Do you support gay marriage?

[LadyKitty]

Image by Dall-E

Yes

No

[wolfcat87]

Of course! Marriages predate religions and laws. It's no one's business when two people of any gender want to commit to each other for life and get equal treatment. Laws and societies have no right to decide who can marry and benefit from marriage.

Only miserable and hate filled people feel the need to try to restrict the love and relationships of strangers... Misery loves company. They deserve any bad karma they get in life from acting like that. It's disgusting.

[Sirenboobzilla]

Absolutely. My best friend is gay. I've already threatened... err, I mean suggested that I should be his maid of honor

[LadyKitty]

My brother is gay and I told him the same thing lol

[AviatorTom]

I have been chastised before for my opinion, but please hear me out.

I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I have no problem with same-sex couples (male or female) but I dislike calling it marriage, and calling a same-sex coupling marriage really messes up some laws that have been around for centuries..

[Curmudgeon]

Bingo. As for gay intentional lifelong relationships, classify them as something other than a marriage, just because they exist.

And even the honestly churchy people should be able to accept that. "Render Unto Caesar" and all that. See the accounts in Matthew 22:15–22 and Mark 12:13–17 and Luke 20:20–26. Now churchy people, you might still find such relationships abominations, but they do exist, and Caesar (the rules on this world, not the next) needs some way to classify them.

[Friendlybro79]

@Curmudgeon @AviatorTom this sounds like a you problem. You can get over it because it doesn't affect your life at all. You're certainly allowed you're opinion but it doesn't really matter because this doesn't really matter what it's called.

[OlderAndWiser]

@Friendlybro79 So you are offended because someone has an opinion that you don't like? That sounds like intolerance.

[molonski2]

My thoughts exactly Tom.
They can have a civil union or whatever you want to call it , legally binding of course , but marriage is between a man and a woman. There is also the element of children , when in same sex you should not be able to access government funded means to reproduce , you give up that right.
Now , sure if you have some friend willing to donate sperm or eggs ( at your cost ) , then fine , you worked your way around it , fair enough , although that does open a whole other can of worms on medical history and the like.

[Friendlybro79]

@OlderAndWiser sounds like you didn't read what I wrote. I said you're entitled to your opinion but it doesn't matter because it doesn't matter what it's called. I'm not offended because it doesn't bother me at all that you feel it should be between man and a woman? Are you offended that others don't agree with you? This is a you problem because your opinion isn't going to change the fact that marriage doesn't have to be just between a man or woman. My point was who cares which implies I'm not offended lol.

[Friendlybro79]

Simply put me don't care what it's called because it doesn't matter what I or anyone thinks. This isn't an actual problem.

If you do think it is that's a you problem. You're not able to change it.

[Friendlybro79]

I don't... me don't is what you should make fun of me about haha

[OlderAndWiser]

@Friendlybro79 I read what you wrote: "this sounds like a you problem." That sounds very judgmental. Maybe that's not the way you feel; I'm just responding to the words I read.

[TheGuyWhoKnowsStuff]

The institution of marriage is over 4000 years old with recorded origins in Mesopotamia. In Mesopotamia, marriage was perfectly normal between same sex couples in the same way it was between men and women.

In fact, ancient marriages also made their way into Greek, Roman and Jewish society from Mesopotamia. Gay marriage in Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome was only considered shameful to the male who took on the role of the woman. So, gay marriage predates Christian marriages with your definition being contemporary—a historical fad—and messes with the oldest traditions of the human race.

[OlderAndWiser]

@TheGuyWhoKnowsStuff Assuming that what you reported is true, this would be a great argument if being an ancient tradition automatically made something good and worthy. Rituals involving human sacrifice are ancient, aren't they? Should re reinstitute human sacrifices?

