Same -Sex Marriages--- Any other opinions?

[Tomas]

I understand mod lang's frustration.

I've read many of the recent news articles on this issue, and seen the opinions of those opposed to gay marriage. The arguments are not rational, and in my opinion, are bigoted. The only people who seem reasonable about this are those who support gay marriage but want to see the laws change prior to allowing gay marriage. I can see the arguments for rule of law. But change the damned laws as quickly as possible.

Bottom line for me is that people should be allowed to marry whomever they want to marry. I always go back to wondering how I would feel of 90% of the population were gay. I'd be incredibly frustrated with a legal system that prohibits me from getting married, just because I like women rather than men.

I'm going to sign the petition in favor of gay marriage today. Thank QM, for the reminder.

[superking]

There was a great prog on cable about gay animals recently. I reckon, using time honoured traditions we should experiment on animals first. Get a couple of gay dogs/ monkeys/ rats and marry them. Then see if they can successfully survive the pressures of a modern day gay marriage. It works with cosmetics. Ill get me coat...
btw if people of the same sex want to marry then good on them.
Also, the question was about 'same sex' so maybe 2 straight people want to get married to each other for some reason.

[MaPoSquid]

The second thing that bothers me is the claim that allowing same-sex marriages will destroy the sanctity of marriage.

That was destroyed centuries ago by government's involvement.

Nor, is the federal government legally obligated to grant my partner immigration rights.

You know, he might be able to get in under refugee status if he can prove that his life is threatened in his native culture. (Of course, fat chance of that with Taiwan -- I think the case I heard about was from Mexico or Central/South America -- but maybe he could find a sympathetic (or gullible, or bribable) clerk.)

you're just gonna have to accept "fags" into your churches from now on.

How about mosques, ML? Oh, my bad, I forgot that homosexuals are stoned to death under Sharia law. (Well, MOST interpretations of Sharia law -- there is a debate about whether gays should be buried up to their necks and then stoned, or have a stone wall knocked over onto them (which isn't officially "stoning").)

I vaguely recall that Hindus also kill gays, or at least treat them like dirt. Anyone have a cite?

So homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of Christianity -- at least they let gays live, gays just have to become celibate priests/monks/bachelors.

[QuietMountain]

My cousin just sent me this from Bill Maher's Valentine's Day show. You can find the complete "rant" here. You have to scroll down almost to the bottom to find it in the transcript.

And finally, New Rule, Special Valentine's Day Edition: You can't claim you're the party of smaller government and then make laws about love. On this occasion of this Valentine's Day, let's stop and ask ourselves what business is it of the state how consenting adults choose to pair off, share expenses and eventually stop having sex with each other. And why does the Bush Administration want a Constitutional amendment about weddings? Hey, why stop at weddings? Birthdays are important; let's put them in the great document. Let's make a law that gay people can have birthdays, but straight people get more cake. You know, to send the right message to kids.

Republicans are always saying we should privatize things like schools, prisons, Social Security. Hey, how about we privatize privacy? Because if the government forbids gay men from tying the knot, what is their alternative? They can't all marry Liza Minnelli.

You know, Republicans used to be the party that opposed social engineering. But now they push programs to outlaw marriage for some people and encourage it for others. If you're straight, there's a billion-five in the budget to promote marriage, but gay marriage is opposed because it threatens or mocks or does something to the 'sanctity' of marriage, as if anything you can do in Vegas, drunk off your ass in front of an Elvis impersonator, could be considered sacred.

By the way, Tomas & mod lang,

I can understand the frustration. However, it seemed to me that mod lang was criticizing those of us in this thread for "compromising" and I didn't see any of that. And, instead, I think all of us who feel strongly about it should focus our frustration (and/or anger) on changing things.

I apologize if I went a little overboard in my reaction, but this issue is a sensitive one for me. I should have taken cableguy's more peaceful tact.

I agree, though, that laws need to be changed so that every marriage is a legal one. I know the marriages in San Francisco are not legal. However, I think it still makes a statement that that many people are willing to travel tlong distances, even for an invalid, illegal marriage license. Says something, to me, about how many gays and lesbians want to be in a committed, long-term relationship.

[QuietMountain]

Nor, is the federal government legally obligated to grant my partner immigration rights.

You know, he might be able to get in under refugee status if he can prove that his life is threatened in his native culture. (Of course, fat chance of that with Taiwan -- I think the case I heard about was from Mexico or Central/South America -- but maybe he could find a sympathetic (or gullible, or bribable) clerk.)

This would probably only work if your mother always trying to get you to be the "good son," get married and have kids counts as persecution.

you're just gonna have to accept "fags" into your churches from now on.

So homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of Christianity -- at least they let gays live, gays just have to become celibate priests/monks/bachelors.

Priests & monks are celibate? hock: Tell that to the Catholic church! But, you have a point. In most cases being gay is a sin, but not worthy of death. Unless you are someone like Fred Phelps. Then you figure it is God's justice if gays die. And, since they'll probably die anyway from AIDs, it doesn't hurt if he or one of his other "loving Christians" helps them on their way a bit early.

[mod lang]

You guys are right, I was over the line with that rant. But sometimes, for whatever reason, you get in one of those moods and have to vent a little.

[QuietMountain]

You guys are right, I was over the line with that rant. But sometimes, for whatever reason, you get in one of those moods and have to vent a little.

I don't mind so much that you ranted. Hell, I've ranted enough about this in the last 24 hours. It just seemed that your rant was aimed at the wrong group... shall we say, you seemed to be preaching to the choir... or should that be the "queer."

Again, I'm sorry if I jump a bit too "far" down your throat about it. Peace... and...ah... want to get married? :mrgreen:

Just kidding, if I marry anyone it will be my one and only...

[ImaniOU]

You all took my idea of the debate being "stupid" correctly. There are all sorts of ridiculous marriages going on between opposite-gendered people. People get married because they got chosen in front of a live studio audience, because someone's pregnant, because they need a green card, because they want to get at someone's term insurance, to resolve family feuds, as a publicity stunt...cough, cough, Britney, because they were drunk and Vegas is the home of weddings dammit. Why on earth do people pick marriage between two people of the same gender as being the immoral one?

I still can't get over people who say homosexuality is a choice. That's like saying race is a choice. Hmm, should I go with the majority and have people fully accept my relationships no matter how bad they are or be a part of that minority and be constantly subjected to persecution over who I love? Gee, I think that second "choice" sounds pretty nice. My 4th graders know that tattling is when you tell on someone when it a) does not involve you and b) doesn't involve someone being hurt. I think homophobes could learn a thing or two from my students. No one's getting hurt and it's none of their damn business.

Let's not let idiots get married. Then they can't pass their bigotry onto their offspring. Now that sounds moral.

[ImaniOU]

You all took my idea of the debate being "stupid" correctly. There are all sorts of ridiculous marriages going on between opposite-gendered people. People get married because they got chosen in front of a live studio audience, because someone's pregnant, because they need a green card, because they want to get at someone's term insurance, to resolve family feuds, as a publicity stunt...cough, cough, Britney, because they were drunk and Vegas is the home of weddings dammit. Why on earth do people pick marriage between two people of the same gender as being the immoral one?

I still can't get over people who say homosexuality is a choice. That's like saying race is a choice. Hmm, should I go with the majority and have people fully accept my relationships no matter how bad they are or be a part of that minority and be constantly subjected to persecution over who I love? Gee, I think that second "choice" sounds pretty nice.
My 4th graders know that tattling is when you tell on someone when it a) does not involve you and b) doesn't involve someone being hurt. I think homophobes could learn a thing or two from my students. No one's getting hurt and it's none of their damn business.

Let's not let idiots get married. Then they can't pass their bigotry onto their offspring. Now that sounds moral.

[MaPoSquid]

[hijack]

It's not directly relevant to this thread, but given Taranto's ending comment, I just had to post this here:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004721

Florence of Arabia
People sometimes ask why we write so much about Saudi Arabia, and we just want to say that we like the Saudis, but only as friends. What prompts our defensiveness is an article by John Bradley in London's Independent, which reports that "Saudi Arabian men are taking advantage of the emergence of an increasingly tolerated Western-oriented gay scene":
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/mid ... ory=493196

"I don't feel oppressed at all," said one, a 23-year-old who was meeting in one of the coffee shops with a group of self-identified "gay" Saudi friends dressed in Western clothes and speaking fluent English. "I heard that after 11 September, a Saudi student who was going to be deported on a visa technicality applied for political asylum because he was gay," he added, provoking laughter from the others. "What was he thinking of? We have more freedom here than straight couples. After all, they can't kiss in public like we can, or stroll down the street holding one another's hand." . . .

In an unprecedented two-page special investigation, the daily newspaper Okaz said lesbianism was "endemic" among schoolgirls. It justified the article with a saying of the Prophet's wife Ayeshathat "there should be no shyness in religion". The article told of lesbian sex in school lavatories, girls stigmatised after refusing the advances of their fellow students, and teachers complaining that none of the girls were willing to change their behaviour. . . .

"A particularly beautiful boy always gets top marks in the exams because he's some teacher's favourite," said Mohammed, an English teacher in a government high school in Riyadh. "On the other hand, I know many older boys who deliberately flunked their final exams so they can stay . . . with their younger sweethearts."

But don't worry, there's no danger to the sanctity of marriage, which Saudi law defines as the union of one man and four women.

[/hijack]