Off-Topic
How do you feel about Same-Sex Marriage? Page 2
Started by FreakyLocz14 April 16th, 2011 11:49 PM- 10307 views
- 268 replies
This thread is closed. It will not accept new replies.
Lemme stand out. I oppose it. It shouldn't be called marriage since marriage is for man and woman and as always have been. The term Civil-Partnership is fine since it's what it is. The different term is fine since people still say interracial-marriage and don't see it as just marriage. Each to their own though. Yes, I'm Christian... in training.
3DS Friend Code: 1204-0601-9485
Pokémon X
Post on my wall if you add me so I can add you!
Pokémon X
Post on my wall if you add me so I can add you!
Lemme stand out. I oppose it. It shouldn't be called marriage since marriage is for man and woman and as always have been. The term Civil-Partnership is fine since it's what it is. The different term is fine since people still say interracial-marriage and don't see it as just marriage. Each to their own though. Yes, I'm Christian... in training.
I've never seen anyone use interracial marriage in a way that makes it not marriage. Interracial would just be an adjective to describe the more specifics of the marriage. It that was all that'd be needed, why can't they call it Gay Marriage instead of degrading people by making them settle for Civil Unions or Partnerships?
Lemme stand out. I oppose it. It shouldn't be called marriage since marriage is for man and woman and as always have been. The term Civil-Partnership is fine since it's what it is. The different term is fine since people still say interracial-marriage and don't see it as just marriage. Each to their own though. Yes, I'm Christian... in training.
mar·riage [mar-ij]
–noun
1.
a.
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
b.
a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage.
(◕ ‿‿ ◕) PM me for a contract.
It should be a protected right mandated by the federal government. Individual states should not be allowed to prohibit what ought to be a basic human right.
Meh. We shoud repeal our anti-bigamy laws as well then (I actually belive this and I'm not just being sarcastic.) My libertarian core is uneasy with the federal government mandating anything.
mar·riage
[mar-ij]
–noun
1.
a.
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
b.
a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage.
Technically, it would be called same-sex marriage or homosexual marriage, not "gay" marriage.
[mar-ij]
–noun
1.
a.
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
b.
a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage.
The term Civil-Partnership is fine since it's what it is. The different term is fine since people still say interracial-marriage and don't see it as just marriage.
Civil Partnership.Interracial-marriage
Marriage.
Hmm... One of these things is not like the other~
People may see interracial-marriage as not-just-marriage but if that's the case, why can't we call it gay-marriage? :>
It should be allowed, People have the right to live there lifes how they want as long as it is not breaking laws and almost all laws are fair and balanced.
well said. :) though it's rather disturbing news cause we all know marriage is rieally for man and woman, people can do what they want. even though it's wrong to do. it's their life. let them live in peace. people wouldnt want them to tell them who to marry, so why do it to others?
~VuLpIxViXeN007~
add me please
i'm a sweetheart
i have good sense of humor
i love all pokemon
i even love the pokemon show!
and i am a good person.
and a gentle-tender-soft-hearted girl.
well said. :) though it's rather disturbing news cause we all know marriage is rieally for man and woman, people can do what they want. even though it's wrong to do. it's their life. let them live in peace. people wouldnt want them to tell them who to marry, so why do it to others?
It's "wrong"? I honestly don't get this argument. If for a long time we use paper to draw on, then comes the idea of writing language on it, is it wrong to do otherwise.A history of something mainly driven by institutions that specifically hate the group in question. Think all the civil rights movements we've seen: Women, African Americans... All the ideas about them were driven by history and civil rights for them were often considered "wrong" until they were forced to fight against those ideas.
My libertarian core is uneasy with the federal government mandating anything.
Shouldn't libertarians be all for the maximization of people's civil liberties? And is marriage not one of those most basic rights that heterosexual persons enjoy? Why should a right not be afforded to homosexual individuals as well?
The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.
It may be still yet be a long way in the future, but there will come a day when the eyes of the law hold no prejudice for who marries whom.For those who don't understand, "civil unions" and "marriage" are not equal in terms of the rights and benefits afforded to the parties involved. There is not equality in this regard, and no reasoning I have ever seen has been brought forward defending this state of affairs, aside from antiquated religious views about how things "ought" to be. And religious views should not dictate our country's policy: there is to be a separation of church and state in our governance. Otherwise, we face the threat a theocracy holds.
