Gay Marriage

[*SG*]

After talking over it a while in private as well a point was made that I think kinda puts a mute point to this all.

 

Religion is fighting over marriage saying it's theirs.

The gays are only fighting for rights.

 

They're not even fighting over the same thing so there will never be a winner. Everyone is going to get hurt no matter what decision will be made on this.

 

As far as I see it, marriage is just a word. Gays don't give a chit about "marriage or partnership", it's the RIGHTS they want not the title.

 

Blah okay I'm done for the night.

 

Have fun.

 

 

*SG*

 

EDIT: Btw those of you saying that we "aren't in the Roman" days. Ahem. If you're christian, who do you think INVENTED Christianity? O.o they are the ones parading around trying to convert everyone and THEY are the ones that started the "male love male" thing too.

 

Please note I'm not saying that Christianity was an invention of some crazed person. But Roman's were the first noted culture to bring the religion into light. Please don't misinterpret that I don't want that debate to start lol.

 

Love IRONY in history.

 

And even then monestaries and other religious figures still actively participated in homosexual acts. Gay being anti christian was never even a thought in their minds.

[Macabre]

Btw those of you saying that we "aren't in the Roman" days. Ahem. If you're christian, who do you think INVENTED Christianity? O.o they are the ones parading around trying to convert everyone and THEY are the ones that started the "male love male" thing too.

 

The Romans didn't "invent" Christianity, the government tried to stamp it out.

 

No one is "parading around trying to convert everyone" believe me, I know many missionaries and people who witness, and it was never the stereotypical

"You're going to hell!!!!" thing. It was maybe a short visit, leaving behind contact issues if they had any questions, etc. inviting them to a church potlock. Things like that.

[Shane for Wax]

But how do you know there was a sense of family and marriage? What if back then cavemen just had sex to reproduce and keep the species alive. What if there was no sense of love?

To you, and everyone else arguing my cavemen point. TAKE AN ANTHROPOLOGY CLASS. Simple as that. Cavemen DID NOT have brains the size of PEANUTS! That is a very common misconception.

 

For example, the australopithecus had brains 35% the size of a human's. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the size of a peanut is very much smaller than that. The neanderthal, by comparison had a brain a little more than half the size of a human's. We of course associate Neanderthals with the idea of 'cavemen'. So, that blows your idea out of the water about having tiny brains. And, as for your (Unstream) question about whether they had a sense of family and marriage? THEY SURE AS HECK DID. The bones of neanderthals have shown well-healed fractures of femurs and arms, which suggests that they were cared for by their relatives and friends. That suggests to me they did love. If you did not love, if you were mindless, then you would let that person get eaten by a sabertooth tiger or something.

 

Do a search. This is all coming from my anthropology class (Anthropology is my minor in college)

[Moz]

But the thing is, other people don't worship the same things you do, or believe the same things you do.

 

What's right for you isn't necessarily right for everybody else, y'know? ^_^

 

:thumbsup: dittos on that....only closed minds expect everyone else to live by their standards and what they think is "right" -s-

 

I totally aggree with unstream in their last point! The cavemen were idiots with a brain the size of peanuts if not smaller. They had no fellings words or communication, let alone diamond rings! Today we are civilized and civilized means acting that way. We are not Romans! Gay marriage should not be legal. Period.

 

 

And the Christian Bible and God is what I worship to so I completely disagree with the idea of gay marriage. In this new day and age we have to hold harder to what we belive in. I believe in God so when the "bible" is brought up and then disbanded by forumers then that makes my point stronger. We have to hold on! That means no gay marriage.

 

*laughed my bottom off* key words in that post is "I"...soooooooooooooooo because that's what YOU believe....we should all live our lives by those standards????? and the gays should jus go on back in the closet where they belong????? I think not heeheehee....kinda feel sorry for you that you've apparently trapped yourself in such a close minded box....

