Gay Marriage

[Lockeownzj00]

Fuck you, Bush. And fuck you, reverend jerry falwell.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/11/politics/main583048.shtml

It is disgusting that this fight is so hard to win. Look at this quote:

"Even if such an amendment makes it to the ballot in 2006, Massachusetts voters will have had two years to see that same-sex marriages pose no threat to society, said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who is gay."

The fact that we have to say pose no threat at all disgusts me. "Crap, they're gay! GET MY GUN!"

Even Howarwd Dean evades the subject--but at least he's not openly anti. While I do think Howard Dean has his faults, on more issues than one, he would be an infinitely better president than Bush. Bush could not be convinced--with a little persuasion, Dean could be convinced to campaign for.

I just can't believe people are so pious that they think "god" cares what you do in your bedroom.

[weezix]

this reminds me of a few jokes on a frank skinner show about gay priests:

"apparantly he is so dedicated to his work that if you peer into the church at night you can see him mouthing hymns"

"the archbishop of cantebury is disgusted at the idea and is quoted as saying "it will open up cracks in the church""

hehe, i find these hilarious

[JuggyFWB]

Gay, straight, bi, whatever. The only reason's people really use for caring are religion and/or 'it's unnatural'.

1) NOWHERE IN THE BIBLE does it say gay sex is wrong. NOWHERE.

2) My friend has gay cat's.

I believe these are used as a way to cover a fear of something different from themselves, and in some cases a fear that the person claiming such might be more like them than he/she want's to admit.

[Lockeownzj00]

Wow. Um. Guess what peopel. Stop fucking spamming threads with your shitty stories--tihs is the discussion forum for DISCUSSION ONLY. It's like this is the first time you've posted on a forum--and if it is, then you should know that you dont spam in a discussion forum. We like to keep it fairly serious, weezix.

[C-dog]

The only problem I have with gay marriage is that they call it marriage. Homosexuals should get all the benefits of marriage, if they don't already (I'm not sure. They do in Canada, I think.) but do they HAVE to call it marriage? Because it's not. Marriage is defined as the union of a man and woman and has been defined that way for thousands of years. Can't they call it "life union" or "something union" or hell, even marrige or merriage. It's a stupid little hang up that LOTS of people have. If we could just keep the origional definition of "marriage", I could care less about gays getting hitched.

[Zweihander]

What I don't understand is that if they are defending the "sanctity of marriage," then why do they let things like divorce exist? Why not go all the way? In the Theology class I was forced to take, divorce hurts marriage just as much as gay marriage does. Then Why? Why must they rescind logic?

*Disclaimer* Don't get on me about divorce. This is a thread on gay marriage.

[weezix]

well sorry for trying to lighten up the topic

[Lockeownzj00]

I'm sorry weezix, but don't act indignant. 8bit is a failry intelligent community, and everytime we have a revamp, all the new people have to get used to not spamming, not being an idiot, etc.

Not saying you're an idiot. But so man ypeople come in here thinking this is rantforums (the absolute dumbest forum on the internet).

[weezix]

i just thought it would be a good idea to add a bit of humour to the place, i know this is an intelligent community (im part of it...lol), but arent the 8-bit comics supposed to be humourus?? and i like those jokes!

[DarthZeth]

weezix, the discussion forum is for discusison. Locke's an asshoel who will jsu tyell at you for spamming, as well as opening threads that start with strings of profanity, but don't follow his example.

Jokes and satire are amusing, but if you don't have something directly related to the topic at hand, its spamming in this forum.

spamming rules in the discussion forum are stricter then elsewhere.

[weezix]

well they are related to the topic, they are about the topic

[DarthZeth]

jokes aren't discussion material.

[weezix]

fine...wont happen again, sorry for trying to cheer people up, back to gloomy debating

[Wizard]

C-Dog, you speak what so many have said before. Actually, the original definition (and by original, I mean the one I was taught, which doesn't say much) of marriage is a union between a man and a woman under God.
It's not so much the man/woman part, it's the under God part that get's me riled up. The Government should never have gotten involved in marriage. Religion hands out a marriage, and the government allows a lifetime union. As it is now, gay marriages are now being critisized on both religious and societal fronts. There are many religions which allow same sex marriages. A couple should be permited to be granted a union under God (if their religion allows it, if not is a completely different debate) without having to turn to the government or society for aproval. However, they don't get any of the societal benifits of being married until they've been recognized by the government. The opposite should also be true. A couple should be able to be recognized by the government without requiring a religious union.

This, in my opinion, would solve things nicely. The government allows lifetime union between any two people who want it, and those two people can deal with whatever religious issues they may have seperately. The highly religious can no longer complain because the union is no longer falling under Gods jurisdiction, as it were. If the couple then seeks a religious union, that's a seperate problem. Like I said, there are many religions which allow same sex marriages, so that shouldn't be as big a problem either.
Whatever, that was longer than I meant it to be. Sorry, hope I explained myself clearly and didn't offend anyone.

Oh, and the bible does forbid copulation between two males. Nothing about females. I forget where, but a gay friend of mine did a lot of research on it, and found several passages refering to punishments that should be dealt for such actions, along with rights to slave ownership, stoning your neighbour for adultery, and several other things which have long since been abolished in our society.

[Dante Reborn]

Wasn't that part in the Old Testament, though? You know, the part that also says not to eat creatures of the river and sea without fin nor scales?

I'm sure I heard something like that somewhere...

[JohnCourage]

it was in laviticus. don't know the verse , but does it matter where it was? the only way to use passages like that is to claim the bible is a literal document. i doubt anyone here is prepared to say that.

[DarthZeth]

in the legal (and social) sense of marriage, its an economic union. The problem it originally solved was the problem of how to raise a family successfully. The basic solution is "ill take care of the kids, you go collect resources".

Religious significance was attached to this union as part of a way to effect society into doing what had to be done to raise kids, since human's aren't instinctually compelled to take care of their young the way any other child nurturing animal is.

In some ways, the legal marriage isn't even needed. If two people decide to get together and raise a family... or even just pool their resources together.. who cares?

We attach legal significance to it the same reason we attached religious significance to it: to give people a construct to work with. No one HAS to raise a family via marriage, and no one in a marriage has to raise a family. But that institution is just kind of there to fulfill the need.


That's my take on marriage, anyway. The legal technicalities are BS. a "marriage" is just an agreement between two people. Society should respect ANY agreement between ANY two people. giving special legal protection to one agreement because we call it "marriage" is hootenanny.



Er… I guess its also worth noting that PARENTHOOD is an implied obligation that the law is fine in protecting in terms of child support et al. A person can’t just skip out on their kids and say “meh, you take care of them.” Married or not, you have to support your kids.

[Dante Reborn]

Well, my only source is a comic, and I can't say whether or not it's factual, but the whole "forbidding" part is in Leviticus 18:22. The other thing I mentioned says: And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, or in the rivers... they shall be an abomination unto you. (Leviticus 11:10)

Of course, I can't back that up...

[JohnCourage]

acctually zeth, you'd be surprised, but the you raise the kids/i'll gather the resources take on marrage is pretty recent. its only been since the industrial revolution that that kind of view has been prevelent in Western culture. also, marrage is as frequently a means of determining who takes which woman folk in the event of a crisis (i'll not argue as to wether thats sexist). the point is that the religious and then legal obligations arose because too many people (read: mostly men) were abandoning their charges. there needed to be some standard to hold these people too.

(i still don't have a take on gay marrage other than to say "doesn't really effect me one way or the other)

[JuggyFWB]

I'm not sure Christians can use prohibitions from the Old Testament against gay marriage; the Old Testament was pretty much decreed "no longer used" by ol' JC in the New Testament, wasn't it? It's been a while since I read the Bible...

On a related note, the places that most people quote as prohibiting gay sex are actually prohibitions on *sodomy*, which is an act that can be committed both by homo and hetero-sexuals.

[Mags]

A couple should be permited to be granted a union under God (if their religion allows it, if not is a completely different debate) without having to turn to the government or society for aproval. However, they don't get any of the societal benifits of being married until they've been recognized by the government. The opposite should also be true. A couple should be able to be recognized by the government without requiring a religious union.

I quite agree. You said it all.

-Mags

[Lucas]

I rather don't agree.. the union of two people, as well as co-habitation was for the benefit of children, not of adults seeking tax breaks. i think marriage should be made FAR more conservative, as opposed to more liberal.

I don't see a problem with gay or lesbian couples, but when prominent gay leaders state that after the laws are won that they will "not get married. after all we love each other and that's all that matters". i sorta get the feeling that this gay marriage issue isn't so much an equality issue, but rather one of undermining religion and the family unit.

EDIT: In Quebec, were the marriage laws are pretty much the most liberal on the continent, the divorce rate is around 60% and suicide is the highest in the world (!).

Many people in asian cultures are totally for appointed marriages. i'm not going to raise that issue, but its something to keep in mind.

Also, reproduction is limited to a male/female coupling, the religious embodiment of marriage centers around this.

It was brought up before, but the issue isn't really about marriage, its about names. the gay lobby wants a gay civil union to be called a marriage. the problem with that is twofold:
a) homosexual couples have all the legal benefits of marriage (in canada) under the title of civil union (union and civil being very appropriate words)
b) heterosexual couples can recieve civil unions as well.

basically the issue of "equality" is bull, because not only are the homosexual couples lacking nothing legally, but in essence they can NEVER be the same as a heterosexual couple, in that they cannot bear children. Their worth as a couple isn't reduced or increased by their sexual orientation, but its lucridious to state that the two unions are the same in all aspects.

[Hamelin]

I'd just like to say that the bible also forbids crossdressing. ... So if you were to take the meaning literally from that time, every woman who wears jeans and doesn't repent is going to hell.

The bible says a lot of things, it's foolish and ignorant for someone to take all that is written in it seriously. This matter is no exception. Perhaps my brother's quote isn't the best in this situation, but hey, it works.

If a couple loves each other then they should have the right to the same benefits as any other couple that goes into a legal union, plain and simple.

I predict in 50 years, after this has really been hammered out, the bible won't condemn homosexuality anymore. And everyone will assume that the bible always was written that way. Humankind is meek.

[JohnCourage]

I rather don't agree.. the union of two people, as well as co-habitation was for the benefit of children, not of adults seeking tax breaks. i think marriage should be made FAR more conservative, as opposed to more liberal.

I don't see a problem with gay or lesbian couples, but when prominent gay leaders state that after the laws are won that they will "not get married. after all we love each other and that's all that matters". i sorta get the feeling that this gay marriage issue isn't so much an equality issue, but rather one of undermining religion and the family unit.
...



WHAT?? please, explain what you mean by that, because i would like to think that you are not implying some there is some sort of malevalent gay consperacy.

i am not what you would call a liberal person. i tend to side with traditionalists until truely over whelming evidence arises for a change. so far, i have not seen any reason why new laws on this issue are nessisary. given that preferance, i still do not understand why it is that some of my fellows on this matter have been so aggresive in argueing against such a change. can some one tell me why so many people feel threatened by the sexuality of others? even if god does hate queers, you aren't the one who will be going to hell.

on the other side of the coin people in general need to understand that it is alright if they are excluded. there is nothing inharently wrong with not being aloud to join the club, and i don't care what the reason is. no one has the right to force themselves on anyone else. if want to put yourself apart by the way you act or dress, or whatever, thats fine. but don't cry if people decide they don't want you at their private party.

[stFalcon5]

The divorce rates for arranged marriages in Asian countries is like 2%. What's the divorce rate in the U.S.? Around 50%. Food for thought, and I doubt it's because those in arranged marriages cannot file for divorce or something.

As for my stance, considering we talked about this very issue in school for approx. 90 minutest today, I really don't care.

