My gut reaction is marriage. But Leonidas makes a valid point.
I defer until a later time.
CIVIL UNIONS!
Neither.
Marriage should be a human right, not a heterosexual one.
civil unions
Ug. Neither.
Happiness and equality
Call it a Union, get all the rights by law, and shut the hell up. What difference is the single word ‘marriage’ when you got everything to it anyway?
’nuff said…
Civil union.
Repentance.
For thousands of years villages and countries had nothing to do with the concept of marriage. It was a religious rite. Then, for purposes of census and taxation, government took over the authorization of who is and is not married. I say that the government should issue ONLY civil unions to all couples, gay and straight. Whether it is marriage in the eyes of God should be left up to the churches, who have a wide interpretation of what is and is not marriage. Some say you can only be married once and after that it is adultry. Others allow for divorce. One allows for 7 divorces and no more. Some allow plural marriages. Some have different levels of marriage (earthly & time and eternity). Some would support gay marriage and others wouldn’t. The state could never effectively sort through all these definitions of what marriage is.
If couples applied for a license of civil union from the state for their records, then were “married” according to the definition of their particular faith, it would solve all the problems.
Neither.
?
‘slpain more fully
I’ll say this, gay people should not have any more freedoms than the avrage person.
less maybe, but not more…
If two people love each other they should be allowed to marry… it shouldn’t matter if it’s Bob and Larry or Sue and Lynn…
the government can’t tell churches that they have to let homosexuals get married. The church can’t tell the government that they can or can’t have civil unions. Sadly the line has been blurred a bit over the past few years. I personaly don’t think either is right, but I have no right to command moral judgement over a group of people. That’s God’s job and I’m not about to put my thoughts over His.
Civil unions preferably but I’ll take marriage too.
As long as its legal; it doesn’t matter what label you put on it.
I think Belina rising has a good point. Marriage originated as a religious institution; as such, the government shouldn’t be controlling it.
marriage
I’m with laser lawyer. Repentance.
Marriage should be a human right, not a heterosexual one.
Posted 2/26/2007 8:10 AM by MexicoDFA127
It is a human right. Gay people just don’t want to be married like straight people.
If two people love each other they should be allowed to marry… it shouldn’t matter if it’s Bob and Larry or Sue and Lynn…
Posted 2/26/2007 8:33 AM by FirecrotchGrl
Sure, keep going with that line of thinking … then it shouldn’t matter if it’s a confused 12 year old girl and an old pervert. Marriage is an exclusive institution, reserved for the union between one man and one woman. As soon as it involves a different order of partnership, it isn’t marriage anymore
Civil unions… if not we are changing the definition of marriage.. Marriage is between a Man and a Woman.. I’m not against the relationship, I’m against the use of the word marriage. Just as heterosexual defines the relationship between a man and a women, marriage defines the committment. Homosexual defines the relationship between people of the same sex.. do you see where this is going?
Adventureracing explains it and my opinion of it the best :
Civil unions… if not we are changing the definition of marriage.. Marriage is between a Man and a Woman.. I’m not against the relationship, I’m against the use of the word marriage. Just as heterosexual defines the relationship between a man and a women, marriage defines the committment. Homosexual defines the relationship between people of the same sex.. do you see where this is going?
Although as a believer I’m not supposed to agree with gay relationships anyways…but that’s not for me to judge.
I’m with Belina. The whole institution is a legality and nothing more. A mating ritual doesn’t need a license. Make them ALL civil unions and really defuse the debate!
Maybe we need to get away from saying it’s a marriage, that terminology seems to be scaring people. Civil unions works.
Civil
The state shouldn’t be in the business of marrying people at all. The state should only grant civil unions, and it should grant them to any pair of adults. Let marriage be a private religious matter.
How could you take away someone’s rights because they are gay? Have you heard of the holocaust? Does that strike a good or a bad feeling in you? Did you know that along with the Jew, mentally disabled, gypsies, many other races, and many other disabled people, Hitler also killed all of the homosexual people he could get his hands on?
Suprise!
You should have the same rights no matter way. Woman, White, Hispanic, homosexual, disabled. There should be no discrimination
Derek
Marriage can be same sex, in exactly the same way that water can be dry. First step you need to forget the meaning of the word.
And for the ignorant a marriage license is not a right for anyone. That is why its called a license.
Marriage was originally a religious term for a religious ritual that spanned multiple religions. How and when it became a legal thing I don’t know.
I have no problem with homosexual couples getting all the same legal and financial benefits of a heterosexual married couple. What I want to preserve is the distinction, the sacred union of marriage as a religious artifact which only a church or temple can arbitrate.
Give them all the benefits they want, but unless they are going through one of the few religious groups that perform homosexual marriages, they shouldn’t call it marriage.
^I actually agree with RedHairedCelt I think. The state should only be granting civil unions, whether to homosexual or heterosexual or whomever. The religious organizations should be the ones granting “marriages”
marriage with all the benefits…. yeah.. so a civil union you get everything.. but, by not allowing them to call it marriage there is inequality.. and there shouldn’t be.
p.s. this question makes me sad… well.. not really the question, but some of the people’s answers.
“There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.” –C.S. Lewis
Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman…
Personally I think neither.
“by not allowing them to call it marriage there is inequality.. and there shouldn’t be.” Posted 2/26/2007 9:28 AM by thewhoo
Elaborate, please. How is denying a group a certain name inequality if they are not denied the good things associated with that name?
What you are describing is not inequality but difference. Things can be equal and not be the same.
Neither
Oh, let them get married. Then they can be unhappy like a lot of other marriages.
I can understand religious sides of the argument. I can understand humanitarian sides of the argument.
But as an American, I will never understand this:
I’ll say this, gay people should not have any more freedoms than the avrage person.
less maybe, but not more… Posted 2/26/2007 8:29 AM by awth44
I liked what BelinaRising had to say.
OMG eww. Can’t they just go live on the moon! LOL
marriages.
ofcourse … only the “heterosexual” in group is against marriages because you all have these rights.
Call it a Union, get all the rights by law, and shut the hell up. What difference is the single word ‘marriage’ when you got everything to it anyway?
’nuff said… Posted 2/26/2007 8:16 AM by Don_Cauchi
A lot; it makes gays feel like second class citizens. I mean if we said that blacks couldn’t get married, and they could only get civil unions that’d be messed up.
marriage. why the hell not? i, for one, don’t want to be umnarried forever, people!
I’m pretty surprised at the amount of people saying civil unions. I thought I was the only one who thought that way anymore.
Marraige.
A civil union would be perfectly fine with me. Legal rights and protections are all the government should have a hand in giving anyway, not the religious connotations of a sanctioned marriage. Besides, forcing the issue until we’re allowed to marry only continues the heterosexism we face; why not embrace our differences instead of pushing for perfect and complete equality?
Not gonna quit fighting until we have FULL and EQUAL rights. MARRIAGE all the bloody way on this one. A rose by any other name is still a rose, and the same goes for injustice, inequality, and inhumane.
p.s. I don’t know why I was compelled to read the comments on this post (maybe I hate myself) but let me emphasize again how much I really pity the people that show up for these hate-fests.
Hmmm…. The last time ‘seperate but equal’ logic worked was back in the 1950s….
wait, what? it didn’t work then either?
fuck.
it’s all semantics.
everyone should have civil unions marriage is a god thing that should have nothing to do with the state gay straight whatever all civil unions then theres no debate about it whatsoever
“A lot; it makes gays feel like second class citizens. I mean if we said that blacks couldn’t get married, and they could only get civil unions that’d be messed up.
You just compared apples and oranges.. THAT is messed up!
“Not gonna quit fighting until we have FULL and EQUAL rights. MARRIAGE all the bloody way on this one. A rose by any other name is still a rose, and the same goes for injustice, inequality, and inhumane.” -adriene
odd… a rose by any other name is still a rose… and the same goes for marriage… civil unions all the way adriene
Civil union would be the safe way to go, as using “marriage” would spark deep debates. I know it is a cop-out, but I’m trying to avoid the excessive arguments.
But what confuses me: what defines marriage as a “human right”? Likewise, what defines marriage as strictly heterosexual? Likewise, is marriage strictly religious? (I’m sure the answer is a no, although the ceremony would have the religion involved in the matter)
While religious perception of marriage could be upheld, I think the meaning “marriage” could also be redefined. But I don’t feel like siding with one side or another on this one.
Marriage.
OMG eww. Can’t they just go live on the moon! LOL Posted 2/26/2007 10:07 AM by MrKikestein
Wow, is that disappointing or what.
I don’t care if two homosexuals want to live together and whatever else. I think it’s wrong, but it’s their choice. I am reluctant at the idea of calling it marriage simply because it’s redefining the term. It’s not what marriage is.
If they are granted marriage, it’s not going to bother me too much. It’ll just contribute to a more widespread acceptance of something I deem inherently wrong. I’ll still live my life the same. I’ll stay married to my wife. I’ll still love gay people despite the choices they make. But, I also think it’ll contribute to the rate of decadence of our society. Whether it’s granted to them or not won’t change the fact that we’re on a moral decline.
My understanding is that in reality the government of any country, state or other political body never has had the function of granting or recognising the right to ”marry,” because “marry” means – in the widest and therefore the most basic sense, and according to my dictionary – “a close union, blend, or mixture of two things,” and is not a contract of any fixed nature to be determined by any legislative body, but is an agreement between the two people, originally declared in a community of their own kind.
No one is or has ever been married by the legislative body, whether straight or gay, Christian or Muslim, Catholic or Protestant, atheist or theist. Their commitment to each other (marriage) is recognised by the state (civil union) who license some people (not necessarily priests)to register such a contract in addition to a ceremony of marriage.
Civil Union.
Have you heard that joke….I think it was on that movie with Robin Williams…
” We shouldnt oppose gay marriage… there is no reason they shouldnt suffer the same misery as everyone else”..
