G@y m@rri@ge

[QUOTE="stevenk4k5"][QUOTE="TSCombo"]

 

I agree, they both should be condemned.

freshgman

No they shouldn't. Why should we condemn a sexuality which no one has control over?

your right we should condemn them both since most lesbians arent "hot" anyway. most look like men to begin with

XD

No they shouldn't. Why should we condemn a sexuality which no one has control over? stevenk4k5

This another thing that differs being gay with being black. U don't know who has control over what. Someone can have a behavior and then have an exactly opposite behavior at a different time. Girls experiment, guys/girls are molested, guys/girls are sexually assualted in prison for different reasons other than sexual preference but on the outside it can be labeled as such. U can't do that with race and you can't procreate a behavior that can't reproduce.

[QUOTE="stevenk4k5"]If you are going to condemn homosexual men then you might as well do the same thing for homosexual women. One does not take precedence over the other. TSCombo

I agree, they both should be condemned.

so your saying gays dont have rights? what if racists wanna ban interacial marrage? i love black women and im a white guy so if a racist wants this country to pass a bill and amend interacial marrage are you for that?

[QUOTE="stevenk4k5"]

It seems that the majority of guys on this site only view homosexuality as a trait that occurs in males. (i.e. "...Won't understand why HE has 2 FATHER'S") What if it was a girl with two fathers? Or a boy with two mothers?

 

manicfoot

You're right.. and that really annoys me. Its even worse in real life. I have a friend who thinks men being gay isn't natural... Yet cheers girls on when they make out with eachother. It drives me insane.

on a funny note, a saw a t-shirt once with:

"I am for homosexual marriage

.

.

.

as long as both chicks are hot"

[QUOTE="manicfoot"][QUOTE="stevenk4k5"]

It seems that the majority of guys on this site only view homosexuality as a trait that occurs in males. (i.e. "...Won't understand why HE has 2 FATHER'S") What if it was a girl with two fathers? Or a boy with two mothers?

Enosh88

You're right.. and that really annoys me. Its even worse in real life. I have a friend who thinks men being gay isn't natural... Yet cheers girls on when they make out with eachother. It drives me insane.

on a funny note, a saw a t-shirt once with:

"I am for homosexual marriage

.

.

.

as long as both chicks are hot"

Not very funny, more like ignorant and offensive.

[QUOTE="TSCombo"]

[QUOTE="stevenk4k5"]If you are going to condemn homosexual men then you might as well do the same thing for homosexual women. One does not take precedence over the other. Tazzmission187

I agree, they both should be condemned.

so your saying gays dont have rights? what if racists wanna ban interacial marrage? i love black women and im a white guy so if a racist wants this country to pass a bill and amend interacial marrage are you for that?

[QUOTE="Tazzmission187"][QUOTE="TSCombo"]

I agree, they both should be condemned.

TSCombo

so your saying gays dont have rights? what if racists wanna ban interacial marrage? i love black women and im a white guy so if a racist wants this country to pass a bill and amend interacial marrage are you for that?

wow you turley believe that? what if i were to tell you the main reason why topics like this are very important... this country is following the damn bible wich means its wrong for gays to be married. the vote stuff on november 4th wasnt about just the state it was for the country because alot of religious ppl like ( my aunt) feel in there heart gays are the vermin of the world. she (my aunt) knows my brother is gay and i asked her why act good and nice around him but behind his back you crap on his sexual orientation? she claims she loves mky brother but how can she love him if she hates his sexual orientation? i even asked her can you honestly look at the same sex and honestly find them sexualy stimulating? she hung up after that. truth is people are afraid gays will hit on them but let me tell you something i met alot of my brothers friends and they never once hit on me.

Not very funny, more like ignorant and offensive.

Yaoi-Mikey

More like lighten up. Why so serious? >_>

[QUOTE="1337h4xx0rz"][QUOTE="Greatgone12"]I don't give a **** about your objections to gay marriage, because I can already determine what you BS reason is, but what are your objections to gays adopting? That they're gay [insert question mark here]

Yaoi-Mikey

First of all, you need to relax because everyone is entitled to their own opinion, regardless if it conflicts with yours.

Second of all, what if his reason is that it is because they are gay In all honesty, if that was his reason, it could very well be a valid argument. Im sorry, but two men being together is not a natural occurrence, so what makes you think that two men raising a child is any more natural? I think that the maternal insticts and abilities of a mother are a necessity in a childs upbringing. Having two men raise a child will never be the same as a mother and father.

