PDA

View Full Version : Should homosexuals be banned from marrying each other?


Sugiyama=#1
Nov 12th, 2004, 06:39 PM
Just wondering, I'm sure there are a lot of gays on the board, but the general consensus is that they should not be allowed to be married. So I would like to hear what you say. Considering most of the posters are hippie youngsters and many of them gays, I presume it should be an overwhelming approval:).

If you couldnt care less, than dont vote:).

Sugiyama=#1
Nov 12th, 2004, 06:42 PM
Oh and give reason if possible...like..."Bible says it's a sin."....

CooCooCachoo
Nov 12th, 2004, 06:43 PM
Marriage is so overrated.

Ekkekko
Nov 12th, 2004, 06:44 PM
try a different variation
http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?t=124991

Keith
Nov 12th, 2004, 07:13 PM
I sometimes ask myself why gay people would want to get married, especially when I witness what the straights have done to degrade the institution.

DevilishAttitude
Nov 12th, 2004, 07:15 PM
Yes :)

It's just not right for the moment IMO

Bacardi
Nov 12th, 2004, 07:20 PM
No, they should marry whoever they want.

See how much outrage you have if you banned heterosexuals from getting married. They can't even keep a 50% marriage survival rate going.

Sugiyama=#1
Nov 12th, 2004, 07:23 PM
No, they should marry whoever they want.

See how much outrage you have if you banned heterosexuals from getting married. They can't even keep a 50% marriage survival rate going.
Well, the definition was the union of a man and a woman, you cant possibly ban heterosexuals because the term arose from them.

Volcana
Nov 12th, 2004, 08:27 PM
Marriage is a matter of contract law. It involves and covers many things, like community property and power of attourney. As long as it has a civil aspect, same sex couples should be allowed to marry. However, I personally think the government should get out of the marriage business. From the perspective of the govenment, all they should do is issue civil unions. Let the religions worry about the marriage.

If two 90 year old people, long past sexual activity or child-bearing want to marry, there never an uproar as long as they're of opposite genders. But why not? Such a marriage isn't for procreation. It isn't there as a bedrock for child-rearing.

Ultimately, none of the reasons for opposing gay marriage are based on reason. Well, avoiding civil war. But besides that. The ultrimate bedrock of the opposition is, 'somebody else told me it was wrong, and I don't want to challenge them'. Not good enough in my book.

Dave B
Nov 12th, 2004, 09:01 PM
For me, I think practically (although I am ingnoring the principle business) conservatives should support gay marriage. The union of a same sex couple represents perhaps a more acceptable version of homosexuality for the American right. Not giving people marriage rights doesn't prevent gays from participating in gay activities, but government sanctioned marriages encourages gays to live a more settled lifestyle.

I find this all extremely interesting as a gay man and fan of gay histroy myself. Over 30 years ago, the gay movement would have nothing to do with marriages. Instead, it was more heavily involved in the free love type thing, where communities of people--friends--would often reject not only hetrosexuality but also monogamy and many other "freedom restricting" activities. However, over time gay culture started to assimilate more to str8 culture. In addition, I think the AIDS epedemic dramatically changed they gay perspective, and really encouraged people to settle down.

I like free love and everything, but for me this new focus of equal rights and marriage is encouraging. Not that there is anything wrong with sex, but it is nice to see the gay community really ban together to fight for something beyond the right to sleep with eachother. Being gay is more than sex, it is about the special types of connections we have for eachother. For me, even if you are against what gays do, marriages allow gays to be in more valuable and moral relationships with one another. I guess some people see gay marriages as destroying an institution, but for a population that is known for is sexual promescuity, how can anyone reject something the encourages a deeper connection?

tennisIlove09
Nov 12th, 2004, 09:07 PM
If you love someone, and want to pledge your love to that person...why not? You can't choose who you fall in love with. You can't choose what you are attracted too.

Brαm
Nov 12th, 2004, 09:19 PM
I'm from Belgium, so obviously I voted "No".

I can't believe some people are actually voting for a ban :rolleyes:

Almalyk
Nov 12th, 2004, 09:49 PM
Marriage is so overrated.

The bible is so so overrated (in the W's US obviously) :mad:

Shenanigans
Nov 12th, 2004, 10:33 PM
I am gay but personally do not have a need to marry my partner but do think my relationship should be treated as equal as a relationship between a man and a woman.

There is also other implications that if my partner was to die tommorow everything he owned would go to his family. If for example he owned the house we lived in for 4 years, I would have no claim to it.

