Where Can Gays Wed?

Newsweek Web Exclusive

« Return to Multimedia

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: didar @ 07/26/2008 7:31:19 AM

    you have no right to say that I have making no sense cuz im a person who is %100 emotional and my only dream is how to help humanity ? I,m 17 years old I think every one in my age just think about how to enjoy life but im not
    you tell me that I have no sense while I cant even eat any kind of meat{im vegetarian} and also you have no right to say that my relegius belifs are no fact you get me? thank ypu for your heartbroken comments.

  • Posted By: didar @ 07/24/2008 2:45:38 PM

    ok gostmasseur I want to say that neither Saudi Arabia nor Iran are not ruling on Islam what they are doing is destroying Islam not improving there's no obligation in religion Islam says that but they are not working on it and about what the al-Qadida doing by killing people or kidnapping them its never allowed in Islam you know what Islam ask people to do?
    maybe not but I tell you {human being}its the most important thing which Islam asks us to do but unfortunately most Muslims forgot abut it which is the basic of Islam , Islam doesn???t want hatred , killing and whoever in this century talk about jihad they are wrong for today every problem must solve by peace and debate its what our religion asks for and remember the god of Islam is same with the other tow religions and at first our prophet said respect Jews and Christians cuz their religion were come from god also do you agree with me ?

  • Posted By: didar @ 07/24/2008 8:56:09 AM

    hi every body with my respect for all of you let me explain some thing
    1.about Islam why its forbidden in Islam :
    Islam is a religion of love and we all know that love comes from family which is consist of mam dad and kids but in all those things gay or what I'm sure it's impossible to have baby or family and Islam is really %99 same with Christine ,Jews cuz we all believe in one god but the history of Islam is new and suitable for a modern life I don???t mean that the other religions not but you cant deny when the other tow religions came there weren???t any people to write them down immediately so there were some people who just memorized and after along time some kings decided to write god's order down and unfortunately they cheated on there selves and changed a lot in them so because of that you cannot find what's true exactly inside them as you know god creates all of us and offered us what's best you can marry and have a sex not with some one who is same with you please don???t destroy nature and about polygamy I want to say that its not allowed in Islam and why Muhammad had more than one wife I can answer anybody who wants to know srushusa@gmail .com and finally if my comments bother anyone I'm sorry

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 07/24/2008 10:22:32 AM

      didar,
      Actually you are wrong about Judaism. According to Judaic tradition, everything after the first book (Bereshit/Gensis) was wrtitten down as it occurred. Therefore the TaNaKH/OT was written in real time. The Oral laws were passed down teacher to student but the rules of knowledge transference were so strict that there was an assurance that things remained consistant until they were finally transcribed in the Talmud/Mishanh. And not at a king's command but because the rabbi's and schoalrs decided that there had finally developed enough added commentary that it needed to be written down. There was no cheating or the like.

      Therefore your argument that Islam is more suited for modern life is not a valid one. And if you look at the way the fundamentalists in Islam (such as the Saudi backed Wahabis) are putting things forth, the opposite can be said. That their form of Islam has no place in a civilised world, modern or ancient.

  • Posted By: Gavin08 @ 07/23/2008 7:43:46 PM

    So can a consenting loving, brother marry a consenting, loving sister, can a consenting loving father or mother marry their consenting, loving child? You see where this is going. At some point we draw the line??? I believe in civil unions but marriage is just what the definition is supposed to be a joining of a loving man to a loving woman (under God because it is good), any other union would not technically be marriage; it???s love but not marriage. What would happen if our civilization just decided to marry the same sex (or our first of kin)? Assume there is no artificial fertilization, could we continue to exist?

    There is always room for difference (of course there is artificial fertilization, and some people will never be able to pro-create) so gay unions are part of our civil society and perfectly acceptable; but marriage (I BELIEVE) is just a rule of creation; it promotes our existence, a symbol of approval of God???s love to continue His creation as husband and wife.