Not to mention, who knows what will happen when the child gets older, and goes to school, etc. This world is cruel, and filled with cruel people, especially children. There is no doubt in my mind that if anyone in school found out that a child had two parents of the same sex, there would be one prick in the school who would ridicule that child to no extent, which I am sure would at least have some sort of influence to either self esteem problems, or even possible resentment to the two people that brought him/her up.

So, in the end, there are valid arguments to CONCERNS at least to gay adoptions, whether I agree if I am against it or not I am on the fence, but it is undenyable that two families one with a mother and a father, and one with two fathers, and we will say both are equally fit to be parents (on an upbringing scale), the child would have less problems personally and socially with the family with heterosexual parents.

I hate this friggin' arguement, people will get bullied no matter what, it doesn't matter if you have gay or straight parents, in all honesty I've seen kids raised better by a homosexual couple than by a heterosexual couple, it doesn't matter what orientation the parents are, as long as they care for their kids and raise them well it shouldn't matter.

Anyhow, would people stop making these topics, it's getting really old really fast.

It IS a valid argument. Yes, children will always be bullied and made fun of, but my point is that when the reason they are being made fun of is because they have homosexual parents, it can more likely cause the child to resent the parents, because technically (not rightfully) they are the reason that the child is being made fun of, which then can cause even more problems at home, as well as at school, etc.

Raising a child with "good intentions" doesnt mean that it will work. Sure, they may both be fit to be parents, but that natural bond between a mother and child and a father and child is not apparent. If this wasnt a necessity in the upbringing of a child, I doubt that the statistics of problem children in broken homes wouldnt be so high...

the damn bible wich means its wrong for gays to be married. the vote stuff on november 4th wasnt about just the state it was for the country because alot of religious ppl like ( my aunt) feel in there heart gays are the vermin of the world. she (my aunt) knows my brother is gay and i asked her why act good and nice around him but behind his back you crap on his sexual orientation? she claims she loves mky brother but how can she love him if she hates his sexual orientation? i even asked her can you honestly look at the same sex and honestly find them sexualy stimulating? she hung up after that. truth is people are afraid gays will hit on them but let me tell you something i met alot of my brothers friends and they never once hit on me.Tazzmission187

This is what people need to understand about this debate whether its the 'damn' Bible or not. It is possible to like, even Love someone but not their behavior or sexual orientation. I know gay people, people who claimed to be gay but currently arent, people who have cheated on their spouses etc. Apparently Gay people want to be idenified by their behavior and not who they are as people. Johnny is Johnny who happends to be gay and you must agree with his lifestyle or else you are hurting Johnny. GIVE ME A BREAK.Your Aunt doesn't have to agree with your brother's sexuality to love him. Maybe she actually likes him as a person. Who you rather she argue with him.

[QUOTE="Tazzmission187"]the damn bible wich means its wrong for gays to be married. the vote stuff on november 4th wasnt about just the state it was for the country because alot of religious ppl like ( my aunt) feel in there heart gays are the vermin of the world. she (my aunt) knows my brother is gay and i asked her why act good and nice around him but behind his back you crap on his sexual orientation? she claims she loves mky brother but how can she love him if she hates his sexual orientation? i even asked her can you honestly look at the same sex and honestly find them sexualy stimulating? she hung up after that. truth is people are afraid gays will hit on them but let me tell you something i met alot of my brothers friends and they never once hit on me.TSCombo

This is what people need to understand about this debate whether its the 'damn' Bible or not. It is possible to like, even Love someone but not their behavior or sexual orientation. I know gay people, people who claimed to be gay but currently arent, people who have cheated on their spouses etc. Apparently Gay people want to be idenified by their behavior and not who they are as people. Johnny is Johnny who happends to be gay and you must agree with his lifestyle or else you are hurting Johnny. GIVE ME A BREAK.Your Aunt doesn't have to agree with your brother's sexuality to love him. Maybe she actually likes him as a person. Who you rather she argue with him.

your a lying sack of crap man because gay straight or bi your born like that its not chosen or genetic its who your born to be. alot of people in this world ( jamie lee curtis) was born with both male and female genitalia so since jamie lee curtis is a herpathrodite are you gona say thats wrong or chosen? truth of the topic is sexuality is NOT a choice its who you are.

[QUOTE="TSCombo"]

[QUOTE="Tazzmission187"]the damn bible wich means its wrong for gays to be married. the vote stuff on november 4th wasnt about just the state it was for the country because alot of religious ppl like ( my aunt) feel in there heart gays are the vermin of the world. she (my aunt) knows my brother is gay and i asked her why act good and nice around him but behind his back you crap on his sexual orientation? she claims she loves mky brother but how can she love him if she hates his sexual orientation? i even asked her can you honestly look at the same sex and honestly find them sexualy stimulating? she hung up after that. truth is people are afraid gays will hit on them but let me tell you something i met alot of my brothers friends and they never once hit on me.Tazzmission187

This is what people need to understand about this debate whether its the 'damn' Bible or not. It is possible to like, even Love someone but not their behavior or sexual orientation. I know gay people, people who claimed to be gay but currently arent, people who have cheated on their spouses etc. Apparently Gay people want to be idenified by their behavior and not who they are as people. Johnny is Johnny who happends to be gay and you must agree with his lifestyle or else you are hurting Johnny. GIVE ME A BREAK.Your Aunt doesn't have to agree with your brother's sexuality to love him. Maybe she actually likes him as a person. Who you rather she argue with him.

your a lying sack of crap man because gay straight or bi your born like that its not chosen or genetic its who your born to be. alot of people in this world ( jamie lee curtis) was born with both male and female genitalia so since jamie lee curtis is a herpathrodite are you gona say thats wrong or chosen? truth of the topic is sexuality is NOT a choice its who you are.

What you have said makes little or no sense.

First of all, Jamie Lee Curtis being born with both genitalia has no bearing on whether she would choose to be gay or not. That is just a BIRTH DEFECT. She was still a woman.

If you honestly think that all people who are gay were born with that disposition (I cant tell because your first sentence contradicts itself, because being born to be something would mean they were GENETICALLY DISPOSED to it, so genetic and born to be ARE THE SAME THING), then your views are as skewed as your grammar. There are people who CHOOSE to be gay because it is just a preference, not because they think they were born to be it.

Let me ask you one thing - are people who are gay for a period of time, then decided to go back to heterosexuality still born to be it?

[QUOTE="TSCombo"]

[QUOTE="Tazzmission187"]the damn bible wich means its wrong for gays to be married. the vote stuff on november 4th wasnt about just the state it was for the country because alot of religious ppl like ( my aunt) feel in there heart gays are the vermin of the world. she (my aunt) knows my brother is gay and i asked her why act good and nice around him but behind his back you crap on his sexual orientation? she claims she loves mky brother but how can she love him if she hates his sexual orientation? i even asked her can you honestly look at the same sex and honestly find them sexualy stimulating? she hung up after that. truth is people are afraid gays will hit on them but let me tell you something i met alot of my brothers friends and they never once hit on me.Tazzmission187

This is what people need to understand about this debate whether its the 'damn' Bible or not. It is possible to like, even Love someone but not their behavior or sexual orientation. I know gay people, people who claimed to be gay but currently arent, people who have cheated on their spouses etc. Apparently Gay people want to be idenified by their behavior and not who they are as people. Johnny is Johnny who happends to be gay and you must agree with his lifestyle or else you are hurting Johnny. GIVE ME A BREAK.Your Aunt doesn't have to agree with your brother's sexuality to love him. Maybe she actually likes him as a person. Who you rather she argue with him.

your a lying sack of crap man because gay straight or bi your born like that its not chosen or genetic its who your born to be. alot of people in this world ( jamie lee curtis) was born with both male and female genitalia so since jamie lee curtis is a herpathrodite are you gona say thats wrong or chosen? truth of the topic is sexuality is NOT a choice its who you are.

oh, and btw, its called a HERMAPHRODITE, wtf is a herpathrodite??!!

2 gay people getting married affects NOBODY but them.  They arn't asking that everychurch recognize or perform their ceremony.  All they want is the same privilages that hetero couples recieve. 

Marriage is not exclusive to religion at all.  It boils down to bigotry plain and simple.

Is there a thread on Gay Marraige every day? Ugh.

Can't they just make a piece of paper to sign that will give them legal rights such as power of attorney.next of kin for hospital related issues and buying house and whatnot? Then they can feel special and miserable right along with the rest of the married people in the US. But it's not actually marraige.

This is my opinion for you to discuss. Before i continue, let's get the record straight:

Firstly, I'm not homophobic and I don't hate gay people. I seriously have no prejudices.
Secondly, I'm not religious, although I am monodeistic.

