Gay rights or "Same Sex Relationship" has been recognized by several countries. Some of the places that recognize same sex relationship/marriages include Spain, Argentina, Canada, and 5 US states. Many places like New York however recognize same sex relationship but has yet to put it a marriage certificates.

Many countries are more open and liberal about same sex marriage and why not. If you love someone enough why can't you just marry them; that's where it gets into a gray area. Many people consider same sex marriage unethical and wasteful as they can't have children. My opinion however is that becuase they have to adopt children most of the time ergo less orphans. That and the fact that becuase once the law is in place they will be a major surge of marriages stimulating the economy. Many conservatives believe that a marriage should be between a man an a women. I don't find it right that becuase two people are just different allows them more rights then a same sex couple who truly love each other. Many however argue that the social aspect of parenting requires both a mom and a dad so that they can get a male and female authority figure. Many kids and teenagers put into this situation usually have a social indifference. In my opinion it just makes your social morales stronger becuase you are grown up more liberal. However the biggest argument towards same sex couples is the religious aspect of it. Some religions have always been more open to same sex marriage/relationship. But other religions like some sects of Christianity don't allow it becuase of the fact its immoral. The immorality roots from the unproductive sex that won't create children. Its a difference between right of marriage and right of religion.

Obama has even recognized same sex marriage but he is rather neutral about the situation. I would suspect that he doesn't want to lose some of his voters that are strongly against same sex marriage but he has acknowledge it. Same sex marriage hasn't been recognized on the federal level yet but as we grow as a civilization and as a people as a whole we won't judge as much anymore but there will always be someone conservative and be prude to the idea.

My two cents... your thoughts?

Quote

But other religions like some sects of Christianity don't allow it becuase of the fact they can't reproduce.

Incorrect. We don't allow it because God says it is immoral. Like stealing, rape, extramarital sex, etc.

Thanks for that, fixing op.

Doesn't God say it's immoral because you can't reproduce?

I've yet to see a legitimate argument put forth by a conservative as to how two men marrying each other could be harmful to them at either an individual, state, or national level. Mostly it's "more like one group trying to control another group. In other words, business as usual in America."

Even if it's a choice/unnatural/whatever, it still doesn't hurt anyone, so I still don't give a shit.

Well the conservatives are prudes trying to preserve the old ways.

They argue that gay people spread disease but they spread it as much as any other straight couple.

in my personal opionion they should be entitled to any rights that are given by marriage, but should not be allowed to alter the rules of a religiously rooted institution. (I support strengthening civil unions, not changing marriage)

Well that's when you start to go a gray area but i do agree that same sex marriages should have all the rights straight marriage has.

Gay marriage should be entirely deregulated. I do believe that a wedding is a religious - or at least a spiritual - event between the two people in the presence of whatever god(s) (or lack there of, obviously) they want present. The state really should have no say in it, because I think its more an expression of love between two people. Now, on the other side of this, I think that if a gay couple approached a priest and asked him to marry them, and he said no, he should not face penalties. At that point I think you're asking him to compromise his beliefs...and this becomes a messy case of gay rights versus religious rights. And then we get into the rights to refusal of service. But where does it get us? Honestly, I do not think the gay couple is being harmed because they cannot be married by that particular pastor/priest/holy man.

A domestic contract, though, I'm all for that. Anyone can sign a domestic contract with anyone they want. It just makes sense. Even if two guys are heterosexual life partners, I am okay with it. But...they have to be prepared to make the full commitment to each other that would come with marriage as we see it today. Can it be abused? Of course! But marriage is abused already. Gold diggers marrying rich old guys for the security, best friends marrying because its convenient...this is not what marriage is meant for to begin with! I already know a couple of couples who are in "open" marriages to some degree. I don't consider that abuse of the system though, because they both knowingly accepted these terms and are okay with each others actions. I'll be honest. If a guy and his wing man want to sign a domestic contract, promising all the fun stuff that comes with it to each other, so be it. What they'd have to ask themselves is, "Is this the person I want next to my hospital bed when I'm dying?" If the answer is truthfully yes, go for it! And this isn't a contract that can be lightly made and broken - though that already happens anyways if you have the right lawyer.

Overall I guess I'm trying to say that marriage needs to be entirely deregulated. Domestic contracts between any two people of majority should become the norm. And if those two people for religious purposes (ie recognized by the church) or otherwise choose the have a ceremony so be it. I consider myself possibly one of the most conservative members on this board but I don't really see any problem with a gay couple promising themselves to each other.

Quote from FaZ-

I've yet to see a legitimate argument put forth by a conservative as to how two men marrying each other could be harmful to them at either an individual, state, or national level. Mostly it's "more like one group trying to control another group. In other words, business as usual in America."

Even if it's a choice/unnatural/whatever, it still doesn't hurt anyone, so I still don't give a shit.

And Ive yet to see a legitimate argument made for the same sex as to why they should even bother marrying, when it is infact to reap the rewards of a proper marriage, usually to reduce the cost of insurance and such. If laws werent enacted then I believe everyone would be getting married, even for the shits and giggles.

You aren't looking very hard:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=benefits%20of%20marriage

Quote from [Riney]:]

Quote from FaZ-

I've yet to see a legitimate argument put forth by a conservative as to how two men marrying each other could be harmful to them at either an individual, state, or national level. Mostly it's "more like one group trying to control another group. In other words, business as usual in America."

Even if it's a choice/unnatural/whatever, it still doesn't hurt anyone, so I still don't give a shit.

And Ive yet to see a legitimate argument made for the same sex as to why they should even bother marrying, when it is infact to reap the rewards of a proper marriage, usually to reduce the cost of insurance and such. If laws werent enacted then I believe everyone would be getting married, even for the shits and giggles.

Why do straight couples get married?

The reasons are the same, barring shotgun weddings.

Well people marry for a piece of paper for the same satisfaction that you'd get from graduating high school. It doesn't seem like much but that piece of paper can mean a lot to people. But hey a lot of functional couples aren't married by paper like Gene Simmons.

I believe that gays deserve, on the whole, the same rights. However, I'm opposed to gay marriage, because of the tradition for thousands of years of marriage designating, specifically, a relationship between a man and a woman. I'm not opposed to a 'Union' offering the same legal and social benefits and drawbacks as marriage; it's the wording of it. I am undecided on allowing gay couples the right to adopt children; I haven't researched any studies on the effect such a relationship can have on their children.

Quote from Jack[RCDF

Quote

But other religions like some sects of Christianity don't allow it becuase of the fact they can't reproduce.

Incorrect. We don't allow it because God says it is immoral. Like stealing, rape, extramarital sex, etc.

If this is the reasoning as to why gays can't get married, it shouldn't matter in the U.S. because we're supposed to have a separation of church and state. You can forbid members of your church to get married and refuse to marry gays, but you can't expect it to be enforced as a state law.

Quote from [Riney]:]

And Ive yet to see a legitimate argument made for the same sex as to why they should even bother marrying, when it is infact to reap the rewards of a proper marriage, usually to reduce the cost of insurance and such.

It is a sign of commitment, and it is important to many couples, straight or gay.

Quote from jjf28

In my personal opinion, they should be entitled to any rights that are given by marriage, but they should not be allowed to alter the rules of a religiously rooted institution (I support strengthening civil unions, not changing marriage).

The state recognizes marriage as a union of two people, and there are benefits for marrying. The church can recognize marriage as a sacred institution (source) and restrict the marriage of same-sex couples in their church if they so desire.

I'm not religious by any means, but I can understand the issues many people have with "redefining" marriage (hell, I get irritated that news outlets commonly call a "/" in URLs a backslash). In reality, marriage in religion is not the same as marriage in the state. If you wanted a different terminology to be used for same-sex couples, then that same terminology should be used for straight couples in regards to being recognized by the state. Since the state already calls it "marriage," same-sex marriage would just be called marriage.

Quote from Centreri

I believe that gays deserve, on the whole, the same rights. However, I'm opposed to gay marriage, because of the tradition for thousands of years of marriage designating, specifically, a relationship between a man and a woman. I'm not opposed to a 'Union' offering the same legal and social benefits and drawbacks as marriage; it's the wording of it. I am undecided on allowing gay couples the right to adopt children; I haven't researched any studies on the effect such a relationship can have on their children.

The terminology is important on both sides. Putting a different word on it will only lead to implications of inferiority.

This whole issue is just because government was dumb and decided to borrow the Church's word.

Allowing gay marriage is obvious. Allowing gay matrimony is up to the church.

HAY YOU KNOW WHAT'S NEAT GUISE.

Not trolling.

But there are companies that recognize a full gambit of relationship status otherwise not recognized by the state. For one, Kaiser Permanente (health care) allows you to choose a life partner - it doesn't matter who they are. Where I work I get to give my discount (a grocer's) to my life partner but we don't have to be married or straight. We just would need to live together for two years and sign an affidavit affirming that we are each other's life partner.

I just think that there are parts that suck about not being able to be recognized by the government - but there are companies are who recognizing them on their own.

Well when you get down to it you always never can make a decision without pissing off one group of people; if you compromise then both parties are both pissed of. The best thing people in power can do is be neutral about the situation until we start to be more accepting. I believe preserving (conservative) is good becuase its apart of heritage but no set of rules is perfect because as times change then the rules need to be updated. e.g. (Gun laws - 4th amendment "Right to bear arms").

Quote from Roy

The terminology is important on both sides. Putting a different word on it will only lead to implications of inferiority.

I don't really care if they feel inferior because we use a different word for it. I have my opinion, which seems sufficiently fair from my point of view. I don't want to call a woman a man because of 'implications of inferiority', and I don't want to call a 'union' of gays a marriage. I realize that the religious term is not identical to the legal term, but, again - not my problem.

So is the impossibly hard decision of choosing a word; I agree somewhat that any word will have huge implications. Using the current words of straight marriage applied the same to gay marriage would make straight couples feel inferior. And a new word will make same sex couples feel inferior.

With the same categorization of atheism as it has many terms and definitions e.g. believes in god but not in religion.