Gay Marriage

[Swift]

Haven't we already discussed how marriage is not really about children, and how heterosexual couples sometimes cannot have children, and how that doesn't really have anything to do with the discussion?

Plus, that problem can be fixed as long as they can adopt.

I think it has everything to do with the discussion because it literally changes what our society is. The base of this country has always been the family. One of the main reasons this country is having problems is because the family, especially in the minorities, is being destroyed. One parent homes are becoming more the norm then two parent.

Also, two men or two women raising children is wrong. Sorry, it just is. And it doesn't matter what sex the child is. We have enough trouble with children now without them trying to figure out why they have 2 moms or two dads.

I may have agreed with you in the past on that, but I don't any longer. IF the family loses it's identity, the country soon will too.

 

[Pako]

Marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Call it something else, but the union of a man and a man or a woman and a woman is not marriage.

 

[Sureboss]

Because it's not the same. Sorry, it's just not. They can't have children, being the primary difference.

I just have a problem with them wanting to call it marriage. They want to call what my parents have and what I will have with my fiancee the same thing as two guys or two girls being together. That's just not cool. If they want a civil union for legal matters that's fine. But don't call it marriage, because it's not marriage in the traditional sense.

Marriage isn't about being able to have children, it's about commiting to loving your other half for the rest of your life.

I can't see any reason why gay couples should be singled out. It all seems rather backwards to me (No offence).

 

[wfooshee]

I think they should be allowed to marry basically because it's their right.

Well, see, it's not. That's what the discussion is about, should it be their right? I've always hated to hear people talking about "gay rights." There's no such thing. There's no list of rights (in the U.S., can't speak for other nations) granted to gay people just because they're gay.

I don't even like the idea of civil unions. I don't like the idea any legal recognition of this behavior. It's perverse, not any less perverse than pedophilia or bestiality. Are we trying to recognize those people?

I know it's been discussed, but the modern "acceptance" of gays and lesbians does not make it OK. This is NOT a religious view, as anybody who's seen me in other opinions threads will know. The fact that a "gay gene" may have been identified does not make it less of a perversion. If such a gene has been identified, then we have found the cause of the abnormal tendency, but NOT excused it. I've not seen anyone claiming to have found the gene for pedophiles, or claiming that such a gene, if found, would make chasing 6-year-olds OK.

 

[Duke]

Because it's not the same. Sorry, it's just not. They can't have children, being the primary difference.

Sooooo... a barren couple aren't really married?

I just have a problem with them wanting to call it marriage. They want to call what my parents have and what I will have with my fiancee the same thing as two guys or two girls being together.

They want to call it what? A stable, loving, committed relationship? Where's the problem in that?

 

[Sage]

[In response to Swift’s post]:

And I will completely disagree. A child needs adults who love him or her. Why should it matter who loves the child, as long as someone does? On top of that:

Also, two men or two women raising children is wrong. Sorry, it just is.

That’s not going to be well with Rational Dan. There’s no logical basis behind that statement, and you implicitly admit it by saying “it just is.”

 

[Sureboss]

You can't seriously be comparing paedophiles to homosexuality?

 

[wfooshee]

You can't seriously be comparing paedophiles to homosexuality?

It's an abherent sexual behavior. Granted, pedophiles aren't generally looking for relationships, so it's not the same, but my point is that it's deviant. It IS a perversion.

 

[Tornado]

I think it has everything to do with the discussion because it literally changes what our society is. The base of this country has always been the family. One of the main reasons this country is having problems is because the family, especially in the minorities, is being destroyed. One parent homes are becoming more the norm then two parent.

None of that has anything to do with homosexual marriages, so I fail to see your point. The family social structure began falling apart by the early 80's and really is a completely seperate topic from homosexual mariage. You don't need to be gay to ruin a family.

I don't even like the idea of civil unions. I don't like the idea any legal recognition of this behavior.