Or something .
Marriage is a religious ceremony; civil unions are the secular manifestation of that ceremony. If the government were to declare gay marriage legal (or illegal, for that matter) they would be infringing on the rights of religions (separation of Church and State, anyone?)
So, the government should decide the issue with regards to civil unions. What religions do is up to their leaders.
I like what BelinaRising said.
but really, I’m not going to get involved in duking it out. as far as I can tell, two homosexuals getting “married,” brought together in a “civil union,” whatever you want to call it, etc., is not going to devalue my marriage any more than a divorce, or 1,000 divorces, or an adulterous marriage, or an abusive marriage, or any other marriage.
my marriage is MY marriage. and it only matters to me that myself, my husband and God recognize the holiness of my marriage as a God-honoring, God-fearing relationship between two people who love and respect each other and love God and show both daily.
homosexuals, or anyone else for that matter, can demand the same civil rights, even the same legal language, as I have, but they won’t have a God-honoring union.
and that’s what counts.
Sin !
Sin !
I agree with Soultender.
marriage is sacred to a man and a woman. it’s stated in the bible that homosexuality is an abomination to God. neither.
Tricky, tricky. Civil unions, i’d say….but then again, you don’t want it to be all “seperate but equal” kind of thing. If two guys want to get married, whatever. Whether you call it a “civil union” or not, they will still be referred to as married. Why complicate things? Why try to meddle in people’s personal choices?
While I used to preach civil union – I’ve changed my tune. Separate but equal didn’t really give us equality in the past, I doubt things have changed so much.
Marriage is the only way to give those relationships the equality they deserve.
as long as gays get the same legal rights as straight people, then call it what you want.
Marriage. Even as a heterosexual Christian, I have no problem with this whatsoever.
-Guru on the Hill
marriage!!!!!!!!!! but if not then civil unions!!!!!!!!! something for them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! yay for gay love!
I think whatever label is used that allows them to be on one another’s insurance, be their next of kin, and have a say so like a spouse…………..whatever that label should be the one used.
civility.
Marriage is love. I say marriage!
Surely there is a debate here which I don’t know about…
Civil union
couples with civil unions have all the rights a married couple has. The only difference is the word. So just call it marriage already. And don’t say it will ruin the sanctity of marriage, there are enough heterosexual couples that do that already.
civil union
i thought marriage originated in the church and the gov can;t mess with that
..neither
Marriage, they should suffer just like the rest of us.
Civil unions.
“Freedom means freedom for everyone.”–Vice President Dick Cheney
If it’s just a word why don’t you just let them get married? The definition doesn’t mean shit.
marriage most definatly.
If two people love each other they should be allowed to marry… it shouldn’t matter if it’s Bob and Larry or Sue and Lynn… Posted 2/26/2007 8:33 AM by FirecrotchGrl Sure, keep going with that line of thinking … then it shouldn’t matter if it’s a confused 12 year old girl and an old pervert. Marriage is an exclusive institution, reserved for the union between one man and one woman. As soon as it involves a different order of partnership, it isn’t marriage anymore Posted 2/26/2007 8:39 AM by Soultender
A classic example of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy, it is calculated to create fear in the mind of anyone hearing the argument. It is, of course, absolutely without any merit based on experience. If the argument were true, wouldn’t that have already happened in countries where forms of legalized gay marriage already exist? Wouldn’t they have ‘slid’ towards legalized incest and bestial marriage? The reality is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Scandinavian countries for over many years, and no such legalization has happened, nor has there been a clamor for it. It’s a classic scare tactic – making the end scenario so scary and so horrible that the first step should never be taken. Such are the tactics of the fear and hatemongers.
If concern over the “slippery slope” were the real motive behind this argument, the advocate of this line of reasoning would be equally vocal about the fact that today, even as you read this, convicted murderers, child molesters, known pedophiles, drug pushers, pimps, black market arms dealers, etc., are quite free to marry, and are doing so. Where’s the outrage? Of course there isn’t any, and that lack of outrage betrays their real motives. This is an anti-gay issue and not a pro marriage issue.
How about an unrecognized pairing of two single individuals.
Neither. Civil unions just condones sin. Marriage would marr the sanctity of the sacrament & is not heaven-made.
Personally…I think marriage is a stupid tradition. It’s a way that people show that they love, and care for one another, and prove that they want to be together by means of a religious ceremony. Unfortunatly, marriage also came to be a law-abiding ritual as well, which is why we have this problem in the first place. Why don’t we just stop recognizing marriage as anything more then a ceremony and call it that? Seperation of church and state people. It was created for a reason.
Civil union. Marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman and it should stay that way.
Government – civil unions for all whether heterosexual or homosexual. Two adults can get a civil union.
The government has no more right to give a heterosexual couple a marriage than they do to give a homosexual couple one.
Belina is right, marriage started as religious, and if we want to define it by religious standards, that is the realm in which the entire concept should stay.
I say the same damn thing every time this question comes up. Look closely ye consevatives and homophobes: TWO. CONSENTING. ADULTS.
Where o where does that allow seventy baby goats to marry a 90 year old pervert grandma?
The package doesn’t matter in this argument, whether you’re homosexual or not. The question is everyone’s problem with the simple word ‘marriage’. Because it’s so subjective, everyone gets hung up on it. I maintain my original stance: having all the same rights and responsibilites, why argue over the word when it’s so subjective that leagally it will still be the same thing?
On another note, the whole ‘equal but separate’ argument doesn’t sound too firm. I’d worry about being able to have a home, a family and standing as a partnership rather than worry what other people think.
’nuff said…
Neither. Civil unions just condones sin. Marriage would marr the sanctity of the sacrament & is not heaven-made. Posted 2/26/2007 12:57 PM by living_embers
What about divorce? A good chunk of divorcees are the ones saying that homosexual marriage would ruin the sanctity of marriage. Why not look in the mirror and worry about your own ‘sins.’
As a lesbian who has been in a relationship with a woman that God brought into my life for the past three years, I would love nothing more than to legally be able to marry. However, if I can only obtain a civil union, so be it. I will take what I can get. It may be the back of the bus, but at least one day I have faith that we’ll be able to sit up front.
marriage
straight and gay people should have civil unions. marriage should be something on the side that has nothing to do with legality. this is the ultimate solution. for some reason people don’t realize it though.
MARRIAGE!
Equal rights!
Marriage.
Marriage. Where does the government get to the right to decide something like that.
Marriage, if a gay couple loves each other I think they have more of a right than Las Vegas weddings, or Britney Spears getting married after knowing someone for 2 hours and then divorcing less than a week later.
It makes me giggle to hear the right side say neither : )
Michael
Marriage. I could go with what BelinaRising said, as long as it’s the same for homosexual and heterosexual couples. People need to realize that civil unions are NOT equal to marriages. They don’t confer alot of the same benefits. It’s not just a name.
If two people love each other they should be allowed to marry… it shouldn’t matter if it’s Bob and Larry or Sue and Lynn… Posted 2/26/2007 8:33 AM by FirecrotchGrl Sure, keep going with that line of thinking … then it shouldn’t matter if it’s a confused 12 year old girl and an old pervert. Marriage is an exclusive institution, reserved for the union between one man and one woman. As soon as it involves a different order of partnership, it isn’t marriage anymore Posted 2/26/2007 8:39 AM by Soultender That’s like saying allowing people to toast their bread is condoning Nazis burning Jews. Take any statement, exaggerate it horrifically and you get instant fear tactics.
The government has no right to decide what a preacher does religiously. Government has no power over marriages, only civil unions. It has nothing to do with gay rights, just religious rights. You can’t force anyone to believe that God is okay or not okay with gay marriage.
Marriage. Almost every country has gay marriage but the United States.
How does it hurt you, the heterosexual american, for me and my girlfriend to be married?
“Call it a Union, get all the rights by law, and shut the hell up. What difference is the single word ‘marriage’ when you got everything to it anyway?
“marriage is sacred to a man and a woman. it’s stated in the bible that homosexuality is an abomination to God. neither.
Posted 2/26/2007 11:17 AM by Loves_Quest“
And for those who could care less about the Bible? (Hint: billions worldwide)
“The government has no right to decide what a preacher does religiously. Government has no power over marriages, only civil unions. It has nothing to do with gay rights, just religious rights. You can’t force anyone to believe that God is okay or not okay with gay marriage.
Posted 2/26/2007 2:47 PM by Ewidge“
Um..the government is the one who won’t let homo. couples get married LAWFULLY, anyways.
it does not affect anyone except the two wanting to be married. they are no different from anyone else. let them be married.
Marriage. Not necessarily matrimony, for all those religious freaks who believe that love comes in only one form
WHICH IS DOES NOT.
So people should just shut up.
neither!!!!!!!
So people who disagree with you are automatically freaks, forever_llamas?
Ah, relativism is dying its slow and painful death…
what does marriage even mean these days …
it makes gays feel like second class citizens. I mean if we said that blacks couldn’t get married, and they could only get civil unions that’d be messed up. Posted 2/26/2007 10:11 AM by attercop
That makes no sense, attercop. You’re mixing your metaphors. A better metaphor would be:
When the Civil Rights movement succeeded in bringing equality (in theory) to society’s treatment of black people, we didn’t start calling them white. They didn’t have to be called “white” to be equal–they should be able to have the same rights as white people yet still be black.
Likewise, if we give homosexuals all the legal rights of marriage in a “civil union,” it shouldn’t have to be called “marriage” to be equal. You can be equal without being the same.
Civil Unions, at least.
marrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrriage
I don’t understand how marriage can define commitment if 50% of marriages end up in divorce.
personally i think homosexuals should be allowed to get married like everyone else. Afterall, They’re People Too!!!! We tend to over look this fact that their orientation does not change the fact that they are People.
but civil unions would lessen the debate. which really shouldn’t be this big of an issue anyway. they’re people. they deserve exactly the same rights as everyone else.
Civil union. Marriage is for raising children.
Marriage is not a right.
If you want a sanctity in marriage, you might as well end it now, because there are honestly not many true, honest-to-God marriages if it is true that only half of them make it.
And of those half that make it, how many are really functional? Honestly.
Saying it is ruining “God’s idea” of marriage is uncalled for considering “God’s idea” has seemed to left homes a long time ago.
The only person I’ve seen with a decent argument for civil union is ChrisRusso, and while I disagree, at least he knows what he’s talking about. A lot of you are against it solely because “it’s gross.”
I say that if people are allowed to have marriages lasting less than 24 hours only for VH1 to make a show on it, people who are homosexual and actually care about their marriages should be allowed to get married!
I don’t really understand how people are claiming marriage as a religious institution only. Does this mean that, as an atheist, if I got married it wouldn’t mean anything? Does this mean that marriages performed by a judge instead of a pastor wouldn’t mean anything? Does this mean that two Hindus who get married wouldn’t be meaning anything? Religion and the religious (read:: Christianity) do NOT have a monopoly on marriage.
That said, it is still against the law for homosexuals to get married in the majority of the country, even if it is done in a courthouse. Why? Why are our laws decided by a 3,000 year old religious text, in a country that is supposedly not run by one religion.
I also think that the fact that most marriages end in divorce (and that includes many Christians) does more to “de-sanctify” marriage than homosexual unions do. “Sanctity of marriage” my ass. Stop getting divorced, Christian right, and THEN maybe you can talk to me about this so-called “sanctity” without looking like an absolute hypocrite.
Marriage is for raising children.
Marriage is not a right.
Posted 2/26/2007 4:04 PM by Tallon5
Yet another group we can throw out if they want to get married! Barren people and old people! Woo hoo!
Sorry, people of other religions, homosexuals, people who want to be married on a beach, and people who want to adopt only–you can’t get married. Marriage is ONLY for fertile, straight, young Christians who get married in a church. ONLY. I mean, duhz.
Reasons I Can Never Get Married According To A Lotta These People::
1) I don’t believe in god. 2) I’m infertile. 3) I have no interest in getting married in a church, being married by a pastor, or having anything religious in my wedding.
Sucks to be me.
since i don’t believe that heterosexual couples who have a union sanctioned only by the court are in anything other than a civil union, then civil union is fine
in order for it to be truly marriage, i believe the union has to be sanctified in a religious ceremony. otherwise it is simply done for the state, which makes it a civil union (regardless of what name you use).
Oh that is easy.
Civil union. Lets get this messy god shit out of the equation. Marriage is about a union blessed by god. I don’t think god blesses anything as blessing seems to indicate god actually cares.
About two people choosing to have sex only with each other the rest of their lives.
I’ll just go with civil unions because homosexuals want to be different and I respect that they are different.
Marraige
Marriage*
“I don’t really understand how people are claiming marriage as a religious institution only. Does this mean that, as an atheist, if I got married it wouldn’t mean anything? Does this mean that marriages performed by a judge instead of a pastor wouldn’t mean anything? Does this mean that two Hindus who get married wouldn’t be meaning anything? Religion and the religious (read:: Christianity) do NOT have a monopoly on marriage.” –bittersunday
Marriage as it was originally conceived of was a religious ceremony of union presided over by the gods or God. Why would you, an atheist, want to participate in such a ceremony? I don’t want to speak for you, but it doesn’t seem like it’d be your thing, the whole appeal to the divine…
I would argue that “marriages” presided over by a judge should be considered civil unions, because they were conducted by the state, not a religious organization. We need to differentiate the terminology. As for Hindus hypothesis, of course it would be a marriage and mean something–since when does “religious” only mean “Christianity?” Hinduism is a religion.
“I also think that the fact that most marriages end in divorce (and that includes many Christians) does more to “de-sanctify” marriage than homosexual unions do. “Sanctity of marriage” my ass. Stop getting divorced, Christian right, and THEN maybe you can talk to me about this so-called “sanctity” without looking like an absolute hypocrite.” Posted 2/26/2007 4:08 PM by bittersunday
I agree with your first sentence here one hundred percent. It’s a different battle of the same front, and one that my team is losing.
I don’t know how you can hold me accountable for my entire demographic, however. I haven’t divorced anyone (yet)… so why should my ability to un-hypocritically speak on the topic be damaged?
“The only person I’ve seen with a decent argument for civil union is ChrisRusso, and while I disagree, at least he knows what he’s talking about.” Posted 2/26/2007 4:05 PM by andyisntemo
Oh, stop it, you’re making me blush…
I know marriage isn’t the right word for it. It’s not marriage. Civil Union doesn’t sound all that special .Members of the gay and lesbian culture should get together and seriously pick out a word which means as much as “marriage” means to hetrosexuals. I know it might sound like”separate but equal” but I realize that to the gay lesbian community that the joining of life partners is a sacred thing. They should have their own word to describe it and honor it.
I’m with BelinaRising.
Hey, I am fighting for gay rights at my sites, all four… anyone who wants toget married should be able to do so…. the decision is the individuals not the state.
I am a novelist, tv and big screen writer… 400 short stories, etc… don’t mean to brag, but I desperatly need other bloggers to come help me out. I and others have written a slew of POEMS DESIGNED TO MAKE TOTAL WAR FOR PEACE… We have military intelligence folk involved and a lot of big hollywood stars, gamers, rockers like David Byrne… Anyways, so I am going around to blogs around the world and introducing myself — I am pain, and write for an internet station, FEARLESS RADIO, for the show peace and pipedreams… check it out…
** What you are describing is not inequality but difference. Things can be equal and not be the same. Posted 2/26/2007 9:37 AM by ChrisRusso **
Seperate but equal? Oh yeah, and honestly, I dont care about your god, so shutup about god this and god that, the bible was used to justify slavery too.
Yet another group we can throw out if they want to get married! Barren people and old people! Woo hoo!
Sorry, people of other religions, homosexuals, people who want to be married on a beach, and people who want to adopt only–you can’t get married. Marriage is ONLY for fertile, straight, young Christians who get married in a church. ONLY. I mean, duhz. Posted 2/26/2007 4:10 PM by bittersunday
Actually, it isn’t. -You can be married anywhere. (where did that beach thing come from?) -Why would people of other religions be married in a Christian ceremony? -Old people can be married because they can still express their sexuality as God intended it. -Infertile couples – I’m quite sure that they are allowed to marry provided they adopt, and abstain from sex (that would be like using contraception).
Now you compare homosexual unions to a heterosexual couple who is unable to have children. But this analogy falls short, because the reason a homosexual couple can not create life is because their bodies are not designed for that. However, a heterosexual couple who is unable to have children is only that way because something is not working naturally. Sterility is a dysfunction for heterosexuals, but is natural for the homosexual couple.
MARRIAGE.
It’s not that hard.
Seperate but equal? Posted 2/26/2007 5:04 PM by CrushTheseClasses
I didn’t say separate, I said not the same.
Is there a difference? If not there is, there will not be in a few years.
“Does this mean that two Hindus who get married wouldn’t be meaning anything?” -bittersunday
That doesn’t make sense. Hindus were raised in a completely different culture. If they, or anyone really, never even knew of Christianity then of course they could have a holy marriage.
When did our government have a say in whom we could call our family? How silly.
Repentance. Posted 2/26/2007 8:21 AM by Laserlawyer
I agree
Neither
Full marriage equality under state and federal law.
“if you don’t like gay marriage, shut the fuck up and don’t have one”
too true, too true
try to get some lives people, you’re really pathetic. it does not affect your life at all. deal with your repressed homosexuality or whatever is wrong with you and grow up.
Look, Christians. Thats nice that you love those cool fairy tales, and Jesus was actually pretty rad. But i dont care about the bible.
Marriage is for raising children.
Marriage is not a right. Posted 2/26/2007 4:04 PM by Tallon5
if that’s the case, then there should be a law implemented on married couples that says they must have children within a given amount of time of being married. some married couples don’t want/have kids.
Hokmosexuals can’t marry. Marriage is strictly religious and most religions won’t have it. Civil unions all the way.
“-Infertile couples – I’m quite sure that they are allowed to marry provided they adopt, and abstain from sex (that would be like using contraception).
Now you compare homosexual unions to a heterosexual couple who is unable to have children. But this analogy falls short, because the reason a homosexual couple can not create life is because their bodies are not designed for that. However, a heterosexual couple who is unable to have children is only that way because something is not working naturally. Sterility is a dysfunction for heterosexuals, but is natural for the homosexual couple.
Posted 2/26/2007 5:07 PM by Tallon5”
The first part does not make sense. Why would they need to abstain from sex?
Her analogy does not fall short. Either way, children can not be had. Homosexuals can have children, they just need, and can recieve, the other half from somewhere.
I agree with Don and Belina. Civil unions should give people the same rights as marriage to put an end to this silly debate. It doesnt matter what it’s called. All that’s important are the rights – hospital visitation and all that.
1) Why would they need to abstain from sex? 2) Homosexuals can have children, they just need, and can recieve, the other half from somewhere. Posted 2/26/2007 6:30 PM by cts3seto
1) I researched it more and it is that impotent couples cannot marry, infertile couples are fine. I’m not talking about a legal marriage, by the way.
2) Exactly. If they need something else, then they can’t be able to have children.
Marriage.
I suppose if they had to have something I would choose civil unions…
tomato tamato….as long as everyone is treated equally let people do what they want. It isn’t hurting the population if two people of the same sex get married. You can’t control being homosexual anymore than you can control your hair color. You are born with it and you can cover it up, but not matter what it will always be who you are. Who on this site CHOSE to be the race they are? The Height they are? You are born this way, same with homosexuality. Why would anyone chose to be something that can get them ridiculed so badly and in some cases even killed?
Butt-Buddies!
