Gay Marriages

[oy]

There's a debate in the USA with President Bush putting out his thoughts about banning gay marriages and leaving the states to decide if they want "civil union" for gay couples. Here are some articles:

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1485363/20040226/index.jhtml?headlines=true

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040227/pl_nm/bush_gays_dc&e=1

As if President Bush could get any stupider. I think there are waaay more important issues for him to deal with instead of deciding whether or not Gay couples can get married or not. It's probably because the 2004 election is coming up and he's trying to hide the Iraq war with this crap. Why should he care anyway? It's not the government's choice who you marry (it's your parents :bleh:). What do you guys think?

[masamune]

Why is it stupid for the president to address the leading social issue for American voters this year?

(Quote from your Yahoo link):
Gay marriage, first propelled to the foreground by a Massachusetts court endorsement and thousands of same-sex weddings in San Francisco, has overtaken abortion and gun control as the leading social issue for American voters this year, a poll suggested.

I think the important thing to realize here is the difference between Civil Union and Marriage. "Marriage" is defined by the church to be a union between a man and a woman. Bush is banning changing the definition of marriage, but he is letting the states decide themselves whether they will allow Civil Unions (which is legally the same as marriage except it's just called a different name).

[wackome]

As if President Bush could get any stupider. I think there are waaay more important issues for him to deal with instead of deciding whether or not Gay couples can get married or not.

can't agree with you more!!! president bush = idiot!!!
HELLO!!!! the government is in DEBT now!!!! can't he come up with some more INTELLIGENT thoughts? WOW.....>>>>.....OUR HERO..!!! for not letting gay couples get married!! just let them poor couples get married for goodness sake! how we'll ban him before he bans them...shiet.....

[bee]

well you cant help it when u have a stupid president. after all...Bush was the idiot who called Africa a country on national television....:dry:

besides, just leave the "gays" alone. what kinda free country is this? :?

[jayx8318x]

Well, we've been in debt for years. I can't remember when we weren't in debt.

I wouldn't go that far and call our President an idiot, I mean he ain't no genius by all means, and it's quite funny watching him trying to pronounce big words (ram-i-fic-a-tions, nu-cu-ler)...but anyways, I disagree with your opinions, but I also disagree with Bush. He's a conservative republican, so what's so surprising about his decision?

Bottom line, I think Bush probably dug his hole deeper by strongly opposing the idea, and saying how "banning gay marriage was needed to prevent a weakening of 'the good influence of society' pretty much insults the moral integrity of gay/lesbian people. And what does it really matter what Bush says? There's little chance the amendment is going to get 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress, then all the states have to ratify it.

So I agree with masamune, it's an issue that's not going away, and will only get more prominent in the future. Being gay is no longer taboo as it use to be. And it's only fair the President voices his opinion on gay marriages, he's our leader after all :rolleyes:
And I feel most of us who voice opinion here don't think of the real issues the political leaders are thinking of in this topic. It's not only moral and ethical, there's also economic reasons, such as married couples who get tax breaks and such.

[wackome]

no...actually when clinton was president...there was actually a surplus! so yes! there was a time that we weren't in debt. and i love clinton...the most well respected president! as for bush....i have already said i have said.

and as for gay marriage. like i give a crap about it! but i just read what oy wrote which is the part of what i quoted, and i think so too! so that's why i made that comment. but gay couples getting married or not...bush! u say it! i don't want to go too deep in the discussion of political issues...so i am outtie..! no more comments.

[jayx8318x]

no...actually when clinton was president...there was actually a surplus! so yes! there was a time that we weren't in debt.


err..no. There was a BUDGET surplus. Meaning they didn't spend all they had intended to spend. You know the government has a budget each year on how much they will spend on medicare, social security, education, etc...
And they came under budget is my understanding that year or whenever it was, so that was the "surplus" they were always boasting about.
During Clinton's reign of terror the debt was over 5 trillion dollars.
There's no way any presidential administration could eliminate our national debt in a 4-8 year term. Currently we're over 7 trillion in debt.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/


Disclaimer: I actually liked Clinton. I just wanted to use the phrase "reign of terror" for something.