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 07/24/2008 10:07:32 AM

      Gavino8,

      As usual you are using false logic. Incestuous relationships are not the same thing. But personally, I would have no problem with two consenting adults marrying regardless of relationship except for teh fact that there can be undue coersion in such relationships. Now if you are talking about an adult marrying a minor, THAT is completely different since a child can not for the legal consent.

      Marriage, existed BEFORE religion so God (a man-made entity anyway) is not relevant, especially in US law.


      And the arguement about no procreation is also invalid for a few reasons.
      1. It presumes that there would be no more opposite sex marraiges. That is just plain absurd. No one is claiming that opposite marriages would cease to occur. Assuming that the same percent of homosexuals and lesbians want to marrry as heterosexuals, that would mena that only 8-10% of marriages would be same sex.
      2. The "Assume there is no artificial insmemination arguement is invlad for two reason

      • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 07/24/2008 10:14:45 AM

        Sorry, I hit the tab key and psted early.

        I know that you understand that they artificial insemination arguement is invalid at its core because it does exits and intercourse is not the same as love and marriage. I know tow lesbian couples who conceives the old fashioned way. They found willing sperm donors (man) who penetrated one of the women and made his sperm donation (while ther spouse/partner was present and helping her get aroused and achieve orgasm, which does help increase the chances of conception). Luckily for one of the women she conceived first time and other it took tow times. That is what you call finding two very generous and humane men. Both of them were the brothers of the non-impregnated partner/spoues thereby ensuring that the child have a genetic link to both women.

        Actually marriage was first and foremost a rule of property rights.

  • Posted By: didar @ 07/24/2008 8:00:33 AM

    he every body with my respect for all of you let me explain some thing
    1.about Islam why its forbidden in Islam :
    Islam is a religion of love and we all know that love comes from family which is consist of mam dad and kids but in all those things gay or what I'm sure it's impossible to have baby or family and Islam is really %99 same with Christine's ,Jews cuz we all believe in one god but the history of Islam is new suitable for a modern life I don???t mean that the other religions not but you cant deny when the other tow religions came there wasn???t any people to write them down immediately so there were some people who just memorized and after along time some kings decides to write gods order down and unfortunately they cheated on there selves and changes a lot in it so because of that you cannot find what's true inside them as you know god creates all of as and offered as what's best you can marry and have a sex not with some one who is same with you please don???t destroy nature and polygamous is not allowed in Islam and i can explain why Muhammad had more than one wife this is my adrees srushusa@gmail.com

  • Posted By: RedRocker @ 07/13/2008 2:26:52 PM

    The agenda for Gay Marriage is a continued, systematic assault on the basic institutions and values that made our country what it has been. If this was only a matter of a legal contract between two people, then why bother to call it "marriage" and where would be the issue? This is about much more than legal rights, Ghostmasseur, and you know it. And, by the way, a minor is also a human.

    • Posted By: mimi33 @ 07/23/2008 3:35:00 AM

      During my Bible thumping days, even at my most zelous moments, I would never take it upon myself to compare myself with God by making judgements so self righteously construde. I may not be a scholar and use 50 dollar words, and 100 dollar punctuation.....but I have enough sense to know that if God is Love, then why wouldn't God bless two people expressing thier love through a contract of Love. Do you know why people lose thier appetite for God? It's pig headed narrow minded self ordained christians shoving thier crappy theology down thier throat.....Clean your house first!!!

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 07/15/2008 8:06:08 AM

      Actually, when it comes to civil marriages it is ONLY about legal rights. And since a minor cannot enter into a legal contract, that is a non-issue. IF the state stopped issuing "marriage" licenses, and stopped using the term marriage int eh law, tehnit would not be an issue. And the idea that same-sex marriage is in any way an "aasualt" on "American Values" is absurd.

  • Posted By: octopus @ 07/21/2008 12:45:43 AM

    I don't think that gay marriage is a marriage of two human beings. That dirty deed is a perversion of pure water and concentrating on that subject and kiping it in limelight will make no good to public morale. The very idea of the-same-sex-marriage should be abhorrent to everyone.and frowned upon and gays should be regarded as ordure.

