|
|
Post by Retired Blub on Jul 1, 2004 12:59:36 GMT -5
Now this is a REALLY big issue in North Ammerica. Many people are opposed to it (mostly because of religion and tradition), some agree with it, and a lot of people haven't decided if it's right or wrong. I think if people of the same sex want to get married, go right ahead. It's not affecting any part of my life so I don't see why they can't do it. So what if their's religion? Just because they don't follow it, doesn't mean they're gonna die or be tortured...  |
|
|
|
Post by william on Jul 1, 2004 13:01:47 GMT -5
I totally agree with you, Alex. I think that there's no prob with it, it's not hurting anyone. A while back in England, there was a thing about it, but it's died down recently.
|
|
|
|
Post by Retired Blub on Jul 1, 2004 13:12:52 GMT -5
I totally agree with you, Alex. I think that there's no prob with it, it's not hurting anyone. A while back in England, there was a thing about it, but it's died down recently. I remember that incident. It was such a big fiasco and I thought that they were so stupid for makin' such a big deal out of it |
|
|
|
Post by Buddy on Jul 1, 2004 16:37:10 GMT -5
I remember when this debate came up a many month ago. It was pretty cool, really! And a great success! 17 pages of perfectly civil discussion! Truely, something to be proud of!
As a change of pace, mainly because I'm bored with saying this for what would be the one millionth time, I'm going to argue for the opposite side...
Personally, I see no reason in gay people getting married. Now, don't get me wrong - I have nothing against gay people! I just don't see it as right that they get married.
I think homosexuality is a choice. And if you choose to be homosexual, fine! Go ahead! But there's no reason homosexuals have to get married, nor is it in any way benefitial to society.
And if there must be a type of "union", well, civil unions, then. It's a good compromise - homosexuals get all the benefits of a married couple, but we still keep it seperate from "marriage", as marriage is a religious term, and few religions agree with homosexuality.
The whole thing really makes me uneasy, to be honest. And seeing citys go so far as to break the law so as to push forward their foolish ideals, well... it's just wrong...
|
|
|
|
Post by Retired Blub on Jul 1, 2004 16:50:10 GMT -5
I remember when this debate came up a many month ago. It was pretty cool, really! And a great success! 17 pages of perfectly civil discussion! Truely, something to be proud of! As a change of pace, mainly because I'm bored with saying this for what would be the one millionth time, I'm going to argue for the opposite side... Personally, I see no reason in gay people getting married. Now, don't get me wrong - I have nothing against gay people! I just don't see it as right that they get married. I think homosexuality is a choice. And if you choose to be homosexual, fine! Go ahead! But there's no reason homosexuals have to get married, nor is it in any way benefitial to society. And if there must be a type of "union", well, civil unions, then. It's a good compromise - homosexuals get all the benefits of a married couple, but we still keep it seperate from "marriage", as marriage is a religious term, and few religions agree with homosexuality. The whole thing really makes me uneasy, to be honest. And seeing citys go so far as to break the law so as to push forward their foolish ideals, well... it's just wrong... Hmmmm, I never thought of it that way... |
|
|
|
Post by Buddy on Jul 1, 2004 16:52:37 GMT -5
You just brought a whole new point of view to me, Buddy... Are you serious? |
|
|
|
Post by Retired Blub on Jul 1, 2004 17:00:10 GMT -5
Yep.  |
|
|
|
Post by Buddy on Jul 1, 2004 17:03:41 GMT -5
Yep. Please tell me you're kidding... please... because I'm not... |
|
|
|
Post by Retired Blub on Jul 1, 2004 17:11:06 GMT -5
Please tell me you're kidding... please... because I'm not... Okay, this is confusing me AND frightening me...  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2004 17:15:40 GMT -5
While I personally believe homosexuality is wrong (biologically speaking, I'm not religious in the least bit), I don't see what's wrong about them getting married. I don't think marriage is necessarily religious, since you can get married in a courthouse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Buddy on Jul 1, 2004 17:28:02 GMT -5
Okay, this is confusing me AND frightening me... The last thing I want to think is that I actually caused someone else to side against gay marriage, or that I brought up some new, interesting angle for them. |
|
|
|
Post by Smiley on Jul 1, 2004 17:29:22 GMT -5
What always makes me laugh on this subject is how some people say that marriage is strictly religious, and is strictly between a man and a woman, and therefore gay couples are destroying the sanctaty of marriage.
I like Linny's point from the discussion a few months ago, though - if Brittney Spears can get married, divorced, and annulled in twenty-four hours just because she wanted a little bit of fun, how is that NOT destroying the sanctaty of marriage? How is a loving couple, no matter what their sex is, who truly want to be together and grow old together possibly destroying the sanctaty of marriage?
I really don't get it. I don't see why gays can't marry - it's their life, let them live it. Who am I to take away their happiness and say that they can't have the same rights as anyone else?
Of course, even if they do illegalize gay marriage in the present, by the time us kids become the future, that will all change. Most of the kids I know - even the religious ones - are for gay marriage. We'll see what happens for now, though...
|
|
|
|
Post by Retired Blub on Jul 1, 2004 17:30:07 GMT -5
The last thing I want to think is that I actually caused someone else to side against gay marriage, or that I brought up some new, interesting angle for them. Oh great, I confused someone again! I just meant I never thought of it that way before! However, I still think that gay people should have the right to get married. |
|
|
|
Post by Jessica Coconut on Jul 1, 2004 18:53:04 GMT -5
Exactly right on the "civil union" thing. That's what I said on the other forum where they discuss what they'd do if they were in charge, and when we came to the gay marriages problem.
It wouldn't be called marriage, it wouldn't necessarily be done in a church, but the biggest similarity is that it would go into the gov't records that they are together as a couple legally etc. The whole idea of a wedding, getting dressed up all spiffy, and all that other marriage related stuff would work perfectly in it too.
The problem my mom found with that idea is if they divorced. Then, technically that person could then marry straight. That would be a little strange and a bit of a shock for his/her lover that found out he/she was once gay. She suggested that people register with their parent's at birth if they are male/female/gay/les. That's obviously a problem because not many people know as children what the difference is, or even what love will be like, or what the heck it matters. I suggested registering at 18. That's a problem because some folks become sexually active BEFORE 18. So it's a never ending battle to find a way to please everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Buddy on Jul 1, 2004 19:57:51 GMT -5
Exactly right on the "civil union" thing. That's what I said on the other forum where they discuss what they'd do if they were in charge, and when we came to the gay marriages problem. It wouldn't be called marriage, it wouldn't necessarily be done in a church, but the biggest similarity is that it would go into the gov't records that they are together as a couple legally etc. The whole idea of a wedding, getting dressed up all spiffy, and all that other marriage related stuff would work perfectly in it too. The problem my mom found with that idea is if they divorced. Then, technically that person could then marry straight. That would be a little strange and a bit of a shock for his/her lover that found out he/she was once gay. She suggested that people register with their parent's at birth if they are male/female/gay/les. That's obviously a problem because not many people know as children what the difference is, or even what love will be like, or what the heck it matters. I suggested registering at 18. That's a problem because some folks become sexually active BEFORE 18. So it's a never ending battle to find a way to please everyone. That's such a good idea!!!  This way, people wouldn't accidentally get married to someone who had been previously married to someone of the same gender. I don't like the ideas of chruches being forced to marry a gay couple if homosexuality is against their religion. That seems like a major seperation of church and state, there! |
|
