Your stance on gay marriage

[Niur]

No, bottom of the page ad, I do not want to meet local gay singles. I already have a boyfrriend. My god you are persistant, now you're at the bottom of other pages too? What the hell?! I don't even find any of those attractive! No I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend you, please don't hurt me, their just too old-Agh! I didn't mean you were old, oh god, stop it! No! NOOO!

[Christian Democrats]

Damn those gays, with their superior fashion sense, their impeccable work ethic, and their incredibly amazing ability to dance to any song and make it look good.

(Poor quality video)

What do you think about gay marriage?

Since when did marriage become a right? Last time I checked, civil marriage was a privilege conferred by the state on heterosexual couples to promote procreation (i.e., continuation of the state itself).

[Mektar]

In my opinion, I should be able to marry my computer if it can give consent and I can find a religious figure who will perform the ceremony. It shouldn't impact me legally, though.

Why a religious figure? Now only priests can perform weddings?

Because in my opinion, weddings and marriage should be a religious/spiritual venture, not a legal one.

[Franco-Philia]

Damn those gays, with their superior fashion sense, their impeccable work ethic, and their incredibly amazing ability to dance to any song and make it look good.

(Poor quality video)

What do you think about gay marriage?

Since when did marriage become a right? Last time I checked, civil marriage was a privilege conferred by the state on heterosexual couples to promote procreation (i.e., continuation of the state itself).

Marriage confers with it many rights, including rights that have been laid out by our country (speaking from the U.S. here) regarding taxes, visitation, final wishes/living wills, etc.

And the state has never made procreation a requirement for marriage. If that were true sterile women and men would all be spouseless. As it stands, that is not the case.

[Ferrond]

Why a religious figure? Now only priests can perform weddings?

Because in my opinion, weddings and marriage should be a religious/spiritual venture, not a legal one.

Sorry then, but no you can't marry your computer!

[Franco-Philia]

Why a religious figure? Now only priests can perform weddings?

Because in my opinion, weddings and marriage should be a religious/spiritual venture, not a legal one.

So what should nonreligious and nonspiritual people do if they want to marry?

[Ceannairceach]

Because in my opinion, weddings and marriage should be a religious/spiritual venture, not a legal one.

Sorry them but no you can't marry your computer!

If it can consent and he can find a religious figure who will do so, then he can get religiously married. In the state's opinion, on the other hand...

[Christian Democrats]

Since when did marriage become a right? Last time I checked, civil marriage was a privilege conferred by the state on heterosexual couples to promote procreation (i.e., continuation of the state itself).

Marriage confers with it many rights, including rights that have been laid out by our country (speaking from the U.S. here) regarding taxes, visitation, final wishes/living wills, etc.

And the state has never made procreation a requirement for marriage. If that were true sterile women and men would all be spouseless. As it stands, that is not the case.

Fertility is a matter of privacy, which is why it would be wrong for the state to preclude sterile couples from obtaining civil marriages.

[Ceannairceach]

Marriage confers with it many rights, including rights that have been laid out by our country (speaking from the U.S. here) regarding taxes, visitation, final wishes/living wills, etc.

And the state has never made procreation a requirement for marriage. If that were true sterile women and men would all be spouseless. As it stands, that is not the case.

Fertility is a matter of privacy, which is why it would be wrong for the state to preclude sterile couples from obtaining civil marriages.

Point being? Fact is, fertility is not a perquisite for marriage. Meaning, your point about "promoting procreation" is moot.

[Franco-Philia]

Marriage confers with it many rights, including rights that have been laid out by our country (speaking from the U.S. here) regarding taxes, visitation, final wishes/living wills, etc.

And the state has never made procreation a requirement for marriage. If that were true sterile women and men would all be spouseless. As it stands, that is not the case.

FertilitySexuality is a matter of privacy, which is why it would be wrong for the state to preclude sterile gay and lesbiancouples from obtaining civil marriages.

Fixed that for ya.

[Ifreann]

I'm already happily married, thanks.

Sure, you've got a wife, but what about poor Mrs. Goofballs? Doesn't she get a wife?

[Mektar]

Because in my opinion, weddings and marriage should be a religious/spiritual venture, not a legal one.

So what should nonreligious and nonspiritual people do if they want to marry?

Well, if you don't believe in a diety, you don't need said diety's permission to love each other or do it with each other, do you?

[Ferrond]

Sorry them but no you can't marry your computer!

If it can consent and he can find a religious figure who will do so, then he can get religiously married. In the state's opinion, on the other hand...

Please inform me when you find such a crazy priest! I'd pull pranks on him for years!

[Franco-Philia]

So what should nonreligious and nonspiritual people do if they want to marry?

Well, if you don't believe in a diety, you don't need said diety's permission to love each other or do it with each other, do you?

Yeah, but we'd still like all the legal benefits, please and thank you.

[Christian Democrats]

FertilitySexuality is a matter of privacy, which is why it would be wrong for the state to preclude sterile gay and lesbiancouples from obtaining civil marriages.

Fixed that for ya.

If you're trying to marry, then sexual orientation really isn't that private (unless you're a closeted homosexual marrying someone of the opposite sex, which really isn't that uncommon).

[Niur]

Well, if you don't believe in a diety, you don't need said diety's permission to love each other or do it with each other, do you?

Yeah, but we'd still like all the legal benefits, please and thank you.

Also, if were allowed to be legally married, people in schools that teach abstinance only and are gay will actually be able to have sex.

[Franco-Philia]

Fixed that for ya.

If you're trying to marry, then sexual orientation really isn't that private (unless you're a closeted homosexual marrying someone of the opposite sex, which really isn't that uncommon).

What I meant is, it is no business of the state to judge consenting adults who are not harming one another. That is what is private about it. Being open about your sexuality doesn't mean you talk about it ALL the time and that it is the only defining characteristic about you.

[Christian Democrats]

Yeah, but we'd still like all the legal benefits, please and thank you.

Also, if were allowed to be legally married, people in schools that teach abstinance only and are gay will actually be able to have sex.

The key to ending teenage pregnancy is that everyone should be gay?

[Ifreann]

Since when did marriage become a right?

In the US, a fair while ago.

[Niur]

Also, if were allowed to be legally married, people in schools that teach abstinance only and are gay will actually be able to have sex.

The key to ending teenage pregnancy is that everyone should be gay?

Excellent! This would be perfect!

[Free Pangea]

I am pro-gay marriage and gay rights.
I am extremely libertarian when it comes to marriage in general. I don't think its something the government should regulate at all.

[Christian Democrats]

If you're trying to marry, then sexual orientation really isn't that private (unless you're a closeted homosexual marrying someone of the opposite sex, which really isn't that uncommon).

What I meant is, it is no business of the state to judge consenting adults who are not harming one another. That is what is private about it. Being open about your sexuality doesn't mean you talk about it ALL the time and that it is the only defining characteristic about you.

I agree. The state should not judge relationships between (sometimes among) consenting adults. I simply don't understand why legal recognition of those relationships is necessary. Maybe the best compromise would be eliminating civil marriage all together (though, it's highly unlikely).

[Franco-Philia]

What I meant is, it is no business of the state to judge consenting adults who are not harming one another. That is what is private about it. Being open about your sexuality doesn't mean you talk about it ALL the time and that it is the only defining characteristic about you.

I agree. The state should not judge relationships between (sometimes among) consenting adults. I simply don't understand why legal recognition of those relationships is necessary. Maybe the best compromise would be eliminating civil marriage all together (though, it's highly unlikely).

Because in Loving vs. Virginia (the above poster already mentioned this) Marriage was defined as a right in this country. Denying gays and lesbians marriage is denying them their rights. Legal recognition is needed because it comes with a ton of rights that gays and lesbians are being denied unfairly.

[Distruzio]

What do you think about gay marriage? Personally gays annoy the living crap out of me, but I also think that it's plain wrong For the government to decide who you can and cannot marry.

Damn those gays, with their superior fashion sense, their impeccable work ethic, and their incredibly amazing ability to dance to any song and make it look good.

This is spot on.

Also, I'm waiting for the federal gov't to get its head out of its ass and realize that having a position on marriage is unconstitutional.

[Niur]

What I meant is, it is no business of the state to judge consenting adults who are not harming one another. That is what is private about it. Being open about your sexuality doesn't mean you talk about it ALL the time and that it is the only defining characteristic about you.

I agree. The state should not judge relationships between (sometimes among) consenting adults. I simply don't understand why legal recognition of those relationships is necessary. Maybe the best compromise would be eliminating civil marriage all together (though, it's highly unlikely).

That's seems kind of petty. "NOOO! I dont wanna share, I wannit all for myshelf! Fine! If I can't have it just for me, then nobody can have any of it!"