Gay marriges - debates

[xtina]

I was watching TV the other day, and I saw this channel where they were talking/debating about "legalising gay marriges" in Portugal. People would phone there and talk about what they thought and stuff.

Now why are people so "weird" about this whole gary marrige thing? It makes no sense, because it's simply the union of two normal people who love each other.

[Dako]

I've known and loved many wonderful gay friends.

As far as marriage goes...

 

Haven't they suffered enough?

[ShySoul]

A number of reasons. People often fear what they don't understand or what is different. For most people, love and marriage if between a male and a female. Afterall, thats the only way to have babies and keep the species alive, so that's suppose to be "normal" and what people do. For some its a religious matter, they feel that gay marriages is a disgrace to the institution of marriage.

 

Personally, I feel that if two people love each other, then they should be allowed to be married. Of course, I live in San Francisco, a city with a lot of gay pride and was the a major source of the gay marriage controversy a while back. But really, marriage is not about gender. It is about love, and if the two people really love each, then it should be ok.

[xtina]

yeah that's what I think. I get really frustrated when people don't let others who love to get married. They have to live in fear or by hidding their true identity to people around them. Blah people are a disgrace

[Dako]

Shysoul,

 

I agree completely.

Growing up in a gay neigborhood was an education for me!

[xtina]

Shysoul,

 

I agree completely.

Growing up in a gay neigborhood was an education for me!

 

growing up with a gay uncle also helps

[ShySoul]

Well, when you can go for a walk and see gay couples all the time, it stops being such a big deal.

 

My brother used to have a girlfriend who was the product of two gay couples who wanted to have a child. One of the women and one of the men got together to have her. She turned out to be a great person, incredibly smart. And she was loved by all her parents. So I've had exposure to gay couples, and there just the same. Was more love in those relationships then in a lot of straight marriages I know of.

[mgirl]

I don't think there is any possiblity that gay people will become the majority, seeing as though only about 10-12% people are actually gay. You can't make a heterosexual person become gay, so i have never understood why a lot of heterosexuals object to gay marriage, but anyway, that is their decision.

 

Yes, i think we have suffered enough and it's about time something went our way. I am so glad to see that a majority of heterosexual people on this site support gay issues.

 

Well done

[ShySoul]

Aw man mgirl. You're gay? Darn. And I thought I might have a chance with you. See, that's my luck. The girl is either already involved, too far away, not ready for a relationship, or gay. Geez.... I can't get a break.

 

Just playing with you. Yep, I'm all for gay rights and marriage. They are the same as anyone else when it comes down to it.

[LiquidCherry]

At the risk of being bashed I'll say what I honestly think.

 

First, I'm a Christian, not perfect but I'll never deny my faith. Second, I'm bisexual and because of my beliefs I choose not to act on this. Third, I don't believe it is my place to judge others, that is for God to do.

 

That being said, I'm against gay marriages. I think a marriage is between a man and a woman. At the same time I believe that it is unfair that married couples receive benefits while gay couples are unable to.

 

My solution? A new law. Something to the effect that if two people (straight, gay, lovers, friends, roomates, what have you) have been living together for a period of say two or three years they are able to file paperwork to allow them the same tax and insurance benefits that married couples receive.

 

Please don't hurt me.

[Imaginary]

But marriage isn't a religious matter, atheists can get matter, for crying out loud. I read somewhere that marriage probably began as a "contract" to join to families, or something like that, but I don't really remember ATM, but still, marriage isn't something religious, it's universal.

[ShySoul]

LiquidCherry - Don't worry, we won't hurt you. You are entitled to your opinion, and I think you think you did a good job expressing it. Very fair post.

 

Imaginary - Good point. Though marriage is so closely tied to religion in most people's minds that its hard to separate that idea.

[Imaginary]

Yeah, and different religions have different definitions of marriage (for example... polygamy) so the "definition" of marriage isn't something that should rely on religion... but you are right, try to explain that to every religious person.

[ShySoul]

I have. Not a pleasant thing. Tried to tell the girl what really counts is who you are with and the love you share. She insisted that the religion of the person and where you get married (church) is what matters. Sounds crazy to me, but what can you do?

[Imaginary]

Eh... blink a few times and invent an excuse to get away? Cause that's what I would have done... well, to each their own. Sounds like the kind of girl that would like one of those arranged marriages.

[ShySoul]

I should have done that. Unfortunately, we had developed a relationship of sorts and liked each other. And when you love someone, its extra ugly. Annoying part was she acted like it didn't matter for months but then changed her tune on me. Ah, better off without out. And least, thats what I keep telling myself.

[novaseeker]

The problem with the special law for tax and insurance benefits is that it doesn't go far enough ... it also relates to children, custodial rights and how that gets arranged, things like property inheritance, ability to make medical decisions on behalf of a mentally incapicated spouse and whole host of other issues that really are hard to encapsulate neatly in a new category. If the new category route is pursued, it's easier to go about it like Vermont has with its "civil unions" law, which provides that same sex couples can have recognized civil unions, and these civil unions have all the rights and benefits of marriages ... in other words, it's marriage by another name, without calling it a "marriage".

