Gay marriage

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by welsh, Nov 19, 2003.

Gay Marriages should be allowed-

  1. No- Marriage is a religious sacrament and should only exist between a man and a woman

    100.0%
  2. No- Marriage is something gays should not be allowed to enjoy. Gays are unfit for the purpose of mar

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Yes- Marriage is more than a sacrament, but a civil right of family that everyone is entitled too re

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. Yes- Marriage is about love and the right to love who you want, and therefore is an expression of th

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. Who cares? Frankly, marriage is an out-dated concept anyway.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. Who cares? Frankly I don't care what you suck as long as I don't have to smell your breath

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. welsh

    welsh Junkmaster

    Apr 5, 2003
    Ok, the chief court in Massachusetts recently decided that gays should have the right to marry. This is a first of its kind type of decision and goes beyond the notion of partnerships between same sex couples.

    What do you think?
     
  2. John Uskglass

    John Uskglass Venerable Relic of the Wastes

    Aug 29, 2003
    Yep, I am the religious fanatic.
     
  3. Montez

    Montez So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Jun 20, 2003
    Wow, I didn't think they were even debating this in Mass. Guess I should start reading the news more.

    I really don't know what to think about this - I guess I really don't care one way or the other. I don't understand why the government even has to debate it - if they're equal citizens under the law then they really can't be denied rights that other citizens have, such as civil unions. Religious marriage is a different story, as religions don't grant equality to everyone, but I don't see how the government can deny it without criminalizing homosexuality.

    More than anything else I just wish both sides would just shut the hell up about it. I could really care less about people's sexuality until it gets shoved in my face constantly.
     
  4. John Uskglass

    John Uskglass Venerable Relic of the Wastes

    Aug 29, 2003
    Frankly, the people of Massachusets have spoken, and you know what they said? NO. This is not democratic. This is pretty silly. I cannot belive that the court had the balls to do something that spit in the face of thier people. Sometimes I think that vote pandering is a good thing.
     
  5. Tromboner999

    Tromboner999 First time out of the vault

    62
    Aug 8, 2003
    Lissen,

    If a dude is in love with another dude, and they want to get married all official-like so they can enjoy all the legal benefits of being married (i.e. income and property tax deals, survivor benefits, health insurance coverage, and so on) then more power to 'em, I say. Or somesuch. But that could just be my California bias talkin'... you know, because lots of homo-gays live out here.

    The rule same applies to lesbians. And Chicago Cubs fans, another oppressed minority.

    --'Boner
     
  6. Montez

    Montez So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Jun 20, 2003
    The thing is that Boston has a very large gay community which is also very affluent. Add to that all the colleges in town, and you have a lot of pressure put on the politicians and judges. I don't doubt that the majority of MA didn't want gay marriage legalized but Boston is where all the politics happen, so Boston has a disproportionately loud voice in the way the state is run. Who says we aren't living in a democracy?
     
  7. Paladin Solo

    Paladin Solo So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Nov 7, 2003
    Marriage is not just for anyone, it is a holy sacrament. Or have people forgotten that? Frankly, I think that most people, gay or non, have forgotten that. Guys get married to the first girl that gave them a boner now days. I am one of those people that like to have it in a church, all religous-like and because I love someone, not for benefits, or fame, or money. I'm not saying that's what the gay couple are doing, I don't know them so I can't say their true intentions. Now, the judges these days need to be bitch slapped a million times each for stepping out of line. Aren't they supposed to be serving the people? I wouldn't be surprised if they get assassinated by those religous extreemist people that kill abortion doctors. You know where this is leading? One day, it will be legal to marry animals if we continue to kiss the asses of our judges.
     
  8. Tromboner999

    Tromboner999 First time out of the vault

    62
    Aug 8, 2003
    Dude, King,

    I seriously have GOT to know what you have been smoking, because only someone who regularly tokes up big assed bowls of serious brain-toasting weed could concoct nonsensical streams of consciousness such as the ones you post.

    Nothing personal, King, just your posts always give me a chuckle.

    --'Boner

    P.S. Can I bitch-slap YOU a million times whenever you "step out of line"?
     
