Completely Off-topic! Same-sex marriage.

by **Fat Bastard** » Tue Feb 24, 2004 11:05 pm

I'll just say GOD made Adam & Eve, Not Adam & Adam or Eve & Eve. So to do anything different is wrong cause this is going to lead to cloning so Adam & Adam or Eve & Eve can have there own babies out of a tube and worst.

by **Chacal** » Tue Feb 24, 2004 11:28 pm

by **Fat Bastard** » Tue Feb 24, 2004 11:39 pm

by **JimmyTango** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 7:50 am

Originally posted by LeVar Burton
But are you cool with things like bigamy and gay couples adopting children? Because if you start redefining institutions like marriage, you change alot of things that you aren't even thinking about right now.

I thought you were smarter than this. It is amazing how people think allowing same sex marriage will lead to such far fetched thing like bigamy, adultry, mass orgies in the streets of Denver, etc.

And gay singles and possibly couples can already adopt, if I have heard correctly. I know a soldier who was raised by two lesbians(one his mom). Guess what? Normal as can be and is currently in Iraq defending YOUR ass.

Can you believe that LeVar? Someone raised by a gay couple is actually normal? Amazing, huh?

You should be more worried about losing civil liberties than having bigamy becoming legal, as losing more civil liberties is more apt to happen, especially with this current White House.

by **Slaughter** » Thu Feb 26, 2004 12:00 am

I say who cares, if they wanna get married let them, to love is to love, if its an animal, human or whatever. Different doesn't make it bad, its not like someone is trying to squeeze your ass or kiss u. Reminds me of a time a guy tried to pick me up, I said do I look gay, he said no, and I said I don't go that way, and he said it doesn't hurt to try. I said no problem, thought it was at least cool that he asked me.

my two cents

by **Xenius** » Thu Feb 26, 2004 12:11 am

I'd say no, for the kids. Two moms, or two dads, is just one more thing for some poor kid to be made fun of at school.

by **Ralph Wiggum** » Thu Feb 26, 2004 12:22 am

My main problem with the entire situation is with how it is coming about, from the top down. Whatever the motivation, and whatever the end results, there is no denying that it is a huge reversal in basically all of human history. If it is imposed on society by the courts it will likely be more controversial than abortion ever was.

Jimmy, hard as it may be to believe there are some smart people who disagree with you. And please explain to me if it is only about love, and we each have a fundamental right to marry whomever we want, what is to stop this train before the polygamy stop? Who are you to impose your values on some mormon or muslim who wants to have three wives?

by **shockwave203** » Thu Feb 26, 2004 12:25 am

Why are so many people having a problem accepting this? If gays want to marry, let them marry. It won't affect other people's marriages, or anything that has anything to do with anyone else.

Gay people have been living together for years, allowing them to marry changes nothing.

It's ok to not 'accept their lifestyle'. I for one, don't agree with it, but it's 2004, we're not living in the 1800's. Human rights. Everyone's equal. If they want to marry, let them marry. It won't harm anyone else. Canadian government has already gone ahead with it. and guess what? Do you see madness erupting all over our cities? No. Nor will there be.

In 20 years, people won't believe we ever had this discussion. Just like people would have never thought women couldn't have been equal to men.

by **WeSSiN** » Thu Feb 26, 2004 12:56 am

Originally posted by shockwave203
Why are so many people having a problem accepting this? If gays want to marry, let them marry. It won't affect other people's marriages, or anything that has anything to do with anyone else.
*snip*

I agree with everything you said

Why is it a problem if a gay couple adopt a child? Because he will be teased? I'm sure all of us got teased plenty growing up and we are still here.

by **Colonel Ingus** » Thu Feb 26, 2004 1:38 am

Boy a lot of contraversial thought on this one.

Here's the deal, the "seperation of church and state" is nothing more than a promise that the state cannot regulate religion. Nothing more and nothing less. It was pointed out earlier (correctly I might add, by Major Sonar) that this is a response to the Anglican Church whereby an English monarch split from the holy Roman Catholic church because he would not let his wife divorce him (poor Ann Bolin, wrong spelling)

This is a GOOD thing. It basically means that the state cannot mandate what religon you chose to practice.

"Marriage" and "Civil Union" are two completely seperate items.

Civil Union is where a couple, albeit male-male, female-female, or male-female enjoy the same rights and privileges under law.

Marriage according to Merriam Webster's dicitonary
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

Should gay couples be allowed to marry? No, not according to this definition

Should a gay couple have the same rights as you and your spouse whereby they are allowed to be on your medical plan? your retirement plan? your life insurance? Yes, there is no difference between me chosing my wife to be my benificiary and me chosing my "boyfriend" to be my benificiary.

The whole basis of this contraversy is that many homosexuals that are outspoken want to challenge societies acceptance of them and literally stick it in your face. They want to challenge every aspect of how you think so that you "accept" their lifestyle. Do you need to change the basic underlying fundamental concepts of what marriage is to accept them? No, you do not.