I think the gay marriage thing is just more than gay people wanting a 'white wedding' but also to be seen as equal and be afforded the same rights as straight people.

mboyle
Nov 12th, 2004, 10:35 PM
I think they should have civil unions. The minute you call it "marriage," the sleazy lawyers of the world will start suing churches for not marrying gay couples, and that isn't right. But I am of the belief that the government has a moral obligation to limit sexual promiscuity. Marriage is the only way to do this, in either the gay or straight community. Particularly, however, in the former, as it is a proven fact that diseases spread more easily through anal sex than vaginal.

grmbl
Nov 12th, 2004, 10:38 PM
Marriage is so overrated.
omg :tape:

OUT!
Nov 12th, 2004, 10:53 PM
Marriage is so overrated.Definitely and this topic has been killed to death. Just let people live their lives. :rolleyes:

Grohl
Nov 12th, 2004, 11:37 PM
noundefined

Crazy Canuck
Nov 13th, 2004, 12:47 AM
Particularly, however, in the former, as it is a proven fact that diseases spread more easily through anal sex than vaginal.

Is it? I'm not challenging you, but you wouldn't happen to have a source on that would you? Just for interests sake, of course.

Leo_DFP
Nov 13th, 2004, 12:50 AM
Marriage is so overrated.
Not really the point, is it?

Venus Forever
Nov 13th, 2004, 01:37 AM
Marriage is a matter of contract law. It involves and covers many things, like community property and power of attourney. As long as it has a civil aspect, same sex couples should be allowed to marry. However, I personally think the government should get out of the marriage business. From the perspective of the govenment, all they should do is issue civil unions. Let the religions worry about the marriage.

If two 90 year old people, long past sexual activity or child-bearing want to marry, there never an uproar as long as they're of opposite genders. But why not? Such a marriage isn't for procreation. It isn't there as a bedrock for child-rearing.

Ultimately, none of the reasons for opposing gay marriage are based on reason. Well, avoiding civil war. But besides that. The ultrimate bedrock of the opposition is, 'somebody else told me it was wrong, and I don't want to challenge them'. Not good enough in my book.
I totally agree with this.

CooCooCachoo
Nov 13th, 2004, 05:12 AM
Not really the point, is it?

It's a good point though :nerner:

bionic71
Nov 13th, 2004, 07:06 AM
All citizens should have the choice to enter into marriage if they wish, regardless of their sexual identity.

As a gay man I could marry a female, any female friend if I wish.....just for the hell of it...and we are viewed as a married couple in the eyes of the law. However, I am unable to marry my same sex partner of 11 years, we pay our taxes, we have a mortgage together, we are both contributing citizens, yet we are excluded from marriage because we do not conceal our sexual orientation...it is ludicrous.

We have had to go through expensive legal avenues to secure shared property rights and safe guard our superannuation.....this type of expensive legality is taken for granted by non-gay couples, as the legal contract of a marriage takes care of it.

Personally, my relationship does not require the validation of marriage....it is validated daily by my parents, my family, my friends who view our relationship as equal to all others. However, in legal terms it is not...it is essentially considered to be a second rate union.....and this second rate view contributes to gay people continually being devalued and misrepresented.

So, if being married meant that we were afforded the same respect, validation and entitlements as a non-gay couple then we may well consider it.

What I fail to understand is how my marriage, to my partner would have any effect on the marriage of a non-gay couple...what other people do within their relationships is of no concern to me or my partner.

matthias
Nov 13th, 2004, 07:15 AM
when people like Britney Spears can marry "just for fun" like she did in Las Vegas earlier this year.
how will you tell couples who are together sinces year "you are not allowed to marry, because marriage is something special between men and women....." and all this bullshit.

this couples should move to europe (Netherlands, Germany, Scandinavia)

Kesalauantait
Nov 13th, 2004, 07:25 AM
And next year, Spain!

Philbo
Nov 13th, 2004, 07:31 AM
All citizens should have the choice to enter into marriage if they wish, regardless of their sexual identity.

As a gay man I could marry a female, any female friend if I wish.....just for the hell of it...and we are viewed as a married couple in the eyes of the law. However, I am unable to marry my same sex partner of 11 years, we pay our taxes, we have a mortgage together, we are both contributing citizens, yet we are excluded from marriage because we do not conceal our sexual orientation...it is ludicrous.

We have had to go through expensive legal avenues to secure shared property rights and safe guard our superannuation.....this type of expensive legality is taken for granted by non-gay couples, as the legal contract of a marriage takes care of it.

Personally, my relationship does not require the validation of marriage....it is validated daily by my parents, my family, my friends who view our relationship as equal to all others. However, in legal terms it is not...it is essentially considered to be a second rate union.....and this second rate view contributes to gay people continually being devalued and misrepresented.

So, if being married meant that we were afforded the same respect, validation and entitlements as a non-gay couple then we may well consider it.

What I fail to understand is how my marriage, to my partner would have any effect on the marriage of a non-gay couple...what other people do within their relationships is of no concern to me or my partner.
Really well said.. Impeccable! :)

The PM of Australia John Howard said he was intorducing legislation to ban gay marriage in Australia to 'ensure the survival of the human species by protecting the sanctity of marriage as being between a man and a woman'..

I really want someone to explain HOW letting gays marry, IN ANY WAY changes marriage for straight people? It doesnt affect it one bit.

propi
Nov 13th, 2004, 08:11 AM
Really well said.. Impeccable! :)

The PM of Australia John Howard said he was intorducing legislation to ban gay marriage in Australia to 'ensure the survival of the human species by protecting the sanctity of marriage as being between a man and a woman'..

I really want someone to explain HOW letting gays marry, IN ANY WAY changes marriage for straight people? It doesnt affect it one bit.
Then you should tell your PM to ban wars, guns, fast food and white shark :p

Crazy Canuck
Nov 13th, 2004, 08:21 AM
The PM of Australia John Howard said he was intorducing legislation to ban gay marriage in Australia to 'ensure the survival of the human species by protecting the sanctity of marriage as being between a man and a woman'..

Uh, for lack of a better way of putting this: :retard:

bis2806
Nov 13th, 2004, 08:32 AM
Okay, Howard is just a cow, he copies whatever US does :o i mean, please, be original australia

Belgium = Best
Nov 13th, 2004, 10:43 AM
No, they should marry whoever they want. They have rights too!

:wavey:

Joana
Nov 13th, 2004, 10:50 AM
But I am of the belief that the government has a moral obligation to limit sexual promiscuity. Marriage is the only way to do this, in either the gay or straight community. Particularly, however, in the former, as it is a proven fact that diseases spread more easily through anal sex than vaginal.
I really don't think that's true.

Sam L
Nov 13th, 2004, 02:13 PM
I think they should have civil unions. The minute you call it "marriage," the sleazy lawyers of the world will start suing churches for not marrying gay couples, and that isn't right. But I am of the belief that the government has a moral obligation to limit sexual promiscuity. Marriage is the only way to do this, in either the gay or straight community. Particularly, however, in the former, as it is a proven fact that diseases spread more easily through anal sex than vaginal.
I suggest you go and talk to some doctors and nurses and gain some perspective in your life. Where did you hear that trashy propaganda anyway, your local priest? :rolleyes:

And do some travelling too. Africa is infested with AIDS but not gays.

Oh and here's a novel solution, how about allowing gay marriage so that'll stop gays from been promiscuous AND at the same time PROMOTE the use of SAFE SEX?

~CANUCK~
Nov 13th, 2004, 06:27 PM
My view is this, im gay and all for letting people do what they want. But i know for me its not right. I see marriage as a religious thing, and seeing as religious people see me as evil and dirty, i want nothing to do with it. There are other ways that are more right for me then marriage. But i don't see what the big deal is. Just let gay people get married. It might do some good. Less sleeping around which might lead to less people getting sick. And its not like we are out to recrute people. By giving us more rights doesn't open the door for us to run around trying to turn the straights. And when i hear things like marriage is kept for people to procreate it makes me
:lol: When you see 22 year olds who are grandparents already that goes to show how fucked up this world really is. Marriage has become totally meaningless for staright people these days anyways, there are the few die hards that think its everything, but when you hear of things like britney spears being married for what was it 56 hours, or nicky hilton's 3 week marriage, makes you wonder. People do not get married to have kids, they get married coz they have kids.

Volcana
Nov 13th, 2004, 06:37 PM
The minute you call it "marriage," the sleazy lawyers of the world will start suing churches for not marrying gay couples, and that isn't right.Any such suits would go nowhere. It would be hard to even find a court to let it be filed. Religions have significant legal protections in the USA.

Now, a justice of the peace could be sued.

Circe
Nov 13th, 2004, 06:41 PM
But I am of the belief that the government has a moral obligation to limit sexual promiscuity. Marriage is the only way to do this, in either the gay or straight community.

uhh....it does?

i think i hear Adam Smith screaming in Erebus.

~CANUCK~
Nov 13th, 2004, 06:54 PM
Particularly, however, in the former, as it is a proven fact that diseases spread more easily through anal sex than vaginal.

Just so i understand what exactly does this have to do with gay people and marriage. I know alot of straight people who have anal sex, for instance my best friend was ranting and raving just last night about how he loves fucking women in the ass.

