Why don't gays/lesbians deserve to have the right to be married?

When I was young,I was very homophobic.I'm now 53 and have known many people,both gay and lesbian.When I realized that they see their partner the same way that I see my wife,there was no more debate in my mind.We love the people we are attracted to.Gays and lesbians should have the same right to marry under the law that my wife and I enjoy.

hay purps no new grow yet. hit me up when u get started.

Crazy gay slug video:
[youtube]vtgPAQTJLQs[/youtube]

I think it should be their decision. If that's what they feel then they should go for it.
It's not going to do anything to anyone.
After all we are all free, aren't we?

stay high.

much more ,,,but life is about life,,,,wat life can a man/man woman/woman give?....none,,,,i dont want my little brothers or my idren to grow up inna world with no morals,,,dont know bout u pvs ,,,they can have theyre freedom behind doors but marraige is between man/woman,,,not otherwise,,,,

So by your logic, infertile women should not be able to marry. And calling homosexuality immoral is just stupid. How are two guys or two girls getting married hurting anyone?

Well, I've always said gays/lesbians are all good with me as long as they aren't shoving it in my face... i.e two homosexuals making out in a public park... As far as marriage goes, sure, it'd be just dandy for us all to have equal rights and whatnot, but realistically this just isn't gonna happen. People hate other people being different... as long as there is racial + sexual prejudice we're never going to move forward. In NZ, "marriages" for homosexuals aren't existent as such, rather there is just a Civil Union which is as close as I think they are likely to get here...

I'm the one who spawned this thread by my comment in the "should guns be illigal?" thread. In my defense I was mearly pointing out that you can't change the definition of a word. Period. The word "marriage" is difined as a "union of a MAN and WOMAN, HUSBAND and WIFE under the law or religious ceromony. And I stated that they DO have all the same rights that straight people have. They get all the same tax benefits and all that garbage when they under go a civil union made possible by the state of California. They just don't call it marriage. That's the only difference. For example if a jewish girl comes from a very trditional family and wants to marry a non jewish boy then there will be some comotion. The family will become prejudice against the man. That sucks but by tradtional jewish standards they have to marry full blooded jews. Now because the man is not jewish, does that mean he has the right to "protest?" Yes he does! Does that mean the family will change their mind. Probably not. Tradition will supersede in this situation. Marriage happens to be a straight tradition.

My aunt is a single mother of 2 children. About 5 years after her marriage ended she came out and said that she was a lesbian. She went to Hawaii, got "married," came back, lived her life and has never been happier. My little cousins are subject to ridicule every day because their mom prefers women to guys. It really pisses me off when I see that shit because I'm not a gay hater. If you were to ask my aunt right now if she feels oppressed because of her sexual orrientation, she would laugh at you.

Now about this CA ban on gay marriage is a big concern to some people. Frankly all the gays that I've really sat down and had a discussion about this have all said, "I really don't give a fuck." Including my aunt. And to some they are really pissed off. My whole statement was, is the ban on marriage really about equal rights or is it about a word? The word "Marriage" was invented before anyone ever though about uniting the same sex under GOD. That just wasn't happening when the english language was invented. I'm pretty sure there were gay people back then. Actually I know there was. There's been reports of the romans having bisexual tendancies. But you weren't gay unless you took it. That is seriously what they believed. They might have had a word that incorperated same sex unions with opposite sex unions. Unfortunately it wasn't the english word, "marriage," which was probably made by some preist or pope who didn't consider same sex unions when they making up english words. It's about a word! Let's make up a new word and use that to incorperate EVERYONE! Then we'll have equality. Let's move foward and invent and evolve. Not go backwards and try to change something that's said and done. New topic!

no they shouldn't as marriage is a religious thing that is done & witnesses in the eyes of god... its one of gods commandments to keep a family unit holy and the love between a man and a woman holy....

homosexuality is an abomination in the bible so no how can they be allowed to take part in a religious seromony?
its a slap in the face of god in my eyes.... any priest who marryes gays are satanic,,,, p.s most priest are satanic anyway and are homo/pedofiles

its thier agender to marry.....

