Your View: Should Gay Marriage Be Legal

1. Deadly.Synner - June 18th, 2008 at 6:49 pm

Yes.
You love someone for who they are, not what they are.

2. Djb522 - June 18th, 2008 at 6:53 pm

hey cool second comment.

i agree with deadly.synner. i believe that it has been scientifically proved that you are born homosexual, unlike how many people think that people choose to be homosexual. i don’t see how people who are naturally attracted to the opposite sex should have anymore right to marriage than people who are naturally attracted to people of the same sex.

3. Vera Lynn - June 18th, 2008 at 6:54 pm

Absolutely. Love is love where ever you find it. If that person makes you happy, that’s a good thing. Far be it for me to decide your love is wrong or bad.

4. thambly89 - June 18th, 2008 at 6:59 pm

I agree with Deadly.Synner and Djb522 that homosexuals should have the same rights to marry as everyone else has. The thing that gets me angry about this issue is the fact that it’s been draged about in the news for so long by many politicians who could be talking about far more important issues. I don’t know if anyone else noticed that during the last time Bush ran for president, gay marrigae and flag burning and immigrants crossing the bordersand other non-issues started making headlines.

5. Jamie - June 18th, 2008 at 7:00 pm

Sure. It doesn’t cause harm to anyone.

6. Clantargh - June 18th, 2008 at 7:06 pm

definately yes.

7. Amanda - June 18th, 2008 at 7:07 pm

I think it should be legal! What’s the problem… many heterosexual marriages don’t work out anyway! So how is gay marriage ruining the sanctity of traditional marriage? Found this on the internet years ago.. it’s sarcasm if you don’t understand:

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.
3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears’s 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn’t changed at all: women are property, Blacks can’t marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That’s why we only have one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.
10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That’s why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven’t adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a “separate but equal” institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.

8. Moe Shinola - June 18th, 2008 at 7:10 pm

I don’t feel threatened in the least by gays marrying, and, even if I did, maybe I’d need to just check myself instead of interfering with someone else.

9. Jarbear - June 18th, 2008 at 7:11 pm

Gay marriage should be legal, nothing wrong with it

10. Fattyhawk - June 18th, 2008 at 7:24 pm

I’m going to go against the trend and say no, but also yes with some reasoning that goes beyond the question posed:

It is not right for the government to use marriage as the measuring stick for the union of two people. Homosexual couples should have the exact same rights as heterosexual couples across the board…health care, power of attorney, tax incentives, adoption, etc. but the title for that union, or any union recognized by the government, should not be labeled ‘marriage’. Basically my view is that everyone should enjoy the same rights as a couple, but the actual title of ‘marriage’ should be reserved for unions recognized by a religious institutions.

Marriage as an institution is inherently religious in nature. While there are obviously marriages that do not take place under any religious pretext what-so-ever, the idea of being ‘bound’ to one’s partner started in the church. Therefore, religious institutions should still be able to decide who can marry and who cannot.

Obviously the idea of marriage as the standard of a union of two people is so ingrained in our society that this would never work, but that’s just my two cents.

11. Amber - June 18th, 2008 at 7:25 pm

Duh.

Love is not defined by genitalia.

12. Nogaymarriages - June 18th, 2008 at 7:34 pm

Illegal. It’s not natural, unless you can pull a baby out of your dickhole

13. Susan - June 18th, 2008 at 7:35 pm

“Marriage as an institution is inherently religious in nature. While there are obviously marriages that do not take place under any religious pretext what-so-ever, the idea of being ‘bound’ to one’s partner started in the church. Therefore, religious institutions should still be able to decide who can marry and who cannot.”

Religious institutions can certainly decide who can marry and who can’t, in their churches. And they should retain that right. Any religious institution that doesn’t agree with gay marriage should never be forced to perform one.

Please note: That is not going to change if gay couples can get marriage licenses!

14. 2worlds - June 18th, 2008 at 7:43 pm

I think, It should be legal, I mean…Really… Whats wrong with 2 People of the same sex loving each other? I don’t feel threatened by them unless they start hitting on me :/.

15. anthony p - June 18th, 2008 at 7:50 pm

Nothing wrong with it, this generation is the “yeah whatever” generation so its all good

16. Aaron - June 18th, 2008 at 7:57 pm

I have to agree that it is not for the government to decide who can get married and who cannot.

Take a step back for a moment and look at the point of the law. The law is designed to protect the rights, freedoms and welfare of the people. Why do we make things illegal? We makes things illegal simply because we don’t want them to happen to us. Example, it’s illegal to drive drunk because we don’t want to be in any way involved in a drunk driving accident. We aren’t allowed to murder people because we don’t want to be murdered ourselves. So we make gay marriage illegal because…we don’t want to have a gay marriage if we aren’t gay? Doesn’t make sense to me.

Simply put, gay marriage doesn’t hurt anybody, and let’s face it, you’ll never stop gay sex, no matter how much you may disagree with it. So why deny gay people the right to one of the happiest and special unions between two people?

It’s when we start limiting freedoms like this that we slowly lose the ideals of freedom that our country was founded on. I’m paraphrasing a quote that I can’t find that says that freedom isn’t lost all at once, it’s lost gradually over time.

Oh, and anyone who says that it’s not natural, tell me something that is completely natural today.

17. Dan - June 18th, 2008 at 7:58 pm

Absolutely.

The government should not be in the business of legislating morality, they should stick to protecting people’s rights.

And is there a more fundamental right than the right to choose your own life partner?

The only arguments against gay marriage ultimately stem from either prejudice, economics or arguments about procreation.

Prejudice is easy to discount as ignorant hatred

Economics is easy to dismiss in saying that economic benefits can’t be based on prejudice, and that the ultimate impact is negligible because there aren’t that many homosexuals out there comparatively. Offering a right to 10% more, based on the most broad estimations of the gay population, is hardly cripping.

Procreation is a fallacious argument because you don’t have to be a breeder to get married in the US. If so why not bad people that have had hysterectomies or are infertile or simply don’t want children from being married.

18. Kate - June 18th, 2008 at 8:00 pm

Well, I do think it should be legal, because there is no logical reason why it shouldn’t.

HOWEVER, I don’t like how the nature vs. nuture argument gets brought into it. Personally, I think sexual preferences is developed in early childhood, just like other preferences (personality objectives, favorite color, favorite tastes). Combining the legitimization of homosexuality with the legality of same-sex marriage is complete and utter bullshit, and will only serve to stifle the marriage movement.

Abortion and Prostitution are completely different subjects from each other, and from gay marriage. Abortion has clearly defined victims (but this isn’t the abortion argument), the fetuses and embryos. Prostitution can lead to a wide range of crime-related social ills. Gay marriage? Leads to two people legally binded together. Therefore, I believe that the social morality can have a part in the debate of the first two subjects, but since gay marriage does not impact the social institutions, then it really shouldn’t be too much of a debate.

19. CK2005 - June 18th, 2008 at 8:07 pm

“Nogaymarriages” (it’s sick you have to include your bigotry in your screen name) says it’s unnatural, but what is your definition of natural? If your definition is “occurring in nature”, then homosexuality is very natural. Marriage, on the other hand, goes against nature.
And it’s only natural if you pop out a baby? So then oral sex should be illegal too then, right? I mean when you do it you’re not doing it to make a baby, so it must be unnatural!
If you want to protect the sanctity of marriage, you should be banning divorces, not gay marriage. I know plenty of gay couples who are happier than heterosexual married couples.

20. Suredeath - June 18th, 2008 at 8:09 pm

I simply don’t see what’s wrong with same sex marriage. I don’t have problem with same sex couple, I don’t have problem with a piece of paper stating the fact.

21. MPW - June 18th, 2008 at 8:10 pm

I have a gay brother so I have to say yes but even if he was straight I would say gay marriage should be legal. I will be voting to legalize gay marriage in November. I’m a very sensitive guy who believes everybody has the right to be happy whether they are gay, straight or prefer both.

22. Vera Lynn - June 18th, 2008 at 8:10 pm

Amanda: I loved your post. It’s great. Can I use it? A lot of goods points made here.
HM

23. warrrreagl - June 18th, 2008 at 8:10 pm

As cynical as this might sound, “love” and “marriage” are not the same things. The issue is not whether or not gay people can fall in love. The issue concerns a religious union that is certified by a government institution, and has an impact on fiscal aspects for taxpayers.

That being said, I believe gay marriage should be legal, but I understand the concern of those who don’t.

24. Sidereus - June 18th, 2008 at 8:13 pm

I believe individual church denominations should decide whether or not to allow gays to marry, not the government. The government should provide gay unions with the same rights as heterosexual unions.

While I personally disagree with homosexuality, I do not think our laws should be based solely on religious beliefs.

25. Suredeath - June 18th, 2008 at 8:14 pm

How is marriage a religious union? Are you saying atheist can’t get married?

26. Cyn - June 18th, 2008 at 8:18 pm

i support gay marriage. ’nuff said.

27. R - June 18th, 2008 at 8:19 pm

Yes.
Marriage is based on LOVE, not GENDER.

28. Sidereus - June 18th, 2008 at 8:19 pm

Anyone can form a union, but it’s not really marriage unless it has God’s blessing.

29. nahhhbrooo - June 18th, 2008 at 8:22 pm

there is nothing wrong with being gay, absolutly nothing. what people feel for each other is there own business and i feel that the gay community should realy just take a breather now. No one bashes against gays anymore its become widely excepted and those who do discriminate are stupid for their own reasons. I do not belive that they`re commitment to each other should be recognized as a marriage. Now before you scroll down in discuss and think i`m too primitive or ignorant just keep reading and listen. A marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman. It was started as a religious bonding and whether your religious or not it should still be regarded respectfully. If a gay person were to have a commited relationship like a marriage than they can completly do so and are absolutly entitled to one. BUt not under the term of marriage. Be it what ever other name but marriage should not be one of them. The 90`s are over and gays have become just as intergrated as anything else. There is no problem with them because they are just like the rest of the world and i think that people should finally put the whole gay fiasco to bed and stop trying to create a new controversy. Gays can be funny, smart and most importantly normal and i would shake the hand a gay man or women without hesitating. but i refuse to recognize their relationship as a marriage.

30. camonbro - June 18th, 2008 at 8:25 pm

CK2005……………….just shut the f**k up. you do not know how stupid ypu sound bro. like cmon seriously……..let the guy say wtvr he wants regardless of how stupid it sounds………………just shut up bro…..please

31. Suredeath - June 18th, 2008 at 8:25 pm

Hate to break it to you guys, but Christians aren’t the only people that get married.

32. MPW - June 18th, 2008 at 8:29 pm

Gay unions are legal in California right now and it is actually doing good things for the economy

HV

33. nippy143 - June 18th, 2008 at 8:42 pm

i’ll go with the flow…enough said…

34. ToKiLoKi12 - June 18th, 2008 at 8:46 pm

MPW thats what brought up the Your View poll. its a hot button issue right now

but i dont care if they get a marriage license or whatever, but i do not believe they should get any tax breaks for being “married”. If they got tax breaks, the system could simply be abused by any 2 friends who happened to be single (probably not by choice).

Gays already have (on average) more money than a traditional family (mostly from lack of offspring). Whether they choose to adopt is their choice, but i dont believe they should get the same treatment as a house with a working father, then stay at home mother with kids.

35. Tree - June 18th, 2008 at 8:48 pm

yes, there is no reason why the state should have a law against two (or more) consenting, non-related adults to marry.

36. Tree - June 18th, 2008 at 8:49 pm

ToKiLoKi12 - by your argument, then marriages with no children should fall into the same boat. not to mention many marriages with children still have both parents working.

37. Csimmons - June 18th, 2008 at 8:52 pm

Absolutely, for a few reasons, like MPW said it helps the economy. and people should be able to love anyone and be able to do as other people do. and why should the government be able to tell people how they should live their lives? plus, how does it destroy the so called “holy union” that is marriage? Christians and other religions need to realize homosexuality is natural.

38. MPW - June 18th, 2008 at 8:52 pm

I would doubt that two straight guys will get married to save money.

thats just my opinion

39. Csimmons - June 18th, 2008 at 8:54 pm

MPW: hey, I need some money….

40. MPW - June 18th, 2008 at 8:58 pm

your not my type Csimmons:)

41. Vera Lynn - June 18th, 2008 at 9:05 pm

Careful, Csimmons. Hands off.

HM

42. SoCalJeff - June 18th, 2008 at 9:09 pm

no…if we allow gay marriage where will it end? allowing people to marry animals? god made adam and eve not adam and steve.

LOL…j/k I support gay marriage. When two people find each other and want to make a stronger commitment to each other, why should any government be allowed to stop it or stand in the way. homosexuality is a reality and frankly our government has bigger fish to fry.

hat tip to senator larry craig soliciting gay sex in a minneapolis airport.

43. MPW - June 18th, 2008 at 9:12 pm

My brothers name is Steven and he hates that little Adam and Steve bit. Senator Craig is no worse that Mark Foley

i know you’re joking btw

44. Tempyra - June 18th, 2008 at 9:15 pm

I think a person’s personal definition of marriage is what decides them as for, against, or ambivalent about the question of gay marriage. True?

I’m all for legal recognition of same-sex marriages and laws to ensure couples are given the same rights (and responsibilities) of hetero marriages. My problem is more with the whole idea of marriage - why can’t we just have civil unions for everyone to deal with all the legalities and then if you want to be recognised by your religious institution you could go get ‘married’ in a church? Marriage then becomes the choice of those who actually want their union to be sanctioned by their religious institution instead of a default.

Doesn’t anyone else think it’s hypocritical of people who don’t otherwise recognise their religion (by living according to its principles) to be all ‘traditional’ when it comes to getting married? People whose only visit to a church is on their wedding day for example.

45. YogiBarrister - June 18th, 2008 at 9:17 pm

As far as the government is concerned, all marriages should be called civil unions, and any consenting adults should be allowed to wed. If churches don’t want to perform marriage ceremonies for gays, that is their prerogative.
I’m a California resident who believes our Supreme Court did the right thing(just hoping it doesn’t cause a backlash aginst Obama). The bottom line is the state cannot discriminate against gays nor are they in the business of defining words.

46. SoCalJeff - June 18th, 2008 at 9:19 pm

Part of the reason why the issue is starting to turn imho is because the craig and foley scandals along with ted haggard and david vitter have made the “moral” side of the issue seem like such hypocrites. And maybe vitter’s scandal was about paying for straight sex from a hooker, it still showed a lot of people the amazing hypocrisy and lack of credibility the religious right has on this issue.

47. CEA - June 18th, 2008 at 9:19 pm

Csimmons: While I completely agree that homosexual marriage should be legal, I think that it’s a little unfair to ask Christians and other religions to accept homosexuality. Many sects of Christianity actually believe that homosexuality is a natural, genetic predispositon. Additionally, while I don’t personally follow an organized religion, I think that it would be wrong to ask any religion to change its standards for others. That request is as closed-minded as the belief homosexuality is a lifestyle choice.

48. MPW - June 18th, 2008 at 9:21 pm

remember, foley was doing it with a minor

49. alextenn - June 18th, 2008 at 9:24 pm

The worst part about this argument is that those who are against gay marriage (though there are few on this website) ultimately have no reason to deny marriage to gay couples other than with the claim that it hurts their own straight marriage. When you think about it, this is pretty much the most selfish argument against something that there can be. “I don’t like it because it makes me uncomfortable with my own marriage” or “I don’t like it because somehow it might affect me in an indirect way”

To me, the whole gay marriage debate is a “straw man” argument: one in which the subject itself is irrelevant or where the subject up for debate is one in which the con-side is very much in the minority. Not to say that marriage is not a big deal, because it is. But the subject of who should be able to get married is just nonsense.

Just my thoughts…

50. jfrater - June 18th, 2008 at 9:24 pm

Kate (#18): I tend to agree with you on the nature versus nurture. I am not convinced that sufficient evidence yet exists to declare it entirely genetic.

51. terrortwilight - June 18th, 2008 at 9:26 pm

I’m a pretty big fan of gay marriage. Putting aside the whole issue of whether or not it is natural, I think the argument that marriage is a religious institution is pretty much completely irrelevant and this seems to be the most prevalent reason behind “disagreeing” with gay marriage. I don’t know the history or marriage or anything, but I’m pretty sure that people committed themselves to each other because they are bound by mutual love and respect (and maybe other things… idk) throughout history long before there was even a word for it. Marriage in our society has become so much more than that; it’s pretty much lost it’s meaning entirely. If tax breaks and other things are of no importance and the only thing one cares about is love, no one would feel the need to have their government get involved. People would spend their lives together of their own choice and for their own personal reasons. Marriage would have a different meaning for everyone and in that way I think it would really retain the “sacred” value that people put on it today.

Once the government gets involved though, any ties to religious institutions that have a significant effect on it’s people becomes nothing more than suffocating for all it’s citizens. Basically, the government should not be able to use the argument that marriage is a sacred religious union between a man and a woman to keep gay people from getting married because in doing so they are seemingly forcing religious beliefs on people through lawmaking, which, btw is kinda illegal…. or I guess unconstitutional. If the label of “marriage” is soley, or at it’s core, a religious thing, it should not be something that anyone can get legally. All US citizens (gay and straight) should either all be allowed to freely marry without religious stipulation or get “civil unions” and leave the officiating of “marriage” to the various religions.

At the core though, it’s really all or nothing for me. Either we all get the same rights or none of us get them at all.

52. Csimmons - June 18th, 2008 at 9:35 pm

CEA: i agree, thank you for pointing that out to me. of course people like the Westboro Baptist church need to realize that.

53. Csimmons - June 18th, 2008 at 9:36 pm

Vera Lynn: I call dibs, I need the money!

54. MaS - June 18th, 2008 at 9:37 pm

It should be legalized already. I think that the government should focus more on things like THE WAR, and the RISING GAS PRICES, THE COST OF LIVING GOING UP, and things of that nature. You know, things that actually DO affect our society!!! How does 2 men, or 2 women marrying eachother affect me? It doesn’t! I know quite a few HETEROSEXUAL couples who shouldn’t be married if ya ask me!!!

55. Rosa - June 18th, 2008 at 9:38 pm

I think that gay peopel should be together by some other type of marriage designed specially for them, because religion reserves the sacrament of marriage for male and female. (Although I honestly don’t really find a good reason for this because gay people were born that way, and it’s not like they’re “rebels” or “sinners” or anything. They fall in love with whom they fall in love and that’s the end of it. Love exists anywhere and everywhere, though it can be quite elusive.) So, yes, I do believe that *everyone* (yes, even gay people)should be with the person they love, whether it is by marriage or some other type of commitment that they believe in.

56. MPW - June 18th, 2008 at 9:40 pm

my dad and mom come to mind

57. Csimmons - June 18th, 2008 at 9:41 pm

or half the grown ups I know

58. ChrisG - June 18th, 2008 at 9:41 pm

Marriage was originally based on religion only in the sense that every facet of human life was focused on religion at one time. It was originally designed to protect property and right of inheritance. Without a legal marriage, gay couples who would have been together for life anyway would have no legal protection. If one partner dies without a will, the other would not be able to inherit their assets or collect life insurance or even participate in the funeral arrangements. For example, a family who has completely shunned their gay son for years would all of a sudden be the benificiaries while his loving partner would have nothing. I believe this is unfair. Gay people can’t help who they love any more than non-gay people can.

59. sdggrant - June 18th, 2008 at 9:46 pm

The thought of gay man-sex (lesbians are a different story…) just makes my skin crawl, but I would never treat a person differently just because they were gay. With that being said, I still think that they should have the right to get married. It is NOT the governments role to decide morality.

60. ChaoticPython - June 18th, 2008 at 9:53 pm

Honestly, why the hell does the gender of two people who love each other matter? Homophobic people are no better than racists or sexists. When it comes down to it, everybody is created equal. And people’s personal lives are just that–they’re personal, and the government should stay the fuck out of it.
And for all the people griping about how it’s just not “natural,” I’ve got a news flash for you: In this day and age, there is no such thing as “natural” or “normal.” We’re all a little weird, and that’s what makes us human.

61. Makani - June 18th, 2008 at 9:55 pm

It doesn’t matter if I support it or not: What another person does in his or her own bedroom is none of my business.

62. Davo - June 18th, 2008 at 9:58 pm

as long as men don’t hold hands or kiss in public

63. SMD - June 18th, 2008 at 9:58 pm

Yes and I won’t explain why, because it’s been said.

As for the folks who think that marriage is a religious institution, you need to really go back and read your history. If that’s the case, then Christians must have a monopoly on marriage and other cultures have made massive copyright infringements for thousands of years. Marriage has existed in some form or another (called by different names, all meaning the same basic thing) long before Christianity came along and in many of those cultures it had nothing to do with God or a higher power at all.
Not to mention, you can get married in the U.S. and most English speaking countries by a judge or public authority that isn’t religious. That’s a marriage. It will be called a marriage, but religious folks won’t throw a fit about it because it doesn’t matter. Religious folks just throw a fit when someone gets married that goes against their narrow-minded, antiquated beliefs. Equality has to go around the board and no, it is not equal if some people get to say “marriage” and others have to say “civil partnership”. That’s exactly the same as saying “real marriage” and “abomination that we made legal because we had to”.

Get over it. If something like this buggers up your day you need to get out more. Life is too short to spend throwing a bloody fit over two men getting hitched or two women doing the same thing. Seriously. Try to enjoy life and realize that not everyone is like you, which is what makes this species great.

64. Vera Lynn - June 18th, 2008 at 9:58 pm

No way, Bro. I declared first. So much so that the entire Listversers hollered foul. Maybe you can have rushfan.

65. MPW - June 18th, 2008 at 10:04 pm

I think Csimmons wants a dude:)

66. TheBigOzbowski - June 18th, 2008 at 10:10 pm

I would have to say no!, Absolutely not! I believe nobody should be married. If two people really love each other, why drag the church into it? Why drag legalities into it? Marriages that don’t last, usually end horribly for everyone involved, including any poor kids involved. If two people love each other, they should just be together and enjoy each other, not worry about who gets what and where the kids are going when it all comes crashing down. And yes, I have been married for almost ten years, why do you ask…?

67. nic - June 18th, 2008 at 10:16 pm

I agree with Rosa.Gays should have their own type of marriage or union in respect for religion. Marriage was created for heterosexual couples. I have nothing against gays who want to share their lives together. Love exists everywhere and their lives are totally none of my business..

68. Weaseltail - June 18th, 2008 at 10:27 pm

ChrisG and terrortwilight’s arguments combined create the greatest defence of gay marriage you could ask for. Enough said.

69. Mara - June 18th, 2008 at 10:30 pm

Marriage wasn’t “created” for heterosexual couples, and if gay couples’ lives are none of your business, why do you care if they get married or not?

Why should we deny gays and lesbians the same rights as everyone else, because of the way they were born? Why should religion enter anywhere into it? Shouldn’t there be a separation of church and state?

Every time people quote the bible to me about how homosexuality is wrong, I die a little inside and have the urge to punch them.

…why, yes. I am gay, why do you ask?

70. Cyn - June 18th, 2008 at 10:34 pm

50. jfrater - June 18th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Kate (#18): I tend to agree with you on the nature versus nurture. I am not convinced that sufficient evidence yet exists to declare it entirely genetic.

there is very little about ‘the human condition’ that is entirely genetic.
and that has absolutely nothing to do w/ love. who. how. or why. love is and i hope will always be…the ultimate mystery. even for a diehard non-romantic pragmatist such as myself.

71. Miss Destiny - June 18th, 2008 at 10:38 pm

I believe it should be legal. As long as the parties are adult and consenting, why should it be anyone else’s business?

Very nice comments everyone!

72. Damien - June 18th, 2008 at 11:02 pm

Of course it should be legal. You can’t help who you fall in love with. It just happens.

73. pankhudi - June 18th, 2008 at 11:15 pm

A straight no to gay marriages. It is not something natural and I think those supporting it will someday also support a man’s intercourse with an animal someday. C’mon You love someone for who they are, not what they are. C’mon, You love someone for who they are, not what they are. Duh…bullshit

74. NO!!! - June 18th, 2008 at 11:29 pm

It’s a sin. God made adam and Eve. Not Adam and Steve. You People are WRONG!!!!!!!

75. littlegraysheep - June 18th, 2008 at 11:45 pm

I think it’s a-ok!

Who cares where u put your di*k as long as u put it in someone u love

76. TheBigOzbowski - June 18th, 2008 at 11:46 pm

God made made Steve too, If you believe in that sort of thing. (Creation)

77. fina - June 18th, 2008 at 11:53 pm

Mr Jfrater, the question u have posted itself is wrong. why do they require to get married first? what they are doing is already against the norms of the society. they any way dont have to produce any childred.. no body will be either biological father or mother. teh love which every body is talking abt will be there even if there is no gay marriage…then y worry of getting married…

78. Radical Solution - June 19th, 2008 at 12:00 am

No, homosexuals should not be allowed secular marriage. Neither should heterosexuals. Marriage should be a religious institution, and that’s it. A good chunk of this debate is religious folks getting antsy because they think gay couples are icky, and don’t want “our word” corrupted by ickyness.

So what’s the solution? Separate Church and State. Religion grants marriage, the USA grants civil union. Yes, it’s pure semantics, but apparently semantics is what it takes to allow some people to sleep at night.

79. nyys - June 19th, 2008 at 12:10 am

Why not? My sister’s friend has two moms… There is nothing wrong with her.

80. TLP - June 19th, 2008 at 12:23 am

The state should be illegal, so that nothing will ever be “illegal” just because other people don’t like it, even though it doesn’t affect them.

81. HaLie - June 19th, 2008 at 12:40 am

I hope it will be legal.. :

82. Reaper - June 19th, 2008 at 12:42 am

#34 - So a gay couple shouldn’t get tax breaks, because two friends could get married and abuse the system, yet I could marry some guy off the street and cash in? By that logic, no one should get tax breaks because someone could abuse it. Let’s get rid of welfare while we’re at it, hmm?

Let’s put this into perspective. In some states you can marry blood relatives, yet gays can’t marry. This whole “it’s not natural” argument was used to stop interracial marriages for so long. “Marriage has a traditional meaning” is also a bullshit argument. Marriage was originally a business transaction, between two families. They were arranged, money way paid/services were aquired, and everyone got something out of it. It wasn’t about love, or raising a Christian family.

