Gay Marriage-Should It Happen?

Of course it should happen. Marriage as sanctioned by the state is essentially a legal construct designed to confer tax and property advantages on your spouse in the event of your death, and why that should be restricted to heterosexuals is beyond me.

It can be viewed as a debate of religion, morality…

Which is unfortunate, because it should have nothing to do with either of those.

Of course it should happen. And of course it will happen. And I hope it comes sooner rather than later.

Why is it so debated? There is not debate as far as I am concerned. marriage should be open to any two people who want to be married.

Failing that, marriage should be severed from a legal state and all people should have access to civil unions with marriage just a sacrament of religion with no legal status whatsoever.

“We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it”. Bigotry and prejudice of any kind disgusts me. Personally, I believe that the current ban on gay marriage is legalized prejudice.

If people would just move beyond the idea that marriage should be related to religion and sex, and get their heads out of what goes on in people’s bedrooms…I think we’d be able to see how kind of silly it is to argue that a civil contract that is based on adults committing to the support and wellbeing of their households should be so profoundly limited for the reason of…what?

…I missed the argument I think…do they have one?

It should definitely be legal.

Yes.

It is not debated for “good reason,” it is brought up constantly because people are least willing to talk honestly about sexuality, most often because they don’t have the guts to tell their partners they want to try getting tagged in the butt while watching old episodes of “Fraggle Rock.”

The “debates” are just counterproductive shouting matches where nothing is achieved except a reinforcement of “us versus them” mentalities. And frankly, networks know that people eat that shit up.

If both sides were even talking on the same terms and respected each other enough to remove their fingers from their ears, and if any pundits saying anything close to what @iamthemob and @meiosis are saying were given airtime without being interrupted before they could express a single syllogism, the debate would have been over a long time ago.

Yes, it should happen and immediately. It’s disgusting that people are denied this status just because of their sexuality.

Of course it should be legal! I live in the bible belt (OK) and they actually had a poll on this same question on the news last night, 90% of viewers were against same sex marriage. I can’t believe I live in a society with such a small mind.

We should have the right to marry whom ever we choose.

There is theoretically no reason for there to be a legal boundary on this matter. However, marrage is also religious, and it is the religious half in which we run into problems.

@Smashley – Thank you. I agree, but I may be biased, of course. ;-) Of course, the problem with pundits is that they’re there to keep the shouting going, Attempting anything close to a rational argument is against their very natures.

For those who haven’t noticed, it’s already happening.

Religiously, I don’t necessarily approve of it, but my religion also teaches to love everyone and accept them for who they are.

Politically, I think that they should have rights.

so I guess I’m yes and no…

Yes, it should. Why? Because marriage is not exclusively religious.

The opposition to gay marriage comes from the fact that marriage has a long-standing tradition in religion and people are unwilling to give that up. But wait. Are there secular arguments against gay marriage? One I hear all the time is “kids need a mommy and a daddy”. What’s wrong with that argument right off the bat is that gay adoption is a completely different issue. Allow gay marriage first and then deal with adoption issues. (I don’t feel much like going into that one right now). Oh, and we can’t forget the other great secular argument: “After gay marriage comes marrying dogs and underage children”. Uh, no, it doesn’t. If you can’t see the difference between two consenting adults marrying each other and someone marrying a dog or a 5-year-old, you need to question your logic abilities.

Atheists get married, Jews get married (sorry Christians, marriage is not just for you), Hindus get married, there’s no good reason why two adult men or women should not be allowed to marry each other.

Some say: “Just give them civil unions and let us keep the word ‘marriage’ holy!” For one thing, civil unions have often not offered the same legal benefits that marriage offers (same-sex couples should definitely not be denied those benefits) and for another reason, like it or not, “marriage” and “civil union” do not carry the same connotations. “We’re getting married!” “We’re getting civilly unified!” The two do not carry the same weight in society and social circles. That may not seem like a valid reason, but you can bet it is. “Separate but equal” is inherently unequal.

I don’t want churches to be forced to perform gay marriages. If a church doesn’t want to, that’s fine by me. Churches can keep their religious ceremonies to themselves and are not obligated to do something that goes against their teachings. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t allow same-sex couples to marry. There are plenty of groups willing to marry two people of the same sex.

Yes, I greatly look forward to the day when my state allows me to marry the man I love. (California’s been really pissing me off about the issue lately).