Here's another. "In early Greek history, during times of plague or famine, when the precarious agrarian societies started to fear for their survival, each Greek town would elect its ugliest inhabitant, known as the pharmakos. (“Ugly” in this case probably meant deformed in some way, and certainly from the fringes of society. An aristocrat with a big nose would not qualify.) For a while, this person would be fed at public expense with the most exquisite delicacies available at the time—figs, barley cakes and cheese. Afterwards, he or she (or they – some places, like Athens, would choose two lucky uggos, a man and a woman) would be driven through the town while being violently smote with leeks and wild plants by a wrathful mob. This ugly unfortunate’s fate largely depended on the town’s own tradition. In some places he or she was merely cast out of the city, while in others the pharmakos would be stoned to death, burned, or thrown off a cliff." www.atlasobscura.com/.../the-ancient-greeks-sacrificed-ugly-people

Here's another great ancient tradition: "Under Roman law, fathers had the right to inflict horrendous punishments on their children – from beating and starving them to killing them, although history shows us that few dads resorted to the latter." www.uq.edu.au/.../beating-starvation-and-murder-%E2%80%93-childhood-was-tough-ancient-times

So, your argument falls short of being convincing to anyone who thinks critically.

[TheGuyWhoKnowsStuff]

@OlderAndWiser let's put aside your straw man and red herring here. Leeks were not traded from Central Asia with Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome until around 100 AD. The same sex tradition of marriage predates that by 4000 years. So, what may or may not have come later with the rise of Christianityand the throwing of leeks is moot. As is the sacrifice of people and animals. Modern religion, where the anti-same sex marriage draws its basis, also instructs in moral practices that no one follows. So, you are cherry picking here. These are red herrings and have little to do with the actual matter of same sex marriage, which also predates Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece.

If you want to take a moral basis for same sex marriage being amoral thus wrong and change the meaning of marriage, which was appropriated from Mesopotamia, then let's look at that.

Is homosexuality wrong because of anal sex? Does that mean heterosexual couples who engage in anal sex should be barred from marriage? With a failure to decry anal sex in general, then that in itself leads us to look at other possibilities.

Is homosexuality an unnatural state or a perversion of nature? Well, we know that isn't true because it is naturally occurring in nature and not just in humans. Furthermore, we know that there is a genetic basis for homosexuality, which is also related to hormone levels in the womb during pregnancy. So, we know that it is a naturally occurring state. Let's move on to a cultural consideration.

[TheGuyWhoKnowsStuff]

@OlderAndWiser Is same sex marriage wrong for cultural reasons? Cultures adapt and change and many cultures do not have an issue with it. The contemporary (recent) rise in anti-same sex marriage has its roots in Christianity, which also prosecuted innocent women and burned them at the stake. Like the treatment of women, the basis for the prejudice was a lack of education so as to understand the natural causes and basis for same sex attraction, which would support the historical basis for same sex marriage going back to 4000 BC.

I think regardless of what you may wish or want, same sex marriage is between the people getting married and has little to do with what you want or think or believe or feel. There will be marriages again between same sex couples as there were historically as people go back to the original definitions of what is and isn't marriage. Like I said, the anti-same sex marriage position is a contemporary fad like fashion and taste in music. It comes and goes and changes especially where a minority is concerned.

[YesterdaysChild]

@Curmudgeon Just because man chooses not to follow God and instead follows men and their own ways, it still doesn't mean it's an accepted thing to do. Just don't push it up my nose.

[OlderAndWiser]

@TheGuyWhoKnowsStuff "let's put aside your straw man and red herring here." Hahaha!

I don't justify my feelings on the basis of what basis of what people did 4,000 years ago. That's simply pedantic.

[TheGuyWhoKnowsStuff]

@OlderAndWiser am I to understand that you use fallacies to reason or that there is an actual reason for your belief because I am interested in understanding that. What makes your belief morally superior? Because so far it is coming across as "just because" and that isn't very logical at all.

[Friendlybro79]

@OlderAndWiser I can see how you could read it that way and no that's not the way I feel. When I think of disagreements I have I ask myself the question, Does this really matter in the grand scheme of things?"

For ex.
Will this end the world?
Do my opinion or feelings get to disrupt other people's happiness?
Are we playing a semantics game?

If I say no and yes to the semantics question, I tell myself this is a me problem, and I move on.

Obviously there could be some exceptions depending on the conversation or topic where it's more complicated. For this topic, I unemotionally believe this is a problem for people that haven't answered the above questions for themselves and have it thought it through. If you're a married man and woman your happiness isn't being infringed on over the semantics of the word and how it's used. Worry about yourselves. Why do you even care is a follow up question? This is one of the easiest things not to care about.

[YesterdaysChild]

@TheGuyWhoKnowsStuff And many will be going to the basement of Heaven because of their beliefs. Fact: God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. He made them one flesh, which in today's term is marriage. It was between a man and a woman. If God did not think homosexuality was wrong he would have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah. God makes the rules and His rules are the only ones that matter. People today are only interested in hearing what tickles their ears and not what God says.