 

something for you to think on...the bible you spout off about so much....written by a bunch of MEN who wanted nothing more than to use fear to control their people....means very little to those of us who have other beliefs...and if getting into your "heaven" means i have to follow out of date...out of touch...closed minded....hypcritical...unbelieveably judgemental "rules" that were made up by a bunch of men so long ago they don't even really apply to the world we live in anymore...then i hopes they got my spot ready in "hell" because i'd find that preferable to spending enternity with the holier than thou christians....

 

so no..."We" don't have to hold on....some of "We" can't wait for equality among african americans, asians, mexicans, people with disabilities, and so on......and even the "gays" heeheehee

 

so you christians keep the term "marriage"....but at least give'm some kind of way to have a legal, binding contract like you have the right too...

 

again....just say'n -s-

 

This post has been edited by a member of staff (Ruto) because of a violation of the forum rules.

Please do not double post; use the edit button instead.

Please check your user inbox to see if you have been contacted regarding this incident, then review our rules.

[Unstream]

To you, and everyone else arguing my cavemen point. TAKE AN ANTHROPOLOGY CLASS. Simple as that. Cavemen DID NOT have brains the size of PEANUTS! That is a very common misconception.

 

For example, the australopithecus had brains 35% the size of a human's. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the size of a peanut is very much smaller than that. The neanderthal, by comparison had a brain a little more than half the size of a human's. We of course associate Neanderthals with the idea of 'cavemen'. So, that blows your idea out of the water about having tiny brains. And, as for your (Unstream) question about whether they had a sense of family and marriage? THEY SURE AS HECK DID. The bones of neanderthals have shown well-healed fractures of femurs and arms, which suggests that they were cared for by their relatives and friends. That suggests to me they did love. If you did not love, if you were mindless, then you would let that person get eaten by a sabertooth tiger or something.

 

Do a search. This is all coming from my anthropology class (Anthropology is my minor in college)

For one, brain size doesn't matter. My brain could be the size of a pea and still be more functional than Albert Einsteins.

 

And I did not believe they did. Marriage, family, and love were probably more abstract concepts back then, the same as the concept of a greater being in their lives. And I never said they were mindless. Very few living things in this world are. Maybe they cared for each other to keep the pack alive, to be sure that they didn't die out, the same way wolves do. I'm pretty sure wolves don't have marriages, though, if one of their pack gets hurt, then the others will watch out for them. Humans essentially behaved like normal animals, only with slightly more complex thoughts, for they didn't evolve yet. Now all of this was from an evolutionist point of view.

 

From the creationist point of view, Cain and Abel, the first two recorded people ever to be born on this earth, had a concept of god, and Adam and Eve before them, for they were cast out of the garden.

 

 

something for you to think on...the bible you spout off about so much....written by a bunch of MEN who wanted nothing more than to use fear to control their people....means very little to those of us who have other beliefs...and if getting into your "heaven" means i have to follow out of date...out of touch...closed minded....hypcritical...unbelieveably judgemental "rules" that were made up by a bunch of men so long ago they don't even really apply to the world we live in anymore...then i hopes they got my spot ready in "hell" because i'd find that preferable to spending enternity with the holier than thou christians....

Psst, your ignorance is showing.

The bible was written over the course of a couple thousand years. It contains also a collection of journals and letters. Rest assured my friend, the bible was not written by a group of men that just got together and thought "ooh, let's mess with the minds of people over 2000 years from now."

 

And I'm not even sure what rules you're referring to. In a sense, we Christians are free to do whatever we want. Hell, I could probably kill my whole family and still go to heaven, as long as I truly repent, because my sins were forgiven by the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus. Now that's not to say we should go out and sin like hell, because by becoming Christians and excepting forgiveness we also agree to try to live our lives for our savior. It's not a rule, it's more a want.

[The Apple of His Eye]

For one, brain size doesn't matter. My brain could be the size of a pea and still be more functional than Albert Einsteins.

 

And I did not believe they did. Marriage, family, and love were probably more abstract concepts back then, the same as the concept of a greater being in their lives. And I never said they were mindless. Very few living things in this world are. Maybe they cared for each other to keep the pack alive, to be sure that they didn't die out, the same way wolves do. I'm pretty sure wolves don't have marriages, though, if one of their pack gets hurt, then the others will watch out for them. Humans essentially behaved like normal animals, only with slightly more complex thoughts, for they didn't evolve yet. Now all of this was from an evolutionist point of view.

 

From the creationist point of view, Cain and Abel, the first two recorded people ever to be born on this earth, had a concept of god, and Adam and Eve before them, for they were cast out of the garden.

 

 

 

Psst, your ignorance is showing.

The bible was written over the course of a couple thousand years. It contains also a collection of journals and letters. Rest assured my friend, the bible was not written by a group of men that just got together and thought "ooh, let's mess with the minds of people over 2000 years from now."

 

And I'm not even sure what rules you're referring to. In a sense, we Christians are free to do whatever we want. Hell, I could probably kill my whole family and still go to heaven, as long as I truly repent, because my sins were forgiven by the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus. Now that's not to say we should go out and sin like hell, because by becoming Christians and excepting forgiveness we also agree to try to live our lives for our savior. It's not a rule, it's more a want.

 

Love and marriage is still abstract. The difference is now people care enough to try to evaluate it. Which seems to cause more problems. Seeing as how homosexual behaviors exist in nature, I don't see what the point of this argument is. To prove that love isn't why people marry? Maybe I'm just confused. It seems off topic.

 

I find it silly when people use the "someone just decided to make up Christianity one day" argument. Jesus is documented (or at least, someone befitting the description bestowed on Him by the Gospels) as having been hung in Roman documents first of all, so while you can argue His divinity until you're blue in the face, to argue His existence is pretty silly. The scriptures were found in several places all across the Middle East and Middle Eastern seas. I don't think someone would go through all the trouble to write up a several thousand page book, then seperate it into sections and spread it all across the region. (That and the Roman's executed most of the people mentioned in said book that the Romans apparently "made up".)

[Shane for Wax]

Shows how much you know about wolves. If one puppy is unable to fight to get to its mother's milk, it will most likely be killed by either the father or the mother then EATEN. A wounded wolf slows down the pack. Simple as that. Like I said, take an anthropology class.

[Unstream]

Hm, I guess I don't know too much about wolves.

 

Well birds would work as an example. When they fly in a flock, and one bird gets hurt, there's always another bird that'll fly down and stay with the injured one and help feed it and everything until it's better or dies. They care for each other, and I'm pretty sure we wouldn't call it love, and we don't see them getting married.

 

Just saying, there's no arguments to say that the concept of marriage came before God. If anything, God came before marriage, as said in the Bible.

[-Pamela-]

I myself am gay, and I hope I will be able to get married.Because if you truley love someone you should be able to get married.

[Shane for Wax]

Let me guess Unstream, you're a creationist? because otherwise the idea that God was here before everything else doesn't work. I'm an evolutionist. The world is not merely thousands of years old, it is millions of years old. As has been mentioned, it isn't a religious debate though. It is political. What makes gay people so different from those of another color? Or those who are straight? Gay people love other people just like hetero people do. I want my gay friends to be able to marry within the US. As it stands, the courts are being unconstitutional. They are impeding on a person's right to happiness.

[*SG*]

Okay so this debate has totally lost track of the original intention..religion wasn't really in for it originally. A part of it, yes, but not the main subject matter as I understood it.

[Unstream]

Haha yeah, I agree. rotcchick, don't get the wrong idea, I support gay marriage and all. Just saying God could have and probably did come before marriage.

 

But the line between church and state gets less defined every day. I mean, if Obama was Muslim, he would not have been elected. Why? Well, he's not a Christian, and Muslims are terrorists! </sarcasm> I know that's a different subject, but I'm saying that in a democracy where most of the people are religious and their religion is Christian, religion does effect politics. But if the US wants to stay loyal to the Constitution (not that it's always done that, but...) then it's best that they allow gays to get the legal recognition.

[Guest shanemk]

I don't see how people can say homosexuality isn't "natural." From ancient celtic to ancient phonecian to ancient egyptian to ancient greek, all these are long-died civilizations that all had cultural refrences in them to homosexuality, whether good, bad, or 'neutral.' So how can homosexuality, which can be traced back to the beginning of the the end prehistory, be considered unnatural? On another view, if an individual is attracted to the same gender, there are physical reactions going on between the brain and the body causing them to feel that way, just like a person being attracted to the opposite gender. These sexual urges are NATURAL, therefore homosexuality is natural. People can't keep treating homosexuality like plastic or pressure treated wood, homosexuality been around far too long and its completely organic and physical, and what else is organic and physical---all the rest of humanity and the organisms around us.

 

And I left out 2 things, dont know if they have already been mentioned. 1. It's same-sex marriage is the issue. Not gay marriage, gays can get married just fine nowadays, just not to the same gender. And 2. Homo sapien sapiens aren't the only species that shows homosexual behaviors....so are the other organisms that show homosexuality unnatural too? Little alien penguins walkin around? Or maybe they consciously made the decison to be gay....you tell me.

[Sara]

And I left out 2 things, dont know if they have already been mentioned. 1. It's same-sex marriage is the issue. Not gay marriage, gays can get married just fine nowadays, just not to the same gender.

 

Why would someone who is gay want to get married to someone who is not of the same gender? (I am not including bisexuals). That fact doesn't really help them at all. If they're gay, they'll want to marry someone of the same gender, unless they're marrying the person for material reasons.

[zombirific]

I'm for it. America is supposedly the land of opportunity, is it not?

 

Not allowing gays to marriage is not protecting the sanctity of marriage, contrary to popular belief. Take a look at the divorce rate. I fail to see sanctity of marriage being more protected by straight couples than gay couples.

 

Gay couples can't have children. They can adopt children. Less children in shelters and not more overpopulating, anyone?

 

The religious aspect is the only one that makes... some sense, in my mind. Yes, homosexuality is viewed as a sin. One of the many great freedoms of this country is the freedom of religion. That means not everyone is going to view it at a sin, because not everyone BELIEVES in sinning. Separation of church and state.

 

People who are totally against gay marriage utterly confuse me - I don't think anyone on this forum is like that, but still. Here's the most important question to ask: how does it involve you if you aren't gay, at all?

Oh; it doesn't. You have no involvement. The closest contact you'll get with a gay person is if they are your friend, or you see a gay couple walking down the street. And in that case, you'll have to learn to accept people for who they are and how they were born. If you believe it's a sin, you aren't the one sinning. God doesn't say anything about protesting against gays and shunning them from society. Don't call me on this, but I believe he wants you to love everyone - equally.

[Guest shanemk]

Why would someone who is gay want to get married to someone who is not of the same gender? (I am not including bisexuals). That fact doesn't really help them at all. If they're gay, they'll want to marry someone of the same gender, unless they're marrying the person for material reasons.

 

Well because, as many homosexuals use as their defense about marriage, its about LOVE, not sex. So if love is truly blind, then its very possible (but not very probable, imo) that, for example, a gay man to marry a woman. This, by the way (although off-topic) is why I don't believe love is just love, love is for sure a lust-mixed thing for most people.

[The Apple of His Eye]

Well because, as many homosexuals use as their defense about marriage, its about LOVE, not sex. So if love is truly blind, then its very possible (but not very probable, imo) that, for example, a gay man to marry a woman. This, by the way (although off-topic) is why I don't believe love is just love, love is for sure a lust-mixed thing for most people.

 

Lust-mixed is kind of a harsh word. Of course you're going to need some sort of attraction. That's what makes romantic love romantic. I really hate that love argument. That "well as far as love goes, I love my sister but I don't want to marry here" kind of thing. There are different kinds of love. Among them is romantic love. And you can't easily have a romance unless some kind of sex is involved. The main purpose of sex is to join to people (*coughnotmakebabiescough*). If you can't really stand to look at someone let alone sleep with them, that is going to cause seriously unneeded tension. And furthermore, if you can't have sex with a person because they just don't do anything for you (i.e. having sex with a person outside of your genderly attractions) then there is going to be tension. I'm sure it's completely possible but that would take two very specific people which are very rare.

 

Seriously, your comparison is akin to me making sex illegal unless you're making children. Have you ever read The Giver? Yeah, that would be our world if that sort of logic were made into law.

[Queen Diva]

As someone who is in a same-sex relationship, I would LIKE the option to be married and have the same rights spouse-wise as every other hetro person. I would want to be the one to be called if my girlfriend ended up in intensive care and be able to sit by her side and hold her hand (gods forbid it ever happens) but if it did, I WOULDN'T have the right because I'm not considered family.

 

And that's just one aspect of it. Let me not go into a tirade about all the other legal stuff.

 

Granted I don't live in America, but we face the same kind of stupidity in Australia. Right-wing religious people mainly believing that if gays wanted to get married they shouldn't be allowed to because of God. Well, all the gay people I know couldn't give a rats about god (any god that is) so long as they have the same rights as hetro's in a joined union.

 

As for same-sex couples having children? I'm all for that too. A few of my friends have just had babies and since my mum does foster care, let me just say that those kids (even with same sex parents) get a whole lot of love as opposed to the children from hetro marriages that end up in the system. And no, most of the kids I know don't get picked on because funnily enough, kids actually don't care if your parents are both men or women - although, who can tell with certainty these days? I have this rather absurd idea that parents raise their kids to be tolerant.. put it down to the rose glasses I guess.

 

It basically comes down to the fact that you can't just say no because you think God would disagree. It's not about God. It's about two people that love each other and want to be recognised under the law. And since religion and government were always separate (at least they were meant to be) I don't see why people let their religious views cancel out what should be allowed for anyone who wants to commit to someone else, hetro or not.

 

**** On a side note: I've never really believed in marriage, I mean who needs a piece of paper to tell you that you are bonded to someone? HOWEVER - legally, you do need it for all kinds of things.

[Guest shanemk]

Lust-mixed is kind of a harsh word. Of course you're going to need some sort of attraction. That's what makes romantic love romantic. I really hate that love argument. That "well as far as love goes, I love my sister but I don't want to marry here" kind of thing. There are different kinds of love. Among them is romantic love. And you can't easily have a romance unless some kind of sex is involved. The main purpose of sex is to join to people (*coughnotmakebabiescough*). If you can't really stand to look at someone let alone sleep with them, that is going to cause seriously unneeded tension. And furthermore, if you can't have sex with a person because they just don't do anything for you (i.e. having sex with a person outside of your genderly attractions) then there is going to be tension. I'm sure it's completely possible but that would take two very specific people which are very rare.

 

Seriously, your comparison is akin to me making sex illegal unless you're making children. Have you ever read The Giver? Yeah, that would be our world if that sort of logic were made into law.

 

What in the world are you talking about? Akin to you making sex illegal unless you're making children?? First off I said nothing even related to whether or not something should or should not be done. Lust-mixed is not harsh, its extremely viable. All this backup of your statement about tension and romance can be thrown out the window because how many people think "i'm not going to be with someone I'm not attracted to because it will be tense." No, most people think "I'm not going to get in a relationship with someone I'm sexually attracted to because I want something nice to look at and enjoyable sex." Lust first, love next. Most people don't decide to choose love first lust second, because physical is the first thing a person sees. Second off, I read the Giver, AND I read Gathering Blue. What sort of logic like mine, that love is lust-mixed, would turn a society into the Giver, where jobs are laid out for people by the government and that people can't see color and that one man is chosen to feel the memories of the past? That makes no sense at all. I didn't mention anything that I think should be illegal, so I have no idea where that last statement from you came from.

