What do we all think?

I say yes, purely because I see absolutely no reason why not. If you've been watching the "Are You A Christian?" thread, you'll know I was moved to start this topic after reading an article that Righteous linked to. The article kept talking about "protecting" traditional, heterosexual marriages. I really don't see the logic in that. Protect them from what? Allowing same-sex marriages won't do away with heterosexual marriages.
I don't see how disallowing gay and lesbian marriages could have any positive effect. Gays and lesbians aren't saying "We can't get married? Better go back to being straight then." All you're doing is oppressing a minority group for no good reason.

hear hear commie

i chose the "yes" option - which i presume means full marriage? as in in the eyes of god and the like depending on religion? personally i think that humans have no right to judge what god would deem acceptable in terms of other human relationships, i dont believe any kind of a fair and just god would allow two people to love each other and then punish them for it so i dont see why gays/lesbians cant marry.

i know a few lesbian couples who've lived together in an exclusive and monogamous relationship for decades, they have relationships far more stable than most long term marriages i know of and they're happy enough but i know that one couple for sure would love to be properly married. theyve had their union blessed but obviously not legally.

i just think that if two people are together this way for so long they should legal rights is all ... im not all gung-ho for marriage anyways but individuals should have the choice ...

Course they bloody should! Marriage is about love, not law or religion. If two people wanna get married, they should regardless of their sexual orientation!

There's no need fer me to justify this any further, I think...

Exactly, Commie. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Unlike Commie, I had less self-control and went into a rant in the "Are you a Christian" thread after reading that article that Righteous posted. Oh, well. Most of my feelings are already in there.

Why do some people not understand that you either are homosexual or you aren't? You can't be converted, it isn't a religion. And if two people are in love and wish to spend the rest of their lives together, who is anyone to tell them that they can't have the same rights as other couples just because they are of the same sex? I would be devastated if my husband had expressed to me after years of a terminal illness that he didn't want to be resuscitated if he went into cardiac arrest or something of the sort and the hospital refused to follow my orders, even after we had spent 50+ years together (we haven't, obviously, this is only an example, and they would follow my orders since our marriage is recognized by the government). Who is anyone to say that homosexual couples can't have the same rights my husband and I have? I don't see how anyone thinks they have the right to impose their own morals on other people. Gah!

A great quote from I site I read, Things My Girlfriend And I Have Argued About, runs thusly:



Oh, and Judgy, I'm fully expecting a rant from you when you read this topic.

the problem with this type of thread is that nearly all of us are open minded enough to accept the idea of same sex marriages and be pro homosexual rights/marriages even if they, personally, aren't


as an asside i'm more worried about lesbien....they have it so sweet....lucky people

yes...

Yes.

This is the sickening article that Commie is referring to. Yet another example of 1) the Man pushing imposing its will on the rest of us and 2) pseudo-Christians pushing their views on everyone elsse. As for me, I'm gonna be a writer and a miister when I get older and I'm going to wed gay couples regardless of what bastards like these think. Jesus told us not to judge and that we are to love and that's what marriage is about.

P.S.- My one best friend (I have four) Harmonie has a new girlfriend. She broke up with one, had sex with a friend of ours and got this new girlfriend all in the same week (I'm so proud). This girlfriend isn't over the internet (thank God) and I realy want to meet her. I'm so happy.

It should be allowed, for the simple fact that marriage has about a billion logical benefits, at least here in the US... for taxes, insurance, and medical reasons are only the tip of a huge iceberg. To deny any group of people those benefits based on sexual orientation is wrong.

Yeah yes uh huh yup and oh yeah hell yes

hell yes they should be allowed... i can see no reason at all why they shouldnt be...

the way i see marriage, its the coming together of two people who love each other and wish to spend the rest of their lives together, to overcome hardship, and to share in the happyness. NOT two people of opposite gender.

There is no reason they shouldn't be allowed to marry. I'm with you guys 100%.

Religion and governement...religion and government...hmmm....I don't believe they're supposed to be meshed, do YOU?

I'm just going to say one thing real quick before I jump into this. Bush is a gonad licker.

So here's what good ol' G.W. is telling us, according to the aforementioned article:

"I perfectly respect your opinions. But because I'm wanting to adhere to some bonehead idea of tradition, all of you homosexuals will just have to do with being segregated."

Gee, golly, Bush! You really really mean it?! We can live our lives how YOU see fit? Thanks SOOO much!

Land of the free indeed. Again, it's not about freedom, it's about power. Dennis Leary said it best:
"Two words: Nuclear f***ing weapons. We've got the bombs" Ok that's another rant entirely.

Bush is stating he respects our opinions and thoughts, and has nothing really against homosexuals but still thinks it's best on some cracked out level that it's best we remain unmarried. Where do these morals come from again?
As a homosexual, I am not asking for special treatment, all I'm asking for is a slice of the damn pie every heterosexual person in this country gets. Just because the people in power prefer I have sexual relations with a woman as opposed to a man, they feel fit to take away my ability to prove my love for someone else. No wait, I can still prove my love for someone else.....a "civil union" Yeah, bite me Bush. Peel your eyes away for two seconds from slaughtering whole countries and realize you're giving your people, the people YOU were elected to lead, the short end of the stick. America is the so called land of the free. We're all equals. Simple? Do it and then let's start talking economy. Let's not be an ass and start taking away people's rights. Get your hands off the trigger and out of your bum and start looking at what's right in front of you. Your people. All of them.

Ok I'm done. I'm just getting angry. Sorry for the rant, all.

hear hear.



i agree with like everyone whos spoke so far.

they should be allowed.

Of course they shold be allowed. Marriage is a union of two people who love each other, there should be no difference in the treatment of hetrosexuals and homosexuals.

Once I rule this planet, things will be a lot better.

i thinks as long as they love each other ,why the hell not?

erm... jus to go off-topic fer a sec here... whaddya mean, when ya rule the planet?? Doesn't that go against yer anarchic principles? Sorry, jus had to mention that...

Back to scheduled programmin...

Marriage should be for almost any couple that wishes to bind themselves together and receive the same recognition from the government. I say almost any couple, because in the area of incest and beastiality I cannot see justification for same sex marriages (or anykind of marriage), it's way too taboo. If conservatives are upset that their word 'marriage' is going to now have to include gays, that's too tough. And I hope marriage comes to be inclusively defined in regards to same sex marriages - evolution in the dictionary typically reflect an evolution of thought and society in real life, so here's to hope.

::edited to add:
Righteous, whether serious or not, proves the point that there can be no peaceful anarchic world because of people that would be attempting to enforce their will upon others. In Chaos the strong rule the weak, and rarely are the strong also just - and then you don't have chaos any more, you have dictatorship and tyranny.

okay back on to topic - I have to agree that bush suxxors huge donkey nutz

i think same sex marriage is helping.
they don't add to the population, and the only thing they have to worry about is the disease they could be getting or spreading.
but above all, safe sex.

That's an inside joke between me an a bunch of my friends. We once were high and were talking about how we'd like to change the world (most of the guys wanted to legalize weed). I went on this long ass speech about building up this alliance of militant factions and get them to destroy the governments of the world and eachother Machiavellian style. Then my personal military would step in to make sure that no tyrannical government would ever come to power . The guys thought it was cool and we laughed our asses off about it while we came down.

Now, back on track.

I told my mom about my friend Harmonie getting a new girlfriend. She went off about how she doesn't like that and how wrong she thinks it is and how she thinks that Harm's confused because of her bisexuality. That kind of caught me off guard. She doesn't seem to have a problem with my friends Meghan and Mandy. I know she's against homosexuality and homosexual marriages, but she doesn't hate gay people. Thank God for that. What is a marriage, anyway? It's a civil union between two people. Period. End of story. It should be open to gays or bis or whatever. This I'll take to my grave.

If the world were as free as the forums/internet with an assigned and intelligent group of MODS, this real world would be perfect... agrees with the majority!

mods??
let me think about this...
do you know anyone in particular who undergo same sex marriage?

/bumpharmspam4tehwin

sorry to go off topic again...but what would happen to the people who get kicked off of the forums?

If 2 people are in love does it matter what sex they are? I really dont get why this is an issue at all...

meh *stalks off*

I wonder.....

Anyone happen to know what the statistic is for the proportion of the US and/or UK that is gay/bi?

I'm just wondering how much of a political voice the LGB community has? Obviously, in the states, there powerful conservative lobbies that Washington that are no doubt against the idea of same-sex marriage, but I wonder what effect it would have on an election (both US, and UK) to have the legalisation of them as one of your parties lines. Whether the number of voters it would turn off (right-wing conservatives, and uber-straight religious folk)would be greater than the number of voters it would turn on (left-wing liberals and the LGB community themselves).

Interesting thought, n'est pas?

Jonman: five per cent. Everywhere. In every culture around the world, so far as we can ascertain, approximately five per cent of the population are homosexual or bisexual. Which, apart from being a sizeable amount of constituents, also lends a pretty strong argument to the "unchosen and unchangeable" school of thought.

OK, now what do you reckon would be the 'negative' impact to a politican's votes if he declared himself to be for same-sex marriage? i.e. the number of fundamentalist types who would have voted for him, but now won't due to him attempting to legalise said marriages?

Depends. In the UK, not many. A few traditionalists... I wouldn't say more than 5%. In the US, a Gallup poll revealed that 48% are in favour of the legalisation of same-sex marriage, but I really couldn't say how many of the remaining 52% would feel strongly enough to change their votes based on that. Could a handy American maybe give us a guess?

I was watching some news show a few days ago that was talking about gay marriage. I forget all the names of the people involved, but one guy (probably U.S. Representative Barney Frank, if I remember correctly) was making the point that the movement for gay marriage is probably one of the most conservative activist/civil rights movements out there -- think about it...gays and lesbians want to be a part of one of society's most traditional institutions out there. It's not exactly a radical concept to want to get married. It just so happens that, because it's not heterosexual people asking for the right, then it seems so dangerously controversial to some people. Like others have said, I honestly don't understand the big deal with allowing people to marry just because their genitals closely resemble those of the person they want to marry. This is on par with not allowing "interracial" marriages. What harm could it possibly bring to the institution of marriage? What in the hell is the big deal with reserving the word "marriage" for the exclusive heterosexual unions? It's like the Jeffersons trying to sign up with the neighborhood's exclusive country club -- all these arbitrary limitations.

I once got into an argument with someone who insisted that gay men and lesbians already have an equal right to marry, because everyone has equal access to heterosexual marriage, and that asking for the right to marry someone of the same sex is asking for a "special right" on these premises. Now what does everyone make of *that* argument?

That's like telling heterosexuals that they have an equal chance of getting arrested or harassed for hanging out at a gay bar, because we all know that heteros hang out at gay bars as much as homosexuals contemplate marrying someone of the opposite sex.

If any of this post was incoherent, attribute it to my sleepiness.

That's bull - if you let people marry others of the same sex, heterosexuals would be allowed to do so too, so no special rights either way.

Ya just gotta adore close minded thinking. My way is better, and all that jazz.

Whoever made that argument is dumb. Pure and simple. By saying homosexuals have a right to marry.......but only in a heterosexual marriage, that's not really giving them the right to marry, that's giving them the ultimatum to be themselves or conform. Brilliant strategy there. Equality equality equality.

I still don't get that whole "protect the institution of marriage" crap. Marriage is a pact between you and your partner before God not the state. The only "protecting" anyone has to do is that people who want to get married should protedt their right to do so.

i obviously vote yes, for too many reasons to count. before i get into them, a few points
1.) bush does NOT represent america, as much as he likes to think he does
2.) if this ammendment gets passed (which it won't), you'll see a lot of ppl moving to canada (and good for them!)
ok, now into the reasons (i'm amazed, my law and politics course is helping....whee)
1.) if you argue for this on a legal issue, then it violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the constituiton (among many others)
2.) if you argue for this on a religious issue, i'm not even gonna listen to your arguments. why? there's a nice little phrase in the constitution called 'separation of church and state'

sorry to offend neone that is for this ammendment, but this isn't one of those 'grey area' issues. this is clear-cut black and white issue. i mean, to be blunt, if you think that there's ne convincing reasons for passing this ammendment, you're wrong. i know that sounds childish, but this's one of those issues where it's either you're right or you're wrong (as opposed to somethin like the death penalty or abortion, which there's no 'right' or 'wrong' answer to the question)

the problem with "separation of chruch and state" is that marriage is a religious concept, as well as a legal one.

I've always seen it, in the broad sense of things, a public declaration between two people in front of their loved ones. For me, it also involves God, but that's just me. My point is that it's more of a personal, with-whom-do-I-want-to-speand-the-rest-of-my-life-with thing.

someone voted 'no'. i'd like to know his/her opinions on this. i'm not bein sarcastic btw, i really like hearing about issues from a perspective i can never seem to take

i think gay people should be aloud to get married.........it would be a little weird but all the same a marrage

As a Roman Catholic I feel that my religion should allow same sex marriages if both partners are prepared to commit to each other... in just the same way that every other couple should before they tie the knot.

Civil Unions are different from Religious Weddings - though there are always some cross overs - one is purely legal and for the benefit of recognition in the eyes of the state. The other is for the individuals getting married and the religious community they belong to.

Why would it be weird?

And two people said "Civil unions only", I'd like to hear their rationale. I don't blame them for not posting about it though, since it seems the forum is vastly in favour of gay marriage, they'd be swarmed and probably become pretty unpopular.

I think the most sound estimate is 1 in 10 is homosexual... that was 5 years ago so I believe those numbers have gone up.. also that was not including Bisexuals which are equally affected by these laws. Also that number is greater due to the number of homosexual who are in the closet and afraid to come out.

Far as I can see, ravein, the studies that say 1 in 10 are homosexual are done by pro-gay groups. Similarly, studies that say 1 in 100 are done by anti-gay groups. 1 in 20 I believe is the most accurate estimate, done by impartial sources. Also, I don't understand why the number would have risen?

I think it's perfectly alright for same sex marriages.... If they allow a man and a woman to get married, I think they should allow man and man and woman and woman marriages...

as society changes, so do peoples attitudes of talking about homosexuality... take for instance.. if someone had asked me in 1990 if I was a lesbian I would have said no. I would have been afraid of the reaction, of being a outsider, of being the object ridicule...or better yet losing my job/family/friends etc. So taking this into consideration.. it is effective to say that when these studies where done there where a fair number of homosexuals in the closet. Now in 2003.. homosexuality is becoming more acceptable in mainstream culture, the gay pride/rights movement is more pronounced. There is more a effort to reach out to gays and lesbians in there youth, to let them know they are not out of place.. hence.. this leading to more people being open in there homosexuality. The thing is that unless you look at inside each human... and tell how they are going to feel tomorrow there is no true way to gauge homosexuality and the human populace. Some people are born that way.. some people roll over and fall in love with the person next to them. This just so happens to be someone of the same sex. Everyone in this forum has the "potential" to have a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex. Now it is up to you to let your ideals/preferences decide for you.. but love is a biznitch and goes where it wants...
so you see... these rights affect everyone and the numbers... are shiznit...
*end tangent*

I might be repeating someone else, cause I didn't read all the posts - OH WELL.


Marriage has benefits. You get better work benefits, tax crapage, and all that happy stuff, if you have a spouse.

It's not fair to disallow homosexual marriage,

Love - is - love, plain and simple. I mean, they're gonna do it anyway (I had the privledge to witness my minister's marriage to her female lover in my youth and it was the happiest wedding I've been to) why not make it legal, with all the benefits of a legitimate matrimony?

I said undecided. That's because sometimes I just can't see the point of marriage at all--it seems to me like a conspiracy pitted against single people. After all, why should married couples get special privilages, like with the taxes and everything! Why???

Uh...anyway...actually, I think that gays and bisexuals should have the same rights as anyone else...I mean, how could I say otherwise? I happen to be bi myself.

I actually had a theory once that deep down, everyone in the world is bisexual. I mean, after all, what does bisexual mean? That you have the capacity to love either sex. Why shouldn't anyone be able to do so?