Poll: Gay marriage

[Rferraris]

I have no authority either just seems like there are so many reasons people don't get along. If two people find each other, just get the fuck out of the way and let them be. We're all dead before its worth it. Jmo

 

[AKM]

I've lost track of who made what points, so I'm sorry you won't be tagged here.

First I don't think the government should have any say in who we consider our partner or family. A Marriage of a man and woman before God is a religious matter, not a governmental one. Tax breaks for marriage and children were thought up by politicians wanting to build their constituency. I lived with my husband 6 years before we got "legally" married. Part of the reason we did get married was that we were going to be common law soon anyway, and it was important to his parents. I also absolutely couldn't stand my birth last name. We do love each other, and while when we first dated we had thought about children, when we got married we had no intention of having children. Ironically now we are trying and haven't been successful. I guess we never should have been allowed to get married (since we didn't plan on children) and now that we are, should have the marriage annulled since we are technically considered infertile. The "legal" benefits of marriage I have no problem with giving to any committed partner or family. The right to visit in the hospital, to be added to health insurance (maybe have some sort of restriction on this along the lines of commitment period to each other to prevent "hook up" insurance coverage.) Tax breaks for sharing a home (using less resources and in theory having more disposable income to fuel the economy since you aren't both trying to pay a full mortgage/rent on your own.) The legal marriage has been so torn apart by celebrities and others that it really has no sanctity worth protecting anyway. Even "religious" marriages aren't lasting anymore. I'm proud to say that we've been together over 13 years, living together for most of that (and some of that time with his parents...THAT is a test of a relationship right there!) We've had our (very) rough spots, and may have more, but we are committed to each other, and are continually learning more about each other. (The reason I joined this forum in the first place.)

I think I've gone off track somewhere, but I am not opposed to gay "marriage" nor do I think it is necessary. One of my female friends from high school (who was absolutely in love with me, but that's another story) just got married to her partner (who ironically has the same first name as me!) I am thrilled that she is happy because she's had a lot of trouble in her life. I actually have quite a few gay friends who are "married." I do have at least one who's been divorced at least once (but I think twice.) I really don't see much difference in the "divorce" ratios of my friends (straight or gay.)

Jesus loves us all.

 

[Rferraris]

I've lost track of who made what points, so I'm sorry you won't be tagged here.

First I don't think the government should have any say in who we consider our partner or family. A Marriage of a man and woman before God is a religious matter, not a governmental one. Tax breaks for marriage and children were thought up by politicians wanting to build their constituency. I lived with my husband 6 years before we got "legally" married. Part of the reason we did get married was that we were going to be common law soon anyway, and it was important to his parents. I also absolutely couldn't stand my birth last name. We do love each other, and while when we first dated we had thought about children, when we got married we had no intention of having children. Ironically now we are trying and haven't been successful. I guess we never should have been allowed to get married (since we didn't plan on children) and now that we are, should have the marriage annulled since we are technically considered infertile. The "legal" benefits of marriage I have no problem with giving to any committed partner or family. The right to visit in the hospital, to be added to health insurance (maybe have some sort of restriction on this along the lines of commitment period to each other to prevent "hook up" insurance coverage.) Tax breaks for sharing a home (using less resources and in theory having more disposable income to fuel the economy since you aren't both trying to pay a full mortgage/rent on your own.) The legal marriage has been so torn apart by celebrities and others that it really has no sanctity worth protecting anyway. Even "religious" marriages aren't lasting anymore. I'm proud to say that we've been together over 13 years, living together for most of that (and some of that time with his parents...THAT is a test of a relationship right there!) We've had our (very) rough spots, and may have more, but we are committed to each other, and are continually learning more about each other. (The reason I joined this forum in the first place.)

I think I've gone off track somewhere, but I am not opposed to gay "marriage" nor do I think it is necessary. One of my female friends from high school (who was absolutely in love with me, but that's another story) just got married to her partner (who ironically has the same first name as me!) I am thrilled that she is happy because she's had a lot of trouble in her life. I actually have quite a few gay friends who are "married." I do have at least one who's been divorced at least once (but I think twice.) I really don't see much difference in the "divorce" ratios of my friends (straight or gay.)

Jesus loves us all.

I think you stated your position. Thank you for contributing. I started with questions the day before and others seemed to ask questions too. It got heated around one members position on the matter. I backed out while it continued. But in the end I think we walked away frustrated. Maybe smarted. Probably not. It's not my question. Still too shy to start my own thread. Not sure if the original poster got the answer they were looking for. But it got me involved, which I liked.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I have no authority to disallow people's personal choices regarding marriage. I don't think anyone else has that authority either.

I think people should be prevented from marrying incestuously.

