. By saying to one group of people based on their sexuality you can't have this but I can is discriminitory(someone will probably come up with a good response trying to prove this wrong). And who is to say if gays are good parents or not. If you look at society we see it all the time straight parents are beating their kids mentally abusing them molesting them. There is always gonna be someone saying based ona stereotypical gay person that everyone is gonna say ohh these other gay people couldn't be parents because that other gay person beat/molested/turned them gay their child and they will do it to. If I think of anything more I'll post later.
I have no problem with gay people but I think its because I have grown up in a society where everyone is accepted. I have never been very religious but my parents used to be and they both have a similar view point. I think alot of it depends on where you grow up (I live in seattle washington) and how your parents react to certain issues on how your viewpoint on this issue really is. I would think that on the westcoast gay people are more accepted then in the middle of the country just because on the west coast we deal with openly gay people all the time and they are proud they are gay. However in the middle country there are probably tons of closet gays who can't become open because the society that they live in won't have it at all and they will be prosicuted. I think the people who don't think that gay people should be allowed to married are trying to be the upper class. By saying to one group of people based on their sexuality you can't have this but I can is discriminitory(someone will probably come up with a good response trying to prove this wrong). And who is to say if gays are good parents or not. If you look at society we see it all the time straight parents are beating their kids mentally abusing them molesting them. There is always gonna be someone saying based ona stereotypical gay person that everyone is gonna say ohh these other gay people couldn't be parents because that other gay person beat/molested/turned them gay their child and they will do it to. If I think of anything more I'll post later.
Chaotic, I have to disagree. Of course it is a right ceremonially. Of course any couples can declare themselves married and live together if they want. But the underlying issue is the government's obligation to recognise and grant a licence to the people. If the government must give a licence to recognise a couple, then marriage accordingly is not a right. The government's involvement and obligation is the subject. Oh, by the way, if it were a right, then the government would have to recognise even two consenting adult relatives that chose to be engaged maritally. If the government's concern were that they would risk the lives of children they brought into the world, then they could have the couples commit to sterilisation. Hence, they won't be able to have any kids. Or alternatively they can oblige the couples to abort the baby if medical check up indicates that the baby would be deformed or mentally retarded. So back to my statement that it's not a right. . . .
Why do people need the licence of the government to feel satisfied or feel committed to each other? So you want taxes cut, property and any other benefits, but that boundary is no longer individual rights. It is a privilege or a subject of equality in a different sense. And if it's a subject of equality, then it should also stretch to single people, not just homosexuals. Should one be indirectly penalised for failing to officially wed or choosing not to go in the path of wedlock? It's definitely not a subject of natural rights.
Why do people need the licence of the government to feel satisfied or feel committed to each other? So you want taxes cut, property and any other benefits, but that boundary is no longer individual rights. It is a privilege or a subject of equality in a different sense. And if it's a subject of equality, then it should also stretch to single people, not just homosexuals. Should one be indirectly penalised for failing to officially wed or choosing not to go in the path of wedlock? It's definitely not a subject of natural rights.
I am getting married in a year and am not getting married to get any tax cut or anything monetary. I am doing it to say to my partner that I love them and I love them so much I am willing to make a contract that proves my love. I am bound by that contract and the goverment makes sure Im bound by it because if I were ever to get divorced I would probably lose a lot of my possesions.
Same-Sex Marriage: A History of the Law
My guess is, eventually, the restriction of opposite-sex-only marriages will be lifted.
My guess is, eventually, the restriction of opposite-sex-only marriages will be lifted.
Would I prefer that they not? Yeah probably. Would I want to stop them from doing it? No, it's none of my business. If gay people want to get married go for it...do I like the idea of it? not really...
No, not ever. Personally, I find it disgusting and insulting knowing that a man lets their mind wander and falls prey to the temptation in another man's arms.
GeekDrew
Diamond Member
- Jun 7, 2000
- 9,099
- 19
- 81
Why not marriage? Although most gay people are fighting for the legal union and partnership, I would rather be able to be 'married'... I don't care about taxes and legal unions. I would like both. I personally have always considered marriage to be a sacred bond between two people (unless they are about to be divorced)... and that's what I would like for my boyfriend and I.
How is it insulting to you? My mind is not wandering around... it is, and always has been, focused toward 'gayness'. I've wanted to change that many times, but I haven't been able to. Temptation in another man's arms... hrmmmm... whatever.
If science has proven that being homosexual is a gene or chemical, and cannot be changed, what would you say?
No problem with it. I would prefer not to see 2 guys making out hardcore in front of me nor would I want to see a straight couple doing that.... lesbians, only if they are hot :beer:
Not accept, tolerate - but only as long as they don't use the word marriage. Marriage is man - woman - children from same. Case closed, end of story.
. Call it civil union or whatever you want EXCEPT the M-word!
.bh.
. Call it civil union or whatever you want EXCEPT the M-word!
.bh.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter