Poll: Gay marriage

[hush]

lol. Such pointless moralists and anti-moralists shoving their ideologies on each other.

It intrigues me that this topic, out of all the topics in the subforum, has thousands more views than any of the topics on the 1st page, and over 200 replies, yet only having been around for 18 days.

 

[knight in battle]

It intrigues me that this topic, out of all the topics in the subforum, has thousands more views than any of the topics on the 1st page, and over 200 replies, yet only having been around for 18 days.

It is intriguing, because it strikes deep into the heart of humanity, involving the meaning of masculinity and femininity. More importantly, there are nations and regions in which there are deep troubles in relation to the family unit. This topic is merely a reflection of those events. However, it also touches on the meaning and limits of social freedom, which society is willing to concede. I believe that the issue runs far deeper than the issue of marriage or gay marriage. Moreover, this is a public forum, and the USA is in an election year in which this issue, among others, is being placed in the spotlight by many.

 

[Apone]

I think that one of the reasons unpersons got so worked up is that she sees opposing gay marriage as an attack on her rights, and Flavus is implying/stating that standing up for those rights, perceived or otherwise, is ridiculous/childish/stupid.

I'll agree that her delivery could have been more subtle, but at the same time, in many ways hearing someone attack your rights (again, perceived or otherwise) with cold, calm detachment is actually worse than dealing with an inarticulate redneck... I can understand not caring about the issue, I can understand thinking it's a matter of state's rights, and I can understand supporting it-- what I can't understand is why anyone would be so adamantly against what is essentially a matter of social equality.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I think that one of the reasons unpersons got so worked up is that she sees opposing gay marriage as an attack on her rights, and Flavus is implying/stating that standing up for those rights, perceived or otherwise, is ridiculous/childish/stupid.

I'll agree that her delivery could have been more subtle, but at the same time, in many ways hearing someone attack your rights (again, perceived or otherwise) with cold, calm detachment is actually worse than dealing with an inarticulate redneck... I can understand not caring about the issue, I can understand thinking it's a matter of state's rights, and I can understand supporting it-- what I can't understand is why anyone would be so adamantly against what is essentially a matter of social equality.

People often say that I can be very cold and detached about things. With me, that's how I present externally most of the time, but true to INFJ form, I feel things very strongly. (I wish my bosses realised that, but if they did, I suppose I would not have been promoted to where I am).

The things that have probably had the strongest impact on me in relation to my opposition to gay marriage are from experiences growing up:

I'm getting to my mid-thirties, so my experiences growing up are probably a generation before many people on this forum. Back then I lived on a street where just about every house had a family with two, or three kids in it. We would always play, fight, chase, etc. after school - all up and down the street. Our parents would also do stuff together occasionally - cook-outs, monster garage sales, etc. I went to a school with over 1000 students - and basically almost everyone was in the same situation.

Then one day - and it seems like something started to change quickly - one of my friends wasn't himself. Being an all boys school, you didn't really ask what was wrong, but tried to be more considerate or something like that. It turns out that his parents separated. He once let on that it seemed that his parents didn't care about him, or his brothers anymore - they were too wrapped up with their own concerns. After that another, and another classmate would start flunking exams, missing school, losing/putting on weight. There were also a couple of suicides of students. We were all in shock - no one had ever heard of divorce, except among Hollywood actors, and no one had ever heard of suicide. I think people started becoming paranoid that their parents might separate.

Fast forward to when I was already out of school. My nephew, whose IQ was tested as being 4 standard deviations above average flunked out of school and he's basically always told me that I was more a father to him, than my brother, because I was actually interested in him and not just in myself. He has been suicidal since his parents broke up more than 15 years ago. He has a step-father and step-brother, but what affected him was that his actual parents at some point stopped worrying about him, and about their own problems. The split up basically wrecked my brother too. Moreover, the younger players in my work basically fall into two categories: those who can handle set backs and those who can't. These also basically line up with those who grew up with both their natural parents, and those who didn't.