The fact that more than half of all marriages fail, should tell you that there is nothing ’sacred’ about marriage. A woman can marry some guy she met in Vegas on a drunken night out, yet a committed homosexual couple can’t get married? There is no logical reason why gay marriage should be illegal. The only marriages we should prevent, and the ones involving children. Leave the gays alone.

83. jasontimmer - June 19th, 2008 at 12:45 am

To all those who say homosexuality “isn’t natural”- are you aware that humans are not the only creatures that exhibit homosexual behavior? What is “natural” anyway? WE are natural, entirely organic, carbon based lifeforms, fueled by the Earth, so doesn’t it naturally follow that everything we do is natural, just like bears or ants or trees?

I can’t believe this debate has gotten as much national attention as it has. We Americans are a sad sort indeed when gay marriage is among the top concerns of so many people. People should get their head out of their ass and find something worthwhile to get pissed off about. Who gives a shit if two guys want to get married.

84. Saffa - June 19th, 2008 at 12:52 am

I think gay marriages should be legal, but gay weddings should be illegal.

I really wouldn’t know what to wear if I was invited to one - I would have to get the Fab 5 in to iron out the creases.

85. angryhobo - June 19th, 2008 at 1:14 am

I dont even get how this is an issue, the main question is hmm… should we deny a minority a right that everyone else gets? and its been established that we shouldnt do that. and maybe got created adam and eve so they could create adam and steve. also, how is it unnatural? it’s been going on since the beginning of time, there were gays in ancient greece for christs sake. and no, im not gay, but i have no problem with them.

86. jasontimmer - June 19th, 2008 at 1:31 am

Wow- when I mentioned that other animals exhibit homosexual behavior, I wasn’t aware how widespread it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.....in_animals

Further, I have no problem with gay men/women except when (and this has happened more than once) they think that because they’re gay, it’s OK to grope my girlfriend, or any woman for that matter, because hey, hes gay, so it doesn’t mean anything, right? Wrong. Gay men like that learn to swallow their teeth.

Sorry. Had to vent.

87. Thatonegeek - June 19th, 2008 at 1:31 am

(regarding comment #12 about no gay marriage) First off you think homosexuals are only male? No need to justify the pure failure in that part. Secondly, You think that half of the average of 2% or so people in the WORLD who cannot give birth (male homosexuals) is really a problem? Yeah… 304,379,000+ people in the US alone is not enough MORE BABIES GO. >_>

88. Diamond_Dragon - June 19th, 2008 at 1:42 am

Homosexuality has been around for probably as long as any kind of life has.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual#History

It’s just as natural as a fish in the ocean.

Discriminating is of course, wrong and Homosexual people should certainly be allowed to get married.
I would suggest all of those who oppose it to look over their mental health if they need to control things that wont even affect them in any way.
They probably will turn into some kind of dictator in their next life.

Are we gonna set the law after what people think are disgusting?
Then from my point of few,
Goodbye;
Fast Food restaurants.(Unhealthy food and advertising is bad, just bad)
Reality Tv-Shows (Big Brother, Next etc Anyone who enjoys these shows are insane and belong in a straitjacket)
Horror movies like The Hills Have Eyes, Chainsaw Massacre, etc.
Japanese extreme porn.
Cigarettes, pipes etc.
Religion.
WWE.
Blablablablabla…
Get my point?
We can’t make things illegal because some people think they are disgusting or bad.

89. TEKNO - June 19th, 2008 at 1:48 am

I say ‘NO’ to gay Marriage!!!

What is the point in Marriage anyway? - Seriously - supposedly to show love, and an eternal commitment to another person in a legal sense.

These days it’s just a farce (in my opinion) - with something like 50% of marriages in the USA ending in divorce. Marriage was ‘invented’ by the religious types (I’m Male, from Ireland btw)

I don’t need to be married to show I’m committed to my Mrs. I show am committed everyday by my actions.

We got engaged - but that’s enough of a symbol for us. If in 10 - 20 yrs we do split - there won’t be half the hassle a married couple will have with all the legal wrangling’s of divorce + we wrote up a contract (of sorts) that if we do split then everything gets split right down the middle - (apart from the 48″ Plasma - THAT’s MINE!!!)

So I say ‘NO’ to gay marriage, and I say ‘NO’ to marriage in general

90. JackOH88 - June 19th, 2008 at 1:52 am

No. Gay marriage should not be legal, for a couple reasons.

1) Look at what straight marriage has done. In the US at least, the divorce rate is higher than the marriage rate. A lot of the flack the gay community gets is that we are “promiscuous.” However, there are a whole hell of a lot of gay couples that have been together longer than, say, a straight man and his (third) wife. Giving gays marriage would also give us divorce. Why give us something when it can be taken right back, when what we have now is forever?

2) Have you SEEN a married couple who have been together for years and have multiple children? They are no where NEAR what they looked like in their twenties. Children and marriage have made them become a shell of their former selves. Many gay men, on the other hand, without marriage, still look as young and fit in their 50’s as they did in their late teens. Without the baggage of a marriage and children, they have time to concentrate on themselves.

3) Speaking of children, they are money-sucking fiends. While we aren’t allowing gays to get married, you should also not allow us to adopt. We like our things and we won’t have money for our nice things if we have to raise a child.

4) I don’t like hospitals, they freak me out. If I’m not allowed in to see my partner, the better.

So, that’s why I think homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. I mean, other than it’s immoral to God. Just like, up until 1960, interracial dating was immoral to Him, too…you know, until He changed his mind…he can do that, you know.

Anyway, if you didn’t get that this was a joke, it was. I am all for gay marriage. I mean, why should someone be refused a human right just because of who they love? And, I mean, even though I myself may never get married (right now I am still working on the whole “finding someone I like enough to spend an hour with, much less my whole life” thing), it should be an option to everyone.

91. kiwiboi - June 19th, 2008 at 1:59 am

I dont even get how this is an issue, the main question is hmm… should we deny a minority a right that everyone else gets?

angryhobo - It is flawed to make the blanket statement that “marriage is a right”. There are always legal and/or religious conditions : age, relationship to partner, bigamy etc.

and its been established that we shouldnt do that.

Again, a blanket statement that is not correct. Why then, are there only 2 states in the USA within which same-sex marriage is legal? Why does US law stipulate that marriage must involve a “man and a woman”? Why have a significant number of US states specifically legislated against same-sex marriages? Even a “civil union” between same-sex couples is only legalised in a small number of US states.

There are numerous similar examples in other nations also.

As for “how is this an issue”? Firstly, if it wasn’t an issue, then why are we even discussing it? More to the point, there are significant numbers of people - for religious or other reasons - who do not agree with same-sex marriages. Notwithstanding the “rights” and the “wrongs”, the “pros” and the “cons” of same-sex marriage, you cannot ignore widely-held public opinion.

92. Dutchman - June 19th, 2008 at 2:04 am

Huh?
This is still a case there over the ocean?
Come on, get out of the 17th century, liberty for all!

93. Jo - June 19th, 2008 at 2:14 am

Well I am split with that. There should be some option for gay people to live together and be able to make decisions for each other, like in a hospital etc. But in Germany, for example, marriage is also a mean to support couples in raising a child. And there should be a difference to the gay marriage. But that inicates another problem. Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children. Well to be honest: I don’t know.

94. carpe_noctem - June 19th, 2008 at 2:23 am

Everyone has different views on what marriage really is. I know gay couples who function as a partnership better than heterosexual couples that have been married for years, and the fact of them being unmarried is completely irrelevant to the whole issue of whether their bond or union or whatever you want to call it works. Considering the old view of marriage was a man and a woman united in the eyes of God and all the business, you could argue that, far from being legal, gay marriage is actually impossible. I’m 100% up for equal rights for everyone on the planet (if only that were ever possible) but is getting a little piece of paper really going to make your love stronger?

I have an aunt who’s gay, and she and her partner had a commitment ceremony (which, with my alcoholic family, was much more fun than a lot of actual weddings I’ve been to) because gay marriage isn’t legal in Australia. I have to ask, would it be any different whatsoever if they had had an actual wedding?

Frankly, I don’t know why the government is debating this at all, the only thing legalising gay marriage would do is to make being gay more socially acceptable, and I don’t think they could do anything better. Someone said this earlier, but to think that just a few years ago mixed-race couples were deeply frowned upon, 50 years from now it might be legal to just marry yourself and save yourself the hassle.

95. carpe_noctem - June 19th, 2008 at 2:28 am

Sorry for the double post, but as for should gay people be allowed to adopt children?

Why the hell not? Is there really anything inherently different to having your child raised by two gay men or women, than one of each? You could argue that the child isn’t going to get the balance of a working dad and housey mother, but one of my best friends’ mums is the CEO of Westpac, one of the biggets banks in Australia. Do you think that his dad goes out working a second job on the side to make ends meet? The ends are meeting like fuck, he isn’t going to come home and put his $200 with the rest of the $200 million. Standard familial roles are very much so non-standard these days, so why does it matter if two gay people decide to raise a child, is it going to be somehow mind-warped from all the evil gay-rays that are emanating from its parents? It’ll still be loved, and it’ll still grow up as a healthy, functioning member of society.

96. kiwiboi - June 19th, 2008 at 2:29 am

I would suggest all of those who oppose it to look over their mental health if they need to control things that wont even affect them in any way.

Diamond_Dragon - I am against it. And it is nothing to do with control, and nor is there anything wrong with my mental health. And, if it happens in my society/community, then it does affect me.

Using your logic, you would not be in favour of sanctions against child-labour in third-world nations…because it does not affect you; you would not be in favour of international laws against the clubbing of baby seals in Norway…because it does not affect you; and so on.

As I said, it is absolutely nothing about control. It is about people’s values - all of which are worthy of consideration, even yours.

They probably will turn into some kind of dictator in their next life.

Puhleeze. I’ve said I am against same-sex “marriage”. For the politically-correct out there, that most certainly does not mean I am anti-gay or homophobic. I’m not, I promise you.

What I do believe, from my small corner of the world, is that the traditional community and family values that I hold as being of importance, have persistently eroded (notably) over recent decades to the extent that, in my opinion, this has been a contributor to much of the violence and crime and poverty and intolerance that we see today. I’m not saying that same-sex marriages would necessarily exacerbate this situation (it would likely not even figure in the equation) but, to me, it is another brick in the wall. I also recognise, for those who might point it out, that even a traditional marriage (man/woman) can be dysfunctional or tansient.

Again, there is very little - in many jurisdictions - that prevents same-sex couples from living together. There are other jurisdictions that recognise same-sex couples for the purposes of the securing of pension rights etc. Aside from the status of “married”, a lot of what marriage is supposed to represent is already available to same-sex couples.

Marriage should not be, and need not be, merely a “lifestyle choice”; in my opinion it is more important than that.

97. B8ovin - June 19th, 2008 at 2:33 am

“Marriage” is not a religious institution. The Egyptians married not for religious reasons but for social stability, which was probably the driving force for monogamous familial units. Indeed, some animals subscribe to monogamous breeding pairs.

And every type of mammal has been found to have homosexuals, so it is, in all probability a natural state for some members of all species (even some fish have been found to be “gay”).

What isn’t natural is the whole-sale adoption of traditional social rites by religious sects. That is purely man made. Marriage is not the province of the church, it is a private contract between two people that allows certain benefits in society. You can not simply tell someone that these benefits are for one group only, and you most certainly can’t tell them they are denied the benefits because they are counter to your religion- that’s establishment and is against the law.

Nor can you say that marriage is for procreation alone. That would imply that all couples are REQUIRED to sign pledges that they will have children, and that any persons known to be infertile can’t get married or must have their marriages revoked.

There is no good argument against gay and lesbian marriage. My standard response is, if you don’t like same-sex marriages, don’t have one.

98. kiwiboi - June 19th, 2008 at 2:49 am

Nor can you say that marriage is for procreation alone. That would imply that all couples are REQUIRED to sign pledges that they will have children, and that any persons known to be infertile can’t get married or must have their marriages revoked.

B8ovin - funny you should bring that up; on a somewhat related topic :

“An Italian bishop has refused to allow a church wedding for a paraplegic man who was rendered impotent by a crippling automobile accident.”

http://www.cwnews.com/news/vie.....cnum=58967

99. Patrona - June 19th, 2008 at 2:49 am

I don’t think gay marriages or homosexuality should be illegal.
But I am totally against gay couples adopting children.

100. fishing4monkeys - June 19th, 2008 at 2:51 am

I say no for religious reasons. I’d explain why but there really isn’t a point in doing so seeing as most people on the internet (yes even here) are either athiests, agnostic, or have formed their own “exceptions” to the Bible for convenience.

101. James - June 19th, 2008 at 3:01 am

Marriage I’m not bothered about, it’s when you get kids involved. I’ve not yet seen a gay marriage that has stayed together - just today, the headlines are saying that David Lucas and his husband are splitting up, they were one of the first gay couples in the UK to get married. So as far as I’m concerned, marriage yes, adoption no.

Personally I feel it’s more of a statement than anything serious, two fingers up to the religious establishment etc, but I’m more than willing to be proven wrong.

102. WarningDontReadThis - June 19th, 2008 at 3:11 am

YES! I can’t see any reason why not. I’d fully support it.

103. WarningDontReadThis - June 19th, 2008 at 3:12 am

James I heard that too but surely you don’t know all the gay married couples in the world?

104. crimson - June 19th, 2008 at 3:37 am

I respectfully say no

Marriage is a union between a man and woman that has endured throughout history across all races and religions, yet within a few decades of change in society we are willing to throw it all away to appease a minority. And the world is now too afraid to speak out against it for fear of being called ‘intolerant’ or ‘homophobic’, so we go along with it to be politically correct.

105. Mona - June 19th, 2008 at 3:38 am

I’m not even going to read all of the above and pop my comment “cherry” right here right now on this very topic: My best male friend ever is gay. I have known him since kindergarden (meaning that we have been friends for about 30 years, yes, I’m 34 and proud of it!). He was gay then, he’s gay now. He met the love of his life about 15 years ago and they make the most handsome couple ever. They are happy, healthy, wealthy and I wish them the best! I’m absolutely FOR gay marriage. Only a few lucky people get to meet the person they are meant to be with (I’m one of them —> I’m SMITTEN! I’m full of smit!) but most hetero marriages are a sham and end up in divorce. So yes, yes and yes on gay marriage, you have my full support!

106. Amanda - June 19th, 2008 at 3:50 am

Vera Lynn… Feel free to use my post! I wish I could give credit to the original writer of the list, but I have no clue who it was! Glad you liked it.

I’m also glad to see so many supporters of gay marriage.. it surprises me that since there are so many people here that support it… who on earth is out there keeping this from happening?

107. littlegaygirl - June 19th, 2008 at 3:56 am

Definitely.

Homophobia= the insecurity about being heterosexual

108. Jason - June 19th, 2008 at 4:00 am

ALL gays, male and female, should be deported to an island somewhere far, far, far away from the rest of the world and let them enjoy each other [it’s gross!]

109. Drogo - June 19th, 2008 at 4:01 am

It’s not my place to tell people who they marry, or if they can get married. I know a lesbian couple, and it would be cool to be invited to their wedding. I don’t know what gift to bring though (haha). I met two guys who, as far as I’m concerned, is/are a married couple.

110. Suredeath - June 19th, 2008 at 4:04 am

@99. fishing4monkeys

Gasp! You mean… Christianity is the only religion in the world? By Golly, how dare those Buddhist and Taoist married without approval from your God!

111. rubysp - June 19th, 2008 at 4:08 am

I totally agree with Gay marriages. In fact, my teacher is in a lesbian relationship for many years and they’re happy together, on the other hand, my parents are devorced so who can say that Hetrosexual marriages are ‘natural’ are full of crap in their self-centered world.

My initial thought is that if they’re happy together then they shouldn’t confine themselves to some selfish prick’s perspective. But in terms of legal recognition I totally agree with ChrisG.

Sorry to bombard this site but I think people should look at this:
I am the girl kicked out of her home because I confided in my mother that I am a lesbian.

I am the prostitute working the streets because nobody will hire a transexual woman.

I am the sister who holds her gay brother tight through the painful, tear-filled nights.

We are the parents who buried our daughter long before her time.

I am the man who died alone in the hospital because they would not let my partner of twenty-seven years into the room.

I am the foster child who wakes up with nightmares of being taken away from the two fathers who are the only loving family I have ever had. I wish they could adopt me.

I am one of the lucky ones, I guess. I survived the attack that left me in a coma for three weeks, and in another year I will probably be able to walk again.

I am not of the lucky ones. I killed myself just weeks before graduating high school. It was simply too much to bear.

We are the couple who had the realtor hang up on us when she found out we wanted to rent a one-bedroom for two men.

I am the person who never knows which bathroom I should use if I wanted to avoid getting the management called on me.

I am the mother who is not allowed to even visit the child I bore, nursed, and raised. The court said I am an unfit mother because I now live with another woman.

I am the domestic-violence survivor who found the support system grow suddenly cold and distant when they found out my abusive partner is also a woman.

I am the domestic-violence survivor who has no support system to turn to because I am male.

I am the father who has never hugged his son because I grew up afraid to show affection to other men.

I and the home-economics teacher who always wanted to teach gym until someone told me that only lesbians do that.

I am the man who died when the paramedics stopped treated me as soon as they realized I was transsexual.

I am the person who feels guilty because I think I could be a much better person if I did not have to always deal with society hating me.

