http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/us/04iowa.html As you may have heard, Iowa recently voided its ban on gay marriage, making the marriage of same-sex couples legal. What is your take on this? And on gay marriage as a whole?
I wouldn't allow gay marriage. But that's my view, I'd think it'd promote more borderline female gays.. which I hate. However, there is a pretty large chance that the ban on gay marriage will be removed as time goes on. Laws will always change to reflect the changing values in society, and as gays are more accepted within society, so too will their rights and allowances.
I dont think they should have done that. We were born with "those.... things..... between our legs" for a REASON! And that reason is to..... "connect"..... (sorry im trying to keep this as un-explicit as possible!). Therefore we were born to mate with the opposite sex. If you refuse to do that, then you have wasted a life that you were given.
Personally, I don't see the problem with gay marriage. If a person's gay they're not going to reproduce anyway, gay people aren't going to start sleeping with members of the opposite sex just because we deny them marriage. I mean, you're straight, right? When was the last time you went out and copulated with a member of your sex due to a lack of availability of the opposite gender? Many straight people opt not to reproduce out of choice, too. Supposing the entire purpose of out different genders is to reproduce, why do two straight people, who have the opportunity to reproduce yet choose not to, deserve the right to marry, but two gay people who were never given the choice, do not deserve to? Personally, I find it to be a form of discrimination. Gays can't help being gay, they just are. Why deny them the right to marry simply because of our archaic personal morals and squeamishness?
It's not really as simple as that, in most cases. When you create equality with regard to laws, ie freedom of equality, you open up a Pandora's box of areas in the law that can be flawed, and where companies and the government can get chain raped. An example of this is when a gay man donating blood to the Red Cross was denied because he answered 'yes' when posed with the question 'Have you had intercourse with another male'. He sued the Red Cross for discrimination on the basis of his being gay and, thankfully, lost. Imagine how many cases like that would rise up if you allowed gay marriage. Wow, my post is so incoherent it isn't even funny.
But that's the thing. Why isn't it as simple as that? People used to use the same reasoning against discarding segregation. People would argue that it isn't inequality, because black people were welcome to marry, they just couldn't marry white people. People argue these days that it isn't inequality because gay people can marry, they just can't marry people of the same gender. Gay people can't help being gay any more than black people can help being black and neither is debilitating or "wrong", nor is it worthy of discrimination. I personally don't believe the government should have any say in who people marry. Hell, until recently, in some US states, the government policed how people could and could not have sex. Forgive the somewhat inappropriate reference (if this is not suitable for this forum, I request a moderator remove it) but as recently as the 90s, people were arrested for engaging in anal sex in the privacy of their own home. In my opinion, the government has no place in the public's bedroom, or the public's preferences in marriage.
To be honest, I'm against marriage. It's a waste of time and money. You don't need a ring on your finger to love someone and stay with them for the rest of your life.
Having a personally unfavourable opinion towards marriage is fine and all, I have no desire to marry either, but this thread is about why some people have the right to marry people of their choice and others do not - apparently because their choice is the wrong choice, according to their government.
Then again, some people are religious. (I understand the contradiction I just made there between someone being so religious they won't have sex before marriage, and gays being 'sinners' in the eyes of the 'lord').
Some gay people are quite religious too, you know. I saw a TV show about a group of religious gays that believed in God and what God wants for mankind and they believed that the passages of the Bible (along with several others) were just words written by man, and that God wouldn't have made them gay if he wasn't okay with it. So, they too won't have sex 'till after marriage or civil union, just like many other religious people. It was really very interesting.
So they were saying 'Okay, we believe in this religion, and what this book says.. but we don't think the book's right, so we won't obey it.. and hence the religion'. Odd. But I can see where they were coming from in relation to the whole God wouldn't have made them gay if he wasn't okay with it thing.
amen brother that takes the words right out of my mouth... or i guess right out off of my keyboard... anyways you pretty much said exactly what i was thinking, who's the government to interfere with the marriages of the common man? If a gay couple can find a priest that will perform the ceremony more power too them, it's not like it's going to damage society in anyway except one of them might change their last name... ZOMG!!!! A GUY JUST CHANGED HIS LAST NAME FOR ANOTHER GUY!!!! LET'S FOCUS ON THAT INSTEAD OF OUR ECONOMY!!!!! true it is just a waste of time and money and you don't need a ring to say you love somebody but it's the title and the complete union you achieve with your loved one when you get married... honestly i don't get why weddings are so expensive nowadays... that's not what love is about... and that doesn't change if your gay or straight...
What they were essentially saying is that while they believe there is a God and that his teachings are the way they want to live their lives, they believe that the Bible, written by men who were taught by other men and then lost and found and translated hundreds of times over the course of history, is fallible and that much of it makes no sense, so they took from it what made sense and what they believed would lead them to live good lives and followed that path instead of blindly obeying everything it says.
Oh please, people have been picking and chosing what to belive from the Bible for ages. I doubt there is even one person in the entire world that actually manages to follow the Bible word by word. Want some examples?
Agreed. There have even been modifications made to the Bible by the catholic church, some as recent as a few hundred years ago, and that's not even accounting for any modifications made here and there by translators. I guarentee you all, the original version of the Bible and Torah was lost long before the Bible was even fully assembled.
I'd say a priest would. Or a nun. But, then again, they're not gay. And they don't want to get married. Do go on.
My point is that many of those who call themselves Christians don't follow the Bible word by word. Contradictions in the Bible (how are people supposed to follow either of these?), strange prohibitions against certain food (shellfish and rabbits called abominations that must not be eaten), working at the Sabbath resulting in stoning and much more.
As for working on the Sabbath, Adelaide has laws that actually prohibit trading on that day. But I do understand where you're coming from, noone is so devout that they actually adhere to every aspect of the bible, and noone who isn't devout can adhere to the parts that contradict other parts. So, what you're saying is that gays should be allowed to get married to follow their religious beliefs, traditions and ideals while they choose to neglect the other ones? While I do think that gays deserve the right to be married, I think that question is a pretty logical argument.
They aren't "neglecting" any of their beliefs, they just don't "believe" in certain parts of the Bible. Just because something's in the Bible and someone is a Christian doesn't mean they have to agree with it and believe it. Hell, the variations between different forms of Christianity alone are enough to show that not everyone agrees. So these guys believe it's okay to be gay and get married, but they don't believe it's okay to have sex before marriage. Fair enough to them. Although come to think of it, it's bloody stupid that they think it's still wrong for them not to have sex before marriage because I'm 99% certain that the only reason the Bible says it's wrong to have sex before marriage is the risk of pregnancy out of wedlock, which...isn't exactly going to be an issue for gay guys.
denying gay people the right to marry is just discrimination imo. i am happy iowa has legalized it and i am sure that we will see all of the u.s. follow suit in the next decade or so.