Why do people want Gay Marriage?

Over the past 50 years, legislatures have worked hard to give benefits to the nuclear family - a mom, a dad, and kids. Tax benefits. Not having to testify against your spouse. Insurance benefits. Inheritance laws from wills. The list goes on; these rules have developed slowly. If gays are able to be married, they get all of these rights in one fell swoop.

As much as they hate to say it, Its about money.

 

According to your list, not all marital rights involve money. Of course, I can't speak for the gay community, but I'd imagine that there's a little more to it than money.

 

And as far as racism, there are currently anti-discrimination laws based on race. An employer has to hire black people because of Affirmative Action. In some areas of the South (especially in the state in which I live in), school districts are required to keep a racial balance between blacks and whites. If there are more than 50% whites, then they pretty much have to tell white people who are enrolling into the certain school that they can't allow them to do that. They have to recruit black kids into the school as part of the integration laws in that state. So in some respects, yes, racism can be considered illegal.

According to your list, not all marital rights involve money. Of course, I can't speak for the gay community, but I'd imagine that there's a little more to it than money.

Majority of reasons are about money, but that's why I made sure to include at least one that wasn't.

 

And as far as racism, there are currently anti-discrimination laws based on race. An employer has to hire black people because of Affirmative Action. In some areas of the South (especially in the state in which I live in), school districts are required to keep a racial balance between blacks and whites. If there are more than 50% whites, then they pretty much have to tell white people who are enrolling into the certain school that they can't allow them to do that. They have to recruit black kids into the school as part of the integration laws in that state. So in some respects, yes, racism can be considered illegal.

There's laws about discrimination, but there's no laws against the KKK getting together to have hate rallies. And even if there was, you might never change their hearts or minds.

Its the same way with this issue, and trying to pretend otherwise is just being obtuse.

I just have to say it's about time this happened... Because there has been talk about it since the ban was created.

 

The thing with the arguments about what marriage means is actually what the ban was about: marriage was legally defined in the state constitution as between a man and a woman. There were at least some gay marriages in San Francisco at least before the ban, including, if I'm not wrong, a teacher who brought her class to her wedding.

 

I could be wrong in quite a few areas, of course, this was a while ago.

VIVE LA REVOLUCION!

 

(go gays!)

 

If african americans can fight for their rights, and be recognized as human beings, than homosexuals can fight for their rights and be recognized as wed lovers.

 

Hopefully we won't need a civil war over this one though.

 

1. Civil war was NOT over slavery. Public schools teach this, sadly. It was, in fact, over states rights, including taxation, etc.

 

2. Comparing an ethnic minority to a group of people with a different sexual behavior is asinine.

 

3. Although I believe that people are free to chose their sexual lifestyle, I don't believe this is "marriage". Honestly, there really is a huge difference. Call it something up, hell, invent some new name. But marriage is between one man and one woman for the purpose of procreation, among other things.

 

However, I will grant that marriage has lost much of its meaning, as it is. VERY high divorce rates, premarital sex, extramarital.

 

Another thing...I am not a homophobe because I disagree with the gay lifestyle. A phobia is an irrational fear, which I do not have of gays.

 

Sort of off topic, but activist judges really make me mad.

 

1. I know. I studied the hell out of the war, and it was a lot mmore complicated than slavery. I was making a point.

2. Asanine? How is comparing two sects of people that feel discriminated against asanine? blacks are a minority and demanded equality. How is that different than homosexuals? Sure what they are is different, but their demands are the same. The want to be treated as humans, not as stereotypes.

3. I hear that excuse alot. I don't care what they call it. If they want to call it "meeting of the gametes" they can go right ahead. But it's not fair to say they can't call it marriage. They can call it whatever the hell they want. For the most part I think it's just over the legal benefits anyway.

 

Oh, and if you beleive homosexuality is a "choice" you are sadly mis-informed. If you really beleive this fact, "choose" to take a walk on the gay side of things for a week. Just to take it for a spin. See how much it hurts. Alternatively, you can watch "I now pronounce you Chuck and Larry" and see Adam Sandler make that realization.

