Poll: Gay Marriage

[Branovices]

Just to be clear... Rome fell because your average Roman citizen began to dislike actually personally fighting in wars for a variety of reasons, Christianity among them. As such Rome relied increasingly on foreign mercenaries who cared little for anything more than money and had no real loyalty to the state. At the same time multiple "barbarian tribes" began to attack the Empire on many fronts at once. This included some of the very peoples that made up a bulk of the Roman army, equipped with Roman armor, weapons and tactics, who were tired of being mistreated as second-class citizens. The massive cost of trying to hold so many provinces with so many problems all at once and an army spread too thin with too little loyalty led to the Empire collapsing all throughout the west.

The Roman Empire in the East, however, continued to thrive for centuries before slowly collapsing inward on itself until the Ottoman Empire finished it off by conquering Constantinople (Istanbul). As an interesting side-note... centuries later the Ottoman Empire (at one point the largest in the world) would also collapse for reasons having nothing to do with whether or not citizens of the same sex liked eachother.

In fact I think that particular fall mostly had to do with WW1 didn't it?

Yes, but even before that it was coming apart. European powers tried to keep it alive for the sake of stability in the Middle East before everything came crashing down with the outbreak of WWI... which ended a few empires, actually.

 

[Mr.Pandah]

Wow, amazing how this forum degenerated into a blame game on who or what destroyed the Roman Empire.

Yup. I almost feel like somewhat of a troll now for starting it. It being 2:30 in the morning here, probably not the best thing for me to have typed out, but oh well. Its interesting because it sparked conversation for a bit, now essentially everyone wants to make jokes out of it.

I understand that the fall of Rome most likely had little to nothing to do with homosexuals running around but like I said, be open to interpretation. Didn't mean to start a flame war. Or bring 9/11 sarcastic remarks.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

Just to be clear... Rome fell because your average Roman citizen began to dislike actually personally fighting in wars for a variety of reasons, Christianity among them. As such Rome relied increasingly on foreign mercenaries who cared little for anything more than money and had no real loyalty to the state. At the same time multiple "barbarian tribes" began to attack the Empire on many fronts at once. This included some of the very peoples that made up a bulk of the Roman army, equipped with Roman armor, weapons and tactics, who were tired of being mistreated as second-class citizens. The massive cost of trying to hold so many provinces with so many problems all at once and an army spread too thin with too little loyalty led to the Empire collapsing all throughout the west.

The Roman Empire in the East, however, continued to thrive for centuries before slowly collapsing inward on itself until the Ottoman Empire finished it off by conquering Constantinople (Istanbul). As an interesting side-note... centuries later the Ottoman Empire (at one point the largest in the world) would also collapse for reasons having nothing to do with whether or not citizens of the same sex liked eachother.

In fact I think that particular fall mostly had to do with WW1 didn't it?

Yes, but even before that it was coming apart. European powers tried to keep it alive for the sake of stability in the Middle East before everything came crashing down with the outbreak of WWI... which ended a few empires, actually.

And laid the seeds for one of the worst Empires in history to take hold. For a short while anyway

 

[Mr.Pandah]

Sure, religious union should be separate from legal union. But that's really not addressing the real problem which is that a lot people have to deal with the fact that homosexuals are people.

Silly goose, homosexuals only want to have sex with their same sex. Its all about sex sex sex and more sex. *sarcasm*

 

[Sark]

Marriage should be a voluntary union between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others. Preferably, for life. In Australia, we do not have Gay marriage. Living with someone in a sexual relationship grants de facto status, which entitles to the same rights as a married couple. As they have the same rights when living in a similar circumstance, the need for marriage shouldn't be there.

 

[Rigs83]

Wow, amazing how this forum degenerated into a blame game on who or what destroyed the Roman Empire.

Yup. I almost feel like somewhat of a troll now for starting it. It being 2:30 in the morning here, probably not the best thing for me to have typed out, but oh well. Its interesting because it sparked conversation for a bit, now essentially everyone wants to make jokes out of it.

I understand that the fall of Rome most likely had little to nothing to do with homosexuals running around but like I said, be open to interpretation. Didn't mean to start a flame war. Or bring 9/11 sarcastic remarks.

Sorry about that but I get cranky when I can't sleep and I am technically a bastard so being a piece of shit behind a keyboard is natural for me. I can't say I am a son of whore but my mom only likes me when I have money on me so maybe...

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

Marriage should be a voluntary union between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others. Preferably, for life. In Australia, we do not have Gay marriage. Living with someone in a sexual relationship grants de facto status, which entitles to the same rights as a married couple. As they have the same rights when living in a similar circumstance, the need for marriage shouldn't be there.

I disagree with your views on marriage. I also don't know about Australia- perhaps is not a problem there. However, here in the states it's important.

 

[Vuljatar]

It should be left up to the states, and the states should all legalize it.

Same thing with marijuana, IMO.

 

[twistedshadows]

I've always thought it should be legal and don't understand why it's even an issue. People who don't agree with gay marriage are generally religious, which should have no part in governing legal issues - in the US, anyway, as religious freedom and separation of church and state are supposedly two things the country is founded on.

