Same Sex Marriage - For or Against it?

[PratchettFan]

I'm sorry if this is an issue that has been beaten to death here, but I've only been a member for about a week and haven't really seen it discussed in detail.

So...are you for or against same sex couples entering into a civil marriage in the United States? Why or why not?

I happen to be in favor of it. I'm a gay man in Texas who is waiting for the law to change so I can marry the man I've spent the last nine years with.

Neither. It is none of my business who anyone wants to marry. However, so long as the government is in the marriage business they should not discriminate against consenting adults setting up whatever marriage they desire.

 

[Inevitable]

Most gay people are liberals, and most liberals disregard the Bible or are flat out atheists. Also, most gay people reject the Bible because it forbids homosexuality. Therefore, I don't understand why gays and liberals would want to participate in marriage at all, unless the real objective is to undermine religion.

Marriage doesn't really have much to do with the bible. If it did, how could the government recognize it?

 

[S.J.]

Most gay people are liberals, and most liberals disregard the Bible or are flat out atheists. Also, most gay people reject the Bible because it forbids homosexuality. Therefore, I don't understand why gays and liberals would want to participate in marriage at all, unless the real objective is to undermine religion.

Marriage doesn't really have much to do with the bible. If it did, how could the government recognize it?

You're confusing "marriage" with "civil unions". Go ahead and have same sex civil unions, just don't classify it as marriage.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Most gay people are liberals, and most liberals disregard the Bible or are flat out atheists. Also, most gay people reject the Bible because it forbids homosexuality. Therefore, I don't understand why gays and liberals would want to participate in marriage at all, unless the real objective is to undermine religion.

Marriage doesn't really have much to do with the bible. If it did, how could the government recognize it?

You're confusing "marriage" with "civil unions". Go ahead and have same sex civil unions, just don't classify it as marriage.

And you're exhibiting your ignorance of the law, as no one is 'confusing' anything.

Marriage is contract law written by the states and administered by state courts, having nothing to do with religion, the bible, or marriage rituals that a given faith might observe.

Recognizing the equal protection rights of same-sex couples to enter into the marriage contract in accordance with the 14th Amendment in no way applies to private entities such as religious organizations.

Moreover, there is no such thing as 'civil unions,' as marriage performed by a justice of the peace is the same marriage law as performed by a member of the clergy – where those who enter into the marriage contract are entitled to the same privileges and immunities afforded all married couples, same- or opposite- sex.

Indeed, to attempt to contrive 'civil unions' and relegate same-sex couples to such an inane contrivance would be just as un-Constitutional as denying same-sex couples access to marriage law that they're currently eligible to participate in – as 'separate but equal' will forever be repugnant to the Founding Document as it was during the era of segregation.

 

[S.J.]

Marriage doesn't really have much to do with the bible. If it did, how could the government recognize it?

You're confusing "marriage" with "civil unions". Go ahead and have same sex civil unions, just don't classify it as marriage.

And you're exhibiting your ignorance of the law, as no one is 'confusing' anything.

Marriage is contract law written by the states and administered by state courts, having nothing to do with religion, the bible, or marriage rituals that a given faith might observe.

Recognizing the equal protection rights of same-sex couples to enter into the marriage contract in accordance with the 14th Amendment in no way applies to private entities such as religious organizations.

Moreover, there is no such thing as 'civil unions,' as marriage performed by a justice of the peace is the same marriage law as performed by a member of the clergy – where those who enter into the marriage contract are entitled to the same privileges and immunities afforded all married couples, same- or opposite- sex.

Indeed, to attempt to contrive 'civil unions' and relegate same-sex couples to such an inane contrivance would be just as un-Constitutional as denying same-sex couples access to marriage law that they're currently eligible to participate in – as 'separate but equal' will forever be repugnant to the Founding Document as it was during the era of segregation.

The institution of marriage has been around much longer than the United States, cap'n. It's a sacred commitment between 2 people (of opposite sex) and God. I know that bothers a lot of atheists and liberals but if you think you can change the meaning of marriage to accommodate your politically correct vision of legitimizing perversion, you're in for a fight (as I'm sure you've already noticed).

Giving gay couples the same rights as married couples is fine with me but the institution of marriage should remain the way it was intended, between a man and a woman. Don't try to hijack the Bible.

 

[Inevitable]

Most gay people are liberals, and most liberals disregard the Bible or are flat out atheists. Also, most gay people reject the Bible because it forbids homosexuality. Therefore, I don't understand why gays and liberals would want to participate in marriage at all, unless the real objective is to undermine religion.

Marriage doesn't really have much to do with the bible. If it did, how could the government recognize it?

