ClumsyMonkey.net

The fucking point is that not everyone follow's your religion (to whoever is against gay marriage because of it), so stop whining and let two people live their lives.

Have I appointed myself to speak for the gay community? Do I get any say in what happens any further than voting? NO! This is a discussion on gay marriage and said what my point of view is. And I said ROOTS in religion. I didn't say that is the way it has been for the past who knows how many years.

Not to mention it is not purely a religious belief. Although the church doesn't accept it, there are gay mormons. *gasp*

Cass wrote:Have I appointed myself to speak for the gay community? Do I get any say in what happens any further than voting? NO!

Cass wrote:Seems to me that gay unions are something unique in the first place, why do they want to be just like everyone else?

You are, in fact, stating outright that gay people shouldn't be like everyone else, and that they shouldn't want to be like everyone else either, which is speaking for them.

This is a discussion on gay marriage and said what my point of view is. And I said ROOTS in religion. I didn't say that is the way it has been for the past who knows how many years.

So? The law in this country states explicity that there is to be a separation between church and state. Legislature based purelyoff of religious grounds is Unconstitutional. The same law that prevents me from driving to Utah and forcing you to be a Catholic is the one that you're looking to violate here with this amendment. You want all the benefits, but don't want to share them with others. Nice of you.

Not to mention it is not purely a religious belief. Although the church doesn't accept it, there are gay mormons. *gasp*

Yes, there are. But not as many as there used to be.

Damnit, I just typed out a whole reply and then it didn't work.

Anyway. That is a tragedy that he died, but you can't blame the church for that. People kill themselves all the time and just because the church wouldn't change it's stance on it doesn't mean they wanted him dead. This is just turning into an argument about seperation of church and state. The Bible is what the country was originally built on and I think it's the way it should stay. That's all.

actually i hate to break it to you but both Jefferson and Franklin were atheist. Your country was based on ideals, not the Bible. America was to be a land of freedom from persecution, and the ideal of the pursuit of happiness.

I AM ME wrote:i think i get what your saying.

But are you also one of those people that believe that all they need to do is deny the temptation of sin?

No, I'm just proving how being gay or straight has nothing to do with actions. Sorry if I came out as being a celibate supporter...I do tend to come off as sarcastic sometimes.

robcore wrote:The fucking point is that not everyone follow's your religion (to whoever is against gay marriage because of it), so stop whining and let two people live their lives.

yeah.

what she said

I am a bisexual girl living in the Netherlands. That would be the first country to have a legal gay marriage, so I'm lucky. If I get a girlfriend and want to marry her, then I can. Gay marriage has absolutely not weakened or changed the meaning of straight marriage here. It's not really an issue anymore.

The only real arguments that I've heard against gay marriage are religious ones. I agree with thirdhour on that:

if your religion says dont be gay, then dont be gay! but you dont expect me or anyone else who is not of your faith to follow the rules of it, do you? then why do you think the right should be denied to others to follow their own beliefs if it doesnt affect you in the slightest?

YOUR God says it's not okay to be gay. YOUR God says gay people shouldn't get married. YOUR God, not mine. Why do I have to follow the rules of YOUR God?

As for polygamy. I don't know that much about it, I'll admit that. But isn't polygamy basically just a romantic/sexual relationship between more than two people? As long as everyone agrees and is in the relationship voluntarily, what's wrong with that?

Polygamy involves marriage. The women love the man. All of the women are married to one man. The women don't necessarily love eachother, even though that probably happens sometimes.

Basically there is no secular argument against gay marriage. The only consistent argument is 'it's against my religion', which is fine, but others can't be expected to live their lives with the same morals and beliefs that you hold. This argument, of course, holds no place in law because there is a seperation between state and church. The consititution is there to protect the rights of individuals, not to discriminate against minorities. And just because a majority is against gay marriage does not mean the laws should reflect that. The law has to protect the rights of minorities, I am sure the majority did not support black rights during the height of the civil rights movement either. And the majority did not support interracial marriages becoming legal either. The controversy over gay marriage is just another cycle in humankinds seeming need to oppress those who are different than them. And, shockingly, in the months since gay marriage has been legal in Ontario and San Fran, the world has not folded in on itself. Heterosexual marriages are not falling apart at a quicker rate than they were before. I guess the 'sanctity' of marriage hasn't really been threatened after all, because really the only threat to marriage is the two people involved in it. Basically, it is not right that homosexuals are being treated as second class citizens by being denied civil rights and that has to stop.

something like 50% of peoples marriages end in divorce in the states anways, so news flash folks, the idea of marriage is already down the shitter, us heterosexuals have been fucking it up for years now

I AM ME wrote:something like 50% of peoples marriages end in divorce in the states anways, so news flash folks, the idea of marriage is already down the shitter, us heterosexuals have been fucking it up for years now

LMAO!

May i quote that? It's priceless!

It is?

^it's true anyway.

I was listening to NPR today and there was a guy on in support of the amendment. I think I could shoot down every point he mentioned.
A: If the bible forbids it, ban it in your church, not in your country
B:SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
C:It's been proven that homosexuals are as capable of parenting as heterosexuals
D:A child's welfare is not in danger if he is adopted by homosexuals.
E:Why does marrying gays make marriage unclean?

Then my dad turned it off because I was busy learning how to drive. Oh well.

The church is so fucked up. When they're not busy molesting children, they choose to hate people simply because they think differently than we do.

E.

Homosexual marriage makes marriage "unclean" because weither we like it or not there is a lot of religous significance to marriage. Mabye not everyone gets married in a church but for the majority out there, a church is where you get married. Most church groups believe homosexual marriage is wrong. Thus, the church believes that homosexual marriage should not occur.

Why not get married through the government you say? Well there really is no visable distinction between getting married through the government or church. Marriage is marriage. You say your married, and most people assume it was through a church.

I believe this whole situation is far more tricky then most people make it out to be. Mabye not everyone in the world has the same views as the church but how does that make the churches views invalid? They dont agree with gay marriage, and the other majority does. Where do we say who's right? Church and state may be seperated but when it comes to marriage a lot of religous people feel that the state is treading on their ground.

I hope some of this makes at least some sense..
This is more me putting thoughts in writing then making any major statements.. but feel free to argue.

no. your reply makes some sense to me. In no way am I saying for the church to accept gay marriage. THAT would be the state treading on the church. However, the church asking for the nation to accept their point is the church treading on the state. Gay marriage should be permitted through the state and other religions that accept it.

i agree that churches shouldn't be forced to marry gay couples, they should be able to deny services to couples. But they have no place in what the couples do or whether they DO get married

I believe this whole situation is far more tricky then most people make it out to be. Mabye not everyone in the world has the same views as the church but how does that make the churches views invalid? They dont agree with gay marriage, and the other majority does. Where do we say who's right? Church and state may be seperated but when it comes to marriage a lot of religous people feel that the state is treading on their ground.

Because religion is the bad guy.