Gay Marriage

  • Thread starter 1X83Z
  • 2,302 comments
  • 84,480 views
Mile,
Going back quite a few posts, the bigger issue is insurance coverage. If you write your will to give your assets to your gay partner, or Gay Talese, that's who your stuff goes to.
But with the insurance thing if you enroll in a plan you pay a lot less to cover your spouse, and children. In some cases, actually most cases, if you want to cover some other miscellaneous person it isn't allowed. The person(s) covered has to be blood kin, or related to you as your spouse.

As to the question of who opposes gay marriage:
I know you have no use for the Bible, but I'll continue to use it as my guide. And it says...what I said earlier.
I too, am bowing out of this one after this post. I don't see any point in carrying it any further.
 
Sorry, my definition of 'Marriage' does not include gay's, and that is reason enough for me.
 
Originally posted by Pako
Sorry, my definition of 'Marriage' does not include gay's, and that is reason enough for me.
Funny how it says Enlightend in your location I must say....
 
Originally posted by Flerbizky
Funny how it says Enlightend in your location I must say....

Yeah, it’s friggin’ hilarious. Point being? :rolleyes:

I have made my choice to not accept anything and everything just because someone else feels strongly about something. "They" have their's, "I" have mine. We like to call it a difference of opinion.

Imagine a world where every opinion, lifestyle, and idea is accepted and nurtured. I'm sorry, but you will always have conflicts of interest. One mans trash is another mans treasure.
 
Originally posted by Gil
This becomes an issue due to things like insurance coverage, inheritance, etc. I personally don't condone gay marriage.
I have biblical references to back me up. Not just the Sodom and Gommorah stuff.
God considers it an "abomination". When God considers stuff and "abomination, you have things like the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah in a rain of fire from heaven, you get floods that cover the earth. Thanks, but I don't swim that well and am already dark enough.


I'm glad you presented that as your personal opinion rather than an absolute (as some would've). I also find it perfectly okay that you believe that, but I see no reason why laws in this free, supposedly unassuming country should be based on any religion. I'm all for repealing blue laws, too.

Plus, God said "Be fruitful, and multiply." I don't think he was talking about going into the orchard with your trusty Texas Instruments TI-30 and doing your math homework.
:lol:
 
Originally posted by milefile
Doug is trying to start a ruckus.


Yeah...

But around the time I was getting married it was in the news a lot and I thought more about what some of the right wing christian organizations were saying about how it destroys the institution of marriage and bla bla bla. That made sense for like a day. Then I realized that I don't care and if gays being married bothers you that much and diminishes "the institution" of marriage for you, your marriage must suck.

Better yet, the Christians miss the point of their own religion. God is a lot smarter than all of us, so when gays' judgement day comes, God will deal with them. Why do we as humans need to? Gays get so much crap from all angles that what they really need is acceptance, and for people to have faith in their own god to make the right call if they don't like gays.

These presumptuous, pinch-faced church-goers who think they know what's good for everybody, everywhere, are without question the single most stunting and destructive force in our country today.

Whoa! The anti-religion side comes out again.
 
Originally posted by Pako

I have made my choice to not accept anything and everything just because someone else feels strongly about something. "They" have their's, "I" have mine. We like to call it a difference of opinion.

In the sixties, it was those blacks wanting to get away from the oppressive, fearful majority. Now it's the gays. I see no fundamental difference in their two situations.
 
Originally posted by M5Power
In the sixties, it was those blacks wanting to get away from the oppressive, fearful majority. Now it's the gays. I see no fundamental difference in their two situations.
Yup. 👍 👍 👍
 
Originally posted by M5Power
In the sixties, it was those blacks wanting to get away from the oppressive, fearful majority. Now it's the gays. I see no fundamental difference in their two situations.
👍
 
Now we come down to other discussions relating to homosexuality. Choice or Genetic? I for one, believe that it is their choice of lifestyle. Their is a huge difference between a supressed race and a couple of homosexuals choosing to live together, wanting the financial benifits of marriage.
 
Originally posted by Pako
Now we come down to other discussions relating to homosexuality. Choice or Genetic? I for one, believe that it is their choice of lifestyle. Their is a huge difference between a supressed race and a couple of homosexuals choosing to live together, wanting the financial benifits of marriage.

Do you seriously believe people would choose to love people of the same sex when overall hate towards their group is to the point where they're more than twenty percent more likely than straight people to get attacked on the street? Personally, I find it sickening to even think about having gay sex - it would take something that I have no control over to change my viewpoint.
 
