Gay Marriage

[Ferdk]

I feel stupid for not understanding watcha guys are talking about considering I triggered it. Never saw the grinch

[Tumbles]

I feel stupid for not understanding watcha guys are talking about considering I triggered it. Never saw the grinch

Me neither, but I'm enjoying this.

[Dr. Zooks McCoy]

Wonder if Cindy-Lou Who grew up and married a Christine Who.

[HipsterPie]

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.

[Ferdk]

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.

[Merlandese]

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.

[HipsterPie]

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.

[Dry Ice]

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.

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.

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.

[HipsterPie]

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.

[EgotisticalRaven]

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

[Unimaginative Username]

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.

[Ferdk]

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.