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 07/21/2008 10:53:17 AM

      Octopus,

      You make no sense whatsoever.

      1. Gays are just as much human beings as heterosexuals. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.

      2. There is no "dirty deed" involve. It is the exact same love and caring that heterosexual couples experience. (The simple fact is that marraige is NOT primarily about sex. It is about commitment, love and caring.)

      3. Actually it is the hatemongering of people like you that is harmful to the public morale.

      4. The idea of same-sex marraige should NOT be abhorrent to anyone. It is your hatred and intolerance that should be abhorrent (and is) to intelligent and civilized human beings.

      5. What exactly is "ordure"? Is is another made up word like most of your ideas?

  • Posted By: Honeysuckle9961 @ 07/20/2008 9:50:55 PM

    I totally agree with earth3650. Society is so caught up on homo phobia it is ridiculous. Doesn't the bible also say we are not suppose to pass judgment on others. Sounds like there are a lot of acclaimed christens out there that is passing judgment on the gay couples. It is not our place to say how people should live their lives. I say let them get married if they wish. It is not our place to tell people who they can love. What if the roles were reversed and it was a "sin" to marry outside your gender?. How would you feel if you could not marry the one you love? I want people to really think about it. How would that make you feel? To know you live in the United States Of America, the land of the free, home of the American dream, and you are not allowed to be married to the person that makes you truly happy. The person that really knows the real you, the person that makes your heart stop when they walk into a room, the person you can see yourself growing old with. Do you think it would be fair for a law and society to keep you from being totally committed to the one you love? Whether it is wrong or right is not up to us to decide. It should be up to the people involved and their god. It should be based on their beliefs and their relationships with god not ours. Love should not be something that is controlled by law. It should be something we can express freely and without judgment or doubt. Thank you for letting me express my opinion.

  • Posted By: TNMom @ 07/16/2008 9:48:50 AM

    Christians are suppose to follow not only the ten commandments, but all the laws set forth in the Bible. Merely because some Christians do not strictly practice these laws, is a matter between them and the Lord - not an excuse for others to pretend they don't matter anymore. The law is still intact, God does not change just because society has walked away from him. The laws of our God are here to protect us, because of his love for us....not because he wants to ruin our fun. If you have submitted your whole life to the Lord, you can follow his ways and know that they are good. If I decided to make up my own rules, based on my own feelings and opinions then I am attempting to make myself into "god". Only He knows why some things are sinful and unholy, and that is good enough for me. To deny oneself for His sake is a sign of true worship of our Lord. Amen.

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 07/16/2008 6:04:53 PM

      excuse me.... do you worhsip Jesus as God? Then you are NOT following all of the laws in the OT. HYou are effectively worshipping a false god. Bad move.

  • Posted By: earth3650yahoo @ 07/15/2008 11:42:45 AM

    In our society, being a self-professed drug addict, thief, pervert or straight-yet-social-deviant {all issues condemned in the Christian Bible} is more widely accepted than simply being gay and not bothering anyone.
    Populating our planet is no longer necessary.
    I am a big proponent of the 10 commandments. I see nothing that addresses gay/straight issues in the 'Big 10'. Plenty of straight people are thieves. Plenty of straight people 'pretend' to be a husband or a wife but, in truth, are not faithful to their spouse {as the Bible tells us is righteous}. The Christian Bible also addresses the issue of divorce. But we ignore what the Bible says regarding divorce. Our reasoning applies selective jurisdiction at best.
    Allow gay people to be married if they want to be married to their consenting partner. As long as they are of age to make their own decisions, I see no problem with gay marriage.

  • Posted By: dwardtx @ 07/06/2008 9:43:55 PM

    The map clearly shows that the vast majority of the country views marriage as one man and one woman.
    There is no reason for us to bow to the whim of a small minority on this issue.
    There is also the biblical mandate, not to mention the purely physical signs that this is the way things are meant to be.

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 07/07/2008 10:42:22 AM

      The map is irrelevant.
      In the 1950's the map would have shown that the vast majority showed that they belived that blacks did not deserve equal rights.