 

The issue is a basic one and I think it really impacts the ability of the gay community to integrate well into straight society. By allowing gay people to get married (or have a civil union) and raise kids in the suburbs, they become a part of mainstream "straight" culture, attending the local PTAs and swimming lessons, dropping their kids off at the school bus and all of that ... and in my opinion that is what many people in the straight world absolutely do not want: the image of little Peter with his two Dads at the school bus, or Heather's two moms attending the PTA. There are many people who want that world, that settled family world, to be off-limits to gay people (often phrased more passivley by saying things like "I don't want my children exposed to that lifestyle" or similar such statements), and to be honest I think that's what much of the antipathy towards gay marriage is about .. even from people who themselves are not particularly religious. It's about keeping gay couples out of mainstream straight society.

[xtina]

I don't think there is any possiblity that gay people will become the majority, seeing as though only about 10-12% people are actually gay. You can't make a heterosexual person become gay, so i have never understood why a lot of heterosexuals object to gay marriage, but anyway, that is their decision.

 

Yes, i think we have suffered enough and it's about time something went our way. I am so glad to see that a majority of heterosexual people on this site support gay issues.

 

Well done

 

haha I'm bi , the reason why i started this thread

[LiquidCherry]

I might be wrong but I think you can list anyone you want to be an inheratant. I also know that all you have to do is sign a piece of paper giving whoever you want the authority to make medical decisions for you if you become incappable of doing so yourself. (Problem is, most people don't do this even though it is really simple and easy. I should know the name of the form but I dont. ) I know a girl who was raised by a gay couple so even though it's not as common I know gay couples can raise children. Maybe it's not common because a smaller percentage of the population is gay?

 

The "problem" for me isn't gay couples by any means, it's the term marriage. To me marriage it is a union between a man and a women. Call it any other name and I'm set.

[ShySoul]

The "problem" for me isn't gay couples by any means, it's the term marriage. To me marriage it is a union between a man and a women. Call it any other name and I'm set.

 

What's in a name? If it is the exact same thing in every other respect, why the need to create a separate classification? To me its like we are creating terms and ways of separating ourselves off into groups, us and them, instead of concentrating on what we all have in common.

[Imaginary]

Full equality is allowing me to utilize the term marriage wether I'm married to a guy or a girl. Besides what ShySoul said, do we have to create a different little name for everything, just to make the religious groups happy? What about say, gay divorce? Just quit being so sensitive over a name.

[FoxLocke]

Imaginary I couldn't agree with you more. Athiests and agnostics marry all the time, and there is no mention of god in their religious ceremonies. However, I am gay and of Christian faith, YET, my own religion is being used to shut me out of the same benefits of traditional married couples...Ain't that a blip? Well, I don't care to go into the dynamics of why radical fundamentalist Christians are so against gay marraige(just like they were against interracial marraige in the 60's and past...simply because the bible said, "don't spread your seed(which meant don't put seeds in someone else's field not miscegenation)"). We could be here all night...

I just know that it may not be in my lifetime, but I feel that America and other conservative parts of the world will awaken their mines and stop letting a radical fringe group dictate progress.

Until then, I'll be content to find a guy that I really love and we can dote on all of our little pets(and possibly pay a surrogate to carry our children).

[ShySoul]

I believe this is why there is that whole thing about separation of church and state. When the two mix together, it just gets ugly.

 

FoxLocke, I completely agree. A lot of time politics and religion get in the way of progress and equality, and often for the silliest reasons. Wonder how long before things change.

[LiquidCherry]

Full equality is allowing me to utilize the term marriage wether I'm married to a guy or a girl. Besides what ShySoul said, do we have to create a different little name for everything, just to make the religious groups happy? What about say, gay divorce? Just quit being so sensitive over a name.

 

We do have a different little name for everything. It's called language. I believe the definition of marriage is, "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife."

 

Equality would mean to be treated equally. I'm all for that. I don't believe that that changing the definition of marriage is creating equality. If you look back to my first post on this thread you'll see my suggestion. I don't want the definition of marriage to change. Why not coin a new term for a new type of union?

 

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. As long as you have your love and your rights why get so sensitive over a name?

[ShySoul]

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. As long as you have your love and your rights why get so sensitive over a name?

 

Exactly the point we are saying. If what counts is the love and rights, why create a second name? Can't we have the same term? The ones wanting to come up with a separate classification seem to be the ones that are sensitive to precise definitions. All gay people want is to be included and not feel like they are looked at as different.

 

Schools used to be segregated under the guise of "separate but equal." Even if the schools for African Americans were indeed of equal quality (and they generally weren't), would it be fair to keep them separated from everyone else? Similarly, is it fair to make gay people have to take a different title for their union? A separate title, but equal conditions? It was overturned in schools, why not in marriage?

 

The definition may say that marriage is for a man and women, but I looked it up and found one definiton that said, "any close or intimate association or union." From that one could imply that marriage can be used to describe a union between two people, who aren't man and women. And there is also a question of who originally decided that the definition should be that of man and women.

 

Things change. What was once viewed as wrong, is accepted and not a problem. We have made strives to be more accepting and equal in terms of races, nationalities, religions. So why do things that separate gay people and make them feel less a part of things? As long as no one is being hurt, why not let them be "married?"