same sex marriage?

So how do you all feel about same sex marriage?I feel that it's not that big of a deal.If two people love eachother they should be able to get married different sex or not.

I agree

It is not hurting me or anyone else that gays are getting married

There are some issues that may not jump right out at you - adoption being one of them.

If the topic refers to what is happening in California, remember, the biggest problem is that its against the law for same sex marriages. Until the law is changed, its illegal what the San Fransisco mayor is doing.

I find it really really stupid that people make such a big deal out of something. Now, I myself do not condone homosexuality, but that does not give me the right to condemn those who are homosexual. The same is said for marriage between homosexuals. Who am I to protest someone elses choice to have a life with someone? Am I the only one that sees that this is discrimination? I mean honestly, just because they might not like it, doesn't mean that they are going to be seeing these people everyday for the rest of their lives. Why ruin someone else's life because you don't approve of it? I think that if this is the land of the free, people should be FREE to marry whom they choose and not have to be chastised because of it. Yeah G.W. you're the leader of the free world, yet you condemn someone's choice to marry another person, just because their sexual preference is different from your own. Good job.

EXACTLY Yogs. Personally, I don't have a problem with it. But until there is a change in the law, every time a gay marriage happens, the mayor of S.F. is breaking the law, and should be held in the same light as a ordinary citizen when they break the law.

It's a stupid non issue.
The more I hear the right pushing idiotic issues like bans on gay marriage, the more I think they should join the lefties, and push other stupid things, like anti smoking, and anti gun laws.
I don't plan on owning guns, I don't plan on smoking, I don't plan on marrying a man - but just because I wouldn't do it, doesn't mean it makes any sense whatsoever, for me to try and make it illegal for somebody else to do.
Another thing, so far as adoption goes... I would agree with Yogs, except that it doesn't matter whether your gay, married, or single - everybody has equal opportunity to be a shitty parent, so I don't think it matters as much as many people make it seem.
I personally wouldn't want to have two moms, or two dads, but if I had to choose, I'd rather take a gay couple over a crack whore mother, and an alcoholic father (and we let people like this marry and have children all day long!)

There are some issues that may not jump right out at you - adoption being one of them.



*Blank look* Sorry Yogs,where's the issue?I'm a hundred percent certain that prospective gay parents are all as good or as bad as the best and worst of straight parents.


It doesn't matter whether Cupid's arrow hits you in the heart or in the ass,at the end of the day it is still good to be a loving person.The same rules apply in my mind to straight and gay...keep it discreet,be sensitive about who you flirt with,and above all,do what makes you happy.

personally, i couldnt care less about gay marriages, who cares. i cant say i particularly enjoy seeing two guys make out, but whatever. as far as adoption goes, i would feel very sorry for that kid. i would kill myself if i was raised by two gay guys.

*Blank look* Sorry Yogs,where's the issue?I'm a hundred percent certain that prospective gay parents are all as good or as bad as the best and worst of straight parents.


It doesn't matter whether Cupid's arrow hits you in the heart or in the ass,at the end of the day it is still good to be a loving person.The same rules apply in my mind to straight and gay...keep it discreet,be sensitive about who you flirt with,and above all,do what makes you happy.

One of my sisters and I are adopted. We've talked about some of the "what ifs" such as the fact we were born a few years before Roe V Wade and if we had been adopted by a gay couple. I'm not going to go into the detail of the discussions but the net result is "NO THANKS!".

As you and the Bloke pointed out anyone could be a bad parent and a gay couple would be better then a crack whore, but they don't let crack whores adopt.

Jon, the reason why GW (among others) is talking about an amendment is that judges are issueing orders against the will of the people. In California, a proposition passed stating that marriage is between a man and a woman. Regardless of how the judge personally feels about he law, they are charged with upholding it.

The proposition may get thrown out, but until it does, the judge is not doing his job. Should a constitutional law be passed, a judge would not be able to so blatently inject their own prejudices into the proceedings.

In general, the only reason to pass laws like this is to curb judicial power. Its a good thing. Constitutional ammendments require two thirds of the states to agree with it (a super majority) so they are not added willy nilly.

