Marriage to me is simply a legal transaction. It's something you do to share health insurance or have a certain status in the eyes of the law. I don't need a piece of paper to prove my love for someone, so with or without marriage - I think I'll be fine going by my own terms with the person I love. I mean, unless we need to share health insurance or whatever.

So they have civil unions and such for homosexual couples these days in some places, which is by my understanding, essentially the same thing as marriage, only it's really just got a different name. The state recognizes your status as a couple in the eyes of the law.

So should homosexuals be able to marry? Sure, unless a civil union is already available, then what are they complaining about? It's not really about marriage, it's about legal/official recognition. I think everyone deserves that.

Done.

Let me make this clear:

From a legal standpoint, civil unions and marriages are not equal at this point in time. This is one of the largest problems in even having such a frivolous distinction. There are astounding differences between the two; one of the most concerning is that you can transfer marital rights from state to state (i.e. if you get married in New York, California will recognize your marriage if you move there), but you cannot transfer civil unions (or even gay marriage currently) from state to state (i.e. if you get married in Iowa, Arkansas has at least three laws on the books preventing the state from recognizing the union in any capacity whatsoever unless it's between a male and female).

Thanks for that info. It seems a lot more confusing when I think about places like the United States when it comes to civil unions/marriage and such. I'm from New Zealand, and there aren't any state lines or different laws throughout the nation for different areas. But I see where you're coming from when I think about it on an international scale - marriages between two heterosexuals in one nation can be easily recognized in another, but I don't see that happening with civil unions or even marriages between two of the same sex.

I say nay. It's just not natural, it looks repulsive and marraige is meant to be between a man and a woman. Hence why the body parts of both respective genders are as they are. Two men aren't meant to be together and two women are not meant to be together. c.c That's just my opinion.

Originally Posted by PrincessBane

I say nay. It's just not natural, it looks repulsive and marraige is meant to be between a man and a woman. Hence why the body parts of both respective genders are as they are. Two men aren't meant to be together and two women are not meant to be together. c.c That's just my opinion.

It is also not natural to...
Use birth control.
Use fertility treatments.
Brush your teeth.
Use the internet. Oops; I guess you better stop.

Looks repulsive? So do...
Old, fat men in bathing suits.
Duckfaces in online photos.
Fat girls in tube tops.
Vaginas.

Marriage was also meant to be used to sell women for the betterment of men in a patriarchal society. It isn't anymore. Things chand.

Your opinion is bigoted, misinformed, irrational, immature, and homophobic.
I hope that you grow up and realize this.

Originally Posted by Kris

It is also not natural to...
Use birth control.
Use fertility treatments.
Brush your teeth.
Use the internet. Oops; I guess you better stop.

Looks repulsive? So do...
Old, fat men in bathing suits.
Duckfaces in online photos.
Fat girls in tube tops.
Vaginas.

Marriage was also meant to be used to sell women for the betterment of men in a patriarchal society. It isn't anymore. Things chand.

Your opinion is bigoted, misinformed, irrational, immature, and homophobic.
I hope that you grow up and realize this.

That's real mature. I was only expressing my opinion, good lord. I'm not immature or homophobic.

Originally Posted by PrincessBane

That's real mature. I was only expressing my opinion, good lord. I'm not immature or homophobic.

Honey, calling a couple "repulsive" because they are homosexual is homophobic. Saying that someone shouldn't be allowed to get married because it's nasty is immature (and homophobic, since it's only "repulsive" because they're of the same sex).

Originally Posted by Kris

Looks repulsive? So do...
Vaginas.

I lol'd.

Because it's true D:

Originally Posted by Keyori

I lol'd.

Because it's true D:

I respectfully disagree xD

Originally Posted by Kris

Honey, calling a couple "repulsive" because they are homosexual is homophobic. Saying that someone shouldn't be allowed to get married because it's nasty is immature (and homophobic, since it's only "repulsive" because they're of the same sex).

Just because they dislike homosexuals doesn't make them homophobic. They don't have a fear of homosexuals; they just don't like them.

It's not about like or dislike; the user said "repulsive." That's not just a dislike, it's a disgust based on an irrational fear that somehow gay marriage will ruin the institution altogether (as if divorce and Britney Spears haven't done a good enough job already).

Originally Posted by LenGe

Just because they dislike homosexuals doesn't make them homophobic. They don't have a fear of homosexuals; they just don't like them.

A person isn't just their sexuality, and if someone is going to dislike a person based on just that, it's homophobia/heterophobia. It's not just fear that constitutes homophobia - it also includes contempt and dislike among other obvious things.

Marriage is a right that should be afforded to anyone, regardless of sexual orientation.

