Gay Marriage

[artimas]

What are your take on it? Now with New York being the 6th state to make it happen, what is the view or take on gay marriages? How are they now and what do people think about them?

Less of a journal, more as a discussion.

Let's talk

Comments

[cesarin]

the word marriage per se is dumb..

its all a huge bitch-fight over the name.
id say the governament just should call it "civil union" so the church stops being dicks about it and lets everyone have benefits that they deserve.
:D

[artimas]

but don't you think it's out of equality that marriage be applied for homosexual couples getting married? churches can refuse it what homosexuals are going for are equality: to have the same right as heterosexual relationships/marriages.

well there's common law. but i don't think same sex couples are recognized in it, within the states.

marriage has a stronger appeal to it rather than "civil union." it's got a lot more benefits

[cesarin]

thats the point, the benefits should be the same, except for the name... this is what should have been in the first place. complete separation of church (or religions) from the state.

[firebreathxiii]

Gay marriage, straight marriage...
Everyone should have the right to be as miserable as the other group. :P

But personally, I think it's a step in the right direction.

[artimas]

hahahaha yea that's right. though i think for gay men, it's going to be a lot of misery. guys are guys, that's a fact. they'll screw anything that walks. but to be in a commitment? there's a small percentage of men that can maintain a committed relationship. as much as it's a good thing for the movement, i think it might be a step backwards. it looks good and sounds good, but in practice, is it worth it?

not saying guys aren't committed. just saying, the handful of gay men aren't always faithful.

marriage is a strong bond between two people that love each other. i would hate to think marriage isn't strong and wouldn't be strong with gay men. it's love, and i hope that marriage wouldn't be thrown around disresoectfully because marriage in straight relationships don't last. i would hope that it would be respected more because this is something that we've wanted and earned. not something that can be used in divorces.

[firebreathxiii]

Most straight marriages end up as a divorce within the first year.
Most of the rest, within 5.

I don't see how that would be any different for gays, in the end. Frankly, statistics for non-gay marriages being as bad as they are (and the infamous Britney Spears 24-hours-long marriage is a testament to this), there is no more "sanctity of marriage" nor is it something that has the same meaning for a lot of people.

For me, allowing gay marriages, such as it is in Canada, is great for immigration purposes; it doesn't give a benefit to one group over another (Were I to marry an american women, I could import her without much hassle, but not a man? WTF?! Thankfully, that's not how it is).

Marriage is already thrown around disrespectfully without homosexuals being in it; I honestly think we can't make it worse than it already is. If anything, the "value" of marriage may only go up at this point.

[something_srice]

I don't think a government should be endorsing marriage or civil unions. If you choose to follow a religion that encourages it, fine, but keep my tax dollars out of it and keep the collective "will of the people" from infringing on the rights of an individual.

[artimas]

fair enough. the will of the people do not speak for all individuals. they speak for themselves and their opinions. but again, it's opinions. i would agree on letting same sex couples get their rights and equality as much as the heterosexuals. but what at what point should the people that are neutral about it suffer? if people want to do all that business with the marriages and civil unions, that's fine, but let them pay for it.

religion is respected and should not be imposed on. i hate when religion is brought into a conversation and it has to be answer to all the questions. no. religion is followed by example to live and not imposed on to others.

[something_srice]

Why just couples? If any two people can live together and share those rights then why can't three. Or four?

Or, conversely, why should any two (or three or four) people be offered special privileges in the law over those that choose to live alone? (Maybe it's not a choice to live alone?)

To me it would seem the fairest way would be to not give special privileges to anyone. It's simply not fair for the government to endorse (or not endorse) someone's living arrangement (assuming it is consensual and non-abusive). Live and let live. (Obviously parents should be granted rights giving them control of their children, but parenting and marriage are not synonymous).