DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk K-9 Consensus Marriage Equality

Yes, this is a delicate topic. I think we can all handle a decent discussion on it. I just have one request:

Please no arguments about people marrying children, toasters, animals, or other inanimate objects. This poll question only considers consenting adults over the age of 18.

One must be careful with this topic when it comes to religious beliefs. However, people pick and chose what they wish from various religious texts. Still, I'm curious on how we all think here.

Should homosexuals be allowed to marry? single choice

Yes (67%, 48 Votes)

No (33%, 24 Votes)

Total Votes: 72 Voting on this poll ends: 04/29/24 10:53 PM

I was born and raised catholic.. if I followed the rules of the church, I'd have to be against it.

I'm not.

The heart wants what the heart wants. And what someone elses heart wants is none of my business. so yeah, let them marry if they wish..

They already are in some states.

The fact that the states of a single country are allowed to disagree and not recognize something another state has done is ridiculous..

It's not ridiculous at all. It's the state's right to decide what is lawful within their own borders regardless of what another state does unless a federal law supersedes it. I don't like California's divorce laws, heck there's a whole lot about California's laws I don't care for, those folks are nuts, imho, so I live somewhere else, so can anyone else who doesn't like a particular states laws.

Just move if you don't like it where you are. That's the beauty of choice, everyone has it.

Well someone may have just won himself a lot of votes...

And possibly lost some more...

Obama says same-sex couples should be able to marry

I'll never understand the outrage people have against gay marriage. However, I'm sure they'll never understand why I don't have a problem with it.

I'll never understand the outrage people exhibit over people who make more money and don't just hand it over to them. It totally befuddles me why people aren't willing to work for what they want and just have their hand out.

I'll never understand why a single thread on this forum can't stay on topic.

At least we haven't gone to toaster, animal, or children marriage arguments. I say this is progress!

Tulsa, I understand completely about the state's decision. What if the state is preventing two consenting adults the right to marry?

If the people of that state have voted then that state has made their choice. Everyone has a vote. Not everyone will be happy with the end result, but the choice is made.

What about states that enforced segregation before it was deemed illegal? Were they in the right?

I will never get the argument against gay marriage. If it's against your religious beliefs, well it's a good thing we have separation of church and state. If you're worried about the sanctity of marriage, maybe we should just outlaw divorce. When half of marriages end in divorce, I'd say the sanctity of marriage is nonexistent.

Two people, regardless of their gender, doesn't affect me in any way. If it doesn't infringe upon my rights, infringe upon other people's rights or hurt anyone, I don't care.

Which states would those be?

There were many states across The United States which had Jim Crowe laws.

And that's one of the reasons we have the Supreme Court, to overturn unjust laws.

Would you argue that current laws banning gay marriage are unjust?

Are you trying to equate Jim Crow laws to marriage laws?

Yes. Both law(s) have either eliminated marriage as an option for consenting adults or created a separate but equal institution through civil unions.

Edit: I mean have created separate but equal institutions.

Seems like they they're trying to help the opponents, mostly religious vs. the proponents, mostly those without religious conviction find common ground where everyone could move on freely within their lives while enjoying the benefits deserved by both factions. Not a perfect solution in everyone's eyes I suppose, but a solution non the less.

I think my favorite comedian, unfortunately deceased, Richard Jeni said it best, "I think they ought to have the same right to lose half their stuff just like everyone else!"

With the divorce rate above 50%, why anyone would want to sign up for marriage who are offered a safer, more stable alternative is beyond me. Those who protest an advantage are protesting simply to be protesting. As they say though, you can't fix stupid.

I voted no.

Although I completely agree that they should be able to have a civil union that is recognized by the government with all the rights and privileges of a marriage.

I believe marriage is a sacred bond between a man and woman.

Part of me would like religious institutions to use a new word to express the bond.

But gay rights folks would probably have a hissy fit and demand that their "marriage" be recognized as the new word.

I like gay people for the most part and count a gay male couple as close friends. They understand my position but they really want society to recognize their relationship as just as sacred as a marriage and I just don't agree.

Procreation being a substantial difference among many important others.

When has "married" ever meant a union of 2 people of the same gender?

Gay marriage means changing the very meaning of the word. Gay couples can have an approximation of marriage, but marriage has never meant 2 people of the same gender. So in order to accommodate the sensibilities of gay couples who want to be "married", they want to change the meaning of what a marriage is for everyone to something that it has never been.

I have said that I would support civil unions, but I do not believe that we should change the meaning of the word marriage. In the end, this issue has hurt gay union advocates, because people do think that marriage is a union between man and woman ..... not man and man, or woman and woman. This hurt gay people wanting a union in Ohio, because it created an environment where a Constitutional amendment went on the ballot, and was passed. This amendment was horribly written, but now would have to be removed from the Ohio Constitution to allow gay unions that "approximate marriage" in any way.

Marriage is, and has always been a heterosexual union. There have been examples throughout history where a man has had multiple wives, but regardless, it has never, at least that I know of, been applied to 2 people of the same gender. Changing the word is merely an attempt to legitimize the union of 2 gay people, and I think that they be better off just being great examples of loving couples, enjoy their united lives, and stop worrying about trying to change the meaning of a word that applies to most people at one point or another in their lifetimes.

Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa, California, New York, New Hampshire, Maine, New Jersey apparently disagree with you...