If you guys want to accuse me of these things then fine. It's not like you are going to convince me. It'll be more of a reflection on your inadequacy to debate your opinions.

 Now. Opinion.

1. Why are you against gay marriage?

The most common arguement that gay-marriage apologists use is that Gay marriage doesn't hurt / effect you". This is true to an extent. Firstly though, let's look at what marriage is. Marriage was established by religions all over the world in order to regulate the obligations and responsibilities of pro-creation. No, it isn't about love. Love is very much so a secondary part of marriage. Fortunately, we live in a society where we can choose our spouse based on love, but ultimately, if you brought forth Gay marriage there is absolutely no reason for it to exist.

By this logic, sterile people shouldn't be allowed to marry either.

Many people argue: This isn't about religion, we are talking about secular marriage. Well, wrong. We all live in a culturally religious society, whether that be christianity in the USA, or Islam in the Middle East or Hinduism in India. However, take a holiday like Christmas. Yes, you celebrate that, don't you atheists. Now i'm sure you realised - Christmas was popularised by the Christians, in order to celebrate the birth of christ. Whether he was actually born on December 25th doesn't matter, what matters is that jesus was born, and christians celebrate it.

Actually, it was originally popularized by the Pagans as Winter Solstice. But let's ignore that and skip to a more important argument.

Now. Say the supreme court said that Christmas is now actually Chuck Norris joke day. The Christians would be offended, and rightly so. It would be a complete slap in the face to their religion.

Christmas, by government standards, is a secular holiday. The government could change it to whatever they wanted, but Christians would still be able to celebrate Christmas.

This is the same with Marriage -- only it's not offensive to just christians: it's offensive to jews, muslims, hindu, buddhist etc etc etc. To prioritise Gay marriage because they 'love each other very much', is a complete slap in the face to a religious ceremony

Prohibiting gay marriage is more like the government prohibiting non-Christians from celebrating Christmas. Yes, it has it's religious roots, but in order for it to have any meaning to the government it should be applied fairly to everyone.

And seeing as how people can be married by lawyers, I don't see marriage as a purely religious ceremony.

2. If we had your views, inter-racial marriages wouldn't exist!

Sigh. No legitimate and respected religious movement advocates racism. There is nothing anti-religious about inter-racial marriages. Considering there are plenty of people who worship a religion not assosiated with their skin colour (e.g. black christians, white muslims, etc.)

3. You've talked about religion a lot... Religion is filled with evil and bigotry!

The USA is 90% religious. If you honestly think that all religious people are backward !@#$%'s, then i suggest you stop singing 'God Bless America' so much.

I don't sing "God Bless America." :|

Sure, some people are backwards, but the majority of religious people are free thinking, reasonable people.

4. How do you expect people to share happy lives?

Marriage isn't the only way to a successful relationship. Civil unionships if you must. And moreover, WHY DO YOU NEED TO GET MARRIED TO BE HAPPY? I have an uncle who has a long time partner, and he still calls her his 'wife'. You don't need to be married to show that you are in love, and you don't need to be married in order to have a happy life and successful relationship.

I don't see happiness as any part of my reason to support gay marriage. I see people discriminated based on their sexuality. Marriage has certain rights that cannot be obtained from anything else. Even in states that provide civil unions that are equal to marriage, the Fed. Govt does not recognize them, meaning it's impossible for gays to even have the same rights as marriage. There are very few states that even offer civil unions that are equal to marriage.

I also thought that we had gotten rid of the "Seperate but Equal" idea long ago.

5. Yes, the 'sanctity' of marriage is reeeaaaally great when there is a 50% divorce rate.

Who ever said divorce is a good thing? I find that statistic both frightening and sad. Religion in all cultures has opposed divorce. However, it does not completely deny it. In an ideal world, nobody would want divorce rates that high... but what can you do?

That's really just a counter argument to the fact that people use the "sanctity" of marriage as a reason to not let gays marry.

Stumpt25

so your saying gays dont have rights? what if racists wanna ban interacial marrage? i love black women and im a white guy so if a racist wants this country to pass a bill and amend interacial marrage are you for that?Tazzmission187

[QUOTE="Stumpt25"][QUOTE="xMOBSTER23x"]

If you're against gay marriage, you're discriminatory of gays.

/thread

hokies1313

If you're for gay marriage, you're discriminatory of religious people.

can be argued both ways.

I'm religious and support gay marriage....

What religion allows gay marriage?

