Freebird Games Community

Community (Misc.) => General => Debates/Serious Discussions => Topic started by: Stardale on April 13, 2009, 11:57:45 PM

Title: Gay Marriage
Post by: Stardale on April 13, 2009, 11:57:45 PM
This is one hot topic in AM. As I was watching the thread, reading each other people's arguments and comments, I would also like to know what would you guys think about it. Apparently, there are some states in the US (such as Vermont?) in which Gay Marriage has been fully legalized, though I have been hearing some fights here at home by the time they saw the news. Uncle says that it is preposterous, Mom says it is legal indeed.

How about your views?

Mine is just this:

*sigh* Ok... I am actually very torn on this subject.
1. I am not now and never will be anything but heterosexual...(full male)
2. Some of the best friends I have are "gay", lesbian, bi, or bicurious...
3. I see so many people who are truly happier in that lifestyle.
My parents are some of those who believe that it is against God to be gay... that is is morally wrong... but I have searched in the Bible and nowhere does it say that man cannot seek after man or woman after woman... however... it does say that God found man and woman together right. And it was ordered that we procreate.
Man/man and woman/woman marriages being banned WILL NOT bring about more procreation. The same people who want to get married will not decide that since they are not allowed to, they will magically decide they want to seek after the opposite sex. This is not how mankind works.
So... should there be laws against gay marriage? Not by any government... should churches have laws against gay marriage?
Should there be guidelines for homosexual couples? Differences in how they're treated in terms of taxes or anything like that? No.
Do I completely agree with it? NO. I do not see it as a healthy thing for people... but it is not an issue of morality or ethics... not of that particular person, anyway. But I do not agree that it is a good way to spend one's life.
This being said, please keep in mind what I said in No 2.
Thank you.


EDIT: Do not start discrimination here and keep in mind number 2.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Reives on April 14, 2009, 12:17:18 AM
I'm fairly neutral on this; but since the OP is the only post on it so far, could you expand on why you do not agree that it is a good way to spend one's life? I haven't been exposed to the issue much so I'm not familiar with either sides' main arguments.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Stardale on April 14, 2009, 12:33:07 AM
I speak fairly in general, thats a thing.

For most of the people I meet, being homosexual is not a healthy thing for them... though I completely agree that some people do seem truly better off- happier in general being gay. This is why the subject is such a split-in-emotion causing thing for me. All I want for my loved ones is that they be happy... so I am thrilled for some to see them thriving in that lifestyle... but others only seem to be hurting themselves. I, also, just cannot understand the draw to another gender... so I cannot fully find it a healthy choice.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: abigailian on April 14, 2009, 12:40:07 AM
In my mind, there are two main issues here.

1. Is living a gay lifestyle right or wrong? (You can look at this from a variety of angles, such as religion, evolution, genetics, 'greater good,' etc.)
2. Should gay marriage be legalized, and in what circumstances

As far as 1 is concerned, I find it hard to believe that it is better for someone with same sex attractions to act based on those attractions than to try and suppress them. I don't believe that same sex attractions are wrong (all evidence indicates that can't be helped) but I can't think of many issues where you have people arguing that something is right solely on the reasoning that it's something they want to do. While this opinion is definitely firmly rooted in my religious beliefs, I don't think I see any particular reasons atheists or those of other faiths should support the gay lifestyle either.

Issue number two, depends entirely on how it is legalized. The courts are severely overstepping their bounds in this case. Is marriage a universal right? I would argue no, but even if it were, I am not allowed to marry a woman. This point might seem trite, but I'm arguing this isn't a point of discriminating against certain groups, it's just those groups are trying to change the definition of marriage in a way we haven't previously defined it. If gay marriage is legalized through the legislature, then as sad as I would be, it was put into law democratically, and should be honored.

I don't believe morality can be legislated. One of the great things about America (and all of the western world, basically) is that basically, if you wish to be moral you can be moral. If you wish to be immoral, no one will stop you. Therefore, while I would not support legislating gay marriage, it's not worth suspending democracy to keep it illegal.

Also, Stardale, as far as homosexuality in the Bible is concerned:

Spoiler: show
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2018;&version=51 verse 22,
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=6&version=51 verse 9
There's another one in the New Testament, which talks about lesbianism.

Furthermore, there are no places in which homosexuality is shown in a positive light, heterosexuality is always shown to be the norm. There are no discussion of how gay couples should treat each other. In fact, the romantic relationship between a husband and a wife is supposed to be based on the relationship of Christ and the church, so it's very difficult to see how a gay couple would fit into that view.

It's VERY difficult for me to believe that the Bible in and of itself can be read to support homosexual relationships. Every time I've seen someone make the case that it supports homosexual relationships, they use outside evidence.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Reives on April 14, 2009, 12:48:37 AM
@Star:
Eh, so you are saying that for most of the homosexuals you know, you feel that it is not healthy (my question was "why is that?"). What you're saying doesn't seem to make sense to me (or maybe I'm misunderstanding) since, even if completely under the assumption that it is unhealthy and makes the person unhappy, not allowing them to marry is not even touching that since such a restriction doesn't suddenly turn them straight. And I think it's probably safe to say that the ones who are homosexual themselves would want to go with what makes them happy, and it's probably safe to say that that is not to ban gay marriage. :P

I can see arguments for banning it as well, but that particular point doesn't seem to ring to me.

@Abi:
Ahh, posted while I was typing. Will read/possibly respond at a later time.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: mepwnn on April 14, 2009, 07:09:46 PM
I hope this helps:
The state of being gay is a problem with the mind when a person is born, and is therefore impossible to prevent them from acting the way they want to act around people of the same gender.
Is gay marriage wrong? No, as it's about the same as saying being gay is weird (in my thinking). Like Reives, arguing for banning gay marriage is pretty pointless, due to homosexuality (I think it's the same as gay) being a mental state.

Just a fact: California has banned gay marriage in 2008 for those of you who didn't know. I think the governor and mayor of SF went to challenge this ban in court. I need to get my facts straight!
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: abigailian on April 14, 2009, 07:23:31 PM

Banning gay marriage isn't pointless; it sends a message that homosexual relationships are not condoned, or have a different nature than heterosexual relationships (which I would argue is true.) Furthermore, even if you can't ban the mental state of homosexuality (which I would agree would be ridiculous and harmful) if same-sex marriage is illegal, it makes it more difficult for gay couples to adopt children, it doesn't lead to a legal issue with the churches who oppose same-sex marriage etc.

Being gay/homosexual means you are sexually attracted to member of your own sex. Being heterosexual means you are attracted to members of the opposite sex. There's probably a range in between. I think people don't have a great degree of choosing who they're attracted to, but you certainly can decide what you do with that attraction.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Reives on April 14, 2009, 07:26:03 PM
Like Reives, arguing for banning gay marriage is pretty pointless, due to homosexuality (I think it's the same as gay) being a mental state.
Well I think it's more complex than just that. I was directing that at a particular point alone, not the whole issue.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: mepwnn on April 14, 2009, 07:33:39 PM
@Reives Sorry about that, I must've missed something a while back. I'd better re-read this topic.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: zekallinos on April 14, 2009, 08:09:04 PM
The fact is that there are people who have attractions that are more out of the norm. Why say no? It's not like you can change them. I think it would be wrong to force them to be "normal", just as it is wrong to force some political or social ideas or values into someone. It's not like they will become some monsters that will eat you either. Those people actually tend to be good people, who try to make an effort in life to show that they are not mentally retarded, while the "normal-cool" people tend to work on the law of minimum effort.

Although I personally think that they do not belong on the face of earth. I'm not saying "let's go exterminate them", I tolerate very well those who do exist. But I just don't know how they do exist. It's not genetical, that's for sure. It's that I feel the purpose of life, or rather the reason that life even exists to begin with is that fact that it is a renewable cycle of creation of destruction. An eternal and perfect cycle. And obviously they do not help the cycle to continue.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: abigailian on April 18, 2009, 07:56:03 AM
I'm kind of interested that thus far, the comments are undecided or anti gay marriage. At Amaranthia they're much more tolerant I guess. Anyone for Gay Marriage here?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: zekallinos on April 18, 2009, 10:23:49 AM
Well, I think the one who does the marriages (religious or civil) some right to accept to do it or not. But even if banning same-sex marriages would send some "message", it still wouldn't change those people and they would still be together, so let them have some freedom, it's not like it's hurt you.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: abigailian on April 18, 2009, 12:38:40 PM
My comment up top was more of a bump/invitation for people who may have thus far felt excluded because the tone isn't exactly "Yeah! I'm for gay marriage 100%! Love is Love!" etc. I want to invite that viewpoint, since it seems sadly underrepresented here.

If a society at large was in favor of, or at least tolerated gay marriage, I would agree that it's reasonable to legalize it. At this point in America (and apparently in every state, as well) public opinion is generally against the idea of allowing two women or two men to marry each other. Therefore, I don't think it should be legalized through the judicial system. Before too long though, public opinion will move farther in that direction. Unlike many other Christians, I don't necessarily believe this is a loss, partially because, as you noted, gay relationships don't hurt the people around them very much.

I absolutely believe that people have free will to do what they wish. This doesn't mean that if I care about them I encourage harmful behavior. But the way I see it, if God allows people to do all the crap that they do, he obviously respects our free will. Also here's another thing to think about. Who is more moral, the person who uses sex wisely in Saudi Arabia, where it is a matter of life and death, or in the western world, where a person is free to do what they want. So I'm not exactly against same sex marriage in the sense that I would militantly oppose it, I just don't think it's good for anyone.

Obviously, this is all based on some foundational assumptions, (for instance that homosexual relationships are harmful), just trying to flesh out my opinion here.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Ruzu on April 19, 2009, 04:57:47 AM
I just want to throw my opinion in this.

Do I feel gay marriage is wrong? It's perfect, maybe not for me, maybe not for you.
Do I feel it should be legal everywhere? I do, but that's not for me to decide.
Do I feel if people don't like it (churches, and extremest who are against it) should turn away? Yes, to those this concerns. I'm sorry but that's how I feel.

I feel that gay marriage should be alright, and legalized, everywhere. Why you may ask is because, what's wrong with loving someone of the same gender? Hell I was bisexual before, but never dated anyone of the same sex. But I was attracted to them. Of course, I only like girls to the point I'll have sexual intercourse with them, and date them. Of course that was when I was way younger so it doesn't effect my choice as of now. I have plenty of gay friends, who are good people, and who I feel have the right to marry and have with whom they so desire.
Now I don't mean to start a fight or make anyone mad but.
Really, I hear from a lot of Christians(not trying to put them on the spot at all, but they're the ones who give my friends, hell about being gay =/) that they say gay marriage is a sin and god loathes it, I have not exactly been able to find it in the bible then again since I've become a univarsilist I haven't read the bible, but when I ask for them to show me where god states he loathes(hates for those who don't know) gay marriage, they cannot find it.
Sometimes I want to be an ass, and tell everyone who are against it that its a way of life. Not everyone will accept your way of life and date someone of the opposite gender we may like someone of the same gender (I'm only interested girls) and so yes, it should be legal and everyone should have an open mind to it.

Plus my biggest argument, is that would you rather two people who don't love each other and have nothing in common to get married or two people of the same gender who love each other to get married? Think about it.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Valtier on May 15, 2009, 07:23:42 PM
I see nothing wrong with gay marriage, homosexuality, or the right for such couples to adopt.  There's no need to force churches to marry gay couples against their doctrine, but that simply paints all churches as opposed.  There are plenty of churches even in this immediate area who I'm fairly sure would, have, and will continue to be open to conducting them.  So long as the rights/benefits of gay couples match that of traditional marriages, I don't see the problem.  I'm generally very tolerant towards most anything, so it's hard for me to take jabs at the opposing argument, seeing as they're definitely on a different wavelength than me.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: hikari_rekka on May 20, 2009, 11:45:58 PM
I don't see anything wrong with homosexuality and I don't really understand why people make a big deal over who can and cannot get married. It's not like they rub in the fact that they're gay. (Y'see, my sister is friends with gays and she didn't find out until someone else told them) So, I think gay marriage should be legal and that people should realize that if they don't like it, they shouldn't bother.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: xAvaRenx on June 02, 2009, 11:22:42 PM
Speaking of which... I think June is Gay Pride month.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Obsession on June 05, 2009, 06:50:57 AM
The reason why this issue became contriversal to start with was because it was illegal till around a few years ago, and say 50 years ago any form would be considered illegal. The reason why this was, was because it went against the rules of the Church, whereby most laws derived from.