Which was my point earlier, and now you're talking about making up new words for it, those states didn't feel the need to make up a new word..?

Many years ago, it was illegal for a Black person to Marry a White person, but that's changed. Then the laws changed.

The only reason no one wants to change the laws this time is because of what a book someone wrote a really long time ago says.

There is absolutely a religious aspect to the word. However, why should religious people have to, again, change the meaning of a word that is hugely important to their religion?

It is possible to be tolerant of other peoples' beliefs and relationships without having to also change the traditional meaning of a word so important to their beliefs. Why should religious people be forced into a new meaning of the word "marriage" in order to accommodate a new definition to make other people feel somehow better about their relationships?

You can change the meaning of the word marriage to accommodate gay unions, but in the end you diminish marriage in the eyes of many, rather than having the desired impact of somehow legitimizing gay unions by virtue of applying a word that has never applied to such a union.

As far as black/white ..... that may have been a problem in the history of the US, but there were almost certainly such marriages throughout the history of the world.

Here's the thing..

I could possibly agree with what your saying.

Except for the fact that MOST (note I didn't say all) but most of the people that share your opinion, don't have it because they think gay people being married will hurt the word itself..

They have it because they don't think homosexual are people.

Good point. I looked it up in my dictionary (granted it's a 1976 version of Webster, definitions may have changed due to political correctness): "The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law."

The World used to be flat and the center of the universe. What's your point?

I don't understand why people care how other people live their lives. Like them being able to get married somehow makes your marriage worth less on the marriage stock market or something.

I get it, certain people are not going to change their minds on something.

Just know that in 50 years kids are going to be in school learning about how back in the day it was illegal for same sex couples to get married.

It's GOING to happen, it's just a matter of time. Just as long as it doesn't happen on your watch, right?

Quote:

---

The World used to be flat and the center of the universe. What's your point?

---

Exactly what I said it was. My dictionary's definition of the word marriage.

Quote:

---

It's GOING to happen, it's just a matter of time. Just as long as it doesn't happen on your watch, right?

---

Why the panties in a bunch? I haven't really expressed an opinion one way or another.

Jonathan Haidt wiki

According to some of the science in the field of politics.. Political stances are largely genetic. If this helps...people are always going to have a differing world view that is largely genetically determined. So debate isn't likely to change many opinions. People will always disagree on equality vs. tradition & purity.

I personally wouldn't lift a finger to either ban or legalize gay marriage. It isn't really an issue in my life and frankly I don't care. If I had my way no one would be able to get married by the state and we'd be in some sort of futuristic libertarian society Speaking of which..I live internationally so I really shouldn't comment on US politics

It is a "states issue"...

Just clicking

I'm just trying to understand what business it is of ours what two consenting adults do in the confines of thier own bedroom?

I honestly don't think I have the right to tell anyone who they can or can't love and marry......

I grew up in a protestant congregation. Also went to a private christian school from preschool till about eighth grade. All those years showed me good and bad things about organized Christianity. That could be a whole other topic in itself. But, I learned this much.

Why is it acceptable to pick and choose from a holy text like The Bible, Torah, Qur'an?

Quote:

---

But since 30 +/- states have amendments against it.. and only a select few allow it..

---

It's not an issues if many more states vote to allow same sex marriage.

Quote:

---

So you basically disagree with the entire founding principles of the United States of America?

---

I'm not speaking for OS but I know I have a problem when individuals are denied the rights which others have based on sexual orientation.

Rocket, this is an issue I struggle with more than most issues.. and your choices are yes or no... Let me lay out why exactly it is that I struggle with it...

I would not be a member or attend a church that performed or condoned same sex marriage because it is inconsistent with my faith. I know the common argument is that, even if you think homosexuality is a sin, everybody sins... I get that. In my faith, I know I have sinned and I know that I will continue to sin.... but every day, I wake up and say a quick prayer and start my day trying not to sin.. Gay marriage, within the church, is basically saying that I'm going to enter into this relationship, this "contract" that says I will knowingly and willingly sin for the rest of my life and I want the church to bless that. Some churches do, I just wouldn't be associated with one of them.

On the other hand, people of different faiths (even under the umbrella of Christianity) feel differently and some people do not view marriage as a religious affiliated institution at all but more of a social contract/personal expression of commitment that has nothing to do with God.

So on a personal level, I believe that gay marriage is inconsistent with my faith.. on a political level, I'm very torn on how much regulation the government should have in deciding who gets to marry whom. I've read quite a bit from both sides on the merits of their opinions from a faith and a political perspective but nothing has really resonated with me yet to take a strong political stance one way or the other..

I know it can be uncool around here to take the "I'm just not sure" opinion and that I should have a firm opinion then treat everybody who disagrees with it like they are an idiot.. and on some issues I don't mind doing that ... but in this case I just can't.

And for the record, I live in North Carolina where the vote was just cast which caused the President to change his opinion, which is why this thread is probably here... I did not vote on the marriage amendment... not because I don't care, but because I just felt so conflicted...

I voted to let them marry.......b/c marriage is an institution that is in decay and the one thing that might be able to save it....is making it a little more gay.

Put me in the "I don't care" category.

I'm not pro gay marriage, I'm not anti gay marriage.

I don't understand why people have such strong opinions on things that don't affect them at all.


Allowed or not, it doesn't affect my life at all.