Gay Marriage.

Post Reply New Topic

Should gay couples be able to legally marry?

My opinion:

This is one of those "slippery slope" issues. If we were to allow other forms of marriage than the standard man-woman type, where would it stop? Ok, we can have same-sex marriage, so can we have polygamy? What about marriage of kids under the age of consent? What about an adult marrying a minor? And for all you furries out there, why not marry an animal?

Fine by me, it's a legal contract and no more. I honestly don't understand the ruckus, marriage is a bit out-dated.

Sure, fine. It doesn't effect me. I just don't like the fact that this "issue" screwed up an election.

Man: As an eligible voter I would like to ask you why I am NOT allowed to drink milk.
Congressman: You can drink milk; go ahead. Don't let me stop you.
Man: But I'm lactose intolerent.
Congressman: Wow, that sucks. Why do you want to drink milk then?
Man: Because everyone else does, and it gives you strong bones.
Congressman: Can't you take calcium pills for that?
Man: Why should I have to? I want milk! Breach of Civil Rights! Equality now!
Congressman: So you want us to redefine what "milk" is, then, so you can drink it.
Man: Not redefine! Milk has always been a liquid.

I guess... but why would they want to enter a marriage if they are gay? For it to be a marriage it would have to be with soembody of the opposite gender. Sounds more like marriage would be a barrier for gay couples.

Couldn't care less. We have 'civil partnerships' here in the UK. I think it's a mealy-mouthed way of saying marriage. If two lovers are happy with each other and wish to spend time together and they want to formulate a contract, who should say no to them?

Indeed it is a legal contract. And as such, there is an underlying point to it. The "institution of marriage" has a social function. The idea is that it is in the children's best interest to be raised by his (2) parents, and it is in society's best interested that he is raised by his (2) parents. Marriage is a legal contract that helps hold together society.

The "same-sex marriage" proponents insist that marriage is about love, not legality. Their argument is incorrect. It is fine for gay people to have relationships, but by definition they cannot be married. And to change the definition of marriage is to undermine the whole point of it.

A big problem is that our society is losing it's moral compass. Having a child out of wedlock is no longer looked down upon. Once that goes, other things go.

I'm not homophobic. I understand that homosexuals had as much choice in the matter as I had in my heterosexuality. But "same-sex marriage" is literally an oxymoron.

Yes to the civil partnerships. Marriage is a religious concepts and most religions are
homophobic. So to use the words "Gay Marriage" just pisses off religious people.
Not that I care if they get pissed.

The big question is why are the major religions against the act of homosexuality. Could it be down to the fact that from a religious point of view is that sex should only be done as reproduction and any sex that does not come into this category.

Or could there be more to this. It would be irresponsible to start changes rules without having a full scientific understanding of why they exist in the first place. Because religions follow the natural laws of evolution that the religions have to say should not completely be discounted as out of date and dogmatic.

By your logic, then, a heterosexual couple who have absolutely no intention of having children, or who are sterile and unable to have children, should also not be allowed to marry.

Canada gave legal sanction to same-sex marriage in 2005, and I for one (as a Canadian) strongly supported this move. Marriage is a social contract between two adults who want to form a partnership. With reference to your earlier objections:
- Marriage is a legal contract between TWO adults. Therefore, polygamy is still illegal.
- Marriage is a legal contract between two ADULTS. Children under the age of consent are not able to enter into legal contracts, and therefore can not get married.
- Marrying an animal is such a ridiculous concept that it is barely worthy of comment. Suffice it to say, an animal is also incapable of entering into a legal contract.

BTW, TheMachine1, marriage cease to be a religious concept when civil, secular weddings (ie, not performed by a member of the clergy) became legal.

No atheistic state legalized gay marriage.

Point of information: Five countries have established legal sanction for same-sex marriage: The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, and South Africa.
- Canada and South Africa never had an official state religion.
- The Netherlands disestablished its former state church (the Dutch Reformed Church) in 1795.
- Spain disestablished its former state church (Roman Catholic) in 1978.

Not sure about Belgium, though.

So, what do you consider an "atheistic state"?

The Soviet Union, all of Eastern Europe from '45-'89, North Korea. The treatment in these countries for homosexuals was far worse then anything experienced in the United States.

NOTE: This does not mean religious people did not exist. But the countries were generally run by atheists, who certainly were not pro-gay rights.

Ah. Now I understand your point. "Atheistic state" refers to the general population rather than to whether or not there is an officially-established state religion. (Eg, England has the Church of England as its official religion.)

In which case, the fact that no atheistic state has sanctioned gay marriage is deliciously ironic.

i dont know why people would want to get married in the first place, hetero or not. marriage is a trainwreck waiting to happen

Gay Marriage? Is it against the religion? If so, then yes, it should not be allowed. Pretty horrible, eh? Well, I'm not the religious person and if you're religion forbids it then you may try rethinking your stance because it doesn't seem to agree with you on, what I'd consider, a MAJOR issue.

I think gay people can be together all they want but "marriage" is a religious topic. If they start bending that rule, left and right, what else is subject to change?

Marriage is not a religious topic. People can get married by a justice of the peace, or a judge, or a commissioner for marriages, without a hint of religion anywhere. (In fact, that is the only way I, as an atheist, would ever consent to get married.

The way the legislation is written in Canada, a church that is against gay marriage is under no obligation to perform one. And I have no quarrel with that. A Catholic priest would be allowed to refuse to conduct a marriage ceremony for me on the grounds that I am not a Catholic, for instance.