@troubleinharlem

Can you explain a little bit more what you mean by having rights ‘politically’ (as opposed to socially or even religiously)?

And then but also I’m curious with regard to how you use ‘rights’ in that sentence. ‘Rights’ is like a really harmless, kind of catch-all term. (No one’s going to say people shouldn’t have ‘rights’ generally but they’re sadly willing to specify which rights, so I think just to me it seems almost pointless to say that a certain group of people should have rights without indicating whether they’re the same rights other groups have, etc.)

I don’t mean to antagonize. And I understand and respect the first (i.e. religious) part of your statement for the most part, although I do find it slightly self-contradictory).

@absalom – I’m myself beginning to get really suspect of “rights-based rhetoric.”

@troubleinharlem – I think that should be fleshed out as well. I appreciate you walking into dangerous waters. I hope we can all remain semi-respectful.

Sure, why not?

Yes. All US citizens should be treated equally under the law. The Massachusetts Supreme Court found the discrimination against gays unconstitutional May 17, 2004. All the doomsday crap the religious right claimed would happen turned out to be nothing but lies/ Straight marriage didn’t suffer. Schools didn’t start teaching kids to be gay. People didn’t petition to marry horses. None of the threats had any foundation in fact. Letting to men or women who love each other marry hasn’t hurt me one bit. But discriminating against people simply because of their sexual orientation does hurt people. It does very real harm.

@absalom and @iamthemob : Well… I was trying not to upset anybody or have anyone freak out at me, which is why I said rights. I suppose it wouldn’t be politically, per se, but I couldn’t think of the word. I meant politically as in, wanting to get married, adopting children, etc. (which isn’t politically, I know)...

Basically, I’ve been taught that homosexuality is wrong, but with that, I’ve also been taught that we should accept others for who they are and love them like we would want to be loved. Its kind of confusing, because I believe the part about loving your neighbor, and the rest of the bible, so I’m kind of on the fence…

Did that explain anything?

It makes no difference to me who marries who. I think it is wrong for one group of people to keep another from pursuing happiness. I think the gov. should put everyone on even ground where marriage is concerned. Why shouldn’t gays be allowed to marry who they love? I believe it is religious people that stand in the way of gays right to marry.

@troubleinharlem – Sense enough. It is sad to hear, though.

I think gays are entitled to have committed partnerships, and have it be legally recognized. I support that idea anytime I am asked.
And I think it would happen tomorrow if they would come up with a different word to describe it.
Most people that I know are perfectly comfortable with anybody having loving relationships.
They are uncomfortable with the sort of Orwellian use of a term that is already conceptually specific.
Anyway, I have said this a hundred times on this site, and taken a lot of shit about it, so this will be my only comment on this thread. For what that is worth.

There are many places where same sex marriages are legal, and happen every day.

It’s simple.

I. Totally abolish marriage.

1. All current marriages will now be considered cohabitation.

2. All current marriage lengths will be grandfathered in and applicable under the “live together” time limit set below.

II. Set up a basic list of common law rules for cohabitation (applicable to all couples):

1. As long two individuals are consenting adult humans they may live together

2. You must live together for x amount of time before you are eligible for:

Shared insurance benefits
The right to adopt and/or have a child naturally
Tax benefits
The right to shared property should cohabitation end
Any other rights previously afforded those with the designation of “married”

III. If you worry, fret, bitch, or pursue legal action because you are threatened by what two adults do in the privacy of their bedroom you will be required to wear, for no less than one year and big white shirt with a large red A on the front of it. The A will heretofore be designated as standing for “Asshole”.

IV. You must all send me a dollar.

every good bill has a couple of riders . . .

@Blondesjon Really not a bad idea. Will never pass the legislature, but objectively a good notion.
I’ll keep the dollar though. My compliment is easily worth a buck. :)

@troubleinharlem

So just to clarify: You believe that gays should be allowed to both marry and adopt children. I.e., you would vote in favor of gay marriage. (And adoption, when it comes to that.)

Yes?

@Blondesjon
I’d like to hear your reasoning for people being required to live together for a certain amount of time before they could have a baby. Maybe I just haven’t thought of something, but it seems like it doesn’t make sense. Would you force a woman to have an abortion if she got pregnant before she and her husband had lived together for long enough?

