Same-sex Marriage.

[lionloversam]

I can't remember the last time I started a debate thread. So, I probably won't do that well of a job. But, here it goes.
I, for one, feel that same-sex marriages should be legal. They are still illegal in most of the states. But, to have them illegal, it is the government trying to dictate ones personal life. People should be able to choose who they want to spend the rest of their lives with. It doesn't matter if it is a member of the same sex or not. It is about love. Do you love that person enough to make a lifelong commitment?

People can't choose which sex they are attracted to. Bi, gay or heterosexual. It doesn't matter. That is something a person has no control over. So why should someone who truly loves a member of the same-sex be told they can't marry?

[Azerane]

I'll be the first to admit that it is a little strange to be walking down the street and see two people of the same sex kissing or whatever. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against it, but being brought up in a society where that is viewed as being wrong, and it's not very common to see, I think it simply has that effect. Or maybe it's because I'm straight and picturing a girl kissing another girl is gross to me. Do gay(or whatever term you want to use) people find it gross when they see heterosexual people kissing? :p

I have nothing against same-sex relationships/marriage though, I think people are entitled to get married to whoever they want to marry. Who's to say that a certain type of person can't fall in love with another certain type of person. It's just stupid, it's basically stopping people from being who they truly are, which is really quite horrible. It's limiting a person's freedom.

[Leorgathar]

I too was raised in a society where same sex relationships are viewed as wrong, but I personally don't mind at all, I agree that it should be legal and much more welcomed. It it legal in Mexico city, actually, and since only a couple of years ago, and I think it's a big step upfront.

Now, as I have stated before, I'm not against same sex marriages, but I have mixed feelings about then having the chance to adopt children and start a family. Don't get me wrong, I think it's as beautiful and caring like an heterosexual couple, and I'm not really against it, but it's hard to foresee how will the child grow up, kids are very absorbent in their development, as well as in the way they're seen as in society.
I admit that I still have much to learn on the matter, and perhaps it's not that bad really, but I can't take that of my thoughts yet. I gotta see good examples for myself, I guess, hehe.

[Juniper]

Legally, I think that if two people are willing to share a monogamous, lifelong commitment, cohabitation, and partnership, then they should be afforded the legal protections of marriage. Otherwise, it's none of my business what people do in their private lives as long as no one's getting hurt.

From a spiritual standpoint, I don't recognize a homosexual relationship or marriage as a valid option for practicing Christians of any sect. Outside of the church, I have no problem with it. Inside the church, I leave the disciplinary measures to pastors, elders, and bishops as I've done far to many cruel, evil things to ever pass that sort of judgement on another person.

But, for what it's worth, I agree that people can't choose which sex they're attracted to. I'm attracted to both sexes. Heck, several years ago I was in a committed relationship with another guy. I do, however, choose to abstain from homosexual activities now.

[Kihari]

The thing about marriage (at least in this country) is that it is a religious construct controlled mainly by the folks in charge of religious organizations; yet being married entitles one to certain legal and social benefits, despite that little thing called the separation of church and state I've heard so much about. Equally beneficial "domestic partnerships" and the like are the obvious solution to this, but in my state and in many others, even those sorts of unions are neither issued nor legally recognized (in case you happen to have been issued one elsewhere).

I don't want to delve into a discussion on religion, but I'll say this: for something I do not participate in, Christianity has a startlingly powerful stranglehold on things like this in my personal life. This makes zero sense to me.


Do gay people find it gross when they see heterosexual people kissing?

No, but I guess that's just me. ;)

[Juniper]

The thing about marriage (at least in this country) is that it is a religious construct controlled mainly by the folks in charge of religious organizations; yet being married entitles one to certain legal and social benefits, despite that little thing called the separation of church and state I've heard so much about. Equally beneficial "domestic partnerships" and the like are the obvious solution to this, but in my state and in many others, even those sorts of unions are neither issued nor legally recognized (in case you happen to have been issued one elsewhere).

I don't want to delve into a discussion on religion, but I'll say this: for something I do not participate in, Christianity has a startlingly powerful stranglehold on things like this in my personal life. This makes zero sense to me.



No, but I guess that's just me. ;)

You can have a marriage license issued by a court system, you do not need any sort of contact with any person in any religious organization at any time to become lawfully wedded. This is not a Church and State situation, there is no respect to specific religion, and non-religious people have a perfectly viable means of becoming married through the courts. Various religions practice marriage, and given that a vast majority of Americans practice some sort of religion, it's just practical that the religious leaders sign the marriage license.

[Raize]

There are gay religious leaders, not sure why marriage has taken so long if it's a purely religious issue. I know people throw a huge fit over gay religious leaders, but I'd argue that marriage has gotten a much louder and bigger argument over it.

I'm for gay marriage, even before coming out myself I didn't understand why it was such a huge issue. People just like to keep others down, sad really.

@ Azerane: Not really disgusted, well, if they are slobbering over each other, but that goes for anyone. Personally kissing in public is annoying no matter who is doing it. It's like, "Move on already and get a room 9_9" lol.

[Kihari]

You can have a marriage license issued by a court system


That to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman.

^This (ironically enough) can be found in the State Constitution's Bill of Rights; most states have similar laws that also take advantage of the Defense of Marriage Act.


This is not a Church and State situation, there is no respect to specific religion, and ... given that a vast majority of Americans practice some sort of religion, it's just practical that the religious leaders sign the marriage license.

I hope you'll forgive my cynicism, but the vast majority of the opponents of same-sex marriage, whenever the issue comes up, are certain religious figures, their most devout followers, and the politicians who either subscribe to their views or rely on them for monetary and political support.

Every. Single. Time.

You are right; there is nothing on the books interlocking marriage and religion. The same cannot, however, be said for the situation as it is found in reality, which, this being a social issue, is where it really matters.

[Raize]

...the vast majority of the opponents of same-sex marriage, whenever the issue comes up, are certain religious figures, their most devout followers, and the politicians who either subscribe to their views or rely on them for monetary and political support ... there is nothing on the books interlocking marriage and religion. The same cannot, however, be said for the situation as it is found in reality, which, this being a social issue, is where it really matters.

Couldn't agree more with that statement, and also commend you for refraining from painting all religious figures with a wide brush and were precise in your accurate accusations.

There are religious groups out there within religious organizations that are accepting of homosexuality, gay marriage, and equal rights; they're just not as vocal as the side you pointed out, sadly.

There was once a time, not too long ago in the world's history when power was given to very few individuals based on whom you were born to (royalty & nobility), everyone else had to listen to them. This eventually ended (though many including myself would/will argue it constantly attempt to resurface). There was a time when being of African descent meant slavery, but this eventually ended. There was a time when being a woman meant being subservient to men, this eventually ended. There was a time when homosexuality was treated as a mental disorder, this eventually ended (though it tries to hang on). I like to believe that with all injustices, this fringe on equality will too pass - it may take years or decades, but eventually it will pass; I call this inevitability evolution =)

[Lucy]

Yes, of course it should be allowed. I'm in a relationship with a girl (have been in one with a guy before too, I guess that makes me bisexual but I don't really like to label it) but even before I was I've been for same sex marriage. She actually lives in a state where gay marriage is legal (Connecticut) and we have civil partnerships in the UK, but if (big if) we ever decided to get married it'd be tricky as things stand at the moment. Plus you still hear of way too many attacks on gay/bisexual people. A while ago in London a gay man was killed by some young girls, it was really horrific. As proud as I am of this country for having the civil partnerships, we still have a long way to go. I still feel awkward holding my girlfriend's hand and showing affection in public (we don't go over the top or anything, we're not one of those couples, lol) and one time we were in Grand Central minding our own business, sitting close and acting very obviously like girlfriends - when a group of people came over and asked to take a picture of us kissing for their scavenger hunt. Just wow. I suppose at least they asked rather than just creeping on us and taking the picture without us knowing, but I was really really put off by that. It creeped me the hell out. Like we were some kind of novelty :/ I just hate that I always have to look over my shoulder to make sure no one's watching us, but I suppose there's always going to be people that don't want us to be together, which is really sad. Because I don't think anyone has the right to tell someone who they can and can't marry.

And lol that turned into a rant

[shadowland]

They are still illegal in most of the states. But, to have them illegal, it is the government trying to dictate ones personal life. People should be able to choose who they want to spend the rest of their lives with. It doesn't matter if it is a member of the same sex or not.

As much as I'm cool with same-sex marriage, I'd like to point you that you don't need to be married to spend your life with someone you love, thats a crazy assumption to make.

[Azerane]

@ Azerane: Not really disgusted, well, if they are slobbering over each other, but that goes for anyone. Personally kissing in public is annoying no matter who is doing it. It's like, "Move on already and get a room 9_9" lol.

Yes that too, by all means go ahead and give your other half a kiss in public, but keep it respectable :p I don't get disgusted by seeing people of the same sex doing it, but I think it's more I see it, try to put myself in their shoes, and just get grossed out by the thought of myself kissing a girl :lol: But I imagine part of it is having been brought up to see it as being wrong, so there's that background there for it, so I definitely don't see it as wrong, weird to see. I don't know, I'm rambling now :p

I try not to make a habit out of watching people's public displays of affection anyway, haha xD

[Revo]

I'm pretty sure same-sex marriage in Finland is only a matter of time... But who am I kidding, nobody is interested about this issue outside the US, since that's where all the hulabaloo is the loudest :lol:. In my humble opinion, US (and any other country with this issue) needs to get off the high horse, get the damn thing legalized already and focus all that legislative energy and jibba-jabba on more pressing global issues. In the sea of problems around the world, same-sex marriage is a pretty easy one to solve and I'm baffled how it is still around.

[Aurelian]

Legally, I think that if two people are willing to share a monogamous, lifelong commitment, cohabitation, and partnership, then they should be afforded the legal protections of marriage. Otherwise, it's none of my business what people do in their private lives as long as no one's getting hurt.

From a spiritual standpoint, I don't recognize a homosexual relationship or marriage as a valid option for practicing Christians of any sect. Outside of the church, I have no problem with it. Inside the church, I leave the disciplinary measures to pastors, elders, and bishops as I've done far to many cruel, evil things to ever pass that sort of judgement on another person.

But, for what it's worth, I agree that people can't choose which sex they're attracted to. I'm attracted to both sexes. Heck, several years ago I was in a committed relationship with another guy. I do, however, choose to abstain from homosexual activities now.

Instead of wasting space replying, I agree with Pnt word for word. He said it perfectly. The concept of marriage, originally strictly a religious ceremony and status, has been so convoluted by government that it is tough to argue one way or another. Marriage has basically become to entirely different things that we do in one ceremony. Go ahead and get married with some government issued peace of paper. I don't think it matters in the eyes of God. You and your partner need to talk spiritual marriage with him. While the Bible blatantly says that two people of the same gender who sleep together will go to Hell, I will leave it to God to make his own judgment.

[Guntur]

Instead of wasting space replying, I agree with Pnt word for word. He said it perfectly. The concept of marriage, originally strictly a religious ceremony and status, has been so convoluted by government that it is tough to argue one way or another. Marriage has basically become to entirely different things that we do in one ceremony. Go ahead and get married with some government issued peace of paper. I don't think it matters in the eyes of God. You and your partner need to talk spiritual marriage with him. While the Bible blatantly says that two people of the same gender who sleep together will go to Hell, I will leave it to God to make his own judgment.

Agree with the quote and 2 quote above!

I do have a few close gay or homosexual friends and I live in a different direction from them! My points to them are avoid any religion standpoint and belief on marriage and way of life. Most of my encounter are spiritual person than a religious gay person. I tend to say to my gay friends to avoid any affiliation on any religion organization to avoid any inner conflict. The conflict in my opinion and still question are stand between moral, will of life, and deeds in our lives!


If I'm gay and have a conflict against my religion I believe I should be prosecute over my action as my heart devoted more towards Allah/God himself than my own sexuality.