Normally I am not much for the slipper slope argument, but what the judge is doing is opening the door for another judge to say that polygamy is ok. Using the "they care about each other" can be used to justify marrying a 12 year old. The point is a line has to be someplace. Perhaps civil unions are it, perhaps not.

Normally I am not much for the slipper slope argument, but what the judge is doing is opening the door for another judge to say that polygamy is ok. Using the "they care about each other" can be used to justify marrying a 12 year old. The point is a line has to be someplace. Perhaps civil unions are it, perhaps not.

The right to marry is one that is acquired when you reach the age of majority, so using the 12 year old argument is bogus.

What is wrong with polygamy? I don't see anything wrong with it, but then again, I'm not a Christian :icon16:

*Blank look* Sorry Yogs,where's the issue?I'm a hundred percent certain that prospective gay parents are all as good or as bad as the best and worst of straight parents.


It doesn't matter whether Cupid's arrow hits you in the heart or in the ass,at the end of the day it is still good to be a loving person.The same rules apply in my mind to straight and gay...keep it discreet,be sensitive about who you flirt with,and above all,do what makes you happy.
They may make great parents. But the torment that the child(ren) will undoubtably indur makes it extremely questionable. I've grown up seeing who makes fun of who and always been on the inside of that circle. So I know that kids will cause tremendous pain children who are adopted by gays.

My position is this. I'm not against gays having some sort of life commitment thing, but I'm old fashioned and believe, and always will believe marriage is between a man and a women. I have nothing against gays at all, I just feel this way about how marriage is defined.

simpily put-

Marage is between one man and one woman.

The right to marry is one that is acquired when you reach the age of majority, so using the 12 year old argument is bogus.

What is wrong with polygamy? I don't see anything wrong with it, but then again, I'm not a Christian :icon16:

Majority? I'll assume you meant maturity. Either way, I am still right. Maturity is dictated by an age dictated by society. Marriage was dicated by society as a man and a woman. If the mayor can go against societies wishes in issueing marraige certificates, then someone who wants to marry a 12 year old should just find a judge that believes 12 year olds are mature and doesn't care what society says.


I'd hate to be the one filling in the paper work for diving up social security checks to all your wives. :icon16:

simpily put-

Marage is between one man and one woman.
I agree, but that's not to say that denying people who are of the same sex, a union just because they are homosexual is right. I just think that if they're going to give rights to marry, it should apply to anyone. It's discrimination otherwise.

I only see the dim wits in society caring enough to say it's wrong. Perhaps, society won't dictate that marriage between a man and a woman, is the only way to have a marriage? I still don't see it as a problem, except to those who don't feel they have enough to complain about already (on both sides of the argument) :)

Majority? I'll assume you meant maturity. Either way, I am still right. Maturity is dictated by an age dictated by society. Marriage was dicated by society as a man and a woman. If the mayor can go against societies wishes in issueing marraige certificates, then someone who wants to marry a 12 year old should just find a judge that believes 12 year olds are mature and doesn't care what society says.


I'd hate to be the one filling in the paper work for diving up social security checks to all your wives. :icon16:
I think he's right on this one Yogs, age of MAJORITY. What, I think it's like 19 here in Nebraska, the age where you are able to sign for contracts and medical stuff, all that neat shit. But I agree with you, the moral issue doesn't apply because it's still illegal for a gay couple to get married. Until that changes, breaking the law is still breaking the law. And I think that the San Fransisco governor should find a little less controversial way of bringing a change in that law than breaking it.

It doesn't matter whether Cupid's arrow hits you in the heart or in the ass,at the end of the day it is still good to be a loving person.The same rules apply in my mind to straight and gay...keep it discreet,be sensitive about who you flirt with,and above all,do what makes you happy.
I don't have a problem with two men loving each other, which is a hard stance for me to take. But I do not believe that gay marriage should be legal for a few reasons:

Firstly, these homos in Massachusetts want to have legalized gay marriage for one reason: money. They want to have the same discounted insurance rates as a straight married couple would, without actually having the union between themself and a women. That is what I have a problem with. They are not a marriage union, because they are same-sex. And the context of a marriage union in America is overwhelming used to describe a man and woman.

Secondly, there are many couples living together that are not married and would like to have married benefits. Why shouldn't they also get benefits if two men should? They are after all, lgally accredited tp be married, but they don't want to be. So, since they are not legally married, they recieve no married benefits.

This whole same-sex marriage thing is not about love, but about money and cutting corners.

As it is now, Gays CAN Adopt children now. They don't need to be Married. Rosie ( the Fat Cow) ODonnell, That one Singer Millesia something, they are Gay and Adopted children.
Can anyone out there tell if there is 1 country out there that allows Gays to Marry?
Let the Gays pay more in Taxes. Hell why should straight people get hit with paying more taxes if we are married.
People like to bring relegion into this topic. I look at this way. I do not belive in that Life Style. I don't belive in Abortions for Birth Control. I belive that if you choose either course, You have to answer to your God on the day you die. If you don't belive in a God, Don't worry about it.

I don't have a problem with two men loving each other, which is a hard stance for me to take. But I do not believe that gay marriage should be legal for a few reasons:

Firstly, these homos in Massachusetts want to have legalized gay marriage for one reason: money. They want to have the same discounted insurance rates as a straight married couple would, without actually having the union between themself and a women. That is what I have a problem with. They are not a marriage union, because they are same-sex. And the context of a marriage union in America is overwhelming used to describe a man and woman.


Ok, you've just offered your blatantly offensive opinion as fact, which is what I would expect, now back it up.

Can you offer anything to support that assertion? If I was homosexual, and wanted to marry another homosexual man I happened to be in love with, and wanted to spend the rest of my life with, would that be because I'd get insurance discounts? I don't think so.


Secondly, there are many couples living together that are not married and would like to have married benefits. Why shouldn't they also get benefits if two men should? They are after all, lgally accredited tp be married, but they don't want to be. So, since they are not legally married, they recieve no married benefits.


Ok, out of that confusing jumble of a paragraph, I take it you mean there are many commonlaw couples who would like to have the benefits... Well, if they want them that badly, they should get married... That's all that the homosexuals want, to be married. Nobody prevents heterosexuals commonlaw husbands and wives from tying the knot officially, but there are many people preventing, or at least trying to prevent homosexuals from marrying.

In my country, the old definition of a marriage being between a man and a women was found to be unconstitutional in the highest court of law, so it was thrown out. Homosexuals are free to exercise their right to marry in Canada.

Since we're just throwing around opinions here, I think that the opponents of same sex marriages are either religious zealots, homophobes, or both.


This whole same-sex marriage thing is not about love, but about money and cutting corners.

Glad to see you have your finger on the pulse of the gay community, Pick! Maybe there's something you're not telling us? :iceslolan

This whole same-sex marriage thing is not about love, but about money and cutting corners.

This statement says a lot about your own values.Clearly you value understand money better than love.

This statement says a lot about your own values.Clearly you value understand money better than love.

What the hell do you know about my feelings about money and love?

The bottom line is you can love somebody and not be married. There are many straight people that live and love as one without being married. That is what gay people do as of right now, and that's the way it should be. The problem with what these gay people are arguing for occurs when they want to use married insurance and property money as an asset to being married. That is what my point is: it is indeed about money. If it was about love, they shouldn't be concerned with whether they can be legally married, as right now, they can use any kind of relationship except a legal marriage. If they really love each other, they shouldn't give a crap whether some goons in the government tell them they should or shouldn't do. But that doesn't make what they are doing right or justified.

Marriage has been reserved to a man and a woman for years and it is overwhelmingly defined that way in America today. I'm so sick of people attacking hetereosexuals like they are the ones doing something wrong. The level of political correctness in this country is rising to ridiculous levels. And the morals are at an all-time low. We should not let a small group of immoral people play their discrimination card until we give in. This is an issue that is extremely critical to the preservation of a moral society. Its time to take a stand for what is right. And I'm gonna get toasted for this, but I don't care. Its right.

To C-bass:
The definition I view of marriage is not the "old" definition of marriage. It is the morally correct and highly-regarded definition of marriage.

