I think they should be able to marry and it should still be called marriage, but since certain religions have a beef with it then they just don't use those ceremonies. I mean all marriage ceremonies around the world no matter what religion they are are still called marriage. There are some that don't see anything wrong with it, and hey if it really becomes an issue make a gay specific ceremony. Maybe they can't do it in the little church near their the house they grew up in, but there are still many more options out there that regular weddings use all the time. Not to mention they could build places specifically for it as well. I'm just treading on a less confrontational path for the idea.

Originally Posted by Lokie

I think they should be able to marry and it should still be called marriage, but since certain religions have a beef with it then they just don't use those ceremonies. I mean all marriage ceremonies around the world no matter what religion they are are still called marriage. There are some that don't see anything wrong with it, and hey if it really becomes an issue make a gay specific ceremony. Maybe they can't do it in the little church near their the house they grew up in, but there are still many more options out there that regular weddings use all the time. Not to mention they could build places specifically for it as well. I'm just treading on a less confrontational path for the idea.

Well, you could start by noting the difference between a wedding and a marriage. Gays already can have weddings, absolutely anyone can have a wedding. They can even have a religious wedding, if they can find someone willing to marry them. And you don't need a wedding to be legally married. Marriage, on the other hand, in this country at this time, has absolutely nothing to do with religion. It is strictly a legal institution. I understand that, at the heart of your post, you've got a good point, but the use of "wedding" and "marriage" as synonyms has caused a whole lot of problems for marriage proponents, such as the idjits in California believing gay marriage being legal would force clergymen to conduct weddings for same-sex couples and this recurring belief that, since weddings are usually religious in nature, living in a country in which same-sex marriage was legal would be an infringement on their freedom of religion. We need to force them to get over themselves, not support such a narrow and, you know, wrong view of the world.

I think that people should keep religion separate from state affairs period. Marriages are run by the government and there for are a government institution. Heck, that's one major reason why I dislike legal marriages period (It's the anarchist part of me speaking. XD) Religion should have no place legally in determining who can marry and who can not. I also think that people should mind their own business and let people marry who they want. Look at the divorce rates of straight couples.

Marriage has very little to do with religion if it did then ministers like myself would have to be priests as well to marry someone. I do non religious ceremonies. Basically I believe in love.

Also there are gray areas. There are not just females and males. There is a gray area. What about transsexuals or hermaphrodites? Another reason why I think people should just butt out. Gender is not just black and white.

Lol I love how Kanna put it. XD

Hmmm...I think I must have voted a long time ago, because it says I voted no. That is not how I feel. I think gays should be allowed to marry. Marriage is supposed to be the lawful binding of two people who love each other, and I see nothing wrong with loving someone of the same gender.

I think that people should keep religion separate from state affairs period. Marriages are run by the government and there for are a government institution. Heck, that's one major reason why I dislike legal marriages period (It's the anarchist part of me speaking. XD) Religion should have no place legally in determining who can marry and who can not. I also think that people should mind their own business and let people marry who they want. Look at the divorce rates of straight couples.

Marriage has very little to do with religion if it did then ministers like myself would have to be priests as well to marry someone. I do non religious ceremonies. Basically I believe in love.

Mystic, I agree with you completely. However, when I was trying to find information supporting gay marriage, I looked into the whole Church/State separation thing. From what I found, the First Ammendment is what talks about this separation. The First Ammendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The bit that's important to this conversation says the the government can't interfere with religion. It doesn't say anything about religion interfering with government. So, while I think that they [religions against gay marriage] are ethically/morally/whatever-it-is-that-makes-people-good-human-beings-ly wrong, they are legally within their rights to stop gay marriage.


Another thing that I find completely stupid is the fact that the people protesting gay marriages are straight, when why should straight people have any say in what happens with the gay people? It's not like it's making it so straight people can't marry.

Originally Posted by Sforzando

So, while I think that they [religions against gay marriage] are ethically/morally/whatever-it-is-that-makes-people-good-human-beings-ly wrong, they are legally within their rights to stop gay marriage.

No, actually, they're not. You're close, so I'll take you at the benefit of the doubt that you just misworded it, but I'm going to explain what the case is for those who might read your post and misinterpret it.

It is NOT legal for the church to "stop gay marriage." They can, however, refuse to perform ceremonies for gay couples. But, it is not legal for them to inhibit the practices of other churches that disagree with them (i.e. churches that are willing to marry gays), nor is it legal for them to prevent the marriage of gay couples who seek a justice of the peace instead of a member of religious clergy. This, unfortunately, is what they're trying to do: prevent OTHER people from being able to marry gay couples. For some reason, they think that if gay marriage is legal, that they will be FORCED to marry gay couples. This is not the case; churches aren't forced to marry anyone. It's not like two Jewish folk could walk into a Catholic church and demand to be married; they'd likely be laughed out for demanding something so absurd. And it's unlikely that an Islamic mosque would marry two athiests. It's just an issue that they've completely made up. The only institution that cannot use race, religion, etc. to marry couples is the state; the church isn't forced to do anything, and should not be trying to force other churches or the state to make the same decision they do (to refuse to marry gays, that is).

