Gay Marriage

Panda Licker · Post by **Panda Licker** » 30 Jun 2003 14:59

Do you think that gay people should be able to get married? all of these magazines are making a big deal about it. I personally dont see the problem. if they are going to live with eachother anyway, y not let them take the leap and get married? Its insane that people care so much, and that there is so many people against it

FootbagginBum · Post by **FootbagginBum** » 30 Jun 2003 18:08

Now here we have a thread unlike the evolution one where ther is no argument without me not liking you anymore.

There is absolutly no reason that 2 chicks can live together for 12 years, and then one is in the hospital and the other shouldn't be able to see her because they can't get married. None at all. Bottom line. Let whoever get married to whoever, although I'd prefer if that didn't lead to incest...

Yes, of course they should. Anybody who says otherwise (like those two people on the vote so far) is an idiot who I don't want coming to my events.

NotHisRealName · Post by **NotHisRealName** » 30 Jun 2003 22:02

I agree. Gay and Lesbian couples should be allowed to get married. I'm hetrosexual, but I think there's nothing un-natural about homosexual tendencies. If we can marry, why can't they? We're all human beings, you know.

MegaFighter_X · Post by **MegaFighter_X** » 30 Jun 2003 23:10

If there is consentual love between the two, then fuck yeah they should be married. It's discriminatory if they can't. If it's in a church, I can understand that, may go against struff from eyars and years or blind following. But no state government should be able to hold back their marrage.

QuantumBalance · Post by **QuantumBalance** » 01 Jul 2003 21:54

... i want someone to post against it so i can watch them get torn up

but i also want peas and harmony

DAMNIT!

MegaFighter_X · Post by **MegaFighter_X** » 02 Jul 2003 02:10

lol...

but why do you want peas? those kinda suck.. especially when put next to corn. mm... corn...

strumpfm · Post by **strumpfm** » 02 Jul 2003 09:02

Here you go Sam, a post against gay marriage.

Quoting Andrew Reinicke from an opinion article in tenpercent, UCLA’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) magazine

On the issue of it, the principles of right and wrong, the problem is that marriage is a religious institution. It’s been a religious institution for maybe three to four thousand years. People talk about the separation between church and state, which I have issues with anyway, and they want the state to look at their marriage and say, “yes, it’s a good marriage,” and give them legal benefits. Well, the legal benefits can be dealt with by a lawyer-most of them. You can sit down with your healthcare practitioner and provider and work out who your next of kin is and who you want to visit you. Sit down with your lawyer and write a will for who’s getting inheritance. Those things. A lot of the legal benefits that come with marriage can be solved by spending twenty minutes with a lawyer. The problem that the gay community faces is that they’ve moved from wanting tolerance, which I think a lot of people now tolerate us as a community, to wanting social acceptance, from people who believe that marriage should be a religious institution. Religious people believe that there should be religious institutions where homosexuality should be wrong. The problem is that we’re forcing those people to give up those religious beliefs by supporting gay marriage. I don’t think that the state of California should be in the business of marriage at all. That should be between the churches and the individuals.

You guys are approaching marriage as if it is a personal issue or issue with the state. I believe that it should be strictly a religious institution, and that makes this discussion a discussion on whether religions should accept LGBT people. I for one am not going to have that conversation.

In response to Bum, “There is absolutely no reason that 2 chicks can live together for 12 years, and then one is in the hospital and the other shouldn't be able to see her because they can't get married.” This is a very good point, and I believe that these situations have happened enough already in most states so that there is precedent for that not to happen anymore (at least in California, I’m not as up on my laws and regulations as I should be). But like Andrew Reinicke said, because of precedent that has happened, if you take care of things in advance, you shouldn’t have problems.

Quoting Bum again, “Now here we have a thread unlike the evolution one where there is no argument without me not liking you anymore.” I’m sorry to hear that we never got to meet without you hating me. (I have references if you want; I’m a nice guy.) I’m not saying that two LGBT people should not be able to have the same state or federal rights as hetero people, I’m saying that marriage should not have anything to do with the state, and whether churches should accept LGBT people is a totally different issue.

Sorry that I'll never be able to see you at one of your events, and thanks for the tolerance.

Mike
strumpfm@u.washington.edu

Panda Licker · Post by **Panda Licker** » 02 Jul 2003 10:17

but marriage isnt just a religious institution. If a someone is married and dies, their spouse (spelling?) gets their stuff. however, if they are just "life partners" they dont get anything. thats where the problem lies. and life partners dont get into hospitals, and so on and so forth.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 02 Jul 2003 12:43

If there was proper separation of church and state, marriage would be just a religious institution. Religious and civil marriage are two separate institutions. Religious marriage ceremonies are common for same-sex couples, but do not have the force of civil marriages. Just as the state should not dictate which marriage any religions performs or recognizes, religions should not dictate who gets a civil marriage license from the state. But through politicians, religions do end up dictating who gets a civil marriage license. I agree with you that marriage isn't just a religious institution, but I think that change is needed. The legal and financial benefits of a civil marriage should be available for everyone, but without separation of church and state, this is going to be very hard to achieve.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 02 Jul 2003 22:22

`. A lot of the legal benefits that come with marriage can be solved by spending twenty minutes with a lawyer`

This is not true. The remainder of the argument flounders because of this one inaccurate point. Even were this point true, it still demonstrates discrimination in that:

1. It requires gay couples to take extra effort and expense to achieve something straight couples get automatically.
and
2. `a lot of legal benefits` is not the same, and not nearly as good, as `all legal benefits.`

Gay couples should be able to get access to the same legal benefits as straight married couples without having to do or pay anything extra. And the question about gay marriage is a civil question, which carries legal benefits. Whether or not a church wants to recognize gay marriages is ultimately incidental to the main question, which has to do mainly with property law, but also includes other legal rights such as visitation rights.

The fact remains however: gay couples currently cannot obtain all the legal/financial benefits that straight couples can obtain through marriage.

C-Fan · Post by **C-Fan** » 02 Jul 2003 22:26

The previous post is mine btw, I guess I didnt sign in.

No Add Br@d · Post by **No Add Br@d** » 02 Jul 2003 23:28

MY $0.02

I don't think the state has any business "allowing" anyone to get married to anyone. Having the power to decide who marries who falls outside the legetimate sphere of government influence provided the parties are legal adults.

Doylie · Post by **Doylie** » 03 Jul 2003 00:40

OK, here's another question for the mix: Should gay couples be allowed to adopt a child?

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 03 Jul 2003 06:41

I was so wondering when this topic was going to come up, because of the recent Canadian court edict. And since a lot of footbaggers are from Canada, this is a good place to talk about it.

I read a column in the Sacramento Bee online yesterday from Buckley jr.

An excerpt:

"...Actually, the movement goes so far not only as to list gay marriage as a right, but as to single out critics of gay marriage as enemies of human rights. The inclination is to criminalize orthodoxy.In Saskatchewan last year, a court affirmed the punishment, under the province's human rights code, of a man who wrote the text of an advertisement quoting four Biblical passages condemning homosexuality. "

Questions for those in the know:

1. Is it illegal to even question government policies in Canada?

2. And now, hypothetically, can I go up North of the border to marry another shredder for the purpose of sponging off Canadian taxpayers?

3. And would be ILLEGAL for anyone to complain about it?

Forgive me if this was asked already. I'm in a hurry and can't read every post right now.
-n

MJK · Post by **MJK** » 03 Jul 2003 15:20

Religous institution....that's just fucking wonderful.

Another case where a cult who believes in a big magical guy who can do anything, but has an inferiority complex and will send anyone to hell who doesn't believe in him is going to fuck a group of people over because they're biggots. Fucking wonderful!

Homosexuals don't love each other any less than heterosexuals. You can believe in stupid shit because you're scared of death if you want, but don't be a biggot because of it!

I understand that as a religous institution, those who the church don't like shouldn't be allowed to participate, but it has evolved from a religous thing to something that is very important in our society regardless of whether or not you're a fucking moron, (like Christmas) and something which is necassary for couples.

Superstition and government are kept apart for a reason.

ImaginaryDemons · Post by **ImaginaryDemons** » 03 Jul 2003 16:13

I would just like to say that I know a gay couple, and they are two of the best people I know. It pisses me off when people judge them on the fact that they are gay. It is evil.

On the subject of marriage...It shouldn't be op to the government, in my opinion, whether anyone can be married, straight or gay. I believe it should just be a bond between two people, not on paper or anything. However, that is not the way it works, so I'll say that government should not say who is allowed to marry who. It is a personal. No one would like it if mentally retarded people weren't allowed to marry someone with no mental disabilities, or blacks not to marry whites.

FootbagginBum · Post by **FootbagginBum** » 03 Jul 2003 16:20

For the record strmpfm, I'm not against you yet, you were very careful about what you said.

Now, fine fine fine, let all the principles of religious institution slide and let marraige be like that for THOSE WHO HAVE THAT RELIGION. I have a feeling most gay people have a religion, just alter the stuff in their own about homosexuality (if their religion even has a problem with it). Let them have a homolutheran (just trying to sound churchy, no descrimination) wedding, their own religion that allows it.

But now, to full address why I said what I said in my first post, anyone who's belives in a religion that says homosexuality is wrong...fuck them. If you want a religion with such a stupid principle that you don't personally modify in your beliefs (for example, my girlfriend was a strict catholic for most of her life but would post a big fat yes to this post, thus modifying her catholic beliefs).

I just don't like people that don't like gay people.

ImaginaryDemons · Post by **ImaginaryDemons** » 03 Jul 2003 16:23

FootbagginBum wrote: I just don't like people that don't like gay people.

I would not agree with that. I would not end a friendship just because someone has a differing opinion about homosexuality, or any other thing. That would be just as bad as saying you don't like gay people.

MegaFighter_X · Post by **MegaFighter_X** » 03 Jul 2003 16:33

true enough. Perhaps he meant his respect for them goes down considerably or something? I dunno.

MJK · Post by **MJK** » 03 Jul 2003 18:52

No, he meant that he doesn't like people that don't like gay people. I don't like ignorant biggots either. I think that someone being a biggot is reason enough not to like them. Especially if they're a biggot on the basis of superstition.

Gay Marriage

Should gays and lesbians be able to get married?

Gay Marriage