Am I the only one who thinks that making a constitutional ammendment to prohibit gay marriage is a really fucking stupid idea?
Discuss. In fact, don’t stop there. Talk about gay marriage in general. Pros, cons, for, against, whys, why nots, kidney cancer, whatever. Go for it. Shoot the shit.
It’s a horribly stupid idea.
Anyway, my opinion on gay marriage is that I don’t care if anyone gets married, gay or straight, it’s their choice, its no one’s right to decide whether or not a couple can get married or not. So basicially, I say if someone wants to get married, more power to them. If anyone has the commitment and love for someone else, they shouldn’t be denied the right (this is all considering both members are of legal age, and it’s not to an animal… Or plant for that matter…).
Marriage is a religious affair. There needs to be a form of legal binding that gives identical benefits and protection as that of marriage that applies to all citizens.
I think that if two people care about each other enough to want to spend the rest of their natural lives together, they should legally be able to do that and be entitled to the privileges and responsiblities that go with it. Religiously, that’s between those people and their religions. I think it’s important to differentiate between legal marriage and religious marriage since that’s a sticking point for so many people.
I think the amount of effort required to make an amendment to ban homosexual marriage would be a complete waste. We have other, much worthier, things with which we need to concern ourselves.
Also, I don’t have kidney cancer, but my back and my feet hurt. You said we could talk about it!
Well, yeah, that’s the point I was making, legal marriges, not religious. I don’t see the church changing it’s view on gay marriages any time soon, nor do I think it should be focused on.
I figured that’s what you were thinking, but I wanted to say it too. =)
Gay marriage is somthing that should be enjoyed between a man and a woman!
Originally posted by Charlemagne
Gay marriage is somthing that should be enjoyed between a man and a woman!
Exactly!
Okay, seriously now, there is no reason why they should be prevented from enjoying the same legal benefits as traditional marriages. Marriage as a religious institution can (and I believe should) stay as it is, but that does not matter in regards to its meaning as seen by a political system. Seperation of church and state as it should be: two entities completely unaffected by the other’s decisions.
I think EVERYONE knows how I feel about this, and so I am just glad I live in Canada where the shit I have to put up with is about legalizing pot 
I mean who really cares if they love eachother. I’m going to marry my cats! ^^
Vicki, might I suggest soaking in a bath or other objected filled with warm water?
:kissy:
I think denying them the right to marriage is like denying people the right to follow whatever religion they wish, or get into whatever job they want. It’s dictatorial.
In my land there is a saying that goes: “if you are bothered by someone, you leave them alone and move away”. I think if Bush doesn’t like homosexuals he should just lower his head and move to some anti-gay place like Iran or Malaysia.
I think “preserving the sanctity of marriage and the unity of the family” at this point is laughable if only because of the amount of divorces.
Originally posted by Ren
In my land there is a saying that goes: “if you are bothered by someone, you leave them alone and move away”. I think if Bush doesn’t like homosexuals he should just lower his head and move to some anti-gay place like Iran or Malaysia.
Its not as if America is exactly the most pro-gay place.
And the title of this thread is unintentionally funny, if you think about it.
The entire problem in Bush’s mind, I think, is that he equates religious “marriage” with civil “marriage.” That is, okay. In a Christian setting like the one he comes from, it is entirely okay to say that gays are not allowed to marry. If you want to buy into the religion, and one of the tenets is, “you’re not allowed to be gay,” then tough luck for you if you are. I’m not trying to be callous - I’m saying, that’s just the way it is. If you want to believe in Christian tenets, but not go to an institutionally sanctioned church or what have you, that’s perfectly cool. You can still be gay. And you can still bind your souls for eternity, or until death do you part, as a religious marriage is intended to be symbolic of. You just can’t have a priest of normally practiced Christianity agree that your souls are bound for eternity. Cause, that’s all it equates to, really.
However, civil “marriage” is entirely different. If we’re to give all the citizens of the United States equal rights, (that being the principle behind the founding of the country), then the federal rules regarding marriage must be true for ALL American citizens. Gay, straight, lesbian, whatever. That’s just self-explanatory. Bush’s problem is that he can’t seem to detach an idea of a “souls bound for eternity” with the idea of marriage as a purely civil, legal institution. Like, he’s welcome to think of the possibility of gays’ or lesbians’ not actually being tied together in the eyes of God, whatever. But this stinks of him trying to force that belief on everybody, which of course is the most untrue to the principles of citizens’ equal rights there can be.
-Mazrim Taim
The rpoblem with gay marraige is that most religions won’t marry a gay couple. Alont with that, many legislators don’t like teh idea of gay marriages. Too much listening to the “Moral Majority” I suppose.
Considering that marriage is a religious ceremony with very legal repercussions, gays should at least be allowed to marry under a civil union, with all rights of married people.
It’s pretty much been said. My biggest reason for favoring gay marriages is that are zero valid reasons for making them illegal – only a lot of pretentious religious bullshit.
Oh, and let’s legalize polygamy while we’re at it. 
It is not stupid, it is very stupid. As it clearly shows how limited his mind is and how intolerant he is.
Marriage needs to be seperated into two. A religious part, and a juridical part. And people must be allowed to choose away the religious part. And the religion must be allowed to choose away the people. Something like that.
Originally posted by Kero Hazel
Oh, and let’s legalize polygamy while we’re at it.
I totally agree. Plus homosexual marriage? Kewl. imagines having several hot husbands and wives I LIKE the idea. Hey, Bush! Do one right thing in your life and do what Kero says! I MIGHT consider moving to the US then and saving your country <.<
Originally posted by Sinistral
I think “preserving the sanctity of marriage and the unity of the family” at this point is laughable if only because of the amount of divorces.
Beat me to it.
Who cares if it’s m/f, m/m, or f/f? Marriage in general is one big joke nowadays. It’s supposed to be a permanent thing, not an “I-can-have-a-new-partner-as-often-as-I-get-bored-of-the-last-one-or-s/he-gets-not-hot-anymore” thing.
People need to learn to respect the sacredness of it before criticising who can do it. The truth is, many people don’t really care about marriage or the bond or the vows or anything that’s actually supposed to mean anything. They’re just obsessed with the glorified idea of it, and want to keep it exclusive to themselves.
Gay marriage is fine with me. It’s not like marriage even holds any weight anymore, so I could care less.
In defence of marriage and all things sacred, that little piece of paper DOES mean something to some people. Sometimes it’s the only thing that keeps a couple together. Marriage is a union between two souls and if it doesn’t work out, then hey, don’t assume the worst about other married couples just because of the huge amount of divorces. There are also those who live together and stay very much in love or whatever you want to call it. We just don’t tend to focus on that fact.
Originally posted by Evangelion
In defence of marriage and all things sacred.
Except that a civil union is not so sacred, it’s a legal document that states that two people decided to live together and should they decide to go back on that they have to split the accumulated belongings 50/50. There’s nothing sacred about it.