Lots of personal opinions expressed but nobody has addressed the issue of a government ban. So you don't approve. Does that mean the government should ban it altogether?
 
Originally posted by M5Power
Do you seriously believe people would choose to love people of the same sex when overall hate towards their group is to the point where they're more than twenty percent more likely than straight people to get attacked on the street? Personally, I find it sickening to even think about having gay sex - it would take something that I have no control over to change my viewpoint.

Why is that so hard to believe? I'm sure you've heard or read about homosexuals in the early 20's that had heteralsexual relationships because they knew they would not be accepted by society. So instead of having a 'gay' relationship, they married someone of the opposite sex for 60 years. That's a pretty intense commentment. Wouldn't the opposite scenario also be justified? Gay's are quick to accept other gays into their tight nit group. Say your a social outcast, but if you were gay, you would be accepted no matter what.

Let's talk about genetics for a moment:

Take two identical twins. One is gay, the other is not. How could this be if their genetic structure is identical?

There have been studies attempting to identify the 'gay' gene but findings are inclusive, and at best, guess work.
 
Of course the thread is not about your personal opinion on the morality of gayness, whether it is a choice or not, etc. It is about a government ban. Will somebody please address that?
 
Ok, everything I'm reading says that they would have to re-write the definition of marriage in order for same-sex marriages to be constitutional.
 
In 2001, there was a lobby to take out all gender specific notations in regards to marriage. This bill faled! They are trying again this year. Taking out gender specifics opens the door the same sex marriages.
 
No, a government ban wouldn't be right in my opinion. People have their own lives. They should be able to live it the way the want to. Hmm...does that mean criminals should live the way they want to as well? No, the government has to set boundries. Where do those get set though? I'm confusing myself.
 
Originally posted by Pako
Why is that so hard to believe? I'm sure you've heard or read about homosexuals in the early 20's that had heteralsexual relationships because they knew they would not be accepted by society. So instead of having a 'gay' relationship, they married someone of the opposite sex for 60 years. That's a pretty intense commentment. Wouldn't the opposite scenario also be justified? Gay's are quick to accept other gays into their tight nit group. Say your a social outcast, but if you were gay, you would be accepted no matter what.


I'm sure that's true in an extreme minority of cases. You can't possibly believe all gays are social outcasts who choose to be gay for acceptance. And, if you do, then they need more help than I thought.

Let's talk about genetics for a moment:

Take two identical twins. One is gay, the other is not. How could this be if their genetic structure is identical?


Their genetic structures aren't exactly identical, they just look similar.

There have been studies attempting to identify the 'gay' gene but findings are inclusive, and at best, guess work.

Since there are literally billions of chromosomes in strands of DNA, they could search the rest of their lives and some of their childrens' lives and not find any gay gene.
 
Originally posted by milefile
Of course the thread is not about your personal opinion on the morality of gayness, whether it is a choice or not, etc. It is about a government ban. Will somebody please address that?

Of course it's about choice/genetics.

If somebody chooses to be gay, Pako has a fair argument. If it's genetic, I've got the better argument, but both eventually lead to gay marriage.
 
Originally posted by M5Power
Of course it's about choice/genetics.

If somebody chooses to be gay, Pako has a fair argument. If it's genetic, I've got the better argument, but both eventually lead to gay marriage.
Why would it make any difference? So gay marriage is okay if gayness is genetic but not if it's a choice? What next? Ban interracial marriage?
 
People love their pets. All we have to do is take "Concenting Adults" out of the defenition, and people can have a state sanctioned marriage with their favorite animal friend.

Should we allow that as well?
 
Originally posted by Pako
People love their pets. All we have to do is take "Concenting Adults" out of the defenition, and people can have a state sanctioned marriage with their favorite animal friend.

Should we allow that as well?


That's counter-productive to the idea of marraige in the first place though,... you need two 'concenting' individuals,... an animal cant concent. Now, if we could ever learn to interpret animals thought process',... we could relay that desire to them and a responce would be observed. That it the closest you'll ever get to "concent" from an animal,.... point being, it's not marraige if there's not concent (legally speaking in the USA of course).

JMO,.. I have no clue,.... I think this all goes right back to the multiple topics we have on morality and religion right now,... the post-religious societies on this planet allow same-sex marriges,.... we dont,...
 
Back