deep subject I guess

cbtwohundread said:

much more ,,,but life is about life,,,,wat life can a man/man woman/woman give?....none,,,,i dont want my little brothers or my idren to grow up inna world with no morals,,,dont know bout u pvs ,,,they can have theyre freedom behind doors but marraige is between man/woman,,,not otherwise,,,,

Click to expand...

if a substantial enough percentage of people do not subscribe to a standard, then its hardly something one can just call "moral" or "immoral". personally i think a great immorality is to judge and condemn others when they are of no harm to others.

either way, standing by and allowing your government to deny rights to one group while granting them to another sets a dangerous precedent. marriage is not a privilege granted to us, its our right. the second we forget that we are one step closer to.........ohhhhhh i almost godwin'd the thread. that was close

Sedition said:

Well, I've always said gays/lesbians are all good with me as long as they aren't shoving it in my face... i.e two homosexuals making out in a public park...

Click to expand...

i'm not trying to call you out or anything, but why is that such a common theme. personally i think its extremely rude and distasteful for anyone to be tongue-wrestling, necking, feeling up, etc in public. but you seem to indirectly imply that its ok for heterosexual people to 'shove it in your face'. is this the case or am i mistaken?

Personally, I think marriage is a joke. Homo-bashers are always defending their arguements with the claim that they're "protecting the sanctity of marriage." How sacred is marriage, exactly? Is it sacred for some drunk guy in Las Vegas to marry a stripper he just met? They're a straight man and a straight woman, so it must be OK. Let me clue you in: the sanctity of marriage is a lost cause. Most marriages only last, like, five years anyway.

Now as for gay marriage, why shouldn't they take a shot at holy matrimony? Most homosexual couples have to fight tooth & nail to get married. They aren't just tying the knot because they've been together awhile and "Hell, why not?" These people have to fight for something that other people get on a whim just because they're sexuallity is concurrent to typical public morals.


The truth is, people's opinions of homosexuals shouldn't define the rights of homosexuals. America was based on the concept that ALL PEOPLE WERE CREATED EQUALLY. Where's the equallity in denying someone's rights because they're different. It's ridiculous.

And will people PLEASE stop comparing gay marriage to animal marriage?! Are you saying that if someone's sexual orientation is different from your own, that makes them ANIMALS? The ignorance that keeps gay marriage illegal is the same ignorance that keep marijuana illegal. It's DIFFERENT so it must be BAD. Is this what your so-called "God" is teaching you? If someone doesn't strictly adhere to the little black book that God wrote (if you can't tell, I'm an atheist) then you should treat them like an animal? People please. Think rationally.

This is just a case of "I think that's gross, so you shouldn't get to do it." That's all this is. But using this same logic, I could say:

"I like milk chocolate but I don't like dark chocolate, SO LETS OUTLAW DARK CHOCOLATE AND MAKE IT ILLEGAL FOR PEOPLE TO EAT IT."

Sounds stupid, right? Now lets put that reasoning into context:

"I'm a man and I'd like to marry a woman, but I wouldn't want to marry another man, SO LETS OUTLAW SAME-SEX MARRIAGE."
Now, I for one thinks this also sounds stupid, but apperantly there are those of you here who thinks this is a perfectly rational way of thinking. So let me put this in terms you can understand:

"The issue of gay marriage has caused a lot of friction between Americans lately and I'm tired of it, SO LETS OUTLAW ALL MARRIAGE. IF GAYS CAN'T MARRY, THEN NO ONE CAN MARRY."
If you're absolutely hell-bent on keeping gays from marrying, then you can't marry either.

It's only fair.

001 said:

no they shouldn't as marriage is a religious thing that is done & witnesses in the eyes of god... its one of gods commandments to keep a family unit holy and the love between a man and a woman holy....

homosexuality is an abomination in the bible so no how can they be allowed to take part in a religious seromony?
its a slap in the face of god in my eyes.... any priest who marryes gays are satanic,,,, p.s most priest are satanic anyway and are homo/pedofiles

its thier agender to marry.....

deep subject I guess

Click to expand...

