what's the big deal with gay marriage?

[metalguy24]

My question to everyone, especially fellow americans, is what is the big deal if two guys or girls want to get married? I know the big arguement is that according to the bible marriage is between a man and a women. But I thought our country was founded on freedom of religion and seperation of church and state. If your passing laws according to some religious text that is not exactly seperation is it? I mean so what if two guys want to do each other in the butt, it's not my cup of tea but I'm not going to lose sleep over it. Does it really affect your daily life? If it does you need to get out more. I know I don't have time to sit and worry that Johnny and Paul want to get married and enjoy the same tax cuts as everyone else enjoys. Give this crap a rest and grow up a little. The world is changing, this isn't the 50's anymore, though most of america wishes it still was. But it seems to me that people only remember the constatution when it benefits them. It seems certain polaticians want to bend a mold it. But oppressing someone's rights is not what this country was founded on. If you want to be christian, be a christian; if you want to be jewish, be jewish; if you want to be gay, be gay. That's why this is america, be whatever the hell you want to be. I'd like to hear other's thoughts. Give me a good reason gays shouldn't be married other than some stupid religious one. I want to know!

[enoch]

it isn't really a big deal amongst the intellectual oriented american populace for one thing,
but much of it has been blown out of proportion because of the cultural fear of homosexuality

that said, the other side has some merit in their argument, because it is an insult to the religious beliefs and social beliefs of many americans and peoples worldwide - although in American tradition we do typically frown on groups that try to impose their beliefs on others

it is more of a political scare tactic than an actual issue, and very few Americans who aren't a part of the ignorant majority that makes up the proletariet of most countries, have yet to accept that gay people deserve the same legal rights in their relationships as heterosexuals possess

it is really just hung up on the Christian ---- NOT AMERICAN ---- interpretation of marriage

the vast majority of americans will agree that gay people deserve the same legal rights as heterosexuals in all things including marriage, and even many amongst those that hold religious views (about a third of us) that decry homosexuality, are fine with gay marriage as long as it is not called marriage

there are also many churches that recognize the rights of gays - the most powerful american episcopalian church group in america even has a Gay Bishop who plans on marrying his life partner

this is a total BS issue that the Right uses to scare its demographic away from the left, and outside of the South and the real hickish parts of the midwest and pacific northwest, this issues holds very little actual power over the voting populace

Americans are not nearly as silly as the media makes us out to be and most of us agree that gay marriage is not a key issue in determining who we will vote for

[DisgruntledGoat]

Americans are not nearly as silly as the media makes us out to be and most of us agree that gay marriage is not a key issue in determining who we will vote for

I'm afraid thats not true. At least not for the majority. The fact remains in the 2004 election gay marriage played a significant role in getting the religious right out to vote and get republican votes in. The republicans tried it again with the mid-terms but it didn't really do much since there were a lot more pressing issues. However, where ever gay marriage was on the ballot it drew out A LOT of voters. One can't say that the majority doesn't make it a key voting issue when it brings out voters on mass.

[Tucker Dan]

it isn't really a big deal amongst the intellectual oriented american populace for one thing,

although in American tradition we do typically frown on groups that try to impose their beliefs on others

it is really just hung up on the Christian ---- NOT AMERICAN ---- interpretation of marriage

the vast majority of americans will agree that gay people deserve the same legal rights as heterosexuals in all things including marriage, and even many amongst those that hold religious views (about a third of us) that decry homosexuality, are fine with gay marriage as long as it is not called marriage

this is a total BS issue that the Right uses to scare its demographic away from the left, and outside of the South and the real hickish parts of the midwest and pacific northwest, this issues holds very little actual power over the voting populace

Americans are not nearly as silly as the media makes us out to be and most of us agree that gay marriage is not a key issue in determining who we will vote for

Wow, where to begin. I like how you opened by calling into question the intelligence of those who have a different view, classic liberal. I would consider myself to be "intellectual" and I don't believe in gay marriage, so that goes down in flames.

In American tradition we try to frown upon those imposing their views? Like the gay rights groups trying to tell everyone what marriage is according to their modern interpretation of it?

First, Christian and American are not necessarily separate, and the American definition was derived from the Christian.

