theaveng Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 I think it's ridiculous that some people can marry while others are forbidden, simply because of their sexual orientation. (1) It is discriminatory & unequal treatment. (2) The U.S. is supposed to be a place of "to pursue happiness". If you're happy in a same-sex relationship, who is anyone else to tell say, "You can't do that." It's none of their business to tell other people how to seek happiness. (3) And to quote my favorite politician, "Whether my neighbor worships one god or many gods, matters not to me. It does not harm my my person, my property, nor my rights." Of course Thomas Jefferson was discussing religion, but the same applies to marriage: Whether my neighbor is heterosexual or homosexual, matters not to me. What they do in their home has NO affect on my person, my property, or my rights. Let them live their lives however they want. troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorunNova Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 They could always come up to Canada, where it IS legal ^^ Frankly, while George W. Bush is in office, legalized same-sex marriage is NOT going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theaveng Posted October 22, 2005 Author Share Posted October 22, 2005 Same-sex marriage is legal in Canada? Didn't know that. At least some of the States have legalized it. That's a start. Most major change, such as giving women the vote, happens from the bottom-up not top-down. After a certain point, say 25 states, the central government will feel pressured to go along with it. While we're at it, we should also legalize marijuana (as a prescriptive drug). troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorunNova Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 We've got that too for medical uses, plus for a brief while it was decriminalized... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benw_w Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 You guys need to get you selves over to europe! We have same sex marriage decriminalized marijuana, and women have the vote ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beawulf Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 I agree with you completely theaveng. I'm all for the equal treatment of everybody. The way I see it, the point isnt to go through the motions of a marriage, that isnt what creates love in a relationship, and genuine love wont wither without marriage, although I do recognise this is important to alot of people. The key issue I think alot of people are fighting for is the recognition of a devoted/consumated (whatever you call it) couple and the benifits that go along. The same benifits that heterosexual married couples get, whether it is a tax break or the right to inheritance. I have heard many stories of devoted couples that have been together for 40+ years, and when one passed away the other wasnt recognised as the partner and had no say over how the other was buried etc or had any right of inheritance. equal treatment isnt too much to ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quosego Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 If your unhappy with the restricted freedoms of your country I would say move to my little country.... :) Land of freedom, tulips, drugs, cheese, clogs, dykes and same sex-marriage..... I think you could even marry your hamster if you wanted to here... :) But I agree, same-sex marriages should be legal/accepted anywhere on the world. I can't figure out a reason not to allow people of the same sex to get married. You're actually discriminating those people if they can't get married, and I thought we were past such futile behaviour... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbbb Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 Funny topic. Very funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maverick Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 i like it too. btw im going to a witch burning at the weekend. pm me for details Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psheldrake1 Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 We've got that too for medical uses' date=' plus for a brief while it was decriminalized...[/quote'] That's the true meaning of a green card Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MustHaveDS9 Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 They could always come up to Canada, where it IS legal ^^ Frankly, while George W. Bush is in office, legalized same-sex marriage is NOT going to happen. Marriage is a state issue, and as such has nothing to do with President Bush or the federal government. Some states have exercised their right to legalize homosexual marriages, by way of majority vote of their elected representatives. To force states to legalize homosexual marriage through a federal amendment would be, as Roe v. Wade is, a violation of states' rights, and a stripping of even more power from the citizens of the United States to the all-mighty federal government. For the record, I am not against either homosexual marriage or abortion. However, I also believe that if the people of a country have to follow its laws and founding documents, so do its politicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruk Posted November 15, 2005 Share Posted November 15, 2005 Marriage is a state issue, and as such has nothing to do with President Bush or the federal government. Unfortunately many politicians disagree, and marriage is federally stated as being only between a man and woman. Its the fear the judges will (rightly so in my opinion) find this