Question for the group

[ponyboy45]

Should gay marriages be legalized? Why or why not?

 

[DustyWolfe]

Should gay marriages be legalized? Why or why not?

Yeah I think so. Back when marriage laws were created reproduction and survival of generations were important... But now? The earth is over-populated. So why not? Who cares who someone else loves and what they do in their bedroom? They are going to do it whether they have their marriage license or not. So why not give them the rights to be called partners by law or something. To some couples it is very important just because it's something they cant do

 

[Queersetti]

Yes.

As long as marriage confers rights not available to unmarried couples, there is a moral imperative that it be available to all citizens equally, without discrimination.

 

[emap]

Yes they should be legal, for the reasons given, and one more that they are sidestepping in Washington.

A marriage is a union between two people who love each other. Simple as that, there is no man or woman in that, there is nothing that says a man and a man can't be married, there is nothing that says a woman and a woman can't be married, the priests tend to say this right off the bat when your getting married. People read a book, they call it the greatest story ever told and say it says in there a man and a man can't be together. I haven't read that part, I'm not sure it's actually in there it probably is but they are reading it as saying something the writer didn't think about. Simpler times and all that.

Of course there is one thing my guy loves to point out, if god is against men enjoying other men, why is there still Greece, why is there still Italy, the Romans enjoyed same sex sex, they did say you had to enjoy women on occassion, but other than that, you were free to have as many men being your girlfriend as you wanted. Why is Greece in there? The Romans are based off the Greeks, their gods are the same with different names, do you really think gods are the only things similar?

 

[John Doe]

Yes.

As long as marriage confers rights not available to unmarried couples, there is a moral imperative that it be available to all citizens equally, without discrimination.

This is one of the main reasons I advocate abolishing marriage as we know it.

Yes they should be legal, for the reasons given, and one more that they are sidestepping in Washington.

A marriage is a union between two people who love each other. Simple as that, there is no man or woman in that, there is nothing that says a man and a man can't be married, there is nothing that says a woman and a woman can't be married, the priests tend to say this right off the bat when your getting married.

That definition of marriage would discriminate against polyamorous relationships.

People read a book, they call it the greatest story ever told and say it says in there a man and a man can't be together. I haven't read that part, I'm not sure it's actually in there it probably is but they are reading it as saying something the writer didn't think about. Simpler times and all that.

Actually, it has said quite clearly that man shall not lie with man, nor woman with woman, etc. in at least two places, both in the Old Testament of the King James Bible. However, the K.J. version was transliterated from the original hebrew, into Middle English. Not to mention all the susequent versions. One is so audacious as to be titled the "New Revision" Bible.

So that aspect of the issue is moot. IMO what should be considered instead, is whether those "laws" apply to modern society or whether they are outmoded. I, of course, believe the latter.

Also consider the source of such an argument. It is usually made by members of denominations that advocate totally literal interpretation of the texts (the Fundamentalists), even though many biblical and historical scholars propose that in the times those books were written, metaphor and symbology would've been used heavily, making absolutely literal interpretation impractical.

Of course there is one thing my guy loves to point out, if god is against men enjoying other men, why is there still Greece, why is there still Italy, the Romans enjoyed same sex sex, they did say you had to enjoy women on occassion, but other than that, you were free to have as many men being your girlfriend as you wanted. Why is Greece in there? The Romans are based off the Greeks, their gods are the same with different names, do you really think gods are the only things similar?

How do the Greeks separate the men from the boys?

With a crowbar.

Anyway, you make an excellent point. That logic can be taken further. If we were not meant to masturbate, why are our arms a convenient length for just such an activity? If we were not meant to fellate, then why does pussy look like a clam or a taco? Etc. ad nauseum.

 

[Harrowborg]

I don't think same sex marriages should be granted to take place or recognised. This is just simply my belief, feel free to argue the toss to prove your point but this is just my belief that its wrong.

 

[alli_cat]

I think gay marriage should be legalised. If two people love each other and want to make that commitment, they should be allowed to. The main arguments against it seem to involve the christian God or reproduction. Well, I am infertile, should my husband and I have been allowed to marry? I don't recall having to prove to anyone that I could have babies before I signed the piece of paper. And as for God, well how many people getting married these days (even in churches!) actually believe in Him?! If it's only about the bible, how can pagans, wiccans, atheists, buddhists, etc be allowed to marry? The reasoning behind denying gay marriages is just stupid. IMHO

 

[emap]

YAY Stuponfucius, you taught me something, a good joke

Ok, I think I'm going to sound like I lived under a rock my whole life, but what's a polyamorous relationship?

Thanks for letting me know it's actually in there, but isn't King James the guy who broke away from the Christians to make a different religion?

Harrowborg your allowed your own opinions, personally I can't stand the thought of anal sex, and to think gay men enjoy it with each other is revolting, well anyone is revolting to me, but it's not my body, and not my bed, which is mainly why I think they should be legal. They aren't in your bedroom, they aren't trying to marry you, so why ever do you care? To put it another way, do you think the police should be able to break into your house and bedroom to make sure your not engaging in anal sex, sex with another men, sex with another woman, sex with sheep, or any other kind of sex? In a another similar thing, there are laws against anal sex, or oral sex, I live in a state where anal is illegal, more than two toys is illegal, and it's legal to beat your wife with a stick so long as it's not thicker than your thumb, and not on the state court house steps, I think there is a length restriction to.

Why these laws are there I don't know, how they expect to enforce them I don't know since it is illegal to just break into someone's home, or peek through their windows. Why they are still there I do know, they keep the stupid people against these things happy, not sure why, but they do.

 

[John Doe]

YAY Stuponfucius, you taught me something, a good joke

You can learn more about religion, philosophy and social science at your local library.

Ok, I think I'm going to sound like I lived under a rock my whole life,

That ship has sailed already, in the Don't Ask-Don't Tell thread.

but what's a polyamorous relationship?

Literally it means "multiple love." To elaborate, it is a romantic relationship involving more than two people. There are many configurations, but I won't get into that right now.

Thanks for letting me know it's actually in there, but isn't King James the guy who broke away from the Christians to make a different religion?

I'll research it. but you may be thinking of a different King James. There are several of them throughout history.

Harrowborg your allowed your own opinions, personally I can't stand the thought of anal sex, and to think gay men enjoy it with each other is revolting, well anyone is revolting to me, but it's not my body, and not my bed, which is mainly why I think they should be legal. They aren't in your bedroom, they aren't trying to marry you, so why ever do you care? To put it another way, do you think the police should be able to break into your house and bedroom to make sure your not engaging in anal sex, sex with another men, sex with another woman, sex with sheep, or any other kind of sex? In a another similar thing, there are laws against anal sex, or oral sex, I live in a state where anal is illegal, more than two toys is illegal, and it's legal to beat your wife with a stick so long as it's not thicker than your thumb, and not on the state court house steps, I think there is a length restriction to.

Harrowborg didn't go into detail, but I'm guessing it's a "sanctity of marriage" issue. With an over 50 percent divorce rate, we're having problems with that already. IMO it's a flaw in the system and/or our mentality regarding it.

Personally, I believe unions should be more contractual in nature, perhaps ranging from a 30 day cohabitation agreement to an indefinite period that would have clauses relating to childcare, property and whatnot, similar to a prenuptual agreement in some ways. The more temporary agreements could be renewed if all parties involved agreed to do so.

However, for those couples who do not have children, nor do not plan to, I suspect it's more of a political statement. Take for example the lesbian couple in Canada who, after having been together for ten years, are now suing for a divorce five weeks into thier marriage. Strangely enough, thier province of residence legalized homosexual marriage, but failed to legalize homosexual divorce, hence the lawsuit.

So much for the theory that gay marriage would make divorce rates drop.

Why these laws are there I don't know, how they expect to enforce them I don't know since it is illegal to just break into someone's home, or peek through their windows. Why they are still there I do know, they keep the stupid people against these things happy, not sure why, but they do.

It's merely legislating morality. Foisting one group's morals on everyone else by force of law. There is no practical reason for such laws to exist. Private, consensual acts do not harm the common good and do not offend anyone's sensibilities of public decency, except in the deprived (and depraved) minds of those that are so uncomfortable with thier repressed sexuality, that they feel the urge to cleanse the world around them of anything they deem deviant (which is essentially anything that isn't missionary style with the lights out).

As you say, even though there is no legal way of enforcing the laws, thier mere existence placates the Fundamentalists. They then have one more argument to make, that they're not only "Satan-bound perverts" but they're criminals too.

 

[Regis2001]

May I point out first of all that I am a practising bisexual. I am currently involved with a very nice young man who I am as devoted to as one can be at my age. I am not a homophobe, nor do I oppose gay rights in anyway.

As I have expounded on at least one other thread, I only sort of believe in gay marriage. My opinion on the subject is that when gay rights activists started campaigning, they upset a lot of people by using the word 'marriage'. Marriage is a social institution. It is not some grand human right dictated by God, nor is it a matter of common sense. It is a matter of perception.

Therefore, what does it matter if gay people get married or not? Well, there are two main points (aside from 'Everyone else is doing it, so why can't we?'). These points are:

1: A desire for stability.

An easy one. People want to commit, and what better way to commit than by getting married? It's a mental thing as much as anything else: we are married, and we will stick with it through thick and thin.

2: A desire for legal recognition of relationships.

This is another easy one. No relationship is worth 'more' than any other. After all, we allow stupid and unfaithful people to get married, regardless of gender. Why not let faithful, committed gay people marry?

Well, that's what I'm about to explain.

Firstly, this is not about 'rights'. Or rather, it is only about rights because of the issues raised above. There is inequality in the system, but if it were not for points 1 and 2, nobody would complain. Rights are secondary to these two main factors.

Secondly, marriage is not some grand state dictated by some higher power, be it God, common sense or the Bill Of Rights. Marriage is not a 'loving relationship between two people regardless of gender'. It is what people choose to make it, and at the moment, it seems that people are choosing to make it a union between one man and one woman. And why not? It's as good a definition as any. We cannot appeal to semantics and quibbling over what marriage really means. Marriage is an abstract concept, and entirely a matter of opinion.

Thirdly, it is not just a matter of discrimination. People who oppose gay marriage often do it not on the grounds of homophobia, but simply because they choose to accept the prevailing interpretation of what marriage means. Many friends of mine, liberal friends, intellectual friends, do not believe that gay people should get married simply because they know damn well that marriage was created to be a heterosexual institution.

And now we get to the real meat of the issue, one so often brushed aside by pro-marriage arguments as compromise, pandering to conservatives or fudging the issue. What I speak of is, of course, the idea of Civil Unions.

Let me ask one thing: what is wrong with a Civil Union that does not have any less legal status than a marriage? If Civil Unions were allowed, and conferred on the homosexual couple all the benefits of a marriage under a different name, what would be the problem? I for one cannot see any that would make me change my mind. And why are they preferable to marriages? I'll explain:

1: It doesn't upset people.

Obviously this is a generalisation; there are some hardcore anti-marriage people who would oppose even this, but the vast majority of moderate people and even less extreme conservatives who would welcome this with open arms.

2: It's exactly the same thing!

Obviously, if Civil Unions entailed less rights than marriages it would be wrong to accept them. But if they did not, what would be the problem? As the bard himself said, 'What's in a name?'. Civil Unions will satisfy requirements 1 and 2, and will not meet with as much resistance. When push comes to shove, marriage is a word. It is an idea in people's heads. Why work to dislodge a harmless idea (and it is harmless - see my point on homophobia) when we could simply work around this problem and achieve the same result?