[Raize]

I try not to make a habit out of watching people's public displays of affection anyway, haha xD

Suuuuure lol ;) :P

Regarding religious matters... just because a religious text says something is good or bad, does not mean it is true. The Bible says explicitly, for example, that we shouldn't eat pork, men shouldn't shave their sideburns, no more wearing clothes of more than fabric, no tattoos, no piercings, no statues, no divorce, women are to dress modestly without jewelry or even braiding their hair (funny that Muslims get a lot of flak for this but it's more or less in the Bible too), and no shellfish. That's just a few things too. On the other side of the coin, there are plenty of Biblical passages that support what we would consider 'bad things'.

It has been used to promote slavery. (Ephesians 6:5-9)
It has been used to promote the unequal status of women. (1 Timothy 2:12)
It has been used to promote witch trials. (Numbers 5:11-31)
It has been used to promote the destruction and rape of the Earth and all of its lifeforms. (Genesis 1:28-29, Revelation 21:1)
It has been used to promote the hatred shown to those who believe differently. (Psalms 139: 21-22)
It has been used to promote the hatred shown to foreigners. (Nehemiah 13:30)
It has been used to promote the mistreatment of the poor. (John 12:8)
It has been used to promote the beating of children. (Proverbs 13:24)
It has been used to promote many, many wars. (Anytime in the Old Testament when God said "I have given the land to you" such as in Judges 1, or Book of Revelation)
It has been used to promote hatred toward homosexuals. (Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13)
It has been used to suppress scientific discoveries. (Joshua 10:13, Genesis 1 & 2)

It has been used as a tool for politicians to win over a mindless public.
It has been used to bless countries and condemn countries.
It has been used to condemn people to a prison sentence and the penalty of death.
It has been used to curse the sick. (In the old days it was leprosy, now its aids).

To sum all of ^that^ up, the Bible says a lot of things - doesn't mean they are good or relevant. People just refuse to accept that we CAN pick and choose what we want to follow. You can love Jesus and be gay, just like you can love Jesus and get divorced. Otherwise, I don't want to catch you eating bacon lol :P

[Juniper]

Suuuuure lol ;) :P

Regarding religious matters... just because a religious text says something is good or bad, does not mean it is true. The Bible says explicitly, for example, that we shouldn't eat pork, men shouldn't shave their sideburns, no more wearing clothes of more than fabric, no tattoos, no piercings, no statues, no divorce, women are to dress modestly without jewelry or even braiding their hair (funny that Muslims get a lot of flak for this but it's more or less in the Bible too), and no shellfish. That's just a few things too. On the other side of the coin, there are plenty of Biblical passages that support what we would consider 'bad things'.

It has been used to promote slavery. (Ephesians 6:5-9)
It has been used to promote the unequal status of women. (1 Timothy 2:12)
It has been used to promote witch trials. (Numbers 5:11-31)
It has been used to promote the destruction and rape of the Earth and all of its lifeforms. (Genesis 1:28-29, Revelation 21:1)
It has been used to promote the hatred shown to those who believe differently. (Psalms 139: 21-22)
It has been used to promote the hatred shown to foreigners. (Nehemiah 13:30)
It has been used to promote the mistreatment of the poor. (John 12:8)
It has been used to promote the beating of children. (Proverbs 13:24)
It has been used to promote many, many wars. (Anytime in the Old Testament when God said "I have given the land to you" such as in Judges 1, or Book of Revelation)
It has been used to promote hatred toward homosexuals. (Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13)
It has been used to suppress scientific discoveries. (Joshua 10:13, Genesis 1 & 2)

It has been used as a tool for politicians to win over a mindless public.
It has been used to bless countries and condemn countries.
It has been used to condemn people to a prison sentence and the penalty of death.
It has been used to curse the sick. (In the old days it was leprosy, now its aids).

To sum all of ^that^ up, the Bible says a lot of things - doesn't mean they are good or relevant. People just refuse to accept that we CAN pick and choose what we want to follow. You can love Jesus and be gay, just like you can love Jesus and get divorced. Otherwise, I don't want to catch you eating bacon lol :P

I believe that you're mistaken about Christianity, for more reasons than I could possibly list. I also believe that you've grossly misrepresented my religion.

You CAN pick and choose not to follow Christianity. Even as a Christian you CAN pick and choose not to follow certain rules, but realize that we believe that all people will be judged for what they have done, both good and bad. If, as a Christian, you are willing to face the consequences of your actions, then that is between you and God. Yes, if the congregation believes you to be in a state of willful sin and you refuse to confess and repent, you will eventually be forced to leave the congregation. We are not to judge those outside of the church (1 cor. 5).

Since you mention bacon, Paul did not believe any meat to be unclean as it is all from God, but went on to say that if by eating meat he were to destroy his brother (ie, cause them to waiver in their faith, as many new Jewish converts would), then he would never eat meat again.

[lionloversam]

As much as I'm cool with same-sex marriage, I'd like to point you that you don't need to be married to spend your life with someone you love, thats a crazy assumption to make.

You are right. I wish I could remember what my intent was with that statement. :woe: I guess I should of said "People should be able to choose who they want to marry." But, with how I originally worded it, you are right with it being a crazy assumption. :hehe: :ayecapn:


Do gay(or whatever term you want to use) people find it gross when they see heterosexual people kissing? :p
I'm Bi and I don't have a problem with it. Just as long as (as it has already been said) they aren't salivating all over each other.

[Dare]

Eh, I don't know how the Powers-That-Be regard same-sex marriage, so I'm going to leave Them out of the equation.

That being said:

If churches/religious groups don't want to perform same-sex marriages, that's cool. I think they have a right to abstain from performing rituals that clearly go against their faith/beliefs/whatever. Ye can't force a church to bestow a sacrament that they feel is undeserving.

However, I see no reason why two men or two women shouldn't be allowed to get "married" in a courthouse or town hall - after all, it's not (or at least shouldn't be) a religious institution, right? Ye olde separation of church and state.

Of course, there's the argument over who owns the word "marriage" and changing the definition thereof what whatnot...personally, I don't care what anyone calls it as long as the rights and recognitions are universal. I don't understand why there's so much haggling over vocabulary, but I'm not a lawmaker or politician so I guess bumping up the rights of civil unions is more complicated than I feel it should be...

Meh.

In the end, I guess I just think it's ridiculous that two gay people cannot get "married" and have that legal rights, protections, and inter-state government recognition as married hetero couples. The entire Proposition 8 thing made me grate my teeth too - one year a gay couple is married, the next year gay marriage is banned, and then the proponents of Prop 8 wanted to retroactively nullify all the gay marriages that took place before the ban. Call me crazy, but that just seems wrong to me.

On a side note - does anyone know where I can read an argument against gay marriage that doesn't involve some sort of tie to a spiritual/religious belief? Something completely secular? I've been searching for a while and have read a few but I'm always interested in reading more.
:)


Do gay(or whatever term you want to use) people find it gross when they see heterosexual people kissing? :p


I don't, but then again I'm bi, so I dunno if that skews the results. So long as they're not gropin' up a storm or something, they're fine... and it's not like I going to sit around and watch 'em anyway. I don't have to - I have cable television.
:p

[Juniper]

Eh, I don't know how the Powers-That-Be regard same-sex marriage, so I'm going to leave Them out of the equation.

That being said:

If churches/religious groups don't want to perform same-sex marriages, that's cool. I think they have a right to abstain from performing rituals that clearly go against their faith/beliefs/whatever. Ye can't force a church to bestow a sacrament that they feel is undeserving.

However, I see no reason why two men or two women shouldn't be allowed to get "married" in a courthouse or town hall - after all, it's not (or at least shouldn't be) a religious institution, right? Ye olde separation of church and state.

Of course, there's the argument over who owns the word "marriage" and changing the definition thereof what whatnot...personally, I don't care what anyone calls it as long as the rights and recognitions are universal. I don't understand why there's so much haggling over vocabulary, but I'm not a lawmaker or politician so I guess bumping up the rights of civil unions is more complicated than I feel it should be...

Meh.

In the end, I guess I just think it's ridiculous that two gay people cannot get "married" and have that legal rights, protections, and inter-state government recognition as married hetero couples. Ah well...

On a side note - does anyone know where I can read an argument against gay marriage that doesn't involve some sort of tie to a spiritual/religious belief? Something completely secular? I've been searching for a while and have read a few but I'm always interested in reading more.
:)

You're always a voice of reason, I appreciate that.

You could always look towards arguments regarding natural order. I'm not a huge fan of natural order authority myself, as I believe humans are free moral agents who are free to defy their own nature. But, as a quick synopsis: Things ought to behave according to their nature. Humans naturally form mating pairs with the opposite sex, thus all humans ought to form mating pairs with the opposite sex. Quick notes: Doesn't apply to things like cars and medicine (ie, you can't disqualify the natural order argument by saying that cars are not natural so therefore we shouldn't use them) because tool use is a natural trait of humans. Also, if humans naturally make free moral choices and are not bound by their nature, then this argument falls apart.

[Revo]

You could always look towards arguments regarding natural order. I'm not a huge fan of natural order authority myself, as I believe humans are free moral agents who are free to defy their own nature. But, as a quick synopsis: Things ought to behave according to their nature. Humans naturally form mating pairs with the opposite sex, thus all humans ought to form mating pairs with the opposite sex. Quick notes: Doesn't apply to things like cars and medicine (ie, you can't disqualify the natural order argument by saying that cars are not natural so therefore we shouldn't use them) because tool use is a natural trait of humans. Also, if humans naturally make free moral choices and are not bound by their nature, then this argument falls apart.
(emphasis added)
Forgive my ignorance, but could you back the bolded bit up with something? Because as it stands, the assumption doesn't seem justified in my eyes. This of course delves into the definition of what is "natural", which is still up for grabs. If we take natural to mean something that is readily found in nature, then this natural order argument doesn't work.
And as a follow up question: What reason is there to think that what is natural (whatever definition you're using) for some humans should also be natural to all humans?

For Wicked, this video pretty much sums up any and all arguments I've heard against same-sex marriage, secular or otherwise: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSfFa44p96o
Alas, the arguments are very simplified (maybe overly so) for the sake of emphasis. But any argument that I've heard so far can eventually be boiled down to one or several of the points made in that video.

[Juniper]

Forgive my ignorance, but could you back the bolded bit up with something? Because as it stands, the assumption doesn't seem justified in my eyes. This of course delves into the definition of what is "natural", which is still up for grabs. If we take natural to mean something that is readily found in nature, then this natural order argument doesn't work.
And as a follow up question: What reason is there to think that what is natural (whatever definition you're using) for some humans should also be natural to all humans?

For Wicked, this video pretty much sums up any and all arguments I've heard against same-sex marriage, secular or otherwise: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSfFa44p96o
Alas, the arguments are very simplified (maybe overly so) for the sake of emphasis. But any argument that I've heard so far can eventually be boiled down to one or several of the points made in that video.

I may have simplified the argument a bit, given that I only used a few sentences to sum up an argument that took around eighty pages to defend. This is an argument that's generally accepted within academic philosophy as being troublesome for natural order theory (NOT); I'll try to find you a link to the actual argument. Natural order is its own authority (such as Divine Command Theory, or other authorities), there is no higher power to define what is natural and what is not. Our definition of what is natural does not change what is actually natural -- our definition would simply be incorrect. If I recall, in NOT you use a prototype of a species. The prototypical human naturally forms mating pairs with the opposite sex -- That's how their physiology works, and if this was not true, then there would be no species homo sapiens.

To clarify, another argument would be:
1. Hippos naturally belong in the water
2. One hippo never enters the water
3. That hippo is not fulfilling its inherent "hippo-ness," that is not good

I'm afraid that I can't really help you with natural order beyond that, as I said before, I really don't drink the kool-aid with natural order theory because of some pretty big holes. My biggest problem isn't the definition of what's natural, but why behaving according to one's nature is all that important for free moral agents.

[Revo]

I may have simplified the argument a bit, given that I only used a few sentences to sum up an argument that took around eighty pages to defend. This is an argument that's generally accepted within academic philosophy as being troublesome for natural order theory (NOT); I'll try to find you a link to the actual argument. Natural order is its own authority (such as Divine Command Theory, or other authorities), there is no higher power to define what is natural and what is not. Our definition of what is natural does not change what is actually natural -- our definition would simply be incorrect. If I recall, in NOT you use a prototype of a species. The prototypical human naturally forms mating pairs with the opposite sex -- That's how their physiology works, and if this was not true, then there would be no species homo sapiens.