You would think conservative Christians would be FOR gay marriage. They view gay sex as an afront to god, right? Well, what faster way to stop two people from having sex than to have them get married?subrosian

What religion allows gay marriage?

abdelmessih101

So what if it offends religious people? They'll just have to deal with it. You may as well argue that vegetarianism should be legally required because eating meat is a slap in the face to vegetarians.

[QUOTE="hokies1313"][QUOTE="Stumpt25"]

If you're for gay marriage, you're discriminatory of religious people.

can be argued both ways.

abdelmessih101

I'm religious and support gay marriage....

What religion allows gay marriage?

"If you guys want to accuse me of these things then fine. It's not like you are going to convince me. It'll be more of a reflection on your inadequacy to debate your opinions."

Couldn't you have waited for people to respond before assuming what their response will be and responding to an accusation you only guessed they would make? The anti-gay-marriage side isn't the only one met with unfair accusations; sometimes those who are in favour of gay marriage would be presumed to be gay and I think that's even more absurd.

"Firstly though, let's look at what marriage is. Marriage was established by religions all over the world in order to regulate the obligations and responsibilities of pro-creation."

So what about heterosexual couples who don't want to have children? What about infertile heterosexuals? If you're going to cling to what something was ORIGINALLY about, shouldn't you at least be consistent about it?

"Well, wrong. We all live in a culturally religious society, whether that be christianity in the USA, or Islam in the Middle East or Hinduism in India. However, take a holiday like Christmas. Yes, you celebrate that, don't you atheists."

I find it hard to believe your claim that you aren't religious, especially after that "don't you atheists" comment. In any case, the difference between the USA and the Middle East is that the USA was founded partly on SECULARISM. As in, government shouldn't have a favoritism of one religion over others. Isn't that why the first 10 words of the first amendment are "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"?

The problem to me isn't even so much your opposition to gay marriage so much as the misconceptions it appears to be based on.

"Now i'm sure you realised - Christmas was popularised by the Christians, in order to celebrate the birth of christ. Whether he was actually born on December 25th doesn't matter, what matters is that jesus was born, and christians celebrate it."

You forgot to mention that it has become a commercialized holiday where most of the things people associate it with have little to do with Jesus.

"Say the supreme court said that Christmas is now actually Chuck Norris joke day. The Christians would be offended, and rightly so. It would be a complete slap in the face to their religion."

I doubt the Christians would be the only ones offended; that would probably change many of the commercialized aspects as well.

"This is the same with Marriage -- only it's not offensive to just christians: it's offensive to jews, muslims, hindu, buddhist etc etc etc. To prioritise Gay marriage because they 'love each other very much', is a complete slap in the face to a religious ceremony"

So what about Pastafarians then? Who gets to say they aren't a religion? What about other religions that approve of gay marriage? Why should the majority hold those minorities back?

"There is nothing anti-religious about inter-racial marriages."

Again, this is rather religion-centric. Religion is similar to racism in how dogmatic in can be, why should people have to respect it?

"If you honestly think that all religious people are backward !@#$%'s, then i suggest you stop singing 'God Bless America' so much."

What are you talking about? I don't even like that song. I'm Canadian, but what makes you think that even those within the US who don't like religion sing that song "so much"? I wouldn't be surprised if there were some within the US who did like religion but didn't like the notion that god would have a favoritism towards the US. Jeremiah Wright comes to mind.

"Sure, some people are backwards, but the majority of religious people are free thinking, reasonable people."

If they're free thinking, why did they conform to religion in the first place?

"And moreover, WHY DO YOU NEED TO GET MARRIED TO BE HAPPY? I have an uncle who has a long time partner, and he still calls her his 'wife'. You don't need to be married to show that you are in love, and you don't need to be married in order to have a happy life and successful relationship."

I don't think so either, but the idea that straights can have an official marriage and gays can't sounds like discrimination to me.

"Religion in all cultures has opposed divorce."

Yet it is allowed, and it's obviously more of a threat to the "sanctity of marriage" than allowing people of the same sex to marry would be, so allowing divorce yet not same sex marriage is inconsistent.

EDIT: Had to rework the quote structure since GS seems to automatically delete most of the text of posts with too many quotes.

[QUOTE="Tazzmission187"][QUOTE="TSCombo"]

This is what people need to understand about this debate whether its the 'damn' Bible or not. It is possible to like, even Love someone but not their behavior or sexual orientation. I know gay people, people who claimed to be gay but currently arent, people who have cheated on their spouses etc. Apparently Gay people want to be idenified by their behavior and not who they are as people. Johnny is Johnny who happends to be gay and you must agree with his lifestyle or else you are hurting Johnny. GIVE ME A BREAK.Your Aunt doesn't have to agree with your brother's sexuality to love him. Maybe she actually likes him as a person. Who you rather she argue with him.

1337h4xx0rz

your a lying sack of crap man because gay straight or bi your born like that its not chosen or genetic its who your born to be. alot of people in this world ( jamie lee curtis) was born with both male and female genitalia so since jamie lee curtis is a herpathrodite are you gona say thats wrong or chosen? truth of the topic is sexuality is NOT a choice its who you are.

What you have said makes little or no sense.

First of all, Jamie Lee Curtis being born with both genitalia has no bearing on whether she would choose to be gay or not. That is just a BIRTH DEFECT. She was still a woman.

If you honestly think that all people who are gay were born with that disposition (I cant tell because your first sentence contradicts itself, because being born to be something would mean they were GENETICALLY DISPOSED to it, so genetic and born to be ARE THE SAME THING), then your views are as skewed as your grammar. There are people who CHOOSE to be gay because it is just a preference, not because they think they were born to be it.

Let me ask you one thing - are people who are gay for a period of time, then decided to go back to heterosexuality still born to be it?

1.If it is a choice as you say then why would someone choose to be gay since most people are either afraid of them or hate them, they think of them as nature freaks and insult them. Just to be different and provoke attention? That's too much to handle don't you think?

2. If you want to know things about gay people I would recommend you ask one, but because I know this won't do for most people then check some sources. Not the bible or what so called experts believe. For example consult a psychology book, preferrably a book taught at a certain university.

3. The choice is not in becoming homosexual but accepting it. People who first thought of being gay and then they weren't doesn't show that they chose to go through that but they were confused. If it was indeed a conscious choice then you would have to accept this bizzare scene: A guy wakes up one fine day and thinks to himself: "why don't I become a f@g, it's kinda cool these days!" and then they instantly become homosexual. How plausible that can be!

Personally, gay marriage doesn't bother me at all, but to play the devil's advocate, I do see where people who are opposed to it are coming from. Say if they change the definition of marriage and allowed gays to marry, then what's to stop a new group of people to say "Hey I want to be able to marry two wives or two husbands. Yall changed the definition of marriage for the gay community, so where are our rights to marry more than one person."

That might be a bad example, but you get what I mean. peaceful_anger

Personally, gay marriage doesn't bother me at all, but to play the devil's advocate, I do see where people who are opposed to it are coming from. Say if they change the definition of marriage and allowed gays to marry, then what's to stop a new group of people to say "Hey I want to be able to marry two wives or two husbands. Yall changed the definition of marriage for the gay community, so where are our rights to marry more than one person."

That might be a bad example, but you get what I mean. peaceful_anger

Personally, gay marriage doesn't bother me at all, but to play the devil's advocate, I do see where people who are opposed to it are coming from. Say if they change the definition of marriage and allowed gays to marry, then what's to stop a new group of people to say "Hey I want to be able to marry two wives or two husbands. Yall changed the definition of marriage for the gay community, so where are our rights to marry more than one person."

That might be a bad example, but you get what I mean. peaceful_anger

Personally, gay marriage doesn't bother me at all, but to play the devil's advocate, I do see where people who are opposed to it are coming from. Say if they change the definition of marriage and allowed gays to marry, then what's to stop a new group of people to say "Hey I want to be able to marry two wives or two husbands. Yall changed the definition of marriage for the gay community, so where are our rights to marry more than one person."

That might be a bad example, but you get what I mean. peaceful_anger

Well, our society's views of gender roles have changed, so it makes sense then that marriage can change its meaning from "between a man and a woman" to "between 2 people" more easily than to "between a group"

[QUOTE="peaceful_anger"]Personally, gay marriage doesn't bother me at all, but to play the devil's advocate, I do see where people who are opposed to it are coming from. Say if they change the definition of marriage and allowed gays to marry, then what's to stop a new group of people to say "Hey I want to be able to marry two wives or two husbands. Yall changed the definition of marriage for the gay community, so where are our rights to marry more than one person."