[wackome]

thanks for the info karen. but i still love clinton.......feeling a bit itimidated now..! but either way...the government was better controlled by clinton and that's a fact. or it's really not bush's fault..but it's just bad timing for all these bad things happening when he's doing his term. but there's no right or wrong. but i gotta say u have skills for digging out info. a budget surplus is still good.

EDIT: u liked clinton? liked? so now u don't? but anyways....why do we have to live in the same country karen? how did i get into this mess of political talking? i only want to talk about jay! but clinton still rocks! i miss clinton!! i love clinton! but not as much as jay! :laughing:

EDIT: too bad i don't know how to dig out info like you..cuz my cousin loves clinton saying how he made a surplus. i heard all this from her. but yeah...so can't really say much.

[jayx8318x]

haha I didn't really dig out any info. I always check that site ever so often. That's the only time I'll ever see that much money in my life and get to imagine what I would do with it. I mean, it's so big. And the thing about the surplus, I mean if you followed the news and understand the terms...but I know how the media likes to twist things, the general public gets lost in the gibberish they pull.
But I agree, I loved Clinton, I don't care if he was adulterous or not, and I don't think Hilary ran things like everyone always bags him about. I think Bush had it going great for him during 9-11 and the aftermath, his popularity was insanely high for any President...and he has to go and screw it up time and time again. You can't actually blame him though, he's just a puppet for his administration.

[wackome]

yes! i agree....he is popular!! cuz he has many many people to back him out! but he is not really intelligent. there are a lot of stupid things about him and it proves that he is somewhat stupid. i don't want to say he's totally stupid so i just use the word somewhat as well. yes! and i agree...he's just a puppet for his administration!!! AWW!!! now u remind me of arnold...!!! well...my state's governor!! dunno how much u know about him....but i don't either...but he's another example of a puppet for his administration. and yes...u can't really blame bush...but you always have someone there for u to blame for....so who do we blame? BUSH!.....just saying it out for a lot of ppl out there. one time in the news...reporters doing street interviews...and came to this person...who will u vote for president? they she said...it's definitely not going to be bush! how i wish clintion was on for his second term! he is one intelligent one! and yes! who cares if he's adulterous....that's a personal issue...not a political issue! the economy might have been better...but who knows....maybe it can be worst...but yes! clinton!

and i was thinking...when i said there wasn't a time the us wasn't in debt...but what i want to refer to is deficet not debt. Since debt and deficet are two different terms....therefore it led to karen saying when were we ever NOT in debt? that was my bad. so i must say again. YES! there was a time that we weren't in a deficet.(but not debt) OMG!!! how can the US not be in debt??? we owe people bonds! DUH!!!! but all i was thinking was....clinton made a surplus...clinton made a surplus..yes...the us is in surplus instead of debt...i mean DEFICET!..............weird discussion......but yes......i want to make things really clear of what i say. mis-thought of terms!

[jayx8318x]

Back to the gay marriage thing. I think I said it before but want to make it more apparent. The issue with gay marriage in terms of what Bush recently said is all political/economical no matter how they try to tie it with religion and say it's against the Bible, blah blah.

The government can't tell the churches they can't perform gay marriages, that's what separation of church and state is all about to my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong. The only thing they can enforce is making the marriage legal in terms of government law. And the benefit of that, like I said before are things like filing taxes as a married couple, claiming dependents, etc.

So I hate to see this turn into Bush's moral, ethical discussion on homosexuality, because that's not what it really is, in my opinion.

[wackome]

hahahah!!! it's so funny how u said back to the gay marriage thing....it sounds like...ok i am going to take a break...and now...back! anyways....karen....i don't get a single damn word that you just wrote up there! knock knock my my head...opppss..it's hallow!! that's why my major is not POLITICS!! *a drip of sweat rolling down from my forehead*

[cici bebe]

I just feel that if we put a foot in the door for gay marriages, the door will only grow wider. We don't know what this society can become. Morally, I don't believe in gay marriages. I have nothing against homosexuals, for religion purposes I don't believe they should be married. Especially for Bush, he has to be careful of this decision because again, this could open the doors for other problems.

[scarletwillow]

The United States Pledge of Allegiance.

I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God,

Yes, our country was founded on religious principles. But our forefathers were NOT Christian. They were deists--they believed that God created man and the universe, then God left it alone for man to rule. For that reason, you simply can't argue things like the constitution on Christian grounds.

indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Marriage is an advantage.
It's unfair to deny a couple of this advantage.
Just as we now allow blacks and women to vote, why can't we extend the CIVIL service of marriage to gay couples?
Marriage may be a religious ritual in some places in this world, but the bottom line is, you're NOT marrying for God (most likely, no matter your religion). You're marrying for who you love. If a church wants to deny a gay couple the right to marry, that should be perfectly legal. But if the government denies it, that's a blatant denial of rights.

Fundamental human laws, no matter what society, are based on "harm".
Now, you may ask... if you allow gays to marry, why not just legalize beastiality/necrophilia/zoophilia/etc?
Quite simply, does gay marriage perform any sort of *harm*? Does the thought of two gay people in love, living for the rest of their life together in matrimony (I stress matrimony, NOT holy matrimony) bother anyone more than people getting killed on the streets? What about violent movies and video games? You can't say gay people are a bad influence, just for that reason.

Separation of church and state. Simple as that. Let them get married if they want to... if not at a church, then the town hall. Humans are humans. Learn to live and love, if not that, then just accept it.

PS:
A lot of people I've discussed this with argue that they don't care if gay couples stay together... they just shouldn't get married. Furthermore, they cite a marriage tax. First of all, I do believe the marriage tax has been repealed... either that or Capitol Hill will do so very soon--no one likes the tax, and it has always been seen as a horrendous penalty. Second, marriage is an act of *commitment*. If you love someone (no matter who this person is), and want to make this sacrifice, you should be able to do so. Telling a gay person he or she can't do that is just inhuman. Imagine telling a straight couple they can't marry. That's the same impact.

Finally, imagine the following: your loved one has just gotten into a near-fatal accident. Uh oh... you're not married. You cannot legally help this person... how would you feel?

[masamune]

Scartletwillow, I think you are mistaking the issue for something larger here.
President Bush is banning the use of the word "marriage" for gays, but he is not banning Civil Unions.
Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. Specifically.

Everything you mentioned is still possible with Civil Unions.

[scarletwillow]

Oh, I didn't know civil unions were a completely different concept.
What I meant was, say, getting married at a town hall.

And if he's banning the "concept" of marriage for gays, that's even worse X_X

[moonsilk]

Ya...i read this news on the news paper also...
I mean i dun mind seeing Gay marriages...its already the 21st century...if they permit gays to see each other,why nt let them marry each other since they love each other...
Many may not accept this as this go against our usual traditions but we have to accept the fact that this phenomenon is increasing...
So i dun think i mind the gays being married....

[cowboy]

If Brown v. Board (1954) ruled one thing, it was that "seperate but equal" cannot and will not stand. I agree with sw (for once). To deny a group of people the rights and privlidges of a "legal" (that's different than a marriage in the chirch) is grossly uncontitutional (which is what Bush and other hard-line conservatives want to change.) Bush opposes ga marriage becaused he knows he needs the conservative vote to win in November and the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage (I think.)

The fact that gay marriage is legal or not is no longer a question. The courts are ruling in favor of gay rights (because they finally realizaed that it is just like not letting black guys marry white chicks). The only way to keep gay marriage illegal is to amend the COnstitution, which is really realy hard. Bush has only said he supports an amendment to do this. That is where his power ends. The rest is up to the American people. I assure you this amendment will never pass. America's constitution has a tradition of granting people rights NOT taking them away.

If you oppose gay maariage on religious reasons, great. Rmember Jesus loved everybody (or wahtever that Christian rhetoric is.) In AMerica (thank God) we have seperation of Chrch and State. The providledges of marriage can't be denied to a section of our population simply because of a lifestyle. But a Church can marruy whoever they want or refuse to marry whoever they want. Just remember, keep your religion out of my Constitution.

I leave you wit hthis quote, "The last time we mixed religion with politics, people got burned at the stake."