[TheGuyWhoKnowsStuff]

@YesterdaysChild from your statements, I would think that you're following the Old Testament in the fashion of the Jews?

[YesterdaysChild]

@TheGuyWhoKnowsStuff The Old Testament rules were mostly done away with after the Day of Pentecost, which when Christ was crucified. However the 10 commandments and others are still in force. In the New Testament Paul says to abstain from sexual immorality. That includes homosexuality. But that is just our view, how others choose to live their life is up to them. If there are any repercussions it is on them.

[TheGuyWhoKnowsStuff]

@YesterdaysChild Sexual immorality would also include sex without the intention of having children (e. g. using contraceptives), watching porn, engaging in anal sex with a woman or as woman, dressing in a sexualised way, taking, sexualised images of yourself or others, looking at sexualised images of yourself or others including topless men or women, masturbation, sex before marriage, divorce, sex out of wedlock, giving or receiving oral sex, etc. Can't really pick and choose. You either follow the rules or you don't.

[jennifer_bloom]

I don't find the idea of gay marriage to be pleasing and pleasurable but I will not interfere with gay people or with the relationships they choose to build in their homosexual condition. I also will not disrespect them or treat them like an enemy but I personally do not like the idea of a homosexual connection, I think it is at variance to what is biologically desirable. However, I've met gay people who are absolutely amazing in their level of compassion or intelligence or devotion to philanthropy. My friend said, she does not endorse homosexuality but she believes it's just one aspect of their personality, they can still have very admirable qualities that she esteems and values, even if there are certain things about them she does not relate to or share. One of the nicest guys I know was a gay doctor and I want him to be healthy and content with his life. Some gay people really do deserve award medals for the good things they have done.

[Curmudgeon]

As for gay intentional lifelong relationships, classify them as something other than a marriage, just because they exist.

And even the honestly churchy people should be able to accept that. "Render Unto Caesar" and all that. See the accounts in Matthew 22:15–22 and Mark 12:13–17 and Luke 20:20–26. Now churchy people, you might still find such relationships abominations, but they do exist, and Caesar (the rules on this world, not the next) needs some way to classify them.

[_piotr]

Not at all! It is a horrible abomination and against God as other alphabet LGBT... stuff.

This is what Bible has to say about this wickedness:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,"

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Case closed.

[wiltingrosepetal]

Marriage is designed with an outdated, heterosexual lense. Many of the traditions are rooted in beliefs that we left in the past long ago. The dad walks his daughter down the aisle to show him handing his object off to another man. The garter toss has the groom strip a piece of clothing off of the bride to show he's removing her virginity.

The fact is that weddings evolve as we evolve. It's now common for the mother to walk her daughter down the aisle, or to see a bouquet toss. Homosexual weddings are just another evolution. If people want to get angry over gay weddings then they should also get angry the garter toss doesn't happen anymore. And must I add, that was about STRIPPING in front of a bride's family to show him defiling her innocence... yeah... some traditions have to change.

[molonski2]

Every wedding I've been to ( Western ) the garter is still tossed , I like that tradition..

[wiltingrosepetal]

And I like the tradition of the dad walking his daughter down the aisle, I'd never want to take that moment away from my father. But still, it's important to recognise the sexist implications behind these traditions

[molonski2]

That still happens too.. who remotely cares , its tradition.

[wiltingrosepetal]

Okay

[Orangekiss]

@wiltingrosepetal - "STRIPPING in front of a bride's family to show him defiling her innocence..." Where in heaven's name do they do this? I have NEVER heard of this ever going on. That wouldn't be a marriage, that would be a strip show and her pimp.

[molonski2]

@Orangekiss
Its not stripping , she is referring to tossing the garter , which certainly happens all over the world , its simply removed and tossed ( generally ) although you can be hand selected , but its certainly NOT stripping.

[Orangekiss]

@molonski2 Sure didn't sound like it to me. But there are a lot of things I've never heard before on G@G. 😮

[molonski2]

@orangekiss
Yeah , look it just a ludicrous exaggeration of what happens of course , when the garter is gifted thrown it's just a part of tradition and fun.

