The Gay Marriage Thread (Page 3)

Sarcastic Dots: I don't really think it's an issue of race. There are a great number of Black, Hispanic and Arabic people, who are religious, that would oppose gay marriage.

OCD_OCD: I agree with Super, Melvin. You are off the reservation.

GeraldTheGnome: This thread should not be an issue nor should it have been created, whatever answer anyone gives it is guaranteed to cause a fight. A true lose-lose situation regardless of who is in favour of gay marriage and who isn't in favour of gay marriage. Therefore I won't agree or disagree to anything any of you have put here nor should anyone else that reads what I'm typing here.

Serabi:

Live and let live! Why condemn others on an irrelevant point?

Isn't there enough viciousness already?

Coffrey: But Gerald, it IS an issue in America. I agree, it's bullshit and, like interracial marriages, will eventually be totally legal. I just want to talk to actual people who believe this crap and hear their reasoning in spite of it not harming anyone

the real slim DEEPy: i think that the simplest soltion is to remove legal recognition of marriage for straights

darksomewayside: Gay marriage is here whether you like it or not. In my opinion, it shouldn't be, but, too bad for me.

slasian: What I couldn't understand is if we, the government, recognized Gay Rights, why the hell will ban gay marriage? It is the most funny and stupid stand of politicians. Either ban their right to be gay or grant it.

Are they planning to make them promiscuous? I mean what kind of dummy plans this; first give them the right to be gay then ehh ban gay marriage. Hilarious people in politics!

Edit= In a second thought, is it to discourage gays? I mean if they could be married then they will settle in marriage and marriage is one of the important social institutions in which society is shaped. Is it to out cast them from such social norms? I would be glad if someone explain this

JustinsWords:

First of all, I'll like to start by stating that I have yet to hear a coherent case against gay marriage; I doubt I ever will, because, frankly, there is NO rational case against gay marriage - unless you consider what is stated in religion as absolute and you don't mind forcing your beliefs onto others.

Until I hear one, it's goodbye for me here.

the real slim DEEPy: i have no issues with gay mariage, but the "everyone has a right" line could lead to lopygamous, insestua; or beastial mariage.

the real way to equalizer things is to take away any legal recognition and priveledges for all marriage, straight included.

i am single, why should i miss out on priveledges?

Coffrey: Actually I would argue with the bestial part, animals cannot consent, so I would throw that out, but for the other things, if you allow one thing (marriage between solitary people of opposite genders), why can't you allow everything?

OCD_OCD: Incestuous marriage? You want to allow incestuous marriage, Coffrey?

Sarcastic Dots: More states allow marriage between cousins (some of which, allow first cousins) than between two people of the same gender.

OCD_OCD: I don't care who allows incestuous marriage, it's creepy.

Sarcastic Dots: Creepy or not, it's evidently more acceptable to Americans than Gay marriage.

OCD_OCD: Dots, it is a point of LAW in the US. States have the right to decide, not the federal government. It can be brought to a vote in each state and those states that choose to legalize ( and have) legalized same sex marriage can do so.

Sarcastic Dots: I'm not arguing about that, though. People were stating, rather erroneously, that incestuous marriage doesn't already exist. Beastial marriages will never exist because marriage involves consenting adults. The only legitimate point to take from deep_dystopia's post is that of polygamy, and even then, that is probably a debate we should have. I still find it bizarre that, legally, if you aren't married you can have as many partners (and children with them) as you want, yet at the same time, it's illegal to be married to more than one person.

OCD_OCD: I don't believe there are any states in the US where polygamy is legal, so it is pretty much moot.

Sarcastic Dots: But that's not what I typed.

OCD_OCD: sorry, I misread it and thought you were saying that it was legal to have multiple partners. yes, it is legal to have as many partners and children as you want...as long as you can support them, but there are limits to the children you can have that are given up as wards of the state.

Coffrey: Why shouldn't there be gay or incestuous, or polygamy? If we really want to talk about equality, allowing just a narrow band of "legal" relationships to get the benefits from marriage is far from equal. We should extend the same rights to everyone, regardless of gender or genetic lineage or even the number of people involved. Isn't it the conservative position that the government shouldn't be able to dictate who gets certain rights above others? And regardless if you find it creepy or not, it's not your business to rain on consenting adults' parade.

Oh, by the way, not that I've seen you use this argument, but I've seen it enough elsewhere to include it. If anyone argues gay marriage, or any of the above, destroys the "sanctity" of marriage, unless you are willing to ban the instant marriages in places like Las Vegas or ban what literally destroys marriages which is divorce, you're a big ol' fat hypocrite with no credibility.

OCD_OCD: I dont care about the "sanctity" of marriage. I suppose if people want to marry their own children then let them have at it. Have all of the mental defectives they want. Damn. I am sure there are people like NAMBLA who want to marry children also.

It is a LEGAL issue and a state's rights issue, not a moral or religious one. Don't jump up my nose. Yeesh.

Sarcastic Dots: "or polygamy"

Honestly? Tax reasons.

OCD_OCD: Huh? Tax reasons?