To clarify, another argument would be:
1. Hippos naturally belong in the water
2. One hippo never enters the water
3. That hippo is not fulfilling its inherent "hippo-ness," that is not good

I'm afraid that I can't really help you with natural order beyond that, as I said before, I really don't drink the kool-aid with natural order theory because of some pretty big holes. My biggest problem isn't the definition of what's natural, but why behaving according to one's nature is all that important for free moral agents.

No fear, your post filled my curiosity well enough. Thanks.
And I just need to say that I have now fallen in love with the word "hippo-ness" :lol:

[ThiagoPE]

wow, even here!

Brazil has legalized the same-sex mariage last week, and so its the subject of the moment here, lot´s of "couples" are making their marriage ceremony.

If you want my opinion, I think everone has the right to share their live with anyone who he/she wants, the govern can even grant rights, recognizing them as a "stable union" , however "marriage" for me is a synonimun of "become a family", which same sex coulples can´t be naturally...

[Azerane]

I don't mean to squeeze in the middle of a conversation here, but I was watching tv last night and I caught a commercial about gay marriage. It started with a shot of a wedding cake with the groom topper on the top and a woman saying "I've been making my son's wedding cake for years, and I want to finish it, but I can't until the australian government recognises my son's love' or something along those lines at which point she puts another male topper on the cake. I thought it was interesting.

Tried to find it on youtube without success.

[saitenyo]

Legally, I think that if two people are willing to share a monogamous, lifelong commitment, cohabitation, and partnership, then they should be afforded the legal protections of marriage. Otherwise, it's none of my business what people do in their private lives as long as no one's getting hurt.
^This.

I support it fully from a legal standpoint, and a moral standpoint on a personal level. That said, even though I am not religious, I do feel individual religious organizations have a right to refuse to perform a religious marriage ceremony for whomever they choose, simply out of respect for individual customs and traditions, but this should have no bearing on legal marriage licenses and it is absurd to me that a religious policy is being enforced as a legal one in a country that is supposed to respect the notion of separation of church and state. tl;dr if a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple, that's their call, but the couple should be allowed a marriage license recognized by the state/country. I always applaud any church or other religious group that does recognize and perform gay marriages within their institution but do not feel they ought to be forced to do so.


As much as I'm cool with same-sex marriage, I'd like to point you that you don't need to be married to spend your life with someone you love, thats a crazy assumption to make.
Well of course not, but it's still important to many people. Not to mention from a legal standpoint, marriage offers a lot of key benefits that are not otherwise recognized by the government. So it's totally understandable that many couples would want to be allowed to marry, even if it has no real bearing on the ability to make a decision to commit to a monogamous relationship.


You could always look towards arguments regarding natural order. I'm not a huge fan of natural order authority myself, as I believe humans are free moral agents who are free to defy their own nature. But, as a quick synopsis: Things ought to behave according to their nature. Humans naturally form mating pairs with the opposite sex, thus all humans ought to form mating pairs with the opposite sex.
I think this is open to debate. We find homosexuality occurring naturally in many species, enough that one might argue there is some biological purpose for it (even though we may not know what this is yet). There have been many theories about it, ranging from population control to its role in social arrangements in large families with many sons. Natural order does not necessarily dictate that all members of a species should behave or function in the same way simply because the majority do. By that logic you could argue that in a species where, say, females vastly outnumbered the males, all members of the species ought to be female. Obviously that would be absurd as there is still a biological purpose for the males even if their numbers were fewer.

From an evolutionary perspective, the "natural order" is only really concerned with what traits allow a species to continue. Homosexuality doesn't interfere with this in any way since A-It doesn't automatically preclude those members of the species from reproducing (some still do via egg/sperm donation) and B-Small numbers of a species not reproducing is not detrimental to the survival of the species as a whole, and may even be beneficial to aid against overpopulation or allow for more available caretakers of orphaned offspring.

[Juniper]

I think this is open to debate. We find homosexuality occurring naturally in many species, enough that one might argue there is some biological purpose for it (even though we may not know what this is yet). There have been many theories about it, ranging from population control to its role in social arrangements in large families with many sons. Natural order does not necessarily dictate that all members of a species should behave or function in the same way simply because the majority do. By that logic you could argue that in a species where, say, females vastly outnumbered the males, all members of the species ought to be female. Obviously that would be absurd as there is still a biological purpose for the males even if their numbers were fewer.

From an evolutionary perspective, the "natural order" is only really concerned with what traits allow a species to continue. Homosexuality doesn't interfere with this in any way since A-It doesn't automatically preclude those members of the species from reproducing (some still do via egg/sperm donation) and B-Small numbers of a species not reproducing is not detrimental to the survival of the species as a whole, and may even be beneficial to aid against overpopulation or allow for more available caretakers of orphaned offspring.

I was trying to fairly represent an argument that I don't support with two or three sentences. Ethical natural order and evolutionary natural order are two different subjects. One is a theory of moral dilemma, one is a matter of science -- they may often overlap, but they focus on two different things.

[Raize]

How can one apply ethics to nature? As humans we like to think we have all of the answers, but we don't actually know what it's like to be a lion, or deer, or frog, or tree, or what have you. It's the old saying "Walk a mile in my moccasins". We observe creatures from an outward position looking in. In the field of science we >believe< this gives us a sense of objectivity, but human pride MUST be taken into account whenever we observe. Pride in general MUST be taken into account when we view our own species too even. It's a severe weakness to objectivity. We judge things as 'good' and 'bad' based on our own personal experiences with what or who ever it may be, combined with any secondary information we know about it.

Just because a hippo doesn't get in the water doesn't make the hippo 'bad', it makes it unique. For survival purposes, it may have less of a chance. As humans we have assumed that the goal throughout all of nature and for everything is survival. Our own species however commits suicide. And if nature/life's ultimate goal were survival, wouldn't the natural processes make it so that all creatures live longer and longer throughout time?

[Juniper]

How can one apply ethics to nature? As humans we like to think we have all of the answers, but we don't actually know what it's like to be a lion, or deer, or frog, or tree, or what have you. It's the old saying "Walk a mile in my moccasins". We observe creatures from an outward position looking in. In the field of science we >believe< this gives us a sense of objectivity, but human pride MUST be taken into account whenever we observe. Pride in general MUST be taken into account when we view our own species too even. It's a severe weakness to objectivity. We judge things as 'good' and 'bad' based on our own personal experiences with what or who ever it may be, combined with any secondary information we know about it.

Just because a hippo doesn't get in the water doesn't make the hippo 'bad', it makes it unique. For survival purposes, it may have less of a chance. As humans we have assumed that the goal throughout all of nature and for everything is survival. Our own species however commits suicide. And if nature/life's ultimate goal were survival, wouldn't the natural processes make it so that all creatures live longer and longer throughout time?

I'm finished discussing natural order theory as, again, I do not prescribe to it. My ethical authority is best described as Modified Divine Command Theory, as per Adams, so I don't recognize natural law as its own ethical authority. If you are interested in natural law, you can read more about it in Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Cicero, and Kant.

[Sadiki]

Not to mention from a legal standpoint, marriage offers a lot of key benefits that are not otherwise recognized by the government.

^ To add my two cents in the discussion. This reason alone should be enough to make it legal for same sex couples to marry. Not allowing them to marry is limiting their rights as a couple. So yeah if two people want to legalize their relationship, it should be no one else business but their own. Anyone saying otherwise isn't really thinking clearly as those two people being married would not probably effect on your life in any way.

When it comes to same sex couples adopting thought ( even it's not exactly the subject here ) I don't directly have anything against that, I just don't think the society is not ready for such a thing yet. But as in personal opinion I wouldn't have any resistance.

[saitenyo]

^ To add my two cents in the discussion. This reason alone should be enough to make it legal for same sex couples to marry. Not allowing them to marry is limiting their rights as a couple. So yeah if two people want to legalize their relationship, it should be no one else business but their own. Anyone saying otherwise isn't really thinking clearly as those two people being married would not probably effect on your life in any way.

Definitely. That's why I get so frustrated when people make the "Well they shouldn't need a piece of paper to prove their love!" argument. It's not about proving love. Sure, part of the reason I'd like to get married in the near future is because of the symbolism, but legal convenience is also a major factor.

As someone in a committed relationship that is everything a marriage is minus the legal documentation (i.e. we're serious, living together, intend to marry, but just haven't taken that step yet since he feels it's appropriate to wait a certain period of time first) I can attest to how many little inconveniences arise that make me very much look forward to the legal union. When you're dealing with things like taxes, emergency medical contact numbers, medical insurance, bank accounts, etc. it's just much easier to be legally married.

[Sadiki]

Well it's also couples in long distance relationship, like me and Audra were. For us to be together it pretty much meant getting married. Now I seen a few of documentaries of couples of same sex in long distance relationship and there is no way for them to live together unless they can get another way for the person to move which in most cases is extremely difficult. But that is just one of the multiple legal things marriage brings.

[Raize]

I'm finished discussing natural order theory as, again, I do not prescribe to it. My ethical authority is best described as Modified Divine Command Theory, as per Adams, so I don't recognize natural law as its own ethical authority. If you are interested in natural law, you can read more about it in Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Cicero, and Kant.

I hope I didn't upset you Pnt, that was most definitely not my intention, nor was it my intention to imply that you did subscribe to such a belief system as you had already stated that you didn't. I was more debating against that philosophy.


Regarding other benefits of marriage... that actually is engrained in American culture (and I would imagine other cultures too?). I'm not sure if this is true for all states, but the state I live in it costs a man money to change his last name, but a woman does so for free. Why is this? Because it's a way to normalize and socialize the people of a population to a way that those in power and control like it; whether that be local or federal. I bring this up because it is an example of "the higher ups" controlling the general populace. A poor couple has to save up for wedding ceremonies (which are a right of passage in our society and the reason why both straight and gay couples don't prefer the court system), they will cut costs wherever they can. If it's already engrained in the cultural mindset that men should lead a household/family and if changing his name costs while hers doesn't - economic logic would state quite simply that she should change hers - perhaps that will save them enough to get another guest to the wedding?

The government like to meddle. Obviously.

I fully support marriage equality, I don't think anyone should ever be forced to marry others (there are growing numbers of clergymen for marriage equality in the world). I would no more want to impose someone to go against their personal moral rights for me than I would want them to go against mine; this leaves me to hope that they share that same ideal. Gaining one type of freedom and equality at the sacrifice of another isn't any good.

[Revo]

Regarding other benefits of marriage... that actually is engrained in American culture (and I would imagine other cultures too?). I'm not sure if this is true for all states, but the state I live in it costs a man money to change his last name, but a woman does so for free. Why is this? Because it's a way to normalize and socialize the people of a population to a way that those in power and control like it; whether that be local or federal. I bring this up because it is an example of "the higher ups" controlling the general populace. A poor couple has to save up for wedding ceremonies (which are a right of passage in our society and the reason why both straight and gay couples don't prefer the court system), they will cut costs wherever they can. If it's already engrained in the cultural mindset that men should lead a household/family and if changing his name costs while hers doesn't - economic logic would state quite simply that she should change hers - perhaps that will save them enough to get another guest to the wedding?

The government like to meddle. Obviously.

Frankly, I don't see what benefit "the higher ups" would gain by such a law. That wedding ceremonies are a "right of passage" and a cultural norm is not their fault. It is a cultural norm because generations before have made it so.
Besides, why would the government or state officials (whichever is the case here) want the man to be the provident head of the family? In a capitalist society it is beneficial if the women are equally contributing and working the same amount as men.
Besides, I don't think this directly relates to the marriage issue at all. You can get married nowadays without having the same surname. If it is a cultural norm to have the same surname, it is - again - not the fault of anyone today but the numerous generations before. There is no real obligation to have the same surname except personal preference and convenience, and I don't think that's a good enough basis to be picking on anybody else.

