I've looked though this place and didn't see a thread about it and before sithy comes and kills me let me say I am utterly opposed to the banning of gay marriages.

First let me just say I AM STRAIGHT.

Second my reason for the way I feel is do to the fact that I have friends, friends of the family and family members that are gay/lesbians/bisexual. Also the Declaration of Independence states "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men (and women keeping up with the times) are created equally"

So to deny gays/lesbians/bi sexual from same sex marriages is going against the very fabric of our nation or so I would seem by that very statement

pish who am I kidding people still aren't treated equally

This sounds like a good topic to debate so lets get started shall we

This is definitely worthy of discussion. I wonder, can we make this a poll?

EDIT: I know this post doen't say much, I thought I'd let someone in favor open.

This is definitely worthy of discussion. I wonder, can we make this a poll?

EDIT: I know this post doen't say much, I thought I'd let someone in favor open.

*raises eyebrow* in favor of banning them? (they better watch out for sithy and me then)

You'll find a vast majority of the people who post in the swamp will be on the side of gay-marriage. This topic has actually been discussed in about a dozen individual threads, not sure if it's had it's own thread before.

There's no reason to disallow gay marriage. Gay people are people, and people should not be denied freedom or happiness just because they don't like the opposite gender.

*raises eyebrow* in favor of banning them? (they better watch out for sithy and me then)
Well, the way I see it, the three of us can't have much of a debate, as we all agree already.

EDIT: It wouldn't be banning it, anyway, but opposing the allowing of said it.

While I am for gay marriages, I think the term 'marriage' can be possibly troublesome, because it has a lot of historical and religous overtones.

I find it more likely that you could discuss homosexual 'unions' more sensibly than gay 'marriages'. (At least this has been my experience in the past.)
They wouldn't nessesarily be lacking in any legal sense. It just cuts out a lot of the 'baggage' some people like to attach to the word 'marriage'.

But I guess homosexuals who WANT the religious and historical 'recognition' will want nothing less than 'marriage'. And I guess I can understand why...

Yes, that then brings up the question, "If religion cannot interfere with the law, should the law interfere with religion?", i.e. does the law have the right to change a religion's doctrine? I. personally, am not opposed to such 'unions', and think it would be a good idea, but also want to respect the beliefs of those who don't wish homosexuals to have a religious marriage. It all gets rather messy about this point, as a religion has a right to it's doctrine too, and the law probably shouldn't force churches to marry (or unionise, or whatever) homosexual couples. I do, however, believe that gay couples should have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.

yes I realize that religion is part of marraige but can we plz keep it to a minimum plz

there are many benifets that come with being married which is what I'm talking about

yes I realize that religion is part of marraige but can we plz keep it to a minimum plz

there are many benifets that come with being married which is what I'm talking about

But religion is at the heart of this conflict. Sure, there are a few Athiests who also oppose gay marriage, but it mostly comes down to people believing that having married gays would be a kick in the groin to God. Well, at least it would diminish the value of marriage in their eyes, I think.

there are many benifets that come with being married which is what I'm talking about


I understand what your saying.
My point is, though - that a homosexual union could have all the same legal entitlements as a 'marriage'.
It would be nothing less than a word game. BUt a word game which may allow equal rights to not be smoothered by religion and tradition.

As I say, I'm not saying I'm right on this. I'm just saying that perhaps it's a consideration...

I'm with what closetheblastdo said. :)

heck, i'd even take that as far to say, allow multiple people getting "married" uh but that'd be like polygamy or whatever....but whatever. i dunno about having one of those in a church, that'd seem a little awkward, but get it done by a judge. kindof like swearing an oath, like in the military you swear to serve and protect, in say, a 'marriage' you could swear you could all swear you'll stay by eachothers side til death.

being les myself, Im for some type of legal joining of two partners, I dont care what its called as long as everyone is allowed to have the same rights. We went through the same thing with black people being treated like subhumans, and this isnt any different.

Yes, that then brings up the question, "If religion cannot interfere with the law, should the law interfere with religion?", i.e. does the law have the right to change a religion's doctrine? I. personally, am not opposed to such 'unions', and think it would be a good idea, but also want to respect the beliefs of those who don't wish homosexuals to have a religious marriage. It all gets rather messy about this point, as a religion has a right to it's doctrine too, and the law probably shouldn't force churches to marry (or unionise, or whatever) homosexual couples. I do, however, believe that gay couples should have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.Though I myself am personally opposed to gay marriage, this would sit ok with me. I just don't want activist judges barging in, saying "<insert religious denomination here> is unconstitutional because they do not allow homosexual marriages, so...." This could also in a way bring up the seperation of church and state issue, although in an entirely different way.

heck, i'd even take that as far to say, allow multiple people getting "married" uh but that'd be like polygamy or whatever....but whatever.Why can homosexuals marry, but not those who wish to have multiple spouses can't? They're people too. And what about a 40-year-old guy who only likes teenage girls? They're obviously people, and it's not like the teen can't decide for herself.... Honestly, these issues (polygamy, 40-year-old liking teens, etc.) are basically the same as the fight for gay marriage, and I bet one day they will all be legalized.

