Twelve reasons why gay people should not be allowed to get married

[Cbarton]

Disposable?

It appears modern soceity has you fooled as well.

The current US media/hollywood portrayal of marriage is a mockery of the institution. It was designed to be a permanent committment between an man and a woman. Too many substituted lust and infactuation with love, then wanted a quick way out when things got rough or they found out it took more that "warm fuzzies" or hot sex to make a marriage complete. So, in comes easy divorce to go with quickie marriages. Heaven forbid people stay committed to one another for their life time. People today treat marriage like a used Kleenex.

As our pastor says (& I agree) being in love is the WORST reason to marry. Marriage is and should be a committent to stay together thru it all and develope an "agape" relationship (agape is the greek word for perfect love, without qualifiers or demands for anything back). Today, all people think they need is eros, or sexual desire/love.

My personal feeling is the lawyers are gonna laugh their way to their bank accounts on this. Imagine the divorce court fees if we add gay marriage. Gay divorces will soon follow. As will all the court and attorney costs. They'll make a mint.

And before y'all brand me as a bigoted redneck Bible thumper...I respect differing opinoins. Heck, my boss is a lez. We get along fine and she knows my faith and I don;t get into gay vs/ straight fights with her. Never the right forum. I don't agree with them, nor do I expect many to agree with me. It's just that many forget what marriage is and was supposed to be.

 

[nessonite1]

The possibility of gay marriage becoming legal anytime soon may be lower than you think. Though it's much talked about it is a rather vocal minority who are pushing it. When it's put to the ballot it's always shown that the majority of people are still voting against it.

 

[chickles_:)]

You scared me with the title of this thing...almost had a heart attack...

Cute though...well done...

*Heehee*

I'm with you Cam'lee!:tounge:

I was all set to write a targetted response but i suddenly find i can't - what a drag. *laughs*

Seriously though i actually have organised gay weddings (and in churches!! *gasp!*) It's true! Anyway, the amazing thing i found? - it all sounded pretty much the same as a regular wedding! Other than the obvious gender specific language there was virtually no difference at all. And as for the holiness of the event?? Well, what can i say? the fact that it was two men getting married didn't prevent me from getting misty-eyed at the moment of pronouncing them married in the eyes of God (I can't believe that after over five years as a wedding planner that still chokes me up! How embarrassing! 😱 )

Anyway, just want to support you from the industry and faith side that i live on! *waves pompoms* Great thread!

Many blessings,

 

[Camel26]

Chickles--I'm getting married in two years--wanna help my fiance/ler plan it??? I promise, after the vows we make to one another, there won't be a dry eye in the house...

Come on over!!!

And I know the majority of this nation is against me...but here's the way I see it, and the only way this little dyke can keep a smile on her face in times like this:

Anytime this government has tried to limit the power of any group of people in this country, after a time, it has failed...slavery, prohibition, women's rights, and the civil rights movement of the 60's all came through...but not without a fight. Each of these movements had a few leaders to act as soundpieces for the community they represented and helped to guide everyone in the right direction...unfortunately, my community is lacking in that very department...maybe, when I don't have grad school to contend with, I can become one of those leaders...regardless, I have faith that, even if it takes another twenty years, my partner and I will be recognized in the country of our birth as legally married, equal citizens...

We WILL get there...but it's a hell of an uphill battle...

 

[chickles_:)]

Chickles--I'm getting married in two years--wanna help my fiance/ler plan it??? I promise, after the vows we make to one another, there won't be a dry eye in the house...

Come on over!!!

And I know the majority of this nation is against me...but here's the way I see it, and the only way this little dyke can keep a smile on her face in times like this:

Anytime this government has tried to limit the power of any group of people in this country, after a time, it has failed...slavery, prohibition, women's rights, and the civil rights movement of the 60's all came through...but not without a fight. Each of these movements had a few leaders to act as soundpieces for the community they represented and helped to guide everyone in the right direction...unfortunately, my community is lacking in that very department...maybe, when I don't have grad school to contend with, I can become one of those leaders...regardless, I have faith that, even if it takes another twenty years, my partner and I will be recognized in the country of our birth as legally married, equal citizens...

We WILL get there...but it's a hell of an uphill battle...

Hiya Camel!!:happy:

Congratulations! That sounds fantastic! I'd love to if it could work out. God knows what i'll be doing in a couple of years but i'm truly flattered that you would even consider me. Still you might be way further ahead to have someone more local do the consulting - don't tell my boss i said that!! 😱 LOL!
Anyway, i'm glad you've started on it early. There's so much to organise! :wooha:

But most of all let me wish you both every rich blessing as you move toward the BIG DAY!!

*CHEERS AND HUGGLES!!*

 

[ayla1]

i think gay couples should at least have the choice to get married...i mean it is wrong for people to not have the freedom to be who they are...its damn near unconstitutional to stop them from getting married! so i think they should have at least that choice, to marry or not to marry...i mean after all homosexuality is caused by hormone imbalance and not by where or how they were raised!

p.s. on another slightly off topic note...how can you guys out there bash on homosexuals but love every minute of lesbian porn! think about that for a minute before you open your yap next time!

 

[Camel26]

hormone imbalance...before I open my yap about that, would you kindly site your source? Because if that's all it was, I know most of us would have started on pills years ago so as to not be labelled abnormal or second class...

And it is unconstitutional to deny civil rights to a group of citizens based on nothing but biggotry and prejudice...but when the Bible thumpers in our government read that little line in Leviticus, and use it as a disgusting smear campaign against, for most of them, their own family members (remember that time there was a separation of church and state???), well, the rest of the right wingers follow suit...and those who are unfortunate enough to not know better follow suit as well out of fear...

America...land of the free, home of the brave? This issue has made me wonder...

 

[taragohn]

OK you had me fooled for a minute there almost began a flaming rant on what is wrong with all these statement.

Now I assume this is a joke, and a good one to
Sad thing is that some may actually think this way

 

[chicag0]

It appears modern soceity has you fooled as well.

The current US media/hollywood portrayal of marriage is a mockery of the institution. It was designed to be a permanent committment between an man and a woman. Too many substituted lust and infactuation with love, then wanted a quick way out when things got rough or they found out it took more that "warm fuzzies" or hot sex to make a marriage complete. So, in comes easy divorce to go with quickie marriages. Heaven forbid people stay committed to one another for their life time. People today treat marriage like a used Kleenex.

As our pastor says (& I agree) being in love is the WORST reason to marry. Marriage is and should be a committent to stay together thru it all and develope an "agape" relationship (agape is the greek word for perfect love, without qualifiers or demands for anything back). Today, all people think they need is eros, or sexual desire/love.

My personal feeling is the lawyers are gonna laugh their way to their bank accounts on this. Imagine the divorce court fees if we add gay marriage. Gay divorces will soon follow. As will all the court and attorney costs. They'll make a mint.

And before y'all brand me as a bigoted redneck Bible thumper...I respect differing opinoins. Heck, my boss is a lez. We get along fine and she knows my faith and I don;t get into gay vs/ straight fights with her. Never the right forum. I don't agree with them, nor do I expect many to agree with me. It's just that many forget what marriage is and was supposed to be.

There will be gay divorces, but I doubt the numbers will increase that much.

And also, marriage between a man and a woman is a tradition, but not all traditions are right, such as antisemitism.

Times change.

Until 30 years ago people thought homosexuality was a mental disorder, you can disagree with their lifestyle, but you're not a part of it. I think everyone has the right to be married, even crazy, tradition-breaking homosexuals.

 

[Camel26]

Plus the fact that the heterosexual population hasn't been setting a fabulous example about the sanctity of marriage...last I checked, the statistic was just above 50% of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce?

Also, a study recently published out of California stated that the country stands to profit upwards of 1 billion dollars if they allow for same sex marriage...hey, it's at least a start on that hundred trillion dollar debt we're all in...😛

Another study done by the american association of pediatrics has shown that not allowing same sex marriage is psychologically damaging for children of same sex couples, considering that the government that is supposed to protect them and their family considers them worth less than other families and not deserving of the same rights...

Give this land 20 years...I hope less...but in at least 20 years, all of us will be granted the equality we deserve in the eyes of the law...

 

[Cbarton]

Plus the fact that the heterosexual population hasn't been setting a fabulous example about the sanctity of marriage...last I checked, the statistic was just above 50% of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce?

Thus proving my point that "heteros" get married for the wrong reasons. My point was that marriage is was NOT created to be a 'civil union." That's where people get it wrong, gay OR straight. Marriage, in it's original form, was created by God in order for man and woman to COMPLETE each other. It's not about a ceremony or civil union for people to celebrate, but to create a stable unit to nuture a family, to protect the woman, and make the male a true man. Even among those who claim to be "Christians" (whether they met the real definition or not), the divorce rate is near 50%. If you accept the proposition that other than which gender they desire sexually this is no difference between gays and straights, that means that that percentage will not improve or perhaps become lower presuming that the option for 'civil unions' will be overdone as much as marraige is now.

