GAY MARRIAGE POLL
 

Dont reply, just answer.

Umm if we can't reply its not much of a discussion and I think that is what TFP is kinda about.

Indeed. ::Posts to spite you::

Ack! you bastards :eek:

Also, I think generally the people here are more open minded than most in this country. I bet you'll see a lot of "yes" answers. Not so much so in the rest of the country unfortunatly.

Of course I'm for it.

No reason to be against, imo.

Would be semi-interesting to see someone try to make a non religious-morality-based argument against it.

Don't give a shit. Marriage is dumb no matter what. I don't understand why anyone does it, and I couldn't care less who does do it.

I chose the couldn't give a shit option although I was tempted to say that I'm for it, if only for the slightly devious reasoning that it could spark the end of organized religion as we know it.

How long before the first gay divorce?

Or in the rest of the world for that matter....
In the Netherlands gay marriage was officially legalized some years (2?) back. In my opinion it's just the official seal on a relationship that would exist in the same way otherwise.
That said I take a different view of the current discussion:
I believe in seperation of state and religion. Therefore I would like to see "marriage" removed from law altogether and replaced by an "official partnership". Marriage would be the religious seal on the relationship whereas the OP would be the legal seal.
That way the government can stop meddling in religious affairs (and all discussions about gay OP's would be stripped of religious content), and each religion can decide for itself to sanction the marriage of 2 people of the same sex. Or opossite sex, for that matter.
People would marry twice (like they do in the Netherlands), once in church and once in city hall. Of which only the second is recognized in legal affairs (children, adoption, mortgages(sp?), heirs, etc)

And then Bush would not be able to stop gay marriage because it is not in the spirit of 'marriage' he would need to openly oppose gay people having a lasting relationship.
I think he's ignorant.... *comment removed for trailing off.... *
Next he'll call gay people terrorists threatening the 'security and prosperity of the nation'.

/rant

Excellent thoughts, Silvy. All we need to do here in the States is stop electing old men who get half of their constituencies by being avid churchgoers.

I was one of the "I don't give a shit" votes. I'm terrified at the concept of straight marriage, so if gay people want to, more power to them..

Hell, out of my circle of friends, the gays are the only ones that want to!

I'm undecided when it comes to this so I voted dont give a shit. I *am* an avid supporter of this being decided by the states, I think it is totally irrational for there to be a change to the constitution regarding gay marriage. Bush is just coming out with this now, to make it a big election issue. Republicans will say they are for the amendment; Democrats will say that are against it. Then when people go to the polls in November, in their mind they are voting on whether or not gays will be allowed to be married, instead of who is the better candidate. This is politics at work folks...

If it would ever come to a vote in my state, my vote would largely depend on how the bill is written. For example I am for civil-unions, but againt the adoption of children by gay parents.

Not only am I "for" Gay marriage, I'm for plural marriages of all sorts. Let the people play.

Everybody should be allowed to do what everybody else does.
For

sorry for breaking the rules of the thread ... :o

who cares???

they want a piece of paper (license) to prove their devotion... i don't give a rat's ass

I voted I don't care but completely agree with Silvy comment above. If these two individuals who are in a committed relationship are not allowed to publically annouce this commitment does it not mean that their relationship does not exist?

Let them get married....this affects me how?

Why not? Making it illegal is infringement upon the civil rights of consenting adults who wish to receive equal protection and benefit from the law. The law is not only meant to obey, it is to serve the people of the nation.

Gays and lesbians should have ever right that heterosexual people have. To deny them those rights is discrimination. Discrimination is illegal. There is no way this constitutional amendment preventing gay and lesbian marriages will go through.

You know, there is a huge thread about this very issue in yonder politics forum.
aka
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...718#post991718

just in case, you know, you're interested.

agreed!

I chose "Don't give a shit."

On one hand, though - I'm for it. When it comes to getting spousal benefits, like health care, I always had a problem with same sex couples receiving them, because unmarried hetero couples could not. With marriage - it shows the same commitment that hetero couples need to prove to receive benefits, which was lacking before.

No - it's not. Ask any smoker, or anyone more than 20 lbs. overweight.