law unconstitutional that is prompting talk of a marriage amendment. To force states to legalize homosexual marriage through a federal amendment would be, as Roe v. Wade is, a violation of states' rights, and a stripping of even more power from the citizens of the United States to the all-mighty federal government. Civil rights is not a state issue. It wasn't ok for southern states to prohibit interracial marriage because it was considered immoral at the time. Nor is it ok for gay marriage to be treated the same way now. Our Constitution mandates equal treatment under the law. I know some say they are being treated equally, and still can marry, but not the same sex. However the excuse that blacks could still marry blacks didn't hold water when interracial marriage went to the Supreme Court, and likewise the excuse that guys (albeit gay) can still marry women and thus aren't treated differently doesn't work today. Likewise our Constitution states that laws of one state shall be upheld by others. If you marry in Mississippi at the age of 14, other states can't prosecute you for statutory rape if you move there afterwards. However federal law currently states that states aren't obligued to treat gay marriages in the same fashion. The fear that this will likewise be tossed out is another reason why Bush is pushing for an amendment. He claims its because of "activisit" judges creating new law, but the fact is that these judges are just reading the Constitution as its written, and its judges who don't want the changes that in fact are the activists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcant Posted November 15, 2005 Share Posted November 15, 2005 There should be a referendum and everyone should abide by the majority decision its called democracy "Likewise our Constitution states that laws of one state shall be upheld by others. If you marry in Mississippi at the age of 14, other states can't prosecute you for statutory rape if you move there afterwards" They're trying to do that in Europe however if I get busted for smoking dope in England I'm pretty certain telling them it's legal in Holland isn't gonna help much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beawulf Posted November 15, 2005 Share Posted November 15, 2005 There should be a referendum and everyone should abide by the majority decision its called democracy So if the majority of people voted that black people should be segregated from whites that is ok then? Sorry but I disagree. To be treated equally is a right that everyone has. It isnt something that can be voted on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antipodean Posted November 15, 2005 Share Posted November 15, 2005 I can understand if some religions chose to maintain their hostility towards homosexuality with regards to their rituals, in this case namely the sacrament of marriage. HOWEVER the state is a secular institution and should remain so - the doctrine of separation of church and state protects the adherants of individual faiths as much as it protects legislation from forcing religious positions upon individuals. Why should a secular institution of marriage be disbarred to any two individuals who wish to enter into a legal union? Anything less TRUELY AMOUNTS TO DISCRIMINATION. Why shouldn't a pair of committed lovers enjoy the same legal rights and protections afforded by marriage? Why should they be disbarred simply on account of sexual orientation? It can never be deemed just to exlude ANY category of people from particular legal benefits and recognition that otherwise the rest of society can enjoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcant Posted November 15, 2005 Share Posted November 15, 2005 There should be a referendum and everyone should abide by the majority decision its called democracy So if the majority of people voted that black people should be segregated from whites that is ok then? Sorry but I disagree. To be treated equally is a right that everyone has. It isnt something that can be voted on. So you are anti democracy then or is it only if you think the majority will disagree with you Dont get me wrong I have nothing against any couple having equal legal and financial protection its just the idea of calling it marriage that kind of grates This is an extreme example I know and I know i'm gonna get flamed for this.. but... what about equal rights for beastiophiles what is so wrong with people having sex with animals. and if someone wanted to enter a life long partnership with a sheep shouldn't he be allowed to? why should he be discriminated against? And what about the guy married to a 14 year old surely the other states are discriminating against any other man who wants sex with 14 year old girls. the precendent exists in some states so equal rights for all paedophiles. why should they be discriminated against just because they live in the wrong state And whats so terrible about necrophilia? and dueling? if two people want to fight to the death why shouldn't they be allowed to? why should their right to kill each other if they are both in agreement be legislated against Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quosego Posted November 15, 2005 Share Posted November 15, 2005 There should be a referendum and everyone should abide by the majority decision its called democracy So if the majority of people voted that black people should be segregated from whites that is ok then? Sorry but I disagree. To be treated equally is a right that everyone has. It isnt something that can be voted on. So you are anti democracy then or is it only if you think the majority will disagree with you Dont get me wrong I have nothing against any couple having equal legal and financial protection its just the idea of calling it marriage that kind of grates This is an extreme example I know and I know i'm gonna get flamed for this.. but... what about equal rights for beastiophiles what is so wrong with people having sex with animals. and if someone wanted to enter a life long partnership with a sheep shouldn't he be allowed to? why should he be discriminated against? And what about the guy married to a 14 year old surely the other states are discriminating against any other man who wants sex with 14 year old girls. the precendent exists in some states so equal rights for all paedophiles. why should they be discriminated against just because they live in the wrong state And whats so terrible about necrophilia? and dueling? if two people want to fight to the death why shouldn't they be allowed to? why should their right to kill each other if they are both in agreement be legislated against Beastiophilia is not illegal here, pedophilia isn't also except when it is involuntarely. I don't exactly know if necrophilia is illegal here. I would have to look it up. This just states that indeed if you want to have sex with someone/something and it isn't hurting it you can do whatever you want. The only thing prohibiting you from marrying your sheep or 16 year old girlfriend is mental capacity... (Not that 16 year old girls are stupid) You can't marry something that can't understand the concept and responsibilities of marrying. So that's why you can't marry your sheep or 16 year old girlfriend but can have sex with them without going to jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beawulf Posted November 15, 2005 Share Posted November 15, 2005 Dont get me wrong I have nothing against any couple having equal legal and financial protection its just the idea of calling it marriage that kind of grates In my opinion it is the equal legal and financial protection that is important. The way I see it, having that is being equally treated. Many states allow benefits to same-sex life partners, but disallow Marriage. So what's the problem with just accepting the benefits? You want to say Married? OK. Why? Cause it's the State? Cause it's the USA? Most Gays/Lesbians couldn't agree with the Government on anything, but they want it's blessing of their union? Geez. Grass is greener, eh? I can recognise that marriage is a religious ceremony and if the church wants to keep marriage between man/woman it doesn't bother me, as long as same sex (committed) couples get the same rights and benefits etc. However there isn't equal treatment in a number of places at the moment. Personally I don't care if it is called marriage or not, if there is no love, the term marriage is meaningless. I am not religious so I don't care if it weren't to be blessed by a religious leader, or if it didn't take place in a church. For those gay people who are religious and do want the blessing there are plenty of christian priests who do accept homosexuality who could bless the union. They may not be from the exact same strain of Christianity, but it is the same god in all of them. I imagine my point of view doesn't represent the entire gay community especially gay Christians, who have been raised believing that there cant be a committed relationship without marriage. From my point of view they need to reexamine their beliefs. Being termed marriage is not what makes a committed relationship, as StevenofNine said over 50% of marriages end in divorce. But this is just my point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuages Posted November 15, 2005 Share Posted November 15, 2005 I think same-sex marriage should only be between two people of the same gender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antipodean Posted November 15, 2005 Share Posted November 15, 2005 I can recognise that marriage is a religious ceremony Ummm... actually there are plenty of married non-religious folk. There are even married ATHIESTS!!! Civil weddings happen all over the place! I think it's important to recognise the difference between the religious sacrament of marriage and the secular institution of marriage. The first is a religious ritual and the concern of the relevent faith alone. The second is a legally recognised union that confers particular rights and benefits. Dont get me wrong I have nothing against any couple having equal legal and financial protection its just the idea of calling it marriage that kind of grates Why? Marriage is the word we have in the english language to describe a lifelong union, with all the responsibilities, committments and legal recognition that entails. See... the word marriage confers a much greater set of meanings than terms like "civil union". Why should homosexuals be disbarred from making the profound public declaration of committment and love that is marriage? While at the very least, all people should enjoy the same legal rights and protections... It truley is grossly unfair to confine gay union's to a sterile shadow of heterosexual marriage. And the ironic thing is that I've known gay couples whose love and lifelong committment to each other puts no small number of heterosexual marriages to shame. And yet they still are not allowed to recognise that lifeling partnership as marriage when all around us in society we can bear witness to straight couples who basically insult the instituition of marriage with their conduct towards each other, with their infidelities, with the way they hurt one another and with their readiness to divorce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now