Gay Marriage be Legal?

I was arguing with two of my friends, debating whether or not same-sex marriages should be legal.

I really think gay marriages should be legal. Can you really place a gender on someones soul? I think its hypocritical that we, as America, do not have legal same-sex marriages. Who is it hurting, if two people of the same gender get married?

Originally posted by JustAnIllusion
Who is it hurting, if two people of the same gender get married?

the children that they have/adopt. i knew someone that came from parents that were 'partners' and they didn't know what to think. they didn't know if they were supposed to be gay or not just because their parents were.
i'm kinda on the pole about whether it should be legal or not. but i do know that the kids are the ones who get hurt.

No, it cannot be legal in this nation, not under this constitution and upon which its based. Yes, you can place a sex on a soul.

I'll not speak of other nations with other forms of government based upon other systems of belief, only the U.S., as far as legality is concerned.

Thomas, how does it violate the constitution?

As far as legality and the Constitution goes, no, it shouldn't be legal, it IS illegal.

As far as civil rights goes, and human equality and fairness, yes, it should be legal. Afterall, isn't this only fair that they can get married? So, your gay, you can't get married, too bad you were born that way, sucks for you. No, that is DEFINATELY unfair, from this point of view, it should be legal. Its a fairness thing.

I am quite in the grey at the moment, I could really care less = /

I say, whatever tickles your pickle, and whatever floats your boat

-wD

IMO, the constitution is now as intangible as the Judeo-Christian values that it was allegedly based upon, but the state based upon the church values is a different arguement that I won't starte here.

Gay marriage, gay marriage, gay marriage. I personally have no problem with it. If Eric and Tommy or Michelle and Renae want to get married, good for them. Morally speaking, the two people are in love, good for them. Sexually speaking, if they practice sex with their life partner, whether they are married to them are not, and are monogamous, good for them.

As for the constitution only recognizing heterosexual marriages, should the government and states recognize marriages that did not take place in a Christian manner at all? Let's say two Hindus get married on Amerikan soil, is their marriage legitimate? How about two Wiccans?

This is a topic that is entirely too open for debate, except that no one wants to hear anyone's opinion but their own.

I think, kaos you're right. It's open for debate. In the mean time should we let this 'debate' be decided by a court in Mass. who somehow finds a 'right' in their states constitution, after 200 years, or to a mayor in San Fran, or shouldnt this be decided properly.

Im not stating an opinion either way here...consider Ohio, which banned gay marriages. Its the state I live in and no one came out against the ban. No protests, no nothing. So now you have a handful of folks in San. Fran getting married and if they were to move to Ohio, and other states for that matter, they wouldn't be married, per se. This is wide open for debate yet no elected official is touching it really.

[Edited on 20-2-2004 by Bob88]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON NO NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
gay marriges should NOT be legal

[Edited on 20-2-2004 by AD5673]

i have no problem with it

and it being illegal in the constitution is dead true, but the constitution also never says the words "separation of church and state." it exists because of case precedent, just as the whole gay marriage being illegal thing will die out because its happened so many times before, case precedent.

i hate to point fingers and i dont like attacking people, but AD you really sound like youve got the "im the king of the whole frecking planet and whatever i say is right" syndrome. based on youre "lets get this straight" forum you posted. and no, we ont all get it, why dont you explain why it is that you are so extremely correct in everything instead of just saying so?

that was really rude, my bad

Why are people against gay marriage? If it becomes legal, it's not like you have to marry gay. The government should stay outta the bedrooms of people. If two people are in love and want to be married, they should be able to. I don't remember the Constitution saying that, "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, except for gays."

NotTooHappy, I totally agree with you.

and maybe heterosexuals should worry about their own problems such as the highest divorce rate in the world, plus teen pregnancy, out of wedlock pregnancy, etc., etc., before they worry about what other people are doing with their private lives.