EDIT: Way off topic, but how do you use spoiler tags?:confused:

I have no problem with polygamy, as long as a woman is allowed to marry multiple men (though I cant see a woman torturing herself like that). But the 40 year old marrying a teenager... if the teen is 18 then they are adults so go for it (but its still creepy and smacks of pedophilia), if shes still a minor thats by law pedophilia no matter which side you butter your toast on. lmao

spoiler tags = [ spoiler ] senate chamber [ / spoiler ] without the spaces would be like senate chamber

I have no problem with polygamy, as long as a woman is allowed to marry multiple men (though I cant see a woman torturing herself like that). But the 40 year old marrying a teenager... if the teen is 18 then they are adults so go for it (but its still creepy and smacks of pedophilia), if shes still a minor thats by law pedophilia no matter which side you butter your toast on. lmao


wows I'm shocked that you didn't go ape sh*t on that guy but um a 40 year old marrying a teen is just WRONG um excuse me but your old enough to be my dad go the **** way

edit:*pokes a mod* can you make this a poll plz cuz I didn't think about it when I made it

never mind I didn't know I could do it

lol but love has no age. ;)

lol. I didnt say I liked the idea, but its technically legal... and theyre both adults... so... heh If I had a woman wanting to marry me that was twice my age (ew), Id be grossed out.

...but um a 40 year old marrying a teen is just WRONG...A few decades ago the very idea of gay marriage would have been considered absurd; plus in foreign cultures today many teenage girls marry young. The point I'm trying to make is that if and when gay marriage is legalized in the USA, it will make way for radically different marriage laws, age limits, etc. Oh, and the meaning of pedophilia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia)

Pedophile is sometimes used informally — and incorrectly — to describe child pornographers or people who have commited sexual crimes against children.

Thanks for the spoiler tip, Rogue15. :)

Consenting adults of the same species should be allowed to marry according to whatever beliefs that they hold to be true. If your religion demands that you follow a particular protocol for being married, then you should adhere to it if you wish to remain true to your religion.

However, if your personal beliefs hold that marriage to the same sex or to multiple spouses is acceptable, then go for it.

Polygamy and polyandry have been, and still are, successful in other cultures of the world. The so-called "sacred institution of marriage" as a "holy covenant" is a failure as is, so if anything, the ability for people to follow their own personal beliefs in marriage customs can't get worse than it already is.

The preposterous notion that same-sex marriage as a concept opens the door to marriage of children to adults, adults to animals, etc. is a fallacy. One that is used by the so-called religious right to distract from the real issue. The idea that "activist judges" would seek to rule that a particular religious cult would have to perform marriages contrary to it's own cult beliefs is also fallacious. First, the term "activist-judges" is a buzz word of the so-called religious right, used to paint this picture of judicial branch members who are in some grand conspiracy to dominate the world. Second, it doesn't generally follow that a same-sex couple would want to necessarily marry under a cult that rejected them.

I say "generally" because I'm sure there are some who would do so, there are always those that simply want to protest.

The poll, however, is ambiguous. Is it asking if "banning gay marriages" should be allowed or should "gay marriages" be allowed?

The poll, however, is ambiguous. Is it asking if "banning gay marriages" should be allowed or should "gay marriages" be allowed?

erm sorry but wouldn't changing it mess up the results cuz I already voted

I'm just wondering what the two people who voted actually voted for. Did they vote "no" to banning gay marriages or "no" to allowing gay marriages?

um I voted no for banning gay marrages you have to read my first post to see why

um I realize that it was a strange way to ask it but I knew what I was talking about

I should be able to edit the poll to be less ambiguous.. I'll delete these last few posts once I do just for housekeeping purposes... But I just thought it prudent to point it out for anyone voting.

I should be able to edit the poll to be less ambiguous.. I'll delete these last few posts once I do just for housekeeping purposes... But I just thought it prudent to point it out for anyone voting.


ok how about "should gay marrages be banned?"

this won't screw up my vote cuz the question is the same as what I meant to ask

I'm just wondering what the two people who voted actually voted for. Did they vote "no" to banning gay marriages or "no" to allowing gay marriages?Heh, I voted no, as in no to allowing gay marriage. It's probably impossible to to scrap the poll, but keep the posts and make a new one, or is it possible?

The preposterous notion that same-sex marriage as a concept opens the door to marriage of children to adults, adults to animals, etc. is a fallacy. With the legalization of gay marriage, will minors be able to marry soon after? Most likely not. What I'm trying to say (and what I should have made more clearly in my previous post) is once gay marriage is legalized, it could encourage those that want other types of marriages to take their cases, however few, to the courts. And it obviously won't happen overnight, but maybe in a few decades the US could be in a situation very much like this only with different circumstances.

*think happy thoughts*
ghay.....must....not.....flame.....*dies*

that is one invalid reason for banning gay marriages and not to mention strange

that is one invalid reason for banning gay marriages and not to mention strangeI'm not mentioning the issues I have with gay marriage, I'm comparing it to other situations that in my opinion are similar.

Darth Andrew thats a *very* weak excuse for wanting to not allow gay marriage. If youre reasoning is based on religious views then fine, its your right to be misguided, but dont use some lame excuse to try and back it up.

Lumping gay marriage/unions/whatever you want to call it in a category with "wierd" desires for marriage is at best ignorant. Did you know that in some states you can marry your pet? I believe that in Texas there was a woman (OLD woman) who married her dog... Now tell me how that is any more normal than two women or two men getting married? Getting married to your dog IS bestiality - whether you have sex with it or not.

How can you call this the land of the free, and claim to have equal rights for everyone, when youre denying a certain group of people, who are as normal as you and me most likely, the same rights that you enjoy? Thats not true freedom, or just, or even fair (yes Im quite aware the world isnt fair).

Remember that separation of church and state (if youre going to use that as an arguement) was intended to protect both from the other, not one from the other. Having a theocracy - where the church makes the laws of the state is just as bad as opposite version where the state makes the laws for the church.

You also cant force such religious views of intolerance to gays on everyone in a country where its a huge melting pot and people arent just christians. You cant claim that the US doesnt have a state religion and then force people to abide by rulings that are clearly based on religious principles, it hypocritical.

Note that the word "you" isnt refering to anyone person who has posted on this thread, its being used in a general sense. And if anything sounds like Im trying to flame you, then youre wrong. :p

With the legalization of gay marriage, will minors be able to marry soon after? Most likely not. What I'm trying to say (and what I should have made more clearly in my previous post) is once gay marriage is legalized, it could encourage those that want other types of marriages to take their cases, however few, to the courts. And it obviously won't happen overnight, but maybe in a few decades the US could be in a situation very much like this only with different circumstances.

Let's handle it one situation at a time. We can't blanket homosexuality and pedophilia and polygamy under the same roof. Sure, people will want pedophilia after polygamy and homosexuality. But, there's a very large different between the former and the latters. The kind of Homosexual and Polygamic relations that people want are for those between consenting adults. Pedophilia is between a child and an adult. Totally different ballpark than the current one we're in.

Let's handle it one situation at a time. We can't blanket homosexuality and pedophilia and polygamy under the same roof. Sure, people will want pedophilia after polygamy and homosexuality. But, there's a very large different between the former and the latters. The kind of Homosexual and Polygamic relations that people want are for those between consenting adults. Pedophilia is between a child and an adult. Totally different ballpark than the current one we're in.


yes you are right but this whole issue can be resolved if we held true to this part of the declaration of independence "we hold these truths to be self evident that all men(women too) are created equally" which is the basis of which our wonderful *cracks up* country was created under

Wow. It's amazing how far people are willing to go to find a secular explanation for their religious beliefs. In other threads, I have seen people saying 'Are you Gay? No? Then why should you care?'. Well, that fact is, we do care, and just because you don't see why doesn't make us care any less. It seems ironic to me how so many 'caring' religious types find the notion of empathy so alien.

Alright, the main reason I don't like gay marriage is the fact that a couple can't conceive a child naturally through sex because of the gender differences (yes, some heterosexuals can't have children, but I'm talking about gender) In my opinion many people get married to start a family. And please don't think I'm an ignorant loser that hates homosexuals. Like I said a few posts back, though I personally don't like gay marriage, it would be ok with me. And yes, this is the land of the free and home of the brave, so obviously gays should be able to marry by definition. So in case I offended anyone for whatever reason, I am sorry for doing so.

Revan the great, though this country isn't perfect, no one country will ever be, unfortunately.

Don't know if [gay marriage] has been discussed in its own thread.
Oh yes (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=118408&highlight=same-sex):).

Andrew, I don't see what's so wrong with adopting a kid instead of birthing them. Same-sex couples can adopt a kid or two and boom, you got a family, provided that the government will allow it... which it currently does not. Why aren't they thinking of the children here? Banning gay marriage is denying children the loving homes they need.

Andrew, I don't see what's so wrong with adopting a kid instead of birthing them. Same-sex couples can adopt a kid or two and boom, you got a family, provided that the government will allow it... which it currently does not. Why aren't they thinking of the children here? Banning gay marriage is denying children the loving homes they need.Very true, very true. Although this (http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005417.html) blog article says that if gay couples are allowed to adopt, it wouldn't make much more of a difference (as in more orphans getting adopted):
The problem with this is that, as I understand it, most of the kids who are awaiting adoption are doing so because they are either sick, mentally or physically disabled, or older than toddler-age--or a combination of these things. That makes these children undesireable to parents, who are looking for a healthy baby, not a lifetime committment to somebody else's problems.I see no reason that gay couples will be, in this respect, much different from heterosexual couples; most of them will want a pretty new baby with no obvious problems. To the extent that gay couples have been concentrated in higher-need cases (and I don't know whether or not this is the case), I would guess that this is only because they are barred from the most desireable adoptions. Putting gay couples on equal footing with straight ones would, it seems to me, mostly just increase the competition for the small supply of adoptable babies.But that's kind of beside the point. Besides gender , it's also religion that makes myself sort of torn between the issue: should gays not marry because God never intended it, or should they because 'all men are created equal' (which all are). Ah, the blessings and curses of religion. :(

And please, PLEASE, do not turn this into a 'it's all religion's fault' argument.

From that last quote, oh don't worry, there isn't any shortage of kids up for adoption and there never will be.

But because a kid may be undesirable, they don't deserve a home? Sure, no one would want their kid to be ill, but that kid didn't choose to be ill so why should it pay for that? And there's still plenty of healthy babies that are put up for adoption, it's not just defective ones. Lots of mothers who get pregnant on accident put their baby up for adoption.

But because a kid may be undesirable, they don't deserve a home? Sure, no one would want their kid to be ill, but that kid didn't choose to be ill so why should it pay for that?Of course it shouldn't, but it's in human nature to choose the more perfect thing. Besides, you're missing the point that the adoption rate won't skyrocket once gay marriage is legal. And no, I'm not using this as an excuse to ban gay marriage. Adoption is wonderful in every circumstance (except if the intention is to harm the child).

EDIT: SkinWalker, thanks for making the poll more clear (at least I assume you did).

The problem with this is that, as I understand it, most of the kids who are awaiting adoption are doing so because they are either sick, mentally or physically disabled, or older than toddler-age--or a combination of these things. That makes these children undesireable to parents, who are looking for a healthy baby, not a lifetime committment to somebody else's problems.

There's a lot of chinese baby girls up for adoption who are indeed very healthy with no birth defects.

Unless being foreign is a birth defect...

Besides gender , it's also religion that makes myself sort of torn between the issue: should gays not marry because God never intended it, or should they because 'all men are created equal' (which all are). Ah, the blessings and curses of religion. :(
God has changed his mind before. Just because he never mentioned it doesn't mean he doesn't condone that sort of thing now. Anyway, if God cared about it, surely he'd put a stop to it, right? You ask us not to turn this into religion-bashing, and I'll try not to, but is anyone here opposed an Atheist or Agnostic? (An actual question, by the way, not me trying to make a point)

Could a Mod please change my vote to yes? At the time I voted it had a different meaning.

Could a Mod please change my vote to yes? At the time I voted it had a different meaning.


mine too cuz erm I'm for gay marrages but I voted no before cuz it had a different meaning

That can't be right. I voted no to banning gay marriage too. If us three are responsible for those 'no' votes, where has Darth Andrew's vote gone?

That can't be right. I voted no to banning gay marriage too. If us three are responsible for those 'no' votes, where has Darth Andrew's vote gone?


Probably one of the "yes" votes.

When the poll was fixed by a SuperMod (plain old Mods can't do it), there were 6 total votes. 3 were moved to Yes, 3 left to No.

thanks for making that clear cuz I didn't want my vote to count for something i didn't beleive

But the "no" is still in italics for me... I guess it just still sees my original vote.

Quote:
Originally Posted by riceplant
That can't be right. I voted no to banning gay marriage too. If us three are responsible for those 'no' votes, where has Darth Andrew's vote gone?


Probably one of the "yes" votes.Actually, my vote is marked 'no'. Unless someone rigged the poll! :p

yes you are right but this whole issue can be resolved if we held true to this part of the declaration of independence "we hold these truths to be self evident that all men(women too) are created equally" which is the basis of which our wonderful *cracks up* country was created under

Yeah your right. That totally resolves it. Notice the created part. By who? God. God says no gay marriage. He doesn't just change his mind either. If he didn't want it 2000 years ago, what has changed since then?


thanks for making that clear cuz I didn't want my vote to count for something i didn't beleive


Not that the poll matters...


BTW, that itallics thing is cool, never noticed that.

Yeah your right. That totally resolves it. Notice the created part. By who? God.

Well I'd say more like created by a man and a woman...