Gay Marriage?

[_ID_]

Why do all these pundits and angry bigmouths always compare these things to actually important events. Like comparing the war in Iraq to WWII. Comparing gay marriage to the civil rights marches. Do you realize that by drawing these pathetic comparisons you are actually insulting the people participating in WWII, in the civil rights marches, etc.?

Do you seriously really think this? Civil rights is exactly what homosexual people are striving for.

The civil ability of two people to be legally bound together regardless of race religion creed or sexual orinetation sounds a bit like civil rights to me. To even say that it isn't, tells me your view is so skewed that you will never change your opinion or think that you maybe somehow could be wrong in how you think.

V/R
ID

[Aesop]

That isn't an argument; starting off by telling someone with the opposite opinion that they are incapable of understanding you isn't the best way to try and convince someone.

Correct. This is because I'm done arguing with you. I have had enough of these conversations in the past to know when my points aren't getting through and nothing you've said in your latest post has changed my mind about that.

I would suggest that you are the one who should calm down now. Your language is getting progressively more insulting.

[Tojo]

I read that thing katie. Just brilliant.

I've been trying to post in this thread for days now, either the site crashes or I get interrupted.

One of the people on this thread has a problem with gay couples.

To say-

Oh thats right, it's not called a marriage on paper.

is downright insulting to intelligent open minded people- some of whom may or may not be gay.

I lived with gay people for years, male & female- I could never quite work out why they should have any less rights than hetrosexuals?

The only thing I can come up with is fear- the same fear that leads people to hate anyone who is a different race, colour or creed.

I'd suggest it makes more sense to feel sorry for such narrow minded people. If they want to learn, we can show them the way- otherwise just ignore them.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see"

Tojo

[WyckidHeart]

I think that the issue at hand is not really about gay rights- its about gay marriage and marriage only.
After all- the right to marry whom you want to is not a right at all but a privilege. One that very few countries entertain, to my way of thinking.
If I'm not wrong (and its possible I may be) but don't most countries still uphold the 'right' of parents to choose whom their children marry?
Arranged marriages occur more often than love or chosen matches in Mexico.

My personal feelings on the subject are:
Being gay may not be right,in the eyes of God or 'Christians', or according to the bible. But neither is it right to pass judgement on others. Judge and thy shall be judged?
I have had gay feelings, and relationships with other women. I am attracted to other women. But I don't want to marry one. I've married a man, and thats what was right for me.
I will NOT however tell someone else who is right or wrong for them to marry. Or even if they can marry. Hell I'm all for multiple partner marriages.

I guess what it boils down to for me is one of my favorite sayings-

You may call me sinner, but I will see you in hell.


Just the babblings of a tarnished southern belle!
Char

[katie_21]

Right on!

No sin is greater then another, and judging is a sin as well.

[cheeseburger]

Civil rights is exactly what homosexual people are striving for

This is downright bs, for lack of a better word.

Tell me one job where a gay can be fired for his sexual orientation. Tell me one place a gay can't go. Tell me one institution that segregates gays from non-gay. etc.

Gays have all the same rights as non-gays. Read. They do. Please don't go off about how gays are persecuted, or how they have inferior social status. They quite simply don't.

The only reason anyone even opposes the idea of a gay marriage being called that, is because marriage is inherently religious. Or it once was.

You say you're open minded? Well, consider this:
Some people take marriage very seriously and view marriage as a highly religious affair. (The number of people that feel this way is far greater than the number of gay people, total.)

Calling a gay relationship by the same word you call a religious, heterosexual relationship is deeply offensive to those that feel marriage is a religious union. If you actually were open minded, you would realize that there are religious people in this world, and they too want to preserve marriage for what it once was.

But no. Your definition of 'open mindedness' is just anyone that agrees with you. Anyone else is 'narrow minded'.

I'm sorry, I thought this was a serious discussion. Clearly it's not. I hope what I said here did not seriously offend anyone, because that was never my intention.

[Aesop]

I'm sorry, I thought this was a serious discussion. Clearly it's not. I hope what I said here did not seriously offend anyone, because that was never my intention.

