If people are allowed to marry, people are allowed to marry. If people are not allowed to marry, people are not allowed to marry.
I think that just about covers the topic.
I think that just about covers the topic.
Should GAYS be allowed to MARRY?
- Thread starter NTKB
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
- Status
"Gay marriages" should be allowed. Putting religion aside, the people against it the most are the insurance companies. If gay marriages were to be ratified into the Constitution, think of all the money the so-called insurance companies would lose. Instead of having 2 seperate insurance plans (health, life, medical just to name a few), there would be one insurance plan with a dependent/spouse which is much cheaper than an independent plan. I remember hearing about Hawaii trying to legalize same sex marriages, but the insurance lobbyists from CA flew to Hawaii to stop it. The insurance companies won.
Last edited:
Dam, hadn't thought of it that way. It's always money in the end ...
NTKB Mariage predates christianity and judaism by a long way ...
I think that religious mariages are something to do with whatever church is performing them. Civil mariages are an entirely different cup of tea.
NTKB Mariage predates christianity and judaism by a long way ...
I think that religious mariages are something to do with whatever church is performing them. Civil mariages are an entirely different cup of tea.
randomas said:
I know not everyone here believes in the bible or even considers it true history, but it clearly states in the bible Adam and Eve were the first people on the earth, and there children were married. This doesnt mean it was a christian or jewish institution. Its a GODLY institution that is meant to be done one way and no other.
Is that discrimination? Perhaps. But like I mentioned earlier its the creator of something that has the right to discriminate. I didnt say by calling it something else it would be inferior. It would be up to the secular governemtns to make sure they got whatever rights they feel they deserve. But by using the name marriage and practicing a ceremony traditionally associated with marriage you are pissing on someones lawn who didnt want you to piss there.
This is a legitimate fear that many "pro gay marriage" folk don't want to address ... there seems to be this believe among progressives that its okay to force certain groups to do what you want (ie forcing a Christian priest who believes homosexuality is a sin to marry gay folk) and still call themselves "pro freedom", and that the government forcing a church to do what it wants is not a separation of church and state issue, but putting up a christmas tree in a public park is
Once upon a time it was against the law for a black person to marry a white person in some parts of the country ... when those laws where repealed there where still Pastors who refused to officiate such a union. While I believe that position is pig headed, bigoted and stupid, it is their right to live their life by whaver code they choose ... just as it is the right of the mixed race couple. However there have been lawsuits against Pastors who would not marry mixed race couples. If you think gays aren't an extremely litigious sub-sect of our society then you've had your head in a hole somewhere (or someone?
).Honestly I think government should stay out of ALL marriage ... marriage is a combination of religious expression and contract law, there is no reason to have some special legal definition of it.
Zundfolge said:This is a legitimate fear that many "pro gay marriage" folk don't want to address ... there seems to be this believe among progressives that its okay to force certain groups to do what you want (ie forcing a Christian priest who believes homosexuality is a sin to marry gay folk) and still call themselves "pro freedom", and that the government forcing a church to do what it wants is not a separation of church and state issue, but putting up a christmas tree in a public park is
Indeed. Just look at this thread for a perfect example – every single pro-gay-marriage person has willfully ignored the issue even though I brought it up twice. I suppose I can see why, why bother actually being logical when you can get away with high and mighty preachy moralizing about equal rights?
{GD}NTKB said:
I have no problem with with the idea of gay marriage.
I'm getting married next year, and I'm heterosexual, but I will not be having a religious ceremony, as neither of us are religious or believe in god. I have no problem with religious people, although people with views as rabid as yours scare me quite frankly. You may believe that your god is the creator of marriage, and thats your perrogotive, but I personally think marriage is an act of committment and love between two people, no matter what form it takes. IMO marriage/handfasting etc. is something created by people, and as such is a flexible thing.
I happen to know a gay couple, and their relationship had been going for over 25 years whe I first met them! Looking at the divorce rate these days, I'd say this couple are more worthy of being married than most heterosexual friends I have, who seem to swap partners frequently...
