How do you feel about Same-Sex Marriage?

Steven · Apr 17, 2011

pooch said:
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.

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.

Lalapizzame · Apr 17, 2011

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.

Margot · Apr 17, 2011

pooch said:
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.

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?

FreakyLocz14 · Apr 17, 2011

Bela said:
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.

Steven · Apr 17, 2011

FreakyLocz14 said:
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.

mikey · Apr 17, 2011

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?

The Trotsky · Apr 17, 2011

FreakyLocz14 said:
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.

OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire · Apr 17, 2011

I think they should be allowed everyone deserves to be happy with those they want to spend the rest of their life with.

FreakyLocz14 · Apr 17, 2011

Landorus said:
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.

Steven · Apr 17, 2011

FreakyLocz14 said:
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.

FreakyLocz14 · Apr 17, 2011

Landorus said:
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.

The initiative was titled "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry". That sounds pretty accurate to me, if not biased for the No side.

Here's the full text:

Section I. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."
Section 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution. to read:
Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Again, that seems pretty straightforward and blunt.

Oryx · Apr 17, 2011

FreakyLocz14 said:
The initiative was titled "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry". That sounds pretty accurate to me, if not biased for the No side.

Here's the full text:

Section I. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."
Section 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution. to read:
Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Again, that seems pretty straightforward and blunt.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/31/local/me-yesno31

http://laist.com/2008/09/01/prop_8_still_confusing_voters.php

http://laist.com/2008/09/25/when_talking_prop_8_no_means_yes_co.php

You're not the only voter, just because you weren't confused doesn't mean others weren't.

Livewire · Apr 17, 2011

Same-sex equality won't happen if you leave it to the states to decide, Freaky. It took an entire century after the Civil War for racial equality to happen, until the Civil Rights Act. And even then, it took a long time before it was really a reality. The same will apply with the acceptance of gay marriage. There needs to be a sweeping, federal mandate that supersedes any flimsy state law. Until that happens, there won't be universal tolerance/legalization. Can you see Mississippi legalizing gay marriage on its own? I don't. Sad but true.

Nutella · Apr 17, 2011

I am not against same-sex marriage but I think it should be named difference kind of old fashioned but I think marriage is between a man and a woman,

Um, isn't a part of the idea of equality for homosexuals and heterosexuals that their legal union be called a "marriage"? =S

I think, to some extent, that the issue of gay marriage is going to be a byproduct of 'it gets better' because, as morbid as it is, the opponents will age out or die out and the numbers for will be greater than the numbers against.

I definitely agree with this statement. Political beliefs largely evolve not because of the passage of time, but rather, the waves of generations. While there are plenty of people of our generation that are against same-sex marriage, it's undeniable that the big players are the much older demographics.

My mother was talking to her 81-year-old aunt about how she couldn't find a job. My aunt blamed it on gay marriage. >_>

Did she have a reason, or is the statement as stupid as her? (Not too much offence intended)

I don't get why people who are extremely against it are like "this is going to ruin our country and we'll fall to pieces because the sanctity of marriage is beind destroyed"!

I find it interesting that those people fear for the sanctity of marriage, considering it started out more like a contract between two families to take advantage of each others' assets, or to keep noble bloodlines pure. The sanctity of marriage started out on questionable grounds, and was eventually transitioned to something more representational of love- though of course, arranged marriages exist to this day.

Given that there was much rejoice when marriage become more about love, I find it irrational that some are contradictorily oppressing two people that love each other just because of their sexual preferences. It started off with something silly like what can basically be boiled down to familial opinion, then interracial biggotry, and now, it's the homosexuals' turn.

Of course, then there are religious arguments. The above was referring more on a non-religious sense.

Marriage is the union between two people that love each other (hopefully). The government recognizes marriages and provides benefits for the status.

Sadly, that is not how it is legislated in a legal act. Though I agree with your notion, it is technically listed as a man and woman. Of course, this wouldn't be the case where gay marriage is permitted. At least, in Australia...

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.

Oh no. It's a Christian. I'm sorry about your misfortune. Would you like to attend a seminar to remove your Christianity? Would you like the idea of millions of people around the world violently hating you just because you're a Christian? Wouldn't it be worse if Christianity was something you just were, and didn't choose it? Religious people do look back and complain about discrimination, but um, aren't you guys doing the same to homosexuals as well? It's your belief, your right! Luckily you have a choice- homosexuals do not.