You're confusing "marriage" with "civil unions". Go ahead and have same sex civil unions, just don't classify it as marriage.

What is to stop people from calling it a marriage? After all, that is what it is.

I don't really get this thing about the word marriage, what is so special about thatword that we can't use it in describing same sex couples getting married?

 

[Inevitable]

You're confusing "marriage" with "civil unions". Go ahead and have same sex civil unions, just don't classify it as marriage.

And you're exhibiting your ignorance of the law, as no one is 'confusing' anything.

Marriage is contract law written by the states and administered by state courts, having nothing to do with religion, the bible, or marriage rituals that a given faith might observe.

Recognizing the equal protection rights of same-sex couples to enter into the marriage contract in accordance with the 14th Amendment in no way applies to private entities such as religious organizations.

Moreover, there is no such thing as 'civil unions,' as marriage performed by a justice of the peace is the same marriage law as performed by a member of the clergy – where those who enter into the marriage contract are entitled to the same privileges and immunities afforded all married couples, same- or opposite- sex.

Indeed, to attempt to contrive 'civil unions' and relegate same-sex couples to such an inane contrivance would be just as un-Constitutional as denying same-sex couples access to marriage law that they're currently eligible to participate in – as 'separate but equal' will forever be repugnant to the Founding Document as it was during the era of segregation.

The institution of marriage has been around much longer than the United States, cap'n. It's a sacred commitment between 2 people (of opposite sex) and God.

No, it actually isn't. It is between two people and the state. Depending on the state it may be between two people of the same sex.

I know that bothers a lot of atheists and liberals

I am not atheist or liberal, so I can't speak to that. But God isn't involved. The state is.

but if you think you can change the meaning of marriage to accommodate your politically correct vision of legitimizing perversion, you're in for a fight (as I'm sure you've already noticed).

Huh...doesn't seem to be much of a fight, at least not in all the places where marriage extended to same sex couples.

Giving gay couples the same rights as married couples is fine with me

Really? Because just above you called them perverts.

but the institution of marriage should remain the way it was intended, between a man and a woman. Don't try to hijack the Bible.

The bible hijacked cultures that existed prior to it's authoring. Marriage was hijacked by the bible.

Regardless of ancient history, the bible. doesn't really get to have special claim on our laws, besides that, why would you be willing to extend the institution of marriage to same sex. couples and pretend it is something else?

 

[Geaux4it]

I'm against it. However, if a dude wants to get it on with a chicken, again, I have no issue. But when they want the benefits associated with marriage, I draw the line

-Geaux

 

[BobPlumb]

I would rather that marriage keep it's traditional meaning and be reserved for two members of the opposite sex. However, same sex marriage has gained momentum and it's only going to be a matter of time before it is legal in all 50 states, so I may as well get use to it. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Most gay people are liberals, and most liberals disregard the Bible or are flat out atheists. Also, most gay people reject the Bible because it forbids homosexuality. Therefore, I don't understand why gays and liberals would want to participate in marriage at all, unless the real objective is to undermine religion.

Marriage doesn't really have much to do with the bible. If it did, how could the government recognize it?

You're confusing "marriage" with "civil unions". Go ahead and have same sex civil unions, just don't classify it as marriage.

Because if it's a marriage in everything but the word, that changes things...How exactly? Bible doesn't use the word 'marriage' so why the big fuss? Bible isn't written in English you realize?

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

Marriage doesn't really have much to do with the bible. If it did, how could the government recognize it?

You're confusing "marriage" with "civil unions". Go ahead and have same sex civil unions, just don't classify it as marriage.

Because if it's a marriage in everything but the word, that changes things...How exactly? Bible doesn't use the word 'marriage' so why the big fuss? Bible isn't written in English you realize?

I think you mis-spoke, I have read 5 versions of the Bible, from King James to New International, and they have all been written in English. I am working on a Hebrew version of the Old Testament, and a Latin version of the New Testament, but wow, it's slow going, having to look up so many words. Anyway, I think what you meant to say was it was originally written in Hebrew and Latin.

There are many words that don't translate well, or at all from different languages, Matrimonium is the Latin word for marriage, and when translated marriage is all over the Bible. All the way from Genesis onward.

I was married in a church, if I had been born in a different country and had the same religious values, I would have tried to have been married in a church. Even if that was illegal in that country. Here's my point. Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman witnessed by God. In this country we have to get a marriage licence. If I lived in another country I might have to be married in secret in order to be married in the church or recognized by my faith. A marriage licence in this country equates to another way to tax people, and to keep up with them, that's about it.

 

[R.D.]

