The gay marriage thread

[WRJames]

Well -- I don't know what else to call it. This is an offshoot of the URL=https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=529573&page=2&pp=25]Fidelity, Monogamy ... thread[/URL] which got off into a rather bitter discussion of whether or homosexuality is "natural" or a "disease". Both amicus and vermilion requested I start a new thread, and out of respect for the creator of that thread I will do so. I only hope this is not their way of avoiding my questions.

Anyway -- here is my post over there. If you think these question are too "leading" -- feel free to pose your own!

Oh my. You are mired in a classic nature vs. nurture debate. Good luck on ever resolving that one -- but I suppose that isn't really the point?

Why are you arguing over whether homosexuality is "natural?" I would assume that, on the left, the rationale would be that if it is "natural", we as human beings have a "natural" license, perhaps even an obligation, to allow its expression. And on the right, the counter arguments -- first, that it is not a "natural" activity, and second, that not all "natural" activities are socially permisible (hence to jump to pedophilia?).

Well, so what and so what?

Let me pose a different set of questions --

1. Do have, in our current society, a signficant number of individuals with a desire for same gender relationships?

2. Do you think that making such relationships more socially acceptable would increase that number? Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

3. Is there an ethical or moral rationale for encouraging or discouraging same gender relationships -- don't hide behind "natural" law -- come right out and tell me what your REAL reasons are!

4. Is there any possible social harm (or benefit) to permitting, legalizing, sanctifying, etc. same gender marriages.

Okay ladies and gentlemen -- who's got the guts to answer? I'm not going to post my own opinions right away, but you can probably guess where I stand.

 

[MagicaPractica]

1. Do have, in our current society, a signficant number of individuals with a desire for same gender relationships?

I believe we do.

2. Do you think that making such relationships more socially acceptable would increase that number? Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

It might increase the number of people who move forward with formalizing their arrangements but I don't think it would increase the number wishing for the same. I see it as a good thing.

3. Is there an ethical or moral rationale for encouraging or discouraging same gender relationships -- don't hide behind "natural" law -- come right out and tell me what your REAL reasons are!

I believe that stable relationships create more productive people and it would be less stressful for gay people (as well as safer in a couple ways) if groups that currently decry gay marriage would at least agree to live and let live.

4. Is there any possible social harm (or benefit) to permitting, legalizing, sanctifying, etc. same gender marriages.

I think my answer above covers this as well. I just think it's only fair/right/correct/safe, whatever you want to say, that we all have the same rights. The biggest danger to marriages isn't same sex marriage, it's divorce.

 

[3113]

1. Do have, in our current society, a signficant number of individuals with a desire for same gender relationships?

I believe we do.

2. Do you think that making such relationships more socially acceptable would increase that number? Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

It might increase the number of people who move forward with formalizing their arrangements but I don't think it would increase the number wishing for the same. I see it as a good thing.

3. Is there an ethical or moral rationale for encouraging or discouraging same gender relationships -- don't hide behind "natural" law -- come right out and tell me what your REAL reasons are!

I believe that stable relationships create more productive people and it would be less stressful for gay people (as well as safer in a couple ways) if groups that currently decry gay marriage would at least agree to live and let live.

4. Is there any possible social harm (or benefit) to permitting, legalizing, sanctifying, etc. same gender marriages.

I think my answer above covers this as well. I just think it's only fair/right/correct/safe, whatever you want to say, that we all have the same rights. The biggest danger to marriages isn't same sex marriage, it's divorce.

What she said! And said it very well, too. Reasons against gay marriage are nonsense, the only thing that would change would be that gay people would have the same rights as married folk in regards to each other's property, and making decisions about their sick partner or their partner's funeral arrangements for that matter.

I can't see how any of this would affect heterosexuals and their marriages, or the institution of marriage in any way, shape or form.

