PDA

View Full Version : Same sex marriages


Grumpy
10-10-2009, 09:46 AM
Where do you stand ?

noonereal
10-10-2009, 10:47 AM
I am against it.

I am not a religious nut nor a homophobic it just seems to me that the natural order of things is a the union of a man and a women.

While gays may enjoy having relations with one another there is just no future in it. (if you know what I mean)

spasmo55
10-10-2009, 11:10 AM
I am against it.

I am not a religious nut nor a homophobic it just seems to me that the natural order of things is a the union of a man and a women.

While gays may enjoy having relations with one another there is just no future in it. (if you know what I mean)

Well bust my buttons, a right angle for the lefty!

When I found the "Love of my Life", I did not ask for anyones approval, I will not expect more from anyone else. Who the hell am I to tell you who you can love?

Killing is also the natural order, yes?

If there is no future in it, what does it matter, or is procreation your primary reason for loving some one?

Marriage as far as law is concerned is a business contract, and the constitution is "supposed" to protect your right to contract.

My 2 cents

Fast_Eddie
10-10-2009, 11:26 AM
I think it's absurd that we even have to ask. I really could give a rats ass who you get married to. But if we're going to give benefits to some for getting married, we should give them to all who get married. All men are created equal, even the gay ones.

Don't like gay marriage? Don't get one.

merrylander
10-10-2009, 03:49 PM
Natural order? When Florence and I married there was no possibility of us having children. Had we met when younger it would have been fine.

In my first marriage she could not bear children, should the marriage have been annuled?

The other option is to change all the laws (every last bit of them) to ensure that a "Civil Union"* guarantees all the same rights as "marriage" wouldn't that just be a fun task.

* Althought we are both christians we were married by a Celebrant, is that a "Civil Union" - all approved by the state BTW and you still need a license.

Given the number of divorces that occur the argument that it would ruin the state of marriages does not hold water.

So Hell Yes, let them marry it is the simplest solution.

Fast_Eddie
10-10-2009, 04:01 PM
I am not a religious nut nor a homophobic it just seems to me that the natural order of things is a the union of a man and a women.

Seems to me there isn't a lot about our modern lives that fits the "natural order of things". Unless you live in a cave, hunt all your food and warm yourself by the fire. Look out for that Cougar. He's eyeing you like a cut of prime meat.

Sandy G
10-10-2009, 04:46 PM
The best quip I ever heard about the whole "gay" business was from the late, lamented, Sam Kinison-"How does one man look at another man's Big, Hairy @ss 'n' See "Love" ?!? 'Splain THAT one, to me !!!" Almost as good was the one was from an unnamed source who was a little more, uhh, delicate-"The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name has grown Hoarse from shouting..." I PERSONALLY oppose it, & the whole "Gay" lifestyle, but as long as its not "In my face", I could care less who a person sleeps with. Stick a Wasper's Nest up yer Arse, for all I care...(grin)

OvenMaster
10-10-2009, 10:03 PM
Personally? I feel the purpose of marriage is to bring kids into the world and have a family of your own. Kinda hard to bring kids into the world if there isn't one person of each gender in the marriage.

Then again, if gays want to marry, let 'em. Why should just man-woman marriages have all the headaches?

hillbilly
10-10-2009, 11:05 PM
Where do you stand ?


Though I have no controll over what some others may see fit, I'm set dead against it.

JJIII
10-11-2009, 07:32 AM
I think they ought to be afforded the same rights and privileges (and headaches) as traditional marriages but I object to the term "marriage" being used.
Probably doesn't make much sense but there you go.

Charles
10-11-2009, 10:00 AM
I think they ought to be afforded the same rights and privileges (and headaches) as traditional marriages but I object to the term "marriage" being used.
Probably doesn't make much sense but there you go.

I agree with you 100%. But I'm a traditionalist at times, and marriage is the word used to define the union between a man and a women for at least a couple of thousand of years.

Call it a "civil union", it's still a contract. What you call it once both sides hire mouthpieces to break it will be the least of anyone's concern.

