Gay Marriage [was: Ok!]

Asmus · Post by **Asmus** » 11 Jul 2004 06:03

Getting married is about love.. not about wich sex the couple are.. Gay Marriage is 100 % okay!

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 11 Jul 2004 06:43

Totally!

And it really annoys me that fanatical fundamentalist Christians have hijacked a ritual that is much older than Christianity, the Bible and Jesus and are trying to impose their religious beliefs onto other people.

KronoKicker · Post by **KronoKicker** » 11 Jul 2004 07:35

I'm not sure about gay mariages, but if it is something catholics/christians/religious people don't like, then I support it.

ShredNJ · Post by **ShredNJ** » 11 Jul 2004 08:05

The restriction of rights due to belief is bad. Its one of the reasons that the US is at war.

Im all for the flammers.!

420FootBager · Post by **420FootBager** » 11 Jul 2004 09:13

yeah marry who ya want just stay away from my butt

sPinko-Mania · Post by **sPinko-Mania** » 11 Jul 2004 19:04

KronoKicker wrote:I'm not sure about gay mariages, but if it is something catholics/christians/religious people don't like, then I support it.

Catholics are Christains.

Marriage is a communal property agreement, that's right, marriage is COMMUNISM. Just look what happened to Russia when they quit Communism (they got robbed).

LinksYs · Post by **LinksYs** » 11 Jul 2004 19:39

i'm glad i'm not the only one that thinks gay marriages are ok

Flipsider · Post by **Flipsider** » 11 Jul 2004 19:55

I don't know what the latest is in the States, but here in Quebec it's legal. I have a friend getting married in August, so this will be my first gay wedding.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 12 Jul 2004 07:15

Consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want in the bedroom, I don't care as long as they keep the kids out of it.

-my opinion

That being said, does having gay marriage legal enable activists to strong-arm their propaganda into elementary school curriculum at increasingly younger levels?

How young is to young to teach about gay-sex?

In Canada, is this type of "indoctrination" happening at your schools?

And would it be illegal to complain about it?

Please give me the lowdown, I am very interested in Canadian issues (especially Rob's revolution).

-n

wolfpac444 · Post by **wolfpac444** » 12 Jul 2004 08:16

Is it illegal to complain about the "indoctrination" of heterosexual sex?

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 12 Jul 2004 08:41

Just got back from michigan where my friend described the situation as a witch hunt.

While they can not descriminate on race, sex, creed, religion . . .
there is no mention of sexual preference and so it must be legal to descriminate on sexual preference.

Apparently people are loosing their jobs for being gay ? I only spent a week there, but it was clearly different then SF.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 12 Jul 2004 10:41

I'm probably going to get shot out of a cannon for this. But I disagree with all of you and I am not a religous fanatic of any kind.

I view marriage as that of a Man and a Woman in a union for the procreation of the species. PERIOD.

Anything else however worded or explained, is simply a CIVIL UNION, not a marriage.

I am all for CIVIL UNIONS, as long as, the laws are changed to reflect tax benefits awarded CIVIL UNIONS. They can be the same as marriage benefits, but worded to reflect the obvious differences between the 2 unions.

This will satisfy the religous right, and give the Liberal left back the rights they should have been afforded in the first place.

This might also benefit the educational system by labeling the 2 unions differently so parents don't freak out and pull their kids out of school. Sexual education in the US has always been a voluntary course taken with a signed parental permission slip.

Marriage on the other hand is not taught voluntarily, if at all. So that said, this will make it voluntary and the parents can decide.

One more thing, currently anal sex and oral sex is a crime punishable by prison (in which you will gain a wide variety of knowledge on the subject) in a majority of states in the US. So making this a global change will be as easy as voting in Florida.

wolfpac444 · Post by **wolfpac444** » 12 Jul 2004 11:13

So, what you're saying is that the actual word "marriage" is what is bothering you? What are the "obvious differences" between the 2 unions? What if a couple does not wish to procreate? Do you want gay couples to not be able to say that they're "married" like the rest of "married" population?

And actually, the Supreme Court just recently struck down sodomy laws in Texas: http://www.sovo.com/2004/6-25/news/nati ... vtexas.cfm.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 12 Jul 2004 11:18

Yeah just the word "marriage".

Marriage = Man + Woman

Civil Union = Man + Man OR Woman + Woman

That's all

.

Procreation is possible through a Man + Woman with freak occurances happening on South Park

. I used this example because honestly it was the best I could do to differentiate the 2 without being charged with discrimination.

Other than the wording I am OK with it.

wolfpac444 · Post by **wolfpac444** » 12 Jul 2004 11:40

Why is that such an important distinction for you?

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 12 Jul 2004 12:05

Marriage has historical, moral, and cultural significants that dates back a pretty good ways, and not just in this country.

I see a lot of the youth of America attaching themselves to a stance they know little about just so they can say they approve.

Thanks, but I don't need your approval, I need you to get your facts straight before suddenly becoming so PRO this or that.

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, to change it would devalue the years of historical, moral, and cultural significants of the word.

Civil Unions can be defined to appease the minority who want them, without destroying the moral, historical, and cutural fabric of the word marriage.

This is not a PRO Bush stance, this is my stance being a married individual.

It's like suddenly changing the word red to also mean blue. Or calling gyro a planted or no planted set (not that I agree or disagree, just using an example). Under Kenny's invention it does not have a plant, so now all of a sudden a few people want it changed. So now does history have to be re-written to include plants? This is just a bad analogy we can all relate to, not a debate about Kenny or Gyro.

wolfpac444 · Post by **wolfpac444** » 12 Jul 2004 12:56

I agree that marriage has a large amount of historical and cultural significance. I'm not so sure about moral significance on the other hand. I don't think that that is inherent in the institution of marriage itselft. If there is any, I think it is merely a byproduct of the individual's morality and to a lesser extent from religion (if they were married under a religious ceremony). [ It is also interesting to note that approximately half of marriages today end in divorce. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr50/nvsr50_08.pdf and http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/51_10_12_t03.pdf ]

I can think up of a number of other words which had quite a bit of historical and cultural significance. For example, the words property and voter come to mind (with respect to slavery and women's suffrage). You could argue that by saying African-Americans are people and not property or by allowing to vote, one is devaluing the years of historical, moral, and cultural significance of the word. If so, I'm all for devaluing it.

I am guessing you have not read or are not familiar Yale-researcher John Boswell's book "Same Sex Unions in Premodern Europe". It outlines the long history of same-sex marriage throughout Europe in and out of the Church. For example, St. Serge and St. Bacchus are probably the most notable couple (see:
http://www.ashe-prem.org/five/duffy.shtml). Another intersting tidbit is the adelphopoiia that existed within the early Eastern and Greek Orthodox churches.

Churches are private institutions and as such are allowed to do whatever they want when it comes to same-sex marriages. The government on the other hand is not. By saying gay couples should not be allowed to "marry", you are merely giving people another way to discriminate against them. This whole distinction has strong separate, but equal overtones.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 12 Jul 2004 13:32

That makes sense. I wouldn't have chosen slavery (but then again I chose footbag) cause historically the white man was wrong, so in that sense, yes history should not have been that way.

Which brings to mind what history is, a record of the past. So who is to say that the definition of marriage could also historically change today to meet its new meaning.

I am all for that too. Just as long as everyone is happy about it. The idea of Civil Unions makes me happy. Under the current definition of marriage, a gay marriage does not make me happy. If however, the term marriage were redefined to include all unions, then I would be happy.

Clarity of terms is all I'm looking for. Does that make sense, or am I just nitpicking, I could very well be.

DISCLAIMER: I am not a heartless republican, I'm an interested student of politics, who would like to see an end to Political Correctness, and see it replaced with correct definitions.

sPinko-Mania · Post by **sPinko-Mania** » 12 Jul 2004 14:14

Hey Damon, what is the purpose of marriage in your opinion?

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 12 Jul 2004 14:30

Purpose or definition?

If you are backing me into a corner I believe I have already submitted to the purpose of marriage being procreation, only to have situations thrown back at me (married without procreation).

Purpose applies to both marriage and civil unions (without procreation thrown in there). Love, respect, companionship. Religously (which I do not claim) states differently and includes procreation, and honor towards God through a union (in Christianity). However I can see both sides of the argument, and agree to an extent that gay marriage should be recognized.

All I'm stating is that if it is called marriage, then change the definition of marriage to include it. If not, call it something else so we have a definition for it.

Clarity is all I'm looking for.

IMO (which is what you asked) - Procreation is important wheter you choose to or not, and should only take place between a man and woman. That is not to say that gay couples should not adopt or use scince to create life, I just would not label it the standard definition of procreation (it would be called something else, and is). I just don't believe it to be physically possible (currently) for a woman and a woman to have a baby naturally without medical intervention. Nor a man and a man. Also the female parts are naturally suited for male parts (sex ed 101). However, that's your business not mine.

So my definition of marriage does not include gay couples.

My defintion of Civil Unions does include gay couples and gives them all the rights that a standard couple would receive without the ability to procreate, which is so obvious.

Basically I'm taking John Kerry's stance which is to float in the middle and hope for the best. While I'm not in favor of calling a gay marriage a marriage by historic definition. If that definition were to change I would embrace it. So instead I call it a Civil Union and support it until such time that the definition of marriage is changed to include Civil Unions.

Is it that difficult for you to see my view?