Gay marriage Legal or Not

[pandaandthelion]

Hey Guys not sure if anyone else asked this or not but i want your oppinions

Wether you live in australia or Other countires But do you think gay marriage should be legalized
For me i think it should be, Because not sure what the constitution is in other countired but here in australia it says that
men and women get the same rights, so thats saying that its okay for Straight People can get married but its not allowing the same for gay people, another thing is, is that hetrosexuality isn't normal it's just common, But wether people agree with that or not is really up to them

Anyway just want your guys and girls opinion on should gay marriage be legalized

[Sabby]

I honestly don't think this is even up for debate. It should be legalized, and anyone who would oppose that have something wrong with them. Sadly, those same retards are law makers and voters :/

[HairyHeretic]

Given the demographics of this site, I don't think you'll find very many people saying it shouldn't be allowed :)

[Caela]

Hairy has a point about getting a pretty biased answer to that question considering where you're asking it.

For my part I think it should be. I don't see how people can argue that letting gays get married will somehow damage the institutions of marriage and family when straight folk have a divorce rate of nearly 50% (higher in some areas, lower in others of course)...we've pretty well made the institution itself a joke in my mind. Let gays sign the same legal contracts and have the same rights as straight folk.

From the religious aspect, a church would have the right to say they won't perform the ceremony just like they do with straight people now, so I don't see how that's an issue.

[Ironwolf85]

this is on the same like as Caela.
Gay couples have the right to a secular civil union, one presided over by a judge, any church and or temple is also within it's rights to deny them a religious union.
there is of course debate within various religious communities about this right, but Civil unions are well within their rights

[Nico]

This is all I have to say about this subject:



Everyone should have this right - heterosexual or not. It is not 'just' a testament to love, but to being secure, too, in a legal sense. I only think about insurance, as one of the many examples. It makes me sad that there are Gay Rights. This alone shows that humanity has much to learn.  Human Rights should be enough. We are all humans. Straight. Gay. Black. White. Rich or poor. No difference. We're all human beings. We all love. And we all want to be loved.

[Wyrd]

Legal, Legal, Legal, Legal. Nic, you said it all beautifully. Why this question even needs to be asked is beyond me. 

[Wykyd]

Marriage pre-dates religion and is a basic fundamental right that all human beings should be entitled to. I never understood how anyone could say that two people, regardless of their sexuality, who want to marry and be in a committed relationship could undermine the foundation of marriage. It's not like the foundation has been all that strong in recent decades.

Nic....I totally agree!

[Yorubi]

I like to go with the "If gay marriage is illegal, then strike me down *insert god here*" defense. I'm still waiting to be struck down. Sure believe they will go and burn in hell for all eternity all you want, they can at least love and enjoy each other here on earth while it lasts.

[GothicFires]

This is all I have to say about this subject:



Everyone should have this right - heterosexual or not. It is not 'just' a testament to love, but to being secure, too, in a legal sense. I only think about insurance, as one of the many examples. It makes me sad that there are Gay Rights. This alone shows that humanity has much to learn.  Human Rights should be enough. We are all humans. Straight. Gay. Black. White. Rich or poor. No difference. We're all human beings. We all love. And we all want to be loved.

why retype it when my saint says it so well <3

[Brandon]

Short answer: Yes, gays should be able to marry one another. They deserve the same rights and privileges that I have

The long answer is more complicated then a simple yes or no answer because you get into two institutions that should be separated: Law established by government and religion.

From my point of view Marriage as a legal union should be completely abolished in a legal sense and kept as a strictly religious ceremony. At the same time the government should have its own legal status available to all couples that provides the same rights and privileges that marriage does now.

This has 3 foreseeable benefits. 1. It allows everyone to be under the same union despite race, sexual orientation, gender, or preference of classic rock. 2. Allows individual faiths to keep their marriage as their kind of marriage. 3. Allows for government to further separate church and state

As a side note, this would also allow the LGBT community to form its own religions that allow for marriage under the Church's individual religious law

[Koren]

I definetly believe that gay marrige should be legalised

I live in Australia as well and i was horrified by the comments of one of our own politicans a few years ago (i forget who) saying that the reason gay couples 'cannot' marry is that because they cannot produce children. this is based off very ancient catholic values that even some parts of the church now reject.

i really hope someday our goverment will wake up to that .

other then that nicholas just says everything. :D

[ReijiTabibito]

I might catch some flak for this particular statement, but in this case, I subscribe to the Daniel Tosh School of Gay Marriage.

"Just because it's legal, doesn't mean that it makes it alright in your religion."

[grdell]

From my point of view Marriage as a legal union should be completely abolished in a legal sense and kept as a strictly religious ceremony. At the same time the government should have its own legal status available to all couples that provides the same rights and privileges that marriage does now.

I've been saying this for years now.

A friend of mine who describes himself as a "Christian Conservative" told me flat out that while he's against legalizing it, that if it became legal he wouldn't fight back against it. Basically, a "what's done is done" attitude. When I described my view (almost identical to Brandon's here), he said that it sounded like I wasn't so much for gay marriage as I was for abolishing traditional marriage. I replied that he was essentially correct. Natch, this led to a big argument. We agreed to disagree and haven't spoken of it again.

[HockeyGod]

Gays should have just as much right being miserable as married couples!  ::)

[Brandon]

I've been saying this for years now.

A friend of mine who describes himself as a "Christian Conservative" told me flat out that while he's against legalizing it, that if it became legal he wouldn't fight back against it. Basically, a "what's done is done" attitude. When I described my view (almost identical to Brandon's here), he said that it sounded like I wasn't so much for gay marriage as I was for abolishing traditional marriage. I replied that he was essentially correct. Natch, this led to a big argument. We agreed to disagree and haven't spoken of it again.

Well I cant speak for you but I dont have my opinion because of a desire to abolish traditional marriage. I have my opinion primarily because its the only compromise I can think that might actually work while keeping cultural identity and tradition intact. Each faith should have control over their style of marriage, thats their tradition and its important to them. It should be preserved but only as just theirs, thats why I say it should be a strictly religious union and carry no legal weight.

For me its not about the title of marriage its about the legal rights of the couple and the rights of the religion in question. Most of all its about creating a society where everyone is truly equal under the law

Something else that poped into my head a minute ago is I dont know what kind of gay marriage system the OP is proposing. There tend to be 2 different thought processes there. The first is homosexual couples having the right to demand any religious organization to accept them under penalty of law. The second is Homosexuals couples can a) have every single right and privilege (tax benefits, adoption, whatever have you) and B) allow any church or organization who is willing to perform said ceremonies as well as always provide a legitimate third party service to perform the ceremonies.

If anyone wants the former definition of gay marriage then I am wholly against that and will fight them every step of the way. That would be just forcing their beliefs on the religious organizations through law that shouldnt apply to them in the first place (seperation of church and state applies here). If they want the latter definition of gay marriage then Im totally for that and will support them all the way.

[genodragon]

I think gay marriage should be legalized, because if two people love each other and take that extra step to be with each other it should happen. I mean there going to have the same ups and downs as a straight couple.

[grdell]

Well I cant speak for you but I dont have my opinion because of a desire to abolish traditional marriage. I have my opinion primarily because its the only compromise I can think that might actually work while keeping cultural identity and tradition intact. Each faith should have control over their style of marriage, thats their tradition and its important to them. It should be preserved but only as just theirs, thats why I say it should be a strictly religious union and carry no legal weight.

My desire was not to abolish traditional marriage - that was his interpretation of my proposition.

For me its not about the title of marriage its about the legal rights of the couple and the rights of the religion in question. Most of all its about creating a society where everyone is truly equal under the law

Something else that poped into my head a minute ago is I dont know what kind of gay marriage system the OP is proposing. There tend to be 2 different thought processes there. The first is homosexual couples having the right to demand any religious organization to accept them under penalty of law. The second is Homosexuals couples can a) have every single right and privilege (tax benefits, adoption, whatever have you) and B) allow any church or organization who is willing to perform said ceremonies as well as always provide a legitimate third party service to perform the ceremonies.

If anyone wants the former definition of gay marriage then I am wholly against that and will fight them every step of the way. That would be just forcing their beliefs on the religious organizations through law that shouldnt apply to them in the first place (seperation of church and state applies here). If they want the latter definition of gay marriage then Im totally for that and will support them all the way.

I agree 100%.

[Majere Dreavan]

My question is, Why do Heterosexuals care what Homosexuals do with their personal life? It just doesn't make sense. If you don't like gay marriage, Then don't marry someone of the same gender. Homosexuals, aren't saying "Everyone should be having gay marriages." They are saying" We want to, I don't give a flying shit if you don't.

I don't know. Just blows my mind why anyone even cares about it happening, like the worlds going to end. Let people do whatever it is they wish, Isn't that why we live in america and not a communist nation? To be able to do what we want? For crying out loud, Get out of other peoples business, and worry about your own broken lives (To the politicians and what not) Sorry. Just my soft opinion.

[genodragon]

I agree with majere

[Oniya]

It's not the attitude of heterosexuals, or even politicians (who are just catering to the loudest [not largest] faction of their constituency) that's the issue.  It's the attitude of those people who believe that homosexuality is a mortal sin, and that by condoning homosexual marriage, they are encouraging these 'poor, misguided souls' to condemn their immortal souls to hell.  These are the same sorts of people who can't accept the answer 'Well, if you're against abortion, don't have one.'

Not all of them are malicious - some of them are operating under the genuine belief that they are preventing someone from enduring eternal suffering.  I still think they should look to the planks in their own eyes before worrying about the speck in their neighbors'.

[Nico]

I agree, Oniya. Many people are not malicious about it. They genuinely believe that being homosexual is a mental illness. It's their belief, and they are free to do so, unless the turn malicious. But this goes for everything, not just this matter.

Personally, marriage is nothing religious for me. It is a legal status that comes with rights and duties, in a legal sense. In a state where religion and state rules are completely separated, it should not be an issue at all. I would respect it, if one or the other church wouldn't want to do gay marriages. It's all mutual to me, you see. They respect my choices, I respect theirs. But being malicious or damning it all to hell is, -no offence- a little outdated in my opinion. The world really has more pressing problems to fight with. World Hunger, Children dying each day, HIV, wars, Nuclear contamination, global warming.... - just to mention some.

It is good to see that politicians are slowly waking up, though. Not all of them are against gay marriage. I try to keep up to date with all the developments and it's not always easy. ~laughs~

I think that, all in all, the process is going. Slowly, but it's there. It makes me cry and it makes me angry beyond belief that gay people are still murdered and arrested for being who they are, in many countries.

There is still a long distance to go, but sometimes it's important to see what already has been done.

[Oniya]

But being malicious or damning it all to hell is, -no offence- a little outdated in my opinion. The world really has more pressing problems to fight with. World Hunger, Children dying each day, HIV, wars, Nuclear contamination, global warming.... - just to mention some.

No arguments here.  I can comprehend where they come from, even while I head-desk the fact that they can't live and let live.

[Le RandomBloke]

The quote, "Gay people should have the right to make themselves miserable too." comes to mind, not sure where I heard it, but obviously my answer is yes :P

[Oniya]

The quote, "Gay people should have the right to make themselves miserable too." comes to mind, not sure where I heard it, but obviously my answer is yes :P

Here?