Ban On Gay Marriage Struck Down

This. And the ceremony means something to people even if it is not religious and carried out in front of a judge.

The religious rite of marriage has a civil counterpart because of equal rights issues, I believe. In other words, you can persecute a given sect through refusing to recognize their right to marriage because they do not follow an established religion. The civil act of marriage conveniently circumvents this.

This is exactly what the gay marriage bans are all about...the people who vote for these amendments view homosexuality as a choice (and something that can therefore be "cured"). Since it is a "privelege" to choose to be gay, you can be denied the right of marriage in the same way that minors can be denied the right to view porn, drink, or smoke (i.e. they are not of "majority" age). Or people convicted of a felony can be denied the right to vote.

I think there's more to the wedding ceremony than the religious aspect.

It's a chance to stand in front of all your friend's and family and swear a life long commitment to the person you love.

I have a feeling this will be upheld. Fingers crossed for legalized marijuana!

You won't see me defending christian straight couples. They sin just as much if not more than gays. I'm not saying straight couples who sin should be allowed to marry either, I was just pointing out I don't see why gays would want to partake in it is all.


I didn't say christian, I said religious. Was the religion that started "Holy Matrimony" one that did not consider homosexuality bad? Though today's marriage has somehow been morphed into american christianity, which is against homosexuality.

If I was gay and a group of people hated me so much they don't want me partaking in their religion and ceremonies, I would say *** them and not want to. It's not like you don't get equal rights in a civil union.

You also mentioned the ceremony represents proof of love, it does not, over 50% of marriages end in divorce, that's not love to me, not to mention the cheating that happens less than a year after marriage.

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing lol.

lol

Wait..wait..aren't Gays evil tho?

/stab












Not at all.

Sometimes, I wish I was gay... Women are insane.

Lmao.

Only the ones that eat da poo poo. Which is apparently all of them. /sarcasm

Saved that ***. Epic.
OMG can we not talk about the poo poo video? XD As hilarious as it is...

My thought is that this is one step to redefining what a family is. Family always to me meant blood relatives cousins and even half brothers and sisters if you grew up close enough to them. Is it blood or love that makes a family? I'm fond of my in-laws and would feel horribly for my wife if one of them were to die but it wouldn't "hurt" me or make me dispair. I'd be hurting for us but more for her. Can you even call it a family if there's no way to procreate?

Who the hell wants to marry in a church? Walking through a corridor of ppl, awful music in background and in addition all that *** rituals...no thanks rofl.

Another way to marry is as follows: You sign a paper, pay about 70 bucks, walk into an office and after 10 minutes it's over, you're man and woman. After that: Steak and beer with good friends, swap rings and nothing really changes (regarding the relationship).

And of course gay ppl wanna marry cause they want to have the same rights as others. It's a shame that in 2010 ppl still talking about whether gays should be allowed to marry or not (in general, not ppl in forum here). God dammit, who the *** cares if 2 women/men whant to be together?! I don't get it.

Codeword: Secularisation, draining power of religious agencies, go out and demonstrate (like ACT-UP in the 80s). Is there a worse thing than conservatism? I don't think so!

I think there's confusion about the definition of marriage. These lawsuits are about the legal, government definition, not the religious one. Any church can still refuse to recognize or perform a gay marriage, and are in fact protected in this right by the First Amendment and the separation of church and state.

I know Loving v. Virginia specifically refers to the state of Virginia directly intervening in the marriage of a white man and a black woman. The couple had traveled to Washington DC to get married (where interracial marriages were legal), but the state of Virginia refused to recognize the union, and stormed their home with police to physically separate them. The ruling was from 1964, I believe.

Despite federal rulings to the contrary, most christians seem to believe that sexual orientation is a choice and therefore should not be legally protected under the same legal statutes as race and beliefs (for example, hate crimes legislation). If you don't regard gays as a "protected minority", then it becomes easy to toss out the rest of the argument.

There are both women and men who cannot procreate, through straight sex. So, can they never have a family?

Can we really quit bringing religion into this lol not all of us religious people are insane and so backwater hick that we believe everyone is a sinner.

But if you ARE going to keep going that aspect: Jesus forgave people for their sins. If you repent, supposedly, you will be forgiven for your sins by God.

If I was being held accountable for half the ***I have done in my life even being a Christian myself I know I'm going to hell.

There are a lot of things the bible says that we have broken over the years but people see nothing wrong with it. Bring up homosexuality and people go crazy.

I agree with whomever said its sad being 2010 people can't let things go and get over it.

Considering I already said I could care less what happens either way, you are arguing just for the sake of it.

I have just spoken logically on why it makes no sense for gays to want to get married CONSIDERING they have a non-religious equivalent with equal rights. You have said opinions on why they want to. They have the right to want to, hell they can have the right to get married for all I care. Marriage, even straight marriage is a sham. You can't argue with what I've said though, all you have said were opinions.

^ this, while I have nothing against gay people, marriage is a religiouse thing, I will not go into bible topics at all it will just cause a big uproar but basically if you want to be gay that's fine, I just don't see where religion would play any part in that

The defendants (no to gay marriage) used this "marriage is for procreation and family" argument but it was rejected by the judge. The successful counter argument was that we have never denied sterile couples or those over fertile age the right to marry.

Also, for those still saying marriage is religious in nature, this ruling (and others) reject that argument as well. So no dice.

Quiet, woman, get off the comp and get back to your Christian wifely duties.

good decision
tho i dont approve of homosexuality, it is not my place or any governments to deny anyone the right to live how they choose.

That is what this country is SUPPOSED to be about, Freedom.
As long as its not infringing on anyone else's freedom or causing harm to anyone else, then it is no one's place to deny them the right.

Now if we could just get rid of our classist tax system, stop all the *** entitlement programs, legalize herbs, overturn RvW, and stop trying to nation build, we may just get lucky enough to get back on the path to the way this country is supposed to be! =)

Kojo how dare you speak blasphemy of there being womenz on the internets. And, who said I was married lol?

I'm just saying people should get over their damn phobias grow up and move on with their lives instead of Q.Qing about what other people do with theirs.

As far as I know, a woman who used to be a man can marry a man, and a man who used to be a woman can marry a woman. I don't see what the big deal is, but neither of those types of couples can procreate.

Are you saying you're available?

Dibs.

Good point. My wife and I are at the moment in such a position. The answer to your question depends on the individuals. For me, if it doesn't work out for us, adopting just won't fix my urge to have a family of my own. Being able to see yourself inside someone else is my definition of family. I think many others see it that way.

I SAW HER FIRST!!