Gay marriage

[Tspan21]

It really upsets me that gay marriage is made illegal in some states isn't that a violation of the personal rights

[sieg]

i agree its discrimination but someignorant rednecks cand understand that everyone is equal

[lengthy_brochure]

I have deleted the contents of this post

[yoda]

I hope that can change for the most of you in the US, cause ( and not trying to make canada sound better here ) but in B.C. here its totally fine and i have being to a gay wedding, and know some guy that is going to marry his partner. So i hope that some of your states change their minds and that all are equal.

[Infidelitas]

Im hoping for it in Australia, I think its coming though

[delaney1414]

i think it is leagal in australia coz i think i read somewhere that it it in nsw act and westen australia but idk

[Fourth Dimension]

its totally a violation of rights

[Infidelitas]

i think it is leagal in australia coz i think i read somewhere that it it in nsw act and westen australia but idk

Not yet brother, its coming though, I live in Tassie, which is almost no1 for gay rights in aus

[Jaye]

i think it is leagal in australia coz i think i read somewhere that it it in nsw act and westen australia but idk

Aussie here telling you that gay marriage is not yet legal in Australia. We've been holding rally marches for it, though.

We'll persaude the voters/government yet! :D

[Infidelitas]

Aussie here telling you that gay marriage is not yet legal in Australia. We've been holding rally marches for it, though.

We'll persaude the voters/government yet! :D

Gay marriage will get 100% of my vote (if i could vote)

[The Madness.]

Teen Sexuality :arrow: ROTW

[Craig1995]

Were allowed civil partnerships in churches but you can get married in a registry office under the equality bill in Scotland

[Donkey]

gay marriage

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40949000/jpg/_40949974_vomiting416300.jpg


"Of course it is one's own right and I am all for it. But eugh, gays."

Stereotypical view of society there.

"I LOVE HOMOSEXUALS THEY'RE SO COOL LOL"

A way to justify yourself and make yourself attractive to homosexuals from a 12 year old girl's perspective.

[Jess]

I really hope it becomes legal in all of US, there's no good argument against gay marriage. why do other people have to care what gender you're marrying?

those Republicans want an amendment to BAN it. ugh >_>

[Korashk]

More people shouldn't be getting to do it, the whole concept should be abolished.

[BrokenXPaperXDolls]

It really upsets me that gay marriage is made illegal in some states isn't that a violation of the personal rights

i agree it should be legal:D

[embers]

This being a debate forum, I have to ask: what is being debated here?

[Jess]

@embers. a debate about gay marriage. but really this really isn't a debate, because gay marriage should be allowed. Period.

[Korashk]

@embers. a debate about gay marriage. but really this really isn't a debate, because gay marriage should be allowed. Period.
No it shouldn't. Marriage should be abolished.

[Sugaree]

ITT oversensitive teen liberals

I support gay marriage, but this isn't a debate. Where's the opposite opinion of how gays shouldn't be allowed to marry? This is just a liberal dick stroking thread.

[Peace God]

Where's the opposite opinion of how gays shouldn't be allowed to marry?
Very hard to find on VT.

[Jess]

I think there are a few people that are against gay marriage, but very very few. I know of two so far...(won't name names.) first one I found out in a debate about gay marriage a few months ago, the member was just against gay marriage, not gays. second one just recently, in a sticky thread in the ROTW.

[Amnesiac]

Hey, I've got an alternative point of view!

Marriage is reserved for religions! Why is the government regulating it? There should be universal civil unions licensed by the government. Marriage should be an option left to churches and other religious organizations.

[sieg]

marriage is stupid, i vote the same benefits to relationships of all sexualities

[lengthy_brochure]

I have deleted the contents of this post

[Amnesiac]

+1. Amazing. Why haven't we thought of this before???

This has actually been an idea circulating around VT and many parts of the Internet for a long time. Nothing new.

I'm just tired of seeing these threads on ROTW where everyone gets together to whine unanimously about how the lack of legalized gay marriage is "infringing on their personal rights!" Technically, no. Not being able to marry is a right gays may not have in many states, but that doesn't mean it's 'infringing' on their rights – it's just a right they don't enjoy.

Every single gay marriage thread ends up like this; a shitstorm of one-sentence arguments and virtually no dissent. This isn't a debate, it's a b'awwww thread.

[embers]

Marriage is reserved for religions! Why is the government regulating it? There should be universal civil unions licensed by the government. Marriage should be an option left to churches and other religious organizations.

Oh, stop it. Just because something good spawned from religion people have to start attacking it? Leave it be, there's atheists left right and centre that want to marry, and I don't see them complaining.