The wise words of John Stewart: "Obviously since this is such a big deal, are they going to make us gay? Because I don't think I'ld want that....and neither would my wife. Otherwise, I can't see what the big deal is."

[Lucas]

Um yeah, it DOES sound like a stupid little conspiracy when people who aren't being adversely affected lobby like mad to be allowed to use a religious term for themselves, knowing full well that they already have the benefits that are accorded by that term.

it sounds like some people are being politically correct to the extreme and whining because they can't be called something that they aren't.

frankly the issue is purely semantic, and the amount of effort being put into changing a definition legally of marriage could very well be put to something useful, like canceling of horrendously stereotypical shows like "queer eye for a straight guy". many gay people have SERIOUS understandable problems with that show, and i can see the problem as well.

[JohnCourage]

have you thought about what you are saying really implies? you think that there is a group of people out there, united only by their sexuality, who are activly seeking to dismantel religious institutions. what on earth do you think gays have to gain by "undermining religion and the family unit"? they are not bad people, they just like a different kind of sex.

[Deathosaurus Wrecks]

my one thought id like to add to this:

the people in charge of our government are saying that marrage is too sacred of an institution to allow gays to be married in the traditional sense. how sacred can marrage be if you can drive down to vegas and be married by Elvis for $50? (or however much an elvis wedding costs)

[JohnCourage]

my one thought id like to add to this:

the people in charge of our government are saying that marrage is too sacred of an institution to allow gays to be married in the traditional sense. how sacred can marrage be if you can drive down to vegas and be married by Elvis for $50? (or however much an elvis wedding costs)


your example is missing the point. you are targeting the ceremony, when the argument is about the participents. you have a valid point, just not in this line discussion

[Dr Grumbles]

Originally by Hamelin (since I can't find the quote button on these new boards):I predict in 50 years, after this has really been hammered out, the bible won't condemn homosexuality anymore. And everyone will assume that the bible always was written that way. Humankind is meek.

That just ain't gonna happen. The societal precedence against gays will be intact for years to come. It's currently lax, but this shit is cyclical. Being gay was vogue in the seventies (mayhaps not to the same degree it is now), much the way it is today. But I think the gay fad has crested and the waters are receeding. I think there will be another conservative backlash. I do think that society looks upon gays better these days though, but that's hardly comfort to matthew sheppard.

Back on topic though, I have a problem with this law just because of how "marriage" is defined, and as it is defined, gays and lesbians should not be allowed to be married. I'm all for them to have an equivalent with all the benefits, I think it's crap that they don't have these rights. I think that the definition of marriage should be changed. Something like, " a promise for two people to stay together no matter how much they will get on eachother's nerves ten years down the line."

I also think its funny that the "sanctity of marriage" kept coming up in this debate on the news. Marriage in this country is not sacred. If the divorce rate doesn't prove that, vegas does.

[Gramcrackered]

Bah. Whadda I care what two people do as long as it doesn't harm anyone else? S'not like whether or not a whole lot of gay people marry is going to change my life any. And if it makes someone else happier, why not just allow it?

'Course, that same attitude is precisely why I'll never support the matter. I just don't care enough to pay attention to the entire debacle.

[Whitemage]

Gay marriege is perfectly fine banned, afterall, marriege is a RELIGOUS ceremony, and RELIGOUNS do not approve of homosexuality..

[Viper Daimao]

are they complaining of having civil unions and want marriege? i dont see what the big deal of a name is if its the same thing in the eyes of the law. of course i have no problem with them calling it marriege, i can see the difference between the religious marriege and the civil marriege.

[Thinkmeat]

Marriage is a religious thing, yes, and the religion in question bans homosexuality... but that religion also bans swearing, coveting, etc etc etc. On top of that, it's up to the courts to decide whether or not gays can marry, so religious concerns can't even drift in. Finally, it doesn't really hurt anyone at all--why attack it?

"And just like the movies... we play out on the last scene" - Alien Ant Farm (Movies)

[ShadowSiege]

I don't see a problem with gay or lesbian couples, but when prominent gay leaders state that after the laws are won that they will "not get married. after all we love each other and that's all that matters". i sorta get the feeling that this gay marriage issue isn't so much an equality issue, but rather one of undermining religion and the family unit.

Well, I'm for gay marriage. I don't give a damn what people do in the bedroom, and seeing as they're two human beings, they have the right to be wed if they so desire. Additionally, if it undermines religion, I'm even more for it. Of course, it doesn't actually undermine religion if the government lets a couple of homosexuals get married. The family unit is not undermined by gay marriage, either. In fact, the APA said that there were no adverse effects of gays adopting a child. In the end, its a religious flame war.

Oh, and if you hear from me often enough, you'll hear this in similar discussions:
If its not natural and should therefore be abolished, how about we abolish all the comforts of the last ten millenia, since, y'know, agriculture sure as HELL isn't natural. In other words, never, ever ever argue something not being natural. Mankind has evolved for the unnatural and taking over the role of "god."

[Dr Grumbles]

From White mage:
Gay marriege is perfectly fine banned, afterall, marriege is a RELIGOUS ceremony, and RELIGOUNS do not approve of homosexuality.

The law isn't allowing marriage in a religious sense. Gays and Lesbians can't be married in the church. It's solely for the sake of government benefits, like filing joint taxes, being considered familial (i.e. can visit life partner in hospital), and getting insurance coverage for spouses.

[Tommathy]

Seperate but equal isn't constitutional, and Marriage is just as much a legal and social institution as well as a religious one.

Tangential: I really don't how being "gay" is any more of a "fad" than being, say, "asian", or "jewish".

[krazyk]

I, for one, view marriage as a sacred ordinance created by God, way back when with Adam and Eve. All these people many of you keep mentioning who are arguing the sanctitiy of marriage, well I agree with them. People, of course, are free to choose to live the way they want. But (as I would've posted in the Life thread if it hadn't been locked by the time I joined up) I believe the purpose of life is to create families, be happy, and return one day to live with God (still in our family units, if all goes well). You may just blast me off as an extremely religious person, but marriage is one of the most sacred things in life for me. Legalizing gay marriages, to me, undermines that sanctity. My religion believes in not just life after death, but the possibility of marriage and families after death.

Please don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to condemn anyone. Everyone has their freedom of choice to act and live the way they want. I'm just stating my beliefs and the values that make me live my life the way I do.

[Viper Daimao]

that would have more weight if the state were the church, but its not. if you accept that its the priest who marries the man and woman, then what do you care if the state does it for a man and a man. its not really the same as your religious marriage.

a good question is brought up. if they could have civil unions but not marriage, would that violate the brown v board of education ruling that seperate can never be equal?

[Icey]

basically the issue of "equality" is bull, because not only are the homosexual couples lacking nothing legally, but in essence they can NEVER be the same as a heterosexual couple, in that they cannot bear children. Their worth as a couple isn't reduced or increased by their sexual orientation, but its lucridious to state that the two unions are the same in all aspects.

So people that are barren could just as well be homosexual?

[DarthZeth]

acctually zeth, you'd be surprised, but the you raise the kids/i'll gather the resources take on marrage is pretty recent.

yeah, well, thats a bit of an over simplification on my part. But the economic union of marriage allows for a division of labor, mostly in regards to rasing children. whether its "you gather and i hunt" or "You make pottery and ill farm" or whatever the particular jobs are required are.

but then, all economic/business unions are based on division of labor. "You raise pigs, i raise corn, then we'll trade". What makes marriage different (from a pratical standpoint) is that it invovles parents and children (who can't take care of themselves.


i also think its noteworthy to point out that parental obligations are enforced by law regardless of marriage (at least these days) in the form of child support... but preventing Dead Bet Dads was the original intent of the religious aspect of marriage, yeah.

[sushigaski]

My problem is that it's like getting special treatment for a choice. You can yell at me all you want, you can call me whatever you feel like, but I believe that homosexuality is a choice, and that they shouldn't get special consideration under the law for a simple choice. You can't choose your skin color, but you can choose who to have sex with, and whether or not you want a girlfriend or a boyfriend. And, as far as religious hypocricy arguments go (ie don't they also ban swearing and drinking?) -- as in any case, there are various levels of severity in any transgression in any system of punishment. Rape gets punished more harshly than, say, stealing a candy bar, and murder is far worse than posession of drugs. In my religion, sexual transgressions are the worst that you can commit, while swearing and other transgressions are of a lesser severity. That is the reason that I, and many religous people, don't like the idea of gay marriage. It's like slapping our most sacred beliefs in the face.

[Icey]

My problem is that it's like getting special treatment for a choice. You can yell at me all you want, you can call me whatever you feel like, but I believe that homosexuality is a choice, and that they shouldn't get special consideration under the law for a simple choice. You can't choose your skin color, but you can choose who to have sex with, and whether or not you want a girlfriend or a boyfriend. And, as far as religious hypocricy arguments go (ie don't they also ban swearing and drinking?) -- as in any case, there are various levels of severity in any transgression in any system of punishment. Rape gets punished more harshly than, say, stealing a candy bar, and murder is far worse than posession of drugs. In my religion, sexual transgressions are the worst that you can commit, while swearing and other transgressions are of a lesser severity. That is the reason that I, and many religous people, don't like the idea of gay marriage. It's like slapping our most sacred beliefs in the face.

You obviously have no idea how it is to discover that you aren't heterosexual. It's hell! And saying that it's a 'choice' is just simply moronic. Don't take the word of someone that has an opinion on it, take the word of someone with experience!

[Devon Lake]

I guess I’ll throw in my two cents, since that is what I tend to do in these situations. There was once a time when I was a foaming-at-the-mouth bigot, and I was almost banned from these forums for it. However, just recently I came out as both bisexual and transsexual, so I’ve had to learn to cozy up to the GLBT community for the sake of my own sanity.

To assert that a homosexual marriage is a contradiction of terms is merely a matter of cultural imperialism. Why, there is hardly a cultural consensus regarding the concept of “one woman and one man”; it’s rather the opposite actually. About 80% of cultures accept polygamous marriage. To suggest that every other culture’s rules of marriage are inherently wrong is a mere matter of egocentricity.

Furthermore, gay marriage is not going to “destroy the family unit”. What is destructive to the family unit are families turning against themselves due to homophobia. The fact that family members will exchange their supportiveness for abusiveness simply because other family members are irreversibly different is blight upon families everywhere. What families need to do to remain strong and supportive in today’s world is to learn to celebrate all their different members as equals, which includes celebrating the unions of their gay members with just as much joy as they would their straight unions.

Marriage is a social institution that has evolved in most likely all societies and has taken many forms depending upon the different cultural values. A British anthropologist named Edmund Leach (1955) studied some of the different rites accorded by marriage. They can be, but don’t always include:

1) The establishment of the legal guardians of children
2) A legal monopoly granted to either or both spouses regarding the sexuality of the other
3) Give either or both spouses rights to the labor of the other
4) Give either or both spouses rights over the property of the other
5) Establish a joint fund of property, usually for the benefit of children
6) Establish a socially significant “relationship of affinity” between spouses and their relatives

These are all practical considerations, as of course, most social institutions tend to be constructed for practical purposes. Social institutions tend to function together, but that does not make them indistinguishable. Churches, governments, business, schools, and so on have often worked closely together or have even been unified, but that in reality does not make them one in the same; marriage can easily exist quite separately from religion or law, and is indeed an institution in it’s own right with it’s own considerations. Marriage performs a necessary task in societies, and that is why it exists in nearly every single one of them (Certainly of all the ones I know of) just as government does. The practical considerations of marriage are no lesser with regards to gays. I’ll make my case point by point according to Leach’s criteria:

