Seems as though in California, people are more concerned about proposition 8(the law that will define marriage as only a man and a woman) then they are about the presidential race. I voted early and voted yes on prop 8. Yet unless you support gay marriage, people want to act like you are the KKK or something. I really don't understand why so many think that because you believe marriage should only be a man and woman that you are the equivalent of a racist. It's ridiculous.
California and gay marriage
- Thread starter speakeasy
- Start date
- Status
I believe that homosexual individuals should have the right of marriage. The marriage between two consenting individuals of the same sex has no bearing on you as a person. I just would like to know why your against gay marriage? Like, is your view any different from the various individuals that are against it?
My 2 cents:
Marriage is held sacred by some people. There is no reason that Gay partnerships shouldn't be content with a civil union. They have the same legal rights as married people.
See the thing is married people don't go around whining that they can't have civil unions. The problem arises when one group of people is afraid that another group has something they don't. We don't have to be all the same.
Marriage is held sacred by some people. There is no reason that Gay partnerships shouldn't be content with a civil union. They have the same legal rights as married people.
See the thing is married people don't go around whining that they can't have civil unions. The problem arises when one group of people is afraid that another group has something they don't. We don't have to be all the same.
Like I said, why can't something that is sacred to one group of individuals be held sacred to them? Why does another group feel left out and try to bend what someone holds sacred to their own needs just so they don't feel left out? Assuming they have equal rights under a civil union, why do they feel they have to have what others have just for the sake of having it?Larajihna said:
bigjohnson
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 2,441
- Reaction score
- 37
Why is the government in the love regulation business at all? I'm against gay marriage on the grounds that ALL marriage laws are stupid and adding ways to get married is a step in the wrong direction.
Everyone should have the right to any sort of civil contract they like and any sort of religious ceremony they can persuade a guy in a robe to perform but the linking of a religious act with legal issues is just dumb and needs to be cut out of the law.
Everyone should have the right to any sort of civil contract they like and any sort of religious ceremony they can persuade a guy in a robe to perform but the linking of a religious act with legal issues is just dumb and needs to be cut out of the law.
Upside
Senior Don Juan
Think of it this way. Once gay people get married and get divorced they will experience it like the rest of us and that marriage isn't that big of a deal but more of a burden. I wonder what gay divorce laws will be like? Two guys get half their stuff equally? What about two girls? Someone can't have it all. Perhaps gay divorce laws will be probably be more fair than marriage divorce laws. Then us strait guys can adjust said laws to be equal like they should be.
Maybe gay marrige can benefit strait marriage in some..weird..way.
Anyway, I am still against gay marriage but it wouldn't be the end of the world in my universe if it was legal.
Maybe gay marrige can benefit strait marriage in some..weird..way.
Anyway, I am still against gay marriage but it wouldn't be the end of the world in my universe if it was legal.
Teflon_Mcgee
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2006
- Messages
- 921
- Reaction score
- 27
I think marriage is a man made concept and calling it a 'sacred' thing is ridiculous. It's a word with a definition.
Marriage or civil union? It's a matter of semantics. It's a silly distinction.
Because it's something you consider sacred or have a special meaning for does not make it universally so.
Many people of this earth hold many ideas to be sacred. And they actively protect and demonstrate there sacredness with much rigidity.
You, and us, violate these sacred ideas on a daily basis without a second thought.
Eat a hamburger, kill a bug, joke of the prophet, say "Jesus" in vain.
You've just trampled on the sacred ideas of hundreds of millions of people.
But I think regardless of your beliefs, you should let responsible adults conduct their lives as they see fit so long as their behaviour is not truly disruptive or harmful.
Live and let live.
Society naturally progress and ideas must be challenged for the good of mankind. To refuse the reality of social evolution is to be blind of the truth.
You don't have to like it. You do have to realize the ideas we hold now will be considered antiquated in the future. Just as we consider societal behavior of the past ridiculous. And not only of the past, but also cultures of the present who dictate law based on their ideas of sacred teachings.
Do I care if gays can marry or not? No.
Do I care if straights can marry or not? No.
Do what you will, but allow others to do as you do.
BigJohnson hit it on the head.
Marriage or civil union? It's a matter of semantics. It's a silly distinction.
Because it's something you consider sacred or have a special meaning for does not make it universally so.
Many people of this earth hold many ideas to be sacred. And they actively protect and demonstrate there sacredness with much rigidity.
You, and us, violate these sacred ideas on a daily basis without a second thought.
Eat a hamburger, kill a bug, joke of the prophet, say "Jesus" in vain.
You've just trampled on the sacred ideas of hundreds of millions of people.
But I think regardless of your beliefs, you should let responsible adults conduct their lives as they see fit so long as their behaviour is not truly disruptive or harmful.
Live and let live.
Society naturally progress and ideas must be challenged for the good of mankind. To refuse the reality of social evolution is to be blind of the truth.
You don't have to like it. You do have to realize the ideas we hold now will be considered antiquated in the future. Just as we consider societal behavior of the past ridiculous. And not only of the past, but also cultures of the present who dictate law based on their ideas of sacred teachings.
Do I care if gays can marry or not? No.
Do I care if straights can marry or not? No.
Do what you will, but allow others to do as you do.
BigJohnson hit it on the head.
