Gay Marriage

Fun facts about me
1. Christian (wait for it.......)
2. Straight up gay (dont get your hopes up Im not one of those stereotypical ones so dont ask me to go shopping with you Lol)
3. Doesn't give a damn what people say
4.Believes God made me for who I am
5.Believes God loves everyone
6.supports marriages between a man + woman, man + man, and woman + woman.
7.Love has no shape or form and laws and government shouldn't be involved

 

Take a look at this image, and tell me again that it's a "sacred institution." I posted it earlier. Denying homosexuals because of the so-called sanctity of marriage is bull. Look at this image, then continue reading after it.



Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries - 72 days
Kid Rock and Pam Anderson: 4 months
Britney Spears and Jason Alexander: 2 days
Sophia Bush and Chad Michael Murray: 5 months
Carmen Electra and Dennis Rodman: 6 Days
Mario Lopez and Ali Landry: 2 weeks
Charlie Sheen and Donna Peele: 5 months
Chris Kattan and Sunshine Tutt: 8 weeks
Colin Farrell and Amelia Warner: 4 months
Jennifer Lopez and Cris Judd: 4 months
Drew Barrymore and Tom Green: 5 months
Eddie Murphy and Tracey Edmonds: 2 weeks
Helen Hunt and Hank Azaria: 11 Months
Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Esposito: 4 months
Lisa Marie Presley and Nicolas Cage: 3 months
Renée Zellweger and Kenny Chesney: 4 months
Ethel Merman and Ernest Borgnine: 4 weeks
Shannen Doherty and Ashley Hamilton: 5 months

If you can look at these, and say just because these people are straight, they are upholding the "sanctity," of marriage, go away.

It doesn't matter what religion you have, if you can see this and still consider homosexual marriage to make this "religious" tradition sacred, then you are, to put it bluntly, stupid.

The main issue I have about discriminating like this (because that's what it is, discrimination), is that being married has so many benefits.

Tax Benefits
Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.
Estate Planning Benefits
Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.
Government Benefits
Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
Receiving public assistance benefits.
Employment Benefits
Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.
Medical Benefits
Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
Family Benefits
Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
Applying for joint foster care rights.
Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.
Housing Benefits
Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.
Consumer Benefits
Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.
Other Legal Benefits and Protections
Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.


Source

 

I don't believe any of the marriages you mentioned to be any better than gay marriages...that's not a proper argument for me needing to support gay marriage.

I truly don't see why gay people want to get married. Though there are obviously tax benefits associated with it now (Which I'll address later) marriage is a religious institution, that's just its origin. If you choose to marry someone of the same sex, you probably don't believe in a religion...so why would you want to get married in the first place?

And even if you did, again since marriage is a religious institution, if it really is just about you wanting "to be married" to someone of the same sex there's nothing stopping you...if you have a proper wedding ceremony with a priest and get married, you're married whether or not the state will recognize it. You won't get the tax benefits, but there's nothing stopping you from getting married.

So just to reiterate, I'm at the point where I truly don't care if gays want to get married, go for it- I'm just at a loss as to why they want to.

With regard to the tax benefits themselves, I don't think it's fair to give gay couples the same tax benefits as straight couples. The point of those benefits is that you probably have kids. Gay people, well, can't. You should definitely get those benefits if you adopt a child whether you're married or not. As for all the other rights that come with marriage, I don't see why gay people shouldn't have them, but at that point it stops becoming "Love is love and you should let people love whoever they want to love" and it starts becoming "Give me my tax benefits". Seems like gay people are picking the wrong battle here.

 

As far as why they want to get married, it's because it's the promise. It's the entire thing surrounding it, you want to call someone husband/wife instead of partner or boyfriend/girlfriend. When you're married, you're married. You've made a promise, etc.

And as far as the tax benefits go, I think you are incorrect about the probability of having kids being reason for why they have the benefits. If people were to get tax benefits by having kids, can you imagine how many people would adopt/have kids for that reason alone? (Of course, it's foolish, as having kids is expensive, but regardless) Imagine how many cases of negligence there would be.

Going away from the tax benefits, marriage is about the most romantic thing imaginable, for many. You are standing in front of your family, God (if you are religious), your spouse, and you are truly committing to them. You are getting married. You promise to take them in sickness and in health, etc.

The tax benefits are of course just a bonus, but they are still significant enough to matter. And going by the logic that straight couples probably have children, shouldn't the requirement to receive tax benefits be the same for straight couples?

 

If you're bisexual, you're confused. If you're gay, it's a sin. If you're skinny you're on drugs. If you're fat, you look nasty. If you're dressed up, you're conceited. If you dress for comfort you're a slob.… If you speak you're mind, you're weird. If you don't say anything, you're a punk. If you are sweet to strangers, you are fake. If you cry, you're a drama queen. If you have male friends, you're a whore. If you have female friends, you're a player. YOU can't do anything without being labeled.. We live in a society where people can't survive if they're not judging the next person...

that's a chain letter i got on facebook...but it's so true. The reason Homosexuals are treated different is the same reason anyone is treated different. Everyone has some sort of xenophobia. We as a species have the ability to move and see past that however.

Labels are humanities way of making the world understandable the only problem is we attach labels also as a form of attack.

 

Again, marriage is a religious institution and if you have a proper ceremony with a priest, you are married, whether the state will recognize it or not. If what matters is romance, or a promise, there is nothing stopping you.

I think you're misunderstanding me, the tax benefits are because children are expensive, so giving them to gay couples that are unlikely to have kids is unfair.

It is, married couples get more and more tax benefits for each kid.

 

I’m not denying that it is a religious institution. However, if that religious institution leads to benefits for you, then discriminating against anyone is, as a matter of fact illegal. Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights obviously states: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.†Regardless of religious affiliation, if you take away rights, it’s wrong, and against the Declaration of Human Rights. If there were no benefits at all to getting married, I’d agree that the church is Justified in doing so, but from what I know, unless you’re married in an institution or by someone with the right, it’s not a “valid†marriage.

Again, by that logic, it’s unfair, as straight couples don’t always have children. (Also, homosexuals may adopt as well.) But again, there is way more than tax benefits to it. It’s sharing health insurance with your spouse (If you look at my previous post).

 

Why do ppl fight over nothing? I mean really. You guys don't know each offline. So why fight? Anyways
I see nothing wrong with being gay. It okay. I don't think God himself said.'LET THERE BE NO GAYS!"
So to me it okay.

 

This is a thing I think highly about: I am QUITE for it.
Allot i have a few friends like that, and i support it 2000 fold. I may never find love, but those who do, no matter who should have it. No law by government can trap love in its letters. Nature tells us to find someone we want to be with for our nonimmortal lives whoever it is, nothing should be able to restrict that mostly that which is an agreement many of us here were not given a choice as to the laws we are given. love is like a heart: every one needs it, no matter who from.

 

Right, I don't have a problem with any of what you're saying, that's the misunderstanding here...

What I'm trying to say is, homosexuals are arguing about their love being oppressed and that they're just as good as us when really nobody is denying them that. What they're being denied is the tax benefits (And it is unfair, I agree with you).

I guess what I'm trying to say here is they're picking the wrong battle. I think if gay people were less "We deserve to love each other, we're just as good as you" and more "Give us our freaking tax benefits" they'd get a lot further than they're getting. But if the argument is purely about a promise and romance, there isn't really an argument to be had.

Also, I'm not sure how it is in other states, but in California, getting a domestic partnership gives you the exact same rights and benefits as getting married. So I'm not seeing where the argument is.

If you're going to post, at least read the last page or so of the thread. As we were just talking about, nobody is stopping gay people from loving each other.

 

Ah, okay, I get what you mean now, and I somewhat agree. From what I am aware of, it's different in other states.
And though I agree with the idea of fighting the wrong battle, I think it has a lot to do about the fact that gay people can be denied rights on a religious basis.

Another reason I think gay marriage should be legal can be explained with this image.


The church accepts fucking up genes, but they don't allow two people, due to something a story-book tells them to, is disgusting.

Though I understand what you mean, I still think it's a baseless discrimination, which is why I think you should be able to get married in church, regardless of sexuality.

 

It actually doesn't, the Bible specifically says not to mate with members of your family. Please know your facts before you say things like that.

They aren't though, what's actually being denied to them is the tax benefits, which the state has control over. Really it's a voter issue, not a church issue. It wasn't too long ago there was a proposition in California to legalize gay marriage, and it didn't pass. So the issue is with the voters, not the church itself. People make their own decisions and if the voters aren't going to legalize something, then you can only blame the environment you live in, blaming the church automatically is a little unfair.

Now this, I do have an issue with. Christianity is a set of beliefs and if you don't believe in it, that's fine. But it really isn't fair to force us to change our belief system for you. Again, I don't see why gay people would want to get married in a church anyway.

 

i didn;t say that anyone is, im just saying htose who dissiprove get a life or at least a pokemon game

 

It is, however, legal.

Of course, I'm not blaming the church, per se. My point, however, is that there is no logic behind denying homosexuals those right, if not religious.

Who is "us?"
And the United States does not have an official belief system.

 

Bah! I'm bored. Let's play devil's advocate. O:

And how is this related to the Church? The US doesn't send the Church every one of their bills and asks them to sign it off. In the end, it's the voters that decide on everything. And if the majority of the voters want something, then the Church can't do anything about it since it's outside of their dominion. Now if people wanted to change something in the Church then the Church has all the right to interfere since that's their turf.

People also tend to exaggerate how bad it is to marry your first cousin. Studies show that while the chances of defects do rise slightly, the actual numbers aren't high at all (i.e. a 4% chance of birth defects instead a 2% chance, roughly equivalent to the odds of birth defects in children conceived to middle-aged women nearing menopause as compared to those of younger women). Birth defects only start to appear with frequency when inbreeding is taken to the extreme. For an example, just look at the family tree of King Charles II of Spain. Although even I'll admit that I'm squicked about first cousins marrying but that's just my personal opinion.

By "us", he's referring to Christianity and its believers as a whole. The US may not have an official belief system but what gives the government the right to change our belief system? If our doctrine doesn't allow gay marriage in a Christian establishment, then what right does the government have to change that? Can marriage be allowed to gay people? Yes. Does the Church have to bend over backwards and allow it in their establishment as well? No. Marriages don't have to be recognized by a religious authority for it count and can also be recognized by other bodies such as the state.

 

The thread was cleaned up slightly. Most relevant discussion was salvaged for the most part, but please stay on topic. If you find that someone is off-topic, contact a moderator so that they may inspect the situation; do not engage in backseat moderation. More often than not, only a moderator is allowed to adresss the tone.

Carry on.

 

Not sure how much my opinion is worth here, but I feel like I need to say something for some reason. But, please don't take offense to anything I say. I don't believe in it. Period. Marriage is for one man and one woman. The Bible says that multiple times. *gets off soapbox* Sorry, just needed to say that.

 

Did you even see my post? The picture, which I’ve posted two times already.


Wrong. According to The Bible, these are all accepted marriages;

Man+Woman.
Wives are subordinate to their husbands. Interfaith marriages forbidden. Generally, marriages are arranged, not based on love.
Man + Wives (plural) + Concubines
Man + Woman + Woman’s Property (Man could acquire his wife’s property including her slaves)
Man + Woman + Woman + Woman (Polygamy)
Man + Brother’s Widow
Widow who had not borne a song is REQUIRED to marry her brother in law, which she must submit sexually to.
Rapist + His Victim. (This disgusts me more than anything)
A virgin who is raped must marry her rapist.
Male Soldier + Prisoner of War
Yup.
Male Slave + Female Slave
Slave owner could assign female slaves to his male slaves

(Link to pic http://images.sodahead.com/profiles...arriage-definitionofmarriage-60245242680.jpeg )

Unless you agree with this, you're going to have to come up with a better argument than "the bible says so," for me to accept it.

 

I said no one take offense, and I meant it. Sorry. And I know what the bible says. Probably better than you. Back then, it was the common practice. It doesn't mean the bible condones it.

 

Don't apologize, I didn't take offense. But the point is that you shouldn't just say "The Bible says so," when I already showed that it doesn't. I'm not gay, far from it, but I don't like it discrimination on a baseless reason.