Originally Posted by Keyori

No, actually, they're not. You're close, so I'll take you at the benefit of the doubt that you just misworded it, but I'm going to explain what the case is for those who might read your post and misinterpret it.

It is NOT legal for the church to "stop gay marriage." They can, however, refuse to perform ceremonies for gay couples. But, it is not legal for them to inhibit the practices of other churches that disagree with them (i.e. churches that are willing to marry gays), nor is it legal for them to prevent the marriage of gay couples who seek a justice of the peace instead of a member of religious clergy. This, unfortunately, is what they're trying to do: prevent OTHER people from being able to marry gay couples. For some reason, they think that if gay marriage is legal, that they will be FORCED to marry gay couples. This is not the case; churches aren't forced to marry anyone. It's not like two Jewish folk could walk into a Catholic church and demand to be married; they'd likely be laughed out for demanding something so absurd. And it's unlikely that an Islamic mosque would marry two athiests. It's just an issue that they've completely made up. The only institution that cannot use race, religion, etc. to marry couples is the state; the church isn't forced to do anything, and should not be trying to force other churches or the state to make the same decision they do (to refuse to marry gays, that is).

Almost exactly what I was going to say.

They can refuse to marry based on faith but Separation of church and state is in place because of the whole church owning the government thing in England that was going on. The founding fathers did not want the church to be involved in government affairs and that is what the amendment states.

That amendment means that congress can not implicate a religion and make the country follow it. Which means that I do not have to follow a religion I do not believe in. I marry people outside of churches. There is no religion at all in the ceremonies that I perform. I never use the terms "god" or "higher power" because I really feel it has no place in uniting people. The couples I marry feel the same way.

The first amendment basically just states that the people have a right to protest and speak out against the government and basically say what the want without the government executing them.

Using religion as an argument, if being married means that you HAVE to get married in a church then those people who are atheists or other wise do not have a faith should not be allowed to marry.

Keyori and Mystic,

Would it be correct if I changed what I said to say:

They are legally allowed to protest such unions?

Yes, you could say that :)

Ok. 'Cause that's what I meant.

Yep, much better wording. They do have a right to protest them however, there are quite a few people that still marry outside of religion.

Well it depends on what you call Marriage or more along your lines of a definition of Marriage The way I always figured it was Two consenting PeopleWho love each other and could not see another in their lives swearing devotion to each other But there are still people that believe it is the way to keep our species alive and be kept between a man and woman I think that is long as there are still a few people that are even bi on the planet we are okay so yes you should be with who you love

I'm confused by your green statement. Are you saying people shouldn't get married if there's the possibility of a divorce?

Originally Posted by Miloko

Well it depends on what you call Marriage or more along your lines of a definition of Marriage The way I always figured it was Two consenting PeopleWho love each other and could not see another in their lives swearing devotion to each other But there are still people that believe it is the way to keep our species alive and be kept between a man and woman I think that is long as there are still a few people that are even bi on the planet we are okay so yes you should be with who you love

There are also people on this planet who are not monogamous, but based on your green statement, you don't really believe your last statement :|

I get a whole lot of crap from people for being a lesbian (I may have said I was bisexual here earlier, but that was back when I wasn't sure if I still liked guys). Most of it is from a religious view. Most, but not all. I do also get bashed by people from a biological stand.
Some say we shouldn't marry because we can't reproduce. That's absurd. By this logic, infertile couples should be banned from marriage. We are a solution to the increasing population crisis, since we are nearing the planet's limit. You should be thanking us.
Religion plays a big part in this battle. Religion was created thousands of years ago when people believed it to be fact that the world was flat. It explained the world in laymen's terms. It's the same thing as telling a little kid about the stork. So, I can't take religious excuses seriously.
Bottom line is: There is nothing wrong with us marrying. Britain can handle it, so I'm sure the US can, too.

I say yes because love has no boundries. Who cares if you female to female, female to male, or male to male!? You're human! "Never take life too seriously, no one makes it out alive anyways." And certain religions who are against gay marriages should really shut up because this is life. This is OUR life, this is OUR time to be who we want to be and who we want to be with. You shouldn't care what anyones says. If anyone thinks it's disgusting and disgraceful, then that's their problem. They're either jealous or are just messed-up. Love is love. Who cares what happens or how things are? If anyone does, then just ignore them.

Originally Posted by Maggerz

Some say we shouldn't marry because we can't reproduce. That's absurd. By this logic, infertile couples should be banned from marriage.

It's even more funny because in many states, it's not legal for cousins to marry unless it is near impossible for them to reproduce >3>

So... basically the state is promoting childless marriages, in that respect.

I think gays should be allowed to marry. I think it's nobody's business to tell other people what they can/cannot do - hold your own standards and stick to them, and pass those beliefs on to your family (whether or not they take them up is up to the person themself). I also don't think gay marriage should be called "marriage" as it slightly differs between the traditional assumption of a union between a man and a woman... maybe someone should invent a new word for it (e.g. polygamy for marriage between one person and multiple spouses).

As a legal married couple, they should be entitled to all the legal rights a heterosexual couple have. When you involve the church/temple/synagogue, a whole new set of issues come up, which should be left up to the couple to decide how they will react to how other members of society treat them. Legally gay couples should be allowed to marry, nowhere in the constitution or anywhere else does it state that they should not be allowed to do so, in terms of sanctification by the church... well, everyone has a completely different opinion on that and if a couple is seeking approbation by a strict belief system they just have to be aware that they have a long, hard battle in front of them.

This is what I told my gay friend before I found out that he was gay, which looking back on it seemed kind of harsh since I was being completely blunt, and he was passionately arguing that gay marriage should be exactly the same (he's Greek Orthodox, or at least his family is, and he would rather die than tell his grandmother just because he doesn't want to "disappoint" her). But this is what I think, and I stand by it.

Doesn't marriage usually mean kids though?
I mean, sure, they can adopt, but isn't that... wrong. Don't you need a female and a male?
I'm not religious, I just personally think it doesn't feel right to have two males or two females looking after a child.

I think gays should marry. There's nothing wrong about it. Who are we to tell them they can't marry?

I believe that gay couples should be able to marry...

Who is to define wether if somone loves another person?who has the right to deny that love as well? The only people that this matter should be brought up.. is between the couple themselves and no one else unless they ask for an opinion about it..

Originally Posted by iinsanely Sane

Doesn't marriage usually mean kids though?
I mean, sure, they can adopt, but isn't that... wrong. Don't you need a female and a male?
I'm not religious, I just personally think it doesn't feel right to have two males or two females looking after a child.

Again, if that's the case, that marriage = children, the infertile should not be allowed to marry, the child-free should not be allowed to marry, if a couple says they want to have children but after they are married do not seem to be attempting to reproduce, their marriages should be annulled, and married couples should not be allowed to purchase or use contraceptives until after they've had at least one child.

Originally Posted by iinsanely Sane

Doesn't marriage usually mean kids though?
I mean, sure, they can adopt, but isn't that... wrong. Don't you need a female and a male?
I'm not religious, I just personally think it doesn't feel right to have two males or two females looking after a child.

What about the couples that aren't married and have kids?
How is adoption wrong? It's perfectly fine. I'd rather give my baby away because I'd want it to live a healthy life. My life right now can't afford to take care of one.

My aunt and uncle have been married for over 20 years. Still no child. And they aren't planning on one.

This is more of a state's rights issue, in my opinion. I do believe that non-heterosexual couples should marry. I also feel that churches have a right to make their own rules about what constitutes "family". My old man and I aren't married and we have a child together. Probably won't marry for a few more years. There are some churches that won't allow us in as members - and that's fine because we aren't interested in joining. I suspect that other couples feel the same, so I'm unclear about why churches are getting involved in the debate by proposing legislation banning non-heterosexual marriages. Marriage is a legal contract, and it takes a legal act to dissolve it.

@Philomel and Lapin:
Adoption isn't wrong, and no, I'm not saying you HAVE to have kids if you marry, I'm just saying it usually does, since its about being together and whatever. Isn't two males or two females looking after a kid slightly... wrong? I mean, doesn't a child need balance?

Originally Posted by iinsanely Sane

@Philomel and Lapin:
Adoption isn't wrong, and no, I'm not saying you HAVE to have kids if you marry, I'm just saying it usually does, since its about being together and whatever. Isn't two males or two females looking after a kid slightly... wrong? I mean, doesn't a child need balance?

I don't know about you, but my parents' genitals didn't raise me, their hands did. There is no "balance" because there are no absolutes and there are no opposites. Male/female or, what you seem to be referring to, man/woman, are not like white and black, but rather more like varying shades of grey that occasionally overlap and which individual shade a person happens to be only affects anything because society says it should. Even if you support the idea that gender roles are a good thing that should be learned, I could have learned "femininity" from a man as easily as a woman, and I DID learn "masculinity" from my mother as easily as I could have from my father.

I'm not sure why you keep going back to marriage = kids. Marriage usually results in kids because most marriages are between people of different sexes, and most people of different sexes of the age most marriages happen are fertile. They're almost certainly going to have sex so, unless they use protection, yeah, they're probably going to end up having some kids. It has nothing to do with what's "best" for the offspring and proves nothing.