Dead against it. I want to marry a chick, and that's final. Oh, was the question about whether I should give a crap what other consenting adults do? Because I might want to change my answer, in that case.
It's no ones buisness whether they "marry", but... heterosexual marriage benefits confered by the state are acts recognising and promoting the benefits of marriage and family in society. Thus it isn't a "civil rights" issue as is claimed by the homo-militants much to the disgust of REAL civil rights activists such as African-Americans, but purely under the present "advance auction of stolen goods" democratic system a democratic decision from the electorate as of whether they want to recognise and grant benefits to these "lifestyles". So I don't care unless it costs me, which it does, so Adam and Steve can fvck off.
What about those of us who think the whole problem goes away if we separate the religious aspects of the union into "marriage", provided by individual churches under their rules, and the legal contract aspects of the union into "civil union", provided by the state under their rules? Anybody can enter into a civil union - it's a legally binding contract, and people who want to be married can go to their church and have that religious ceremony performed if they meet the requirements of their church. Easy-peasy, lemon squeezy.
This is the best solution to the issue I can think of. Seperates church and state and doesn't force churches to marry gays if they don't want to.
Consenting?? Hahaha... that's such a weak arguement that LGBT like to bring up. I guess it's okay for a 35-yr old man to marry a 14-yr girl because both of them are consenting. Or a polygamist man to marry 10 women because all of them are consenting. Gay marriage is wrong. And banning it is NOT discrimination like the liberals want you to believe. I'm not against giving gay people the benefits that come with marriage such as property inheritance and insurance benefits, but they do NOT HAVE to be married to get those benefits. The law could easily accomodate those needs if necessary without being "married". I'm against changing the natural law and tradition of marriage which has been in place since ancient civilizations.
Firstly it's up to churches if they want to marry gays, that has no bearing on the fact DNA and genitalia say it's a same sex "marriage" and thus under law not a marriage. Secondly the point stands from my previous post if the electorate don't want to financially reward homosexuality that is their choice, that's democracy for you, tyranny of the majority. Which is why small and constitutionally limited government based on the rule of law is best. See, no financial benefits = no argument like back in the day when people rarely bothered getting married.
100% agreed. I think they (I'd guess the Right) want to mix the issue, ala Iraq and 9/11, to make this more of an issue than it should have ever been. That and the fact that these gays (and I mean this in a nice way, really) want the world to see them on the footsteps of city hall kissing their sig other as "real America" is sickened. See, I am against most forms of public affection, gay or staright. I'm just not wired like that, I guess. If gays say that this is their business, privacy of their home and their relationship, then why do they want to draw so much attention to themselves and hurt their cause? I guess I can relate this to the mythical "1st freed black slave". Work with me here, ok? OK, this guy is the 1st freed black slave. Is he to walk up to city hall, yell to the world, "Yea, that's right. I'm bad, I'm cool. I'm free now, suckers!" No. These things happen in stages. You have to fight at times, in public and in private. Other times you have to lay back and take one step back to later take two steps forward. The number of marriages was impressive and I feel these people have a civil right to express their love and receive the benefits of such a union, a contract, called marriage or whatever. I feel (not that it bothered me personally) that the "We're Here! We're Married! Now deal with it!" tactics backfired in enough middle of America homes to make this the political issue we have today.
How about white/black marriages? That was banned, too? Who draws up the standards for what is taseful in a marriage? It all comes down to the sex. Yes, marriage is part sex, I guess. But, just because by your standards "gay sex" (now that is a lame term, sorry, but this is a family show) is acceptable, but with a minor man/girl sex it is not? If marriage is a contract, isn't it possible to have a partnership consisting of more than 2 people? They don't even have to all be even 33.3% partners. Just look at the teacher/student sex thread. It shows the lack of consistancy in any moral argument of people here. Every generation, every cause has to have a visible symbol where change was created. It takes the breaking of a law to help change it. Good luck to everyone on that quest, for others, and in the end, I hope you find what you were looking for. No pun intended.
Laws restricting polygamy, incest, and child molestation apply to everyone. Laws restricting homosexual marriage apply only to homosexuals.
I don't. Calling marriage "civil union" is like calling period ejeculation. Stop changing name people has been getting used to for thousands of years. What's wrong with using "Civil Union" for gays? Logically it shouldn't use the same name. Gay marriage is for same sex, whereas non-gay marriage is for different sex. So they should use a different name.
Hell, gay culture is so hip right now, in a few years straight people will be demanding the right to get smarried.
Are you equating being gay with buying a house? Buying houses is the new "it" analogy of BS politics forum.
On the surface, yes. But I don't really buy that defense. The Law is a big enough word to ask the question...on what is our law based? Then, as you answer that, ask this question...what provides the govt the authority to enact and enforce said law? This is getting deep, too deep. Somewhere I am sure you will find some issues of morality and religion, especially the kind that may not look to homosexuality in kind. When this issue has so many subplots, we can't forget it is a political hot-potato(e). I don't even think that Kerry is too Rah Rah over it himself. The court of public opinion, as we will see here in this poll, might not be so set to provide this liberty to gays. We shall see.
I wonder why we call it the Final Four and the Women's Final Four? I always wonder, being an Ohio State grad, as to why the men's teams ate the Buckeyes and the women's teams, the Lady Buckeyes? Since when to Buckeyes (some sort of nut) have a sex? Aren't they all Buckeyes? Paint my house! We could work wonders with your house! I don't know how I missed the connection?!?!
Final Four, that's why people call it. And people know what's that mean depends on the sex. If a college sister holding a pair of tickets said to her roommate, "I've got tickets to the Buckeyes." Of course she meant the Lady Buckeyes. Who would go to a boring man's game? Context, context. On the other hand, if you don't call girls team "Lady Buckeyes", what do you call it? Lady Draggons? That would be the team playing them!