Gay Marriage

[Kitsune Inferno]

Do they really need a document to tell them that they're partners? Any kind of point for gays getting married is starting to slip away in my mind.

That document grants couples certain privileges, such as the ability to adopt.

[Harwood Butcher]

Do they really need a document to tell them that they're partners? Any kind of point for gays getting married is starting to slip away in my mind.

That document grants couples certain privileges, such as the ability to adopt.

Exactly. When it comes down to it, all they want are the privileges. Marriage used to be, still is by some, looked at as a religious bond between two individuals that love and care for each other that want to start a family. Unfortunately gay couples are unable to reproduce together and I don't think there is a religion out there that accepts gay marriage. If there were then I don't think we would have this current problem.

Then again...I don't believe you have to be married to adopt a child. So I'm not sure what other reasons there would be as to why they would want to get married.

[Gerard]

It's two things. Firstly the principle, secondly the rights and other legal benefits.

The principle is that we believe that to treat same-sex couples differently from heterosexual couples in this way is deeply discriminatory. We just want to be treated the same - and our relationships (that we deem sacred) should be able to be made official, just like straight couples.

There are lots of extra rights married couples (and thus official families) get, depending where in the world you are. They share the tax burden, they can inherit estates from each other, you are exempt from estate/gift taxes to your spouse, you can set up special trusts and accounts, you would be the first person if they need to make a medical decision etc (like organ donation, turning off life support etc), you get Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses, you receive veterans' and military benefits for spouses (such as those for education, medical care, or special loans) and general welfare benefits.

Think about the medical decision one - with a straight couple, if one of them is terminally ill, the other gets priority to decide when to let go and turn life support off, because they're married and thus next of kin. With a gay couple, that right does not exist at all, and the decision would have to be made by a parent, child, or sibling. That would be an awful situation, especially if the partner didn't agree with the parent/child/sibling.

[Harwood Butcher]

It's two things. Firstly the principle, secondly the rights and other legal benefits.

The principle is that we believe that to treat same-sex couples differently from heterosexual couples in this way is deeply discriminatory. We just want to be treated the same - and our relationships (that we deem sacred) should be able to be made official, just like straight couples.

Treating people differently could be slightly different from not allowing people to do certain things. If there is not a religion that allows gay marriage then I believe that homosexuals should begin a new religion that allows it instead of trying to change other religion's beliefs. OR homosexuals could try to get the government to create another way to unite homosexual couples.

There are lots of extra rights married couples (and thus official families) get, depending where in the world you are. They share the tax burden, they can inherit estates from each other, you are exempt from estate/gift taxes to your spouse, you can set up special trusts and accounts, you would be the first person if they need to make a medical decision etc (like organ donation, turning off life support etc), you get Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses, you receive veterans' and military benefits for spouses (such as those for education, medical care, or special loans) and general welfare benefits.

Again, it comes down to the benefits that leads me to assume that that's all marriage is to these couples, which straight couples might think as well. Although, some of those benefits aren't necessarily restricted from single individuals.

Think about the medical decision one - with a straight couple, if one of them is terminally ill, the other gets priority to decide when to let go and turn life support off, because they're married and thus next of kin. With a gay couple, that right does not exist at all, and the decision would have to be made by a parent, child, or sibling. That would be an awful situation, especially if the partner didn't agree with the parent/child/sibling.

An individual is able to choose someone other than family to make that sort of decision, but those people obviously have to be chosen before hand.

Edited February 23, 2009 by Harwood Butcher

[Gerard]

A lot of those rights are principled rights - the name sharing and joint adoptions and next-of-kin status. They mean more than financial ones.

If they don't matter, why hold them back from us? There's no real reason.

We're not trying to opress straight couples, we're not trying to devalue what they have. We just want to be ALLOWED to value what we have with each other in the same way, cos there really is no difference.

[LDoubleU]

Yeah, true as that is Gerrard thing is, our country is based on ancient religious beliefs that our fucked up government are too scared to let go of Because if they do David cameron will get up on his high horse and tell Gordon Brown how much of a tosser he is... Unfortunately the restriction of gay marriage is encompassed by that I think.

[Harwood Butcher]

A lot of those rights are principled rights - the name sharing and joint adoptions and next-of-kin status. They mean more than financial ones.

If they don't matter, why hold them back from us? There's no real reason.

We're not trying to opress straight couples, we're not trying to devalue what they have. We just want to be ALLOWED to value what we have with each other in the same way, cos there really is no difference.

Its the financial ones that are the problem. There are aparently too many loop-holes with it. The name sharing and joint adoptions are most likely not the problem with gay marriage. If those are the only things homosexuals want then I think homosexuals should fight for those rights instead of being allowed to get married.

Edited February 23, 2009 by Harwood Butcher

[Spaz The Great]

My reasons for thinking gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt does not involve their parenting skills. In regards to that, I think gay couples could be just as good at parenting as any other kind of couple out there.

This is all I could find. This post clearly states that you don't think they should be able to adopt, in the bold area. If you didn't think they shouldn't adopt, you wouldn't have reasons for thinking it((because well, that just doesn't make sense)). However, underlined you state that they would make good parents. Just as good as any other couple. This, does not, make sense. If they can make good parents, why shouldn't they be allowed to be parents? If you aren't against them, why do you think they shouldn't adopt?

Well the reason it doesn't make any sense is because you either don't remember or never read my previous post that explain my reasons. I didn't really want to repeat myself, but I guess I'm going to have to.

I feel that gay couples have the same possible chance of being good parents as any other kind of couple out there. Although, just because they could be good parents doesn't necessarily mean they should be allowed to adopt.

The reason I don't think they should be allowed to adopt is not based on them being homosexuals, but because of the effect their homosexuality could have on the children they adopt. Now depending on the way you look at it, it could mean it's because of their homosexuality or the sponge-like effect of the human brain.

If the child of homosexual parents is exposed to homosexuality, there is a greater chance of them too becoming a homosexual. It really depends on how old the child is when they are adopted, how they're raised, what they're exposed, etc.

Hypothetically, if this were to happen then that child won't grow up to reproduce. Then again, depending on the way you look at it, the child/children that could have been might have turned out to be the next Einstein or the next Hitler.

As this spread worldwide then there is a possibility that the percent of homosexuals of our population would slowly shift, which could possibly cause problems thousands of years in the future.

The idea is a little out there, but it's a possibility.

Since the outcome could go either way, it brings the whole scenario down to a "Is the glass half empty or half full?" type of questions.

Now don't get me wrong, I feel they should have the same rights as any other couple out there. I just feel that there could be risk, which is why I don't think they should, but again, it's not my life. I'm basically just putting my two cents in.

There's really no point in trying to prove me wrong or anything because this is just a random thought I had a month or so ago that I don't necessarily stand by as much as some of my other views or beliefs, so I don't really care too much what you think of my opinion or what you think of me based on my opinion.

Can we stop arguing about arguing? And lets resume arguing about whether or not people should be restricted rights cuz they like teh cock.

Being raised by gay parents doesn't = gay child. If that child isn't going to be homosexual, they aren't going to be homosexual. It isn't about WHAT a child is exposed to, it's HOW that child is exposed to things. Why do people have such a tiny understanding of the child psyche? I haven't taken a single class of psychology, child development, or anything of the such and I can still understand these things.

That wasn't an attack at you, it was an attack at your words, and therefore, the vast amount of people who use that as an excuse as to why gays shouldn't adopt. You provided a point of view, and I'm providing an opposing one.

Another way to look at it, though, is even if we produce more homosexuals, that means we get a nice decrease in population growth, and we are OVER-POPULATED. Homosexuality, to me, is kind of like nature's way of keeping species from over-populating. It isn't suppose to make lives different, it is just suppose to help the world from becoming over-populated. But people attack it for "being different", and are entirely destroying what small attempts it now has at saving our world from over-population.

Or any anti-choice agnostics?

Love that video. Did I post it in this topic, or a different one?

Well I've been starting to think about the initial reason for this topic, "Gay Marriage". Marriage is basically receiving documentation that says that two people are united as one, as a couple. If homosexuals don't care what other people think about their sexual orientation then why does it matter whether or not their relationship is placed into a document stating that they are partners?

Do they really need a document to tell them that they're partners? Any kind of point for gays getting married is starting to slip away in my mind.

Straight couples usually get married because of their religious beliefs and if gays want to get married based off of their religious beliefs then there should be no problem with them getting married provided that their religion does not exclude gay marriage. If their religion excludes gay marriage then I don't see the reason for them wanting to be apart of a religion that excludes their way of life.