Marriage in the US is a legal status and has nothing to do with religion.
According to your logic, it should be illegal for atheists to marry.

jiggs2269 said:

I'm the one who spawned this thread by my comment in the "should guns be illigal?" thread. In my defense I was mearly pointing out that you can't change the definition of a word. Period. The word "marriage" is difined as a "union of a MAN and WOMAN, HUSBAND and WIFE under the law or religious ceromony. And I stated that they DO have all the same rights that straight people have. They get all the same tax benefits and all that garbage when they under go a civil union made possible by the state of California. They just don't call it marriage. That's the only difference. For example if a jewish girl comes from a very trditional family and wants to marry a non jewish boy then there will be some comotion. The family will become prejudice against the man. That sucks but by tradtional jewish standards they have to marry full blooded jews. Now because the man is not jewish, does that mean he has the right to "protest?" Yes he does! Does that mean the family will change their mind. Probably not. Tradition will supersede in this situation. Marriage happens to be a straight tradition.

My aunt is a single mother of 2 children. About 5 years after her marriage ended she came out and said that she was a lesbian. She went to Hawaii, got "married," came back, lived her life and has never been happier. My little cousins are subject to ridicule every day because their mom prefers women to guys. It really pisses me off when I see that shit because I'm not a gay hater. If you were to ask my aunt right now if she feels oppressed because of her sexual orrientation, she would laugh at you.

Now about this CA ban on gay marriage is a big concern to some people. Frankly all the gays that I've really sat down and had a discussion about this have all said, "I really don't give a fuck." Including my aunt. And to some they are really pissed off. My whole statement was, is the ban on marriage really about equal rights or is it about a word? The word "Marriage" was invented before anyone ever though about uniting the same sex under GOD. That just wasn't happening when the english language was invented. I'm pretty sure there were gay people back then. Actually I know there was. There's been reports of the romans having bisexual tendancies. But you weren't gay unless you took it. That is seriously what they believed. They might have had a word that incorperated same sex unions with opposite sex unions. Unfortunately it wasn't the english word, "marriage," which was probably made by some preist or pope who didn't consider same sex unions when they making up english words. It's about a word! Let's make up a new word and use that to incorperate EVERYONE! Then we'll have equality. Let's move foward and invent and evolve. Not go backwards and try to change something that's said and done. New topic!

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you're mistaken. The definition of marriage has been changed in the Oxford English dictionary to:

"mar·riage (mār'ĭj)
n.

1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and in some jurisdictions, between two persons of the same sex, usually entailing legal obligations of each person to the other."

So, yes ...one can most definitely change the definition of a word.

t@intshredder said:

Unfortunately, you're mistaken. The definition of marriage has been changed in the Oxford English dictionary to:

"mar·riage (mār'ĭj)
n.

1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and in some jurisdictions, between two persons of the same sex, usually entailing legal obligations of each person to the other."

So, yes ...one can most definitely change the definition of a word.

Click to expand...

Yes in some jurisdictions it has been adopted. And I checked the "Oxford" dictionary and there was no mention of man and man or woman and woman. The word "marriage" comes from the old french word "Marier," or the latin word "Maritus" which again means husband or wife. Lady and man. It's just a word and for the millionth fucking time!, they have all the same rights as every one else! They are not restricted from doing anything or going anywhere they want. The only people that are a threat to them are the ones who feel that a gay persons lifestyle will some how effect their life. A gay couple can get united under the eyes of the law. It's just not called a marriage. It's called being united. Then there life partner can get on their benefits from work, they can be claimed on the others taxes blah blah blah...

I have never had a gay person tell they feel oppressed or left out. I live in the S.F. bay area, the birth place of free gay love. I have even been to a few gay pride parades. They're fun, if you don't mind being hit on by a bunch of mo's, and I go to show my support of there lifestyle. It's fine with me what they do and how they live there lives. What's not fine with me is how so many self righteous peolpe feel they have to protest every day because of the self made dilussion that they have no rights. And that goes for EVERYONE.

To further prove my point I think we should start a petition. The word "American" should not only include those born i the u.s. but those who share the same ideals as the u.s. Let's change the definition so we can include everyone. I don't want any one to get their feelings hurt because we said they can't be "American." But what if some one really really wanted to be an American? There are steps to becoming American now. You either are born here or you wait for your green card. This definition was pulled straight from dictionary.com. "American," noun 4.a citizen of the United States of America.5.a native or inhabitant of the Western Hemisphere.6.an Indian of North or South America.7.American English. a steam locomotive having a four-wheeled front truck, four driving wheels, and no rear truck

Hell, we can
change that. Who cares about what the actual definition is. All we need, is to be labled the same. That's all that matters right? (FYO: this last paragraph was all sarcasm.)


