Opinions on gay rights/marriage?

[dglat]

Love is love as far as I am concern and if two people that are in love choose to get married, that is wonderful.

[liljp617]

For anyone that can understand my previous posts maybe you should read them because I was not trying to find reasons to back up why it is a bad thing to do but just stating the facts.

But you're not stating facts for the most part.  The only fact you stated is that it's currently illegal, which I think we're well aware of.  Everything else was an opinion or your personal beliefs.

[Stealth3si]

If I may offer my take:

I don't think the mere fact that something is sinful makes it unlawful (at least not in our legal system).

I also don't think that people (gay or straight) have an automatic birthright to have legally recognized marital unions.

In fact, I don't think the government has any business deciding which benefits any cohabiting couple can give or withhold from each other.

The typical argument is "Gays should be allowed the same rights as straights," by which most usually mean "we want government cheese, too."

I deny that straight couples should be allowed even those rights to begin with, at least not insofar as those rights are state-sponsored / -determined.

I think all people everywhere should be allowed to enter into voluntary contracts for whatever benefits they agree upon mutually, and the state stay out of it.

This would mean that all couples, straight or gay, married or strangers, would be allowed to declare beneficiaries, power of attorney, tax co-sharing, etc however they please.

It would also mean that all couples would be able to mutually agree not to exercise any of these rights, and could opt out of any state-recognized unions.

I hate that my marriage has to be "validated" by the state. I'm not sure why they have any business telling me whether I am or am not married.

I don't understand why gays or straights want to grant the government any more power to control how or with whom we live.

I don't think the government has any right telling people who to give legal or financial benefits to on the basis of a romantic covenant.

"By the power vested in me by the state of *********" should not be a phrase that exists in our vocabulary. It's sheer insanity.

Some say "Keep the government out of marriage, and allow whoever to get a civil union..."

But I say "Keep the government out. Period."

The government subsidizes things because it thinks they are good for the country at large (or, at least, good for a part of the country).

The subsidy on marriage (added benefits, lower taxes, etc, etc, etc ad nauseum) is, in my view, because marriage is good for society.

The government doesn't get involved in marriage because it cares what's good for those two particular people. It does so for the public good.

The public good that is perceived is stable homes, financially secure child-raising, and time-tested benefits like lower aggression / violence.

The question of gay rights is backwards. Governments are aggregates. They don't (and can't) care about individuals, regardless of what anyone says.

The real issue is whether gay "marriage" is good for society in the same way or a different way than traditional marriage. If the same, then equal rights.

If gay marriage (because of procreation, higher separation rates, more violence, whatever) is good for society in a different way ("civil rights"), then different rights should exist.

I'm not sure that much has been proven conclusively on either side, but studies do exist. Is my marriage good for society? Is a gay person's relationship? I don't know, politically.

[Stealth3si]

religion is the sole reason the law cant be passed

The American right's stigma is the reason.

[Stealth3si]

with them but as far as marriage it is just man and woman and if you read the bible that is how God intended it to be when he made Eve for Adam.

It also says eating shellfish is an abomination and to stone your disobedient children.

So what?

The Law is complex.

And someone will inevitably say "oh my, that's the Old Testament though, it doesn't apply to today."  In which case, stop acting like Genesis has any credibility then.

Only if they held an ignorant view of Church history and doctrine and further, I think a theological reading as opposed to talking in terms of just grammatical-historical exegesis wouldn't be interesting to you.

And why do you try to go by the laws and societal views of today's world?  Because it makes no sense to take a stance on something based on a 2000 year old book written by silly individuals stuck in a desert.  So why take a stance on homosexuality from that same book?

Why would you care about how he/she lives according to a book that seems silly to you?

And we could go over exactly what the Bible says on homosexuality, but that would require you actually be interested in the conversation (if you are, I will gladly elaborate, but I can't be bothered to write out three or four paragraphs only to have somebody respond with three incoherent sentences).  What the Bible says on homosexuality would probably also end up supporting my view more than the view that "homosexuality is evil."  There's a lot of historical and social context in the Bible that people kindly ignore to suit their needs.

I'm more interested in what you think the bible means.

[Stealth3si]

God says being Gay is an abomination to him

He says the same thing about people that get divorced...BUT HEY THOSE ARE ALL OKAY NOW CUZ THOSE WERE TEH OLD DAYZ!!1!!1!

