My personal thoughts on same sex marriage.

Judaism

Thank you! Though I’m not gay, so mannnnnnnny people on this site hate gays for no good reason. I’m proud of you for standing up to them and voicing out your opinion, mazal tov!

May G-d bless you in all ways

WordsMatter

Here's why gay marriage matters and the "well just live with them and act like anyone else who is married," argument misses the point. Two men could live together for 60 years, do everything together, act and love in the same way any married man and woman. One of those men gets sick and is in critical condition in the hospital with 24 hours to live. His partner isn't legally allowed to go see him in the hospital and say goodbye. He didn't have a will written up and the house was in his name. Now the house legally goes to his estranged sister he hasn't talked to in 40 years and the man he left behind can't do anything legally to keep the house.

We fight for gay marriage not because we just want a piece of paper, we fight for gay marriage because marriage offers significant legal protections between two people who love and are devoted to each other.

YeshuaBought

@WordsMatter You make a good point. That breaks my heart. Two halves of one heart belong together.

YeshuaBought

@Judaism Tragique! Hashem said to love your neighbor. I am pleased that you are not mad at me.

AmericanFurryBoy

I’m sorry. I try to be as polite/kind as possible, but I think gay jokes are funny as hell. I am the definition of screwed up.

MayCaesar

In my view, marriage as an entity itself is extremely outdated and unnecessary. A church or a government does not have to acknowledge the commitment between two individuals for that commitment to exist, and all kinds of tax benefits for married couples make little sense from the economical perspective.

That said, if marriage is to exist, then it should apply to any couple of consented individuals, regardless of anything. The society has no say on what is "true love" and what is "deviation"; it is not up to anyone to decide, but to the individuals.

I do not think, however, that homosexual marriage should be legalized on the federal level. Each state's population should come to the conclusion of its necessity in due time, throughout discussions and debates. Legalizing it by force on the whole US population, even though it is a good thing, can have serious negative long-term consequences, including the possibility of enactment of the opposite law in the future.

YeshuaBought

@MayCaesar What are you going to do if you fall in love?

averyapro

I see too many people arguing about this. Love is love no matter what. Honestly, it doesn't matter who you love you are still human and there's nothing wrong with you or anything. Everyone views homosexuality as a phase which is pure ignorance because you could say the same for heterosexuality. You can't do anything about your sexuality it's just who you are. Another thing that really makes me mad is when people say that God doesn't love you because you're homo. This is entirely wrong because the Bible says that eating seafood, wearing clothes that have multiple materials, and being intimate before marriage is all a sin. Represent all of the things that God thinks is wrong, don't pick and choose. 

YeshuaBought

@averyapro I agree, I just care for a variety of reasons. Yeshua was angry with hypocrites who use religion to hurt people. I believe people have the right to not be heart broken and miserable.

John_C_87

MayCaesar said:

In my view, marriage as an entity itself is extremely outdated and unnecessary. A church or a government does not have to acknowledge the commitment between two individuals for that commitment to exist, and all kinds of tax benefits for married couples make little sense from the economical perspective.

That said, if marriage is to exist, then it should apply to any couple of consented individuals, regardless of anything. The society has no say on what is "true love" and what is "deviation"; it is not up to anyone to decide, but to the individuals.

I do not think, however, that homosexual marriage should be legalized on the federal level. Each state's population should come to the conclusion of its necessity in due time, throughout discussions and debates. Legalizing it by force on the whole US population, even though it is a good thing, can have serious negative long-term consequences, including the possibility of enactment of the opposite law in the future.

The issue is that Marriage is a public likely-hood a form of contract with a witness on a union which has potential to create a citizen of a nation. What you are arguing by debate is that a word created to identify a single entity is outdated and unnecessary.

If this had been true everything could simply be filed in one huge category instead of labeled tables of content. The idea of plagiarism having an alibi does not make the perjury a witness is asked to make legal.  Laws that outline discrimination do not make the perjury of a witness legal, this forced perjury demanded by the people who requesting a public witness to receive credit can simply be broken by objection. As the complexity of proving perjury makes it hard to establish in a court of law unless it is confessed or admitted, this is only if the person forced to tell a lie knows or completely understands the lie.

The fact is not everyone has an ability to defend a united state by construction on equal level so the outcry for publicly recognized identification has consequence, experience becomes a facture in outcome when placing truth as a public test on a witnessed event. Binivir and Unosmulier are simply visual accounts of a likely-hood that is either become object to, or stand outside the general observable union of Marriage.

From the start with help by unconstitutional use of law the act of plagiarizing is taking place, this plagiarizing then translates into perjury on the account of the witness as a crime. It should also be noted that the wording like homosexual marriage creates are expectations placed on witness of a explicit sexual behavior which creates other issues. Remember marriage is wording a union between a man and woman as these two type person can produce a citizen of a nation, effort has gone into this public identification and the witness account does not describe the sexual activity required to minors. As this group of people are also public witnesses to these kinds of events.

Religion is the accuse used by legal argument to avoid the problems created form plagiarism past efforts by representation in a civil court case. The issue here is that the legal process would have directed these type unions to adhere to corporate law to which the union of male to male, female to female partnership have precedent, making adjustments to tax code in a more uniform manner.