INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: QuirkyCarla on October 29, 2006, 08:57:36 PM
-
Last week New Jersey (my state in the US) decided that gay couples should have the same rights as straight couples, therefore they should be allowed to marry. The lawmakers were given 180 days to decide if gays will be allowed civil unions (which will give them all the same rights as heterosexual marriage, except the term "marriage" won't be used) or if they'll be actual marriages. I'm hoping for the latter ;D. Finally, something to like about NJ besides the fact that it's a blue state. :green:
-
NJ has alot of cows.
-
on a more serious note.
who cares, if two people love each other and want to call themselves married, then let them.
but first, i must caution, the sex isn't as good after marriage.
-
I am very curious to see what the gay divorce rate is compared to the straight divorce rate, and why.
-
I wonder what a gay divorce looks like. Is it amicable, or does it degenerate into a sissy slap fight?
-
Most likely the same as the rest of the married-divorce rates in genereal.
-
I am for gay marriage, but against gay divorce.
-
I am for gay marriage, but against gay divorce.
If two gay people are married and miserable, shouldn't they have the same right to get divorced as a straight couple?
-
I was kidding, Callaway. I actually stole that quote from somebody. Perhaps I should have used a ;) or a :P
-
You got me, QuirkyCarla. I thought you were serious.
I did an AS thing.
:laugh:
-
Callaway did an AS thing! Callaway did an AS thing! :laugh:
-
.
but first, i must caution, the sex isn't as good after marriage.
Speak for yourself >:D
-
But seriously though I agree that as long as we're talking about consenting adults who the fuck has the right to tell people what kind of relationship is 'right'?
-
who cares, if two people love each other and want to call themselves married, then let them.
-
I agree, but their is a conflict with a gay marriage on a religious level. Many streamings condemn homosexuality; it would be odd for a priest to marry two men or women that are living 'the wrong kind of life' in his opinion. Similarly I find it odd if a couple wants to be married in the tradition of the religions stream of their preference, if that religious branch clearly states that it rejects them.
Of course there's not a broad consensus on the topic of whether homosexuality is an acceptable phenomenon or an abomination - there are many priests out there who're willing to marry a gay couple. But the ratio of 'liberal' and 'conservative' priests isn't exactly 1:1, that should be obvious.
Once again, I absolutely agree with the idea that gay couples should have same the rights as straight couples when it comes to marriage. But a law can't force a change of a religion, that depends on the interpretation of the community that comes with. And even that's a hard thing to change, as they can't alter the basic principles of a religion; if it was that easy they might as well just be Deists.
So Live and let live is my take on this, and that also includes the conservative priests. Let them do what they think is line with their religion and let us concentrate on the next generations of priests, to educate them on this controversial issue.
-
people don't just get married at churches though an not all religions are against homosexuality
-
people don't just get married at churches
That's why I spoke of people who want to be married in the tradition of the religious stream of their preference.
though an not all religions are against homosexuality
Agreed, but I was referring to Christianity (and various branches thereof) since you spoke of the US, where most gay couples who want to be married want to have a Christian (type of) wedding.
-
I think gay marriage is fine. Let them.
-
All it takes is a solid separation of state and religion, leaving no reasonable argument against gay marriage.
-
NJ owns. My grandparents are gonna be uncomfortable until their death now. Woot!
-
:laugh:
Yes, NJ does pwn now.
-
:laugh:
Yes, NJ does pwn now.
they are known for their psychadelic mushrooms.
-
All it takes is a solid separation of state and religion, leaving no reasonable argument against gay marriage.
That would be nice if that could happen, but in practice it would be hard because people are people in the end.
-
I believe marriage should be only between a man and woman, not between 2 men, 2 women, 1 man and 2 women, 1 woman and 2 men, let alone 2 men and 2 women.
-
I don't believe in straight marriage. I don't get the people who think that gay maariage will "ruin" marriage. What's left to ruin? I say make it so that any two adults, whatever their respective genders and/or sexes, can get married, but enact some legal contract where there's a time limit, after which there's the option to renew, or to quit and start over. :P
(Although I'm all for gay marriage, I'm only half-joking, about the other part. Then again, I'm the child of at least two divorces and up to five or six, depending on how you count them.)
I am very curious to see what the gay divorce rate is compared to the straight divorce rate, and why.
Ditto, though finding out "why" would be damn hard and I'd settle for just the divorce rates and some correlations to whatever factors seems to stand out.
-
I believe marriage should be only between a man and woman, not between 2 men, 2 women, 1 man and 2 women, 1 woman and 2 men, let alone 2 men and 2 women.
3 men and 3 women would be ok, i think.
the bible, itself, talks of the trinity.
-
I believe marriage should be only between a man and woman, not between 2 men, 2 women, 1 man and 2 women, 1 woman and 2 men, let alone 2 men and 2 women.
3 men and 3 women would be ok, i think.
the bible, itself, talks of the trinity.
Are you kidding? People can't handle one spouse at a time, let alone three. I'm morally opposed to it on the ground that it would cause a massive outbreak of crippling migranes. It would cause great suffering.
-
I saw a television show about plural marriages among the Fundamentalist Mormon offshoot of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and I thought it was fascinating. As long as all the partners enter the arrangement of their own free wills and they are all over 18, I consider it none of my business, although I would never enter such an arrangement myself.
Of course, in the case of the father severely beating his 16 year old daughter because she refused to marry his brother, her uncle, that just made me sick to my stomach. It makes me wonder just how much free will some of these young people have.
-
I believe marriage should be only between a man and woman, not between 2 men, 2 women, 1 man and 2 women, 1 woman and 2 men, let alone 2 men and 2 women.
3 men and 3 women would be ok, i think.
the bible, itself, talks of the trinity.
Threes are truly mystical. I don't know if I agree with 6's though.
But, whatever floats your boat.
-
1 man and 2 women would be a trinity too..... Oooh wait, that's a manage a trios. ::) :3some:
-
It's more than just that, if it's not just for sex.
-
1 man and 2 women would be a trinity too..... Oooh wait, that's a manage a trios. ::) :3some:
thre men as well, no, that would be a train. toot toot.