Gay Marriage

Psykokandie. I’m glad you mentioned that part about gays reaching out to the church for acceptance. Roanoke has a lot of gay people and i have noticed that phenomena too.

Chanbengchin. I sincerely enjoyed your earlier lengthy post. It covered a lot of ground. There is one more element, however. Until civilization finds a much more rational way to do this (and i for one look forward to that day) marriage will still have a lot of importance for those wishing to raise children. Indeed, part of the homosexual community’s complaints stem from the very fact that they are, in some cases, denied custody evidently due to the lack of any civil union.

I think it’s about more than acceptance from the church or any other social body. Gay people just want the same tax advantages, rights and privileges that other married people have.

gays should be treated as equally as anyone
they are human too
marriage is very important to some people
bush is pro marriage, right

I read an article recently that made a pretty good argument.

Bush says he doesn’t support gay marriage in order to preserve the sanctitiy of marriage.

Divorce is a bigger threat to the “sanctitue of marriage” than anything else.

Why doesn’t Bush want to outlaw divorce?

Call it Civil Unions give em the tax credits and other rights while keeping the word mairrage at its current understanding and definition. Hello everybody wins then we can all simply Shut the **** up about this totaly nonsesense issue… Theres more important things to be thinking about then right-wing homophobia, Clintons dick and all this other crap that seems to be so freakin important that i have to hear and think about this crap while growing up. Give me a break!

Wouldn’t that just further marginalize an already marginalized portion of the population? And i think Rafajafars point about divorce very salient. We have separation of church and state in theory, but not in practice. How will gay marriages impinge upon the rights of those willing to outlaw or get them relegated to mere civil unions? Even if the majority want this, why should they be allowed to have it?; since it is merely in line with their outdated moral code and does not necessarily represent the moral code that others have.

Its the old American one-two:

Say one thing, do something different.

Whatever happened to:

Amendment I
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

I’m reading Locke’s treatise of civil government and a letter concerning toleration, and he essentially says the same thing, that governments ultimately derive their power from the consent of the governed. When a GODvernment gets too poerful, perhaps it becomes appropriate to withdraw that consent.

There is not a damn thing wrong with gay marriage. What is so bad about it? Why do people make such a big deal of two men/women coming togethere in the sacred vows of marriage. It is their own right to do it. First amendment says freedom of speech, press, and religion. What about freedom of sexuality? Let them do what they want. Why does it bother the ignorant people of the supposed “free country” of the United States. Look at that ,“free country”. That means you shall be able to express what you want and do what you want within limits. Too bad some people are just too idiotic to understand that this is not a free country.

Exactly!. Whom does it hurt? Why do these people who talk about ‘The sacred vows of marriage’ think that it will have any bearing on their marriage? This is so Orwellian.

Really I just think this highlights a whole bunch of issues concening the new institution of legal marrage. Why is it that as a single man with no romantic entaglements I can choose out someone trustworthy to make my medical desicions, other than parents I may have grown away from? Why can’t I share all my property with a long term non-romantic roomate as to avoid issues if I were to die? Why can’t I have a confidant (without a psychological or theological degree) who will not be forced to testify agianst me, if I reveal previous crimes? Why should I pay more taxes then someone spewing out dependants that the government must attept, in vain, to educate?

I think legal marrage should be eliminated (seperation of church and state) and every citizen should have the right to choose out at least one person to have a privilaged relationship for all these issues.

Because no objections have been raised to gay marriage, everyone on ILP must agree with me on it, yeah?

Given that happiness is all too rare in this life, if two people, whoever they are, find just a bit of it together, then who am I to stand in their way? Where’s the danger from people loving each other too much?

I wouldn’t care if a cowboy married his horse. I’d even dance at their wedding.


My wife is also my soul mate. I can talk to her about anything. And i never let the fact that she is 15 years older than me stand in my way. I really don’t understand why the state should have any interest in this matter. The only conceivable reason it might hurt the state (or anyone for that matter) is that their tax revenue would be somewhat less, but surely they can compensate even for that. I would gladly pay more taxes to see people enjoy their liberty, it sure beats financing National Offence in this country. (The U.S.A. currently spends more on military spending than the next 20 countries combined).

To the Christian Fundamentalists or any other group that might oppose this i say: “Believe whatever you choose, just don’t posit it as my truth.”

(Feel free to use this quote on an ILP t-shirt)

Reminds me of a quotation attributed to Groucho Marx: