I agree with this, if you do too....

Or maybe its because children can't survive in homes that don't have male and female parental figures..

We should ban all single-parent families in the US too.

nope, lets just have murder mean "the showing of naked pictures" so we can all be thrown in jail.

changing the meaning of words to fit the latest fashion is not the right way to go.
Call it a civil union and move on.

don't think I will

100% AGREE!!!!! You would think that most peeps would agree with you on here too. Being that this *should* be an open minded industry!!

I just don't understand why people are so insecure about change! I have been married to Stewie for 17 years!! But what if we were a gay couple??? We still would love each other same... but now we can't get married? WTF? Why not? Who are you to tell me that I can't marry the person I love?

like i said before, to me it has nothing to do with rights. if it is not for religious reasons and it only has to do with someone just wanting to be able to claim the tax breaks and benefits of a "married couple", i think thats bullshit. now if they are getting married truely for religious reasons then i support that 100%. it just seems to me that most of them are fighting only for the benefits, and to me thats wrong. that would be like me as a single person fighting to get the same breaks and benefits that married couples get and claiming discrimination against singles if they said no.

if its solely for love thats one thing. if its only for the government tax breaks and benefits thats something completely different.

In another thread about this subject, someone posted that this whole "marriage" thing was a religious ceremony and should have no impact or relation on how the US government should recognize a "couple".

I totally agree with that and wish that was the case. However, that is not so.

In my opinion, I don't give a shit who marries who. I just got married because my wife dreamt of that since she was playing with barbies. By law, were were married "by common law" many years before without signing a paper and again a few years after that when I had a common law paper notarized so I could get her on my health benefits. Did getting "married", traditionally, change anything ? No.

There are many forms a "marriage" or a recognizable status of being "married" in the US (as I see it, though it could just be my perspective). The only issue here is that the conservative public and the conservative government that plays to them are mistaking what a legal union between two engaged in a binding relationship that engage in sex is.

That's how I see it. If the thought of marriage had nothing to do with who fucks who, it would be more like a business partnership and thus not frighten anyone.

Imagine a couple.. one of them has a well paying job (possibly for the government, with a pension plan), and the other a job they love.. (such as an artist) that doesn't pay much. They've been living together for 30 years, and by "common law" they WOULD be a married couple.

But they are the same sex... shouldn't the one who has a very well paying job be able to support their partner by contributing health care, medicare, social security, etc.?

Its not JUST about "getting a tax break". Its about being recognized by society as an officially married couple. Gays love each other JUST as much as straight people, or bisexual people, or black people, or people who don't believe in god.. so why are they denied the BASIC right to get married, and recognized by the state as a married couple?

yeah i agree with most of that. i dont know maybe its just because im against government handouts in general. here's the way i look at it (not saying im right, just what i believe in):

- i dont rely on social security for my retirement. if i want to have money to retire on, thats up to me to be responsible and save for it.

- i dont rely on medicare. if i want medical coverage, i pay for a health insurance plan. now i understand that not everyone qualifies for health insurance, so medicare is good for them and im ok with that.

- i try not to rely on the government for anything. if i need something for me or my family, i take responsibilty for myself and go out and work for it. its not fun and its never easy, but that is what being a responsible adult is about.


i guess if i could sum it all up in one question it would be: if gay marriage was legalized and their union was recognized "by society" but they did not get any of the "married" government benefits, would they be ok with that? if yes, cool im behind it all the way. if no, then I dont personally agree with the reasons.

bottom line, most of those "married" benefits are relics from back when the wives used to stay home with the kids (not being sexist, that was the initial reason for the benefits). these days times are different. these laws should apply to parents, not married couples. but thats just my opinion.

What about retarded human beings? No offense to them, but some retarded humans have the mental capacity of a chimp. Should they be allowed to get married? If so, why not a chimp since it shares a similar capacity in brain function? Is it because it's of a different species? If that's the case that's just being a dirty speciesist. You can't discriminate between species now can you? I mean after all it wasn't too long ago that Americans were being discriminated against for having a different colored skin (oh wait... it's still happening today. Never mind ). Seriously though, if an overly retarded person can enter to a marriage 'legally' then I really don't see how you could say it would be any different than a chimp, which has almost an identical mental capacity.

'It could never agree to it! It can't speak yada yada yada'

What about mutes?

'They can still write lalalala'

What about deaf, mute, and blind people?

'Uh... They can do the whole hellen keller thing...'

What if they are quadriplegic?

'... Uhm.. they can't get married.. .. I guess.'

