Stance on Gay Rights/ Marriage

[xotoxi]

I am just curious as to where you guys stand when it comes to this argument...

As citizens Gays have all the same rights as everyone else, there is no need to provide "special" rights for them.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Get the Government out of Marriage, call everything the Government licenses and makes laws for a " Domestic Partnership" or some such. Leave Marriage to the religions.

I agree with RGS on something.

Government should no longer recognize marriage or issue "marriage licenses". They should only recognize civil unions which would be a legal contractual agreement between two adult humans.

Marriage is a religious entity...and if a church wants to "marry" two men or two women, that's their perogative.

 

[Warrior102]

I am just curious as to where you guys stand when it comes to this argument...

As citizens Gays have all the same rights as everyone else, there is no need to provide "special" rights for them.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Get the Government out of Marriage, call everything the Government licenses and makes laws for a " Domestic Partnership" or some such. Leave Marriage to the religions.

I agree with RGS on something.

Government should no longer recognize marriage or issue "marriage licenses". They should only recognize civil unions which would be a legal contractual agreement between two adult humans.

Marriage is a religious entity...and if a church wants to "marry" two men or two women, that's their perogative.

Agree!!

 

[Inthemiddle]

First of all, there is no legal status of "gay marriage" or "homosexual marriage" because none of the laws are based on sexual orientation, legally the question is about Same-sex Civil Marriage.

Gay marriage, same-sex marriage, tomato, tomato, all the same.

Secondly, I can't ever remember anyone advocating that Churches, Synagogues, Mosques, Temples, etc., be forced to provide Same-sex Marriages (when such a service would be part of the organizations religious services and also qualifiy as a Civil Marriage). The ONLY people that bring up that possibility are those obosed to Same-sex Civil Marriage in an attempt to use an appeal to emotion fallacy and/or strawman argument.

It happens. The occasional nut out there who feels like it's unjust for a minister to have the right to refuse to perform a marriage ceremony for a gay couple. The thinking seems to be that such a thing would be an effective ban on gay marriage, as if there would be no other avenues available for such couples to become married, or that at the very least it would devalue gay marriage in comparison to hetero marriage, since it would allegedly leave gay couples with only a judge option.

 

[xotoxi]

So let me ask you? Since you claim marriage should be allowed to any two consenting adults, what is your feeling on family members marrying each other?

Incest is illegal in the U.S. Got any other strawmen?

So was sodomy. YOU use the excuse that two consenting adults determine your life style. Explain why Family members that are CONSENTING ADULTS are different?

Your ENTIRE argument depends on the call that what TWO CONSENTING ADULTS want to do and who they want to marry is a civil right. Yet you would deny a right you demand for yourself to two consenting adults that happen to be related. I can only think of 2 reasons you would do that. Religion or the ICK factor.

I think that a civil union could be between two brothers or a son and a mother if it benefits them in a legal way (i.e. tax, inheritance, etc.).

A marriage license implies that the two people on the license will be having SEX. I think it is rather inappropriate for the government to be issuing licenses for SEX.

A civil union would have NO implicit or explicit link to SEX, which is why the family member thing would not be an issue. The civil union would be a legal contract, just like when Pujols signs a legal contract to play for the Angels. The contract grants him and the Angels certain rights. It does not imply that he will be having sex with them.

 

[Warrior102]

First of all, there is no legal status of "gay marriage" or "homosexual marriage" because none of the laws are based on sexual orientation, legally the question is about Same-sex Civil Marriage.

Gay marriage, same-sex marriage, tomato, tomato, all the same.

Secondly, I can't ever remember anyone advocating that Churches, Synagogues, Mosques, Temples, etc., be forced to provide Same-sex Marriages (when such a service would be part of the organizations religious services and also qualifiy as a Civil Marriage). The ONLY people that bring up that possibility are those obosed to Same-sex Civil Marriage in an attempt to use an appeal to emotion fallacy and/or strawman argument.

It happens. The occasional nut out there who feels like it's unjust for a minister to have the right to refuse to perform a marriage ceremony for a gay couple. The thinking seems to be that such a thing would be an effective ban on gay marriage, as if there would be no other avenues available for such couples to become married, or that at the very least it would devalue gay marriage in comparison to hetero marriage, since it would allegedly leave gay couples with only a judge option.

Post 66 is for you too, asswipe.

 

[WorldWatcher]

First of all, there is no legal status of "gay marriage" or "homosexual marriage" because none of the laws are based on sexual orientation, legally the question is about Same-sex Civil Marriage.

Gay marriage, same-sex marriage, tomato, tomato, all the same.

Actually, I think it will be an important distinction as the issue continues to mature over the next few years. The laws are based on gender which is undoubtedly a biological condition and will be an important part of answering the question about whether the government can/should discriminate against it's citizens based on biological factors when there is no compelling reason to do so.



>>>>

 

[Listening]

bold-oh please, you are just a fucking prude( and i am not talking about sex in parks) Go the fuck away.

Underline-Oh so you know its gay's who leave condoms? Are you trolling parks for gay men who ditch their used condoms? Do you pick them up and keep them as "evidence".

Shut up.

Wow...

Someone speaks their mind and you show severe intolerance.

Good job.

damn right i am. I have no room for stupid ignorance, bigots, or moronic prudes.
This isn't Iran, so shut the fuck up.