Chas

painter
10-11-2009, 12:12 PM
IMHO...What two concenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my business. I try not to judge people on personal decisions. Unless those decisions affect me or my family directly in a negative or hurtfull way.
As far as marriage is concerned...if a marriage lisense would costs $2,000 all contemplation of any unions would get a second thought.
It's not the world we grew up in or raised our children in.
Whether the government would go for filing a joint return will be interesting.

d-ray657
10-15-2009, 03:46 PM
My support of gay marriage is pretty bland. If the Church really has control over the word marriage, then the name of the arrangement could be called something else. Other than that, gays in a long-term relationship should have the benefit of all of the laws protecting marital property and any other contractual aspects of the relationships just the same as hetro couples. (There is actually a public health benefit to having a social policy that encourages monogamy in any relationship. Promiscuity puts millions of people at risk of a growing number of STDs, at who knows what cost to the medical system and national productivity)

I am still a little peeved with the gay rights movement about 2004. By pushing hard on the gay marriage issue at that time, they provided Bush and the republicans with a gift-wrapped wedge issue, which resulted in four more years of Dub. It also caused a strong enough back-lash that gays saw their rights diminished by anti-gay legislation in several states. Timing couldn't have been worse.

Regards,

D-Ray

BlueStreak
10-22-2009, 12:53 AM
As a lifelong bachelor and shameless philanderer, I have never understood why ANYONE chooses to marry.

However,
To me the very essence of individual freedom is having the ability to choose ones own path in life, a right to self-determination, free from persecution and unfettered by the religious and moral dogmas of others.

I believe it was Franklin (?) who said "It should never be the business of the state to police our bedrooms."

Viewed in that light, as repugnant as the thought of two dudes cornholing each other may be to me, I would have to say "For". (So long as it is between consenting adults.) If marriage is their idea of a "pursuit of happiness", then so be it.

(Just....no humping in public, please. ICK.)

Dave

gazelle1929
10-29-2009, 06:17 PM
Bill's Bet, also known as Occam's razor, is that the simplest solution is most often the best solution. Define marriage as a particular contract between two consenting adults. Period. Allow churches to define matrimony any damned way they want to. Separate civil marriage from sacramental marriage. This was common-place in English law until those king killers gave Chuckie the One a very short haircut. The blurring of the distinction between marriage and matrimony began during the Puritanical period of Protectorate and has never gone away.

Gazelle

I was born with nothing. I still have most of it left.

bobabode
12-22-2013, 10:36 PM
While stumbling around I found this old thread. ;) A lot has changed since this 'un was started.
We now have 16-17 states where it's legal, although Utah is one I didn't expect to see and it just might be that polygamy was the intended/unintended consequence. Anyhow, has anyone changed their views on this?

one1
12-23-2013, 06:28 AM
People Aquire feelings for each other and get used to being around each other,same sex or not.If mariage comes into question then it is ok by me.It does not make a difference eighther way to me.I dont think any has a right to question anyones choice of the way they live if it does not interfere with any one elses life.Live and let live.The gay community has made it into the political arena over the past few years and I predict we will see a Gay president in our lifetime.it is just the way the world is transitioning .

BlueStreak
12-23-2013, 07:39 AM
I'm now against marriage of any sort. And it would appear that over 70% of Americans agree with me, having had at least one divorce in their history.

one1
12-23-2013, 07:54 AM
I'm now against marriage of any sort. And it would appear that over 70% of Americans agree with me, having had at least one divorce in their history.

It is for some and some it is not.when I was just a tadpole I said I would never tie the knot,and asked of my freinds to dispatch a round into my cranium if i changed my mind.but you can never say never in this life,Shit happens and sometimes in a big way.Yes Dave even you can bget that warm and cuddly feeling all inside and decide to jump of the peir.IT HAPPENS,NEVER SAY NEVER!!

merrylander
12-23-2013, 08:14 AM
This definition of marriage being solely for the production of offspring would then say that I have never been married since my first wife was barren and my current wife had a radical hysterectomy some years before we were married or the tumor would have killed her within two months according to the OB-GYN. Oh BTW the second marriage was solemnized by a Celebrant, all quite legal, so the Church can keep its long nose out of our lives.

one1
12-23-2013, 10:24 AM
This definition of marriage being solely for the production of offspring would then say that I have never been married since my first wife was barren and my current wife had a radical hysterectomy some years before we were married or the tumor would have killed her within two months according to the OB-GYN. Oh BTW the second marriage was solemnized by a Celebrant, all quite legal, so the Church can keep its long nose out of our lives.

No children here neither the gov sterelized me,too bad they missed the Brain.