[TenderFantasy]

Yes, it's none of my business who they are going out with or who they end up marrying. I'm not in their bedroom about to film them doing the dirty. If they want/NEED the tax breaks that come with being married or having a long-term domestic partner, then so be it. If they want someone (and that someone happens to be their same sex partner who they are romantically invovled with) to be on their DNR or Medical Directive forms, then so be it as well. Who am I do dictate what they do with their personal lives? I don't have that right with a heterosexual couple, why would I have that right with the gay ones?

[abc3643]

It's only logical that same-sex marriage should be permissible. "Pair bonding", as biologists call it, between two organisms of the same species exists in many other species and not just humans.

In the human world, denial of same-sex marriage is a clear violation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection and due process clauses. That's easy to see for even a student not yet in law school. And that's exactly why the US Supreme Court ruled the way it did in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015.

[abc3643]

I forgot to add: With pair bonding in other species, the two organisms may be of the same sex. In other words, being homosexual is not exclusive to humans and so homosexual pair bonding exists in other species as well. This is endemic and not based on religion or law, but on biology.

en.wikipedia.org/.../Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

[Curmudgeon]

Except that marriage has in it the very act of breeding, which has legal and societal implications that same sex unions, no matter how loving such unions are. And I won't knock them, get your love where you can and all that, and "not that there is anything wrong with that", as Jerry Seinfeld put it. But to call such pairings the same as marriages is like calling a Mule a Horse because both have four legs and a tail and both can pull a cart. It's still a Mule, and I am sure you know your biology which is why the analogy is even more apt.

But more importantly and mark my words, just as Roe. V. Wade was finally overturned for trying to read something into the Constitution that Just. Was. Not. There., Obergefell v. Hodges should go the same way, and hopefully a lot sooner. This is a 9th and 10th Amendment Issue, and the Constitution is silent about Homosexuality; it is not even a little bit bi-curious. These issues need to be hashed out in the State legislatures as the Constitution intended, for matters not spelled out as powers of the Federal Government.

[abc3643]

@Curmudgeon Again, as I mentioned earlier. Procreation/breeding are irrelevant to marriage.

[Curmudgeon]

@abc3643 Sez you and the Court. Anyone with a modicum of sense can see otherwise.

But leaving that aside. Obregefell is again, as has all too often happened in the past, reading magic into the Constitution that Just. Is. Not. There. These matters have to be hashed out in the states.

[abc3643]

@Curmudgeon Believe what you wish. It is irrelevant.

[RainbowMarinade]

@Curmudgeon
“Except that marriage has in it the very act of breeding.” But it’s not a requirement. Because if it was, then infertile couples couldn’t be married either.
You’re not arguing that, are you?

[katiesmuff]

Support NO, Do I really care NO as it is actually none of my business. Now ask me if a gay person or couple could be friends with me and I'd answer YES absolutely, just don't push the marriage part on me. I am not very religious but I do believe as most all religions do that marriage is intended for a male and female.

There however should be a legal term for gays and lesbians who want to be married as such so legal matters can be handled. Call it some kind of Union where it can legally go through the legal system for whatever.

[Curmudgeon]

Bingo again. Just call it something other than a marriage, because it doesn't have the baby making potential of marriage, which does make a heck of a lot of difference legally and otherwise. "Love is Love"? NO.

The love of sex partner to sex partner is different than the love of parent to child, which is different than the love of siblings. All are fine things, but they are all *different*.

Even the ancient Greeks, who were totally gay as we all know, understood this and had different terms for love: Sex vs. Eros vs. Philios vs. Agape and all that. Surely we in the 21st Century still understand that.

[rigmarole]

Nope. Marriage is a religious idea. The concept is one man and one woman merge together into one person. That even makes sense on a biological level because when a man impregnates a woman, half of his chromosomes merge with half of her chromosomes to form one new human. Before we even discovered how that worked at a genetic/molecular level that was laid out in the Bible. It doesn't work the same way when two men plow each other in the ass or two women scissor each other. No marriage occurs...

[abc3643]

Marriage is not a religious idea. It's more instinctive than that.

[Curmudgeon]

@abc3643 Be that as it may, the legal and societal implications of breeding are much more serious. So call such same sex partnerships something else, which would be fine.

[abc3643]

@Curmudgeon Breeding is irrelevant. I married my wife after she had a hysterectomy. SCOTUS itself said that procreation was irrelevant to marriage in their Obergefell v. Hodges opinion.