[mouse]

i was raised Catholic and according to them its ok to be gay/lesbian but not to act on homosexual activities now as far as im concerned i dont care what you do or what your preferences are just dont push them on me... as far as making it legal for homosexuals to get married i dont see a problem with it like cowboy states denying gays to be married would be like denyng mixed marriages
i know people who are dead set against it and dead set against gays acting on their sexual preference but we all gots to do what makes us happy like a friend of mine has said we are put on this earth to be happy
no one can change what they like or prefer and no one has the right to say that that person cannot do what they like (within reason... :) you know we dont want anyone getting hurt...) ok anyway as far as gays loving eachother for reason for marriage, i know peeps that say that gays move in with eachother and they have a disagreement and then they split and if they got married that would just make it worse... but the thing is that happens in any relationship whether the couple is married or not or living with eachother or not i think thats a cop-out excuse. if you love someone and they love you back and its what you both want why not get married?
if the church and state weren't separtated i dont think that gay rigths would even be an issue... the church would have intervened and stamped it out... which isnt right cuz the the reason why this country was formed was to have the freedom to what we wanted and to live our lives as wanted. and i think that some people need to be reminded of that. gays deserve the rights that everyone else has including marriage.

[yummieboba]

If a church wants to deny a gay couple the right to marry, that should be perfectly legal. But if the government denies it, that's a blatant denial of rights.

Hm, couldn't have said it better, scarletwillow! I personally believe that the government has no right to deny marriages to gays. After all, they are people too, right? and as cowboy says, same sex relationships are just the same as mixed relationships, because it's a matter of preference. Anyway, I think people should be able to do what makes them happy. It's not like they're harming anyone while they're at it. And I guess to me, the biggest reason why gay marriages are acceptable and should not be looked down on is this: It's no one's business if someone is gay or straight; it's his or her's own life to live!

[guywithlove]

As if President Bush could get any stupider. I think there are waaay more important issues for him to deal with instead of deciding whether or not Gay couples can get married or not. It's probably because the 2004 election is coming up and he's trying to hide the Iraq war with this crap. Why should he care anyway?



I see where you're coming from, oy. Perhaps it's a matter of what he thinks is best for the nation? Of course, I oppose his decision. He does have deep Christian, Conservative beliefs within him though. I think a powerful way to show your belief is to spread the idea that gay marriage is acceptable.

I agree there are far greater issues all over the world to deal with, such as the economic policies in this nation. : (

[cowboy]

Yes there are more inmportant issues, but this is an election year. Bush needs votes, and most voters don't care about the real uissues. So candidates focus on "hot button" issues like these to get votes, because they polorize voters. This is not uncommon, and every president in recent history has done it. This is not exclusive to Bush. And he isn't stupid, this was in fact, probably a really smart political move.

[scarletwillow]

I'd say it alienates too many people... it's offended too many people out there, but it's also grabbed the attention of hardcore conservatives.
Oh well.

Hey guys, Hillary 2008 :)

[cowboy]

She'll never win, too liberal.

Plus, Condi Rice will beat her. :wink2:

[Dong Feng Puo]

i'm sorry but what the heck are "civil UNIONS?" are marriages themselves NOT civil unions? why does there have to be a distinction? i think the technical distinction is really a sign of bush's cowardice. he's too afraid to lose votes by offending the less conservative voters in america, so he uses some bs term to show that he "recognizes" gays' right to "be together"... but by creating a separate legal term, he obviously doesn't recognize their right to be treated EQUALLY. clever terms are really just dumb segregation. in my opinion at least.

[meemaw]

yeah..wasn't the "separate but equal" doctrine ruled unconstitutional in Brown v. Board of Education? and now Bush is trying to use the same concept but different terms to define this issue of gay marriages..hmm..i dont know that much about politics but as to Bush saying that he supports a constitutional amendment to define marriage..my history teacher said that there's no way he could do that and it is unconstitutional. i mean, i can understand how he can be opposed to gay marriages morally..but this is America..and everyone is supposed to have equal rights, why not gays? anyhow..did bin laden get captured? bc i heard that he did get captured..but the media is waiting til the more important part of the election gets closer to reveal it for political reasons that might help Bush win the presidential race? *shrug*

[scarletwillow]

She'll never win, too liberal.

Plus, Condi Rice will beat her. :wink2:

I doubt that X_X
Rice screwed over bad...

