Do you believe in same-sex marriage?

[saveliberty]

Makes about as much sense as being able to marry the cat. In some ways more.

1. The cat will never seek a divorce. The marriages will be for life.
2. No custody issues over kids.
3. Health care would be cheaper.
4. The cat won't ding your credit.
5. The fact your not getting sex will at least be understandable.

 

[uptownlivin90]

No.

Marriage occurs when one man and one woman are bonded in holy wedlock under the rules of religion. The couple is recognized by law as a married couple.

So athiests can't get married?

A couple of same-sex partners is a couple bonded by their own desire to be a couple.

Unfortunetly that's true of most STRAIGHT couples as well.

The couple should be recognized by law as a same-sex-couple, having the same rights and protections under the law as married couples.

If that's the case all "couples" should have that right and there should be no such thing as state marriage. Which nobody's going to go for, simply because we have different levels of relationship for a reason in this nation. Marriage is a contract/bond that comes in itself comes with it's own set of laws and principles.

Government has no need to redefine "marriage". Is has no right to redefine marriage as this would amount to a forced change to existing religious proclamations, thus violating the first amendment rights of religious citizens.

Each religion has it's own right to pin it's own definition on what it means to be married as it is. Some churches sanction gay marriages, even though marriage is currently "defined" as a union between a man and a woman. What the state defines as marriage will have no effect on the right of churches and religious groups to maintain their own individual practices and beliefs regarding religious marriage.

This should not be construed as an attack on same-sex-couples. I applaud their right to exist in peace. There is a pair of lesbians that I particularly like.

Not to fond of lesbians myself... now girls that go both ways...F-CK YEA.

 

[uptownlivin90]

Marriage is a legal contract binding on both sides for the benefit of the kids and the parents. It is an obligation assumed by a couple not so much for their own benefit, but for the benefit of society as a whole.

Same sex marriage is just a nifty way to get a cool tax write off.

So couples that don't intend to have children can't get married?

 

[uptownlivin90]

Makes about as much sense as being able to marry the cat. In some ways more.

1. The cat will never seek a divorce. The marriages will be for life.
2. No custody issues over kids.
3. Health care would be cheaper.
4. The cat won't ding your credit.
5. The fact your not getting sex will at least be understandable.

Unfortunetly for you... your cat can't legally consent. Sorry.

 

[Yukon]

I despise homosexuality but I pity homosexuals. I don't care if they get married in a civil ceremony. The Roman Catholic Church wont marry homos and that's what counts.

My Church is the ONLY church dedicated to Jesus and to GOD. Our POPE has said homosexual marriage is WRONG therefor it must be WRONG. To doubt the POPE is blasphemous.

 

[Silkcity19]

yes or no

Hell no!, if we allow this sexual perversion to be sanctioned under marriage, we will have people who will want to marry their pets asking for marriage rights, under some beastiality marriage rights campaign!!.

Marriage is between a man and a woman.! Case closed. And I don't appreciate Homosexuals trying to overturn Prop 8 in the state of California, after the General public voted down homosexual marriage law.The general public does not want Homosexual marriage.And we don't need to have it forced upon us either.!!

What really amazes me 52nd st, is how much the A.A. community was against gay marriage, yet they father the most children out of wedlock in the entire country.

 

[uptownlivin90]

I despise homosexuality but I pity homosexuals. I don't care if they get married in a civil ceremony. The Roman Catholic Church wont marry homos and that's what counts.

My Church is the ONLY church dedicated to Jesus and to GOD. Our POPE has said homosexual marriage is WRONG therefor it must be WRONG. To doubt the POPE is blasphemous.

 

[Silkcity19]

I despise homosexuality but I pity homosexuals. I don't care if they get married in a civil ceremony. The Roman Catholic Church wont marry homos and that's what counts.

My Church is the ONLY church dedicated to Jesus and to GOD. Our POPE has said homosexual marriage is WRONG therefor it must be WRONG. To doubt the POPE is blasphemous.

And my invisible man in the sky is still greater then your invisible man in the sky. Plus he needs less money

 

[uptownlivin90]

yes or no

Hell no!, if we allow this sexual perversion to be sanctioned under marriage, we will have people who will want to marry their pets asking for marriage rights, under some beastiality marriage rights campaign!!.

Marriage is between a man and a woman.! Case closed. And I don't appreciate Homosexuals trying to overturn Prop 8 in the state of California, after the General public voted down homosexual marriage law.The general public does not want Homosexual marriage.And we don't need to have it forced upon us either.!!

What really amazes me 52nd st, is how much the A.A. community was against gay marriage, yet they father the most children out of wedlock in the entire country.

Unfortunetly, what really DOESN'T amaze me is stupid comments like this, and how people just seem to be getting even stupider. We're talking about homos and them getting married... which they have every right too. Keep your racial bullshit out of it.

 

[bodecea]

LOL, of course. I'm in a same sex marriage.

 

[bodecea]

No.

Marriage occurs when one man and one woman are bonded in holy wedlock under the rules of religion. The couple is recognized by law as a married couple.