      And actually the "vast" majority" does not view marraige the way you think. Research is showing that as time passes more and more people (heterosexuals) are realizing that their state laws are wrong and that there is no valid reason to deny equal rights to same-sex couples.

      It is nto a whim, it is a simple but critical consitutional right. The tyranny of the majority is not jsutification to turn the US into a backwater.

      The "biblical mandate" is worthless and of no relevance to US law.
      If you want to live in a theocracy go to Iran.
      What a bunch of men wrote thousands of years ago when they were trying to control their followers is irrelvant.

      And the fact that science has shown that same-sex activity occurs in other species (and human are just one more species) proves your comment about heterosexuality being "the way thigs are meant to be" is false.

      • Posted By: RedRocker @ 07/13/2008 2:40:22 PM

        Now this is preposterous. You are providing Red Herrings as evidence for nonsense. Societies have endorsed marriages between a man and a woman because they are capable of providing offspring. It is in the best interest of human society that those who bear children raise them and help to civilize them according to the values that are esteemed by that culture.

        Recent changes in American culture are not evidence for anything. The fact is that most world cultures reject and have rejected the homosexual agenda for human history. That homosexual activity happens in a variety of species is not evidence or an argument for anything, either. Humans are different from other species in that we regularly exhibit the awareness of morality that includes philosophy and awareness of principles greater than ourselves.

        Seems like the US is experiencing a tyranny of a minority as our pols are unable to speak against something historically considered aberrant behavior. The unspeakable is now protected against criticism as those who give voice to such opinions are critiqued as guilty of hate speech.

        The whole world is not determined in a US election. Neither is basic humanity or human civilization. The world will survive this political madness. Will the US? Becoming a "backwater" is the least of our worries. What will become of a nation willing to forsake its heritage for the expedient or worse.

        • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 07/15/2008 8:08:21 AM

          Aactually marriage was originally a property issue. The idea that granting same-sex marriage rights would somehow adversely affect society is banal at best.

  • Posted By: thebes @ 07/10/2008 10:24:42 PM

    Sure why not? Next we can have bestiality marriage. Then man-boy unions. We should allow all this since after all it is their rifgt to love animals and little boys. No wonder Muslims think we are nuts.

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 07/11/2008 9:21:37 AM

      thebes
      "Next we can have bestiality marriage. Then man-boy unions. We should allow all this since after all it is their rifgt to love animals and little boys."

      That is a typical asinine comment. It has absolutely no validity or intelligence. But it is so common with people like you (mindless drones).

      Let's see, a legal contract (which is ALL that a civil marriage is) cannot be done between a human and an animal, nor can it be done between a human a minor. If you had an ounce of intelligence you would know that but, you are just you. A body wthout a brain.


  • Posted By: lifeisdelicious @ 07/10/2008 8:53:15 PM

    Just looking at it from a constitutional stand point allowing same sex marriages should be legal. Not allowing same sex marriage steps on their rights to love who they choose and giving such right does not interfere or prevent the rights of others, including fearful heterosexuals. To me those states with statues and state constitutions that prevent gay marriage are archaic and are unconstitutional.

  • Posted By: drydude1 @ 07/04/2008 4:24:18 PM

    As far as secular marriage, EVERYWHERE! Don't tell me that Marriage is ordained by God and therefore must fall in with Biblical mandates. If it isn't part pf secular marriage why does the presiding priest/minister/chaplain have to fill out and sign a marriage licence???

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 07/06/2008 8:16:13 AM

      That brings up the very valid issue that the stte should NOt allow religious clerics to act ontehsates behalf. Let religious ceremonies be the purview of the church/mosque/synagogue/ashram/etc. Have the civil aspect be completely separate, and have THAT part be the only license that is valid in respect to the legal issues. I have several freind who went to teh courthouse and had a simple civil marriage in jeans and T-shirts, and thgen a few days later had their fancy religious marriages with all their fmaily and freinds. Makes far more sense.

