Gay rights?

[tater03]

I was just wondering what some of you thought about the rights of gay,lesbians being able to get married.
My personal take on it is I don't quite understand why people are so againest it? And yes i'm a married, hetrosexual. I don't see how this cheapens or threatens my marriage vows to my husband. They were to my husband and no one else. I know that there are people that disagree with the lifestyle for religious reasons and that is fine. But I do believe if your religion doesn't recognize a part of society in general that is between you and your religion. Your religious beliefs should not decide what is law in this country. This is just my two sense on this topic.

have a great day.

 

[Furious George]

The Religious Right tends to think that if we allow gays to marry, we will also allow mature adults to marry young children. Hence their hypocritical, and often immature stance on gay marriage.

It's simple--love doesn't discriminate, neither should marriage.

 

[triumph]

I don't understand why people are so against it other than brain-washed doctrine. It has been clear to me and many people that being homosexual is not some kind of choice. I don't see the harm in letting people who want to be in a committed relationship with each other for life being able to do so.

 

[kelkat]

There is nothing wrong with people being in a committed relationship - HOWEVER, the term and idea of marriage has historically been one man and one woman. Sure, there are groups that have distorted this idea for there own benefit, but most societies accept marriage as one man and one woman.

My question to everyone would be why change a historically significant tradition for a few individuals?

 

[Furious George]

There is nothing wrong with people being in a committed relationship - HOWEVER, the term and idea of marriage has historically been one man and one woman. Sure, there are groups that have distorted this idea for there own benefit, but most societies accept marriage as one man and one woman.

The idea of marriage my ass! I don't care what is 'socially accepted'. We are (or supposed to be) a progressive nation. We are a democracy. Judgement and tradition are our enemies. Precedent and new ideas are our ideal. Just because men and women have been marrying for x amount of years, doesn't make it automatically amoral or wrong to marry as a homosexual couple.

My question to everyone would be why change a historically significant tradition for a few individuals?

I'm not sure how far you've dug/debated on this topic, but it's quite evident you haven't gone very far. The reason gays want to marry, are the almost 1,500 legal benefits that arrive from such. When your partner is ill, and dying, even if you're a consenting couple, but not married, you are not allowed to see your partner. Is that fair? No, not for one second. As I stated, there are almost 1,500 legal benefits from being legally married. Why should these rights be only for heterosexual couples? Because of tradition? Well, you know what I have to say about tradition;

:bs:

 

[dong]

Well said George. I must say though, as far as gay marriage goes, this topic has been discussed fairly extensively in a separate thread. Does anybody have any other issue regarding gay rights as a whole? I wouldn't think it necessary to discuss those in too much detail as the "equal rights" sentiment would normally be transmissable.

However! One other controversial topic would be that of specifically gay parenting. Should we continue that discussion here, or should I introduce a new thread?

 

[tater03]

Way to go George. Historical tradition? So it's historically traditonal to marry in white and stay a virgin until you marry. So basically if your not a virgin or want to wear pink you cannot get married. Times are changing everywhere.

As for the topic of gays adopting I have no problem with that at all. When i look at a gay couple i don't think about what the do in bed. I look at them as two individual human being who love each other. Gay couples can raise their children just like we do.

 

[dong]

Tater, that was short and sweet. But...uh, who's we?

 

[tater03]

I meant hetrosexuals. I meant it in the context of people who say that only hetrosexual couples should raise children. And thank you.

 

[kelkat]

There is no long tradition to wearing white that crosses countries borders and decades. As a matter of fact, it wasn't until Queen Victoria that white became the "accepted" color. Up until then, women wore their best gown or one that was made especially for them.

But I digress.

I said up front that I had no problem with commitment. I think that most americans would agree to a commitment ceremony that would grant other couples certain rights. Marriage is what marriage is. Sorry if you don't like traditions.

 

[sarah]

There is no long tradition to wearing white that crosses countries borders and decades. As a matter of fact, it wasn't until Queen Victoria that white became the "accepted" color. Up until then, women wore their best gown or one that was made especially for them.

But I digress.

I said up front that I had no problem with commitment. I think that most americans would agree to a commitment ceremony that would grant other couples certain rights. Marriage is what marriage is. Sorry if you don't like traditions.

Marriage does not denote religion. Religion is what holds these traditions. All Marriage really boils down to is a lifetime commitment.

 

[Furious George]

Marriage does not denote religion. Religion is what holds these traditions. All Marriage really boils down to is a lifetime commitment.

For a few people sure. But in todays materialistic society, marriage boils down to a few things; looks, money, or social status. This in itself is amoral, and I love the fact that the Right thinks marriages like this are moral, but a perfectly consenting and well adjusted homosexual couple are erroding tradition. Let's take a look at the big picture here.

:thumbdown:

 

[dong]

I meant hetrosexuals. I meant it in the context of people who say that only hetrosexual couples should raise children. And thank you.

I thought as much...but would like to point out that you're being a bit presumptuous in the way you used we. I'm not heterosexual but that doesn't matter, I'm just being a smart-ass.

I said up front that I had no problem with commitment. I think that most americans would agree to a commitment ceremony that would grant other couples certain rights. Marriage is what marriage is. Sorry if you don't like traditions.

Rather, it is we who acknowledge the progressive nature of society who should be sorry that traditions will inevitably be undermined because they become baseless.

You might not be aware that the problem here is that a legal partnership is restricted compared to a recognised marriage. However, if you're for equal rights, this would require truly divorcing the church from the state and a bit of legislative overhaul, but we could have a something called "marriage" for heterosexual couples, and an equivalent which is merely called *something else*.

For a few people sure. But in todays materialistic society, marriage boils down to a few things; looks, money, or social status.

Good spotting- let's discuss the idea of marriage as a social contract in today's age of "me and myself".

 

[Furious George]

Good spotting- let's discuss the idea of marriage as a social contract in today's age of "me and myself".

Care to elaborate?

 

[Brandon]

For a few people sure. But in todays materialistic society, marriage boils down to a few things; looks, money, or social status. This in itself is amoral, and I love the fact that the Right thinks marriages like this are moral, but a perfectly consenting and well adjusted homosexual couple are erroding tradition. Let's take a look at the big picture here.

:thumbdown:

How does this "amoral" behavior affect you? If someone wants to only think about money, social status and looks, isn't that their right to do so as long as it doesn't violently hurt anyone else?