Also, consult a dictionary, hun:

Civil partnership: A relationship similar to marriage for two people who are of the same sex. (Macmillan Dictionary)

Marriage: the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. (Quote of Lily's definition; Dicitionary.com)

Hm, spot the difference! -__- Similar means alike, not synonymous. They want equality, therefore, they want the SAME thing. How many times must I spell this out?

though it's rather disturbing news cause we all know marriage is rieally for man and woman,

Stay in the kitchen, have 5 kids, no voting and forget about a career. Just because you're a woman, you don't deserve the same rights as men. Your view is that outdated. =)

Exploding Bunny · Apr 17, 2011

Legalize it, legalize it, legalize it, legalize it. There is an argument out there that says if you can't have kids don't get married. well how about the married people with no kids and the eldery who want to get married.

FreakyLocz14 · Apr 17, 2011

Live_Wire466 said:
Same-sex equality won't happen if you leave it to the states to decide, Freaky. It took an entire century after the Civil War for racial equality to happen, until the Civil Rights Act. And even then, it took a long time before it was really a reality. The same will apply with the acceptance of gay marriage. There needs to be a sweeping, federal mandate that supersedes any flimsy state law. Until that happens, there won't be universal tolerance/legalization. Can you see Mississippi legalizing gay marriage on its own? I don't. Sad but true.

I fear the day that the federal government grows to such a monsterous size that it can take away rights from the states in utter disregard of the 10th Amendment. If this what you are proposing, we might as well have all marriages performed by the federal government and open up more federal courts to death with the litigation that would create.

By your logic, same-sex marriage would become legal all across the United States in due time. Just as legalized racism has passed on, legalized homophobia will too.

Toujours said:
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/31/local/me-yesno31

http://laist.com/2008/09/01/prop_8_still_confusing_voters.php

http://laist.com/2008/09/25/when_talking_prop_8_no_means_yes_co.php

You're not the only voter, just because you weren't confused doesn't mean others weren't.

We have uninformed, ignorant voters in every election cycle. This isn't news to anyone.

Exploding Bunny said:
Legalize it, legalize it, legalize it, legalize it. There is an argument out there that says if you can't have kids don't get married. well how about the married people with no kids and the eldery who want to get married.

California Family Code section 297.5 already provides for same-sex equality in regards to marriage. It also addresses the elderly you mentioned.

Livewire · Apr 17, 2011

FreakyLocz14 said:
I fear the day that the federal government grows to such a monsterous size that it can take away rights from the states in utter disregard of the 10th Amendment. If this what you are proposing, we might as well have all marriages performed by the federal government and open up more federal courts to death with the litigation that would create.

See Supremacy Clause. Again.

By your logic, same-sex marriage would become legal all across the United States in due time. Just as legalized racism has passed on, legalized homophobia will too.

A federal law, perhaps even an extension of the Civil Rights act, would make the banning of gay marriage unconstitutional on the grounds that it discriminates unlawfully based on sexual orientation, which you could technically already apply to the Civil Rights Act.

We have uninformed, ignorant voters in every election cycle. This isn't news to anyone.

You were the one that proposed a fourth branch of the US government, with full legislative and veto powers, composed entirely of these "uninformed, ignorant voters" So, which is it?

FreakyLocz14 · Apr 18, 2011

Live_Wire466 said:
See Supremacy Clause. Again.

A federal law, perhaps even an extension of the Civil Rights act, would make the banning of gay marriage unconstitutional on the grounds that it discriminates unlawfully based on sexual orientation, which you could technically already apply to the Civil Rights Act.

You were the one that proposed a fourth branch of the US government, with full legislative and veto powers, composed entirely of these "uninformed, ignorant voters" So, which is it?

1) The Supremacy Clause was meant to be balanced with the 10th Amendment. It is big government advocates that want to abuse the Supremacy Clause to trample on the 10th Amendment. Almost everything the Founding Fathers did was a compromise. They didn't intend for the federal government to run rampant under the guise of the Supremacy Clause.

2) There's one problem with that. Race is a protected class under federal law and has been since the 1800's. Sexual orientation is not.

3) And I stand by the assertion. Some voters might be uninformed and ignorant, but they enjoy all of the same rights that every U.S. citizen does to participate in the electoral process.

Ivysaur · Apr 18, 2011

We have had it here for like 7 years, nobody has died, and even the religious Conservatives have silently dropped the "kill homosexual marriage" line from their political manifesto. So I don't see why it should be banned anywhere.

Meinfoo · Apr 18, 2011

Even though I am often described as homo-phobic I think all people should be able to do (and marry) what they want within reason.

How do you feel about Same-Sex Marriage?

More options

Steven

[i]h e l p[/i]

Lalapizzame

Margot

some things are that simple

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Steven

[i]h e l p[/i]

mikey

The Trotsky

Wake and Bake

OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire

10000 year Emperor of Hoenn

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Steven

[i]h e l p[/i]

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Oryx

CoquettishCat

Livewire

Nutella

♫ Purple Hurple ♫

Exploding Bunny

Dovahkiin

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Livewire

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Ivysaur

Grass dinosaur extraordinaire

Meinfoo

Spelling error? Spelling win!