  9. Paladin Solo

    Paladin Solo So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Nov 7, 2003
    Damn it! Why am I the site idiot?! And no, you can not bitch slap me, I hold no position of power and can do you no harm or good, other than making you laugh at my, well, I guess you say it's stupidity, I say it's a weird phenomenon.
     
  10. Ozrat

    Ozrat Antediluvian as Feck
    Orderite

    Apr 2, 2003
    King, you make it too easy for us. As Kharn said...
    :rofl:
    But seriously now...

    Honestly, everybody starts off as a stupid newb at some point in their life. The point is that you learn from your debates and whatnots and start to build an educated understanding of things. I'm not saying that you can't have an opinion, but you probably should apply some critical thinking to what you accept as reality. What the autorities say isn't always what's best.

    I can be a liberal-type person because I have things to back up my views. You can be a right-conservative-type person as well, just be prepared to defend it just like I, and the rest of us regarless of our views, are.

    It's times like these when you should be friggin' joyful that Roshambo stays clear and far away from the political debates in the GD forum. If he approached those with the same zest that he does for the Fallout threads, we'd be SOL for having any interesting debates here. Mainly because all the fools got picked off early and only the oldies are remaining to spout their usual adages.

    EDIT: Oh yeah, I forgot what the thread was about.

    Yay for Gay!
     
  11. Paladin Solo

    Paladin Solo So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Nov 7, 2003
    Hmm...perhaps a newb forum might keep "fucking morons" like myself out of your hair. Oh yeah, "yay for gay", but not for gay marriages. It's a religous thing.
     
  12. Gunslinger

    Gunslinger Mildly Dipped

    528
    Apr 3, 2003
    That's an assumption that the entire state is Catholic. The dignity of marriage isn't solely reserved towards those of the faith, you know. There are things as state marriages. Then there's commonlaw marriages.

    You proclaim yourself to be a religious fanatic and yet you do not properly represent your faith. The church (Catholic at least) does not condemn homosexuality. There was no Vatican council in which the pope damned homosexuals. You're reading too deeply into the incident of Sodom in the Old Testament; the city was destroyed for general wickedness, not just for carnal appetites. Granted, the sanctity of marriage and even of the act of sex (according to us Catholics) is meant for love and procreation but the emphasis is on love. Genesis says "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife and they shall be one flesh." Procreation is the issue but it is not the only point. God would have then said, "Go then, reproduce and fill the earth" and then have omitted the issues of faithfulness and love to one's spouse found in Leviticus.

    So there we go.
     
  13. Gwydion

    Gwydion Vault Senior Citizen

    May 6, 2003
    Gunslinger, no one here said homosexuals are evil.
     
  14. Ozrat

    Ozrat Antediluvian as Feck
    Orderite

    Apr 2, 2003
    King,

    There's only one thing that prevents me, and probably others from what has been written, from giving your posts the respect you think they deserve. That one flaw is your apparent lack of effort into forming ideas that are grounded on solid infomation sources. Had you been posting claims that not only have any reality behind them and posting readily available sources with your side of the story, we would actually give what you have to say the benefit of a doubt rather than immediately proceeding to tear your argument apart methodolically word by word.

    Until you can write something that can actually be debated we are seeing nothing but a lump of gibberish in the middle of the flow that ensues harmoniously around you. Language and written words can be used as weapons, but if you don't fully know what you're saying, you're only creating something we can and probably will use against you.

    I have to say that right now you are in the midst of a turning point in the average newbie's lifespan. Some time in the near future you are going to be subconciously choosing between two paths you can take: either you can learn from your mistakes and posting material that is worthy of respect at NMA, or you will become a troll and find your way to DAC. The choice is yours really.

    The sooner you start your journey along the road to redemptions of your past ignorance and naiveness, the better off you will end up.

    And don't say I didn't tell ya.
    ____________________________________________

    King,

    I'm curious, what about people who aren't Christian? If you're a jewish couple tying the knot, isn't that still considered to be a legal and appropiate marriage? Even if a couple has no religious backgrounds and followings whatsoever, they can still get married. You need to also realize that the beliefs that a married couple have nothing to do with how successful the marriage will turn out to be. In other words, I don't think that religios background is a valid reason to deny homosexuals the ability to have a legally bindind marriage.