You are right, I support complete rights for homosexual civil unions that bear all the same legal rights as marriage. And is this vast majority of Americans the ones who passed the state ban on gay marriage in 2004 in every state it was up in?

If calling all the parts "hickish" that don't agree with you is not a flame, I don't know what is. I live in the suburbs of Cincinnati, Ohio. not exactly a "hickish" area, in my township we passed the Ohio Defense of Marriage Amendment with 83% so you should read up on this a bit before you post about it. Once again, many Americans did see gay marriage as a big issue, just because you didn't does not mean everyone else did to, it was not a huge issue for me, but definitely influenced my vote for W. But depending on who Kerry was speaking to he supported/did not support gay marriage, so with him it was a surprise.

Christians have just as much a right as anyone else to vote the way they want to and support whatever they want, regardless of whether or not their descision is theological, or secular based.

Personally, as I said above, I support civil unions with every bit of the legal benefits of marriage. But marriage is a Biblical institution, the symbolic reunification of Adam with Eve. Laugh all you want, its what I believe. And I don't want some group coming and dictating what religiously based institutions mean when many don't even consider themselves part.

And no, the federal government does NOT supersede religion in this country, thanks to the glorious Free Exercise clause in the First Amendment.

[enoch]

Wow, where to begin. I like how you opened by calling into question the intelligence of those who have a different view, classic liberal. I would consider myself to be "intellectual" and I don't believe in gay marriage, so that goes down in flames.

I am not liberal - but after the Christians are done telling the homosexuals how to live, you know they are coming after books and television and anything else they PERSONALLY don't like yet attribute their fear/hate to some divine authority

and I obviously meant the intellectual community as a whole - of course there is a minority opinion(s) - there always is, eh?

In American tradition we try to frown upon those imposing their views? Like the gay rights groups trying to tell everyone what marriage is according to their modern interpretation of it?

the US government determined the American determination of marriage long ago, when they decided that secular unions were what made a marriage - when a religious figure marries someone in america it is not a recognized marriage under our system of law until the SECULAR government approves it - you need a permit from the gov. before God has the right to join you in marriage

the current Christian interpretation of marriage is far more modern in our society than the secular tradition established in our country's violent anti religious birth

the very first americans in the north east were fleeing people who were trying to force their personal religious views on others

one could say that america was founded by people who wanted nothing to do with people who held views similiar to yours, eh?

First, Christian and American are not necessarily separate, and the American definition was derived from the Christian.

yes, but one has to come before the other - personally I am an free thinker, then an american, and then a Christian ---yeah I am christian - bursts your bubble, eh?

You are right, I support complete rights for homosexual civil unions that bear all the same legal rights as marriage. And is this vast majority of Americans the ones who passed the state ban on gay marriage in 2004 in every state it was up in?

in the hick states for the most part and anyway, most americans do support civil unions but do not support gay marriage - as I said

If calling all the parts "hickish" that don't agree with you is not a flame, I don't know what is.

just like we call californians crazy and when I say the south you know what I am saying and when someone calls me a yankee I ain't gonna whine
hick is not an insult unless you have a problem with hicks
it is a nickname for a certain country demographic of american society, eh?

I live in the suburbs of Cincinnati, Ohio. not exactly a "hickish" area, in my township we passed the Ohio Defense of Marriage Amendment with 83% so you should read up on this a bit before you post about it. Once again, many Americans did see gay marriage as a big issue, just because you didn't does not mean everyone else did to, it was not a huge issue for me, but definitely influenced my vote for W. But depending on who Kerry was speaking to he supported/did not support gay marriage, so with him it was a surprise.

kerry never once supported gay marriage - looks like I ain't the one who needs to do some research, eh?

