Rational discussion on Gay Marriage

Some folks here do not believe this can happen. I know there are a few who cannot post without using these terms : libs, dems, conservatives, republicans or obama so I will just ignore any post using them and propose anyine wishing to actually discuss the views surrounding this do so as well.

The challege is now made, can the members of this forum discuss their views on this without being abusive or using those terms?

 

To start off the discussion, I believe the right to marriage must be extended to same sex couples in order to comply with the constitutional requirement of equal treatment under the law.

Since the government licenses marriage that license must include those same sex couples who wish to make a similar commitment to each other and enjoy the rights other couples do. This does not mean any church or organized religion would have to perform any such service because that is a right they now enjoy ... refusal. A civil ceremony would be required however.

 

I believe that the government should recognize Marriage between consenting adults (only two of them).

If the argument is that it can only be between a man and a woman because of one or more religions, then the government should only recognize the civil unions of adults and staying out of the religion business. Thereby leaving "Marriage" to those religions.

 

Love knows no boundaries...I believe the right to marry to should extended to all who chose to make that commitment to another person regardless of race, religion or gender.

 

I believe marriage is between a man and a women NOT homosexuals. However, I do think a homosexual couple should be allowed to have a civil union to have the same advantages that a married couple for insurance or tax purposes.

 

Gay marriage should be allowed. I used to be very judgemental of gays. Until I met my old neighbors, right there in Johnston County NC. There were two couples both had homes across from me. They had a better more loving relationship than I did at that time.

One couple had been together for 18 years.

Love know's no boundries is so correct.

Look we now think polygamy is wrong, yet Abraham in the old testament had how many wives?

It is a matter of interpretation. To me it is about the love and what works for the person.

 

What they do behind closed doors is a non-issue for me. However, I disagree with this nation recognizing them.

 

Did you live in my neighborhood? LOL

 

Ya’ll can’t be serious. If your going to let these sexual deviants to get married, why not let people marry animals or children. To me they are just as sick. A man has to be sick in the head if he wants to do another man. What’s really messed up is after they marry, they then want to adopt kids to expose them to their culture. I'm sorry, but gay marriage is wrong in so many ways. I believe aids was put here because of the sins of homosexuals. It’s odd that it has affected their community the most.

 

You do realize in parts of the world AIDs is a heterosexual epidemic?

 

Good luck on this one. opcorn::cheers:

 

Hmmmmmmmmmm. Yet another double thread on this board.

 

LOL! reminds me of something ellen degeneres said. "this is my boyfriend billy the goat... we're in LOVE, mom!"

I think anyone who believes that gay marriage should be banned should go tell a gay couple that he/she believes they shouldnt be married, have a rational discussion about it, and see if they come out with the same feelings. If they havent at least learned anything then they are just very closed-minded.
i used to be opposed to it, mainly because it was just a completely new idea to me, but the more i think about it, the more it seems obvious that it violtes the constitution.
I think civil unions will become legal, and the govt will move up to legalizing gay marriage eventually. America never had a history of accepting sudden change.

 

A previous poster stated that the government should only recognize civil unions and stay out of religion. Well, the state (government) is the entity that legalizes marriage, not the church. Maybe the church should stay out of legal marriages!

On a another related note, why would someone "choose" to be homosexual?

Think about that one!

 

In the beginning:
AIDS was first reported June 5, 1981, when the CDC recorded a cluster of Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia in five homosexual men in Los Angeles. In the beginning, the CDC did not have an official name for the disease, often referring to it by way of the diseases that were associated with it, the disease after which the discoverers of HIV originally named the virus. In the general press, the term GRID, which stood for Gay-related immune deficiency, had been coined. By September 1982 the CDC started using the name AIDS.

Remember how liberals in the media kept telling us that AIDS was going to move into the hetrosexual community. That it would become an epidemic, and they would point to Africa as their proof.

But anyone with a little common sense (impossible to find in liberalism) would tell them, that Africa has their problem because of their different culture. (which just really angers mutli-culturalists because all cultures, including cultuers that mutilate genitals is supposed to be "just as valid."

It was always about RAISING DONATIONS, TAXES, AND THEIR POWER. This is what liberals do. They LIE about a coming crisis, and it's always about how the US has to bow to it and cough up some cash and freedom.

This "crisis" was one of the ways they bashed the Reagan admin. Remember he supposedly didn't care about AIDS, yet more money was being spent on it, than on heart attacks, which kill far more people -- including heterosexuals? Then Clinton didn't spend JACK on AIDS for Africa, which spurred even Richard Gere to take Hillary to task for Bubba not doing anything about it.

Bush has spent so much on AIDS in Africa that it embarassed liberals and they dropped the subject (including the lie that AIDS would break out into the heterosexual community)

 

I don't think rights should be withheld simply because someone is gay.

As far as "Marriage" vs "Civil Union", I don't think it's fair, right or proper to toss a few scraps to the gays and tell them, "We're calling it a civil union for you, but for regular couples we'll call it a marriage." If you want to call it civil union, then you must call it that for both gay and straight couples.

 

Some times ignorance is blissful and others is it just plain sad.

(No, Cliff, I am not picking on you)

 

Are you saying my comment was ignorant? If so, how so?

 

yep. it was short lived, as I figured.

 

Why do we have two threads on this?