gay marriage

[Haggard]

everyone's gotta get in where they fit in. if you can find a way to beat the system do it. werd.

[Haggard]

everyone's gotta get in where they fit in. if you can find a way to beat the system do it. werd.

[The Hand of Poo]

shouldn't bend over backwards to give RIGHTS to homosexuals... They all have rights....

Except, of course, the right to be married. Which was the original issue. Of course.

[cwallace]

lol...should we change that censor switch somehow??? It just makes this topic...well...funny...lol...

Chris

[diethyl]

Reason #1: A gay couple isn't fit to raise children, and children should only be raised in a family with a mom and dad.

If that's the ideology, then why are we not passing laws to remove the children from the grips of single parents? Why are convicted felons allowed to raise children? Murderers, rapists, even child molesters are allowed to reproduce and raise children. Shouldn't we tackle that first?

Reason #2: Marriage has never been redefined, and shouldn't ever be redifined.

Really? I do recall hearing about how marriage was once only valid for a couple of the same race. What about divorce?

Reason #3: If marriage is redefined to allow gays to wed, then laws allowing other perverse relationships such as beastality and incest will soon follow.
Wait! We'll also have to redefine the laws that recognize animals as American citizens with the same legal rights and responsibilities as humans. And anyone who's ever seen an episode of Jerry Springer will be able to tell you that many types of incestual marriages aren't prohibited by law.

Reason #4: Marriage should only be given to couples capable of reproducing and starting a family.
Then why are elderly and infertile people allowed to get married?

Reason #5: Gay marriage is immoral.
This one could go a long way in Iran. However fortunately we live in a government that (so they say) offers freedom of religion. Freedom OF religion also means freedom FROM religion. Under this kind of ideology, there would be laws requiring Buddhists to worship Jesus Christ for an hour every Sunday morning.

Reason #6: Homosexuality is unnatural.
Without spitting out a bunch of proven scientific stats that prove otherwise, I'll just say that in my life I've had my good share of male animals that would ignore females and f**k each other in the ass instead.

Reason #7: Homosexuality is gross.
I will agree with this statement. However I must add that watching someone eat a steak is probably less appealing to me than watching two men have sex with each other. But, instead of fighting for a law to make everyone in America a vegetarian, I simply don't watch people eating steak (or having gay sex).

Now, please, shut the f**k up and go back to church.

[QWETTY]

shouldn't bend over backwards to give RIGHTS to homosexuals... They all have rights....

Except, of course, the right to be married. Which was the original issue. Of course.

homosexuals dont have rights because they arent people.

[Grindspine]

It'd be great if the queer community didn't go after the religious practice of marriage. As you stated though, legal rights cause it to be something more than religious tradition.

Right you are chuck. Here's a question though: Where are those legal rights? If we say, "It's okay to be queer, just not married" then those rights need to be in place yesterday. Otherwise we're sending out, "It's okay to be queer, but we only say that to save a bunch of f*#king face."

I wasn't sure how to respond to this at first, but hopefully these responses will clarify...

As a marriage can occur now with the total absence of the church, or anyone related to the church to oversee it, I feel that anyone that wants to be married (straight or queer) should be quite allowed to.

Agreed. Marriage has become a legal institution (and is present in every culture in the world, regardless of religion). However, for a long time in western culture, it was overseen by the church. It seems that at present, the church wants to take it back. Again, separation of church and state is SO important.

Leave the church wedding for the ones who practice and provide a legal, binding and RECOGNIZED union for those those who don't.

But what do you call that legally binding union? ..."marriage" as it's already widely known?

IMHO

Marriage should be defined as a legal and or holy
union between a man and a woman.
Anything else under that term, I would
consider a perversion.

That being said, I've nothing against a legal
union of others being queer or whatever.
(cant think of the right term for this)

Must be my upbringing.

Oh well,..my .02

The problem I see here is the "legal and or holy union". If it's "legal" then how do you deny those rights to someone legally? If it's "holy", as someone previous said, the church is like a club and can make their own rules. However, the church cannot expect its rules to be necessarily followed outside of its own walls.