Actually, only religious people get married for religious reasons. Non-religious people get married all the time. Shouldn't they be not allowed to marry, too? And quite frankly, religion shouldn't be a bunch of straight-edge rulers that you must choose one and stick with it 100% always and forever. Religion isn't marriage. Your religion should be beliefs that YOU chose, not someone else. It should grow as you grow, and change the same. If your religion stays the same always and you never let it alter or grow with you, it isn't even a religion. It's a rule-book.

Do they really need a document to tell them that they're partners? Any kind of point for gays getting married is starting to slip away in my mind.

That document grants couples certain privileges, such as the ability to adopt.

Exactly. When it comes down to it, all they want are the privileges. Marriage used to be, still is by some, looked at as a religious bond between two individuals that love and care for each other that want to start a family. Unfortunately gay couples are unable to reproduce together and I don't think there is a religion out there that accepts gay marriage. If there were then I don't think we would have this current problem.

Then again...I don't believe you have to be married to adopt a child. So I'm not sure what other reasons there would be as to why they would want to get married.

Actually, there's plenty of religions that accept gay marriage. There are religions that don't care in the least about TRIVIAL things such as sexual orientation. We have this problem because there are governments that won't accept a homosexual marriage as a valid marriage between two people. You can get married to the same gender in America, provided you're in the right state((Cali?)), but the other states won't recognize you as a married couple.

And as stated, there are various things that couples can do, ACCORDING TO LAW((not religion)), if married that they couldn't do otherwise. This is the LAW. I'm speaking of America here, we are suppose to be a free country, we are suppose to be free to make our own life decisions. Why are Christian values being forced upon us? THAT is where a problem is arising.

A lot of those rights are principled rights - the name sharing and joint adoptions and next-of-kin status. They mean more than financial ones.

If they don't matter, why hold them back from us? There's no real reason.

We're not trying to opress straight couples, we're not trying to devalue what they have. We just want to be ALLOWED to value what we have with each other in the same way, cos there really is no difference.

Its the financial ones that are the problem. There are aparently too many loop-holes with it. The name sharing and joint adoptions are most likely not the problem with gay marriage. If those are the only things homosexuals want then I think homosexuals should fight for those rights instead of being allowed to get married.

What, exactly, are you trying to say? Any "loop-holes" in financial gains from a homosexual marriage would be apparent in a heterosexual marriage. And even more benefit, you're not looked at as funny if you're in a straight marriage.

[Harwood Butcher]

Being raised by gay parents doesn't = gay child. If that child isn't going to be homosexual, they aren't going to be homosexual. It isn't about WHAT a child is exposed to, it's HOW that child is exposed to things. Why do people have such a tiny understanding of the child psyche? I haven't taken a single class of psychology, child development, or anything of the such and I can still understand these things.

I never said that every child would become a homosexual, but I do think there is a higher chance for them to become that way if they have homosexual parents. I don't think it would be a problem, but it has potential to grow into a problem after a few thousand years or so. Again, you can look at it in many different ways, so take it as you will, that's just my opinion.

Another way to look at it, though, is even if we produce more homosexuals, that means we get a nice decrease in population growth, and we are OVER-POPULATED. Homosexuality, to me, is kind of like nature's way of keeping species from over-populating. It isn't suppose to make lives different, it is just suppose to help the world from becoming over-populated. But people attack it for "being different", and are entirely destroying what small attempts it now has at saving our world from over-population.

Diseases could cause a decrease in population as well, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily a good thing. Don't take that the wrong way though...I'm not really trying to compare homosexuals to diseases.

Actually, only religious people get married for religious reasons. Non-religious people get married all the time. Shouldn't they be not allowed to marry, too? And quite frankly, religion shouldn't be a bunch of straight-edge rulers that you must choose one and stick with it 100% always and forever. Religion isn't marriage. Your religion should be beliefs that YOU chose, not someone else. It should grow as you grow, and change the same. If your religion stays the same always and you never let it alter or grow with you, it isn't even a religion. It's a rule-book.

Marriage is a religious ceremony even if people do look at it as a simple document explaining how two individuals are joined. If religions are beliefs that someone has chosen...then why are there homosexuals that want to be married through a religion that doesn't accept their way of life?

Actually, there's plenty of religions that accept gay marriage. There are religions that don't care in the least about TRIVIAL things such as sexual orientation. We have this problem because there are governments that won't accept a homosexual marriage as a valid marriage between two people. You can get married to the same gender in America, provided you're in the right state((Cali?)), but the other states won't recognize you as a married couple.

