For/Against Gay Marriage?

[Smarie]

I know coming into a Homosexual Talk forum, that everyone here will be for gay marriage. Which is the exact reason I want to talk about this here.

Before I share any of my opinions, I do want to state that I am gay. And I am against gay marriage. I'm not alone, here, either. There's a "Gays Against Gay Marriage" group, but I'm against gay marriage for a lot of different reasons. None of them religious.

I'm not going to state them quite yet, I really want to hear some other opinions before I do.

Are you for or against gay marriage? What do you propose the government do to give gay couples the same rights as straight couples if homosexuals can't legal wed? Or do you think the government should let gays wed?

[andrewlj2002]

I'm for gay marriage. I think the government should let gays and lesbians wed. If gays can't legally wed (which will inevitably change), I expect the government to offer the same rights, privileges, and benefits straight couples receive from being married through a civil union/domestic partnership contract.

Now, why are you against it?

[sinfullyliz]

I could care less if homosexuals can "marry" - I care more about the legal rights granted, such as being able to make decisions for each other in a medical emergency, or being able to adopt together. I don't care about the religious side of it; that's for churches and priests (Or Rabbis) to decide among themselves. It has very little to do with the legal rights that are currently denied to gay couples - and which I feel should be the only things we are fighting for.

[andrewlj2002]

sinfullyliz said:

I could care less if homosexuals can "marry" - I care more about the legal rights granted, such as being able to make decisions for each other in a medical emergency, or being able to adopt together. I don't care about the religious side of it; that's for churches and priests (Or Rabbis) to decide among themselves. It has very little to do with the legal rights that are currently denied to gay couples - and which I feel should be the only things we are fighting for.

I agree with this post.

[Serpent Rain]

I for it, if heterosexual couples can marry why can't homosexuals? In america at least the country is based off of equality even though it's far from it, and I think it should strive to fufill that goal which in turn should allow gay marriage.

[joe]

I'm pretty sure that in britian, Gay couples now have (almost) all of the same rights as straight couples. Medical emergancy rights, adoption, etc. Personally, i'm very happy about this. It shouldnt be up to other people to decide what people can do in their personal lives, ie- the government. A couple is a couple, whether it be a man and a woman, two men or two women.

[Smarie]

I'm against gay marriage because every Christian that's against gay marriage will have no arguement against same-sex marriages if we call said marriages "civil unions."

I, for one, don't like the idea of having to call a same-sex union something different than a straight union. They should both have the same rights and be exactly the same. The union that is, not the couple.

Marriage should be a religious matter. No matter what you say, you cannot take the religious aspects out of marriage, at least in the view of most Christians. I don't feel that atheists and homosexuals should get "married." So, instead, I feel that the government should only recognize all couples as having a civil union. Atheists, homosexuals, heterosexuals, Christians, and other religious couples should have a civil union under the government. The State should have no laws regulating marriage whatsoever. All civil unions should be treated the same. There's no (legitamite) reason why gay couples can't have a civil union. The Bible doesn't say anything about "civil unions," only marriages. Can you say "loop hole"?

I'm not saying that marriage should be discontinued, only that the Church can regocnize who's married and who isn't. But that wouldn't really matter, because legally a married couple has a civil union.

Not only do I want homosexual couples to have the same rights as hetersexual couples, but I don't want the Church or anyone else to sit there and flame homosexual couples. Having a civil union isn't technically a sin, so there's no arguement against it.

[andrewlj2002]

Interesting argument.

[princess]

Having been married, I can't really see the point to be honest Andrew. People stay or go because they want to.

I think the law should provide for equitable and fair distribution and support in the unhappy event of a separation, without regard to gender or sexuality. And the welfare of children should come first in any event.

[joe]

I kinda agree with Smarie, but only in that i'm an athiest and i dont think that religion should have any part in marriage. (To be honest, i think that religion is a rediculous idea in the first place. If you look closely almost all wars etc. are religion-based, and all it does is try to explain things that we now know the truth about.)

[Smarie]

Not all wars are religious based. World War II was about expanding territories. Hilter wanted more land and felt the Jews were a threat to him. He did, however, use religion as an excuse for the genocide. But that's not religion-based. Vietnam? That was about stopping the spread of communism, as was the Cold War. The current War on Terrorism isn't religious based on the American's part.

I'm not arguing that religion hasn't given bad people excuses to do bad things, as I do believe that religion is the root of most evil. But religion has done some good. Who knows where humanity would be without the Church and other religions. It did help to civilize humanity, in a way. But here recently 50 million dollars was spent revamping the first American Church. That's fifty million dollars wasted on making a church look pretty, for people who claim to care about humanity. That money could have easily built thosands of homes or fed millions. But, no, they made a church look pretty.

[sinfullyliz]

smarie said:

Not all wars are religious based. World War II was about expanding territories. Hilter wanted more land and felt the Jews were a threat to him. He did, however, use religion as an excuse for the genocide. But that's not religion-based.

Who the hell are you to say it wasn't based on religion? My ancestors died in concentration camps, for their religion, and you're trying to tell me that it wasn't even about that? That they could as easily have been killed for their hair color? I'm disgusted.

And yes, I do realize this is out of character, and that this post isn't as well-written as other posts I've made in the past. All I have to say is that I have a much harder time concentrating when I'm absolutely furious.

[Smarie]

...Woah. Excuse me.

My grandmother's a survivor. I've had relatives die in the same concentration camps. But that doesn't change the facts.

Hilter had so many Jews killed because he wanted to expand his territories and create the perfect race. The Jewish didn't fit in his ideal world, so he killed them as well as his own people that had mental disabilities and physical deformities. As well did he hate Asians, blacks, homosexuals, and

They weren't killed for their religion. It were killed for their hair color and nationality. They weren't German. They weren't blond with blue eyes. In his opinion, they had no place in his perfect world.

That war had nothing to do with religion. It had to do with a power hungry tyrant wanting more land and wanting the perfect race.

Who am I to say it wasn't religion based? Someone who's read up on the subject, including Mein Kampf.

[sinfullyliz]

Yes, and because it wasn't based on religion at all, they had Jews wear yellow stars identifying them as Jews. Or am I mistaken about that as well?

I don't deny that it involved much more than religion, and that Jews were merely one of the many groups of people Hitler persecuted, but it would not be accurate to say that religion didn't play into it. No, it wasn't originally about religion, but Hitler used Jew's religion as an excuse to imprison, torture, and kill huge amounts of people. He made it about their religion, in the eyes of the common people.

[Smarie]

No, he had them wear yellow Stars of David.

But, he never really said much about their religion. They just didn't fit into his idea of a perfect race, and thus had them killed. He used his religion to justify his actions, but Jews were not killed because of their religion. Yes, it did play a part in it, but not a large one. He just didn't like them