Ignorance must be bliss…
“Seperate but equal? Oh yeah, and honestly, I dont care about your god, so shutup about god this and god that, the bible was used to justify slavery too.”
THANK YOU!!!
Why do I wanna get married? Uhhh…because I might want to spend the rest of my life with someone and announce to the world via law that I would like to do so? The fact that I’m an atheist has no effect on this. Just because marriage originally began as a religious ceremony does not really mean much. Christmas started as a pagan holiday. Times change, y’all!
And I wouldn’t want to participate in a religious marriage. Why would you want to get married in a mosque? Same reason I wouldn’t want to get married in a church. Me not having a pastor preside over my wedding or using the Bible for vows would not make me any less married than someone who did all of those things. Just a matter of preference.
“since when does “relgious” only mean “Christianity?”
I didn’t say that. Merely stating that this is more of a conservative Christian vs. others issue than other religions. “Religion” in the US pretty much DOES mean Christianity. It is the religion of the majority, and the Bible is the book from which said law about homosexual marriage is formed. Thus, when I say “religious” in context, I mean Christianity. No, not everyone in the US is a Christian, but the Christian culture is so pervasive that I’m not sure as to why I needed to explain myself for that one statement.
I did not hold YOU personally accountable (I don’t remember saying that. Did I? ). I just find it hilarious that nearly all of the anti-gay-marriage adults I know have gotten a divorce (or two. Or three). Hey, if you think being gay is a sin, fine by me. I disagree with ya, but it’s cool. I just don’t understand how most Christians (as a WHOLE, not individually) can claim the whole de-sanctifying thing when they are not doing much about it either.
And btw…I don’t know you, so you’re really giving yourself a lotta credit when you think I’m talking about you specifically when making a point. So you haven’t gotten divorced. Good for you. Hope it stays that way. However, that doesn’t really make your argument any more valid.
And Tallon5…your argument makes absolutely no sense. I consider myself a fairly creative person, but even *I* don’t get what the hell you mean. Some heterosexual couples don’t WANT children. Does that mean they shouldn’t be allowed to be married?
Oh, and homosexuals can physically adopt children too…(not lawfully, but they could feasibly do so).
The ability to produce a child does not give you any more of a right to get married than someone who cannot. End of story. If you think differently, I’d suggest moving back to the Dark Ages.
“1) I researched it more and it is that impotent couples cannot marry, infertile couples are fine. I’m not talking about a legal marriage, by the way.
2) Exactly. If they need something else, then they can’t be able to have children.
Posted 2/26/2007 6:44 PM by Tallon5“
…Women can get sperm donors. That’s having children.
Men can adopt. That solves a lonely child’s problem. Two dads are better than none!
Marriage
Neither
From a strictly scientific viewpoint, the average life span of a person in a homosexual relationship is something like 30 years less than that of someone in a heterosexual marriage, with a divorced person being in between.
Homosexuals also have the highest percentage of AIDS.
Furthermore, if everyone was gay, where would the next generation be? Homosexuality simply is not natural.
There is a reason God banned homosexuality, and it’s for our own good.
Marriage…people say that civil unions are equal…but by the ruling of brown v. board of education…although they may be “equal” in benefits and quality…seperate is inherently not equal…and yes that was dealing with segregation of african americans abnd whites…but this can also be applied to the current debate..
andrew
Marriage shouldn’t be a legal term! We take it out of our constitution and give gay couples the same rights as heterosexual couples.
“Why do I wanna get married? Uhhh…because I might want to spend the rest of my life with someone and announce to the world via law that I would like to do so?”
But that’s my point–by definition what you just described should be a civil union, not a marriage. This isn’t a question of exclusion so much as a question of definition.
“I didn’t say that. Merely stating that this is more of a conservative Christian vs. others issue than other religions.”
You questioned the validity of a Hindu marriage by our definition of marriage. Merely separating marriage (the religious aspect) from civil unions (the legal aspect) wouldn’t invalidate a Hindu marriage unless religious only equated to Christian.
“Religion” in the US pretty much DOES mean Christianity.”
I take it you’re not a New Yorker.
“And btw…I don’t know you, so you’re really giving yourself a lotta credit when you think I’m talking about you specifically when making a point. So you haven’t gotten divorced. Good for you. Hope it stays that way. However, that doesn’t really make your argument any more valid.” Posted 2/26/2007 8:00 PM by bittersunday
You addressed a group as a unit. You spoke to the “Christian right” as a whole. Well, I am a member of the Christian right, and I am answering your charges to the Christian right. Don’t speak to a demographic if you don’t want to be answered by individuals.
It has everything to do with how messed up things are in the system now. Perhaps marriage should be abolished?
Marriage should not be easy for anyone, gay or straight.
Mmmm…so by an archaic view of the word…then I guess not a lot of people are married then, huh? I guess I am confused as to your standpoint; if marriage = religious and civil union = law, then really…not only are you excluding homosexuals from calling their union a “marriage” but also non-religious people as well. I guess it comes down to this–if the meaning of marriage is indeed what you think it is (btw, the dictionary describes it as a “social” institution, not a religious one), then it needs to be changed. The notion that only the religious can have a monopoly or a special right to call themselves married is just ludicrous. This isn’t even touching on the gay issue. I should be able to say I’m married, whether or not my ceremony has anything religious in it.
And are you not only equating religious to Christianity? After all…the law passed that homosexuals cannot get married is derived from the Bible.
You do not speak for an entire demographic, just as I am sure that one non-Christian New Yorker does not speak for their entire group.
And seeing as most of the people I know from New York are Catholic, then yeah…I don’t see your point in that.
marriage, definitely.
*slap to that*
MARRIAGE.
Whatever floats your cheerios.
MARRIAGE. NOW.
Repentance. Posted 2/26/2007 8:21 AM by Laserlawyer
Fuck you.
Marriage.
Marriage is between one man and one woman. period.
neither.
i can’t wait till all the idiots on here have gay children.
they’re equal to everyone else, therefore they should accept no substitutes. marriage, all the way.
Definitely have to say neither… the whole idea of contractual togetherness is both dehumanizing by limiting freedom and unnecessary as it was for reasons in the older times, being economic preservation. Get over tradition and live happy.
That being said, I can’t wait to get married.
“Furthermore, if everyone was gay, where would the next generation be? Homosexuality simply is not natural.
Posted 2/26/2007 8:51 PM by JusticeandLiberty“
That’s why not everyone is gay…moron.
I do believe I remember the famous words somewhere in history from some important historical figure, from a very important historical document, at thte very beginning actually, that states everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and that all are created equal.
That in itself should say something to even the biggest dimwit alive.
Study history, it actually might make you a little more open-minded. I agree with whoever came up with the saying “closed-minds should come with closed mouths”
I don’t hate anyone. I’m just sad to see some of the things people say and think…maybe because I’m possibly excessively open minded, but eh…I say civil unions just so everyone will get off each others cases…and I don’t really think my girlfriend will mind, just as long as I can see her if she happens to be dying in the hospital.
I say….do whatever you want.
Justiceandliberty: God also banned shellfish, wearing fabrics that we mixed (cotton polyester blends for example), eating figs and men from shaving. The bible also said that owning slaves was okay, it was righteous to kill someone for having sex out side of marrige, blashpheming, and that so many other things that we don’t consider wrong today were okay or wrong. If you are going to use the bible as a defense please use the whole thing. So i would suggest that if you shave, play football (touch dead pig skin makes you unclean), talk to a woman when she is on her period, do ANYTHING on the sabbath, wear mixed clothing, or eat shellfish, don’t say anything about homosexuality. The bible also says that no sin is greater than the other, so if you do any of the above than you are just as “bad” as a person who is homosexual. This goes for ANYONE who tries to use the bible as a way to damn a gay person.
Wow. I’m pretty stupid. For a while I had thought that this stupid debate was over and people would just shut up and accept each other.
It’s ridiculous that this even needs to be asked. Marraige, of course. It’s pathetic that this is such a big issue. We are assuming that these are human beings too, right? Not to mention the fact that you don’t have to be Christian to be married, or religious at all, so religion shouldn’t be brought up half as often as it is.
I’m not gay, but I have friends that are, and I really wish that you homophobes could see what gay people go through. Do you think they want this? Do you honestly think they want to be discriminated against and made fun of and shunned because of the fact that they don’t go along with the rest of society? Do you really, really think they chose this?
How about this: if you don’t agree with gay marraige, shut your eyes, cover your ears, and pretend it doesn’t exist. Go sit in your little corner of the world with your church and praise yourself and your perfect family and your perfect world quietly. Stop trying to change the world with your religion. It’ll make everyone happier.
Marriage – why should anyone be denied anything based on who they are??? They say love is blind, they say justice is blind….if that’s really the case why is this still an issue?
How about this: if you don’t agree with gay marraige, shut your eyes, cover your ears, and pretend it doesn’t exist. Go sit in your little corner of the world with your church and praise yourself and your perfect family and your perfect world quietly. Stop trying to change the world with your religion. It’ll make everyone happier.
Quoted for great justice!
marriage…if you don’t support gay marriage, don’t marry one, heh. besides, how is a gay couple’s marriage going to affect a straight person’s? i think everyone should just get equal rights
Comments (196)
Civil unions. Defuse the debate…
Civil unions.
mmm…
My gut reaction is marriage. But Leonidas makes a valid point.
I defer until a later time.
CIVIL UNIONS!
Neither.
Marriage should be a human right, not a heterosexual one.
civil unions
Ug. Neither.
Happiness and equality
Call it a Union, get all the rights by law, and shut the hell up. What difference is the single word ‘marriage’ when you got everything to it anyway?
’nuff said…
Civil union.
Repentance.