And also, marriage between a man and a woman is a tradition, but not all traditions are right, such as antisemitism.

Antisemitism is not a tradition, but the cruelest form of racism. The Jews are God's chosen people, and the enemy has tried for thousands of years to destroy them. The fact that the Jews have survived is concrete proof of the existence of God in my opinion because without Him, they would not have survived. I also find it amazing that when positive 'traditions' are attacked, the detractors always compare them to racism. It's a weak. losing arguement and devalues both

As I stated above, marraige is an God-ordained union between man and woman, not meerly a 'civil union.' It has been watered down into a tradition by those who either refuse to recognize that or do their best to avoid His role in it. No wonder 50% fail. They don't have the true foundation needed to make it last.

Go ahead, legalize a "civil union' between gays. Just don't call it marriage. It's not a marriage in the true sense. Besides, a majority of the ceremonies in the straight community aren't either. No 'agape', no true committment in many of those either. My wife and I celebrated our 18th wedding anniversary this year. We based it on more than just love. It's based on committment, as in "the "D" word is not an option." Too many pull it out at the first opportunity.

I could say more, but my message length is reaching Vlad-like proportions...😉
Besides, I figure most will just knee-jerk react rather than read this in an open-minded fashion anyway. Tends to be the case on either side of the aisle...

 

[nessonite1]

know what I think? care what I think? no? I'll say it anyway.
let's make two types of marriage. One being a legal union between partners and one being a marriage in the more traditional sense in your church (or whatever). the first being strictly for legal purposes so that partners of all types would get the same rights in the eyes of the law and the second amore spiritual life commitment as it was originally intended to be. this would be done through your church or whatever church-like thing you do.

sorry that was hastily thrown together. it was brutally hot today and it's zapped my brain.
seems like a good idea to me though.

 

[Betchass1]

There will be gay divorces, but I doubt the numbers will increase that much.

And also, marriage between a man and a woman is a tradition, but not all traditions are right, such as antisemitism.

Times change.

Until 30 years ago people thought homosexuality was a mental disorder, you can disagree with their lifestyle, but you're not a part of it. I think everyone has the right to be married, even crazy, tradition-breaking homosexuals.

Good point; homosexuality is only one of the maladies for which an ice-pick lobotomy was considered a good cure for a long time in the US. Political activism is another.

The "you're not a part of it" comment brings home another good point. The last US presidential election, according to polls, was DECIDED on the issue of gay marriage. And it was not decided by people in large urban areas, who largely voted Democrat, and who are fairly likely to see more than 4 gay people once in a while.
Whether people can call their relationships by a different name is the most important thing to Americans? Something that's not even in a president's duties? I'm pretty sure the Constitution says nothing about the president being responsible for anything having to do with marriage. But this determines the presidential vote, in post-9/11 America?

Only two words for that: fucked up.

 

[Betchass1]

It appears modern soceity has you fooled as well.

The current US media/hollywood portrayal of marriage is a mockery of the institution. It was designed to be a permanent committment between an man and a woman. Too many substituted lust and infactuation with love, then wanted a quick way out when things got rough or they found out it took more that "warm fuzzies" or hot sex to make a marriage complete. So, in comes easy divorce to go with quickie marriages. Heaven forbid people stay committed to one another for their life time. People today treat marriage like a used Kleenex.

As our pastor says (& I agree) being in love is the WORST reason to marry. Marriage is and should be a committent to stay together thru it all and develope an "agape" relationship (agape is the greek word for perfect love, without qualifiers or demands for anything back). Today, all people think they need is eros, or sexual desire/love.

My personal feeling is the lawyers are gonna laugh their way to their bank accounts on this. Imagine the divorce court fees if we add gay marriage. Gay divorces will soon follow. As will all the court and attorney costs. They'll make a mint.

And before y'all brand me as a bigoted redneck Bible thumper...I respect differing opinoins. Heck, my boss is a lez. We get along fine and she knows my faith and I don;t get into gay vs/ straight fights with her. Never the right forum. I don't agree with them, nor do I expect many to agree with me. It's just that many forget what marriage is and was supposed to be.