And really, why is anyone even reading or responding to Amicus of all people on this subject? His opinion on this is so predictable as to be tedious and generic. It's not like there's any rhyme, reason, science, logic or reality to anything he argues, nor any chance of changing his mind...so why bother? Put him on ignore and get a real discussion going.

As for "Natural law." Please! It makes more sense to argue against gay marriage because "God" says it's bad. Marriage is an artificial institution, nothing "natural" about it. We either go with one partner and say faithful to them or we don't. Marriage is simply society's ways of deciding what that partnership entails legally.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Any two adult individuals should be allowed to form a permanent partnership. To deny anyone that possibility is barbaric.

Our society has named that form of partnership; "Marriage" we call it. Therefore, I say that "Marriage" rights should encompass all such contracts.

There is no moral or ethical reason to discourage same sex relationships. There are several of political and financial reasons-- mainly being that stirring up valueless hatreds distracts people from more important issues, and nicely lines the pockets of donation-hungry preachers.

Why, as 3113 pointed out, waste your time with Ami's posts? He even embarrasses other Randists!

 

[Recidiva]

I did post my answer on the other thread, but I'm subscribing here.

I'd love to see things be a great deal less structured and include limited-time contracts and polygamy.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I did post my answer on the other thread, but I'm subscribing here.

I'd love to see things be a great deal less structured and include limited-time contracts and polygamy.

Ditto me-- but i didn't want to confuse the original issue...

 

[Recidiva]

Ditto me-- but i didn't want to confuse the original issue...

I think "forever and always" isn't really diminished by taking one step at a time. And sticking to a contract long enough to complete a certain goal (raise children, pay off a shared debt or reach a common goal) provides stability with penalty only if the contract is broken, then free to go when its' fulfilled.

 

[Vermilion]

What happens between two people, provided it doesn;t hurt other people, is their own business. If they choose to formalise that so that they have legal and social responsibilities for each other's life, health and financial wellbeing then why should they be denied? Why should it be anybody's business but theirs.

The only reason I suggested this thread be started was because it is a topic enitrely unto itself and mixing it up with a thread on fidelity would only confuse both issues.

x
V

 

[WRJames]

What happens between two people, provided it doesn;t hurt other people, is their own business. If they choose to formalise that so that they have legal and social responsibilities for each other's life, health and financial wellbeing then why should they be denied? Why should it be anybody's business but theirs.

The only reason I suggested this thread be started was because it is a topic enitrely unto itself and mixing it up with a thread on fidelity would only confuse both issues.

x
V

Okay -- thanks for posting. Let's see if we hear from BlackShanglan or amicus.

 

[Guest]

What she said! And said it very well, too. Reasons against gay marriage are nonsense, the only thing that would change would be that gay people would have the same rights as married folk in regards to each other's property, and making decisions about their sick partner or their partner's funeral arrangements for that matter.

I can't see how any of this would affect heterosexuals and their marriages, or the institution of marriage in any way, shape or form.

And really, why is anyone even reading or responding to Amicus of all people on this subject? His opinion on this is so predictable as to be tedious and generic. It's not like there's any rhyme, reason, science, logic or reality to anything he argues, nor any chance of changing his mind...so why bother? Put him on ignore and get a real discussion going.

As for "Natural law." Please! It makes more sense to argue against gay marriage because "God" says it's bad. Marriage is an artificial institution, nothing "natural" about it. We either go with one partner and say faithful to them or we don't. Marriage is simply society's ways of deciding what that partnership entails legally.

amen to all of it and what magica said

 

[cloudy]

amen to all of it and what magica said

Indeed.

You can tell the OP is relatively new posting here because he actually bothers to reply to amicus' posts.

 

[flavortang]

Hasn't anyone seen those bumper stickers with the little bathroom mascots of a man plus a woman equals marriage. And is concluded with the text "Marriage is for man and woman only!"

Need I say more? I mean, when are bumper stickers ever wrong?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Hasn't anyone seen those bumper stickers with the little bathroom mascots of a man plus a woman equals marriage. And is concluded with the text "Marriage is for man and woman only!"

