I’m with Natalie. I’m getting divoced just so I can refuse to get married till gay people can too.

I love her, one classy broad.

She’s totally classy. Short little dress and not one flash of va-jay-jay.

I think everyone knows how easy it is to get a divorce, so a lot of the mystery (and shame of getting one) is gone. I’m all about getting married, but really, if I don’t, I’ll not love my boyfriend any less. There are a lot of couples who are married and hate each other, just as there are unmarried couples who can’t get enough of each other years later.

Move to Canada and marry me, Natalie. I’m not gay, but I’ll learn.

I think you mean “Americans.” Sorry to be so bitchy on a Saturday morning, but do you expect any less of me?

Kisses,
evil twin

didn’t brad and angie say the same thing?

She must have said that because she’s a lesbian. Let’s be honest–if the right person came around, I have a feeling that her “protest” wouldn’t last that long.

I’m not homophobic, but I think that if gays want a ceremony, that’s great. But it’s not marriage. That’s between a man and a woman. Go ahead, be committted in front of God and government, but don’t call it marriage. We’re slowly eroding too many traditional values.

This doesn’t sound exactly how I want to put it, but I just think if gays get married we should call it something else–something that signifies the same but illustrates that it’s between two gay people. Because, essentially, it’s not the same, is it?

What isn’t the same about it? The fact that homosexual couples can’t procreate? Fine… but then we need to change the names used for
Couples who are unable to conceive
Couples that involve women past menopause
Couples who choose not to procreate
Couples who choose to adopt
And that leaves out the fact that homosexual couples can procreate, through IVF, so to eliminate that distinction, you’d have to also exclude couples who have children from other people.

What distinction are you drawing?

I believe if a church doesnt want to do a ceremony or recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex that is the right of that church. But the Governement is not a church and it should recognize these “marriage’s” as legal. Seperation of Government and religious ideas here people.

Being a Christian I think homosexuality is a sin. I also believe that no one is woithout sin including myself. I don’t think my sins are any less than someone who is homosexual so i can’t judge. Who is to say that my sins aren’t 10 times worse than homosexuality. I do believe that it is a goverment issue and a church issue.

“Not so sure” wrote:

“I think that if gays want a ceremony, that’s great. But it’s not marriage. That’s between a man and a woman. Go ahead, be committted in front of God and government, but don’t call it marriage.”

The problem here isn’t that the GLBT community DOESN’T make public proclamations and DOESN’T hold commitment ceremonies. The problem is that, for the most part and with few exceptions, our government does not allow gay marriage. Just a handful of U.S. locations allow government-supported civil unions! Her point is rooted in the inequity of that.

Personally, as a gay man, I would not want to be a part of a religious marriage, for so many religions call us sinners, heathens, abominations, etc. The irony, of course, is that human gender and sexuality are social constructs, buttressed by hegemony, validated by myriad institutions. I find it ironic, for example, that the Christian faith has commandments that condemn philanderers, thieves, and murderers, yet those who commit such acts are allowed to marry. Homosexuality is referenced in a handful of obscure passages, and yet because it is different from “the norm” (read = “abnormal”), it is viewed as destructive and dangerous…as if heterosexual cheaters, thieves, and killers are morally superior. It is sad and hypocritical, and religion is one of many institutions that support such thinking (in addition to government, education, etc.).

Ironically, I feel like I am preaching. Nuff said. PEACE TO ALL, AND GO NATALIE PORTMAN!

Some people make this issue sound so black and white — like gay marriage is a civil issue while heterosexual marriage is a religious issue. But there are many communities of faith that perform commitment ceremonies for same-sex couples (Unitarians, some Reform Judaism, some UCC to name a few). If a gay couple is married in a church willingly by a minister or rabbi, why shouldn’t it carry the same legal weight (and NAME) as a union of a heterosexual couple? Why don’t people understand that separate is not equal and that one person’s “gay marriage” certainly will not take away the meaning of another person’s “straight marriage” Logically that just doesn’t make any sense.

I’m not saying it should not carry the same name, but my goodness…what we’re asking for is essentially on par with a revolution. Marriage, however effed up it seems today (”hello, divorce rates…my how you’ve grown…”), has traditionally been between men and women foreverrr. OF COURSE there’s going to be resistance when we call for inclusion–especially in this day and age where many religions (not all…but you have to admit, many) are reaching for their torches and pitchforks, and many of these same religions are acting as the spines du jour of our contemporary politicians–and I simply feel that civil unions would re-position this (and solidify it) as a government issue, not a religious one. Besides, why would I (or you!) want to have my commitment to the one I love validated by a book that that says I am going to burn for eternity in hell?! I don’t! Marriage, as forumulated by humans, is inextricably tied to religion, at least in its connotative roots. There are alternatives. And given that hard and fast connection, I would much rather champion an alternative that doesn’t, in its very name, oppress me more than I’ve already been oppressed, ya know?

But that’s just me! These contentious issues are ripe for interpretation, and I sincerely respect all opinions (well, except for maybe those of the Nazis…). This is simply my own, so please don’t take this as an attack, Shira!! =)

Oh please…all she does is deny herself getting married. This makes me think she is afraid of commitment, or trying to make herself sound profound and enlightened.

It sounds like a cop out to me. Has anyone asked her?

the terms, ” commitment” and “marriage” do not mean the same thing… that is why they are different words. You can be commited to someone for 50 years, and not have to get married. And vice versa….it’s simple logic.

As for the “Christians” who say that being gay is a sin. Seriously, re-examine your beliefs and ask yourselves if you really understand what it is the the Bible is teaching. If you go about life not questioning these things, and following only what you are told like sheep…then so be it. but do your research before you blindly start spewing bullshit from your mouth.

its very simple.marriage is marriage.The uproar about homosexuals not being able to get married and be recognized is that fact that it isn’t legally binding, on the other hand, they still hold a common law marriage, its not always on paper.

marriage is traditionnaly for men & women = STUPID POINT OF VIEW.
traditions are made to be changed, to evolve.
after all the right to vote used to belong to men, and we changed that.

And it’s not exactly a “revolution” to allow gay marriage. It happened here, in Canada, just last year, and so far we’ve managed to avoid destroying Parliament and setting cars on fire. By and large, nothing has changed, except for the couples who want to get married and are now able to, to whom this makes a lifetime’s difference.

On topic = I think that gay’s should be allowed to unify in a legal, recognizable way. And it WILL happen, very soon. I think that the idea that Mariage=man + woman is ridiculous (to paraphrase Meg,
The idea that women should be allowed to vote was laughed at as ‘not the norm’, as was disallowing slavery but we all survived that) I also think that the gay community might want to (and is, acually) take what they can get in these ‘civil unions’ for now and keep pushing for more after they get that.

Off Topic = WHY DO THE ADS ON THIS PAGE ALWAYS COVER THE FIRST TWO TO THREE SENTENCES!?!?! Sorry for yelling but DAMN it is annoying.

Thx.

If SS “Marriage” should be approved than all types of “Marriage” should be approved… 2 men and 1 woman; 2 women and their dogs; Consenting Incestuous adults etc., etc.