Well, no I won't.

As to ignorance....you seem to be at the top (or bottom a the case may be) of the pile.

You are correct, this isn't Iran.

So please follow your own advice and shut the hell up. You are an embarassment to the species.

 

[Listening]

I want three wives (now don't ask me why).

If two guys can marry...then legalize my right to marry three women at the same time.

 

[westwall]

All for it. Who does it hurt?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not an issue anymore of great substance. The younger generations of 3:1 proportions support universal marriage. This is a done deal. No need to whine about it either way.

 

[Amelia]

I am just curious as to where you guys stand when it comes to this argument...

Heterosexuals have seriously tarnished if not destroyed the sanctity of marriage.

Why not let gays have a turn at it.

 

[Amelia]

I want three wives (now don't ask me why).

If two guys can marry...then legalize my right to marry three women at the same time.

Should polygamy be a reason to deny someone permission to immigrate to America? Do they have to be willing to break up their family to immigrate? What if they're refugees from some horror ... should they have to choose between death and dissolution of their marriages?

 

[JoeB131]

As for marriage, I would have no problem with it if it is something that is gained at the ballot box or throught the legislative process. I have a big problem with judges imposing it after the people have said "no" at the ballot box, such as they have in California.

Do you have a problem with past judicial "impositions" like when the SCOTUS ruled on Loving v Virginia?

Not really in the same category, but keep pretending it is.

 

[Mr.Nick]

I am just curious as to where you guys stand when it comes to this argument...

Morally I'm opposed but ethically, especially as a libertarian - communities have the right to self govern.

Lets just say I would not have a problem with a gay couple holding hands or kissing in public in a gay community but I would in my community...

IMO, people need to live where they belong...

Besides I wouldn't even have a problem with someone that was gay but kept their affections at home.

I'm indifferent honestly....

I really only have a problem with the gays that use their gayness to aggravate others like immature children....

 

[WorldWatcher]

As for marriage, I would have no problem with it if it is something that is gained at the ballot box or throught the legislative process. I have a big problem with judges imposing it after the people have said "no" at the ballot box, such as they have in California.

Do you have a problem with past judicial "impositions" like when the SCOTUS ruled on Loving v Virginia?

Not really in the same category, but keep pretending it is.

Why would discrimination based on the the racial composition of the couple be in a different category then discrimination based on the gender composition of the couple?

Are not race and gender both biological factors?



>>>>

 

[G.T.]

Legal marriage? let them do it.

 

[Seawytch]

As for marriage, I would have no problem with it if it is something that is gained at the ballot box or throught the legislative process. I have a big problem with judges imposing it after the people have said "no" at the ballot box, such as they have in California.

Do you have a problem with past judicial "impositions" like when the SCOTUS ruled on Loving v Virginia?

Not really in the same category, but keep pretending it is.

By all means, please explain to us how it isn't in the same category.

 

[JoeB131]

Do you have a problem with past judicial "impositions" like when the SCOTUS ruled on Loving v Virginia?

Not really in the same category, but keep pretending it is.

By all means, please explain to us how it isn't in the same category.

Miscegnation laws were imposed AFTER slavery ended. Before then, slaves didn't get married because they couldn't enter into legal contracts. Families formed, but you could sell off members of the family at will. It was a discrimination imposed to replace a previous discrimination, even though said discrimination was specifically banned by the 14th Admendment...

No one has ever held that two people of the same gender could get married. It's a fundemental redefinition of marriage. It wasn't a case of a right being taken away after it was given.

Now, if you can get 50% of the population to agree with redefining marriage, I'm totally with you. If you ask me to vote for legalizing gay marriage, I would. But don't use the courts to impose laws, because, honestly, all it would take would be for conservatives to stack the courts with rightwingers to do the reverse.

 

[Seawytch]

Not really in the same category, but keep pretending it is.

By all means, please explain to us how it isn't in the same category.

Miscegnation laws were imposed AFTER slavery ended. Before then, slaves didn't get married because they couldn't enter into legal contracts. Families formed, but you could sell off members of the family at will. It was a discrimination imposed to replace a previous discrimination, even though said discrimination was specifically banned by the 14th Admendment...

No one has ever held that two people of the same gender could get married. It's a fundemental redefinition of marriage. It wasn't a case of a right being taken away after it was given.

Now, if you can get 50% of the population to agree with redefining marriage, I'm totally with you. If you ask me to vote for legalizing gay marriage, I would. But don't use the courts to impose laws, because, honestly, all it would take would be for conservatives to stack the courts with rightwingers to do the reverse.

LOL...that's quite a stretch. Blacks were prohibited from marrying whites. They never had that right so it wasn't "taken away" post slavery, it was prohibited from the "get go". Those darn activist SCOTUS judges went against the will of the people to over turn anti-miscegenation laws.

We don't vote on civil rights, period.

Civil rights are won in the court of law (when you look at history). The fact that Mississippi would vote to overturn anti miscegenation laws RIGHT NOW if it went to the ballot box is just one of the reasons.

 

[High_Gravity]

I want three wives (now don't ask me why).

If two guys can marry...then legalize my right to marry three women at the same time.

HAHA you have obviously never been married before if you are asking for 3 wives.