Banning gay marrages should it be allowed

[RevanA4]

I've looked though this place and didn't see a thread about it and before sithy comes and kills me let me say I am utterly opposed to the banning of gay marriages.

 

First let me just say I AM STRAIGHT.

 

Second my reason for the way I feel is do to the fact that I have friends, friends of the family and family members that are gay/lesbians/bisexual. Also the Declaration of Independence states "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men (and women keeping up with the times) are created equally"

 

So to deny gays/lesbians/bi sexual from same sex marriages is going against the very fabric of our nation or so I would seem by that very statement

 

 

pish who am I kidding people still aren't treated equally

 

 

This sounds like a good topic to debate so lets get started shall we

[riceplant]

This is definitely worthy of discussion. I wonder, can we make this a poll?

 

EDIT: I know this post doen't say much, I thought I'd let someone in favor open.

[RevanA4]

This is definitely worthy of discussion. I wonder, can we make this a poll?

 

EDIT: I know this post doen't say much, I thought I'd let someone in favor open.

 

*raises eyebrow* in favor of banning them? (they better watch out for sithy and me then)

[ET Warrior]

You'll find a vast majority of the people who post in the swamp will be on the side of gay-marriage. This topic has actually been discussed in about a dozen individual threads, not sure if it's had it's own thread before.

 

There's no reason to disallow gay marriage. Gay people are people, and people should not be denied freedom or happiness just because they don't like the opposite gender.

[riceplant]

*raises eyebrow* in favor of banning them? (they better watch out for sithy and me then)

Well, the way I see it, the three of us can't have much of a debate, as we all agree already.

 

EDIT: It wouldn't be banning it, anyway, but opposing the allowing of said it.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

While I am for gay marriages, I think the term 'marriage' can be possibly troublesome, because it has a lot of historical and religous overtones.

 

I find it more likely that you could discuss homosexual 'unions' more sensibly than gay 'marriages'. (At least this has been my experience in the past.)

They wouldn't nessesarily be lacking in any legal sense. It just cuts out a lot of the 'baggage' some people like to attach to the word 'marriage'.

 

But I guess homosexuals who WANT the religious and historical 'recognition' will want nothing less than 'marriage'. And I guess I can understand why...

[riceplant]

Yes, that then brings up the question, "If religion cannot interfere with the law, should the law interfere with religion?", i.e. does the law have the right to change a religion's doctrine? I. personally, am not opposed to such 'unions', and think it would be a good idea, but also want to respect the beliefs of those who don't wish homosexuals to have a religious marriage. It all gets rather messy about this point, as a religion has a right to it's doctrine too, and the law probably shouldn't force churches to marry (or unionise, or whatever) homosexual couples. I do, however, believe that gay couples should have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.

[RevanA4]

yes I realize that religion is part of marraige but can we plz keep it to a minimum plz

 

there are many benifets that come with being married which is what I'm talking about

[Tyrion]

yes I realize that religion is part of marraige but can we plz keep it to a minimum plz

 

there are many benifets that come with being married which is what I'm talking about

 

But religion is at the heart of this conflict. Sure, there are a few Athiests who also oppose gay marriage, but it mostly comes down to people believing that having married gays would be a kick in the groin to God. Well, at least it would diminish the value of marriage in their eyes, I think.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

there are many benifets that come with being married which is what I'm talking about

 

I understand what your saying.

My point is, though - that a homosexual union could have all the same legal entitlements as a 'marriage'.

It would be nothing less than a word game. BUt a word game which may allow equal rights to not be smoothered by religion and tradition.

 

As I say, I'm not saying I'm right on this. I'm just saying that perhaps it's a consideration...

[Rogue15]

I'm with what closetheblastdo said.

 

heck, i'd even take that as far to say, allow multiple people getting "married" uh but that'd be like polygamy or whatever....but whatever. i dunno about having one of those in a church, that'd seem a little awkward, but get it done by a judge. kindof like swearing an oath, like in the military you swear to serve and protect, in say, a 'marriage' you could swear you could all swear you'll stay by eachothers side til death.

[Aash Li]

being les myself, Im for some type of legal joining of two partners, I dont care what its called as long as everyone is allowed to have the same rights. We went through the same thing with black people being treated like subhumans, and this isnt any different.

[Darth Andrew]

Yes, that then brings up the question, "If religion cannot interfere with the law, should the law interfere with religion?", i.e. does the law have the right to change a religion's doctrine? I. personally, am not opposed to such 'unions', and think it would be a good idea, but also want to respect the beliefs of those who don't wish homosexuals to have a religious marriage. It all gets rather messy about this point, as a religion has a right to it's doctrine too, and the law probably shouldn't force churches to marry (or unionise, or whatever) homosexual couples. I do, however, believe that gay couples should have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.

Though I myself am personally opposed to gay marriage, this would sit ok with me. I just don't want activist judges barging in, saying "<insert religious denomination here> is unconstitutional because they do not allow homosexual marriages, so...." This could also in a way bring up the seperation of church and state issue, although in an entirely different way.