I haven't heard of this specific law before, but I think it's one of those old laws that are just relics from the time when women didn't even have the right to vote. Like that one law in some state that says that if a woman is driving a car, the husband is to be walking infront of the car waving a flag. There are a lot of stupid state laws like that, and they are obviously not enforced anymore. Do you know if this name changing law is enforced in your state? If it is, I am sure it could be removed by simply taking the issue up with the people that have the power to do it. Because it's clearly unconstitutional.

Out of curiosity, how much money does it cost for a man in your state to change his name? I can imagine that if lineages are somehow recorded in the public record asymmetrically (like following the matriarch line for example) regarding sexes, there might be some technicality that I'm ignorant of that might justify the cost for a man to change his name. But even then I don't imagine it would be very costly.

[Raize]

Here's an article regarding the subject matter at hand first of all:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-03-20-names-marriage_N.htm

I believe the price is 39.95 (Not that bad to be fair, but again, weddings cost a ton, you'd look to save anywhere you could, plus it goes with the cultural norm). This price is waived for WOMEN when marrying, but not for MEN.

What would they gain? By my standards, nothing. But by their standards, they would gain a more patriarchal society. When laws are passed, a lot of time and energy does in fact go in to what is said in them. It is by no mere accident that this law exists. True, in a truly capitalist society it would be best if both men and women (and children too, in a truly capitalist society) would all work. We do not live in a truly capitalist society though here in the states; although we worship it enough you would think we did. We have child labor laws, welfare, unemployment, worker's comp., destruction of slavery, civil rights, vacation days, sick days, break rooms, UNIONS... none of these help a capitalist society (at least by the book anyway) they get in the way of profit. I could tell you how each of them does so, but I'm progressively getting more and more off the subject at hand.

The point I'm trying to make though is that we don't solely value capitalism alone. While the debate rages over whether or not the united states was founded on Christianity or not, the truth of the matter is that the majority of Americans (whether practicing or not) still claim a form of Christianity. The traditional conservative view of Christianity (which in my personal experiences is the most popular in this country) says that men are to lead; they are the head of church and home alike. This feeling was at its peak in the 1950s with the ideal of the nuclear family (Husband works and the house is his castle, Wife stays at home raising the kids and obeying the husband, and there is one boy and one girl, and probably a dog <Nuclear family ideal).

It IS the fault of the generation today too though Revo; they practice it still. You can't JUST blame the generations prior, you must also blame the current ones practicing it; we do have a little something called free will, they don't have to follow a cultural norm. Gay people for example don't really HAVE to get married, it's a cultural norm that they wish to practice so that they can acquire equal economic AND social benefits. Peer pressure pushes us, it's arguably the supreme shaping tool of culture, but there are countless examples of people who have not given in to peer pressure (even if that peer pressure meant death!). If we follow the logic of only blaming past generations, what about all of the people in favor of slavery at its end? What about all of the people opposed to women being able to vote the year they were allowed to? What about the era of the Civil Rights movement and the MANY offenses against African Americans? There's plenty of blame to go around, claiming that "we didn't start it" is no excuse, we're keeping it going and that's just as bad if not worse.

I'm not picking on anyone, I'm just pointing it out, sorry if I offended anyone.

[Revo]

Hmm, looking at your previous 2 posts Raize I am very confused as to what it is you are trying to argue. I'll try to bring the source of my confusion forth as best I can.


Here's an article regarding the subject matter at hand first of all:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-03-20-names-marriage_N.htm
I believe the price is 39.95 (Not that bad to be fair, but again, weddings cost a ton, you'd look to save anywhere you could, plus it goes with the cultural norm). This price is waived for WOMEN when marrying, but not for MEN.

What would they gain? By my standards, nothing. But by their standards, they would gain a more patriarchal society. When laws are passed, a lot of time and energy does in fact go in to what is said in them. It is by no mere accident that this law exists. True, in a truly capitalist society it would be best if both men and women (and children too, in a truly capitalist society) would all work. We do not live in a truly capitalist society though here in the states; although we worship it enough you would think we did. We have child labor laws, welfare, unemployment, worker's comp., destruction of slavery, civil rights, vacation days, sick days, break rooms, UNIONS... none of these help a capitalist society (at least by the book anyway) they get in the way of profit. I could tell you how each of them does so, but I'm progressively getting more and more off the subject at hand.

I understood after your first post that in your view the higher-ups are seeking a more patriarchal society with having these laws in place. But my real question was, why would that be a desired goal for them in any case? I understand that USA is not a totally capitalist nation, I was just making that specific point because I thought that would be more along your line of though. Usually in my experience when people talk about the general concept of "higher-ups" in a derogatory manner, it's usually supposed to awaken connotations such as "selfish power-hungry capitalists" (to overemphasize a bit, that is. I don't suspect you being of such a strong opinion. :lol:)
If this was not the case, I apologize for misunderstanding you position.
But even in a more socialized community a patriarchal state does not bring any concrete benefits to the system as a whole when compared to to the alternative. If you are arguing that it is not actually a political agenda they are pursuing but a religious one, my response to that follows next.


The point I'm trying to make though is that we don't solely value capitalism alone. While the debate rages over whether or not the united states was founded on Christianity or not, the truth of the matter is that the majority of Americans (whether practicing or not) still claim a form of Christianity. The traditional conservative view of Christianity (which in my personal experiences is the most popular in this country) says that men are to lead; they are the head of church and home alike. This feeling was at its peak in the 1950s with the ideal of the nuclear family (Husband works and the house is his castle, Wife stays at home raising the kids and obeying the husband, and there is one boy and one girl, and probably a dog <Nuclear family ideal).

And the point I'm trying to make that whether or not the majority of Americans are Christians, the truth of the matter is (to follow your phrasing :p) that Christianity does not have a say in legal issues due to the constitutional separation of church and state. Even if 99% of Americans were hardcore fundamentalists, it would still be unconstitutional for the church to impose its values of the law system. Any such laws that are in place as relics from an age when people didn't realize this are to be removed.


It IS the fault of the generation today too though Revo; they practice it still. You can't JUST blame the generations prior, you must also blame the current ones practicing it; we do have a little something called free will, they don't have to follow a cultural norm. Gay people for example don't really HAVE to get married, it's a cultural norm that they wish to practice so that they can acquire equal economic AND social benefits. Peer pressure pushes us, it's arguably the supreme shaping tool of culture, but there are countless examples of people who have not given in to peer pressure (even if that peer pressure meant death!). If we follow the logic of only blaming past generations, what about all of the people in favor of slavery at its end? What about all of the people opposed to women being able to vote the year they were allowed to? What about the era of the Civil Rights movement and the MANY offenses against African Americans? There's plenty of blame to go around, claiming that "we didn't start it" is no excuse, we're keeping it going and that's just as bad if not worse.
This is what confuses me the most, so I'm probably misunderstanding something somewhere. To explain my train of thought, from your first post I got the impression that in your opinion
1) The higher-ups are pushing cultural norms and traditions on us to forward their own ideological goals, and
2) We then have to follow these norms (and between the lines I read that the reason for this is peer pressure).

I responded by pointing out that
1) It is not the higher-ups that are pushing these norms on us, and
2) We don't have to follow these norms if we don't want to.

And now you say that
1) We are all to blame for these norms and traditions (which is making me confused in regards to your first post), and
2) We don't have to follow these norms if we don't want to give in to peer pressure. (also making me confused with your first post)

Well I obviously agree with you on the second point, since I already pointed this out in the part where I said that people don't actually have to change their names at all to get married. I'm sorry if that point didn't go across.
On the first point I guess I've got some explaining to do. I wasn't trying to assign blame to the past generations as much as I was trying to reduce blame from the direction I thought you were assigning it to; namely the government. In my honest opinion, there is no point in blaming anybody for our traditions and norms (in my eyes blaming the dead is the same as blaming no-one). They are what they are and they are ours to change if we want to. Peer pressure is a mental thing inside people's heads, it is not a real obstacle (talking about the present, not 200 years ago). You are hardly going to get killed or even scolded today if you decide to take your wives name instead of her taking yours. The only real punishment for your cultural crime is that 40$ fine. That just proves that society isn't perfect yet and there's still work to be done. The only way to change norms is to go against them. And if someone is "revolutionary" enough to make an uncommon decision regarding that their surname that is going to affect the rest their whole life, I think they probably have it in them to be "revolutionary" enough to have a 40$ cheaper wedding reception.
But if it still bothers you, you can be the change. Take the issue up with people who have the power and I'm sure laws like these will eventually change. Just like you said, you can fight against the norm. No one is stopping that. There is no point in assigning blame when the thing is totally fixable.

Btw, I don't at all consider gay people wanting to marry as them wanting to follow the norm. It might be part of the reason, but it's not the reason that matters. Gay people want to get married because it includes concrete legal benefits like you pointed out yourself. I consider the name-changing thing a norm-issue because it doesn't make any difference in the rights and equality of people whether or not they choose to change their names or not. There aren't any concrete legal benefits in changing a name one way or another, it is simply a matter of preference and minor convenience.

So as I said, I'm confused. Do we disagree on something or do we agree on everything? I don't know. You tell me.

I'm not picking on anyone, I'm just pointing it out, sorry if I offended anyone.
I didn't mean you were picking on anyone here, I meant that you were assigning blame towards the government. No worries there :p.

If you mods think this is going too off-topic, feel free to point it out. Would be sad to cut off the new blood this thread has received, though :lol:..

[Sadiki]

Oh we are so going off topic here... HK bring out the ban hammer!.

No not really, I can see the debate is taking it's turns but I don't really see the discussion taking turn totally off the subject, just using things to back up their opinion. I personally can't still and will probably never understand why gay couple wont be allowed to get married. Not just in states, I mean in overall. Now days marriage is not just religious thing and it's really not necessary for most people. In most cases it's up to people themselves to make that call if they want to be married or not. Plus religion never should be mixed into politics. I know it is, but I'm pointing out the words NEVER SHOULD, as when you make laws for society it should not be about what been said in some holy book, but what serves the society the best. I'm not talking about just US here either, but most of countries in this world. There is flaws in every country and in their law system and often making something better, means taking resources away from something else or increasing taxes, both seem to piss off people as people don't like losing money or facing something new. But I highly doubt that if every county allowed equal rights to everyone not looking at sex, race or religion, I doubt anyone after 100 years would complain that the change was made. I mean how many people in countries where women have pretty much equal rights do you see complaining about that?

See even I go pretty far off the subject, but it still argues my point and opinion of why something should be done and gay marriage is part of it... So I shall spare myself from infraction... for now....:evilgrin:

[Shadow]

Of course they are allowed to marry i mean there is nothing to argue.

adopt children too, better they come to a home with 2 fathers/mothers and be loved to death then going from foster home to foster home the whole time.

and the whole thing about it not being "natrual" its supose to be "male and female" lets have a little run down on what we humans do thats not natrual on a daily basis.

-We Fly

-Run on water

- Go up in speeds, humans are not supose to, useing stuff like cars, Boats and plans.

-we dont Hunt for our food anymore (most of us at least)

- we communicate throw long distances " yay interwebs"

i mean the list is endless, and Animals do do eachother of the same sex, its nothing new, ether if its just for fun or to establish dominance is out of the question they do it non the less.

iv never thought of this as a disscussion at all, just people trying to stop progress, "sorry if that offends anyone" :hehe:

[shadowland]

Why does everyone call it "progress"? It's just change imo

[Shadow]

Why does everyone call it "progress"? It's just change imo

Because if the society goes away from something as obvious as denying two humans to love each other, that's progress.

though that's just my personal opinion but i guess many people agree with me sense "everyone" calls it so.

Remindes me of a scene i heard about where a family with gay parents " don't remember if it was male or female " went to a swimming pool, and thus they wanted to have the family price of course, though they where not allowed sense according to that person or what not, they where not under the definition of family " One pappa and one mamma"

though they didn't go quietly but toke it all to court and stuff for discrimination, witch they won, so they could go to the swimming pool and of course it brught up alot of attention.

i think that's a perfect example to why i myself at least call it progress.

[shadowland]

Because if the society goes away from something as obvious as denying two humans to love each other, that's progress.

though that's just my personal opinion but i guess many people agree with me sense "everyone" calls it so.

Remindes me of a scene i heard about where a family with gay parents " don't remember if it was male or female " went to a swimming pool, and thus they wanted to have the family price of course, though they where not allowed sense according to that person or what not, they where not under the definition of family " One pappa and one mamma"

though they didn't go quietly but toke it all to court and stuff for discrimination, witch they won, so they could go to the swimming pool and of course it brught up alot of attention.

i think that's a perfect example to why i myself at least call it progress.

..fair enough o.o I was just saying that equal rights for everyone and everything isn't like the ultimate goal, and a society's "direction" is not something I'd view as linear as that, but w/e, I'm going off-topic now lol. :lol:

[Simba]

Can someone explain to me why two people of the same sex would want to be called a married couple? Why does it have to be called marriage? Why not call it something else? To me it just seems like homosexuals are just wanting to attack Christianity by "getting married." Marriage by definition and the way it has stood up over the past thousands of years has been defined as being between a man and a woman. A man and a man or a woman and a woman cannot marry, unless they want to try and come up with a new definition for the word marriage which seems pointless to me other then the fact that I see it as an attack and only as an attack.

[saitenyo]

Can someone explain to me why two people of the same sex would want to be called a married couple? Why does it have to be called marriage? Why not call it something else? To me it just seems like homosexuals are just wanting to attack Christianity by "getting married." Marriage by definition and the way it has stood up over the past thousands of years has been defined as being between a man and a woman. A man and a man or a woman and a woman cannot marry, unless they want to try and come up with a new definition for the word marriage which seems pointless to me other then the fact that I see it as an attack and only as an attack.

This assumes that marriage is only a Christian thing which is extremely incorrect and frankly, a very narrowminded viewpoint. Are Christians the only people you know who get married? What about people of other religions? What about atheists or agnostics? Marriage is not a purely religious institution. It may have religious significance in many religions, but bonding ceremonies have existed since long before Christianity, and in fact were often tied to family politics more than religion originally.

Marriage is the word used to refer to the legal joining of a couple under the law in many English-speaking countries, and in the US, that legal joining is supposed to be a totally separate thing from religion. Religion is not supposed to have any bearing on our government and laws. Already in the US it is a word used to describe a legal joining, not just a religious one, so why are you so offended by the use of that word by gay couples if not other non-Christian couples as well?

So according to your argument, I assume you also feel that anyone who is not Christian should also not be allowed to get legally married, including Jews, Hindus, anyone of any other religion, atheists, and agnostics? Do you feel those groups getting married is also "nothing but an attack" on Christianity?

Marriage means different things to different people. Before assuming that someone else's beliefs and desires are simply an attack on your own, perhaps you should take some time to try to understand cultures and beliefs that are different.

I am not Christian. I am not even religious. Yet I still want to marry some day. I will not have a religious ceremony, but a secular one. I want the legal benefits of marriage under the law to make things easier for me and my partner. I also want a secular ceremony because to me it is a symbolic gesture of pledging oneself to a lifelong monogamous relationship. People can care about symbolic events even without belonging to a particular religion.

And frankly, I think the "Why can't they just call it something else," argument is extremely petty. Why do you care what they call it? Again, I ask, what about atheist couples who get married and call it a marriage? It's very evident that "marriage" is not a term used exclusively to describe Christian (or even religious in general) unions in our society. It has more meanings than that. Are you really so intolerant of different beliefs that you can't even stand other groups using the same word to describe a similar but not religiously-motivated union despite the fact that it's simply a matter of the evolution of language, not any intentional attack on your beliefs?

[Sadiki]

Yeah as stated before marriage been around way before any of the "modern" religions.

Also, me and Audra got married in court. Neither one of us really has strong believes on any greater power, so by what you're saying S'04 we shouldn't have had right to marry either. Thought we are man and woman, but religion has nothing to do with it. Also giving right to marry for couples of same sex is a political not religious question and as religion and politics should never be connected in any way, they way religions see it should not even be involved. If church decides not to give right for people to get married in church, that is fine by me. Most religions are against marriage between same sex couples so as it's against their believes, of course it shouldn't be allowed in such practice, but as in political question, yes, it should be allowed and it should not offend anyone.

[shadowland]

Can someone explain to me why two people of the same sex would want to be called a married couple? Why does it have to be called marriage? Why not call it something else? To me it just seems like homosexuals are just wanting to attack Christianity by "getting married." Marriage by definition and the way it has stood up over the past thousands of years has been defined as being between a man and a woman. A man and a man or a woman and a woman cannot marry, unless they want to try and come up with a new definition for the word marriage which seems pointless to me other then the fact that I see it as an attack and only as an attack.

As far as the tradition/moral aspect of marriage goes, I'm with this guy, especially with the whole attack thing, but as far as the legal aspect of marriage goes, Idc that much tbh lol.

[saitenyo]

As far as the tradition/moral aspect of marriage goes, I'm with this guy, especially with the whole attack thing, but as far as the legal aspect of marriage goes, Idc that much tbh lol.
Did you read my above reply?

I don't really understand why people don't get this. Do you guys thing gay couples just have this Christian-attack agenda and they've organized this grand scheme to get married just to offend Christians? Doesn't that sound a little ridiculous to you? What would be the motive there?

Why is it so hard to understand that people who may have different beliefs from you may still care about symbolic gestures and ceremonies, and having their loving relationship recognized the same as anyone else's? Do you think morals are solely a Christian thing, and that a couple must be Christian to believe in the symbolism of having a monogamous partnership?

I pose to you the same question I posed to Simba above: Do you think all non-Christians (including straight couples) who get married are just trying to attack Christianity? If not, why do you think they want to marry, and why do you think it would be any different for gay couples?

[Revo]

Even if marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman before, it would simply be inefficient and costly to create an institute entirely separate from marriage which ultimately serves the near exact same purpose. It's just a waste of tax payers' money. Besides, having gay people call their union something other than marriage (like "shmarriage", as has been humorously proposed) is pretty similar to the idea of "Separate But Equal", which was the public policy towards schools for white children and black children in the early 20th century USA. "Separate But Equal" was deemed an unethical policy by the supreme court back then, and I doubt results would be different for the marriage issue today. If they are to be truly equal, then there cannot be a separation.

And it's not like the definition of marriage hasn't changed before. It wasn't too long ago when marriage used to mean a union between a white man and a white woman. Then it got changed. Dictionaries aren't really prescriptive of definitions in the grand scheme of things, they are descriptive. Otherwise there wouldn't have to be new editions made every now and then. Definitions of words change all the time.

And I don't see how gay people getting married in anyway affects or attacks the marriage of straight couples. I can't see how it "corrupts the whole institution of marriage", as I've sometimes heard it said. That's like saying that when slavery was abolished and black people were given basic freedoms, it somehow lessened the value of the freedoms of white men. Or that when women were given the right to vote, it somehow deteriorated the voting rights of men. These arguments are nonsensical. Expanding basic rights to more people does in no way take away from or attack the people that already have said rights.

[saitenyo]

Thank you Revo, for putting it way more eloquently than I did. :)

[shadowland]

Did you read my above reply?

Yes


Do you guys thing gay couples just have this Christian-attack agenda and they've organized this grand scheme to get married just to offend Christians? Doesn't that sound a little ridiculous to you? What would be the motive there?

I don't know what the motive would be, people are very complex. Rest assured a lot of people are narcissistic too. Besides, nobody said all gay couples are attacking christianity.



And it's not like the definition of marriage hasn't changed before. It wasn't too long ago when marriage used to mean a union between a white man and a white woman. Then it got changed. Dictionaries aren't really prescriptive of definitions in the grand scheme of things, they are descriptive. Otherwise there wouldn't have to be new editions made every now and then. Definitions of words change all the time.

Change is a decision, it's not something out of the control of people, so using that as an argument is kinda silly because you're implying that things must change. And last time I checked, marriage wasn't just a word. We have verbs adjective nouns etc to describe what a word applies to.


And I don't see how gay people getting married in anyway affects or attacks the marriage of straight couples. I can't see how it "corrupts the whole institution of marriage", as I've sometimes heard it said. That's like saying that when slavery was abolished and black people were given basic freedoms, it somehow lessened the value of the freedoms of white men. Or that when women were given the right to vote, it somehow deteriorated the voting rights of men. These arguments are nonsensical. Expanding basic rights to more people does in no way take away from or attack the people that already have said rights. No it's not at all like saying that when slavery was abolished and black people were given basic freedoms, it somehow lessened the value of the freedoms of white men. The legal denial of marriage is not in any way like the legal enslavement of a man..although some would say marriage is enslavement ;) lol.

Look, at the end of the day, either party in the debate is going to be trodden on and their feelings on the matter disregarded in the end. Gay marriage stays denied in x amount of countries, the gay couples of those countries get shafted. Gay marriage is approved in x amount of countries, the conservative-minded or whatever get their concerns on the matter shafted. Hey ho, equal rights for everyone amirite.





I pose to you the same question I posed to Simba above: Do you think all non-Christians (including straight couples) who get married are just trying to attack Christianity? If not, why do you think they want to marry, and why do you think it would be any different for gay couples?

Wow, massive generalisation there lol. Why on earth would I think that?

I pose a question to you now. I don't control the law on marriage, so do you think going on march as you've done in this thread and getting all up in my face is going to change a thing?

[saitenyo]

I don't know what the motive would be, people are very complex. Rest assured a lot of people are narcissistic too. Besides, nobody said all gay couples are attacking christianity.
But you said you agreed with Simba that gay couples must be wanting a marriage ceremony simply to attack Christianity. You didn't specify that only certain gay couples must want this and explain why you think they do. You just agreed with that broad generalization.

Also if you don't know what the motive would be, why assume that's what they're trying to do at all? Simply out of prejudice or lack of understanding? What causes you to believe this is what they're doing?


Change is a decision, it's not something out of the control of people, so using that as an argument is kinda silly because you're implying that things must change. And last time I checked, marriage wasn't just a word. We have verbs adjective nouns etc to describe what a word applies to.
The issue here seems to be that the same word is used for both a Christian religious ceremony, and a secular joining in western society. This isn't something people are trying to change for the future, this is something that has already happened. The word already refers to two different things. It is already used to refer to the broad joining of couples rather than only a joining within a specific religion. So essentially what you're asking is that we change it retroactively, and remove its broad application, and allow it to only be used to refer to Christian marriages.

I think Revo was implying that language evolves naturally as cultures change. Change is not always an active decision. Evolution occurs in language and culture as a side effect of the progression of time just as it does in biology. And usually when people try to make active decisions to change a word because they've decided they don't like the natural progression of language, it doesn't stick.

Remember "freedom fries?" When a bunch of people decided they didn't wish a snack in America to be called something French, even though that term was not intended as any attack on American patriotism, but simply a term that came into usage via natural language evolution many years ago. It's pretty similar to what you are demanding we do now with the term "marriage." And guess what? No one calls them freedom fries. It didn't stick. There was already a naturally-evolved word for them and people were already used to that word. And I bet the same thing would happen if somehow Christians succeeded at revoking the usage of the word "marriage" for non-Christian unions. Non-Christians have already been calling their unions "marriages" for enough time that this would likely never catch on.


Look, at the end of the day, either party in the debate is going to be trodden on and their feelings on the matter disregarded in the end. Gay marriage stays denied in x amount of countries, the gay couples of those countries get shafted. Gay marriage is approved in x amount of countries, the conservative-minded or whatever get their concerns on the matter shafted. Hey ho, equal rights for everyone amirite.
Except legalizing gay marriage isn't restricting anyone's rights or freedoms. Whereas keeping it illegal is. That's the difference. I fail to see how legalizing gay marriage actually affects any Christian anywhere. The most it can affect them is they can choose to let someone else's personal business bother them. And that's not a legal issue, nor an issue of rights or freedoms. Gay marriage does not prevent them from having their own religious ceremonies in any way. It simply means they have to tolerate couples they don't agree with using the same word they do. It doesn't affect their freedoms in any way and I think it's extremely stubborn and petty to be so bent out of shape about the simple use of a word. It reeks of entitlement.

