Gay Marriage page 111

3390 posts

Flag Post

I strongly support Gay and Lesbian marriage being that I am pansexual myself. (Meaning that I am blind to a person’s gender and who their identity is, who they look like on the outside, and I go for what I see on the inside of people and who they are.) I do not see marriage as a religious ceremony, in fact, anything but.

I don’t believe relationships and love should be dictated by a person’s religious beliefs, but instead on what they believe inside. This is part of the reason people have such a hard time accepting things, they force themselves to believe what their religion believes, completely shutting their mind off to what they believe and who they are. They don’t understand that though you may belong to one faith, that you don’t have to agree with all the practices and beliefs of that faith, but instead be true to yourself, no matter your religion.

If it is as you say, that homosexuality is “unnatural”, then tell me, is heterosexuality natural? You’re going to answer yes to it. It’s not about the title homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual, but it’s about love. Something that most would say is in your nature and one of the most powerful things on Earth. I am arguing on the behalf of all people who believe as I do, and say that it’s not about the titles, it’s about who they love. If you were to have a girlfriend or boyfriend, and somebody were to attack you because of your romantic interest, you wouldn’t pay any mind to it because you love your significant other. The human race is of NO risk of dying out, and won’t be for millions of years.

Polygamy is different in every way possible, being that they are openly cheating on the one they supposedly “love.” I can guarantee you a polygamist will not view it as such a bad thing, but they do not truly love their husband or wife if they choose they don’t want to spend their life with them and them only.

You cannot point to a book written by a group of men saying: “This is God.”. That is generalization in it’s own and to classify god as one thing is blasphemy by your own rules.

My point being is this: No matter what somebody does it’s always going to be wrong in the eyes of another. Where DO we draw the line? Sure, if what you say is true, BILLIONS of people will be offended, but it’s not their decision to make, nor is it the churches. Gay marriage is not going to hurt anybody, in fact, the ONLY thing that will happen if gays do get married is that they’re openly showing their love and respect for eachother. There’s not going to be a world war, there’s not going to be a natural catastrophe nor is the human race going to go extinct.

They will be proud of who they are.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Avellah:

I am pansexual myself. (Meaning that I am blind to a person’s gender and who their identity is, who they look like on the outside, and I go for what I see on the inside of people and who they are.) I do not see marriage as a religious ceremony, in fact, anything but.

Preposterous.

Unless you’re some sort of extraterrestrial, you’re as much pansexual as I am racially color-blind, or a citizen of planet earth, or any of the other pretty-sounding, but ultimately meaningless, drek perpetuated by the cult of political correctness. If you’re human, you discriminate. To what degree you discriminate is what distinguishes the average joe from the average bigot, but slapping on an ideology that claims to only see what people are on the figurative ‘inside’ is an unforgiveable escape from reality.

 
Flag Post

Avellah, don’t you see the contradiction in expressing that anything is ok, so long as it is what they believe on the inside, yet simultaneously suggesting that polygamy is objectively wrong, or immoral?

What if, “what they believe inside” is that they love two people. Even if you believe that’s impossible, (which I believe you do and don’t hardly blame you for it), but isn’t it “not [your] decision to make”? May you be “shutting [your] mind off”?

I mean, I’m not disagreeing that polygamy is very different from homosexual marriage, you are quite right that it is different (although “in every way possible” is impossible to quantify).

But, “where DO we draw the line?” What if they are “proud of who they are”? I mean, you could say pretty much exactly what you said in suggesting that people have the right to have polygamous relationships.

To say it in other words: you are telling a group that they are wrong, because you know better. “They do not truly love their husband or wife if they choose they don’t want to spend their life with them and them only.” Don’t you think that the people you are arguing against are saying the same thing? “They do not truly love their husband or wife if they are the same sex.”

If people can’t make that call, what gives you the right to make yours?

Someone’s culture, the way they were raised, taught them that homosexuality was wrong. You are saying that that doesn’t it make it right, and I agree.

But didn’t your culture, the way you were raised, teach you that polygamy is wrong (or, more specifically, that it is impossible for a man or a woman to truly love more than one individual, even to the point of “being with” both of them)? Why does that make you right?