Age 41
Male
Western Massachusetts
Seen April 17th, 2017
Posted March 15th, 2017
3,299
posts
18.1
Years
I have no problems about same sex marriages. In fact, I live in Massachusetts, the first state to legalize same sex marriages. I know some people would rather use "Civil Union" instead of "marriage" and consider that word only when a man and a woman marry.
Do I support it? I wasn't picketing outside Beacon Hill when it became legal. I say if two people of the same sex want to be together like a normal couple, I say let them. Just because they are homosexual doesn't mean they are not people like the rest of us.
Do I support it? I wasn't picketing outside Beacon Hill when it became legal. I say if two people of the same sex want to be together like a normal couple, I say let them. Just because they are homosexual doesn't mean they are not people like the rest of us.
3DS Friend Code: 0232-8258-5085
Friend Safari:
- Meditite, Pancham, Riolu
Friend Safari:
- Meditite, Pancham, Riolu
Shouldn't libertarians be all for the maximization of people's civil liberties? And is marriage not one of those most basic rights that heterosexual persons enjoy? Why should a right not be afforded to homosexual individuals as well?
It may be still yet be a long way in the future, but there will come a day when the eyes of the law hold no prejudice for who marries whom.
For those who don't understand, "civil unions" and "marriage" are not equal in terms of the rights and benefits afforded to the parties involved. There is not equality in this regard, and no reasoning I have ever seen has been brought forward defending this state of affairs, aside from antiquated religious views about how things "ought" to be. And religious views should not dictate our country's policy: there is to be a separation of church and state in our governance. Otherwise, we face the threat a theocracy holds.
Liberty =/= RightIt may be still yet be a long way in the future, but there will come a day when the eyes of the law hold no prejudice for who marries whom.
For those who don't understand, "civil unions" and "marriage" are not equal in terms of the rights and benefits afforded to the parties involved. There is not equality in this regard, and no reasoning I have ever seen has been brought forward defending this state of affairs, aside from antiquated religious views about how things "ought" to be. And religious views should not dictate our country's policy: there is to be a separation of church and state in our governance. Otherwise, we face the threat a theocracy holds.
A liberty is a freedom FROM the government, a right is a freedm given BY the government. I say let the states decide.
Liberty =/= Right
A liberty is a freedom FROM the government, a right is a freedm given BY the government. I say let the states decide.
Why do you feel the states should decide if homosexuals should be allowed to have gay marriage, with all of the benefits that entails?A liberty is a freedom FROM the government, a right is a freedm given BY the government. I say let the states decide.
The only result is that some states will take a majority's collective prejudices and legislate against a minority. How can you stand for such an injustice?
I am for gay marriage, there are no reasons not to have it. All the reasons people give are either religious, which can't be used, or just down right false. Claiming organizations that sound legitimate (but really aren't) as their source when the people for it actually have legitimate organizations and facts backing their beliefs.
Oh, and I'd like to get married some day, and "seperate but equal" really just means "I'm a bigot."
And, liberty does equal right. The definition of a liberty is and I quote, "An instance of this; a right or privilege, esp. a statutory one."
Oh, and I'd like to get married some day, and "seperate but equal" really just means "I'm a bigot."
And, liberty does equal right. The definition of a liberty is and I quote, "An instance of this; a right or privilege, esp. a statutory one."
Keep being amazing.
Shiny Pokemon
Shiny Pokemon
I'm starting to believe that marriage is pointless more and more the more time passes, but I don't think any government should prevent consenting adults from getting married. It shouldn't be their right to decide these things.
The only result is that some states will take a majority's collective prejudices and legislate against a minority. How can you stand for such an injustice?
That's just how democracy works. The tyranny of the majority isn't a pretty reality sometimes.
Another one of those topics everyone's been talking about. There is a very fine line between "good" and "bad" gay marriage/ homosexuality. I have nothing against same-sex marriage. But there is such a thing as taking it too far. Those who support it, ask yourself; do you know what it's like to be followed, stalked and copied by someone who you never know that when you turn your back, you'll get raped? Have you ever been copied, someone stealing everything that made you you, your jokes, the way you talk, where you sit at lunch when you're absent from school? Have your friends abandoned you, your life ruined by someone you don't think is even attracted to the opposite gender? Guess what? I have. Imagine you were in my shoes, would you want a country where people like that walk freely, ruining people's lives and rallying children to approve of, even practice, their unholy ways? I have no compassion for anyone who does this and those who support them.
Don't get me wrong, I don't care if they keep to themselves, just don't ruin my life while ruining your own.
Don't get me wrong, I don't care if they keep to themselves, just don't ruin my life while ruining your own.
I don't really opposed to it, we all have equal rights and we can't control our feelings.
Another one of those topics everyone's been talking about. There is a very fine line between "good" and "bad" gay marriage/ homosexuality. I have nothing against same-sex marriage. But there is such a thing as taking it too far. Those who support it, ask yourself; do you know what it's like to be followed, stalked and copied by someone who you never know that when you turn your back, you'll get raped? Have you ever been copied, someone stealing everything that made you you, your jokes, the way you talk, where you sit at lunch when you're absent from school? Have your friends abandoned you, your life ruined by someone you don't think is even attracted to the opposite gender? Guess what? I have. Imagine you were in my shoes, would you want a country where people like that walk freely, ruining people's lives and rallying children to approve of, even practice, their unholy ways? I have no compassion for anyone who does this and those who support them.
Don't get me wrong, I don't care if they keep to themselves, just don't ruin my life while ruining your own.
Sorry for what happened to you but what the hell does any of that have to do with gay marriage? Are you implying that all gay people are like that? Hitler was Austrian, doesn't make all Austrians Nazis. Osama Bin Laden is a Muslim, that doesn't make all Muslim terrorists. There are always bad people in every group, doesn't make it so everyone in that group is exactly like that.Don't get me wrong, I don't care if they keep to themselves, just don't ruin my life while ruining your own.
The most bigoted thing you can possibly say without realizing it is "I don't care if they keep it to themselves."
From what you've said, you have no gotten past petty ignorance.
I was nearly beaten to death by a group of homophobes, by your logic all straight people are just like them. I don't go, "I don't care if you're straight, just keep it to yourself." You know why? Because it's stupid.
Keep being amazing.
Shiny Pokemon
Shiny Pokemon
I'm inclined to stay neutral on this subject, but I'm more sympathetic towards support of same-sex marriage. So long as they have not committed an unlawful act or done something detrimental to the prosperity of others, I do not mind at all the idea of same-sex marriage.
Were we to pass legislation in the United States with regards to this issue, however, I'd like to to be passed by the individual state legislatures instead of the federal government. The individual states should have a right to choose whether to support or to reject same-sex marriage, instead of having it forced upon them by national government. If a faction is outvoted in the measure, in a fair vote, then legislation will be passed on the majority's whim.
Were we to pass legislation in the United States with regards to this issue, however, I'd like to to be passed by the individual state legislatures instead of the federal government. The individual states should have a right to choose whether to support or to reject same-sex marriage, instead of having it forced upon them by national government. If a faction is outvoted in the measure, in a fair vote, then legislation will be passed on the majority's whim.
Another one of those topics everyone's been talking about. There is a very fine line between "good" and "bad" gay marriage/ homosexuality. I have nothing against same-sex marriage. But there is such a thing as taking it too far. Those who support it, ask yourself; do you know what it's like to be followed, stalked and copied by someone who you never know that when you turn your back, you'll get raped? Have you ever been copied, someone stealing everything that made you you, your jokes, the way you talk, where you sit at lunch when you're absent from school? Have your friends abandoned you, your life ruined by someone you don't think is even attracted to the opposite gender? Guess what? I have. Imagine you were in my shoes, would you want a country where people like that walk freely, ruining people's lives and rallying children to approve of, even practice, their unholy ways? I have no compassion for anyone who does this and those who support them.
Don't get me wrong, I don't care if they keep to themselves, just don't ruin my life while ruining your own.
They weren't mean to you because they were gay, they did it because they were a bad person in general. The person who was mean to me was straight, so would you say the same thing about them then? I don't think that all straight people are bad because of it and I never will because sexuality doesn't define your actions as a person.Don't get me wrong, I don't care if they keep to themselves, just don't ruin my life while ruining your own.
In my opinion I don't think people should have to "keep their love to themselves" just because they're in a same-sex relationship when plenty of straight couples are all for pda. Why should they get to do that and get less flack for it?
Why do you feel the states should decide if homosexuals should be allowed to have gay marriage, with all of the benefits that entails?
The only result is that some states will take a majority's collective prejudices and legislate against a minority. How can you stand for such an injustice?
Because we live in a nation where the federal government was meant to be limited, with only certain delegated powers. Marriage has always been the domain of the states, and it still is today. State recognition of same-sex marriage will not grant any federal-level rights unless the Defense of Marriage Act is repealed. I believe that the federal government has no business is saying that it won't recognize the validity of marriage performed in a state that allows same-sex marriage. The federal government gets to give tax breaks to married couples, but it doesn't get to define what marriage is.
The only result is that some states will take a majority's collective prejudices and legislate against a minority. How can you stand for such an injustice?
Because we live in a nation where the federal government was meant to be limited, with only certain delegated powers. Marriage has always been the domain of the states, and it still is today. State recognition of same-sex marriage will not grant any federal-level rights unless the Defense of Marriage Act is repealed. I believe that the federal government has no business is saying that it won't recognize the validity of marriage performed in a state that allows same-sex marriage. The federal government gets to give tax breaks to married couples, but it doesn't get to define what marriage is.
I think it should be a state decision because there are sort of sub-cultures throughout the U.S. Some are much more conservative than the other. It would only cause further conflict for the government to say "Accept gay marriage requests" in places some places..like Utah. I include state supreme courts as staying in the state's line of power. So I think the decision in Iowa should stay. :/But I also think voting should be clear an easy. None of that Prop.8 crap again. :/ Made it sound so confusing. There should be a law making it so voters can easily decide which option means which. Deception is just dirty politics, and both sides use it.
Keep being amazing.
Shiny Pokemon
Shiny Pokemon
It's not that I oppose it... it's just something that I would have to get used to seeing, since most marriages we see/hear of are between a man and a woman.
So I support it, but it would take time for me to get used to it... you know?
So I support it, but it would take time for me to get used to it... you know?
Moderator of Brilliant Diamond & Shining Pearl
Discord Moderator
Discord Moderator
Because we live in a nation where the federal government was meant to be limited, with only certain delegated powers.
*coughPleasereadtheConstitutionspecificallytheNecessaryandProperClauseunderArticle1Section8it'stheverylastthinginitssectioncough*Anyway, I'm all for same-sex marriage. The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are fundamental ones and the banning of two consenting adults getting married violates all 3 of those inalienable rights.
Pokemon: Tales of a New Generation: Come check out my new journey RP! Mid-to-high standards with rolling sign-ups for as long as it keeps going
I think they should be allowed everyone deserves to be happy with those they want to spend the rest of their life with.
I'm currently working on some novels. If you're interested you can read them here:
https://www.wattpad.com/user/ImperialSun
https://www.wattpad.com/user/ImperialSun
I think it should be a state decision because there are sort of sub-cultures throughout the U.S. Some are much more conservative than the other. It would only cause further conflict for the government to say "Accept gay marriage requests" in places some places..like Utah. I include state supreme courts as staying in the state's line of power. So I think the decision in Iowa should stay. :/
But I also think voting should be clear an easy. None of that Prop.8 crap again. :/ Made it sound so confusing. There should be a law making it so voters can easily decide which option means which. Deception is just dirty politics, and both sides use it.
Prop 8 was within the state's line of power. The initiative process has been a part of California government for ages before Prop 8 happened.
But I also think voting should be clear an easy. None of that Prop.8 crap again. :/ Made it sound so confusing. There should be a law making it so voters can easily decide which option means which. Deception is just dirty politics, and both sides use it.
Prop 8 was within the state's line of power. The initiative process has been a part of California government for ages before Prop 8 happened.
Uh, never said it wasn't. I was saying the wording of Prop.8 for voters confused large amounts of people who were both for gay marriage and against gay marriage and therefore was not a fair vote.
Keep being amazing.
Shiny Pokemon
Shiny Pokemon