I have nothing against the gays but why force it upon society to have them titled "married"? I would have no problem with gay people pursuing civil unions but it is unfair for them to use a legal system to wrench a sacrament in many religions to be given to them. Homosexuals are as much human beings as heterosexuals with no question but I find it just a greedy way to obtain something kept for the sanctity between a man and woman. It really makes you question if it's rather less for love and more for legal benefits...

 

And if they are allowed to change the definition of marriage to between a man and a man or woman and a woman, then why can I not legally marry to 2 people at the same time if the definition of marriage is already being altered?

There were marriage ceremonies long before the rise of any of these larger modern day monotheistic religions that took over. And in most of these older civilizations, gay marriages and relationships were approved of. So I don't see why the definition of marriage itself should be tied down to the Christian definition of it. There are religions and cultures that accept gay people, and marriage is just as an important part of their belief system as any other faith.

 

To me it seems like banning gay marriage is pretty much just the government backing up one group of people's religious beliefs over other people's beliefs. I know this country was founded by Christian based people, but if the Church and State are really suppose to be separate, this shouldn't even be up for debate. The whole belief that 'marriage is only suppose to be between a man and a woman" is a Christian (and a few other religions) belief and now people only accept is as the norm because over the centuries it's been taught to them that way. So that's why many people who aren't religious still follow these Christian teachings anyways.

 

 

Marriage originally was just a way to recognize your relationship with your partner, an act of devotion to each other. Only in these modern times did it become a 'legal' status. To be honest, I can careless if the State recognizes my relationship with my partner, but I guess when it comes down to all the technicalities of today like insurance, and taxes, and other crap, I guess it does begin to be important somewhat that your partnership is recognized by the government.

 

 

In time same sex marriage will be legal in America. I don't think anything can really stop it, just keep setting it back every so often. We have already come so far in terms of just being able to even be open about our sexuality and be recognized, and we're not going to stop just yet lol.

And that snowball effect is what really has people worried dude.

I want gay marriage to pass to piss off religious people. :-)

The point isn't to spite anyone or their religion. The point is that everyone is supposed to be equal under the law, which is not currently true.

 

Everyone is allowed to their own opinion and beliefs. No religion should be required to religiously recognize a marriage between anyone. But the state has to recognize a marriage between any two people because everyone is supposed to be treated equally under the law.

Before I go on my little rant of sorts, I want to make a few things absolutely, perfectly clear. One, I'm Christian. Two, I'm Heterosexual. Three, I'm Caucasian (fancy word for white as far as race goes). This is just to give you a little bit of an understanding of my vantage point on this whole mess.

 

I personally believe that gays, and whomever else wants to, should be legally allowed to marry. My viewpoint on marriage is that it's an official way of saying "I'm with Person X, and want to spend the rest of my life with them". Notice how gender wasn't in any of that whatsoever. My personal theory is that gender really only applies in a physical sense only. As such, it does nothing to change people on the really fundamental levels, much in the same way that what race you are doesn't change who you are either. Saying that people can or can't do something just because they have or don't have a certain equipment set, look, or preference of any kind is a special level of bigotry and/or idiocy that almost nothing else even comes close to. If you don't like how it looks, either don't look or grow up. Besides, they'd fall under all the same rules of society that heterosexual couples fall under. It's not like you're going to see two dudes/chicks having foreplay in the middle of the street any more than you do already. Seriously, what's the big deal with two people making their pairing official?

Gay marriage? Fine by me.

I support legalized gay marriage. There is no reason why a gay couple should not be able to get married. I hope this case can make a difference in the fight for legalized gay marriages across the United States.

I want gay marriage to pass to piss off religious people. :-)

 

You're rather ignorant and spiteful. I'm religious and I have nothing wrong with gay people getting bond together, let them have a civil marriage, union, whatever you want to call it. All I ask is that it is not expected to be performed in a church or temple or worship where gay marriage is not permitted.

I want gay marriage to pass to piss off religious people. :-)

 

You're rather ignorant and spiteful. I'm religious and I have nothing wrong with gay people getting bond together, let them have a civil marriage, union, whatever you want to call it. All I ask is that it is not expected to be performed in a church or temple or worship where gay marriage is not permitted.

Then my post wasn't directed at you. :-)

Glad this is happening. I hope the US Supreme court (hopefully) gets in and says its unconstitutional. It would be a major victory for equality and less discrimination in the US if they do state that.

 

Hopefully the court over rules it. I hate hearing how everyone is saying that gay marriage is the killers of families and babies. It makes me think there to ignorant to even think of their options.

Apologies to Nick for my overreaction.

 

And I am a devote Catholic, but I see this gay marriage thing as a rather beneficial thing. I hope perhaps people do less aborting because gays will want to adopt children, that way lives are saved. Just a thought.

 

But I hate discrimination laws. If someone gets mugged and the person who did the wrong is getting tried, why should they be charged with more if the person was gay/racially different or not? Is not the crime bad anyway? Discrimination laws probably instill more reason for discrimination.

Apologies to Nick for my overreaction.

 

And I am a devote Catholic, but I see this gay marriage thing as a rather beneficial thing. I hope perhaps people do less aborting because gays will want to adopt children, that way lives are saved. Just a thought.

 

But I hate discrimination laws. If someone gets mugged and the person who did the wrong is getting tried, why should they be charged with more if the person was gay/racially different or not? Is not the crime bad anyway? Discrimination laws probably instill more reason for discrimination.

 

If you're Catholic, then you'll know the purpose of marriage is for two to become one flesh - i.e. procreation. It takes a man and a woman to preform the conjugal act, it can't be preformed by a man and a man or a woman and a woman. You'll also know as a Catholic that if you're gay, you're still called to be chaste, just like any heterosexual. This means if you're not married, you're not being impure or looking at impure materials. It also means that you're not having relations with anyone. If you're married, you're still called to be chaste. As in, sex is for procreation, so using contraception is sinful. It also means that you're to accept any children as blessings (not killing them), and to not have extramarital affairs. It also means that you're not to get divorced all willy-nilly (til death do you part).

 

You already knew that though, because you're a devout Catholic.

 

 

 

Equal protection under the law means that civil unions should enjoy the exact same benefit as marriage, but it doesn't have to be called marriage, and it shouldn't be called marriage. Right now, there's nothing illegal about being in a civil union. There's nothing to legalize.

My priest told me that if the state recognized marriage as the union between two individuals, that the church would probably separate itself entirely from the legal process - getting married in the church would no longer make your marriage legally recognized, and vice-versa (making it a pain in the neck to get married as a Catholic).

 

 

@Nick_6464

You're intolerant, and you're just as bad as those who "hate gays for being gay". Just because you support the gay side doesn't mean you get a free pass on intolerance.

Glad this is happening. I hope the US Supreme court (hopefully) gets in and says its unconstitutional. It would be a major victory for equality and less discrimination in the US if they do state that.

 

Hopefully the court over rules it. I hate hearing how everyone is saying that gay marriage is the killers of families and babies. It makes me think there to ignorant to even think of their options.

 

You think people will stop discriminating against gays once gay marriage is legal? If anything, it will just piss off conservatives more and lead to more discrimination.

Aah, semantics. Such trouble over such a small thing as a name. I don't see what the big deal about any of it is, really; if a civil union has the exact same legal rights as marriage, one side could claim the other is trying to push for marriage out of spite, just to have the term, but then the other side could say the exact same, that they want only to preserve some word. The only really clear argument, it seems, is against the people that are against the concept of homosexuality in the first place.

Separate but equal has been ruled unequal by the Equal Protection Clause, so it's not "semantics." Civil unions are not recognized in every state, and because of DOMA, they're not recognized federally; neither are marriages. They also don't have the same rights and benefits, so they're not even separate but equal; they're plain unequal all around. The only way they'd be truly equal is if everyone, heterosexuals included, were all state-recognized by civil unions. This isn't the case, and it's not what the anti-gay marriage crowd argues for.

 

If someone says, "I have no problem with gays, BUT..." it's obvious that they do have a problem with gays, and are trying to mask their own homophobia with some bs qualifier.

 

If you "protectors of marriage" don't want the law to recognize marriage, then start lobbying for that. Oh, right, you don't do that, you lobby against people's rights. It's the same thing with the pro-lifers. You never see them lobbying in favor of things that will reduce abortions--things scientifically proven like contraceptives and condoms and sexual education--you see them lobbying for abstinence only education. Actions speak louder than words. The fact that you'd put your dogmatic beliefs ahead of what truly reduces abortions says you don't care about fetuses, but about controlling women and their bodies.

 

So to that, Lenin sums it up in this sentence:

 

The only really clear argument, it seems, is against the people that are against the concept of homosexuality in the first place.

 

Just come out and say it already, and stop hiding behind some fake gilded refuge of "marriage is teh sacred!" Just say you hate and fear gay people, and would rather enjoy the continued practice of discrimination against them. You have no argument. Sorry, the Bible says so doesn't make it in a court of law in a secular nation.

Apologies to Nick for my overreaction.

 

And I am a devote Catholic, but I see this gay marriage thing as a rather beneficial thing. I hope perhaps people do less aborting because gays will want to adopt children, that way lives are saved. Just a thought.

 

But I hate discrimination laws. If someone gets mugged and the person who did the wrong is getting tried, why should they be charged with more if the person was gay/racially different or not? Is not the crime bad anyway? Discrimination laws probably instill more reason for discrimination.

 

If you're Catholic, then you'll know the purpose of marriage is for two to become one flesh - i.e. procreation. It takes a man and a woman to preform the conjugal act, it can't be preformed by a man and a man or a woman and a woman. You'll also know as a Catholic that if you're gay, you're still called to be chaste, just like any heterosexual. This means if you're not married, you're not being impure or looking at impure materials. It also means that you're not having relations with anyone. If you're married, you're still called to be chaste. As in, sex is for procreation, so using contraception is sinful. It also means that you're to accept any children as blessings (not killing them), and to not have extramarital affairs. It also means that you're not to get divorced all willy-nilly (til death do you part).

 

You already knew that though, because you're a devout Catholic.

 

 

 

Equal protection under the law means that civil unions should enjoy the exact same benefit as marriage, but it doesn't have to be called marriage, and it shouldn't be called marriage. Right now, there's nothing illegal about being in a civil union. There's nothing to legalize.

My priest told me that if the state recognized marriage as the union between two individuals, that the church would probably separate itself entirely from the legal process - getting married in the church would no longer make your marriage legally recognized, and vice-versa (making it a pain in the neck to get married as a Catholic).

 

 

@Nick_6464

You're intolerant, and you're just as bad as those who "hate gays for being gay". Just because you support the gay side doesn't mean you get a free pass on intolerance.

 

Too bad I know of what you spoke of in your first paragraph since 8th grade, so yes I did know. If you look at my last post I say civil union and that it should not be performed in the context of a place or group of worship that does not approve of gay unions. I'd rather skip the technicalities and call it marriage even though I would much rather refer to them as civil unions, these are just names. The gays would just get all upset about not being able to call it marriage and then more problems would ensue because people like you chose to be confrontational. The important point is that those who believe in remaining chaste keep to their belief. Keep the sanctity in heart if we are unable to keep it in the societal word. It is easy to preach but not to do as you command others to do. Also seeing as how the Church and any state of government are separate, it is not my affair to go around advocating for laws that are going to specifically get people pissed off. Rather I will look at the win-situation in which I hope there would be a decline in abortions due to a higher adoption rate rather then see it as I'm allowing it as gays doing evil. Catholics are to lead by example and word not by force of law.

 

That is also rather strange and extreme of your priest to say. The Catholic Church would not separate from the legal process, as we believe we are doing the correct thing by preserving the definition of marriage (which I signed in my state FYI, and we slashed down the gay marriage proposal) so then that would only make the inconvenience of having to be religiously married and then civilly married.

 

And by the way you're a hypocrite for saying you'd allow them civil union with the same rights rather then just call it marriage. That's just being confrontational and your latching onto a word rather then the teaching you are suppose to be following on the matter.

 

You're quite arrogant for your use of sarcasm and what you might have thought was you giving me a lesson. If you were truly a Catholic you wouldn't go around reprimanding people in public like they were your child and act like you wrote the catechism. How dare you use sarcasm to hint at me not knowing that, as I along with my entire family have been banished from our country of origin, formerly being part of the gubernacula, because we refused to surrender our faith. You're suppose to be a bringer of peace, not confrontation, although you war hawkish ones are too busy trying to kill heathens rather then set good precedents.