So when you get married and your spouse dies, lets just not let you get any of the life insurance, or custody of your kids, or any of that. Hell, lets write you out of the natural succession of the spouse's possesions entirely. Might as well make everyone equal. I can understand why it wouldn't want to be called "marriage," as that is a religous term. But no civil unions at all? Why not? Its not like the recent track record of heterosexual marriages is very good in the first place, so why does it matter that when two people actually love each other they can't be united in a court of law?

It's perverse, not any less perverse than pedophilia or bestiality. Are we trying to recognize those people?

I'd love to hear you explain why, but before you do, are you an evangelical?

 

[Swift]

I know what all you guys are saying about the marriage without children thing and that's cool. But that doesn't take away from what I'm talking about.

The Family unit, and extended family have been the basis for this society(USA). When we change that, we change our society. You can already see it happening with all the single parent homes.

I know all the rebutals to this and they are pretty good. Even though I can't give concrete evidence for this, outside of the fall of Rome, I'm still standing firm that gay marriage will pull this society down.

 

[Tornado]

The Family unit, and extended family have been the basis for this society(USA). When we change that, we change our society. You can already see it happening with all the single parent homes.

I understand that and agree with it. What I don't understand is what any of that has to do with gay marriage, as the family unit had been falling apart long before gay marriage became a hot topic issue. Likewise, being a good parent is not encoded into your sexual preference, because I sure as hell personally know some horrible parents who are not gay.

 

[Duke]

I think it has everything to do with the discussion because it literally changes what our society is. The base of this country has always been the family. One of the main reasons this country is having problems is because the family, especially in the minorities, is being destroyed. One parent homes are becoming more the norm then two parent.

So, you'd like to further destroy that by arbitrarily prohibiting a certain portion of these precious families, because they happen to be same-sex couples. That doesn't sound very constructive at all.

Also, two men or two women raising children is wrong. Sorry, it just is. And it doesn't matter what sex the child is. We have enough trouble with children now without them trying to figure out why they have 2 moms or two dads.

It took us about 90 seconds to explain to our children what homosexuality is, and it certainly doesn't seem to have confused them any. The only reason I could see it might be confusing to children is, frankly, when they run up against people like you or Pako (or, much worse, wfooshee below). I've heard you make this argument about how confusing it will be to children, but it's simply NOT confusing unless you insist on making it so.

IF the family loses it's identity, the country soon will too.

So, again, you'd like to erode the idea of family by making 5-10% of family arrangements arbitrarily illegal. That just makes ZERO sense.

Well, see, it's not. That's what the discussion is about, should it be their right? I've always hated to hear people talking about "gay rights." There's no such thing. There's no list of rights (in the U.S., can't speak for other nations) granted to gay people just because they're gay.

You're correct, though not at all for the rason you THINK you're right. Gay people should have absolutely no more rights than other people. BUT they should have the SAME rights as other people, and there is no logical reason otherwise.

I don't like the idea any legal recognition of this behavior. It's perverse, not any less perverse than pedophilia or bestiality. Are we trying to recognize those people?

Wow. Welcome to 1952, Mr. McCarthy! Here's one reason why you're absolutely dead wrong in your analysis: a pedophile or bestiality-ophile preys on weaker victims who cannot make an informed decision (or physically cannot resist) to become sexually engaged. But two consenting adult homosexuals can choose to have sex just the same as two consenting heterosexuals, by free choice and with no harm done to either party.

Are you SERIOUSLY maintaining that you cannot see this difference? Or do you really just think that every homosexual is a child molester or poodle-****er waiting to happen?

[edit] You claim homosexuality is "aberrant".

1) There are dozens if not hundreds of animal species that show marked homosexual behaviour.

2) Anal sex is "aberrant" also in heterosexual couples, yet many practice it. Should we outlaw that? What about oral sex?

 

[Swift]

I understand that and agree with it. What I don't understand is what any of that has to do with gay marriage, as the family unit had been falling apart long before gay marriage became a hot topic issue. Likewise, being a good parent is not encoded into your sexual preference, because I sure as hell personally know some horrible parents who are not gay.

