Gay marriage

[HBK-aholic]

This is something that is widely debated around the world. In England, a law was passed to allow homosexual couples to have the same rights as hetrosexual couples. This was met with celebration, and opposition from different sides, as many people are still stuck with the idea homosexuals shouldn't be allowed the chance to marry.

Now I'm not sure what the laws on this in America are, but in England I think it's good this way. Homosexual couples deserve the same rights as everyone else, and if they love each other, why shouldn't they? I don't see it as wrong in any way. Homosexuals have been classed as outcasts in society for too long, and this is just a step to show that they are just the same as everyone else, and entitled the the same rights.

I don't think you can help you fall in love with, and if that happens to be with someone of the same sex, well then why should it be any different. There are way too many regulations over who you should fall in love with in society, and so many reasons why people feel they can't be together and it's time they stopped.

So what does everyone else think? Is homosexual marriage right? Is homosexuality even right? What are the views of your states?

 

[Ryukuma]

I will say this about the subject. Gay People ask for way to much, and their on par with people who keep thinking they deserve everything. Around the world gay people were given the right of civil union which pretty much gives them the same rights as marriage. However they want to be considered married, and the problem with this is that its clearly stated that marriage is between a man and a woman. Its a religious thing as far as marriage is, and gay people took it upon themselves to quit following the religious laws. Therefor I think homosexual civil union is fine, but as for marriage I would say thats an insult and is very wrong

 

[HBK-aholic]

I will say this about the subject. Gay People ask for way to much, and their on par with people who keep thinking they deserve everything. Around the world gay people were given the right of civil union which pretty much gives them the same rights as marriage. However they want to be considered married, and the problem with this is that its clearly stated that marriage is between a man and a woman. Its a religious thing as far as marriage is, and gay people took it upon themselves to quit following the religious laws. Therefor I think homosexual civil union is fine, but as for marriage I would say thats an insult and is very wrong

I respect your opinion on thinking they should be allowed a cival union, as I agree with you. There's just a few things I'd ask you to clarify, such as, where it states marriage is between a man and woman, and only a man and woman? Marriage, was legally, always for a man and a woman, because up until quite recently homosexuality wasn't accepted, or understood. Recently this has changed, which is for the better. But should that mean the laws change as well?
I aren't fimiliar with the Bible as such, so is this something said specifically in the bible?

And the religious side you brought up, I don't think really should play a part in it. Simply because, everyone having rights is a legal right in itself, and there is a separation of Church and State.
Furthermore, if marriage is a religious thing, does that mean Athiests shouldn't be able to get married? I mean, they don't have a religion, so is it right they get married?

 

[Slyfox696]

I will say this about the subject. Gay People ask for way to much, and their on par with people who keep thinking they deserve everything. Around the world gay people were given the right of civil union which pretty much gives them the same rights as marriage. However they want to be considered married, and the problem with this is that its clearly stated that marriage is between a man and a woman. Its a religious thing as far as marriage is, and gay people took it upon themselves to quit following the religious laws. Therefor I think homosexual civil union is fine, but as for marriage I would say thats an insult and is very wrong

I love how you're trying to be enlightened, but I'm afraid you're not quite all the way there.

When you say that civil unions give homosexual "pretty much..the same rights", you're excluding MANY rights that a marriage gives to couples of man and women. I'm not going into detail, but will provide a source for you, put together by GLAD, which will explain it.

http://www.yffn.org/admin/spi/marriagevsunion.html


In America, at least, civil unions and marriages will never be equal. So, unless the government recognizes homosexual marriage, there will always be a prejudice against people who are homosexual. Now, some people will cry "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" and other nonsense about how "Marriage is man and woman" or whatever, and that's fine. I have no problem with a marriage being between a man and woman.

HOWEVER, if we're interested in protecting the sanctity of marriage, then the federal government needs to remove ALL governmental benefits for a marriage. That's right, heterosexual couples can keep their marriages, but it carries absolutely no benefit and in the eyes of the law, you're still single. Only after a man and woman enter a civil union, will they be protected under law.

Think about it. It destroys the inequality between heterosexuals and homosexuals, and allows people to keep their precious marriages. It's just that a marriage really means nothing in the eyes of the law. Everybody wins.

I'm a genius. More people should take my advice on moral matters.