That's the background. Now for the relevance. I like reading philosophical works in my spare time - the more ancient, the better. If you read ancient historical commentaries, what stands out is that they noticed the same thing going on as described above. The philosophers, when speaking about marriage mostly come to one conclusion: the only reason marriage exists is because human children, unlike most animals, only really flourish when both parents are around to nurture/raise them for many years. Restated as purpose, they almost all say that marriage exists for the benefit of the offspring.

Relation to my position on gay marriage. I basically oppose anything which significantly overlooks, denies, negates, diminishes, etc. the connection between marriage and the bearing/raising/benefit of offspring. If people (most frequently the woman) want to get married but not have children - I ask 'why bother?' If gays want to marry, I ask 'what's the point?' If you're not wanting to raise your own children with their mother/father - why marry?

The objection is rightly made that it shouldn't affect a married couple with children, that other couples marry without wanting a family. However, when marriage is not seen as something connected with family life; or when it is not seen as life-long; or it is not seen as something serious; or whatever might denigrate, reduce, make light of, etc. is held in the popular psyche - it definitely does have an effect on the attitude of married couples with families. 20 years ago some people started to make light of marriage, saying that Elizabeth Taylor (actress) gets divorced all the time. Now everyone presumes that they might get divorced if married. People just don't have the same sense of need/sense of importance to try to change their outlook, hobbies, friends, habits, manners, priorities to fit in with another person in marriage. People in shopping centers don't even seem to have the sense that it is important not to argue in front of their children, let alone strangers. Basically a massive contradiction has worked its way into many people's understanding of marriage: that marriage is about me. (Or, marriage is about us -partners- exclusive of the children). Marriage, not so long ago, was definitely about raising a family.

So why should I be so passionate about this? Because my friend did not deserve to have his world turned upside down; because my classmate used to be happy and ended up committing suicide; because my nephew's life is screwed; because the younger guys I work with have been slugged with a disadvantage they did nothing to deserve. If exalting the importance and excellence of marriage, at the cost of some people's sense of linguistic liberty ("civil union: vs "marriage"), causes even one spouse somewhere to reign in his/her selfishness somewhat and some kid can grow up happy, it is worth it.

All of the debate and lobbying for everything that diminishes the connection of married life with family life is being carried out by adults, with their own interests and agendas. Those potentially disadvantaged by these decisions (and significantly disadvantaged) cannot vote, cannot participate in public political life, cannot lobby, cannot form media campaigns. Children worrying whether their parents care about them have no voice whatsoever in our political life. It is bogus to claim that because everyone was once a child, our considerations about gay marriage, or divorce, or welfare, etc. is considerate towards them. Children are not concerned about who they can, or cannot marry - they rightly are concerned about their own security. So every time someone says that they want some law about marriage changed, because they will feel more fulfilled, or happy, etc. I shut down. However, if someone says that laws about marriage should be changed because it might help children to feel more fulfilled, happy, etc. I listen with complete interest - if for no other reason than someone is saying something which is not completely selfish.

 

[Apone]

 

[Apone]

Thanks for the neg rep!

I think you just changed your reply, so I'll change mine.

I honestly have no idea why you typed all of that out, or what it has to do with gay marriage-- your issue seems to be with broken marriages, not gay ones. I also think it's pretty amazing that after demanding a detached intellectual explanation why gay marriage is a good idea, you pull the classic 'OMG why won't somebody think of the children???!!!'.

I have no idea why you would say this since gay people are more than capable of raising kids who don't commit suicide/being better parents than straight couples... maybe you think that the dirty homos will ruin the sacred pure institution of marriage, which you also seem to think has already been ruined since the 60s/70s, and yet still stands to be ruined even more? Are you saying that gay marriage is going to make children suicidal failures at life???

It seems like a lot of incoherent, disconnected ideas put forth based on the assumption that gay relationships are inherently inferior to straight ones, or that passing gay marriage means that all of a sudden people are just going to get married for the heck of it, have babies and then not care about them. Of course, you don't want to come out and say that because you know it will put people off, and you need to appear sympathetic in order to get people to agree with you.

 

[Matt3737]

Flavus is implying/stating that standing up for those rights, perceived or otherwise, is ridiculous/childish/stupid.

