|
Author
|
Topic: Gay marriage
|
Delightful Little Capuchin Monkey
VoivodFan
Member # 65
|
posted August 07, 2003 14:47
    
I watched the first 20 minutes of the new Bill Maher show on HBO last night, and was in disbelief at how convoluted the arguments against gay marriage are. Without fail, the argument against always seems to fall back on how the 'Bible says it's wrong'. Hmm. Okay, so they're referring to Leviticus. Yeah, in Leviticus it also says that you have the right to put to death any man that works on a Sunday. Doesn't it make sense that someone who says that homosexuals should not be allowed to get married because the Bible says it's wrong also agree that I should be allowed to kill the poor schmuck working behind the counter of a 7-11 on a Sunday afternoon? Sound absurd? I wish these people would just be honest and admit that they just don't like gays and have a prejudice towards them. They're the worst kind of fucking pussy. I wouldn't agree with them, but at least they wouldn't be trying to hide behind their religion. I also love it when someone says "I don't have anything against them, they can do what they want behind closed doors - just don't hit on me!" - this is usually some fat fucking disgusting slob with a hairy back talking about some gay dude who looks like Brad Pitt. Yeah, I'm sure he dreams of licking your balls. Anyway, my own view on the issue is that it's ridiculous to argue that people shouldn't be allowed to be married if they love each other. Why is it okay for Eric Menendez to get married while he's serving life in prison for killing his parents, but a couple of women who are kind, hard-working, good people can't get married? Or two guys who love each other? Whenever I see that some dumbfuck beat the crap out of his wife and kids, my blood boils. THIS guy was allowed to get married. Great. I don't care if someone argues that "marriage" by definition means "the union of a man and a woman". Okay, fine. Call it something different. Call it getting "partnered" or "unified" - whatever. Homosexuals pay taxes just like heterosexuals and should be able to enjoy the same tax and insurance privileges that married straight people have.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nia
VoivodFan
Member # 9
|
posted August 11, 2003 19:31
First, although I am not gay, I would like to point out that gay sex isn't always about getting smoked in the bum hole. Anyway this discussion is not about sex, it's about a legal contract - marriage, and those of us who are married or have been married know that sex and marriage are not always synonymous anyway, haha. I agree that the concept of family as 'one man, one woman and child(ren)' is outdated. Why shouldn't a lesbian couple get married and adopt or use invitro? Why shouldn't gay men adopt? What about children of divorce who's parents come out and want to remarry? Shouldn't they be afforded the right to be legally associated with their future step-parent? What gives someone else the right to say that that person should not be recoginzed in the eyes of the law as just as important as someone of the opposite sex would be in the life of that child? If churches don't want to recognize gay unions that's their business, but a democratic government has a responsibility to put its citizens legal affairs in order in an equitable way. The bureaucratic hypocrisy of this issue dumbfounds me. As a Canadian I am thankful that Canada's Supreme Court declared that same-sex partners must be considered spouses in 1999, opening the door to allow the same persons to be married. This is about human dignity and there is nothing dignified about saying that one union is more worthy of recognition than another. And as we are discussing what kind of marital unions should be recognized by the courts, one might also want to consider that one in 80 children in the US is born with Gender Dysphoria, some kind of physical sex or gender anomaly - making them sexually ambigious. So when 'boy' or 'girl' is entered on the Birth Certificate it's simply assigned. Not every person with an assigned identity assumes those sexual characteristics even if the law regards them as male or female.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
