Is denying gays the right to marry discrimination

[actsnoblemartin]

Of course it is, you are saying to gays, because bobby and bobby or suzy and suzy have the wrong part(s), or we dont like you, or whatever legitimate or illigimate reason(s) you can come up with you cant marry

But, thats not the point. The point is....

Should gays be allowed to marry?

Will gay marriage harm, hetero marriage... which isnt doing well now as it is by the way.

The real question is, should gays be allowed to marry each other.

My point is: discrimination in general is not black or white.

Sometimes its good to discriminate, like if a woman sees a strange man walking towards her, she will discriminate against him and walk away.

if a person walking sees a thuggish looking person ( based on apperance not race) they may walk the other way.

Is allowing gay to marry going to enhance or detriment our society

so far the only arguements i see are: faggots better not, and because i feel they should, they should

can we get any facts here?, without the you must accept me or your hitler vs you dirty fag, go to hell camps

[theHawk]

When has anyone suggested gays cant get married? Its a religious ceremony, and the government cannot stop it.

So stop saying "denying gays the right to marry". Gays are not being persecuted nor resctricted in any way in getting married at a church, which is exactly what the word 'right' means.


The entire "gay marriage" debate isn't about allowing or not allowing gays to get married. Its about forcing the rest of society to recognize and condone such unions. Most of the country views homosexuality as something that is immoral. This whole 'debate' is simply an attempt by liberals to guilt the country into thinking we've been "discriminating" against gays all along. The problem is, we all have a right to discriminate against people for their actions, but not for what they are. So liberals have tried to make everyone believe gays are a minorty like blacks.

Whats next? People who want to marry children start calling themselves a "minority" thats being discriminated against, when the reality is they are just sick perverts we call pedophiles.

[Yurt]

can a opposite sex couple marry if they belong to a satanic cult? what about atheist? can they get married in the US?

[Pale Rider]

Marriage is not a right.

But if men are going to be allowed to marry men, and women allowed to marry women, then we may as well have people marrying their pets, or their cars or houses. If the holy matrimony of marriage is going to be poluted by homos, then why stop there? Why have any boundries? Why just give in to homos and not someone else? Better yet, why not leave marriage alone as a holy union between a man and woman? Why wreck it? Why even start down that slippery slope?

[Psychoblues]

Although I agree with Hawk that marriage is a religious ceremony and even further agree that many religions gladly perform the ritual I must admit that I am baffled as to why the government is getting involved in these ceremonies. Perhaps they are being forced into the issue due to unAmerican business practices that are unconstitutional and even criminal. Don't you think?

[Yurt]

Marriage is not a right.

But if men are going to be allowed to marry men, and women allowed to marry women, then we may as well have people marrying their pets, or their cars or houses. If the holy matrimony of marriage is going to be poluted by homos, then why stop there? Why have any boundries? Why just give in to homos and not someone else? Better yet, why not leave marriage alone as a holy union between a man and woman? Why wreck it? Why even start down that slippery slope?

SCOTUS says it is a fundamental right, stronger than ordinary rights

[actsnoblemartin]

a couple of things.

How can a dog consent to marriage?, does he bark once for yes, twice for no

Secondly, I think the argument that the definition of marriage will be changed if gays were allowed to be married is a very important discussion that should not be swept under the rug because of political convenience

Also, the argument that it is a slippery slope is valid because next will be poligamists.


Marriage is not a right.

But if men are going to be allowed to marry men, and women allowed to marry women, then we may as well have people marrying their pets, or their cars or houses. If the holy matrimony of marriage is going to be poluted by homos, then why stop there? Why have any boundries? Why just give in to homos and not someone else? Better yet, why not leave marriage alone as a holy union between a man and woman? Why wreck it? Why even start down that slippery slope?

[Psychoblues]

Avoiding the subject will not absolve the question. I am speaking to you, martin and yurt.

[actsnoblemartin]

are you serious :laugh2:

Im sorry but i am highly confused on this issue, so youll have to tell me exactly what you think im avoiding, because i only have no clue :dunno:


Avoiding the subject will not absolve the question. I am speaking to you, martin and yurt.

[Psychoblues]

You lost me on the canine romance, martin. My bullshit meter went bonkers on that one!!!!!!!!!!!! Admittedly, pr was a contrubutor to that very juvenile comparison.