[Sara]

Well because, as many homosexuals use as their defense about marriage, its about LOVE, not sex. So if love is truly blind, then its very possible (but not very probable, imo) that, for example, a gay man to marry a woman. This, by the way (although off-topic) is why I don't believe love is just love, love is for sure a lust-mixed thing for most people.

 

Well, okay, but being gay isn't just for the sex. In my example, I was talking about gays who only are interested in their own gender, be it love or sex. That being said...:

 

If one person loves another person, and they're both the same gender, then the fact that they can't get married still hurts them. They won't want to marry someone of the opposite sex. ^_^

[Liz//Miomi]

As someone who is in a same-sex relationship, I would LIKE the option to be married and have the same rights spouse-wise as every other hetro person. I would want to be the one to be called if my girlfriend ended up in intensive care and be able to sit by her side and hold her hand (gods forbid it ever happens) but if it did, I WOULDN'T have the right because I'm not considered family.

 

And that's just one aspect of it. Let me not go into a tirade about all the other legal stuff.

 

Granted I don't live in America, but we face the same kind of stupidity in Australia. Right-wing religious people mainly believing that if gays wanted to get married they shouldn't be allowed to because of God. Well, all the gay people I know couldn't give a rats about god (any god that is) so long as they have the same rights as hetro's in a joined union.

 

As for same-sex couples having children? I'm all for that too. A few of my friends have just had babies and since my mum does foster care, let me just say that those kids (even with same sex parents) get a whole lot of love as opposed to the children from hetro marriages that end up in the system. And no, most of the kids I know don't get picked on because funnily enough, kids actually don't care if your parents are both men or women - although, who can tell with certainty these days? I have this rather absurd idea that parents raise their kids to be tolerant.. put it down to the rose glasses I guess.

 

It basically comes down to the fact that you can't just say no because you think God would disagree. It's not about God. It's about two people that love each other and want to be recognised under the law. And since religion and government were always separate (at least they were meant to be) I don't see why people let their religious views cancel out what should be allowed for anyone who wants to commit to someone else, hetro or not.

 

**** On a side note: I've never really believed in marriage, I mean who needs a piece of paper to tell you that you are bonded to someone? HOWEVER - legally, you do need it for all kinds of things.

 

 

I agree with it being legal.

I live in california and we just recently with the new election BANNED same sex marriage. PISSED ME OFF!

I myself am bisexual, and am with my boyfriend, but I have had girlfriends whom I know are having trouble.

As you said, the couples from same sex marriage should be allowed to have children, too, without having to worry about others bothering them or saying that it's a wrong thing to do.

I read somewhere farther back in this thread about humans being just another animal, with a little more evolved brains. Our society is hurting us. And gay marriage is hitting the hardest on those whom they call "Differnt."

 

I swear, I wish there was no such thing as 'oh! Gay marriage? That's against God!' (or whatEVER religion!)

I think people need to take a BIGGER LOOK at this. :sad01_anim:

 

anyway... --deep breath--

 

It's just really offending to me.