 

[Mr.Pandah]

Wow, amazing how this forum degenerated into a blame game on who or what destroyed the Roman Empire.

Yup. I almost feel like somewhat of a troll now for starting it. It being 2:30 in the morning here, probably not the best thing for me to have typed out, but oh well. Its interesting because it sparked conversation for a bit, now essentially everyone wants to make jokes out of it.

I understand that the fall of Rome most likely had little to nothing to do with homosexuals running around but like I said, be open to interpretation. Didn't mean to start a flame war. Or bring 9/11 sarcastic remarks.

Sorry about that but I get cranky when I can't sleep and I am technically a bastard so being a piece of shit behind a keyboard is natural for me. I can't say I am a son of whore but my mom only likes me when I have money on me so maybe...

Haha no, its okay. I've been out of line with a few of my comments. Ya know, blaming the whole fall of rome thing on gays and all ;D

 

[Jindrak]

I want to choose three options, is that ok?
It will be legal (and I wish for it to be), it will be left up to the states and Government should have no say in "Marriage." Ideally EVERYONE is recognized as having a Civil Union and EVERYONE gets the exact same benefits that title brings. A "Marriage" is then just the term given to a Civil Union that happens in a Church and the title itself has absolutely no legal standing whatsoever.

 

[Zand88]

Christians need to get over themselves. You didn't invent marriage. You didn't patent it. There isn't any mystical gay vibes that are emitted from a gay couple that will ruin "good" marriages around them.

NO FLAMING

Oh, the irony.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

I want to choose three options, is that ok?
It will be legal (and I wish for it to be), it will be left up to the states and Government should have no say in "Marriage." Ideally EVERYONE is recognized as having a Civil Union and EVERYONE gets the exact same benefits that title brings. A "Marriage" is then just the term given to a Civil Union that happens in a Church and the title itself has absolutely no legal standing whatsoever.

All good points

 

[Mr.Pandah]

In all honesty, I think the biggest problem is everyone getting stuck on calling it "marriage". Marriage should be between a man and a woman, in my opinion. I do find Civil Union to be a rather...ugly term though. Maybe we should think up something else, like...Gay Marriage. That would make everything better...

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

Christians need to get over themselves. You didn't invent marriage. You didn't patent it. There isn't any mystical gay vibes that are emitted from a gay couple that will ruin "good" marriages around them.

NO FLAMING

Oh, the irony.

The thread does sort of provoke flaming- but I actually haven't seen any of that happening. It seems to have been very polite so far.

 

[Sark]

Marriage should be a voluntary union between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others. Preferably, for life. In Australia, we do not have Gay marriage. Living with someone in a sexual relationship grants de facto status, which entitles to the same rights as a married couple. As they have the same rights when living in a similar circumstance, the need for marriage shouldn't be there.

I disagree with your views on marriage. I also don't know about Australia- perhaps is not a problem there. However, here in the states it's important.

These aren't so much views as the law here. Why should it be important? is there no de facto? Also, simply loving other men (or women) shouldn't entitle you to change a tradition that has been ingrained into the law of just about every country. Surely you don't value person status (which is relatively meaningless given the same rights) over the law and values of your country?

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

Marriage should be a voluntary union between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others. Preferably, for life. In Australia, we do not have Gay marriage. Living with someone in a sexual relationship grants de facto status, which entitles to the same rights as a married couple. As they have the same rights when living in a similar circumstance, the need for marriage shouldn't be there.

I disagree with your views on marriage. I also don't know about Australia- perhaps is not a problem there. However, here in the states it's important.

These aren't so much views as the law here. Why should it be important? is there no de facto? Also, simply loving other men (or women) shouldn't entitle you to change a tradition that has been ingrained into the law of just about every country. Surely you don't value person status (which is relatively meaningless given the same rights) over the law and values of your country?

No it is NOT de facto. Gays currently do not get the same benefits (except in 5 states).

I value individuals rights over the laws and traditions of any nation. I am not patriotic to the term "America". I am instead dedicated to the idea of freedom and equality.

 

[Noamuth]

Wow, amazing how this forum degenerated into a blame game on who or what destroyed the Roman Empire.

Gay marriage threads tend to degenerate into some form of flaming or blaming or pointlessness sooner or later. Seems to be the way with them around here, unfortunately.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

Wow, amazing how this forum degenerated into a blame game on who or what destroyed the Roman Empire.

Gay marriage threads tend to degenerate into some form of flaming or blaming or pointlessness sooner or later.

That part of the thread has since passed. It seems now to be back on track as a polite discussion of the original topic.

 

[Branovices]

These aren't so much views as the law here. Why should it be important? is there no de facto? Also, simply loving other men (or women) shouldn't entitle you to change a tradition that has been ingrained into the law of just about every country. Surely you don't value person status (which is relatively meaningless given the same rights) over the law and values of your country?

Laws, especially those dealing with civil rights, change with time. Need I remind you that it used to be illegal for a black person to marry a white person? The issue certainly is a civil rights issue, especially since there are many legal benefits relating to things like taxes, insurance and inheritance tied to being a married couple in the United Sates.