Derpster

Let's Debate

104 posts in this topic

(is Bisexual)

I say, just let the gays marry each other, if it's what they want. Who cares about the religious aspects? It's the year 2012, most MEDC's (More Economically Developed Country) are run by governments where religion has no power on the law, why should gay marriage be forbidden just because of what the Christians or Catholic or Muslim's think? (Not to mention all the other religions)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem with it.

Bearing in mind my carers are gay so idk if my opinion counts.

But anyways, Everyone has the right to choose.

I say this because we were all created as equals, so we should live and respect each other as equals. Gay marriage is completely fine because it is just the same as normal marriage, but with two of the same sex. Just because two people are gay and in love does not mean they have no rights when it comes to marriage.

Yeah religion in general goes "Oh no you can't do that! It's against God's will!" All I can say to that is, if God didn't want homosexuals to exist or love each other OR get married, why did he/she give humanity the power to choose?

Edited by Thunder Specter
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets debate

Gay marriage

On a website whos motto is love and tolerate.

Where is the debate.

I just want to see exactly how tolerant everyone here is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm perfectly fine with it.

Yeah religion in general goes "Oh no you can't do that! It's against God's will!" All I can say to that is, if God didn't want homosexuals to exist or love each other OR get married, why did he/she give humanity the power to choose?

You just pulled the religion card. Hopefully this place doesn't burn down in flames.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was dragged all the way to Colorado in 2009 for the gay wedding of one of my cousins (okay, maybe not really dragged, but I kinda objected it because flying from Providence to Denver with a stopover in Chicago takes forever and kinda wanted to fly out of Boston instead.) I think that constitutes as me being fine with it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's how you solve this issue. Ban gay marriage, but make every state recognize gay civil union and give civil union the same legal benefits and drawbacks as regular marriage. Why so many politicians can't figure this shit out is beyond me. The only thing in it I see as being a problem is the nomenclature. If you are gay, sorry you can't get married. There's no legitimate reason why, when marriage and civil union are legally the same, you should want to have it called a marriage when you can have a civil union that is identical in all but name.

/thread

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problems with it either. While I am not gay I would not care if my friend was and were to be married to another man. As grapes said, I hope this doesn't go down in flames.

I'm surprised Woodle didn't make a snarky comment first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm for-and for gay marriage, but I don't think it's a decision that should be forced on states.

I would not want what malt's suggesting either, that just brushes my scalp for some reason.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's how you solve this issue. Ban gay marriage, but make every state recognize gay civil union and give civil union the same legal benefits and drawbacks as regular marriage. Why so many politicians can't figure this shit out is beyond me. The only thing in it I see as being a problem is the nomenclature. If you are gay, sorry you can't get married. There's no legitimate reason why, when marriage and civil union are legally the same, you should want to have it called a marriage when you can have a civil union that is identical in all but name.

/thread

The benefits of a civil union or domestic partnership are actually quite limited in comparison to a marriage.

Under a marriage, your marriage status is recognized worldwide, you get to file joint tax returns and are eligible for tax breaks and government protections, you get citizenship benefits in the case of immigration and you can have legal rights to the assets of a dead spouse. In addition, marriages just have way much more social and cultural meaning than civil unions.

And most especially, The constitution grants equality for everyone, this should include LGBT individuals. In fact, gay marriage shouldn't even be an issue that is voted on, instead it should be a guaranteed right, however not a lot of people look at it that way.

Under a civil union you get none of the benefits that I've listed above, civil unions barely even get recognized outside of the state they were formed.

A civil union is a weak excuse for a marriage. Just let us marry, gay marriages don't effect anybody besides the individuals involved and their family. We're not trying to "warp" or "change" traditions. If a family wants to go by tradition they very well can. We're not forcing anybody to gay marry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dark, what I'm saying is, make it so they are legally the same. You are saying what they really are like, I'm proposing a reform that makes civil union and marriage legally identical.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dark, what I'm saying is, make it so they are legally the same. You are saying what they really are like, I'm proposing a reform that makes civil union and marriage legally identical.