I'm not against the church, but I do believe that homosexuality is not a crime, and should never be. This is because it is not anywhere near the scale of murder, it is merely just a form of relationship, whereby both people are prepared to go through with, similar to a normal marrage. Since my country used to be founded on Church beliefs, I think that is why it took so long to be legalised. 
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Just Lance on June 05, 2009, 09:18:07 AM
Well. I'm positive to gay marriage. I know one or two of them. And they told me that about two years of known each other. But if they don't bother me with it :D
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Candide on June 10, 2009, 08:01:25 AM
I find it funny that I wrote an anti-homophobia rant on dA a few days ago. If you understood my last sentence, then yes, I am pro-gay marriage. I don't really see the big deal people make out of homosexuals. The religious extremists are spitting out "IT'S AGAINST GOD AND HE HATES GAYS LOL!"

People can't force people to not be gay just by making the marriage illegal. It's not like they flicked the gay switch on purpose. 'Sides, I believe that everyone is bisexual, they just lean more towards on preference. I mean, come on, you've had to at least think one homosexual thought.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: abigailian on June 10, 2009, 09:55:04 AM
'Sides, I believe that everyone is bisexual, they just lean more towards on preference. I mean, come on, you've had to at least think one homosexual thought.

Lol, I think that's mostly true, especially for girls (And yes, I'm admitting to having homosexual thoughts on occasion). Guys I think are much more likely to just be gay or straight, unless they're in their teenage years. (I guess the hormones at this point practically make them want to have sex with anything that moves).

However, the justification for an action should never simply be that it started as a desire. Most of the defenses of homosexual sex (homosex, from now on, if you will) are that there is a legitimate reason for the desire (like they were born that way, or animals do it). It doesn't matter how the desire started! What matters is the effect it has and what you do with it.

Here's part of the reason I've come to the conclusion about correct sexuality is the facts about compatibility. Let's face it, women and men are made to have romantic relationships and sex with each other. Obviously anatomically (male homosex, in particular, can be very dangerous), but even mentally, men and women have an easier job of having romantic relationships with each other. In the case of male homosexuality, it's very difficult for partners to remain monogamous (indeed, many people argue that if gay marriage becomes legal, we really shouldn't even expect husbands to remain faithful). While lesbian relationships are usually monogamous, they generally don't last more than a few years. Women are famously demanding in romantic relationships, so imagine that cutting both ways, and the arguments and misunderstandings associated! All that has led me to a very firm belief that heterosexual relationships are far preferable to homosexual ones.

Now, this is where religion or personal opinion come in, at least right now when we don't really have a whole lot of data. Does the fact that homosex and homosexual relationships aren't ideal make them necessarily wrong? Obviously not. None of my relationships will ever be ideal, but that doesn't mean they won't be a net benefit to me and the people around me. However, even as homosexuality has become more and more accepted in western culture, we still have very high rates of suicide (which haven't come down very far), and in places where gay marriage has been legal for a long time, the divorce rates are astronomical, much higher than heterosexual marriages. I don't know if they've ever done any studies on celibate gays (or if there's even a segment of celibate gays large enough to study) but it seems to me that, even despite the loneliness, it's the better option.

And by the way, God LOVES gays (he loves me, anyway, and I've done just as much crap as any gay or lesbian has, if not more). Anyone who says any differently has supplanted a love for God with religion.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Candide on June 11, 2009, 07:53:19 AM
Quote
Women are famously demanding in romantic relationships, so imagine that cutting both ways, and the arguments and misunderstandings associated! All that has led me to a very firm belief that heterosexual relationships are far preferable to homosexual ones.

Um! But not all women are exactly demanding though. Man that's a weak statement.

Well in homosexual relationships, there isn't much misunderstanding like women troubles (.) or some kinda weird male things. I dunno. Homosex (I dunno why that makes me inwardly giggle) between two men doesn't really have to be like how people think of the homosexual version of heterosex. There are other ways, y'know, and having a homosexual relationship doesn't really mean they must have sex.

And if they absolutely must, well both people know what makes their partner happy :|

I make no sense to myself in this post.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: abigailian on June 11, 2009, 05:44:39 PM
I think I follow that, but what I'm saying is it seems to me there are some reasons why homosexual relationships INHERENTLY cannot be as compatible as heterosexual relationships. I've never seen anyone able to come along and make reasons as to why they are better in some ways. The best they can do is argue that they're the same, and in my view, that seems absolutely ridiculous. Men and women relate differently to each other, regardless of sexual orientation.

(Homosex sounds funny to me, too :P, and I never used it again, anyway, lol) The idea of starting a romantic relationship with no goal whatsoever of perhaps eventually having sex strikes me as very strange. If two people start a romantic relationship, meaning it to last forever, and (absent any reasons making it either impossible or unpleasant to have sex) desire to remain celibate, I don't see how that arrangement could possibly last very long. The whole reason they're together is because they find each other attractive on (hopefully) several levels.

I understand that women aren't all demanding (that was a poor choice of words). But women are wired differently than men, and lesbian relationships certainly have some struggles that relationships between gay men have no problem with, and which are much less prevalent in heterosexual relationships.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Reives on June 11, 2009, 05:53:32 PM
@Abi:
(Lol, that's the first time I've heard that word being used.)

Seems to me like your points don't necessarily press against the matter of marriage itself, though, but rather how it's not (as?) compatible in nature. A lack of an official marriage stamp doesn't prohibit them from having sexual relationships (in fact, from what I've heard from my most valued news source of stand-up comedy, marriage = less sex!). Same thing with living together; marriage or not does not prohibit that either way.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: abigailian on June 11, 2009, 06:03:59 PM
Yeah, thanks for being on topic. The reason it's related, though, is do you really want to encourage something that is not beneficial and perhaps even harmful? I don't think there's any reason to. I don't see any benefit to society or even individuals. I think it's sad when I hear stories of people who weren't allowed to see the person they loved in the hospital before they died, but I wonder if there's another way to work out some of those sorts of issues. I'd rather not encourage civil unions, either, but I'd rather see that be the case before we call what they have 'marriage.'
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Reives on June 11, 2009, 06:58:05 PM
Oh, that didn't even come across my mind since I was under the impression that sexual preferences isn't something that a person sits down and go "hm, so should I be straight or gay?" about, and hence "encouraging" or "discouraging" it wouldn't have a point, except to make those who are feel miserable.

That's pretty much one of those foundational belief kind of things that vary from person to person though. But from what I've seen, more or less all homosexuals seem to acknowledge that it was not a choice.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: abigailian on June 11, 2009, 07:23:13 PM
No, and I certainly don't believe that (at least for the VAST majority) of homosexuals/bisexuals, that the preference is a choice. But who you choose to have a relationship with/get married to is. Plus, there's nothing really in it for the government to endorse such relationships. (It's also probably not worth anyone's time to put up a huge fuss about it the other way. If enough people want it, and the general population is fine with it, and gets legalized the right way, I don't have a huge problem with it.)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Reives on June 11, 2009, 07:28:05 PM
But who you choose to have a relationship with/get married to is.
I'm not sure if I'm understanding it correctly, but does that mean that it's a valid suggestion for homosexuals to get married to partners of the opposite sex despite being against their nature?

I think the "if enough people want it" is more or less passed by 100% of the homosexual population, so the problem is whether or not the rest of the population is fine with it.

Annnd back to square one. :P
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: abigailian on June 11, 2009, 07:45:25 PM
I'm not sure if I'm understanding it correctly, but does that mean that it's a valid suggestion for homosexuals to get married to partners of the opposite sex despite being against their nature?

Okay, what I was getting at with this is that the government gives incentives for people to get married. I don't think this is something homosexual couples should be eligible for, since I don't see how they benefit society. I don't necessarily think we should DISCOURAGE it (i.e. criminalizing homosex) because I think people should generally be able to make their own decisions, good or bad, so long as they're only hurting themselves. (I know this is rather vague, but it seems like a good starting point, anyway.)

And I don't think people should be forced to marry someone they have no interest in, either. I don't see how if you're only interested in people that it would be inappropriate to have a relationship with, why is celibacy not a valid option?

I think the "if enough people want it" is more or less passed by 100% of the homosexual population, so the problem is whether or not the rest of the population is fine with it.

You'd actually be surprised. Not all homsexuals support it, and many do simply because they advocate 'equal rights,' and not because they ever plan on using the  institution. For instance, in Europe where it's been legal for a while now, not many gay couples actually get married.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Reives on June 11, 2009, 08:34:03 PM
Okay, what I was getting at with this is that the government gives incentives the freedom of choice for people to get married.
Corrected. :P

Quote
I don't necessarily think we should DISCOURAGE it (i.e. criminalizing homosex) because I think people should generally be able to make their own decisions, good or bad, so long as they're only hurting themselves.
But doesn't that contradict with the fact that you just acknowledged that being homosexual is not a "decision" that the vast majority of homosexuals could make / have made?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: abigailian on June 11, 2009, 09:59:41 PM
There really are incentives for people to get married, as far as tax breaks and stuf...

Anyway, you're connflating two different things. Homosexuality, as a state of being attracted to members of one's own gender, is not a choice. Homosex having sex with a member of one's own gender, is ABSOLUTELY a choice. There are psychologists out there who believe that pedophiles, like homosexuals, may be born with their sexual preferences. Their attraction to children is something they didn't choose, but whether or not they go out and act on those preferences is.

I'm not trying to equate raping children with having consensual sex with an adult. The similarity I'm pointing out is that in both cases there is a desire which may or may not be acted upon.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Reives on June 11, 2009, 10:29:53 PM
Oh yeah, there are definitely incentives. That was just at what was said, since allowing such gay marriages would not be "giving incentives" to it, but rather, well, allowing it in the first place. :P

And oh, okay. So in:
Quote
I don't necessarily think we should DISCOURAGE it (i.e. criminalizing homosex) because I think people should generally be able to make their own decisions, good or bad, so long as they're only hurting themselves.
, the "decisions" you are referring to are whether or not to engage in such marriage involving the two willing homosexual partners, or the said consensual sex involving the two willing homosexual partners.

Then. . .
Quote from: Abigailian
I think people should generally be able to make their own decisions, good or bad, so long as they're only hurting themselves.
. . . I agree?  ???
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: abigailian on June 11, 2009, 11:12:31 PM
Okay! I see your point now. Thanks for clarifying. :) the difference is, that a homosexual relationship is a decision that two people are allowed to make on their own, and this isn't something I would challenge their RIGHT to do. Marriage, however, implies ceremonies and laws and other people getting involved. Just because the couple may have the right to be a couple, doesn't mean they have the right to involve the government and the community, or to make anyone give them benefits because of their decision. In other words I think they should be allowed to make their own decision, but not to insist that other people endorse their decision. Is that a little clearer?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: JinA on July 17, 2009, 10:28:22 PM
First off, that a person was born gay or lesbian is what he/she had never expected! Sometimes a real female is hiding in a male body and  she cannot do anything about it. Then why blame her? Everyone has the right to love and to be loved, hence, there is nothing wrong with gay marriage. (Unless sometimes somebody just wants to act gay, then I have nothing to say...)

By the way, I am a straight female~~~
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Storm Obsession on March 09, 2010, 11:01:48 PM
I don't think one is BORN to be gay or lesbian or whatever. It's just a choice, and scientists have for years found that there is no such thing as a 'gay gene' (it's what they called it. Seriously!) anywhere.
Actually, two scientists insisted they found it, but then when their reports and document stuffs were examined, it was discovered to be a hoax.
There's nothing genetic about one's sexual orientation. It's just a choice.
Just saying.
Um, not wanting to be mean or anything, but yes, I am against homosexuality. (But not against the homosexuals themselves, of course.)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Just Lance on March 14, 2010, 07:13:35 AM
Well we have evidences about homosexual animals so it's nothing againts nature. One my friend is homosexual and I found that when he told me. It was little shocking. :D
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Raxus on March 14, 2010, 06:56:40 PM
Homosexual animals...? :salbrow: That doesn't exist.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Reives on March 14, 2010, 07:18:08 PM
Actually it does. Same with necrophilia - in fact, both of those were evident in one single famous case involving two ducks.

(And a summer ago me and my cousin also spotted two homosexual mosquitoes.)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Raxus on March 14, 2010, 07:21:35 PM
There are mistakes in nature. It may be a chemical imblance in the mind. Humans are made to mate and have children. And plus, if homosexuals are to have sex, it can cause bodily harm.

(Oh, and I'm not against gays, I just don't want them to do anything in public. ::))
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Rayen on March 14, 2010, 07:59:19 PM
My mom's cat is gay.. He tries to molest my cat..
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Raxus on March 14, 2010, 08:10:23 PM
Doing actions like that is only to show that they are dominant.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Just Lance on March 15, 2010, 06:04:28 PM
Doing actions like that is only to show that they are dominant.

Not necessarily.

History curiosity:
In acient Egypt the emperor must've raped a man who losed fight with him to prove his strenght.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Saken on March 15, 2010, 08:42:01 PM
I have not tuned into this whole thread, but I think it's a bit self explanatory: Gay Marriage, should it be allowed and, from the posts on this page, is it a choice and what not.

In my opinion it is certainly not a choice.  Having sex with another male/female is, of course, a choice, but weither or not you're attracted to same sex, or to different sexes, is not.