I frankly could care less. I'm not exactly for it just because I am so attuned to the male-female relationship, but I'm also realistic enough to recognize that there are many beliefs out there and people should be allowed to do what they want to do.

people should be able to do what they want to do. and i think that gays should be allowed to get married share there benefits with the SO, and lose half of all there stuff in divorce just like everyone else.

I agree we need a new term to distinguish gay unions (and all unions for that matter), such as "official partner", that the government uses to distinguish between singles and couples for legal reasons. This seems simple enough and it forces the government to get over the issue and move on with their lives. But leave the definition of marriage alone.

This is so ironic; I was just having a conversation on this subject with some colleagues the other night.

I'm absolutely for it. There is no reason why anyone who is committed to someone else, regardless of their race, religion, color, creed should be discriminated against and prevented from marrying whom they desire.

The heart can be a deadly weapon. You can't control who you fall in love with. You can't turn a gay person straight or try to convince them that what they are doing is wrong. I say let them be and have the rights that the rest of us have.

Don't people always want what they just can't have? Dam

if the words are a sticky hang up.. call it a civil union for EVERYONE.

Yup. They have the same freedoms I have; I don't remember this country being re-named the United Chirstian States of America.

I don't see why they need a different name for it...that could kind of be viewed as discrimination, labeling their unions differently.

And yeah, I don't see why Bush want's to all of a sudden change the legal definition of marriage. It's been defined by the government as a union between two people for a long time. Where does HIS definition come from. Kind of sad that the president doesn't have to explain his reasoning.

I have seen posts explaining the votes of those that are "for it", and those that "don't give a shit". Yet, I see 13 votes "against it". At the risk of seeming trollish, or flame baiting, I would like to hear from the other side of the fence. I'm not asking you to justify yourselves, or even to explain yourselves. Just come forward with a well thought out argument as to why Homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. I do not want this to become another "slugfest", or another 5 page thread to nowhere, so let's refrain from the "I agree" posts. I would like it kept clean and streamlined. So...whaddya say? Come on out and play?

I agree, but I think you're misreading this post:
As that poster also wants all unions to be called the same, just not "marriage". Save "marriage" for religious bonds according to the rules of the religion they adhere to.

Spot on!

EDIT: cleaned my post up a little (though it's still ugly)

Jon Stewert put it perfectly the other day on The Daily Show.

If Bush gets his way with adding an amendment to the Constitution banning gay marriage it will be only the second amendment added to the Constitution that didn’t expend the freedoms of the American people but limited them. The first was Prohibition. And we all know how well that worked.

It’s absurd. Now I understand not as many people want to get “gay married” as want to get drunk but it will have somewhat of the same backlash. Not as illegal I’m sure… not as much murder. Maybe more show’s like Queers Eye for the Straight Guy.

I am not for gay marrige in the sense that I am going to get all of my gay friends together and coordinate a mass marraige, but I am for it in the sense that I feel that if they want to be together, more power to them. I don't believe that anyone has the power to say who should be wed and who shouldn't, but society deems my opionion unjust. Either way, have fun.

Cohabitation - Fornication

Historically, cohabitation and “fornication,” defined as unlawful sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons, was illegal in most states. Maryland has no laws making fornication or cohabitation illegal, nor does cohabitation constitute the Maryland common-law offense of “lewdness,” or “unnatural sexual practice.”

Currently, the District of Columbia and eleven states, still have criminal laws penalizing fornication. A handful of states, have laws making cohabitation a crime. While these laws do exist, they are rarely enforced.

Thirteen states make it a crime for an unmarried man and woman to engage in consensual sodomy in private (which is defined as oral or anal sex or both): Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia fall into this category. A handful of states only prohibit sodomy between individuals of the same sex.

Laws prohibiting consensual sodomy have been used to put defendants in prison for consensual heterosexual sex with another adult. Even when juries have found defendants not guilty of rape, on the rationale that the conduct was consensual, they have found defendants guilty of sodomy because the judge had instructed the jury that, unlike rape, consent is not a defense to the crime of sodomy.