I know what you were saying, I just wanted to state a few facts.

Regardless I still don't agree with your argument, the problem with your proposal is that now we're just segregating hetero and homo marriages, with the heteros gaining the social and cultural status of marriage. This concept is about as flawed as racial segregation. It is not equal because still gays do not gain marital status.

Would it honestly sound fair to you if you wouldn't be able to call your partnership a marriage just because of a couple of old bigots taking issue to it for no rational reason?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dark, you sound like cal. The difference is only going to be visible in the deep south or the churches that preach hate against homosexuals. The legal status will be the same, and, like the civil rights movement, will be met with some shakiness at first, but eventually it will become accepted. Calzone told me over steam chat that the reason he didn't agree was because it was like racial segregation. His example was with the water fountains (marriage). The whites (heterosexuals) got the better of the two water fountains (unions) and the blacks (homosexuals) got shafted with a dirty basin and shitty water. The difference here, is that both the whites and blacks would get equally good (or shitty depending on your point of view) water fountains (unions).

I'm throwing this out there right now, the reason I don't approve of gay marriage is because I'm a Catholic and I don't believe that marriage is between two of the same sex. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that I hate homosexuals, far from it, I'm bisexual myself. I just believe that homo- and bisexuals should have the same legal rights, just with different names.

Back to the water fountain analogy, it's like having one be spotless, white porcelain (marriage) and one being shiny, clean chrome (civil union). They are both equally useful and sanitary, it's really a matter of choice (in which sex you like, I believe that everyone is bisexual to some degree. Like a sliding scale. Using myself as an example, and this figure varies daily, I am, at the moment, about %65 attracted towards men and %35 attracted towards women. Therefore, if I wanted to have a cemented relationship, I could choose either the civil union or marriage, but at the moment, I'd prefer civil union.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dark, you sound like cal. The difference is only going to be visible in the deep south or the churches that preach hate against homosexuals. The legal status will be the same, and, like the civil rights movement, will be met with some shakiness at first, but eventually it will become accepted. Calzone told me over steam chat that the reason he didn't agree was because it was like racial segregation. His example was with the water fountains (marriage). The whites (heterosexuals) got the better of the two water fountains (unions) and the blacks (homosexuals) got shafted with a dirty basin and shitty water. The difference here, is that both the whites and blacks would get equally good (or shitty depending on your point of view) water fountains (unions).

H9SJE.png

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cal, you said yourself in the ponyville chat that darkwing had said exactly what you wanted to say. Don't complain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cal, you said yourself in the ponyville chat that darkwing had said exactly what you wanted to say. Don't complain.

Does that make it okay to post a private conversation without asking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it pertains to the situation, yes. And because of the fact that you outright said that he said what you wanted to say, it is allowable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm throwing this out there right now, the reason I don't approve of gay marriage is because I'm a Catholic and I don't believe that marriage is between two of the same sex.

According to the first amendment of the constitution, there shall be no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the exercise thereof.

Religion simply has no place in politics and decisions made by the federal government. This is why courts have ruled gay marriage bans as unconstitutional.

So even legally, gay marriage bans can't even exist, the only reason they do is because of widespread hate and bigotry against homosexuality.

I understand and respect your Catholic beliefs, however, they just have no place in politics, where the decisions made by the government effect everyone's lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like where Malt is headed with the nomeclatural difference, but I think the split is in the wrong place.

Rather than Marriage vs Civil Union, we should adopt the terms 'Civil Marriage' and 'Church Marriage' for those who would like a distinction, like England and Whales do.

That way, any-sexual marriages can be allowed, and treated equally, while religious types still have a special term for their own unions.

Bear in mind the practice of Marriage predates written history, and thus also predates (what we know of) religion.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.