Juana!

click on one of our sponsors! OR REMOVE ADS

what is marriage for you? a man and a woman? a man and a man? a woman and a woman?

with the change in California, does this change your point of view? please explain..

Juana!

jeffc574

Marriage is a public announcement of two peoples commitment to live together as a family. It's basis is in religious tradition. The state's licensing and regulating is as much about collecting fees as anything else. Google "gay marriage" and "church and state". Then you will realize how little the state really has in the marriage business.

On the other hand, gay marriage is a great hot button issue for the Rush wannabes.

ddoubleez

I have nothing better in my life than my wife and my marriage, and I would never want to deny anyone else this opertunity........ No matter the arrangement.......

adrenaline

I dont have a problem with gays getting married. Why should life partners be denied the same rights just because their sexual orientation.

Juan.©amaney

I voted against it.

To me, marriage by the government doesn't mean shit but a way for them to keep track of it, and allow legal action to control it, be it by divorce or by tax breaks etc. Most progressive companies already offer same sex couples the same benefits traditional couples get.

Marriage to me only exists as a religious rite and I'd rather not discuss that here.

Reason I voted against it doesn't have anything to do with whether or not I accept the fact that two dudes or two chicks wanna bump uglies monogomously. I voted against it because it opens up the doors to a lot of sticky situations (pun may or may not have been intended). It's too easy to take advantage of. Say for instance I live with a buddy of mine. We can get married and continue about our manly ways, but we'd get tax breaks that single people otherwise cannot get; income, purchasing/selling of a home, health care, etc. Then also (and this is where a lot of people will jump in and scream bloody murder) where would you draw the line? The argument is, two concenting adults, great. What if I want to marry my sister? My mom? My dad? Not that I want to have hot incest love, if I did I'd move to the south. But I want to get my family under my health care provided by my employer, so why isn't this allowed?

___________________________________________

joerockhead

Very Good Points Juan!

___________________________________________


Visit the worlds best website -
www.badass67.com - Black Sunshine

FattyJJ

Good points, but you're going to have people take advantage of anything they can. The best we can do is try and catch the ones doing it.

I think its time for the honest people to stop getting punished and dissadvantaged due to their sexual orientation.

___________________________________________

Juan.©amaney

Agreed. Which is why I dislike government involving itself in anything that is deemed a moral issue.

IMO, I am not punishing them because they are gay, they just happen to be punished because I'd rather not open the door to people who abuse the system. Also, there are tons of guys like me who wish to remain unmarried. Them (gays) being able to shack up as a couple legally getting all the benefits normally alloted for people who want to marry, have a family, and breed more tax payers and us (straight unmarried) not is a slap to the face.

Just for the record, I have a great number of gay friends, many living together and partnered. There are ways to get most of the benefits they want. Legally marrying just makes it easier, I guess.

___________________________________________

Krasch

Let's not also forget that marriage is a declaration by a couple to society their intention to live as a family. And families exist primarily for the reason of creating new members of the society to replace the dying ones, in other words, having kids. Otherwise, there's no real difference between a "family" and extended steady dating.

And unless medical science intervenes and/or someone gives up THIER kid, Two guys or two gals ain't going to get it done. Sure they might have good parenting skills, but by themselves, they can't have kids.

Therefore I don't see any good reason for the state to give them the status of those who join for the purpose of adding to the society when they're not capable in any way shape or form of fulfilling that obligation without outside help.

That being said, I also have no issue with the state offering some sort of status like "life partner" that offers such partners civil protections like support payments if the other dies, and so forth. The concept of "separate yet equal" is what I'd shoot for here.

Another point is that those who founded the US (and Canada) were God-fearing Christians (although not necessarily Catholic) and marriage in that context is quite clearly exclusive to heterosexual relationships. Why should we have to apologize for that or worse yet change what we are because some small segment of the population wants it differently when there are other, perfectly reasonable ways to address any inequities.

kulotsalot

I don't think there is anything in the law that states that when you get married you must "intend" to have kids. There are tons of married people who are not having kids, not planning on having kids, or not having "enough" kids. I don't think it has anything to do with having/wanting kids at all. If the criteria is having kids, then what about those infertile married couples who can't have kids either, or the couples who just choose to NOT procreate? Should their marriages get annulled because they can't fulfill the main reason for their marriage which, supposedly, is to pop out kids?

