Is Gay Marriage Really That Big Deal?

I personaly have no issue with anyone whos gay.
It's as gross as two uglys or fatties displaying their love.

Don't know why some feel they own the patent on marriage?
How can a state enforce such a sexist practice?
(I can get fired from my job for the telling of a gay joke)

Is there not more then one form for christian marriage already?olygamy?
Marriage is a social, religious,spiritual, or legal union of human individuals.
Marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The reasons givin from the right are sooooo ludicrous.
I herd today a few new reasons, schools will have to rewrite books, churches will get sued for hate speech???
Have to say it's better then the argument of 'why not a man and a animal then.'
Heres a few more reasons, i thought was funny.
12 Reasons | Gator Gay-Straight Alliance

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.
3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.
10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians

i could care less... let'em get married... doesnt effect me one bit...

well i for one think they should have the same rights as everyone else...

Lets take my moms stance for example

she doesnt want gay marriage because "the bible defines marriage as a man and a woman"

my argument "seperation of church and state"

Then i would of course ask her "so you believe in denying some ones pursuit of happiness?"

at this point she KNOWS she is wrong, and she also has no counter argument, but as my mom is like most of the catholic people opposing gay marriage, she will not, under any circumstance, be persuaded otherwise

despite the fact that i have proved to her several times that her decision to vote against it is selfish, as it effects her in no way when 2 chicks or 2 dudes get married

people are just too closed minded, and when the truth hits them like a runaway train, its denial denial denial

Keenly said:

well i for one think they should have the same rights as everyone else...

Lets take my moms stance for example

she doesnt want gay marriage because "the bible defines marriage as a man and a woman"...

Click to expand...

There's a lot of crazy shit in the bible, but ask your mom where exactly marriage is "defined" because I couldn't find it.

I think gays should not only have the right to marry, I think they need to stop being discriminated against when it comes to adoption. Gays aren't really known as breeders but they are known as adopters. There are a whole lot of children who could use a loving home and a lot of gays that would like to adopt them.

Eve notice that the pro-lifers are also the ones that don't think gay couples should be allowed to adopt?

misshestermoffitt said:

I think gays should not only have the right to marry, I think they need to stop being discriminated against when it comes to adoption. Gays aren't really known as breeders but they are known as adopters. There are a whole lot of children who could use a loving home and a lot of gays that would like to adopt them.

Eve notice that the pro-lifers are also the ones that don't think gay couples should be allowed to adopt?

Click to expand...

Reasons against Gay Marriage

1. Marriage was defined by the Church, thus any argument that leaving it as defined as a union between a Man and a Woman is a Church View, is circular. Of course it's a church view, because marriage was defined by the church. The State has nothing to do with the definition of marriage.

2. Civil Unions, I can not claim any responsibility for the failure of the State to ensure that under Civil Unions ( the only description you can give to any marriage issued under state auspices) Gays have the same rights.

3. Violation of the Pursuit of Happiness, ... Right, by telling them they can't marry, I'm violating their ability to pursue happiness. Maybe if I was telling them to stop being a bunch of homos, that might be a valid argument, but the truth is, that I don't give a damn what they do as long as they aren't shoving it in my face, or trying to assault the definition of marriage, which once again, was defined by religion, not the State.

As far as arguing that it is a violation of the pursuit of happiness. That's hypocritical. Having to grant them their desire to mock the institutions that so many hold dear, and hold to mean the union of a man of a woman would be a violation of their (the people that hold marriage to be the union of a man and a woman) ability to pursue happiness.

I don't believe in your god. I find the bible to be the worlds first novel and jesus to be the worlds first Jim Jones. Just because you believe in fairy tales doesn't mean the rest of us should.

Marriage should be defined as 2 PEOPLE who wish to spend their lives together.

Just wanted to point out that the real homophobes are the ones that always end up with the gay son, got any kids?

misshestermoffitt said:

I don't believe in your god. I find the bible to be the worlds first novel and jesus to be the worlds first Jim Jones. Just because you believe in fairy tales doesn't mean the rest of us should.

Click to expand...

Who said I believe in it?

Well, all of it.

There's a lot of Bullshit in that Book.

Fuck the church. They take 10% of everyones money because you can buy your way into heaven, with cash. It's a scam, it's a pyramid scheme and there are a whole lot of takers.

Priests must abstaine. I guess molesting little boys is considered abstaining by church standards?

The bible is just different peoples personal views of how they viewed jesus. It was not handed down by some fiery god, it was invented, made up, much like a Readers Digest.

Thou shalt not kill (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth)

Thou shalt not kill (if your neighbor plants 2 crops in the same field it is your duty to gather others together and stone him)

You can and will go to hell for mixing 2 fabrics on your body. (guess those poly-cotton blends will be the death of us all)

Should I continue with the contradictions?

TheBrutalTruth said:

Reasons against Gay Marriage

1. Marriage was defined by the Church, thus any argument that leaving it as defined as a union between a Man and a Woman is a Church View, is circular. Of course it's a church view, because marriage was defined by the church. The State has nothing to do with the definition of marriage.

Click to expand...

Marriages in secular offices are obviously not religious. No priest, no nuns, none of that, just an orderly taking down information. Marriages performed in churches by a priest or whatever, obviously those marriages are religious. But there are already two types of marriages now, the secular kind, and the religious kind. They are given equal protections under the law, and obviously religion has no place inside a secular government establishment. So, there is no reason that gays should not be able to get married in secular government facilities, as religion is not involved in those marriages (and, by law, must not be).

Civil unions are not accepted at the federal level, so those couples are denied the right to file jointly and so on. That's okay, but then NOBODY should be allowed to file jointly, married, unionized, or whatever. If it's good for one segment, it's good for everyone, otherwise it is discriminatory. Very similar to the laws precluding inter-racial marriages, that were eventually overturned. Eventually the anti-gay discriminatory laws on the books will also be overturned; it's just a matter of time.

So whats next? What if somebody wants to marry an animal? What if somebody wants to marry multiple people because thats what he likes and you shouldnt discriminate? Sounds like we would be kicking down the door for anything

Hey, if the animal can say the marriage vows and sign its name on the paperwork, and has a legal ID proving it's of legal age, more power to 'em. Seems unlikely though. There just aren't that many talking and signing animals out there with proper ID and of the required age. Polygamy is expressly illegal. One spouse only.

Bongulator said:

Hey, if the animal can say the marriage vows and sign its name on the paperwork, and has a legal ID proving it's of legal age, more power to 'em. Seems unlikely though. There just aren't that many talking and signing animals out there with proper ID and of the required age. Polygamy is expressly illegal. One spouse only.

Click to expand...

So now, you are saying that it's okay for fags to marry, but not okay for polygamists to marry.

So, once again you are forcing your views on everyone else. (Something I thought the left wasn't about doing.)

Seems to me that the problem isn't the definition of marriage, but the definition of a civil union. Perhaps instead of trying to attack the definition of marriage, gays should be trying to get the federal government to define a civil union in such a way that it has similar rights to marriage under law.

That'd be fine with me. As long as the rights are the same, no differences, then people can call it whatever they want. I care about equality of treatment, not equality in the name assigned to the process. If civil unions will allow hospital visits, automatic inheritance to the spouse, filing jointly on taxes, that kind of thing, that'd be enough for me. In fact, just abolish the entire term 'marriage', and call it all 'civil unions', then everyone will have the same rights, and everyone should be happy. If they want to go get a religious ceremony on top of that, and call it marriage, nothing wrong with that.

I think the bottom line is that the normal people like us that say 'let em do what they want as long as they don't bother me' don't really vote. The catholic cook bags out there that are just following what their beloved religion tells them to do all vote, so then they win. Kind of unfair.

Voting should probably be forced on everyone if we want the laws to show what the people really think.

I guess I'll be the first to say that not ALL homosexuals are pursuing the right to marry. My partner and I have been together for six years without any intent to separate and we are monogomous but we don't necessarily believe in the institution of marriage. For one, there are a lot of benefits to being together wholeheartedly without the marriage thing getting in there to mess things up financially. Also we feel that the gay community needs to grow up a bit more before they can be taken seriously as consentual, loving, adults.

This is not about whether or not there should be marriage, nor is it about what you personally choose as what's right for you. This is about the ability to exercise a right. Do you want that choice or not? Did you and your partner choose to prefer the love of the same sex, or were you born that way? I think it's the latter in the majority of situations, and as I told someone else here a short time ago, what about those who are dedicated to each other and want to "make it official"?