Christians like that need to get used to the fact that they alone are not running this country. This is supposed to be a country where people of all beliefs are free to practice those beliefs and not have their freedoms restricted by another religion. Christians have gotten used to the comfy feeling of being the majority in this country, and having a lot of policies influenced by their religion. And now that that's changing, I'm not surprised some of them are upset. But sorry, they're not getting any sympathy from me. Complaining that you no longer get your special unique privileges to control the practices of others by your religious beliefs and that you actually have to tolerate others finally getting the same respect and fair treatment is not a valid legal complaint in this country. It, in fact, goes against our constitution.


Wow, massive generalisation there lol. Why on earth would I think that?
Because if you don't think that, you're actually being hypocritical and your argument makes no sense. If you're insisting that your only opposition to gay marriage is that marriage is a word that should refer specifically to Christian-sanctioned unions, then logically you should oppose other non-Christian unions that use the term "marriage" as well, right? The fact that you don't totally nullifies your argument and suggests to me this is simply prejudice against gay couples, specifically, more than anything else. If that is not the case, then please explain why you're contradicting yourself here by feeling it's okay for atheists to get married, but not gay couples, if you believe marriage is only a Christian thing?


I pose a question to you now. I don't control the law on marriage, so do you think going on march as you've done in this thread and getting all up in my face is going to change a thing?
Anyone who votes influences the law on marriage, so yes, I do think speaking my mind is going to help because every person whose mind I can change is one less person keeping these changes from happening.

I am not "going on march" or "getting all up in your face," I am sharing my opinion and asking you to actually defend and logically support your arguments. Which is what anyone should be prepared to do if they want their opinions listened to and respected publicly. I am also attempting to explain to you how others may see marriage as it doesn't seem like you really understand what it means to people who aren't religious, and honestly it was somewhat offensive to suggest that the only reason someone who is not having a religious marriage should even care about marriage is if they want to attack Christianity. As someone who strongly defends the right all people have to practice their own beliefs, to suggest that my wanting a symbolic union of my love for my significant other is really just an underhanded attempt to attack someone else's beliefs is honestly kind of insulting. :/

[Lweek]

From my point of view there is nothing wrong as it doesn't hurt anybody. I think gays could adopt kids if they pass thru some character tests .. same tests as normal couples but slightly different as there are different problematic aspects in gay couples. You know, I saw so many horrible mothers .. yelling at children for being children etc. I think nice gays could be better parents than those stupids from straights. I think sexual orientation is not that much important as the fack if they could give parental love and care. Of course there are some problematic aspects about chicane in the school for fact that her/his parents are gay. But it really depends on community. If they can behave liberally. So I don't doubt about parental quality of gays and lesbians but I doubt about general public where are those stupid parents which transfer their stupidity to their children.

[Askaru]

Because I'm a lion, and scientists have proved that I'm bisexual so I think that is normal. However in nature, where it means who is higher in hierarchy, when live two or more lions in one pride.

But what about people? I never say that beeing bi- or homo- is wrong. But it's versus law of nature ... I mean, that relation ship of the sexes is for reproduction, so I can't underestand these people who are gay or lesbian, why they are such? I think it's fail of society, and the education environment in which they live, because the soul of human could be affected by much and much things, which often don't see. In my humble opinion, here isn't homosexual, only people who were affected by something in their life ...

But I know few homosexuals and I know, that these people are pretty cool, and in many casses are clever and very inteligent, I'm not against it, that they can adopt children.

[shadowland]

But you said you agreed with Simba that gay couples must be wanting a marriage ceremony simply to attack Christianity. You didn't specify that only certain gay couples must want this and explain why you think they do. You just agreed with that broad generalization.

Also if you don't know what the motive would be, why assume that's what they're trying to do at all? Simply out of prejudice or lack of understanding? What causes you to believe this is what they're doing?


The issue here seems to be that the same word is used for both a Christian religious ceremony, and a secular joining in western society. This isn't something people are trying to change for the future, this is something that has already happened. The word already refers to two different things. It is already used to refer to the broad joining of couples rather than only a joining within a specific religion. So essentially what you're asking is that we change it retroactively, and remove its broad application, and allow it to only be used to refer to Christian marriages.

I think Revo was implying that language evolves naturally as cultures change. Change is not always an active decision. Evolution occurs in language and culture as a side effect of the progression of time just as it does in biology. And usually when people try to make active decisions to change a word because they've decided they don't like the natural progression of language, it doesn't stick.

Remember "freedom fries?" When a bunch of people decided they didn't wish a snack in America to be called something French, even though that term was not intended as any attack on American patriotism, but simply a term that came into usage via natural language evolution many years ago. It's pretty similar to what you are demanding we do now with the term "marriage." And guess what? No one calls them freedom fries. It didn't stick. There was already a naturally-evolved word for them and people were already used to that word. And I bet the same thing would happen if somehow Christians succeeded at revoking the usage of the word "marriage" for non-Christian unions. Non-Christians have already been calling their unions "marriages" for enough time that this would likely never catch on.


Except legalizing gay marriage isn't restricting anyone's rights or freedoms. Whereas keeping it illegal is. That's the difference. I fail to see how legalizing gay marriage actually affects any Christian anywhere. The most it can affect them is they can choose to let someone else's personal business bother them. And that's not a legal issue, nor an issue of rights or freedoms. Gay marriage does not prevent them from having their own religious ceremonies in any way. It simply means they have to tolerate couples they don't agree with using the same word they do. It doesn't affect their freedoms in any way and I think it's extremely stubborn and petty to be so bent out of shape about the simple use of a word. It reeks of entitlement.

Christians like that need to get used to the fact that they alone are not running this country. This is supposed to be a country where people of all beliefs are free to practice those beliefs and not have their freedoms restricted by another religion. Christians have gotten used to the comfy feeling of being the majority in this country, and having a lot of policies influenced by their religion. And now that that's changing, I'm not surprised some of them are upset. But sorry, they're not getting any sympathy from me. Complaining that you no longer get your special unique privileges to control the practices of others by your religious beliefs and that you actually have to tolerate others finally getting the same respect and fair treatment is not a valid legal complaint in this country. It, in fact, goes against our constitution.


Because if you don't think that, you're actually being hypocritical and your argument makes no sense. If you're insisting that your only opposition to gay marriage is that marriage is a word that should refer specifically to Christian-sanctioned unions, then logically you should oppose other non-Christian unions that use the term "marriage" as well, right? The fact that you don't totally nullifies your argument and suggests to me this is simply prejudice against gay couples, specifically, more than anything else. If that is not the case, then please explain why you're contradicting yourself here by feeling it's okay for atheists to get married, but not gay couples, if you believe marriage is only a Christian thing?


Anyone who votes influences the law on marriage, so yes, I do think speaking my mind is going to help because every person whose mind I can change is one less person keeping these changes from happening.

I am not "going on march" or "getting all up in your face," I am sharing my opinion and asking you to actually defend and logically support your arguments. Which is what anyone should be prepared to do if they want their opinions listened to and respected publicly. I am also attempting to explain to you how others may see marriage as it doesn't seem like you really understand what it means to people who aren't religious, and honestly it was somewhat offensive to suggest that the only reason someone who is not having a religious marriage should even care about marriage is if they want to attack Christianity. As someone who strongly defends the right all people have to practice their own beliefs, to suggest that my wanting a symbolic union of my love for my significant other is really just an underhanded attempt to attack someone else's beliefs is honestly kind of insulting. :/


Sweet jesus, can you not wall-o-text? Urgh.

"Which is what anyone should be prepared to do if they want their opinions listened to and respected publicly."

Idc if they're not respected.

" Anyone who votes influences the law on marriage, so yes, I do think speaking my mind is going to help because every person whose mind I can change is one less person keeping these changes from happening."

You're not going to change someone's mind when their mind is already made up.


"
I think Revo was implying that language evolves naturally as cultures change. Change is not always an active decision. Evolution occurs in language and culture as a side effect of the progression of time just as it does in biology. And usually when people try to make active decisions to change a word because they've decided they don't like the natural progression of language, it doesn't stick. "

I didn't mention the change of words, stop jumping to conclusions.


"It doesn't affect their freedoms in any way and I think it's extremely stubborn and petty to be so bent out of shape about the simple use of a word. It reeks of entitlement. "

And feeling that a specific group/ethnicity/whatever is entitled to marriage doesn't reek of entitlement?


"
Also if you don't know what the motive would be, why assume that's what they're trying to do at all? Simply out of prejudice or lack of understanding? What causes you to believe this is what they're doing?"

You can feel something is afoot without knowing the motive behind it. And what the f*ck reason would I have to be prejudiced on the issue, I'm bi myself. I'm just not a slave to this issue because I think too many supporters of it are whining instead of making the best of what is currently to be had. Jeez, if you love enough why be desperate for marriage? love is love, its simple. Also I'm offended you assume that my beliefs are led by some illogical prejudice. there are two sides to every coin.


Ok, here I said "Change is a decision, it's not something out of the control of people, so using that as an argument is kinda silly because you're implying that things must change. And last time I checked, marriage wasn't just a word. We have verbs adjective nouns etc to describe what a word applies to."


The issue here seems to be that the same word is used for both a Christian religious ceremony, and a secular joining in western society. This isn't something people are trying to change for the future, this is something that has already happened. The word already refers to two different things. It is already used to refer to the broad joining of couples rather than only a joining within a specific religion. So essentially what you're asking is that we change it retroactively, and remove its broad application, and allow it to only be used to refer to Christian marriages.

I think Revo was implying that language evolves naturally as cultures change. Change is not always an active decision. Evolution occurs in language and culture as a side effect of the progression of time just as it does in biology. And usually when people try to make active decisions to change a word because they've decided they don't like the natural progression of language, it doesn't stick.

Remember "freedom fries?" When a bunch of people decided they didn't wish a snack in America to be called something French, even though that term was not intended as any attack on American patriotism, but simply a term that came into usage via natural language evolution many years ago. It's pretty similar to what you are demanding we do now with the term "marriage." And guess what? No one calls them freedom fries. It didn't stick. There was already a naturally-evolved word for them and people were already used to that word. And I bet the same thing would happen if somehow Christians succeeded at revoking the usage of the word "marriage" for non-Christian unions. Non-Christians have already been calling their unions "marriages" for enough time that this would likely never catch on.

You didnt really answer that one and im kinda confused, and it was very very long.

I'm not even bothering now, urgh

[Lweek]

Because I'm a lion, and scientists have proved that I'm bisexual so I think that is normal. However in nature, where it means who is higher in hierarchy, when live two or more lions in one pride.

But what about people? I never say that beeing bi- or homo- is wrong. But it's versus law of nature ... I mean, that relation ship of the sexes is for reproduction, so I can't underestand these people who are gay or lesbian, why they are such? I think it's fail of society, and the education environment in which they live, because the soul of human could be affected by much and much things, which often don't see. In my humble opinion, here isn't homosexual, only people who were affected by something in their life ...

But I know few homosexuals and I know, that these people are pretty cool, and in many casses are clever and very inteligent, I'm not against it, that they can adopt children.

No it is not. Bisexuality is normal. Personally I believe there is no hetero or homosexuality. There is just behavioral interests in sex. So Let's pretend that You are not interested in reproduction and You more enjoy same sex because You feel more comfortable in such relation. There are like bilions of people on the world. So there is no need for reproduction. I also think it is not a fail at all. I'm more interested in women because I like their differentness and I'm interested in reproduction. So I definitely prefer women but I can understand attractivity of same gender. Both genders have its bonuses and it is only on your personal preference what You are more interested in.

[Askaru]

No it is not. Bisexuality is normal. Personally I believe there is no hetero or homosexuality. There is just behavioral interests in sex. So Let's pretend that You are not interested in reproduction and You more enjoy same sex because You feel more comfortable in such relation. There are like bilions of people on the world. So there is no need for reproduction. I also think it is not a fail at all. I'm more interested in women because I like their differentness and I'm interested in reproduction. So I definitely prefer women but I can understand attractivity of same gender. Both genders have its bonuses and it is only on your personal preference what You are more interested in.