I agree that being in love is a bad reason to marry. Feelings are feelings and you can't criticize them, but you can't base major life decisions solely on them either.
But your original comment was that mainstream America remembers what marriage is and was supposed to be, and now you complain that people today treat it "like a used Kleenex". This is TRUE, they do, and this is why I say it's hypocritical of this same majority to say homosexual marriage breaks down family values. What was valuable to families 2,000 years ago in the Middle East is not what is valuable now in America or Europe, and people are acting accordingly. If families matter, pass an amendment preventing marriages between active alcoholics.

I know you respect differing opinions, and so do I, but you know arguments based on your faith mean nothing to me. You're completely entitled to those beliefs, but, like a foolish marriage, what else are they based on but feelings? And things you've heard from other people. I've heard lots of the same things, but I don't have the "gut certainty" that those things are true. They're fine as beliefs, but as support for arguments as to what American citizens should be permitted to do... Well the gentlemen who wrote the Constitution shot that one down already.

It's funny you bring up anceint Greeks, because they also had a tradition of HOMOSEXUAL LOVE SLAVES, many of whom were... let's just say they wouldn't be allowed on this forum yet.

Lastly, believe me, Hollywood has no effect on me, nor does television. I am pretty well removed from both. Most arguments *for* homosexual marriage are just as lost on me... it's just the end conclusion I happen to agree with.

 

[Betchass1]

i think gay couples should at least have the choice to get married...i mean it is wrong for people to not have the freedom to be who they are...its damn near unconstitutional to stop them from getting married! so i think they should have at least that choice, to marry or not to marry...i mean after all homosexuality is caused by hormone imbalance and not by where or how they were raised!

p.s. on another slightly off topic note...how can you guys out there bash on homosexuals but love every minute of lesbian porn! think about that for a minute before you open your yap next time!

Woah woah woah... I LOHUHUHUHUUVVVE LESBIAN PORN. 😍
And I never ever bash on homosexuals, at least not for being homosexuals. I might bash on some homosexuals for being total cock-holes.

Hormone imbalance... well... that's one of those "loaded" phrases, like "communist sympathizer," or "tickle fetishist," or "lesbian porn." ( 😍 😍 )
Different people have different levels of different hormones, I don't know that there's a norm.

I don't think you can even group all people who practice homosexual sex together under one reason. Some find it sexy and taboo. Some, like one of my best friends in grade school, know before they're 10 that they prefer the same sex. Some people experiment and have their quandaries and identity crises and go one way or the other, or both. It takes all kinds.

It doesn't matter why someone wants to be intimate with someone of the same sex. Arguing why they do encourages people to focus on that rather than whether they have the right to- which isn't subject to debate.

 

[BigNorm]

Also, a study recently published out of California stated that the country stands to profit upwards of 1 billion dollars if they allow for same sex marriage...

tell that to Bush. that'll give em a cool billion dollars to fund his goddamn war.


i swear. we'll spend hundreds of of billions and thousands of lives of troops to go to war in some dust hole country which we don't need to invade, yet the government doesn't want to make a billion dollars in same sex marriage that would make millions happy.

 

[MistressValerie1]

Nessie's idea is identical to my own long-held view that government should grant only civil unions and should treat marriage as a religious matter without government involvement. This would be analogous to the present system in which the government maintains civil birth records but treats baptism and naming ceremonies as private religious matters.

 

[MistressValerie1]

hormone imbalance...before I open my yap about that, would you kindly site your source? Because if that's all it was, I know most of us would have started on pills years ago so as to not be labelled abnormal or second class...

There is an outstanding scientific article about sexual orientation, including a discussion of the postulated role of prenatal hormones, at http://www.davidmyers.org/Brix?pageID=62

Excerpt:

Because the physiological evidence is preliminary and controversial, some scientists remain skeptical. Rather than specifying sexual orientation, they suggest, biological factors may predispose a temperament that influences sexuality "in the context of individual learning and experience" (Byne & Parsons, 1993).

 

[ThaDonMakaveli]

Gays are not having any rights blocked. They are asking for rights that they as of yet don't have. As of right now, gays have the EXACT same rights as everyone else when it comes to marriage. What they are asking for is an extension of personal rights.

I don't have a problem with gay marriage, but I do object to being told that society has to accept it; because they don't.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

I could say more, but my message length is reaching Vlad-like proportions...😉

No where close, my friend. 😉

You know, I think that by having chosen to say nothing before this became a discussion, even though I have a definite opinion, is a move out of the playbook of many others here that I may consider using again.

I'm always used to being the fellow who does the talking and everyone either follows my lead or feeds off of it somehow. To experience what it is like to let others do the talking and the bulk of the work, and then having the freedom to pounce whenever I choose to mop up and clean house is a tactic I should have been taking advantage of a long time ago.