In Maryland, the Court of Appeals held in Schochet v. Statethat the law banning “unnatural sexual practices” did not apply to consensual, non-commercial, heterosexual acts between adults in the privacy of the home. At least one trial court has extended this ruling to same-sex couples. source

There was a case featured in the November 1996 issue of "Marie Claire" involving an Atlanta wife who tried to have her soon-to-be ex-husband charged with rape. She had persuaded her then hubby to tie her up and later used the bondage as a means of proving that the sex had not been consensual. Her sister came forward and informed the court of the plot against the man, but there was another twist in the story.

Although the man was acquitted on the rape charge, the man was sentenced to five years in jail for having performed oral sex on the woman. He had admitted to that during the course of the case and so he was charged and sentenced under Georgia law.

while the above are exerpts of what i found - and trying not to flood this thread - it occures to me that the laws, if made national, would have a wide ranging effect on state constitutions...

archaic as they may be, the cost to implement the changes would be astronomical - the far reaching effect would be tied up in courts for years, i.e. should a cohabitation agreement be reached between consenting partners, would they be valid should a marriage occur? upon the death of a spouse, would the inherritance established prior to marriage be valid?

common law marriages are often in dispute due to such questions...

There are really two types of common law marriages. The "traditional" common law marriage is one which is entered into without formalities. This type of marriage is usually defined as the intent to be married combined with living together and holding one's self out to the world as married. States which recognize the "traditional" form of common law marriage include (as of 1998) Alabama, Colorado, District of Columbia, Georgia, Idaho (only if before 1-1-96), Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Ohio (only if before 10-10-91), Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Texas.

A different kind of common law marriage is represented by the situation where a valid marriage is formed from an invalid marriage after the impediment is lifted. For example, a party might be underage at the time of the marriage. Continued cohabitation as husband and wife after the underage party attains majority, however, results in the marriage ripening into validity where this form of common law marriage is recognized. Note that the courts may be reluctant to find a valid marriage when the parties have entered into a relationship knowing it to be polygamous, even after the impediment to marriage has been terminated.
source

i guess my issue is not so much with same sex marriages, doesn't have anything to do with the way i live nor do i feel they should be singled out, but to the extent the relative state's constitutions will tie up the courts and turn into another Roe v. Wade

Thsi should be a total non-issue. Just stay out of your neighbor's business.

I could go into details on this one.

But suffice it to say, I completely agree with Silvy.

We can't argue the point of Gay marriage from a religious POV. Or, we could, but it would never end. Therefore, leave it to whoever wants to argue it, and let the concept of marriage in and of itself remain a religious practice, and not a legal practice.

As marriage stands right now, both the legal and religious are the same. I voted against it due to my Christian beliefs that a marriage is supposed to be a reflection of Jesus's relationship to the church, and a special union between a man and woman. Christian beliefs also hold homosexuality to be immoral. As long as the marriage ceremony is only religious, I cannot justify supporting gay marriage based on my perspective and the beliefs I hold. However, if the discussed seperation between the legal and religious occured, I'd give all the power to those who want to pursue a legal marriage and make that lifetime committment.

I agree and would be interested in hearing the other sides point of view.

For some reasons of their own, my colleagues and friends, I've asked this question to, will say they are 'against it' and can never follow it up with any form of solid reasoning or thought on the matter. Any explanation is always evaded.

I am not in favor of "marriage" for anyone.

I think a simple contractual relationship between people would be the best way to legally define the concept of a "family."

So I voted option 3.

I say to each their own. If two people want to get married, regardless of who they are, they should be allowed.

i could careless what two men or two women do toegther, but i thought this was america and i thought america was free. why are there restrictions on it in the first place. moral reasons? why does someone's morals play in the life of others?

I like the point about staying out of your neibors bussiness, it does not fucking effect you...if theyre pushing themselves at you this is not a sexual orientation issue, it is a sexual harrassment issue. :D

I didnt want comments...but most of them are very welcomed responses by me...and should be posted on the sides of busses and buildings for all to see...even though stupid people cant seem to interpret written messages very well anyway....im rambling now, i will decist. :X

and yes, i cant spell at night.

Thank you, amonkie, that is exactly what I asked for, and that is exactly what you have given me.

Now, let me ask you a question. If there were a way to untangle the legal and the religious aspects of "marriage", would you then be receptive to a legal, but not religious, bonding of two homosexual individuals into a "couple", that is recognized as such, by the state (read government)? In other words, if a gay couple could be legally bonded together, by the state, with all the rights and privileges thereof, yet not recognized by the church as "married" before the eyes of god, would that then be acceptable?

Bill O' Rights, I think your question was already answered
And I strongly agree with amonkie's post as it clearly shows how the current 'gay marriage' discussion tangles religious and state reasons / benefits / justifications.

Doh! It would appear, that you are correct. My only defense is that I hadn't had my first cup of coffee, yet. :rolleyes:

In any case, I submit that we now have two seperate "communities" of people, gay and christian, that can be made happier, by nothing more than a simple change of language in a legislative bill. Agree...disagree?

Ah, that would explain :) I was past lunch already...

Theoretically, yes.
Sadly though, we are dealing with people, and lots of them too. It will take much more 'than a simple change of language' to persuade a nation to go along with it. You can put a real good spin on this if you're an advocate of gay partnerships, and if done right you could get a lot of support for this seperation of state and church. But the opposer's also have the same power to spin things their way, and all things considered: they have an advantage from the get go: they'll say 'we just want to enforce that which is the normal way already, so what's the problem?'

I was asked how I'd feel about a legal/religious seperation of marriage, and while some beat me to pointing out I'd already hinted at it, I thought I'd expound a little bit.

I have several friends who are gay, and have closely been following the whole gay marriage issue primarily because they kept telling me what's going on. They are people who are deeply committed to each other. It's hard when you're torn between wanting two people I know well to enjoy the same kind of happiness without feeling they're being given the short end of the stick and sticking by the convictions for which I base most of decisions.

Most of the gay marriage issues they've raised to me included having the same legal rights as hetero married couples. This purely legal side doesn't change how they feel about one another, but it is a step towards our society embracing it's members instead of driving them away. If the legal and religious seperation occured, I'd be in the wedding pews watching them become Mr. and Mr. ... shoot, I don't know surname they'd take on! :)

We were talking about this in the theatre last night when one of our majors came up with the profound thought that of coarse gay marrage should be legal they should be just as miserable as us!

incedentally she is very unhappily married with two children

The thing is, I'm not gay so I don't give a shit. I don't see any reason for any other non-gay person to give a shit either. I would never say I'm pro-gay marriage cause I would never say that I'm pro-straight marriage. If you wanna get married, then do so... I don't give a fuck.

I'm all for same-sex unions. Its really no different than any other legally binding union and only grants more people the benefits (tax cuts, insurance coverage) of that contract. Marriage is something that takes place between two people that love one another, not a piece of paper bought from your state government.

For it. Gays have every right to make the same mistake heteros have been making for centuries.

MOD YOU MAY NOW LOCK THIS THREAD.

Unfortunatly that is far from the truth. With marriage comes financial and medical benfits that yu do not receive in some places if you are not married.

And if a gay couple haves the same love as a straight coupe , well then its not my place to say that you can t have your significant other covered under your medical plan.

Overall I am neutral on the subject.
But do believe in equal rights ultimatly

You are correct, but the quote you took from me was directed at the discussion that gay marriage is immoral and not in the spirit of marriage, not to mention a danger to society, the economy, and the United States.
My quote was just to show that the relationship itself does not change much by marriage, and therefore its influence on aforementioned subjects doesn't change much either.

And yes, the benefits are part of the reason gay marriage is wanted and should be allowed (at least in a legal sense). But for a lot of people it is the recognition that they too are a couple, respected by 'the outside'.

To the question:

No.

They should be able to make the relationship somehow official but not to be able to get married in this originally "holy religious sacrament."
Next Vote: Can Gay people adopt children and "raise" them?
If then people vote "Yes, I don't care".... m-kay...

And a strongly disagree what someone wrote
"Everyone should be able to do everything" ...

to kill
to rape
to take drugs
to bang Carmen Elektra like her own man gets to...

There should and HAS to be rules in the world.
Thats the only way it can work.

Liberty <> Anarchy ?

I voted for option3. Cause it effects me in no way possible.

I got no problem with it.

I can generate a non-religious based arguement against gay marriage.

Personally, while it contains good points, I don't find it convincing.

"Society views it as useful to encourage the production of children from within the society, for whatever reason. (this is an unproven assumption)

Society thus liscences something called 'marriage' to encourage males and females to live close together, and possibly mate.