Sure, a homosexual may put off thoughts of men, or women, and date the opposite sex and come to love their partner or what not, but they might be sexually repulsed by the person or just unsure about the whole thing in general. I don't mean to put people down who think it's not a choice, or to cast stones on those who think it is, but I have found in my lifetime, talking to people my age and coming to grips with my own sexuality, that it isn't a choice.

That aside, I think everyone is a tad bit bisexual, simply because you can't have jealousy without being it, an you can't look at another person and view them as a threat towards your partner without 'checking them out', as it goes. It's just impossible to think you're 'hotter,' or more attractive if you are not conscious of a person's sexuality, or how they look, or how someone who's attracted to them works.

Gay Marriage = A go, in my book.

Sorry if any of this is a bit redundant.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Storm Obsession on March 18, 2010, 06:00:03 AM
I think everyone's feedback would be nice, and your views are quite similar to some of my friends'.
I'm wondering, since I myself don't think that it's unnatural to love someone of the same gender like that, then why does everyone usually at some point of time have a crush on one of the same gender? (My teacher told us that in our first year of being in a single-gender school and she's married now. She was reassuring us that senior crushes didn't mean we were...like, homosexual)

I have lost count of the girls I've seen kissing in the shopping mall a few bus stops away from my school. It makes me shudder a bit. Even though I have nothing personal against homosexuals.
Oh wait, PDA between heterosexual couples make me shudder too. Never mind then.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Kirroha on March 21, 2010, 06:29:15 AM
I still don't get the senior crushes thing. I don't even know many seniors, and the ones in Red Cross freak me out. I have no idea why Hazel was so obsessed over one of them.

I have nothing against gay people. I have something against lesbianism, though. Probably because I'm biased, since the former is awesome somehow.

*shot*
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Muffin on March 31, 2010, 11:14:38 PM
I'm 100% with Saken.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Avaleaux on October 27, 2010, 09:31:15 AM
I do not approve of Gay marriage, Because in the circumstance that a Gay couple gets...well.. not legitly married in my bokk, but lets just say united, the following CAN happen:

 1. The Couple could raise an adopted child to be gay as well.....(if I knew someone that did that I would.....I can't really speak of what I'd do on this..)

 2. Gay people make straight people messed up!( Straight people are always afraid that they may be doing something only gay people would do, even though it doesnt really reflect sexxuallity)

 3. Gay people steal our styles!(If I were to go to school wearing nothing more that a scarf with my ussuall outfit, everyone would be like " OMG UR GAY, FAGGOT, U R WEARING A SCARF!". SO WHAT, JUST BECAUSE IM WEARNING A SCARF DOESN'T MEAN IM GAY!).

 4. Gay people aren't worth the trouble!(Taxxes and money is being spent on this debate, when It should be going twords much more important things.)

 5. If someone believes gayness is right, HOW COME TWO PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX CAN'T HAVE KIDS HUH? ITS NOT LIKE U CAN RUB TWO STICKS TOGETHER TO MAKE FIRE!
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Malvodion on October 27, 2010, 12:00:08 PM
I do not approve of Gay marriage, Because in the circumstance that a Gay couple gets...well.. not legitly married in my bokk, but lets just say united, the following CAN happen:

 1. The Couple could raise an adopted child to be gay as well.....(if I knew someone that did that I would.....I can't really speak of what I'd do on this..)

 2. Gay people make straight people messed up!( Straight people are always afraid that they may be doing something only gay people would do, even though it doesnt really reflect sexxuallity)

 3. Gay people steal our styles!(If I were to go to school wearing nothing more that a scarf with my ussuall outfit, everyone would be like " OMG UR GAY, FAGGOT, U R WEARING A SCARF!". SO WHAT, JUST BECAUSE IM WEARNING A SCARF DOESN'T MEAN IM GAY!).

 4. Gay people aren't worth the trouble!(Taxxes and money is being spent on this debate, when It should be going twords much more important things.)

 5. If someone believes gayness is right, HOW COME TWO PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX CAN'T HAVE KIDS HUH? ITS NOT LIKE U CAN RUB TWO STICKS TOGETHER TO MAKE FIRE!

Please tell me that wasn't serious...
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: mepwnn on October 27, 2010, 06:49:11 PM
@Ava - I agree with Malvodion, I really hope you're joking, and if you are, then you shouldn't be in this board. First of all, neither of your arguments had anything to do with Gay Marriage, at all. Here! Here's an argument to all your points!

1. Why should that matter? Gays have the right to raise their child however they want, and they don't have to raise them to be gay.

2. Can you speak for everyone when you say
Quote
Straight people are always afraid that they may be doing something only gay people would do, even though it doesnt really reflect sexxuallity
? I for one disagree, and I'm perfectly straight.

3. They don't steal our styles - you're simply misinterpreting what the people say when they are calling you gay or faggot. We commonly use it to insult people when they do things out of the ordinary. I've been called gay plenty of times, and I'm straight.

4. Gays are people, too, and people have rights. People are equal, so why do you say gays aren't worth the trouble? Are you saying that gays actually aren't people?

5. This makes absolutely no sense. Scientifically, it's impossible for two people of the same gender to produce a kid because a normal person doesn't have both reproductive organs, only one. I'm not sure what hermaphrodites do, though. What I'm trying to say here is it's not a matter of the law stating that gays can't produce babies, they are physically unable to.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Merlandese on October 27, 2010, 08:00:42 PM
5. If someone believes gayness is right, HOW COME TWO PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX CAN'T HAVE KIDS HUH? ITS NOT LIKE U CAN RUB TWO STICKS TOGETHER TO MAKE FIRE!

Wait, what do you rub a stick against to make fire, then? A hole? This confuses me...  ??? Good thing we aren't lost in the woods here.  :eshetease:
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Avaleaux on October 27, 2010, 10:51:14 PM
Quote
@Ava - I agree with Malvodion, I really hope you're joking, and if you are, then you shouldn't be in this board. First of all, neither of your arguments had anything to do with Gay Marriage, at all. Here! Here's an argument to all your points!

1. Why should that matter? Gays have the right to raise their child however they want, and they don't have to raise them to be gay.

2. Can you speak for everyone when you say
Quote
Straight people are always afraid that they may be doing something only gay people would do, even though it doesnt really reflect sexxuallity? I for one disagree, and I'm perfectly straight.

3. They don't steal our styles - you're simply misinterpreting what the people say when they are calling you gay or faggot. We commonly use it to insult people when they do things out of the ordinary. I've been called gay plenty of times, and I'm straight.

4. Gays are people, too, and people have rights. People are equal, so why do you say gays aren't worth the trouble? Are you saying that gays actually aren't people?

5. This makes absolutely no sense. Scientifically, it's impossible for two people of the same gender to produce a kid because a normal person doesn't have both reproductive organs, only one. I'm not sure what hermaphrodites do, though. What I'm trying to say here is it's not a matter of the law stating that gays can't produce babies, they are physically unable to.

I am sided with Nature, I do not AT ALL AGREE with letting people raise a child to go against the pure natural laws of Courtchip. Now I AM NOT SAYING IT IS NOT OK FOR GAY PEOPLE TO BE GAY BUT, do not spread the disease please.... You all have your opinions on the matter, and this is mine.

Also, there are definitely people who do srsly think your gay because you do stuff like wear a scarf. For example a dude at my school said to me "Why did you come to school wearing a scarf? Its not cold outside, are you like gay or something? Cuz Sam wears a scarf sometimes and he is admittedly gay". I backhanded him shortly after the sentence had been finished, and replied "NO, I do not like the male reproductive organ you idiot".

And I may not speak for everybody about the being afraid of doing something a homo would do, but I speak for a reasonable ammount. People at my school constantly do their best to avoid doing things that may have people call them a homo.

oh and that rub sticks together to make fire thing was just a way to explain that gay people cannot have childeren in a way that I found.... heh, well, humerous....

But hey, I guess I have no other words, for their is only one with the right of judgement.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Reives on October 27, 2010, 11:28:04 PM
Of course everything's opinion here.

Quote
2. Gay people make straight people messed up!( Straight people are always afraid that they may be doing something only gay people would do, even though it doesnt really reflect sexxuallity)

 3. Gay people steal our styles!(If I were to go to school wearing nothing more that a scarf with my ussuall outfit, everyone would be like " OMG UR GAY, FAGGOT, U R WEARING A SCARF!". SO WHAT, JUST BECAUSE IM WEARNING A SCARF DOESN'T MEAN IM GAY!).
No offense, but so basically you were teased by kids in school about "looking gay" and decided that it's the homosexuals' fault for existing instead of the bigots for the intolerance? There're more than one end on a string, y'know. Most of that list felt like they're textbook examples of homophobia and insecurity about one's own sexuality. It sounds like a rather hostile environment you've grown up at, though, so it's not exactly your "fault".

Quote
I am sided with Nature, I do not AT ALL AGREE with letting people raise a child to go against the pure natural laws of Courtchip.
But at which point in time did the personification of nature itself assist human kind in the creation of marriage laws? And all those points you've mentioned, true or false (I'm not going to waste time arguing that tangent for now), are mutually exclusive to the existence of a married status. E.g. You don't have to be married to adopt.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Avaleaux on October 27, 2010, 11:31:08 PM
You are mostly correct Reives (claps). However, I am not just talking about gay people being married, I guess I can retract some of my previous statements, howerver there IS one I will stand by: Gay people do not have the RIGHT(YES I SAID "RIGHT") to raise an adopted child to be "gay". Fight me on this if you must, however, I will not give up easilly.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Reives on October 27, 2010, 11:39:27 PM
Quote
Gay people do not have the RIGHT(YES I SAID "RIGHT") to raise an adopted child to be "gay".
Would that be applied to straight couples too, then? "Oops honey, looks like we've raised our kid to be gay! Well what do ya know. . . C'mon, let's go get arrested."
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Avaleaux on October 27, 2010, 11:45:01 PM
(Gosh, I should not be getting into fights with the site admin but....) Explain to me how exactly a straight couple accidentally raises their kid(s) to be gay?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Reives on October 27, 2010, 11:48:24 PM
(It's not a fight; it's a debate, and that's what this board is for. :P As you said, everyone has their opinions.)

Quote
Explain to me how exactly a straight couple accidentally raises their kid(s) to be gay?
You should probably ask most of the existing gay people who have biological parents - i.e. most of them. They didn't all pop out of test tubes, did they?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Malvodion on October 27, 2010, 11:52:24 PM
You are mostly correct Reives (claps). However, I am not just talking about gay people being married, I guess I can retract some of my previous statements, howerver there IS one I will stand by: Gay people do not have the RIGHT(YES I SAID "RIGHT") to raise an adopted child to be "gay". Fight me on this if you must, however, I will not give up easilly.

(sorry i just need to write something about this)

...what? That makes even less sense than what you said before... Since when it's illegal to raise you child the way you want.. There is a lot of "normal" people than raises their child to be gay, and there is a lot of gay people than raises their child to be "normal".

Like Reives said, where do you think than gays came from? from the nothingness?

You must not act against gay people and think in such a way just because you had bad experiences with people you knew.. You must try to make those people think diferent, to stop thinking in such a foolish way. (Without breaking the law.)

Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Avaleaux on October 27, 2010, 11:55:52 PM
Quote
(It's not a fight; it's a debate, and that's what this board is for.  As you said, everyone has their opinions.)
well said Reives, I was just afraid I'd ge on ur bad side lol.....will I? :O

continuing on...

Quote
You should probably ask most of the existing gay people who have biological parents - i.e. most of them. They didn't all pop out of test tubes, did they?

They weren't raised gay, they were simply born gay, and according to some studies gay people are men that have the personallities of women, So ya, cant blame em for that. Other gays(a small yet significant ammount) had become gay through the parent-child interactions/teachings and stuff.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Avaleaux on October 27, 2010, 11:58:25 PM
Quote
...what? That makes even less sense than what you said before... Since when it's illegal to raise you child the way you want.. There is a lot of "normal" people than raises their child to be gay, and there is a lot of gay people than raises their child to be "normal".

Like Reives said, where do you think than gays came from? from the nothingness?

What? why would a straight couple raise their kid to be gay? And as for the Gays that raised their kids to be normal, congradulations :D.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Reives on October 28, 2010, 12:04:23 AM
Quote
I was just afraid I'd ge on ur bad side lol.....will I? :O
Eh, I have differing political and social opinions with even some of the mods here, e.g. abbi and legacy, but that doesn't mean we can't have theoretical brunch together.

They weren't raised gay, they were simply born gay, and according to some studies gay people are men that have the personallities of women, So ya, cant blame em for that.
That's unexpected; most people on your side of the argument tend to believe it's a choice. But alright,

Quote
Other gays(a small yet significant ammount) had become gay through the parent-child interactions/teachings and stuff.
What source are you basing these things on?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Avaleaux on October 28, 2010, 12:10:07 AM
I obtain my information from overhearing actuall information from actuall gay people at my school(They have admitted their gayness). The Internet, and some media.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Reives on October 28, 2010, 12:17:31 AM
"The internet and some media" aren't actual sources. :P I can find both black and white answers to almost anything from "the internet and some media". Nor is overhearing people's chitchat.