Either we get away from the state defining marriage (highly unlikely to happen) or we broaden the definition to include all consenting adults.

smppro said:

So whats next? What if somebody wants to marry an animal? What if somebody wants to marry multiple people because thats what he likes and you shouldnt discriminate? Sounds like we would be kicking down the door for anything

Click to expand...

What's wrong with simply saying, since the state IS now in the business of defining what was once the realm of church (any and all, forget about Christianity here), that any consenting adults be allowed to marry?

Yes, we should be kicking down the door, because consenting adults should be allowed to live as they wish as long as it makes no imposition on anyone.

What I love is how Prop. 8 supporters think that this legislation will somehow prevent "homosexuality being taught in schools!" What morons! This only demonstrates three things (and it demonstrates them pretty fucking well) about these people.

First, it displays an awesome ignorance of the language and text of Prop. 8. It cannot and does not disallow any particular type of sexual education in California schools.

Second, they don't know the first thing about how school districts work (including theirs). If they did then they'd know exactly how curricula are established, and they'd also probably have a direct hand in the education of their children. Ah, far better to simply let others be responsible for the education of the children we decided to have, yes?

Third, that as long as one is talking about a group with which they share little to nothing, they have NO problem making legislation that specifically removes rights from an entire group of people. That is so wrong, on such a deeply moral level, that I fear I can't keep my mouth shut when we go to this Republican "thing" tomorrow night. I know that I'll be alongside many neo-cons, and most, if not all, think that conservatism means being uber-religious (in the Christian way) as well.

Bongulator said:

That'd be fine with me. As long as the rights are the same, no differences, then people can call it whatever they want. I care about equality of treatment, not equality in the name assigned to the process. If civil unions will allow hospital visits, automatic inheritance to the spouse, filing jointly on taxes, that kind of thing, that'd be enough for me. In fact, just abolish the entire term 'marriage', and call it all 'civil unions', then everyone will have the same rights, and everyone should be happy. If they want to go get a religious ceremony on top of that, and call it marriage, nothing wrong with that.

Click to expand...

DING DING MOTHERFUCKIN' DING!

edux10 said:

I think the bottom line is that the normal people like us that say 'let em do what they want as long as they don't bother me' don't really vote. The catholic cook bags out there that are just following what their beloved religion tells them to do all vote, so then they win. Kind of unfair.

Voting should probably be forced on everyone if we want the laws to show what the people really think.

Click to expand...

This absolutely positively can NOT be laid solely at the feet of Catholics. Just search this site, you'll find it from those who don't otherwise appear to even be religious, let alone Catholic. And, at least Catholics (and other religous-minded people) are honest enough to say that they have this belief because they were told to have it. That relieves them of personal responsibility in a very real sense.

Bongulator said:

That'd be fine with me. As long as the rights are the same, no differences, then people can call it whatever they want. I care about equality of treatment, not equality in the name assigned to the process. If civil unions will allow hospital visits, automatic inheritance to the spouse, filing jointly on taxes, that kind of thing, that'd be enough for me. In fact, just abolish the entire term 'marriage', and call it all 'civil unions', then everyone will have the same rights, and everyone should be happy. If they want to go get a religious ceremony on top of that, and call it marriage, nothing wrong with that.

Click to expand...

I really like your last two post on this subject.
..common sense.
++

Bongulator said:

That'd be fine with me. As long as the rights are the same, no differences, then people can call it whatever they want. I care about equality of treatment, not equality in the name assigned to the process. If civil unions will allow hospital visits, automatic inheritance to the spouse, filing jointly on taxes, that kind of thing, that'd be enough for me. In fact, just abolish the entire term 'marriage', and call it all 'civil unions', then everyone will have the same rights, and everyone should be happy. If they want to go get a religious ceremony on top of that, and call it marriage, nothing wrong with that.

Click to expand...

Sure, sounds good, and fair.

Seamaiden sez ...

"First, it displays an awesome ignorance of the language and text of Prop. 8. It cannot and does not disallow any particular type of sexual education in California schools."

During the past few days, a lesbian teacher in San Francisco took her first-graders on a field trip to attend her and her lesbian lover's wedding. If Prop. 8 is passed, and parents speak out against this type of indoctrination, would they be sued/prosecuted for "hate speech?" If Prop. 8 is passed, and churches/pastors speak out against homosexuality, will they lose their tax-free status? Will the Bible be banned as homophobic hate literature?

Vi