Gay Marriage to be legalized in the UK

[Malcador]

You seem to have a thicker skin than most. Heh, this reminds me of the 'outrage' over Tiny Tina.

[alanschu]

Bollocks. It is you who are assigning negative meaning to it - it is not inherent to the text.

 

Sure there is.

 

There's no need to qualify the statement in the slightest.  The poster explicitly called out the colour of her skin, when all that needed to do be said was "What a high quality cosplayer."

 

But nope, it was pretty good for a black person.  I wonder how the person would have felt if it wasn't a black person, since apparently there is SOME sort of distinction (lest the qualification never would have been made).

 

 

 

If  I were to notice that this is a guy playing a woman, am I being sexist?

 

Am I racist/sexist if I notice B looks closer to the character than A?

 

Saying "You did pretty good for a black person" is not the same as noticing "It's a black person dressing up as sailor moon."

 

So your analogues aren't actually analogues.  Now if you say "That's pretty good for a man" or "That's pretty good for a fat person" then your analogue is becoming a bit closer.

 

 

What you're saying when you say "You did pretty good for a black person" is state that an important part about dressing like Sailor Moon is the colour of her skin, and because you aren't white you have a handicap in trying to look good while cosplaying as a white person."  Which means the focus is on the race of the person, when it doesn't have to be.  I have never seen a clip of Sailor Moon, and I knew exactly who the person was cosplaying as, and she has done a spot on much better job than a lot of the white people I've seen make attempts as well.  She's not "good for a black person" she's just straight up good.  Her skin color is irrelevant.

Edited February 10, 2013 by alanschu

[Guest The Architect]

Less talking and more cosplay pics, thanks. Her face is alright but she asses up I mean makes up for it.

 

 

[Meshugger]

SWEET JESUS

[TrashMan]

 

Sure there is.

There's no need to qualify the statement in the slightest.  The poster explicitly called out the colour of her skin, when all that needed to do be said was "What a high quality cosplayer."

 

There's no need not to either.

The post explicitly mentioned the color of her skin BECAUSE that was the area in which she differed from the character she was cosplaying.

WTF is noticing someone physical characteristic a taboo? Is she ashamed of her skin color? No? Then there is no problem.

 

 

 

But nope, it was pretty good for a black person.  I wonder how the person would have felt if it wasn't a black person, since apparently there is SOME sort of distinction (lest the qualification never would have been made).

 

It doesn't matter.

 

 

 

Saying "You did pretty good for a black person" is not the same as noticing "It's a black person dressing up as sailor moon."

So your analogues aren't actually analogues.  Now if you say "That's pretty good for a man" or "That's pretty good for a fat person" then your analogue is becoming a bit closer.

 

What you're saying when you say "You did pretty good for a blackperson" is state that an important part about dressing like Sailor Moon is the colour of her skin, and because you aren't white you have a handicap in trying to look good while cosplaying as a white person." 

Which means the focus is on the race of the person, when it doesn't have to be.  I have never seen a clip of Sailor Moon, and I knew

exactly who the person was cosplaying as, and she has done a spot on much better job than a lot of the white people I've seen make attempts as well.  She's not "good for a black person" she's just straight up good.  Her skin color is irrelevant.

 

 

Actually yes, it is a "handicap". Any physical characteristic can be an advantage or a handicap when you try to look like someone else.

Skin color is not the FOCUS, but it is a part of the character just like everything else - like it or not.

 

People get worked up over nothing these days. We live in the age where everyone gets easily offended and expects the world to kiss their ases whenever their oh-so-fragile feelings get hurt.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Oh noes, teh gheys are destroying religious liberty by getting equal rights and protection under the law.

[BruceVC]

Oh noes, teh gheys are destroying religious liberty by getting equal rights and protection under the law.

funny

[NOK222]

Oh noes, teh gheys are destroying religious liberty by getting equal rights and protection under the law.

 

****ing logic, how does that work?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

Oh noes, teh gheys are destroying religious liberty by getting equal rights and protection under the law.

