Gay Marriage

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

Religious or not, as far as I know the concept of marriage has originated from deelpy religious institutions, and to hijack that union that some institutions take very serious and tell them that it's no longer what they defined it as but now extends to same sex couples is not appropriate. I think that's especially true if such religious institutions are forced to perform such ceremonies, which comes across as a very strong mockery of their beliefs to me.

I agreed with you, but for the point that this is being argued (marriage within the United States), marriage is, at the very lowest level, a union conceived on a political level. Not a religious level, a political one. As I've said before, marriage in the US can be achieved through a political figure (justice of the peace) as well as a religious one (preist, rabbi, etc.).

If your country practices a division of church and state, then legally your country shouldn't be distinguishing anyone any differently based on weather or not they're "married" in the religious sense. I'd rather see a civil union state extending to whatever couples want to identify themselves as such. I don't think that your country nor any religion should be pushing these beliefs where they're not wanted, but leave the concept of marriage to the area where it originated and taken very seriously.

Again, I agree. Again, I have no opinion on how any one of you chances to take their religious beliefs. That's your own intellectual property, and I have no right to tread on it. However, when my government proceeds to take liberties in telling me who I can or cannot marry depending on the ruling party's religious belief, then I've got a problem. (In addition to this issue, the religious right in this country needs to have a cigarette put out on them.)

Arro, while I agree with most of your points, and I respect you as a person and most definitely respect your opinion, let me say this. Mostly and overall (and I believe that most Americans that are of voting age will agree), this whole issue was brought up as a distractor from some of the real problems in the US as we face an upcoming election year. Honestly, this problem doesn't vex me that much, but it's a flashpoint issue.

(I will finish this post later--I have to leave right now.)

EDIT:
This is a question not of legal right to marriage, but a question of religious tendency. This, of course, is supposed to lead to a religious argument, leading attention away from the actual secular problems at hand. While we can all go back and forth on what we believe as the religious rite of marriage, the legal institution stands. I don't mind paying what taxes I have to as a single person, and what problems I have with tax breaks for heterosexual pairs I will have for homosexual pairs. It's not a problem of sexual tendency for me, it's a problem that I have with tax breaks for couples of any kind, homosexual or hetero.

As people have pointed out, the problem I have is not with the question at hand, but the weight that has been placed upon it in a US general election year when there are much larger issues at hand.

[RabbitRapist]

once you start giving gays some acknowledgement that what they're doing is ok you will eventually have to give them equality.

personally, i think being gay is 100% wrong.

gays may as well have their basic human rights, like freedom of speech. but gay couples/adoption and that sorta stuff is way wrong.

when you have a son you should teach him from the day he is born that bumming other guys is wrong

yes i go to public school, yes there are gays there, and yes i hate them

i hate them so much because i have to put up with their pathetically camp behaviour every day and it pisses me off.

this is one topic on which i think Hitler had the right idea.

[Troll King]

Yeah, boo equality!

Why can you hate someone for their sexual preferences? The reality is, it doesn't concern you whatsoever, so how can you hate someone for something that really isn't any of your business? I mean, how would the gender of the person who wakes up next to someone halfway across town from you affect you so much that you'd hate them, even if you'd never meet them?

It's one thing to disagree with homosexuality. It's another thing to hate someone for it.

And it's okay if you think I'm 100% wrong about this, Rabbit. But please, PLEASE don't hate me for it.

[Da1andonly]

RR, what the fuck does Hitler have to do with anything of this? Yeah, he was against homosexuality..but that was a minor fact compared to the other things he was against.

And personally I think gays should be allowed to get married (it's legalized here in Finland).

[Fallen Angel]

once you start giving gays some acknowledgement that what they're doing is ok you will eventually have to give them equality.

personally, i think being gay is 100% wrong.

gays may as well have their basic human rights, like freedom of speech. but gay couples/adoption and that sorta stuff is way wrong.

when you have a son you should teach him from the day he is born that bumming other guys is wrong

yes i go to public school, yes there are gays there, and yes i hate them

i hate them so much because i have to put up with their pathetically camp behaviour every day and it pisses me off.

this is one topic on which i think Hitler had the right idea.

If you're being serious, and I find it very hard to believe you are, I seriously pitty you. How can you stand to think like that?

[arrogance]

RR's only offensive at first. Soon after you realize he's desperately trying to be, and then it's just humerous and perhaps a little sad.

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

How do you know the ages of people here, arent you jumping to conclusions?

http://forums.trenchwars.org/showthread.php?t=91
That's what we call "fact", homey.

[Ilya]

Remember when Richard Creager was gay? that was fun

[arrogance]

I agreed with you, but for the point that this is being argued (marriage within the United States), marriage is, at the very lowest level, a union conceived on a political level. Not a religious level, a political one. As I've said before, marriage in the US can be achieved through a political figure (justice of the peace) as well as a religious one (preist, rabbi, etc.).

I kinda wondered how accurate my claim that marriage originated through religious institutions was as I was writing that but have never actually checked. What I'd like to see is a distinction between religious and legal marriage in the eyes of the state, pertaining to Canada as well because we've been down this road not long before the latest craze in the US started.

and I respect you as a person and most definitely respect your opinion,

Ditto dude.

What kind of problems that this is distracting from are you referring to, out of curiosity?

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

In reference to the US, there are many... a waning legitimacy for the attack on Iraq, declining job rates, persistent infractions on civil liberties and privacy, a continuing recession, etc. The list goes on and on, and all are much more relevant than who should be able to get a marriage license.

[RabbitRapist]

RR's only offensive at first. Soon after you realize he's desperately trying to be, and then it's just humerous and perhaps a little sad.

you dont miss a chance to have a go at me do you, sheesh,
fucking queer

[Ilya]

"They're here. They're queer. Get bored with it!"

[Subjugation]

hah! i love Real Time also. one of the best shows on tv.

[THE ENFORCER]

And you call me the idiot. What kind of jerk actually believes it's better
for a kid to be in foster care than in a home with parents. Like I said,
you should have to tell the kid that to his/her face. You should be
ashamed of yourself.

OMG what the fuck is wrong with you, your whole point of the story was that the parents were abusive! quote: "Yesterday on the news, there was a story about this woman that lived over in West Virginia. Apparently when she found out that her boyfriend and her 12 year old daughter were having sex, instead of turning him in, or getting rid of him, or killing him, or any of the hundred things that a person could do..
She started charging him money." what the hell is wrong with you, your like getting mixed up with your stories, if your gonna have an argument at least get your facts straight you should be ashamed for not getting the simplest things in a forum correct!

[THE ENFORCER]

Religious or not, as far as I know the concept of marriage has originated from deelpy religious institutions, and to hijack that union that some institutions take very serious and tell them that it's no longer what they defined it as but now extends to same sex couples is not appropriate. I think that's especially true if such religious institutions are forced to perform such ceremonies, which comes across as a very strong mockery of their beliefs to me.

If your country practices a division of church and state, then legally your country shouldn't be distinguishing anyone any differently based on weather or not they're "married" in the religious sense. I'd rather see a civil union state extending to whatever couples want to identify themselves as such. I don't think that your country nor any religion should be pushing these beliefs where they're not wanted, but leave the concept of marriage to the area where it originated and taken very seriously.

Personally, I don't buy alot of modern par for the course outlook on homosexuality. I don't know if it's a genetic unavoidable trait you're born with, infact there's very few of us who do, I only know that I don't have it. I don't buy "repeated undisputable studies" proving beyond any doubt that homosexuality is genetic, give me 10 years and a bio-chemistry degree and I'll have undisputable evidence to the contrary. I don't know if it's a harmless expression of genuine love that doesn't affect anyone but those involved, but nobody's going to know that until we see where society is in a few hundred years, if even then. I do know that if I were born gay, I wouldn't practice it, the same way I don't do alot of things I'm inclined to do but believe are wrong or destructive. I don't doubt that's hard for alot of people to grasp and it's probably opening me up to alot of flamage. The kicker however is that that's all personal belief, and I'm well aware they don't extend any further than that.

While I don't think gays should be legally restrained from doing their thing, or recognized as a unit legally, I do take issue with the argument that people shouldn't be prevented from doing anything so long as it doesn't interfere with those rights of others. Legal systems in all of our countries are full of examples of paternalism, where the government protects you from yourself, as well as laws relating to conduct we find morally repulsive. Look them up and start taking them away, things start looking a little scary awefully fast. It's not outlandish that these laws were on the books in the first place, and there's plenty more sitting there that you would glaze right over, but will be suddenly taken issue with in the future.

i wish everyone thought as level headed as you (especially sarien who's mission in life i think is to annoy me to death)