[Judeatia]

I've never heard a legally binding reason to prevent Gay Marriage.

Ever.

For one thing, no matter the basis, it still violates all US Citizen's Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Also, using Religious basis in the US violates the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting a Religion, or prohibiting one thereof."

So is there an actual reason?

[cameronland]

I think in some states it is allowed and other's it isn't. But i don't really care, espacilly boys. Eww no

[Judeatia]

Well yeah, I'm not gay either, it's gross.

But my personal dislike shouldn't affect someone else's life.

[Emperor Mudd]

Quote

For one thing, no matter the basis, it still violates all US Citizen's Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

The Declaration of Independence is not law.

Quote

Also, using Religious basis in the US violates the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting a Religion, or prohibiting one thereof."

This is refering to making a religion official or banning a religion, not using religious reasons for making something illegal. And unless Homosexuality is a religion, it is completely irrelevent to the debate about Gay "marriage"

[Trinite]

Because if the gays are allowed to get married heterosexual marriages will be destroyed. If you can't see the causal connection you obviously need glasses. They'll start having gay sex in the schools, and the next thing you know the terrorists win.

[Esau of Isaac]

No, there's not one damn good reason. It's the result of allowing religion into government.

I've never seen one logical argument. Not a single one.

[Joules]

Didn't you know that MARRIAGE = MAN + WOMAN??

As Slayer of Cliffracers once put it, gay marriage would force heterosexual Christians to share a word with gays. Now, that just isn't fair.

edit: oops!

This post has been edited by Joules: 29 November 2007 - 06:25 PM

[Aussie]

it's a person's choice; seriously. I've never heard any logical argument, and the stupidest one I've EVER heard is that the dictionary defines marriage as between a man and a woman. First off; I doubt anyone who said that actually looked it up. Secondly; since when did Webster become supreme ruler of the USA???

[Delta1212]

Joules, on Nov 29 2007, 06:17 PM, said:

Didn't you know that MARRIAGE = MAN + WOMAN??

As Slayer of Cliffracers once put it, gay marriage would force homosexual Christians to share a word with gays. Now, that just isn't fair.

*hetero

[Kenadian_2006]

Not one reason they shouldn't be allowed to. Perhaps there should be an amendment to the constitution afterall, to add a little something about protection against discrimination on the grounds of sex (sex being both gender and sexual orientation). Canada's had that for 25 years now.

[crazyisraelie]

I really haven't seen a real reason to ban gay marriage. It is as you put before against the U.S.A. constitution and trying to turn the USA into a RELIGION based country. It should be classified as a civil union, just like Hetero marriages should be. There needs to be a move from being religion involved in the politics/government side of the USA government.

Personally I am offended by this law, because I am gay myself. One day I hope these types of laws will be retracted so I may also one day marry.

[Jormungand]

Quote

I think in some states it is allowed and other's it isn't. But i don't really care, espacilly boys. Eww no

Yeah, lesbians are okay because you think they're sexy. Guess what; most real lesbians think you're creepy.

[Red Dragon]

it offends people and many people think they have a right to not be offended.

[Galaisa]

Jormungand, on Nov 29 2007, 07:30 PM, said:

Yeah, lesbians are okay because you think they're sexy. Guess what; most real lesbians think you're creepy.

Watch an episode (the abortion rally) of season 2 of the Ali G show when he interviews a lesbian couple and tells them he likes their movies. Thats probably the reaction you're talking about.

[andyt2k]

The marriage of two people of the same gender has no direct effect on anyone else (other than friends and family being happy, or if they are bigots then it'll made them )

As it has no direct on anyone else then it is down to individual rights, and most countries don't like to discriminate against people for any reason especially one such as this.

There is no benefit to banning gay marriages, but there are many advantages to allowing it

[cameronland]

Yeah, i mean if that is what they want they should get it. You just can't do that to people for who they like girls, or boys

[Isildur]

Judeatia, on Nov 29 2007, 06:10 PM, said:

I've never heard a legally binding reason to prevent Gay Marriage.

Depends on the state. Doesn't mean I support those legally binding reasons, but legally binding they are.

Quote

For one thing, no matter the basis, it still violates all US Citizen's Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Two issues here.

First, nowhere does the U.S. Constitution recognize or protect each US Citizens Right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness, as much as I wish otherwise.

Second, if it did do so, then there would be a valid reason against gay marriage, in that marriage as recognized currently by the governments (state & federal) in the U.S. brings with it certain privileges (rights of survivorship) and obligations (higher taxes) which either directly violate those rights of the individuals involved in the marriage, or those other individuals in society who are thereby obligated to help fund those privileges.

Of course, under that argument, there is an equally valid reason against any marriage (straight or gay) recognized by the government, or at least for any costs or benefits to follow that state.

Note that again, this isn't me being against gay marriage, its me being against any state recognized marriage.

[Saniel]

Well, Ron Paul is for banning gay marriages, so that is good enough for me.


Seriously though, as I have stated repeatedly, gays deserve the same rights to suffer as straight people.

[Kenadian_2006]

Saniel, on Nov 29 2007, 06:47 PM, said:

Well, Ron Paul is for banning gay marriages, so that is good enough for me.


Seriously though, as I have stated repeatedly, gays deserve the same rights to suffer as straight people.

You're suffering yourself aren't you? Doitzel deserves the same opportunity.

[Saniel]

Kenadian_2006, on Nov 29 2007, 05:48 PM, said:

You're suffering yourself aren't you? Doitzel deserves the same opportunity.

No, actually, I am the only person I know that likes their spouse still. However, the more married people I am forced to deal with, the more I think marriage is an institution, like the place with all the guys that think they are Napoleon.