[X] My Assistant

[Lester Burnham]

My personal opinion on it is that the federal government should stay out of the matter. It is a state's issue. If there is an issue with benefits then it should be decided by state. It is a state's rights to decide whether to allow gay marriage as a practice or not in their state. Unless a constitutional amendment is made this should remain a state's issue.

This creates complications when it comes to a couple that is legally married in one state and then they relocate to another. They would lose their rights if the second state doesn't recognize same-sex unions as the same as opposite-sex unions.

[The Shadow]

My personal opinion on it is that the federal government should stay out of the matter. It is a state's issue. If there is an issue with benefits then it should be decided by state. It is a state's rights to decide whether to allow gay marriage as a practice or not in their state. Unless a constitutional amendment is made this should remain a state's issue.

This creates complications when it comes to a couple that is legally married in one state and then they relocate to another. They would lose their rights if the second state doesn't recognize same-sex unions as the same as opposite-sex unions.

Yet; the fact remains that the constitution guarantees the right for states to govern marriage indirectly. While it doesn't say that it's a state issue; it is not denied to the states nor guaranteed towards the federal government.

As a figurative let's say that Georgia bans marriage altogether. If a couple moved to that state married they would no longer be married. That is the absolute fact of it. It is a state's issue. Whether you are for or against it is a state's issue until an amendment is made. That is the government set up by the Constitution of the United States of America. If you are married in California and move to Oklahoma your marriage will be different. Just as if you smoke pot in Colorado that doesn't mean you can smoke it in Okalahoma. It is the law of that state.

[Lester Burnham]

Okay, but you're not seeming to understand the point I'm making: same-sex couples who are recognized as married in one state (let's say Massachusetts) who move to another state (say Texas) where same-sex marriage is not recognized will LOSE their rights. If the federal government doesn't make a universal law then people could lose the rights they're entitled to. If an emergency happened to one partner in Texas, then the visitation and next-of-kin rights would be fucked up, just as an example.

[The Shadow]

In all honesty next of kin laws are screwed up anyway... I speak based off of experience here. But you do make a good point. However. I think that the federal government on marriage is a thin line. As an example...

Let's say discrimination is an pendidulum. If it begins swinging the other way(such as in the way of racism) what of the regular married couples. What if the government bans regular marriage.(though I doubt this would happen...)

I do believe it should stay a local government issue simply by the fact that smaller bodies of government are shown to represent the majority's opinion better. A democracy works based off of a majority. If the majority wants gay marriage to be banned; it can be banned. If they believe it should be allowed; it can be allowed.

Now I am reaching into big government vs small government here and I apologize; but majority rules is the founding principal of a democracy. If the majority of the people want something; they can vote or write a petition. That is the beauty of a democracy.

[jayrachi]

It's just difficult to wrap my head around why a couple requires an official document to prove their commitment. :\

[Yamper]

It's just difficult to wrap my head around why a couple requires an official document to prove their commitment. :\

It's not a requirement. People just do it because they believe it's the ultimate commitment; if they can get married then they're both fully committed to one another (or so they think)

Albeit most marriages end in divorce nowadays and I'm not really wanting to get married to another man, because I don't want to and the cost of everything >_> That shit ain't cheap. Cohabitation is far easier to do, if things go tits up between you and your partner then it's easy to go separate ways.

[Lord Raven]

This is a completely ridiculous thing to say in my opinion. While I don't really care about the federal benefits... Abolishing marriage would be interfering with the first amendment. Freedom of religion.

how

If you're getting at what I think you're getting at, no, marriage is a religious affair so getting married would just be something that is not documented federally. It's documented religiously instead and the church recognizes the marriage whereas the government doesn't care whether or not you're married.

It's a legitimate view point to take because you're not banning two people from getting married, you're abolishing it from government recognition that way whatever religious unification ceremony you undertake is all on you and will be irrelevant to anything government-related. This means that there's no push for gay marriage because the government doesn't recognize marriage (not a ban on marriage because they won't prevent people from getting married) meaning that the gay community can just go get married by a pastor that's willing to marry them and not worry about the legal crap and the religious folk won't continue to campaign to the government to eliminate it.