Separate but equal has been ruled unequal by the Equal Protection Clause, so it's not "semantics." Civil unions are not recognized in every state, and because of DOMA, they're not recognized federally; neither are marriages. They also don't have the same rights and benefits, so they're not even separate but equal; they're plain unequal all around. The only way they'd be truly equal is if everyone, heterosexuals included, were all state-recognized by civil unions. This isn't the case, and it's not what the anti-gay marriage crowd argues for.

 

If someone says, "I have no problem with gays, BUT..." it's obvious that they do have a problem with gays, and are trying to mask their own homophobia with some bs qualifier.

 

If you "protectors of marriage" don't want the law to recognize marriage, then start lobbying for that. Oh, right, you don't do that, you lobby against people's rights. It's the same thing with the pro-lifers. You never see them lobbying in favor of things that will reduce abortions--things scientifically proven like contraceptives and condoms and sexual education--you see them lobbying for abstinence only education. Actions speak louder than words. The fact that you'd put your dogmatic beliefs ahead of what truly reduces abortions says you don't care about fetuses, but about controlling women and their bodies.

 

So to that, Lenin sums it up in this sentence:

 

The only really clear argument, it seems, is against the people that are against the concept of homosexuality in the first place.

 

Just come out and say it already, and stop hiding behind some fake gilded refuge of "marriage is teh sacred!" Just say you hate and fear gay people, and would rather enjoy the continued practice of discrimination against them. You have no argument. Sorry, the Bible says so doesn't make it in a court of law in a secular nation.

 

 

Tsk Tsk. So intolerant.

 

Actually, no. For one, you went to public school obviously. If you really study history, you would know that America *Is* a Christian nation. One need read no further then the writings of our founding fathers to see that.

 

Another thing, the connection of abortion and things which reduce pregnancy is really besides the point. The point is that murder is never justified. How any sane person can say that just because a baby is insides its mother's womb it isn't a person is besides me.

 

Also, I do believe homosexuality is a morally reprehensible state, but I believe it is for people to choose themselves. As a matter of fact, in this sense I am an objectivist. I only accept guilt based on my moral code, and what it stems from. I believe others should do the same, as long as it is not harmful to the wellbeing of others.

 

However, back on the topic. The U.S Constitution gives voters the right to decide certain things. Majority rule, as long as it does not harm others. The voters decided.

... Or we could take a tip from gay people and all hug! Who's in? Eh?

Actually, no. For one, you went to public school obviously. If you really study history, you would know that America *Is* a Christian nation. One need read no further then the writings of our founding fathers to see that.

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/TreatyofTripoli.gif

 

Treaty of Tripoli by John Adams article 11: "As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"

 

If you had ever studied history you would know that most of the people who came here came for religious freedom, the founding fathers were all for religious freedom and absolutely no government/religious crossover. Many of the founding fathers were secularists or deists (believed a higher being created the universe and has not done anything since).

 

EDIT: As soon as I read that part of your post I stopped reading and automatically dismissed the rest of your post as being just as stupid, so I went back and found out I was right. Abortion is in no way murder, is about a woman's right to choose whether or not she wants to have a child. It is generally better if contraception is used and it never comes to a pregnancy, but neither contraception or abortion is murdering anyone. Also I am assuming you don't understand that homosexuality is not a choice, it is just the way the person is, so there is no way that a person can "choose for themselves". Majority rule as long as it doesn't harm others is how it is supposed to work, but here it failed. There is absolutely no harm in allowing gays to get married, there is harm in denying a group of people from the same rights that everyone else has.

Tsk Tsk. So intolerant.

 

Actually, no. For one, you went to public school obviously. If you really study history, you would know that America *Is* a Christian nation. One need read no further then the writings of our founding fathers to see that.

I take it you went to a Christian private school then?

Thing is, times have changed since the late 1700s. As of today there is a lot more diversity...

 

Also, I do believe homosexuality is a morally reprehensible state, but I believe it is for people to choose themselves. As a matter of fact, in this sense I am an objectivist. I only accept guilt based on my moral code, and what it stems from. I believe others should do the same, as long as it is not harmful to the wellbeing of others.

How would it differ from heterosexual recreational sex? And even more, how is homosexual sex harmful to others?

 

However, back on the topic. The U.S Constitution gives voters the right to decide certain things. Majority rule, as long as it does not harm others. The voters decided.

They did. But the final count was something like 49/51. That is majority rule, but pretty much the smallest possible majority.