Need I say more? I mean, when are bumper stickers ever wrong?

damn, there's an unanswerable argument if I ever saw one!

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

1. Do have, in our current society, a signficant number of individuals with a desire for same gender relationships?

I believe we do.

2. Do you think that making such relationships more socially acceptable would increase that number? Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

It might increase the number of people who move forward with formalizing their arrangements but I don't think it would increase the number wishing for the same. I see it as a good thing.

3. Is there an ethical or moral rationale for encouraging or discouraging same gender relationships -- don't hide behind "natural" law -- come right out and tell me what your REAL reasons are!

I believe that stable relationships create more productive people and it would be less stressful for gay people (as well as safer in a couple ways) if groups that currently decry gay marriage would at least agree to live and let live.

4. Is there any possible social harm (or benefit) to permitting, legalizing, sanctifying, etc. same gender marriages.

I think my answer above covers this as well. I just think it's only fair/right/correct/safe, whatever you want to say, that we all have the same rights. The biggest danger to marriages isn't same sex marriage, it's divorce.

Yeah.

 

[Recidiva]

damn, there's an unanswerable argument if I ever saw one!

It could only be rebutted on another bumper sticker *nods*

 

[WRJames]

Indeed.

You can tell the OP is relatively new posting here because he actually bothers to reply to amicus' posts.

Hey -- go back to the Fidelity, mongamy thread. I was not part of the pissing contest. The folks who were so worked up over there have not bothered to post here.

 

[cloudy]

Hey -- go back to the Fidelity, mongamy thread. I was not part of the pissing contest. The folks who were so worked up over there have not bothered to post here.

Didn't say you were. But very few here bother to even reply to anything he says anymore.

He despises women, except for loving the idea of keeping them barefoot and pregnant, and had the absolute balls to tell me that it had been proven that my people weren't as intelligent as whites, and were all cannibals. I may be many things, and called many things, but as most here can attest, "stupid" isn't one of them.

No one takes him seriously.

 

[amicus]

In the Yahoo news headlines the past few days, "Los Angeles Diocese will pay $36.6 million dollars in Priest sexual abuse case..." (paraphrase)

Should gay catholic priests be allowed to marry or just continue abusing little boys without a contract?

Since I will no doubt be the only one in opposition to Gay Marriage and since I know you only want someone to abuse for having a different opinion, (what ever happened to diversity?) I may as well get the big sticks out early on.

Amicus...

 

[S-Des]

In the Yahoo news headlines the past few days, "Los Angeles Diocese will pay $36.6 million dollars in Priest sexual abuse case..." (paraphrase)

Should gay catholic priests be allowed to marry or just continue abusing little boys without a contract?

Since I will no doubt be the only one in opposition to Gay Marriage and since I know you only want someone to abuse for having a different opinion, (what ever happened to diversity?) I may as well get the big sticks out early on.

Amicus...

I'm not in favor, nor opposed to gay marriage. It has no effect on me (since I don't plan on marrying a guy), so whatever. The only thing I'd insist on is equal rights for gay people who wish to stay together. They should be entitled to the same rights as everyone else, no matter what it's called.

As to the above comment, I have no idea what you're talking about. Pedophillia has nothing to do with sexual orientation. If the priests who abused children are gay, getting married wouldn't stop them from being attracted to little boys (the same goes for the ones who've abused young girls). Married people abuse children all the time. Unless you find yourself attracted to pre-teens, you should know that one has nothing to do with the other.

 

[amicus]

S-Des the middle of the road...produces 'road kill'; a joke I heard recently.

Although you not expressing a preference, it is nonetheless an issue with State after State banning gay marriages in elections and Federal Legislation pending to make it illegal.

There must be another side to the issue than just the 'gay' side?

amicus

 

[amicus]

Didn't say you were. But very few here bother to even reply to anything he says anymore.

