Go.

Too much trouble when the same logic can apply to drug addicts, baby killers, gay bashers, the KKK, rapists...etc.

true that. but this is for gay people, its okay for straight drug addicts to marry.

come again?

That made me smile.

If marriage is holy matrimony between a male and a female, why is it that aetheists are able to get married? Are they horrible people?

If you really break it down, marriage is a piece of paper and a lot of responsibility. I don't want to downplay the significance of love and marriage, but on paper, marriage is just legal binding. Why exclude gay people?

i think what they meant was that no one is disallowing rapists and drugees from getting married.

Oh. Thanks.



What I meant is a religion for drug addicts to be able to use and abuse drugs as they like. It doesn't have to be druggies.

What about incest? How about a religion for brothers and sisters to be able to get married?



True.

LOL maybe i misunderstood you. but were you trying to say the same thing goes for drug addicts and baby killers, that they could form a religion together...?

If that is what you were implying in your post then my response was, that its okay for two baby killers and two drug addicts to marry cause if they are straight, so then they wouldnt have to form another religion cause they can get married anyway.

the point here is not that they can create a religion. the point is tat if they did, they would be able to get married.

edit://
sorry, i didnt read that very thoroughly. haha.

well as far as incest goes, we've always got the Mormons, right?

But you know how the fem ones are, its never enough and they'll bitch. The Chris Crocker's of the world will bitch about it.

That's what she said.

Oh, the religion excuse was a classic back in the day.


HOMEWORK IS AGAINST MY RELIGION, SORRY.

Would it really be considered religious persecution though? Technically when straight couples get married, it doesn't really matter how or through which customs since they still have to register. Unless it was a stipulation that all gay people upon assuming said faith were required to get married, in which case, they could -- just not in the eyes of the law.

I don't think its possible for a religion to stipulate that they have to be legally married because then the issue of WHICH legal law they were actually following would come into play since there isn't an international law.

I can't believe I just put that much thought into this.

Many gay people want to get married b/c they want the rights that married people have. I'm not sure exactly what they are, but it has to do with money, taxes, etc. What does the government offer to specific religions? --Nothing. That is why this idea would be pointless and not get anything done. :3

actually its not that they would be offering them to specific religions. the point was that every one who belongs to a certain religion can get married under their own particular church. if gay people came together, built a religion and a church, the government would have no choice but to allow them to be married because otherwise it would be religious persecution to deny them that.

Incest is not only deemed as immoral by many (or some), but there is also the issue of bloodlines where hereditary disorders come into play. That's why there were kings and queens with bloodlines that died off so quickly because incest became dangerous. Although I believe cousins can marry. I'm not exactly sure though.


As for the gains of homosexual marriage:

• The right to adopt. It is seem as a much more stable environment for adopted children if they have two parents. Although one parent can adopt, with the case of a homosexual individual wanting to adopt, the standards are set differently.
• Marriage license - Since it's a legal binding, some (or most, if not all) people see it as proof that they are legally married.

That's all I can think of now. I will edit this later.

I've always agreed with this notion. I guess it's worse to be gay than it is to be atheist

^ You've always agreed that atheists are horrible people?

Wow you're pretty far out there.

She seemed to have misunderstood my post.

The government would find some way to stop it just because they can. I agree that if they can find a way to get it done, get err done.

We need gay rights in this country,
but the problem with this is that I highly doubt everybody in the gay community would be okay with it.
I know many gay people who aren't even concerned with marriage...
it's just not a big deal to them.

And there is another problem with this - gays need the same rights everybody else has, and that's where marriage comes into play, as many of you before me have pointed out but I'm too lazy to quote.

There will always be a toggling between right and wrong with the issue, but I do think that at the moment pushing it is a must.

For the record, I'm refuting this for the sake of debate, not that I condone incest or that I am anti-gay marriage.


1. Homosexuality is also deemed as immoral by many (or some).
2. Health issues of HIV and other STDs are prominent in the gay community.
3. Whereas there is no true bloodlines to speak of when a gay couple marries.
4. As there are restrictions on homosexual marriage, there are also restrictions on cousins marrying each other. Please elaborate on your problem on this point.




5. While adoption laws vary State to State, the fact is that the option to adopt is available to joint or single adoption (depending on the State). I only know of one State (Florida) that completely ban adoption by homosexuals.

6. I'm not married so I'm not savvy on all benefits of being "legally married", but legality of marriage serves tax, medical benefits purposes. If a couple tells me that they're married, I'll take their word for it. They don't need to show me papers or anything to prove that they are. A legally binding document means shit these day aside from their compensation and pecuniary values. If the focus is on those things, and such are the basis of the pro-homosexual marriage argument, then marriage is damned all together.

Let me step outside of my devi's advocate role for a second to clarify my stance. Tax and medical and health benefits (death benefits) are ALL VERY legit reasons for homosexual to get married. As a single adult who can no longer enjoy lower tax and medical benefits of my parents, I understand completely the importance of having those available to any group of people.


On another note, calling marriage a "holy matrimony" is rather prejudicial, not to mention confining. By that definition, those who did not married by church, or some religious authority are not considered married. We all know that to be false.

oh gosh gay marriage. I hate this topic....why cant we all just live free from ANY predjudice? I thought this was AMERICA! In my opinion the way the government put this issue out there was because they new that americans would go crazy over it. I think its just a distraction from all the bigger problems there are in the world. I mean gas prices are still up, we're in a war thats completely pointless right now, people are dying every day from diseases we can't cure, children are starving, STD's are running wild so why the hell are we so concerned over who a person marries? And being bisexual [and attracted mostly to woman, although im dating a man] I understand the homosexual communities concern because what if one day I fall in love with a beautiful woman and we want to get married, why can't we? Is it because its not the "christian" thing to do? Or is it just different? Is it so awful that I'm attracted to the same sex?

i really dont care, im not gay. and i dont think i ever will be.