It isn't restricted to those who can have children, because the overhead required to check if people can have children isn't worth it. Not to mention the invasion of privacy issues.

Man/man marriages and Female/female marriages, however, require very little invasion of privacy to determine that they cannot have children with each other. The government has the right to know your sex."

Now, like I said, I don't find that arguement convincing.

Btw, nobody has suggested that the government will force churches to marry homosexuals or anyone else for that matter. Marriage can be done in a purely civil, non-religous, ceremony. The question is, can non-male/female pairs engage in an exclusive "sharing of selfhood"? (which is what marriage seems to be, legally: under english common law, for example, you can no more be forced to testify against your spouce than you can be forced to testify against yourself. The property sharing/etc seems to also follow this pattern.)

Sure, marriage is dumb, but... that, in and of itself, doesn't explain a lack of opinion.

For instance, religion is stupid no matter what. I don't understand why anyone does it and I couldn't care less who does do it.
Does that mean I wouldn't care if certain religions were outlawed? Of course not! I would fight vehemently for people's right to worship because I believe in personal freedom. Now, if freedom wasn't that important to you, I can undestand your point of view...

Sure I can come out with non-religious beliefs about why it's different.
The differences are plain to see for anyone with common sense.

But what I find most ignorant is how people automatically dismiss religious morals as being bad and worthless or unjustifiable.

How about those non-judgemental unbiased open minds you claim to have ? :lol:

Marriage has had a set precedent for over a hundred years.
Now the gays want to change the definition of marriage.
You claim that the heteros want to change things.
No.
They only want their institution and precedent "to be left alone".

It's different.

CIVIL UNIONS WITH EQUAL RIGHTS=yes
Marriage=no, that precedent has already been established

Marriage has changed sooooo much throughout its history. To claim that it must be preserved just because you like its current definition isn't really justification.

Saying the equivalent of "it is justified because it is just the way we do things" isn't scoring you any points for open mindedness either.:lol:

At some point marriage's precedent was one that didn't allow interracial couples to wed. Marriage was defined as something between a white man and a white woman or a black man and a black woman, etc. Tradition wasn't a good reason to keep the status quo then, and i don't see how it is a good reason now.

btw, biblical morals are fine. Being a bigot who can only express one's bigotry by hiding behind one's god is cowardly.

nevermind, he got hisself banned so he didn't have to attempt to challenge my keen intellect and sharp witticism. ;) Yep. *sigh*

Although I am uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality still (no, I don't hate gay people, I swear it; I know people like that I'm cool with, I am just not used to the idea of their practice, so to speak), I support their efforts in trying to get the same rights heterosexuals have.

Silvy has been the smartest poster yet, I think.

The only reason that I'm really for it is because people who are against generally annoy me. So even though I really don't care -my opinion is formed inversely by the opinions of others.

Marriage has changed sooooo much throughout its history. To claim that it must be preserved just because you like its current definition isn't really justification.

I never said I like it's current condition.
The fact is that morals and principles have been in decline and decay drastically over the last 40 years. The fact that more people are prone to give up on marriage today doesn't change the original concept of marriage which has always been between a man and a woman

Saying the equivalent of "it is justified because it is just the way we do things" isn't scoring you any points for open mindedness either.

Changing and redefining the definition of a precendent made for the majority of a population (96%)
and allowing the 4% to dictate a new defintion of what constitutes marriage surely isn't justifiable.



At some point marriage's precedent was one that didn't allow interracial couples to wed. Marriage was defined as something between a white man and a white woman or a black man and a black woman, etc. Tradition wasn't a good reason to keep the status quo then, and i don't see how it is a good reason now.

Really ?
show me where this is written ?
Once again, you confuse peoples racial bias or another conflict in with the subject.
Nice redirection ploy attempt.
But it failed.
At one time black people weren't even considered intelligent.
I fail to see how this addresses the union between a man and a woman ?

btw, biblical morals are fine. Being a bigot who can only express one's bigotry by hiding behind one's god is cowardly. SO now you've resorted to insults and name calling.
That's very witty and intelligent.

nevermind, he got hisself banned so he didn't have to attempt to challenge my keen intellect and sharp witticism. Yep. *sigh*

and now you think that makes you correct ?
more intelligent ?
or some kind of winner ?

you're funny :lol:

.

