T Nation

Gay marraige

I want opinions, its been in the news a lot lately, what are your thoughts on gay marraige? There are many issues here no procreation, etc but I just wanted opinions.

personally i think its gay!

not that theres anything wrong with that.

Oh goody, I was really hoping to rehash this shit all over again.

Just remember, ZEB is neither intolerant or hypocritical.

Striker,

I am not trying to be negative, or rain on your thread. However, this topic has been beat to death. Please check back a few weeks and you will get all of the opinions that you could possibly want.

I do not agree with it. If we redefine marriage this time, where would it stop? I may add more later, but this is a good place to start.

Me Solomon Grundy

I think any citizen should have the right to be married. I don’t like the fact church is once again interferring in federal and state laws. The president and all the other politicians against it have pretty prehistoric views on the institution of marriage. “The sacred vows between a man and women should be upheld” sounds as old and outdated as “me tarzan…you jane”

Hope not to offend anyone on either side of this debate.

I personally think this is the most worthless issue that a nation like ours can focus on. I’ts basically arguing over use of a term. Almost everyone is in support of civil unions with the same legal ramifications that apply to marriage, just called a civil union. But they want it to be a Marriage.

It’s petty and childish and very self centered for either side to complain about this. Does anyone even realize with the serious problems our world is facing how such a petty little thing can be held so high in our culture. The world hates The US for this reason.

Let them marry each other, who the hell cares. They are going to do it anyways.
Many years from now, we’ll look back and think it was pretty silly not to let them.
People use to drill a hole in each others heads to let spirits out, and it was considered ‘normal’.

jaystyles

Here we go again.

After this thread dies, in a couple of weeks, I’m gonna start another one called “I hate gays, how bout you” just to get the ball rollin again.

tme,

America is a wonderful place where freedom of speech abounds. We are each entitled to our own opinion on the topics of the day. We happen to disagree on this particular issue. I have no problem with that. Peace brother.

Me either, ZEB, just poking a little fun is all.

Peace back at ya.

Just limit it to fags.

It was’nt long ago that whites were not permitted to marry blacks in many states. As has already been mentioned, this should be a non issue.
I don’t believe however, that churches should ever be forced to perform gay marriages. If it’s not part of a particular religion’s belief than why should they be forced to conduct it.

Gustojack, churches have every right to interfere in the operation of government, it is the government that has no right interfering in the operation of churches. Without the oversight of religion our leaders would soon be spending all their time getting bj?s in the oval office and no time ruining the country

Garm, that is absolutely amazing. I just never thought I’d ever hear anyone actually articulate a thought like that.

Good one Garm! but remember my friend…you CANNOT hardly ever change any minds on here or get anyone to admit they may have been wrong or changed their opinion.(BTW: I may have been wrong on the democrat/race issue)

“A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”
And that goes DOUBLE on this here website forum!

The only thing I will say about gay marriage is a question: Was anybody here born out of a dude and consequently have two daddies?
If you are being intellectually honest you will answer either YES or NO. Period…

I guess we could turn this into a religious debate now and argue that without religion there would be no war! lol

This could prove to be the most controversial thread yet.

I also think that the government should ban protein! Hah!

nephorm, what’s even scarier is that there are probably quite a few forumites who agree with that idiotic statement.

What I really love is when people also argue on preserving the “sanctity of marriage” between a man and a woman. Oh really? Tell that to the 60% of couples that end up in divorce. There ain’t enough love as it is right now in this country. I’m all for celebrating the love and respect between two human beings - no matter what the gender.

Tomorrow, Ko and I are going to a celebration. This celebration is being held at the home of two, excellent friends of ours. They got married a few weeks ago. They’re gay. And a couple of the best people we know.

NAMBLA is standing back stage, getting ready to be introduced by the gay movement.

Re: the interplay of religious values with laws:

http://volokh.com/2004_03_07_volokh_archive.html#107905664940101484

[Eugene Volokh, 3/11/2004 05:57:29 PM <2004_03_07_volokh_archive.html>] (See posts that link to this one) http://www.technorati.com/cosmos/links.html?rank=&url=http://volokh.com%2F2004_03_07_volokh_archive.html%23107905664940101484
Forcing their religious opinions on us: I must have blogged about this a while ago, but this trope keeps bugging me. “Those fundamentalist Christians are trying to force their religious opinions on us,” the argument goes. But that’s what most lawmaking is – trying to turn one’s opinions on moral or pragmatic subjects into law.

Gay rights activists are trying to force their opinions on us by making employers not discriminate based on sexual orientation, or by making taxpayers pay for various marriage-related benefits for same-sex couples as well as heterosexual couples. Civil rights activists forced their opinions about race and sex discrimination on private employers, landlords, and business owners.

Nor are libertarians immune, unless they’re anarchists (though even the anarchists are willing to force their opinions through the use of deadly force, even if not through legislation). After all, laws against breach of contract, theft, rape, murder, and the like also involve the defenders of those laws forcing their opinions on the rest of us.

Ah, the argument goes, but those laws are backed by secular arguments, not religious ones. Well, as it happens, many laws – civil rights laws, for instance – were motivated by religious opinions (it’s the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., you might recall). But more importantly, all of our opinions are ultimately based on unproven and unprovable moral premises. For some of us, the moral premises are secular; for others, they’re religious; I don’t see why the former are somehow more acceptable than the latter. And the slogan “separation of church and state” hardly resolves anything here: Churches may have no legal role in our government, but religious believers are just as entitled to vote their views into law as are atheists or agnostics.

Of course, it’s perfectly sound to disagree with people’s views on the merits: If I don’t agree with the substance of someone’s proposal, whether it’s religious or secular, I’ll certainly criticize the substance. And naturally people will often find others’ religious arguments unpersuasive – “ban this because God said so” isn’t going to persuade someone who doesn’t believe in God, or who has a different view of God’s will. (Likewise, many devout Christians may find unpersuasive arguments that completely fail to engage devout Christians’ religious beliefs.) But there’s nothing at all illegitimate about people making up their own minds about which laws to enact based on their own unprovable religious moral beliefs, or on their own unprovable secular moral beliefs.