I am the man who stopped attending church, not because I don’t believe, but because they closed their doors to my kind.

I am the person who has to hide what this world needs most, love.

I am the person who is afraid of telling his loving Christian parents he loves another male.

I am the girl who is always crying herself to sleep at night because I am afraid of my mother finding out just exactly who I love with all my heart.

112. carpe_noctem - June 19th, 2008 at 4:24 am

I think a lot of that ^^ is overly emotional… Maybe it’s different in America, but in Australia, while not openly embraced, being gay is accepted. My brother is openly gay, and he has a very tight-knit group of friends both gay and straight, and no one looks down on him because of his choices.

There is only one group of people in the world I dislike, and that’s those who discriminate against others, just because it disagrees with their own personal preference.

At Jason (107) I really really hope that was a joke, and even so, it was in horribly poor taste. If that truly is your opinion, I find it repulsive.

113. Mom424 - June 19th, 2008 at 4:26 am

I have no problem with gay marriage. (It is already legal here). Love and commitment are what is important (heavy on the commitment part) not the sex of either party.

Jamie: My aunt had a tres-gay bull. Like flaming. Totally useless as a breeder(what he was purchased for). What sort of nurture made the bull gay? Did you read the study of children in utero during the blitz of the second world war? I can’t remember exactly which trimester was affected, but stress in the mother ended up with a much higher proportion of children who grew up homosexual. It could be just a coincidence, but stress is known to cause testosterone fluctuations in females. (By depressing estrogen production I think)

Kiwiboi; The erosion of the traditional family unit has nothing to do with allowing gay marriage, nor will it have any further effect. The erosion is caused by the me, me, me, affliction of our society. We expect marriage to be all happy, happy, joy, joy. And when it is not, we bail rather than work at it. We don’t put up with anything for the sake of the children or the sake the family unit. We just give up and try again. Guess what folks? The other guy isn’t responsible for your happiness. (I’m not talking about abusive relationships). And a long-lasting relationship requires work and regular maintenance.

Siderus: Just curious, do you believe in blue eyes? Blond hair? Makes just about as much sense as saying you don’t believe in homosexuality.

114. kiwiboi - June 19th, 2008 at 4:42 am

The erosion of the traditional family unit has nothing to do with allowing gay marriage, nor will it have any further effect.

Mom - you didn’t read/understand what I wrote. I said that, to me, gay marriages are another erosion of the traditional community and family values that I hold as being of importance. By no stretch of the imagination is gay marriage a part of the fabric of “traditional” values - else we wouldn’t be having this debate.

115. boomshine87 - June 19th, 2008 at 4:45 am

Yes.

Is my very simple answer.

116. pasnitro - June 19th, 2008 at 4:56 am

Same-sex marriage should not be legal because it is not a real marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. We cannot afford to redefine marriage as a society because the traditional family is the only thing that holds a society together. What’s next? Marrying your dog?

117. Mona - June 19th, 2008 at 4:59 am

Jason, I hope you were joking. You know who is gross and should be deported to an island somewhere far, far, far away from the rest of the world and let them enjoy each other???
Intolerant, ignorant and socially retard peeps like you Jason.

Please, Jason, for your sake, live a little.

XOXO
Mona

118. Reyairia - June 19th, 2008 at 5:03 am

Yes!!
I have yet to find an anti-homosexual rights argument that
a) hasn’t been completely proven wrong by science.
b) completely depends on a religious viewpoint and therefore has no standing on secularism.
c) can’t be applied to interracial or international marriages.

119. longball - June 19th, 2008 at 5:08 am

OMG EFF NO!!!! It isn’t about love and shit. Gay isn’t two dudes loving each other. Its about same gender sexual relationships and that effing nasty i dont care what anyone says about me but screw that. As soon as its geneticly possible for two men or two women to make a baby, then have at er’, until then let it work out as design intended.

There is nothing right about it at all. Love my ass. Love is an emotion, a feeling that can be changed and influenced by the things we choose to do and the things we choose to be around. Its a decision. Its bullshit to say that nobody means to be gay. All this crap about it being genetic and stuff. LIES!!!! Its all an excuse for “homosexuals” to be recognized and to push the guilt and blame off on something they had no control over. If I hear it wasn’t my choice, I was born this way” ever again (I punched the last guy who said that, as he was hitting on me), I’m going to lose it. If you like it, if you enjoy the gay life, which is exactly the same as a hetero lifestyle except the sexual aspect, then thats fine, but quit flaunting it and being all gay in front of me. I dont want to know and i reserve the right to bear arms and freedom of speech. And before anyone gets all crazy on me, I say the same thing to all the hetero jerks who like to be all nasty in public. I dont want to see it either. Your just as bad.

AND if its a “nonsexual gay” relationship, i dont consider it gay, wierd, but not gay.

I dont even blink reading rubysp’s post. Screw them, I had half those problems, with women, and I know straight people in much worse lives. Dont play some guilt trip bull shit with me. I could care less how someone elses life is. Boo hoo nobody oves me. Suck it up and move on. Dont expect special treatment because you like it in the butt.

AND from a religios perspective, name one religion where it is ok for gay relationships. please. I bet there is one. And i mean a major religion, not some fag town 100 member gay mens choir bull shit. NONE! not one condones man and man or woman and woman.

And just to throw a spark on this gasoline infused debate………..lesbians are only ok if they are drunk or i can watch. HA!!

McCane 08 - because black people and white women only belong in porno’s.

120. kiwiboi - June 19th, 2008 at 5:12 am

I am not convinced that sufficient evidence yet exists to declare it entirely genetic.

jfrater - there is an interesting (and wholly unscientific) paradox here perhaps. In times past (especially during and post the Victorian era), I would guess that gays would enter into a traditional marriage - for various reasons, not least compliance with the convention of the times. If homosexuality is genetic then the trait would be perpetuated directly or via their children.

If, however, the conventional trend for gays to marry is no longer there (per the subject of this list), then the number of children carrying the “gay” gene would diminish, leading to a severe reduction in the gay population over a period of time…maybe to the point of immateriality.

Still, having made this (probably foolish) conjecture, LOL, I am not sure what “makes” a person gay or heterosexual.

121. the dread pirate bob - June 19th, 2008 at 5:17 am

Personally I’m opposed to marriage in all forms, for my part I see it as an outdated ideal that in industrialized nations is a financial decision more than a romantic or moral one and with the ease of divorce it is no more permanant or meaningful than “going steady.”
That said I agree completely this is not a situation that the state should have any say in to begin with. If an elected official or priest or pastor is asked to perform a gay marriage and it offends their moral sense they should be allowed to refuse to perform the service but the government should not be allowed to say who can and cannot marry based on sex, sexual preference or any other designation protect by law under descrimination acts.

As for those who scream “its in the Bible that man not lay down with man as he does with woman” true, but the Bible also tells you to stone your children to death if they disobey you, do you do that? Jesus saw nothing wrong with slavery “Slaves obey your masters” do you keep slaves? Do you eat shellfish or pork? I could go on but why bother Christians who use this line of thinking only pick out the parts that suit their own moral code, or lack thereof.

122. Randall - June 19th, 2008 at 5:21 am

The answer is… Yes.

And why? Because what does it hurt? A good friend of mine has a philosophy for life which I think applies here: *I don’t want any trouble.* Just leave me alone, I’ll leave you alone.

As long as you’re causing no one harm, then go ahead and do as you please. This is a basic American philosophy, I think, which goes back to our beginnings. We’ve moved away from it a bit, but it’s really what we’re about.

I don’t buy the argument that gay marriage threatens hetero marriage, or our way of life, or the fabric of society. It messes with things a bit, to be sure… but I see no inherent harm in this. Economically it could be an issue–because one of the reasons that gays want the right to marry is so that they can have the same insurance benefits, etc., that heteros have. But we’ve begun to face the fact anyway that our health insurance system needs revamping, so again–where’s the harm?

It’s none of my business, it’s none of your business, let people do what they want so long as it doesn’t infringe upon us. There it is.

123. LaCroix - June 19th, 2008 at 5:22 am

It shold not be legal. In fact Iran and Saudi Arabia has quite a good set of laws about homosexuality. It should be implented in America and in Europe too.

124. Daniel - June 19th, 2008 at 5:23 am

Re: Djb522
Nothing can be “scientifically proved” and I would even counter that science has no idea whether homosexuals are born that way or not. Science aside, marriage is just a contract between two individuals. Some view it as a contract taken out with a higher power, others like myself view it as a legal contract. In my opinion two people ought to be allowed to enter into any contract they want.

And re: the blog poster, if you want the government to enforce legislation that says spouses have to be eligible for medical coverage under employer benefits packages than yes, the state can and should have a say in who gets married. Then again, I’m a libertarian so I don’t think the government ought to have much of a say in much of anything.