"A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See, e. g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. See Windsor, supra, at ___. This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate."

www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/14-556

[abc3643]

" That is not to say the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. An ability, desire, or promise to procreate is not and has not been a prerequisite for a valid marriage in any State. In light of precedent protecting the right of a married couple not to procreate, it cannot be said the Court or the States have conditioned the right to marry on the capacity or commitment to procreate. The constitutional marriage right has many aspects, of which childbearing is only one."

[abc3643]

" No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

 The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

It is so ordered."

[Curmudgeon]

@abc3643 Sorry, until recent history, breeding was very much relevant. Now that it cannot happen anymore for older folks does not make the legal recognition of the fact that it all too often happens for younger folks any less relevant and important to them, and to the broader society as a whole.

The Court's reasoning here, like that of Roe, will be found flawed.

But even more importantly is the Court's overreach, again not letting the process of where and how a same sex partnership be structured play out in the state legislatures, as the Constitution originally intended where it was silent on matters. The parameters of Federal power were meant to be narrow unless amended. And to try to apply the 14th Amendment (meant for freed slaves) to this matter is just gross Court overreach.

[rigmarole]

You’re missing the entire point. Being that marriage is a religious idea, the freedom to marry or not marry a person cannot be infringed by the State. Under the first amendment Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Clearly homosexuals have a different religion than the Christians that founded this country. The Bible speaks plainly about sodomy being amoral. Marriage is explicitly laid out as between a man and a woman in the Bible so on and so forth. This is why marriage licenses had to be obtained from the county clerk by the General Assembly in 1777. According to the law, certain kinds of relationships were prohibited from getting married and Christian clergy had to officiate at the wedding prior to 1963. This was the original intention of marriage law in the eyes of those who wrote it an enforced it, because those eyes belonged to fellow Christians with common beliefs. The flaw in the law, is that the State has no place in religious matters to begin with. Therefore, marriage licenses should not exist through the state at all. The state should not regulate marriage or divorce. Your religious institution, whatever that may be, should manage that in it’s own institution for it’s own believers under your own religious code. The state should remove itself completely from the concept of marriage. Then you are free to pursue whatever religion you’d like and practice your associated customs. Obviously different religions will disagree on religious matters, but it is not the Sate's place to take sides on how people practice their religion.

[rigmarole]

Furthermore as I have previously outlined science agrees with the Christian view of marriage. In Biology you have mating practices that lead to pair bonding in certain species. That occurs between a male and female of that particular species for the purpose of reproduction. The pair become emotionally attached and typically stick together for long periods of time if not for life, yes but it’s ultimately for raising their children together. That is the intent regardless if they are successful or not. When they mate in sexual reproduction half of the male’s chromosomes merge with half of the female’s chromosomes to form a unified offspring. Biology and Christianity are in agreement. You might be anti-Christian and you might be anti-Science; if that’s what your religion teaches so be it, that’s fine… No one said you had to be right. The reality of marriage is none the less observable in nature and well defined in religion. It was also well defined in American law, even if in recent years those laws have been perverted.

[abc3643]

1. Breeding is irrelevant to marriage. If marriage was required for breeding, every organism on Earth would be dead.
2. "Being that marriage is a religious idea" is false. Marriage predates any formal religions and exists, via pair bonding, in non-human animals as well. Not too many penguins go to church, last I checked.

[abc3643]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWqdqkP6jlk

[rigmarole]

@abc3643 Yet somehow "marriage" is an English word. You've spun yourself into a logic trap because the English language didn't predate formal religion. Language is at the center of law. The concept of marriage orginates in Europe in the common era after Christ's death. Europe was and still is a geographical region dominated by Christianity. Hesse marriage is a religious idea specifically pulled from the Bible. Christians migrated to the Americas and founded American marriage laws based on Christianity. Face it, you’re wrong… Get over it...

c. 1300, mariage, "action of entering into wedlock;" also "state or condition of being husband and wife, matrimony, wedlock;" also "a union of a man and woman for life by marriage, a particular matrimonial union;" from Old French mariage "marriage; dowry" (12c.), from Vulgar Latin *maritaticum (11c.), from Latin maritatus, past participle of maritare "to wed, marry, give in marriage" (see marry (v.)). The Vulgar Latin word also is the source of Italian maritaggio, Spanish maridaje, and compare mariachi

Meanings "the marriage vow, formal declaration or contract by which two join in wedlock;" also "a wedding, the celebration of a marriage; the marriage ceremony" are from late 14c. Figurative use (non-theological) "intimate union, a joining as if by marriage" is from late 14c.

