• S E X
    L O V E +
    R E L A T I O N S H I P S


    ❤️ Welcome Guest! ❤️


    Posting Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • SLR Moderators: axe battler | xtcgrrrl | arrall

gay marriages (merged)

Spare Me Your Sermons

Only state that allows gay marriage also has nation’s lowest divorce rate

BOSTON — In an irony on the radar of both conservatives and liberals, researchers have noted that the areas of the country where divorce rates are highest also are the same areas where many conservative Christians live, the New York Times reported. Voters in states like Kentucky, Mississippi and Arkansas, for example, overwhelmingly approved state constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage, the Times reported. But those three states also had the highest divorce rates in 2003, according to figures from the Census Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics, the Times stated. The state with the lowest divorce rate was Massachusetts, which is the only state that currently allows same-sex marriage, according to the Times. “Some people are saying, ‘The Bible Belt is so pro-marriage, but gee, they have the highest divorce rates in the country,’” Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, co-director of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University, told the Times.
 
was this country not founded based on religious freedom??? so who the hell is anyone to tell anyone else who they can and can not marry???? i mean really, i thought church and state were supposed to be seperate??? so why are we even voting on a religious ideal???
 
Your thoughts on Gay Marriage and Civil Unions

Jesus wouldn't hate or not love anyone even if they were gay. I am not for gay marriage to be honest because that is a sacred and religious thing. Civil unions on the other hand I do support. You see nowadays marriage has lost much of it's religious and sacred meaning and become mostly a contract between two people. This was in no part tied to marriage as God would have it but created by man, all these benefits. In other words it would only be fair to give these benefits to homosexual couples as well because they have nothing to do at all with marriage in reality, or at least they shouldn't. In a way it's also meeting both sides half-way. I don't see how this decision compromises the integrity of marriage and its sacredness or denies certain benefits that all these people are entitled to no matter
what their sexuality is. If anything the heterosexuals themselves turning it into nothing more than a contract or legal matter under the system rather than under God and destroying marriage. If marriage has it's meaning or sanctity totally stripped away someday by everyone then it just turns into a joke and there will be two types of marriages to define this word and those kinds of marriages you might as well give to homosexual couples because they will have nothing more to do with God anymore. BTW yes if
you are wondering I myself am gay.
 
Are you also against heterosexual marriages performed in a secular manner by a judge? Sounds like maybe?

I personally don't care what other people do, gay or not, religious or not, I see it as none of my business or anyone else's. It harms no one that any couple chooses to marry...I prefer to seek sacredness and spirituality in my own life rather than scrutinizing others.
 
Get's back to my one post about man stepping in to do the lords work which never ends good. Have a read at just this post here:

http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?postid=3087569#post3087569

You're right it isn't any person's business. It seems the judge thing is just awkward to me but I never really thought enough about it to develop feelings about it. Marriage has just been turned into a joke or a pary or festival anymore that can be undone so many times by some many people so easily. We don't need to be paying so much attention to homosexual marriages as we do the heterosexual ones. They are destroying it and making it a joke as I said or about money and property and contracts. There should be penalties, stiff or not, or fines for divorce. Make it harder to get married maybe. You could even offer classes for marriage just like you do for mace or guns or driving/flying just like anything else that requires a liscense. Why would you not have a class for this and have a class offered for everything else? Should it be manditory too or not? If the way this country is though with freedom of religion they would have to leave religious teachings out of the class though and just include modern and contractual things in the lectures.
 
Last edited:
In the case of homosexuals, I do not believe any church should have to marry them, as it is not in line with their belief system. I do believe they should have the right to wed legally. I still cannot get over the fact that this debate still rages on and on. 8(
 
Exactly it used to be only higher religious figures that would perform marriages, not judges, which was a point I was trying to hint at. Like I said it's just wierd. Religious marriage and legal marriage. That pretty much defines the two types I mentioned in the opener of this thread.
 
Agreed with misscelestia.

I think if an official of a particular religion chooses to marry homosexuals, I believe that official should be allowed to do so, even if others of his religion might disagree.
 