For thousands of years villages and countries had nothing to do with the concept of marriage. It was a religious rite. Then, for purposes of census and taxation, government took over the authorization of who is and is not married. I say that the government should issue ONLY civil unions to all couples, gay and straight. Whether it is marriage in the eyes of God should be left up to the churches, who have a wide interpretation of what is and is not marriage. Some say you can only be married once and after that it is adultry. Others allow for divorce. One allows for 7 divorces and no more. Some allow plural marriages. Some have different levels of marriage (earthly & time and eternity). Some would support gay marriage and others wouldn’t. The state could never effectively sort through all these definitions of what marriage is.
If couples applied for a license of civil union from the state for their records, then were “married” according to the definition of their particular faith, it would solve all the problems.
Neither.
?
‘slpain more fully
I’ll say this, gay people should not have any more freedoms than the avrage person.
less maybe, but not more…
If two people love each other they should be allowed to marry… it shouldn’t matter if it’s Bob and Larry or Sue and Lynn…
the government can’t tell churches that they have to let homosexuals get married. The church can’t tell the government that they can or can’t have civil unions. Sadly the line has been blurred a bit over the past few years. I personaly don’t think either is right, but I have no right to command moral judgement over a group of people. That’s God’s job and I’m not about to put my thoughts over His.
Civil unions preferably but I’ll take marriage too.
As long as its legal; it doesn’t matter what label you put on it.
I think Belina rising has a good point. Marriage originated as a religious institution; as such, the government shouldn’t be controlling it.
marriage
I’m with laser lawyer. Repentance.
Marriage should be a human right, not a heterosexual one.
Posted 2/26/2007 8:10 AM by MexicoDFA127
It is a human right. Gay people just don’t want to be married like straight people.
If two people love each other they should be allowed to marry… it shouldn’t matter if it’s Bob and Larry or Sue and Lynn…
Posted 2/26/2007 8:33 AM by FirecrotchGrl
Sure, keep going with that line of thinking … then it shouldn’t matter if it’s a confused 12 year old girl and an old pervert. Marriage is an exclusive institution, reserved for the union between one man and one woman. As soon as it involves a different order of partnership, it isn’t marriage anymore
Civil unions… if not we are changing the definition of marriage.. Marriage is between a Man and a Woman.. I’m not against the relationship, I’m against the use of the word marriage. Just as heterosexual defines the relationship between a man and a women, marriage defines the committment. Homosexual defines the relationship between people of the same sex.. do you see where this is going?
Adventureracing explains it and my opinion of it the best :
Civil unions… if not we are changing the definition of marriage.. Marriage is between a Man and a Woman.. I’m not against the relationship, I’m against the use of the word marriage. Just as heterosexual defines the relationship between a man and a women, marriage defines the committment. Homosexual defines the relationship between people of the same sex.. do you see where this is going?
Although as a believer I’m not supposed to agree with gay relationships anyways…but that’s not for me to judge.
I’m with Belina. The whole institution is a legality and nothing more. A mating ritual doesn’t need a license. Make them ALL civil unions and really defuse the debate!
Maybe we need to get away from saying it’s a marriage, that terminology seems to be scaring people. Civil unions works.
Civil
The state shouldn’t be in the business of marrying people at all. The state should only grant civil unions, and it should grant them to any pair of adults. Let marriage be a private religious matter.
marriage should definately be aloud. Check out my other sites most recent post. http://www.xanga.com/religiousnothings
Derek
neither… I’m with the repentance thought.
“I’ll say this, gay people should not have any more freedoms than the avrage person.
less maybe, but not more…
Posted 2/26/2007 8:29 AM by awth44”
How could you take away someone’s rights because they are gay? Have you heard of the holocaust? Does that strike a good or a bad feeling in you? Did you know that along with the Jew, mentally disabled, gypsies, many other races, and many other disabled people, Hitler also killed all of the homosexual people he could get his hands on?
Suprise!
You should have the same rights no matter way. Woman, White, Hispanic, homosexual, disabled. There should be no discrimination
Derek
Marriage can be same sex, in exactly the same way that water can be dry. First step you need to forget the meaning of the word.
And for the ignorant a marriage license is not a right for anyone. That is why its called a license.
Marriage was originally a religious term for a religious ritual that spanned multiple religions. How and when it became a legal thing I don’t know.
I have no problem with homosexual couples getting all the same legal and financial benefits of a heterosexual married couple. What I want to preserve is the distinction, the sacred union of marriage as a religious artifact which only a church or temple can arbitrate.
Give them all the benefits they want, but unless they are going through one of the few religious groups that perform homosexual marriages, they shouldn’t call it marriage.
^I actually agree with RedHairedCelt I think. The state should only be granting civil unions, whether to homosexual or heterosexual or whomever. The religious organizations should be the ones granting “marriages”
marriage with all the benefits…. yeah.. so a civil union you get everything.. but, by not allowing them to call it marriage there is inequality.. and there shouldn’t be.
p.s. this question makes me sad… well.. not really the question, but some of the people’s answers.
“There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.” –C.S. Lewis
I agree with Adventureracing
Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman…
Personally I think neither.
“by not allowing them to call it marriage there is inequality.. and there shouldn’t be.”
Posted 2/26/2007 9:28 AM by thewhoo
Elaborate, please. How is denying a group a certain name inequality if they are not denied the good things associated with that name?
What you are describing is not inequality but difference. Things can be equal and not be the same.
Neither
Oh, let them get married. Then they can be unhappy like a lot of other marriages.
I can understand religious sides of the argument. I can understand humanitarian sides of the argument.
But as an American, I will never understand this:
I’ll say this, gay people should not have any more freedoms than the avrage person.
less maybe, but not more…
Posted 2/26/2007 8:29 AM by awth44
I liked what BelinaRising had to say.
OMG eww. Can’t they just go live on the moon! LOL
marriages.
ofcourse … only the “heterosexual” in group is against marriages because you all have these rights.
Call it a Union, get all the rights by law, and shut the hell up. What difference is the single word ‘marriage’ when you got everything to it anyway?
’nuff said…
Posted 2/26/2007 8:16 AM by Don_Cauchi
A lot; it makes gays feel like second class citizens. I mean if we said that blacks couldn’t get married, and they could only get civil unions that’d be messed up.
marriage. why the hell not? i, for one, don’t want to be umnarried forever, people!
I’m pretty surprised at the amount of people saying civil unions. I thought I was the only one who thought that way anymore.
Marraige.
A civil union would be perfectly fine with me. Legal rights and protections are all the government should have a hand in giving anyway, not the religious connotations of a sanctioned marriage. Besides, forcing the issue until we’re allowed to marry only continues the heterosexism we face; why not embrace our differences instead of pushing for perfect and complete equality?
Not gonna quit fighting until we have FULL and EQUAL rights. MARRIAGE all the bloody way on this one. A rose by any other name is still a rose, and the same goes for injustice, inequality, and inhumane.
p.s. I don’t know why I was compelled to read the comments on this post (maybe I hate myself) but let me emphasize again how much I really pity the people that show up for these hate-fests.
Hmmm…. The last time ‘seperate but equal’ logic worked was back in the 1950s….
wait, what? it didn’t work then either?
fuck.
it’s all semantics.
everyone should have civil unions
marriage is a god thing that should have nothing to do with the state
gay straight whatever
all civil unions then theres no debate about it whatsoever
“A lot; it makes gays feel like second class citizens. I mean if we said that blacks couldn’t get married, and they could only get civil unions that’d be messed up.
Posted 2/26/2007 10:11 AM by attercop”
You just compared apples and oranges.. THAT is messed up!
“Not gonna quit fighting until we have FULL and EQUAL rights. MARRIAGE all the bloody way on this one. A rose by any other name is still a rose, and the same goes for injustice, inequality, and inhumane.”
-adriene
odd… a rose by any other name is still a rose… and the same goes for marriage… civil unions all the way adriene
Gay marriage. We can’t compromise on this issue.
http://www.xanga.com/jimmyjazz86/494568378/item.html
Civil union would be the safe way to go, as using “marriage” would spark deep debates. I know it is a cop-out, but I’m trying to avoid the excessive arguments.
But what confuses me: what defines marriage as a “human right”? Likewise, what defines marriage as strictly heterosexual?
Likewise, is marriage strictly religious? (I’m sure the answer is a no, although the ceremony would have the religion involved in the matter)
While religious perception of marriage could be upheld, I think the meaning “marriage” could also be redefined.
But I don’t feel like siding with one side or another on this one.
Marriage.
OMG eww. Can’t they just go live on the moon! LOL
Posted 2/26/2007 10:07 AM by MrKikestein
Wow, is that disappointing or what.
I don’t care if two homosexuals want to live together and whatever else. I think it’s wrong, but it’s their choice. I am reluctant at the idea of calling it marriage simply because it’s redefining the term. It’s not what marriage is.
If they are granted marriage, it’s not going to bother me too much. It’ll just contribute to a more widespread acceptance of something I deem inherently wrong. I’ll still live my life the same. I’ll stay married to my wife. I’ll still love gay people despite the choices they make. But, I also think it’ll contribute to the rate of decadence of our society. Whether it’s granted to them or not won’t change the fact that we’re on a moral decline.
My understanding is that in reality the government of any country, state or other political body never has had the function of granting or recognising the right to ”marry,” because “marry” means – in the widest and therefore the most basic sense, and according to my dictionary – “a close union, blend, or mixture of two things,” and is not a contract of any fixed nature to be determined by any legislative body, but is an agreement between the two people, originally declared in a community of their own kind.
No one is or has ever been married by the legislative body, whether straight or gay, Christian or Muslim, Catholic or Protestant, atheist or theist. Their commitment to each other (marriage) is recognised by the state (civil union) who license some people (not necessarily priests)to register such a contract in addition to a ceremony of marriage.
Civil Union.
Have you heard that joke….I think it was on that movie with Robin Williams…
” We shouldnt oppose gay marriage… there is no reason they shouldnt suffer the same misery as everyone else”..
Or something .