[rigmarole]

*Hence

[rigmarole]

[Anonymous]

I am not opposed to homosexuals and lesbians have long term relationships that are recognized at law, by I am bothered by calling it "marriage." This is an attempt to label homosexual and lesbian relationships is a way that makes them seem comparable to heterosexual marriages, and the two are distinctly different. After all, the survival of our species depends on heterosexuals reproducing.

I don't care what people do behind closed doors but don't use tricks to try to make me think that it is normal.

[Curmudgeon]

Well put otherwise, but even avoiding the value judgment of "normal", such a relationship just *does not* have the breeding implications that marriage has. It just doesn't.

[BoopBoopBeep]

Depends on what you mean "support". I mean... I'm not going to do it. I don't think the government should recognize it. I don't think the government should recognize straight marriage either. That's a pact between you and the other person and god/the judge/priest/jedi/whatever. No reason the government should have a say in that.

[Curmudgeon]

Actually, given the children that all too often emerge from it, marriage DOES need a government recognition. And frankly, same sex partnerships merit some kind of government recognition too, render unto Caesar and all that, but a the *same* kind of recognition as a marriage in the way we have always understood it? No, it is not that.

[BoopBoopBeep]

@Curmudgeon What does your having kids require a government recognition to do?

[Curmudgeon]

@BoopBoopBeep who has custody, who is responsible for them, who PAYS for them, and that is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

[BoopBoopBeep]

@Curmudgeon Yeah none of that is relevant. People that have kids out of wedlock deal with the same shite. Government isn't the magical solution there.

[Curmudgeon]

@BoopBoopBeep And how much bad shite that has turned out to be! My point exactly! No, Government certainly is not a magical solution, but when the law it makes becomes "clear as mud", well now, we are where we have been for the last few decades, which is frankly craptastic.

[RebelinSteel]

If two people love each other, the fact they are gay should not come into it. The thing that everyone should be behind is that love is important, however no we have people coming out with hate because two people love each other.

[bobalife]

Very heartfelt, thanks for being pawsome and an ally ❤️🧡💛💚🩵

[RebelinSteel]

@bobalife aww spank you

[bobalife]

🙊🙈 your whalecome hehe

[RebelinSteel]

@bobalife you can have my whale come to

[OfDeath]

No. I don’t see the point. Why would a man want to get married to another man? It’s just weird.

I am not ignorant that homosexuality exists. Past civilisations such as the Greeks and even the Vikings had plug pushers, but they didn’t marry each other. The whole point of bun buttering was as a sexual escapade either in secret as part of genuine desire or simply because there were no women available or none available to those men. It also happened as a luxury available to those in power or of great wealth. However it was not seen as socially acceptable for 2 fairies to tie the proverbial knot because that doesn’t lead to any social benefit or economic growth and doesn’t sustain population which was important.

Times haven’t really changed since then in terms of the functionality of marriage so I have to say no to tying two penises together in a knot so to speak.

[Danny_dan92]

I have nothing against it.




Two caveats.




1. (Obviously this means they would have to adopt kids (if they want kids)




That being said, if this happens. They best not molest them, yes. This does happen. They adopt same sex children as them and have their way with them.






2. Don’t try and say you don’t have equal rights. Cause everyone can get married to whoever they want at that point. NOBODY, regardless of their ethnicity or whatever should seek special treatment, that naturally is frictional to society and polarizing. It causes problems




Just like with women’s rights, I believe gay people have a right to marry each other. Just keep it reasonable. And don’t push the envelope to fit your personal needs/wants.

[BCA6010]

It isn't a marriage by definition, because that is a specific relationship that requires a man and a woman.

I don't care that gay people exist or want to be formally recognized as partners in some way, but it isn't a marriage nor should be it be mislabeled as such.

[wolfcat87]

marriage -

the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship

a combination or mixture of two or more elements.

[Curmudgeon]

@wolfcat87 Be that as it may, the breeding potential makes it every different. Just to be clear, this does not mean I wish that gay/lesbian people don't get their love where they can in this cold and cruel world; i sincerely hope they do. However, such a same sex union needs to be classified and something else, for the sake of the law and the children. That is all.