[actsnoblemartin]

I said it was ridiculous to compare marrying your dog to marrying a guy

because a dog cant say sure, ill marry you

thats why i made a joke of it, one bark for yes two barks for no

common man it was funny :laugh2:

can two dogs marry? that discrimination



You lost me on the canine romance, martin. My bullshit meter went bonkers on that one!!!!!!!!!!!! Admittedly, pr was a contrubutor to that very juvenile comparison.

[Psychoblues]

You, among many who did not, thought about it.



I said it was ridiculous to compare marrying your dog to marrying a guy

because a dog cant say sure, ill marry you

thats why i made a joke of it, one bark for yes two barks for no

common man it was funny :laugh2:

can two dogs marry? that discrimination

Man, these self described American Conservatives really have no idea as to what America really is, do they?

[actsnoblemartin]

My problem with some american conservatives is that....

they dont think.....

and they have no compassion

I mean i dont agree with everything, but god damit I try to have some compassion and atleast thing about some things


You, among many who did not, thought about it.




Man, these self described American Conservatives really have no idea as to what America really is, do they?

[actsnoblemartin]

what is america to YOU?

just curious :coffee:


You, among many who did not, thought about it.




Man, these self described American Conservatives really have no idea as to what America really is, do they?

[GW in Ohio]

When has anyone suggested gays cant get married? Its a religious ceremony, and the government cannot stop it.

So stop saying "denying gays the right to marry". Gays are not being persecuted nor resctricted in any way in getting married at a church, which is exactly what the word 'right' means.


The entire "gay marriage" debate isn't about allowing or not allowing gays to get married. Its about forcing the rest of society to recognize and condone such unions. Most of the country views homosexuality as something that is immoral. This whole 'debate' is simply an attempt by liberals to guilt the country into thinking we've been "discriminating" against gays all along. The problem is, we all have a right to discriminate against people for their actions, but not for what they are. So liberals have tried to make everyone believe gays are a minorty like blacks.

Whats next? People who want to marry children start calling themselves a "minority" thats being discriminated against, when the reality is they are just sick perverts we call pedophiles.

Nobody's forcing you to recognize or condone same-sex marriages, Hawk.

If same-sex couples get tax breaks like other married couples do, you are tacitly recognizing them by participating in the tax system.

But nobody is dragging you to the public square and forcing you to publicly recognize and condone same sex marriages.

As an American, you have the right to say, "Fuck 'em," in public or private.

[midcan5]

Actsnoblemartin, the dog bark was laugh out loud funny.


The primary ethical justification for gay marriage are the rights granted by the act of marriage. Morally it is a recognition of a relationship that each gay person takes seriously. Churches do not have to recognize nor sanction gay marriages. Remember we live under the principle that church is separate from government. There are lots of religious sanctions that no one would want to live under. Once gay marriage is recognized by government, all laws and rights are granted them, no longer do we have a constitution of unequal rights.

http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

[bullypulpit]

Actsnoblemartin, the dog bark was laugh out loud funny.


The primary ethical justification for gay marriage are the rights granted by the act of marriage. Morally it is a recognition of a relationship that each gay person takes seriously. Churches do not have to recognize nor sanction gay marriages. Remember we live under the principle that church is separate from government. There are lots of religious sanctions that no one would want to live under. Once gay marriage is recognized by government, all laws and rights are granted them, no longer do we have a constitution of unequal rights.

http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

Yeah...just read Leviticus for the proscriptions. I'd be stoned to death for wearing cotton/poly scrubs to work.

[manu1959]

Yeah...just read Leviticus for the proscriptions. I'd be stoned to death for wearing cotton/poly scrubs to work.


as you should.....100% cotton made in america by union labour purchased at whole foods.....you better be taking public transit to work....and they better be eco busses.....made in america......

[Yurt]

Avoiding the subject will not absolve the question. I am speaking to you, martin and yurt.

me? huh?

[Little-Acorn]

The entire "rights" argument is specious. Gays already have fully equal rights in marriage, as heteros do. Gay advocates aren't trying to achieve "equal rights" - they already have them.

What they are trying to do, is change the fundamental definition of marriage, to include same-sex unions for the first time.


BTW, to heteros, gay relations are repulsive for the same reason opposite-sex relations are attractive. You people who keep demanding that heteros give "logical reasons" for either, are sounding extraordinarily foolish. Have you stopped and listened to yourselves lately?

To a straight man, fondling and sex with a woman is very attractive. And fondling and "sex" with a man is repulsive.

Now, part of the gay-advocate agenda is to try to get us to accept men fondling, "sex" etc. with other men, as normal and acceptable. Good luck. You've got about as much chance getting us to lose our feeling of revulsion, as you have of getting us to lose the feeling of attraction for women.

Neither is gonna happen.

[AllieBaba]

Exactly. It's all about forcing the religious right to accept a change in the definition of the word "marriage" and thereby force them to accept that homosexuality is ok with God, and anyone who doesn't think so is a homophobe and/or not a good Christian, or a fruitcake.

It's just more of the same. Demonization of Christianity, demolition of the family unit, breaking down the barriers between right and wrong.....

[actsnoblemartin]

we should force gays to sit through painful heterosexual divorce and then see how they like it :coffee:

[midcan5]

we should force gays to sit through painful heterosexual divorce and then see how they like it

LOL


"These benefits of gay marriage have changed the attitudes of the majority of people in Denmark and other countries where various forms of gay marriage have been legal for years. Polling results now show that most people there now recognize that the benefits far outweigh the trivial costs, and that far from threatening heterosexual marriage, gay marriage has actually strengthened it."

from url above

[AllieBaba]

My problem with some american conservatives is that....

they dont think.....

and they have no compassion

I mean i dont agree with everything, but god damit I try to have some compassion and atleast thing about some things

Obviously.

[avatar4321]

I think we need to ask a more basic question here:

Is all discrimination bad?

[AllieBaba]

LOL


"These benefits of gay marriage have changed the attitudes of the majority of people in Denmark and other countries where various forms of gay marriage have been legal for years. Polling results now show that most people there now recognize that the benefits far outweigh the trivial costs, and that far from threatening heterosexual marriage, gay marriage has actually strengthened it."

from url above

Isn't Denmark where they have the law that allows euthanasia without consent?

[bullypulpit]

Marriage is not a right.

But if men are going to be allowed to marry men, and women allowed to marry women, then we may as well have people marrying their pets, or their cars or houses. If the holy matrimony of marriage is going to be poluted by homos, then why stop there? Why have any boundries? Why just give in to homos and not someone else? Better yet, why not leave marriage alone as a holy union between a man and woman? Why wreck it? Why even start down that slippery slope?

Are straight men and women allowed to marry under-age children? No. Are straight men and women allowed to marry their pets...? Their cars...? Their houses...? No.

Your argument is nothing but a canard...a poorly constructed straw man...as marriage in America is understood to between two consenting adults. As for polygamy and polyandry, who cares so long as its between consenting adults.

[glockmail]

Marraige is between one man and one woman, and has been defined that way for 5000 years. If queers wanna have a long term commitment, why can't they simply call it something else? Don't they think that will be offensive to most people?

[Yurt]

Marraige is between one man and one woman, and has been defined that way for 5000 years. If queers wanna have a long term commitment, why can't they simply call it something else? Don't they think that will be offensive to most people?

interesting point. most here know my position when it comes to legal discrimination.... however, for social purposes...marriage has always been understood to be exactly what you said. many homosexuals actually relish in the their "alternative" lifestyle (maybe not all, but i would say most). when i asked if we eventually we all turned homo, what would happen, the liberals said, stupid, never going to happen and that gays make up a very tiny portion of the population. yet they are trying to impose their will on the rest.

i would like to ask questions of those who fully support gay marriage and anal sex, i mean homosexuality:

1. why is it necessary to "marry" if you can get the same legal rights in a "civil union?"

2. why do you support forcing hetros to accept your lifestyle, when you are unwilling to accept their lifestyle? why is it you are allowed an opinion, but those who do not support a homosexual lifestyle do not get an opinion, or if they do, it is ridiculed?

[OCA]

Marraige is between one man and one woman, and has been defined that way for 5000 years. If queers wanna have a long term commitment, why can't they simply call it something else? Don't they think that will be offensive to most people?

Because it has nothing to do with getting married.

It has everything to do with forcing the legitimization of their perversion of choice upon the other 98% of society and marriage is just the vehicle they are using to get there...............they will never arrive at their destination though.

[Yurt]

Marraige is between one man and one woman, and has been defined that way for 5000 years. If queers wanna have a long term commitment, why can't they simply call it something else? Don't they think that will be offensive to most people?

did social security exist 5000 years ago? the problem is that queers cannot call "it" something else. the US has created legal rights for "marriage." those rights are not traditional, they are created with the state. unless you want to whip out the old testament and have the us live by that.

i have family that are gay, women, no men. i don't care what people say, anal sex is the NOT the same as two women having sex. i believe avi showed me the error of that thinking, though i disagree, just can't remember the post, avi, post it again - it is relevant to my thoughts and many others when it comes to homo sex.

so these women who have been together 30 years should not be entitled to SS benefits?

[manu1959]

interesting point. most here know my position when it comes to legal discrimination.... however, for social purposes...marriage has always been understood to be exactly what you said. many homosexuals actually relish in the their "alternative" lifestyle (maybe not all, but i would say most). when i asked if we eventually we all turned homo, what would happen, the liberals said, stupid, never going to happen and that gays make up a very tiny portion of the population. yet they are trying to impose their will on the rest.

i would like to ask questions of those who fully support gay marriage and anal sex, i mean homosexuality:

1. why is it necessary to "marry" if you can get the same legal rights in a "civil union?"

2. why do you support forcing hetros to accept your lifestyle, when you are unwilling to accept their lifestyle? why is it you are allowed an opinion, but those who do not support a homosexual lifestyle do not get an opinion, or if they do, it is ridiculed?


you can't get all the rights......just most.....irs for one...ss for two...

[Yurt]

you can't get all the rights......just most.....irs for one...ss for two...

exactly

then marxist obama is a liar because he says:

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the likely Democratic presidential nominee, supports civil unions and equal rights for same-sex couples, but he has said repeatedly that marriage itself should be reserved for a man and a woman. With an amendment outlawing same-sex marriage on the California ballot in November, Obama will probably be called to defend his carefully nuanced position when he campaigns in the state. That won't be a problem for him or for his remaining rival, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who also opposes same-sex marriage, said Torres.

[glockmail]

did social security exist 5000 years ago? the problem is that queers cannot call "it" something else. the US has created legal rights for "marriage." those rights are not traditional, they are created with the state. unless you want to whip out the old testament and have the us live by that.

i have family that are gay, women, no men. i don't care what people say, anal sex is the NOT the same as two women having sex. i believe avi showed me the error of that thinking, though i disagree, just can't remember the post, avi, post it again - it is relevant to my thoughts and many others when it comes to homo sex.

so these women who have been together 30 years should not be entitled to SS benefits? Get rid of SS for everyone then.

[Yurt]

Get rid of SS for everyone then.

ok. but tis not equal....now.....right....

[glockmail]

ok. but tis not equal....now.....right.... An archaic, screwed up program should not be an excuse for making yet another bad decision. SS ain't fair to young people either.

[My Winter Storm]

Of course it is, you are saying to gays, because bobby and bobby or suzy and suzy have the wrong part(s), or we dont like you, or whatever legitimate or illigimate reason(s) you can come up with you cant marry

But, thats not the point. The point is....

Should gays be allowed to marry?

Will gay marriage harm, hetero marriage... which isnt doing well now as it is by the way.

The real question is, should gays be allowed to marry each other.

My point is: discrimination in general is not black or white.

Sometimes its good to discriminate, like if a woman sees a strange man walking towards her, she will discriminate against him and walk away.

if a person walking sees a thuggish looking person ( based on apperance not race) they may walk the other way.

Is allowing gay to marry going to enhance or detriment our society

so far the only arguements i see are: faggots better not, and because i feel they should, they should

can we get any facts here?, without the you must accept me or your hitler vs you dirty fag, go to hell camps

Gays should be allowed to marry, because to not allow them is denying them equal rights. It is discriminating against them on the basis of their sexual orientation, and also because of their gender - for the reason that if one of a gay couple were the opposite sex, they'd be legally allowed to wed. Last I heard, discrimination based on gender was illegal, so how can the state condone it?

[My Winter Storm]

Marraige is between one man and one woman, and has been defined that way for 5000 years. If queers wanna have a long term commitment, why can't they simply call it something else? Don't they think that will be offensive to most people?

Is this all that worries you? The fact that you don't want gays calling their unions marriage?
I don't care what it's called, just as long as gays get equal rights. I say I want gay people to be married because there isn't another name for it, at least none that anyone has come up with.