All this debate for the sake of one 8-letter word. Here's hoping my point of view gets into the mainstream!

 

[emap]

Umm no stuponfucius you sailed your own ship

Yes please look it up, though I think there's more like 300 King James, one of those well his name was James and look what he did, I'll be James to.

Thanks for elaborating, I know what it is, didn't know it was called that to, I have a different name for it.

Regis2001 actually I'm thinking gay marriage is so opposed because it's GAY marriage, think about it this way, when there was a cry for gay rights, it went nowhere, they changed it to homosexual rights and we sorta have it, not really but it's supposed to be there. Gay is so opposed because when you say it people think of two guys screwing each other, very few actually like the thought of that, but if you change it to homosexual people think of two women enjoying each other more than two guys.

Personally, I don't see why it's even an issue, especially since they let people do the bathroom sex stuff, golden showers and such, incredibly disgusting, but allowed. Many don't like it, and would rather make it illegal, which i think it is in a few states, but not many, but it's allowed. I fail to see how two men or two women enjoying each other and wanting to get married is such a big deal, especially compared to what is allowed.

 

[mystic_maiden32]

yes I think it should, and for reasons-see above-they have already said it for me!

 

[John Doe]

Umm no stuponfucius you sailed your own ship

A person who had been in the Military for twenty years concurred with my assessment. You are alone in your misconceptions on that matter.

Yes please look it up, though I think there's more like 300 King James, one of those well his name was James and look what he did, I'll be James to.

I'll look into it, but can you give me any more information than his name was James?

 

[boomer3112]

I have to agree with regis on this, the argument put forth is very much what i believe is the best answer.

Coming from UK, and having lived in Germany for 12 years, i take a very live and let live attitude towards this question.

Over here in the USA, i'm afraid that the most vocal people on both side are so polarised in their opinions that they will never change.

Civil unions with all the legal benifits would effectively kill this issue, yes i know that there will still be those on both sides who will not like the solution, but they would be further marginalised.

As long as they had a mechanism to be able to get out of the civil union, a civil divorce if you like, i think this would work.

Lets be serious over 50% of married couples can't make their marriages work at the moment.

I have no doubt that gays, who are people with the same frailties and neurosies as straight people, will have the same problems making either a marriage or a civil union work.

 

[emap]

Stuponfucius you missed the point I was making and you went against with something really stupid, you said the MP's aren't men and women, they are robots doing what they were ordered to do only, I say they are men and women with their own feelings and thoughts, and won't just do what they are told.

But hey I guess you can't think that way.

No I don't know his name was James, but then again it was you who told me it was in the King Jame's bible, now if you don't know if his name was James or not then you need to do a bit of research for yourself to.

 

[boomer3112]

King James Bible

The King James version of the bible is the English translation of the Hebrew bible by the Protestant church in England.

In 1604, King James the first of England authorised a committee of 50 scholars to prepare a revision of all the other english translations of the bible.

The new version appeared in 1611, and was called the King James Version.

No important english translations of the bible appeared for more than 200 years.

Because over the years the English language changed greatly, many words in the original King James version no longer had the same meaning, or were even understood by readers.

In 1870 the Church of England decided to revise the original King James version, the new translation became known as the Revised version.

I hope this has cleared up this little argument you 2 are having, it took me 2 minutes to find this info out on google...lol

 

[Netzach]

I think it should be allowed.

I don't care if it upsets straight people and the institutions that exclude us.

And I think GLBT folks have as much right to drawn out divorce battles as anyone else.

 

[John Doe]

Stuponfucius you missed the point I was making and you went against with something really stupid, you said the MP's aren't men and women, they are robots doing what they were ordered to do only...

I never said MPs aren't men and women, but simply robots. I was saying they have professional ethics and rules which they must follow or they will themselves be subject to prosecution or Dishonorable Discharge. Considering these facts, it is unlikely any MP (regardless of gender) would "ask to join in" instead of report them. Hence, your point (which, if I'm not mistaken) that male MPs would be more lenient towards lesbians than gays is erroneous.

