I am a straight and respect people's lifestyles. The other night I went into a channel on IRC, a place I have been a part of for the last 9 years, we talk mostly about computers and coding and so on. Last night someone brought up the subject of Gay marriage and it turned into a mayor issue. I would like to read your opinions.
LOL I think this is going to turn out to be a flaming post here for sure... one of those topics that illicits STRONG emotions. My POV on this issue is that it isn't my business what anyone else wants to do and who they want to do it with as long as it isn't harming anyone. Regards, Vickie
Well, when i look up the dictionary the word "Marriage", it comes up with this: 1-The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. 2- union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.I feel that if 2 persons of the same sex want to be together legally, it should be granted, but not called a marriage.
I might as well chime in on this one. A little over a year ago, I and my same-sex partner had a beautiful wedding ceremony that was attended by all our friends and family, nearly all of whom are fairly conservative (some would say red-neck even) down-home people. None of these people had ever considered that they would ever attend such an event in their lives, but they all smiled and laughed and cried just as they would have at any straight wedding. Was it "legal"? Of course not, as our state certainly doesn't have such a law on the books. Do I care what anyone calls it? Nope. If people want to call it a civil union, that would be ok with me. The only thing I care about is having the ability to be the person who is allowed into my loved one's hospital room if she is sick or dying, and to make sure her wishes are carried out when necessary. These are the kinds of things that matter - not what something is labeled. We did have tons of legal paperwork drawn up and notarized before the ceremony, so in all matters of importance, we are "legal". The other things (like joint tax returns, etc.) would be nice, but not vital. I laugh when others say that legalizing same-sex marriage would be a threat to their own marriages. I'm fairly certain that my wedding didn't end up threatening anyone's marriage. We go on day to day living our lives as we always have - being the people we've always been - being loved by the straight people who've always loved us, and we haven't destroyed the world. Nevertheless, I don't worry about it either. For the last 30 or so years, I've been myself and haven't concerned myself with what others thought. I've taken care of the legal issues myself without having to need the government to do it for me, and without the consent of the majority. I live, I love, I respect, and I care. Legal or not - called whatever it wants to be called - our lives move on as before. Peace and love to all of you - no matter what opinions you have on the subject.
actually calling it a marriage, though, would have a huge impact on the general public's opinion of gay marriage. I mean, if they would've handled out "civil unions" but not marriage licenses for interracial couples, don't you think that's the government having a stance on something it really shouldn't have a stance on at all? it's the same deal with gay marriages really. the government has a responsibility to stick up for minorities, even when it isn't the popular thing to do- when interracial marriages were legalized, it certainly wasn't publicly accepted much at all, but since it was, it actually helped to change attitudes about it. you can probably guess my stance on it
No way, no how. End of story. Civil unions, I can deal with. But marriage is between a man and a woman. I'm not religious, but that's just the way it's meant to be. Some things you don't screw with. The truth is, it should be handled by states only and is not something the federal government should be involved with, morally or legally.
Saying "marriage is between a man and a woman because it's defined that way and/or that's the way it's always been" is a specious argument, in my opinion. Before Henry Ford, horsepower doubtless had a very different definition. Before the suffrage movement, a voter was by definition a man. Words are invented, become archaic, and change meaning all the time. I don't really care one way or the other but at least be logical about it -- some days I think heterosexual marriage should be illegal too
I'll refrain from the old slippery slope argument; but it dilutes marriage as a concept in the long run. Since the gay marriage judgement from the courts, some legal experts are suggesting that polygamy is essentially legal now too. You open the door a crack, you open it a lot more. Okay, so I did the slippery slope argument. Pro gay marriage argument is usually that you are being denied the same right as everyone else "to get married". this isn't correct. You are unable to marry your own sex, as am I. Your rights are no different than mine. Everyone is in the same ball field here, so its not the same as the suffrage movement or civil rights when 1 group had different rights than others. some days I agree with minstrel. With divorce rate at 50% plus, why even bother with the concept at all anymore? heh.
hmmm, my religious convictions beg me to reply, but my business tells me otherwise. As most of you know, I am a Christian (don't hold it against me ) I am a very 'liberal' Christian as far as acceptance goes. Jesus was about love. I love everyone the same, but I do not approve or condone certain actions. Now, these are my opinions (but opinions that I deliver as what I believe is fact), I feel that had God created the world with gay men and female being a 'way of life' they would be able to continue that way of life naturally. Two gay men or two gay females cannot procreate naturally, and with that said, I believe that term marriage should be kept in context with that male/female procreation in mind. DD, I respect your ability to see past the term or a necessity to change it. When you look at people trying to constantly change things, you have to wonder where it stops. Say that the term 'marriage' were to be rewritten to include homosexuals, what is to stop then a 45 year old male and his 13 year old male lover from 'getting married' and changing the rules. I know that I will get flamed over my views, but hopefully I have earned enough respect here to warrant otherwise. DD, I am very happy you are happy and I wish you continued happiness.... I just hope you find the Lord in your short time on earth
right- we all have the same rights in that sense. in the same sense that at one point time, we all had the right to marry someone (and only someone) of our own race. everyone had the same rights, but those rights granted weren't just and fair to begin with. dazzlindonna: nice to know, and congrats
I dont think it is anyone's right to say that two people cannot be married. That taking YOUR personal morality and forcing it to be OTHER PEOPLE'S personal morality and then calling it a law. People need to understand that it's none of their business who wants to do this kind of thing. It doesn't affect you and if you feel it does, you have personal problems you should be a ddressing before you go trying to solve other people's "problems"
Congratulations, DD. I'm straight, but same-sex marriage has no effect on my life. I agree with mopacfan about it being handled at the state rather than federal level.
I would have put it in a less "CAPS LOCKED" way, but I definitely understand how you feel. I would have wrote the same if I were feeling more brave. I don't want people to jump back at me because of how I said something, just for what I say. If that makes sense. So for now I'll just quote and agree wholeheartedly. GJ
I don't have an opinion on this - but I do think its funny that Angry Lizard's Avatar is a Happy Banana.
Marriage is an alliance of two people, one of whom never remembers birthdays and the other never forgets them. - Michael
Aye congratulations I'm staright, married etc, but I reckon same-sex marriage would enhance my life, as well as that of my family and those around us. My sister and her partner would dearly love be recognised as a couple in the same way my wife and I are. As for the dictionary definition of the word marriage, language changes and evolves
Do I chime in or not on such a contensious <sp> issue? I think there are a couple of issues here. The first is with gay relationships, and the second is with marriage. I used to have a business with a business partner who was gay. Imagine the fun when I introduced (names changed) this is Burt, he is my partner, oh & this is steve, his partner I have nothing against people who are gay, I DO have serious issues with 'the scene' as it promotes dreadful promiscuity, and behaviour. Some of my business partners gay friends were constantly trying to turn someone who was straight. I see this part of it as wrong. I honestly fail to see how you can truly love someone and be promiscuous and unfaithful at the same time, regardless of your sexual orientation, love is love, and if you love someone then you are faithful, if your not, then your kidding yourself that you love them IMO. On the other hand, I have two very good friends who are gay, they live in a loving caring relationship, have done for 25 years, and although I disagree on religious grounds to a marriage in church. I see it absolutely wrong that they should not have the same legal rights as a different sex couple. Civil ceremony marriage out of church I have no problem with, as it is only a ceremony in law after all. A marriage in the eyes of god, in a church, I do have issues with, which I do not want to start quoting scripture over as religion and debate do not work online IMO. Should two people who love each other be allowed to be recognised as a legal couple in the eyes of the law with the same rights as a different sex couple? ABSOLUTELY. Love is love, and commitment is commitment. In the Uk we have written and put in place recently something called a civil commitment ceremony. This allows two people who are not allowed to marry under current laws (due to the laws of sanguinity or others) to make a legal commitment that gives them the right that a husband and wife would have. However this allows a mother and daughter, brother and sister etc, in fact anyone who has a loving relationship and has dedicated their lives to the other person. This law in the UK makes it equal. For example if I die, tracey does not have to worry about inheritance tax, as we are married. sasex prtner (if I had one) would immediately have to cope with inheritence tax. Pension rights would not transfer to my (if) same sex partner. This in my eyes is wrong. And, as the previous poster pointed out, to be excluded from a hospital room by the family who do not want their family members love to be there due to purely selfish reasons HAS to be wrong. So my answer is, same sex unions in law ? YES Same sex marriage in church and in the eyes of God? NO