I think that the "OMG GAY PEOPLE VIOLATE THE IMPORTANCE AND HOLY NATURE OF MARRIAGE!!111" argument is the biggest load of shit ever. Look at the divorce rates and unhappy marriages amongst straight people FFS. Marriage is in danger of losing its relevance from the people who use it most.
{GD}NTKB said:
The point is not whether or not it would be the same in spirit. Gay people don't want a special union created specifically for them because all that acknowledges is that people are too fearful to go through with it.
As for the whole religious thing, I am not interested in arguments like "What if this person was forced to marry them?". Damn, it must suck for people to start being treated like people. I say let them be forced. The whole religious side of marriage I don't agree, ESSPECIALLY when you say that it was originally a religious instutition NKTB. As I said, it's been around a LOT longer then any religion around these days, so specifically associating it with one is pretty stupid. Gay people just want to be able to have the right to be married. If people are forced to marry them it very well may go to court, but as was mentioned some pastors resisted marrying black and white people. Well frankly I see this issue as the same. The whole point of our way of life is protecting the minority. Gay people are certainly a minority, but frankly we need to acknowledge that a gay couple is still worthy of marriage. If we pass a law and people don't like it oh well. If challeges in court because of descrimination come up GOOD in my opinion. No one has the right to descriminate against anyone whatever their religious doctrine was.
It's very easy when you are part of the majority to make statements like you guys have SaraP and NKTB, but what if you were gay? What if you wanted to get married? I know you would want to be married, and not have some specially created union. All you are doing is coming up for is excuses for descrimination against a minority. AND YES THEY ARE A MINORITY, and people descriminate against them everyday. In fact, in my opinion homosexuality is the last minority that is actively descriminated against by people. Think about your forefathers. They used arguements in cases against black people when segragation was trying to be protected. What they are saying is just as bad as what you are saying because what they wanted was just as bad.
Marriage is an archaic tradition from an archaic organisation, but it's still their tradition, and if the church of any given denomination says it won't marry gays, then that's their choice. They should be granted the legal rights of a married couple should they choose to, however.
I don't doubt that you're correct and I also don't doubt that your countries f cked legal system would lead someone to try and bring a court case like that - so what is the workaround?
There must be some way of establishing that gay people can marry without giving them the right to sue any church that won't marry them (because that's just stupid. I think a church should be able to not marry you if they don't like the look of your face).
I think there are plenty of churches that would quite happily marry gay people so I think they should be allowed to.
Gahhh...
Lost a long post,
In short,
The bible does not own marriage, as marraige is a goverment controled aragement, this is a human rights issue, therefore the bible has no say in it, therefore religious meaning points are not valid in this arguement.
It is your right to practice your religion, but it is not your right to force that upon others, by trying to restrict the goverment from marrying gay people, your doing just that, forcing you religion upon others.
In the arguement regarding the persecution of pastors not wishing to marry gays: I do believe this is a rather silly but quite conflicting issue, although I do believe pastors should be forced to marry gays, I believe it's their religous right not to, 'nuff said.
For the comment regarding christmas trees in public parks: By displaying your faith, your not forcing anything upon anyone, therefore you're well with in your rights, I for one know that I wouldn't mind seeing a giant minora in a park anywhere.
On to changing the name of marraige.
Marraige Is Controled By The Goverment Not The Bible.
This is the name the goverment of your country has chosen to describe a union between two people. Unless they change the name of every type of marrage between two people like a couple-that-wears-many-hats-union or a very-tall-yet-unpromontionate-marraige then well, this is quite descriminatory, and is well, yet another human rights issue.
O/T: Hehe, umm, does anyone know how to change the shortcut keys on IE, I seem to have backspace set as a shortcut for back
Lost a long post,
In short,
The bible does not own marriage, as marraige is a goverment controled aragement, this is a human rights issue, therefore the bible has no say in it, therefore religious meaning points are not valid in this arguement.
It is your right to practice your religion, but it is not your right to force that upon others, by trying to restrict the goverment from marrying gay people, your doing just that, forcing you religion upon others.
