What are your thoughts on gay marriage? Lets not have this be a 'debate' thread, but rather, a way just to get a census on peolpe's opinion.

If you wish to debate gay marriage, please create a new thread, let this thread be purely for statements/clarifications on personal beliefs.

i'm for them getting complete and equal rights!

Im for gay marriage being 100% like straight marriage. All requirements, aspects, divorce, legal and personal matters.

I would 'be fine' with a civil union with all the same legalities, though I thnk the distinction between the two is just kind of silly.

I am NOT in favor of religious faiths to be forced to allow marriage. That is their choice.

Marriage has two main aspects, personal (religious) and civil (state) State sponsorship of marriage should not depend on sexuality, in my opinion. Religious sponsorship should be allowed to the religion.

no, marriage (according to my belief's) is a union between a man and woman.

Call it something else

I'm with Manu on this one.

Originally posted by Kraw
no, marriage (according to my belief's) is a union between a man and woman.

Call it something else

But do you believe they should have the same rights or different rights?

gay union by law, maybe.

gay marriage by a church - absolutely not

Originally posted by Johnson
gay marriage by a church - absolutely not

:stupid:

I don't agree with you on union by law, because that would give them rights to adopt children. I don't agree with that all, but that is another story.

Nope. No way. No how. Marriage has already been turned into something of a joke by the liberal establishment; this would be just another insult to the traditional - and vastly superior - family unit.

Originally posted by FallenAngel


:stupid:

I don't agree with you on union by law, because that would give them rights to adopt children. I don't agree with that all, but that is another story.

But would you/do you support a union with limited benefits, such as power of attorney, right to own property, and/or taxes? (the second to last option as opposed to the last)

Originally posted by Manu


But would you/do you support a union with limited benefits, such as power of attorney, right to own property, and/or taxes? (the second to last option as opposed to the last)

No only because the way I see it, if you're going to give a group rights, then you can't limit the rights that you do give.

Originally posted by FallenAngel


:stupid:

I don't agree with you on union by law, because that would give them rights to adopt children. I don't agree with that all, but that is another story.

I don't agree with it, I meant 'maybe' as in maybe it will eventually be passed into law.

My personal thoughts on AIDS-magnets aren't allowed on DA.

Originally posted by FallenAngel


No only because the way I see it, if you're going to give a group rights, then you can't limit the rights that you do give.

That makes sense, and I think I do agree on that fact.

There is an amount of logic with the church vs. the state argument, however, I feel the decision should be made by the people.

What bothers me most is when government makes the decision for me without my vote. It's almost as bad as taxation without representation.

I'm with Kraw.

I am opposed to the government intruding on private lives, gay or straight.

Originally posted by RedLine99
There is an amount of logic with the church vs. the state argument, however, I feel the decision should be made by the people.

What bothers me most is when government makes the decision for me without my vote. It's almost as bad as taxation without representation.


Well, this isn't a pure democracy, this is a constitutional democracy.

Constitutions are designed to protect the few from the many, the weak from the powerful.

If you were to vote on this, and disallow gays from marrying (civil marriage, not religious), you'd be inpinging on their power - if the government gives them the right to marry, you lose nothing.

I voted no. I don't care what they do privately, or if they live together and whatnot. I am against them having equal rights as married couples do. I cannot think of one logical reason why though. :shrug:

You don't have to be married to have a power of attorney, BTW.

Homo/Bi sexuals account for roughly 50% of all new AIDS cases each year.

in the US, 10% of males are homosexual, 5% of women are lesbian, and bisexuality is a "hip trend."

another problem with gay marriage / union is that the vast majority of homo/bi whatever sexuals are NOT monogamous. The average heterosexual has three sexual partners their entire life. the average homo/whatever sexual has an average in the HUNDREDS.

in fact, i predict that if gay marriage / union was legalized, gay divorce would quickly far surpass that of mainstream america.

i think they should be allowed to be married and have the same rights as any married couple. same sex getting married does not effect me any way, so i feel that they shouldn't be kept from the same things as married couples just because they have different sexual preferences. they will still be gay if the government denies them marriage, so might as well let them have it.

i do agree that religions shouldn't be forced to perform the marriages though

The Russian Orthodox church recently defrocked a priest that married a pair of them in secret. they then bulldozed the chapel and burned the wreckage.

I dont find this extreme in the least.

I think that they should have every right given to woman/man marriages, and be able to get married where ever they want, and be equal.

Originally posted by Johnson
The Russian Orthodox church recently defrocked a priest that married a pair of them in secret. they then bulldozed the chapel and burned the wreckage.

I dont find this extreme in the least.

Special interest groups are evil, right Johnson?

Marriage is already a sham; there's no turning back now anyways. Just give the gays what they want.

I voted for option 2. Some people seem so upset by calling it marriage.

To me, marriage is a union between people who love each other and want to commit to being recognized as one entity legally and spiritually. That can mean a man and woman, two men, two women, one man and two women, four men, whatever. As long as everyone is of consenting age.

So I obviously voted for 1.

Originally posted by PoliticalGoddess
i'm for them getting complete and equal rights!

Then that means no 'gay' marriage, which is a special right.

Originally posted by sockcat72
To me, marriage is a union between people who love each other and want to commit to being recognized as one entity legally and spiritually. That can mean a man and woman, two men, two women, one man and two women, four men, whatever. As long as everyone is of consenting age.

So I obviously voted for 1.

Great summary.

Originally posted by contra


Then that means no 'gay' marriage, which is a special right.

Heterosexual marriage is not a special right?

Originally posted by The Miscreant


Heterosexual marriage is not a special right?

No it is not.

Originally posted by jojo
No it is not.

Explain.

Originally posted by The Miscreant
Explain.
What's to explain? There is nothing special about it.

Originally posted by jojo

What's to explain? There is nothing special about it.

Then what's so special about gay marriage?

It's different, but not special.

Things change.

jojo, brett, you both need to explain.

I see nothing wrong with it. Just because some sexually insecure religious fanatics are bent out of shape does not mean it should be illegal.

Originally posted by PoliticalGoddess
jojo, brett, you both need to explain.


Well, both jojo and kontra are working with the presupposition that marriage is an inherent right guaranteed to all human beings (even though kontra has repeatedly denied that rights exist).

They also presuppose that marriage is designed to be the union between a man and a woman.

Kontra claims that equal rights does not equal marriage rights for homosexuals - this assumes that heterosexual marriage is "natural."

How is it "equal" for heterosexuals to be able to marry, and not homosexuals?

What would make homosexuals more "equal" if they had the right to marriage?

Of course. However, individual Churches should not be forced to marry homosexuals if they do not believe it to be a valid marriage.

Originally posted by JoeyNormal
Of course. However, individual Churches should not be forced to marry homosexuals if they do not believe it to be a valid marriage.

yup, as I said in my first post: If you were to vote on this, and disallow gays from marrying (civil marriage, not religious), you'd be inpinging on their power - if the government gives them the right to marry, you lose nothing.

Guys, just a note, this is PURELY for our opinions on the matter, start a new thread in here to debate it...