My $0.02 on the gay marriage thing...

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Americangirl, Feb 16, 2004.

  1. Americangirl
    Online

    Americangirl Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I know that this topic has been discussed a lot already, but I just figured that I would jump in and add one thought that I have been having.

    I live in California (but not San Francisco). I am engaged to a great guy and I am getting married next year. I am enjoying being a bride-to-be and I think this is a very exciting time in my life.

    I heard on the news how in S.F., they are putting the terms "First Applicant" and "Second Applicant" on the marriage license application instead of "Bride" and "Groom". I think it totally sucks that if this thing continues, I don't even get to be a bride anymore! I'm just an applicant! Why is it that those special designations, Bride and Groom, are being taken away from us heterosexuals?

    I have no problem with civil unions, because that is a legal contract between two people. But I really wish the gay lobby would quit bringing a religious marriage into the picture, when most of them aren't religious to begin with. It trivializes the whole thing for those of us who are religious and who do take the idea of marriage (making vows before God) quite seriously.
     
  2. wonderwench
    Online

    wonderwench Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    You are missing the point.

    The government has no business promoting religious defintions. We have separation of Church and State. The only role for government is in the laws which define the contractual aspects of the marriage relationship.

    Your religious official will still call you a bride, regardless of what some gay couple put on an application.
     
  3. eric
    Online

    eric Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Very good post Americangirl, and I really do feel bad. This is a great time in your life to be remembered forever, and you should feel special !

    I think your view is fair and balanced and it is a pleasure to see younger people who still hold some truths !

    Good luck to you and your future family !
     
  4. SinisterMotives
    Online

    SinisterMotives Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    What business did government have getting involved in the religious institution of marriage in the first place then? Why do you need a government license for a union that is presumably sealed by God Himself?
     
  5. wonderwench
    Online

    wonderwench Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    You don't. If your only interest is in having a religious ceremony.

    The government issuing marriage licenses is just an acknowledgement of a legally binding relationship. Marriage partners share certain assets and benefits - but are also legally liable for debts, taxes and other liablities. It is really the business aspect of the relationship that is the state's concern.
     
  6. nbdysfu
    Offline

    nbdysfu Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    829
    Thanks Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +29
    At the moment I have to say I am somewhat neutral on this issue.

    Although I will say that in regards to the business end of a marriage, there is higher risk (of pregnancy), in a heterosexual marriage. Consequently the risks are higher. Opinions?
     
  7. RobertOne
    Online

    RobertOne Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    While I am generally undecided on this issue, it is my understanding that marriage is recognized by the state for the following reasons.

    1) The insistution of the family promotes values the state determines be important to society. These values are preserved and impressed upon the children. Generally speaking, the state identifies the family as an important unit of child raising and encourages people to share in these values with tax incentives and other financial benefits.

    2) The other reason is a legally recognized union. For purposes of future seperation, the state can administrate the division of property and future responsibilities.

    While civil unions (something available to same sex couples in most states) provide for #2, I assume the debate is primarily in regards to #1.
     
  8. Zhukov
    Offline

    Zhukov VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,492
    Thanks Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Everywhere, simultaneously.
    Ratings:
    +301
    Because you're feelings aren't as important as the feelings of a small but vocal minority 'future-Applicant #2', didn't you know that?

    It's not about you. They don't care about you. It's about them, them, them. Pure narcissism. How dare you even express your opinions or feelings. Shame on you.




    Ask that question, in person, to a die-hard liberal and see how long before they start screaming at you.

    Ah, more tyranny of the disgruntled minority.
     
  9. acludem
    Offline

    acludem VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,500
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +69
    Gay marriage should be legalized. There is absolutely no good reason to ban gay marriage. I will now debunk a few of the main arguments opponents make:

    1.) Gay marriage will undermine the sanctity of marriage: The divorce rate amongst married couples is so ridiculously high that it is clear there is no "sanctity of marriage" If marriage is so sacred how come heterosexuals can be married 3, 4, 5 or more times? People change spouses like they change underwear.

    2.) Marriage is primarily for reproduction: Should men and women who are for some reason or other unable to produce children be banned from marriage? How about older people who are marrying after being widowed?

    3.) Marriage is a religious issue: Fine, I'm not for forcing any churches to marry gay couples if they don't want to. Churches don't have to marry any straight couple they don't want to. Marriage here is the kind the government sanctions, and the government should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

    4.) Gay marriage will lead to gay adoption which is bad for kids: What children in foster care all long for is a loving home with parents who want to care for them. Many kids have been raised by gay couples and have done just fine. Many children have been raised in homes with two men or two women - dad and uncle, dad and grandpa, mom and grandma, mom and aunt....etc.

    5.) Homosexuality is sin and shouldn't be tolerated: You are entitiled to your opinion, but so am I.

    6.) Gay marriage will lead to the continued moral decay of the U.S.: Whose morals? My morals are a bit different than Jerry Falwell's.

    7.) The majority of Americans are opposed to gay marriage: So what? The majority of Germans though it was a good idea to exterminate Jews in the 1930s and 40s. Democracy is based on majority rule with protection for the minority. There was a time in this country the majority of Americans thought slavery was a good thing.

    There you are.

    acludem
     
  10. deciophobic
    Online

    deciophobic Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    awesome acludem!!!!!!11:) :) :)
     

Share This Page