Same-sex Marriage

Unfortunately, it is the welfare state that's causing many of the problems we currently have. Why exascerbate the problem by imposing more laws? Too many laws on the books already exist. I feel that most 'transactions' of this nature can and should take place without the interference of the state. Besides gay marriage, I'm sure that there are other alternative relationships that exist (e.g. polygamy, group arrangements/marriage, etc.) that don't have the 'blessing' of the state, either. It would be interesting to see how the state would handle THESE situations!!

I agree with you that the imposition of fundamentalist theocratic ideals as law on the public is deplorable.

For the record, I'd like you to know that I've read many of your previous posts. Even if I have disagreed with you at any given time, I find you to be intelligent and articulate.

 

Here is my question, if first of all so many people don't want it, why are we allowing it to happen, and second don't most people in this country claim to be Christian? Maybe if people were honest with themselves and everyone else and just came out and said I don't believe in any of this shit, then perhaps our government would not even attempt to shove it down our throats. I don't know just a thought. Just like if most Americans claimed to be Buddhists, I doubt you would see this type of thing happening, but probably something more along the lines of Buddhist way of thinking(regarding any law or specific topic). I think that most people want to think they are Christians, and want other people to think they are to make them feel like "better" people.

 

Since when are you the deciding factor on what's dysfuctional?

Live and let live! Don't step in the way of another's happiness. Same-sex marriage doesn't harm anyone.

Sheesh, people act like America is oging to start forcing men to marry other men. What makes some people so special that the world has to live the way they define it. Thats the problem with America's attitude, but victory's like same-sex marriage gives me some hope in this country.

 

It has been proven that a child(of either sex) lacking one of it's parental figures(either one) has negative psychological effects, causing social dysfunction and behavioral trouble, because they lacked one of their parental figures. One man out of two cannot play the proper role of a mother, nor can one woman out of two play the proper role of a father.

 

Dude that is a load of shit and you know it. In 97 I saw a program about a few famillys where they had to same sex parents and kids through artificial insemination. The "damage" came from the shit they got from their peers, not from having homosexual rents. Dude think before you open your mouth and have some facts. The kids said "I dont think of one of them as my dad(mom) but I have two dads(moms) and I wouldnt have it any other way." Your so far to the right, do you have some deep dark secret? Just curious

 

I think, that for the majority of straight people, gays having sex makes us feel all oogy. And there is nothing wrong with that, we can appreciate them as our neighbors and human beings, but then they go home and do stuff that makes us feel oogy again.
That i think is the key to this gay marrage thing. Conservative Christians cannot even deal with the oogyness in a healthy manner, so they get all homophobic and raise hell about it (there are what, two commandments against men having sex with each other and three fucking chapters on keeping kosher, guess which one people are more likely to quote in everyday life).
They know that those two men kissing (making us oogy a little) are going to go home tonight and do things that will make our oogyness increase exponentially, add to this the official government sanctioning and the percieved hoisting of this oogyness onto us by third parties makes their panties get into a little bunch.
They try and logically rationalize it with outdated and erronous statistics, protest pastors perfoming these actions and try their damned hardest to get the oogyness to go away.
Then they think like this: The first Amendment says that Congress can not interfere with the free exercise of religion, and if they are making these new laws saying that Gays have a right to participate in a religious ceremony despite what the people in that religion might want to say, then gay marrage is unconstituional. Notice that I made the distinction that they believe that theirs is the only faith in America, and the seeming disbelief that other groups of people might even be openly embracing the oogyness..

SO my solution: full rights for gay couples, and if they want a religious marrage it should only be done in a church that accepts gays. We should not try and force anyones hand, but just live by example, and someday they might come around.

 

That was the most intelligent use ever of the word "oogy"

 

Where exactly did you get your degree in psychology? You do realize that your opinion is not fact, correct? Care to back this up with some actual proof, from a legitimate source? I've been studying psych/soc for a long time, and I know for a fact, that you are incorrect in your assumptions. But please, feel free to live in your ignorance.

 

I've also heard this was not true by my psych teacher and my history teacher

 

Judging by the shallowness of the pro-gay apologists here, I doubt that any will seriously engage this essay, but I'll go ahead and post a link to it anyway:

http://www.leaderu.com/marco/marriage/index.html

 

i agree that there are too many laws, but in the sake of fairness we cannot deny one group of people the rights that another group of people have based on inconvenience or personal faith.

thanks for the kind comments, too.

 

i AM a christian, as a matter of fact, far too liberal a one for many people's thinking, too conservative for other's. but first i'm american. i have no right to force my religion-based morals on anyone, nor do they have the right to do this me. as i've read here many times, and agree with very much, is that it's also the duty of the government to protect the fundamental human rights of minority groups from majority opinion.

 

It's the pro-gay zealots that are forcing their agenda on the public, with the help of activist judges that legislate by decree, circumventing the democratic process.

 

I saw this woman on tv today who was with her partner for eleven years. They were married in a church ceremony in '91, but were not "legally" married. Three years ago her partner died. Because they were not legally married, the woman could not receive her partner's pension, and her partner's parents took all of her things. A man talked about his partner's death. he was named as the sole beneficiary in his will. A cousin contested the will, and got everything. Is that fair? Just because your religious beliefs are against it, why does everyone automatically have to agree? Not everyone has the same idea of what is "right".

My husband and I are not "legally" married. Some people think we are living "in sin". Who cares?? Should it be illegal for us to live together as a family? Should we not be allowed to have children together?
Who are we to "allow" people to be married or not? It is a moral issue, yes. Not a legal one.
BTW, what exactly is a "pro-gay apologist"?

 

hey man, i agree that legal processes should be met. but any ruling, even by the supreme court on the unconsitutionality of not allowing gay marriage would still be viewed as "activist judges legislating by decree."

 

you know, there's no marriage ceremony laid out in the bible. for all we know, it could just be about two people committing themselves to each other anyway, then having a party to celebrate it.

and you know something else? life is too short to not find your love. if your love is the same sex, run with it. love is love, and if that's what you have, that's what you have, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

by the way, i've noticed i'm sounding more vehement in writing than i intend to. i get like that.

 

Nobody is forcing you to marry a guy, dunce. If you don't like gay marriage then don't have one. Meanwhile mind your own business.

 

Yes, because like Roe v. Wade, such a ruling would be constitutionally baseless. It is not the job of the judiciary to invent new "rights" out of thin air by stretching the plain language of the constitution beyond recognition.

 

Even if it's so, I think it's fitting for situations like this. The courts here are checking what's long been a tyranny of the majority.

Frankly it really floors me as to why gay people getting married so sticks in the craw of so many people (well not exactly "why" but the extent that it does). It's not like they're getting married on your front lawn. Surely there are more pressing things to worry 'bout than gay people getting married.

 

Lucifer, check out the link I cited in post #50.