Because gay marriage being legal makes them a family. That changes the face of what a family is supposed to be. I know there are non-blood, adoptive families and the like, so please don't go there. Gay marriage says that a same sex couple is a healthy family situation. Hence, completely changed what a family is in the USA.

I know there are bad situations out there that don't involve gay people. What I'm saying is that gay "marriage" would make it worse.

It took us about 90 seconds to explain to our children what homosexuality is, and it certainly doesn't seem to have confused them any. The only reason I could see it might be confusing to children is, frankly, when they run up against people like you or Pako (or, much worse, wfooshee below). I've heard you make this argument about how confusing it will be to children, but it's simply NOT confusing unless you insist on making it so.

Could that be because you have a female spouse and they don't have to really deal with that situation in their home?

So, again, you'd like to erode the idea of family by making 5-10% of family arrangements arbitrarily illegal. That just makes ZERO sense.

To me, that's not a family. Yeah, I know. That's really coldhearted. But it's how I feel about the situation.

You're correct, though not at all for the rason you THINK you're right. Gay people should have absolutely no more rights than other people. BUT they should have the SAME rights as other people, and there is no logical reason otherwise.

I wonder how many of us would feel the same way if we had a gay child? I'm talking about me here too.

 

[Pako]

There are some issues being tip toed around the fire....so I might as well say it. Homosexuality is morally and Biblically wrong. Marriage is/was union between a man and a woman sanctioned by God. If homosexuality is morally wrong, something that God says was wrong, why would it be right in God's eyes to allow homosexual marriages? I will tell you, He wouldn't. Like I said, call it something else and allow gays to have their tax brakes and couples insurance, but don't expect too many people to compromise their beliefs just so someone can play husband and wife. It is what it is, great..... Allow civil unions and give them their tax brakes...what's so wrong with that? I will fight for their right to be recognized but don't call it marriage because it's not.

 

[Danoff]

I think it has everything to do with the discussion because it literally changes what our society is. The base of this country has always been the family. One of the main reasons this country is having problems is because the family, especially in the minorities, is being destroyed. One parent homes are becoming more the norm then two parent.

The basis of our country is democracy, capitalism and human rights. How is the "family" a basis for our nation? Are single people not part of the country? Do they not contribute? The "one parent" business has nothing to do with the gay discussion - not that you should be passing judgement on one-parent households.

Also, two men or two women raising children is wrong. Sorry, it just is. And it doesn't matter what sex the child is. We have enough trouble with children now without them trying to figure out why they have 2 moms or two dads.

I think figuring that out is the least of their problems. I don't see any rational reason why gay people cannot raise kids.

IF the family loses it's identity, the country soon will too.

How is our nation's idenity based on the stereotypical family?

Marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Call it something else, but the union of a man and a man or a woman and a woman is not marriage.

The term "marriage" is a legal one (as well as religious). The legal term can be changed so that it's no longer discriminatory. Just like the term "citizen" can apply to different groups. You can keep your religious recognition.

Well, see, it's not. That's what the discussion is about, should it be their right? I've always hated to hear people talking about "gay rights." There's no such thing. There's no list of rights (in the U.S., can't speak for other nations) granted to gay people just because they're gay.

Couldn't agree more. Same goes for heterosexual people.

I don't even like the idea of civil unions. I don't like the idea any legal recognition of this behavior. It's perverse, not any less perverse than pedophilia or bestiality. Are we trying to recognize those people?

We're trying to recognize adult human beings. No, a cow cannot agree to get married (because it has no concept of marriage). But that's not really what we're talking about here, we're talking about human beings with brains and rights. We're talking about two human beings who want to commit legally to each other. That's not the same as a human being wanting to legally commit himself to a cow (and vice versa). I don't know how you can confuse the two (or why we're discussing it).

The fact that a "gay gene" may have been identified does not make it less of a perversion. I've not seen anyone claiming to have found the gene for pedophiles, or claiming that such a gene, if found, would make chasing 6-year-olds OK.

