Gay Marriage Should it be legal

PrinceLUDA21

PrinceLUDA21

New Member
Registered
Apr 18, 2006
1,143
0
0
38
Philly
Okay this is one of the bigest subjects out there now. Anyone who saw last nights Family Guy, can see that it's on a lot of ppls mind. So do you think it should be legal or not. I could care less. Either way you can have problems. So why is it such a big deal. First of all I would like to know why is marriage in a legal standpoint anyway. You mean to tell me the goverment has to issuse me something once I'm married. Now I do understand some of the legal points but that can be set to anyone.................................Sidebar - I just found out that when you have a child you do not have custody of your child. The goverment has custody of your child. You must file for custody. I think thats bull........................................Weither your married or not.

Well my point is You is it not legal in some states. Do ppl really have a problem with Gay ppl. I don't understand the whole Gay persona but who cares right. I have gay friends ( mostly girls ) And they have the same problems my straight friends have. So why can they not come together in wed-lock.
 
At the risk of making some people mad, I am going to say that gay marriage should not be legal. I say this because I believe that marriage is on some levels a spiritual act that was created for a man and woman.

However, I do believe in equality under the law and there should be a seperation of church and state, so I will suppor the idea of a civil union.
 
WARNING: This information is not intended to offend.

Now, homosexuality is an "alternative lifestyle." Homosexuality is NOT the only alternative lifestyle. Other alternative lifestyles are bigomy, bestiallity, group marriages and even more. I'm not saying that these are better than homosexuality, or anything like that, but legally, they're all equal. As such, it is inadvisable to legalize gay marriage, because if it did come to be, then there would be a legal precedent established for ALL alternative lifestyles to become legalized. And if they did not legalize it, it would be considered governmental discrimination.

Personally, though, I'm against it.
 
I think that I wuld have to respectfully disagree. those other things seem more like alternative lifestyle "choices" whereas homosexuality is a "lifestyle" it does not really seem to be a choice. I have recently heard some people call it a choice and a fad but when I talk to some of my gay friends they seem to all agree that it was not a choice. They just are.

This might be my last post in this thread by the way. This is totally a hot topic for me.
 
I'm not saying that all gay people are faking it or that it's fashionable to be gay, because that isn't what I think. But what I said was entirely objective from a legal standpoint. Whether it's morally right or not, that's how it is.
 
Maybe I was wrong for this therad.

I only posted this because I know way to many Gay ppl. And I have seen some chage their sexuality just by what they feel. It is a choice. You chose to be attractied to who you want to. If you like Plus size women then that is your choice. You like a Man and you are a man it is your choice. True Everyone deserves to be treated equally. But that is not how the world works. Everyone person thinks they are better then another. It is not true we all are the same. We all Breath the same air, drink the same water, and yet You are better then another because you say so. Well I know the Bible or any religon does not agree with homosexuality. But what have to realize is that it's been around forever. So it is a choice in retrospect. We all have a choice in this world. By dening someone that choice just because you do not agree with them is worng. Nobody can deny someone something because of their choice. Truth is if God himself is a forgivin person then would he not forgive a gay person. If Murders and Rapist can be forgivin why can't Homosexuals.


So Again maybe i'm wrong for posting this thread. If anyone else would like to comment i'm open for any discussion. If not that is your choice.



I for the record I know a Gay preist. And he has many followers both Gay and straight, Old and Young.
 
spudlyff8fan said:
Now, homosexuality is an "alternative lifestyle." Homosexuality is NOT the only alternative lifestyle. Other alternative lifestyles are bigomy, bestiallity, group marriages and even more. I'm not saying that these are better than homosexuality, or anything like that, but legally, they're all equal. As such, it is inadvisable to legalize gay marriage, because if it did come to be, then there would be a legal precedent established for ALL alternative lifestyles to become legalized. And if they did not legalize it, it would be considered governmental discrimination.
Click to expand...

This is a "slippery slope" argument. The only thing I'm going to toss out there is that almost exactly the same argument was used to claim that interracial marriages should not be legalized.

Personally, I think that marriage should not be a recognized union by our government. Our government should only recognize civil unions, and other unions, like marriage, should be left to religion where they belong -- and should not confer any special right or privledge under law to those who are joined under them. Then those who want same sex and opposite sex unions treated identically under law can have that, and those who want the government to recognize same sex unions but not same sex marriage can have that, and those who oppose same-sex unions altogether can go back under whatever rock they climbed out from and continue eating baby kittens.
 
BCampbell said:
This is a "slippery slope" argument. The only thing I'm going to toss out there is that almost exactly the same argument was used to claim that interracial marriages should not be legalized.
Click to expand...
Uhh...how did you come to that conclusion?
 
My answer is no. I voted for the law that said a marriage is between one man and one woman (here in Kentucky). The institution of marriage has always been first and foremost, a religous institution. Remember Adam and Eve? By saying "gay marriage" or "polygomy" is a "marriage" the very meaning of the word is changed.

Let the civil union thing be a seperate issue. The government can adjust taxes, decide on alimony/child support, divide possessions during a divorce, custody of children (although not usually a problem for homosexuals it can be one for multiple-partner relationships), etc. It's very complicated.
 
Well, being that I don't have much in the way of an institutionalized religious belief structure, I think my response is simply that there is no LEGAL or CONSTITUTIONAL bar against Gay Marriage. Marriage is not an immutable institution, and it has never been purely a religious matter. Most arguments against this subject of gay marriage is rooted in Judeo-Christian tradition, but marriage has existed in many forms within that tradition itself and in many other cultures that are pre-date Judeo-Christian-Islamic civilizations.

Whether it was polygamy, marriages of alliance, marriages of property exchange, the rituals of marriage differ wildly on its meaning between cultures and faiths. The definition of marriage has changed over time in this culture as well. Women today are considered equal partners in a marriage given the same rights and privileges as their husbands. Rewind a couple hundred years, and a woman was regarded as (in all practicality) property of her husband/father/eldest male relative.

With all due respect to those people of faith who have honestly given their opinion as being against Gay Marriage, since there seems to be no legal argument being made against civil marriages made by atheists, or handfasting by so-called pagans, there is no legal recourse to bar two homosexuals from becoming married partners according to their own belief system. Marriage laws in the United States should not and do not define the morality of these decisions. They merely provide the framework for the equitable division of property, the protection of fiscal rights for a couple and maintaining the clear chain of ownership in the division of an estate at the end of one or both partner's life.

If the concept of a legalized union is defined under such strict moral codification in this country as many would have us believe, Kevin Federline would be a broke-ass, absent father who didn't have a rap album that everyone makes fun of, instead of living it up on Britney Spears' dime.
 
shysta said:
meh...they can do whatever they want. I can careless, it ain't like they're hurting anybody.
Click to expand...
Once again, not to offend anyone but the "not hurting anybody" applies to polygomy, bestiallity, etc.
 
spudlyff8fan said:
Once again, not to offend anyone but the "not hurting anybody" applies to polygomy, bestiallity, etc.
Click to expand...

I can somewhat see the polygamy argument in comparison to gay marriage, but bestiality doesn't even apply. Even in a polygamous marriage, were it to be legalized, there is the ability for all partners to possess informed consent while taking part in the transaction. In a "relationship" of bestiality, the animal, as far as the law is concerned, cannot form the requisite sentient response of consent for a partnership to exist.

On a side note, the first man in the American colonies to be convicted of bestial relations was Thomas Granger, 1642. He apparently buggered a mare, a cow, two goats, five sheep, two calves and a turkey. He was executed for his crimes, sadly.
 
basilmunroe said:
Why is that sad? He was a multiple rapist!
Click to expand...
You're a Canadian, when did you start supporting death penalty? And when did you start approving jail? I could tie up a building full of orphans, burn it down and get probation for it in Canada.
 
Trust me Spuds, I'm not a typical Canadian. I wouldn't say I'm in full support of the death penalty, but I don't think it's "sad" when someone is hanged for a heinous crime.

In the case of rape (whether of a human or an animal) I think castration is the most fitting consequence.
 
Spuds, leave the Jr. American alone. And I think the people killed him after they discovered they had already eaten the animals by the time they figured him out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom