Same-Sex Marriage!! Your Thoughts

[Longtimefan]

In recent years this subject has become a hot-button issue for those that have chosen to weigh-in. It's a sensitive issue and one I don't recall ever being discussed here. David Tyree has predicted anarchy in the event SSM is made legal [I would assume he means in all 50 states] I wouldn't go quite that far.

NFL.com news: Tyree warns of 'anarchy' if gay marriage is legalized in U.S.

Those who say yes:
1 Denying them is a violation of religious freedom (civil and religious marriages are two separate institutions).
2 Marriage benefits (such as joint ownership, medical decision-making capacity) should be available to all couples.
3 Homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle nowadays with most evidence strongly supporting biological causation.
4 Denying these marriages is a form of minority discrimination.
5 It doesn't hurt society or anyone in particular.
6 The only thing that should matter in marriage is love.
7 The number of child adoptions should increase since gay couples cannot pro-create (although some might see an increase in gay adoptions as an argument against same-sex marriages).
8 It encourages people to have strong family values and give up high-risk sexual lifestyles.
9 The same financial benefits that apply to man-woman marriages apply to same-sex marriages.

Those who say no:
1 Most religions consider homosexuality a sin.
2 It would weaken the definition and respect for the institution of marriage.
3 It would further weaken the traditional family values essential to our society.
4 It could provide a slippery slope in the legality of marriage (e.g. having multiple wives or marrying an animal could be next).
5 The gay lifestyle is not something to be encouraged, as a lot of research shows it leads to a much lower life expectancy, psychological disorders, and other problems.

Your Thoughts....

[MTK]

My thought is it's silly this is such a big deal. Let them get married and let's get on with more important things.

[Lotus]

I'm with Matty. Live and let live. To each his own.

I don't really get the argument that SSM will create anarchy or destroy the institution of marriage as traditionally understood. Are there really that many gay people trapped in hetero marriages, so if SSM is legalized there will be a stampede? I think not. Most people are still happily hetero.

[GMScud]

I have no real issue with it. If two people are in love, living together, even adopting kids together, why shouldn't they be afforded the same benefits of marriage as a straight couple?

Good example- my mom/stepdad's next-door neighbors are a gay couple in their mid-40's. One is a successful realtor, the other a social worker with a PhD. They are the nicest guys, and 5 or 6 years ago they adopted a boy and a girl from Guatemala who otherwise would have grown up in extreme poverty. No reason on earth in my mind those two great guys should not be allowed to marry.

[GMScud]

The whole "institution" of marriage thing is silly at this point anyway. It's up to each couple to define what their marriage will be. With a 50% divorce rate amongst straight couples, it seems kinda dumb to use the institution argument anymore.

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by GMScud

The whole "institution" of marriage thing is silly at this point anyway. It's up to each couple to define what their marriage will be. With a 50% divorce rate amongst straight couples, it seems kinda dumb to use the institution argument anymore.

Good argument!!

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

My thought is it's silly this is such a big deal. Let them get married and let's get on with more important things.

Agreed. Really though, to me the bigger issue is that they be given proper benefits.

I think I had mentioned this a few years ago, I did a story on the local news on a gay person whose partner of the past 20+ years had died in 9/11. And she couldn't get certain benefits because they weren't married, because they couldn't be married. That was unfortunate, to say the least

But at the end of the day, and I don't mean to be callous when I say it, the issue is not a huge deal for me. But when I see GOP candidates making it a huge deal that discourages me from my party of choice. Though I tend to believe (hope?) that they just say it to get certain votes but if elected, they wouldn't make it such a prominent issue. Same-sex marriage that is, more specifically the notion that there needs to be a constitutional amendment banning it.

And saying it would lead to anarchy is ridiculous, a prolonged NFL Lockout is more likely to lead to anarchy

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Agreed. Really though, to me the bigger issue is that they be given proper benefits.

I think I had mentioned this a few years ago, I did a story on the local news on a gay person whose partner of the past 20+ years had died in 9/11. And she couldn't get certain benefits because they weren't married, because they couldn't be married. That was unfortunate, to say the least

But at the end of the day, and I don't mean to be callous when I say it, the issue is not a huge deal for me. But when I see GOP candidates making it a huge deal that discourages me from my party of choice. Though I tend to believe (hope?) that they just say it to get certain votes but if elected, they wouldn't make it such a prominent issue. Same-sex marriage that is, more specifically the notion that there needs to be a constitutional amendment banning it.

And saying it would lead to anarchy is ridiculous, a prolonged NFL Lockout is more likely to lead to anarchy

Totally. I hate that the the conservative movement has been hijacked by the SOCIAL conservative movement. Why fiscally conservative and socially conservative have to go together I don't know. They actually sorta seem opposite to me from a philosophical standpoint.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Totally. I hate that the the conservative movement has been hijacked by the SOCIAL conservative movement. Why fiscally conservative and socially conservative have to go together I don't know. They actually sorta seem opposite to me from a philosophical standpoint.

The fringe far far far far far right evangelicals among others were a huge reason Bush got elected twice so since then the Republican Party has pandered to their demands. It really is a shame. Romney seems alright though so if he gets elected he'll hopefully just worry about the economy and let the states vote on it which if done long enough will eventually result in legal gay marriage for most of the country.

I always kind of chuckle though at the concept of gay marriage, picturing a portion of the gay population thats against it. "Sorry....buddy I wish we could get married but it's illegal, damn Republicans" when inside they're thinking "Thank you God THANK YOU!"

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

The fringe far far far far far right evangelicals among others were a huge reason Bush got elected twice so since then the Republican Party has pandered to their demands. It really is a shame. Romney seems alright though so if he gets elected he'll hopefully just worry about the economy and let the states vote on it which if done long enough will eventually result in legal gay marriage for most of the country.

I always kind of chuckle though at the concept of gay marriage, picturing a portion of the gay population thats against it. "Sorry....buddy I wish we could get married but it's illegal, damn Republicans" when inside they're thinking "Thank you God THANK YOU!"

That statement is correct excepting the fact that Bush got elected only once.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

My thought is it's silly this is such a big deal. Let them get married and let's get on with more important things.

Pretty much this.

[mredskins]

Waiting for first and buster...internet must be down in Mayberry.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by mredskins

waiting for first and buster...internet must be down in mayberry.

lol!!

[FRPLG]

I hate the concept of gov't sanctioned marriage anyways. It can only be an exclusionary practice by defintion which, to me, makes it problemtaic. Get rid of the gov't sanctioned marriage and allow for civil unions, or whatever, and let's move on.

[JoeRedskin]

I'm in agreement with most here. "Marriage" is a reigious related sacrament. Let each church figure it out.

Govt. should have a simple civil union. Essentially a state sanctioned contract between two people to act partners in all family management issues.