Marriage is a religious ceremony; civil unions are the secular manifestation of that ceremony. If the government were to declare gay marriage legal (or illegal, for that matter) they would be infringing on the rights of religions (separation of Church and State, anyone?)
So, the government should decide the issue with regards to civil unions. What religions do is up to their leaders.
I like what BelinaRising said.
but really, I’m not going to get involved in duking it out. as far as I can tell, two homosexuals getting “married,” brought together in a “civil union,” whatever you want to call it, etc., is not going to devalue my marriage any more than a divorce, or 1,000 divorces, or an adulterous marriage, or an abusive marriage, or any other marriage.
my marriage is MY marriage. and it only matters to me that myself, my husband and God recognize the holiness of my marriage as a God-honoring, God-fearing relationship between two people who love and respect each other and love God and show both daily.
homosexuals, or anyone else for that matter, can demand the same civil rights, even the same legal language, as I have, but they won’t have a God-honoring union.
and that’s what counts.
Sin !
Sin !
I agree with Soultender.
marriage is sacred to a man and a woman. it’s stated in the bible that homosexuality is an abomination to God. neither.
Tricky, tricky.
Civil unions, i’d say….but then again, you don’t want it to be all “seperate but equal” kind of thing. If two guys want to get married, whatever. Whether you call it a “civil union” or not, they will still be referred to as married. Why complicate things? Why try to meddle in people’s personal choices?
While I used to preach civil union – I’ve changed my tune. Separate but equal didn’t really give us equality in the past, I doubt things have changed so much.
Marriage is the only way to give those relationships the equality they deserve.
as long as gays get the same legal rights as straight people, then call it what you want.
Marriage. Even as a heterosexual Christian, I have no problem with this whatsoever.
-Guru on the Hill
marriage!!!!!!!!!! but if not then civil unions!!!!!!!!! something for them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! yay for gay love!
I think whatever label is used that allows them to be on one another’s insurance, be their next of kin, and have a say so like a spouse…………..whatever that label should be the one used.
civility.
Marriage is love. I say marriage!
Surely there is a debate here which I don’t know about…
Civil union
couples with civil unions have all the rights a married couple has. The only difference is the word. So just call it marriage already. And don’t say it will ruin the sanctity of marriage, there are enough heterosexual couples that do that already.
civil union
i thought marriage originated in the church and the gov can;t mess with that
..neither
Marriage, they should suffer just like the rest of us.
Civil unions.
“Freedom means freedom for everyone.”–Vice President Dick Cheney
I agree with BelinaRising and pepperhair.
Civil Union
Marriage.
Call it a Union, get all the rights by law, and shut the hell up. What difference is the single word ‘marriage’ when you got everything to it anyway?
’nuff said…
Posted 2/26/2007 8:16 AM by Don_Cauchi
If it’s just a word why don’t you just let them get married? The definition doesn’t mean shit.
marriage most definatly.
If two people love each other they should be allowed to marry… it shouldn’t matter if it’s Bob and Larry or Sue and Lynn… Posted 2/26/2007 8:33 AM by FirecrotchGrl Sure, keep going with that line of thinking … then it shouldn’t matter if it’s a confused 12 year old girl and an old pervert. Marriage is an exclusive institution, reserved for the union between one man and one woman. As soon as it involves a different order of partnership, it isn’t marriage anymore
Posted 2/26/2007 8:39 AM by Soultender
A classic example of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy, it is calculated to create fear in the mind of anyone hearing the argument. It is, of course, absolutely without any merit based on experience. If the argument were true, wouldn’t that have already happened in countries where forms of legalized gay marriage already exist? Wouldn’t they have ‘slid’ towards legalized incest and bestial marriage? The reality is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Scandinavian countries for over many years, and no such legalization has happened, nor has there been a clamor for it. It’s a classic scare tactic – making the end scenario so scary and so horrible that the first step should never be taken. Such are the tactics of the fear and hatemongers.
If concern over the “slippery slope” were the real motive behind this argument, the advocate of this line of reasoning would be equally vocal about the fact that today, even as you read this, convicted murderers, child molesters, known pedophiles, drug pushers, pimps, black market arms dealers, etc., are quite free to marry, and are doing so. Where’s the outrage? Of course there isn’t any, and that lack of outrage betrays their real motives. This is an anti-gay issue and not a pro marriage issue.
How about an unrecognized pairing of two single individuals.
Neither. Civil unions just condones sin. Marriage would marr the sanctity of the sacrament & is not heaven-made.
Personally…I think marriage is a stupid tradition. It’s a way that people show that they love, and care for one another, and prove that they want to be together by means of a religious ceremony. Unfortunatly, marriage also came to be a law-abiding ritual as well, which is why we have this problem in the first place. Why don’t we just stop recognizing marriage as anything more then a ceremony and call it that? Seperation of church and state people. It was created for a reason.
Civil union. Marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman and it should stay that way.
Government – civil unions for all whether heterosexual or homosexual. Two adults can get a civil union.
The government has no more right to give a heterosexual couple a marriage than they do to give a homosexual couple one.
Belina is right, marriage started as religious, and if we want to define it by religious standards, that is the realm in which the entire concept should stay.
I say the same damn thing every time this question comes up. Look closely ye consevatives and homophobes: TWO. CONSENTING. ADULTS.
Where o where does that allow seventy baby goats to marry a 90 year old pervert grandma?
The package doesn’t matter in this argument, whether you’re homosexual or not. The question is everyone’s problem with the simple word ‘marriage’. Because it’s so subjective, everyone gets hung up on it. I maintain my original stance: having all the same rights and responsibilites, why argue over the word when it’s so subjective that leagally it will still be the same thing?
On another note, the whole ‘equal but separate’ argument doesn’t sound too firm. I’d worry about being able to have a home, a family and standing as a partnership rather than worry what other people think.
’nuff said…
Neither. Civil unions just condones sin. Marriage would marr the sanctity of the sacrament & is not heaven-made.
Posted 2/26/2007 12:57 PM by living_embers
What about divorce? A good chunk of divorcees are the ones saying that homosexual marriage would ruin the sanctity of marriage. Why not look in the mirror and worry about your own ‘sins.’
As a lesbian who has been in a relationship with a woman that God brought into my life for the past three years, I would love nothing more than to legally be able to marry. However, if I can only obtain a civil union, so be it. I will take what I can get. It may be the back of the bus, but at least one day I have faith that we’ll be able to sit up front.
marriage
straight and gay people should have civil unions. marriage should be something on the side that has nothing to do with legality. this is the ultimate solution. for some reason people don’t realize it though.
MARRIAGE!
Equal rights!
Marriage.
Marriage. Where does the government get to the right to decide something like that.
Marriage, if a gay couple loves each other I think they have more of a right than Las Vegas weddings, or Britney Spears getting married after knowing someone for 2 hours and then divorcing less than a week later.
It makes me giggle to hear the right side say neither : )
Michael
Marriage. I could go with what BelinaRising said, as long as it’s the same for homosexual and heterosexual couples.
People need to realize that civil unions are NOT equal to marriages. They don’t confer alot of the same benefits. It’s not just a name.
If two people love each other they should be allowed to marry… it shouldn’t matter if it’s Bob and Larry or Sue and Lynn… Posted 2/26/2007 8:33 AM by FirecrotchGrl Sure, keep going with that line of thinking … then it shouldn’t matter if it’s a confused 12 year old girl and an old pervert. Marriage is an exclusive institution, reserved for the union between one man and one woman. As soon as it involves a different order of partnership, it isn’t marriage anymore
Posted 2/26/2007 8:39 AM by Soultender
That’s like saying allowing people to toast their bread is condoning Nazis burning Jews. Take any statement, exaggerate it horrifically and you get instant fear tactics.
The government has no right to decide what a preacher does religiously. Government has no power over marriages, only civil unions. It has nothing to do with gay rights, just religious rights. You can’t force anyone to believe that God is okay or not okay with gay marriage.
Marriage. Almost every country has gay marriage but the United States.
How does it hurt you, the heterosexual american, for me and my girlfriend to be married?
“Call it a Union, get all the rights by law, and shut the hell up. What difference is the single word ‘marriage’ when you got everything to it anyway?
’nuff said…
Posted 2/26/2007 8:16 AM by Don_Cauchi“
Then why do straight couples need marriage?
“marriage is sacred to a man and a woman. it’s stated in the bible that homosexuality is an abomination to God. neither.
Posted 2/26/2007 11:17 AM by Loves_Quest“
And for those who could care less about the Bible? (Hint: billions worldwide)
“The government has no right to decide what a preacher does religiously. Government has no power over marriages, only civil unions. It has nothing to do with gay rights, just religious rights. You can’t force anyone to believe that God is okay or not okay with gay marriage.
Posted 2/26/2007 2:47 PM by Ewidge“
Um..the government is the one who won’t let homo. couples get married LAWFULLY, anyways.
it does not affect anyone except the two wanting to be married. they are no different from anyone else. let them be married.
Marriage. Not necessarily matrimony, for all those religious freaks who believe that love comes in only one form
WHICH IS DOES NOT.
So people should just shut up.
neither!!!!!!!
So people who disagree with you are automatically freaks, forever_llamas?
Ah, relativism is dying its slow and painful death…
what does marriage even mean these days …
it makes gays feel like second class citizens. I mean if we said that blacks couldn’t get married, and they could only get civil unions that’d be messed up.
Posted 2/26/2007 10:11 AM by attercop
That makes no sense, attercop. You’re mixing your metaphors. A better metaphor would be:
When the Civil Rights movement succeeded in bringing equality (in theory) to society’s treatment of black people, we didn’t start calling them white. They didn’t have to be called “white” to be equal–they should be able to have the same rights as white people yet still be black.
Likewise, if we give homosexuals all the legal rights of marriage in a “civil union,” it shouldn’t have to be called “marriage” to be equal. You can be equal without being the same.