Yes, in fact I would require that every woman should have one mandatory abortion, just to get it out of the way. I would also require that all parents eat meat, spank their kids, and spread vicious lies about the existence of Santa and the Easter Bunny . . .

. . . or . . .

. . . maybe that is just a statement that suggests folks should take awhile to get to know what living with each other is like before they throw another roommate into the mix.

it’s not a real bill you know . . .

@Blondesjon I see what you’re saying. But sometimes it just doesn’t work out like that. But, you know, people got along pretty well in the times when living in the same house was unthinkable before marriage.

Sure it should. I don’t even know why this is still a debate.

Government recognized commitments should be equally available to any couple as a Civil Union. Marriage would remain an additional option available for those who want their union blessed by their religion/church/faith/beliefs. Or, they can just do the marriage and skip the civil union if they don’t want the government involved at all.

Lets see, how do gays getting married effect me? Oh whats that? Not at all? Hmmm why is it again people have such a huge fucking problem with this?

It’s none of mine, nor the goobermint’s business who loves, fucks, or marries whom as long as it’s all consensual.

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard Lmao goobermint. XD

@Symbeline, seems appropriate, since it’s consistently made up of goobers.

Yes, all domestic partners should have legal protections and access to shared/joint benefits. I believe in civil marriages for all, religious ceremonies for those who want them.

Absolutely it should happen. I fail to see why w’re still arguing about this as a nation. Enough already.

If it doesn’t harm anyone, why not? Most human beings just want to be loved. And they want to love another person in return. Is this so bad? Sheesh!

I’m a happily married man with two small children. I am proud of having a nice family and fortunate to have a loving wife whom I love also. Is it my right to deny someone else of having the same thing in life just because their partner happens to be of the same sex? Ridiculous!

I would be very happy that another person could experience the same joys and “marriage adventures” that I have had in my life, and it would sadden me greatly if I knew people could not just because some proportion of the heterosexual community denies them that right.

who am I to tell anyone who they should marry. I think if two people make the decision that they want to get married, it really has nothing to do with me, or ayone else in the world, as far as that decision goes. I say, let people marry who they want to marry if they so choose.

I love the point that @DominicX made. Marriage is not just for Christians!

Personally I don’t plan on having my wedding in a church, with a religious theme at all, that doesn’t make my marriage any less official.
So people can just throw the religious aspect out the window. It’s not for everyone, but marriage should be.

I live in Massachusetts – it’s already happening here. Now it’s time for the rest of the US to catch the hell up.

I’m not a fan of the idea of marriage at all but I believe if marriage is legal for a straight couple then it should be for a gay couple. Equal rights.

@absalom : I haven’t gotten that far yet in my thought process…

Yes.

Humans are so vain even arguing about the sexual things. Jesus is married to all of anyway because he is the bride that gives living water.
Revelation 22:17,King James Bible
And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

Humans are all married to Jesus, and Jesus wants us to be one in love. Therefore zoosexual sex is not bad ether,and the other sexualities as well.No need to marry a non human animal at all because they are not concerned with our traditions anyway.Humans are so anal about the activities that spill semen and oblivious to the real bad things of spilling blood of humans which idolatry = to human sacrifice,and = terrorism. It says that in the last days humans wi9ll lose natural affection,and that is losing the ability to love,and even knowing what love is,and that is because the spirit leaving the earth,and those that have Gods spirit will show love to all life having a balanced mind regarding life on the planet, and there will be those with out love with an unbalance outlook on life on the planet not having love,and do bad things thinking they are good. when humans do that,that is blasphemy against the holy spirit which is the unforgivable sin because the human thinks he does not have to repent about hurting a human like the gay,zoo,pedophile or tackling a nudest like an unwilling foot ball player that has two ball he could never fumble.With all this is is still OK to be an omnivore.

huh?

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard Yeah I denno, but I was surprised to find a reference to Castlevania Symphony of the Night in there. :/

@Symbeline, really? Where?

I say yes. Who cares who you marry. Maybe they should just have pre-arranged marriages then if they wanna make rules for eveything.

Marry who you want! As Rodney King said, “Can we all get along?”

@blondesjon That was great! Marry Me! Where do I send the dollar? LOL

the paypal address is jon@randomassradio.com. contacting your local lawmakers and making your voice heard is up to you.