Where do you Stand on Gay Marriage?

Personally I am straight. But I heard a great line that really reflects how I feel about this.

"Why not let them get married. Why should straight people be the only ones who suffer", I can't remember who said it, but it is true.

What do the Masses think?

Want to know what I think?
Religion should keep the hell out of Washington. Do we want to be like Iran or someother mideast country where religious ideals are enforced on the public?

HELL NO!

I don't even believe in heterosexual marriage, but if gay people want to get married I have no problem with that.

I just don't see what the big deal is, let them, I don't care, I couldn't care less.

Why do they even feel the need to get married anyway, why does anyone?

I guess I am not that religious, not religious at all, but, are the gay folks wanting to get married thinking religiously, or are they trying to stick it to the hetero's (and religion)?

Let them do what they want to do, it's their own business, it's their lives, not ours.

I agree with everyone so far. I think we ALL should be treated equally under the law and marriage is a legal institution (whether or not there's a religious component to it).

I don't mind religious people not approving of gay marriage, but when they impose their beliefs on others, then I see that as a problem.

It doesn't really matter to me who others chose to marry.

And if it did I would just not get one. I'd just leave them be.

It doesn't hurt anyone, so why does anyone care?

If gay people want to get married, why should anyone stop them?

Marriage is for one man and one woman.

It should be for the life of both, except in the case of extreme circumstances.

These should be standards maintained by a responsible citizenry, with only limited legal provisions.

Society has a stake in the marriage of individuals and therefore has the right to impose laws regarding such, but in the end, it is the basic morality of the citizenry that maintains social norms.

People my age and older have seen a social decline in our lifetimes that is closely correlated to quite a number of social changes, including the trivialization of marriage and the weakening of the nuclear family.

I've seen enough to convice me and the statistics and social theory all point to the importance of the family in maintaining a strong society and marriage is the linchpin of the family.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Marriage is for one man and one woman.

Why?

It should be for the life of both, except in the case of extreme circumstances.

Why?

These should be standards maintained by a responsible citizenry, with only limited legal provisions.

Why?

If you have to ask, you probably will not be receptive. I gave a pretty balanced response, which apparently, you did not read.

The data is out there, if you're interested.

Besides, the man asked where we stand.

Whom one chooses to marry and share a life with is NOBODY ELSES decicion than those who want to marry.
IF they want to get 'word specific' to stop people from marrying farm animals then let the words say HUMAN BEINGS...............instead of 'man/woman'

Its just WRONG to deny sweet loving & stable people and familys the right to be legally joined in union if they are adults and want to be joined.

Gay OR straight...adult human beings SHOULD have the right to be with whom THEY choose and not who the government says is OK.



[edit on 1-6-2007 by theRiverGoddess]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

People my age and older have seen a social decline in our lifetimes that is closely correlated to quite a number of social changes, including the trivialization of marriage and the weakening of the nuclear family.
.

The strange thing is.....
It's not the gay people that are trivializing marriage...it's the heterosexuals that divorce at the drop of a hat.

And as far as the social decline; we have no hero's. All we have left to admire are lier's, thieves, corrupt politicians, and the uber wealthy, moronic preachers and fools.

gay marriage.......none of my business

It's a brave new world, welcome to the monkey house!!

[edit on 1-6-2007 by whaaa]

[edit on 2-6-2007 by whaaa]

Well, to answer the question, I'll put it like this.


My definition of Marriage is the consenting legal and spiritual (though not necessarily
the latter) union between individuals.


Now, that said, I'm not trying to be vague to make me seem hazy on the issue,
I fully support gay marriage (It'd be weird for me not to), but I have given to just using that definition anymore.

Hey - if two people are in love and wish to make their union legal, who am I to butt my head into their private business....I'd sure hate it if someone I've never even met decided to pass judgement on my life just because they walked a different path.

Seriously - some times it would be so much better if more people focused on their own lifestyle more than the lifestyles of others.

Gay marriage? Honey - if you're in love - GO FOR IT.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I gave a pretty balanced response, which apparently, you did not read.

I did read your response several times. I didn't find the answers to my questions in your response, however.

The data is out there, if you're interested.

There is also data out there that totally disagrees with your data. I'm not interested in data. I'm interested in your opinion, which is what this thread asks for.

Besides, the man asked where we stand.

Exactly. Which is what I was also asking for. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.

My question was (and you're certainly free to answer or not) Why (in your opinion) should marriage be limited to an agreement between one man and one woman? I'm not suggesting we make marriage unavailable to unions between one man and one woman. I'm asking why it shouldn't be between 2 consenting adults who love each other and want to commit to each other for the rest of their lives?

I'm asking why you think people should stay married for their entire lives. These are assumptions people make that I'd like to dig into and see if they're based on anything sound or if they're just assumptions. I have been married twice and I have no children and I'd like to know why YOU think I shouldn't divorce my husband if neither of us want to be married any longer...