I find I can no longer participate in this thread as a member, but have to come in as an admin. Cheeseburger your entire post was directly offensive to all that have disagreed with you. Now if you'll recall I said something that offended you, you mentioned it, and I apologized. That is how people communicate successfully. What you did in that last post was simply say everyone is stupid but you and it won't be tolerated again. This is your only warning.

To everyone else: Please do not rise to the bait cheeseburger has put here. Debate the points and not how you feel about him.

[Ozme52]

This is downright bs, for lack of a better word.

Tell me one job where a gay can be fired for his sexual orientation. Tell me one place a gay can't go. Tell me one institution that segregates gays from non-gay. etc.

Gays have all the same rights as non-gays. Read. They do. Please don't go off about how gays are persecuted, or how they have inferior social status. They quite simply don't.

The only reason anyone even opposes the idea of a gay marriage being called that, is because marriage is inherently religious. Or it once was.

You say you're open minded? Well, consider this:
Some people take marriage very seriously and view marriage as a highly religious affair(The number of people that feel this way is far greater than the number of gay people, total.).

Calling a gay relationship by the same word you call a religious, heterosexual relationship is deeply offensive to those that feel marriage is a religious union. If you actually were open minded, you would realize that there are religious people in this world, and they too want to preserve marriage for what it once was.

But no. Your definition of 'open mindedness' is just anyone that agrees with you. Anyone else is 'narrow minded'.

I'm sorry, I thought this was a serious discussion. Clearly it's not. I hope what I said here did not seriously offend anyone, because that was never my intention.

Wrong. Which religion(s)? Please don't mention any of the modern religions currently practiced. Marriage predates them all. Those that invoke the Lord to sanctify the marriage originally did so to appease and attract new members... just as they tended to adopt other "pagan" practices to attract new members.

Second, quote your source. I would dispute your statistics even exist. Presuming you could even quantify the statement "highly religious" and thereby take a poll, I doubt anyone has made this study. You base your arguements on statements of fact that aren't facts at all, they too are just your opinions.

So regardless of one's position on the topic, you continue to invalidate any reason for participating in the debate by basing your arguements on fallacious facts and non-existant statistics.

[Alex Bragi]

…

Calling a gay relationship by the same word you call a religious, heterosexual relationship is deeply offensive to those that feel marriage is a religious union….

I can see exactly where cheeseburger, and many Christians, are coming from. It's a little like saying, it's not fair that the local rabbi won't let us have a pork bbq in front of the synagog on Saturday. Or, it's not right that the Jehovah's Witnesses won't donate their blood to the Red Cross. You may think that's it's wrong, and Ozme52, you could well be right, however whether you agree or disagree, it's still matter of respecting the traditions and rites of others. Christians follow the teachings of the bible and the bible says that homosexuality is an 'abomination'.

I guess it's like, around here, I associate "ozme52" to pleasant, interesting and articulate. How fair would it be if some people started using 'ozme52' in, what you considered to be, a derogatory manner? Wouldn't you be just a little put out by it? Well, that's how some Christians feel about "gay marriage". Whether you agree or not, you have to see their point of view.

Once again, I reiterate, I don’t have a problem with gay marriages, however, I think gays who want, or expect, a "church blessing" are quite possibly asking too much.

[Ozme52]

I'm not arguing one way or the other. I'm saying that basing one's arguements on fallacious statements and uncorroborated statistics makes the arguement mute. It's not worth debating because if one argues against such statements and statistics, one validates those statements as possibly valid.

It's like saying "animals like being outside because the sky is green." If I say no, they don't, I'm validating a component of the statement "the sky is green." Later, the proponent will probably use this fact to close or prove their arguement.

This example may be a bit over the top, but that's what I see going on in cb's positioning. It's an unfair debating technique.

[mkemse]

Very simply stated, if gays want to marry, let them, it is no body's business what consenting adults do, their marruiage would not effect my life in any way shape or form, Let's keep the goverment out of this, the Constituion is a very sacred Document, and everytime we have politicians who want to add to it to apise themselves or their constiuates,if we continue to add ammendments for this reason, it will ruin this countries most scared document, the 1 document there is that allows us the freedom and right we have, not to mention if I am not mistaken, it does also state very clearly, "All men, are created eaqual" unless that means all men are created eaqula until our goverment decided they are not

[csr]

...
Once again, I reiterate, I don’t have a problem with gay marriages, however, I think gays who want, or expect, a "church blessing" are quite possibly asking too much.

