[Hills]

I'm new to the forum, here. I saw the link by Hex on another forum. Looks like we need some more topics here. So I'll start this one.

I'm a married man, to a woman, but I see no reason same sex couples can't get married, or why it's even an issue.

Does anyone have a legitimate argument why this is an issue? I don't mean the sanctity of marriage bullshit, either. That went out the fucking window when Elvis impersonators could marry you to some drunk in Vegas at a casino. I mean, why is it anyone's fucking business? Is it because if it's legal, all the preachers will leave their wives, and run to Vegas with their boyfriends? It's fucking stupid, and our new President for change won't touch it.

For those of you in more civilized countries, though you probably know America's politics better than the queer haters here do, the land of the free still doesn't have equal rights for our citizens.

[Pariah]

Well I can honestly say I haven't had issue with same sex marriage, well pretty much my whole life. I live in a country that allows it and even the most religious here (Including Catholics, not that I want to single them out, but Vatican city certainly has negative comments about this subject.) didn't make a big deal about it one way or the other. Sure there was those who opposed the legislation, but it wasn't many, it wasn't impassioned, they had their say, the legislation passed and now they can marry legally and enjoy all the benefits of being married.

I do understand the religious rights point of view though. You don't need to believe in it or agree with it but you can try to understand it. To them it goes against everything they believe in and what is written in their sacred text. With that they view it as the degradation of society and a real threat to their family and children.

I, in context can't relate to that, but I understand it.

Thanks Hills for joining up. We are only about a week old and the word is starting to get out. The FA (Forum Administrator) has long term plans so he is giving this forum ample time to grow.

[Metal Hurlant]

It's human nature to impose one's beliefs and values on others.

[Hex]

Metal Hurlant, on 05 October 2009 - 08:48 AM, said:

It's human nature to impose one's beliefs and values on others.

I don't think it is easy as that. I'm not disputing that it does happen, but people do evolve over time and may change their minds on certain topics like morals. If anything people really only do what is good for them, that is why there are so many hypocrites that are born from pretty much any religion. I'd say it is more of do as I say and not as I do kind of thing rather than lead and follow.

Lets face it some people even go beyond reason, just looking for something that will tell them to do. Why do you think Catholic priests call their parish a flock? It can go to the extreme of things like Waco, The Manson family, Scientology etc. All very bad shit for you to get into, but people do.

[Hex]

Hills, on 05 October 2009 - 12:02 AM, said:

I'm new to the forum, here. I saw the link by Hex on another forum.

Hey Hills I thought that was you. I'm glad to see you here, maybe we could throw down and really wallow in the mud. Or at the very least gang up on somebody.

I got to tell you it is taking me sometime to learn to let go here. I didn't realize just how much other forums have trained me to stay within certain bounds. I think once I get used to here I'll take full advantage. :lol:

This post has been edited by Hex: 05 October 2009 - 06:30 PM

[Hills]

Hex, on 05 October 2009 - 04:29 PM, said:

Hey Hills I thought that was you. I'm glad to see you here, maybe we could throw down and really wallow in the mud. Or at the very least gang up on somebody.

I got to tell you it is taking me sometime to learn to let go here. I didn't realize just how much other forums have trained me to stay within certain bounds. I think once I get used to here I'll take full advantage. :lol:

Definitely looks like fun. I don't mind staying in bounds, for the most part, it trains me to use the language more properly, but sometimes I just want to say what's on my mind in more colorful terms.

[Hex]

Hills, on 07 October 2009 - 01:11 PM, said:

Definitely looks like fun. I don't mind staying in bounds, for the most part, it trains me to use the language more properly, but sometimes I just want to say what's on my mind in more colorful terms.

I hear you. I'm on a few forums, but they all range from minimal moderation to more controlled moderation to moderators who think they are internet superstars. The one we hail from is minimal, most of the superstar ones I know longer go to either through disgust or got banned for a idiotic reason. I really want to test the moderation staff here and see just what kind of freedom we do have.

I guess it'll happen in the future I just can't get into it right now because there is no one to get into it with. :lol:

[Icelander]

I'm against it. It would cut into my free time and I don't really find men attractive.

What?

[Hex]

Icelander, on 30 October 2009 - 01:47 AM, said:

I'm against it. It would cut into my free time and I don't really find men attractive.

What?

Well most men, Boy George is kind of cute. :lol:

[Icelander]

Hex, on 30 October 2009 - 09:22 PM, said:

Well most men, Boy George is kind of cute. :lol:

To each his own.

After checking out a picture, I'll respectfully disagree. Unless we define 'kind of cute' as 'looking like a leukemia patient in a clown suit'.

[Hex]

Icelander, on 30 October 2009 - 06:42 PM, said:

To each his own.

After checking out a picture, I'll respectfully disagree. Unless we define 'kind of cute' as 'looking like a leukemia patient in a clown suit'.

Well maybe you didn't get his best side. :lol:

In the 80's leukemia look was in. :D

Mind you the '80's where filled with feminine men. ;)

I mean it was hard to turn on the tv without being bombarded with guys acting like girls.