 

****ing logic, how does that work?

 

 

Well....

 

1. LGBT gets equal rights

2. ?????????

3. Destruction of Religious Liberty, Order, and America

[JFSOCC]

don't forget a thousand years of darkness, chuck norris said that.

[TrashMan]

Not the first or last time people see something as the pebble that starts an avalanche.

 

Of course, exactly why would it it be so is incredibly difficult to forumulate.

Socials/morals/culture are very, very, very complex things and peoples views and experiences make it even mroe complicated.

[HoonDing]

This could partly be the reason why the Pope resigned.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Drudanae

[Walsingham]

I honestly don't mind if gay people get married. I think a lifetime commitment to anything is completely insane, but if they want to take that sort of gamble, fair play to them.

 

I don't even expect to have a lifetime commitment to all my limbs and organs, let alone anyone else's.

[greylord]

My own take is not popular.

 

I have no problem with someone being hetero or homosexual.

 

Keep their own nose in the bedroom and out of my face though.

 

I am somewhat opposed to people and governments trying to purposefully change the definition of something that need not be changed...UNLESS the plan is to force religions to ACCEPT those and things that they are opposed to...aka...destroy freedom of religion.

 

I am not opposed to government getting out of the marriage business...aka...leave it to each to determine whatever they want to do with their lives.  Leave marriage as a Religious thing for the religions to dictate what they will or will not do.

 

If they (governments) want to recognize something make it part of contract law in which two persons (no definition of who or what) can be joined for purposes of taxes and other legalities

 

However, leave marriage and it's definitions as it was originally...a religious thing.

 

If homosexuals THEN feel the need to have gay marriage once it has NO political force to be enforced against religions...fine...in fact, I think they should make their own church and have it perform Gay Marriages in it...maybe make it so that heterosexual marriages cannot be performed in that religion.  That's fine with me...

 

AS I said, keep what they do in the bedroom to themselves, let us keep it to ourselves, and let's not rub our collective noses up each other's rear ends or genitalia...whichever side you tend to be on.

Edited February 22, 2013 by greylord

[BruceVC]

My own take is not popular.

 

I have no problem with someone being hetero or homosexual.

 

Keep their own nose in the bedroom and out of my face though.

 

I am somewhat opposed to people and governments trying to purposefully change the definition of something that need not be changed...UNLESS the plan is to force religions to ACCEPT those and things that they are opposed to...aka...destroy freedom of religion.

 

I am not opposed to government getting out of the marriage business...aka...leave it to each to determine whatever they want to do with their lives.  Leave marriage as a Religious thing for the religions to dictate what they will or will not do.

 

If they (governments) want to recognize something make it part of contract law in which two persons (no definition of who or what) can be joined for purposes of taxes and other legalities

 

However, leave marriage and it's definitions as it was originally...a religious thing.

 

If homosexuals THEN feel the need to have gay marriage once it has NO political force to be enforced against religions...fine...in fact, I think they should make their own church and have it perform Gay Marriages in it...maybe make it so that heterosexual marriages cannot be performed in that religion.  That's fine with me...

 

AS I said, keep what they do in the bedroom to themselves, let us keep it to ourselves, and let's not rub our collective noses up each other's rear ends or genitalia...whichever side you tend to be on.

 

You are right about your post not being popular, it smacks of bigotry . Are you opposed to 2 gay people walking the street and holding hands, I just want to understand what you mean by " they need to keep what they do in the bedroom". Also how do you feel about a gay person joining the army and fighting and dying for country. Should he be allowed to do that, maybe "he should just stay in the bedroom" ?

 

Anyway go back to page two of this thread and read the excellent and informative post by Agx. You'll learn a few things, marriage was never about religion. It was about a social contract between people. So religion actually hijacked the definition of marriage. Therefore if want to leave marriage as it was gay people should be allowed to get married.

[greylord]

 

My own take is not popular.

 

I have no problem with someone being hetero or homosexual.

 

Keep their own nose in the bedroom and out of my face though.

