Protecting Marriage...

[VanReal]

The entire idea of this being such a massive issue boggles my mind.  Focusing on what two consenting adults do in a legal ceremony just seems like an total waste of energy.  There is also a financial issue by maintaining these relationships as civil unions, most insurance companies do not allow you to add a partner or significant other in a civil union.  Financially even leaving your money, that you very well may be earning together to the other person after death is difficult.  Suzie Orman wrote a book on the financial disparity caused by the civil union or outright ban on gay marriage and it was really interesting.  Maybe these proposition writers could spend their time focusing on poverty, crime, babies having babies, child abuse, education, disease control, anything other than something like who is marrying who.

[karadan]

It IS AGAINST NATURE. They are born gay, but it is not a good gene to have!

Where is your proof?

Or, don't bigots need proof these days?

[karadan]

What if homosexuals felt that they were being looked down on because they were called homosexuals and they wanted instead to be called heterosexuals in order to improve equality, what would you say to a hypothetical proposition like that?

What if Christians felt that they were being looked down on because they were called Christians and they wanted instead to be called Atheists in order to improve equality, what would you say to a hypothetical proposition like that?

[pedricero matao]

Hi people
First of all may I apologize for my poor English
That's a quite hot topic also here in Spain. See, recently the government passed a law on gay marriage plus all that stuff related to gay people adopting children.
This raised quite a ruckus... there were demonstrations (organised by the party on the opposition, who is consisted mostly of right-wing traditionalists/catholics and a minority of neoconservatives and supported of course by the catholic church)
The main topic there was that "gay marriage:
a) is not real marriage, because marriage-is-man-plus-woman.
This one, apart from the religious considerations, is a mere "grammar fallacy" combined with a dose of "this is like that cos i say it so"
and
b) it will destroy family.
Nothing new under the sun. As far as I know, there in America people who oppose gay marriage tend to have the same arguments.

Now there's a fact that i'd like to point out:
in Spain there was no divorce until the late 70s (in fact even in 1976 if a woman escaped from a wifebeating husband, she could go to jail for "home abandonment", women couldn't have their own bank accounts, let alone businesses or any "adult stuff" without the supervision of her husband. In fact women were considered underage people when it comes to anything really serious - now we talk here about how bad are the taliban... ironies of life-)
When the time came to speak about the divorce, the reaction both of the clergy and the right wing was "It's gonna destroy the family, it's gonna destroy the country" and of course, that was all part of a judeomasonic conspiration sponsored by the evil communists that hate us.
Ok so the divorce came and look, nothing has really changed (well actually it has, some abused women can now live free you know) but nothing was "destroyed"
Also it would be interesting to mention that the majority of those who were so angry about the divorce being so evil, have ended up having divorced and remarried multiple times.
So... for those who oppose gay marriage... look it on the bright side, maybe it's your chance to get out of the closet and really be who you need to be!
I guess in some years we'll have some gay & married republican politicians (for example). Look at Pim Fortuyn from Holland (though he was not married)

They are no different from straight people other than sexual preference. If they want to love each other, be married, adopt children (or get IVF), and live happily ever after, THEN FUCKING LET THEM!

Completely agree.
The funny thing is, why people who have been oppressed (look, until recently here you could go to jail if you were gay) and fought the system, now could think of adhere to an institution in whose name they were prosecuted (i dunno really how to write this ok, easy on me please) But hey, people should do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt anyone.

This poses a question: why do only married people should have the right to adopt children? denying this right to single people (or people who for example live together but don't want the state or the church to have anything with their love) would be comparable to saying that single mothers are bad mothers, for example.

Salud.

[mauiweddings120]

But John Furry..here the matter of gay marriage is being discussed..why are you telling the marriages in Pakistan.. It would have been better if you talk something about russian women or russian marriage as I think you possess a lot of knowledge regarding this...

huuu haaaa huuu haaaa

 :banna:  

[mauiweddings120]

I am agreed with you John Furey...Culture in most of the islamic countries like pakistan, afganisthan are so much rude. So everyone should be careful of it.

[Heretical Rants]

It IS AGAINST NATURE. They are born gay, but it is not a good gene to have!

Who cares?  

Even by your own standards gay marriage should be legal: if you don't like them, don't make them breed :eek:  

[Sophus]

It IS AGAINST NATURE. They are born gay, but it is not a good gene to have!

Well it's not exactly the norm but it does occur in nature.

[JillSwift]

Do any of you ignorant fucks realize that atheists can be against gays too?

It IS AGAINST NATURE. They are born gay, but it is not a good gene to have!

"Ignorant fucks", eh? If it is a genetic trait, then by definition it is natural.

Bigotry never does seem to manage a coherent defense of itself.

[JillSwift]

I wonder why government is in the marriage business anyway.

I say dump marriage licenses entirely and use business contract law instead. Let the people decide what sort of familial arrangements they want, outlining rights and privileges granted to one another, monetary and financial arrangements, child rearing responsibilities, and dissolution criteria.

Then gay, straight, bi, mono- and polyamorous folks could all do their thing their own way without dragging religion into it at the government level.

[SSY]

I wonder why government is in the marriage business anyway.

I say dump marriage licenses entirely and use business contract law instead. Let the people decide what sort of familial arrangements they want, outlining rights and privileges granted to one another, monetary and financial arrangements, child rearing responsibilities, and dissolution criteria.

Then gay, straight, bi, mono- and polyamorous folks could all do their thing their own way without dragging religion into it at the government level.

Plus one

[JillSwift]

[youtube:2zc80txd]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNiqfRyoAyA[/youtube:2zc80txd]

Amusing and relevant.

[Nulono]

Protecting marriage... from folks who want to get married?

It's like people who want to protect their ___s from them minorities.