And as stated, there are various things that couples can do, ACCORDING TO LAW((not religion)), if married that they couldn't do otherwise. This is the LAW. I'm speaking of America here, we are suppose to be a free country, we are suppose to be free to make our own life decisions. Why are Christian values being forced upon us? THAT is where a problem is arising.

Are there people actually stopping homosexuals from being together? If there are religions that accept them for who they are...are there people stopping them from getting married? People might be protesting this shit, but that doesn't mean that it's stopping them from doing what they want. BUT if homosexuals want these privileges that the government doesn't want to give them...then aren't homosexuals technically trying to taking away the state's decision? Look at America as a fat kid with a box of cookies, if he chooses to hand out cookies to all of his friends instead of other peers...then that's his right. If you were to take away the cookies from the fat kid...then you're taking part of his freedom.

What, exactly, are you trying to say? Any "loop-holes" in financial gains from a homosexual marriage would be apparent in a heterosexual marriage. And even more benefit, you're not looked at as funny if you're in a straight marriage.

That's true, but I think there is a greater chance of two individuals of the same gender agreeing to something like this for a loop-hole instead of two individuals of the opposite gender.

[Spaz The Great]

Another way to look at it, though, is even if we produce more homosexuals, that means we get a nice decrease in population growth, and we are OVER-POPULATED. Homosexuality, to me, is kind of like nature's way of keeping species from over-populating. It isn't suppose to make lives different, it is just suppose to help the world from becoming over-populated. But people attack it for "being different", and are entirely destroying what small attempts it now has at saving our world from over-population.

Diseases could cause a decrease in population as well, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily a good thing. Don't take that the wrong way though...I'm not really trying to compare homosexuals to diseases.

And diseases are another way that nature prevents over-population. Granted, it's a lot less pretty way. But people don't realize that there is a reason for natural occurring things.

Actually, only religious people get married for religious reasons. Non-religious people get married all the time. Shouldn't they be not allowed to marry, too? And quite frankly, religion shouldn't be a bunch of straight-edge rulers that you must choose one and stick with it 100% always and forever. Religion isn't marriage. Your religion should be beliefs that YOU chose, not someone else. It should grow as you grow, and change the same. If your religion stays the same always and you never let it alter or grow with you, it isn't even a religion. It's a rule-book.

Marriage is a religious ceremony even if people do look at it as a simple document explaining how two individuals are joined. If religions are beliefs that someone has chosen...then why are there homosexuals that want to be married through a religion that doesn't accept their way of life?

Unless the two people go to Las Vegas and elope. But they want to be married through said religion because that's what they have to do in a Christian-based country. And furthermore, there ARE gay Christians. Just because most Christians don't "believe in"((because THAT makes sense)) homosexuality, doesn't mean they all have to be against it. Again, religions aren't straight-edged rulers that you must fit in perfectly. You don't choose a religion because it accepts you, you choose it because YOU accept IT.

Actually, there's plenty of religions that accept gay marriage. There are religions that don't care in the least about TRIVIAL things such as sexual orientation. We have this problem because there are governments that won't accept a homosexual marriage as a valid marriage between two people. You can get married to the same gender in America, provided you're in the right state((Cali?)), but the other states won't recognize you as a married couple.

And as stated, there are various things that couples can do, ACCORDING TO LAW((not religion)), if married that they couldn't do otherwise. This is the LAW. I'm speaking of America here, we are suppose to be a free country, we are suppose to be free to make our own life decisions. Why are Christian values being forced upon us? THAT is where a problem is arising.

Are there people actually stopping homosexuals from being together? If there are religions that accept them for who they are...are there people stopping them from getting married? People might be protesting this shit, but that doesn't mean that it's stopping them from doing what they want. BUT if homosexuals want these privileges that the government doesn't want to give them...then aren't homosexuals technically trying to taking away the state's decision? Look at America as a fat kid with a box of cookies, if he chooses to hand out cookies to all of his friends instead of other peers...then that's his right. If you were to take away the cookies from the fat kid...then you're taking part of his freedom.

First off, apparently there are people stopping them, because we're here talking about it, no? And most American states do no recognize homosexual marriages as legitimate marriages, regardless of how or where they got married. It doesn't matter. They won't LEGALLY recognize it.

And the state doesn't have rights, BTW. They aren't suppose to run us, we're suppose to run them. That's how a democracy is suppose to run. Majority vote. The government doesn't deserve the freedom it currently has. When the government gets more freedom/power/rights, it just fucks things up more.

What, exactly, are you trying to say? Any "loop-holes" in financial gains from a homosexual marriage would be apparent in a heterosexual marriage. And even more benefit, you're not looked at as funny if you're in a straight marriage.

That's true, but I think there is a greater chance of two individuals of the same gender agreeing to something like this for a loop-hole instead of two individuals of the opposite gender.

I still would see it more possible for opposite gender friends doing this. I mean, it would look more "natural", people would have less to comment on it, etc. Keeping homosexual marriage unrecognized as a legal union because of this reason would just be stupid.

[Harwood Butcher]

And diseases are another way that nature prevents over-population. Granted, it's a lot less pretty way. But people don't realize that there is a reason for natural occurring things.

That seems like a religious look at it, but that could just be me.

Unless the two people go to Las Vegas and elope. But they want to be married through said religion because that's what they have to do in a Christian-based country. And furthermore, there ARE gay Christians. Just because most Christians don't "believe in"((because THAT makes sense)) homosexuality, doesn't mean they all have to be against it. Again, religions aren't straight-edged rulers that you must fit in perfectly. You don't choose a religion because it accepts you, you choose it because YOU accept IT.

With Christianity, being gay is a sin. So that's why most Christians don't believe in gay marriage, although I'm Christian and I believe that homosexuals should be able to do what they want, but now I'm beginning to question why it's necessary, that's all.

First off, apparently there are people stopping them, because we're here talking about it, no? And most American states do no recognize homosexual marriages as legitimate marriages, regardless of how or where they got married. It doesn't matter. They won't LEGALLY recognize it.

You can't stop someone from seeing someone. It's not like homosexuals are being thrown in jail simply because they're homosexuals. We're discussing gay marriage and just because they can't get married doesn't mean they're being stopped from being together. Do homosexuals need documents to tell them that they're together?

I believe gay marriage was outlawed by the population of the states. Yes, it shouldn't be other people's decision on whether or not homosexuals should marry, but that's how it works. If this topic were titled "Should the population decide whether or not homosexuals are allowed to marry", then I would say "No."

And the state doesn't have rights, BTW. They aren't suppose to run us, we're suppose to run them. That's how a democracy is suppose to run. Majority vote. The government doesn't deserve the freedom it currently has. When the government gets more freedom/power/rights, it just fucks things up more.

Like I stated above, it was voted by the people and the majority said, "No."

I still would see it more possible for opposite gender friends doing this. I mean, it would look more "natural", people would have less to comment on it, etc. Keeping homosexual marriage unrecognized as a legal union because of this reason would just be stupid.

I would find it kind of hard for a male bum to find a female out there that would want to agree to this.

I agree with you though, it would be hard for a homosexual couple that was not truly homosexual to convince people that they were.

[Cobra]

my answer will definatly NO because my religion ISLAM do not allow this

[Connor]

What's the reason for not allowing it btw?

Apart from 'the koran says it's wrong'.

Edited March 10, 2009 by Twisted

[Spaz The Great]

And diseases are another way that nature prevents over-population. Granted, it's a lot less pretty way. But people don't realize that there is a reason for natural occurring things.

That seems like a religious look at it, but that could just be me.

No, I believe nature is a self-sustaining intelligent thing. I believe that nature keeps itself going and does things that are necessary to keep things working. It has nothing to do with religion, at all.

Unless the two people go to Las Vegas and elope. But they want to be married through said religion because that's what they have to do in a Christian-based country. And furthermore, there ARE gay Christians. Just because most Christians don't "believe in"((because THAT makes sense)) homosexuality, doesn't mean they all have to be against it. Again, religions aren't straight-edged rulers that you must fit in perfectly. You don't choose a religion because it accepts you, you choose it because YOU accept IT.

With Christianity, being gay is a sin. So that's why most Christians don't believe in gay marriage, although I'm Christian and I believe that homosexuals should be able to do what they want, but now I'm beginning to question why it's necessary, that's all.

Alright, but again, you're looking at religion as an elite group that you must be this height to ride. If you believe in Christ, you are a Christian. That's the only requirement. Nothing else. It's necessary because they deserve the same fucking things straight people do. I fail to see how this is a hard concept to grasp.

First off, apparently there are people stopping them, because we're here talking about it, no? And most American states do no recognize homosexual marriages as legitimate marriages, regardless of how or where they got married. It doesn't matter. They won't LEGALLY recognize it.

You can't stop someone from seeing someone. It's not like homosexuals are being thrown in jail simply because they're homosexuals. We're discussing gay marriage and just because they can't get married doesn't mean they're being stopped from being together. Do homosexuals need documents to tell them that they're together?

I believe gay marriage was outlawed by the population of the states. Yes, it shouldn't be other people's decision on whether or not homosexuals should marry, but that's how it works. If this topic were titled "Should the population decide whether or not homosexuals are allowed to marry", then I would say "No."

It's not about being with someone. It's about the state and federal legal system accepting that you are seeing them. As explained((but apparently ignored)), married couples have certain rights that unmarried couples don't have. Gay people want to be able to have say over their partners medical decisions, they want to share tax issues, things that you have to be married to do. Half the time, this isn't even about the marriage so much as it is the benefits that they are NOT ALLOWED to have. Even if they just gave them something they could do that would legally define them as a couple and give them the benefits married couples have, I bet a lot of them would be happy with that. Not saying there aren't the ones who want to be married((just like a straight couple would want to be married)).

Why do STRAIGHT COUPLES need documents to tell them they're together?

I still would see it more possible for opposite gender friends doing this. I mean, it would look more "natural", people would have less to comment on it, etc. Keeping homosexual marriage unrecognized as a legal union because of this reason would just be stupid.

I would find it kind of hard for a male bum to find a female out there that would want to agree to this.

I agree with you though, it would be hard for a homosexual couple that was not truly homosexual to convince people that they were.

Why would it have to be a bum? It would be more common to see regular people doing this, just because Americans are greedy fucks.

[MeZaMe YuMe_MoMoKu]

Voted for no.

Marriage for me is for man and woman, not for gays.

[Harwood Butcher]

What's the reason for not allowing it btw?

Apart from 'the koran says it's wrong'.

LOL, that's his reason though. You're just trying to get someone to the point where they say. "Me not know..." so you could say that they have no reason. You're basically telling them that their reason isn't good enough for you and your reason for gay marriage to be legal may not be good enough for them...so leave it at that....damn.

No, I believe nature is a self-sustaining intelligent thing. I believe that nature keeps itself going and does things that are necessary to keep things working. It has nothing to do with religion, at all.

Ehh...I don't know...that still seems like a religious view to me for some reason.

Alright, but again, you're looking at religion as an elite group that you must be this height to ride. If you believe in Christ, you are a Christian. That's the only requirement. Nothing else. It's necessary because they deserve the same fucking things straight people do. I fail to see how this is a hard concept to grasp.

...I don't think there's a height requirement...

Bold: Hmmm...but Jews believe in Christ...

Why do STRAIGHT COUPLES need documents to tell them they're together?

Who said they do?

Why would it have to be a bum? It would be more common to see regular people doing this, just because Americans are greedy fucks.

Ok then, we'll just delete "bum" and replace it with "American".

[YellowJacket]

Straight couples usually get married because of their religious beliefs and if gays want to get married based off of their religious beliefs then there should be no problem with them getting married provided that their religion does not exclude gay marriage. If their religion excludes gay marriage then I don't see the reason for them wanting to be apart of a religion that excludes their way of life.

Uh, no? I'm athiest and my husband is buddhist. Marriage has nothing to do with religion. It's two people who are in love and want to spend the rest of their lives together and want to make it official with marriage.

[Harwood Butcher]

Straight couples usually get married because of their religious beliefs and if gays want to get married based off of their religious beliefs then there should be no problem with them getting married provided that their religion does not exclude gay marriage. If their religion excludes gay marriage then I don't see the reason for them wanting to be apart of a religion that excludes their way of life.

Uh, no? I'm athiest and my husband is buddhist. Marriage has nothing to do with religion. It's two people who are in love and want to spend the rest of their lives together and want to make it official with marriage.

Two atheist can't get married in a Christian church.

[YellowJacket]

Straight couples usually get married because of their religious beliefs and if gays want to get married based off of their religious beliefs then there should be no problem with them getting married provided that their religion does not exclude gay marriage. If their religion excludes gay marriage then I don't see the reason for them wanting to be apart of a religion that excludes their way of life.

Uh, no? I'm athiest and my husband is buddhist. Marriage has nothing to do with religion. It's two people who are in love and want to spend the rest of their lives together and want to make it official with marriage.

Two atheist can't get married in a Christian church.

Why, because you said so?

I know a lot of athiests, some of which are married. They don't let a belief stop them. You don't have to be religious to get married. A church is a church.

[Harwood Butcher]

Why, because you said so?

You're finally catching on.

I know a lot of athiests, some of which are married. They don't let a belief stop them. You don't have to be religious to get married. A church is a church.

You could get married through the city or some shit, but if someone wants to get married in a church, they usually have to be what ever religion that church practices.

[Spaz The Great]

Voted for no.

Marriage for me is for man and woman, not for gays.

Aw, shame you'll never be able to marry, then.

Alright, but again, you're looking at religion as an elite group that you must be this height to ride. If you believe in Christ, you are a Christian. That's the only requirement. Nothing else. It's necessary because they deserve the same fucking things straight people do. I fail to see how this is a hard concept to grasp.

...I don't think there's a height requirement...

Bold: Hmmm...but Jews believe in Christ...

The height requirement was just a reference to specific requirements to be a Christian. Although, your response sounded sarcastic, so I assume you understand that.

And Jews may believe he lived, but they don't believe him to be the son of God.

Why do STRAIGHT COUPLES need documents to tell them they're together?

Who said they do?

Then since they don't NEED it, should we tell them they aren't allowed to do it anymore?

Why would it have to be a bum? It would be more common to see regular people doing this, just because Americans are greedy fucks.

Ok then, we'll just delete "bum" and replace it with "American".

Pretty synonymous if you ask me.

Straight couples usually get married because of their religious beliefs and if gays want to get married based off of their religious beliefs then there should be no problem with them getting married provided that their religion does not exclude gay marriage. If their religion excludes gay marriage then I don't see the reason for them wanting to be apart of a religion that excludes their way of life.

Uh, no? I'm athiest and my husband is buddhist. Marriage has nothing to do with religion. It's two people who are in love and want to spend the rest of their lives together and want to make it official with marriage.

Two atheist can't get married in a Christian church.

The church doesn't have to know what religion they are. I'll straight up lie in a holy establishment for my own personal gain, and I'm definitely not the only one.

[Harwood Butcher]

Voted for no.

Marriage for me is for man and woman, not for gays.

Aw, shame you'll never be able to marry, then.

Uhh...were you calling him a woman? How would he not be able to marry unless he were gay...are you calling him gay? Me am confustered.

And Jews may believe he lived, but they don't believe him to be the son of God.

I don't believe you were that specific the first time around...

Then since they don't NEED it, should we tell them they aren't allowed to do it anymore?

EXACTLY!!! Neither straight or gay couples should be allowed to marry. Only Asexual people should be able to marry themselves.

The church doesn't have to know what religion they are. I'll straight up lie in a holy establishment for my own personal gain, and I'm definitely not the only one.

If you lie, they'll know...they always know.

[Bear]

If you have been baptised then you can get married in a church. They dont need to know that your beliefs have changed and that your Atheist, if you have been christianed as the Church of England, you can get married in those churches.

Also is the Church allows gay priests then why can't gay people get married? Seems unfair to me.

[Connor]

What's the reason for not allowing it btw?

Apart from 'the koran says it's wrong'.

LOL, that's his reason though. You're just trying to get someone to the point where they say. "Me not know..." so you could say that they have no reason. You're basically telling them that their reason isn't good enough for you and your reason for gay marriage to be legal may not be good enough for them...so leave it at that....damn.

LOL yourself.

I was asking what his reason was, just not 'the koran says it's wrong', I don't know the reason, I don't read the koran.

Bold: I didn't even say that, nor did they even give a reason.

damnnnn.

Edited March 12, 2009 by Twisted

[YellowJacket]

Why, because you said so?

You're finally catching on.

I know a lot of athiests, some of which are married. They don't let a belief stop them. You don't have to be religious to get married. A church is a church.

You could get married through the city or some shit, but if someone wants to get married in a church, they usually have to be what ever religion that church practices.

You're "facts" are the biggest piles of crap I have ever read.

A church is the typical place to get married. I am athiest and have been to a church before. You don't have to believe in God to go to a church. I went to my cousin's communion and went through eating the "bread" and listening to the priest go on and on about God. I tuned it out because it's not my thing but I still sat through it and didn't have to go in the first place if I didn't want to but it was for my cousin so I swallowed my pride and went.

You think someone has to be a believer in God to get married in a church and that's BS. People can choose to get married elsewhere if they want but most people want the typical church marriage.