But
Quote
Other gays(a small yet significant ammount) had become gay through the parent-child interactions/teachings and stuff.
That sounds like a statement from a knowledgeable base. So what I'm asking is: How exactly did you reach that particular conclusion?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Avaleaux on October 28, 2010, 12:19:34 AM
From collection of data, long periods of thought, and some mixxed opinions.

Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Reives on October 28, 2010, 12:26:12 AM
That's basically the same ambiguous answer you gave as last time, only weaker, as now the opinions are supposedly mixed. "Exactly what collection of data?" is what I am asking, since I can also just say "I have the opposed answer supported by a. . . um, collection of data."
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Avaleaux on October 28, 2010, 12:26:56 AM
Didn't I say that I got the info from actuall gay people, the internet, and the media?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Reives on October 28, 2010, 12:31:49 AM
Yes. And here is my responses, repeated:

"'The internet and some media' aren't actual sources.  I can find both black and white answers to almost anything from "the internet and some media". Nor is overhearing people's chitchat."

And when I asked for an actual verifiable source, you simply said
Quote
From collection of data, long periods of thought, and some mixxed opinions.
to which, I said, once again:
That's basically the same ambiguous answer you gave as last time, only weaker, as now the opinions are supposedly mixed. "Exactly what collection of data?" is what I am asking, since I can also just say "I have the opposed answer supported by a. . . um, collection of data."


Now, continue and quit skipping around into a loop. :P
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Merlandese on October 28, 2010, 12:32:09 AM
From collection of data, long periods of thought, and some mixxed opinions.


For the sake of sustaining interesting debates, I think it should be noted that even a semi-legitimate source would suffice for use in a forum--even Wikipedia, if it helps with expressing a viewpoint. Rather than say "from a collection of data", it would be to your advantage to search for this collection--or something like it--to aid in your belief. The true show of passion isn't in heated discussion or quick retorts, but the willingness of individuals to research and enlighten, especially when confronted with the accusation of having little evidence.

To help with your case, I've found an article called Gay Parenting Does Affect Children Differently, Study Finds (http://www.narth.com/docs/does.html). I encourage you to read it and others like it, if you wish to have a better stance.

In order to stay neutral and enjoy a good discussion, I'll also link to an article I read awhile back in Time magazine (luckily they post all of their articles online, or I would have had to do some serious digging) about Gay Sheep (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1582336,00.html), who have no marriage system to speak of.

Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Avaleaux on October 28, 2010, 12:35:00 AM
Well, I don't know about you guys but I have had enough talk about gay people. Good night everyone
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Reives on October 28, 2010, 01:11:22 AM
That's some pretty interesting read, and most of the results do end up making intuitive sense. I found it funny that the study was to see if it was actually better to have same-sex parents, though - not that it's not an interesting hypothesis, but just ironic in the context of against such situation. So according to this study, there is a higher probability of the child being homosexual given two parents of the same nature (a sample pool of 20 seems to be really low, but perhaps it is still statistically significant due to the degree of difference?). The other significant result would be "The studies indicate that sexual orientation has no measurable effect on the quality of parent-child relationships or on the mental health of children." So following the outlines in that study, the debate would become more about just the acceptability of the existence of homosexuals in the society. At a glance, it seems pretty benign as there is apparently no effect on the mental health or wellbeing of the person. (Minus external factors such as teasing in less accepting communities, I suppose.)

An interesting and relevant thing I came across while reading these up was that Florida recently removed the ban on adoption for gay couples (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-09-22/news/os-gay-adoption-ruling-reaction-20100922_1_gay-adoption-ban-gay-adoption-martin-gill).

That ram article's pretty interesting. If I remember right, a few months ago we were talking about some case with a necrophiliac gay duck that got photographed, hahah. Or did you post this article as it related to that on purpose?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Sushi on October 28, 2010, 01:28:11 AM
I do not approve of Gay marriage, Because in the circumstance that a Gay couple gets...well.. not legitly married in my bokk, but lets just say united, the following CAN happen:

 1. The Couple could raise an adopted child to be gay as well.....(if I knew someone that did that I would.....I can't really speak of what I'd do on this..)

 2. Gay people make straight people messed up!( Straight people are always afraid that they may be doing something only gay people would do, even though it doesnt really reflect sexxuallity)

 3. Gay people steal our styles!(If I were to go to school wearing nothing more that a scarf with my ussuall outfit, everyone would be like " OMG UR GAY, FAGGOT, U R WEARING A SCARF!". SO WHAT, JUST BECAUSE IM WEARNING A SCARF DOESN'T MEAN IM GAY!).

 4. Gay people aren't worth the trouble!(Taxxes and money is being spent on this debate, when It should be going twords much more important things.)

 5. If someone believes gayness is right, HOW COME TWO PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX CAN'T HAVE KIDS HUH? ITS NOT LIKE U CAN RUB TWO STICKS TOGETHER TO MAKE FIRE!

1. And that's a bad thing? You just said you disapprove of gays because they'll raise gay children. Um. Right. Do you disapprove of lions raising their cubs to act like lions, too? If your other reasons don't follow up, this is completely illogical.

2. No, straight people make straight people messed up. Some straight people apply a stigma to homosexuality, which is why being called "gay" is viewed as a bad thing. If the straight people were fine with homosexuality, then this problem wouldn't be here. It all comes down to it being the straight peoples' problem, not the homosexuals'. Like... how about this. People started using the word "lame" negatively. Do you blame lame(aka: crippled) people for things being called lame? Same with retarded; people use that word negatively and people worry about appearing "retarded". Have any problem with that? It's all just words. Name calling happens, deal with it.

3. Again, the issue is with straight people, not homosexuals. Also: it's viewed that way because gay males sometimes(not always--sometimes it's just an attraction to the opposite sex) have a desire to act female. "Gay" styles are mostly just "female" styles. If you came to school wearing leggings, people would call you gay NOT because it's a "gay" style, but a feminine style, which is associated with homosexuals. So really it's us girls stealing your styles. Sorry 'bout that. =P

4. Money should be going towards more important things, huh? Then why don't we stop spending millions of dollars on football and other entertainment sports and spend that on "important things"? Face it, money is going to be spent in ways that aren't always the most important. And also, why don't they deserve this? Every human has one simple right: the pursuit of happiness. They have the right to pursue anything they wish in life, until they infringe on the right of another person. That's why murder and thievery and rape are all illegal, all of those actions infringe upon another person's rights. But homosexuality infringes on no one's rights; by disallowing gay marriage, we're infringing on their rights.

5. Ya can't make a fire with just one stick, either. And yet it's perfectly okay to adopt a child even if you're not married. And what about barren people? Oh, shucks, they can't have kids. They go against nature so they're evil and have no rights and can't get married. Too bad for them.

(Also, you can rub two sticks together to make fire. Just so y'know.)


Note: I'm arguing from a completely logical perspective here. I haven't done enough indepth studying of the Bible to present a theological one; and besides, I see little point in arguing with people who have completely different theological standpoints, it really doesn't work. And if you're wondering, I don't believe homosexuality is wrong from a logical standpoint; I'm not quite sure where I stand theologically.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Merlandese on October 28, 2010, 01:42:47 AM
@ Reives: I also thought the sampling they used was a bit small, but so was the article. If they would have made a book based on those 21 tests, it would have been laughable. This is a good article in that is has positives based on bias. Like you said, it shows no detriments to parent-child relationships, but a more conservative value system (excuse me if I've assumed your position on the conservative/liberal scale which, incidentally, I have problems with myself) would see the neutralization of genders as negative--The man provides, the woman nurtures. It's very patriarchal. This quote especially would upset many father figures in a stereotypical, conservative American family:

"Teen-age and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to be more sexually adventurous and less chaste than girls raised by heterosexual mothers."

A new-ager, liberal, or feminist may view this same sentence as a positive. This article has the potential for structural support on both sides. Now that you've brought this to my attention, I wish I had chosen a better, more conservatively-biased article.  :reivsweat:

That goat article is one I read awhile back. I chose it because I remembered it easily--and 'cause goats are fun. Necrophiliac gay duck? I must have skimmed over that. *browses internet with strange picture in head*

I hadn't realized Florida even had that ban. It's very interesting. I wonder what kind of publicity it received when it was being initialized thirty years ago?

@Sashimi
(Also, you can rub two sticks together to make fire. Just so y'know.)

I knew it! I thought the laws of physics were twisted on me for a minute there.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Ronnie on October 28, 2010, 02:39:55 PM
I feel too brain-dead to read those articles right now, but I still feel like I need to express my opinion on the matter. On the other hand, I do not wish to reply to any of Avaleux's posts, as they were mostly ignorant and in a way childish as well... it might not be his fault but the community he's living in, but still, one should be able to disclipline.

First, I sincerely disagree with those who vote against anything that concerns gayness based on what the Bible says. I myself am Christian, and yet I think being bigott is disgusting. I believe that if someone turns out to be gay, then God must have made him so. That doesn't necessarily mean he was born to be gay either.
With this said, I admit I approve of gay marriage. I have two brothers, and one of them is gay (and, guess what, my parents are heterosexual, and, wow, they have 2 other children who aren't gay or lesbian), and that never stopped me from loving him and supporting him in everything he does. So what, just because he's attracted to his own gender, he's ought to be deprived of happiness? I'm definitely not having any of that.

I'm not so sure about having children, though. I don't have any personal experience of that, since my little brother says he doesn't want children of his own. But I still think it might not be a good idea. Not because two men would raise a child to be gay, because that's just stupid. Sexual preferences aren't learnt from parents, usually. What I think is that a healthy family consists a father and a mother, and kids need both of them, they cannot do well without either of them. And how ever soft-hearted or whatever a gay man is, he will never be able to be motherly enough to suit a child's needs. At least that is what I think. The same applies to lesbian couples as well, none of them can be a suitable father.

I'd like to know your opinions on this matter.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Sushi on October 28, 2010, 07:49:09 PM
I feel too brain-dead to read those articles right now, but I still feel like I need to express my opinion on the matter. On the other hand, I do not wish to reply to any of Avaleux's posts, as they were mostly ignorant and in a way childish as well... it might not be his fault but the community he's living in, but still, one should be able to disclipline.

First, I sincerely disagree with those who vote against anything that concerns gayness based on what the Bible says. I myself am Christian, and yet I think being bigott is disgusting. I believe that if someone turns out to be gay, then God must have made him so. That doesn't necessarily mean he was born to be gay either.
With this said, I admit I approve of gay marriage. I have two brothers, and one of them is gay (and, guess what, my parents are heterosexual, and, wow, they have 2 other children who aren't gay or lesbian), and that never stopped me from loving him and supporting him in everything he does. So what, just because he's attracted to his own gender, he's ought to be deprived of happiness? I'm definitely not having any of that.

I'm not so sure about having children, though. I don't have any personal experience of that, since my little brother says he doesn't want children of his own. But I still think it might not be a good idea. Not because two men would raise a child to be gay, because that's just stupid. Sexual preferences aren't learnt from parents, usually. What I think is that a healthy family consists a father and a mother, and kids need both of them, they cannot do well without either of them. And how ever soft-hearted or whatever a gay man is, he will never be able to be motherly enough to suit a child's needs. At least that is what I think. The same applies to lesbian couples as well, none of them can be a suitable father.

I'd like to know your opinions on this matter.

The thing about this is, what about single mothers/fathers? They can't provide the support of both a mother and father, but no one's suggesting they give up their children. And you don't have to be married to adopt a child(as far as I know). Why should we treat lesbian and gay couples any different from these people?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Malvodion on October 28, 2010, 07:51:25 PM
I have to say than you are right Ronnie.
It's true, the place of a mother can't be perfectly filled by a man, because he is a man.. but they can still try and do their best.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Sushi on October 28, 2010, 08:02:36 PM
I have to say than you are right Ronnie.
It's true, the place of a mother can't be perfectly filled by a man, because he is a man.. but they can still try and do their best.

Again, neither can a single mother or father. But yes, they can certainly try. And honestly, would you rather them adopt a child and do the best job they can of raising him/her, or leave him/her in the orphanage? Of the two, at least they'll get some form of parental support from a gay/lesbian couple.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Ronnie on October 29, 2010, 02:13:31 PM
The difference between gay couples raising children and single mothers/fathers is that the vast majority of the latter didn't choose to bring up the child alone - and they also have a chance of finding someone to be their husband/wife and a suitable stepmom/dad, while with gays they already have both partners of the relationship, so there won't be anybody else.