125. Mona - June 19th, 2008 at 5:31 am

Kiwiboi: “Still, having made this (probably foolish) conjecture, LOL, I am not sure what “makes” a person gay or heterosexual.”
Here’s my 2 cents: Gays, as in males attracted to other males or females attracted to other females have existed since the beginning of the world. There will always be “gay” people. It’s just the way nature works. There are lots of homosexual behaviors in the animal kingdom (list suggestion here, gayest animal ever, but I degress here!)Anywho, you can’t fight it. It is a natural thing, it’s organic, you are born gay, you can’t explain it, you can’t get out of it, you can’t get “healed” from it. You have to live with it and who the hell are you to tell other people how to live their life?
Seriously?

XOXO
Mona

126. everlast - June 19th, 2008 at 5:31 am

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law,
Until you violate the rights of another,
Respect the space of your sister and your brother.

127. carpe_noctem - June 19th, 2008 at 5:34 am

Actually, there’s not particular evidence of whether it’s genetic or not, but what is interesting is that there’s an extremely high percentage of twins in which both are either gay or straight, and a very very small percentage of twins with one of each orientation.

Also, there’s a slightly higher chance of being gay with each older sibling, e.g. if there are 5 boys in a family, chances are higher for the youngest being gay than of the eldest.

I’m not saying it’s entirely genetic, but I certainly don’t think being gay is a choice. Whether you accept it or not, is.

128. stevenh - June 19th, 2008 at 5:40 am

If it is ok for gays to marry, is it also ok for siblings to marry? After all, “it’s love that counts”, not the sex, the ability to have children, etc. - Just a thought…

Also, in the USA there is (supposed to be) a distinction of governement and religion. Let the government regulate civil unions and let the Covens (churches) regulate marrage.

m2c

129. titansfan - June 19th, 2008 at 5:41 am

Why do people constantly make references to the animal kingdom? Are we not supposed to be superior and more intelligent than the animal kingdom? My dog cleans her butt with her tongue, but I don’t see many humans doing it because it is “natural.” She also likes to hump a stuffed animal, so I guess that means you can marry your blow-up doll because it happens in the animal kingdom. This is not a blast against gays, just the people defending it with the line,”Its natural because other animals do it.”

130. Mom424 - June 19th, 2008 at 5:44 am

Kiwiboi; I did understand, I just don’t agree. You see it as a further erosion. I see it as an addition or broadening of scope. The failure of family and the lack of commitment I too find troubling. I just don’t agree that gay marriage contributes to it. Selfishness and ridiculous expectations do.

All these multiple divorcees seem to forget that they made a promise. To love blah blah blah, in good times and bad. Stress on the bad.

131. romerozombie - June 19th, 2008 at 5:50 am

Yes. Although if a gay couple were to marry in a religious circumstance, that would be quite provocative. Besides, I’m against marriage, and you don’t need to marry someone to let them know you love them and vice versa.

132. bucslim - June 19th, 2008 at 5:51 am

I tend to agree with what kiwiboi is saying. I understand that some folks will see that as some sort of discrimination, and more and more people view those values as hostile to gay people. I think it is some form of erosion of those traditional values.

There is a part of me that really doesn’t care, as long as they don’t do it right in front of me. The only time I really have a problem with it is when someone gets all up in my face about it. This kind of thing wasn’t even whispered when I was a kid, and I understand we’ve come a long way since then. It just goes against the way I was raised, yeah church enters into the discussion here. I guess my approach is more to the point of saying what’s so grossly wrong with having those traditional values? Ok, so some people take that too far and want to force you to do the same thing. I’m not that way, I’m a little more giving than that.

Civil unions - ok I guess. Marriage? Uh, I think that’s a man and a woman.

133. kiwiboi - June 19th, 2008 at 5:51 am

You have to live with it and who the hell are you to tell other people how to live their life? Seriously?

Mona - was that part directed at me? Or was it merely a part of the general view you were offering?

134. Mom424 - June 19th, 2008 at 5:52 am

Carpe; You are mistaken. You see a pretty girl you get a boner. A gay guy sees a pretty girl, he doesn’t get the boner. He gets the boner from the pretty girl’s boyfriend.

We had a friend when we were growing up. We knew he was gay, he didn’t believe it. He had sex with any female who would have him. After a couple of suicide attempts he finally figured it out. He is now a semi-famous jewelry designer with a very nice boyfriend. Attitudes like “he has a choice” and “it is unnatural” and the like contributed greatly to his pain.

Hedonism is another thing entirely, you just don’t care who or what gets you off. That is a life-style choice. Being homosexual is not.

135. WhoME - June 19th, 2008 at 5:54 am

Wow, mus tbe mostly immoral people who look at this thread. No, I don’t think homosexual marriage should be legal. I always hear people say “Don’t shove your religous beliefes down our throats!”, well I hate it when homosexual shove their immoral lifestyle down mine. Turn about is fair play.

136. astraya - June 19th, 2008 at 5:57 am

Sorry, I’m not going to answer the question. Most of what I was going to say has already been said.
In Australia, the constitution gives parliament the authority to make laws regarding marriage. For many years there was no definition of marriage. The courts worked on a common-law definition of marriage derived from English law. In 2004 an amendment was made to the Marriage Act incorporating that common law precedent, that marriage is “the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life” (emphasis added). Those who argue that homosexual marriage devalues heterosexual marriage must also argue against adultery and divorce.

I’ve got a lot of gay friends. Once I was having dinner with some of them. One made a comment that could have been interpreted that he was assuming I was gay. I made a reply that made it gently clear that I wasn’t. He said “Oh, you’re straight? But you’re far too nice to be straight!”. I think that was a compliment. (Another gay friend, when I told him the story, said “He’s obviously never met the same bitter old queens that I know”.)

BTW does anyone know which society first held wedding rites, when? Two of the reasons that weddings and marriages happened were to legitimise the transfer of property (which often included the woman herself), and to ensure (as far as possible) the identity of the father of children.

137. Mom424 - June 19th, 2008 at 5:58 am

Carpe; I apologize, I mis-read your comment. We are on the same page.

138. kiwiboi - June 19th, 2008 at 5:59 am

On this genetics vs environmental factors thing…I kinda think that there’s a lot to be said for the environmental factors.

…would certainly explain why my son looks like my next-door neighbour

139. carpe_noctem - June 19th, 2008 at 5:59 am

Mom424, I think you might have misunderstood me, I was saying being gay is not a choice at all. You don’t wake up and say, hey look, I like men today. It can certainly be something that dawns upon you gradually, but it’s not something you can decide to do. Much like a gay man can’t suddenly decide he likes women now, although he can attempt to convince himself of that.

I was saying the fact of whether you accept your gayness or not , that is a choice. My brother refused to admit he was gay until a few years ago, and now that he looks back, he admits that he has always known, just not been willing to face up to it.

140. carpe_noctem - June 19th, 2008 at 6:00 am

Double post again, meh.

Mom, well… I just clarified myself anyway

141. dj - June 19th, 2008 at 6:02 am

who gives a damn its their business

142. APinTN - June 19th, 2008 at 6:02 am

I just came out of the closet in the last month and I can garauntee you that I would not have done so unless I was born this way. I can remember knowing that I was different since I was very little, but I just recently admitted to myself that I was actually gay. The reason it took me so long to come to this conclusion is that society tells us that its only natural for boys to like girls and girls to like boys, so I just thought that one day I would wake up and suddenly like girls (needless to say, this still hasnt happened).

Also, I am not into interior design, fashion, or musical theater. I dont do rainbows, the colors pink or purple, or apple-tinis. I have two older brothers who are very much straight, but thankfully I have a really accepting family and some really good friends who see that my being gay is only part of who i am instead of my defining characteristic.

Basically what Im saying is that you can think what you want, but telling my family and friends that im gay has been one of the hardest things I have ever done in my life (harder than my parents divorce and the fallout from it) and I would never just choose to put this on myself.

143. longball - June 19th, 2008 at 6:04 am

you are not born gay. its a choice. and they dont deserve to be allowed the right to have marriage. read my prior post.

144. Mona - June 19th, 2008 at 6:07 am

Stevenh: Here are some subtle nuances:

There is a big difference between two healthy conscenting adults whom are attracted to each other and sick sexual perverts whom are attracted to ANYTHING that moves. The latter are utterly sick and should be punished for their actions, that includes sick sexual relations between blood relatives or unmatched age groups and/or unmatched attraction, even between the right group according to you: male/female(as in RAPE!)

Most gays are healthy people just like anyone else. Don’t put them all in the same bag. That comment really speaks to your character. That shows that you are a truly narrow minded ignorant.

XOXO
Mona

145. Arabella - June 19th, 2008 at 6:08 am

In the words of wanda Sykes… if marriage is sacred and you wanna protect it… ban divorce! If your marriage is fucked up it’s not because Ted and Steve got married, it’s because you fucked it up. You can’t help who you fall in love with.

146. stevenh - June 19th, 2008 at 6:08 am

One of the best comments on this topic was made by Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts.