I sometimes use too much of my momentum and energy early on; while I'm able to break most opposition that way, it then becomes a stamina battle which can be taxing if I'm somehow caught off-balance or engaging multiple people by myself. Doing it this way is a key way of conserving energy, saving trump cards for later, and scouting potential rivals in a debate without over-exerting myself.

Thank you for helping me once again realize my options, in not just this, but any conversation, argument, or debate. Sometimes you get so used to doing it your way that you forget the other options available to you. 🙂

 

[mrkris2]

Gays are not having any rights blocked. They are asking for rights that they as of yet don't have. As of right now, gays have the EXACT same rights as everyone else when it comes to marriage. What they are asking for is an extension of personal rights.

I don't have a problem with gay marriage, but I do object to being told that society has to accept it; because they don't.

Well said.

 

[chickles_:)]

Nessie's idea is identical to my own long-held view that government should grant only civil unions and should treat marriage as a religious matter without government involvement. This would be analogous to the present system in which the government maintains civil birth records but treats baptism and naming ceremonies as private religious matters.

Hiya everyone! :happy:
Hmm, yeah, i don't suppose it much matters who it is that signs the documents as a marriage officer of the civil authority. Speaking as one who totally does weddings i can say that currently, in N.A. in all Canadian and U.S. jurisdictions, if i'm not mistaken, clergy perform two separate acts. They conduct a religious ceremony at the request of a couple and in keeping with their denomination's traditions (depending on where it is being conducted that couple may be of the same or hetero sx) AND they oversee a legal contract signing official documents in accordance with local law as a "marriage officer" (or local equivalent.). The licence to conduct marriages is a State/Prov. authority only. The deal in most jurisdictions if not all, is that the churches have an arrangement with the government Registrar in which approved accountable names of clergy are put forward to be licenced as marriage officers. It is a formal process with the usual government paperwork.

Interestingly, what you, Val and Ness, propose is pretty much how it works in many European nations. Any couple must attend the court house and conduct the civil ceremony which legally marries them in the eyes of the State. Then if they wish they can conduct a religious wedding ceremony in accordance with their own religious traditions. The clergy do only the latter.

Hope that helps - on the marriage question at least.
As for sxual orientation and religion. Well, my wrist is too tired to go there. 😉
All i will say is i'm glad that in our church, orientation is not considered an issue that restricts marriage or ordination or defines rights.

Many blessings,

 

[Betchass1]

Gays are not having any rights blocked. They are asking for rights that they as of yet don't have. As of right now, gays have the EXACT same rights as everyone else when it comes to marriage. What they are asking for is an extension of personal rights.

I don't have a problem with gay marriage, but I do object to being told that society has to accept it; because they don't.

Very, very vague. Define "accept." Matter of fact, define "society." No one has to *like* it any more than they like having their daughter marry a pornographer; but they do have to accept it, as in, they cannot stop it.

Wasn't the furor having to do with a proposed Constitutional amendment?
I just filled out a W4 form, and I noted the block "Married, but withhold at the higher single rate." Which means that, in whatever context, being considered married *does* create options that being considered single doesn't offer.

 

[Betchass1]

Nessie's idea is identical to my own long-held view that government should grant only civil unions and should treat marriage as a religious matter without government involvement. This would be analogous to the present system in which the government maintains civil birth records but treats baptism and naming ceremonies as private religious matters.

I'm all for this too. The advantages to getting married are justified by things like having to start a family, or having two or three people living on one income. Obviously, a marriage isn't guaranteed to lead to a family any more than a family is guaranteed to involve a marriage. And lots of wives want real jobs, and lots of husbands don't want to pay for everything.
So if the government wants to give out breaks for people starting families, let them give them out to people starting families. Just being a heterosexual couple doesn't mean you deserve those breaks.

 

[nessonite1]

Interestingly, what you, Val and Ness, propose is pretty much how it works in many European nations. Any couple must attend the court house and conduct the civil ceremony which legally marries them in the eyes of the State. Then if they wish they can conduct a religious wedding ceremony in accordance with their own religious traditions. The clergy do only the latter.

Thats the way it is here too. You don't need a wedding ceremony at all in order to get married. Every couple goes and fills out the exact same forms no matter what kind of ceremony they have. The ceremony itself is for religious purposes, tradition, and to make their commitment infront of friends and family. Legally it's completely pointless. I never had one, and I had no interest in having one.

Glad Im not the only person with that idea though. To me it makes perfect sense.