Same Sex Marriages?

[teghan62]

Ninja said:

So why do you continue this extremely futile debate?

So then why do we have ANY debates, if everyone's minds are set and no one's going to change them?

They're debating for the sake of debating, I guess.

[Retired Blub]

I'm not going to bother debating this thread. You probably all noticed that I stopped long ago, because honestly, I'm an 11-year old and i'm not all to knowleadgable in this area, like some of you are *coughbuddyandstal*

Anyway, I just wanted to say that I really admire Al for just saying that he's gay, plain and simple. The guy's got a lot of courage.

[Oily]

Jasper said:

So then why do we have ANY debates, if everyone's minds are set and no one's going to change them?

They're debating for the sake of debating, I guess.

Debating's fun, it opens up your minds, it primes you for real life debates. Plus, you can always hope you win someone over, or at least make them examine the flaws in their own argument.

[Buddy]

Ninja said:

You people are beating a dead horse.

No one is going to convince the other of this. Period.

So why do you continue this extremely futile debate?

He does have a point... This thread did fade off a long time ago. And I don't think anyone has really changed their opinons or come up with some new arguement. I guess it was mainly those who hadn't posted before who had something to say....

[ecicca]

Stal, it's not a crime for people who haven't posted before (or ones that have!) to just put in their 2 cents.

Anyway, yo, Al, congrats-- it's hard to come out in front of like.. loads of people. Even harder in real life. (It was hard for me at first, but the more people I told, the easier it got. But like, it spread to homophobic people ; so I ended up getting insulted and crap..) (and you pretty much said half of what I was saying but FAR better)

And Buddy and Ember, thanks, you explained what I meant good ^^;. I was real tired, so, I might put crap down

Me and my girlfriend will want to get married one day. We both said we did. I mean, that's YEARS away yet, but we still want one. Because we love each other. And no, neither of us are Christian-- we are both Wiccan, and we want a Wiccan wedding (AKA a handfasting). How would YOU like to be denied the right to be married to the person you loved? I think that's sick and wrong.

[Stal]

To answer people who asked why we debate at all...

Because debating is a nice little thing to do. But this thing has been dragged out for MONTHS. No one is moving from their position at all. You're just spouting the same things over and over again. That's why I'm done with it! We're saying the same things! And no one has convinced me otherwise (evidenced by the fact I went out and voted for Ammendment 2 of the Missouri State Constitution on Tuesday).

I'm glad Buddy understood what I was saying, at least (about giving it up).

[belgiumardennes]

Well, there's also a political issue here. Regardless of how people feel about same-sex marriages, does a rule banning them belong in the constitution?

The constitution exists so that there is a set way the country should be run. It's what keeps a president from coming into power and declaring himself a dictator. It is what we use to define a citizen. It defines and organizes the different branches of the government and their respective powers.

The constitution gives the government its legitemacy and it gives and restricts its powers. However, it does not exist to make laws. There is nothing in the constitution saying you can't rob someone. There is nothing in the constitution saying you can't burn down someone's house. There is nothing in it saying you can't commit murder.

But just because we think it's wrong to commit murder doesn't mean it belongs in the constitution.

One of my main problems with an amendment to ban gay marriage is that I strongly believe it shouldn't be an amendment. I feel that the supporters of this amendment are abusing the power to ammend the constitution due to a current large majority in congress. Why don't they just make a law instead of an amendment? Because a law so controversial is likely to be repealed when the political makeup of congress changes. An amendment is much harder to repeal.

There has been another amendment that was similar. It used the constitution to create a law. The exact same kind of politics were involved, just with a different issue. We see how well that worked out. Long after it was obvious prohibition was a bad idea it continued to exist, because they had put it into the constitution, making it very hard to repeal.

[mushroom]

I've come across another argument that I'd like to see responses to--I don't believe this has been brought up yet in this debate.

Laws punishing or discriminating against homosexual behavior are gender discrimination (and, therefore, unconstitutional). They state that I cannot enter into certain types of contracts and relationships with any individual who happens to be female. How exactly is that different than stating that I cannot enter into certain types of contracts and relationships with any individual who is black, Hindu, a Czechloslovakian citizen, or 52 years old (assuming I'm a legal adult, of course)? Any law of that sort would be struck down immediately--and, as I recall, "gender" is in that list of Constitutionally irrelevant differences.

[Jessica Coconut]

We could debate about what it is to debate too, you know. It's simple. In a topic such as this, there's no way to win over another side. It's to give it your all and try. Maybe you make a few people acknoledge your point, even switch sides (possibly because they didn't know all the facts, and we're introduced to something new)

Then, you try and hold your own against someone elses arguments.

We all know eachother has some very valid arguments, and some not so valid ones. We give it our best shot to make someone seriously consider and attempt to argue their best, and soon, when you've went over and over it again and again, you come to a point to agree to disagree. And, if the debates purpose was to actually make an official decision, you have to compromise and look for the best in both worlds.

The dividing factor is who of the undecided or acknoledge-everything people joins your side. 'Cause the people with minds made up don't budge.