Christians have just as much a right as anyone else to vote the way they want to and support whatever they want, regardless of whether or not their descision is theological, or secular based.

on this we agree

Personally, as I said above, I support civil unions with every bit of the legal benefits of marriage. But marriage is a Biblical institution, the symbolic reunification of Adam with Eve. Laugh all you want, its what I believe. And I don't want some group coming and dictating what religiously based institutions mean when many don't even consider themselves part.

marriage in america is not a religious institution (yet Christians have been putting out a lot of propaganda to the contrary so I understand why you think this) - and marriage, just the way we think of it today, was around thousands of years before christ took his first human breathe

And no, the federal government does NOT supersede religion in this country, thanks to the glorious Free Exercise clause in the First Amendment.

very cute - and federal law does supercede religious law in the US - the government is not allowed to tell people what they can believe and worship

but the federal gov. can restrict any religious practice it feels like -
for instance - Human Sacrifice or Pedophilia - common to many religions - are not legal in the US

[metalguy24]

Thanks for all the good posts My question still stands, if this country was founded on separation of church and state why is religious views still coming into play when making laws? Why is gay marriage banned? I live in Kentucky right in the middle of the bible belt. I have to deal with the argument that god says this and Jesus says that. And that's fine I guess, I have no problem with christians or any religion in that fact. If you can have faith more power to you. I personally can't, my mind doesn't think in that way. But why is it a big deal if two people of the same sex want to get married, civil union, or whatever you want to call it? Is it really going to affect your life? Are you going to lose sleep over it? Will you stop eating? Will life cease to continue? When Kentucky banned civil unions, it kind of made me angry. Again thanks for the posts, it's been enlightening.

[D-Rock]

I understand your question, but the country was not founded on separation of church and state. The constitution does not mention the separation of church and state. That phrase only appeared in a letter from T. Jefferson regarding a church trying to supercede the constitution. So the founding of the government was not on that premise.

I believe that this is a state issue and should be left up to the people's vote. Even if you believe that they are "hicks" they still have the right to choose.
If you don't like it, lobby against it or move

[Turbo]

I can only speak for myself --

There are civil unions which give all the legal rights of marriage. I accept this and think that civil unions are a just thing. The whole debate over marriage has nothing to do with rights but rather of acceptance into society. From my viewpoint this is asking me to condone and accept that marriage is not just between a man and a woman. I consider marriage as a religious joining under God. Asking me to believe otherwise intrudes on my own personal beliefs and faith.

[Tom Paine]

Well I don't see what necessity is of 2 gays marrying ?! A marriage generally,even a religious one is pointed to giving birth and looking after children .Since this is not the case,what's the use of it ? I personally am not against but don't see it as a necessity .And the public oppinion is based usually on "what will happen with our 11 years old sons if they are encouraged by the state and Church to marry other guys ? It will be a catastrophy of the mankind " .

Actually given the increasing number of marriages of the elderly, and the increasing number of otherwise childless marriages... marriage is not for procreation.

I can only speak for myself --

There are civil unions which give all the legal rights of marriage. I accept this and think that civil unions are a just thing. The whole debate over marriage has nothing to do with rights but rather of acceptance into society. From my viewpoint this is asking me to condone and accept that marriage is not just between a man and a woman. I consider marriage as a religious joining under God. Asking me to believe otherwise intrudes on my own personal beliefs and faith.

Then tell the government to stop marrying people, and legislate marriage away in favour of civil union, please.

[Turbo]

Then tell the government to stop marrying people, and legislate marriage away in favour of civil union, please.

I don't see that as a moral imperative for me as most people don't. I don't think people should be penalized for their sexual orientation but nor do I feel I should be asked to endorse it.

Darth,

For reasons you and I know all too well, I can not respond to any of your posts. The arguments we have gotten into have landed us both in hot water with the moderators. Good to see you back though.

[Tom Paine]

I don't see that as a moral imperative for me as most people don't. I don't think people should be penalized for their sexual orientation but nor do I feel I should be asked to endorse it.

I'm not asking you to; I'm asking you to make the position the same across the board - if marriage has religious connotations, how can the government, being nonreligious or areligious, grant it?

[Turbo]

I'm not asking you to; I'm asking you to make the position the same across the board - if marriage has religious connotations, how can the government, being nonreligious or areligious, grant it?

I don't have an issue if the government wants to call all marriage a 'civil union'. I associate marriage as a sacrament of the Church and for me this is a faith matter. I must follow the mandate of the Church on such matters and the Church does not recognize gay marriage.

[Darth Wong]

I don't think people should be penalized for their sexual orientation but nor do I feel I should be asked to endorse it.

Yet you DO feel that people should be made to feel ostracized for their sexual orientation, ie- not "accepted". How is that not "penalized"?