 

I am somewhat opposed to people and governments trying to purposefully change the definition of something that need not be changed...UNLESS the plan is to force religions to ACCEPT those and things that they are opposed to...aka...destroy freedom of religion.

 

I am not opposed to government getting out of the marriage business...aka...leave it to each to determine whatever they want to do with their lives.  Leave marriage as a Religious thing for the religions to dictate what they will or will not do.

 

If they (governments) want to recognize something make it part of contract law in which two persons (no definition of who or what) can be joined for purposes of taxes and other legalities

 

However, leave marriage and it's definitions as it was originally...a religious thing.

 

If homosexuals THEN feel the need to have gay marriage once it has NO political force to be enforced against religions...fine...in fact, I think they should make their own church and have it perform Gay Marriages in it...maybe make it so that heterosexual marriages cannot be performed in that religion.  That's fine with me...

 

AS I said, keep what they do in the bedroom to themselves, let us keep it to ourselves, and let's not rub our collective noses up each other's rear ends or genitalia...whichever side you tend to be on.

 

You are right about your post not being popular, it smacks of bigotry . Are you opposed to 2 gay people walking the street and holding hands, I just want to understand what you mean by " they need to keep what they do in the bedroom". Also how do you feel about a gay person joining the army and fighting and dying for country. Should he be allowed to do that, maybe "he should just stay in the bedroom" ?

 

Anyway go back to page two of this thread and read the excellent and informative post by Agx. You'll learn a few things, marriage was never about religion. It was about a social contract between people. So religion actually hijacked the definition of marriage. Therefore if want to leave marriage as it was gay people should be allowed to get married.

 

I'd say let the gay person fight and die if they want.  What I'm against is the actions that they have taken in some places once they get Gay Marriage as a term and approved by govt.  They have in some locations then sued churches for not agreeing to marry them.  THAT'S what I oppose.  I oppose ANYONE who wants to try to force thier views on someone else.

 

Some you can accuse of the scared of Homosexuality, but in some instances it's not scared of the sexuality, but scared because of actions taken elsewhere that they seem to desire to pursue. 

 

For Example

 

• An evangelical Christian marriage commissioner in Saskatchewan was successfully sued for refusing to marry a homosexual couple, despite assisting the couple by putting them in touch with another marriage commissioner who would be willing to conduct the ceremony.
• A campaign has now begun in Canada to remove tax-free status from churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Some Canadian provinces are even considering laws to forbid teachers in private schools from teaching that traditional marriage is the ideal.
• Ocean Grove, a United Methodist Church in New Jersey, was successfully sued by a lesbian couple for not allowing them to be married on Ocean Grove’s grounds. The site in question is Ocean Groves’ seaside pavilion which is used in worship ceremonies. Ocean Grove argued under the First Amendment they have the right to not allow marriages they do not recognize on their grounds, the judge did not agree. Judge Solomon Metzger ruled Ocean Grove had to allow such marriages then went one step further and revoked Ocean Groves tax-exempt status on the pavilion and surrounding grounds. The tax-exempt status has since been re-instated for most of the grounds re-filed for the exemption.

 

It's the examples that they are having in trying to FORCE their views on others.  Why does it have to be called Gay -Marriage?  Because that tears down the other religions and if you use a term they use...then maybe you can FORCE them to change their religion.  I could care less what they do overall until it involves ME.  If they want to hold hands...go right ahead.  If they want to smooch, go right ahead.  If they want to smooch me...well...I'm going to object to that one.

 

They could call it whatever they want...the only reason for calling it Gay Marriage is political...AND purposefully to enrage or upset others.  I think it's a stupid reason.  I disagree with the leaders of that movement and their opinions on that matter.  Another problem is that idiots who have NO idea what's going on in the Gay community assume that these Leaders (some of whom aren't even homosexual) speak for every homosexual or gay person out there.  They don't, but those pushing this agenda DO have a political agenda in mind and most of the time it's trying to force an issue whether it needs to be or not.  There are OTHER ways to accomplish similar ideas without resorting to what they are trying to do in a more offensive manner.