Sugiyama=#1
Nov 13th, 2004, 06:56 PM
Any such suits would go nowhere. It would be hard to even find a court to let it be filed. Religions have significant legal protections in the USA.

Now, a justice of the peace could be sued.
Lawyers are not as stupid as you think they are.

Mariangelina
Nov 13th, 2004, 09:31 PM
Oh, lawyers can be plenty stupid. My dad's one, and he helped produce me- I think you get the picture. ;)

And whatever statistics there may or may not be on anal sex and infection- I admit to being totally ignorant on the subject- it's a silly stereotype that sex acts invoving the anus are confined to gay guys. It's simply not true.

I don't think the government should encourage promiscuous unprotected sex for the simple reason that it's a perfect way to spread lots of diseases that cause a lot of human suffering and cost the healthcare system a lot of money. But they don't have the right to legislate sexual morality as long as it's between consenting adults. Many religions, obviously, do not approve of promiscuity; it's the personal choice of everyone to make their personal decisions about what they consider appropriate and moral for themselves to do, regardless of the official party line of the government or religious doctrine. (But IMO, that doesn't mean judging others fore and aft because they're doing something you don't want to do or don't feel comfortable with.)

bionic71 basically summarized my views on marriage, and I don't think I can phrase it any better than he did.

And ~CANUCK~, I understand your feelings completely, being mired in Catholic education, but it's not true that all religious people see you as evil and dirty. :sad: I'm fairly religious myself, but I try to recognize and respect the differences of others and not judge them. Being religious doesn't mean being a prejudiced asshole.

~CANUCK~
Nov 13th, 2004, 09:48 PM
And ~CANUCK~, I understand your feelings completely, being mired in Catholic education, but it's not true that all religious people see you as evil and dirty. :sad: I'm fairly religious myself, but I try to recognize and respect the differences of others and not judge them. Being religious doesn't mean being a prejudiced asshole.

:hug: thank you. I know there are people out there who are religious and are not prejudiced. I was more refering to the hierarchy of the church.

Sugiyama=#1
Nov 13th, 2004, 10:48 PM
We all are sinners, no Christians will see pagans as evil or dirty, what they hope is to see all sinner receive redemption from God and turn away from their sins. We understand that the pagans are trying to justify killing babies or committing adultery, or any sins, but they have to understand their ways will lead to death in the eternal fire. But if they are willing to accept Jesus Christ into their lives, and turn away from their sins, they will be redeemed and they'll get to go to heaven, and dont rely on lawyers to do that, because we all know where the evildoers will end up after they die:).

Tennis Fool
Nov 14th, 2004, 01:29 AM
Marriage is a matter of contract law. It involves and covers many things, like community property and power of attourney. As long as it has a civil aspect, same sex couples should be allowed to marry. However, I personally think the government should get out of the marriage business. From the perspective of the govenment, all they should do is issue civil unions. Let the religions worry about the marriage.

If two 90 year old people, long past sexual activity or child-bearing want to marry, there never an uproar as long as they're of opposite genders. But why not? Such a marriage isn't for procreation. It isn't there as a bedrock for child-rearing.

Ultimately, none of the reasons for opposing gay marriage are based on reason. Well, avoiding civil war. But besides that. The ultrimate bedrock of the opposition is, 'somebody else told me it was wrong, and I don't want to challenge them'. Not good enough in my book.
Hasn't marriage history been, first of all, about the collection of property under one household? Only secondly about "love" (a very new notion in human history). That's why the courts are involved :)

William Hunt
Nov 14th, 2004, 01:51 AM
Off course not, that's discrimination !

mboyle
Nov 15th, 2004, 10:25 PM
guys, just to back myself up, we studied anal vs. vaginal sex in 7th grade health class, and (apparently) there is some fluid that lines the vagina, protecting it from microscopic breaks that allow the transfer of blood. The anus has no such natural protection. This does not mean that it is impossible or even very difficult to get AIDS through vaginal sex, but there is a natural protection that is lacking in anal sex. As for Africa, see the above sentence, and also that it is a common, desired practice to insert this weed (can't remember name) into a woman's vagina so that it is completely dry. Apparently it increases the man's pleasure, but it spreads AIDS like wildfire.

OUT!
Nov 15th, 2004, 10:29 PM
Many gays do not practice anal sex anyways, so why the obsession with this particular sexual practice when talking about gay male sex? :rolleyes:

jelena4me
Nov 16th, 2004, 07:37 AM
marriage and shagging are two different issues, as any married man will tell you.

bionic71
Nov 16th, 2004, 07:40 AM
What anal sex has to do with marriage is beyond me.