Citation please.

God says being Gay is an abomination to him

He says the same thing about...touch the skin of a pig, and work on the sabbath too. BUT HEY THOSE ARE ALL OKAY NOW CUZ THOSE WERE TEH OLD DAYZ!!1!!1!

So what?

There is a lot of naivety in this thread and I highly suggest all you people with stupid assumptions *cough*religion*cough* actually do some damned research before saying something that has been logically flawed for some time.

Why should they listen to a suggestion from someone who doesn't care what they believe?

[JessieKateRose]

I'm for gays and lesbians having the right to marry, I think it is positively ridiculous that they can't in most parts of the US. Whether it is against your religion or not, this is supposed to be a free country, with freedom of religion. We all aren't Christians. Buddhists celebrate gay marriages, so not allowing them to be married is infringing their freedom of religion. It is extremely obvious that they should be able to be married.

Gays don't hurt anyone just being gay. Give one example where they have.

[Sunshine84]

I support gay marriage 100%! If they want to be miserable like the rest of us why not  . LOL just kidding. Seriously I support it because I think everyone should have equal rights. This is America we are the free country. So why limit gays from being able to get married. I think if you find the one you are supposed to be with why does it matter if they are the same sex as you? If you are happy and in love it shouldn't matter who it is. I support it!

[TMorris86]

I agree with gay marriage as well. It is unfair to keep gays from marrying if it is truly what they want. I'm gay myself so yes I agree with it, but I would only agree to equal rights. A few years back there was a bill saying that gay partners could have a certain right, but straight couples who were not married & only living together would not have the same rights. I voted against it only because it's not equal. It took years for women to get the same rights as men, for segregation to come to an end, and it will take years for it to happen with us as well. I'd like to think it will be soon, but I doubt it. So many people think that it's a disease or that we will go to hell. I think that if God  forgives everyone then He will forgive us. He hates the sin, not the sinner. And I think that He knows its hard to find true happiness and that even if we found it in the same gender, He would be happy that were not living our lives alone.

[Falconer02]

Citation please.

I actually researched this a long time ago (read a big chunk of the old testmament) and remember it being a mixture of several passages, but it does not blantantly say "divorce = death" like how most of the laws are written in Numbers. This had more to do with adultery than divorce (my bad) but if the man was caught, he should be divorced from his wife and then put to death. Looking it up online I found these-- Deuteronomy 22:22, Leviticus 20:10, Proverbs 6:32

So what?

Why should they listen to a suggestion from someone who doesn't care what they believe?

Because if a belief is withholding progress on a certain people, it causes major problems. Especially when those beliefs are old and outdated and most people disregard the whole lot of them and just use the convenient ones causing prejudices among good people.

[liljp617]

I'm sorry but the whole gay thing is becoming like a fad and seems like almost everyone is. I think it is weird and don't understand it. I like the Men

Yeah, people often wake up and decide to join one of the most despised, hated groups in, not only the US, but the whole world.  It might seem like there are more now than 5-10 years ago, because much of society has finally made it clear that it's wrong to be hateful toward homosexuals.  Of course more people are going to come out of the closet and stop hiding who they truly are if it's no longer as much of a social suicide...

[starcharm24]

i think that everyone is free to make their own choices in life and we should all accept whatever  the other person wants as long as it is legal.

[liljp617]

i think that everyone is free to make their own choices in life and we should all accept whatever  the other person wants as long as it is legal.

Then you're opposed to gay marriage?

[AXELUnholy]

I'm not for or against it. While I find the thought of two men having sexual intercourse, etc., slightly disturbing, I feel like it's their choice. As long as I don't have to be witness to any of it, I'm fine with it. Just like I don't put my business as a straight man out there for everyone to witness. You know? I keep the sexuality behind closed doors, and as long as they keep it that way, too, I have no problem with it.

[liljp617]

I'm not for or against it. While I find the thought of two men having sexual intercourse, etc., slightly disturbing, I feel like it's their choice. As long as I don't have to be witness to any of it, I'm fine with it. Just like I don't put my business as a straight man out there for everyone to witness. You know? I keep the sexuality behind closed doors, and as long as they keep it that way, too, I have no problem with it.

Can they show affection for each other in public (mind you, the amount of affection that is acceptable for heterosexual couples to show in public)?