Of course, this won't happen because gay marriage is a rallying cry for political parties. Why would you eliminate something that makes it easier for you to be elected?

I was born and raised in a "Christian" home, that beginning said I am "saved" (from a supposed biblical perspective), and on that same note I was "saved" at a very young age (It has been about eleven years). I'm the one person, raised in such conditions (yes I said conditions, oh well.), that can say without a shadow of a doubt that people should be allowed to be free to choose for themselves and not have some over bearing shit thrust upon them as a child stating that you'll be forever dammed into hell for going against a book that contradicts itself. It states that "Once saved, always saved." but that once you're supposedly saved you can no longer sin (Not in those exact words but it says it and I refuse to argue with some insure nut-job that would like to try and argue an in-arguable point with me). I also states that lying will dam you, once again who hasn't? A little white lie can supposedly send us all to hell so are we really saved in the first place? From the person that lived a lie for eleven years take from me: Race does not matter. Sexuality does not matter. WE (Yeah, I'm bi.) are not bothering anyone. Aside for the ticked off jerks that simply don't like us being around.

Also, rather then taking a fully opinionated one-sided view of it as you can see I've made references from both sides of the issue and while some of you may not like what has been said, no one cares. Not liking a comment does not mean it is not true.

Thank you~ o3o

I would suggest that in order to get your argument across, you don't attack the religion that may or may not be holding this issue back. Sure there is contradictions and weirdness in the bible that neither of us agree with and sure certain people on this forum (and internet) will vehemently attack people for believing in the Bible (or defending it), but the fact is that religion is the crutch of many people. They live and breath by the Bible and cannot imagine a life without it, and they rely on it for hope and it gives people strength to live on. This doesn't just apply to the Bible; you have other holy books as well. So I would advise you not beef up gay marriage by attacking the religious text, because that won't rub people the right way. (note that this isn't an official moderator warning LOL, it's an argumentative suggestion).

And there are quite a few people who legitimately believe that allowing gay marriage could spiral towards an end-of-civilization thing because of a few stories in the bible. It explicitly does not allow gay actions, but it also in some ways heralded the end of a particular civilization if they willingly condone gay marriage or something to that extent. I would find another argument, because I don't think gay marriage is as black-and-white an issue as people love to make it out to be.

[The Shadow]

This is a completely ridiculous thing to say in my opinion. While I don't really care about the federal benefits... Abolishing marriage would be interfering with the first amendment. Freedom of religion.

how

If you're getting at what I think you're getting at, no, marriage is a religious affair so getting married would just be something that is not documented federally. It's documented religiously instead and the church recognizes the marriage whereas the government doesn't care whether or not you're married.

It's a legitimate view point to take because you're not banning two people from getting married, you're abolishing it from government recognition that way whatever religious unification ceremony you undertake is all on you and will be irrelevant to anything government-related. This means that there's no push for gay marriage because the government doesn't recognize marriage (not a ban on marriage because they won't prevent people from getting married) meaning that the gay community can just go get married by a pastor that's willing to marry them and not worry about the legal crap and the religious folk won't continue to campaign to the government to eliminate it.

Of course, this won't happen because gay marriage is a rallying cry for political parties. Why would you eliminate something that makes it easier for you to be elected?

I did misunderstand the statement here. I thought the statement was implying absolving marriage in general; my apologies.

[Lester Burnham]

It's just difficult to wrap my head around why a couple requires an official document to prove their commitment. :\

It's not a requirement. People just do it because they believe it's the ultimate commitment; if they can get married then they're both fully committed to one another (or so they think)

Albeit most marriages end in divorce nowadays and I'm not really wanting to get married to another man, because I don't want to and the cost of everything >_> That shit ain't cheap. Cohabitation is far easier to do, if things go tits up between you and your partner then it's easy to go separate ways.

Federal benefits are greater for a legally married couple.

[Mercutio3]

I'm the one person, raised in such conditions (yes I said conditions, oh well.), that can say without a shadow of a doubt that people should be allowed to be free to choose for themselves and not have some over bearing shit thrust upon them as a child stating that you'll be forever dammed into hell for going against a book that contradicts itself.

Actually, my whole family is Christian, and the vast majority are also homophobic- especially my mom's side. I usually have to excuse myself from the rest of the family on Thanksgiving, because they will make extremely homophobic comments in casual conversation, and I have to keep myself from flipping out, or whatever. This even applies to the kids- my 11-year-old guy cousin was making jokes about gay/trans MAAB people, and he barely even knows anything about it. When I told him that bullying people like that is never okay and to knock it off, he replied with, "I'm just following my religion, the bible says that being gay is wrong." I said, "I'm not telling you to become gay, I'm telling you to quit bullying people," but it got nowhere, because, well, he's 11.

So, on this "side" of the issue (I'm broadening this out from gay marriage to homosexuality in general, sorry about that), brainwashing your kids to hate people they don't know using terms and ideas they don't understand starting at a young age is not okay, and neither is hating on such a large group of people in casual family conversation. On the flip side, how many Christians are actually like my family? (This is only half-rhetorical; I have no idea.) Sometimes, when people generalize about (straight) Christians, they tend to forget that there are a fair amount of Christians that actually follow the bible for its intended purposes of spreading good will towards all people and loving your fellow people. Although the bible does contradict itself and there are some things that are not at all holy (not only homophobia; it also supports slavery), the bible should not be automatically thought of as completely ridiculous and totally unacceptable. There is still good stuff in there. I'm not saying that the bible should be read by everyone, I'm just saying that one should not simply label it all as bogus.

Now, about marriage. Homosexual love is just as legitimate as heterosexual love. Love is love. I get angry at the thought that women who have spent their whole lives planning out their wedding, daydreaming about marriage as young girls/teenagers, are being denied that right by some sweaty congress people just because the other person they pictured in their marriage ceremony was also a girl. (That's a more specific example; this, of course, applies to people of all genders.) I can't help but laugh bitterly when people say that "marriage is sacred, and it is between a man and a woman." I know firsthand that marriage is not at all sacred anymore. In this day and age, it means almost nothing. With the impossibly large amount of straight couples getting divorced nowadays, it just boils down to being not at all fair that people who legitimately love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together can't even be legally recognized as a couple through marriage (I understand there are other things, like being 'legally united' or something along those lines... but that's not the same.) Why do these people even care? Marriage is marriage, and if LGBTQ people make you uncomfortable, stay in your house all the time and maybe you won't run into any, because keeping gay marriage from being legal isn't stopping people from being who they are and loving who they are inclined to anyway.

I am not Christian and I am not sure what orientation I am yet, but my underlying belief for everything is that love is love, no exceptions, and that restricting people from benefits that are given to some based off of factors that they can't really control is outrageous. These are just my opinions.

[Tyrone Black]

Being a Christian myself, I tend to agree with Pope Francis' recent views of "Who gives a fuck if they're gay?". It isn't as though them marrying each other is affecting my daily life. And, I myself do not recall the destruction of any one civilization in the Bible simply because of homosexuality. Sodom and Gomorrah (a popular topic among debates like these for whatever reason) were destroyed mostly because the people were murderous assholes more than anything. If random civilizations were destroyed just for having a gay population, California would be at the bottom of the damn ocean.

[Ayuza]

I'm totally in with same sex marriage. We are all humans, no matter what.

[wildmanjesse]

Well I am a Christian and even though the Bible does discourage Same sex marriage I personally in my honest opinion I think Christians now days miss interpret the Bible when it comes to Homosexuality many think that being gay is a sin which is false the sin is not being gay the "sin" is getting married to the same sex or sleeping with the same sex so I think most everyone miss interpret the Bible when it comes to homosexuality so because of this I am for Marriage equality

[mimmi]

I find this whole discussion pretty odd, because I don't really see it as an issue at all. How does same-sex marriage negatively influence anyone?