I say they are men and women with their own feelings and thoughts, and won't just do what they are told.

I completely agree. In fact, Military personnel are encouraged...no, they have a duty to disobey orders that are ethically and morally wrong. However, that does not apply in this case. Try listening to people who know more about the issue than you do. Maybe you'll learn something.

But hey I guess you can't think that way.

If by that, you mean I don't jump to conclusions, read things that aren't there or state 'facts' not in evidence, then you are correct. I don't think that way and I hope I never do.

 

[Harrowborg]

Harrowborg your allowed your own opinions, personally I can't stand the thought of anal sex, and to think gay men enjoy it with each other is revolting, well anyone is revolting to me, but it's not my body, and not my bed, which is mainly why I think they should be legal. They aren't in your bedroom, they aren't trying to marry you, so why ever do you care? To put it another way, do you think the police should be able to break into your house and bedroom to make sure your not engaging in anal sex, sex with another men, sex with another woman, sex with sheep, or any other kind of sex? In a another similar thing, there are laws against anal sex, or oral sex, I live in a state where anal is illegal, more than two toys is illegal, and it's legal to beat your wife with a stick so long as it's not thicker than your thumb, and not on the state court house steps, I think there is a length restriction to.

what the smeg? all i said was i don't think gay weddings are right in my opinion, thats all. Dunno where all that rant came from homey but it seem's you've got some pent up issues in your heady. I think you either need to come out of the closet maybe or move to a different state, or heck, move over to England, everyones happy over here.
take care all, off to watch the cricket, pip pip.

 

[John Doe]

what the smeg? all i said was i don't think gay weddings aren't right in my opinion <snip>

Our mistake. We thought you thought they were wrong, but it turns out you believe they're right.

 

[Harrowborg]

oops, no, I still think they are wrong but my grammers slightly off today it seems.

 

[John Doe]

Re: Re: Question for the group

<snip> To some couples it is very important just because it's something they cant do

My thought exactly.

 

[emap]

Thanks boomer3112.

I'll try it one more time, using things you can't not know about, not sure why I bother.

Stuponfucius, yes you did rather say they are robots, yes they know all about their regulations and codes, yes they know what will happen to them if they disobey orders. They are also PEOPLE, people ignore rules, regulations and whatnot damn the consequences, look at New York, there is a police officer facing being fired and losing his benefits because he didn't arrest a homeless guy sleeping in a car parking lot. I don't know why he didn't arrest him, he knew the laws, he knew the consequences, and still he did it, do you really think being fired from the police and a discharge from the military, dishonorable or otherwise is any different, or being put in jail? Yes I know a military prison is run differently from a state prison, still prison. Either way you still can get a job, either way you still are alive. There is no real difference between the two, the only difference between being in the Army and being in the police, in the army you get shot at less often, but usually by bigger guns, that's the difference.

Army has tanks, police have tanks, kinda, both have helicopters, both have planes, police not as much, but they are there, they both have cars, different types, but hey they use them in different ways, they both have uniforms, they both have standard issue firearms, they don't have to use the given firearms, but they are issued them. Ok, that last one is mostly just air force pilots and police, I suppose the other military higher ups can use whatever gun they want to, but they also don't go into combat, they both have special forces, just different names.

I suppose now your going to go on and on about why I'm wrong and your right. Give my guy a laugh, he told me a while ago your one of those people, always right, everyone else is wrong unless they say the same thing you do, no matter how stupid, obviously wrong, or infantile.

 

[John Doe]

Thanks boomer3112.

I'll try it one more time, using things you can't not know about, not sure why I bother.

Stuponfucius, yes you did rather say they are robots, yes they know all about their regulations and codes, yes they know what will happen to them if they disobey orders.