He despises women, except for loving the idea of keeping them barefoot and pregnant, and had the absolute balls to tell me that it had been proven that my people weren't as intelligent as whites, and were all cannibals. I may be many things, and called many things, but as most here can attest, "stupid" isn't one of them.

No one takes him seriously.

~~~

Ah, Cloudy, you exaggerate greatly and you know it.

I absolutely adore women, just not the ones who pretend to be masculine; I worship femininity, the actual definition of the word.

I think you yourself found my comments of Central and South American tribes practicing cannibalism, somewhat humorous as I think you adopted, "Retard Cannibal" in your Signature line some time ago.

And I do think my IQ level association was a legitimate measurement of African American, not Native Americans, as I have no knowledge of that.

And according to my most recent thread, a few still read and comment regardless of your opinion.

Well, at least you spelled your name correctly.

amicus...

 

[3113]

Hey -- go back to the Fidelity, mongamy thread. I was not part of the pissing contest. The folks who were so worked up over there have not bothered to post here.

Well, that Amicus' modus operandi, at least. He swoops in, says something obnoxious, gets someone riled up (anyone foolish enough to not have him on ignore--Pure, I think, is the only one who gets a charge out of using Ami's arguments as springboards), and then when, suddenly, rational people start to tear his argument apart, he runs away. Kinda like the Monty Python Holy Grail knights mocking the rabbit until it bares its nasty teeth and kills one of them...and then they scream like little girls and run away

But allow me to take what I *assume* are the counter arguments (given your questions) and present a counter scenario. Counter arguments would seem to be: (1) There's not enough gays to bother making gay marriage legal, (2) gay marriage is not "natural" and would encourage folk to act unnatrually, and (3) this would hurt society.

Okay. So, let's follow that logic.

Small Percentage: There are men who marry women who are *significantly* younger than they are. Like 30 years their junior or more. The percentage of these marriages as compared to marriages between those closer in age, say a 25 years age difference or less, is pretty small (18% of women marry a partner who is six or more years older. So likely the percentage that marry one who is as much as 30 years older is very small indeed. SMALLER than the percentage of gay folk who want to marry).

So. Reason #1: the percentage of gays is small, so if the majority doesn't want them to marry, they shouldn't be allowed to marry. Okay, by that reasoning, if we get a majority to say that old men should not be allowed to marry women who are 25 or more years younger than them, then such marriages could be made illegal--because the majority rules, right?

Unnatural: In nature, old males NEVER get to have sex or partnerships with young females. In nature, only young males get to have such sex. Old males get outsed and have no sex at all with young females--if they're allowed to live, that is.

So, Reason #2: It's unnatural.

It's bad for society: Well, we can see from the Anna Nichole Smith example that a young woman marrying a much older man usually results in terrible lawsuits with his kids and problems over inheritance after his death. So an extreme May-December marriages are not good for society.

So, Reason #3: It's not good for society.

Conclusion: the reasons given for not allowing gay marriage say that we should also forbid May-December marriages between old men and young women. There should be a law making it illegal for men to marry any woman 25 years of younger than they are.

Now I'll bet that if someone DID try to pass such a law Amicus would be the first to say, in outrage, "If the young lady is an adult, and I'm an adult, it's no one business what we decide to do. We can marry if we like! It's just like these do-gooder liberals to try to interfere with my life!" And he would be right. Also, hypocritical, because he would not say the same thing about gay marriages. The partners in a gay relationship are adults, and what they decide--even if it's UNNATURAL and against nature's law (which is hardly going to be proven beyond a doubt by anyone) is no one else's business. I mean, there are folk who get sexual pleasure from women's shoes--that's hardly natural as, in nature, no other animal wears shoes or has sex with them...but we're not going to outlaw that on that basis, are we?

Of course, what it really comes down to is what Amicus and others like him are really saying--hidden behind these bogus arguments that they hold up like fig-leaves believing it hides their nakedness--is that they don't like gays. Gay sex disturbs and bothers them and they don't want gays to think they can get married because then gays might kiss more in public and we can't have that, right?

Alas for all of them, what sane, consenting, adults do behind closed doors that disturbs them should not--if we argue it rationally and reasonably and in reality (not fantasy) be unlawful nor should their legal arrangements (which, once again, is all marriage is, a legal arrangement)--any more than those of us disturbed by Ami having a relationship with a girl 30 years younger than him should allow us to outlaw that relationship...unless, of course, the girl isn't legal. But that's a whole other argument.

 

[amicus]

Since I invited the threadstarter WRJames to start his own thread on the subject, I feel somewhat obligated to respond.

"...Let me pose a different set of questions --

1. Do have, in our current society, a signficant number of individuals with a desire for same gender relationships?

2. Do you think that making such relationships more socially acceptable would increase that number? Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

3. Is there an ethical or moral rationale for encouraging or discouraging same gender relationships -- don't hide behind "natural" law -- come right out and tell me what your REAL reasons are!

4. Is there any possible social harm (or benefit) to permitting, legalizing, sanctifying, etc. same gender marriages.

Okay ladies and gentlemen -- who's got the guts to answer? I'm not going to post my own opinions right away, but you can probably guess where I stand...."