That might be a bad example, but you get what I mean. -Sun_Tzu-

Actually, we still don't know the origins in which marriage was institutionalized, marriage has been practiced since before reliable recordings in history. So to say that it was purely based upon religious standards is hardly an accurate statement. To go even further to suggest that it was also founded by religions simply for the sake of procreation is even less of a reliable statement, as it not only assumes the original parameters that were set forth for marriage which is still unknown to this day, but it also implies that procreation is somehow less valued or even unattainable without the facilitation of matrimony. You don't need to be married to procreate, so then what would be the point in creating a ceremony and a life-long promise just for the sake of something that can be done without any of the procedures and implications of marriage? Obviously you wouldn't go through all of this just to have the privilege of something that you can already do without the process, so if anything, marriage is in fact an affirmation of love between two consenting individuals. Now it may be true that for certain religions, marriage is less about love and more about procreating and keeping a family blood-line going, but again, the original standards and the conditions for which marriage was originally institutionalized is still unknown, so assuming as much is completely useless here. It's effectively an arbitrary definition, so you may as well just go with what fits for you, hence you're going to have people arguing over it for a long time, and still to this day.

Although there may have been plenty of religious influences that have culminated into today's society, there is no reason to assume that it's standards take precedence over that of others. This country was partly founded on the basis that no one would have to confine themselves to the standards of the majority, and the U.S. is a melting pot of religions and cultures. If we were to force ourselves to follow religious guidelines for social conduct, we wouldn't have anywhere near as many freedoms as we do as of this moment. We're not a theocracy, so we don't need to conduct ourselves as such if only to please one facet of American social standards.

Now I don't get how you can bring the celebration of a holiday into this matter, as it's a completely different situation that has nothing to do with what's being told here. And just to clarify, Christmas has had many different meanings and traditions as time has gone by. Originally (as has been stated countless times on threads posted here in recent days), Christmas was a secular tradition held by Pagans as a time to celebrate the winter solstice. Lots of traditions that we still celebrate today reflect this, such as having a Christmas tree, celebrating with friends, singing carols, and getting hammered. It wasn't until the 3rd or 4th century when the Catholics over-took this holiday in order to garner more of a following for Jesus Christ, since the winter solstice was a very popular thing to celebrate. Ever since then it's been changing in order to adapt to today's society, much like many other holidays. But here's the thing about what you've posed:

The supreme court does not have the power to change a holiday.

It would be horrendously unconstitutional, and it would break the foundations upon which this nation was formed. I know it's just for the sake of example, but if it cannot be buttressed by plausibility and congruity, there's not point in bringing it in.

But let's say it was somehow possible and the supreme court just so happened to have arbitrarily created its own laws of conduct. Well then all that would result is that a new holiday would be created on the same day of December 25th, rather than replacing a holiday. So then it wouldn't necessarily mean that Christmas was replaced by Chuck Norris joke day, since not everyone would be forced to celebrate it (unless the supreme court forced you to do that too, in which case, this example has gone from completely irrelevant and implausible to horribly misinformed). It's the same thing even if Christmas were entirely religious, people can celebrate it in different ways, and holidays are not always restricted to the religious members of which the holiday is attributed to. But even so, this is all completely irrelevant, as it has very little to do with what's being discussed here regarding the rights of homosexuals and marriage.

Points 2 and 3 listed are basically just straw-man points that assume that the issues regarding inter-racial marriage and social viewpoints of religion are entailed with the opinions and views of those who advocate gay marriage. I'm not one to say that gay marriage and inter-racial marriage have completely compatible points and implications to think about, nor am I going to suggest that your line of thinking is the same to follow suit when someone says that people should only marry people of the same skin color. And I'd like to see some hard statistics that say that 90% of the USA is religious. I doubt that any sort of census organization can effectively measure the spiritual beliefs of most of the American populace. But still, it's completely irrelevant, as bringing it into this discussion is partially implicit of the idea that the views and ideas of the majority take precedence over everything else, which they don't always, especially in civil rights issues.

Points 4 and 5 are completely irrelevant to this issue as well, as they have more to do with the actual relationships themselves, rather than the rights. You're not going to get the same result for relationships for every single gay person or straight person, so bringing it in is pointless. Part of why homosexuals would like to have to right to marry is because of the rights that people receive as a married couple. There's literally hundreds of legal implications that come with being recognized as being in a married status that differ from state to state, but also there are some nation-wide federal laws that follow suit as well. It's more than just a social issue, it's also a legal issue. More than that is the fact that state and federal recognized laws and rights granted to married couples effectively render marriage as more of a legal issue than a religious one for certain people these days, though it can depend for some people. But the point is that for homosexuals, regardless of their religion, it's still a legal issue in this country, since we're not a theocracy.

If we don't grant them the right to marry, and instead have them go through the process to institute a civil union, it still isn't the same. Civil unions are not recognized by the federal government for the couples to retain the same rights as married couples, and states are not required to recognize them either. It's practically a half-assed way for a couple to get recognized for their status. And one thing that really bothers me is the idea that homosexuals already have the same rights as heterosexuals in regard to marriage. Saying that a gay man is allowed to marry a woman or a lesbian is allowed to marry a man is like saying that a crippled person in a wheelchair has the right to use the stairs. Sure they're allowed to do it, but it does not serve any practical or luxurious purpose that the right was given to them for in the first place. By that line of logic, we may as well get rid of handicapped parking spaces, service ramps, sound devices for cross-walks, and helping dogs for the blind (though don't worry, PETA is already trying to make those illegal since they think that blind people are "abusing" them). Rights are useless if they are not capable of being utilized by the citizen, so saying that they already have equal rights is a steaming load of crap.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="peaceful_anger"]Personally, gay marriage doesn't bother me at all, but to play the devil's advocate, I do see where people who are opposed to it are coming from. Say if they change the definition of marriage and allowed gays to marry, then what's to stop a new group of people to say "Hey I want to be able to marry two wives or two husbands. Yall changed the definition of marriage for the gay community, so where are our rights to marry more than one person."

That might be a bad example, but you get what I mean. peaceful_anger

And as I said before, there is a stark difference between allowing gay marriage and allowing something like polygamy or bestiality. No one is allowed to engage in polygamy or bestiality or pedophilia. Some couples composed of two consenting adults are allowed to get married while other couples composed of two consenting adults are not.

Is this a matter of right or wrong? Or a matter of law.

marriage is a religious ceremony in almost every religion. Religion prevents the word "marriage".

Though marriage is a legal binding contract...I believe it is the word that government has a problem with. religion does not approve of the wording marriage or the act of homosexuality.

If we lived were it was only a contract then there would be no problem. America is not socialist yet.

The fear that another vocal group could want to redefine the definition of marriage should not impact or influence the issue at hand. To make the assumption that by redefining marriage from being between a man and a woman to being between two consenting adults would trigger the supporters of polygamy, bestiality, and/or pedophilia would want marriage to be redefined so that they can also get married, and to use that assumption as the basis for why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed is illogical and irrational, and it shouldn't factor into the outcome of the issue of gay marriage.-Sun_Tzu-

Furthermore, if I recall correctly, the definition of marriage has ALREADY been changed since it used to mean a man and a woman of the same race. But yeah, the notion that any changes to it would cause infinite further changes sounds like an absurd slippery slope argument... if marriage is weak enough to fall apart like that upon being changed, how much "sanctity" did it have to begin with?

[QUOTE="peaceful_anger"]Personally, gay marriage doesn't bother me at all, but to play the devil's advocate, I do see where people who are opposed to it are coming from. Say if they change the definition of marriage and allowed gays to marry, then what's to stop a new group of people to say "Hey I want to be able to marry two wives or two husbands. Yall changed the definition of marriage for the gay community, so where are our rights to marry more than one person."

That might be a bad example, but you get what I mean. Ring_of_fire

[QUOTE="Ring_of_fire"][QUOTE="peaceful_anger"]Personally, gay marriage doesn't bother me at all, but to play the devil's advocate, I do see where people who are opposed to it are coming from. Say if they change the definition of marriage and allowed gays to marry, then what's to stop a new group of people to say "Hey I want to be able to marry two wives or two husbands. Yall changed the definition of marriage for the gay community, so where are our rights to marry more than one person."

That might be a bad example, but you get what I mean. Vandalvideo

I just used Loving V Virginia to prove definitions do change. Nothing more, nothing less. Before that case, at least in VA, it was illegal for a man and a woman of 2 different races to get married. This case said that law was illegal, and thus, the definition had changed. I'm not using it as an argument for gay marriage, though I believe that gay marriages should be legal. Ring_of_fire

[QUOTE="Ring_of_fire"] I just used Loving V Virginia to prove definitions do change. Nothing more, nothing less. Before that case, at least in VA, it was illegal for a man and a woman of 2 different races to get married. This case said that law was illegal, and thus, the definition had changed. I'm not using it as an argument for gay marriage, though I believe that gay marriages should be legal. Vandalvideo

wtf @ thread title.T_P_O

Gay is a censored word for thread titles.