[EDIT: Just to avoid any accidental misunderstandings (or deliberate ones), this isn’t, of course, an argument in support for the legalization of polygamy, and neither is it an argument against the legalization of gay marriage. It is simply an effort to test the logical construction of a particular post]

 
Flag Post

@ Jantonaitis, it is quite possible for some one not to care about the physical appearance of a human, and Avellah seems to be describing that they just don’t give a damn about most of these things than not noticing them. A lot of people will notice the racial status of another human, but they might just plainly not care. I believe Avellah’s description of pansexuality is still amiss, however. He describes gender blindness, which is something seperate from pansexuality and which I described just a moment ago, as I see it. Definitions aren’t really important, though.

Oh, and just gonna throw out that I pretty much back what Finnis21 said, word by word, even if he isn’t on some campaign for polyamorous relationships or anything, he makes a good point.

 
Flag Post

I fully agree with Finnis21 as well, and I also wanted to mention:

Originally posted by Avellah:

[…] they do not truly love their husband or wife if […]

This sounds like a textbook case of the “No true Scotsman” fallacy.

 
Flag Post

Hmm, after reading some of the other responses I think ill put my two cents in on the matter. I for one am not against gay marriage, but I am also not saying yea yea it’s all oki doki smiles all round. I dont see any problem with two males or females being in a relationship together. To be honest who am I to judge how people live their lives or who with?… However, my only concern is if they settle down and have children. Now i’m not saying they can’t or anything, i’m sure they make great parents. But, if two males are going to raise a child then the kid is going to be lacking something, a mothers “touch”. (Not literally just a touch of course) And as for two females having a child I have the same concern but other way around. Not having a male around can be really hard especially for an adolescence/young boy while growing up. They would be lacking a father figure, some one to teach them little things here and there, to hand out “male advice” e.t.c. (I’m not saying that “gay couples” cannot raise their children, it’s just that there kids would not experience the feeling of knowing what it’s like to have both a mother and a father). Well, after re-reading that I have one more concern, that is when the child goes to school. He/she “can” (does not mean they will) get bullied for having gay parents. Children can be really harsh and are generally not very good at understanding things.
Just to sum it up really quick, I do say gay marriage is okay. And if they decide to have children that they raise them to the best of their ability.

Just my opinion.

Also just quickly, how do you think the kids feel about having two parents of the same sex? Picture your parents as both males and then as both females. I’d like to hear what people have to think about that, thanks.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by NickP16AUS:
But, if two males are going to raise a child then the kid is going to be lacking something, a mothers “touch”. (Not literally just a touch of course) And as for two females having a child I have the same concern but other way around.

Yeah, no. There really isn’t much cause for concern, because fathers can very easily adopt the role of the mother, and more-so if one or both people in the couple are a little more feminine.

Not having a male around can be really hard especially for an adolescence/young boy while growing up.

If it’s really that much of a big deal (which it isn’t) it wouldn’t be that strange to have a godparent.

They would be lacking a father figure, some one to teach them little things here and there, to hand out “male advice” e.t.c.

One of the two could always adopt the role of the father-figure.

(I’m not saying that “gay couples” cannot raise their children, it’s just that there kids would not experience the feeling of knowing what it’s like to have both a mother and a father).

Well that’s pretty obvious, but do they really need a strictly biological mother and father to grow up well?

Well, after re-reading that I have one more concern, that is when the child goes to school. He/she “can” (does not mean they will) get bullied for having gay parents. Children can be really harsh and are generally not very good at understanding things.

Which means that the school and the parent’s are going to have to teach a lesson in not shunning the different person.

Well, assuming the kids are old enough to figure out how to be prejudice.

Also just quickly, how do you think the kids feel about having two parents of the same sex? Picture your parents as both males and then as both females. I’d like to hear what people have to think about that, thanks.

The only problem with that is that to the people who actually have same-sex parents it’s going to seem perfectly normal because it’s the only way they personally know, and asking anyone else it will seem abnormal, because it’s not like what they personally know.

In other words, psychology doesn’t work that way.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by NickP16AUS:

But, if two males are going to raise a child then the kid is going to be lacking something, a mothers “touch”. (Not literally just a touch of course) And as for two females having a child I have the same concern but other way around.

And for single parents, who are absolutely accepted in today’s society and don’t have to face any legal discrimination?

Not having a male around can be really hard especially for an adolescence/young boy while growing up. They would be lacking a father figure, some one to teach them little things here and there, to hand out “male advice” e.t.c.

My father was rarely at home, so my mother was my primary role model. And look what a psychologically crippled, social misfit I have become. When you think about it, most kids grow up with a pretty significant lack of daddy in their life since daddy usually works to get in some money. When you think about it even more, more and more kids grow up with a significant lack of mommy and daddy in their life, since both of them tend to follow a career nowadays.
Also, what the hell is male advice? I’m not aware of male secrets that are absolutely unknowable for females.
And since this is basically about a male/female role model: that does not have to be the father/mother. Children can develop a healthy male or female identity without having a male or female parent (see single parents). Society provides plenty identification objects, for example teachers.

Well, after re-reading that I have one more concern, that is when the child goes to school. He/she “can” (does not mean they will) get bullied for having gay parents. Children can be really harsh and are generally not very good at understanding things.

That argument has been brought up many times and it is still pretty weak. Unless you are suggesting that stereotypes should be upheld and bullies should be respected.
My understanding is that if something deserves to be respected society should strive to get rid of stereotypes about it and promote acceptance. After all, kids only bully kids that they perceive as different because someone taught them in some way that they should be disrespected: peers, family, etc.

Also just quickly, how do you think the kids feel about having two parents of the same sex? Picture your parents as both males and then as both females. I’d like to hear what people have to think about that, thanks.

I’d imagine they would see them as their parents. Kinda obvious, isn’t it?
Things could only become different when they are subjected to stuff like bullying. Precisely why we should aim for promoting acceptance for same sex marriages.



Btw. just to make sure that this gets addressed: all you have brought up here is children in same sex relationships. That does not necessarily have anything to do with marriage, since marriage is not a requirement for having children.

 
Flag Post

@tenco1, I was going off fathers that I know and none of them could fill a role of a mother, but now that i think about it Im sure there are many gay fathers out there that can take the role of a mother. On that last response I actually didn’t think like that at all. I guess if both your parents are the same sex then you wouldn’t know any different. Unlike myself who has both mother and father, I guess that’s why most people are uncertain about gay marriage because they are so use to the stereotypical mother and father.

@EPR89, hmm, you’re right most parents are off at work. As for the bullying i’m sure it has been brought up many times before, if it can be nipped in the butt just as it starts then all should be ok. Yes I realise that marriage doesn’t mean you have to have kids.

@Both of you, you have both convinced me personally that there is nothing to be worried or concerned about with gay marriage. Thank you for taking your time out of the day to reassure me :)

 
Flag Post

Using NickP16AUS’s argument, single women with children and single men with children shouldn’t have children because they’re lacking a “father’s/mother’s touch”.

 
Flag Post

Holy wow. I’d just like to point out someone acknowledging they considered new view points and data, and that they have come upon a new outlook due to discussion. That deserves some credit. Good on ya.

 
Flag Post

It is not a very useful system.

It should be replaced with a system that focuses on raising children (receive lower taxes and such)

Although I love being gay :)

 
Flag Post

A lot of people who read the bible say that it forbids gay marriage. Well, if you read the bible and you believe it says that, you should read the Constitution because that says there is a separation between religion and law. (And for those of you who are stuck, the Bible has to deal with religion.) I hate the word “Homophobia”. It isnt a fear and you are not scared. Your only a ignorant being. There is separation between religion and state in the constitution, so dont bring up the bible when protesting that there should not be a law allowing gay marriage. Read the Constitution. “Every man is created equal”

 
Flag Post
Read the Constitution. “Every man is created equal”

I hesitate to feed the troll, but that’s the Declaration of Independence – the Constitution originally counted a slave as 3/5 a person.