Yep, if you don't want to reproduce..., but we are born to to start another life ... If everybody (animals, flowers etc...) had the same view of reproduction like you described, "because here is millions of the same species," the whole planet will die, couse here will not stay someone who will have child... ... children are our future, we need them, that is my reason for say, that homosexuality is versus law of nature.
Your opinion is right in case that the other (which is now more in population) want to proliferate, otherwise life on Earth has big problem.

[Revo]

I don't know what the motive would be, people are very complex. Rest assured a lot of people are narcissistic too. Besides, nobody said all gay couples are attacking christianity.
Just because you explicitly stated that you don't know what motives gay people would have to get married, I took the liberty to find a list of legal rights that couples receive once they get married.
To not make this post too lenghty, I will link the list here instead of posting them myself: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html
Would you agree that these would be reasonable reasons for the desire to get married, aside from attacking Christianity and traditions?

Change is a decision, it's not something out of the control of people, so using that as an argument is kinda silly because you're implying that things must change. And last time I checked, marriage wasn't just a word. We have verbs adjective nouns etc to describe what a word applies to.
Even if what Saitenyo already pointed out about change not only being the result of conscious decisions but also the result of the evolution of language over time wasn't true (which I think it is), the change is still very reasonable to make.

Consider again my example of the definition of marriage being expanded from people of the same race to people of different races. This was a surely a judicial decision and not something that gradually changed over time. Was it right of them to change it? Of course it was. They made the simple observation that if we are to have a nation in which people are given equal rights and are not discriminated against because of their skin color, then interracial marriages must be allowed. All you need to do is make the same observation regarding to gay marriage. If we are to have a nation in which people are given equal rights and are not discriminated against because of their sexual orientation, then same-sex marriages must to be legal. And if changing a definition of the word "marriage" is what it takes to do that, then that is what must be done.

I don't find this logical conclusion of how things must change silly at all. Do you still find it silly, now that I've provided a more detailed frame of reference?

No it's not at all like saying that when slavery was abolished and black people were given basic freedoms, it somehow lessened the value of the freedoms of white men. The legal denial of marriage is not in any way like the legal enslavement of a man..although some would say marriage is enslavement ;) lol.
Could you explain to me in more detail how these two things are not comparable? Not out of tediousness, but because there really is no difference in my eyes. The way I see it both slavery and illegalization of gay marriage deny part of the population rights which are not denied from the rest, on the basis of things people should not be discriminated for (namely skin color and sexuality, respectively).
This is only of course relating the the argument I stated before that "Allowing gay people to marry insults the marriages of straight people." If this is not the argument you are defending, then you are right that my counter-argument doesn't apply to you.

Look, at the end of the day, either party in the debate is going to be trodden on and their feelings on the matter disregarded in the end. Gay marriage stays denied in x amount of countries, the gay couples of those countries get shafted. Gay marriage is approved in x amount of countries, the conservative-minded or whatever get their concerns on the matter shafted. Hey ho, equal rights for everyone amirite.
As unfortunate as some people may find it, the right to not be offended is not one of the rights provided by the government. I'm sorry to put it this bluntly, but if religious folk get offended for legalizing gay marriage, too bad. Getting offended or having hurt feelings is not a valid motivation for any legislative action or non-action.
Homosexuals however have more of an argument in pointing out that they do not have access to the same rights as straight couples, such as the ones in the link I provided above. And if a nation is to be non-discriminatory against people of different sexual orientation, then they should have access to those rights.

[Lweek]

Yep, if you don't want to reproduce..., but we are born to to start another life ... If everybody (animals, flowers etc...) had the same view of reproduction like you described, "because here is millions of the same species," the whole planet will die, couse here will not stay someone who will have child... ... children are our future, we need them, that is my reason for say, that homosexuality is versus law of nature.
Your opinion is right in case that the other (which is now more in population) want to proliferate, otherwise life on Earth has big problem.

It is scientifically proven that every animals that are too much overpopulated start suiciding themselfs, killing other, refuse reproduction etc. So maybe this is one of the factors. :-) And because people are creatures who enjoy their sexuality, they choose what is more pleasure to them. Sexuality is very interesting topic. I read many books about social impact to sexuality. For example there are tribes in indonesia who believe that older shall learn children how to enjoy sex before marriage with oposite gender. So children are grown teached how to enjoy themselves with same gender. After becoming adult rituals they are free to have sex with both. Same some tribes in africa believe that woman must be able of woman ejaculation before they are ready for marriage. So their mothers teach them how to ejaculate. Very interesting fact is that they learn such practises with easy without any problem. In our society there is many myths about fenomenon of woman ejaculation. Even some book written by "doctors" are sharing myths about this fenomen. There is many very shocking facts about human sexuality nor animal sexuality. For example bonobos chimpanzees enjoying raping even their children. I won't say it is ok as we can understand how painful it is and we are simply able of empathy.

[Askaru]

I never say, that these (for us strange sexual behavior) isn't in nature.
But bonobos, Africas women, and everybody that you mentioned here, eventually have their own child ...
Lion are raping the same sex, but they have cubs ...
Bonobos raping they own kids ... but they have brood.
Every animal species, whether to they behave sexually, still reproducing...

[Lweek]

I never say, that these (for us strange sexual behavior) isn't in nature.
But bonobos, Africas women, and everybody that you mentioned here, eventually have their own child ...
Lion are raping the same sex, but they have cubs ...
Bonobos raping they own kids ... but they have brood.
Every animal species, whether to they behave sexually, still reproducing...

I think people are still quite successful when it comes to reproduction. We are overpopulated. I cannot say why some people decide so because I'm not the one who refuse own reproduction but I'm not worry about this fact. I think it is only good when population stop growing so fast.

[Askaru]

I think people are still quite successful when it comes to reproduction. We are overpopulated. I cannot say why some people decide so because I'm not the one who refuse own reproduction but I'm not worry about this fact. I think it is only good when population stop growing so fast.

I just converted your idea into exaggerated reality and outcome you read.

[saitenyo]

Sweet jesus, can you not wall-o-text? Urgh.
Pardon? I spaced out my answers with paragraphs to make them readable, and this reply of yours is almost as long as mine so I'm not sure what your problem is? I was trying to explain things clearly and in detail to avoid confusion. I really think it's unnecessary to resort to making this discussion personal by complaining about how I write my replies.


"Which is what anyone should be prepared to do if they want their opinions listened to and respected publicly."

Idc if they're not respected.
Fair enough. But may I ask what the point of sharing your opinion is if you don't care what anyone thinks of it? You asked why it was necessary for me to share mine, so let me pose that same question to you now.


" Anyone who votes influences the law on marriage, so yes, I do think speaking my mind is going to help because every person whose mind I can change is one less person keeping these changes from happening."

You're not going to change someone's mind when their mind is already made up.
That's a very depressing and defeatist attitude. If everyone thought like this, we'd never see any progress. If this were true, women would still be considered the property of men, slavery would still be legal, and we wouldn't even be having this discussion. History and my own personal experience in these sorts of discussions provide countless examples of just how incorrect this claim of yours is. There are plenty of reasons people may hold certain prejudices that may be difficult to change, but that doesn't mean it's impossible, and it's certainly no reason not to try. I have personally seen plenty of people's minds changed in discussions like these, especially since these sorts of opinions are often the product of ignorance and lack of understanding. So I'm going to keep on trying.


I didn't mention the change of words, stop jumping to conclusions.
You said you agreed with Simba's argument that wanting a ceremonial marriage is an attack on Christianity. Did you actually read the argument that you were agreeing with? He was making the "why can't they call it something else?" argument. If you're agreeing with him, then what you're agreeing with is the notion that "marriage" is a term that should be reserved for Christian unions. You also said: "Change is a decision, it's not something out of the control of people, so using that as an argument is kinda silly because you're implying that things must change. And last time I checked, marriage wasn't just a word. We have verbs adjective nouns etc to describe what a word applies to."
It sounded to me like you're speaking in defense of marriage as a Christian-specific term. Did I misunderstand?


And feeling that a specific group/ethnicity/whatever is entitled to marriage doesn't reek of entitlement?
No. I am referring to the scenario of an already privileged group feeling that they deserve to retain their special privileges where others do not deserve the same treatment. Feeling that a specific group that is current barred from having the same rights and privileges as others deserves the same fair treatment is not even remotely the same thing. I am not saying gay couples deserve special treatment, I am saying that they deserve the same freedoms as any other couple, which they do not currently have.


You can feel something is afoot without knowing the motive behind it. And what the f*ck reason would I have to be prejudiced on the issue, I'm bi myself. I'm just not a slave to this issue because I think too many supporters of it are whining instead of making the best of what is currently to be had. Jeez, if you love enough why be desperate for marriage? love is love, its simple. Also I'm offended you assume that my beliefs are led by some illogical prejudice. there are two sides to every coin.
Well my apologies then. I sure never would have guessed you were bi considering how adamantly you're fighting against a cause which affects people of your orientation and the fact that you were defending someone who was claiming gay marriage is an attack on Christianity. :/ It may not be important to you but it is actually important to others, and just because it's not something that you care about does not mean you should go around trivializing the feelings of those that do and agreeing with such absurd concepts as separate but equal.

It is still extremely narrowminded of you to assume that everyone must think exactly as you do. Marriage means different things to different people. I've grown up in a culture where marriage is romanticized and treated as a symbolic act of lifelong monogamy. It doesn't matter to me whether or not it has any real bearing on my love for my significant other, I still want it. It's symbolically important to me. It means something to me from a cultural perspective. Whether or not someone wants a marriage is a personal choice and frankly, it's none of your business why someone might want one since it does not affect you. So you don't care about marriage, good for you. But you could at least show a little sensitivity and respect to people who do and acknowledge that they should be allowed to make their own personal choices about what is important in their own lives.


You didnt really answer that one and im kinda confused, and it was very very long.
Ok, in simple terms: Making up another word specifically for gay marriages is silly and unconstitutional because 1-It probably won't catch on because people are already used to using the word "marriage" to refer to legal unions between couples. And 2-Religion has no right to dictate government policy, and so far I have not heard any argument other than religious ones for why gay couples should not be allowed to call their union a "marriage."

It sounds to me like much of this has been a misunderstanding, because you claimed to agree with an argument you apparently don't actually support. If it has been a misunderstanding, I apologize. I genuinely have no idea what your opinion on this is at this point, as I approached this from the understanding that you were agreeing with Simba's "gay marriage is an attack on Christianity" argument. Perhaps now would be a good time to clarify why you said you agreed with him?

[Sadiki]

First I want to say my eyes hurt after reading through the posts here and my brain is pretty scrambled :lol:

Anyways I want to point out on little thing on the claim that same sex marriage should be called something else than marriage. After all Bible was not originally translated in English, there for I don't think it's right to claim word marriage is or should be related to religion. It just doesn't make any sense to me. Also what comes gays attacking Christianity, I believe I read somewhere that same sex marriages were decently common in ancient Greece and Rome and by considering, Christianity begun in that area, it's more than likely that Christianity in fact put end to that, so yeah who was attacking who? And also to claim word marriage is only for Christianity it would also mean me and Audra in example are not married. As there is still nothing religious in our marriage.

So as short, as I said before. Religions don't have to allow marriages between same sex. If it's against the teachings, then it's acceptable, but that should not have anything to do with legally being able to marry. I still think it's the stupidest thing when religions have any saying on what happens in politics. I seriously laugh when god is brought in discussion in presidential elections in USA. Because it should have nothing to do with electing. It's just used to manipulate people. Seriously, learn to divide those to subjects. But yeah I'm going a bit off subject here. Anyways if religion states that marriage is between man and woman then that is how it is... in that religion. But if the law states that gay marriage is allowed, then legally person should be allowed to get married as long as it doesn't require religious agenda.