[Amnesiac]

Oh, stop it. Just because something good spawned from religion people have to start attacking it? Leave it be, there's atheists left right and centre that want to marry, and I don't see them complaining.

I don't see the point you're trying to make. The entire debate over "gay marriage" is centered around the definition of the word 'marriage'. The only way to make both sides happy in this conflict is to have the government adopt a universal system of civil unions for all orientations – that way, legally, homo- and heterosexuals are on the same level. Meanwhile, traditional 'marriage' can be left to the religious organizations for those who actually are religious.

It's a win-win situation. Government won't have to change the definition of 'marriage', and gays won't be left without a form of legal union. This isn't about separation of church and state as much as it's about making both sides happy.

[Jess]

Hey, I've got an alternative point of view!

Marriage is reserved for religions! Why is the government regulating it? There should be universal civil unions licensed by the government. Marriage should be an option left to churches and other religious organizations.

good idea *nods*

or maybe we should abolish marriage, as Korashk said.

[embers]

I don't see the point you're trying to make. The entire debate over "gay marriage" is centered around the definition of the word 'marriage'. The only way to make both sides happy in this conflict is to have the government adopt a universal system of civil unions for all orientations – that way, legally, homo- and heterosexuals are on the same level. Meanwhile, traditional 'marriage' can be left to the religious organizations for those who actually are religious.

Redefine marriage, basically.

It's a win-win situation. Government won't have to change the definition of 'marriage', and gays won't be left without a form of legal union. This isn't about separation of church and state as much as it's about making both sides happy.

I don't see the point in creating a new form of legal union as opposed to reworking the current. So what if there's a handful of lads that don't believe in same-sex marriage? The world is developing, they'd best learn to keep up.

[sam_rock1516]

its a free country we should have all equally rights for gays lesbians and so on

[Amnesiac]

Redefine marriage, basically.

The problem with such an idea is that there's widespread opposition to it that's been incredibly successful in destroying any attempts to change it.

I don't see the point in creating a new form of legal union as opposed to reworking the current. So what if there's a handful of lads that don't believe in same-sex marriage? The world is developing, they'd best learn to keep up.

The government's already created a new form of legal union (civil union) to accommodate gays. This would just get rid of existing legal marriage and merge it into the civil union system. This is the quickest way to progress socially, instead of everyone bitching over and over about religion and all that.

[embers]

The government's already created a new form of legal union (civil union) to accommodate gays. This would just get rid of existing legal marriage and merge it into the civil union system. This is the quickest way to progress socially, instead of everyone bitching over and over about religion and all that.

But marriage, really, isn't considered an act within religion anymore, is it? There should be no bitching about religion in a case like this.

So what is the word for a couple having taken part in a civil union? Are they considered 'married' (which defeats the point, really), or something else? 'Civilly unionised'?

[Amnesiac]

But marriage, really, isn't considered an act within religion anymore, is it? There should be no bitching about religion in a case like this.

Marriage is a religious ceremony. It's always been a predominately religious ceremony.

So what is the word for a couple having taken part in a civil union? Are they considered 'married' (which defeats the point, really), or something else? 'Civilly unionised'?

Why does it matter? I'm sure society will prescribe some term for legal civil unions, but I don't see how that's relevant to the topic. Sure, the word 'marriage' may have some sort of "special meaning" to people (which, in my opinion, is the weakest argument from the gay side on why there should be gay marriage), but such emotional appeals have no real relevance to the topic. We aren't here to debate on what makes people feel good inside, we're here to debate on the quickest and best solution to the gay marriage feud that grants equal legal rights to people of all sexual orientations.

[embers]

You're right there, I suppose. As for the terminology thing, I was only wondering.

[Amnesiac]

You're right there, I suppose. As for the terminology thing, I was only wondering.

If you say so :rolleyes:

It's only typical that all the people who were here at the beginning of the thread haven't returned to debate the opposing view I've put up.

[Korashk]

There should be universal civil unions licensed by the government.
I don't see why the government should recognize personal relationships. HAve everything done via private contracts.

[Amnesiac]

I don't see why the government should recognize personal relationships. HAve everything done via private contracts.

As long as there's taxes and welfare, there'll be licensed marriage. When both of those are abolished, then we can think about a system where unions are done privately.

However, since the probability of government shrinking that much, at the present time, is pretty much 1 in a million, we have to discuss this issue relative to the size of government today.

[AudioCity]

More people shouldn't be getting to do it, the whole concept should be abolished.