Civil Unions, at least.
marrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrriage
I don’t understand how marriage can define commitment if 50% of marriages end up in divorce.
personally i think homosexuals should be allowed to get married like everyone else. Afterall, They’re People Too!!!! We tend to over look this fact that their orientation does not change the fact that they are People.
but civil unions would lessen the debate. which really shouldn’t be this big of an issue anyway. they’re people. they deserve exactly the same rights as everyone else.
Civil union. Marriage is for raising children.
Marriage is not a right.
If you want a sanctity in marriage, you might as well end it now, because there are honestly not many true, honest-to-God marriages if it is true that only half of them make it.
And of those half that make it, how many are really functional? Honestly.
Saying it is ruining “God’s idea” of marriage is uncalled for considering “God’s idea” has seemed to left homes a long time ago.
The only person I’ve seen with a decent argument for civil union is ChrisRusso, and while I disagree, at least he knows what he’s talking about.
A lot of you are against it solely because “it’s gross.”
I say that if people are allowed to have marriages lasting less than 24 hours only for VH1 to make a show on it, people who are homosexual and actually care about their marriages should be allowed to get married!
I don’t really understand how people are claiming marriage as a religious institution only. Does this mean that, as an atheist, if I got married it wouldn’t mean anything? Does this mean that marriages performed by a judge instead of a pastor wouldn’t mean anything? Does this mean that two Hindus who get married wouldn’t be meaning anything? Religion and the religious (read:: Christianity) do NOT have a monopoly on marriage.
That said, it is still against the law for homosexuals to get married in the majority of the country, even if it is done in a courthouse. Why? Why are our laws decided by a 3,000 year old religious text, in a country that is supposedly not run by one religion.
I also think that the fact that most marriages end in divorce (and that includes many Christians) does more to “de-sanctify” marriage than homosexual unions do. “Sanctity of marriage” my ass. Stop getting divorced, Christian right, and THEN maybe you can talk to me about this so-called “sanctity” without looking like an absolute hypocrite.
Marriage is for raising children.
Marriage is not a right.
Posted 2/26/2007 4:04 PM by Tallon5
Yet another group we can throw out if they want to get married! Barren people and old people! Woo hoo!
Sorry, people of other religions, homosexuals, people who want to be married on a beach, and people who want to adopt only–you can’t get married. Marriage is ONLY for fertile, straight, young Christians who get married in a church. ONLY. I mean, duhz.
Reasons I Can Never Get Married According To A Lotta These People::
1) I don’t believe in god.
2) I’m infertile.
3) I have no interest in getting married in a church, being married by a pastor, or having anything religious in my wedding.
Sucks to be me.
since i don’t believe that heterosexual couples who have a union sanctioned only by the court are in anything other than a civil union, then civil union is fine
in order for it to be truly marriage, i believe the union has to be sanctified in a religious ceremony. otherwise it is simply done for the state, which makes it a civil union (regardless of what name you use).
Oh that is easy.
Civil union. Lets get this messy god shit out of the equation. Marriage is about a union blessed by god. I don’t think god blesses anything as blessing seems to indicate god actually cares.
About two people choosing to have sex only with each other the rest of their lives.
CivilunionsCivilunionsCivilunionsCivilunionsCivilunionsCivilunionsCivilunionsCivilunionsCivilunionsCivilunions!
Viva faggotry!
I don’t care.
I’ll just go with civil unions because homosexuals want to be different and I respect that they are different.
Marraige
Marriage*
“I don’t really understand how people are claiming marriage as a religious institution only. Does this mean that, as an atheist, if I got married it wouldn’t mean anything? Does this mean that marriages performed by a judge instead of a pastor wouldn’t mean anything? Does this mean that two Hindus who get married wouldn’t be meaning anything? Religion and the religious (read:: Christianity) do NOT have a monopoly on marriage.” –bittersunday
Marriage as it was originally conceived of was a religious ceremony of union presided over by the gods or God. Why would you, an atheist, want to participate in such a ceremony? I don’t want to speak for you, but it doesn’t seem like it’d be your thing, the whole appeal to the divine…
I would argue that “marriages” presided over by a judge should be considered civil unions, because they were conducted by the state, not a religious organization. We need to differentiate the terminology. As for Hindus hypothesis, of course it would be a marriage and mean something–since when does “religious” only mean “Christianity?” Hinduism is a religion.
“I also think that the fact that most marriages end in divorce (and that includes many Christians) does more to “de-sanctify” marriage than homosexual unions do. “Sanctity of marriage” my ass. Stop getting divorced, Christian right, and THEN maybe you can talk to me about this so-called “sanctity” without looking like an absolute hypocrite.”
Posted 2/26/2007 4:08 PM by bittersunday
I agree with your first sentence here one hundred percent. It’s a different battle of the same front, and one that my team is losing.
I don’t know how you can hold me accountable for my entire demographic, however. I haven’t divorced anyone (yet)… so why should my ability to un-hypocritically speak on the topic be damaged?
“The only person I’ve seen with a decent argument for civil union is ChrisRusso, and while I disagree, at least he knows what he’s talking about.”
Posted 2/26/2007 4:05 PM by andyisntemo
Oh, stop it, you’re making me blush…
I know marriage isn’t the right word for it. It’s not marriage. Civil Union doesn’t sound all that special .Members of the gay and lesbian culture should get together and seriously pick out a word which means as much as “marriage” means to hetrosexuals. I know it might sound like”separate but equal” but I realize that to the gay lesbian community that the joining of life partners is a sacred thing. They should have their own word to describe it and honor it.
I’m with BelinaRising.
Hey, I am fighting for gay rights at my sites, all four… anyone who wants toget married should be able to do so…. the decision is the individuals not the state.
I am a novelist, tv and big screen writer… 400 short stories, etc… don’t mean to brag, but I desperatly need other bloggers to come help me out. I and others have written a slew of POEMS DESIGNED TO MAKE TOTAL WAR FOR PEACE… We have military intelligence folk involved and a lot of big hollywood stars, gamers, rockers like David Byrne… Anyways, so I am going around to blogs around the world and introducing myself — I am pain, and write for an internet station, FEARLESS RADIO, for the show peace and pipedreams… check it out…
http://www.xanga.com/johnnyapain
**
What you are describing is not inequality but difference. Things can be equal and not be the same.
Posted 2/26/2007 9:37 AM by ChrisRusso
**
Seperate but equal?
Oh yeah, and honestly, I dont care about your god, so shutup about god this and god that, the bible was used to justify slavery too.
Yet another group we can throw out if they want to get married! Barren people and old people! Woo hoo!
Sorry, people of other religions, homosexuals, people who want to be married on a beach, and people who want to adopt only–you can’t get married. Marriage is ONLY for fertile, straight, young Christians who get married in a church. ONLY. I mean, duhz.
Posted 2/26/2007 4:10 PM by bittersunday
Actually, it isn’t.
-You can be married anywhere. (where did that beach thing come from?)
-Why would people of other religions be married in a Christian ceremony?
-Old people can be married because they can still express their sexuality as God intended it.
-Infertile couples – I’m quite sure that they are allowed to marry provided they adopt, and abstain from sex (that would be like using contraception).
Now you compare homosexual unions to a heterosexual couple who is unable to have children. But this analogy falls short, because the reason a homosexual couple can not create life is because their bodies are not designed for that. However, a heterosexual couple who is unable to have children is only that way because something is not working naturally. Sterility is a dysfunction for heterosexuals, but is natural for the homosexual couple.
MARRIAGE.
It’s not that hard.
Seperate but equal?
Posted 2/26/2007 5:04 PM by CrushTheseClasses
I didn’t say separate, I said not the same.
Is there a difference? If not there is, there will not be in a few years.
“Does this mean that two Hindus who get married wouldn’t be meaning anything?”
-bittersunday
That doesn’t make sense. Hindus were raised in a completely different culture. If they, or anyone really, never even knew of Christianity then of course they could have a holy marriage.
When did our government have a say in whom we could call our family?
How silly.
Repentance.
Posted 2/26/2007 8:21 AM by Laserlawyer
I agree
Neither
Full marriage equality under state and federal law.
“if you don’t like gay marriage, shut the fuck up and don’t have one”
too true, too true
try to get some lives people, you’re really pathetic. it does not affect your life at all. deal with your repressed homosexuality or whatever is wrong with you and grow up.
Look, Christians. Thats nice that you love those cool fairy tales, and Jesus was actually pretty rad. But i dont care about the bible.
Marriage is for raising children.
Marriage is not a right. Posted 2/26/2007 4:04 PM by Tallon5
if that’s the case, then there should be a law implemented on married couples that says they must have children within a given amount of time of being married. some married couples don’t want/have kids.
Hokmosexuals can’t marry. Marriage is strictly religious and most religions won’t have it. Civil unions all the way.
“-Infertile couples – I’m quite sure that they are allowed to marry provided they adopt, and abstain from sex (that would be like using contraception).
Now you compare homosexual unions to a heterosexual couple who is unable to have children. But this analogy falls short, because the reason a homosexual couple can not create life is because their bodies are not designed for that. However, a heterosexual couple who is unable to have children is only that way because something is not working naturally. Sterility is a dysfunction for heterosexuals, but is natural for the homosexual couple.
Posted 2/26/2007 5:07 PM by Tallon5”
The first part does not make sense. Why would they need to abstain from sex?
Her analogy does not fall short. Either way, children can not be had. Homosexuals can have children, they just need, and can recieve, the other half from somewhere.
I agree with Don and Belina. Civil unions should give people the same rights as marriage to put an end to this silly debate. It doesnt matter what it’s called. All that’s important are the rights – hospital visitation and all that.
1) Why would they need to abstain from sex?
2) Homosexuals can have children, they just need, and can recieve, the other half from somewhere.
Posted 2/26/2007 6:30 PM by cts3seto
1) I researched it more and it is that impotent couples cannot marry, infertile couples are fine. I’m not talking about a legal marriage, by the way.
