Do you believe in same-sex marriage?

[Meister]

Do you believe in same-sex marriage?

You could have just said....yes.

 

[Oddball]

Do you believe in same-sex marriage?

You could have just said....yes.

Problem being that there are two forms of marriage; common law and statutory.

The former a right, the latter a privilege.

 

[bobbcat]

yes or no

I used to believe 'no,' as I bought into the notion that for gay couples to enter into 'marriage,' the term would have to be redefined. That is just not so. Upon careful consideration of all factors, including many which have been addressed in this thread, I could think of no logical reason to object to it. Even my concerns over the possibility that this could lead to the erosion of limits on bigamy, polygamy, people wanting to marry their bird, etc. have been unfounded. To my mind the objection to marriage based on sexual orientation is simply a display of a form of bigotry. I also subscribe to the notion that gov't has no place in deciding the nature of matrimonial arrangements between any given two consenting adults.

 

[Political Junky]

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.

If they get married at city hall is it a holy marriage?

 

[Political Junky]

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.

Two middle aged people don't have the probability of procreation. Should they be forbidden to marry?

 

[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.

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

Engage your brain, these are the same arguments gay marriage advocates use. I just applied them to cats and it fits better.

 

[Nonelitist]

I do believe that gays should be allowed to be married in the eyes of the state. Since the government grants currently grants benefits and rights to heteroseual couples who are married, "marriage" is a completely legal and secular term. This legal contract with the state has nothing what so ever to do with religion and no one would force religious institutions perform these marriage ceremonies so there is no first amendment violation as asaratis claims. I am of the opinion that the government must call all of these legal contract for both heterosexual and homosexual couples either "marriage" or "civil unions."

Once it's made a violation of civil rights to deny a marriage license to gay people, I promise you, the government will be all over the churches and ultimately yank their authority to perform marriages that are sanctioned by the state. They've already made the attempt to take away tax-free status, and declare certain sermons and passages of the bible as "hate" speech.

Not allowing gay marriage isn't discrimination. I am straight and I can't marry a man either.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

That's like saying it's tyranny to make boys and girls use separate restrooms.

Does your house have separate facilities for males and females?


Actually, the main reason to have separate facilities is because males cannot control where they piss, and get it everywhere.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

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.

Two middle aged people don't have the probability of procreation. Should they be forbidden to marry?

Some 60+ woman in italy took drugs, lied about her age to the doc and had a kid. She is dead now, the kid's an orphan.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

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.

If they get married at city hall is it a holy marriage?

NO, just a LMAO "Civil" one!

 

[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?

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.

Exactly...we have kids...we are gay couples...are we 2nd class citizens? Are our kids 2nd class citizens?

 

[bodecea]

Do you believe in same-sex marriage?

You could have just said....yes.

Ah...you want me to shut up....I see. Don't like to hear about it. Too bad.

 

[bodecea]

yes or no

I used to believe 'no,' as I bought into the notion that for gay couples to enter into 'marriage,' the term would have to be redefined. That is just not so. Upon careful consideration of all factors, including many which have been addressed in this thread, I could think of no logical reason to object to it. Even my concerns over the possibility that this could lead to the erosion of limits on bigamy, polygamy, people wanting to marry their bird, etc. have been unfounded. To my mind the objection to marriage based on sexual orientation is simply a display of a form of bigotry. I also subscribe to the notion that gov't has no place in deciding the nature of matrimonial arrangements between any given two consenting adults.

Let us be very clear. This is NOT discrimination based on sexual orientation...it is discrimination based on gender. And THAT is illegal.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Engage your brain, these are the same arguments gay marriage advocates use. I just applied them to cats and it fits better.

Maybe in your world. Let me ask you....what about allowing straight marriage keeps you from marrying your cat? ...as long as they are not of the same gender as you?

 

[QUENTIN]

Yes, if we continue to grant heterosexual couples legal "marriages."

If those who oppose same-sex marriage do so on religious freedom grounds rather than bigoted anti-civil rights grounds, then the solution is that the state recognize only "civil unions" between all pairs of consenting adults wishing to receive them, with the same rights currently bestowed upon "marriages," and "marriage" be merely a religious recognition granted by individual churches. Then the Catholic church can "marry" heterosexual couples in a religious ceremony if they so choose, and the Unitarian Universalist church can "marry" homosexual couples in a religious ceremony if they so choose, but according to the State all of these pairings are equal civil union legal arrangements.

The semantics and word choice don't matter, what matters is that everyone have equal rights.

Currently, we illegally divide the country arbitrarily into "citizens" and "gay citizens". What makes homosexuals any different as Americans than heterosexuals, besides what they do consensually with their genitals? Gay sex is not a crime, therefore gay citizens should not be deprived of the same privileges and protections granted to every other citizen. I don't care what they call it, it's a basic civil rights issue.

 

[Cecilie1200]

yes or no

Exactly what is your question? Do I believe that homosexual couples consider themselves married? Yes. Do I believe that the definition of "marriage" includes homosexual couples? No. Do I believe that the law should be changed to recognize homosexual couples as married? HELL, no.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

It's always amazed me that activists for the redefinition of marriage never mention the two actual rights granted to married couples and no one else. Instead, they always go with "inheritance", and "visits in hospitals", and other things that not only can be handled by other means, but SHOULD be done that way, even by heterosexual couples.

No, I'm not going to mention what those two actual rights are. I'm curious to see if anyone else can figure it out. (I'm also a little afraid of giving them ideas.)

 

[Cecilie1200]

It doesn't affect my marriage at all. I have no problem with it.

Now if we were talking a "No Sex" Marriage............I'm opposed

As I'm sure you tell your wife frequently.

 

[Tom Clancy]

No.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No one has ever made a rational argument against same-sex marriage, so if you believe that liberty means allowing people to do whatever you can't make a rational argument against allowing them to do,

then you should support same sex marriage.