How DARE you say that a HUMAN BEING can't get married. You sir are sick and deranged with you putting limitations on marriage between humans!

Um no offense.. but you're proving my point about how ridiculous the ban on gay marriage IS.

Why is it that a straight male can marry a straight female? Even if one of them is paralyzed, deaf, blind, and can't speak, mentally disabled, has a disease, any combination of these? If they love each other, its okay right?

So why can't two people, just because they were born of the same sex, get married?

then how would that person say "i do"?









sorry couldn't resist.

Sign language.

Yep. I'm a single a parent. I guess my child will grow up mentally fucked up because of it. Better take him away from me and give him to a married couple.</sarcasm>

I don't usually agree with 12clicks on much, but his I do. Gays get "married" now and say they are "married" even though they legally are not. So why not get a civil union and call yourself married?

Gays insistance on being married is only making the republicans stay in control that much longer. One would think if you wanted to get the rights you think you are being denied it's better to get people in office that will actually do that for you. Even Dick Cheney said civil unions are ok. And in fact enough republicans think so too that if gays would settle for that this won't even be an issue.

Having been married and divorced I can tell any gays reading this that it aint what it's all cracked up to be. Consider yourself lucky.

Here's the end to this discussion:

"Marriage" is a religious union under god of a man and woman, somehow (yea, we know how), adopted by a government to mean something more than the religious aspect of that.

A dude on dude / chick on chick "marriage" union does not fit that definition of union because it does not lead to procreation.

Fundamentally: marriage of a man and woman = procreation under the consent of god.

Either deal with that in regard to our current political system or fucking get out there and vote. Discussion of this is otherwise useless.

I refuse to go fuck myself until I marry myself, and I'm still waiting for the right me to come along.

Gays have got it wrong. Marriage is a union between a male and a female. Go call it something else and you don't have a problem.

Call it 'twinkletoes' and we're all happy, but marriage...no way.

Lyn

lol honestly who cares if its a man and a woman, woman and a woman, or man and a man? if they want to get married let them. i don't see how it effects you in anyway.. too many stubborn closeminded people..

Fuck you in the goatass.

Seperate but equal is never going to really be equal. Didn't segregation teach us that lesson?

Idiot.

im not even gay and i still don't see where the problem arises..

do you people have nothing better to worry about other than gay marriage? go bake some cookies or something you're making me tired..

Fucking bigot remark, plain and simple.

Kids are MUCH better off growing up in state custody, huh? Idiot.

You OBVIOUSLY have no idea of what's really involved here. Go educate your god damn self about he real issues involved or shut the fuck up.

Men or women who are sterile are still allowed to marry, not all married couple have kids, and god doesn't exist much less "consent" to the 50% of marriages you breeders have that end up in divorce, so

lol i wasn't bashing you dumb fuck. i already stated i wish they would let gays get married because i don't see a problem with it.

Oh, I'm lucky because you're unable to make a long term committed relationship work?

BoyAlley, man.... I see why the gay community is bent; they don't get the same couple rights as "married" heterosexuals do. But fuck man, this whole "marriage" thing the gay community fights against is, inherently, a religious institution of which you're pretty much fucked to even fight against: You can't fight a belief; you just can't. However, and I could be wrong, I think the union you (and other homosexuals) want is just one that is recognized by the government much like "marriage" is among heterosexuals.

I'm all about getting the church separated from the state, as I hate hearing political speeches that bring god / religion into the mix. Fight against that, against what a "union" of two individuals mean and perhaps that'll work.

However, trying to re-work a religious covenant between a man and woman to also include a man & man / woman & woman is pretty much insane.

couldn't have said it better myself...

Damn, BoyAlley's on the warpath!!! Death to all Breeders!!! Hey wait a minute, I am teh straight!

You know why this issue pisses me the fuck off so much? A lot of people in this thread are a PERFECT illustration:

You get these straight people, who have no idea what "marriage" really provides, and take for granted all of the rights and protections that they have, and simply dismiss without thought or education on the topic, the idea of gays getting married.

Being able to visit your loved one in the hospital, being able to bury them and attend their funeral should they die, being able to keep the house you shared together for 40 years when one passes without having to pay taxes that are so large you're forced to sell the house, being able to have shared health benefits, the list goes on and on and on and on and on.

You breeders can get drunk one night in Vegas, sign a slip of paper, and in 20 minutes have ALL of those protections, plus over 1,200 more federal protections.

My partner and I have had to spend years and thousands upon thousands of dollars to just BEGIN to provide some of those protections for each other.

