Obama: Court must end California gay marriage ban

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Armistead

I am totally against gay marriage, why I never married a gay, but I don't care what other people do.

If you don't care what other people do, then why are you totally against it?

Personally, i think its ok for gays to have civil unions. But formal marriage? I don't see how that is possible. Marriage in and of itself is a religious ceremony, ususally conducted by a member of a church of some kind. I think most (if not all) religions have a negative view of gay marriage. Legislating gay marrage in this capacity, is a asking people to change the views of their religion just to accommodate few select individuals, via legislation from the state, and to me that's the rub.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

If you don't care what other people do, then why are you totally against it?

Personally, i think its ok for gays to have civil unions. But formal marriage? I don't see how that is possible. Marriage in and of itself is a religious ceremony, ususally conducted by a member of a church of some kind. I think most (if not all) religions have a negative view of gay marriage. Legislating gay marrage in this capacity, is a asking people to change the views of their religion just to accommodate few select individuals, via legislation from the state, and to me that's the rub.

The religion argument is a red herring. No one is going to force churches to perform same-sex marriages. However, if a straight couple can go to the court house and have their union called marriage, then why can't a gay couple do the same thing? We tried the whole seperate but equal thing before, and it wasn't equal.

[Ducimus]

I don't see how the involvement of religion is a red herring. Personally, I don't appreciate anyone forcing their religous views upon me. Likewise, I can appreciate how one might take similar offense by having someone elses views being forced upon their faith. Marriage in and of itself, I fail to see how you can separate religion from it. On the other hand, i think that's already been done, and is called a civil union, which as i already stated, think they should be able to have.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Personally, I don't appreciate anyone forcing their religous views upon me. Likewise, I can appreciate how one might take similar offense by having someone elses views being forced upon their faith.

How exactly does making same-sex marriages legal force anything on you? Will you be forced to marry another man? Will churches be forced to perform gay marriages? In both cases the answer is "no".

Marriage in and of itself, I fail to see how you can separate religion from it. On the other hand, i think that's already been done, and is called a civil union, which as i already stated, think they should be able to have.

As I said, going to a JP removes religion from the equation. The point of marriage is twofold. First is to guarantee that the children will have two parents, one of each sex. In that context it can be argued that marriage, and sex, need to be between a man and a woman. But no one marries for that reason anymore, just as no one has ever had sex just to make a baby. The main benefit of marriage today is to guarantee inheritance. If you die your wife inherites everything, and doesn't have to pay an inheritance tax. That benefit does not apply to "civil unions" as far as I know.

The point is that the definition of "marriage" has never been just religious, and tha definition has changed many times over the millenia. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, why should you care if a man marries another man? It neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg.

[Platapus]

No one has yet made the point that allowing gays to marry will, in any way, adversely affect heterosexual marriages.

Will married heterosexuals somehow feel "less" married once gays are allowed to marry?

If gays are allowed to marry, will the heterosexual marriage divorce rate skyrocket to 40-50%? (http://www.divorcerate.org)

If gays are allowed to marry, will the average length of heterosexual plummet down to 8 years? (http://www.families.com/blog/average...h-of-marriages)

Hmmm seems to already be happening in heterosexual marriages.

So how exactly is gay marriage going to adversely affect the "sanctity" of heterosexual marriage?

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Platapus

No one has yet made the point that allowing gays to marry will, in any way, adversely affect heterosexual marriages.

Will married heterosexuals somehow feel "less" married once gays are allowed to marry?

If gays are allowed to marry, will the heterosexual marriage divorce rate skyrocket to 40-50%? (http://www.divorcerate.org)

If gays are allowed to marry, will the average length of heterosexual plummet down to 8 years? (http://www.families.com/blog/average...h-of-marriages)

Hmmm seems to already be happening in heterosexual marriages.

So how exactly is gay marriage going to adversely affect the "sanctity" of heterosexual marriage?

Good points, afterall, it was the first marriage "cough cough" between Adam and Eve that screwed humanity in the first place.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Good points, afterall, it was the first marriage "cough cough" between Adam and Eve that screwed humanity in the first place.

And that was an incestuous one to boot!

Gay marriage is bad, but porking a woman who was made out of one of your body parts (a rib) is allowed.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by Platapus

No one has yet made the point that allowing gays to marry will, in any way, adversely affect heterosexual marriages.

Will married heterosexuals somehow feel "less" married once gays are allowed to marry?

If gays are allowed to marry, will the heterosexual marriage divorce rate skyrocket to 40-50%? (http://www.divorcerate.org)

If gays are allowed to marry, will the average length of heterosexual plummet down to 8 years? (http://www.families.com/blog/average...h-of-marriages)

Hmmm seems to already be happening in heterosexual marriages.

So how exactly is gay marriage going to adversely affect the "sanctity" of heterosexual marriage?

Two things will happen if Gays are allowed to marry

1. children will ask their parents interesting questions about why those two men (or women) are holding hands and kissing.

2. There will be an increase in business for Gay divorce lawyers

[Platapus]

It will be interesting in the next 50 years or so to compare the heterosexual divorce rate with the homosexual divorce rate.

Unfortunately, I fear they will both be high.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

Two things will happen if Gays are allowed to marry

1. children will ask their parents interesting questions about why those two men (or women) are holding hands and kissing.

2. There will be an increase in business for Gay divorce lawyers

Gays do walk around holding hands and kissing in public without marriage.

[Betonov]

So the general opinion in GT about gay mariage is: civil union yes, marriage only if the church is for it and some of them even are while the rest may be bribed.

Then what the hell are the politicians still complicating. Too dumb to handle something important like the economy ??

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

I don't see how the involvement of religion is a red herring. Personally, I don't appreciate anyone forcing their religous views upon me. Likewise, I can appreciate how one might take similar offense by having someone elses views being forced upon their faith. Marriage in and of itself, I fail to see how you can separate religion from it. On the other hand, i think that's already been done, and is called a civil union, which as i already stated, think they should be able to have.

Many gays are religious and go to church and many mainstream churches have no problem marrying gays. Why should gays not be allowed a religious marriage if that is what they choose based on their faith? Could it be your religious bias that would deny gays a religious marriage? Marriage hasn't been a religious institution since the govt. got involved with it's many laws.

I'm against gay marriage for myself.

[Skybird]

For a change now to a really earth-moving and important issue. We must want to get more unisex toilets in the public sphere. I agree that gay marriages add a lot of highly valuable, appreciated contribution to the project of improving the world and fight and social communities could not live without increasing the numbers of homo marriages - but what we really need to win the battle against the militant followers of Jerry Lewis and their moronic agenda is more genderism and more unisex toilets.

Vote for unisex toilets - because people have the right not to be stigmatized as male or female: hermaphrodites and cross-dressers are voters, too.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Skybird

For a change now to a really earth-moving and important issue. We must want to get more unisex toilets in the public sphere. I agree that gay marriages add a lot of highly valuable, appreciated contribution to the project of improving the world and fight and social communities could not live without increasing the numbers of homo marriages - but what we really need to win the battle against the militant followers of Jerry Lewis and their moronic agenda is more genderism and more unisex toilets.

Vote for unisex toilets - because people have the right not to be stigmatized as male or female: hermaphrodites and cross-dressers are voters, too.

So, you are for total and inviolable rights so long as it suits you. When it doesn't, well then rights be damned.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

I don't see how the involvement of religion is a red herring. Personally, I don't appreciate anyone forcing their religous views upon me. Likewise, I can appreciate how one might take similar offense by having someone elses views being forced upon their faith. Marriage in and of itself, I fail to see how you can separate religion from it. On the other hand, i think that's already been done, and is called a civil union, which as i already stated, think they should be able to have.

It, as others have said, is a red herring because no entity can force churches to perform this ceremony. Some churches willingly perform gay marriage ceremonies in states where it is legal. No one it attempting to institute a belief system, rather doing away with the seperate but equal that currently exists.