How you can compare being gay to being a criminal sex offender is toughie for me. One of those categories is one who violates the rights of underage children by getting them to consent (or not) to something that they are legally and mentally unable to consent to. Gay people are free adults - not criminals.

It IS a perversion.

How?

 

[Duke]

Pako: my marriage to my wife is not sanctioned by God. Am I not "married"?

 

[wfooshee]

To Toronado:

By being against civil unions, I meant civil unions for gays. My own marriage is civil, not religious.

As for explaining why it's a perversion, it's pretty simple. Sex is for procreation. Period. The species is not served by homosexuality. No genes get stirred, no offspring produced. Adoption is not an answer to that question, even if it was as involved as to take each "parent's" gametes and produce a cloned mix somehow and implant into one of the women (or for guys, a surrogate). Gay sex is an oxymoron. There is no sex, there is sex play, possibly very pleasurable and satisifying for the partners, but it's not sex. It can't produce offspring, so it's a perversion.

And no, that's not a religious point of view, as I stated in my earlier post.

More about comparison to pedophilia, etc. I understand the difference between a victimized child and a consenting couple. The couple consenting to gay behavior doesn't make it right, any more than my friend and I consenting to rob the bank on the corner makes that right. I know, again, victims vs. no victims.

My point of view, summarized. There should be NO legal acceptance of gay behavior as a lifestyle. No civil unions for gays, and certainly don't call it marriage.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a gay-basher. (WHAT?!?!?? How can you say that after these posts?!!!??!)

I lead no active efforts to remove, expose, embarrass or harass the gay "community," other than to try to educate my children in my views on the matter. They may not agree with me, they may not understand me, but I hope to make them understand my views, and to understand the reasons for them, and mostly, to be able to find their own reasons for their own views. I don't shun people whom I know are gay, and I don't have a questionnaire for people to fill out before I invite them to my home.

But I do not accept the "modern" view that it's a normal, understandable, and even acceptable behavior. I don't care how many gay characters show up on prime time TV, I don't care how many dolphins or whales participate, it's not an acceptable behavior, and it does not warrant legal recognition as such.

 

[Pako]

Pako: my marriage to my wife is not sanctioned by God. Am I not "married"?

Why is your marriage not sanctioned by God? Marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman. I think your marriage with your wife fit's that description whether you recognize it or not.

 

[Duke]

As for explaining why it's a perversion, it's pretty simple. Sex is for procreation. Period.

So you and your wife never have sex using contraception, and you expect (and hope for) a baby every time you have sex?

Why is your marriage not sanctioned by God? Marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman. I think your marriage with your wife fit's that description whether you recognize it or not.

It's not sanctioned by God because we're atheists. We did not have a religious ceremony in our own minds because we do not recognize a God to sanction it.

So, because I have disavowed any God in my wedding, does that mean I'm no longer allowed to call it a marriage?

 

[Sage]

wfooshee: Are you serious? Who cares if it’s deviant from what is arbitrarily defined as “normalcy”?

You might want to read a piece by Gayle Rubin called Thinking Sex. She’s a bit sloppy and I actually think she goes deeper into the analysis than she needs to (and she touts certain things that I absolutely hate, such as Marxism), but I think it’s a particularly relevant counterclaim to what you’re proposing.

[edit]: Every time I post I get treed by four other posts…

 

[Pako]

Duke: Just because you believe there is no God, doesn't mean there isn't one. Just because you have omitted 'God' from your vows to each other doesn't mean God didn't look on you favorably for choosing a life long, monogamous, promise with your wife. I still don't see why God wouldn't recognize your marriage with your wife.

 

[Tornado]

By being against civil unions, I meant civil unions for gays. My own marriage is civil, not religious.

So, you are taking the suspisciously religious viewpoint that it is an aberration and should be banned, period; and applying it to ideals other than those of religion? Why?