 

Force is not the way to do anything in my opinion in this manner, and they ONLY make enemies of those who would not be enemies.  I have several Homosexual family members, I don't begrudge them anything. 

 

Part of the problem is people taking offense where there is none offered.  If they don't try to force themselves on me, I don't mind.  It's when they DO, that I mind.

 

Look at it this way.  Recently there was a case where there was a heterosexual couple staying at a hotel.  They were kicked out of the hotel.  Why?  Because the owner stated it was a homosexual hotel ONLY. 

 

If I stated it was a homosexual couple that was kicked out because of their sexuality...it probably would engender a LOT more outrage. 

 

Either way, it's still discrimination.

 

However, if it's private property...then the owner should be allowed to do whatever the heck they want...if it's a business however...then screw it.

 

Religion on the otherhand I think is a very personal and private thing.  Trying to force your views into someone's personal life is just as terrible as someone trying to push their religious views on you.

 

AS I said, keep their business to themselves and I don't have a problem, it's when they push it on me that I have a problem.

 

As far as being bigoted...

 

Do you even know if I'm homosexual or heterosexual.

 

It's amazing what people assume.

Edited February 22, 2013 by greylord

[Guard Dog]

Most western countries already have legal devices the allow gays to have a "married" relationship. If we've come that far we are 98% of the way there. All we are arguing about now is the word marriage. Nobody owns a word. Just legalize it. Heck it's almost there already. Really I don't understand the objection. If you don't like gay marriage don't marry a gay person. See how easy that is? If two consenting adults who have nothing at all to do with you (not pointing at anyone, just in general) want to get married, why do you care? How does it make your life less if they are enjoying theirs?

 

I keep saying it but it's true. Imagine how great a world this would be if we all just left each other alone.

 

Of course if any church refuses to sanction a gay marriage or allow one to be held on it's premesis then that is ok too. Freedom shoud apply to everyone. There should be no law preventing gay marriage but there should also be none compelling the unwilling to participate in any way.

 

Greylord does bring up some good points. When the freedom of religious institutions to not participate is threatened that is every bit as wrong as discriminationg against the gays to begin with.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Guard Dog

[Hurlshort]

You know the Catholic church is pretty strict about not marrying people that haven't undergone certain parts of the catholic faith, so I'm pretty sure a church would win a legal battle if a gay couple tried to force them to perform a marriage.  Also that Ocean Grove situation isn't about whether the church should be compelled to run the ceremony.  They had a piece of property that they rented out to couples for weddings.  Unless they had already established a situation where only members of their parish can be married at that location, it would be discrimination to target a couple specifically for being gay.

 

It's all about the way the church approaches things.  If a church has a playground, and they tell my child they are not allowed to play there because it is private property and only open to parishioners, that is legal.  If they tell me my child cannot play there because they are black, that is discrimination.

[BruceVC]

 

 

My own take is not popular.

 

I have no problem with someone being hetero or homosexual.

 

Keep their own nose in the bedroom and out of my face though.

 

I am somewhat opposed to people and governments trying to purposefully change the definition of something that need not be changed...UNLESS the plan is to force religions to ACCEPT those and things that they are opposed to...aka...destroy freedom of religion.

 

I am not opposed to government getting out of the marriage business...aka...leave it to each to determine whatever they want to do with their lives.  Leave marriage as a Religious thing for the religions to dictate what they will or will not do.

 

If they (governments) want to recognize something make it part of contract law in which two persons (no definition of who or what) can be joined for purposes of taxes and other legalities

 

However, leave marriage and it's definitions as it was originally...a religious thing.

 

If homosexuals THEN feel the need to have gay marriage once it has NO political force to be enforced against religions...fine...in fact, I think they should make their own church and have it perform Gay Marriages in it...maybe make it so that heterosexual marriages cannot be performed in that religion.  That's fine with me...