So, why don't we just give all the gays and lesbians an equivalent? Not just a civil union, but whatever. Have the whole nine yards. If the church doesn't want to hold it for you, fine. Find one that will. And feel free to hold it wherever you like. Basically, silly as it may seem, what we really want is to let them have what they want, but not be hurting our moral and religious views. So, take whatever marriage and other religious terms, give them new ones. If it's not called marriage, and it works a little different, what do we have to complain about. Yeah, so what. I am going against that book, What's in a Name, and that quote, "A rose by any other name will still smell as sweet".

But really. As long as people don't see it as marriage, their's no problem. People don't like the use of the word marriage because it's associated with holy matrimony, and seems to go against religious views. But as long as it doesn't look like marriage, it's not. Maybe I'm going soft, but I feel really upset, because this topic upsets my religious beliefs, but I also believe that everyone should be allowed a fair chance at happiness. And this isn't fair.

[Deleted]

story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20040812/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_calif_16

An article on the subject you might like to read.

About a dozen gay and lesbian couples, some wearing wedding dresses and tuxedos, waited on the steps of the Supreme Court building, and some cried when the decision was read.

That just breaks my heart.. yes, in the article you can see that the Mayor did rush things, but the way there are actual organisations who's purpose is to keep people who love each other apart is just sickening.

There's a ton of facts and such I could also say to support my case, but the bottom line is: They just want to be happy. To be treated like normal people. To love someone. It's not anyone's business but the people involved. 2 adult, sentient human beings that decide they love each other should not have laws trying to keep them apart.

[Oily]

Nef said:

story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20040812/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_calif_16

An article on the subject you might like to read.

That just breaks my heart.. yes, in the article you can see that the Mayor did rush things, but the way there are actual organisations who's purpose is to keep people who love each other apart is just sickening.

There's a ton of facts and such I could also say to support my case, but the bottom line is: They just want to be happy. To be treated like normal people. To love someone. It's not anyone's business but the people involved. 2 adult, sentient human beings that decide they love each other should not have laws trying to keep them apart.

Oh, I read that one. Especially about Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, who say that they simply don't have the luxury of time. It just leaves me cold that people vote purely to stop people expressing their love - there is no other word for it but bigotry.

[Retired Blub]

Oily said:

Oh, I read that one. Especially about Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, who say that they simply don't have the luxury of time. It just leaves me cold that people vote purely to stop people expressing their love - there is no other word for it but bigotry.

Your words say it all Oily.

[Sirius]

I haven't read the whole thread but I do have a view. *looks around* There you are... *ties it up and drags it over here* Now...speak.

I have no problem with same sex marriages. Sure, marriage is said to be between a man and a woman but rules aren't exactly rules -- there guidelines that can be broken. If it doesn't effect anyone but the two wanting to marry and their families and friends. If it's against a religion, it's not them who are doing it - it's other people of a different religion. Now, churches don't have to perform gay marriage cerimonies if it is against their religion but the religions that are for it can wed gays (this refers to homosexuals and lesbians but I just don't feel like typing big words). And there's nothing wrong with being gay. If your best friend turned out to be gay, would you hate him? He was gay before when you were younger but he just didn't know it. And besides, if you gay it's not a choice you can make. You can choose to be an openly gay person or you can choose to try and act straight to avoid problems that may come up. If God didn't want gays, would he have made them? No. If God didn't want gays being wed, would he let them? No.

[Stal at college no computer]

You talk as if God still plays an extremely active role in civilization today. After the rejection He's gotten for hundred's of years, He's taken more of a hand's off role in the world. Let them spiral down to depravity, he'll work with those that care -- for the time being.

I hate how people act like that "Yeah, I'll spit on and curse God all I want, and everything bad that happens is his fault. Why did he let it happen? Why didn't he help out the people who have neglected and ignored his rules -- on purpose -- for so long?"

Poopie said:

but rules aren't exactly rules -- there guidelines that can be broken.

So can I go out and kill people? Go out and lie? Steal? Etc?

[Kiddo]

Guest-Stal said:

You talk as if God still plays an extremely active role in civilization today. After the rejection He's gotten for hundred's of years, He's taken more of a hand's off role in the world. Let them spiral down to depravity, he'll work with those that care -- for the time being.

I disagree Stal. When I cursed God and went my own way he didn't take a hand's off approach there. Now I can't go a single day without him butting in somehow. Not that I mind.

Anyways, I find the gay marriage issue an extremely hard one. I believe marriage to be a sacred thing - it is a vow taken before God (I know other religions have marriage as well, but God is what I know and what I'll address). It's hard to explain - I believe God created man and woman to be partners and as such, created marriage as his seal of approval over this system.

But now marriage is also a legal issue. If it were seperate in some way, I would have no doubt on where I stand. I would vote for yes, legal partnerships between couples could be allowed.

If the two weren't so intertwined this wouldn't be such a problem. As is, I simply cannot take a stance on this. Either way I'll be breaking some part of my moral code.

So far I've refused to sign the petitions that are going around and if it came to the public in a vote - I would have to abstain from voting either way.