[wolfcat87]

@Curmudgeon Why would it make a difference for children? Also, about 20% of people suffer from infertility. Should their marriages be cancelled as well? What about hermaphrodites and other people who are not technically male or female? They make up about 2% of the population.

[Curmudgeon]

@wolfcat87 If we wish to narrow the bounds to just strict breeders rather than *potential* breeders, that might be up to a state legislature, fair enough. (See my 9th and 10th Amendment arguments with @abc3643).

And again, I am all in favor of *some* kind of legal recognition of a same sex partnership, not only for the particular kind of love that it is, but also for the practical matters of property ownership, medical and personal decisions, etc. This is not an all-or-nothing matter, creating some kind of legal framework for such relationships is essential, but calling such relationships what they are not just makes law clear as mud, when ideally law should be straightforward so any average citizen can understand it.

[wolfcat87]

@Curmudgeon What do you think a marriage is exactly?

[Curmudgeon]

@wolfcat87 A situation for sexual congress by which the children which may result have defined people responsible for them. That may not be romantic, but there it is.

[wolfcat87]

@Curmudgeon When and where was that ever the actual definition? 🤔 I'm not saying it can't be that for you, but redefining what marriage means for yourself doesn't mean everyone else has to fit that arbitrary definition.

I have my own definition more based in historical and modern practices, but I also don't expect everyone else to fit it or else they have to give up the marriage label... How long have you been married?

[bobalife]

I do wish the world just let people be themselves and let people love who they want… instead of trying to have a say of who they are and who they love or can not love. ❤️🧡💛💚🩵

[strateguy632]

you missed the point i can "love" a married woman but i still must restrain myself. the issue in this question marriage but obviously they feel whatever feelings.

[bobalife]

Yes anyone is allow to have feelings.

[strateguy632]

to @bobalife i agree with you about feelings.

[molonski2]

At first I would have always said Yes ( We voted on it in Aussie ) ..

But , when it all happened these gays started getting just too confident , and kept adding a letter to the LBYQUTZPAT , etc , and they were really starting to piss me off , they destroyed the rainbow , all want to have children , and saying " love is love " and all this other nonsense , so I thought " Fck em " and voted No.

[Curmudgeon]

Whether it was done out of sincere well meaning naivete, or a sinister desire to make family law an even bigger clusterf*ck than it already is, the facts are that such relationships do not have the baby making and child raising implications that marriages have had for centuries. "Love is Love" is a mindless slogan as there are obviously many different kinds of love. Even the very same sex ancient Greeks understood that and had different terms for love in their language. Have we lost the wisdom of the ancients? Sadly yes.

[molonski2]

This was a turning point for me , I agree with you , had this sloppy dike starting to get into about IVF

How can you qualify for IVF when the point of commencement is impossible? That's when I really began to think " this is just not right "

[NamerOfStars]

I'm surprised the vote's so close. Yes, I support it; I've long been a staunch supporter of strong family presences in people's lives. I have yet to encounter any reason that should be limited to straight people beyond "Ewww!" which isn't actually a reason.

[laurieluvsit]

I am Bi and, yes, it is fine but it needs to have a different name.

They have bastardized the term.

It needs to have a term/name of it's own, exclusively for that.

The Communist Marxist Socialist Democrats running our country have purposely done this to try and destroy 'Traditional Marriages' and that is wrong.

[Curmudgeon]

Bingo. I am all for calling it a same-sex romantic partnership, a Civil Union, what have you. Just NOT a marriage, because that term has legal and societal implications.

[laurieluvsit]

@Curmudgeon
You're right again, as always... lol

[BCRanger10]

No. Marriage is only possible between a man and a woman. While a loving union is important, the primary purpose of marriage is procreation. If you reduce it simply to "two people who love each other", that creates all sorts of issues with the law and with what makes a culture what it is. There has to be something that makes it unique. In the case of marriage, it's the procreation and education of children.

[TheGuyWhoKnowsStuff]

Looking at ancient times, marriage between any sexuality predates all marriages that were believed to be exclusively between a man and a woman. In fact, the concept of marriage has its roots in Mesopotamia where same sex marriages were normal. Attitudes wax and wane across history just like people's taste in music.