It is no more wrong for you to say shut up and live your life however you want and leave me alone than it is for them to say for accept me for my lifestyle.

Is any of us really bothered if a gay couple lives together and shares the same legal rights you and I do? I would like to think that most of you say "Who gives a shit.."

Do they need to challenge every thing just to prove a point? No. They do not. Should they have the same rights that "married" couples do? Yes why not.

I don't come into your house and tell you how to live your life and you don't come into mine and tell me how to live my life.

by **JimmyTango** » Thu Feb 26, 2004 8:20 am

Originally posted by Colonel Ingus

Marriage according to Merriam Webster's dicitonary
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

Should gay couples be allowed to marry? No, not according to this definition

The definition, defined by society, is of course going to say that. It means nothing.

Originally posted by Colonel Ingus
The whole basis of this contraversy is that many homosexuals that are outspoken want to challenge societies acceptance of them and literally stick it in your face. They want to challenge every aspect of how you think so that you "accept" their lifestyle. Do you need to change the basic underlying fundamental concepts of what marriage is to accept them? No, you do not.

What are you talking about? They want to stick it in your face? Are you really this biased to convince yourself of this? It is abotu civil rights. Jesus, how hard is that they just want to marry the one they love?

I guess when women were fighting for equal rights they just wanted to stick it in men's faces?

by **JimmyTango** » Thu Feb 26, 2004 8:27 am

Originally posted by Ralph Wiggum

Jimmy, hard as it may be to believe there are some smart people who disagree with you.

Might be smart, but damn ignorant and biased.

Originally posted by Ralph Wiggum
And please explain to me if it is only about love, and we each have a fundamental right to marry whomever we want, what is to stop this train before the polygamy stop? Who are you to impose your values on some mormon or muslim who wants to have three wives?

Because it is about the love of two people, not one man and 20 women.

This same BS has been spewed everytime someone has to fight for civil rights. People start nitpicking, and blow it into something it is not.

Those same people are proved wrong over time, that they were scared out what was about to happen and just started spouting off nonsense to scare anyone they could.

by **Irish** » Thu Feb 26, 2004 8:46 am

My view is this. If gay/lesbian partners want to be recognized as couples, I'm cool with it. The problem is using "marriage" That word has a strong meaning to the Catholic community. Using it for something that Catholics don't beleive in is bastardizing the whole Catholic perception of marriage. God created man and woman. The reason being we can go populate. Gay/lesbians of course can't except for atificial means.

In short. Go ahead and form a union but don't drag "marriage" through a controversy. The word is to important to be used in any other method of coupling other than man/woman.

by **Jim0322** » Thu Feb 26, 2004 9:28 am

Originally posted by [ECR]Irish
My view is this. If gay/lesbian partners want to be recognized as couples, I'm cool with it. The problem is using "marriage" That word has a strong meaning to the Catholic community. Using it for something that Catholics don't beleive in is bastardizing the whole Catholic perception of marriage. God created man and woman. The reason being we can go populate. Gay/lesbians of course can't except for atificial means.

In short. Go ahead and form a union but don't drag "marriage" through a controversy. The word is to important to be used in any other method of coupling other than man/woman.

You make an excellent point. Marriage has a strong religious meaning. I think it would be better for the government to stay out of this religious institution completely. Let's call the legal aspects of marriage/civil unions a "legal union" and drop the word"marriage" completely from the legal/governmental process. Unions would confer the current legal rights and responsibilities of marriage/civil unions. People could then choose to have some religious or other type of public ceremony and call it whatever they want- marriage, hand fasting, union, ect.

The government should only be concerned with the legal aspects of this legal agreement. Leave it to the churches to make their "religious" rules.

Jim

by **JimmyTango** » Thu Feb 26, 2004 10:16 am

Originally posted by [ECR]Irish
My view is this. If gay/lesbian partners want to be recognized as couples, I'm cool with it. The problem is using "marriage" That word has a strong meaning to the Catholic community. Using it for something that Catholics don't beleive in is bastardizing the whole Catholic perception of marriage. God created man and woman. The reason being we can go populate. Gay/lesbians of course can't except for atificial means.

In short. Go ahead and form a union but don't drag "marriage" through a controversy. The word is to important to be used in any other method of coupling other than man/woman.

1) Marriage has been aroudn since before a single Catholic person walked the earth.

2) God created man and woman for us to go polulate? I thought the act that we need to do to populate is a sin? Damned if you do, damned if you don't..............

3) In this day and age, of extremely high devorce rates, I do not see the validity of this whole 'ruining the meaning of marriage....' Hate to break it to you people, it has been pissed and shit on. These 'evil gays' are actually trying to bring something to marriage that has long since been lost: love and commitment.

Completely Off-topic! Same-sex marriage.

Who is online