I dunno, I think Hillary would have a chance. Maybe she's too liberal, but she'd get the womens' vote and the minority vote.

[SimpleBlackHumor89]

bush is really stupid.. i hate him.. i think gay marriages are fine. i dont hav a problem wit it... what's wrong with same sex ppl maryin each other... but i think bush lost alot of his votes... when he sed no to same sex marriages and plus with the war goin on.. yea.. clinton was a good president.... but i mean just bc the naton was brought up on the bible.. doestn mean TODAY we hav to follow it...

[SHANGHAi]

If America's going to offer freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of press, and whatever other freedoms that we're privledged with, why the limitation on love? Does anyone really care when a 20 year old girl marries an 80 year old man? No, not really. Yet marrying someone of the same sex has to be debated on a national level.

[SimpleBlackHumor89]

he's trying to ban gay marriages now... i hope he loses the election... why is he BANNING IT>>> i mean.. why is he so NOSY?! aurrgh.. i hate him.. lets' go JOHN KERRY! :)

[POTO]

I am totally against gay marriages, don't u feel that this is completely absurd?!

How can a guy marries a guy and gal to gal... This is going against the human cyle and should not be encourage no matter what.

[jo_jayfan]

AGAINST it too! it is just soo against nature!! :mad:

my opinion, i really get very uncomfortable when i see two people of the same sex getting intimate :wacko: i just don't understand why do they have to resort to touching people of their same sex. everything they have, their partner will also have. there is no more suprise element.

[KendoTiger]

Keke ~ I find it hilarious that people claim that it is against nature. If you were up to date on current research ~ you'll find that homosexuality (at least in certain forms) are found in nature. Evidence of mate-like behaviour has been found to be exibited in some monkeys (such things like intimately grooming same-sex monkeys) - and is suspected to be a means of encouraging social-bonds within social units *Washington Post*.

Anyways, I'm for gay marriage. I mean ~ how they live their life doesn't affect you in any way, so why bitch about it?

[chineseguyjl]

Same here against it, definitely. Since there are no reference to gay of any sort in any religion, and bibles. Its unjust, it goes against all a persons believes in. Thats just me but if the queers want to get married nothing can stop them right, its just a new law, who cares right?

[junnleenfaah]

hrm.. well there seems to be a lot of fault in what you say, chineseguyjl. i mean, i'm against it too; it's because of my religion, but if you're gunna argue for something, at least justify your arguement. otherwise you're making the rest of us look stupid -_- not everyone bases their beliefs on a religion or the Bible, so that means it cant be unjust. it would be unjust if it didnt follow the constitution of a government [meaning it broke a law or something that was in there]

"its unjust, it goes against all a person believes in"
are you saying everybody is the same? hell naw. everybody believes something different, definitely not the same. i think when you say "a person" you mean you. you're just being ignorant there.

and, who cares? are you serious? watch the freaking news.

for those that are against gay marriage.. at least have an arguement that you can justify. i would do it, but i suck at that type of thing. but i seriously cant stand how we say we hate gay marriages because its just "wrong" or "absurd", etc. it's only making us look ignorant and uncompassionate. dont get pissed at me and ask why dont i do it then. i already said, i suck at arguing/justifying things. thats why i just keep my mouth shut. most of the times. (=

[Melvin]

President George W. Bush should just concentrate on making sure that the Iraq war is handled appropriately, before thinking about subtle issues like this!

Gays (which refer to male homesexuals) are not to be condoned... I support President George W. Bush's smart stand on gay marriages.. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, not a man and a man.... Could they be considered a couple? they won't be having children

[chineseguyjl]

Well I got bored, so i got some time to debate. I like your points tho.