Marriage-for-breeding is an outmoded way of thinking. We know in this day and age that you don't need to be married to have kids, and also you can be married yet choose not to have kids. Tying the ability/desire to procreate to the idea of marriage just does not make sense to me.

FattyJJ

Juan and Krasch, you seem to forget that those who cannot have kids, adopdt the kids that their straight counterparts either gave up, or lost due to a list of issues. There are thousands of kids in foster care and homes that need loving parents.

kulotsalot is right, not every straight couple gets married with the intent of having kids; or to proclaim their belief in God. A lot do it these days as a financial solution. Saying that this country was founded by god fearing christians isnt going to fly very much longer, those days are coming to a close. No one is asking you to appologize, but they are asking that they be treated equally, and I'm pretty sure that the bible says you are supposed to love everyone equally. Government and Church should be completely seperated, as it says in the Constitution.

___________________________________________

kulotsalot

The problem with making the bible the basis of marriage is that it depends so much on interpretation. Some parts of it say "love everyone no matter what" and some parts of it say "all sinners will go to hell" and being gay is a sin, etc.

I wish they'd make two types of marriages. One that is recognized by their religion, and then another that is recognized by the gov't. That way the people who are staunch believers that God did not intend for two people of the same sex to get married, can keep their religious marriages free of those, but the gov't, who, supposedly, should be separate from the various churches, can't hide behind the moral issue since when making their decisions.

CD

Ok cool. Then I suppose men and women who are born unfertile shouldn't be allowed to marry either. Or couples who choose not to have kids. I mean, if you can't, or choose not to continue your line, fuck you and get away from the alter.

Grow up. It's people with your religious views who could justify the eradication of the Native Americans, the enslavement of blacks, the lack of suffrage for women, and now the ability for two people who love each other to not be viewed as a marriage of souls.

Marriage is the joining of 2 people into a life together. It has no limitations based on race or sex. Certain people just try to separate them. So... does it make you upset when you think that the government and church allow blacks and whites to marry and possibly create mixed babies?

___________________________________________

Juan.©amaney

No I don't. I know they can adopt. I know a lot of couples who are remaining kid free by choice. I'm cognizant of the orphan dilema, and have mixed feelings on letting gays adopt; mainly psychological (won't get into that here, so if anyone feels like starting a new thread to not derail this one, go for it). Again, I'm not against gays getting married because of the love or because of the intents, straight people seem to be making a mockery of the whole thing (civicly) as it is. If there was a way to let them get married and not mess the system up, I'd almost be for it. I just think its one big clusterfuck as it is...as are most government run programs


They do have that...at least us catholics do. My bro got married civicly before he did the church thing. They didn't live together, to him, it was just something to get out of the way. No party, we just went and had breakfast...I was his witness.


Eeeeasy there sunshine, don't clump us all into one group, my religious views actually think war and murder and genocide is a bad thing. If you can't argue without getting emotional, maybe you need to "grow up"

Just for the record, a man can divorce his wife if she is barren.

Marriage is nothing more than a contract. The emotions that come along with it have nothing to do with government. Now, marriage as far as a union with the feelings and all....that's a ceremonies straights and gays can do anytime anyplace. So what I'm basically saying is, if its really a union between two people's soul, why the need to have the government recognize it.


See, the problem here is, separation of emotions and the law. If you are going to argue that gays should be allowed to marry because they love each other just as much as straight people do, then there is no reason to get government involved. If you are going to argue that they should be able to get the same rights as straight people, you can't put emotions behind your supporting arguments.

There is one huuuuuge obstacle holding back gay marriage; psodomy is illegal in a lot of places...even between men and women.

___________________________________________