Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-25-2007, 12:56 AM
 
745 posts, read 1,294,082 times
Reputation: 181

Advertisements

I personally have no opinion on same sex marriage/legal unions, so I apologize if I fail to sway you. I do have a few points for discussion, however. One of the major benefits to legalizing these unions is that partners will have access to legal inheritance, social security, employer health care benefits, etc. Currently, depending on the state, those benefits are being denied and a legal recognition of the partnership would enable their receipt. As Americans, it seems as though we should choose our beneficiary.
On the other side, many are afraid it is a slippery slope. If you view marriage as a religious institution (which most Americans probably do) then allowing gay marriage is morally wrong. What's next? Legalizing polygyny and polyandry? Or something worse!?!
Obviously, if you accept homosexuality as compliant with whatever moral standard you belive, then marrigage is the apparent next step.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-25-2007, 03:49 AM
 
919 posts, read 1,903,093 times
Reputation: 507
ok by me as long as I can marry two women, twins actually. before you say no, remember ill use your own reasons for g&l.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2007, 06:33 AM
 
6,762 posts, read 11,597,243 times
Reputation: 3028
I think homesexual "marriage" shouldn't be allowed. But as for homosexuals being allowed to commit to each other and be allowed all the same benefits as a married couple, I'm fine with that.

I'm really just tired of the extreme activist side of the homosexual community trying to redefine words and symbols to push their agenda. They already took the word "gay", and are really overdoing the rainbow symbols too.

Be creative. I'm sure there are plenty of homosexuals that are intelligent to come up with a word for a same sex union, no need to redefine a word that has always been used for a opposite sex unions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2007, 08:48 AM
 
Location: Chattanooga TN
2,349 posts, read 10,626,146 times
Reputation: 1250
*clapping* yay! How d@#m refreshing is it to go through 13 posts and noone got slammed/flamed/ridiculed especially on a topic as touchy as this. Though I may have just jinxed it. Good job all! Oh and yes, I support same-sex marriage as well. Jest had some great points that I agree with. I believe that acknowledging any caring loving relationship can only lead to better things. Security and acceptance are what alot of us strive for in our daily lives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2007, 09:06 AM
 
Location: The Bronx
1,590 posts, read 1,659,134 times
Reputation: 277
Default What gives me pause...

I prefer gay marriage to some half measure, like domestic partnerships.

As a heterosexual man, I take marriage very seriously. It's an extremely serious commitment that makes me very vulnerable if I undertake it with the wrong person. So, I'm not in a great big hurry to get hitched up with someone so that they can get health benefits.

A domestic partnership law that imposes few obligations on the partners, but many on employers, insurance companies, etc., is a sure disincentive to employers to locate where such laws are enforced.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2007, 11:09 AM
 
Location: Small patch of terra firma
1,281 posts, read 2,362,576 times
Reputation: 550
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnbound2day View Post
I think homesexual "marriage" shouldn't be allowed. But as for homosexuals being allowed to commit to each other and be allowed all the same benefits as a married couple, I'm fine with that.

I'm really just tired of the extreme activist side of the homosexual community trying to redefine words and symbols to push their agenda. They already took the word "gay", and are really overdoing the rainbow symbols too.

Be creative. I'm sure there are plenty of homosexuals that are intelligent to come up with a word for a same sex union, no need to redefine a word that has always been used for a opposite sex unions.
I've always grown up with the definition that marriage was a committment two people make to one another. Only recently that the gay marriage debate has been brought up that opponents added the "man and wife" to the definition. So who is really trying to define it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2007, 12:52 PM
 
745 posts, read 1,294,082 times
Reputation: 181
There is a lot of discussion about what to call a gay legal union. I think in the end, it doesn't matter. It's just spin. As has been mentioned, there are really two parts of a marriage, the legal part, and the religious part. Any legal gay union that gives the partners the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple is, legally speaking, a marriage. Whatever it is called is just semantics. Currrently, gays can enjoy the religous benefits of a union, but none of the legal benefits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2007, 02:02 PM
 
Location: Chattanooga TN
2,349 posts, read 10,626,146 times
Reputation: 1250
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScrantonWilkesBarre View Post
I'm waiting for an answer as to how we're hurting anyone?
Cause if you get married you might have sex. You know, premarital sex is a sin. *wink*
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2007, 02:20 PM
 
745 posts, read 1,294,082 times
Reputation: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScrantonWilkesBarre View Post
I'm waiting for an answer as to how we're hurting anyone?
Hurting someone is the the sole barometer for legality. Otherwise prostitution, some drug use, necrophilia, etc would be legalized. I think many gays focus on the "who are we hurting?" agenda in demanding equal rights. You ought to focus your vast propaganda machine (or so I've heard ) on the legal benefits of marriage, and how as American citizens you and your partner are being denied those legal rights. Of course that won't force anyone to accept the moral element of your marriage, but that isn't really your primary purpose, or a feasible one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2007, 02:27 PM
 
5,019 posts, read 14,082,145 times
Reputation: 7090
Quote:
Cause if you get married you might have sex.
I thought that once people got married they stopped having sex.



So, be careful whatcha wish for!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top