same sex marraiges

now im not gay, but i dont think its right that people are tryin to make it illegal for homosexuals to marry. religious people are sayin its immoral! how is it immoral? just because its not a marraige between a MAN and a WOMAN?! everyone has the right to life , liberty, and the persuit of happiness so that makes it perfectly legal for gays and lesbians to marry. it makes me angry to see people who say its wrong and all that. what do you think?

I think it should be legal, though i could care less either way. If it is banned, okay, if it is legal, okay. I really think things like this shouldn't involve the government. Why was gay marriage illegal in the first place?

It should definately be legal, I see nothing wrong with it. Not that I'ma run out and marry a guy just to prove a point, but it should be legal none the less.

You can't stop 2 people from wanting to spend every minute with each other... even if they are the same sex.

And isn't banned and illegal the same thing, the basic concept of it?

I fully support same sex marriages. I think any drawn at court battle within the state of california is likely to vindicate the actions currently taken in san fransico.

yea. i heard that the only reason anyone has against it was by the religious people sayin its immoral (as i already said). and what about seperation of church and state. if thats the only reason they have then they have no case whatsoever. the immoral thing would be to make it illegal.

Personally I think it should be legal. I am not a lesbian or anything, but nobody can stop 2 people from loving eachother even if they are the same sex. And, the religions and churches should stay out of this. To me any mirrage is normal whether it is same sex or not.

yea. i heard that the only reason anyone has against it was by the religious people sayin its immoral (as i already said). and what about seperation of church and state. if thats the only reason they have then they have no case whatsoever. the immoral thing would be to make it illegal.

welll, i had sworn to avoid politics on here after several incidences before, but i must say that seperation of church and state is not in the constitution, it was a concept taken out of context from a letter that either thomas jefferson or ben franklin (cant remember =>_<-) wrote.

Gay marriages should have been legal all along because who really cares about gay ppl getting married? I am not a lesbian but still gay marriage is normal except ppl of the same sex are getting married. Honestly what is wrong with that?

hm... i didnt know that Baka-Neko. interesting. im happy for those who are gettin married while they have the chance. 1,000s of gays and lesbians are getting wed just before the whole case states (or has it already started) and i think its great. they deserve to be happy and with the person they love. i only hope the government doesnt take that away from them. i also heard that bush is against same sex marriages! im not sure if its true or not but thats what i heard.

I heard that Bush was gay. I laughed forever when I heard this. If course you should never laugh at a President. He might send some FBI troops to investigate my house. .

you heard he was gay?! wow thats funny!! *laughs uncontrollably* ooooo maaannn i havent laughed that hard in a LONG time. *wipes tears away* where did you hear that? alittle off topic, what about some statue on some court place that was removed cuz of the whole church and state deal. if its not in the constitution then they didnt need to take it out did they?

I say it ok for (example) male/female to get married to another male/female.The only problim with it is religon.I think its chrstianity(:p) but i dont remeber.

Originally posted by Kazan
I think it should be legal, though i could care less either way. If it is banned, okay, if it is legal, okay. I really think things like this shouldn't involve the government. Why was gay marriage illegal in the first place?

It was made illegal by referendum, in California at least. This means it went to a direct vote before the populace and they voted to ban it - the number was @70% iirc - meaning it skipped the legislature entirely.

Why it's state issue goes back to the original reason people organized, and what marriage itself was about. First off, the state and any organized group in early society was built to protect three things:

• Children
• Pregnant Women
• The Elderly

That was the sole function of early organized groups, only later did they expand to cover interaction with other large organized groups - eventually leading into nations organized by common locale, ethnicity, or law.

Now, the other problem with this is that marriages, until the early twentieth century, were not about "love" or any other noble concept. It was strictly a political and economic agreement, usually used to bind contracts, they were often arranged (in some places they still are: Rumania, and India are two of the most obvious ones) and sometimes they never met one another until the wedding.

See, marriage, when it was invented - you know, before contraception was reliable - was used for a few reasons:

• A pregnant woman is a particularly vulnerable creature, especially in the sixth through ninth months of her term.
• The woman's role as the nurturer of children extends that period of vulnerability for both her and the child.
• The child must be supported and protected until he's old enough, strong enough, and knowledgeable enough to do it for himself. Though the duration varies somewhat. it has always been at least ten years.

A woman who wanted to assure herself, and her children, adequate support and protection had a valid stake to wait until marriage for sexual contact. Not just because oft he structure at the time, but because unwed mothers were considered harlets and usually could not get married afterward.