OK then. When i said "its unjust, it goes against all a person believes in," I wasnt impling that everyone is the same. No one is the same, its impossible, but you can have similar beliefs. I was trying to say that the people that DO have a religion(s) or bible to base their beliefs would go against this. Since there is no bible/religion/or whatever that clearly states gay marriages are a positive way of living, nor it states that is negative (that i know of). I guess where i'm tryin to go with this is that, every religion/bible holds the fact that a relationship consists of a male and female as God (whatever you may call it) intended man to do. "its unjust, it goes against all a person believes in," a person that believes in something (which excludes athiests and other forms in that nature). But current events show people do not even pay attention to their beliefs, such as a Jew getting a tattoo. Maybe i am being ignorant or maybe your ignorant (no offense, i;m just going to stop there talkin about u now), but people claim they will put a stop to gay marriages. One example would be the town of San Francisco, in the state of california gay marriages are illegal, but no one takes that into consideration, i mean they still get married and so do others in the rest of the world. Unjust isnt the same as unconstitutional, all i meant is that it seems so wrong to the person it contradicts his or her beliefs. So let me rephrase that quote "its unjust to those that have beliefs in religion and bibles, it goes against all a person believes in."

Ahhh its getting late, i gotta sleep. I'll argue with you later :-). We'll have more fun times.

[hui90]

I'm kind of neutral to this. LOL. People who are gay cant help it. I'm mean they are born to be like that isn't it? And banning gay marriages is kind of unfair to them. Everyone has the rights to choose what they want to do with their life, to be with who etc. And also it would affect to their normal lifes too. By banning such marriages it means we are condemning gays in the world. People would began to give faces or what ever to them. Then, how are they going to face the world? I think we should think for them too.

[midori]

Hm, it's a debate everywhere. On one hand, marriage is just a license recognized by society and law, so if you really want to stay with a person, do you need such recognition other than yourselves? Also, people say homosexuality is an alternative lifestyle, which means that it should not be recognized by state. BUT on the other hand, we have other alternative lifestyles such as polygamy, bigamy, etc. Even though there is a huge difference between the issue with gay marriage and polygamy per se, who's to say they're wrong? Polygamy is when a husband or wife takes on more than one spouse, SO if a husband marries two wives, and those two people CONSENTS to the marriage, would that be wrong?

[Dita511]

Ok again wow this is a really contentious issue, and almost everything has been said already here from every different point of view.

Basically, I agree with the arguments of ppl such as scarletwillow and cowboy. I agree that religion and state are separate entities that need to be kept that way, and that the church has the right not to marry gay people, but a democratic government does not have that right, as banning gay marriage is blatantly discrimination.

As a gay man myself, who has been in a long term relationship with my partner for quite some time, I actually have no wish to get married at this stage. However, I would appreciate the option of a civil union at least (such as was recently passed in the UK) in the future should I change my mind. I actually have many gay friends who do not even like the idea of being able to get married, but I think that the option at least should be on the table, if only in terms of equality with regards to inheritance, tax and medical issues. If democratic societies want to practice what they preach, then gay unions/marriage is not something that should prove to be such a big issue.

lol anyway, that was just my two cents worth :shy:

[merenwen]

I'm against it because of my religion; but I have lots of gay friends, male and female, and frankly I find them to be no different from heterosexuals.

As masamune said earlier on, I think the only difference lies in the terms "marriage" and "civil union". I would be against a gay marriage, because it would have to be sanctioned by a church, and that goes against everything I've been taught or believe in. A civil ceremony to legalise the union of 2 gay partners, without the church getting involved, is perfectly fine with me. I would be delighted for any of my gay friends if they could legalise their relationships this way.

Just to add: I don't mean that I won't recognise a gay relationship if it hasn't been legalised by the government, I'm saying that many of my friends would choose that if they could, because it gives them a sense of satisfaction and security to be given the same options and benefits as heterosexual couples.

[Peter.Lai]

Right now, I am against it, because I believe that being Gays and Les are caused by the environment shaping their behavior. IF it were caused by genetics then I would be FOR gay marriage.

SO... can someone tell me if being gay is caused by the inevitable genetics? OR preventable behaviour? ^_^

[jaychou_21]

I don't know about you guys but I'm for gay marriage.
Back then I am strongly opposed to the idea of two people of the same gender tying the knot.

Peter.Lai: Yes,I agree that becoming gay is due to behavioral changes
brought about by strong influences by the society and the environment.
I have never heard of anyone becoming gay because he got it from his dad's gay genes.
It's more of a social and behavioral problem. And probably a good solution to that is to let them be.

Most people are against homosexuals so I guess forbidding them to be
married to the persons they love is too much violation of their human rights.
They've been lambasted for their deeds - the way they dress,their lingo,
their suggestive actions,their 'bad' influence.
And now with same sex marriage being critiqued is another assault to them.

Merenwen: I see your point and somehow I accede to it.
I'm a Christian and I believe that people of the same sex getting legally married
before the eyes of God is a sin. It's a religious crime.
But I'm not saying that same sex marriage is totally wrong. It is,religiously speaking.
However,taking into consideration my point of view with regards to the law of man,
setting moral laws aside,I think it is unjust to prohibit same sex union.
Marriage is crucial and it's a significant sacrament but same sex relationships
and their union under a 'civil ceremony' is different than the former.
Anyway,I'm pro same sex marriage,considering the persons' feelings
have nothing to do with the government,the law and the society that revolves around them.

Did anyone get my point? :shy:

[lil~jo]

This seems to be the hot debate topic!~
I think...gay marriage is inappropriate.
Definition of marriage is the binding of contract between a male and female.
If it is not between the opposite sexes, it is not considered a marriage.
However, you may call it a union, but never be united together in a church of any sort.

Don't get me wrong, I know some people are more inclined to be gay or lesbian, and if they are made that way and can not change I am not against them. But the actual practising in these unions is very disheartening and is distasteful. If these unions do have to exist...the only thing I am very much against is couples having children.
Ofcourse they themselves can not reproduce, but to adopt or have another produce a child for them is unethical.
Think of the child. An ordinary, well balanced child is of a mother and father.
Without this sort of balance, how can a kid function ordinarily?
Statistics already show that if there is a divorce and the child is brought up singlehandedly, the child leans more to the opposite sex. Girls go in search of boyfriends to give them the love and care their father would have given them, boys viceversa.

In the case of a same sex couple, the child may suffer from taunting from peers and may be the subject of bullying.

Thus I end my case, though I am not for the union between single sex couples, I plead that if a union was made to exist that they would just enjoy each others company without adding in the third party.

[Peter.Lai]

YEAH!! Definitely.. the adopted child of the homo couples would NOT

live a normal life. Unless we get rid of all the hatred towards homos. But you

know. Homosexual behaviors have been documented in animals too!!!

So, it COULD be genetics. NOW, I will just have to wait until

psycologists or geneticists (or who ever deals with reasearch of

homosexualism) to discover the truth. I believe that only then will we

conclude this controversy.

[nunya415]

Personally...I don't think that there's anything wrong about gay marriages....its just two people of the same gender in love, who want to get married....is that so wrong?? All of this controversy is all because that its not traditional.....well that's what I hear a lot of people say, because its not right and because its wrong....but that's only because they're looking at it traditionally........back then there weren't as many Gay couples as there are now.....time changes...so traditions should too....but overall...I approve of gay marriages

[midori]

Hm, there was this thing I read about on the History Channel, back when Rome was still a powerful empire, there were many documented cases of.. let's just say "gay relationships," but most were consisted of a older man (~40 years old) and a younger boy (~15 years old).

Kind of freaky and.. um illegal now.

[NeoTK]

alright I don't know where you guys are getting stuff about anything being inherited from the father that makes a person gay, cause research has been done to try and find a genetic link for homosexuality, if anything, an old thought towards "sexual inversion" which is what they called it back in the early 20th century is that it's passed on by the mother, since every single male on this planet, their X chromosome is from the mother, in addition to behavior and environment shaping a person towards homosexuality, that's just complete BS, no one decides or wakes up one day after all that and is like, OH, I think I'm gay, it's not like, a regular person just wakes up one day and realizes, he likes girls, no one chooses to be gay, it just happens, and it's hard.

