lillith said:

jthad1129 said:

thank you. thank you. i'll be here all night!!

I still would like a valid answer to this question:

What is the justification to deny us the same rights with regards to discrimination? It's against the law to discriminate based on gender, based on your religion, based on your ethnicity, based on race, based on handicap. Why then is it legal and in some recent cases, laws enacted to guarantee that we don't have equal protections under the law? What exactly is the justification for this? I'm an American citizen. I contribute to this society. I pay my fuckin taxes. Tell me, why should straight people be entitled to the right not to be discriminated against but it's entirely OK to do that to us?

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

We just have to wait for a President with a gay son, not two drunk daughters

Supa...you have a COMPLETELY valid question.
i am not gay, and i find it absolutely ridiculous the law hasn't changed before this. everything you said is completely right hence my response that no one should have the right of telling the gay community they're not 'allowed' to marry. i think it has something to do with church., but like fuck i know what that is.

archaic (sp.??) is what it is.



ps- good luck with getting an answer though...

This is pointless.

ThreadBare said:

it isn't pointless thread.

Noone has yet to give a valid reason as to why if the gays can't be given an alternative equivalent to marriage.

Like i said before, take the religious factor out of it.
Then marriage (as it is already anyway) is just another government regulated machine.

I think you're ONLY looking at it from the religious point of view and I understand the point you are trying to make according to your beliefs.

I'm not judging you for that.



What I'm saying is:

If 2 guys or 2 girls or 2 penguins want to go in front of a JUDGE in a courthouse like lots of straight folks do, and make a legal bond that alotts them the SAME privaleges that straight folks have, why can't they?

I'll bite:
First i'll say that in my country homosexuals CAN get married, and that's fine with me.
The reasons y this isn't allowed in other countries could b:
1) civil marriage is closely related to the christian marriage in the minds of many, and since in many countries religious zealots still make up the rules, and christianity condemns homosexuality, no one is willing to change the law.

b) many view marriage as social structure created to provide a safer environement for children and to ensure the upbringing of children. Since homosexuals are uncapable of having children and not allowed to adopt them, marriage is 'unnecassary' for them.

As an aside, a few years back we had something as a "living together contract" that allowed homosexuals and heterosexuals to announce their commitment to each other to society and gave all the fiscal (sp?) benefits of marriage. I'm not saying this is the ideal solution, but it was a nice compromise that should b workable in other countries as well (mayb it already is?).

SpcMs said:

"it was a nice compromise"...

B A L O N E Y :SPAM:

nice for who?

to heck with all that lovy-dovy announce their commitment crap!



it's all about the financials dammit!

ThreadBare said:

...words fail me

as far as the institution of marriage goes i won't comment on what the church prescribes but as far as the law is concerned i feel that gay couples should be legally entitled to the same health and other benefits that any spouse is.

VERY COMPLEX TOPIC.

Gay marriage is entirely an ethical quandary which should be resolved, if it can within the ethical realm. Legislation here will simply be seen as an attempt to foist an unpopular ethical viewpoint on society. Now, some may argue that the converse also holds, i.e that heterosexual morality has been foisted on society by legislation but this would not be technically true (for obvious reasons I hope).

Which brings me to this question - Why does marriage, be it heterosexual or gay, continue to demand it's own constriction by legislation? Apart from demographical necessities which is easily met by keeping records, why must the state regulate how free members of society choose to conduct their intimate affairs to the extent of sanctioning such, and regulating and policing it's annulment? I have never understood the laws against "bigamy" for instance. Why must the state get itself into a tizzy figuring out if I divorced A before I set out to marry B as long as I do not infringe on either's personal liberties?

At the risk of appearing too laissez faire, I propose that state regulation of personal intimacies are odious and have been responsible for as much human misery as wars and pestilence. However that is not what this debate is about.

I hope to find time to post more on this topic later.

My two kobo
:2C: