Gay Marriage

Remove all ads!

@ Grey

And you don't need to be a hippy to see the ridiculousness in denying someone else the right to make their own life choices and be with the people they want, so long as no one is getting hurt in the process.

Calling someone else's life choices ridiculous because you don't understand it is, funny enough, ridiculous. Yes, traditionally, marriage is between a man and a woman. But, to quote one of my favorite Eddy Murphy movies...

"It is also tradition that times must, and always do change, my friend."

What's ridiculous for you may be the most sensible thing in the world for someone else. The bottom line of marriage - before kids, before God, before anything - is to be happy. If two people love each other enough to devote their lives to each other's happiness, I can't think of a logical reason to deny them that on account of someone else's hangups.

Don't forget, it also used to be considered "ridiculous," in fact, down right blasphemous, for a black man and a white woman to even associate, let alone be together. Or for a woman to vote. You can hang on to outdated traditions if you want, but ignoring the issue or dismissing it as "ridiculous" won't make it go away. Where there's a will...

That's not even close to the point. Gays don't want to be "legally straight" any more that blacks want to be "legally white." They just want to be "legally equal" and still be who they are. I don't think that's too much to ask.

More unproductive, judgemental nonsense. How do you know you're not the crazy one? Though I do agree about the pedophelia part.

 

I'm glad that the majority of opinions here are against the bible thumpers.

This shows that there is hope for humanity yet.

Hooray for the intelligent people of SP! [Note that there are certain individuals I'm excluding from this category.]

As for my stand, I don't believe in any non-institutionalized idea of marriage and am very doubtful that the concept of "love" does exist, but I do advocate this philosophy: each to their own.

There should be no difference when it comes to social benefits between a hetro-couple's union and a homosexual couple's union. To suggest otherwise is simply tyrannical on the grounds of sheer stupidity. Of course, quoting from a badly written book almost 2000 years in the publishing is totally irrelevant as well.

Are they doing any harm to society? No

Are they setting random people on the street alight to celebrate their union? No.

Will the legalization of homosexual marriage/adoption cause the world to implode? No. Unless "teh l0rd hax0r us with his l337 5kill5 cos we are teh 5inful!!11!eleven!" Heh.

Will there be severe economic disasters in the world? No.

Will the turban-wearing, scimitar-wielding warriors of @ll@h start a jihad? Well, maybe, but then they'll only get their asses kicked by the rest of the world.

Therefore, there is no valid or logical objection against same-sex marriage besides religion, which is less relevant than a South-Park episode [which is infinitely more intelligent and entertaining].

And for those fools who are of the opinion that children adopted by a homosexual couple will have "undesirable" values/preferences instilled in them, well, it simply means that there is one less person like you in this world, which is a good thing. With luck, your kind will be bred out in a few hundred years.

Yes, I'm an evil psychopath, but the responses on this topic have almost renewed my faith in humanity. Almost.

Nice one, folks!

 

Yes, isn't it strange how it usually turns out to be the macho All-American high school football coach who you would not want to trust your children to? One would think people would learn.

 

Y'all missed my point! (I say "y'all" because it makes me sound like a Southern Baptist.) The "intelligent" SPers are saying stuff like...

and

and

And, to top it all off, Death Rabbit dismisses my argument with...

My apologies for not being clear - let me try again.

My intended point was, we can argue 'til we're blue in the face about whether or not homosexuality is morally correct. The Bible says it's bad? Your feelings say it's good? So what? Why should the Bible trump someone's appetites, or why should appetites trump historical tradition? It's not even worth arguing about that here, because our presuppositions are so different.

But what we CAN argue about is whether or not it's good, or wise, or even remotely reasonable to selectively redefine an institution in order to make a behavior socially and legally acceptable. If homosexuals want to live together, fine - the sodomy laws are gone, and there's nothing stopping two loving, committed fellas from living together for life. But why the need to call that act "marriage"? What's the value in hijacking the word?

Looks to me like there are three values. Legally, if homosexuals can marry, then they get all sorts of legal rights - sharing finances, houses, insurance, hospital visits, and what-not. Financially, they get corporate benefits and tax write-offs. Socially, they get to live proudly alongside to their heterosexual married couples. And it appears that the easiest and simplest way to get those values is to appropriate, in the most inappropriate way, an existing social institution with certain shared behaviors [committment+sex] that happens to already receive those benefits.

Again, morality aside - why should the word be redefined? Why not just have civil unions? Why not just committed partnerships? Why do we have to dumb marriage down to being just a loving committed relationship (heterosexual or homosexual) instead of its classical meaning?

Oh, and one final comment, since I've already hung myself out to dry - Death Rabbit, you write:

My reference to craziness was to the redefinition, not the behavior. Are you "judgementally" suggesting that pedophelia shouldn't qualify for marriage, given that a man and a boy can have a lifetime relationship of love?

 

Shura, stop acting the fool. You cannot possibly ascribe to any sense of logic while calling for the end of 'discrimination' against gay marriage, while at the same time spouting an endless tirade of nonsensical bigotry against any people.

You may hate christians and arabs, and who knows what other ethnic or spiritual group, you may hate love itself, but this does not make you intelligent. If anything, the prime reason here people spoke of in favour of gay marriage was love.

If we remove love, like you have done, what have we left. Lust? Any sort of boundless lust is immoral, homosexual or not. Greed? You speak of civil benefits and rights! Stop thinking only what it is you may gain, stop thinking only about your own wealth and well-being.

To your other stance, every parent has the responsibilty to teach their children morality. If you will speak so often of the 'rights' that gay couples may have, think of the 'rights' of the parents who disagree, and their children. They have as much 'right' to do this as the 'rights' you speak of. But no, they are religious, so you think they should be killed. IF you were a psychopath, I could understand. But you are not, you do these things because it satisfies your own vanity. These lies of character disturb me as much as your bigotry. Have respect for the truth, if nothing else, and stop trying to pretend to be something we all know you are not.

chev and Grey have brought up very good points. This is what was asked, opinions on gay marriage. Never did one of them say they hated the other, or ask that they wished them to be discriminated against. People choose to use drugs as well, but we do not kid ourselves about what is happening.

But, sure, if gay people want to live together, let them indulge themselves. I will say this as much as I would not hinder any number of others whom I disagree with. This does not mean I think it is right, but there are many things I do not think is right, yet can accept as a part of human nature.

Philosophically I must disagree to gay marriage, just as I'm sure those philophers of old did, even if they were themselves gay. But as it seems so many of you disagree, then it seems obvious to me that this minority of thinkers who like myself, find something non-sensical in the concept, shall have to let the rest of you figure out your own ideals, it is the only way.

One point I would like to mention. Lust and Greed aside, the only reason that a gay couple to marry, having no ability for children, is for a love that transcends such ideals. But such a love would no longer be contained so personally. If this is what they have, they could live their lives together or apart however they wished. Why then the need for a civil marriage? A civil marriage is just a certificate after all, it holds no bond except that in the eyes of the law. The bond between a couple can be given as freely, as can all the legal bonds so entailed. Why then the ask of marriage, satisfaction of pride? To me this flies in the face of what I know of love, as do many of the marriages these days, straight or otherwise.

This said, I do not discredit homosexual marriage or adoption specificallly, I would feel the same of any person or persons, homosexual or not, that acted in such a mnner. But this is not what has been asked. The point is, especially in this case where any idealistic or spiritual notions associated with marriage have been asked to be removed, it is unnecessary.

We do not make special laws for a kelptomaniac. To me, lust and theft are in the same boat, one who is compulsively affixed upon an ideal that holds no merit, one that promotes an immoral course of action. Lust seems to be the only ideal for homosexuality, for if it were not there, they would not be homosexual.

But I want to make clear, I have no personal problem with a homosexual reltionship, as it is. I may disagree with it, but as I have said, I feel no ill-will towards any such couple. It is when new laws and privilleges are passed that the idea becomes silly. Non-sensical. But much of this world is, so why should this be any different? In summation, as philosophically as I must disagree with gay marriage, I have no problem with a gay couple pursuing their lives together.

-I just read Grey's latest post, and he brings up good points. As much as those non-religious do not wish religion to adversely affect their lives, those religious do not want an atheist state to adversely affect their religion.

Also, why the need to call it marriage? Let them live together as much as they wish, none of our societies condemn this, but it is not a marriage, and it does not need to be.

 

Back I am to answer your questions, doubts and, most of all attacks. Of which unfortunately most are complete misfits and serve me better than yourselves. Which I'm going to visualise now. It will be long, but it's always long when one person replies to many. Half of it is your own quotes, anyway.

You deserve Nobel Prize for this discovery. Such a thought would never have approached my closed mind if you hadn't englightened me It's also very sane, logical and fair to imply "RCC rules the world" from my "I'm Catholic, nothing to do with Martin Luther and Martin Luter when it comes to authorities in doctrine". Do you mean that Methodists rule the world each time you say you are one?

Greatly, for there's no culture holding homosexual relationship equal to heterosexual marriage and even deserving of the term "marriage" being applied.

How is "More unproductive, judgemental nonsense" not judgemental? And how it is productive from the perspective of this discussion's subject is beyond me.

Yes, the rights to marry a not-related consenting adult of opposite sex and have children with him. As it was in ancient Athens where even the gay folks in charge of the whole republic weren't open-minded and tolerant enough to call their homosexual relationships marriages.

Exactly. And what other names will you call me? By the way, as shouldn't introduces an opinion which is presented as opposed to the preceding statements, it's clear that per your own logic ignorant are those who don't share your opinion. They're ignorant because they have a different, opposite, one.

And I've been quite liberal most of the time. The last American test I took said that I was a left-sider. I will push this so far as I fancy so long as I obey the rules of civil discussion, which I also suggest to my honourable opposition.

You are repeating my point preceding it with a "no". They should not be penalised and their marriage should be valid. What are we argueing? If it's not for me to decide, how comes you are deciding it as you post? And what else are you doing than enforcing your views on me when telling me what I can do, especially while you're doing the same I am?

I have already exhausted the question of infertility. Do paedophiles have right to be happy and secure?

Not suggests, but argue for. The stupidity accusation and tyranny accusation is unfounded and its purpose is to satiate your ego.

Very, very impressive. You have shown your supremacy and delivered me a fatal blow. I guess.

I'm presenting and argueing my points in a peaceful and civil manner and there's a personal attack from you in responsne just a line above. Not like it's the only one in this post, let alone other posts in this thread.

You don't think right. Unless many European regions equals to the Emirate of Granada.

The above argument serves anything that has been forbidden since times long past. Paedophilia included. Zoophilia too, if we're at it. I'm ignoring the "ridiculous" parts.

What else have I been doing for several hours? Unless you exclude me from the ubermoralists on Religious Right category. Not like I believe you do. Not like I care.

Christian churches represent a large share of population, for one. Another factor is morals and philosophy, not just sheer religious doctrine.

Agreed.

Funny thing if we take a look at what names you call.

Yea, and the purpose of life is to be easy. Sorry, can't agree.

Quite amazing how the open-minded defenders of tolerance can't live with the knowledge that someone holds different opinions. Not only losing their tempers and not even trying to hide that, they have also reacted with a massive stream of personal attacks and not really subtle ones at that. Very open-minded. Providing no real arguments they just want their word to be taken on it, because they are right. Even their opinions expressed in subjunctive mood have logical value of 1. By definition everyone who disagrees is wrong. Of course it's I who am a closed-minded ignorant zealot and it's I who can't imagine ever being wrong in the slightest

 

To me the gay marriage issue boils down to property rights.IF my wife and I divorced a judge would help us decide who gets what,the house ,cars ect.How to split the bank account and other personal items.

As it stands now a gay couple that may have lived together for years and accumulated mutual wealth have no third party person to come in and help them untangle there property.

I just dont see the fear of gay marriage.When Massachusetts passed there gay marriage law,I was not suprised with uproar from the consertives on talk radio.What did suprise me was the revealation that by making it legal,somehow this would increase the amount of homesexuals.As if by passing the law suddenly more people would turn to this lifestyle.

This argument was used over and over again by people calling in.I also heard great arguments like go ahead and legalise it so they will kill themselves off,as if some how the world was not always and always will be populated with some people who just lived this lifestyle.

At any rate I live next to a gay couple and think it is a shame they do not share the same rights as me and my wife.I mean realy they are not hurting society in the least.

 

But those 'rights' can be obtained through other means, all consenting adults may sign over such things to anyone whom they so wish. Besides, marriage is about more than just money. With no dependant spouse or children involved, I fail to see why any benefits not allready legally entitled to the living member (like a jointly owned house or bank-account which is split fairly by matter of law, not marriage) are needed upon ones death.

Edit: I understand your fears Dorion Blackstar, and were they true I would agree with you, but marriage is not the only way for property rights to be sorted. In fact, many judges give such 'rights' to any couple living together for a certain period of time.

One I know recently seperated from his spouse, with whom he had children, and they were not married. Yet it was treated as such. He agreed to wave objection to the decision because such things were not over-valued to him, he may have even thought it the fair or right thing to do. In any case, he lost most everything. But the truth remains that you do not have to be married to recieve the same protection by law as everyone else. In fact, I would even say that in many cases, it goes too far, that too many situations that are not marriage are treated as if they were. I have no fears of it happening the opther way around, because it doesn't.

-I have just read chevaliers post as well, and he makes an exceedingly good point for discussion, with which I agree. Do not some of you think you are being hypocritical on this matter?

[ January 14, 2004, 04:13: Message edited by: Manus ]

 

OK, to me, marriage is the greatest way possible to show the amount of love one has for another. Say you see some old friends of yours walking down the street holding hands, immediatly you think couple, so you ask, "Are you guys a coouple these days?" And when they answer, isn't the response, "No, we got married!" so much more meaningful than, "Yea, we are together."

THat is what marriage is about to me, showing one's affection for another. It has nothing to do with kids, nothing to do with religion, and nothing to do with marital rights. So don't you think if you saw two homosexual guys walking down the street holding hands, they would rather say with affection for the other, "No, we are married!"?

When it comes to this, saying, "They have a homosexual union" is no different than, excuse me, but, "O, there goes the faggot couple." Gay people want it written in the books that he married another man and she married another woman and lived happily ever after instead of they had an acknoledged union and broke up 4 months later because of the stress factor. (You know what I mean by this!)

Sorry for being repetitive, but i think that came out right.

 

Grey - I don't think anyone on this board doubts your intelligence, sophistication or elegant use with words. But I never could understand why society singles out certain groups for punishment in the name of God or the Bible. What if we were to single out say, gambling or any other transgression for that matter? Yes, the Bible does say its wrong, but so are a lot of other things that don't get nearly the same reaction out of society as sexual preference. My feeling is that discrimination against gays has more to do with social taboos than with the Word of God, but that some (and I'm not saying you) use religion as a matter of conveniece.

What you are arguing for is a special legal union of sorts. I don't think most see marriage as a sacred union between a loving couple and God any longer. You could make a strong case that the State has usurped God's or the Church's power in the Holy Union of a man and woman. Whether one agrees or not, marriage is now more of a societal and a state matter than a matter of Church. What gays should have, is the same legal rights as anyone else. The Church does not have to condone it, but the State and the Justice system should not discriminate because of such preferences.

 

@ Gray

That's fine. I never said it had to be called "marriage," that's just the easiest term to discuss it with familiarity. There's no need to call it "marriage" per se, if that will make everyone happy. I have no problem with that. There's no need to force religion, or the state, to redefine what "marriage" is. My point from my first post was that marriage and civil unions are two seperate things, yet people lump them together as "gay marriage." This invalidates a gay couple as a valid, lifetime union which, in my opinion, isn't fair. People seem to think that condoning civil unions is the same as denying the bible, and it isn't.

No. IMO, disapproving of the sexual preference and life choices of two adults is being judgemental. Dissaproving of the sexual preference and life choices of an adult and a child is being completely reasonable because this is obviously a criminal act. We're talking about the lives of two responsible, free-thinking adults. Unless you're talking about a father/son type relationship when you say "a lifetime relationship of love," this doesn't apply.

But I see your point, and it's a good one.
Well noted. But I think we're both guilty of missing each other's points. My point was that redefining traditional marriage isn't necessary to recognize gay marriage...er, I mean civil unions.

@ Chev

I never said that. You weren't even talking about homosexuals in the quote in question, you were talking about out conception and raising children, so don't come back like you just scored some great victory. You seemed to be suggesting that your version of marriage was the natural order of things, and I was disagreeing.

As far as natural order is concerned: Mating, yes. Marriage, no. That was created by man and as such, like all manmade things, is open to interpretation as well as modification.

I never called anybody any names, and you know it. Disagreement is fine, but don't make things up. I'm not attacking you. You began in this thread by making a series of subjective statements that disregard the beliefs of others. I never said your beliefs were wrong - for you. I'm saying yours aren't for everyone, and they certainly aren't perfect. Who's are?

Sorry if you missed the sarcasm in my Martin Luther Chev comment...I thought it was kinda funny. Next time I'll do the And when I say "I know this is damn near impossible for you to accept," I'm referring to the stubbornness you've become so famous for, which is not an insult either.

[ January 14, 2004, 04:23: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

Of course, the only reason their relationship broke was that it wasn't called marriage. For if it were called marriage, they would have live happily ever after

 

Marriage or Bust; Why Civil Unions are not enough.

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/homosexuality.php?artnum=20000427

[ January 16, 2004, 00:20: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

I know that not all the laws are exactly the same, but my point was they don't need to be. Money is not what is pivotal here, and the law (at least ideally if not in practice) does try to aim towards fairness in dividing assets. WHat I was trying to say, is that a gay man doesn't need the same monetary support upon the death of his spouse (or a gay woman and her spouse) that a mother with children will need, or even a father with children for that matter.

Ok, if all we are worried about here is the legal aspect, would not it make more sense to re-write the laws so as to afford the same situation and freedom of choice (as far as contractual agreements are concerned) for everyone, so we all may benefit, rather than trying to make a law to change an established event -either religious or societal- to custom suit a select group, who, as chev has pointed out, do have the exact same rights as everyone else as it allready stands.

Chandos, I agree, there is a discrepancy by some between the adherance to a religious code as concerns homosexuality and other matters, but I do not think it is the case with any of the members here. I myself find more wrong with many of those things you have brought up for discussion than a gay marriage, but that does not mean a gay marriage is perfectly acceptable to me. But that itself is unclear. Acceptance presupposes that it affects me, it is not that, for of course it does not, it is that it makes as much sense to me as if a man wished to marry his chair.

Philosophy and morality aside, it just doesn't make sense. People treat homosexuality as if it is the mysterious third previously unknown gender, when it is not, a gay man or woman is no different from anyone else. That is why I say that they allready have the same rights as everyone else, because they do. A compulsive liar may not hurt anyone with his lies, but it is still an indulgence in an act that is wrong, like any form of lust, homosexual or not. I am not denying the existence of love between these couples, it is perfectly understandable to me that love would develop, love is universal. Thus it is unfortunate, but the existence of love does not justify or explain a thing.

If we stop trying to make homosexuals some sort of distinct ethnicity or gender, and consider this the same way we would colour-blindness for example, then I think it makes a lot more sense.