I'm not saying they should leave kids in the orphanage as well, but I doubt there is a good enough answer to that question - because no matter how hard we try and no matter how many couples (straight or gay or whatever) adopt, there will always be unfortunate children in orphanages. And, how ever sad is that, it's not closely related to our topic here. I still stand by my point: I'd rather have straight couples raise children (orphanage or not).
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Sushi on October 29, 2010, 02:35:41 PM
The difference between gay couples raising children and single mothers/fathers is that the vast majority of the latter didn't choose to bring up the child alone - and they also have a chance of finding someone to be their husband/wife and a suitable stepmom/dad, while with gays they already have both partners of the relationship, so there won't be anybody else.

I'm not saying they should leave kids in the orphanage as well, but I doubt there is a good enough answer to that question - because no matter how hard we try and no matter how many couples (straight or gay or whatever) adopt, there will always be unfortunate children in orphanages. And, how ever sad is that, it's not closely related to our topic here. I still stand by my point: I'd rather have straight couples raise children (orphanage or not).

Be that as it may, there can be no fair law against it until it becomes a law that an unmarried person can't adopt a child. And yes, there will always be unfortunate children in orphanages. I don't really see what you're trying to say there; just because there always will be doesn't mean we shouldn't try to help. And yes, maybe a straight couple will raise the child better, but I don't see how that invalidates my point--would you rather a child have only semi-adequate parenting, or none at all?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Ronnie on October 29, 2010, 02:47:44 PM
I know what you mean, but I think you're looking at it from the opposite perspective than me.
It's not about what I would choose for orphans. It's the couples that make decisions, and it's also not about a certain child, but any child that can be adopted. Whether he/she is going to be adopted, well, let's say that's partly just fortune. In case he's going to be adopted for sure, I'd rather have him be adopted by a straight couple.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Sushi on October 29, 2010, 05:05:08 PM
I know what you mean, but I think you're looking at it from the opposite perspective than me.
It's not about what I would choose for orphans. It's the couples that make decisions, and it's also not about a certain child, but any child that can be adopted. Whether he/she is going to be adopted, well, let's say that's partly just fortune. In case he's going to be adopted for sure, I'd rather have him be adopted by a straight couple.

Yes, I get that. And I think if there were two options for a child--a lesbian/gay couple or a straight couple, I'd rather have them adopted by the straight couple too, because they could provide the support of both a mother and father. But the truth is that most children don't get an option; what I'm asking is would you deny them a family if a lesbian/gay couple was the only choice?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Ronnie on October 29, 2010, 05:12:24 PM
would you deny them a family if a lesbian/gay couple was the only choice?
Definitely not. But that still wasn't the original quiestion... as far as I know, we started from a point when we did have options. :)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Sushi on October 29, 2010, 07:41:07 PM
would you deny them a family if a lesbian/gay couple was the only choice?
Definitely not. But that still wasn't the original question... as far as I know, we started from a point when we did have options. :)

Ah. Well, I said "would you rather a child have only semi-adequate parenting, or none at all?" And if there had been another option, the other side of that "or" wouldn't be "none at all?" xD I assumed that implied there were only those two choices(lesbian/gay parents, or none at all). So yes, I agree that a mother and a father would make better support, I just don't think we should deny lesbians and gays raising a child. If it were to come to a choice between the two, I would rather the straight couple adopt the child(but only as long as the two couples were fairly equal in terms of financial and other kinds of support; the lesbian/gay shouldn't be automatically crossed off as an option just because they are lesbian/gay--if the straight couple is poorly equipped to raise a child, even if they can provide better emotional support, the fact that they're straight shouldn't overshadow those issues), simply because they can in fact provide better emotional support. It'd be the same if an unmarried person wanted to adopt a child, but there was a couple willing to adopt them as well; I'd rather the child be with both a mother and father.

So I think we're in agreement, yes? :)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Merlandese on October 29, 2010, 08:23:33 PM
I've seen so many different variations of parents and parenting that the concept of their sexual taste doesn't seem to be an issue; or rather, that every thing is an issue in parenting. I mean this in that, as far as people go--and we have to remember that parents are still just people, despite their intentional/unintentional use of their reproductive organs--I've never met two people who are exactly alike. Nor have I met two people who raise children the same way. On that same note, I've seen the same couples raise several children of completely distant behaviors.

My mother may be a mother, but she isn't like Reives' or Ronnie's or Raxus' or Rayen's (who else has an R name?), so it seems confusing that, in this figurative chimera of parents, one simple trait alteration will have such an overwhelming effect on child raising. There are too many variables, aren't there?

Maybe if one of the parents was a non-human--let's say a Chocobo--then Chocomom's values would probably be very different than human values. But I think it is safe to say that lesbian mom, upper-class mom, athletic mom, mom in trailer park (mine), heavily-influenced-by-religion mom, working mom, and all of the other variations of mom (except Chocomom) all have basic human values. And they are so vastly different that, before we can pick apart what the gay and lesbian community is doing wrong with their children, we need a standard mom. We need a perfect parental reference. That means a parent who can raise a kid to ideal (possibly non-gay) standards, which would also mean we need to decide on the ideal child.

I think once we make a decision on the ideal parent and their ideal kid to use as references, this decision could be settled easily. But expect more parents to hit the guillotine; I've yet to meet a perfect one.

Spoiler: something completely ridiculous... • show

This child was raised by chocobos. Are they forcing him to be a chocobo? You decide.
(https://freebirdgames.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgameinformer.com%2Fresized-image.ashx%2F__size%2F610x0%2F__key%2FCommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles%2F00.00.00.00.06%2F7624.Chocobo-Main.jpg&hash=61b4bee2df64b0de82b22449bb028153)

Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Cyril on November 02, 2010, 01:41:32 PM
Okay, we are getting majorly off-topic. We're talking specifically about gay marriage and not the broader issue of homosexuality itself. Although the latter obviously is connected to the former, it's not the focus. So here are some thoughts that might help the conversation:

(1) The question of whether homosexuality is or is not moral is only relevant to the topic when combined with the question of how the morality of something affects whether or not it should be legal. Obviously there are some things which are so legally neutral that they shouldn't be legislated (I don't think anyone here would say that Congress should outlaw red shirts every other Thursday), but on the other hand should everything that could be considered immoral be outlawed?

(2) Saying that gay marriages cost money doesn't answer the question. In the '60s we went through this very same debate with whether blacks and whites should be allowed to marry, and so if we claim that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because it costs money, then there's no reason to outlaw just that kind of marriage. Why not also interracial marriage? Or marriage between people from different states? You can come up with any amount of arbitrary whims.

(3) Religiously, there are people on both sides. Although anti-gay activists like Jerry "you're a failure as a human being unless you're a Christian" Falwell can be more vocal, there are still others who disagree with them (thank God). For example, John Shelby Spong is a bishop who defended homosexuality, and there's a website called "Gay Christian 101" (http://www.gaychristian101.com/index.html) which tries to defend homosexuality from an "everything in the Bible is true" perspective. (I'm not sure how well they succeed, having not read everything they've written; but I'm just sayin' that there are different voices out there). So if you're going to try to speak from a religious / Christian perspective, be sure that you're still basing your views on something and not just using phantasms to prop up your own prejudices.

(4) "To each his own" is a form of moral relativism. There are things in this world which are evil and immoral, like Nazis. When people decry homosexuality as being immoral, they're not wrong that moral and immoral exist, they're just mistaken in their classification.

(5) Something being "against nature" doesn't matter. Throughout its entire history, mankind has been fighting against nature, and there's no reason to give in now. For example, we've eradicated 100% "all-natural" diseases like smallpox, we've invented vehicles that will let us travel faster than nature allows us, and we've quadrupled the average lifespan of someone in the 1st world from ~20 years to ~80 years. These are not "natural" events: they're us improving on nature.

(6) On the topic of whether or not homosexuality is "genetic" or "chosen", this is a false bifurcation. Because different things go on in our bodies that aren't necessarily dictated by our genes, things can be physiological without being genetic. But even so, there do seem to be genetic components to homosexuality (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZWqQNRAoKY#).

(7) Last but not least, not all homosexuality is moral, just like not all heterosexuality is moral. When you're talking about whether or not it's "moral", probably a better way to say it would be "more/less moral than comparable heterosexual behavior".

Phew. Sorry if that was a mouthful, but there's a lot to say on the topic.


P.S. Does anyone know how to link to YouTube videos without getting them to look like that? It's kind of annoying.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: silversun on December 05, 2010, 12:19:29 AM
I really have no opinion on this, I'd just like to point out a flaw in the logic of homosexuality being from God and something you're born with and all that. Depending on how you think, a person against homosexuality could point out either:
Diseases such as autism and down syndrome. Do they deserve to live their life? Yes. Should a cure to their disease be sought? Yes.

Psychopaths: are also born with their issues. And as another person brought up, pedophiles. I don't think this needs further explanation.

tl;dr version:
Saying something comes from birth could all to easily lead to others saying it's therefore a disease to be cured.

Like I said, I don't have a strong opinion one way or another, just pointing out a flaw in that argument.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Ronnie on December 05, 2010, 06:59:33 PM
Silver, I'm sorry to say this so bluntly, but you're wrong.
Autism and Down syndrome are considered diseases. Being gay isn't. Being a psychopath or a pedophile isn't an illness either, they are just chronical mental deformations. As for now, science does not have the answer to why gay people are gay, so it is considered being born with. However, though I'm not absolutely sure about pedophiles (though I still daresay that it comes from how those people are brought up), it is a common fact that someone being psychopathic or not turns out in the first three years of our lives, depending on how much love we get. Some of it might be in genes, but still, a person who has a chance to be a psychopath will never be one if they are loved in the first 3 years of their childhood. And vice versa (though not every abandoned child will be a psychopath of course).

And I also think saying that something which is not considered normal and comes from birth is definitely a disease is a misinterpretation of things.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Merlandese on December 05, 2010, 07:14:01 PM
I'm not positive, Ronnie, but I think you and Silver agreed on that fact. I think Silver was pointing out that when people say being gay is natural/from birth, they are essentialloy making it something unchangeable. If I understand you both correctly, you both have the same opinion: being gay isn't a disease.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: silversun on December 05, 2010, 07:47:07 PM
I actually have no opinion either way, there's not enough scientific evidence to prove it.
I disagree with pyschopaths being created out of lack of love, but while that's an interesting debate in of itself I'm not going to derail this thread by posting it here.

Well, some people could define disease as being an abnormality. Can we go with that definition for the sake of discussion? Unless you have another you'd like to use.
I'm not quite sure statistically how many gays are in the population, but seeing how I've never met one irl I'm assuming it's relatively rare. If it something one is born with, one could argue this means this is a disease either to seek a cure for or to learn to live with, but can never truly be seen as normal.

Of course, one can then respond saying that therefore, is any difference in personality from the "norm" a disease? If all girls are "supposed" to be extroverts is there something wrong with the introverts?

One could then respond that... Blegh, I don't think you guys want to hear what goes on in my head. Suffice it to say, I don't believe one can be blatantly wrong or right in this debate, as far too much of it depends on a person's own... definition? Not quite the right word, but I hope you get what I mean.

Again, none of what I posted necessarily reflects what I believe. I'm just trying to bring up a point I haven't seen yet.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Cyril on December 12, 2010, 06:19:26 PM
Silver, I'm sorry to say this so bluntly, but you're wrong.
Autism and Down syndrome are considered diseases. Being gay isn't.


It isn't anymore, but it was until 1974 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders#DSM-II_.281968.29).

And yeah, saying that someone was born with something doesn't make it moral. But if there's in actuality no reason to think that it's wrong (except for "ew, gross" and "God says so"), then framing it in the context of heritability makes it clear that the battle is more akin to those over race or gender than they are to what kind of baseball team you like.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Cornelius on December 23, 2010, 03:29:55 PM
I don't think one is BORN to be gay or lesbian or whatever. It's just a choice, and scientists have for years found that there is no such thing as a 'gay gene' (it's what they called it. Seriously!) anywhere.
Actually, two scientists insisted they found it, but then when their reports and document stuffs were examined, it was discovered to be a hoax.
There's nothing genetic about one's sexual orientation. It's just a choice.
Just saying.
Um, not wanting to be mean or anything, but yes, I am against homosexuality. (But not against the homosexuals themselves, of course.)
Um actually scientist's have prooved that there is Those(not one single) "gay-genes"
20% of all people are gay, what would make that many people choose to be discriminated against?
Oh, and btw. how come gays then say they didn't choose?
answer: They didn't
 :hatsale!: :mimihat: :needshat!: :whaaa?: :gothat!:
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Merlandese on December 23, 2010, 05:15:02 PM
@Cornelius: Your opinion is valid, but you brought in third-party data--the scientists and their proof--which means there is support for your claim. I think if you could find a scientific journal or some other source from which that information could be drawn it would be extremely helpful, especially for those of us who would like to read it. :)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Just Lance on December 23, 2010, 05:23:00 PM
Gay gene... That's bullsh*t. It's a matter of psychology and your brain not genes.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Ronnie on December 23, 2010, 05:32:33 PM
You could express your opinion a bit nicer, Lance.
Though I agree with you; it doesn't have to do anything with genes in my opinion.

I agree with Merlan; should you claim to have scientific proof, you are supposed to show it to us.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Just Lance on December 23, 2010, 05:47:45 PM
Sorry but today I'm not in mood for flower-talk.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Cyril on December 31, 2010, 01:57:59 PM
Gay gene... That's bullsh*t. It's a matter of psychology and your brain not genes.

Your brain is a part of your body, the recipe for which is your genes. That one-sentence summary is obviously something of a simplification, but the point remains that psychology can't be uncoupled from genetic factors.

That's why twin studies are so useful. We can take people who are identical genetically but have had different environmental influences in order to get a handle on what's genetic and what isn't. And twin studies about homosexuality have consistently found a correlation between matching genes and homosexual proclivities. That's where they get the idea that it's caused by one or more "gay genes".
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Just Lance on December 31, 2010, 02:30:18 PM
Ten years ago we didn't even know how to read genetic material...  As a person interested in sience I claim that something like gay gene is probably on same level that Sheldon Cooper's fart will cause a Black hole.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Reives on December 31, 2010, 03:25:27 PM
Ten years ago we didn't even know how to read genetic material...
Pointing out the current lack of knowledge on the matter with the implication that there's still much to be discovered isn't exactly helping your side of argument, though.

I haven't looked into the matter personally, but I don't see it as an impossibility.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Merlandese on December 31, 2010, 04:28:41 PM
Gay gene... That's bullsh*t. It's a matter of psychology and your brain not genes.


Your brain is a part of your body, the recipe for which is your genes...


This is exactly what I was thinking when the topic ventured that way. I'm glad you said it, because my version wouldn't have been nearly as succinct.

Though not explicitly related, I watched an interesting (and adorable) video about drunken monkeys, suggesting that it is entirely possible that alcoholism is genetic. (I believe many have come to that conclusion already). Yet, even if it were genetic, that doesn't dissolve the negativity of alcoholism as perceived by society.

I think that many people who are against gays think that if a "gay gene" is proven correct, being gay will suddenly become "acceptable." But that isn't true in the case of alcoholism, so why would it be in the case of homosexuality? I believe other addictions and mental abnormalities are considered genetic and still bad. If being gay is proven genetic, I see no reason why people who are against homosexuality can still consider it bad.

Here's the cute video! :D
Alcoholic Vervet Monkeys! - Weird Nature - BBC animals (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSm7BcQHWXk#ws)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Just Lance on December 31, 2010, 04:37:09 PM
Interesting video.

As I once  said. I know some gays and they're just like any other guys I know. If they didn't told me I wouldn't know and nothing change since they told me.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Cyril on December 31, 2010, 05:46:58 PM
Yes. The trait being genetic doesn't itself make something okay. But the difference between paedophilia and alcoholism on the one hand and homosexuality on the other is that the former two are bad for reasons completely untwisted to whether or not they're in any way inborn. And no such argument has been (or I believe can be) made about homosexuality.

What it's being genetic does is to classify prejudice against it into the same category as racism or as those in the middle ages who thought that left-handed people were sired by the devil.

Put shortly, it doesn't make a difference for homosexuality but rather for homophobia.

Get it?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Sushi on January 04, 2011, 11:36:43 AM
I don't think the nonexistence or existence of a "gay gene" should make a difference either way.

If, in your view, homosexuality is a state of mind caused by circumstances, then it's a mental disorder, correct? It's no different from, say, depression. Claustrophobia. Dissociative identity disorder. Perfectionism.

These things can be inherited(manic depression is almost completely an inherited disorder, and I'm pretty sure it's actually classified as a disease because it's more to do with chemicals of the brain than mental state. But don't quote me on it; just what I've gathered from having a manic depressive grandmother), but they can also develop completely on their own depending on circumstance. Depression and claustrophobia in specific; in most cases, people become claustrophobic because of traumatic experiences in their past, and people become depressed because of stress and bad things in their life.

But for some reason people view homosexuality different than depression and claustrophobia, which is what I don't understand. If, in their view(which isn't really mine, but whatever), it's a screwed up mental state, then why don't they treat it the same as depression? In both homosexuality and depression, the only people these people are hurting are themselves(in the case that you believe homosexuality to be wrong). But homosexuals are treated as sociopaths.

That's why I'm not sure a "gay gene" would even matter. Because people are so fixated on homophobia that even if it was classified as a disease, people will still think the same. Honestly, how many people do you think actually care about how homosexuality is caused? The people who say it's a matter of circumstance don't ever stop to think that if someone "turned gay", there's probably, y'know, a reason. But just because there's a reason for it doesn't make people any less homophobic.

... ... ... yeah, I don't know where I'm going with this anymore, but I'd like to put that out there. -rolls away-
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Kirroha on March 15, 2011, 12:05:29 AM
I don't believe in the existence of a 'gay gene' (even if there was such a gene, it would have been eradicated via evolution long ago as people with 'gay genes' won't be able to reproduce), but the psychological aspect isn't something to be taken lightly, Lance. I agree with Sushi above - I still don't completely approve of gay marriage (allowing it only means that it should be encouraged like normal love, and so more and more people would think that they're gay so they could marry their best friends and then we'll have an aging population), but I don't think people who really have that 'homosexual' state of mind should be discriminated against.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: umbrellaeinheit on September 26, 2012, 02:57:24 PM
I'm an atheistic asexual male and I approve of gay marrige, because it lowers birth rate, which is a good thing.
I like good things. Like cake.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Judedeath on September 26, 2012, 02:59:03 PM
Wow I totally forgot we had a Serious Discussions section.

Time to lighten the moon.

RMR: Come to Denmark (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeCuHwphU0M#)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Unimaginative Username on September 26, 2012, 06:38:41 PM
^^ That was pretty funny.

I'm an atheistic asexual male and I approve of gay marrige, because it lowers birth rate, which is a good thing.
I like good things. Like cake.

Gay marriage does not lower the birth rate because the people who are getting gay marriages most likely were not having heterosexual relationships beforehand :P


Also not everything that lowers the birthrate or has other side effects that are considered good is necessarily a good act.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Merlandese on September 26, 2012, 06:50:46 PM
^^ That was pretty funny.

I'm an atheistic asexual male and I approve of gay marrige, because it lowers birth rate, which is a good thing.
I like good things. Like cake.

Gay marriage does not lower the birth rate because the people who are getting gay marriages most likely were not having heterosexual relationships beforehand :P

Haha! I didn't even catch that. :p The previous remark was more a stance on homosexuality in general, not whether they should engage in an outdated institution built around insecurity.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Unimaginative Username on September 26, 2012, 06:56:43 PM
^^ That was pretty funny.

I'm an atheistic asexual male and I approve of gay marrige, because it lowers birth rate, which is a good thing.
I like good things. Like cake.

Gay marriage does not lower the birth rate because the people who are getting gay marriages most likely were not having heterosexual relationships beforehand :P

Haha! I didn't even catch that. :p The previous remark was more a stance on homosexuality in general, not whether they should engage in an outdated institution built around insecurity.

I tried reading it all but got tired halfway down the the page so I missed that.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Judedeath on September 26, 2012, 07:21:29 PM
http://www.cbc.ca/archives/categories/politics/rights-freedoms/trudeaus-omnibus-bill-challenging-canadian-taboos/theres-no-place-for-the-state-in-the-bedrooms-of-the-nation.html (http://www.cbc.ca/archives/categories/politics/rights-freedoms/trudeaus-omnibus-bill-challenging-canadian-taboos/theres-no-place-for-the-state-in-the-bedrooms-of-the-nation.html)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Tumbles on September 26, 2012, 07:47:34 PM
Far out, are people still against gay marriage?  ??? I'm as straight as it gets, but if I were gay, I'd sure as hell want the same rights as everyone else, even if I didn't plan on using them. I'm so tired of people treating homosexuals as lesser citizens simply because of their sexual preference.

Gay marriage is gonna happen. Let's just let it happen and move on.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Merlandese on September 26, 2012, 08:10:20 PM
Far out, are people still against gay marriage?  ??? I'm as straight as it gets, but if I were gay, I'd sure as hell want the same rights as everyone else, even if I didn't plan on using them. I'm so tired of people treating homosexuals as lesser citizens simply because of their sexual preference.

Gay marriage is gonna happen. Let's just let it happen and move on.

Sure, sure, there's a lot of "lesser" citizen stuff that drives opposition to gay marriage, I guess. But the real question is (and I've raised this concern with Jude) why in the world would men fight for the rights to join an all-woman's club? Wait, did the meaning come across in that? Let me re-state in more applicable terms:

Why does an institution for straight coupling have even the slightest importance to gay couples? How does this affect their love, their actions, or their beliefs, and how does marriage in any way equate to equal rights? I mean, some people are born stunted in height, but that doesn't mean they should demand that all rides made for people "this tall" should be changed to accommodate them, does it? Mentally handicapped people are people too, but that doesn't mean they should all be accepted into Yale even though they were born without the ability to get the necessary grades.

I'm all cool with gayness and what-not, but gay marriage seems like such a useless fight. It's like a black man trying to earn the right to join the KKK just so no one will think less of him for being black. I don't care if these cats get accepted into the dog show or not, to be honest.

Now I'm going to kiss my happily unmarried partner, if you don't mind
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Tumbles on September 26, 2012, 08:27:53 PM
You make excellent points, and it sounds like we're on the same side, but you're clearly anti-marriage to an extent, while to some people, marriage is an important act that both defines and secures their relationship.

Being against it for religious reasons annoys me as well. It's like hating anchovies, but being offended if anyone else has anchovies, since you don't like them. Ok, that's terrible, but forgive me, it's early.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Merlandese on September 26, 2012, 08:34:14 PM
Even if I were pro-marriage, I would have this opinion. The only difference would be that if I were married with this opinion you would all think I am discriminating rather than just being logical.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Tumbles on September 26, 2012, 08:42:59 PM
Hmm, yeah, maybe. O_O

I just think it would be kind of a slap in the face to the gay community if we gave them some gay version of marriage instead of just pure marriage.

I mean, what's the downside to that, really? If they want it, just give it to them. :vikonsmile:
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Mela on September 26, 2012, 08:47:23 PM
Don't married couples get (governmental) benefits? Might be a reason for some people (including gay couples) to get married.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Merlandese on September 26, 2012, 08:56:43 PM
I just think it would be kind of a slap in the face to the gay community if we gave them some gay version of marriage instead of just pure marriage.

I mean, what's the downside to that, really? If they want it, just give it to them. :vikonsmile:

a.) More of a slap than not giving it to them at all?

b.) Who gives it? Why do we need the government or a religion (that likely hates what you're doing) to approve? Legal work and ceremony are poor substitutions for true love and a committed life. They're symbolic at best.

c.) The downside to changing the rules of marriage would be, well, exactly what we see here. People feeling like something they believe in has been cheapened. Nonsensical, certainly, but a downside.

Don't get married couples (governmental) benefits? Might be reason for some people (including gay couples) to get married.

Yes, they do, but I find this the worst reasoning of all. If your argument for getting married is to save some tax dollars, you might want to reconsider what marriage means to you to begin with. Maybe get a picket sign that says "Can we have a bit more money, please?" instead of "Equal rights!"

The fact is, everything that makes marriage important in a spiritual/human sense is possible without governmental consent. Everything that makes marriage important in a mundane sense isn't necessary to lead a happy life with a partner. You guys want it, go ahead, but I think it's a lot like fighting for candy. :p
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Ferdk on September 26, 2012, 09:10:02 PM
Eh, I don't know. Its not just getting a tax cut, its getting every right considered by the government to a legal couple. Those are not simply tax cuts, there's many things a couple inherit when they're legally married.
I don't think ANY gay person is asking religions to accept gay marriage, they only want the government to give them their right like they're supposed to do (unless you live in an assbackwards theocracy).

The point about giving them a "gay marriage" instead of a "marriage" is for the same reason noone would like it to be called an "interracial marriage". It doesn't need a distinction, what you are defining is the legal procedure between these 2 persons and that should be equal to everybody, therefore there's no need to rename it, because it is the same thing. Does an homosexual pay gay taxes? has gay healthcare? signs gay contracts? its ridiculous.

One thing I'll never understand (though I'm open to hear opinions) is how anyone could be against gay marriage for non-religious reasons. I just can't think of any, really.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Mela on September 26, 2012, 09:26:18 PM
Since when have all people gotten married to someone just out of love? Many times, marriage just seems like some sort of business or/and something that's expected. Well, that's what I have witnessed, as sad as this may sound. I, for one, don't care that much about marriage (I am not against it, though and can see why people do it (for several/different reasons)). I would only do that if it was necessary or if my partner would feel safer doing that (in case anything happens to them).