You're confusing "marriage" with "civil unions". Go ahead and have same sex civil unions, just don't classify it as marriage.

And you're exhibiting your ignorance of the law, as no one is 'confusing' anything.

Marriage is contract law written by the states and administered by state courts, having nothing to do with religion, the bible, or marriage rituals that a given faith might observe.

Recognizing the equal protection rights of same-sex couples to enter into the marriage contract in accordance with the 14th Amendment in no way applies to private entities such as religious organizations.

Moreover, there is no such thing as 'civil unions,' as marriage performed by a justice of the peace is the same marriage law as performed by a member of the clergy – where those who enter into the marriage contract are entitled to the same privileges and immunities afforded all married couples, same- or opposite- sex.

Indeed, to attempt to contrive 'civil unions' and relegate same-sex couples to such an inane contrivance would be just as un-Constitutional as denying same-sex couples access to marriage law that they're currently eligible to participate in – as 'separate but equal' will forever be repugnant to the Founding Document as it was during the era of segregation.

The institution of marriage has been around much longer than the United States, cap'n. It's a sacred commitment between 2 people (of opposite sex) and God. I know that bothers a lot of atheists and liberals but if you think you can change the meaning of marriage to accommodate your politically correct vision of legitimizing perversion, you're in for a fight (as I'm sure you've already noticed).

Giving gay couples the same rights as married couples is fine with me but the institution of marriage should remain the way it was intended, between a man and a woman. Don't try to hijack the Bible.

Take out the bible and to still have reality on your side

To anyone claiming it's just a word in defense of same sex marriage are being disingenuous. It's already defined, has been forever...."formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife

Be careful what you wish for

New law updates state code to use gender-neutral marriage terms*, no more husband and wives for anyone coming to your neighborhood soon.

Marriage is now defined as the union of two U.S. citizens by the federal government as of June 26, 2013. Best of luck to those who love, say, Canadians.

 

[Asclepias]

And you're exhibiting your ignorance of the law, as no one is 'confusing' anything.

Marriage is contract law written by the states and administered by state courts, having nothing to do with religion, the bible, or marriage rituals that a given faith might observe.

Recognizing the equal protection rights of same-sex couples to enter into the marriage contract in accordance with the 14th Amendment in no way applies to private entities such as religious organizations.

Moreover, there is no such thing as 'civil unions,' as marriage performed by a justice of the peace is the same marriage law as performed by a member of the clergy – where those who enter into the marriage contract are entitled to the same privileges and immunities afforded all married couples, same- or opposite- sex.

Indeed, to attempt to contrive 'civil unions' and relegate same-sex couples to such an inane contrivance would be just as un-Constitutional as denying same-sex couples access to marriage law that they're currently eligible to participate in – as 'separate but equal' will forever be repugnant to the Founding Document as it was during the era of segregation.

The institution of marriage has been around much longer than the United States, cap'n. It's a sacred commitment between 2 people (of opposite sex) and God. I know that bothers a lot of atheists and liberals but if you think you can change the meaning of marriage to accommodate your politically correct vision of legitimizing perversion, you're in for a fight (as I'm sure you've already noticed).

Giving gay couples the same rights as married couples is fine with me but the institution of marriage should remain the way it was intended, between a man and a woman. Don't try to hijack the Bible.

Take out the bible and to still have reality on your side

To anyone claiming it's just a word in defense of same sex marriage are being disingenuous. It's already defined, has been forever...."formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife

Be careful what you wish for

New law updates state code to use gender-neutral marriage terms*, no more husband and wives for anyone coming to your neighborhood soon.

Marriage is now defined as the union of two U.S. citizens by the federal government as of June 26, 2013. Best of luck to those who love, say, Canadians.

Thats odd. I could have sworn that it was always between 2 US citizens. Do you have a link to where it said you could marry a foreign national and still be recognized under federal law?

 

[Slyhunter]

I agree that churches should not be forced to marry a gay couple if it goes against their faith. My only problem is with people who are against it BECAUSE of their faith, and believe all bans that have been repealed should be reinstated for religious reasons or because of "natural law".

I'm against it because I'm against public gayness. If you kept it private I wouldn't care.
I'm against this --> https://www.google.com/search?q=gay...OkyATenIDgDw&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1149&bih=895

 

[ogibillm]

Most gay people are liberals, and most liberals disregard the Bible or are flat out atheists. Also, most gay people reject the Bible because it forbids homosexuality. Therefore, I don't understand why gays and liberals would want to participate in marriage at all, unless the real objective is to undermine religion.

Marriage doesn't really have much to do with the bible. If it did, how could the government recognize it?

if it did, why don't we allow polygamy?

 

[Asclepias]

I agree that churches should not be forced to marry a gay couple if it goes against their faith. My only problem is with people who are against it BECAUSE of their faith, and believe all bans that have been repealed should be reinstated for religious reasons or because of "natural law".

I'm against it because I'm against public gayness. If you kept it private I wouldn't care.
I'm against this --> https://www.google.com/search?q=gay...OkyATenIDgDw&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1149&bih=895

Why?

 

[Slyhunter]

I agree that churches should not be forced to marry a gay couple if it goes against their faith. My only problem is with people who are against it BECAUSE of their faith, and believe all bans that have been repealed should be reinstated for religious reasons or because of "natural law".

I'm against it because I'm against public gayness. If you kept it private I wouldn't care.
I'm against this --> https://www.google.com/search?q=gay...OkyATenIDgDw&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1149&bih=895

Why?

It's disgusting.
It shouldn't be in public view where Children might see.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Most gay people are liberals, and most liberals disregard the Bible or are flat out atheists. Also, most gay people reject the Bible because it forbids homosexuality. Therefore, I don't understand why gays and liberals would want to participate in marriage at all, unless the real objective is to undermine religion.

Marriage doesn't really have much to do with the bible. If it did, how could the government recognize it?

if it did, why don't we allow polygamy?

Bible doesn't allow polygamy but rather polygany (note the 'n'.) Polygamy is the either multiple husbands or wives for either spouse. Polygany is where the man may have multiple wives which is permitted in the Bible.

 

[Asclepias]

I'm against it because I'm against public gayness. If you kept it private I wouldn't care.
I'm against this --> https://www.google.com/search?q=gay...OkyATenIDgDw&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1149&bih=895

Why?

It's disgusting.
It shouldn't be in public view where Children might see.

Is it because they are gay are because its just inappropriate? You do know heterosexuals do that too right?

 

[PoliticalTorch]

I'm sorry if this is an issue that has been beaten to death here, but I've only been a member for about a week and haven't really seen it discussed in detail.

So...are you for or against same sex couples entering into a civil marriage in the United States? Why or why not?

I happen to be in favor of it. I'm a gay man in Texas who is waiting for the law to change so I can marry the man I've spent the last nine years with.

First of all, WELCOME to the board, Brandonisi!

In the old days people were more against Gay marriage than they were for it with just a sprinkle of support. But times have progressed since those years to where people are finally beginning to open their eyes to the fact that Gay and Lesbian people are Citizens of this country who work, pay their taxes, worship in church, have or adopt children and who Vote. As such and under the 14th Amendment they are fully entitled to the same rights that their Heterosexual counterparts have. They have been denied those rights for far too long a time but things are now changing as more and more courts tackle this issue and are ruling just about 100% of the time that laws prohibiting Gay marriage should be struck down and indeed the courts are doing just that all across the country. Even the Appeals Courts next to and right under the U.S. Supreme Court in ruling power have ruled against state bans on Gay marriage and KUDOS to them.

The overriding question that cannot be answered successfully as the courts have ruled is the argument that Gay marriage somehow harms traditional marriage. How, they ask? They have found that it does not harm traditional marriages as since when do two people who marry across the state or in another state affect the marriage of two straight people in that state or in another state? That's just it. It doesn't affect them one iota. So, that argument has now been found to be invalid and no doubt this issue is heading to the U.S. Supreme Court for final resolution. In the meantime, GLBT Citizens should be fully entitled to love and marry whomever they desire without interference from a majority of people in states that have voted to prohibit that from happening. The courts have also found that a majority in states cannot and should not vote against a minority where their civil and human rights are concerned. And if they do and the proposition or new law is challenged in court the courts will hold that the citizen majority had no right to vote against a minority as the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in California's Prop 8. I highly applaud that decision. To be with the one you love in Holy Matrimony is something truly beautiful that all people should be entitled to have. No one should stand in their way of happiness and in raising, having, or adopting children to further fulfill their lives. It is never good to be all alone throughout one's life no matter who you are or your sexual orientation. As one grows older it is most gratifying to know that the person whom you love and have loved for many years is right there beside you as your partner in life and will be there to the very end and you will not have to pass away alone. Indeed every citizen of this great nation deserves nothing less than that assurance to be made the law of the land.

Here are just a few of the websites that should exemplify that fact. There are lots more.

Anthropologist Community - When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite

Federal Judge Blocks 'Contrived' Attempt by County Clerk to Defend Pennsylvania's Gay Marriage Ban| Gay News | Towleroad

The Randy Report: PBS: The tide is turning in support of same-sex marriage