To be honest I really don't care personally because I know we love each other and I don't need any official binding to prove it etc. I just would find it unfair that other people are getting legal benefits that I wouldn't be getting.
 
Ironically still the country was founded on specific religion too. The constitution is based on the commandments and other laws. Also: One nation under God. You can do what ever you want but if you want anything from us you have to comform to our religion.
 
I am for gay marriage. I think people should be allowed to marry who ever they want, regardless of sex. I see nothing wrong with it at all.
 
Why does it even have to be classed as GAY marriage - we dont say oh they had a straight marriage. If two consenting adults want to live together and be recognised by the state, law, goverment and general public as a couple then thats a personal choice and should be allowed.
 
Why does it even have to be classed as GAY marriage - we dont say oh they had a straight marriage. If two consenting adults want to live together and be recognised by the state, law, goverment and general public as a couple then thats a personal choice and should be allowed.

That's how I see it.

Contrary to what it looks like when two men are together it's not always a gay relationship, in that both men are not always gay/homosexual.

Sometimes both men are bisexual and not homosexual/gay at all Sometimes one is bisexual and the other one is gay/homosexual.

Likewise the same goes for women who are in relationships sometimes they are both bisexual or one is Lesbian and the other woman is bisexual or a Bi-dyke.

Same with couples who look like they are both heterosexual one or both people can be bisexual.

Also not all queer men and women even like calling their relationship a "marriage" or want a "marriage".

Many are fine with Civil Unions and have the opinion that marriage is a heterosexual institute and not something that queer or bisexual/gay/lesbian/Trans people should engage in since it doesn't apply to them.

Some are against the American politics of same gender marriage and think that queer men and women should just take civil unions instead of marriage, and more people are comfortable with the idea of same gender civil unions than same gender marriages.

I think that queer people should be allowed to marry but if I met a guy and we wanted to settle down and live together and build a life together with each other I would either go to a state where it's legal and marry him, or if our state offered Civil Unions I'd just do one of those and I'd be OK with it.
 
People always act shocked when I tell them that I am against gay marriage.

But the thing is, I am also against straight marriage.

That is, at the state or federal level. I truly believe in separation of church and state.

If you support gay marriage in the sense that you want equal rights for all, then you ARE also supporting church and state being (to an extent) mixed. Again, I truly believe in separation of church and state.

IMO, marriage should be privitized and not recognized legally at any level of government. Churches/religious establishments could create their own notions of marrage (aheist "churches" could open up for people who want to wed as atheists), and each organization could define marriage in its own way. In turn, people could wed under a church that was best taylored to their needs. Let the churches bicker between each other, and leave legislators out of it. They should be attending to more practically important things.

Yes, I am aware that this would involve massive changes in everything from medical care to accounting, but I've got defenses ready for most of those issues.
 
Last edited:
^ Interesting point :)

At the risk of sounding ignorant, I wasn't aware that marriage was a religious thing? I mean, I know that many people CHOOSE to make it religious (wedding in church, etc.) but I didn't realise that marriage as a general definition was religious. Hmm...

Basically what it comes down to, is that whatever legal rights a straight unioned couple has, the same should be given to a gay unioned couple. Period. I don't even think I need to explain why, as there are numerous awesome posts in here discussing the reasons to advocate for this :D

Bottom line, denying some people their liberties based on sexual orientation is closed-minded and ridiculous 8)
 
^ Interesting point :)

At the risk of sounding ignorant, I wasn't aware that marriage was a religious thing? I mean, I know that many people CHOOSE to make it religious (wedding in church, etc.) but I didn't realise that marriage as a general definition was religious. Hmm...

Asking whether the idea of marriage is inextricably linked to religion/spirituality is opening up a whole new can of worms (first worm asking "How do I define "religion"?"). Any historical definition that one finds for marriage will be one which uses religious terminology, yes. But just as I may call you "religious" while you call yourself "spiritual," it's really hard to say in our crazy modern world. In an extreme case, marriage can nothing more than a person being granted citizenship in a coutry, or to prevent deportation.