Also, I am not a christian myself, but perhaps if some of us respected marriage a little more like a 'loving union between a couple under God', whatever that interpretation of god may be, rather than 'a specific bundle of property rights' we would all be better off. Just a thought.

[ January 14, 2004, 11:12: Message edited by: Manus ]

 

Yes, Manus, flame on.

Immorality? Sorry, I don't subscribe to any form of morality at all. Morals are subjective and always open to interpretation. Talk to me about Law if you wish to be relevant.

Note that I have not removed "love" from the equation in such unions as you so accusingly point out. Since the other posters have addressed it so well in their responses, I simply chose to address another concept of homosexual unions.

There are civil benefits for married couples. I simply pointed out that homosexuals should not be deprived of these benefits as well if they do decide to legalize their union. They should also be allowed to adopt children for equality's sake.

Also, dmc's post provides the reasoning for such a proposal.

My own sake and what I might gain? Excuse me! None of these things will ever apply to me since I never intend to get married. If there is any selfish intent in my above post, you are very mistaken.

I have always held the opinion that religion is the cause for most of the stupidity and suffering present in the world today. You won't be changing that point of view anytime soon, like in this lifetime or the next, Manus, so stuff the holiness and morality. And don't preach to me on vanity. You don't seem to be any better with your self-righteousness as well. I know what I am better than you and vice versa. Claiming to do so is an act of stupidity. I shall not stoop to the level of launching personal attacks like you do hence I shall say no further on this subject.

Therefore, secular reasoning = open to consideration/debate. Religious reasoning = flush down the toilet along with the rest of the sewage.

A school in which children are taught that they should achieve happiness/fulfilment/etc in any way they can as long as they abide the Law is IMO, far better than one which says "g0d hates fags" like what Chev would prefer. Any educational institution that encourages bigotry is something to be hated and reviled.

Of course, I'm not suggesting that churches be forced to hold weddings for homosexual couples if they don't want to. In the spirit of liberty and equality, they should be allowed to keep their stupidity exclusively for themselves if they are so adamant about it.

But let homosexuals legalize their unions in a lawyer's office and hold their own ceremony if they want to and don't storm out with your pitchforks and crucifixes.

When the religious start protesting against the legalization of any pro-gay ideas, it is oppression, pure and simple. On what grounds do they have to protest besides their moronic faith/bigotry/hate? They will still go to "heaven" even if homosexuals are accorded equal civil and marital rights. It does not affect their personal lives at all.

If they're that concerned that little Tommy will be taught values contrary to their idiocy in a school of a society that legalizes homosexual unions, then keep the little tyke at home. At least, until the educational authorities come storming to your doorstep.

Drug abuse is against the Law [well, some forms of drug abuse anyway] because it might lead to further crimes and economic weakness. Homosexuality leads to none of these. It does not harm anyone. So why all the gnashing of teeth and self-righteous protests when some legal rights are to be accorded to them?

Simple: "g0d hates fags". Why do the religious people protest?

The answer: Hate disguised by a lot of rhetoric on terminology, technicalities, [false] morality and whatnot.

There is no reason to object unless you're a bigot as far as homosexuals are concerned.

 

Two quick messages, and then I'm going to bed.

Message #1: CHANDOS! His frigging name is CHANDOS! Not Chandros with an "R." I see people post that all the time, and it drives me nuts, even if Chandos himself could probably care less. Get his name right!

Why does this bug me? No idea. I'm a tool I guess.

Message #2: This debate is getting really emotional, and I suggest we all sleep on it before continuing. Apparantly, Tal and BTA are asleep at the moment, otherwise they'd be jumping up all our asses by now. The point is not to make each other feel stupid, but to find a logical common ground. I think. Anyway...

Frankie Say Relax.

*/me Gives Chevalier a healthy and affectionate noogie*

Nite nite.

 

I have quite a simple view on gay marriage and homosexuality.

As long as they don't hit on me they can do whatever they want. Not any hairs off of my arse.