Why should i argue with someone who can't even stay unbanned for more than eight posts?

Those are my feelings exactly. There isn't anything that makes their love or desires less valid than mine. And there isn't anyone who has the right to tell me that I can or can't marry the man I love. Same rules apply.

gay marriage
 

the only arguments i've heard against gay marriage are:

1) adam and eve, not adam and steve (bullshit, and religious)

2) not part of god's plan/bible says no (ditto)

3) if we let "gays" marry, then anyone can marry anything! (reductio ad absurdum bullshit, and religious)

governments should never legislate morality, and it is extremely rare for the US gov't to do so, b/c it's dangerous and theorcratic. to that end, no religious argument can ever substantiate or legitimize a law in this country, for to do so inherently marginalizes those not sharing that faith.

Actor #1: "Oh -- you got your religion in my government!"

Actor #2: "Oops -- you've got your government in my religion!"

Announcer: "It's Fundamentalist Peanut Butter Cups!"

I want to marry my son because he reminds me of his dead mother.
He's 18 and consents.

If it's not hurting anyone it should be legal.

That goes with most everything in my opinion.

Now, incest is illegal for pretty good reasons, but ignoring that...

I'd say regardless of how fucked up the rest of us might think this situation is, if there is no harm to either party or any other person, go right ahead. However, there's no real logistical reason for you to marry since, because of your existing biological relationship, he can be listed as a dependent for tax purposes, can inherit property, and likely has automatic rights to make medical decisions for you if you're incapacitated.

i love that idea personally, but part of me knows that there is no way the government will ever stop invading anyone's business to a full extent, even if it is about religious matters because it's so controversial.

Also, religious groups, regardless of how much control they have over their own relgious people, always want more control over everyone else (just what i've noticed)... ie. lets say abortion rights, even though people belonging to organized religious groups do'nt have to choose to follow through with abortion, doesn't stop them from making it their business about EVERYBODY's rights about abortion... hmm... i dunno

I Put against, but really it's closer to not giving a shit. All of you who voted for it, or not giving a shit should first think what your life would be like if you never had a mother growing up. Would you have been a normal kid, or would you have been tortured and made fun of? Imagine being picked up after school by both of your dads.

I don't see anything wrong with two men being together but getting married is one step closer to having a family. And I think it's just not fair for the child they adopt, there's no way that should be allowed.

So marriage no, civil unions with the financial, medical etc. benefits yes.

The word "marriage" has given a bunch of religious assholes an odd card to play, no matter how bullshit the card is to begin with.

The only problem is, if you said, "ok, then don't call it a fucking marriage, call it a 'civil union'", they'd still have a problem with it. They'll still fight it, and they'll still make a big deal out of it.

To base a LAW on your personal RELIGION is fucking insane. Religious freedom means the ability to chose to practice any- or NOT HAVE TO practice any religion. Melding the two by allowing religion to dictate Law is ludicrous.

Aside from the religious aspect, I've yet to hear anyone even TRY to make a non-religious argument against it that didn't include blatant bigotry- which, as we know, is no kind of argument.

Let them have the same legal ties that all us heteros get. All they want is everyone to recognize their bond as they recognize yours, and get the spousal opportunities you get.

Imagine you're 70-something and the love of your life- the person you've been with for over 50 years... falls ill and is in the hospital. Except you aren't allowed to see him or her, because you're not family- your relationship isn't recognized by the state, so you don't matter one bit. Think about having to pace in your home as your SO dies- unable to find out how they're doing or what's going on- or even why they died.

Anyone who says ANY person should EVER have to endure such a thing- regardless of who or what they are- is completely heartless.

Think, nothing. I did grow up without a mother and I don't think I am any worse for it.
I find your arguments specious, at best...

