Stance on gay rights?

[mvgulik]

Some things, such as marriage, really isn't a right, but some socio-religious recognized legal position that really doesn't have a place in the world outside of religion.

Rights ... Privileges. Depends on who you ask and what there definitions for those words are.

Marriage : Think your ignoring the fact that people intrinsically look for 1) clarity/security, and 2) what others can/have/do.
Your sure marriage is not older than any current religion. The fact that that they just made a bigger deal of it don't makes it obsolete. (a rewrite, or availability in more flavors would not be a bad thing. The next thing would be that you just make it a purely legal agreement ... Which I think is completely sane on one hand, and completely insane on the other.)

Here in Holland ... two retired individuals living separably (on welfare), only have to eat three or more times a week together before they run the risk of being tagged as living together ... Accompanied with a substantial pay cut off course. (Talk about anti social rules in favor of fixing budget deficits.)

[MagicManICT]

The concept of monogamous relationships and such is as old as.... well, beats me. I know homo sapiens has never been purely monogamous nor purely polygamous. I guess I'm looking at this from the point of view of an American with all the great debate of "gay marriage" that's been going on here the last few years.

The big argument (here in the US at least) is marriage is a legal institutionalization of a religious concept. From a religious view, without a marriage, you're producing bastard children and will go to Hell for committing adultery. It's also defined as a union between a man and a woman. This brings up all kinds of discussion of dogma I really don't feel like getting into about Catholicism and Protestantism, at least in Christianity. (I really don't know if other religions hold the whole "marriage sacrament" that the Catholic church teaches, so I can't comment... it's not one of those things I was really ever curious about, though now that I'm discussing it, it is.)

From a purely legal view, the concept of marriage conveys all kinds of legal benefits in the US, such as tax breaks, ease of adopting children, etc. Thus the argument that any couple, be they straight, gay, or whatever, should be allowed to reap these benefits if they so choose because, according to the Constitution of the United States, there must be separation of Church and State.

I say this just so I've explained my view as marriage being a social-religious structure. Without a religion saying "you must get married", is there really any purpose in recognizing it other than for some legal benefits? (I could bring into the discussion all sorts of things such as divorce rates, etc., but I feel those are very subjective and can be interpreted in a lot of ways because humanity is complicated.)

edit: there's some legal definitions of "rights" and "privilege" that are held internationally, but can vary from country to country. I'm not a legal expert, though, so beyond that, I try to stick to the definitions in Webster's.

[Mateusz_Zboj]

As long as they don't have kids.

[brohammed]

Didn't read the thread, but nobody should be discriminated against based on their sexual preferences, and gay/poly marriages should definitely be a thing. Denying them benefits nobody.

[scourage]

I think all marriage should be legally defined as a union between 2 consenting adults, straight or gay and they should all have the same rights/privileges as one another. I'd even support polygamous unions if they didn't get compounding tax-breaks. Let the whole business of what "marriage" means be left to peoples personal beliefs. I mean people "get married" and consider themselves married after the wedding even though the marriage license hasn't been validated. Before marriage licenses existed marriage was legit after the ceremony. Even today a marriage can be nullified if the bride and groom don't have sex within a reasonable amount of time. When the first supposed marriage (according to the bible) happened, all Adam and Eve did was have sex in a garden and the deal was done.

What I don't understand is how people act like gay marriage somehow invalidates their marriage. If you are married for personal, religious or social reasons then the legal portion of the marriage is little more than tax-breaks and other benefits that any couple should be able to enjoy. As far as the "married for religious or other reasons" people should be concerned, if they had no marriage license then they are still married in the eyes of their friends, family and their god. Allowing the gays to get some benefits doesn't diminish the sanctity of anyone else's marriage. Most of the anti-gay marriage I have seen has more to do with people wanting to oppress other people because of their own religion. Religion tends to be that way, where being oppressed is wrong but somehow oppressing others is a-ok.

This is why I think the founding fathers wanted a separation of religion and state, and why they made the constitution a timeless document. Doesn't matter what the world is like when we read it the words still apply, that alone should allow the inclusion of different groups of people. If they really wanted to they could have defined the "men" in the constitution as "straight christian white males" but they didn't. What they did was allow the people reading it at the time it was written to put themselves in the position of "men" while allowing future generations to do the same.

[Sarchi]

As long as they don't have kids.

What's wrong with a same-sex couple adopting children?

[dagrimreefah]

Some things, such as marriage, really isn't a right, but some socio-religious recognized legal position that really doesn't have a place in the world outside of religion.

Rights ... Privileges. Depends on who you ask and what there definitions for those words are.

Marriage : Think your ignoring the fact that people intrinsically look for 1) clarity/security, and 2) what others can/have/do.
Your sure marriage is not older than any current religion. The fact that that they just made a bigger deal of it don't makes it obsolete. (a rewrite, or availability in more flavors would not be a bad thing. The next thing would be that you just make it a purely legal agreement ... Which I think is completely sane on one hand, and completely insane on the other.)

Here in Holland ... two retired individuals living separably (on welfare), only have to eat three or more times a week together before they run the risk of being tagged as living together ... Accompanied with a substantial pay cut off course. (Talk about anti social rules in favor of fixing budget deficits.)

To give one person privileges is to take the rights away from another.

What's wrong with a same-sex couple adopting children?

It fucks the kid's mind up and they grow up being chomos.

[UberGamerLeeway]

It fucks the kid's mind up and they grow up being chomos.

Just like video games make kids murderers.....oh wait.

[mazeT]

Banning Kaizokuroof shows that the mods stand up for gay rights and actively participate in homosexual activities. Kaizo didn't derail the thread or anything, he simply stated facts. Thus showing that the mods don't want to be considered to have mental illness, like Kaizo said homosexuals (mods) stated with this quote.

this may suggest a possible link between homosexuality and mental illness.

BANNED 1 MONTH

Just so we all know
Real maze no longer plays, he's retired till the next world opens up.
The people who been useing mazes account to mask there forum trolls are there fore making a bad name for maze.

So please. Maze imposter's, gtfo, my password been changed
Good day now *tips hat*

yours truly,
the drunken and real Maze
PS: Retired or break, playing Diablo 3 - MazeElwin#1281
peace *waves*

[brohammed]

To give one person privileges is to take the rights away from another.

Equal rights are not zero-sum.