Oh shit how'd that get in there. http://www.tech-faq.com/emoticons/free-animated-emoticons/smiley_69.gif

http://www.tech-faq.com/emoticons/funny-emoticons/beat_brick.png

This post has been edited by Hex: 30 October 2009 - 05:59 PM

[Icelander]

Meh.

If 80s androgyny is sexy, at least Bowie's alter-egos of Ziggy Stardust or Aladdin Sane had style and flair.

Boy George just had facial paint.

[draknoir2]

I don't see the point of gay men marrying gay women... but I guess the net result would be the same - no sex.

[Icelander]

draknoir2, on 04 November 2009 - 10:09 PM, said:

I don't see the point of gay men marrying gay women... but I guess the net result would be the same - no sex.

How's that different from a normal marriage?

This post has been edited by Icelander: 04 November 2009 - 05:35 PM

[Young Stalin]

Same sex marrige is allowed in some states and not others. People vote on it and the majority rules.
The whole issue on same sex marrige is pretty ironic on a few levels.
Marrige it's self is rooted in religion, the first recorded marrige laws are written in the code of hamurabi and it is pretty straight forward marrige is between man and woman. Not only that most religions preach that homosexuality is wrong or that sex all together is wrong.

Why do people want to get married at all?

[Sydney]

Young Stalin, on 18 December 2009 - 05:20 PM, said:

Same sex marrige is allowed in some states and not others. People vote on it and the majority rules.
The whole issue on same sex marrige is pretty ironic on a few levels.
Marrige it's self is rooted in religion, the first recorded marrige laws are written in the code of hamurabi and it is pretty straight forward marrige is between man and woman. Not only that most religions preach that homosexuality is wrong or that sex all together is wrong.

Why do people want to get married at all?

What right does anyone have to say "No, you can't get married because I find it distasteful"? Gay Marriage doesn't directly impact anyone but the people getting married and with a 50% Divorce Rate in the United States, to say that it will (somehow) destroy the sanctity of marriage is disingenuous at best, I think that ship has already sailed.

Now, I have no problems with Churches saying "Uh no, we don't do those here..." as there are plenty of other churches (Unitarian Universalists, Religious Society of Friends, etc.) and your local Justice of the Peace to perform the marriage and sign the marriage license...

[Pariah]

draknoir2, on 04 November 2009 - 05:09 PM, said:

I don't see the point of gay men marrying gay women... but I guess the net result would be the same - no sex.

Thus resulting in no gay children.



:lol:

Young Stalin, on 18 December 2009 - 06:20 PM, said:

Why do people want to get married at all?

Ooooo... there is a can of worms. ;)

Quote

What right does anyone have to say "No, you can't get married because I find it distasteful"? Gay Marriage doesn't directly impact anyone but the people getting married and with a 50% Divorce Rate in the United States, to say that it will (somehow) destroy the sanctity of marriage is disingenuous at best, I think that ship has already sailed.

Some people view it as a direct threat to their religious beliefs. I'm sure you can look back into history to find all sorts of things done in the name of religion. This issue is no different.

Quote

Now, I have no problems with Churches saying "Uh no, we don't do those here..." as there are plenty of other churches (Unitarian Universalists, Religious Society of Friends, etc.) and your local Justice of the Peace to perform the marriage and sign the marriage license...

I have no problem with religions declining to engage with same sex marriage, but that isn't the issue, Christians want a wholesale ban on any kind of same sex marriage. Hell there are some that view it as a abomination and wouldn't shed a tear if all gays where systematically destroyed.

Sad but true. :(

[Qoltar]

I've been pretty okay with Gay Marriages for at least 10 years now.

Back around 10 years ago I went to a Lesbian wedding. The "bride" side at the church was SCA/Renn Fair types, the "groom" side were all mostly Star Trek fans and "Klingons". The reception (party) afterwards was pretty fun.

Thats pretty much the way I look at it - more weddings means more receptions to gop to. Thst means more parties, more fun, more banquet halls being rented out, more party supplies bought - very good for the economy all around.

More weddings also means more attempts at committment and monogamy. Thats always a good thing - attempting or trying to do the honorable thing. (and again more parties to go to)


- Ed C.

[Sydney]

Pariah, on 20 December 2009 - 12:33 AM, said:

Quote

What right does anyone have to say "No, you can't get married because I find it distasteful"? Gay Marriage doesn't directly impact anyone but the people getting married and with a 50% Divorce Rate in the United States, to say that it will (somehow) destroy the sanctity of marriage is disingenuous at best, I think that ship has already sailed.

Some people view it as a direct threat to their religious beliefs. I'm sure you can look back into history to find all sorts of things done in the name of religion. This issue is no different.

Actually havingthat right and thinking that you have the right to deny people something so basic are two different things, however. As far as I remember from my History classes in school, I don't think that the right of marriage by inter-racial couples was ever put up to vote on ballots, Gay Marriage shuld be no different.w2q

[flyndaran]

I don't want government in the business of religion and that's what marriage is. It's a religious based issue muddled into a civil contract.
There should only be civil contracts modifiable to suit individual taste rather than the one size fits all modified only by complex pre-nuptual agreements.
I hope to live long enough to see that.
What? I plan on living forever. Don't you?