Speaking of gay marriage, it's a difficult topic. If it's just a spiritual thing about spending your entire with someone, I don't really see why they should need anyone's approval. You can have your own ceremony and be happy with just that.
Most of the time it's just the status marriage brings with itself. If you get married to someone, you've officially married into a family. Some people like the thought of that, which is not a strong point to get married, though. 
I guess it's about security e.g. you've been with this person for a long time and all of sudden, something happens to them and they end up in a hospital and you wouldn't be allowed to visit them, because you are not family/married. Would you be able to cover for them with your health insurance if they don't have one? Nope, as you are not married/family.
Another example: What if you are gay and fall in love with a foreigner and the only chance to stay together (in the same country, mind you) is to get married? Well, wouldn't work in this case, since gay marriage isn't legal.
 
(Sorry if my reasoning sounds stupid. It's late and I am sick.)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Merlandese on September 26, 2012, 09:32:08 PM
One thing I'll never understand (though I'm open to hear opinions) is how anyone could be against gay marriage for non-religious reasons. I just can't think of any, really.


Haha! I guess I'm the only one who doesn't need a religious reason to see that it's a silly idea.

Those above examples are great, and I think Jude has fought me with them before (the best examples are when people are hospitalized and only immediate family can see them; that doesn't include gay partners unless they're married). I combat that by stating the issue you're against is in the exact wrong place. Government and hospital policies are making these legal issues, not marriage.

Marriage wasn't founded on ideas of government rights and taxes and hospital visits. Should this be fixed? Yes. Maybe change the system so that people can have a roster of important individuals that are allowed to see them in the hospital during emergencies (which would subsequently help a lot of other negative aspects of the hospital system). Why these things were tied in with marital communion to begin with blows my mind, but if they were injected before they can be taken out. Seems like a much worthier fight, and we can all be on the same side.

The point about giving them a "gay marriage" instead of a "marriage" is for the same reason noone would like it to be called an "interracial marriage". It doesn't need a distinction, what you are defining is the legal procedure between these 2 persons and that should be equal to everybody, therefore there's no need to rename it, because it is the same thing. Does an homosexual pay gay taxes? has gay healthcare? signs gay contracts? its ridiculous.

I find this a somewhat cheap (not to say you're cheap, but the idea is fairly simple to use on the surface) defense.

In what world did healthcare ever get considered based on sexuality? No this one. So why the "gay healthcare" remark? In what world did marriage get considered on sexuality? This one. So why not gay marriage? I mean, we literally refer to it as that already, why are we condemning future use of it?

Remember when basketball was only for men, then women started getting teams, and that's called women's basketball? Maybe not the prettiest compromise, but it'd be silly to complain about it. So, today, we call them both basketball all of the time. But if we need to be specific, we call one men's basketball and the other women's basketball. Just like if you need to describe two people who are dating, and they happen to be of different ethnicities, you'd call that couple an interracial couple to clarify. It's just an adjective, not harmful nor incorrect.


Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Tumbles on September 26, 2012, 09:42:31 PM
But Lannie I don't understand!  :o If you've got no problems with gay people, then why not just let them get married? Creating a whole different type of marriage seems like an unnecessary and offensive step. If an interracial couple got married, it would just be a regular marriage, even if you'd call them interracial. Why not just do the same with gay people?

Sure, marriage in general has its problems, but stopping gay people getting married won't fix that. They're two very different things. ???
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Merlandese on September 26, 2012, 10:11:33 PM
If an interracial couple got married, it would just be a regular marriage, even if you'd call them interracial. Why not just do the same with gay people?

I'll say this: If the definition was any man or woman may marry any other man or woman, regardless of gender, so long as they are of the same ethnicity (which is getting harder and harder to pinpoint these days; it'd bring about whole new issues of what "white" means :p), I'd be like, "Welp, sucks for interracial couples. This thing was only designed for same-ethnicity folks."

The idea is that I'm allowed to make a club that you're not allowed in.

You have equal rights, so you can also make a club that I'm not allowed in.

But, that doesn't mean I can get into your club or you can get into mine. And if we let each other in, the club wouldn't be the same club anymore. They'd need redefined entirely.

A real issue in all of this is that gay marriage brings to the surface very unfair governmental benefits that are inherently not a definition of marriage. But rather than fix the government or start a new club, we're trying to redefine marriage.

This follows the same logic as if we all knew congress got paid too much, but rather than reroute some of that money to where it'd be useful, we all tried to join congress.

Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Ferdk on September 26, 2012, 10:36:33 PM
Yep you're (I think) referring to the religious definition of marriage. That's not what the government took, though. Sure as a religion you can make a club with your own rules, but then government took the term and made it stand for rights that are supposedly of every citizen, like a proper government would do. These are not the same, even if they use the same word. A legal marriage is not getting approved by God to be together, man and woman. That definition is worthless in legal terms because it is discriminatory and at least in the US there's a separation of church and state, so they don't need (nor shouldn't) to conform to the religious definition of marriage (which isn't even the origin of the binding union between individuals anyway, like many other things they just borrowed from someone else).

As for sexuality being considered for marriage, then why is it that I never heard it called "straight/heterosexual marriage"? seems like it should've been there if sexuality was such a crucial part of the contract.

What you describe as the worthier fight is just submitting to bigotry. You can do 1 little thing that solves all these issues (just give'em marriage and call it a day) OR you can individually start changing everything so you can circumvent the trouble of doing that one effortless thing. And the reason to go through all this trouble? Still waiting to hear a good one :P

As for the hospital example, why it needs to be tied to marriage, I guess its because they have these "relative only" policies, and your legal couple should obviously be considered part of your family. But since some people can't get legally recognized as such, they are out of the deal. And that's just one thing, if we do the list you suggest we solve one issue. We have to ask every individual to go through the trouble of circumventing the system to get theirs rights just to solve ONE issue. Then the same for the next issue, and the next, and the next. Marriage as a legal contract is pretty useful because instead of going through all this trouble (as a regular couple as well) you just establish this person is your legal partner and automatically inherits all these rights. This is plain convenience, and common sense.
And it doesn't make sense that sexuality should leave you outside of this because .................. , that's the blank I still want someone to fill with a good reason.

XD

That being said this is just my opinion and I respect yours and everyone's.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Merlandese on September 26, 2012, 11:09:59 PM
Yeah, no one's wrong here.

As for sexuality being considered for marriage, then why is it that I never heard it called "straight/heterosexual marriage"? seems like it should've been there if sexuality was such a crucial part of the contract.

Not every aspect of a definition, I would argue, needs to be represented in the word. Marriage didn't need to be called Straight Marriage when it was first coming out because homosexuality wasn't a consideration. A good example is drunk driving. Why didn't they call non-drunk driving "sober driving" if being sober was such a big part of it? All that's a minor point either way, though.

What you describe as the worthier fight is just submitting to bigotry. You can do 1 little thing that solves all these issues (just give'em marriage and call it a day) OR you can individually start changing everything so you can circumvent the trouble of doing that one effortless thing. And the reason to go through all this trouble? Still waiting to hear a good one :P

For the sake of easiness? I mean, whenever I hear a good point as to why gay people should want marriage, I don't think we should just take the easy route and give it to them. That's such a short term fix, in my opinion. What's wrong with seeing that the system is messed up, unfairly distributing benefits to a group that, by its original definition, is discriminatory, and trying to fix it?

You may see all these problems as a let-them-be-married fix, but I don't. I see them as a the-government-unfairly-intervened-with-a-system-that-had-nothing-to-do-with-it problem and now everyone would rather submit to the error than fix it.

I like the idea that gay people can have all of these rights for sure, just like I like the idea of someone like me who thinks neither the government nor religion have any business in  my lovelife should have those benefits. But that doesn't mean everyone should barge into this system just for these benefits. Rather than be separated on this trivial issue of marriage, we should all agree that things like seeing a loved one in the hospital should be re-thought to a point that we can all be happy, married, gay, straight, or otherwise.

Gay marriage has brought up some marvelous issues with the system that we can either struggle to correct, or ignore by letting some more people use them. The second option is sloppy, the easy way out, and disregards the intentions of the admittedly bigoted people who founded that system. I don't like the KKK either, you know, but they are still a legally approved community to the U.S. government. They have that right.

That's why it's such a useless fight to me. Like I said before, rather than beat a broken system, they're trying to join it. It's an easy way out.

For the record, I think it's stupid that gays aren't allowed to marry, but the fact is that they aren't. So I also think it's stupid that they want to marry, because, unlike black oppression or female oppression, the sanctity of marriage isn't inherently oppressive to those who aren't married. People don't get married to make gay people feel bad, yet it's being treated like it's the gay version of slavery.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Merlandese on September 26, 2012, 11:36:45 PM
Man, now I feel like I'm dragging this out, but I'd like to post a link to a gay person against gay marriage. He has a blog which says a lot of things that, if you can't believe me as a straight guy, are still real enough concerns that some gay people think the fight is pointless (despite its inevitability, IMO).


http://nogaymarriage.wordpress.com/ (http://nogaymarriage.wordpress.com/)

Quote
I don’t understand the reasoning behind the suggestion that civil unions or some other marriage equivalent, with all the benefits of traditional legal marriage, are somehow not good enough. Olbermann seems to be saying that it is only the exact legal label applied to heterosexual unions — actual “marriage” — that will do. But why? What is the reason that it’s not good enough?


This is how it can not be called "gay marriage" but accomplish the same thing. I guess it's just how you perceive it. *shrugs*
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Ferdk on September 27, 2012, 12:12:02 AM
Well if they have the rights I'm good. I guess its a 2-step issue, one is the rights, once you solved that, then the next issue (which doesn't really try to downplay the merit of the first one being solved) is why does it need a new label when there's a perfectly working legal term for it. Sure it happens to be  the same  term used by most religions but so what? if we call them "civil unions" then wouldn't that mean heterosexual couples also get civil unions and not marriages? what's the point of having two labels for the same thing?

The protest to this is that it is marginalization of some kind. You are making a disctinction on a group for a right that is the same one (and if it isn't, then its back to problem 1, which is everyone should have the same rights). Its not as big of a deal as getting the rights themselves, sure. That's why I said its a 2-step issue, the first and important step is the rights they deserve. After that, then when you label a group for no reason then you get a new issue which is discrimination. As I said this is not as big of an issue and I personally, if I were gay, wouldn't really have a problem with it, as long as my rights are respected like everyone else. But some people do care about stuff like this. And they're right, though I agree its kind of a waste of time to fight for a word.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Merlandese on September 27, 2012, 12:28:07 AM
I don't think it's marginalization, at least in the unfair "negative" sense of the word.

And I also don't think that the separation of peoples' group individuality (oxymoron) is automatically discrimination. I have no interest in worldwide homogeneity, and neither do the people who say they are Irish without having taken a step outside of Canada. They like the uniqueness just fine, which is what begets pride in heredity and ancestry. Why is a unique label such a negative thing in this particular sense? No shame in a civil union.

And the word "right" just seems so wrong in this case. We all have rights, but that doesn't mean there aren't restrictions. Not everyone is allowed to do everything. I personally am not allowed to go into the ladies' restroom, yet I feel like I have rights just fine.

I don't think any of us really have that much personal stake in the topic, which is probably best. So I'll leave it with this gay guy's quote. I may not know what the fuss is all about, but surely he has a clue.

Quote
In closing, nobody needs state-recognized marriage for any reason at all. All the arrangements of marriage can be duplicated with contracts, and you do not have to choose the one-size-fits-all bundle that marriage forces upon couples. Even if gay couples do want that bundle, civil unions with the exact same provisions as legal marriage should be good enough for those not so desperate for society’s moral approval.

I do not need the state to recognize my love, thanks Keith. Now I’d like at least all heterosexuals, if not their loudmouth gay friends, to shut the hell up on the matter. It does not impress me that you have compassion for gay people; I simply do not think you are a mouthbreathing dingbat for finding anything at all wrong with homosexual behavior. That’s the expected default, get it? Now stop trying to force your oppressive, frilly, and boring traditional institutions meant to ensure monogamy on my hot, promiscuous, anonymous gay sex.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Ferdk on September 27, 2012, 09:28:48 AM
Oh, I agree with you, to me it isn't that much of an issue. Just like calling a black person black isn't racism. But some people do get all emotional over it. But now that I think about it I usually b*tch about that so I guess I'm being hypocritical :P

PS: That quoted guy just had to mention gay sex... -__- nice image to start off the day xD
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Cornelius on September 30, 2012, 05:18:35 AM
If people want to have an imaginary friend, it's fine with me. I just don't want them to shove it down our throats.

Gay Lolcat ^^: "I can haz marriagez0r plz?"
Biblical Bigot: "My imaginary friend says NO!"

I'm going to change some words from the common biblistic homophobic arguments.
This should show how flawed those bigots logic really is:

Americans can't marry, cuz it says so in the Quran, and the Quran is Allah's words. You should really go die instead. Kthxbai!

