Gay Marriage

[dreamyxo]

People are people.  I don't care.  Who you love shouldn't be based on the physical (gender).  You love the person for who they are inside. 

[mrisha]

I do believe that all people have the right to marry whomever they maybe in love with, be they heterosexual, gay, etc.

The so called heterosexual world isn't a good guiding rule to go by.  Just look at the number of divorces going on everday.  People are people and who made those of us who judge others think that we are God.

[skaliope3]

It is very frustrating to see open prejudices.  My son is in Kindergarten and the older children, his "big buddies" as the school calls it, are trying to influence my five year old that gays are bad.  This is ridiculous!  Theses children's parents are brain washing their children and they are trying to do the same thing to my child.  It is completely unacceptable.  How dare they bring this into schools! 

This is 2009, wake up people, everyone, and I do mean everyone, should have the same rights.  What ever happened to "All men are created equal"?  I don't recall an added line saying "unless you are gay". 

If you truly want to stand up for equal rights, I strongly encourage you to check out the following link:  http://www.eqca.org

If we all educate our neighbors and stand up to this injustice, our children will have a chance at equality!

[skaliope3]

I don't believe in gay marriage but I do believe they should be able to have relationships openly and freely. To each his/her own.

i believe something along these lines. i definitely don't believe in treating anyone badly because of their sexuality.. i think they deserve the same respect as anyone else.. they're people, just the same.
but i was raised in a christian home and don't really believe that gay marriage is "right" i suppose?

but that's my opinion and how i feel..
i think gay marriage is a risky and controversial topic.. it's hard to talk about your own beliefs without someone telling you that you're wrong, regardless of what you actually think.. you know?

How can one truly believe in respecting everyone equally and no one being treated badly just because of something as trivial as sexual orientation, but at the same time latch onto ideas that precisely and purposely disrespect a group of people and propose nothing but treating people differently solely because of sexual orientation?

Perhaps you could explain that to me, as it's extremely confusing.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I just would like to understand the logic behind such a stance (because it is so often a stance of those who oppose same sex marriage)...to me, it completely contradicts itself, but maybe I'm missing something.


On a side note, frankly this really doesn't have much to do with religion.  Trying to justify certain moral views by using religion often produces very weak, illogical, irrational views.  Not to mention the major religions don't have that wonderful of a track record at all in determining or carrying out what is or is not moral.  Along with the fact that marriage is technically carried out and approved by the state, not the church.  The church does not have to approve of any marriage, it is a civil act done by the state.  No one is married unless the state approves it.

WOW!  You really hit the nail on the head!  I have wondered the same thing for many, many years.  To me, the religion excuse is a way for these people to influence others about their belief systems.  I don't understand why it is OK for people to feel the need to tell me their religious views but shut down when they are questioned regarding their reasoning behind their beliefs.  Not sure I will ever understand how people can convince themselves that it is OK to discriminate against another human being, simply because they do not have the same religious beliefs.  You know the saying "ignorance is bliss"?  Their ignorance may keep them in a blissful mood, but it infuriates me!  It is inexcusable to discriminate against another person.  I am hopeful that the next generation will be able to start anew and not have to deal with such ridiculousness!

[Ebbtide]

Gender has nothing to do with marriage. LOVE does. Imho. Unfortunately, not many people around me seem to think that same way. There are a rare few though, thank GOODNESS. 

[sweetbaby_2006us]

People are and their rights to have sex with whomever they want as long as they other person want to and they are not under age. I think soon more people are going to start to accept it.  :

[liljp617]

The morality and legality of gay marriage are not necessarily the same issue here.

I don't know how that answered my concerns/questions.  You took the very last sentence and thought up the generic response?  I don't get it.

Either way, both the moral and legal standpoints point toward allowing same sex marriage.  Discrimination isn't moral or legal.

Same as "the state."

Please do elaborate.  The "state" certainly has had a more logical, rational, and typically understandable stance on and approach toward most moral issues from the past.  The "state" going to war, is not the same as the church slaughtering heretics because they blew on their soup before eating it, which inherently makes them a witch!  Not to mention that the majority of "states" that carried out heinous, brutal actions in the past were largely motivated by religious ideologies and beliefs akin to "my god(s) want me to do this so I must."

There goes "the power of the people"...

The "power of the people" has little to no place in determining civil rights.  The "people" are overwhelmingly ignorant, prejudice, egotistical, gullible, stuck on ridiculous old ideas, and so on. I guess the "power of the people" should have been more listened to in the 1850s/1860s (and prior).  Maybe then we wouldn't have to deal equally with those pesky, vastly inferior people from Africa (not stating this as fact, stating as sarcasm to prove the point).  Maybe the "power of the people" should have been more listened to in the 1920s so women would just keep quiet and do their cooking and cleaning (again, sarcasm).