I'd like to know why you think 2 people who realize that they made a mistake, or that they've grown apart or that they no longer love each other shouldn't have the right to cut their losses and try again for the chance of true love and happiness... I'd like to know why you think 2 people who grow to hate each other should be forced to stay together.

I'm asking why staying married and only to the opposite sex are standards you think make a person responsible. I'm asking you to explore and explain your reasoning for imposing your standards on all of society. I don't care that you set these standards for yourself. I think it's great to have standards. I just wonder why yours are the right ones for everyone, including me...

I know for a fact that there are same sex couples who love each other and are as committed to each other as I am to my husband.
I know for a fact that there are married couples who are toxic to each other and would be better off divorced. Even some with children.
I know for a fact that in some cases, divorce is actually the responsible action for a married couple to take.

I'm just asking you why you believe your standards (some of which I actually agree with) should be applied to ALL marriages and not just yours. Of course you aren't obligated to answer. Nobody is. I just wanted to explore your views.

to tell yu the truth the people other people have sex with is really a stupid way to define yourself.

I dont see gay pride as anything more then public annoucment you have same sex motives.
big deal
who cares?

how does that define someone???

I think they need to say in the closet and just be people
face it we all have sex.
it not really special.
so why should it define you>

Originally posted by junglelord
face it we all have sex.
it not really special.

Huh? And here all this time I thought it was.

Anyway junglelord; it's human nature to identify with a group; ex: cowboys, Bikers, jocks, conservatives, musicians etc. We are much more of a tribal society than we like to admit.

Originally posted by junglelord
so why should it define you>

It shouldn't. And if it were accepted the same as being heterosexual is accepted, it wouldn't define them.

But if you were shamed your entire life for having brown hair and forced to hide the fact by wearing a hat at all times to cover it and told that you were sick, shameful, an embarrassment and going to hell because of your filthy brown hair... If you weren't given the same rights under the law as other-colored haired people... You might come to identify with others who have brown hair and it just may become a larger part of who you are than other people.

And you may get together with other brown haired people and decide that there's nothing wrong with having brown hair. And you might have meetings and celebrate your brown-haired-ness. You might even have brown haired parades and proclaim that you refuse to be ashamed of the way God made you! You may even take off your hat in public and stand up and say that you're proud to have brown hair! You may identify yourself as a proud brown-haired man!

See how that works?

[edit on 2-6-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

The only form of gay marriage with which I'm personally acquainted these days is one between a teaching-professional and his partner.

As far as I'm aware, they have not formalised their union, however.

Both are men in their fifties.

They have been together for thirty years.

They live quietly and do not advertise their situation.

This is probably non-PC, but they appear as 'typical men'. They dress and walk and talk and behave just like the next man.

I'm not saying they should feel obliged to be thus, but to be honest it makes them far more approachable and likeable as far as 'straights' are concerned.

On occasion, when necessary, they state quite naturally that they live with their partner, 'Bill'.

Because they are so natural and 'normal' and genuinely nice, the fact they are homosexual does not offend or cause comment.

They are simply two people who love each other and live together and are happy without being flamboyant or swishy or embarrassing.

They are both very straightforward in their manner, very friendly as easy going.

Everyone I know likes these men immensely. The fact they're gay is virtually never commented on, apart from women occasionally expressing regret about it.

These men are just so nice, so nice to be around. They're good friends to those they know. They're not pushovers. They're very private people and similarly with regard to their private lives. They really bring dignity to the position of the gay male.

I consider them to be married. And I have no opinion about it other than they're a nice couple, as well as being nice individuals.

I think they'll probably spend the rest of their lives together. To see them, you'd think they were brothers or cousins who get along really well.

As individuals and as a couple, they're a lot happier and more well-adjusted, principled and better company than a lot of heterosexual couples and individuals I've met.

They don't bother anyone or interfere with anyone and are an asset to society, both of them. Great teachers and well liked and respected by staff and pupils.

If I had a gay son, I'd kiss the ground in gratitude if he were to find a life partner as nice as either of these men.

If it's love than who are we to say yay or nay to it. If marriage is what the couple want, then have at it, and best of luck to you. Gov't. should have nothing at all to say in the matter. It's between the couple (or more), and God. That makes it none of our business.

My stance:

This entire debate is framed incorrectly. The choices seem to say that one should either be for gay marriage or against. I am neither.

Marriage is based on 2 different dynamics.

1) Religion: This is a triad between a man, a woman, and God. This has no need of government to recognize in order to be recognized by God, therefore it has no relationship to the second dynamic and should not be combined with it at all.

2) Government: This is a civil agreement between parties, a contract, in which the government recognizes them for purposes of benefits, taxes, categorization, etc.

None of the religious factors apply considering government has no right to limit the civil contract ability of consensual adults.

I say eliminate the marriage license completely and give everyone a civil union status, including polygamists, homosexuals, and the religious man/woman unions.

We have no need of government giving us permission to do anything, and the status of civil law has NO bearing on religion (or shouldn't) for good or for worse.