A couple of same-sex partners is a couple bonded by their own desire to be a couple. The couple should be recognized by law as a same-sex-couple, having the same rights and protections under the law as married couples.

Government has no need to redefine "marriage". Is has no right to redefine marriage as this would amount to a forced change to existing religious proclamations, thus violating the first amendment rights of religious citizens.

This should not be construed as an attack on same-sex-couples. I applaud their right to exist in peace. There is a pair of lesbians that I particularly like.

Funny that. We were married in the church many years before the state recognised our marriage.

 

[bodecea]

I believe the government has no business defining behavior between adults. Yes, there should be common sense type of limitations such as protecting underage children, but when the government thinks it has the right to determine whether or not two adults of the same gender can be recognized as a couple, then that government is crossing the line.

Personally, it's not my thing. But that's not the point. The point is how much authority we're willing to give the government, especially when it comes to personal relationships. Time to take off the blinders and see that we are permitting tyranny to exist all in the name of religion.

Oh fiddlesticks. The "marriage" they're talking about requires a re-definition of the term, and the desire to make it legal isn't so they can obtain rights (there are civil contracts BESIDES the marriage contract that can secure property rights between couples of any gender). Legalizing marriage in the legal system is just code for getting a foot into those churches who currently don't perform marriages between gay folk.

And you're right...the government has absolutely no place in the churches. So no, the state has no right to force the hand of the church.

you can't possibly be serious.

Sad to say, but Alliebaabaa is perfectly serious. I wonder if she can provide us with the churches that have been forced to perform interracial marriages since Loving v Virginia. But then again, she probably won't.

 

[Meister]

I say no.

Marriage.....no

Civil Unions....yes

I believe through courts that a civil union can address everything the gays are trying to attain, except for a marrige certificate.

 

[bodecea]

Marriage is a legal contract binding on both sides for the benefit of the kids and the parents. It is an obligation assumed by a couple not so much for their own benefit, but for the benefit of society as a whole.

Same sex marriage is just a nifty way to get a cool tax write off.

Um, so those of us with kids can just lump it? Is that it? And straight couples without kids shouldn't be allowed to get married? Is that it?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I despise homosexuality but I pity homosexuals. I don't care if they get married in a civil ceremony. The Roman Catholic Church wont marry homos and that's what counts.

My Church is the ONLY church dedicated to Jesus and to GOD. Our POPE has said homosexual marriage is WRONG therefor it must be WRONG. To doubt the POPE is blasphemous.

And my invisible man in the sky is still greater then your invisible man in the sky. Plus he needs less money

In Discoworld terms, Yukon is a follower of Nuggin. Most of the rest of us prefer Om.

Except folks like Liability and Crusader Frank, who perfer Annoia.

 

[bodecea]

I say no.

Marriage.....no

Civil Unions....yes

I believe through courts that a civil union can address everything the gays are trying to attain, except for a marrige certificate.

I have both....Marriage in church, civil unions by state....and then Marriage by state.

 

[Oddball]

Do you believe in same-sex marriage?

I believe:

1) In the right to contract, in accordance with Article 1, Section 10, Constitution for the U.S.

2) Constitutionally protected (i.e. common law) marriages are a right exercised between the two consenting parties, while licensed (i.e. statutory law) marriages are a privilege extended by the state (which is a defacto third party/14th Amendment/Santa Clara "person" in the union) to the principals.

3) Benefits (by the very definition of the word) extended by the state, employers, or other third and fourth parties are entirely at the discretion of those extending those benefits. For example, I, as a single individual, have no inherent right to the lower insurance rate a married man gets.

4) Gays would be far better served were they to bring suit under their right to contract in common law, rather than fighting state-by-state for the statutory privilege of a license, in order to protect their right (per the Loving ruling) to enter into marriage contracts.

Howz that?

 

[Meister]

I say no.

Marriage.....no

Civil Unions....yes

I believe through courts that a civil union can address everything the gays are trying to attain, except for a marrige certificate.

I have both....Marriage in church, civil unions by state....and then Marriage by state.

So what? You braggin?
I gave my opinion, Bo.

 

[bodecea]

I say no.

Marriage.....no

Civil Unions....yes

I believe through courts that a civil union can address everything the gays are trying to attain, except for a marrige certificate.

I have both....Marriage in church, civil unions by state....and then Marriage by state.

So what? You braggin?
I gave my opinion, Bo.

Bragging? No...stating what I have...yes. Please note the topic of this thread.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Marriage is a legal contract binding on both sides for the benefit of the kids and the parents. It is an obligation assumed by a couple not so much for their own benefit, but for the benefit of society as a whole.

Same sex marriage is just a nifty way to get a cool tax write off.

Um, so those of us with kids can just lump it? Is that it? And straight couples without kids shouldn't be allowed to get married? Is that it?

It is a recognition of social obligation by the probability of procreation.

I don't quite follow your first sentence. If you have kids you have obligations to the kids and to society (and to the other parent of the kids) and marriage is a way of exercising your obligations, and a way of demonstrating you will fulfill them.