In Norway the state and church are officially seperated, meaning that the curch does not influence the politics. (May I be as blunt as to claim that christianity has a massive influence in american politics?)

Same sex marriage is a political issue, in my opinion that is. Same sex marriage is allowed in Norway, though they cannot marry in a church (because the church governs itself through votes, and recently refused same sex marriage in churches). Yet they still get all the benefits of beeing married.

I'm not sure if you understand how few rights you have when you're "just" living together and are not officially married. I am currently studying this topic at lawschool in Norway and the difference is huge, especially if one dies before the other... Basically you don't get to inhereit anything, possibly half of the appartment if you're lucky. The economical security that marriage provides is huge.

So I pretty much believe that same-sex marriage AT LEAST should be allowed with a state-official seremony, allowing them equal rights as married heterosexual couples.

This post has been edited by mimmi: May 22 2014, 05:30 AM

[Lord Raven]

I find this whole discussion pretty odd, because I don't really see it as an issue at all. How does same-sex marriage negatively influence anyone?

If you must know, people believe that same-sex marriage is one of the signs of the downfall of society. It doesn't mean that god is raining down on us because we allowed the gays to marry, of course.

[flamefiends]

The whole gay/strait issue seems pretty trivial to me. So two people that just happen to be the same gender like either.It's not the end of the world of society our anything, really. Is it right to deny two people in love marriage simply because of gender? That seems pretty sexist to me.

[Crestfallen]

I was born and raised in a home where religion was something I learned about and was given the freedom to make my own choices. I am athiest.
In my opinion everybody in the world should have to freedom to love and marry whoever they want to. You can't help who you fall in love with and who is anybody else to question that? The fact that homosexuality is still punishable in a lot of countries in the world just disgusts me to be honest.
I have had sexual relations with another female and I don't see the problem with it at all.

Peace and love, man. :P

[Asmodeus]

I am one hundred percent for men marrying men and women marrying women. It does not bother me in any way, shape or form, and I actually find it quite adorable, beautiful and all that mushy stuff. We have no right, whatsoever, to dictate whom you choose to love and marry, be we American (which I am) or hailing from another country. Religion also has no right to dictate whom you love and marry, and for you Christians out there please think on this. The Bible is incredibly old, written in Ancient Greek and Hebrew. Translations of these ancient writings, especially first translations into English and then-modern to actual modern languages today are likely to be riddled with mistranslations, misunderstandings and misinterpretations from what the actual texts say. Find your own truth in those interpretations, which were written by man and not God (whom I believe in but do not share Christian views of). You can say what you want. God inspired the writings and all that lovely tosh. He didn't write them though, and man is bound to misunderstand, mis-translate and misinterpret what was said to them. There are also other deities, such as the Greek, Roman, Norse, Celtic, Japanese, Chinese and many, many more than I can think of to list. They probably don't even care and kudos to them if they don't.

This has probably been said many times over, cause I only read through the first six pages, but that's my two cents on the matter.

[Indigo League]

I am 100% okay with gay or lesbian marriage, they don't affect me in a negative way, so why should I care?

What DOES bother me however are those who constantly complain how gross it is for two men to be together, who complain about the gays and how "gross" they are - but are completely fine with two women having sex, in fact that it turns them on. BUT OH NO THOSE LADIES CANNOT MARRY EACH OTHER, THAT PORNO STUFF IS FOR US. I call BS. My boyfriend is like that, he loves the girl on girl scene, but wants nothing with guy on guy, even just a little innocent kiss - that bugs the shit out of me.

Do I find any of that attractive? No. But I also don't find a man and a woman making out attractive either - and I also find Porn to be quite disgusting too. So I am neutral on all sides. I love sex, but what people do in the bedroom is their own business and none of mine. To those who love Porn, good for you, but there is no need to be hypocritical about anything.

Let people do what the heck they want to do, so long as it doesn't harm anyone, then who cares.

What should be discussed are those who are promiscuous (those who sneak around about it, consensual open relationships are a go in my books if you want that) and constantly hurting people due to it - now that should be the bigger issue people should get their panties in a bunch for, not the happiness of people that have nothing to do with you.

[TheWingedKetten]

Against it completely. It's mainly in the way they were raised, males are supposed to, at an early age, form a bond with their father and somewhat separate from their mother. The problem is when the father distances himself or that bond isn't formed the boy learns to hang out with girls basically and develops those . . . tastes. Or something like that. I had to watch a video in school on it *watches as everybody cringes* Fact is I live less than 100 miles from key west which is infamous (where I live) for having a much higher concentration of gay people. This is true, my day works down there delivering medical equipment and has guys try to come on to him regularly *cringe* anyway, the fact is, we weren't made that way or we would have both . . . sets of organs and be able to reproduce with any other fertile human on the planet. Not so. There is a distinct difference between males and females and when two cross they do NOT have children. Gay people cannot pass on "gay genes". It is the parents fault, and it goes against the way nature works, being gay period. The way nature works are some of the most powerful laws in the universe and gay people go against these laws, then complain when they get AIDS or whatever else.

Dolphins and humans are the only two animals on the planet to have sex for fun instead of just for reproduction. To put it bluntly this is probably part of the reason why we have gays. Sex is not just for reproduction to us anymore, it's a sport, a pastime, and gay people completely ignore the natural purpose of sex and just . . . Use your imagination if you dare . . .

Politically correct pisses me off. Don't even get me started on politically correct. It is a lie. When I hear the word politically correct I impulsively say "bullshit". America was based on the statement "all men were created equal, we hold these truths to be self evident" or maybe it's the other way around. It means the same thing. We have black people only colleges. We have black people college funds (African American is "politically correct", but they are all Americans, so their only distinguishment is being black skinned) Black history month, etc. etc. and if we had any of this for white people guess what. We'd be racist. If any white person looks mad at a black person, We're racist. If we hit a black person, We're racist. If we hit them after five of them jump out from behind a bush and start beating the shit out of us (5 on 1) and I throw a punch, I'm racist. It doesn't work the other way around though. If they all jump on me and call me a honky or whatever they call me or whatever they do. I'm racist no matrter what happens. I can't accuse them of being racist. It applies to mexicans, cubans (I mean illegal immigrants too) as well, only white people are ever accused of being racist but it goes both ways. Politically correct my ass!

OKAY, SO... NO.

"males are supposed to, at an early age, form a bond with their father and somewhat separate from their mother." Untrue. While YOU might think that, it does not make it true. Males- and females for that matter- should bond with BOTH parents.

"the boy learns to hang out with girls basically and develops those . . . tastes." What tastes? Liking "feminine" things? Liking males? All of the boys at my old school (I had to transfer away) were friends with me and most of the rest of the girls. Not one of them was gay or even slightly feminine. They all did "masculine" things like playing sports.

"There is a distinct difference between males and females and when two cross they do NOT have children." INCORRECT! Two females can now have a child together due to newer technology. So, yes, lesbians can reproduce.

"It is the parents fault, and it goes against the way nature works, being gay period." There's actually proof of gay animals other than humans.

"then complain when they get AIDS or whatever else." This is so factually wrong. ANYBODY can get an STI/STD from having sex, not just gays. I learned this from my CATHOLIC school's sex ed program.

"gay people completely ignore the natural purpose of sex and just" My heterosexual parents have sex for reasons other than reproduction. My mom actually can't have kids because of a surgery she had. (If that's not enough- STRAIGHT PROSTITUTES)

That last paragraph has LITERALLY NOTHING to do with this thread. That is RACISM, not HOMOPHOBIA. Please, educate yourself before you make a fool of yourself.