This is a duplicate of another thread that is pages long. JAI, I have answered why the homosexual assertion that they have a "right" to marry is not constitutional, I have explained upon what our laws, our government is based.

As far as what it hurts to give the illusion of right to something that is wrong, immoral and unacceptable just because you do not see the immediate ill effects as if it were a murder, we are also obligated to preserve and protect the health of our society, our culture. Not that we've been doing a very good job of that in the last forty-something years.

My opinion? I believe this is really a moot point, I believe that this and any other degradation imaginable will occur in the next several years. So don't fret any, regardless if it is a right, it will come to pass anyway.

I think the question shouldn't be whether it should be legal or not, but more of a question of WHY would they want to?
I don't claim to be in the know of what the Bible says but doesn't it basically say it's against homosexuality? If it does then why would they want to be married in the house of the lord, when it's obvious he doesn't give a crap about them.

They should just say lick my balls and create their own ceremony that doesn't condemn them.

I posted this on a BTS thread, but since I have yet to see anyone propose such an idea as an option, I will post it here as well.

Here's a solution to the whole problem and it will also force those who claim not to have a problem with "civil unions" they just don't want to allow "gay marriage" to admit their hypocrisy.

Ready? How about we do away with the government's recognition of heterosexual marriage? How about admitting that "marriage" is a spiritual decision and the legal rights granted to a married couple, since the government shall make no laws regarding religion, should be granted for "civil unions" only. Civil unions would be any legally recognized contract between the state and 2 consenting adults, regardless of sexual orientation. The status of marriage would be a personal vow of commitment made between 2 people in accordance with their personal beliefs, and have no bearing on their legal status. If 2 wiccans/hindus/christians/etc. want to marry in a wiccan/hindu/christian/etc. ceremony, they are married, but only in the sense that they pledged their love to each other. If 2 people want the legal status of a civil union, for example, a man and woman want to marry for the financial benefits but do not love each other, they can apply for recognition as a civil union. Then they don't have to lie and make fools of themselves by pretending to be in love, unless they are.

This would eliminate the need for a legal definition of marriage, which is religious by nature, by the government. It would make everyone equal under the law and place the decision to be married back in the hands of the people where it belongs.

Heres an interesting take by Fred Reed on this current development. To me its a little bit of a Rant, but some of it makes sense, ie: if you do legalize gay marriage, what is to keep someone from marrying their daughter or an animal... its kinda just the notion of interpretation, and then that could open up the door for hell. I personally am against gay marriage for the possible "can of worms" it could open

well here is a part of the article

A second objection is that there is no logical end in sight once the courts arrogate the power to define marriage. If a man can marry a man, why can he not marry two men? I�m serious. I could argue that the bonds of affection can exist between three men as well as between two. The norm today is serial marriage. Why not parallel marriage? Who are we to discriminate in favor of couples?

Fred on Everything Link

Let's play a quick round of spot the homophobe, I'm almost surprised to see people with such dated and hateful views.

I'm shocked that some people are so opposed to this. Personally, I love watching chicks make out! As long as I don't have to watch blokes kiss, I could give a sh1t less.

It's ironic that the religious leaders are so opposed to this when they (well, a sizable percentage if reports are to be believed) are the ones raping young boys. I read thge other day that one in 20 priests have had allegations made against them.

Where does your prejudice end? It's not your world. What if you were the one being discriminated against? I'm not gay and I don't particularly have feelings one way or the other about gay rights, they have never bothered me, but you people seem to think that because you feel some way about something, that everybody else has to feel the same way.

$0.02


[Edited on 21-2-2004 by Zzub]

Marriage is just as much about getting rewarded for doing the "right" things (Monogomy, hard work, responsibility, etc.) in the form of tax breaks and investment oportunity. In this it should not mate what sex your mate is. SO I FEEL YES IT SHOULD BE LEGAL.

MTSQUAD IS NOT THREATENED BY OTHERS SEXUALITY

But Zzub, you sure look gay