As for explaining why it's a perversion, it's pretty simple. Sex is for procreation. Period. The species is not served by homosexuality. No genes get stirred, no offspring produced.

Yes, it is only for procreation. With ANIMALS. Humans have sex for far more reasons than I can list, none of them being procreation. Hell, people have sex for ENTERTAINMENT and business purposes (pornography and prostitution, respectively). Explain that.

Adoption is not an answer to that question, even if it was as involved as to take each "parent's" gametes and produce a cloned mix somehow and implant into one of the women (or for guys, a surrogate).

But that, um, would be procreation.

Gay sex is an oxymoron. There is no sex, there is sex play, possibly very pleasurable and satisifying for the partners, but it's not sex. It can't produce offspring, so it's a perversion.

Prostitution is legal in many parts of the world, so that is illogical even beside the point Duke raised.

Just because you have omitted 'God' from your vows to each other doesn't mean God didn't look on you favorably for choosing a life long, monogamous, promise with your wife. I still don't see why God wouldn't recognize your marriage with your wife.

"Because he doesn't recognize God" would be an insanely simple answer to that question. It is his marriage. Not yours, not God's.

 

[Pako]

"Because he doesn't recognize God" would be an insanely simple answer to that question. It is his marriage. Not yours, not God's.

Closing your eyes doesn't make everything around you disappear, but lets save that for another thread.

 

[Sureboss]

I know what all you guys are saying about the marriage without children thing and that's cool. But that doesn't take away from what I'm talking about.

The Family unit, and extended family have been the basis for this society(USA). When we change that, we change our society. You can already see it happening with all the single parent homes.

I know all the rebutals to this and they are pretty good. Even though I can't give concrete evidence for this, outside of the fall of Rome, I'm still standing firm that gay marriage will pull this society down.

Has it down so in other areas in the world where it's legal to be married to the same sex?

 

[Tornado]

Closing your eyes doesn't make everything around you disappear

True. But not applicable in this case. He has different religious beliefs than you do. You believe that God exists. He doesn't. You believe that the simple fact that it was a civil union that happens to conform with God's views makes it marriage. He believe that not to be the case.
The idea of closing your ideas will not make the world around you stop only works with facts, not beliefs. As such, niether your beliefs that God recognizes Duke's Civil Union as a marriage, nor his beliefs that it isn't, can be proven.

 

[Pako]

True. But not applicable in this case. He has different religious beliefs than you do. You believe that God exists. He doesn't. You believe that the simple fact that it was a civil union that happens to conform with God's views makes it marriage. He believe that not to be the case.
The idea of closing your ideas will not make the world around you stop only works with facts, not beliefs. As such, niether your beliefs that God recognizes Duke's Civil Union as a marriage, nor his beliefs that it isn't, can be proven.

Just a couple points here,

1.) He said 'Marriage' not 'Civil Union'.
2.) He doesn't have different beliefs, he will tell you he has no beliefs.

Let Duke start sleeping around on his wife and we'll see how sacred his marriage is then, better yet, we'll see how long he stays 'united' with his wife. There are some real world consiquences to sin...you don't even have to wait until you die to see them. Like I said, for another thread.

 

[Famine]

Because it's not the same. Sorry, it's just not. They can't have children, being the primary difference.

This has been covered before in the thread, but... Are you saying that any partnership where normal, biological production of children is not possible cannot be a "marriage"?

I just have a problem with them wanting to call it marriage. They want to call what my parents have and what I will have with my fiancee the same thing as two guys or two girls being together.

There's lots of things that two guys or two girls have together that "more traditional couples" have together. Where do we draw the line?

Should homosexual intercourse not be referred to as "sex", because it's not what I have with my girlfriend (except on those rare occasions when it is - and there's an aside you can make about Bill Clinton at this point) and it's not what usually happens?

Should homosexuals not be referred to as "homeowners", because although they may have bought a house together and be joint owners of the house, it's not a traditional family unit?

And so on.

Marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Call it something else, but the union of a man and a man or a woman and a woman is not marriage.

As above.