Why??? Is it not right that you shouldn't be discriminated against just because of your sexual preference its like discriminating on you because u don't like football or some arbitrary reason like that.... I think you should take a look at your perspective.


I personally thing the whole idea of marriage is outdated and personally i wouldn't like to do it myself but if others feel they want to the go for it i think it should be allowed.

[Korashk]

Why??? Is it not right that you shouldn't be discriminated against just because of your sexual preference its like discriminating on you because u don't like football or some arbitrary reason like that.... I think you should take a look at your perspective.

I personally thing the whole idea of marriage is outdated and personally i wouldn't like to do it myself but if others feel they want to the go for it i think it should be allowed.
...what? I'm talking about marriage as a legal concept.

[Jaye]

@Commander Awesome (& those who replied to his interesting idea):

Marriage wasn't originally a religious thing (er, as much as anything wasn't religious way back when). It was a contract to combine two families assests.

At the moment in many places, it is legal for homosexuals to have a 'civil union'. But this right does not grant them the same rights as married couples.

Marriage, at some point, became not just a religious tradition but a legality - at church you get a contract. If you don't have a church wedding you go to a legal firm (sorta place...)

TECHNICALLY a homosexual couple can have the same legal rights as a married couple (if they get the right legal forms) it's just way more difficult. The marriage contract is one contract - for most homosexuals they would have to get several contracts to equate to that once marriage contract.


For those tl:dr people:

Marriage is considered a legal agreement. Take the law out of marriage and the problem is solved. Give marriage to homosexuals and the problem is also solved.


From my viewpoint, the fight for gay marriage is less "We want marriage" and more "We want to be equals" It's more principal than the actual goal.

Just my cents. :)

[whodatbe]

ikr, it's ridiculous i mean why let people who will get divorced like 4 months after they get married, marry when there are thousands of gay couples that love their partners and would never leave them. But, look at history, first it was women's rights, then african american's rights, gay people will get their rights eventually and hopefully sooner than later

[Sogeking]

ikr, it's ridiculous i mean why let people who will get divorced like 4 months after they get married, marry when there are thousands of gay couples that love their partners and would never leave them. But, look at history, first it was women's rights, then african american's rights, gay people will get their rights eventually and hopefully sooner than laterSome would argue that you shouldn't compare homosexuality with gender and racial discrimination because your sexual orintation is something you are not born with. Also, are you saying heterosexual relationships last shorter than homosexual ones? It's a two way street my friend.

[Sith Lord 13]

Hey, I've got an alternative point of view!

Marriage is reserved for religions! Why is the government regulating it? There should be universal civil unions licensed by the government. Marriage should be an option left to churches and other religious organizations.

:') I'm so proud.



The simple fact of the matter is that you can't redefine the English language to make people happy and you can't deny gays their rights. Solution? Civil unions for everyone.

[ImCoolBeans]

in our own constitution it says that everyone is entitled to "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

... tell me that thats not a direct violation of our UNALIENABLE rights..

[Amnesiac]

in our own constitution it says that everyone is entitled to "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

... tell me that thats not a direct violation of our UNALIENABLE rights..

That's part of the Declaration of Independence, which does not exert any legal authority. People throw that phrase around a lot, but really, it's too vague to be law anyway.

I mean, for example, a murderer could say that murdering being illegal is a violation of his "pursuit of happiness".

[skinny_white_boy]

I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to get married. The First amendment to the U.S. Constitution states
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Yet they continue to have the laws about gays not being able to get married.
Recently the government has reviewed this and figured that it may in fact be unconstitutional :O. Total shocker. (sarcasm)

I just had to write a 6 page research paper about this 24 hours ago so my mind is fresh with it. :)


And as my science teacher said "let gays get married if they want to be miserable." xD

[Amnesiac]

I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to get married. The U.S. Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Yet they continue to have the laws about gays not being able to get married.
Recently the government has reviewed this and figured that it may in fact be unconstitutional :O. Total shocker. (sarcasm)

Connecting the First Amendment to gay marriage is a very far stretch. Really, I don't see how the First Amendment has anything to do with marriage, unless how we're talking about how marriage is a religious ceremony, which would technically make the government regulating marriage unconstitutional.

Now, I can see the connection between gay marriage and the 14th amendment, which states

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

since letting straights marry but not gays could deprive homosexuals of "equal protection of the laws".

[Sith Lord 13]

since letting straights marry but not gays could deprive homosexuals of "equal protection of the laws".

Even then, gays have the same rights as others. To marry any person of the opposite gender.

[slappy]

As a great man once said. "let gays get merried, so they can be miserable too"
Truer words have never been spoken