 

AS I said, keep what they do in the bedroom to themselves, let us keep it to ourselves, and let's not rub our collective noses up each other's rear ends or genitalia...whichever side you tend to be on.

 

You are right about your post not being popular, it smacks of bigotry . Are you opposed to 2 gay people walking the street and holding hands, I just want to understand what you mean by " they need to keep what they do in the bedroom". Also how do you feel about a gay person joining the army and fighting and dying for country. Should he be allowed to do that, maybe "he should just stay in the bedroom" ?

 

Anyway go back to page two of this thread and read the excellent and informative post by Agx. You'll learn a few things, marriage was never about religion. It was about a social contract between people. So religion actually hijacked the definition of marriage. Therefore if want to leave marriage as it was gay people should be allowed to get married.

 

I'd say let the gay person fight and die if they want.  What I'm against is the actions that they have taken in some places once they get Gay Marriage as a term and approved by govt.  They have in some locations then sued churches for not agreeing to marry them.  THAT'S what I oppose.  I oppose ANYONE who wants to try to force thier views on someone else.

 

Some you can accuse of the scared of Homosexuality, but in some instances it's not scared of the sexuality, but scared because of actions taken elsewhere that they seem to desire to pursue. 

 

For Example

 

• An evangelical Christian marriage commissioner in Saskatchewan was successfully sued for refusing to marry a homosexual couple, despite assisting the couple by putting them in touch with another marriage commissioner who would be willing to conduct the ceremony.
• A campaign has now begun in Canada to remove tax-free status from churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Some Canadian provinces are even considering laws to forbid teachers in private schools from teaching that traditional marriage is the ideal.
• Ocean Grove, a United Methodist Church in New Jersey, was successfully sued by a lesbian couple for not allowing them to be married on Ocean Grove’s grounds. The site in question is Ocean Groves’ seaside pavilion which is used in worship ceremonies. Ocean Grove argued under the First Amendment they have the right to not allow marriages they do not recognize on their grounds, the judge did not agree. Judge Solomon Metzger ruled Ocean Grove had to allow such marriages then went one step further and revoked Ocean Groves tax-exempt status on the pavilion and surrounding grounds. The tax-exempt status has since been re-instated for most of the grounds re-filed for the exemption.

 

It's the examples that they are having in trying to FORCE their views on others.  Why does it have to be called Gay -Marriage?  Because that tears down the other religions and if you use a term they use...then maybe you can FORCE them to change their religion.  I could care less what they do overall until it involves ME.  If they want to hold hands...go right ahead.  If they want to smooch, go right ahead.  If they want to smooch me...well...I'm going to object to that one.

 

They could call it whatever they want...the only reason for calling it Gay Marriage is political...AND purposefully to enrage or upset others.  I think it's a stupid reason.  I disagree with the leaders of that movement and their opinions on that matter.  Another problem is that idiots who have NO idea what's going on in the Gay community assume that these Leaders (some of whom aren't even homosexual) speak for every homosexual or gay person out there.  They don't, but those pushing this agenda DO have a political agenda in mind and most of the time it's trying to force an issue whether it needs to be or not.  There are OTHER ways to accomplish similar ideas without resorting to what they are trying to do in a more offensive manner.

 

Force is not the way to do anything in my opinion in this manner, and they ONLY make enemies of those who would not be enemies.  I have several Homosexual family members, I don't begrudge them anything. 

 

Part of the problem is people taking offense where there is none offered.  If they don't try to force themselves on me, I don't mind.  It's when they DO, that I mind.

 

Look at it this way.  Recently there was a case where there was a heterosexual couple staying at a hotel.  They were kicked out of the hotel.  Why?  Because the owner stated it was a homosexual hotel ONLY. 

 

If I stated it was a homosexual couple that was kicked out because of their sexuality...it probably would engender a LOT more outrage. 

 

Either way, it's still discrimination.

 

However, if it's private property...then the owner should be allowed to do whatever the heck they want...if it's a business however...then screw it.

 

Religion on the otherhand I think is a very personal and private thing.  Trying to force your views into someone's personal life is just as terrible as someone trying to push their religious views on you.

