The Great Debate 2

I can agree to this, but obviously I am on the Support side lol

you know...when it does get passed into law that it is legal for same sex marriage to happen in states they are gonna do a thing like they do for medical marijuana and have it not be recognized federally (like for federal taxes).

Actually, I'm sorry. I misread your position. Carry on. You'll have to excuse me. I'm in Dynamis at the moment.

My point was I support them but I read the bible, which is not the way it is "supposed to be" according to The Bible and like pastors etc

Edit**



Mmk, Leavin the post there anyway lol.

lol, my brother is on medical weed over in Cali

Yes it's more about being recognized by the state so that you and your partner receive the same benefits as a heterosexual married couple. It's the belief of some that them being together and being in a partnership is just fine, but not that they get these benefits because marriage is for a man and a woman only, and I think that is more insulting than just being against it altogether.

I agree that making it a national decision for Congress or the president to decide would be asking too much and just cause a ton of controversy as well as rally up massive opposition that would just repeal or amend it when they were in power anyway. Leaving the power to the individual states seems like a much better idea and that is currently and hopefully continues to be how this plays out. ***just isn't going to fly in some places and the last thing anyone wants is for angry citizens to start going berserko over /another/ issue. lol

Yea, I misread, my bad. Already slipped it in before you could hit reply lol

I haven't seen an argument against gay marriage that didn't include some ideology that some religion set forth. It's always "God says this..."

If "marriage" is a religious ideology, then the government needs to step off. Stop giving special rights to married couples, heterosexual or homosexual. Of course, the hetero community will be up in arms about it, and cry discrimination against them.

What difference does it make whether gays marry or not? Heterosexuals abuse the sanctity of marriage too. People marry for money. People marry for green cards. I don't see the government (or any lolvotes) trying to police THEIR marriages. As far as they're concerned, it's all gravy to them.

EDIT: In a country where over 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce (the USA), I don't see the issue in giving the gays a shot to show the rest of us how it's done.

Edited leavin the post there anyway lol, just cause lol

"The State...has absolute right to prescribe the conditions upon which the marriage relation between its own citizens shall be created, and the causes for which it may be dissolved," Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 1878

Just a quick mention, while you're all talking about your own opinions based on your own experience, remember that this is a forum with posters from all around the world - "states should vote" isn't going to make a difference to other countries.

I'm working on my post but just wanted to mention the try not to be too inwardly focused -only-, inwardly focus is fine but remember everyone else too.

Still interested in hearing your reasoning on why YOU think gays should not be allowed to marry other than this person said this or this person said that. What do you find that ist ruly wrong w/ it?

Well in reference to our country at least I think it should be a state decision, to the rest of the world, Idk lol, Provence decision? or something not setting it for the whole country, but like, each section gets to choose, Idk how you all break up your countries etc.

what's sad about that is the state isn't enforcing the state laws by allowing the DEA to raid dispensaries and seize their patient records (that's illegal too btw). they just sit there and let them even though it's highly controlled and only for medical purposes.

but back on topic.

i think if gays and lesbians want to call it something else then they should be able to choose what it's call but if they would rather have it called marriage then i'm all for that too. i really don't care either way, but i'd like them to have the choice for themselves.

Lol its not like
{Heteros) We got dibs on marriage, you can have the same rights, but call it something else
(Homos) HEY I LIKE THAT NAME!

I think Gay marriage shouldn't be, is because the majority still doesnt want it.
and the argument for gay marriage is "You cant pull religion into this...so you have no reason on why it shouldnt be." that argument will be used for other people "you cant stop me from marring two people."

this isn't juicy enough...nobody is taking the other side. WHERE ARE THE RIGHT WING CHRISTIANS WHEN YOU NEED THEM!?!?!

So, on your positioning, if they voted for gay marriage, you'd be fine with that?

If that is the case then I don't have an argument and I have no need to challenge your opinion.

That being said, as soon as some law that you don't approve of is voted in, I don't want to hear you complaining, lol.

Or about who is voted in. obama bush ect. They were voted in and the people are right!

I mean, I can sub in for them if you really want >.>;; Or I'll go get my dad :O lol

who are you to say the majority doesn't want it? we hasn't EVER voted as a whole country on whether or not we want it or don't want it.

edit: hell with that argument how about this: SE doesn't do more about RMT because not enough people complain so they must like RMT.

If the people wanted it then I'd be for it.

I don't really understand the huge opposition to it... I understand the bible thing, and how for Christians it isn't right, etc.

But Christianity isn't the only religion out there. Buddhists are allowed to get married, and they don't follow the bible, same for Atheists, Hindus, Judaism, Shintoism, etc. If all those religions are allowed to get married, in their own form of celebration, why aren't homosexuals?

I understand if a Catholic priest refuses to marry a gay couple, because it is against his religion, that is that church's choice. But refusing to allow gay couples to marry at ALL, regardless of the type of celebration they wish, just doesn't make sense.

I know its basically because we're in a transition period where people are slowly becoming more and more able to accept homosexuals and all, but when it comes down to the legal terms of it, I don't see any reason where it has to be law that a marriage is JUST between a man and a woman. There is supposed to be a separation between church and state (in the US, as well as numerous other countries), and forcing that definition seems to be holding onto religion.

I suppose that in the past, for biological reasons, it makes sense where just a man and woman would be considered, because they could have children and continue the race... but these days, there are still sterile people that are allowed to get married, and there are ways around it (in vitro fertilization, adoption), and we aren't exactly on the brink of extinction either

I don't know... obviously I support it, its just that I don't understand why it is such a big issue... it seems to come down to just religion, and I don't believe the term "marriage" should be seen in pure religious terms.

You honestly don't have your own opinion on it though? For example, if people voted on something you really hated, you'd still be for it?

I'd comment further, but I can't really foresee coming up with anything more than this. The point about separating the benefits given the religious connotation is a very good one, and I never really considered that. That kind of makes this whole issue *** for me just because of how much resistance there is to it solely because "some people" want everyone else to fit into their own magical bubble of how they think things should work.

That and I can't be bovvered to stop listening to this Narwhal song.

A majority of states have had votes by the people.
Hell even the big Blue state of California said no twice!

"But Christianity isn't the only religion out there. Buddhists are allowed to get married, and they don't follow the bible, same for Atheists, Hindus, Judaism, Shintoism, etc. If all those religions are allowed to get married, in their own form of celebration, why aren't homosexuals?"

I like this point.

If there was a vote to change to kill all doggies and the majority wanted it...I'd still be against it.

I'd so move to that state... note that there are many countries that have that as there age of consent

So, again, why are YOU against gay marriage. Aside from "the people voted"

Because I guarantee if they voted for killing off the doggies or w/e that you wouldn't like, you wouldn't simply be fore it just because other people do.