WhitePimp
Master Don Juan
Do any married people truly care if gay people call their union a marriage as well? I just don't understand how it cheapens straight people's marriages at all. Just be married and be happy with it, not worry about whether the "sacred holy bond of matrimony" is being ruined. WHO THE FVCK CARES!!!!!!!!! This is the biggest non-issue issue I've ever seen being debated. Let them get married, call it marriage, and live happily ever after. Why does is need to be called civil union for straight people to be happy about the act of marriage staying "sacred" (or whatever the hell that means). I wish religion worldwide would just die so people can stop being deluded into believing retarded fantasies and traditions that infringe on the happiness of a harmless group of people.
The problem with you guys' arguments is you are assuming everyone should be treated the same.
Having equal rights does not equal treating everyone the same.
Treating gay people like straight people and treating straight people like gay people doesn't do either group any favors. We're all different. We should respect those differences without trying to make us all the same.
Having equal rights does not equal treating everyone the same.
Treating gay people like straight people and treating straight people like gay people doesn't do either group any favors. We're all different. We should respect those differences without trying to make us all the same.
Ken785
Master Don Juan
Im all for gay people having equal rights...whatever.
But unless you think its OK for school systems to teach your children fairy tales about princes kissing other princes in the 2nd grade without parent consent, then be smart for the sake of your children...
Ask yourself this...you can say give gays their rights to marry and blah blah...but...
Would you want your KIDS to be educated about being homosexual?!?
How would you feel if your son or daughter grew up and said they wanted to be GAY?!??
VOTE YES ON PROP 8!!
Watch this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI-GjWY-WlA
But unless you think its OK for school systems to teach your children fairy tales about princes kissing other princes in the 2nd grade without parent consent, then be smart for the sake of your children...
Ask yourself this...you can say give gays their rights to marry and blah blah...but...
Would you want your KIDS to be educated about being homosexual?!?
How would you feel if your son or daughter grew up and said they wanted to be GAY?!??
VOTE YES ON PROP 8!!
Watch this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI-GjWY-WlA
Last edited:
It's interesting that in all of recorded human history, there has been not one culture anywhere on earth that married people of the same sex. Now think about how diverse the world's cultures are, from Eskimos, to ancient Mayans, to African tribes in the jungle, to China to ancient Druids, Romans, etc etc. NONE of them believed in gay marriages. And that's even true for societies that were very tolerant of homosexuality. For example, in ancient Greece, not only was homosexuality tolerated, it was actually PROMOTED. Men of ancient Greece considered adolescent boys to be the chief object of desire, even over women. And even in a society that actively promoted homosexuality, they did not even believe marriage should be between men. I just say this to put things in context and realize just how radical a change this is for global civilization. It's not a "non-issue".
There's an underlying agenda that gays don't want to publically admit. They want to say that it's all about giving them the same rights as everyone else. They could have those rights with civil unions and every poll shows that most Americans support by a large margin giving gays civil union rights. But that's not good enough for the gay marriage advocates. The reason they want to call it marriage goes beyond mere semantics. The underlying reason is that they want society to view men marrying men as EQUALLY desirable as men marrying women. As an agnostic, I say that that goes against god and/or nature's design of the human species. Men were by design, made to be with women, not with men, and that's what I think our culture needs to reinforce. I don't have to get into religious beliefs to support that. Science and natural evolution are good enough.
I think we need to give heterosexual couplings as the ideal to children. That doesn't mean we bash people that are gay, but I don't believe we should redefine traditional marriage as a man and a woman because 3% of the population doesn't feel they fit into it. If they want rights they are available as civil unions, but that is not their agenda. They simply don't like the idea that most people find male female pairings to be PREFERENTIAL over same sex pairings and that irks them. They are not denied love or committment. There are straight couples that aren't married and have no plan to marry that still have love and commitment. The right to love and committment has nothing to do with the issue whatsoever. It's about trying to change people's attitudes toward homosexuality by changing the laws. And that's what I and many others have a serious problem with, and why it's become such a flashpoint issue.
There's an underlying agenda that gays don't want to publically admit. They want to say that it's all about giving them the same rights as everyone else. They could have those rights with civil unions and every poll shows that most Americans support by a large margin giving gays civil union rights. But that's not good enough for the gay marriage advocates. The reason they want to call it marriage goes beyond mere semantics. The underlying reason is that they want society to view men marrying men as EQUALLY desirable as men marrying women. As an agnostic, I say that that goes against god and/or nature's design of the human species. Men were by design, made to be with women, not with men, and that's what I think our culture needs to reinforce. I don't have to get into religious beliefs to support that. Science and natural evolution are good enough.
I think we need to give heterosexual couplings as the ideal to children. That doesn't mean we bash people that are gay, but I don't believe we should redefine traditional marriage as a man and a woman because 3% of the population doesn't feel they fit into it. If they want rights they are available as civil unions, but that is not their agenda. They simply don't like the idea that most people find male female pairings to be PREFERENTIAL over same sex pairings and that irks them. They are not denied love or committment. There are straight couples that aren't married and have no plan to marry that still have love and commitment. The right to love and committment has nothing to do with the issue whatsoever. It's about trying to change people's attitudes toward homosexuality by changing the laws. And that's what I and many others have a serious problem with, and why it's become such a flashpoint issue.
Yep it's definitely an agenda to make homosexual relationships viewed as equivalent and as desirable. We often hear some people say on this site that men are ultimately to blame for how women are. But who do you think was most active in filling women's head with sh!t and encouraging them to be worthless? A lot of it was/is done by gays, lesbians and their supporters.
I didn't say "evil gay agenda" so I don't know why you put it in quotes. Is this just a smear?Larajihna said:
It's not about whether it affects me personally. A guy smoking crack on the other side of town doesn't affect me personally. That doesn't mean I think it should be legal.
- Status