(No hate intended towards muslims, I just needed to show the biblistic bigots their logic, used for something they disagree with. Thank you for the understanding.)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Unimaginative Username on September 30, 2012, 08:26:38 AM
If people want to have an imaginary friend, it's fine with me. I just don't want them to shove it down our throats.

Gay Lolcat ^^: "I can haz marriagez0r plz?"
Biblical Bigot: "My imaginary friend says NO!"

I'm going to change some words from the common biblistic homophobic arguments.
This should show how flawed those bigots logic really is:

Americans can't marry, cuz it says so in the Quran, and the Quran is Allah's words. You should really go die instead. Kthxbai!

(No hate intended towards muslims, I just needed to show the biblistic bigots their logic, used for something they disagree with. Thank you for the understanding.)

Well that was remarkable offensive to quite a few different groups of people :\
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Question Mark on September 30, 2012, 12:38:29 PM
^All groups of people tend to get offensive at one another, simply because they're don't wholly agree on something (bring that up and it's an instant flame war).

On-topic: I thought this thread pretty much ended at "let's not -cuss- with other people's matters".
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Judedeath on September 30, 2012, 04:55:30 PM
^All groups of people tend to get offensive at one another, simply because they're don't wholly agree on something (bring that up and it's an instant flame war).

On-topic: I thought this thread pretty much ended at "let's not -cuss- with other people's matters".

I thought it ended with a marriage is stupid and nobody  should have it.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Merlandese on September 30, 2012, 05:00:25 PM
^All groups of people tend to get offensive at one another, simply because they're don't wholly agree on something (bring that up and it's an instant flame war).

On-topic: I thought this thread pretty much ended at "let's not -cuss- with other people's matters".

I thought it ended with a marriage is stupid and nobody  should have it.

That's how I ended it. :p
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Ferdk on October 01, 2012, 12:10:51 PM
Merlan is like the grinch of marriage/family?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Dr. Zooks McCoy on October 01, 2012, 01:19:20 PM
The Grinch put a hand to his ear. And he did hear a sound rising over the snow.
It started in low. Then it started to grow...

But the sound wasn't sad! Why, this sound sounded merry!
It couldn't be so! But it WAS merry! VERY!

Every bride and groom at their weddings, the tall and the small,
Was singing "here comes the bride"! Without any marriage rights at all!
He HADN'T stopped marriage from coming!
IT CAME!
Somehow or other, it came just the same!
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Merlandese on October 01, 2012, 05:07:17 PM
Hahaha!

How could it be so?

It came without ribbons!... it came without tags!... it came without benefits, tax cuts, or flags!

It came without contracts, approval or cake! It came without blessings? That's quite the mistake!

Turns out that marriage could be worth the while! A handshake the cake, the contract a smile.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Dr. Zooks McCoy on October 01, 2012, 07:52:38 PM
I lost it at "benefits, tax cuts, or flags!" XD

And what happened then...? Well...in America, they say
That the Grinch's small brain grew three sizes that day!
And the second his conscience was set at ease,
He ran off and became a justice of the peace,
And he handed out flowers and champagne, and then-
He, ...HE HIMSELF...!
The Grinch married two men.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Merlandese on October 01, 2012, 07:55:52 PM
Bwahaha!!! What a perfectly brilliant ending!
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Ferdk on October 01, 2012, 08:04:55 PM
I feel stupid for not understanding watcha guys are talking about considering I triggered it. Never saw the grinch xD
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Tumbles on October 01, 2012, 08:08:35 PM
I feel stupid for not understanding watcha guys are talking about considering I triggered it. Never saw the grinch xD

Me neither, but I'm enjoying this. ;D
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Dr. Zooks McCoy on October 01, 2012, 09:31:58 PM
Wonder if Cindy-Lou Who grew up and married a Christine Who.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: HipsterPie on February 19, 2013, 11:23:14 AM
Sorry for the bump. Wanted to share my opinion on this.

I am lesbian myself, and I don't get why people think it's some kind of twisted mind stuff, or a choice. I wish I wasn't lesbian at all, and that it would be easy for me to find somebody who loves me to. But that doesn't mean I can like men because I want to. I just don't feel attracted to them.
About the banning-marriage stuff, I don't get that either. Why? Since people are born gay (even though there are some people who say they are gay but they aren't, which I don't like, because other people will see them as gay people and start saying it's just a phase and a choice), why should you ban such a thing? It's like banning marriage for people with the same hair colour.
In the present, right now, we are with so many people, that we don't need to... Reproduce that much anymore. So I don't see the problem in people not having kids. Yes, of course, people still need to have kids to prevent extinction, but why would you blame people who love their own gender for every problem in the world (like some people do.)
Do you know these American people who are standing on these sidewalks with those signs... Those texts, saying that gay people are insane people who have nothing but hate for everything in this world, like we're some kind of evil power that may soon destroy the world. It's crap. Just crap. And it doesn't make any sense. It also makes me feel upset. Really upset.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Ferdk on February 19, 2013, 11:49:16 AM
If it makes you feel any better, those people with those sings on the streets are usually incredibly stupid people. So you shouldn't really mind their archaic "opinions" (quotation marks because they aren't even their honest opinions, they're just told what to think).

The problem is the civilized people who still disagree with marriage, for whatever reasons that might be. Those are worth trying to understand, so we can try to come up with a solution. The hateful bunch should be ignored, they're not worth a damn.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Merlandese on February 19, 2013, 12:14:38 PM
The thing about marriage, when you really think about it honestly, is that it's a proclamation. If you love someone, and are committed to them forever, no paperwork, ceremony, or Facebook status will have any effect other than informing other people who are not in the relationship.

It seems to me that the real issue is acknowledgment. Even though every legal work and ceremonious detail can be replicated for a functional marriage, and even though the love will exist with or without the "I do," it's not enough unless complete strangers accept it. That's marriage, after all: an announcement of what two people have already committed to do in their hearts.

So it really boils down to gay acceptance, not just the actual marriage. What seems to be begged for is recognition from strangers. But there will always be people who disapprove of your love no matter what your sexual preferences are. That's the world. This push for approved marriage will maybe "force" the legal system into recognizing gay love, but will it change people? Will it really make that love any more legitimate? I guess it's worth the try, to some, but the "right" to love has always been there, whether everyone recognizes it or not.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: HipsterPie on February 19, 2013, 12:32:58 PM
You have a good point there.
I don't see the point in marrying though, seeing how many couples are still together after a few years (and that isn't much. I only know a few friends whose parents are still married.)
I think though, that people won't accept gay people because it differs from what they're taught. It seems humans tend to be scared of things they aren't familiar with.
So I guess I can somehow understand their hate, too. It's ignorance. Not knowing what something is, not for sure at least. Not knowing that people who are different from you are just humans, like all those other humans on this planet.
Same with racism.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Dry Ice on February 19, 2013, 01:05:19 PM
Do you know these American people who are standing on these sidewalks with those signs... Those texts, saying that gay people are insane people who have nothing but hate for everything in this world, like we're some kind of evil power that may soon destroy the world. It's crap. Just crap. And it doesn't make any sense. It also makes me feel upset. Really upset.

Ditto what Ferd says; the pictures you've probably seen are the Westboro Baptist Church. They're absolutely crazy and not even the most hard-core American conservative takes them seriously. Even the KKK has stated that they don't endorse them. O_O

That's a very interesting observation, about the recognition and acceptance aspect of marriage. I'd never thought of that. In the U.S. at least, there are also legal benefits that come with marriage that gay couples cannot receive when they're not allowed to marry. Even in states where gay marriage is legal, the federal benefits are still withheld because the federal government doesn't recognize it.

I am a firm supporter of gay rights and marriage... I kinda take the opinion that consenting mutual love should never be forbidden. My state legalized gay marriage in November, and I've never cast a vote I was so proud of. :D

I honestly think that things are changing for the better. In my town, there are a lot of young people who are devout Christians and disagree with homosexuality on religious terms. But even most of these people believe that gay people should still have the right to marry and be treated with respect, because they don't believe that imposing their religious values on others is right. That really gives me hope that everyone can learn to coexist.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: HipsterPie on February 19, 2013, 02:11:25 PM
It makes me happy to hear that more and more states are legalising same sex marriage.
I heared the Netherlands was the first country to legalise gay-marriage, which also made me very happy. A little proud, too.
And well, I know, those insane-ass Bapists are out of their mind. But still, seeing kids believing this bull-poo hurts me. It hurts my teeny-tiny little heart.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: EgotisticalRaven on August 30, 2013, 03:23:25 AM
I really think that the topic of equalised marriage is a very silly topic. I myself am straight, but I don't think that people should be discriminated in the terms of marriage. It's like discriminating someone because of their eye colour, or their hair colour. They could dye it or put in contact lens, but they are still green eyed or have dark hair. I guess it's easier to hide attraction than hair or eyes though, but same idea.

They might as well legalise it, because the homosexual couples would just ended up living together and doing all the things they would do if they were married anyway. It would just make them seem like they're more wicked than they really are. I don't really think that someone being 'gay' would really change their morals or change their way of looking at the world, so a lot of religions are essentialy being cruel ones. On that note it might get a bad reputation for the fact that continuing the cycle of life is wired into our intincts, so it creeps into our life so much that we see it as holy or pure, thus romantic relationships without breeding is seen as a sin.

Oh and Sting does a great song, about Quentin Crisp when he moved to New York.
Sting - Englishman In New York (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d27gTrPPAyk#)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Unimaginative Username on August 30, 2013, 07:56:17 PM
They might as well legalise it, because the homosexual couples would just ended up living together and doing all the things they would do if they were married anyway.

If they were to do this anyway and already have an equivalent in the form of a Civil Partnership - at least they do in the UK - why is it worth needlessly redefining marriage and causing dissension between people who disagree or have morale qualms with the matter and those who want homosexual people to have the same rights as a couple as heterosexual married ones do? Why can't it all be simply resolved by equating the rights of homosexuals in Civil Partnerships to that of the rights heterosexuals have in Marriage, and therefore making the names the only difference between them legally?

You also have to bear in mind that Marriage was a religious symbol adopted by the State, not the other way round, so why should the State have a say in how it is defined and what it encompasses? Surely it should be the job of the State to provide an equivalent for homosexuals with the same rights, rather than changing something that is not its to change?

By changing Marriage itself so that in now includes Gay Marriage you would be redefining it, this directly opposes what some religions themselves state marriage to be and would affect what many people belonging to a religion believe Marriage to be. This says that the rights of these people and what they think can be disregarded and a standard of their religions - where marriage originated from (at least in this country) - can be changed, ignoring that Marriage was defined by these religions and hence should only be theirs to change, just so a minority group can have a legal document with the same name on it as everyone else's. Why can't Gay Marriage be kept separate, still giving homosexual the same legal rights heterosexual people have in Marriage - where applicable - for example, by creating a modified Civil Partnership? That would certainly be fairest to everyone in my mind and reduce further disputes looming down the line.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Ferdk on August 30, 2013, 08:32:51 PM
They might as well legalise it, because the homosexual couples would just ended up living together and doing all the things they would do if they were married anyway.

If they were to do this anyway and already have an equivalent in the form of a Civil Partnership - at least they do in the UK - why is it worth needlessly redefining marriage and causing dissension between people who disagree or have morale qualms with the matter and those who want homosexual people to have the same rights as a couple as heterosexual married ones do? Why can't it all be simply resolved by equating the rights of homosexuals in Civil Partnerships to that of the rights heterosexuals have in Marriage, and therefore making the names the only difference between them legally?

You also have to bear in mind that Marriage was a religious symbol adopted by the State, not the other way round, so why should the State have a say in how it is defined and what it encompasses? Surely it should be the job of the State to provide an equivalent for homosexuals with the same rights, rather than changing something that is not its to change?

By changing Marriage itself so that in now includes Gay Marriage you would be redefining it, this directly opposes what some religions themselves state marriage to be and would affect what many people belonging to a religion believe Marriage to be. This says that the rights of these people and what they think can be disregarded and a standard of their religions - where marriage originated from (at least in this country) - can be changed, ignoring that Marriage was defined by these religions and hence should only be theirs to change, just so a minority group can have a legal document with the same name on it as everyone else's. Why can't Gay Marriage be kept separate, still giving homosexual the same legal rights heterosexual people have in Marriage - where applicable - for example, by creating a modified Civil Partnership? That would certainly be fairest to everyone in my mind and reduce further disputes looming down the line.

"Marriage" was already adopted and redefined by the State. It is not the same as a religious Marriage (though it obviously originates from there). The State defines what a marriage is by law, something the religious version doesn't, and thus it's just the use of the same word for something different. Therefore there's no reason to exclude a group of people from this because some religious folks "called dibs" on the word. If that were the case, then the word Marriage should be abolished as a legal term and make EVERYONE have a "Civil Partnership", heterosexual people too.