So it's hard to really say. It's possibly not a sound argument to say "Marriage, as it exists today, precludes the ability to have a separate church and state." But in all practicality, I use it. Mostly, since 99.5% of popular debate about gay rights has the opposition side coming with religious arguments. Essentially, it's the type of word with a definition that is subjective and evolves over time. So I am just borrowing from their (gay rights opponents) dictionaries.

Getting me going on politics is like opening a carton of nightcrawlers :)

Okay, so the pro-gay marriage argument typically goes something like this:

Same-sex couples should be given the same rights as heterosexual couples. If marriage is a right for straight couples, then it should also be a right for homosexual couples. Should they be made to feel like their love is any different than that between straight couples? Surely not! The government needs to give homosexual couples the right to marry, or else our "freedoms" feel a bit less "free."

Equal rights. Equal rights to what? Names on a piece of paper? Ya, I mean that's fun and all, but I think a lot of advocates are quick to flag federal discounts, obtained through marriage, which would not necessarily be available to the desiring homosexual couple. Tax deductions/joint-filing. Lower insurance premia. Medicare help. Life insurance payouts. Et cetera. "It is unfair that my government denies such entitlements to my partner and I simply becuase we're of the same sex, whereas straight couples are assisted left and right."

However, there are two angles to this. What about if two people, irrespective of sexuality, CHOOSE to not marry, but instead be life-long companions. This choice could be religious (heh, or more likely anti-religious), or simply personal. Why should they also be punished financially by the government because they do not marry? Couldn't their love be just as real, and their rights to government money be tantamount?

So the latter couple decides to get married afterall, so as to save money. They are life-long partners becuase they love each other, but they are getting married solely for financial betterment. In this case, marriage is reduced to purely a "financial agreement," made between the couple and supervised by the state and federal governments.

Speaking as a person who would be completely fine with a life-long partner and feels no need to "solidify" love via marriage, I'm rightfully pissed off that my government may one day "pressure" my and my partner into marrying purely for financial benefit.

Shouldn't marriage be completely about love, though? Or at least for those who choose it, as a way to extend love?

By legalizing gay marriage, you give gay couples the same "rights" as straight couples, but the long-term couple has less rights than those two groups.

By privitizing all marriage, all three groups, under a free-market, have fair and equal rights.

To me, the latter ulitmately is the fairest and makes the most sense.

I want to think that marriage is an expression of love, and our government shouldn't have a say in how we should be able to love (okay, bar things like sleeping with children and such). Love is private and personal, a social feeling instead of a legal forum. Just like our government shouldn't dictate how we practice sex (an expression of love) or how/if we attend church (an expression of a different type of love), it should have NO say in how we express love via marriage.

A marriage certificate right now is a "license," as opposed to a "contract," even though people like to throw around the latter in discussion. This is clever, though, as if marriage were defined as a contract (a la a typical business contract), the Constitution would insist that gay marriage be legal.

According to the Constitution (AI S10), the government has a right to enforce contracts, but does not have a right to prevent individuals from entering into them. This is not the same for a license, where the federal and state governments are given more liberty to control eligability (not through the Constitution, but based on rolling legislation).

So I suggest that we make marriage licenses into legal "marriage contracts." In this way, individuals could set the terms of their contract (marriage) as they see fit. The government could enforce them (such as enforcing prenuptual criteria to be met) via the court systems, but not prevent any two people from entering them. Private churches, other religious establishments, or simple organizations could have stadard templates for such contracts.

In this sense, opponents of gay marriage would then just be left to use soft arguments against the contracts of gays ("Your contract isn't as good as my contract!"). On one extreme end, religious contracts would be very specific and fundamentalists could actually write MORE into them. And on the other extreme end, the long-term couple could feel more like they're just a long-term couple with a business contract, and not "married" as society dictates.

Everyone's legally equal. Sure, the debate over homosexuality as a sin/lifestyle will perpetuate forever. But this would fix the legal rights controversy for gays. And it would allow people like me to not be excluded from government benefits, given my desire to not enter into a thing (marrage) which my society, as a whole, more often than not considers religious-by-nature.

</libertarian rant>

(*Note that if I wasn't arguing this position, I'd be supporting gay marrage ;) )
 
Last edited:
Top