 

AS I said, keep their business to themselves and I don't have a problem, it's when they push it on me that I have a problem.

 

As far as being bigoted...

 

Do you even know if I'm homosexual or heterosexual.

 

It's amazing what people assume.

 

 

Most western countries already have legal devices the allow gays to have a "married" relationship. If we've come that far we are 98% of the way there. All we are arguing about now is the word marriage. Nobody owns a word. Just legalize it. Heck it's almost there already. Really I don't understand the objection. If you don't like gay marriage don't marry a gay person. See how easy that is? If two consenting adults who have nothing at all to do with you (not pointing at anyone, just in general) want to get married, why do you care? How does it make your life less if they are enjoying theirs?

 

I keep saying it but it's true. Imagine how great a world this would be if we all just left each other alone.

 

Of course if any church refuses to sanction a gay marriage or allow one to be held on it's premesis then that is ok too. Freedom shoud apply to everyone. There should be no law preventing gay marriage but there should also be none compelling the unwilling to participate in any way.

 

Greylord does bring up some good points. When the freedom of religious institutions to not participate is threatened that is every bit as wrong as discriminationg against the gays to begin with.

 

@ Greylord

 

I may be over sensitive and reading too much into what you initially meant. I apologize if thats the case.

 

Of course freedom needs to apply both ways, I don't feel a religious organization should be forced to marry a gay couple. I never suggested that. But I am talking about a simple legal decision. Gay couples should have the same rights as straight couples and be able to commit to a long term relationship through marriage and therefore have the same legal protection and recognition. Thats my point, at the moment in many countries this is not recognized or acceptable.

[BruceVC]

Its all about the way the church approaches things.  If a church has a playground, and they tell my child they are not allowed to play there because it is private property and only open to parishioners, that is legal.  If they tell me my child cannot play there because they are black, that is discrimination.

 

I have mentioned this before Hurlshot but you have this uncanny and admirable ability to oftern articulate what I am thinking in your posts. You make the point I am trying to make succinctly and accurately

[licketysplit]

I think single people deserve more tax breaks than couples. We aren't polluting the earth with our spawn, we leave a small societal footprint, we consume less, we have less of a need to milk the state for welfare. So I say, **** the sanctity of marriage, gay or otherwise, and give single people more benefits. Getting married shouldn't make you special. 

Edited February 22, 2013 by licketysplit

[greylord]

I suppose my take is if marriage is a religious thing, leave religion to be religion.  If homosexuals have their own church that does homosexual marriages and calls it such, let them have it.  If heterosexuals have thier own church that does heterosexual marriages and calls it such, let them have it.  Neither should dictate to the other what they have to do within the dictates of their own religion.

 

I would apply the same to religious grounds.  That's private/religion's property...hence the Olive Grove item.  I consider that intrusion. 

 

By the same right, have a Westboro church being on the same grounds as a homosexual burial where they are on religious ground may also be considered an intrusion (and rude to boot).

 

With government, I'm opposite.  Get the heck out of the marriage thing...the ONLY reason that the Homosexual leadership even chose the term was because it was inflammatory and got attention.  I think it was stupid and foolish and made a LOT more enemies then they should have.  The approach they should have taken was similar to the path previously taken by the leadership which were equal but different...aka...they would be called civil unions but the rights would be the exact same as given to the religiously joined folks, if they wanted to go that way.  It doesn't offend as many because it's not getting in the way of that entire religious debate (side steps it to a degree, you'll still have the opposers, but it isn't as inflammatory) while at the same time getting what is needed.

 

On that point, get out of any and all marriages for the govt.  Instead, if it's a legal joint contact between two persons, make it such, and call it a joint contract.  Let religions do their marriages and let whoever wants to be joined be joined by whatever term they call it.  Get out of the religion business and let everyone do what they choose in the bedroom without anyone else putting their nose into it (the choose what they do in the bedroom is basically slang for...I don't care what you do sexually as long as you don't intrude on me, and I won't intrude on you with my sexuality or choices either type mindset).