Here in Canada marriage equality for same-sex couples was passed as law in June 2005. This means that the legal definition of the word marriage now includes unions in the LGBT community. In the passing of the bill it was made quite clear that in no way is any church compelled to bless a gay marriage. The fact that the churches are allowed to decide represents the best intentions of religious freedom and church and state separation.

Many churches are happy to oblige and perform these services, and many do not wish to. Assuming that the church leaders will decide based on the wishes of the majority of their congregation, nobody will need to feel that the "sanctity of their marriage" is threatened.

If your religious convictions include not eating pork, attend a church of non-pork-eaters. If you don't believe Christian gays should be married in a church service, attend a church where this is not done. It's simple as that.

I like to be open-minded to every side of any debate, but every argument against same sex marriage just sounds like fearful, insecure people. Our new prime minister is making noises, pandering to those people. The overall impression we get here is that he wants to emulate G.W.'s "Christian" stance on everything. Hopefully the Canadian people will continue to send a clear message to him that we like the law the way it is.

I for one was proud when it passed last year, then surprised to see that we were the 5th country to do so. I guess we're not as progressive as I may have thought.

[Tojo]

Let's just close this thread eh guys?

It's just reminding us that prejudice exists in all communities.

I have a mental picture of a post on a gay forum 'should bdsm devotees be allowed to marry?'

Tojo

[fantassy]

How fair would it be if some people started using 'ozme52' in, what you considered to be, a derogatory manner? Wouldn't you be just a little put out by it? Well, that's how some Christians feel about "gay marriage". Whether you agree or not, you have to see their point of view.

Once again, I reiterate, I don’t have a problem with gay marriages, however, I think gays who want, or expect, a "church blessing" are quite possibly asking too much.

I don't see how allowing gays to marry lessens the marriages of heteros. Does the fact that many people's marriages are performed by judges lessen the religious commitment of those whose marriage was performed in church? The fact that George W. Bush was allowed to be a Texan (something which makes me gag) does not reduce my pride in being a Texan.

On a more serious note, although I agree that no chuch should be compelled to conduct a gay marriage, since some churches are willing to perform gay marriage and would actually prefer their gay members to be able to make a religious commitment to each other, the gay marriage amendment is actually an infringement of those people's and church's free exercise of religion - by saying the church CANNOT marry gays even if they want to.

fantassy

[Aesop]

Let's just close this thread eh guys?

It's just reminding us that prejudice exists in all communities.

I have a mental picture of a post on a gay forum 'should bdsm devotees be allowed to marry?'

Tojo

lol I can understand the sentiment Tojo, but as everybody is playing nice right now I don't see a reason to close it. These issues are sensitive and I know that when I start the threads, but it's because I like to know what you all think about these things.

If there are any more insulting posts I will have to close it down.

[Tojo]

Yes fair enough, I wasn't totally serious...

Tojo

[arwcuw]

On a more serious note, although I agree that no chuch should be compelled to conduct a gay marriage, since some churches are willing to perform gay marriage and would actually prefer their gay members to be able to make a religious commitment to each other, the gay marriage amendment is actually an infringement of those people's and church's free exercise of religion - by saying the church CANNOT marry gays even if they want to.

fantassy

I hadn't thought of that... that's an interesting idea.

A group of people from my church are going to a gay pride parade tomorrow, I'll bring that idea up when I see them.

[Masters_lilone]

i read cheeseburgers opinion on gay marriages and he is so closed minded and his opinion on this subject is so off base..there is nothing wrong with gay marriages... or with gays raising kids as long as the kids are loved by there dads or moms. and i think that gay mariages should be leagel be cause gays have the right to have all the normal things that go with being married.. i have gay friends and feel strongy about the gay rights things

[Ozme52]

Yeah, but you have to give him his due for standing by his beliefs about religion... and that's what he'll have to do... because if he wants to kneel before God in a Catholic church... well that's now a mortal sin.

[Kraven]

I've a question on marriage.. isn't it a two step process?

1) You go to the town/city whatever and get a license -- this is what makes you legally married.

2) You go to the church and get "married" -- this is what makes you married in the eyes of God.

Am I close? Why can't gay-folk just do the legal part? Our legal system really is sperate from the religious one.. why not keep the term "married" for the religious system and create a new one for the legal one. People get "married" without a church all the time.. so we just need a new term for it and any two people of consenting age can give it a go. a CU (Civil Union works dandy)...

Gay-folk shouldn't be prevented from all the misery legal co-habitation brings.. not to mention higher taxes.

[mkemse]

People should eb allowed to marry wtherthey are Hetrosexual or Hmosexual, if they are consenting adult and are in the privacy of their own home, who's business is it??

[gloombunny]

I'm glad to see that cheeseburger's opinion isn't in the majority here.


All the talk about churches not wanting to endorse gay marriages and being offended that someone would use that word or whatever is irrelevant. For one, there are churches that are quite happy to marry gay people. Secondly, it doesn't matter anyway because religious feelings are not a reasonable basis for legislation. (And in the U.S., that concept happens to be enshrined in our constitution. It's kind of ridiculous when anti-gay-marriage people talk about what the country's founders believed, when those founders were the ones who decided to have "no law respecting an establishment of religion".)

Finally, about civil unions and why they aren't good enough. It's pretty simple - if straight people get "marriage", then I want it too. I have no interest in being a second-class citizen, and I'm not going to be happy with any law granting rights to other people and not to me. Equality, people! It's not that hard.

[Mishka]

I went through a bit of it, so I'm sorry if I'm repetitive. I did try to read others' views, but I don't have the attention span tonight for all 4 pages...having said that...

The entire gay marriage problem isn't hinged on seperation of church and state. By putting "recognizes that marriage is between a man and a woman" into our Constitution goes against the 14th amendment. Which, in a nutshell, says that no group of people can be forbidden life, liberty and the persuit of happiness by another group or by the government.

When I got my marriage license it said nothing about children, sex, God (or any name of Him/Her/It/They) or love. All it needed was to be signed by a witness and someone who could legally officiate over it. (justice of the peace, minister, rabbi, etc). We now have a church out in California that can ordain people for free. Legally. And they legally perform marriage ceremonies...any kind you want.

In the letters my state's gay rights group sent to government officials they do not request that churches or any other religious institution be forced to marry them. They make this a specific point in the letter so that it is not misunderstood. They only ask for the same protections as everyone else in this country has.

I do have a strong oppinion over "Civil Union" vs "Marriage". "Marriage" is a legally binding contract between two consenting adults regarding their assets, property, death and taxes. That is what the government sticks it's nose into. However, civil unions and marriage have different laws. They are not equal.

Civil Unions, their scope and laws, are decided by the state. They have approximately 600 laws regarding assets, property, etc etc. Marriage has civil and federal laws, protecting the rights of the two involved. Added up I believe the number is about 1100 more; laws regarding abuse, child custody and support, social security, etc.

To say to one group of people, who abide by every other law in our country, that they cannot have the persuit of happiness that we (heterosexuals) have shows how little we have learned from history. All of this is fine if it is YOUR religion that the government defends, promotes and bases it's decisions on. What happens when it's YOUR rights and freedoms that are taken away? If we can do it to black people, to homosexuals, to Jews, ... who's next? We sit in our little churches and pray for peace and there are still holocausts in this world. Yet we go to our little voting booths and still vote for discrimination to be written into our laws. (more, I should say). We're going in the wrong direction.

[moonofagony]

i was gonna read the whole thread but had to stop here on page 3 an go on an comment.i am very offended by much on this thread. first off idcrew i like ur post an u make the most out of it all, but i wont call names to what some other/others have said,
i will how ever say this.
im lesbian i have been with my wife for many years we live as tho we are married tho we do NOT get treated like married people, here in mississippi there are many places we are not allowed,plus we have many problems dealin with bein parents,,opps forgot to add that in, in our time togather we have had 2 daughters an yes we are trying for a 3rd child, why some of u may ask, because we love each other and want a huge family, we each have had a child, our children are happy healthy normal children, just because WE are lesbians does NOT mean our daughters will be! just because we are lesbians does NOT mean we abuse our girls. some one said somthin about homos an abuse, thats not true if u do ur research ull see it is BOTH hetro an homo who abuse, it dont matter if ur gay or straight, what im meanin is it depends on the single person an if that person will abuse, just cus u have a gay friend who abuses someone dont mean the next gay person is the same way,,u have many straight people abusing their kids, then u have many straight people who do not abuse kids,
people who find it offensive for gays to marry fail to think about what we also find offensive, are straight people better than gay people? no one is better than the next,
there is just way to much here that dont agree with, i will say some people think we in the bdsm life are wrong an what we do shouldnt be allowed, does that mean we all should be illegal also?
some last thoughts,
we all have things about other types of people we dont agree with, but arent all people only same as in we all strive to get the things we need.
i dream of the day i can marry my wife and have the same rights hetros have,
a day when i can take my younest daughter to a doctor with having to bring a letter from my wife stating i can have her treated, or the day my wife can pick up our oldest daughter from public school without a letter from me sayin she is allowed to leave with my wife, things are very hard for gay couples an we should get the same rights that everyone else gets,
ill end this here as this is very upsetting. sorry to u all who do not agree with me i may be wrong in my path of life, but its mine an i deserve the same rights as the others.

[OttifantSir]

I wish I had seen this thread sooner (at least about 4 weeks ago, when it was fresh)

Back to the scheduled program.

I have two lesbian, one bisexual and one gay friend (don't have many real-life friends, sad to say). They are by far surpassing most of my other friends (exception for the friend I call brother). One of the lesbians I call sister.
These have not voiced any concern about getting married, or a desire to "shake the foundation" for other people. But I believe as they get older and find someone they wish to share their life with, they wish to have the same rights regarding medical, legal and moral decisions as every married heterosexual couple, regarding themselves and any possible children.

Marriage, whether it is between man and woman, or individuals of the same sex, will always be filled with insecurity, discussions, disagreements, give-and-take, simply put: Perils. Many people in this world mistakes to be in love, or infatuated (whichever suits best here), as True Love. The first blissful encounters can make you so in love you think this will last forever. You can build up a dream, a fantasy, an entire life with someone. But just look at the attachment to this reply. It's taken from this forum, but I don't remember where, and if people here, and the author doesn't mind, I would rather attach it.
It's about the fantasy and real life of BDSM. This illustrates quite nicely an analogy to this topic.
What we humans have always had trouble of realising, is that a fantasy is just that; a fantasy. A fantasy will never last. It may be revised, but it will never be the same again.

So, why do some assume that same-sex marriages will be any different from heterosexual marriages, except the obvious: The sex-act? I have prejudices against gay men. I am not ashamed to say that. I am a bit more watchful when someone professes to me they are gay. I always think about whether they may be flirting with me. I have no interest in men as sexual partners. I know this is ridiculous. I know they aren't secretly plotting to have me drugged and made a sex-slave for them. But I also know I use it as a gauge for myself: Do I come off as gay? So, it is a mixed emotion. I want to be found attractive, but at the same time I don't want to break someone's dream by having to proclaim to them that I am a heterosexual.

To me, same-sex marriage has nothing to do with the church or religion at all. Here in Norway we have a National Church, but they have no power. They have the power to voice their opinions, which often is enough power, but true power in the sense of forbidding something or making something legal, they are powerless. Even here in Norway, where the state and the church are united, the church aren't allowed to marry people. They may bless the union, but you can't be married without the state's approval. You have to have a "license".
As MsUther has said, we have this debate here too, and I am getting sick of it. The debate. Why do a few people have the right to choose what some people may do as long as it's not harmful to others? My parents never had a church wedding. They went to a registrar and had it done. They were considered man and wife with equal rights to decide over themselves and eachother as well as us children. They were married.
No religion was involved. So, I keep wondering why this can't happen for same-sex couples? It was called a marriage for my mother and father without the blessing of the church, so why shouldn't it be called that for same-sex couples? The Norwegian word for wedding has no religious connotations either. The modern form is BRYLLUP, derived from its Norse form BRUDLAUP. The English translation is something like "Bridal Visit". This word has been in use in Norway in several centuries before Norway was christianed. The word in itself has no religious feelings about it. So, that argument won't fly in Norway.

I cannot truly understand the people opposed to same-sex marriage. To me, they are just old-fashioned, or to use another word: Archaic. But not archaic enough. Throughout history, mainly the ancient Greek society (I know this best of them), a wife was a necessity, something kept at home, for begetting children and keeping the house in order. The men would go to public baths and enjoy themselves in the company of, and with, other men.

True, no marriages existed, but homosexuality was encouraged rather than DIScouraged. This changed somewhere along the way. Somewhere along the way, it became "unnatural", even if the nature itself is abundant with examples of the opposite.

To me, and as far as I have witnessed in this thread, the general consensus (not the unanymous consensus) seems to be that marriage and wedding is about love and security, not about sex. It's a part of marriage off course, but it's not (generally) why you marry someone, or in some cases, choose to initiate a partnership.

I have not heard of such incidents here in Norway, and what I know of the world, I generally get from TV, and that usually means America. But I am certain something similar to an episode I watched of ER, has happened. Two elderly men had been a couple for over twenty years. One of them was now dying of some cancer disease I believe. The one dying had offspring before he accepted his homosexuality. This offspring had not talked to him after he proclaimed his sexual orientation some time in the past. Now he was laying on his death bed, and all he wanted was to share his last moments in life with the love of his life, but his family wouldn't let him. They drove the healthy one away with rude remarks and a hint at the fact that he wasn't family. He wasn't married to their father, he had no rights there. He was a mental disease their father had gotten in his old age.

To me, that episode summed up quite nicely what same-sex couples strive for: Acceptance. The acceptance that they are not abnormal, that they are not second-class citizens. That they have just as much right to be with their love at the death bed as any of their biological family. It's been a while since I watched this episode now, so I am not sure if this is true, but I seem to remember there was a DNR-order written by the one dying, but that order wasn't found until after he had been hooked up to a respirator. Now someone had to decide whether or not to shut it off. The dying one off course wanted it to end, and he had entrusted this to his love. The family denied this request. Same-sex couples want to be able to comply with the wishes of their loved one.

This is not directly related to this topic, but has some merit to it anyway: Some time ago there was a debate in Kansas I believe, if the Creationist Theory (theology) should be a subject of the science education, along with Evolution. The Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster sent a letter to the school board stating that they wanted their belief to be included in science class too. Based on evidence, their belief, their theory was just as right as both the others. One woman of the school board stated that it was a serious offense to mock God. To which one of the Spaghetterians replied: Why? Isn't it presumptuous of you to be offended in God's stead?

People of religion use their religion to mask their true feelings, I believe: They are hurt that others don't believe as they do, therefore they use religion to make you feel like you are doing something bad.

Same-sex marriage is not even mentioned in the Bible, except for one verse that I know of. Leviticus (3rd Book of Moses) 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

But if we shall follow the Bible line for line, we shall each and every day sacrifice an animal and burn it so that God may heed the smell for it pleases Him. When was the last time a Christian sacrificed an animal?

Back to topic, those last few paragraphs are better suited for Religion And Philosophy.

Same-sex marriage should not be of any concern to any religious body. They have the power to choose not to admit them to their congregation if they so pleases, but in my mind, the state should legalise it, legislate it, so that noone is being discriminated against based solely on their sexual preference.

(I fear I have awakened a sleeping dragon now )

[mkemse]

I have no issue with same sex marriage, i believe if you are a consenting adult, what you both do in the privacy of your own home or apartmet is none ofthe governments business any more then the governemnt trying to tell women what they can or can not do about the reproduction system of their bodies. These are BOTh personal family choices not governemnt choices, we do live in a free socieity, (In The United States anyway)

[nk_lion]

I'm ashamed to say that I was completely anti-gay when I was younger, but in my defense, I was quite young, and just influenced to think like that. I've matured in my thinking, and have abolished that homophobic attitude.

If gays want to get married, they should be able to, who is any person in a country where there is a seperation of state and religion to impose their religious morality on someone?