[Guest shanemk]

Well, okay, but being gay isn't just for the sex. In my example, I was talking about gays who only are interested in their own gender, be it love or sex. That being said...:

 

If one person loves another person, and they're both the same gender, then the fact that they can't get married still hurts them. They won't want to marry someone of the opposite sex. ^_^

 

Alright. I mean I think the LOGICAL response to the same-sex marriage debate would be to allow two people of the same gender to get married. But until then, gay's do have equal rights as straights. Gays can get married, just not to the same gender, just as straight's can't get married to the same gender either. I know alot of you won't even see the point in that, or you think it's dumb, but all I am trying to say is that marriage is equal between american citizens at the moment, the only factor is gender. And the gender factor, imo, seems discriminatory because straight's aren't likely to want to marry one of the same gender, but gay's are, and in that case, it does seem to get unequal and biased. But I have heard and participated in the same-sex marriage debate throughout my life and it's really tiring. I honestly believe same-sex marriage will be deemed legal by all 50 states (...dunno about puerto rico) so its a sit-and-wait. I think its good that you all are so passionate about supporting it, so all I have to say is if you really want to try to speed up things, get off the forum debate and go out in real life and make a difference, every person counts. Good luck! (and when same-sex marriage is legalized...please don't go out and do it just to do it, cause then you really WOULD be demeaning the value of marriage like the opposition claims).

[rampallionz]

Homosexuals cannot get married to who they want to marry. Just because this happens to be a member of the same sex. However a straight person can marry who they want to marry because they are of opposing gender.

 

No matter what anyone says, the discrimination against gays is based on religion. Before Christianity had its boom homosexuality was a widely practiced and accepted idea. I cant remember whether it was the Greeks or the Romans who were particularly commonplace.

It is wrong to bring religion into politics because of the wide variety of backgrounds of the people in the country. So you must take an outside stance from it. Regardless of whether a country is 'mostly' one religion or the other. This said, it's wrong to stop gay marriage because it defies teachings (which are possibly misinterpreted, or have been edited to suit the priests who wrote the bible out. A lot of the bible's teachings were also only relevant at the time taught, and are not so now. For example, if we followed everything said in the bible to a T, then firstly we'd be in a load of trouble because of the amount of contradictions, and secondly there would be chaos because people would be being raped and first born sons stoned for being disobedient to their fathers - but anyway) that are in any holy book. Perhaps marriage in some forms of Christianity and in Islam for example, but if a church allows gay marriages - then why can't the state?

 

I'm gay myself and it's appalling to think that if my partner was injured and in hospital, I would not be allowed to see him if he was seriously I'll because certain groups of people decided that our being together was 'evil'. It's terrfying to think and it makes me afraid to find someone to care about incase that happens. That is the effect this form of repression has. and that's what it is.

 

Whatever way anyone butters it, in my eyes at the moment homosexuals are second class citizens and its sickening.

[livvy]

I can't say I'm particularly fond of the concept of gay relationships - it does seem to go against some instinctual law - but I don't believe it should be illegal. After all, the "law" it's going against is purely instinctual and moral. From a moral standpoint, I'd like to insist gay marriage be illegal. But from a legal standpoint, there's no specific law against same-gender marriages, so the marraige really shouldn't be illegal. America has so many religions and political views and non-religions and ethnicities and so on, that trying to account for all of their standpoints on gay marriage (or any subject, for that matter) would be practically impossible! To prevent marriage between two men or two women just because a religion believes it's wrong is like preventing marriage between blacks and whites just because the white supremists think it's wrong. It's all a matter of opinion in that realm, but when you come down to the legal standpoint, what laws are they breaking?

 

~ Livvy

[Queen Diva]

anyway... --deep breath--

 

It's just really offending to me.

 

I hear you Liz/Miomi - I find it very offending. Especially when I get hurled abuse for kissing and cuddling my partner, yet hetro's do it all over the place and don't get even a single derogatory remark aimed at them. It's all rather depressing to know that we live in a world where in so many ways, we are so advanced... yet when it comes to people that love without regard to gender typical roles the world reverts back to 1000 years ago.

 

Next we'll be stoned and left to die for daring to be different. Actually, reminds me of a scene from V is for Vendetta. You'll probably already know what I'm talking about :)

 

I can't say I'm particularly fond of the concept of gay relationships - it does seem to go against some instinctual law

 

You know, I say exactly the same thing about hetro relationships... :D