For reasons you and I know all too well, I can not respond to any of your posts. The arguments we have gotten into have landed us both in hot water with the moderators. Good to see you back though.

It is unfortunate that we cannot have a dialogue. Oh well, life goes on.

[Darth Wong]

The whole debate over marriage has nothing to do with rights but rather of acceptance into society.

Let me re-phrase that in plain English: Christian opposition to gay marriage is about making sure gays continue to feel ostracized in society. If they don't feel outcast and miserable, you just can't be happy.

From my viewpoint this is asking me to condone and accept that marriage is not just between a man and a woman.

Yes it is.

I consider marriage as a religious joining under God. Asking me to believe otherwise intrudes on my own personal beliefs and faith.

No one's asking YOU to marry a man.

[jankren]

I dont have problem with gay marriage so long as it is between a gay man and a gay woman.

[Dunecat]

I'm not going to get into a pointless semantics debate. A marriage is a "civil union", in the eyes of the law. Therefore, two consenting adults should have the right to "unionize", or marry.

To prevent them from doing so is an infringement on their rights and, IMHO, more of a moral travesty than having the right to begin with.

As far as the sacrament of marriage goes, I would think something different. But the Government is not the church of God, and this right is not a sacrament.

[Turbo]

I'm not going to get into a pointless semantics debate. A marriage is a "civil union", in the eyes of the law. Therefore, two consenting adults should have the right to "unionize", or marry.

To prevent them from doing so is an infringement on their rights and, IMHO, more of a moral travesty than having the right to begin with.

As far as the sacrament of marriage goes, I would think something different. But the Government is not the church of God, and this right is not a sacrament.

A civil union as you say = marriage under the eyes of the law. So whether a civil union is called a marriage or not is a pointless semantic debate. It is nothing more than a label or is it?

[enoch]

I can only speak for myself --

There are civil unions which give all the legal rights of marriage. I accept this and think that civil unions are a just thing. The whole debate over marriage has nothing to do with rights but rather of acceptance into society. From my viewpoint this is asking me to condone and accept that marriage is not just between a man and a woman. I consider marriage as a religious joining under God. Asking me to believe otherwise intrudes on my own personal beliefs and faith.

this is a common view and shows that even the Christian right for the most part recognizes that gay people deserve the same rights as straight people

I'm afraid thats not true. At least not for the majority. The fact remains in the 2004 election gay marriage played a significant role in getting the religious right out to vote and get republican votes in. The republicans tried it again with the mid-terms but it didn't really do much since there were a lot more pressing issues. However, where ever gay marriage was on the ballot it drew out A LOT of voters. One can't say that the majority doesn't make it a key voting issue when it brings out voters on mass.

I know - I sadly sadly helped - by working for a "non partisan" organization that sent out flyers to people saying Kerry wants your kids to suck **** and far worse things
but I am not entirely convinced it really changed a lot of votes, the same people who believe such nonsense vote for who their minister tells them to anyway, so I don't think it had as significant an effect as the left makes it out to be

the kerry and bush election was only ever really close in the reporting of the media, and the "Clintonions" (the most powerful group in democratic politics at the time) wanted Bush to be reelected so the odds were against Kerry from all sides

I dont have problem with gay marriage so long as it is between a gay man and a gay woman.

this is simply a great line and good satire is always deserving of praise, even when it ain't mine, eh?

[Gwendylyn]

A civil union as you say = marriage under the eyes of the law. So whether a civil union is called a marriage or not is a pointless semantic debate. It is nothing more than a label or is it?

It is not pointless, because suddenly a word used to describe every single union between males and females in the English language can now only apply to Christian males and females. Suddenly, my parents are no longer "married" because they married before a Justice instead of a preacher. The fact is that marriage is both a secular and religious word, and the secular definition of the word is far older than the religious definition. It makes absolutely no sense to try to change the english language to suit minority religious beliefs.

[felicissimus]

Well I don't see what necessity is of 2 gays marrying ?! A marriage generally,even a religious one is pointed to giving birth and looking after children .Since this is not the case,what's the use of it ? I personally am not against but don't see it as a necessity .And the public oppinion is based usually on "what will happen with our 11 years old sons if they are encouraged by the state and Church to marry other guys ? It will be a catastrophy of the mankind and it may change the world in an unpredictable way" .