~~~

1. Yes, there seems to be significant numbers that desire same gender relationships. However the reasons 'why' that is so is worthy of discussion and is also controversial.

2. Yes, making those relationships more 'socially acceptable' would most likely increase the number and it would be a 'bad' thing. The reasons why are also worthy of discussion and controversial.

3. Yes there is both a moral and an ethical rationale for discouraging such same gender formalities. (Not relationships, that is up to the individual, you muddy the waters here.)

4. Yes there is social harm in formalizing gay marriages and promoting homosexual behavior.

What is this, 'don't hide behind natural law...thing?', you set the limits of response to suit your preconceived outcome?

Sodomy is defined as "un natural, anal copulation with a human or an animal, bestiality..."

Defined as unnatural, it became a matter of law in most places. Regardless of the source of that law, religious influence or not, sodomy is illegal or was, just about everywhere.

Thus law, social convention, tradition and a host of societal norms are violated when homosexual activity is tolerated.

Urinating or expectorating in public is illegal just about everywhere but France and they ain't go no class anyway.

In other words there is public expectation concerning public personal displays of affection, again except in France. Some people have a physical revulsion upon witnessing two men or two women being intimate in public, like it or not, justified in your eyes or not, that be a fact, Jack.

I personally and I think most, in general, don't give a damn what two people or even more, do in private behind closed doors.

But then when that behavior is performed on a public stage, as you can see, the population in general becomes rather upset.

The final issue I will address at this time is formal marriage.

Marriage is defined by law as between a man and a woman. It is contained in the law, in the contractual and enforceable edict of the courts. To change that, one would have to change the legislation first and then the law. That may happen, but thus far has been rejected almost out of hand except for aberrations such as Massachusetts and San Francisco.

Those are just some of the valid arguments against homosexuality and gay marriage, there are many more.

You might address those issues as I addressed your questions?

amicus...

 

[amicus]

Chuckles....3113, how the hell did my sex life become part of your rant?

Besides, can I help it if all these young gorgeous women keep throwing themselves at my feet? What's a guy sposed ta do?

ami

 

[Stella_Omega]

Gay sex disturbs and bothers them and they don't want gays to think they can get married because then gays might kiss more in public and we can't have that, right?

What I've gleaned from a few discussions-- the kind that happen after enough beers to fuzz the edges-- is that what Really squicks some straight males about gay marriage isn't the sex as much as the domesticity. The idea of two guys getting up and sharing the bathroom and eating breakfast together and kissing each other goodbye on their way out the door to their respective jobs.

One guy told me "I just can't stop wondering who is the wife and who is the husband." When I told him that both men considered themselves "husband" he was baffled. But, he admitted, a little relieved. Which kind of gave me a clue as how he saw women and their place in the world... *shrug*