[Juniper]

Anyways I want to point out on little thing on the claim that same sex marriage should be called something else than marriage. After all Bible was not originally translated in English, there for I don't think it's right to claim word marriage is or should be related to religion. It just doesn't make any sense to me. Also what comes gays attacking Christianity, I believe I read somewhere that same sex marriages were decently common in ancient Greece and Rome and by considering, Christianity begun in that area, it's more than likely that Christianity in fact put end to that, so yeah who was attacking who? And also to claim word marriage is only for Christianity it would also mean me and Audra in example are not married. As there is still nothing religious in our marriage.



Just wanted to chime in and say that casual homosexual relationships were relatively common in Roman culture, but the concept of a "Gay marriage" as we know it is very much a last-few-hundred-years sorta thing. If faced with this decision, most Roman citizens would probably ask why the two men or two women would even want to be married as they would not be providing offspring for the family lineage. Marriage was defined within the Roman empire around the time of Christianity as being between a man and a woman (in some areas, especially areas with a high jewish population, multiple women). Marrying strictly out of love is also a relatively new concept -- political, economic, and social factors also determined one's future spouse, and often the two people being married did not have the final say in their own marriage. The concept of marriage existed long before Christianity. The concept of a gay marriage in ancient culture is, in my opinion, a total anachronism.

[Sadiki]

Well yeah I do agree that Wikipedia is not the most accurate, but I found what I said from there. here is the link History of same-sex unions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions)

Oh and I think I forgot to mention earlier that I do also believe there isn't such a thing as 100% hetero or homosexual, all people are more or less bisexuals, even if one is 99,9999...% hetero or homosexual, it's still not 100%. I believe under right circumstances anything is possible ;)

[Juniper]

Well yeah I do agree that Wikipedia is not the most accurate, but I found what I said from there. here is the link History of same-sex unions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions)


I'm aware of the sources it references, and same-sex relationships did exist, but I don't consider them similar to today's "Gay marriage" debate*. One of the subjects that I pour a lot of my time into is the history of the early Christian church and its development within Roman and eastern society. I feel that wikipedia is not fairly representing the situation -- Jewish provinces outlawed homosexual relationships with the punishment of death, as described in the Torah and ratified by their Talmud more than a hundred years before Christianity even began. Many pagan sects had stricter sexuality laws than either Jewish populations or Christian populations. This very much predates Christianity, and there were always strong cultural clashes when dealing with homosexual relationships between Rome and its client states.


*Those are not meant to be condescending quotations.

[saitenyo]

I think Pnt makes a good point (which is actually the one I was trying to make earlier regarding the importance of symbolic marriage to even the nonreligious) in that the purpose of marriage has very much changed in our culture. It's no longer about property or politics. It's not even about starting a family or following a religious guideline to everyone. To many people it means different, or multiple things.

To me it's about starting a family and about love. And while obviously love can exist without marriage, the cultural symbolism of marriage as a monogamous union of love is still important to me, which is why I, as a nonreligious person, still want a secular marriage ceremony, not just a signed piece of paper for legal benefits. It won't be in a church, but it won't be in a courthouse either. It will be somewhere meaningful to me, the ceremony will be about the bonds of love, and I very much look forward to it. I know not everyone feels the same, but I would be very upset if someone told me I couldn't have that ceremony simply because someone else didn't agree with me on what marriage should be about, or because my marriage offended them somehow.

[Sadiki]

I'm well aware of marriage being way different than it used to be, but what I was trying to say is that it's not so unheard of to have same sex couple being accepted by society. Also when I talk about legal benefits of marriage, it's because that alone should be big enough reason for allowing people to get married, no matter what the race, sex or religion is. If the religion you're part of doesn't allow it, you should still be able to legally marry even if it's not performed by the religious group you're part of.

What comes to my view of marriage. Well it's mostly a status. After all I don't love my wife more than I already did before we got married neither are we even sure if we want kids. We got married in court, simple wedding, 2 necessary witnesses. Marriage was pretty much the only option for us to be together, if it wasn't for that I don't know if we would have gotten married just yet, but it's not like we really regret it. We're just as happy as we were before that, but as benefit we will be actually able to live together. Yes our case is not very typical, but still I think just because there is cases like ours and because of the wide variates of benefits in marriage I think for that sole reason, marriages should be legalized everywhere in the world. but then again it's just me ;)

[Shadow]

this is going to sound offensive for all the wrong reasons but im just trying to prove a point here.


Ask any religious person about same sex marriage and the reply will most likley be.

"its wrong" for whatever reason.

Ask any homophobic person, and the reply most likley will be

"its wrong" for whatever reason.


Ask any Atheist, Agnostic, light or non believer, as well as non homophobic people and the reply will most likely be.

"Dont care"


of course there are exceptions. im just trying to make a point.

[Azerane]

Jeez, if you love enough why be desperate for marriage? love is love, its simple.

I do understand what you're saying in that regard in terms of 'why do I need a piece of paper to prove my love for someone' but to me it's not about that at all. For me, I want to marry the person that I love so much, as a way to show them how much that I care, and how much I truly want to be with them for the rest of my life and share my future with them. It's becoming a family with them (not necessarily with kids in mind), having the two of you. I'm not desperate for marriage, but I certainly want to be married, it just fits.

[shadowland]

this is going to sound offensive for all the wrong reasons but im just trying to prove a point here.


Ask any religious person

Ask any homophobic person

Ask any Atheist, Agnostic, light or non believe

of course there are exceptions. im just trying to make a point.

>Ask any

>Of course there are exceptions

>Ask any


lol

[saitenyo]

I do understand what you're saying in that regard in terms of 'why do I need a piece of paper to prove my love for someone' but to me it's not about that at all. For me, I want to marry the person that I love so much, as a way to show them how much that I care, and how much I truly want to be with them for the rest of my life and share my future with them. It's becoming a family with them (not necessarily with kids in mind), having the two of you. I'm not desperate for marriage, but I certainly want to be married, it just fits.
^This yes. Very much so.

[Revo]

Yeah I wouldn't generalize quite like Shadow did, although he did admit to be generalizing. The connection between a person's religion and their stance of gay marriage is solely based on what their religion tells them about it. And there even many Christian denominations whose official stance on gay marriage is not negative, even without getting into other religions.. Not to mention that there are self preclaimed atheist homophobes and lots of religious gay people aswell, who don't really fit into these generalizations ;)..

But Shadowland, since you still seem to be around in this thread, would you mind addressing the things I asked you in post #56? I'm afraid that post might've easily gotten overlooked because this thread was pretty crowded at the time and lots of posts were made very fast. Anyway, I would like to hear your thoughts :).

[Shadow]

>Ask any

>Of course there are exceptions

>Ask any


lol

whats so funny about my statement? care to elaborate, i simply made sure not to draw everyone over one line.

[Simba]

*sigh* I shouldn't have posted in this thread, too much emotions being thrown around and why most forums will delete threads like this. Sorry :\

[Revo]

*sigh* I shouldn't have posted in this thread, too much emotions being thrown around and why most forums will delete threads like this. Sorry :\
No need to apologize, you just asked a question and presented your opinion. If somebody gets emotional over that, that's their problem. A debate thread is not the place to get emotional. In my view there has been relatively little of that here ;). I'm quite thankful for your post actually, livened up the thread quite a bit. Everybody just needs to remember to let the ideas and arguments do the arguing instead of the people.
The point of debate threads is not to convert anyone into any particular belief. Because those things practically never happen within the span of one discourse if at all. It's about discussion plus sharing and comparing views. You are quite welcome to have the right to your opinion, even if it's an unpopular one ;).

[Juniper]

And there even many Christian denominations whose official stance on gay marriage is not negative, even without getting into other religions..


There are not many that allow homosexual marriages within the church, and most have been excommunicated by all major branches of Christianity (Catholic, Eastern Orthodoxies, Anglican, and Protestant) as heretical. See the liberal split of the Presbyterian denomination. Personally, I believe that Shadow's generalizations are pretty valid, I just don't see what his point is. For what it's worth, the only issue that I take with such generalizations is that the official stance of most branches of Christianity is that these rules apply within the church and that Christians are not to judge those outside of the church according to these rules. In practice, people being people may become a bit too zealous and try to enforce their rules on people who do not follow their religion -- I do not think that this is good.

[Revo]

There are not many that allow homosexual marriages within the church, and most have been excommunicated by all major branches of Christianity (Catholic, Eastern Orthodoxies, Anglican, and Protestant) as heretical.The fact that major christian branches don't recognize some smaller ones as Christian doesn't make a difference to me as an outsider. They all say they are Christian, and are pointing at each other saying they're not. For me as a person outside the faith, if a person claims to be Christian, I must regard them as such. I'm not in any position to say otherwise, seeing as how there are as many definitions of "Christian" as there are Christians themselves. I don't have any valid reasons to disregard the minor denominations as any more invalid as the major ones.
But I do believe I am getting a bit off-topic.

[Juniper]

The fact that major christian branches don't recognize some smaller ones as Christian doesn't make a difference to me as an outsider. They all say they are Christian, and are pointing at each other saying they're not. For me as a person outside the faith, if a person claims to be Christian, I must regard them as such. I'm not in any position to say otherwise, seeing as how there are as many definitions of "Christian" as there are Christians themselves. I don't have any valid reasons to disregard the minor denominations as any more invalid as the major ones.
But I do believe I am getting a bit off-topic.

Wasn't expecting you to recognize a difference, I was just making clear that the denominations that do allow homosexual marriage within the church are an exceedingly small proportion and are not recognized by the majority of Christianity -- so their actions do no reflect the majority of Christians. Whether that's good or bad is debatable. Even the Catholics and Protestants now typically recognize each other as Christian -- perhaps mistaken in doctrine or episcopate succession, but still Christian.

[Revo]

Wasn't expecting you to recognize a difference, I was just making clear that the denominations that do allow homosexual marriage within the church are an exceedingly small proportion and are not recognized by the majority of Christianity -- so their actions do no reflect the majority of Christians. Whether that's good or bad is debatable. Even the Catholics and Protestants now typically recognize each other as Christian -- perhaps mistaken in doctrine or episcopate succession, but still Christian.
Fair enough, I submit your point.

[Sadiki]

so their actions do no reflect the majority of Christians. Whether that's good or bad is debatable.

Well I'm not sure if it really need to be debated, except inside of the churches as it's not really important for the rest of the people if gay marriage is right or wrong in the eyes of god.

Then again I'm getting kind of confused in this thread as I think using religion to back up their opinion on why something should not be allowed is rather wrong as.. and I know I keep repeating myself, but politics and religion should be kept as far from one another as possible. One is based on personal belief where other is based decisions made for people of the nation. I mean is it really ok for a Christian or Muslim or Jewish or anyone else in that matter that something is wrong, because like said we should not be judging someone else believes, so why should those ethics be used on rules that apply to everyone living in that nation.

Even thought I'm well aware that for a lot of highly religious people, their believes creates most of the morals what is allowed and what is not, which would logically lead to them being against gay marriage if their religion says so, but I don't think it's really valid argument on why it shouldn't be allowed as it effects everyone.

[Juniper]

Then again I'm getting kind of confused in this thread as I think using religion to back up their opinion on why something should not be allowed is rather wrong as.. and I know I keep repeating myself, but politics and religion should be kept as far from one another as possible. One is based on personal belief where other is based decisions made for people of the nation. I mean is it really ok for a Christian or Muslim or Jewish or anyone else in that matter that something is wrong, because like said we should not be judging someone else believes, so why should those ethics be used on rules that apply to everyone living in that nation.


You and I agree on this subject, I don't mean to confuse you :P No, I don't think it's right to use religious rules for a secular society. I very much support the separation of church and state -- just as much to protect the church as to protect the state. Yeah, people do vote based on their own moral outlook on the subject, and honestly I think that's by far the greatest influence that religion has on politics in this country. But, to be honest, I don't think that a good majority of people in the United States (or elsewhere, I'm not picking on the US) really think deep enough into political subjects to realize that even if you don't approve of something's morality, that doesn't mean it should necessarily be illegal.

[shadowland]

The whole thing is a distraction issue, there are more important things going on that affect everyone, not just one group