 
Flag Post

Well, both rational thought and science support homosexuality. More than 1,500 species of animal are known to have prevalent homosexual tendencies. The only actual support against homosexuality comes from non-secular sources. Therefore, anti-homosexual platforms aren’t credible and should be banished from American government and politics by right of the first amendment. It is this simple.

 
Flag Post

I knew this kid who had two dads, and he became Goth. I don’t think it was due to them being gay, but due to the fact one of his dad would wear a pink skirt in public.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by DemonOfMist:

I knew this kid who had two dads, and he became Goth. I don’t think it was due to them being gay, but due to the fact one of his dad would wear a pink skirt in public.

I knew this one guy who cut himself and only wore black clothes.
His dad was a successful businessman and his mother a professional musician.

I also know this one kid who has numerous piercings, a huge tribal-style tattoo that he designed himself, which covers his back, arms and goes up to his neck, he has extremely long hair, he is the shouter of a death metal band, be quit studying after two semesters when he realised electrical engineering wasn’t the right thing for him, seven years ago he married a model (for Gothic labels), he built up his own small business and they are now planning to buy their own house, he occasionally helps in a home for the elderly he used to work for before he started his business (they love the tattoo) and recently he and his wife became the parents of a cute little girl.
Oh, and his father is a middle class man and his mother is a house wife.





Your move.

 
Flag Post

Ah, generalizations, the bane of common discourse. We must constantly generalize, so that we can simplify a discussion to a comprehensible mode of communication. If we over-complicate—add in too many variables or ideas—a discussion, the thoughts become murky, and muddled. Even if there are innumerable other factors that may comply with the discussion at hand, we tend to discard those variables for a common generalized discussion so we do not confuse the readers of the discussion.

I’m a little tired of the over-generalized viewpoint that people constantly just keep,and stay content with—without growing or progressing past that one simple viewpoint. Being this is serious discussion, we should try to progress ideas: not stagnate on one simple generalization, and stay content with that viewpoint. Challenge yourselves, a little—grow more, become smarter, understand better.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Draconavin:

I’m a little tired of the over-generalized viewpoint that people constantly just keep,and stay content with—without growing or progressing past that one simple viewpoint.

I would suggest that for a majority of minds, they are happy with this simple view, because it supports their preconceptions. They hesitate to look deeper, precisely because those preconceptions may come into contestation.

It is unfortunately, a relatively rare mind that is willing to look critically at its own preconceptions and judge each on its ability to bear a load.

 
Flag Post

I suppose it depends on the width of your mind on where you stand.

 
Flag Post

I would like to note I have not read any previous comments in this topic for quite a while (more than a few months)

Let’s begin with my points.

Marriage and Procreation

What makes marriage what it is? What makes marriage special so that it should only be obtained by man and woman together? I can answer that with one word. Procreation. Normally the argument in support of gay marriage goes along the lines of, “Oh well they really love each other so they should get married!” If marriage was about the emotional connection then why wouldn’t the two people simply stay as girlfriend and boyfriend? There is no point in recognizing a relationship that is only out of love. Obviously, only man and woman can procreate. Without procreation a society could not continue to live or thrive. The reason the man and woman get the marriage benefits is because they are doing society a “favor” per say by procreating and allowing the society to live. This is something homosexuals simply cannot do. Procreation is at the base of marriage; it is the main reason marriage exists. This fits the traditional view of marriage, which is between man and woman. Gay marriage gives absolutely no value to society at all as a whole.

Government has a role in marriage, however that role should be limited

There is a limited role that the government can, and cannot do with marriage. Hopefully the government would never go as far as to legalize marriages based around pedophilia, bestiality, having multiple spouses, ect. In order to preserve the sanctity and meaning of marriage, the government must draw the line somewhere on who gets married. It logical to see that that line should be drawn at marriage between a man and a woman. Reasoning behind this can be seen in my procreation argument. Marriages between man and woman benefit society while not complicating society like having multiple spouses could do.

You will likely respond to my procreation argument with the adoption argument and the No Difference theory which I will respond to now.

Parenting among homosexuals

Obviously one of the most important things in society is the children and how they are raised. Children need to be raised well in order to keep the society moving forward without problems. Homosexuals cannot achieve the expectations set in raising children well, or even better than heterosexual parents and I will now explain why.
A study taken in July of 2012 proved that homosexual parents fail in all categories in being better than their heterosexual counterparts at parenting.
“Homosexually-behaving adults inherently suffer significantly and substantially higher rates of partner relationship breakups, psychological disorder, suicidal ideation, suicidal attempt, completed suicide, conduct disorder, and substance abuse; therefore, as a group, households with a resident homosexually-behaving adult are substantially less capable of providing the best psychologically stable and secure home environments needed by foster children.”(1)
A study taken from the Journal of Human sexuality (2) concludes the following:
1. The presence of a father reduces the chances that the child will participate in criminal activities and reduces the chances the child will take drugs.
2. Lesbian mothers make children more sexually active. Fathers help the child stay chaste.
3. “Boys need fathers to help form sexual identities, and need mothers in order to interact with the opposite sex.”
4. People have the best sex lives when raised by heterosexual parents.
5. Fathers help children with interaction among other people.
6. When going through puberty, the father teaches the son “how to be assertive and how to be a “man”.”

(1) http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ResearchReviewHomosexualParenting.pdf
(2) Journal of Human Sexuality by George Alan Rekers

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MaTTyTL:

Marriage and Procreation

What makes marriage what it is? What makes marriage special so that it should only be obtained by man and woman together? I can answer that with one word. Procreation.
[…]
Procreation is at the base of marriage

Wrong.
Procreation is not required for marriage. This makes your point invalid.

Government has a role in marriage, however that role should be limited

There is a limited role that the government can, and cannot do with marriage. Hopefully the government would never go as far as to legalize marriages based around pedophilia, bestiality, having multiple spouses, ect. In order to preserve the sanctity and meaning of marriage, the government must draw the line somewhere on who gets married.

You are confusing religious and legal marriage.
Religious marriage can have something like sanctity. Of course that sanctity differs from religion to religion. Which one to pick…
Legal marriage has not.

As it stands, legal marriage is a legal bond between two persons who are of age and willing to enter that bond with the other person. Because of that I see absolutely no problem with stuff like multiple spouses.
If you limit what people can legally do, you need to be able to support that with an argument. I don’t see that happening in the gay marriage debate.

Parenting among homosexuals

A study taken in July of 2012 proved that homosexual parents fail in all categories in being better than their heterosexual counterparts at parenting.

That study was conducted by George Alan Rekers, a Baptist minister and someone involved in that whole “curing homosexuality” thing by using aversive therapy, when he has no evidence to prove that homosexuality is a psychological disorder that can be treated that way… Just throwing that out there.
Doesn’t seem exactly like an unbiased basis. I’ll look into that study when I have more time, but stuff like this:

2. Lesbian mothers make children more sexually active. Fathers help the child stay chaste.


or this:

6. When going through puberty, the father teaches the son “how to be assertive and how to be a “man”.”


sounds about as unscientific as you can get.

By the way, does this mean that single parents should also not be allowed to raise kids?
In case of a divorce, should boys always be given to the father, girls to the mother?
What are the statistics on them?

EDIT: I just had a look at that website you got that study from.
Very interesting… Very interesting indeed… I wonder if they make a lot of money with that bullshit and important their role as lobbyists in the education sector is. I hope not all that big.
But then again, I’m not American, so what do I care, right?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MaTTyTL:

I would like to note I have not read any previous comments in this topic for quite a while (more than a few months)

Let’s begin with my points.

It is a damn good thing I’m wearing my INDUSTRIAL Depends….
I think I BOTH shit & pissed myself laughing at THAT load of hateful, religious-based, ultra-conservative horseshit.

 
Flag Post

@EPR89 …I really need to figure out this whole quote thing. facepalm

“Wrong.
Procreation is not required for marriage. This makes your point invalid.”