Men also had a stake in marriage. A husband's obligation to support his wife's children(there was no adequate way to prove who's they were but hers) was coupled to her vow of sexual fidelity. That would ensure that the husband would not be required to support the children of other men and it would give him a measure of control over the scope of his obligations.

Enforcement, as I stated, was first the function of the community, via the threat of expulsion or worse, and later passed into the hands of the State, when political forms evolved to take over the role of contract enforcement.

Before around the late 30's a marriage was very difficult to dissolve. Married couples had the well-being of the children as their primary concern. The institution of marriage had the protection of children at its very core; the desires of adults were a distant second in importance.

Now though, things have shifted that perception.

• The availability of inexpensive, reliable contraception
• Legal changes that confer financial obligation on a father even if he did not marry his child's mother
• Legal changes that make divorce effortless and widely available
• The decline in need of parents to involve themselves in a marriage.

If a single woman can conceive outside of marriage and if she can establish a credible case for the paternity of her baby, that man will be obligated to support the child despite never having agreed to do so. So that incentive for marriage is now essentially non-existent. More, with equality and yes, special protections to women in the workplace, they are expected to be able to support themselves and their children, so that one is also gone.

Married couples do retain some special advantages:

Spouses can file a joint income tax return and share a single Social Security account. If one spouse is a nonresident alien and the other is a citizen, the former's immigration and acquisition of permanent-resident status is made much easier. Married couples are still favored for adoption. Many large employers confer extra benefits on married employees, mainly in the form of medical insurance. This means marriage, as conferred by the state is largely symbolic and it's only other advantages are purely economic.

But, I'm not even sure this is the real reason for pushing so hard for same-sex marriages. It's probably done to hope they will be seen as normal people. Indeed, they are, but in a way they aren't. The statistics alone - that only 4% of people in the US identify themselves as homosexual - testifies that is a far minority. Being a far minority precludes a group from being mainstream. Even tolerant heterosexuals are generally unwilling to confer the sigil of normality on those who openly proclaim that it is good rather than a neutral minority group like any other.

Unless it is held to be a means by which the majority can enforce its will on the minority, the State can have no other function but to maintain justice, according to recognized rights and voluntary contractual agreements. In that way, this remains a state issue because it affects the state coffers.

The problem with the twenty-first century view is that it looks at marriage thus:

1,000s of gays and lesbians are getting wed just before the whole case states (or has it already started) and i think its great. they deserve to be happy and with the person they love.

On these grounds, ignoring the implications to all the other people around, he's totally right. All marriage regulation should immediately be removed from control of the state and it should become a totally private matter.

However, unless you are willing to force the implications to the state out of the marriage contract - and in some way force people to accept (using government won't work and tends to just piss people off) the marriages - it will remain an issue to be controlled by the state, voters, and taxpayers.

I personally couldn't care less what happens in the issue, but that's the line why the state feels it has the right to enforce this at all.


EDIT:

welll, i had sworn to avoid politics on here after several incidences before, but i must say that seperation of church and state is not in the constitution

Establishment Clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The exact interpretation is something rather bothersome, however. Taken to an extreme we could say that all laws violate part of this because some religions condone murder as well. So it's almost always interpreted to mean that if the majority of people believe a law is a good thing - regardless of it's religious underpinnings - it is allowed. obviously this is bound within the general law passing principles of a state (usually a 2/3 vote to ensure pass).

--------------------------------------------------

Communication End.

Originally posted by Kazan
I think it should be legal, though i could care less either way. If it is banned, okay, if it is legal, okay. I really think things like this shouldn't involve the government. Why was gay marriage illegal in the first place?

Because christians rule the world.

I think that if somone wants to spend the rest of their lives with the person they love, no-one has the right to stop them. Not the church, not the goverment, no-one.

On a side-note, a lot of these topics have been popping up recently o-o. I'll guard this topic, don't want no flaming here.

Originally posted by InfestedBarbarian
Because christians rule the world.

No, the Zionists do...

... Or not.

My opinion on homosexuality and homosexuall marriage is; gender? what the damned is gender? Personally, I think the whole idea of 'gender' is so out-of-date, except for in the matter of breeding (and breeding only, raising excluded), wich itself is stupid, when we actually look at how many people we are at earth. Personally, I think homosexualls should be allowed to marry. That's no difference between homosexualls, and heterosexualls using preventiers, and when it comes to raising kids; it's so many messed up biological parents and one-parent-families, that I doubt it will be bad that two parents should happen to be of the same gender, and as mentioned, I don't think that gender mean a crap in today's society.