  • Posted By: DJ99 @ 06/28/2008 3:13:21 PM

    If same-sex marriages become acceptable, why not polygamous marriages (Mormons, Muslims, et al)? These groups can claim religious discrimination if they are not accorded the same opportunities to marry whomever they choose as gays can do. They have more long-standing tradition in their multi-partner marriage constructs than gays do. After that, can NAMBLA be far behind in claiming discrimination too?

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 07/06/2008 8:12:39 AM

      Both comments are completely absurd. First off the NAMBLA comment is just plain asinine.

      As for polygamous marriages, the issue is civil marriages, which are ONLY legal contracts that death with heqlth care, end-of-life, and property/estate issues. Given the extreme complexity in those issues that can exist between TWO spouses that state has a very valid basis for not allowing multi-partner marraiges. Which wife or husband gets to make health care and end-of-life decisions? Is property divided based on the amount of time a specific spouse is married to the deceased? Etc.

    • Posted By: Francisco Maass villarreal @ 06/29/2008 3:23:30 PM

      If same-sex marriage and polygamous marriage are banned, Why don't we ban straight marriage to?
      Aren't straight divorces one of the biggest problems in family and religion and lets not talk about society.

    • Posted By: Francisco Maass villarreal @ 06/29/2008 3:20:54 PM

      If same-sex marriage is banned an polygamous marriages to, why don't we also ban straight marriage? Aren't straight divorces one of the biggest problems in family and religion?

  • Posted By: JGallardo @ 06/27/2008 6:05:05 PM

    I do not oppose Civil Union's or what ever Gay americans want to call it. But the Marriage Institution our ancestors left us, should be left alone, It is our culture here at stake. Again do not judge me as an anti-gay, because I am not, my own brother is gay and he agrees with me 100% that same sex unions are healthy to our economy, non-guy and gay society. I support equality, but RESPECT our traditions.

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 07/06/2008 8:07:16 AM

      Racism and bigotry were both institutions left by our ancestors too. I would argue that true respect is opening up marriage for same-sex couples.

  • Posted By: TheVigil @ 07/01/2008 7:26:12 PM

    This thread's remarkably free of homophobia, and that deserves applause.

    That surging red map does tend to explain to me why other online discussions are full of it, though.

  • Posted By: jobry0432 @ 06/28/2008 11:52:04 PM

    Gay marriage should be looked upon as one human being marrying another human being. It is time to take a look around and realize that gays are human beings and shouldn't be discriminated because of their sexual preference. America is a place for religious freedom and not a place to be persecuted or discriminated upon because of a religious belief. We need to preach tolerance and acceptance about gay marriage because after all they are human beings just like you and I. Nothing good comes for hatred as we all know. I agree with juball about the sanctity of marriage is shot in this country. How can people even cope out with an excuse like that? Our country has the highest divorce rates in the world. It is not uncommon for a person to be wed multiple times in a lifetime. For crying out loud we have a tv show dedicated to divorce, Divorce Court, if some of you may not know. Infidelity is also rampant throughout the country. Kids grow up in single parent households due to divorce. How is this sacred? Is it because the bible declares it to be this way? The bible preaches of love and tolerance. According to Judeo Christian beliefs isn't God suppose to be the judge of peoples actions instead of people judging other people? Throw out religion when it comes to matters like this because religion is suppose to be a personal belief and not to be pushed on others. This is someones life we are dealing with. Remember they are human beings. They bleed just like the rest of us.

  • Posted By: JGallardo @ 06/27/2008 6:05:19 PM

    I do not oppose Civil Union's or what ever Gay folks want to call it. But the Marriage Institution our ancestors left us, should be left alone, It is our culture here at stake. Again do not judge me as an anti-gay, because I am not, my own brother is gay and he agrees with me 100% that same sex unions are healthy to our economy, non-guy and gay society. I support equality, but RESPECT our traditions.

  • Posted By: mcleodmn @ 06/26/2008 1:15:08 PM

    It's sad that this is even an issue. Gays should be able to get a divorce like the rest of us.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse