hey everyone, i think that if you agree with gay marriages that you are really f*cked up! it is really stupid. i think you should change your opinion and i think you would if you knew all the things that can happen to you. AIDS comes from homosexuality. So does a lot of other diseases. Maybe you should research it before coming to the conclusion that gay marriages are OK.

Conservatism: You say that marriage in the West has always been defined socially, religiously, and legally as between a man and a woman. So what? Before African Americans were given civil rights, they were defined in the same way as second class citizens. Clearly that was also wrong. Just because something has been a certain way in the past, doesn't mean it should remain that way. GLBT people deserve the same rights as everyone else: rights they are paying for through taxes to the government, like everyone else.

It is a great time to be coming of age in America. We are witnessing the winds of change do their work. While there will be struggle, particularly from the Bush administration (*grumble grumble*), "these times they are a-changing."

For those who feel as I do, visit moveon.org and hrc.org to see how you can help. For those who don't feel the same, go there and be educated.


Make love, not war.

quote:

---

Depressed

---

That's not my name. It's Wavemaster.

quote:

---

the West looks Utopian

---

Of course it looks Utopian. This country is gilded. And so are the people who live in it. I've met few good people in my whole life.

Depressed: Compared to most of the World, the West looks Utopian. I mean, the mere fact we can even be able to argue over something like marriage is saying something. If we tried having this conversation in a non-Western country like Saudi Arabia, we'd probably be killed. And if we wouldn’t even have time to argue this if we were in a third-world African or Asian country.

Oh yeah! I read it in the paper and was so happy! I was hyper for the rest of the night and nothing could get me down, believe me, my dad tried. But NOTHING can make me regret seeing this happen.

quote:

---

Marriage has always been defined socially, religiously, and legally as between a man and a woman.

---

one word for you: Handfasting. You do the research.

quote:

---

Legally, it's always been defined in the West as being between a man and a woman.

---

Well, the West is a pretty f*cked up part of the world.

quote:

---

who needs to get kicked out of office

---

Or assassinated.

quote:

---

emporers had male concubines as well...

---

knights and squires, princesses and handmaidens. It's all there, but you won't find it in the history books.

quote:

---

Pedophilia and sex with slaves were fairly common too in the past, does that mean we should have both of those things legalized?

---

No, because these things were harmful to the mental health of the victim. Homosexuality isn't a traumatic experience to one who is homosexual.

Just so you all know, I am very happy about this (Duh, wavemaster, get to the point) And if you don't like it, deal with it.

Marriage is about love and commitment, not about sexual orientation. Imagine: What if a really old book told you that marriage between the opposite sex was wrong and you are in love with the person you are dating but can not legally get married. You don't feel you're doing anything wrong but all these people say you are. Wouldn't that hurt you? So I say again, and I feel strongly about this (and I wasn't told by anyone what I should believe): Marriage is about love and commitment, not about sexual orientation. I wish all the happiness to them.

Sov: Pedophilia and sex with slaves were fairly common too in the past, does that mean we should have both of those things legalized? Besides, even in those times, gay marriage didn't exist. Hence, marriage in the west has pretty much always been defined as between a man and a woman.

[This message was edited by JusticeConservativism on February 17, 2004 at 12:30 PM.]

u said that in the WEST marriage has been defined as between the man and the woman..well what about the ancient Greeks and Romans...bisexuality was the thing...emporers had male concubines as well...so how can u state that in the west it has been so...please do not confuse the eros and romanticism of ancient times..to the sold unfellingness of organized religion and ideological oppression..thast my opinion

im all for the marraiges..when u infringe upon an individuals right to happiness despite the overpowering stench of an organized religion whihc has inlaid the peoiple with such ideas.then we must fight against it and gain our rights...the marraige between a man an d a woman and "sanctity" wth is that...most straight people end up divorced anyways..why not let gay ones..oh and for u republicans...gay marraige would help the economy ..more marraige certoficates being bought more adoptions of the nations "abandoned " children by those who have had the right to naturally have kids...ok

i think it's great homosexuals want to get married. And the laws should be changed. We already have a biased president, who needs to get kicked out of office, so i think changing laws in not only the state of California, but in other states who don't allow this too, who be a huge step for everyone. Homosexuality shouldn't be everyone's biggest concern, and everyone should just except it and move on, because it's not vanishing into thin air anytime soon. And if you oppose it or want to stop it, you're just wasting your time.

Interesting topic, I think for once it's some what different then every other board I read.

Any ways, I don't see the problem in gay marriges either. Why make a law against marrying someone you really love, even if it is of the same sex.

Comrade: Legally, it's always been defined in the West as being between a man and a woman. And when it hasn't, it has pretty much always resulted in something seedy and degenerative, as a state like Utah demonstrates.

Thanks for pointing out your argument's basic flaw. By acknowledging the existance of polygamists, you also acknowledge that marriage HASN'T always been "defined socially, religiously, and legally as between a man and a woman." It has also been defined in the past as between a man and a woman and a woman and a woman and oh yeah that concubine over there. But, you see, the thing is, "lots" isn't a sexual preference..."gay" is.

While I agree that Gay people should have the opportunity to have a Civil Union with the same legal rights as Marriage, I must draw the line at marriage itself.

Marriage has always been defined socially, religiously, and legally as between a man and a woman. As such, any change in that definition is bound to create problems. What will we have after this? Will polygamists suddenly demand the right for state-sanctioned marriages? What will stop them, if we've already thrown out our original definition of marriage? Nothing, besides maybe a dozen or so disgruntled religious groups.

Of course, it's not like the law matters to a lot of people. Utah for instance does have a substantial, generally poor polygamist subculture. The Massachusetts courts have already overstepped their boundaries, effectively making new laws instead of interpreting them.

I am very happy that San Fransisco is now allowing Gay marriages.The WHOLE United States should change the law that Gay marriages aren't allowed.The laws need to meet up to the modern times.Of course it's totally justified and right!Shouldn't Gays have a right to love too?Shouldn't thay have a right to marry there same-gendered lovers?The answer it yes to all these questions.Forget the narrow minded,cruel people who wrote the laws,think about it,this is certain men and women's future,why should the government be able to take away the right to legally wed?To tell them who they can love and who they can't?It's unjustified!But I say Rok-On San Fransisco!Thanks,at least I know some people are free-spirited,and open minded!I know the Gay couples there are soaring with joy,and soon,I hope,it will be the same for all Gay couples in Every state!

Damn, you bet me to this.

Anyway, California NEEDS to change that law. It goes against people's right's AND the Constitution.

Unjustice.
-Sunset

i was driving home when i heard the news and i actually started to cry because i was so happy. i suppose my oppinion is rather biased but i think it's about time america got equal marriage rights. the marriages in california are a giant step towards legal same sex marriage for the whole country because once america sees that really nothing has really changed as a result of the san francisco weddings it will be harder to argue for the proposed national protection of marriage amendment. i'm not sure how the laws work here, i know that in california after a marriage license is recorded by county officials, it is sent to the state office of vital records so the state may not accept them, as for arresting the brides/grooms, i don't think that would be a legal option since they did nothing illegal, the law doesnt block same sex couples from trying to apply for marriage certificates, it just prohibits the state from accepting them. i guess we'll have to wait and see what happens.

Well it's about time!

How are marriages supposed to work if there not gay ones?!

*Thinks to himself, 'oh yea.. that was sweet!"*