Now if we were all able to get "married" then what else would the gay and lesbian communities have to protest about? Oh I'm sure they'll find something later on. And if they don't then someone else will. It's a vicious cycle that wont end until EVERYONE is happy. You can't please evryone all the time and the sooner everyone realizes that then the better off we'll be. People are natually displeased by whatever they see. Then they talk to someone else who feels the same way and next thing you know the snowball effect begins, and then you get a buch of people talking about the meaning of a word on a pot forum.

The last thing that I'm gonna say is if anyone ever tries to tell me that gays don't have the same rights as straights I'm gonna flip my lid. My aunt, who I had mentioned in my last post, is the exact opposite of what you would call, "Powerless." Have any of you heard of a little company called Oracle? Well she happens to be the C.F.O. In this "Straight Male dominated," society she's found a way around it. There are always ways to get around the system. You just have to be smart and willing to put in the effort. And letting a little word like, "Marriage" ruin your day, just because the defintion doesn't include you, sounds like you have your own personal issues.

bsically this all comes down to ethics,,,,i dont want the next generation growing up a sodom town,,,i dont agree with sodomites ways so i dont advocate them any of the rights iman and a woman have togetther because its not the natural way,,,,as i would say,,,,,rome burned down for a reason

To me, gay marriage comes down to one and only one thing (at least here in the U.S.): is marriage a RIGHT? If it is a right (and there is plenty of case history to support this) then it cannot be denied to ANY law abiding-citizen. Case over, screw you California (Prop 8 ) and the horse you rode in on, the United States Constitution reigns supreme.

EVERYTHING else is a smokescreen put up by religion, homophobes, and extremists to, as James Madison would put it, enflame “the passions most unfriendly to order and concord” and to divert the public’s reason from “the true merits of the question” so that “the PASSIONS, therefore, not the REASON, of the public would sit in judgment.”

Homosexuals have the same rights under domestic partnerships! Equal but separate never has and never will pass muster.

It’s Gods will! God has gone against the Constitution many times and lost: Women’s Suffrage, interracial marriage, segregation, etc. Either He got over it or He is really for equal rights.

It’s an abomination! Maybe, but it’s legal (at least here in California).

It’s tradition! Traditions change; slavery, the oppression of women, and a host of other things that have changed are based on traditions that go back to the beginning of recorded history. Marriage traditions themselves have changed many times since the beginning of recorded history.

Gay marriage will be taught in school! Uh, isn’t the purpose of education to teach age-appropriate R-E-A-L-I-T-Y? If you don’t want gay marriage to be taught, then don’t teach marriage – the only reason it is taught now is because of the Church’s agenda to push the idea that “chastity has boundaries and sex is to be only between a man and a woman lawfully married.”

Homosexuality is a choice! Not relevant to the same-sex marriage issue. For instance, being a Christian is a choice…it doesn’t matter if Christianity is ultimately THE reality or truth…what matters is that Christian's think it is reality and truth…therefore, it IS reality to them. While many might say that being a Christian is a psychological disorder that is the result of brainwashing or the way you were indoctrinated and is a perversion of reality, etc, etc, etc, I don’t think that a true Christian feels they have any choice but to believe the way they do. You can probably see where I’m going with this: it doesn’t matter if homosexuality is a choice or not…what matters is that most homosexuals think they have no choice…that is their reality.

Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true. ~ Demosthenes

We don't see things as they are; we see them as we are. ~ Anais Nin

Ultimately, I don’t think that a homosexual should be stripped of their right to marry because it may be a choice, anymore than I would want to strip a Christian of any of their rights because of their “choice” to be a Christian.

