Gay Marriage

GlorytoGod

GlorytoGod

There is a River
Messages
943
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I have nothing against Gays :cool: however why same sex couples would want to partake in the heterosexual institution of marriage and be bound by all the cultural baggage that goes with it is beyond me :eek:

By living a Gay life style you are free from the bounds of heterosexuality from the thousands of years of gender stereotyping :) the need to revert of the assigned roles of a heterosexual institution is a step backwards in my opinion.
 
And the need to be seen as equal under the law?

A step backwards as well?
 
GlorytoGod said:
I have nothing against Gays ....free from the bounds of heterosexuality from the thousands of years of gender stereotyping :) the need to revert of the assigned roles of a heterosexual institution is a step backwards in my opinion.
Click to expand...
I think your first line says enough..

If you have nothing against Gays, then you shouldh't have issues with their publicly, legally sanctioning their union and getting married.

as for gender stereotyping...just because you are gay that does not stop you from looking or acting male or female and have all that gender bias affect you...however in many circles their gender bending adds yet another layer of bias.

As for your opinion as to whether it is a step forward or backward, I believe they'll take your support in their right to be married and not worry about opinion as to whether or not it is beneficial to them.
 
wil said:
As for your opinion as to whether it is a step forward or backward, I believe they'll take your support in their right to be married and not worry about opinion as to whether or not it is beneficial to them.
Click to expand...

But I do think Glory's desire to protect them from the devastating effects of marriage and constricting gender roles was quite magnanimous. ;)
 
citizenzen said:
But I do think Glory's desire to protect them from the devastating effects of marriage and constricting gender roles was quite magnanimous.
Click to expand...
You think magnanimous for trying to save them from what could end up monagamous, mysogenous or monotonous?

and therefore stipulate to mitigate what might need to be litigated?
 
I believe that ultimately, the government should get out of the marriage business. We should all be given the same rights under a civil union law. For those who want to perform a religious marriage ceremony as a second part of proclaiming their love, then that should be done if they so desire. Every couple would apply for a civil union license issued by the state for both homosexual or heterosexual couples. All the rights that the state grants for the word marriage would now be granted under a new civil union law.

Most heterosexual couples take for granted (or are completely aloof of the fact) that they automatically get 1,138 rights when they get married and those rights include: survivor’s benefits, the breaking of a will, insurance coverage, retirement, or any other issue involving privacy or finance. When gay and lesbian couples argue for the right to marry, it is not a special right; it's an equal right to the same secure benefits granted to every other citizen. Most people are also unaware that in most cases civil unions (although they may sound less intrusive to some) offer less benefits than marriage.

At one time in the United States, a majority of voters (based upon their religious views) supported that only white men who owned property could vote; it was illegal for women to wear pants; go to college; own property; not to mention the Jim Crow Laws of the south!!

In a true Democracy, the rights of the minority must be protected and that is why we have the courts to protect all of us from the tyranny of the majority. I know some conservatives complain about "activist judges" who over turn the will of the majority; but the Court system was created as a third branch of the American Government for that very reason.

So when gays and lesbians argue for "equal protection under the law," that is what it means.
 
Couldn't have said it better myself, Jamazz.

I'd like to ask those whose oppose gay "marriage" whether they'd support a civil union law for any two* consenting adults**.








*We can always argue this point separately.

**No children. No donkeys. Adults... over 18... can we please keep this point in mind?
 
What? Eliminate the slippery slope argument of the talibangelists? Whatever will they do??!! ;)
 
citizenzen said:
And the need to be seen as equal under the law?

A step backwards as well?
Click to expand...

Equality under the law is now an outdated archaic concept. Rights are aquired either through power or through selective morality established as politically correct.

To infer that equality under the law has anything to do with modern American society is just being naive. It no longer exists.
 
Nick_A said:
Equality under the law is now an outdated archaic concept. Rights are aquired either through power or through selective morality established as politically correct.

To infer that equality under the law has anything to do with modern American society is just being naive. It no longer exists.
Click to expand...

And that's your excuse for denying it to others?
 
citizenzen said:
And that's your excuse for denying it to others?
Click to expand...

I am not denying anything. I am saying that in modern times in America it is a meaningless argument. Political correctness is the classic demonstration of accepted inequality within which people are not treated equally and it is the dominant influence.

If I'm going to argue gay marriage it is silly to argue from the point of view of some imaginary outdated concept of equality. Those days are over. It has to be argued on its own merits.
 
GlorytoGod said:
I have nothing against Gays :cool: however why same sex couples would want to partake in the heterosexual institution of marriage and be bound by all the cultural baggage that goes with it is beyond me :eek:

By living a Gay life style you are free from the bounds of heterosexuality from the thousands of years of gender stereotyping :) the need to revert of the assigned roles of a heterosexual institution is a step backwards in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Yuppers, it baffles me too. The only thing of benefit I see would be that they would possibly have the same rights as heterosexual couples. I personally think marriage is a sham. Who the hell needs a certificate to dedicate oneself to another? Marriage is simply for legal purposes, and nothing more.

The homosexual community are FINALLY standing up for their rights (As it should be) though. I say let gay couples marry like anyone else. Hell, a child can get married in certain areas in the US, but G-d forbid two consenting adults? CrAzY!! What are we afraid of, anyway?

GK
 
Nick_A said:
I am not denying anything. I am saying that in modern times in America it is a meaningless argument.
Click to expand...

Analogy: I have you tied up, dangling over a growing fire. Your skin begins to blister and sear as you try everything you can to convince me to lower you to safety.

"Meaningless argument," I say.

Certainly not meaningless to you.
 
citizenzen said:
Couldn't have said it better myself, Jamazz.

I'd like to ask those whose oppose gay "marriage" whether they'd support a civil union law for any two* consenting adults**.








*We can always argue this point separately.

**No children. No donkeys. Adults... over 18... can we please keep this point in mind?
Click to expand...
I would definately support civil unions, as long as they had the same legal standing as marriage. Civil unions could be employed by either homosexual couples or heterosexual couples, and would be available through the government offices that currently conduct weddings. A civil union ceremony would still be called a "wedding." The term "marriage" could then be used for the weddings conducted by religious ministers, which would also be in accordance to the religious tradition of the minister conducting the ceremony.

This arrangement would preserve the rights of citizens to legally register their weddings, while also protecting religious institutions to protect their religious traditions.
 
I love Gays and had many Gay lovers when I was gay, however I dont support Gay marriage. But I am all for a civil partnership and equality.
 
Huzzah! Then we're all in agreement! Civil unions with equal rights for gays and straights!

*hits the intercom* Higgins, patch me into the White House. I've got some good news for President Obama. We've got some legislation to enact!

(Why yes, I DO have a direct line to the president. Don't you?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top