 

What I'm opposed to is that the some of the leadership (not all) seems to be hellbent right now on forcing it with the idea that after that they can use that as stepping stone later to force court cases upon religions as has been done in some areas...basically forcing them into acceptance regardless of belief.  I don't really give a flying you know what if the Catholics approve of my choices in that arena or not, and I personally don't care what their thoughts are.  I say let everyone do as they wish and let others do it...but this entire agenda of trying to force others...you can't do that overall.  It's only going to cause hard feelings and make more opposition then it has already (once again in my opinion).  It's polarizing and makes people hate more than anything else.

 

I personally think the better option, at least in the US, is to let people do as they desire and keep out of their own private concerns.  I don't recall the US Constitution having ANYTHING to do with specifying the govt.'s involvement with marriage...if it has to be something, leave it to the states and get out of the marriage business altogether.  If a legality has to be done, have it as a legal contract of joint unity between people (heck, if the Mormons want to start having polygamy, let them...if others want polysandry...let them...as long as they dont force it on me...I don't really care...).  It doesn't just apply to a homosexual/heterosexual thing, it extends FAR beyond that.  I say, if it's not ultimately harmful to children or others...let them do whatever they want...and let them practice their religion as they so desire or...non-religion as they so desire.

 

Of course, as if it had to be said, in my opinion.

[Valsuelm]

I think single people deserve more tax breaks than couples. We aren't polluting the earth with our spawn, we leave a small societal footprint, we consume less, we have less of a need to milk the state for welfare. So I say, **** the sanctity of marriage, gay or otherwise, and give single people more benefits. Getting married shouldn't make you special. 

 

Well... that's part of the thing.

 

The real issue here isn't whether people are for or against 'gay marriage'. That's a red herring on many levels. Most of which are too deep for this forum.

 

The real issue, that trumps this debate, is that the government should have zero say on the issue altogether. But that's something that a great many people who are for and against gay marriage can't wrap their heads around, because they're so indoctrinated into the 'debate'.

 

Step outside the box if you can.

 

The world would be a much freer and better place if whether one was or wasn't married to a he, her, or it wasn't an issue at all in any way shape or form in the eyes of the government.

[TrashMan]

 

 

It's all about the way the church approaches things.  If a church has a playground, and they tell my child they are not allowed to play there because it is private property and only open to parishioners, that is legal.  If they tell me my child cannot play there because they are black, that is discrimination.

 

I'm frankly of the opinion that you can do whatever you want on private property, and let poeple in or out based on WHATEVER reasoning you want.

EVERY reason.

That's not to say that not letting someone come in because he's black/gay/jewsih/tall/blonde/has a long nose or whatever would be a nice thing - it's just that I don t'see any reason why governments or anyone else would have to get involved.

 

There are no laws agaisnt being a d***....thankfully?

 

[Hurlshort]

With government, I'm opposite.  Get the heck out of the marriage thing...the ONLY reason that the Homosexual leadership even chose the term was because it was inflammatory and got attention.  I think it was stupid and foolish and made a LOT more enemies then they should have.  The approach they should have taken was similar to the path previously taken by the leadership which were equal but different...aka...they would be called civil unions but the rights would be the exact same as given to the religiously joined folks, if they wanted to go that way.  It doesn't offend as many because it's not getting in the way of that entire religious debate (side steps it to a degree, you'll still have the opposers, but it isn't as inflammatory) while at the same time getting what is needed.

 

Equal but different sounds a heck of a lot like segregation.  With that type of approach we'd still have separate bathrooms and schools for white people and 'colored'.  

 

Many of you want to get government out of marriage altogether.  I can agree to that.  There really isn't a strong movement to do this though, so it's a bit unrealistic to keep bringing it up unless you folks want to get involved in politics and start campaigning for it.    

 

Also, the government does make revenue off these things, and I think a lot of you are overestimating what the tax benefits are.  So in essence it may impact your personal taxes in a negative way.