I could make an actual rebuttal to Flavus, but since you'd rather flaunt flagrant hypocrisy I'd much rather not.

Edit: I think some people are far too emotionally involved in this issue to allow it to be discussed civily, maybe not just yet, but it seems to be headed that direction.

 

[the]

What does this mean?

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Thanks for the neg rep!

I think you just changed your reply, so I'll change mine.

I honestly have no idea why you typed all of that out, or what it has to do with gay marriage-- your issue seems to be with broken marriages, not gay ones. I also think it's pretty amazing that after demanding a detached intellectual explanation why gay marriage is a good idea, you pull the classic 'OMG why won't somebody think of the children???!!!'.

I have no idea why you would say this since gay people are more than capable of raising kids who don't commit suicide/being better parents than straight couples... maybe you think that the dirty homos will ruin the sacred pure institution of marriage, which you also seem to think has already been ruined since the 60s/70s, and yet still stands to be ruined even more? Are you saying that gay marriage is going to make children suicidal failures at life???

It seems like a lot of incoherent, disconnected ideas put forth based on the assumption that gay relationships are inherently inferior to straight ones, or that passing gay marriage means that all of a sudden people are just going to get married for the heck of it, have babies and then not care about them. Of course, you don't want to come out and say that because you know it will put people off, and you need to appear sympathetic in order to get people to agree with you.

I think it is pretty obvious that I don't particularly mind if people are put off by what I say - if it is polite.

I don't think committed, lifelong faithful homosexual couples need to think about raising their own children. That makes them a quite distinct group from lifelong, faithful heterosexual couples.

 

[hush]

What does this mean?

I assume he was alluding to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

 

[Apone]

I could make an actual rebuttal to Flavus, but since you'd rather flaunt flagrant hypocrisy I'd much rather not.

Edit: I think some people are far too emotionally involved in this issue to allow it to be discussed civily, maybe not just yet, but it seems to be headed that direction.

What will the gay rights movement do without you?

Maybe it's just me, but when somebody suggests that having gay parents could make you suicidal and drop out of school, I think that's a pretty big deal. And the appeal to 'think of the children' is lifted directly from the mouth of Helen Lovejoy-- maybe the reference was too obscure?

 

[Matt3737]

What will the gay rights movement do without you?

Maybe it's just me, but when somebody suggests that having gay parents could make you suicidal and drop out of school, I think that's a pretty big deal. And the appeal to 'think of the children' is lifted directly from the mouth of Helen Lovejoy-- maybe the reference was too obscure?

What do you expect to accomplish with such vitriol? Is the issue of gay marriage going to be decided in this debate? You couldn't simply point out the errors in his logic, but you have to mock him as well? Why were you previously attempting to take the high road in your accusation against [MENTION=862]Flavus Aquila[/MENTION], which to be frank I saw no such thing, to only turn around and level the same against him?

Your attitude disgusts me, and I wish no part in it.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

What does this mean?

I think he is implying that any consideration of children's needs is cartoon-ish and comical.

 

[benny]

Many same-sex couples raise children and do a great job at it. What does it matter whether either partner is the biological parent of the children? Are adopted children incapable of being happy and well-adjusted? It doesn't matter, and they're perfectly capable. Children don't need a mother and a father. What they need is to be raised in a loving environment, which means having parents who love and care for them, and who love each other, regardless of gender.

It may take a few more decades, but I don't doubt that someday there will be marriage equality across the US. Support for gay marriage has been steadily growing. It appears to be largely a generational issue. And despite any arguments that people throw out against it now, it's bound to happen.

 

[Quiet]

All the hate and lack of empathy on here makes me feel sad. This issue is really important and personal for some people. These are real people that we are communicating with, not just text on screen

 

[Apone]

What do you expect to accomplish with such vitriol? Is the issue of gay marriage going to be decided in this debate? You couldn't simply point out the errors in his logic, but you have to mock him as well? Why were you previously attempting to take the high road in your accusation against [MENTION=862]Flavus Aquila[/MENTION], which to be frank I saw no such thing, to only turn around and level the same against him?

Your attitude disgusts me, and I wish no part in it.

But you do wish a part in it-- otherwise you wouldn't have commented. Seriously, you can't just jump into an argument when it's at its most heated with an attitude of moral superiority only to express outrage or try to guilt me over pushing you away from 'my cause' or whatever... and then expect me to take you seriously and do what you say. If you really want to help people to calm down and stop banging their heads against the wall then you seriously need to learn some tact. And if you actually believe something, you should believe it whether you like what I'm saying or not... about the worst thing you could do in the middle of something like this is pile on/escalate things with a superior attitude, or make it solely about the drama and not at all about the issue, which is exactly what you did.

I do agree that it's a pretty pointless discussion, though... mostly because no one is open to anyone else's opinion.

I'm definitely not about to change my mind about it and we've made very very little progress over the past however many pages. I do think Flavus has issues with gay people, though... I wasn't sure before, but now I am. And I don't think that identifying him as prejudiced against gay people is an insult-- and I also don't think it's an insult to hint that maybe his religion could explain his apparent homophobia. Every time I've brought up his religion he has sidestepped every single crucial point and failed to answer direct, blunt, simple questions-- intentionally obscuring his answers in tangents and extremely carefully chosen language... but for all of this, he has done very little but repeat the same 'they're not the same' statement ad nauseum since his first post, without realistically explaining why he thinks that gay couples can't raise children/have children/stay together or why he thinks that these things are objectively different... and instead just insisting that they are, or assuming as much.

The purpose of the cartoon is that someone is bringing children into a discussion where they really aren't a deciding factor (since gay couples can raise children equally or better than their straight counterparts), in order to elicit an emotional response-- ironically enough, the very same type of argument that Flavus was originally railing against.

Maybe I shouldn't assume that people are as familiar with the Simpsons as others... so lesson learned, but in the context of the show, I didn't see it as silly and cartoonish (well, it kinda was, but that wasn't the main point) so much as an observation about how 'think about the children' is pretty much the go-to to get people to sympathize with your cause, even if it doesn't make sense...

I'd like to think that Flavus was just being incoherent or that the whole kids committing suicide thing was some sort of digression, but right now I'm convinced that the only reason he brought it up is because he seriously believes that gay marriage is going to destroy the fabric of society by equating what he sees as an inherently destructive/perverse relationship with an inherently creative/natural one.

It's pretty hard for me to not be offended by that.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

But you do wish a part in it-- otherwise you wouldn't have commented. Seriously, you can't just jump into an argument when it's at its most heated with an attitude of moral superiority only to express outrage or try to guilt me over pushing you away from 'my cause' or whatever... and then expect me to take you seriously and do what you say. If you really want to help people to calm down and stop banging their heads against the wall then you seriously need to learn some tact. And if you actually believe something, you should believe it whether you like what I'm saying or not... about the worst thing you could do in the middle of something like this is pile on/escalate things with a superior attitude, or make it solely about the drama and not at all about the issue, which is exactly what you did.

I do agree that it's a pretty pointless discussion, though... mostly because no one is open to anyone else's opinion.

I'm definitely not about to change my mind about it and we've made very very little progress over the past however many pages. I do think Flavus has issues with gay people, though... I wasn't sure before, but now I am. And I don't think that identifying him as prejudiced against gay people is an insult-- and I also don't think it's an insult to hint that maybe his religion could explain his apparent homophobia. Every time I've brought up his religion he has sidestepped every single crucial point and failed to answer direct, blunt, simple questions-- intentionally obscuring his answers in tangents and extremely carefully chosen language... but for all of this, he has done very little but repeat the same 'they're not the same' statement ad nauseum since his first post, without realistically explaining why he thinks that gay couples can't raise children/have children/stay together or why he thinks that these things are objectively different... and instead just insisting that they are, or assuming as much.

The purpose of the cartoon is that someone is bringing children into a discussion where they really aren't a deciding factor (since gay couples can raise children equally or better than their straight counterparts), in order to elicit an emotional response-- ironically enough, the very same type of argument that Flavus was originally railing against.

Maybe I shouldn't assume that people are as familiar with the Simpsons as others... so lesson learned, but in the context of the show, I didn't see it as silly and cartoonish (well, it kinda was, but that wasn't the main point) so much as an observation about how 'think about the children' is pretty much the go-to to get people to sympathize with your cause, even if it doesn't make sense...

I'd like to think that Flavus was just being incoherent or that the whole kids committing suicide thing was some sort of digression, but right now I'm convinced that the only reason he brought it up is because he seriously believes that gay marriage is going to destroy the fabric of society by equating what he sees as an inherently destructive/perverse relationship with an inherently creative/natural one.

It's pretty hard for me to not be offended by that.

I am not side-stepping your questions; I just refuse to play up to your bigotry.

I cannot see how you jump to the conclusions you have. I doubt that they are conclusions, but more bigoted plastering you're throwing my way. Read the long post again: it is about the juxtapose between couples in relationships that are focused on themselves and couples that are family focused - and the effect this has on children.

 

[the]

I'm definitely not about to change my mind about it and we've made very very little progress over the past however many pages. I do think Flavus has issues with gay people, though... I wasn't sure before, but now I am. And I don't think that identifying him as prejudiced against gay people is an insult-- and I also don't think it's an insult to hint that maybe his religion could explain his apparent homophobia. Every time I've brought up his religion he has sidestepped every single crucial point and failed to answer direct, blunt, simple questions-- intentionally obscuring his answers in tangents and extremely carefully chosen language... but for all of this, he has done very little but repeat the same 'they're not the same' statement ad nauseum since his first post, without realistically explaining why he thinks that gay couples can't raise children/have children/stay together or why he thinks that these things are objectively different... and instead just insisting that they are, or assuming as much.

Why do you feign the moral high ground and then scum bag Flavus? I dont see the use of your witch hunt unless you are trying to shame him like [MENTION=5358]unpersons[/MENTION] was doing. You aren't going to change your mind, why are you so surprised that he isn't either?

He has a different view point of marriage, probably one you haven't come across, but you are so wrapped around "proving" that homosexuals should get married you can't even process that.

 

[Quiet]

There are people that are directly involved and effected by this issue. While gay marriage is just an inconsequential, cognitive excercise, or something to intellectualised for some people, it is a matter of daily life and their place in the world for others. The reason why some people are getting so emotional and passionate is because it really means something to them and will have a real tangible effect on their lives. Clearly it is easy to sit back and judge others for being crazy and irrational when the issue doesnt hit you personally at home and its not your rights you are fighing for.

While all the name calling and bullshit judgemental posts are frustrating and unhelpful, people are only reacting this way because they care a lot about this issue. Once you judge someone you have already stopped listening and you have failed communciation and learning

Its not about fucking politics, or some stupid outdated definitions. Its about equality and human rights. Have some empathy for the people that inhabit this world with you. Stop being so afraid of people and trying to protect and defend the shitty society that we've created of broken families, abuse and children growing up without any love. It is about the Love. That is the only thing children need. Not a mum and dad. Just love, where ever that comes from is irelevant

Its obvious that many people hold strong opinions about gay marriage. They are entitled to hold those opinions and their imput is to be respected. And then there are people that are apathetic because this issue doesnt effect them so they dont give a shit about what it might mean to someone else because its not their problem.
But please keep in mind that these are real people and this is a real world issue that effects real people with real lives and real consequences


Im not sorry I started this thread although Im very sorry that is has deteriorated into just pointless attacking and defending.

 

[Apone]

I'm actually not surprised that he isn't going to change his mind, and the worst part is that I don't even care. I don't care what he thinks about homosexuals, or gay marriage, or himself, or me… and I don't care enough about my pride to keep this going, because it's obviously not making a difference of any kind… and all it's really doing is pissing me off.

Mostly I just wish that people wouldn't pile on whenever they see that there's drama going on, though… that's actually even worse than getting sucked into a dumb argument, and I've noticed it happening on this forum moreso than others I've been on-- just saying. It never helps.