1) Gay couples can often become the legal guardians of children of their own. Aside from adoption, lesbian couples can bear children through artificial insemination and gay couples can bear children through surrogate mothers. The case for children as regards homosexual unions is just as strong as with straight people. If your only concern is that the couples cannot bear biological children between spouses, then that would render a great deal of heterosexual couples having their claims to marriage thrown out as well (Especially if you want to consider all the world’s wives who have gone through menopause.) Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest that gay parents are any lesser than straight parents.
2) Certainly gay people would want unions in which it is established that the partners are to be faithful to each other just as much as straight couples; and nothing else has the social recognition of this vow of faithfulness other than marriage. Though I’d like to direct your attention to the research of Kinsey to point out just how prevalent cheating can be amongst married couples; furthermore, I seem to remember my psychology professor stating that 25% of all children were born from men other than the father who had raised them (That’s a whole lot of bastard children born from affairs.) Really, it seems odd in light of this that heterosexual couples would accuse gays of being a blight on the institution of marriage.
3) Now, generally in today’s society we don’t consider marriage to imply that one spouse is contractually obliged to perform the tasks the other demands of them (I idealistically hope.) but generally a marriage implies certain contractual commitments of both parties and that is true of gay unions as much as straight ones.
4) Again, I’ll make an idealistic assumption and assume that rather than men being given lordship over their wives possessions that this right is mostly limited to spouses “being allowed to use each others stuff” today. And of course, the people in gay unions enjoy each others stuff as much as the people in straight unions.
5) Gay unions can have joint bank accounts as much as straights, and just as much so, they can be for the benefit of children under the protection of the married couple.
6) And of course, I think what gay people need more than ever is the acceptance of their wider families, because I put a near Confucian emphasis on the necessity of families. It’s really quite a snub to have straight couples in the wider family looking down their noses at the gay ones and saying “You’re not married. You’re not like us,” Indeed, the recognition of the equality of gay love is the primary concern of most gay people.

Thus, gay partnerships have all the practical considerations that form the basis of marriage as a social institution that straight partnerships have. Now, if you want to suggest still that despite gay unions being identical to straight ones for all practical purposes that gays unions should be barred from using the title “marriage”, then it is clear that the one variable you have on your mind is sexual orientation. You may merely be coaxing us to use a different name, but taking entirely equal unions and segregating a specific minority of them based upon sexual orientation is a matter of arbitrary bias, and an affront to the dignity of gay people everywhere. The practical basis of gay marriage is as strong as straight marriage and damned if I’m going to be treated differently just for being in a sexual minority group.

[DarthZeth]

I’ll make an idealistic assumption and assume that rather than men being given lordship over their wives possessions that this right is mostly limited to spouses “being allowed to use each others stuff” today

ever seen an alimony check? men defiantly don't have lordship over women's possessions any more!
So i think your ideal is pretty much reality. (legally)

taking entirely equal unions and segregating a specific minority of them based upon sexual orientation is a matter of arbitrary bias

well, if you have the right to join in a gay union the same as you have the right to join in a straight one... then you're not really fighting for rights, now are you? you already HAVE the right.


what gays are generally arguing is that they aren't "Accepted" by other people.

.... so what?

Having spent my elementary and high school years as a total geek, i have received the ire of many of my peers. I've been insulted, made fun of, and picked on. I was never part of the sports crowd or the popular crowd or any of the crowds, really. Today, being an opinionated fuck, i am not "accepted" by a lot of people on an every day basis. Im insulted for a plethora of choices, stances, and mere conditions of mine.

But if someone doesn't "Accept" me... i really don't give a shit. Whether its a black guy not accepting me cuz I’m white, or a French guy cuz I’m German, or a jock because I’m a geek, or a gay because I’m straight... it has NO bearing on me, so long as they leave me the hell alone.

If people don't accept you, i can empathize. But don't force people to 'accept' you. its futile, and pretty bigoted in itself. They should accept you, but you shouldn't accept their objections? Hell, I don’t like Jock’s attitude towards me… but I’m not about to go tell them they have to accept me, because, frankly, I don’t accept them. We’re different groups, and as long as they keep away form me, I don’t care.


PS: welcome back, Devon. i recognize your avie form WC, but i didn't realize it was you

[Devon Lake]

My problem is that it's like getting special treatment for a choice. You can yell at me all you want, you can call me whatever you feel like, but I believe that homosexuality is a choice, and that they shouldn't get special consideration under the law for a simple choice. You can't choose your skin color, but you can choose who to have sex with, and whether or not you want a girlfriend or a boyfriend.

I don't see how getting the exact same right and recognition for something inherently equal entails "special treatment". That's about as absurd as if the GLBT community declared that only queers could ever be friends, and therefore bonds between straight people could never be "friendships" furthermore that the desire of straight people to call each other friends is evidence of them wanting some special privilege. I don’t think many straight chums would accept being told that their bonds could never be “friendships” simply because the GLBT community wants to exclude them from a specific institution, even if they were alright with calling them “social companions” of some such.

As for homosexuality being a choice, I suppose that's a matter of definition. And sure enough it is a choice in as much as eating and sleeping could be said to be choices. Indeed, I eat and sleep as a matter of my will, but if I did not I would certainly suffer a great deal from starvation and fatigue. And of course, my utter agony would encourage me to eat and sleep, and really I don't think my resolve could be dissuaded from eating when I am starved nigh to death nor from sleeping when my senses are nigh paralyzed with drowsiness. You know, I once supposed that I could simply overcome my plight and learn to enjoy living as either a celibate or a straight.

So, what I'd do is declare to myself an utter abstinence of all queer thoughts, fantasies, and satisfactions. Now, as fastidiously as I would ignore my impulses, and indeed I wanted more than anything to be free of them, they simply never went away, and I was haunted by them day and night until I was sick with stress and I had to give up. Now, the last time I did that was last September, and I declared, "If I cannot be free of these damned demons I shall stab myself in the chest until I am dead, and thus, since my very life depends on it, I shall have to succeed this time," (That’s paraphrased. In reality I speak as eloquently as a groggy Newfie.)

And so for a week I tried to annihilate every queer impulse in my body and mind. Indeed, I was so caught up with working myself to death on my school work that I managed to get by for a few days without regression. But then, I had a dream; I dreamt of being a beautiful female version of myself as I have always longed to be deep down, and I dreamed of being in love with another girl, and it was utterly lovely. Now, when I woke up, the fact that this had happened made me want to stab myself in the face a great deal for I was so very filled with hatred at myself for being queer. But, I went about my life, trying vainly to concentrate on my school work and to ignore my all encompassing desire to be a female and to be free to love whoever I wished. Now, I was so utterly depressed and sickened that I couldn't so much as look at my school work, and so I simply sat around while my own thoughts tortured me and I was in excruciating emotional distress.

With this I knew I had completely failed; that my philosophical belief that one could simply will oneself into feeling whatever they wished was hopeless for I had made the most sincere effort imaginable to be purged of my feelings and it had failed. So, I came out to everyone I knew and began accepting who I was. Just as I needed to eat and sleep, I needed to be me. If you're supposing that being deprived of the latter case is different than the two formers because the latter one is not physically detrimental, I have the medical withdrawal from university to prove you wrong. The total aggravation this has caused me had made me very sick with stress so that I lost 15 pounds (This makes me 6 feet tall and 145 pounds which is extremely scrawny and certainly unhealthy.) and I was plagued by insomnia so that I never slept more than 3 hours a night. Then of course I went utterly berserk and had a suicide attempt, but everything’s been up hill from there.

And, as far as religious hypocricy arguments go (ie don't they also ban swearing and drinking?) -- as in any case, there are various levels of severity in any transgression in any system of punishment. Rape gets punished more harshly than, say, stealing a candy bar, and murder is far worse than posession of drugs. In my religion, sexual transgressions are the worst that you can commit, while swearing and other transgressions are of a lesser severity. That is the reason that I, and many religous people, don't like the idea of gay marriage. It's like slapping our most sacred beliefs in the face.

Funny, I don’t seem to have ever heard this passage of the Bible that lists all the sins one can commit in order of God’s disapproval of them and with “homosexual” at the top of it. Really, in what warped way have you determined that homosexuality is the greatest of all sins? Are two male lovers making each other happy really such an audacious thing that genocide and slavery and mass rape are rendered mere runner ups? Dear me, I never would have thought that making out with people the same sex as myself would make me worse than Hitler! Tell me though, if homosexuality is the most hated of crimes against your lord, why did it wind up being referred to in an obscure passage in Leviticus (Right around all that stuff about not harvesting the corners of fields, not wearing clothes of two mixed fabrics, and being “ritually unclean” for a day if a girl touches you during her period.) rather than in say, the 10 Commandments? What if in fact your lord looks upon homosexuals and merely goes “Ah, pooh, they’re at it again. I’ll make them both step in gum. That shall be sufficient punishment”.

As for slapping your “sacred belief” in the face, I’m afraid I’m really not particularly sympathetic towards “Kill all the faggots!” as a cornerstone of theological thought.

EDIT:
well, if you have the right to join in a gay union the same as you have the well, if you have the right to join in a gay union the same as you have the right to join in a straight one... then you're not really fighting for rights, now are you? you already HAVE the right.


Well I do because I’m a Canadian. As is there way they used the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms to declare that homosexuals could marry. Our legislature wouldn’t touch a controversial political issue with a ten foot pole, and so the court’s ruling stands and gays can now get legal recognition for their marriages. However, I know it’s certainly not like that in your country. And even where civil unions are applicable, it’s very disagreeable to get a sort of “Oh, it’s you people. You’re not worthy of the word marriage, it’s the right of our kind alone.”


what gays are generally arguing is that they aren't "Accepted" by other people.


I have to deal with this a lot more than most queer people do; I’ve been living as a female full time for a couple of weeks now, and it’s somewhat obvious that I’m a male. Now, I don’t care what other people think, but I still have to be extremely cautious; today is actually the Transgendered Day of Remembrance where we mourn all the transgendered people who have died due to hatred. The fact that GLBT people are being killed due to hate is a level of non-acceptance a tad more serious than what the average Star Trek nerd must deal with. The government can’t change rednecks into classy folk, but it can at least give queer people the institutionalized acceptance they deserve from the people they hand their taxes over to.

[Lockeownzj00]

First, I'd like to thank Zeth for taking out his petty anger publicly on me. I love it, especially from the man who made 40,000 threads in the old discussion forum to "prove points" in his "mature" and "factual" way.

Anyway:

"The law isn't allowing marriage in a religious sense. Gays and Lesbians can't be married in the church. It's solely for the sake of government benefits, like filing joint taxes, being considered familial (i.e. can visit life partner in hospital), and getting insurance coverage for spouses."

Why can't they be married in a church? Religion is interpreted differently by everyone. The meaning of religion is constantly warped to fit the needs of the arguments of the time.

Special treatment? Do you honestly think this is what it is? If you do, I can honestly say you are very conceited. So were the slaves conceited for wanting equality? This is a battle for rights and equality, not for more. It's not like they're giving gay people free money for being married. You sound like the same people who were pro-slavery a while back. "Well, they're freed, but they're still not the same!"

Here's the difference: you can not relate. If you are not homosexual, stop talking about how you were picked on and "segregated" too, because it's not the same. Male geeks don't marry other male geeks, unless they are homosexual, in which case they would fall under this category. But if they are not, you have no comparison. Religion doesn't "ban" geeks (religion doesn't ban homosexuality either), the government doesn't take away geek rights, and the threat is much greater for a gay than a geek in a hostile environment.

I love all the people trying to be reasonable but showing their prejudices. It's like saying, "I'm not racist but I think all black people are smelly and ugly and stupid." If they want to get married, whether religiously, why does anyone else honestly care? What is it about homosexuality that is so evil to everyone? I simply can not understand it. Half of these people you will NEVER meet in your life, and if they happen to do something you do not, why would you go out of your way to make life worse for them?

[FunnyLooking]

"If they want to get married, whether religiously, why does anyone else honestly care?"

Interesting way to put it, Locke. I would much rather put it this way, "Why do you guys give a damn so much?"

Seriously. It's not a big deal. Just let the people get married already.

The only rational way to defend the anti-argument is to use religion. Consider the seperation of church and state for just a moment and you'll see a problem with that.

[Lucas]

I find it funny that some people infer so many blandly stereotypical things to what i've said

lets lookie in depth

a) homosexuals are afforded all the legal status of marriage under the civil union title.
b) a civil union is a "state marriage" which can be used by heterosexuals as well.
c) homosexuals lobbying for the title of marriage have declared more than once that they actually dont want marriage. (this is sorta important)
d) marriage in a relgious institution is to be decided by the institution and not the state.
e) there is no discrimination against homosexual adoption as per the legal aspect (again, in canada, at least, where the debate started in ernest)
f) homosexual couples in civil unions actually benefit from fairer custody and estate terms in case of a dissolution of the civil union.

seeing that, i don't really find a problem with allowing the state to issue civil unions. when the state tampers with religious institutions, it violates the seperation of church and state. everyone here can say that the religions are wrong, and they very well might be, but it's not the place of governments to accord the names of religious ceremonies (rather fuggin' important ones) to anything they please. if any government changed the word saturday into shabbat people might wonder what the hell was going on too.

[KeeperS]

I don't get it.

Don't people have more important things to worry about than gay people getting married? Who really cares, anyway? Come on people, if you're really that worried about the so-called sanctity of marriage, you're a bit late. The divorce rate is already somewhere around 50%. Maybe you should work on that instead.

Seperate but equal isn't constitutional, and Marriage is just as much a legal and social institution as well as a religious one.

Tangential: I really don't how being "gay" is any more of a "fad" than being, say, "asian", or "jewish".

Exactly. Discrimination against on the basis of race, religion, sexual preference, etc, is illegal. It's also quite immoral in my opinion, but of course opinions are subjective.

[Viper Daimao]

now if only we could at least get civil unions in the US.

question(and now one has really answered my last one): who should decide if homosexuals can have civil union status? should it be the federal or the state govt's job?

[darknation]

It should be the homosexual's decision surely.

[krazyk]

I don't get it.

Don't people have more important things to worry about than gay people getting married? Who really cares, anyway? Come on people, if you're really that worried about the so-called sanctity of marriage, you're a bit late. The divorce rate is already somewhere around 50%. Maybe you should work on that instead.

I'm actually not any fonder of divorce than I am of gay marriages. As I stated before, marriage is sacred to me. There are cases, of course, where divorce needs to happen (like in abuse cases), but in most cases I don't think divorces ought to happen. People fall out of love all the time, but the thing is, you can fall back in love with someone you fell out of love with. This cycle of in-and-out of love (according to several older couples I've spoken with) happens regularly throughout long marriages. I also believe people shouldn't have sex before they get married. And don't go telling me that's impossible, because it isn't. I've never had sex, my parents didn't have sex before they were married, my grandparents didn't, etc.

I also believe abortion is wrong, unless the life of the mother is at stake. You may call me a religious freak, I don't care. I won't ever condone gay marriages anymore than I condone divorce or pre-marital sex or abortion. The family unit is falling apart in this world, and I'm trying to counter-act that by living my life the way I believe is right. Everyone else, of course, is welcome to do the same.

And to clarify: I certainly don't think people with gay tendencies are evil. Personally, I just don't think they should act on them. (And, by the way, I believe in other scriptures in addition to the Bible, so the argument that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexual relations doesn't really hold for me as much as it might for other religious people). Refraining from sexual activity really hasn't ever been hard for me, and I don't think it's as impossible as most people think. Of course, this is all just my opinion, based on my beliefs and experiences. That, for me, is the point of discussions: an open exchange of ideas and opinions. I've enjoyed reading everyone else's opinions and ideas, and I hope to be able to continue to do so. :D

[Dona Maria]

but what you're suggesting krazyk is that for every homosexual to take a vow a celibacy for their entire life. You say you've been able to do it so far, but how long has your body been mature enough to be sexually active? Could YOU see yourself celebate for 30 to 40 years? The thought almost makes you weep doesn't it? Why shouldn't homosexuals enjoy the gifts of the body as well as straights? What makes them less compared to anybody else?

[darknation]

maybe all homosexuals should become vicars and priests.

Oh wait...

[Whitemage]

You all have a smart person to thank to help tell me the truth.

1) There is a bland seperation of church and state. Despite how marriege is a "religous" ceremony, in the end the goverment has the say so in it. And if they made one religous type and the other goverment type, which type would matter in the eye's of the population? Proving there is too little religous.

Despite how that did kind of piss me off, it's honost, people don't really care about religoun, that sickens me, but there's nothing I can do about that at the moment. However, I CAN defend the cause that if people are inlove then well, they should get married. I'm a strong believer in love, and I don't mind if gay people get married out of love.

It just gets kind of tough to make descisions cause I defend the church alot to...

[Dona Maria]

i don't feel like becoming a priest any time soon, and i'd doubt they'd let a woman join. and please, no more lame "gay priests" jokes. aside from childish, they're just crude.

[darknation]

sorry, I forgot my /sarcasm tags.

I have no problem with gays / priests, combinations thereof or whatever. I'm on your side, honest ;)

[Big Bad Imp]

If people don't accept you, i can empathize. But don't force people to 'accept' you. its futile, and pretty bigoted in itself. They should accept you, but you shouldn't accept their objections? Hell, I don’t like Jock’s attitude towards me… but I’m not about to go tell them they have to accept me, because, frankly, I don’t accept them. We’re different groups, and as long as they keep away form me, I don’t care.


I agree with this point.

You are what you are, and you don't have to beg for acceptance or anything.
I personally believe that if you DO want to be accepted, you have to earn it.
But realistically speaking, it is quite hard, since ppl are of differing opinions and nowadays I noticed that segregation occurs with school of thought. Anyway,
I think I kinda lost focus here; so I hope you guys can help me here. What is it abput homosexuality that makes you like/dislike homosexuality? The acceptance? The semantics?


I'm actually not any fonder of divorce than I am of gay marriages. As I stated before, marriage is sacred to me. There are cases, of course, where divorce needs to happen (like in abuse cases), but in most cases I don't think divorces ought to happen. People fall out of love all the time, but the thing is, you can fall back in love with someone you fell out of love with. This cycle of in-and-out of love (according to several older couples I've spoken with) happens regularly throughout long marriages. I also believe people shouldn't have sex before they get married. And don't go telling me that's impossible, because it isn't. I've never had sex, my parents didn't have sex before they were married, my grandparents didn't, etc.

I agree with the sex part.
It's not hard to abstain fron sex (wait for marriage to break the seal, so to speak... there goes my sexist side :P). I think it's just a matter of willpower and belief.



but what you're suggesting krazyk is that for every homosexual to take a vow a celibacy for their entire life. You say you've been able to do it so far, but how long has your body been mature enough to be sexually active? Could YOU see yourself celebate for 30 to 40 years? The thought almost makes you weep doesn't it? Why shouldn't homosexuals enjoy the gifts of the body as well as straights? What makes them less compared to anybody else?



This reminds me of a recent discovery in a study made recently (in a local newspaper). It says that they can actually alter the homosexual person's sexual orientation to something accepted by society. If this 'treatment' (for lack of a better word) actually works, would the homosexuals be lining up for this? If I recall correctly, they got like 100/500 respondents, and I think about 90% got to change their sexual orientation.

But, don't you think this is actually like asking them to go out and change themselves? Then the matter of choice is no longer available isnt it?

Anyway donamaria, I don't think you HAVE to be celibate for 30 to 40 yrs. I've seen a lot of cases where homosexuals would eventually lose their interest in the same sex.

[krazyk]

I've been mature enough, physically speaking, to be sexually active for the past 8 years. If I never found the right man for me to marry, then I'd remain sexually inactive for the rest of my life. I know several people that have done so. They never had the opportunity to marry, but due to their faith in God, and the teachings of our church, they've never engaged in any sexual relations. The two women I'm speaking of specifically are both over 50 years old currently.

I really don't want to argue with anyone. I'm just trying to state my beliefs, which are based on my faith and my religion. Present a different point of view, as it were. I think every person on this earth is a child of God, and I know that He loves each and every one of them, and wants them to be happy. As such, I believe He's given us commandments and guidelines which will help us along the path to true happiness. I believe He created man and woman, and that gender was determined before we ever came to this earth, and that He then made them attracted to each other for the purposes of creating Eternal families. Medical professionals currently don't agree as to whether or not people are "born homosexual" or if it's a combination of social, biological, and environmental conditions. I believe any sexual relationship outside the bonds of marriage (which I believe is an important ordinance between man and woman created by God) is wrong. I believe in abstinance before marriage, and monogamy after marriage. Everyone is free to choose their own beliefs. I think I've explained mine sufficiently now. You're welcome to disagree with them, but they're my beliefs, and I won't argue over them. I hope I haven't offended anyone, and if I have, I apologize. I have no ill will towards any of you, and wish you all a happy day.

[Whitemage]

*Glomps krazyk.*

Nothing cuter then a religous girl. ^_^

I'm sortof religous... sortof not... It's hard to explain.

You see ever sense as a kid I have had three strange occurances on a normal basis.

Empathy. (Which isn't as cool as you might think.)
Premanitions. (Again, not very cool sense I have no idea how to change the outcome.)
And channeling. (Speaking with the dead bassically, but I can only do it when I'm asleep which is not benneficial to anyone.)

So with all the strange things that happen to me and all the science and philosophy and the simalarities between them I read, I do sometimes believe in God, and sometimes I don't. It's hard to believe in something that never speaks to you, but it's also hard not to have faith in something when you feel the presence of strong friends around you every minute of everyday.

[Dona Maria]

I wish i knew how the quote button worked but i'll have to stick to the old fashion way of copy/paste (i'm new to forums and ish).

This reminds me of a recent discovery in a study made recently (in a local newspaper). It says that they can actually alter the homosexual person's sexual orientation to something accepted by society. If this 'treatment' (for lack of a better word) actually works, would the homosexuals be lining up for this? If I recall correctly, they got like 100/500 respondents, and I think about 90% got to change their sexual orientation.

But, don't you think this is actually like asking them to go out and change themselves? Then the matter of choice is no longer available isnt it?

Anyway donamaria, I don't think you HAVE to be celibate for 30 to 40 yrs. I've seen a lot of cases where homosexuals would eventually lose their interest in the same sex.

I have several things to say to this:
1) depending where this "treatment" took place, what probably happened was the same thing done in Utah several years ago and which, sadly, still goes on today in small pockets of that state. The "treatment" of homosexuality was to show a gay man pornographic images of 2 men together and electricute him every time he became aroused/excited. Don't believe me? There are hundreds of testimoneys of this happening. I'll post the article if enough people ask about it.

2) Only the homosexuals that feel seriously repressed because of their orientation would seek "treatment" so that they feel they'd be excepted into their community (think of religious towns. that's where most of this "treatment" is going on). Out here in California, however, I doubt it would get much response (I know I wouldn't go) simply because people are more open minded (they dont call us the "Left Coast" for nothing).

3) What you've seen about people "loosing interest" are more than likely people who became curious about the lifestyle and decided to give it a try. True homosexuality is no more fickle that heterosexuality. If you don't believe me, I can give personal testimony.

that's all for now

[Mashirosen]

Wow, four pages already. Feel free to continue the discussion in another thread.