 

[Ryukuma]

I respect your opinion on thinking they should be allowed a cival union, as I agree with you. There's just a few things I'd ask you to clarify, such as, where it states marriage is between a man and woman, and only a man and woman? Marriage, was legally, always for a man and a woman, because up until quite recently homosexuality wasn't accepted, or understood. Recently this has changed, which is for the better. But should that mean the laws change as well?
I aren't fimiliar with the Bible as such, so is this something said specifically in the bible?

And the religious side you brought up, I don't think really should play a part in it. Simply because, everyone having rights is a legal right in itself, and there is a separation of Church and State.
Furthermore, if marriage is a religious thing, does that mean Athiests shouldn't be able to get married? I mean, they don't have a religion, so is it right they get married?

Well yes the whole marriage thing is based off different religious parts, Bible, Torah, etc. Most of these books say the same thing of marriage being between a man and a woman.

But no I really don't think laws should change in this case, I mean you state that religious shouldn't have to play a part, but i think they do because if we have to accomodate to gay rights then the rights of religions should be met as well. Laws should only change under the jurisdiction that they are completely unfair, and don't give any alternatives. Example No Women voters was unfair because the women didn't get one advantage or anything from this law or an alternative.

With this whole gay rights part we have given them plenty to work with. they have decided that were not giving enough, but if we gave into these gay rights then we just took away the rights of religions, and where they state it can only be held between a man and women. So now instead of gay rights, were going to have to deal with religious rights. And as for the atheist comment, some atheists don't believe in marriage, but the ones that do still get married because it doesn't say anything about how religious you have to be to get married.

Hope that helped for clarification

 

[Ryukuma]

I love how you're trying to be enlightened, but I'm afraid you're not quite all the way there.

When you say that civil unions give homosexual "pretty much..the same rights", you're excluding MANY rights that a marriage gives to couples of man and women. I'm not going into detail, but will provide a source for you, put together by GLAD, which will explain it.

http://www.yffn.org/admin/spi/marriagevsunion.html


In America, at least, civil unions and marriages will never be equal. So, unless the government recognizes homosexual marriage, there will always be a prejudice against people who are homosexual. Now, some people will cry "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" and other nonsense about how "Marriage is man and woman" or whatever, and that's fine. I have no problem with a marriage being between a man and woman.

HOWEVER, if we're interested in protecting the sanctity of marriage, then the federal government needs to remove ALL governmental benefits for a marriage. That's right, heterosexual couples can keep their marriages, but it carries absolutely no benefit and in the eyes of the law, you're still single. Only after a man and woman enter a civil union, will they be protected under law.

Think about it. It destroys the inequality between heterosexuals and homosexuals, and allows people to keep their precious marriages. It's just that a marriage really means nothing in the eyes of the law. Everybody wins.

I'm a genius. More people should take my advice on moral matters.

Believe me im no expert on the subject, but the fact of the matter is this. Gay people shouldn't be fighting then to get the advantages of being called married, they should fight to get these various rights that a marriage gives. These are government rulings, with maybe a bit of religious.

And if you take away rights from people, just to make the other half happy then all you get is the same headaches. You yourself should probably know this, but you can't make every single person happy. Thats why you try to please the majority. And while your method would help prove no more prejudice in the world, they will find something else to bitch about, and prejudice will never end, unless you could find some random way that gives everyone benefits without the other side knowing about them.

 

[Slyfox696]

Well yes the whole marriage thing is based off different religious parts, Bible, Torah, etc. Most of these books say the same thing of marriage being between a man and a woman.

But no I really don't think laws should change in this case, I mean you state that religious shouldn't have to play a part, but i think they do because if we have to accomodate to gay rights then the rights of religions should be met as well. Laws should only change under the jurisdiction that they are completely unfair, and don't give any alternatives. Example No Women voters was unfair because the women didn't get one advantage or anything from this law or an alternative.

With this whole gay rights part we have given them plenty to work with. they have decided that were not giving enough, but if we gave into these gay rights then we just took away the rights of religions, and where they state it can only be held between a man and women. So now instead of gay rights, were going to have to deal with religious rights. And as for the atheist comment, some atheists don't believe in marriage, but the ones that do still get married because it doesn't say anything about how religious you have to be to get married.

Hope that helped for clarification

Maybe you were not aware, but, at least in the United States (where I'm from), religious beliefs are not to be used as justification, and certainly not the basis, for practicing inequality.

Homosexual couples do NOT have the same rights as heterosexual couples. You act as if homosexuals should be grateful you've given them what you have, and completely miss how they're still not being given the same benefits as everyone else. I mean, why should someone be less of a person, simply because of how they were born? I mean, do you think blacks should have simply been happy we gave them a vote and freedom and should have quit complaining about having to use separate bathrooms? Because, that's essentially what you're trying to say about homosexuals.

 

[Slyfox696]

Believe me im no expert on the subject, but the fact of the matter is this. Gay people shouldn't be fighting then to get the advantages of being called married, they should fight to get these various rights that a marriage gives.

They should be fighting to be treated equally, and right now, they are not being treated equally.

And if you take away rights from people, just to make the other half happy then all you get is the same headaches.

No, no, I'm not taking ANY rights away from anyone. Heterosexual couples can still receive the same rights and benefits that they are now, and they can still be married. I'm not taking away anyone's rights. It's just that marriage and civil rights have nothing to do with one another.

If you want the benefits of being a couple, then you engage in a civil union, just like everyone else.

This way, everyone is treated equally under the law.

 

[Ryukuma]

They should be fighting to be treated equally, and right now, they are not being treated equally.

No, no, I'm not taking ANY rights away from anyone. Heterosexual couples can still receive the same rights and benefits that they are now, and they can still be married. I'm not taking away anyone's rights. It's just that marriage and civil rights have nothing to do with one another.

If you want the benefits of being a couple, then you engage in a civil union, just like everyone else.

This way, everyone is treated equally under the law.

The main problem ive had with your argument from your posts, is the fact that you seem to believe religious shouldn't get a say in this matter. If we were to accomodate in everything gay people wanted, and gave them all their rights. Then what would happen is we have taken rights away from the religious, and now we are prejudice to them, all because we want to solve one problem while creating another. Your also stating that men and women should go under civil union, which would mean they aren't following the religious code. You might as well make religions completely null with their beliefs since your nitpicking at each part that you believe is unfair within the religion. Civil union is a government thing, while Marriage is a religious thing.

 

[Slyfox696]

The main problem ive had with your argument from your posts, is the fact that you seem to believe religious shouldn't get a say in this matter.

It shouldn't.

Why should your religion be considered more important than mine?

If we were to accomodate in everything gay people wanted, and gave them all their rights, then what would happen is we have taken rights away from the religious, and now we are prejudice to them, all because we want to solve one problem while creating another.

How are we taking away rights from people who are religious? Are they still not receiving the same benefits they are now? Yes. Are they still allowed to engage in a religious ceremony of marriage. Yes.

The only difference is that being married doesn't grant them any legal rights, they have to get a civil union to do it. No one is taking away any rights.

Your also stating that men and women should go under civil union, which would mean they aren't following the religious code.

They can still have a religious marriage ceremony.

It just wouldn't mean anything in the eyes of the law. And, why should a religious ceremony mean anything to the law? I mean, I got confirmed in the Catholic faith when I was sixteen, which meant that I was now a full member of the faith, an adult essentially. Could I have gone out and bought a Playboy to celebrate the occasion? Not a chance.

Civil union is a government thing, while Marriage is a religious thing.

And considering we're discussing government privileges, explain to me why religious ceremony should have any part of it.

 

[HBK-aholic]

The main problem ive had with your argument from your posts, is the fact that you seem to believe religious shouldn't get a say in this matter.

Religion shouldn't have a say in the matterot everyone follows your religion so not everyone should have to follow your rules. There's a separation of Church and state for a reason.

If we were to accomodate in everything gay people wanted, and gave them all their rights. Then what would happen is we have taken rights away from the religious, and now we are prejudice to them, all because we want to solve one problem while creating another. Your also stating that men and women should go under civil union, which would mean they aren't following the religious code. You might as well make religions completely null with their beliefs since your nitpicking at each part that you believe is unfair within the religion. Civil union is a government thing, while Marriage is a religious thing.

Tell me what homosexuals have done wrong to not be allowed the same rights as everyone else. It's almost like a punishment for being gay. Rights aren't being taken away from religions. We aren't forcing religions to have gay marriages, but homosexuals should be treated the same as hetrosexuals.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

IC25's Gay Marriage Soapbox​

The Gay Marriage issue is something that I take VERY personally and VERY seriously. If Konnan and X-Fear want to run away together, they should be able to with the same rights as everyone else.

Ok, that was a joke, but seriously, I do take this to heart. I had a gay roommate for 2 years in college and feel I have an intimate understanding of issues such as these. So, here is my stance.

1. The definition of marriage. The inherent flaw in marriage is the fact that it occurs both in religion AND in government. I am a spiritual, religious man, and I want my wedding next year to be in my old church. It means something to me personally that my marriage be done by a priest under the eyes of God.

I also understand that with marriage comes certain government-granted benefits such as with taxes, inheritance, etc. Also, cool - and it encourages (at least somewhat) monogamy.

The real issue occurs when those lines are blurred. Those who hold marriage as a sacred religious sacrament want government benefits withheld from gays, which is in total opposition of the separation of church and state. The two should have NOTHING to do with each other, and the idea of Presidents, Congresspeople, Senators, etc. claiming that marriage SHOULD be defined in the constitution as being between a man and a woman because "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve..." is crap.

2. Marriage vs Civil Unions. Ok, so there is "compromise" giving gay couples the rights and benefits of marriage but refusing to grant the title "marriage." What the fuck? This is such elitest, pretentious garbage, and for some reason, it is because it violates "the sanctity of marriage." More on that in a moment. But the government SHOULD grant benefits between gay, consenting adults - so just let them be "married." This is the same type of bullshit black people went through during the "three-fifths compromise," where blacks were compromised to be regarded as three-fifths of a person, and thus their vote was worth three-fifths of a white vote.
Read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_compromise. Why should gays have to compromise and settle for "marriage light" because the straight people don't want to share a title?

3. The Sanctity of Marriage. I don't know if there is a bigger pile of belly button lint in existance. Sanctity of Marriage? Over 1 million divorces occur every year in the United States. Heterosexual couples can legally and drunkenly stumble into a corner chapel across the street from a casino and get married. Only 5% of all married couples make it to their 50th anniversary either due to death or divorce. The very socially conservative religious right are routinely involved in multiple divorces, often stemming from infidelity. News flash, people - THERE IS NO MORE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE! And there is certainly far LESS sanctity in heterosexual couples than there has been before. You mean to tell me a shotgun wedding at a drive-thru chapel is more holy than two men or two women who love each other looking to marry in a chapel or hall simply because of sexual preference!?

As a side, note, I am a proud Episcopalian. We are a very socially liberal church, and often lead the way in adopting progressive change. We ordain women and homosexuals not just as priests, but as bishops. My father, an Episcopal deacon, takes part in Gay Marriage and Civil Union ceremonies. Well, guess what - male homosexual couples earn an average of 10% MORE than heterosexual married couples per year. If these gay couples find the Episcopal Church as the only one opening their arms and doors to them, then the Episcopal Church will find itself sustainable. Does the Catholic Church have the same outlook?

 

[HBK-aholic]

As a side, note, I am a proud Episcopalian. We are a very socially liberal church, and often lead the way in adopting progressive change. We ordain women and homosexuals not just as priests, but as bishops. My father, an Episcopal deacon, takes part in Gay Marriage and Civil Union ceremonies. Well, guess what - male homosexual couples earn an average of 10% MORE than heterosexual married couples per year. If these gay couples find the Episcopal Church as the only one opening their arms and doors to them, then the Episcopal Church will find itself sustainable. Does the Catholic Church have the same outlook?

I've never heard of this type of Church before, but it seems fascinating. Is it an interpretation on the Christian religion? I think a major problem with the Church is that it is stuck in the past, and doesn't allow itself to move on in time, so that eventually it will be completely unmodern and lose followers.
This seems to bypass that, and I think it's great that it is completely unprejudice towards homosexuals.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

I've never heard of this type of Church before, but it seems fascinating. Is it an interpretation on the Christian religion? I think a major problem with the Church is that it is stuck in the past, and doesn't allow itself to move on in time, so that eventually it will be completely unmodern and lose followers.
This seems to bypass that, and I think it's great that it is completely unprejudice towards homosexuals.

The Episcopal Church is just an Anglican / Protestant denomination of Christianity. Communion, Marriage, Confirmation, Baptism, etc. The structure tends to be socially liberal. So much so that we were recently kicked out of a conservative diocese for condoning and performing same-sex marriage ceremonies. There is tremendous literature available on the Episcopal Denomination.

 

[HBK-aholic]

The Episcopal Church is just an Anglican / Protestant denomination of Christianity. Communion, Marriage, Confirmation, Baptism, etc. The structure tends to be socially liberal. So much so that we were recently kicked out of a conservative diocese for condoning and performing same-sex marriage ceremonies. There is tremendous literature available on the Episcopal Denomination.

Even as an athiest myself, I have always been interested in the way different religions are run, and for what reasons etc. I think you need to know about things before you can make a proper choice based on what you agree with.
I really respect this religion for what it is, and the beliefs involved seem very manageable, in terms of I believe the religion is there majorly to be fair, and to not allow prejudice/discrimination etc. Something I think many religions lack.

 

[klunderbunker]

I grew up with four lesbian cousins and for a good while one of my closest friends was a lesbian as well. I've seen them with their partners and it's clear that they love each other. While I disagree with various aspects of their lifestyles, if they want to be married, why shouuldn't they be allowed to? They are together as much as most husbands and wives, so why shouldn't they be allowed to be together in the same way?

 

[Y 2 Jake]

If gay people want to get married, then it's all good in the hood as far as I'm concerned. Somebody taking the anal route doesn't effect me. So why should I really have an opinion on gay marriage? If you love somebody marry them. If they have lots of money marry them. It doesn't directly effect me, so I don't give a shit.

I'm all for Konnan & xfear realising their true feelings and moving into my basemement.

 

[X]

First off, let me take this time to thank everyone for their kinds words for me and my beau Konnan. We're trying to take things slow right now and just enjoy life (and each others bodies! Tee-hee!) before having to worry about things like marriage.

Hopefully one day he'll ask me that question; I'm swooning right now just thinking about it!

(Okay, now into serious mode)

I take the same position as Jake. Who cares? If you love someone, you love them. Sex, religion, race, nothing makes a difference when you've fallen in love with someone. Gay's should be given the same rights to marriage as a man and a woman.

What angers me about this issue is those who are strictly opposed to gay marriage. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with these people? Were they not hugged enough as a child? Even if you believe that marriage is for a man and a woman only, and even if you believe that all gays will burn in hell, why the fuck do you have to take the time to try and prevent them from this? If they're such God-loving Catholics, why don't they just let gays do whatever the hell they want? Do they not think that their God will punish them enough?

People who are against gay marriage are some of the lowest scum on this planet, a step above pedophiles and rapists in my book. Yes that may seem harsh, but I don't care. You can choose to believe whatever you like about gay people, just leave them alone. What they do in their bedroom doesn't affect you at all whatsoever in the slightest bit.

Thats my take on it.

 

[Eternal Dragon]

This is something that is widely debated around the world. In England, a law was passed to allow homosexual couples to have the same rights as hetrosexual couples. This was met with celebration, and opposition from different sides, as many people are still stuck with the idea homosexuals shouldn't be allowed the chance to marry.

Now I'm not sure what the laws on this in America are, but in England I think it's good this way. Homosexual couples deserve the same rights as everyone else, and if they love each other, why shouldn't they? I don't see it as wrong in any way. Homosexuals have been classed as outcasts in society for too long, and this is just a step to show that they are just the same as everyone else, and entitled the the same rights.

I don't think you can help you fall in love with, and if that happens to be with someone of the same sex, well then why should it be any different. There are way too many regulations over who you should fall in love with in society, and so many reasons why people feel they can't be together and it's time they stopped.

So what does everyone else think? Is homosexual marriage right? Is homosexuality even right? What are the views of your states?

Okay before I start, I'll apologize in advance if I start getting too passionate about this, because that can happen.

I know that everyone has their own thoughts and opinions on homosexual marrige and homosexuality. Some are open to it, and some are not. A lot of people don't like the idea of homosexual marriges because they feel that marrige should be between a man and a woman, and that's their opinion, but I don't think it's fair to force that opinion on everyone else, which is what really happens when gay marrige is banned or made illegal as it is in many places. Usually negativity against homosexuals in general comes from religious teachings and the such, but the government is supposed to be secular right? So why aren't gay marriges legal everywhere?

As for the second question, I believe there's nothing wrong with being gay, just like there's nothing wrong with being yourself. It really frusturates me to see the prejudice and discrimination against the LGBT community everywere. It's kind of shocking how many people just can't accept it. For example, in my high school I'm a part of the Gay-Straight Alliance, and our club wanted to write letters to the Principal in the middle school to see if a club like ours could be created there for kids. We decided that the club in the middle school could either be called "Gay-Straight Student Alliance" or "Diversity Club." Anyways to cut a long story short our club advisor told us that we shouldn't even mention the word "Gay" in our letters let alone call it "Gay-Straight Student Alliance" because the Principal in the middle school and the Administrator would never accept it. Something about how they weren't very tolerant of homosexuals. To say I was totally shocked and baffled and disgusted is an understatement and I just can't fathom how people like that exist and actually hold influence over students in school.

Flames Out
Dragon

 

[NYSandman]

Marriage is mostly a dead gimmick. People nowadays get married for money or because they knocked someone up. Celebrities get married to make news, and I'm willing to bet at least 85% of them end in divorce.

IMO, marriage means nothing anymore. Let them marry if they want. I wonder why anyone even cares? Why must people protest and start shit over something meaningless?

Man/woman, man/man, man/dobermin, woman/alien. Who gives a shit? Why do we even NEED an opinion on these things?

Okay, so let's say you're against gay marriage. Why must people go out and try to get it outlawed when it DOESN'T EFFECT THEM? Yeah, I think the definition of marriage is man/woman, but if it is passed in every state in every country that men can marry men or women can marry women, so what? Meh, with a capital M!

IT DOESN'T EFFECT ME. I just don't get shit like anti-abortion people. Is it your baby being aborted? If not, even if you are against it, why do you have to fuck it up for the people who aren't?

 

[Total Impact]

I have no problem with gay’s getting married as I don’t see why marriage is important. My mother and father look happy together, but they could been find just boyfriend and girlfriend without the whole ceremony.

Gay Marriage is no problem, what if gay’s start to get married, then people will just turn gay? NO! It’s a life style that they chose or was born with it and if they want to get married, then by all means let them getting married as it won’t destroy the institution of marriage. Divorce and adultery has already destroyed the institution of marriage.

 

[Evan Snow-Wolf]

You might as well close this thread. No one is stupid enough to come out truly against homsexuality in a thread like this without getting flamed so hard their ass turns extra crispy and the red rep comes flowing. I made the mistake of criticizing one single solitary aspect of the gay rights movement and took an entire flood of hate over at the CAD forums' Water Heater. Yeah, nope. Move on to the next thread.

 

[wzf2]

I agree with you evansnowwolf. Nobody is gona say anything angainst this because they know there outnumbered here at wrestlezone. It's funny how these people post these, with the intent of getting a good discussion with different views, so they can argue and prevail with there beliefs. But nobody is arguing with them. If I say anything, given the amount of posters for gay rights, I'll end up posting for days. I have things to do.

 

[HBK-aholic]

No the thing is, it depends who answers you. Because posting for days about something is generally called a debate, and it's what happens on forums. If anyone flames you, they shouldn't and a mod will then get involved.

If someone is against homosexuality then that's their opinion and everyone is entitled to that. But for people that disagree, they want to understand why they feel the way they do, and also make the other person understand their point of view. It's not a personal war, and shouldn't turn so. As I said, if it does a moderator should get involved.

 

[Matt Phoenix]

I agree with you evansnowwolf. Nobody is gona say anything angainst this because they know there outnumbered here at wrestlezone. It's funny how these people post these, with the intent of getting a good discussion with different views, so they can argue and prevail with there beliefs. But nobody is arguing with them. If I say anything, given the amount of posters for gay rights, I'll end up posting for days. I have things to do.

I would like to think that if you can come up with a rational, logical view clearly stating why you are against said topic, then at least people will respect that.

Ok, here I go

NB. I am speaking of Australia in this, I cant and wont speak for any other countries.

I am not for gay marriage and it is due to the word marriage. Whether we like it or not marriage is historically a religious event with religious meaning and in this day religion still has a major influence on a great deal on political and social views and outcomes. Also if history has shown us anything it is that religion is not really tolerant when it comes to so called alternative lifestyles, by that I am referring to the GLBT section of society. Although I am aware that there are religions out there that acknowledge and respect all people, regardless of differences, these are in the minority.

Getting back on track, as long as religion is still a dominant force in society I highly doubt that the gays will ever be allowed to be married and have that marriage recognised by the state.
Civil unions and equal rights are a different question altogether IMO and I believe they are just around the corner here in Oz.

Although even if my boyfriend and I could get married, I would honestly choose not to and I know he feels the same way, simply because of the religious history associated with marriage. I view marriage as just a piece of paper, my boy knows I love him, and I want him to know that I am with him because I want to be, not because some piece of paper says I should be. Also as many people have said before these days getting married pretty much equates to shite when you consider the revolving door at the divorce court.

I cannot speak for others but all I want is the same rights, legally, that any hetero couple have, eg. super, medical proxy, wills, tax. and I am fully aware that I have totally contradicted myself but while I have the freedom to be who I want to be then unfortunately so does the church, which means that I do not want them to force their beliefs onto me, I cannot in all good conscience ask them to perform something they dont want.

In summary marriage, no thanks. Some other word that pretty much means the same thing minus the religous attachment yes, but I do not wish to partake but that doesnt mean that others shouldnt be able to.