I used to be round about no to not caring. Now I just don't care.

I suppose I don't see anything romantic about a gay marriage. Do two blokes just stand up the front of the church eyeing each other nervously?

And there'd be no dress.

I suppose I might want to have a lesbian marriage, but whether it was legal and approved by a church or not I still don't think anyone would really believe in it so I can't see the point.

What I mean is, everybody says that marriage is about the two people being married, but it isn't. Marriage is really all about the rest of the people who are being forced(or invited) to celebrate it. Other wise why would it be such a big deal for them all to be there, and in the case of gay marriage, accept it?

I'll personally hunt down anyone who say's no and yell at them at what year we're currently in.

Yes, I support sausagexsausage/tacoxtaco marriage.

Kia Ora Fiona,

Yes! I'm all for others finding 'happiness' in/with their marriage !... No wait !...That's not the kind of 'gay' marriage you're talking about is it ? 

Metta Zenda

Quote from: Zenda on December 29, 2011, 08:42:15 PM
Kia Ora Fiona,

Yes! I'm all for others finding 'happiness' in/with their marriage !... No wait !...That's not the kind of 'gay' marriage you're talking about is it ? 

Metta Zenda

What on earth are you on about Zenda?

Quote from: JoeyD on December 29, 2011, 08:06:40 PM
I'll personally hunt down anyone who say's no and yell at them at what year we're currently in.

Yes, I support sausagexsausage/tacoxtaco marriage.

You are tempting me to vote "No"

Quote from: fionabell on December 29, 2011, 08:53:35 PM
What on earth are you on about Zenda?

Kia Ora Fiona,

At one time the term 'gay' meant one was 'happy' and carefree !

Metta Zenda

I think people should be able to get married as long as they make each other happy.
Honestly, marriage should be just marriage, not gay or straight...maybe people marriage?

Quote from: Zenda on December 29, 2011, 08:59:02 PM
Kia Ora Fiona,

At one time the term 'gay' meant one was 'happy' and carefree !

Metta Zenda

lol i get it now

Of course I said yes. The big issue is things like health insurance, pension benefits and other legal rights that a spouse gets in a traditional man/woman marriage. Why should two loving partners be denied these rights?

And the other reason I said yes was...I don't want Joey hunting me down.

Jennifer

Duh!

Hell No!! I'm soooo against it.

Come at me Joey.

Quote from: Jennifer on December 30, 2011, 12:19:31 PM
Of course I said yes. The big issue is things like health insurance, pension benefits and other legal rights that a spouse gets in a traditional man/woman marriage. Why should two loving partners be denied these rights?

Actually one can get all that in a thing called "Civil Union"

So that's not actually a reason.

Quote from: fionabell on December 30, 2011, 01:31:30 PM
Actually one can get all that in a thing called "Civil Union"

So that's not actually a reason.

A reason? A reason for what? I don't understand.
In the USA the terms gay marriage and civil union generally mean the same thing. There is no standardized terminology. Only 13 out of 50 states recognize civil unions (or domestic unions, or domestic partnerships or whatever name you want to give it) between two people of the same sex (gay). I guess I don't understand the question as you posed it and I apologize for that. Sometimes I am a little slow at understanding so please have patience with me as you clarify your position. Thanks fionabell.

Jennifer 

I think this is really an American issue.
I don't get it, the land of the free, and so many rules from the people from the bible belt.
We do have gay or lesbian marrige for more than 10 years.
I was one of the first to marry a woman as a woman, no big deal here.

Hi annette,

I don't get it either. The religious fanatics still have too much power in this country which was supposedly founded on freedom of religion.
The bible belt is the southeastern states where religion holds sway over all else and it will be a long time before gay marriage is recognized in that part of the country.

Jennifer

Hi Jennifer

Yeah, they have way too much power.
In earlier times we admire the US, it was such a modern country.
Americans are used to fight to their last breath for their freedom ans what is happening now? a bunch of bible fanatics rules the country, you have to live by their laws.
I mean, freedom is something that you can live your life without being a burden to others.
I can't imagine why it should be a burden when two people love eachother and want to be together.
A marriage is just a sign to the rest of the world or society that you love and wanted to be belong to the other.
In a great part of the country they make it illegal, because of a book that's written 2000 years ago with no name of the author.
If they want to live like that, it's their choice and their freedom to do so but to force others to do the same is repression in my eyes and that's something completely different than freedom.

Have a happy newyear

Quote from: Jayr on December 30, 2011, 12:40:41 PM
Hell No!! I'm soooo against it.

Come at me Joey.

Meow.

Quote from: annette on December 30, 2011, 03:27:55 PM
I think this is really an American issue.
I don't get it, the land of the free, and so many rules from the people from the bible belt.
We do have gay or lesbian marriage for more than 10 years.
I was one of the first to marry a woman as a woman, no big deal here.

Perhaps it is now an "American issue," but in reality it dates back to prehistoric times.  One needs to look at the "prehistory of marriage to understand the foundational issues.

In the earliest societies - which were comprised of extended families, tribes, clans, and the like - there is little evidence of same-sex unions.  Ancient burial sites, when found to have multiple individuals, record nuclear families and extended families. Rarely, if ever, have burial sites been found with genetically unrelated same-sex couples.

So apparently, same-sex unions served no purpose and were frowned upon by the ancients.  Considering the high infant mortality rate in primitive cultures, societal pressures must have been to pair fertile couples or create harem-type relationships.

As societies grew, relationship rules were developed to protect bloodlines and ensure tranquility within the society.  These were either codified as civil law (such as that of the Babylonians or Egyptians), or as religious law (such as those of the Hebrews).  It is the Judeo-Christian heritage that colors modern western marital codes.

My personal, libertarian philosophy, is that consenting adults should be able to enter into any sort of relationship they find mutually beneficial.  Whether it is called  marriage, or civil union, or whatever, it beside the point.

I prefer to think of it as "Marriage Equality", because those of us who are TS or Intersex are not covered by the Marriage Act here.  That means they can't honestly fill in the paperwork without committing perjury for a start. 
How does someone who identifies as both man and woman fit into the current system? They don't, and there is obviously no consideration of them.
Currently if you have SRS and want to change your Birth Certificate gender and are married, you have to divorce.  That is unjust. 
The whole topic didn't become a major issue until Penny Wong, the Federal Finance Minister announced that her wife (they married overseas) was pregnant.  Having read all the anti opinions, it appears that their main crime is refusing to be owned by a man.  That makes this a Feminist issue, and a Human Rights issue too, as it affects the Transgendered and Intersex as well as gay and lesbian citizens.

Karen.

In the US, civil union is not legally equivelent to marriage.  (this message is US-centric)

Heterosexual marriage is recognized in all states and territories, and in all foreign nations.  Civil unions are recognized by less than 1/2 of the US, and rarely by foreign nations.

That matters for things like being able to decide where your spouse will be burried, if your spouse dies somewhere other than a place that recognizes same sex civil unions.  There's also federal law - civil unions are not recognized as equivilent to marriage by the feds.  This isn't just about civil rights you can assign with contracts, either, but also rights and obligations.  No contract can allow a same sex couple to claim joint taxes federally (an example of a right most of the time).  No contract can apply rules about conflict of interest in federal matters to a same sex spouse or civil union partner (an example of an obligation - I couldn't sign a contract as a federal employee if my wife was the CEO of the corporation getting the contract - but a gay couple could do exactly that.

How does it affect trans people and their spouses?  If I was married to a post-op MTF, and I'm a cis-male, and we went to Texas, where she died, her body would be released to her parents, not me as her husband (since Texas, at least some of it, uses the idea of expected DNA to determine sex).  Her parents could then put whatever name they wanted on her tombstone.  It's even worse for pre-op or no-op people.  For that reason (because there is no good definition of legal sex), even heterosexual trans people and their SOs should support gay marriage - to eliminate one of the very few reasons that states have to come up with bogus definitions of sex and gender.

We've made marriage about love years ago, instead of inheritance and property rights.  It's about time we finished that change.