Gay Marriage

Interested in signing up? Click here to learn more!

Pages:
1
2

Should normal, law-abiding humans who happen to be attracted to their own gender be allowed to gain marital status under their government?
Yes, there is no good reason why they shouldn't have equal rights.	7 (100%)
They should be given separate but equal protection. (Civil Unions)	0 (0%)
No, them damn queers are bringing the wrath o' thee Lord upon us!	0 (0%)
Total Votes: 7

Gay Marriage; Should we allow equal rights?
Topic Started: Mar 22 2009, 11:40 PM (359 Views)
Count Carver	Mar 22 2009, 11:40 PM Post #1
Jedi Master of Making Things Sound Dirty Posts: 2,236 Group: Admin Member #5 Joined: December 31, 2004	Should the queers be allowed equal rights? Tell us what you think! Carver?
	-Carver?


Four Elements	Mar 25 2009, 01:16 PM Post #2
Fourth Year Posts: 347 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: February 12, 2005	LMFAO. Love is love. Enough said. You can't help who you love and if marriage is something you need to strengthen that bond, just as it is in straight marriages, go for it.



Count Carver	Mar 25 2009, 02:47 PM Post #3
Jedi Master of Making Things Sound Dirty Posts: 2,236 Group: Admin Member #5 Joined: December 31, 2004	But we let just anyone get married, where do we draw the line? Next, people will want to marry trees or their dogs. But if love is love, then those are ok too, right? What about polygamy? If love is love and they all love each other, is it right to discriminate against them just because they are different? Carver?
	-Carver?


Four Elements	Mar 27 2009, 10:14 AM Post #4
Fourth Year Posts: 347 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: February 12, 2005	I don't know what pologamy is. Hmm, usually marriages are something TWO people decide to do when they want to spend a life together. BOTH people can usually say/agree to the vows. As far as I know, trees and dogs can't.



zeromus	Nov 21 2009, 10:15 PM Post #5
Admin Posts: 1,582 Group: Manly Members Member #58 Joined: January 21, 2009	I think most people who are against gay marriage who have a brain (i.e. non-Christian fundamentalist nutjobs) are afraid of where it will lead, not because they feel gays should be burning in hell where they belong or something like that. Seriously though, if a dude wants to marry an oyster, let him marry a fucking oyster. This brings to mind a piece of research on farmers in Nebraska who've admitted to getting to third base with their sheep



Count Carver	Nov 21 2009, 11:30 PM Post #6
Jedi Master of Making Things Sound Dirty Posts: 2,236 Group: Admin Member #5 Joined: December 31, 2004	Aberforth? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCRE9qOgbug There's a very good reason not to let gays marry, they caused Hurricane Katrina.
	-Carver?


Count Carver	Aug 23 2010, 01:39 AM Post #7
Jedi Master of Making Things Sound Dirty Posts: 2,236 Group: Admin Member #5 Joined: December 31, 2004
	-Carver?


Matt Perry	Aug 24 2010, 05:12 PM Post #8
Legendary Posts: 2,333 Group: Admin Member #32 Joined: February 12, 2005	I personally support gay marriage and gay couples receiving the same rights as normal married couples. You can state that marriage is solely between a man and a woman, then there should be something that is equal to marriage for gay couples that give them the rights of being married without actually being married. Perhaps a certificate of partnership or something. Edited by Matt Perry, Aug 24 2010, 05:12 PM.



Count Carver	Aug 25 2010, 12:21 AM Post #9
Jedi Master of Making Things Sound Dirty Posts: 2,236 Group: Admin Member #5 Joined: December 31, 2004	Matt Perry Aug 24 2010, 05:12 PM You can state that marriage is solely between a man and a woman, then there should be something that is equal to marriage for gay couples that give them the rights of being married without actually being married. Perhaps a certificate of partnership or something. This is what several states, including my own, have. However, I find this "equal to marriage" but not actually marriage disturbingly similar to the institution under which segregation of African-Americans occurred in this country. Called "separate but equal," the idea was that as long as everything was equal, we could segregate based on race. So as long as one drinking fountain was equal in functionality as the other, one could be labeled for blacks, one for whites. Same with train cars, seating areas, schools, etc. This was upheld until the famous Brown v. Board decision struck down this institution as unconstitutional. Is this antiquated doctrine of "separate but equal" really something we should be invoking to justify a lack of marriage equality?
	-Carver?


Matt Perry	Aug 25 2010, 08:34 PM Post #10
Legendary Posts: 2,333 Group: Admin Member #32 Joined: February 12, 2005	Count Carver Is this antiquated doctrine of "separate but equal" really something we should be invoking to justify a lack of marriage equality? In the sense of blacks and whites was there a definition of 'equal' as there is a definition of 'marriage'? . Now, I may be wording that wrong but I know what I mean, hopefully it gets through to you guys who read this as well. I am trying to say there is a difference between segregation and the difference of the word 'marriage' and 'communion/partnership'. Marriage is defined in this way at dictionary.com: �noun 1. a. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. To understand the difference between a traditional marriage and a neo-marriage between homosexual partners is to understand the difference between the words marriage and communion. In which, there is no true difference, only in name. If this 'communion' functions in all ways of that of a 'marriage' does... is there a problem? I'd say not. But you could say 'marriage' is like a bathroom in the era of racism/50s/40s etc. The traditional bathroom was for whites. But in this instance there was a bathroom for blacks. This is segregation. The black bathroom can be compared to that of a homosexual communion except.. Those bathrooms were not as clean or as functional as those of whites, in most cases. In this instance of marriage and communion, they act the exact same, except it's a different title. If you claim segregation for calling a marriage a man/woman relationship and a communion a man/man::woman/woman relationship, it's about as correct as saying calling a man a Baron and a woman a Lady/Baroness (exact same titles of nobles except gender differences) is also segregation. I don't think that's correct. It's still the same title, the difference is within the users. A marriage and a communion are like this: White person is marriage. Black person is communion. Whites and blacks share the same bathroom. Rather than with segregation where: Marriage is whites only bathroom. Communion is blacks only bathroom. Noone gives a fuck about the bathroom. However, I find this "equal to marriage" but not actually marriage disturbingly similar to the institution under which segregation of African-Americans occurred in this country. Called "separate but equal," the idea was that as long as everything was equal, we could segregate based on race. So as long as one drinking fountain was equal in functionality as the other, one could be labeled for blacks, one for whites. Same with train cars, seating areas, schools, etc. This was upheld until the famous Brown v. Board decision struck down this institution as unconstitutional. Is this antiquated doctrine of "separate but equal" really something we should be invoking to justify a lack of marriage equality? Edited by Matt Perry, Aug 25 2010, 08:34 PM.



gaby_pox	Aug 25 2010, 09:14 PM Post #11
Fifth Year Posts: 565 Group: Advisor Member #15 Joined: February 11, 2005	I say gays and lesbians should be allowed to get married! Love IS Love. I've been spending alot of time with gays and lesbians lately (I study design so yea) and they're just REGULAR people that just happen to love people from the same sex so I dont know why they should be discriminated. And as for so called "christians" and "catholics", its all about loving one another, You might not agree with the idea of people of the same sex being part of the RELIGIOUS act of marriage in front of a priest(?) but they should still be allowed to be LEGALLY married. (Let me note that In Venezuela there are two ceremonies, the legal one and the religious one.) I Edited by gaby_pox, Aug 25 2010, 09:15 PM.



Count Carver	Aug 25 2010, 09:16 PM Post #12
Jedi Master of Making Things Sound Dirty Posts: 2,236 Group: Admin Member #5 Joined: December 31, 2004	How clean the bathrooms were in comparison to each other was simply the result of unmotivated execution of separate but equal. The idea itself of separate but equal is exactly as the name indicates. Separate facilities (or institutions, in the case of marriage vs. domestic partnerships/civil unions) that are equal. Are you saying that if separate but equal had been carried out correctly, and all black facilities, bathrooms and otherwise, were perfectly equal to to the white ones, it would be okay? My problem isn't with the fact that separate but equal was executed unfairly, my problem is with separate but equal itself. There shouldn't need to be separate institutions for the same thing, in this case, as there is no need for it. Even if you feel like gay and straight partnerships CAN have different names, why should they? What's the point? Here's my solution: Since some people get butthurt over gay marriage due to their religious attachment to the phrase "marriage," why not completely separate the state institution of marriage from the religious one by giving it a new name? The government could completely terminate the use of the word "marriage" as the name of this institution and replace it entirely with some other phrase, such as civil unions or domestic partnerships. That way, under state law, everyone would have equal treatment, the same right to seek state recognition of their partnership, under the same name. No religious people would get butthurt because they would still retain the right to practice marriage in accordance with their faith, and would be free to define it as they wish, excluding and including whoever they want. Religions are perfectly free to withhold their religious sanctioning of couples, but the government is not, as it is bound by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Not to mention morally bound by the founding idea that all people are created equal.
	-Carver?


Count Carver	Aug 25 2010, 09:17 PM Post #13
Jedi Master of Making Things Sound Dirty Posts: 2,236 Group: Admin Member #5 Joined: December 31, 2004	gaby_pox Aug 25 2010, 09:14 PM And as for so called "christians" and "catholics", its all about loving one another, You might not agree with the idea of people of the same sex being part of the RELIGIOUS act of marriage in front of a priest(?) but they should still be allowed to be LEGALLY married. (Let me note that In Venezuela there are two ceremonies, the legal one and the religious one.) I Bingo. Exactly what I'm talking about.
	-Carver?


Matt Perry	Aug 25 2010, 10:02 PM Post #14
Legendary Posts: 2,333 Group: Admin Member #32 Joined: February 12, 2005	I agree with you both as well, I'm not trying to disagree. I'm trying to say that I feel as though these situations are different. I believe marriage is a religious term anyway and should be separate from the state. Can straight couples file for communion just as homosexual couples do?



Count Carver	Aug 26 2010, 12:11 AM Post #15
Jedi Master of Making Things Sound Dirty Posts: 2,236 Group: Admin Member #5 Joined: December 31, 2004	That's a good question, Matt, and I'm not sure of the answer but I would guess probably not. Interesting question, though. I wonder who would know the answer. Oh, by the way, something I forget to mention: I don't know where you got the term "communion" from, at least as a term for coupling. The only definition I'm aware of is the religious ceremony where you drink grape juice and eat wafers.
	-Carver?


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)

Our users say it best: "A great way to make a forums for free and it is very reliable as well. Thank you Zetaboards." Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The Library · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2