......

actually I'm just in a bad mood, but uninformed people really piss me off... go to a library at your school, look into the dewey decimal system around HQ, and you'll find lots of books on the matter, it's been documented.

while environmental factors may make a person be more to the extreme, it's definitely not solely the reason a person is gay.

lesson in History peeps, back in the Han Dynasty, some of the emperors of China were gay, documented well in historical text, there's actually a famous story about an emperor that fell in love with the most beautiful man in China, and that person fell asleep on the emperors sleeve, rather than wake the one he loved, he cut the sleeve off, this is still the Chinese term used today in speaking about homosexuality in a Chinese context in some instances, but I find the story absolutely beautiful...

consider also before this whole revolutionary communistic government took over, and imposed strict conservative ideals, if you look at how Confucianism looks at homosexuality, it's not a sin or as bad as western ideals have made it, in the context, male X male, or Yang X Yang, basically it was just thought, alright, so if two guys make out, or are in love, it's fine, just a little excess testosterone, BUT, if the guy has sex with a girl or fathers a child, that's all that really matters, which I don't see really happening now, but I don't see what extra testosterone, and how bad that can be...

UGH, I need to go lie down, head hurts, this debate is not over...

[V]

[Sweet Neko]

I personally am fine with Gay Marriages. People are so... one-sided I think. I mean, if it's against your religion then I don't mind but people saying "Eww, it's sick", they think to one-sided. For once, think about the people that are having a same sex relationship. They have feelings too. I mean, they like each other, then let them go, it's a free world.

As for George W. Bush we all know he's an idiot. He has other things to worry about and he worries about same sex marriages. :nocommen:

Think of the child. An ordinary, well balanced child is of a mother and father.
Without this sort of balance, how can a kid function ordinarily?
Statistics already show that if there is a divorce and the child is brought up singlehandedly, the child leans more to the opposite sex. Girls go in search of boyfriends to give them the love and care their father would have given them, boys viceversa.

lil~jo: The kid can still function properly since he/she is born from a mother unless a male decides to inject women sperm cells into his body. I live with a singe parent, my father and I don't find myself learning more of the opposite sex.

[sam_ho]

No offense...but I really do think that Bush is an idiot...I don't even know why he got re-elected...==''. But I don't think that its fair to homosexual people to ban their marriages...Affection is in their heart, and they follow wherever their heart goes. And they sometimes can't help it to be gay. So I really don't think that Bush is fair to think about banning the gay marriages..

[xiaoting]

Ack. So which is it?
Is homosexuality is inherited or is it developed through environmental factors?

I'm actually in between. I don't know what to choose. I know people who are homosexual, and they're just like regular people. They don't really act differently, talk differently, walk differently, and all that stuff. They look like regular people.

Although homosexuality is against my Christian faith, I'm still undecided. I admit that I was a homophobe before, but not anymore (that rhymes). But I still can't decide whether to support gay marriages or not.

[kaye21]

gay marriages...hhmmm very sensitive topic...its rare to see asians...respond to it...especially young asians....

as for my stand, it should be an equal opportunity society...government should give that fundamental right to any human being, gay or straight...

ive got friends who are gay and are in relationships...one has "formalized" his relationship...they're happy...and they also fight and make-up like other married couples...

[crusty-applepie]

I totally agree with that, Kaye. I think everybody should have equal opportunities to do anything no matter what their preferences are.

This is ideal, though. I think that, right now, society, no matter how liberal we say it has gotten, is not ready.

[amdawn]

homosexuality happens and it has happened for the longest time. i don't oppose marriages; if they happen to love each other, so why not. sure it is bit strange to accept that such things happen. they do and so let's just get over it.

[Rurouni[X]]

lol the first few pages are just
Wackome and Jayx8318x dishing it out.
Personally my own thoughts about gay marriages is let them.
Since it doesnt really concern us straight people.
Gay or Lesbian your still people.
and anyone is allowed to be married.
I have no idea what you two are going on about.
Im a ignorant Australian Boy. My grasp of politics goes as far as the Liberal party and John Howards bushy eyebrows.
However I dislike George Bush.
Not only did he start a civil war.
He goes Knives and Hammers about other countries having "Weapons of Maaaaaaaasss destruction" where USA is the only country that has more Nuclear facilitys and weapons then China, India, Ishrael and Pakistan.
I think his morals and ethics are rock bottum. There goes a unified Christiawn america
Oh i didnt even know there WAS a trillion dollars.. ^^"
I dun think George Bush is stupid.. he just makes stupid decisions.
Recently he insulted the Australian PM..
About how hes short and ugly..
^^"
And George bush has big ears..
haha