 

heck, i'd even take that as far to say, allow multiple people getting "married" uh but that'd be like polygamy or whatever....but whatever.

Why can homosexuals marry, but not those who wish to have multiple spouses can't? They're people too. And what about a 40-year-old guy who only likes teenage girls? They're obviously people, and it's not like the teen can't decide for herself.... Honestly, these issues (polygamy, 40-year-old liking teens, etc.) are basically the same as the fight for gay marriage, and I bet one day they will all be legalized.

 

EDIT: Way off topic, but how do you use spoiler tags?

[Aash Li]

I have no problem with polygamy, as long as a woman is allowed to marry multiple men (though I cant see a woman torturing herself like that). But the 40 year old marrying a teenager... if the teen is 18 then they are adults so go for it (but its still creepy and smacks of pedophilia), if shes still a minor thats by law pedophilia no matter which side you butter your toast on. lmao

[Rogue15]

spoiler tags = [ spoiler ] senate chamber [ / spoiler ] without the spaces would be like

senate chamber

[RevanA4]

I have no problem with polygamy, as long as a woman is allowed to marry multiple men (though I cant see a woman torturing herself like that). But the 40 year old marrying a teenager... if the teen is 18 then they are adults so go for it (but its still creepy and smacks of pedophilia), if shes still a minor thats by law pedophilia no matter which side you butter your toast on. lmao

 

 

wows I'm shocked that you didn't go ape sh*t on that guy but um a 40 year old marrying a teen is just WRONG um excuse me but your old enough to be my dad go the **** way

 

edit:*pokes a mod* can you make this a poll plz cuz I didn't think about it when I made it

 

never mind I didn't know I could do it

[Rogue15]

lol but love has no age.

[Aash Li]

lol. I didnt say I liked the idea, but its technically legal... and theyre both adults... so... heh If I had a woman wanting to marry me that was twice my age (ew), Id be grossed out.

[Darth Andrew]

...but um a 40 year old marrying a teen is just WRONG...

A few decades ago the very idea of gay marriage would have been considered absurd; plus in foreign cultures today many teenage girls marry young. The point I'm trying to make is that if and when gay marriage is legalized in the USA, it will make way for radically different marriage laws, age limits, etc. Oh, and the meaning of pedophilia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

Pedophile is sometimes used informally — and incorrectly — to describe child pornographers or people who have commited sexual crimes against children.

 

Thanks for the spoiler tip, Rogue15.

[SkinWalker]

Consenting adults of the same species should be allowed to marry according to whatever beliefs that they hold to be true. If your religion demands that you follow a particular protocol for being married, then you should adhere to it if you wish to remain true to your religion.

 

However, if your personal beliefs hold that marriage to the same sex or to multiple spouses is acceptable, then go for it.

 

Polygamy and polyandry have been, and still are, successful in other cultures of the world. The so-called "sacred institution of marriage" as a "holy covenant" is a failure as is, so if anything, the ability for people to follow their own personal beliefs in marriage customs can't get worse than it already is.

 

The preposterous notion that same-sex marriage as a concept opens the door to marriage of children to adults, adults to animals, etc. is a fallacy. One that is used by the so-called religious right to distract from the real issue. The idea that "activist judges" would seek to rule that a particular religious cult would have to perform marriages contrary to it's own cult beliefs is also fallacious. First, the term "activist-judges" is a buzz word of the so-called religious right, used to paint this picture of judicial branch members who are in some grand conspiracy to dominate the world. Second, it doesn't generally follow that a same-sex couple would want to necessarily marry under a cult that rejected them.

 

I say "generally" because I'm sure there are some who would do so, there are always those that simply want to protest.

 

The poll, however, is ambiguous. Is it asking if "banning gay marriages" should be allowed or should "gay marriages" be allowed?

[RevanA4]

The poll, however, is ambiguous. Is it asking if "banning gay marriages" should be allowed or should "gay marriages" be allowed?

 

erm sorry but wouldn't changing it mess up the results cuz I already voted

[SkinWalker]

I'm just wondering what the two people who voted actually voted for. Did they vote "no" to banning gay marriages or "no" to allowing gay marriages?

[RevanA4]

um I voted no for banning gay marrages you have to read my first post to see why

 

um I realize that it was a strange way to ask it but I knew what I was talking about

[SkinWalker]

I should be able to edit the poll to be less ambiguous.. I'll delete these last few posts once I do just for housekeeping purposes... But I just thought it prudent to point it out for anyone voting.

[RevanA4]

I should be able to edit the poll to be less ambiguous.. I'll delete these last few posts once I do just for housekeeping purposes... But I just thought it prudent to point it out for anyone voting.

 

 

ok how about "should gay marrages be banned?"

 

this won't screw up my vote cuz the question is the same as what I meant to ask