Wrong. Marriage is about procreation in type, not effect. As long as there is a possibility that the two can procreate or even raise children properly for society (this goes for infertile couples) then my point is still valid. At the heart of marriage is is procreation. I’m not saying ALL of marriage is about it. Think of more as a “main-objective” per say.

“You are confusing religious and legal marriage.
Religious marriage can have something like sanctity. Of course that sanctity differs from religion to religion. Which one to pick…
Legal marriage has not.

As it stands, legal marriage is a legal bond between two persons who are of age and willing to enter that bond with the other person. Because of that I see absolutely no problem with stuff like multiple spouses.
If you limit what people can legally do, you need to be able to support that with an argument. I don’t see that happening in the gay marriage debate."

Well I just so apologize for my incorrect word-usage. My point is is that marriage is a special thing, I don’t want it muddied up by something that doesn’t belong there. “legal marriage is a legal bond between two persons who are of age and willing to enter that bond with the other person.” …under the assumption that these people can help society by allowing it to continue to survive, i.e procreation/raising of children properly. That’s how it had been for a long time, that’s how it has worked out best for a long time, and that’s how it should be for a long time.

“That study was conducted by George Alan Rekers, a Baptist minister and someone involved in that whole “curing homosexuality” thing by using aversive therapy, when he has no evidence to prove that homosexuality is a psychological disorder that can be treated that way… Just throwing that out there.”

Point taken, and the point is fair. That still does not mean his study is fallacious.

“By the way, does this mean that single parents should also not be allowed to raise kids?
In case of a divorce, should boys always be given to the father, girls to the mother?
What are the statistics on them?”

I wouldn’t see why single parents should raise their OWN kids. I mean, divorce happens and it can be psychologically affecting to a child, but the chances of all this happening are far lower than gay parents themselves. We already know that homosexual parents cannot raise children as well as heterosexual couples. In addition, being a single mother is something that will only happen sometimes that can affect a child. Raising a child in a homosexual environment will affect them most of the time.

They aren’t raised in a homosexual environment. This could actually be enough of a difference to cause the above mentioned things. Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if a few of those things did happen to the children of single parents, but i do not see the relevancy to this discussion.

@KKK

Thank you for your pointless, baseless, heavily opinionated, thought to add to this debate. I found it foul, un-called for, and unintelligent. If your going to contribute to the debate don’t just go throwing pointless insults at people. I shouldn’t have to tell you to grow-up and be mature during this discussion.

Also:

1. It wasn’t hateful, and
2. It had nothing to do with religion

I want you all to remember that we are both Americans trying to work for the better of our lives and the lives of the people in the future. We aren’t enemies. The way we go about trying to make America is simply different.

 
Flag Post
At the heart of marriage is is procreation.

Says you…and I am asumming you mean traditionally. I’m pretty confident that if you look into the history of marriage, it was also mainly an economic agreement between families. But lets forget that and assume that main historical purpose of marriage was procreation…should we then have to keep the historical roles of husband and wife then? Should the wife have to stay home and just keep house? Should we go furthur into tradition and say that woman should remain inferior because they’ve always been thought of that way? If you want to keep discrimination based on tradition in one field, then why not in another?
The great thing about humanity in general is our ability to see inequality and injustices and eventually right their wrongs…regardless of ‘tradition’.
Lets not forget either that marriages were traditionally ‘arranged marriages’…would you be happy to reinstall that tradition?

We already know that homosexual parents cannot raise children as well as heterosexual couples.

We? Or YOU wish this to be true? I hardly think a Catholic church study is hardly an unbiased study…considering we all know where the pope sits on the matter of homosexuality in general.

I want you all to remember that we are both Americans trying to work for the better of our lives and the lives of the people in the future. We aren’t enemies. The way we go about trying to make America is simply different.

So Americans do want to not only better their lives, but the lives of all Americans. But I don’t think discriminating against one set of law abiding Americans dues to their sexual orientation can be considered wanting to better the lives of all Americans. Lets us once again put this in to perspective…if homosexuals are allowed to marry does it hurt anybody or take away freedom from anybody else? Yes or no?
Denying rights to homosexuals doesn’t only hurt homosexuals, it hurts their families, it hurts the principles that we are all equal.