I fail to see how the power of the people diminishes anyway.  Again, no church can be forced to marry any couple...they can turn down any couple they wish right now, why would it change?  The government cannot and shouldn't determine who the church gives the traditional ceremonial marriage.  The fact remains, however, that it is plainly immoral and illegal for the state to discriminate against a minority and deny them a civil marriage.  It is also immoral (and hypocritical) for the church to do so, but again, their level of hypocrisy on the vast majority of issues is overwhelming, so I don't expect much different and they can do their own thing.

[bwilliemitch]

I have a lot of gay friends and I wish they could get married.  For most of them, it is not solely about the marriage.  It is about protecting the assets they have acquired together and their children.  I have the right to protect my family, I think that gay people should have those same rights.  Who am I to judge?

[MikeIriz]

i support gay marriage.... everyone is guaranteed to equal rights

[aspenl]

I personally am very against it...for spiritual reasons.  However if I ever run into you and you are homosexual I will accept you and love you just like anyone else, we are all God's children.  However I do not believe it is something that God looks lightly on or appreciates.  Our job is not to judge but to forgive and to love our neighbors as ourselves.

[jester2dr]

the real issues are two different  things.....

first.... should two people, who want to be in a monogomous relationship, commiting the rest of their lives to each other, be allowed to have the same rights no matter what their sexual orientation.... the answer is yes

second... should the "label" be the same.... this is the one most people struggle with...

marriage by definition has been between a man and a woman to procreate....

the religious types believe it was sanctioned by God to be that way....

an alternative label was suggested (civil union) to allow the same rights that  "married couples" get... the old "separate but equal argument"

and this idea wasn't well recieved....


my suggestion is simple.... NO STATE SANCTIONED "MARRIAGES".... make all of the state recognized unions.... "civil unions"..... make that the requirement for all the benefits, that should come with the choice to spend the rest of your life with someone...

then people who want to express themselves in a religious "marriage ceremony" could still call themselves "married" as an expession of their belief system and not as a requirement for benefits...

[liljp617]

the real issues are two different  things.....

first.... should two people, who want to be in a monogomous relationship, commiting the rest of their lives to each other, be allowed to have the same rights no matter what their sexual orientation.... the answer is yes

second... should the "label" be the same.... this is the one most people struggle with...

marriage by definition has been between a man and a woman to procreate....

the religious types believe it was sanctioned by God to be that way....

an alternative label was suggested (civil union) to allow the same rights that  "married couples" get... the old "separate but equal argument"

and this idea wasn't well recieved....


my suggestion is simple.... NO STATE SANCTIONED "MARRIAGES".... make all of the state recognized unions.... "civil unions"..... make that the requirement for all the benefits, that should come with the choice to spend the rest of your life with someone...

then people who want to express themselves in a religious "marriage ceremony" could still call themselves "married" as an expession of their belief system and not as a requirement for benefits...

Correct.  This would be one of the more simple, realistic solutions.

Although I disagree slightly on the definition of marriage.  The definition of marriage has changed drastically over the ages and it has a lot more to it than just a man/woman union.

Also, the civil unions weren't equal.  Not just because of the "separate but equal is inherently unequal" stuff, but because they simply didn't provide equal benefits to those under civil union.

[cah5525]

Live and let live.
i'm tired of hearing about the religion factor being thrown into this. state and church??? one will not take action over the other. therefore...keep the government out of this - they can't make laws that forbid people in love to get married.

[kidatheart68]

shouldnt happen

[woodensaint]

I think of myself as a Christian, but I have seperated myself from most of the organized religions as they focus on the crucified Christ and his death for our sins. Most of the time they completely ignore his teachings in favor of old testament hell fire and brimstone. I don't know what the Christian agenda is these days, but I think it parted ways with Jesus a long time ago. Seems to me Jesus spoke an awful lot about loving each other, forgiving sins, and not judging others. I would like to go to a protest with a sign saying Jesus loves Gays, because I beleive he loves all of us regardless. If he supported persecution he certainly had the chance to throw stones at Mary Magedelin. Some might argue, that Christ thought her sin was not worthy of a death sentence, but her sin was never recorded and I think purposely so, as it could be anything one might consider sin. Jesus dod not erase the Old testament, he refined it. The Old Testament said let the punisment fit the crime, Jesus said raise yourself above that which is simply required and forgive it. I don't know who put homosexuality is an abomination unto God in the Bible, but I do know who said,"He who is without sin may cast the first stone." Regardless of what I might and might not think of as a sin, our country was founded on the single premise of freedom and not merely freedom for those who think, act, or with the same values as myself, but for everyone. Our country has stumbled and failed many times on rights issues, and religion has always been there to fight against civil rights. Christians fought against women's rights, minority's rights, it is only natural they would fight gays rights. Religion in general has always been behind the times, the Vatican didn't admit that Mary Magdeline might not have been a prostitute or an adutlterer unitl the 1970's-- about 2000 years too late, about the same time they admitted that Jean d'arc might not have been a witch.