I have never even implied they are robotic, nor have I denied it. In fact I have affirmed it by arguing that they would more likely think with thier brains than with thier crotches. And I am saying that given the choice between 10, perhaps 20 minutes of pleasure and imprisonment or other disgrace, more MPs will choose to do the right thing. That is a fact and the statistics prove it.

They are also PEOPLE, people ignore rules, regulations and whatnot damn the consequences, look at New York, there is a police officer facing being fired and losing his benefits because he didn't arrest a homeless guy sleeping in a car parking lot. I don't know why he didn't arrest him, he knew the laws, he knew the consequences, and still he did it, do you really think being fired from the police and a discharge from the military, dishonorable or otherwise is any different, or being put in jail? Yes I know a military prison is run differently from a state prison, still prison. Either way you still can get a job, either way you still are alive. There is no real difference between the two, the only difference between being in the Army and being in the police, in the army you get shot at less often, but usually by bigger guns, that's the difference.

Yes, I believe there is a difference. A Dishonorable Discharge is just that: dishonorable.

Think about it. You have argued from the beginning that it is LIKELY for a male MP to ask to female personnel if he can watch while they engage in sexual relations. I have never denied this is possible, yet you argue as though I have. I have continually stated and presented facts to argue that it is NOT likely.

Think about what I'm saying. Think about what you're saying. Do not jump to conclusions.

Army has tanks, police have tanks, kinda, both have helicopters, both have planes, police not as much, but they are there, they both have cars, different types, but hey they use them in different ways, they both have uniforms, they both have standard issue firearms, they don't have to use the given firearms, but they are issued them. Ok, that last one is mostly just air force pilots and police, I suppose the other military higher ups can use whatever gun they want to, but they also don't go into combat, they both have special forces, just different names.

That is all logistical comparison. What I am trying to discuss is doctrinal and ethical differences between Military and civilian personnel. Civilians and Military are different, not matter how you slice it. A Military man himself said it was unlikely that would occur. A woman emphasized that the statistics disprove this and if any prejudice exists it is AGAINST lesbians, not for them.

I suppose now your going to go on and on about why I'm wrong and your right. Give my guy a laugh, he told me a while ago your one of those people, always right, everyone else is wrong unless they say the same thing you do, no matter how stupid, obviously wrong, or infantile.

Search my posts. I have admitted when I am wrong. The dream discussion. The meaning of slang. History...it goes on. And that's not considering PMs.

Reread the thread. You will notice you are the only person there who believes these things.

I usually avoid such flat-out proclomations, but I urge you to research it. Ask people who have been there. Read the UCMJ. Look at the statistics. Think about what the Military mentality really is. You will find you have been wrong and we are right.

If believing that a human's intellect and sense of right and wrong can control thier sex drive makes me stupid, wrong and infantile, then I would be proud to be called a dumb, ignorant baby.

I see no point in continuing this discussion any further under the circumstances. Until you can provide hard evidence to prove your claims, there is no reason to dispute them any further. That is all.

 

[carsonshepherd]

This question bothers me intensely.

Of course gay marriage should be legal, for all the excellent reasons posted above. WHO CARES if gays get married? Who are we hurting. Nobody. Period. And straight folks can get married, but some of them don't. I know lots of straight folks who've lived with their partners for many years and never gotten married. Just because they can isn't a reason to do it. It's funny, here in the conservative south where I live, they're still called "living in sin."

To me, gay marriage is just the latest plot to throw up a red herring, to distract the american public from what's really wrong with this country. Poverty, jobs moving beyond our borders, the two wars we're fighting, etc., etc.? Who cares about them. Let's get people fighting about gay marriage!

A constitutional admendment banning gay marriage! Hey! That should distract people from what's happening in Iraq and Afghnanistan. I'm no constitutional scholar but I don't think we need an amendment taking AWAY our rights. Not when the original Bill of right PROTECTS our rights.

So focus on the real issues people. Mobilize not just pro-gay-marriage but for all our rights that our being threatened.

Thank you and goodnight.
There, I feel better after my daily tirade...