And even with that being done, in most states, families can dispute any paperwork that gays have drafted, and in a lot of cases they win at the expense of the surviving partner.

The laws are fucked, they're discriminatory, and they're bigoted. Fuck your ideological beliefs, you're Jesus bullshit, and the President's political games he's playing with the constitution. These are REAL people's lives we're talking about.

yeah i can see your points here and i agree that these parts should be changed and recognized for gay couples.


yeah but gay couples also don't have to worry about golddiggers that want to marry you and then divorce you a year later, taking HALF of your money. you also dont have to pay alimony if you choose to split up. what you are fighting for can be a pandoras box at times. careful what you wish for.


what you got to understand is that just because you dont believe in God or Jesus, doesn't mean that the people in power agree with you. this country was founded on it's religious beliefs and there will never be a complete separation of church and state.

What YOU apparently don't understand is that most of the people in power couldn't give a flying fuck less about Jesus or any of that crap.

It's a tool people like George Bush use to get the mindless sheep in this country to vote for his sorry ass.

You think he cared about Jesus when he was fucking hookers behind his wife's back, snorting coke, and driving around drunk every other night of the week? NO. But, the second gays want equal rights and protections in this country, it's JESUS OUR LORD DOES NOT APPROVE OF YOUR LIFESTYLE.

Fuck them.

i'm in love with elle and i am a lesbian so i fit right in here.

The moral decay of our society continues.

and i am assuming that you can prove ANY of what you just said? come on boyalley, you are smarter than that shit. how can you know what their actual beliefs deep down are? you are substituting your opinion for actual facts (which is exactly what you hate them for doing). you gotta be careful or you end up being guilty of the exact same ignorant and close-minded bullshit that they are.

[QUOTE=BoyAlley]it's JESUS OUR LORD DOES NOT APPROVE OF YOUR LIFESTYLE./QUOTE]

1. I have no issues here, as I think discrimination is discrimination.

2. The fact is, most people have issues about someone of one sex fucking another of the same sex.

PERIOD.

If it's Jesus telling those people it's wrong, or something else, who the fuck knows. Stop bitching about Jesus. Religion is only one reason why people fight against the union of homosexual couples.

I'm sorry, but the rights of many, these days, not just homosexuals, are stepped on, ignored and just plain thrown out the window. This thread is the least of my worries as a human being living in the US, in regard to rights.

Oh sorry I guess I should have toughed it out with my cheating, drug addicted wife. Your ignornace just proves you don't need to be marired. Oh wait please do. I want to see you back here in a few years telling me how right I was. Maybe if your lucky you'll live in a state where your "wife" will get half your shit. So good luck with that.

Quit acting like gays are better at relationships. I'm quite positive that if gays could get married thay'd sufer the same 60% divorce rate.

My grandmother got remarried at 77 to a 78 year old man. I'm 100% positive that it was never intended to or could ever lead to procreation. SO she shouldn't have been allowed to get married?

And as long as you have this "all or nothing" attitude the religous right will continue to elect very conservative republicans and you will never get ANY rights. You could have gotten your "civil unions" years ago then give society time to adjust then go for the whole "marriage" thing in 25 years.

Everyone has the right to be with who they love and be happy!

Apologies. My "procreation" thing was a bit too much, I guess.

Maybe you shouldn't have married a crackwhore to begin with?

I've been with my partner for 8 years now, and I made sure I really KNEW him before I committed myself to that. I don't imagine I'll be telling you that you're right.

I think gays are barking up the wrong tree and they will never win the uphill battle that is ahead of them..... *never* will they win with the strategy that has been used up to this point. - and before you ask or bash, yes, I think there is and should be an amicable solution.

There are way too many variable that factor into the argument and while politics get the final say on the matter (and I say that because the ones who actually make the laws hold [or were appointed to] public office) the guy standing at the front isn't necessarily to blame when it's the ones behind him driving the argument in various directions.

I said there were many variable - but (for the purpose of this thread) I only want to focus on the one that I think are the biggest challenge that gays have to overcome.

Seperate But Equal


If you ever utter the phrase "seperate but equal" in defense of gay marriages, you may as well follow it up with any thoughts/beliefs you have but before you stop talking just say "but you're right and I'm wrong so I'll shut-up and go home and won't bother anyone about this matter any more". Women are seperate but equal. Blacks are seperate but equal. Being gay isn't seperate - it's different and that is the the point of attack that I think would work in their favor to getting the protections they want.

You don't get to choose your race (other than Michael Jackson) nor do you get to choose (at birth) your sex. Being gay is perceived as a lifestyle choice and, right or wrong, perception is reality.