    Another common reason given by people when asked about what a marriage is based on is the love that a couple can provide to themselves and to any children that they raise.

    If a marriage is supposed to be about the successful raising of a family and how much they love each other, you need to come to terms about how sexual preferance has no inherent qualities in this aspect. Surely you can't deny that a gay couple that love each other can and will raise a child better than a straight couple with problems? Sadly, there are no regulations on becoming parents, so many a child does end up being born with inadequte parenting.

    So what's so bad about gay marriage?
    ________________________________
    EDIT:

    On a side not, is anybody here from a country where "burning a fag" still means something besides the hate crime?

    "Yay for gay" is a quote from a movie that I love. Props to whoever can identify the movie that it came from.
     
  15. Tromboner999

    Tromboner999 First time out of the vault

    62
    Aug 8, 2003
    LoOzrat, the fine film you are referring to is "Happy Campers", featuring Brad Renfro, who also appeared in the terrible film "Deuces Wild".

    Now I do believe props are in order...?

    --'Boner
     
  16. Gunslinger

    Gunslinger Mildly Dipped

    528
    Apr 3, 2003
    No, my statement was to show King that homosexuals fulfill the religious belief that marriage should reflect love, not just procreation which is the main controversy against them.
     
  17. Gwydion

    Gwydion Vault Senior Citizen

    May 6, 2003
    So... You're making the claim that Catholic doctrine condones homosexual behaviour?
     
  18. Brother None

    Brother None This ghoul has seen it all
    Admin Orderite Board Cop oTO

    Apr 3, 2003
    Simple:

    Marriage stopped being a "catholic union" when there we legal rights and priviledges tied to it, from that point onwards, it was a "legal union". Yes, it has a catholic history, but guess what, so does most of Europe, who cares?

    Everyone is entitled to a legal union. Y'hear? Everyone. If a duck could speak and think and was intelligent enough to consent to marriage, he should be allowed to marry another consenting adult.

    Y'know what that concept is called? Equality.

    Frankly I'm still amazed at the fact that anyone can put question marks near this.

    Didn't you recently mention that European immigrants are second-rate citizens by the social standards?

    Well this is much worse. Basically, you're making gay people second-rate citizens by law. You're condemning them to a life of inequality based on their sexual preferences.

    This is bigotry, pure and simple. There is no rational excuse for it.

    Of course it's not democratic. Remember the trias politica? Judges have to adhere to a law that's democratically written, they do not have to bend their ear to democracy, though.

    If judges started listening to the people, we'd be in a heap-load of trouble. Accused child-rapists would have to be executed without proof. Laws amended by the whims of the people.

    You seem to be missing the bigger picture, CC. Gays are equal to heterosexuals before the eyes of the law. This gives them the right to marry.

    If you don't like it, you'll have to amend the constitution to no longer say you can not discriminate over sexual preferences.

    PS: let me repeat, for clarity; marriage is not a Catholic institution. Hell, it's not even a Christian institution, at least not in Holland. I assume that, like in Holland, you can get married by law without being married before the church? Hey presto, marriage is equal and open to all.

    PPS: a Dutch priest was in serious trouble after refusing to marry two gay people. Serves him right, stupid bigot.
     
  19. Rusty Skull

    Rusty Skull Vault Senior Citizen
    Orderite

    Aug 14, 2003
    No-never allow them to marry in churches since churche (and me) consider homo-sexuality abomination of nature.
    BUT
    Since this is a 21.st century and world (well most of it) is democraticly oriented i have no objectives about them living together and why not even marrying BUT not in church.
    BUT
    They shouldn't be allowed to raise children since that kid will suffer it's entire life and probably become homo-sexualy oriented.
     
  20. SoNR

    SoNR It Wandered In From the Wastes

    112
    Apr 4, 2003
    I can't really vote because I for lettings gays marry, but against them having children because children need a mother.... Not just some dressed up gay or something....