Since many people believe that marriage is by definition between a man and a woman, maybe a new term should be considered for the permanent institution of a gay couple. This would come with certain privaleges that gay couples are entitled to (for example the same financial benefits as married couples) and maybe some limitations such as adoption.

2StrokeBloke
I still don't see it as a problem, except to those who don't feel they have enough to complain about already (on both sides of the argument)
:werd:
I live in Kansas. . . An ultra conservative poorly informed area where people aren't prone to even discussing compromise. Probably one of the only states that still have "Abortion is Murder" billboards with letters written in psuedo blood still standing on the side of the highway. . . right next to the other 50 billboards with more messages on how OTHER people should lead THEIR lives. I feel your really hitting close to home there 2StrokeBloke, tons of people in my area are really red in the face from screaming around here about this same topic, but theres no argument to be had lol, nobody here who feels different from the moral majority in Kansas would even attempt to reason with them (We've all tried at some point in time with some topic and learned our lessons on the dangers of large groups of people with uncompromising beliefs). That said I think argument is pointless. . . When was the last time you saw someone change what they believed in an argument?

What the hell do you know about my feelings about money and love?



I know what I've seen in these forums,andit's time that you faced up toyour own shortcomings before slagging off anyone else who isn't an uptight,ultra-Republican pseudo-Christian.

Your soul is worthless,and your 'values' are hollow.Do the world a favour,vacate the planet asap.

Since many people believe that marriage is by definition between a man and a woman, maybe a new term should be considered for the permanent institution of a gay couple. This would come with certain privaleges that gay couples are entitled to (for example the same financial benefits as married couples) and maybe some limitations such as adoption.
That's really not a bad idea. But that, to me, is still letting them get away with doing something wrong. The question is what limitations? You give a mouse a cookie..........he'll want a glass of milk.

I know what I've seen in these forums,andit's time that you faced up toyour own shortcomings before slagging off anyone else who isn't an uptight,ultra-Republican pseudo-Christian.

Your soul is worthless,and your 'values' are hollow.Do the world a favour,vacate the planet asap.

Maybe its time you faced up to your own shortcomings and stopped handing out misinformed suggestions to people who have a moral fiber in their body.

That's really not a bad idea. But that, to me, is still letting them get away with doing something wrong. The question is what limitations? You give a mouse a cookie..........he'll want a glass of milk.

Here's a scenario that can help put this problem into perspective:

Some people tell me that eating meat is wrong. So should it be law that eating meat is wrong? What if these people who believed that eating meat was wrong, had a book thousands of years old, that told them meat eating was wrong. Then of course, it would have to be wrong! After all a book told them so!
And what if these non meat eaters don't get to force the meaters from eating meat? Oh my, the whole moral fabric of society would be ruined.

What we learned, is that the argument is really rather silly, and anybody who actually thinks it's a serious problem - is probably mentally deficient and out of touch with reality.

Some people tell me that eating meat is wrong. So should it be law that eating meat is wrong? What if these people who believed that eating meat was wrong, had a book thousands of years old, that told them meat eating was wrong. Then of course, it would have to be wrong! After all a book told them so!
And what if these non meat eaters don't get to force the meaters from eating meat? Oh my, the whole moral fabric of society would be ruined.

What we learned, is that the argument is really rather silly, and anybody who actually thinks it's a serious problem - is probably mentally deficient and out of touch with reality.

Don't let PETA hear you say that

Maybe its time you faced up to your own shortcomings and stopped handing out misinformed suggestions to people who have a moral fiber in their body.


you wouldn't recognise moral fiber if it bit you in the ass,you egocentric little fraud.

you wouldn't recognise moral fiber if it bit you in the ass,you egocentric little fraud.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense considering your stance on just about everything social and political. Resort to name-calling, I don't give a crap. Because it makes you look like a freaking hypocrite, which is what you are. And if you did have a damn moral fiber in YOUR body, you wouldn't be such a politicaly correct, anti-reality, ass-sniffing wannabe internet badass.

For the love of God (and I don't mean an ex banned member of this forum) WILL YOU GUYS STOP IT! :banghead:


Go to your respective corners. Blow off steam and wait for the next round.