Welcome to Gaia! ::

ZOMG there was no marriage before JEEZUS!

Man I swear I'm going to hell.

What I want to know is why people don't want it illegal for other people to get married when their religion considers it sinful, like in some religions it's sinful to remarry if you had a divorce. Why is no one lobbying to make this illegal? Why is it only gay marriage, ONE type of sinful relationship (in these religions at least), that should be illegal?

Exactly.

Religiously speaking, the "sanctity of marriage" (which I believe in, by the way) is violated all the time in legal marriages. Why aren't the rest of them being protested?

La Veuve Zin, there is no end to my love for you.

I hate to be the sore thumb here, but I disagree with gay marriage. I'll leave it at that, unless somebody wants to know why.

I'd like to know why on legal grounds.

I don't really care what people are opposed to morally. Everyone has their own beliefs, and that's cool. I'm personally opposed to plenty of things on moral grounds, but I would oppose them being made illegal because there's no legal grounds to do it without unnecessarily taking away freedoms.

Well, morally I disagree with gay marriage because marriage is largely tied to religion. I think calling same-sex unions "marriage" is going to get religious people's knickers in a twist, and I doubt they're going to vote for it. Beyond that, I think if people want to actively live out their gay lifestyle, more power to them. But don't expect to be included in on traditions that...kinda never included you to begin with, to be honest. I've always thought it was a more advantageous endeavor to go after the law in this issue.

Legally? Marriage is a ceremony, not a right. Our Constitution grants us the "right" get married, but not to whomever we want. I think same-sex advocates do themselves a great disservice rhetorically when they say they're fighting for "equal rights". It might seem like there's inequality because we're only looking at the issue as gay and straight. On that platform, the argument is obvious: just because they're gay doesn't mean they aren't people, and since Americans have the right to get married, they should be able to do so with no interference from the government. However, the law doesn't care about your sexual orientation. The law "defines" marriage as being between one man and one woman. What does that mean? It means two men and two women can't marry. Those unions aren't defined as such.

Notice I didn't say anything about gay or straight. What if I'm straight, but I love my best friend so much I wanted to marry him. Could I do it? No. Why? Because two men can't marry. OK. What if two gay guys love each other and want to be married...could they do it? No. Same reason.

A STRAIGHT man can't marry another man no more legally than a GAY man can't marry another man. Same goes for women.

So what same-sex activists are asking for is essentially preferential treatment. Because the law is equal.

I don't mean for this to sound punitive, but you make a choice when you lead certain kinds of lifestyles. I don't like the idea that some gays want to play both sides of the proverbial fence. They want their lifestyle to be different, to be edgy, to push the envelope, to be provocative, to challenge convention...and then cherry-pick which parts of our square culture they want.

I can't go into Gaia and make one post about critiques I may have about homosexuality as a social issue (which is what things like abortion, the death penalty, drug legalization, etc. are) without somebody jumping down my throat like I'm condoning some Hitler-esque jihad on all homosexuals.

Why am I supposed to be reduced to silence on the issue when it's their values and beliefs on the line, but then when my (or others) values and beliefs are on the line, I'm supposed to be open-minded and accepting? It seems like a double standard.

What religion is marriage tied to? It isn't Christianity, as Joseph and Mary got married and they were Jews. So maybe we shouldn't allow Christian's to marry, since traditionally it's not actually their ceremony, I think that would be fair. Wouldn't you? No you probably wouldn't. Divorce, also not a big favourite traditionally, maybe we should ban that as well. We could also have a nifty little slogan, something like, "You're ******** now."

This is not a treehouse, you do not get to write rules on your little plaque that tell the girls they're not allowed, this is real life and people are supposed to be as equals. That means all inclusive, that means the girls get to come in even the ones who would rather be out playing with all the other girls.


Bull. Marriage can be a ceremony, and you're right the ceremony ISN'T a right, which is why in Canada where gay marriage has been legalized a church cannot be forced to marry a gay couple, freedom of religion and all. However the documents, the paper work, the spousal rights and everything that goes along with marriage, are their right to have. Unless straight people want to give up the option of marriage, then yes, based on equal rights and freedoms it IS a right for them.

The law also defined a black person as 1/3rd of a person, back in the day. I suppose we never should have abolished slavery then! We all know the law can't be wrong, and what were us pro-lifers thinking? The law says the fetus isn't a person, it CAN'T ever falter, if we start questioning the law, our entire world will crumble around us. We must just assume that the law let's everyone be equal, and never say anything otherwise.


"You can marry someone, but you'd best not love them or ever want to have sex with them. That's what medieval marriage is all about!" If homosexual marriage was legal then YES a straight man COULD marry a gay man. You don't have to do through an elaborate screening process. And if you really want to go down the same road as Britney Spears, and marry your best friend even though you have no actual feelings for him, be my guest.

Do you seriously think this arguement holds any water? You're basing your arguement on what you can't do right now, under law, and saying that because you can't do it under law it would be un-equal to change the law because then other people could do it, whereas before, when the law was unchanged you couldn't. It's completely circular and doesn't actually make any sense except to make the person reading it, dizzy from trying to run in circles around their own head.


Hahahaha, I can see it now "Join the Gay army. We're DIFFERENT. You may experience some side effects. These include, not being able to walk down the street without being cat called, getting your a** kicked when people are made aware of sexual orientation, the possibility of being shunned by your entire family, not being allowed to marry, not being allowed to adopt any children, not being able to have your own children, the possibility of getting shot in a bar by a crazy teen in Arkansas, having a crazy church picket your funeral, be at increased risk of suicide and MORE!"

Sounds like something I'D want to choose to do.

But seriously, as Waters said. When exactly did you CHOOSE to be heterosexual? Because I mean if we can change our sexual orientation willy nilly, that would be a neat trick. Especially considering that science disagrees with that statement completely.


I have friends that believe morally homosexuality is wrong. One of my very good friends believes that, and she was best friends with another one of my good friends who is gay. She loved him, because he was still the same person she knew. I love Emily to death, I may disagree with her perception of gay people, but she's a wonderful person.

However when you act closed minded about homosexuals, they're going to act closed minded about you. It's how it works. It's like a graph, the higher your intolerance for homosexuals goes, the higher their intolerance for you, goes.