2) Exactly. If they need something else, then they can’t be able to have children.
Marriage.
I suppose if they had to have something I would choose civil unions…
tomato tamato….as long as everyone is treated equally let people do what they want. It isn’t hurting the population if two people of the same sex get married. You can’t control being homosexual anymore than you can control your hair color. You are born with it and you can cover it up, but not matter what it will always be who you are. Who on this site CHOSE to be the race they are? The Height they are? You are born this way, same with homosexuality. Why would anyone chose to be something that can get them ridiculed so badly and in some cases even killed?
Butt-Buddies!
Ignorance must be bliss…
“Seperate but equal?
Oh yeah, and honestly, I dont care about your god, so shutup about god this and god that, the bible was used to justify slavery too.”
THANK YOU!!!
Why do I wanna get married? Uhhh…because I might want to spend the rest of my life with someone and announce to the world via law that I would like to do so? The fact that I’m an atheist has no effect on this. Just because marriage originally began as a religious ceremony does not really mean much. Christmas started as a pagan holiday. Times change, y’all!
And I wouldn’t want to participate in a religious marriage. Why would you want to get married in a mosque? Same reason I wouldn’t want to get married in a church. Me not having a pastor preside over my wedding or using the Bible for vows would not make me any less married than someone who did all of those things. Just a matter of preference.
“since when does “relgious” only mean “Christianity?”
I didn’t say that. Merely stating that this is more of a conservative Christian vs. others issue than other religions. “Religion” in the US pretty much DOES mean Christianity. It is the religion of the majority, and the Bible is the book from which said law about homosexual marriage is formed. Thus, when I say “religious” in context, I mean Christianity. No, not everyone in the US is a Christian, but the Christian culture is so pervasive that I’m not sure as to why I needed to explain myself for that one statement.
I did not hold YOU personally accountable (I don’t remember saying that. Did I?
). I just find it hilarious that nearly all of the anti-gay-marriage adults I know have gotten a divorce (or two. Or three). Hey, if you think being gay is a sin, fine by me. I disagree with ya, but it’s cool. I just don’t understand how most Christians (as a WHOLE, not individually) can claim the whole de-sanctifying thing when they are not doing much about it either.
And btw…I don’t know you, so you’re really giving yourself a lotta credit when you think I’m talking about you specifically when making a point.
So you haven’t gotten divorced. Good for you. Hope it stays that way. However, that doesn’t really make your argument any more valid.
And Tallon5…your argument makes absolutely no sense. I consider myself a fairly creative person, but even *I* don’t get what the hell you mean. Some heterosexual couples don’t WANT children. Does that mean they shouldn’t be allowed to be married?
Oh, and homosexuals can physically adopt children too…(not lawfully, but they could feasibly do so).
The ability to produce a child does not give you any more of a right to get married than someone who cannot. End of story. If you think differently, I’d suggest moving back to the Dark Ages.
“1) I researched it more and it is that impotent couples cannot marry, infertile couples are fine. I’m not talking about a legal marriage, by the way.
2) Exactly. If they need something else, then they can’t be able to have children.
Posted 2/26/2007 6:44 PM by Tallon5“
…Women can get sperm donors. That’s having children.
Men can adopt. That solves a lonely child’s problem. Two dads are better than none!
Marriage
Neither
From a strictly scientific viewpoint, the average life span of a person in a homosexual relationship is something like 30 years less than that of someone in a heterosexual marriage, with a divorced person being in between.
Homosexuals also have the highest percentage of AIDS.
Furthermore, if everyone was gay, where would the next generation be? Homosexuality simply is not natural.
There is a reason God banned homosexuality, and it’s for our own good.
Marriage…people say that civil unions are equal…but by the ruling of brown v. board of education…although they may be “equal” in benefits and quality…seperate is inherently not equal…and yes that was dealing with segregation of african americans abnd whites…but this can also be applied to the current debate..
andrew
Marriage shouldn’t be a legal term! We take it out of our constitution and give gay couples the same rights as heterosexual couples.
“Why do I wanna get married? Uhhh…because I might want to spend the rest of my life with someone and announce to the world via law that I would like to do so?”
But that’s my point–by definition what you just described should be a civil union, not a marriage. This isn’t a question of exclusion so much as a question of definition.
“I didn’t say that. Merely stating that this is more of a conservative Christian vs. others issue than other religions.”
You questioned the validity of a Hindu marriage by our definition of marriage. Merely separating marriage (the religious aspect) from civil unions (the legal aspect) wouldn’t invalidate a Hindu marriage unless religious only equated to Christian.
“Religion” in the US pretty much DOES mean Christianity.”
I take it you’re not a New Yorker.
“And btw…I don’t know you, so you’re really giving yourself a lotta credit when you think I’m talking about you specifically when making a point. So you haven’t gotten divorced. Good for you. Hope it stays that way. However, that doesn’t really make your argument any more valid.”
Posted 2/26/2007 8:00 PM by bittersunday
You addressed a group as a unit. You spoke to the “Christian right” as a whole. Well, I am a member of the Christian right, and I am answering your charges to the Christian right. Don’t speak to a demographic if you don’t want to be answered by individuals.
Adventureracing hit the nail right on.
Civil Unions.
It has everything to do with how messed up things are in the system now. Perhaps marriage should be abolished?
Marriage should not be easy for anyone, gay or straight.
Mmmm…so by an archaic view of the word…then I guess not a lot of people are married then, huh? I guess I am confused as to your standpoint; if marriage = religious and civil union = law, then really…not only are you excluding homosexuals from calling their union a “marriage” but also non-religious people as well. I guess it comes down to this–if the meaning of marriage is indeed what you think it is (btw, the dictionary describes it as a “social” institution, not a religious one), then it needs to be changed. The notion that only the religious can have a monopoly or a special right to call themselves married is just ludicrous. This isn’t even touching on the gay issue. I should be able to say I’m married, whether or not my ceremony has anything religious in it.
And are you not only equating religious to Christianity? After all…the law passed that homosexuals cannot get married is derived from the Bible.
You do not speak for an entire demographic, just as I am sure that one non-Christian New Yorker does not speak for their entire group.
And seeing as most of the people I know from New York are Catholic, then yeah…I don’t see your point in that.
marriage, definitely.
*slap to that*
MARRIAGE.
Whatever floats your cheerios.
MARRIAGE. NOW.
Repentance.
Posted 2/26/2007 8:21 AM by Laserlawyer
Fuck you.
Marriage.
Marriage is between one man and one woman. period.
neither.
i can’t wait till all the idiots on here have gay children.
they’re equal to everyone else, therefore they should accept no substitutes. marriage, all the way.
Definitely have to say neither… the whole idea of contractual togetherness is both dehumanizing by limiting freedom and unnecessary as it was for reasons in the older times, being economic preservation. Get over tradition and live happy.
That being said, I can’t wait to get married.
“Furthermore, if everyone was gay, where would the next generation be? Homosexuality simply is not natural.
Posted 2/26/2007 8:51 PM by JusticeandLiberty“
That’s why not everyone is gay…moron.
I do believe I remember the famous words somewhere in history from some important historical figure, from a very important historical document, at thte very beginning actually, that states everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and that all are created equal.
That in itself should say something to even the biggest dimwit alive.
Study history, it actually might make you a little more open-minded. I agree with whoever came up with the saying “closed-minds should come with closed mouths”
I don’t hate anyone. I’m just sad to see some of the things people say and think…maybe because I’m possibly excessively open minded, but eh…I say civil unions just so everyone will get off each others cases…and I don’t really think my girlfriend will mind, just as long as I can see her if she happens to be dying in the hospital.
I say….do whatever you want.
Justiceandliberty: God also banned shellfish, wearing fabrics that we mixed (cotton polyester blends for example), eating figs and men from shaving. The bible also said that owning slaves was okay, it was righteous to kill someone for having sex out side of marrige, blashpheming, and that so many other things that we don’t consider wrong today were okay or wrong. If you are going to use the bible as a defense please use the whole thing. So i would suggest that if you shave, play football (touch dead pig skin makes you unclean), talk to a woman when she is on her period, do ANYTHING on the sabbath, wear mixed clothing, or eat shellfish, don’t say anything about homosexuality. The bible also says that no sin is greater than the other, so if you do any of the above than you are just as “bad” as a person who is homosexual. This goes for ANYONE who tries to use the bible as a way to damn a gay person.
Wow. I’m pretty stupid. For a while I had thought that this stupid debate was over and people would just shut up and accept each other.
It’s ridiculous that this even needs to be asked. Marraige, of course. It’s pathetic that this is such a big issue. We are assuming that these are human beings too, right? Not to mention the fact that you don’t have to be Christian to be married, or religious at all, so religion shouldn’t be brought up half as often as it is.
I’m not gay, but I have friends that are, and I really wish that you homophobes could see what gay people go through. Do you think they want this? Do you honestly think they want to be discriminated against and made fun of and shunned because of the fact that they don’t go along with the rest of society? Do you really, really think they chose this?
How about this: if you don’t agree with gay marraige, shut your eyes, cover your ears, and pretend it doesn’t exist. Go sit in your little corner of the world with your church and praise yourself and your perfect family and your perfect world quietly. Stop trying to change the world with your religion. It’ll make everyone happier.
Marriage – why should anyone be denied anything based on who they are??? They say love is blind, they say justice is blind….if that’s really the case why is this still an issue?
How about this: if you don’t agree with gay marraige, shut your eyes, cover your ears, and pretend it doesn’t exist. Go sit in your little corner of the world with your church and praise yourself and your perfect family and your perfect world quietly. Stop trying to change the world with your religion. It’ll make everyone happier.
Quoted for great justice!
marriage…if you don’t support gay marriage, don’t marry one, heh. besides, how is a gay couple’s marriage going to affect a straight person’s? i think everyone should just get equal rights