In the arguement regarding the persecution of pastors not wishing to marry gays: I do believe this is a rather silly but quite conflicting issue, although I do believe pastors should be forced to marry gays, I believe it's their religous right not to, 'nuff said.
For the comment regarding christmas trees in public parks: By displaying your faith, your not forcing anything upon anyone, therefore you're well with in your rights, I for one know that I wouldn't mind seeing a giant minora in a park anywhere.
On to changing the name of marraige.
Marraige Is Controled By The Goverment Not The Bible.
This is the name the goverment of your country has chosen to describe a union between two people. Unless they change the name of every type of marrage between two people like a couple-that-wears-many-hats-union or a very-tall-yet-unpromontionate-marraige then well, this is quite descriminatory, and is well, yet another human rights issue.
O/T: Hehe, umm, does anyone know how to change the shortcut keys on IE, I seem to have backspace set as a shortcut for back
You know who I don't think should be allowed to get married?
NTKB.
If only to prevent the spread of his genes.
NTKB.
If only to prevent the spread of his genes.
Now now Dank. I think he should marry his sister and produce inbred babies. After all, the first marriages in the ultimate truth book, the Bible, were between close blood relatives, as he himself pointed out.
Things you pwn end up pwning you...but do what you want.
Bring on your latin ass terms j00 schmukk...
Taque, add this one to the list of provokees
Bring on your latin ass terms j00 schmukk...
SaraP said:Such a stunning example of a ad hominem fallacy -- instead of addressing ANY issue at all, you call me rude names. How very intelligent and mature of you.
Taque, add this one to the list of provokees
Last edited:
Thats part of the problem.
Regardless of whether gay marriage is allowed by law or not, it makes no sense to me that if I wish to marry someone, I must go down to the courthouse, fill out some paper work, pay a fee to the state and then I can be married.
It shouldn't be any of the governments business. If government hadn't usurped this power from the people the issue of whether gay marriage should be legal wouldn't even be an issue.
That's quite generous of you, however there are many "progressive" organizations who's desire is not just to make gay marriage legal, but to use the law to attack those who keep "traditional values" ... this is the essence of culture war. Much like there are conservative Christians who would like to see us return to a time where homosexuality is a crime, there are progressives who would like to see Christianity labeled as a crime, and legalizing gay marriage is one of their tactics (not because they give a damn about allowing gay marriage, but because it gives them way to bludgeon Christians with the law).
Again, remove government from the equation and things will just work out better.
I want to agree with this on principle. If it were on the ballot, I'd vote to abolish marriage altogether. Unfortunately, there are some things that don't work well if you just remove the gummint from this equation. If marriage as a legal institution is done away with, partners (whatever orientation) no longer have the same legal rights as family. I don't particularly care about the tax-benefits side of things, as that's basically a scam so far as unmarried-I am concerned, but are other issues such as inheritance, burial / body disposal, child ownership, and so on that crop up.Zundfolge said:
I suppose you might balance that out by loosening the requirements that restrict who can be considered family, and when, but I can't believe that debate would rage any cooler than this one.
What about dolphins?Rostam said:
hehe I agree gay should be allowed to marry, but the "people" argument is too funny.
Siblings are people, grandma and teens are people. Yet I don't think it would be "right" to let them marry
It's a bit what happened in France with the PACS (Pacte Civil de Solidarité) which allows gay to "marry". It's not a real wedding but it gives them the same advantages as a married couple (taxes reduction and all). The really fucked up part is that they included brothers and sisters and everything in the PACS definition to disguise the gay marriage thing
Siblings are people, grandma and teens are people. Yet I don't think it would be "right" to let them marry
It's a bit what happened in France with the PACS (Pacte Civil de Solidarité) which allows gay to "marry". It's not a real wedding but it gives them the same advantages as a married couple (taxes reduction and all). The really fucked up part is that they included brothers and sisters and everything in the PACS definition to disguise the gay marriage thing
- Status