Marriage is/was union between a man and a woman sanctioned by God.

As you know, I will be married in August. This marriage will be carried out by a registrar, not a vicar, in a castle, not a church, and any mention of any religion is expressly forbidden - not by me or my girlfriend, but by the rules of the Registry Office. God is not invited along to sanction my wedding.

Can I still say we are married after the event?


I'm also curious about any other religions' marriages - are Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh or any other kind of marriage acceptable as marriage?

Duke: Just because you believe there is no God, doesn't mean there isn't one. Just because you have omitted 'God' from your vows to each other doesn't mean God didn't look on you favorably for choosing a life long, monogamous, promise with your wife. I still don't see why God wouldn't recognize your marriage with your wife.

Why wouldn't God look on someone favourably for choosing a life long, monogamous promise with someone of the same gender?

 

[Sureboss]

Yes, it is only for procreation. With ANIMALS. Humans have sex for far more reasons than I can list, none of them being procreation. Hell, people have sex for ENTERTAINMENT and business purposes (pornography and prostitution, respectively). Explain that.

Infact some could say Bonobo chimps have a deeper use of sexual intercourse than in humans. Sex in Bonobo societies, is used as a greeting, a means of conflict resolution and post conflict reconcilliation and as favours traded by females in exhange for food!

They also indulge into far more than just sexual penetration.

PS: This isn't some sort of perverse hobby of mine, I just watch a lot of animal programmes and am thoroughly interested in anything related to Ainmals.

 

[Danoff]

There are some issues being tip toed around the fire....so I might as well say it. Homosexuality is morally and Biblically wrong. Marriage is/was union between a man and a woman sanctioned by God. If homosexuality is morally wrong, something that God says was wrong, why would it be right in God's eyes to allow homosexual marriages? I will tell you, He wouldn't. Like I said, call it something else and allow gays to have their tax brakes and couples insurance, but don't expect too many people to compromise their beliefs just so someone can play husband and wife. It is what it is, great..... Allow civil unions and give them their tax brakes...what's so wrong with that? I will fight for their right to be recognized but don't call it marriage because it's not.

Legally, marriage has nothing to do with God. No law can change what your religion holds as the definition of marriage, so you shouldn't worry about it. You keep your religion intact, but the law is not based on religion (a concept that actually is fundamental to this nation), and it is not allowed to discriminate (another fundamental concept).

To Toronado:

By being against civil unions, I meant civil unions for gays. My own marriage is civil, not religious.

As for explaining why it's a perversion, it's pretty simple. Sex is for procreation. Period. The species is not served by homosexuality. No genes get stirred, no offspring produced. Adoption is not an answer to that question, even if it was as involved as to take each "parent's" gametes and produce a cloned mix somehow and implant into one of the women (or for guys, a surrogate). Gay sex is an oxymoron. There is no sex, there is sex play, possibly very pleasurable and satisifying for the partners, but it's not sex. It can't produce offspring, so it's a perversion.

So then infertile heterosexual couples should be prevented from marrying? Couples who are fertile but do not intend to procreate should also be prevented from marrying? Couples who intend to use birth control and still have sex are perverse? You're not making any sense here.

 

[Pako]

*snip*

As you know, I will be married in August. This marriage will be carried out by a registrar, not a vicar, in a castle, not a church, and any mention of any religion is expressly forbidden - not by me or my girlfriend, but by the rules of the Registry Office. God is not invited along to sanction my wedding.

Can I still say we are married after the event?


I'm also curious about any other religions' marriages - are Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh or any other kind of marriage acceptable as marriage?

Congratulations again!

I think it's great you're stepping up and doing the deal and in a castle to boot! 👍

My response to you is the same I gave Duke. Now if your fiancé has male genitalia, I would have to say no, you can't call yourself married. Call it Civil Union, introduce your friend as your life partner, what ever works but it would not be marriage.

Sorry.

But like I said, I'm glad to hear you're getting married and that you're ready to make that life long commitment to your wife to be.