Different But Equal.

If you use this as your "catch phrase" no one can argue their point against you. Being gay IS being different than being a heterosexual and there is nothing wrong with being different - isn't that what makes America great to begin with - it's diversity of people or at least "supposed" to make America great.

The downside of diversity is the different idealogical, political, ethical, religious and all the other beliefs that come with that diversity. Also on the downside of being different is that politicians *have* to cater to groups that have the largest population within the various "groups" of people and by nature, gays can not reproduce with each other (meaning a man can not get another man pregnant nor a woman get another woman pregnant). Since heterosexuals can, gays will never have the population explosion that would be necessary for politicians to listen to their message over heterosexuals, which, when using the "seperate but equal" arguement, they would need.

<sidenote>
On a side note, yes, we all know about adoption, mid-wives and artificial insemenation so yes, they can become parents, but to do that they need "outside" help with their reproduction and before you try and toss out the "well, heterosexual couple do that too" argument, some heterosexuals do have to do that when their "parts" don't work whereas every single gay couple has to. Anyone slapping that argument around is splitting hairs when you damn well know the point that's being made. The whole purpose the the procreation point was just to point out that gays will never exceed the heterosexual population
</sidenote>

, but let's move on shall we?

What do gays want? I'm not gay so I can't answer that question from personal experience and everyone is different so not all gays want the same thing... but from what I'm reading here.

Gays want society to accept their "marriage" and to have the same rights/privledges of married heterosexuals. Stop asking for that because gays will NEVER get it - and I for one, don't believe you should WANT it.

First of all, if you need society to "accept your relationship", I'd say you don't have much of a relationship to begin with. I'm married to who I'm married to and I could give a flying fuck if you accept it or not. Also, by wanting me to "accept" anything, you're asking me to change what I believe in and that's just not going to happen - because you "want" me to.

Choose another noun - marriage is already taken. I'd like to call my company Microsoft but no matter how many wishbones I pull on, it ain't gonna' happen. Call it "life partner" perhaps and then come up with the legal protections for that term - and there's no reason they can't have the same legal protections as groups that are married. Every company is different and run differently - but the all have pretty much the same legal documentations/formations as each other - different but equal.

<personal note>
BoyAlley, I feel your pain regarding what gays have to go through upon the death of their partner, but they can get some protection by forming an LLC and having the terms of that LLC state that upon the death of one of the members, their shares revert to the surviving member - then purchase assets (house/cars/whatever) though the LLC - and effectively shut out family member disputes. Hell, that's easier/cheaper to do than a heterosexual marriage! No, there are many other factors that wouldn't solve, but I did say "some protections" - now damn - turn off the yellow font already - you should be able to make your point without it!
</personalnote>

Maybe she wasn't that way when I married her.

I've been with my partner for 8 years now, and I made sure I really KNEW him before I committed myself to that. I don't imagine I'll be telling you that you're right.

Fuck off with your pompous attitude. I don't why you are being an asshole towards me. anyways how did you KNOW him? You figured out which side to slide your dick in his ass to avoid the hemorrhoids?

Hell I've defended gay people's right to adopt here in this threead and you are being an ass towards me? Go find some more hairy ass to fuck you limp wristed queer.

this seperate but equal thing is kinda funny.
A gay man has every right to marry a woman. His rights are 100% equal to that of a strait man. Both have the equal right to marry a woman.
The end.

here we gooo....

Well if this is the case then we as Americans will now have to call marriages between Jews and Catholics, Christians and Muslims, Mormons and Atheists, blacks and whites, and any other combination of couples that are not acceptable as a religious union, "civil unionized."

I'm sure a large percentage of Americans said they weren't going to "accept" blacks as citizens, since they were only worth 3/4 of a person at one time. In fact, I'm sure some people even said they weren't going to "accept" blacks being able to VOTE!

But the truth of the matter is, when you're dead no one will care about if you "accepted" anything. Gay marriage is going to happen, maybe not in your lifetime, maybe not in mine. But it is GOING to happen, and more power to the people who choose to be open-minded and fight for EQUAL rights between all Americans.

I'm not speaking of any one topic. One might think eating liver and onions is healthy and everyone should eat it to substain a longer life - but that doesn't mean I'll accept that point of view because someone "wants me to".

Who would care what a dead person thought. I'm talking about acceptance between living people.

I think your right and wrong. I believe that there will be a point in time - and possibly in my lifetime - that gay unions will have most of the legal protections as heterosexual couples - but it won't be referred to as a "marriage".