On July 18, 2006, during a debate over a “marriage protection” amendment he said “same-sex marriage is the V8 juice of America.”

Rep. Frank said he did not understand Republican arguments that gay marriages would undermine traditional marriages, as if happily married men in Indiana, Nebraska, Kansas and Mississippi, learning that same-sex marriage was legal in Massachusetts, would smack themselves in the head and declare, “Wow, I could have married a guy.”

147. Mom424 - June 19th, 2008 at 6:10 am

WhoMe; You calling me immoral. Well isn’t that a joke. I will agree that the gay pride parades and such are in poor taste, (if hetero couples ever decided to flop their penises about like that they would be arrested), but it is only once a year. And of course it hi-lights the minority, the militant in-your-face type of person. Same as any protest related event.

That is not the majority. Most of the gay folk I know are no different than you or I. (Well that’s not true, they aren’t like you, they are tolerant of others). Regular folks just trying to get by as best they can. There is no throwing it in your face.

Immoral? Bigotry and Intolerance are truly immoral. Take a look a little closer to home.

148. Miriah - June 19th, 2008 at 6:15 am

For whoever said:
Marriage as an institution is inherently religious in nature is right. That is what marriage is…it is the union of a man and woman under the eye of whatever god you worship.
I think that gay people should be able to have a ‘union’ so that they have the same tax rights and other rights as married couples..but it should not be called marriage and it should not be done in a church. Yes, gay people believe in god..but..per the bible they are sinners. (im athiest if anyone cares.)

NUMBER 18!
“HOWEVER, I don’t like how the nature vs. nuture argument gets brought into it. Personally, I think sexual preferences is developed in early childhood.”

You need to read honey..here is a recent study that shows that the brains of homosexual and hetrosexual people are different. http://www.time.com/time/healt.....38,00.html
Also, I have been around boys at the age of 5 that I knew would be gay when they grew up..and now they are.

149. Pirate12 - June 19th, 2008 at 6:15 am

Yes, gay marriage should be legal. What does it matter who you love and want to spend the rest of your life with? States should not have the right to tell me who I can be married to. In Oklahoma, they actually make you swear that you are not marrying your 1st cousin. People think that if they legalize gay marriage the next thing you know they will want to marry a goat. All I know is, I am I am gay and I sure don’t want to marry a goat. I just want to have the same rights as everybody else, and be allowed to actually say this is my wife instead of my roommate (the Air Force) wouldn’t like me posting this!

150. TheBoonDockSaint - June 19th, 2008 at 6:17 am

Yes and NO! It should not be called a marriage. A marraiage is a religious ceremony and should be left up to the church to decide what they will recognize and what they won’t. Any “marriage” performed in a secular manor should be considered a civil union. This should apply to any type of marriage, heterosexual or homosexual.Gays should be allowed a civil union with all rights, privileges and responsiblities that come with such a union. The government has no place in such matters. But they don’t have a place in most matters they are involved in now but who are we to stand in the way of complete government control. We are only the lowly citizens of this contry we don’t know any better.

151. astraya - June 19th, 2008 at 6:17 am

miriah: Someone who might have been Groucho Marx was asked what he thought of marriage as an institution. He said “It’s fine, if you like living in an institution”.

152. jasontimmer - June 19th, 2008 at 6:18 am

Does nobody find it interesting that homosexuality is so widespread among other animals? Really, this should completely destroy any argument that it’s “not natural” or “against the will of god”.

And Kiwiboi, get off your holier-than-thou horse.

153. Mona - June 19th, 2008 at 6:19 am

Big fan of Mom424 here, hear that? WhoMe? I’m so glad I was brought up with morale sans religion. My parents thought me to be a decent person, tolerant and understanding of all point of views, but it is so hard for me sometimes. You can say that the only intolerance I indulge is against intolerant people. IRONY!!!

154. stevenh - June 19th, 2008 at 6:20 am

Mona:

Perhaps i should have noted that i am also the (very supportive) parent of a gay child.

My point is that the gay community will only achieve full rights when the straight community is willing to see that it is in their interest as well. This is very similar to what Rev. King spoke about in the 1960’s.

If our arguments are based simply on ‘love’ and the inclusion of all beliefs, then we will not be successful. In the USA, I think we need to open the discussion as a violation of the Establishment Clause of the first amendment.

I hope this clarifies.

155. Mona - June 19th, 2008 at 6:23 am

And yes Jasontimmer, I suggested a list about gay behavior amongst the animals earlier. I have a 14 years old yorky/jack russel mix dog, she only humps females O.o

156. kiwiboi - June 19th, 2008 at 6:23 am

And Kiwiboi, get off your holier-than-thou horse.

jasontimmer :

1. Fuck you.
2. Care to explain what you are referring to?

157. jasontimmer - June 19th, 2008 at 6:24 am

Also interesting- there’s a species of swan that exhibits homosexuality quite frequently, and it actually gives them a survival advantage- two males will steal a female’s eggs, and the chick will have a better chance of making it to adulthood because the parents, being both male, are more capable of fending off predators and finding food.

A different species of swan, also showing widespread homosexuality, will substitute a stone for an egg. I find that fascinating.

158. longball - June 19th, 2008 at 6:25 am

Pirate12 - Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Airman, or did you forget…

159. mooples - June 19th, 2008 at 6:26 am

YES. If you find love you have the right legally, spiritually, and literally to scream it out loud in front of god and everybody. I don’t care what two people it’s between, love is a gift and god damn you if you condemn it!

160. jasontimmer - June 19th, 2008 at 6:26 am

Kiwibi- very mature. Gave me a laugh. I’m just wondering what your main argument against gay marriage is. (Also I may be harboring some old resentment over an old post we differed on. I love you anyway.

161. longball - June 19th, 2008 at 6:27 am

jasontimer - homosexuality isn’t facinating. Its wrong.

8==) (==8 doesnt work. (lol) if we were meant to be gay, we would all be albe to procreate, regardless of gender. But guess what? WE AREN’T!!!

162. bucslim - June 19th, 2008 at 6:28 am

Funny to me how Kiwi can explain himself rationally with a calm demeanor and someone calls him ‘holier than thou.’

Also funny how the supposed ‘enlightened’ amongst us are intolerant of religious people.

163. Miriah - June 19th, 2008 at 6:28 am

Wow..some of you all are crazy
98. Patrona - June 19th, 2008 at 2:49 am
I don’t think gay marriages or homosexuality should be illegal.
But I am totally against gay couples adopting children

What the hell kind of statement is that? Do you have any idea how many kids out there need a loving home? I lived in the most horrid household with a “mother” and “father” until my brother, sister and I were put into foster care. (no it was not a gay home) Just because you have a mother and father does not make the home better. I know gay people who treat thier children better than a straight couple. Anyone..single, gay, straight who wants to adopt a child should not only be allowed to do so, they should be given a fucking medal.

89. JackOH88
Love the kids are money fiends! One of the reasons why im not having them

164. longball - June 19th, 2008 at 6:29 am

It’s why we as man have evolved to the top of the food chain and intelligence chain and not swans or dogs or bulls or any other dumb animal that likes to get its jollies off with another same sex animal of its species. Nasty!

165. longball - June 19th, 2008 at 6:31 am

i dont think gay people should be allowed to raise children unless they give birth to them themselves, which isn’t possible, so i guess not at all. Tainting the ideals and morals of family values and traditions.

166. bucslim - June 19th, 2008 at 6:31 am

jasontimmer, how dare you have a sexist attitude towards female swans. Like a female swan couldn’t fend off predators or find food. What a bigot. A female swan doesn’t need a male to live her life.

167. jasontimmer - June 19th, 2008 at 6:33 am

bucslim- I can’t tell if you’re slamming me or Kiwiboi wth that post. It seems that the arrogant seems to be quite calm in their deluded assertions, maybe it’s just me. I didn’t think I was being irrational.

Kiwiboi comes off to me as one who likes to churn the waters for shits and giggles, using suave rhetoric to convince the rest of his views.

168. jasontimmer - June 19th, 2008 at 6:35 am

bucslim- haha, somehow I just had a flsh of Ellen Degeneres in my head. Like I said before, I have no problem with homosexuals exept for those who grab my girlfriend’s tits. Peace, man.

169. bucslim - June 19th, 2008 at 6:36 am

jasontimmer - really? I didn’t know we were trying to convince anyone here, as if that could be done on this issue. Is anyone out there truly on the fence about this that they need Kiwi to convince them?

And I personally know Kiwi to be one suave mofo. I’d marry him if I wasn’t already attracted to his mom.

170. kiwiboi - June 19th, 2008 at 6:39 am

Kiwibi- very mature. Gave me a laugh. I’m just wondering what your main argument against gay marriage is.

jason - read #95

(Also I may be harboring some old resentment over an old post we differed on.

If so, I don’t recall it.

I love you anyway.

Doesn’t mean I’ll marry you, dude…
Besides, buclsim has first option