Thoughts on Gay Marriage

[Meursault]

Gay marriage represents the capitulation of organized homosexuality to Christianity. I am sorely disappointed that this is the hill gays have chosen to fight  on.

[ElectionsGuy]

I'm strongly opposed to gay marriage.

Uh oh, hope you survive the onslaught of criticism my friend (and all your other posts in this section).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Homosexual marriage to me appears like something Alinskyites would bring upon a nation to try to oppress the religious freedom of others.

is this satire

The troll's gimmick is supposedly being a gay man that is a single issue voter against gay marriage. It's best to ignore it.

I do know a gay true leftist who despises gay marriage and is voting Republican to avoid "the compromise" and to "speed up the need for reform."

That's the sort of thing Einzige might do. CountryClassSF is a different class of morally confused [Inks]hole entirely.

[Repub242]

I'm strongly opposed to gay marriage.

Uh oh, hope you survive the onslaught of criticism my friend (and all your other posts in this section).

Haha, the nice thing about being 13 on this forum is that most people (I think) are more reluctant to criticize younger people, and if they think what that person says is stupid, they assume that person's youth to have a lot to do with it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm strongly opposed to gay marriage.

Uh oh, hope you survive the onslaught of criticism my friend (and all your other posts in this section).

Haha, the nice thing about being 13 on this forum is that most people (I think) are more reluctant to criticize younger people, and if they think what that person says is stupid, they assume that person's youth to have a lot to do with it.

I've never noticed a reluctance on the part of people here to call others idiots, tho sometimes they do it ways that go over the heads of the ones they insult.  The nice thing about being young and stupid is most people will grow out of it.  Others never seem to have birthdays.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Gay marriage represents the capitulation of organized homosexuality to Christianity. I am sorely disappointed that this is the hill gays have chosen to fight  on.

There isn't only one hill, my friend. We're everywhere.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Gay marriage represents the capitulation of organized homosexuality to Christianity. I am sorely disappointed that this is the hill gays have chosen to fight  on.

"Marriage" as a concept wholly predates Christianity (and organized religion as we know it), I hope you realize.

[°Leprechaun]

I'm strongly opposed to gay marriage.

Uh oh, hope you survive the onslaught of criticism my friend (and all your other posts in this section).

Haha, the nice thing about being 13 on this forum is that most people (I think) are more reluctant to criticize younger people, and if they think what that person says is stupid, they assume that person's youth to have a lot to do with it.

What do you think the voting age should be?

[Sopranos Republican]

I'm strongly opposed to gay marriage.

Well Christ, if Jack982 from Texas is opposed to gay marriage, I guess it's all over now. Pack it in fellahs, we had a nice run, but I'm afraid we have been thoroughly defeated.



Real America lives to fight another day, against our atheistic homo-socialist elitist stoner army.....

[Bozo the Clown]

I support it but leave it up to the states.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Both politically and morally, I support it.  I now view marriage as a right, and it's a losing issue for Republicans to cling to.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I support civil unions, but not full gay marriage (Due to a desire to maintain an institution that has been here since the beginning of creation (heterosexual marriage), concerns that it may eventually lead to legalization of polygamy, and to a lesser extent, concerns over whether kids are truly raised equally as well by gay couples as they would by straight couples with similar income and intelligence.).

But the fact is that this is relatively unimportant when compared with other issues, and the federal government and the courts have better things to do then try to either legalize it nationwide OR outlaw it nationwide, so the best solution is just to leave it up to the states. Liberal States should be able to allow it, Conservative States should be able to prohibit it, and it should be left up to the legislatures and voters within those states, not whatever activist judge happens to live nearby.

[ElectionsGuy]

I support civil unions, but not full gay marriage (Due to a desire to maintain an institution that has been here since the beginning of creation (heterosexual marriage), concerns that it may eventually lead to legalization of polygamy, and to a lesser extent, concerns over whether kids are truly raised equally as well by gay couples as they would by straight couples with similar income and intelligence.).

But the fact is that this is relatively unimportant when compared with other issues, and the federal government and the courts have better things to do then try to either legalize it nationwide OR outlaw it nationwide, so the best solution is just to leave it up to the states. Liberal States should be able to allow it, Conservative States should be able to prohibit it, and it should be left up to the legislatures and voters within those states, not whatever activist judge happens to live nearby.

There is actually evidence that gay people raise their kids even better than straight parents.

[Simfan34]

Whatever.

[SteveRogers]

I support civil unions, but not full gay marriage (Due to a desire to maintain an institution that has been here since the beginning of creation (heterosexual marriage), concerns that it may eventually lead to legalization of polygamy, and to a lesser extent, concerns over whether kids are truly raised equally as well by gay couples as they would by straight couples with similar income and intelligence.).

But the fact is that this is relatively unimportant when compared with other issues, and the federal government and the courts have better things to do then try to either legalize it nationwide OR outlaw it nationwide, so the best solution is just to leave it up to the states. Liberal States should be able to allow it, Conservative States should be able to prohibit it, and it should be left up to the legislatures and voters within those states, not whatever activist judge happens to live nearby.

Wait, but even if we grant for a moment the premise that that concern is warranted, under what circumstances is it really the case that the legal status of gay marriage  will determine whether a child is raised by a straight couple or a gay couple? Gay marriage doesn't actually turn people gay. So do you just mean that you oppose letting gay couples adopt?

[afleitch]

I support civil unions, but not full gay marriage (Due to a desire to maintain an institution that has been here since the beginning of creation (heterosexual marriage), concerns that it may eventually lead to legalization of polygamy, and to a lesser extent, concerns over whether kids are truly raised equally as well by gay couples as they would by straight couples with similar income and intelligence.).

But the fact is that this is relatively unimportant when compared with other issues, and the federal government and the courts have better things to do then try to either legalize it nationwide OR outlaw it nationwide, so the best solution is just to leave it up to the states. Liberal States should be able to allow it, Conservative States should be able to prohibit it, and it should be left up to the legislatures and voters within those states, not whatever activist judge happens to live nearby.

Marriage has not been in existence since 'creation'. Social bonding has been, of which homosexual bonds are included. Marriage was originally codified in tribal societies and had no 'legal' standing until the formation of the first civil laws.

Marriage was almost entirely about property. It was to ensure that property is managed and inherited because that was considered conducive to a civil society. Marriage up until very recently in the west was exclusively about property. Now luckily men and women today in most enlightened nations broadly speaking are equal in law. They are equal in law when they are born, when they are children and when they get married. If that marriage is dissolved then there is a fair hearing (one should hope) concerning that dissolution.

Patriarchy came before marriage. Women's subordination to men at all stages in her life; from her fathers dominion over her as a child and as an asset to be traded, adult males sexual dominion over her in adulthood and so on was the catalyst for establishing marriage as a contractual binding societal agreement. That is why there is marriage. Religions and customs born in cultures of exclusive patriarchy informed those cultural and religious laws that defined marriage. That is why justification in the Christian West for 'erunt animae duae in carne una'; the very words spoken in the marriage vow was intertwined in the set definition of women being subordinate in deed, mind and body to menfolk. In marriage, canonical law (which was interchangeable as 'state' law until secularisation) inferred that the very being or legal existence of the woman was suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of her husband. That meant a man could beat his wife and it was not recognised as assault. He could rape her and it was not recognised as rape because her rights were suspended.

Women, broadly speaking, since antiquity have ben charged with being 'defective.' The Greeks said it, it's found in Colossians, Peter, Ephesians, Corinthians and Timothy and the philosophies of Aquinas and Luther. While the definition of why people get married has changed and we rightly cringe at the 'property' aspect of marriage, we are now aware of the broad spectrum of human sexuality. However this time it's the people who have same sex attraction and form couples who are considered to be 'defective.' That is an extension of the same patriarchal hetero-orthodox positioning that has always been welded by those with political and religious power. Marriage after all was their institution to begin with. That's why they have allowed themselves at various stages in history to regulate it, usually in their own favour (divorce law for example) It's escaping them now of course, because it's increasingly seen as an act of personal commitment.

[Rockefeller GOP]

I'm strongly opposed to gay marriage.

Well Christ, if Jack982 from Texas is opposed to gay marriage, I guess it's all over now. Pack it in fellahs, we had a nice run, but I'm afraid we have been thoroughly defeated.



Real America lives to fight another day, against our atheistic homo-socialist elitist stoner army.....

Get a grip, friend...

[Sopranos Republican]

I'm strongly opposed to gay marriage.

Well Christ, if Jack982 from Texas is opposed to gay marriage, I guess it's all over now. Pack it in fellahs, we had a nice run, but I'm afraid we have been thoroughly defeated.



Real America lives to fight another day, against our atheistic homo-socialist elitist stoner army.....

Get a grip, friend...

Grip is my middle name.

[free my dawg]

Let them marry.

[Knives]

I'm strongly opposed to gay marriage.

Well Christ, if Jack982 from Texas is opposed to gay marriage, I guess it's all over now. Pack it in fellahs, we had a nice run, but I'm afraid we have been thoroughly defeated.



Real America lives to fight another day, against our atheistic homo-socialist elitist stoner army.....

Get a grip, friend...

Grip is my middle name.

Hard grip is mine.

[afleitch]

I don't believe in gay marriage. That's my opinion. If you don't like it or you disagree, that's your opinion. Government shouldn't be involved in marriage. Won't happen though so let these people have their fun.

The voting age should be 16 btw

Who should be then? How on earth do you deal with inheritance, taxation, pensions etc if the state isn't involved?

[Deus Naturae]

Who should be then?

The individuals who want to get married. If they want a priest or somebody else to legitimize their relationship that's fine too.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Presumably with a will. In the absence of that, it makes sense for a close partner of that person to get the property. No need to bring "marriage" into it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see why married couples deserve any tax benefits or privileges.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How is state-recognized marriage relevant to pensions?

[Middle-aged Europe]

Wait, people still debate over this?

[tarheel-leftist85]

The most important issue.  And because Goldman Sachs is courageously on the right side, we should probably give them everything they want.

[New_Conservative]

It's an embarrassment my party is so outspoken against it.

I support it 100%, but I don't think the government should punish churches or whatever who refuse to do for religious reasons.