Strictly speaking, we are discussing "legal" marriage and not spiritual, because anyone can be spiritually married at any time.

Picking different words for the same thing is silly. Why do we have to use different words for the same thing? Sounds like a form of segregation to me. Equal yet different. Yeah, not floating. Did you know that it used to be that people of different ethnicites couldn't marry, either?

Legal marriage grants thing such as visitation rights to those in the hospital, tax and financial benefits and securities, child safety and security, and more.

I have several friends of varying non-heterosexual persuasions. It breaks my heart to think that if MY FRIEND got into a car accident that he couldn't be tended by his soul mate at his side.

Originally Posted by luckinspades

Marriage is a right that should be afforded to anyone, regardless of sexual orientation.

Strictly speaking, we are discussing "legal" marriage and not spiritual, because anyone can be spiritually married at any time.

Picking different words for the same thing is silly. Why do we have to use different words for the same thing? Sounds like a form of segregation to me. Equal yet different. Yeah, not floating. Did you know that it used to be that people of different ethnicites couldn't marry, either?

Legal marriage grants thing such as visitation rights to those in the hospital, tax and financial benefits and securities, child safety and security, and more.

I have several friends of varying non-heterosexual persuasions. It breaks my heart to think that if MY FRIEND got into a car accident that he couldn't be tended by his soul mate at his side.

Why is marriage required at all to have full legal rights in the society? Why can't you be single and have the same amount of rights as a married couple?

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

Why is marriage required at all to have full legal rights in the society? Why can't you be single and have the same amount of rights as a married couple?

Well that can lead to an even easier abuse of the system. And its a protection for the joint custody of the couple. When things like assets are being combined, as with what often happens during marriage, it changes things like how much taxes are collectively paid, where a child goes if a spouse dies, etc.

Part of marriage rights come from the history of marriage altogether. Things such as property, assets, children, etc. all get covered by the benefits of marriage.

What rights does a single person lack that a married couple has? A tax break on sharing a house that is big enough for a couple to share? If a single person cannot already afford a house that big, then taxes aren't the only factor.

Even if the legal definitions were changed and everyone got every same exact benefit regardless of being two single people in a civil union or married... its still equal yet separate. Doesn't make it right.

Yes completely! I'm all for it!:boogie:

I agree with gay marriage. If you love someone, it doesn't matter what gender you are. ^^ Period. ^^

gays should be allowed to married. why would it matter weither your two guys if you love each other?
streight people are just mad because there marrages are better then theirs.

Originally Posted by linxe

streight people are just mad because there marrages are better then theirs.

Yes! That's it exactly. Cause marriage is all about competition and being better than all other marriages!!! That's exactly what marriage is all about! [/sarcasm]

Definitely a big yes. I don't think people should be denied the right to marry simply because of the partner they chose is of the same sex. If the two people who are getting married love each other through and through, then why should they be denied the this right. Its rather silly if you ask me, and quite frankly no one's business but their own. Celebrate love :)

I agree with gay marriage. I do not believe that love and marriage should be regulated by law. There is supposed to be a separation on church and state and yet state controls matters of church in regards to marriage. A partnership does not offer the protections of marriage. It is unfair to leave same sex couples naked in the eyes of the law by refusing them the simple ceremony.

I'm all for gay marriage but I live in Canada where it is already federally legal.
I agree with religion and state being separate things.

I think gays should be allowed to marry, adopt, etc.

Love isnt limited to race, age (within limits I suppose like...15+ year gap is just wrong in my opinion) , sexuality, gender, etc

So why not? :)

Originally Posted by Claudia

Yes and no...Since this gay marriage brings up so much hostility, just call it by another word and everyone's happy. ALL gays really want is equal legal rights/. So grant these same rights to the new word for gay marriage and everyone's happy.

Not to pick on you here or anything, but I just thought I'd throw in what I've heard.
A lot of people will say that calling it by another word wouldn't be the same, which honestly, I don't think it would either. Many people also complain that calling it by another word isn't fair towards homosexuals. Why should they be treated differently just because of who they're marrying? Calling their marriage by a new word is pretty much labeling them as different.

I guess to wrap that up.. basically what I'm trying to say is...
Calling it something other than marriage isn't marriage. =/


EDIT: To add something of my own feelings toward this, I personally think it's nice that so many younger people are being raised into accepting homosexuals. The older people may be in charge now, but by the time my generation of youth is being elected as governors, or even president, this issue will probably be a thing of the past. ^^

Originally Posted by SansAmour

I guess to wrap that up.. basically what I'm trying to say is...
Calling it something other than marriage isn't marriage. =/

And don't forget that legally, marriage and civil unions aren't even close to the same ;)