My whole point of being against gay marriage is thus.. and ill leave out the religious points seeing how everything can be talked about on here but that is taboo in some way. heh

anyways... ill be ok with it.. but when they start passing special legislative laws to "help" the new couples out, thats where i draw the line. My wife and I got nothing when we frist got married.. why should they. what would make them different then a man and woman marrage?

oh cuz they are the same sex, sorry that is weak. Most single men in the country have to pay out in taxes, now that two men can get married, just how does that work come tax time?

are they allowed to adopted? that brings in the question of what will the child do growing up. will they try and push being gay on the child? (i think they wont) but, the stigma of having to go to school with "your parents are fags" would be a bit much to handle.

this is just a few questions raised by this ability of same sex marrage. which goes same with two women. due to artifical insemanation.

see what just a simple act can generate?

It's funny how so many people have shown many non-religious reasons that just go totally ignored.

1. Precedent
It's already been set as between a man and a woman.
This is not racial bias or religious preference.
It's the precedent that has been set for over a century by the overwhelming majority.The majority of people are heterosexual.(over 95%)
The people that are trying to change this precedent are the gays. More than 60 % of the entire population supports civil union so that blows your theory that the religious people won't be happy or satisifed with C.U.'s.
It's the gays that probably won't be satisfied with civil unions because they want to redefine marriage and lower the standards.

2. Parenthood
Having two good loving parents as role models is very important. A daughter usually wants or needs a mother along with a father. A young boy needs a mother along with a father.
This was rather easily dismissed by people saying marriage is screwed anyway so why not screw it up some more. Who cares or gives a shit ? What a great philosophy.
You are highly qualified to dictate rules and laws.
F%^&k it , who cares ?


3. Sexual preference.
Heterosexuality is practiced by over 95% of the population.
That would be considered the normal standard.
5 % or less practice or prefer to be homosexual.
Why would you allow the 5 % to dictate laws, rules or precedents to the 95% ?
If these people are normal and they only have different preferences then why wouldn't they be satisfied with civil unions ? It's plain to see that it's not the religious people trying to take away anything here. Most of them agree with civil unions.
It's the gays trying to take away or lower the standards of marriage.


So, go ahead and scream religious zealots !!!
Call people bigots for trying to defending their own institutions and precedents which they hold as true.
You people are blind to your own bigotry.

************************
It seems to me that the only bigots here are the people who hate or despise religious people.

The only thing anyone is trying to take here are the good values ,decent principles and a set precendent of what constitutes marriage by the majority. Then, they want to lower this precedent to include sexual preferences practiced or prefered by a scant minority. Why not allow incest then ?
These people are normal too, they just like their own relatives.
How about age ?
Why not allow 14 year olds to marry ?
That law is repressive and is age discriminatory.

Zelda, neither majority approval nor the fact that something has been done for a century makes it right. Our society is not perfect (remember segregation, only a few decades ago) so the idea is not to keep everything the same, but to change for the better.

Also, the fact that MORE people are heterosexual doesn't mean that they should be excluded. If 95% of the US were white, would you support the exclusion of nonwhites from marriage? From suffrage? From freedom from slavery?

In addition, you seem to claim that 5% of the population (i.e. homosexuals) is pushing for gay marriage, but a great deal of straight people support it. The country is not split 95/5 on the issue, it's more like 60/40, meaning the majority of people supporting gay marriage are actually straight.

Lastly, your parenthood argument (while I personally don't fully agree) seems to be the most cogent and the one you should expand on. You will find many reasonable posters on TFP and the best way to get a reasonable response is to try to keep your own temper in check.

Love and happiness are hard to find nowadays, more power to you, if you want to get married and cherish the one you love. Maybe the divorce rate would decrease

Love and happiness are hard to find nowadays, more power to you, if you want to get married and cherish the one you love. Maybe the divorce rate would decrease. One of my gay friends said, gay people, wouldn't contribute as much to over population in the world, sinc e they usually adopt.

Think how great prom would be for a girl raised by two gay men! That would rock!

I'm all for giving people the rights they deserve. Though most other people in the world don't necessarily agree.

I find it to be an MYOB situation. Personally, if two (or hell, more if they so choose) people decide to legally bond themselves together, more power to them.

Against it.

Marriage is made before god to be between a man and a woman.

I'm with ARTElevision on this one.

totally for it... why would anyone's attempt to show devotion to their significant other effect me in any way? its their choice to "seal the deal"

whose god and how do you know? you listening to some book written about 2000 years ago? or are you listening to these priests who can't seem to keep their hands off little boys?