All of these things are not relevant to the one issue that is paramount: is marriage a right? And if it is a right, should it be denied to any LAW-ABIDING citizen of the United States? My stance is this: homosexuality is not illegal -> we live in a free country that dictates that all law-abiding citizens must abide by the Constitution -> the Constitution says we cannot deny rights to ANY law-abiding citizens -> marriage is a right (as defined by precedent) -> therefore we MUST give homosexuals the right to be married. If we deny homosexuals this right we might as well tear up the Constitution and become a society where our rights are dictated by some other source, like say the Bible.

On a personal level, while I don't "get" homosexuality I do "get" love and the pursuit of happiness, and the happiness that marriage can bring. I even believe that marriage is a sacred institution - perhaps in a different way than many do - but I would never deem my personal beliefs too important to disallow ANY law-abiding citizen from enjoying the same thing I have had the opportunity to enjoy.

I think what is a right is all the legal rights that come with marriage. Civil union contracts that confer all the same rights as marriage should be available to everyone. But frankly, I see no right to take what has been an institution between man and woman for thousands of years and is an underpinning of society and suddenly redefine it into something else so gays don't have to be filled with doubt about whether their marriage is as good as our marriage.

I don't mean to get testy, but my message to gays is that if you can't evolve and define your own version of marriage then that's your problem. You should have 100% of the legal rights but not the name marriage. Call it being "partnered" or whatever, but the ages old institution of marriage does not have to stretch to accomodate gay union.

Illegal Smile said:

I think what is a right is all the legal rights that come with marriage. Civil union contracts that confer all the same rights as marriage should be available to everyone. But frankly, I see no right to take what has been an institution between man and woman for thousands of years and is an underpinning of society and suddenly redefine it into something else so gays don't have to be filled with doubt about whether their marriage is as good as our marriage.

I don't mean to get testy, but my message to gays is that if you can't evolve and define your own version of marriage then that's your problem. You should have 100% of the legal rights but not the name marriage. Call it being "partnered" or whatever, but the ages old institution of marriage does not have to stretch to accomodate gay union.

Click to expand...

The problem with the word “marriage” is that it is part of a tradition, a religious institution, and a legal system. In order to come up with a truly “equal” solution all three of these areas must be addressed.

If I'm looking at something through "the eyes of the law" I don't care why the law exists, only that it exists. On a personal level, I may BELIEVE that incest or homosexuality or fat women in spandex are fundamentally wrong. However, I can't let my personal beliefs override what the law says. If I don't like the law, then I need to lobby to get IT changed. That is why I don't like the way this is being approached; if you don't want ANY individual sector of society to have the right to get married, then you need to make it illegal for that sector to exist. As long as that sector is doing nothing illegal, then they should have the same rights as any other American in the eyes of the law. The trend in America, at least legally, has been to make marriage secular in nature, to match the secular nature of the Constitution.

If you want to “keep marriage historically defined” then you must legally define it; if you legally define it then you must choose a cultural or religious tradition to use as the model. The history of marriage in the United States has been to move away from the traditional non-secular Protestant model of “between a man and woman of the same race, whereby the man is the head of the household, the decision-maker, and the sole owner of all property”. After woman’s suffrage and the elimination of the ban on interracial marriage, all that is left is “man and woman”. You could say that the tradition of marriage in America is to move to a secular, generic model. Legally defining marriage in any sense is a move back to a non-secular model of marriage. The Constitution forms a secular document…hopefully you can see the need to keep non-secularity out of it.

If you look at marriage SOLELY as a tradition, then you have to ask, “Why should we hold onto this last tradition when it hurts other people? How does giving up this last non-secular tradition harm the marriages of opposite-sex couples?”

Finally, your proposal fails to address the religious aspect of marriage. I’m assuming that your traditional view of marriage includes the union being “blessed by God” and there would be some sort of paperwork so indicating. Many religious institutions believe that homosexuality is an abomination or perversion. Others take a less harsh stance, and still others have no problem at all with homosexuals practicing or even getting married within their walls. If you define marriage as a contract between “a man, woman, and God” then you violate the faith of religious same-sex couples by saying that others' religious beliefs can keep them from legally marrying.

To sum it up, no matter HOW you slice marriage up, it still comes out equal but separate. The only solution is to keep marriage whole and open it up to everybody.

I vote for love. If the communion is man and man, or woman and woman, I would not invade their privacy anymore than I would invade a straight persons.