Nevertheless, I think you have missed the point - this isn't a question about limiting people from getting married; it is about redefining what marriage means. As far as recorded history shows there has always been life-long pairing of men and women. This is called marriage. History also shows that there has always been a presence of homosexual pairing in various societies. However, this was always seen as distinct from the male-female pairing and subsequently was always termed differently. (Sometimes favourably, sometimes unfavourably).

It just seems ridiculous to say that gay pairings are the same thing as heterosexual pairings.
Moreover, if marriage is understood in terms of the relations it normally establishes, it differs vastly from homosexual pairings, because in marriage each child is presumed to be the offspring of both parents, whereas it is absolutely impossible that both members of a homosexual pairing can be parents to any one particular offspring in such a household.

 

[unpersons]

I'm gay and my pairing is the same as all the ones you're going to miss out on for being evil.

Knowing full well what Incarnate means but distorting it towards incest. That is the second time you have done this, pretty sure. Haven't been here in a while, but, you compared being gay to animal fucking, and now you're comparing it to incest.

Please, STFU. There's a point at which things just aren't cool and you have now crossed that point twice.

 

[Apone]

Nevertheless, I think you have missed the point - this isn't a question about limiting people from getting married; it is about redefining what marriage means. As far as recorded history shows there has always been life-long pairing of men and women. This is called marriage. History also shows that there has always been a presence of homosexual pairing in various societies. However, this was always seen as distinct from the male-female pairing and subsequently was always termed differently. (Sometimes favourably, sometimes unfavourably).

We're not living in the past.

It just seems ridiculous to say that gay pairings are the same thing as heterosexual pairings.

Not really.

Moreover, if marriage is understood in terms of the relations it normally establishes, it differs vastly from homosexual pairings, because in marriage each child is presumed to be the offspring of both parents, whereas it is absolutely impossible that both members of a homosexual pairing can be parents to any one particular offspring in such a household.

Straight people adopt, and how is any of that in any way a problem for anyone?

 

[Kgal]

I'm gay and my pairing is the same as all the ones you're going to miss out on for being evil.

Knowing full well what Incarnate means but distorting it towards incest. That is the second time you have done this, pretty sure. Haven't been here in a while, but, you compared being gay to animal fucking, and now you're comparing it to incest.

Please, STFU. There's a point at which things just aren't cool and you have now crossed that point twice.

I agree he missed Incarnate's intent.

From a diversity of the species perspective - incest will cause the human population to become diseased and potentially die out. That's why incest is against the law.

[h=2]Definition of INCEST[/h]: sexual intercourse between persons so closely related that they are forbidden by law to marry; also : the statutory crime of engaging in such sexual intercourse.

I can see why the thought of incest popped into his mind. Perhaps he considered multiple perspectives. It's unfortunate that Flavus does not seem to see equality of humans is the goal here with wanting Gay marriage to be legal.

It's unfortunate the word "Marriage" holds such power in our society. It binds us in so many ways - to each other - to the State - to Banks. Almost as if we were slaves stamped and ringed.

If you look at society from a manipulative point of view - then you need labeling so you can track statistics to manipulate. Right?

Labeling also creates barriers between individuals in their minds.

I'm black. You're white. I'm gay. You're straight.
Now - those who wish to manipulate your mind can create stories to pit you against me. Where I'm from - the whites are always being told the blacks get more free money. This stirs the whites up into a frenzy and anger flares and stress grows in the community. In the meantime - those who tell the stories are getting rich - both from the blacks and the whites via a complicated system most can never see.

I've studied labeling. I've lived it my long life and have seen the devastating effects.

Our society is built upon labels such as the word Marriage and there are old old traditions of honor and duty steeped deeply in the word. Those that hold the traditions dear and near to their hearts are naturally going to resist the idea of gay marriage. It is part of their identity. Is is their very foundation of the ground they stand on.

When one attacks their identity and the ground people stand on - they get rattled - they get scared - they get angry - and they fight.

If we want equality for all humans with regard to the laws of our society and Marriage - we need to find a way to NOT shake the traditionalists ground. Acting with rancor and aggression will not accomplish this - right?

Why DO we hold on to labels? Why DO we hold on to Traditions? At what point do we recognize they are no longer applicable?

 

[Barnabas]

I support it but don't vote lol

I don't support and don't vote. were balancing each other out.



Edit: Then again i don't vote period

 

[Majesty]

If they want to and it makes them happy, then why not let them?
It's not like it's going to hurt anyone.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I'm gay and my pairing is the same as all the ones you're going to miss out on for being evil.

Knowing full well what Incarnate means but distorting it towards incest. That is the second time you have done this, pretty sure. Haven't been here in a while, but, you compared being gay to animal fucking, and now you're comparing it to incest.

Please, STFU. There's a point at which things just aren't cool and you have now crossed that point twice.

I think you need to re-read the two posts. You're starting to sound like a crazy person.

 

[unpersons]

I think you need to re-read the two posts. You're starting to sound like a crazy person.

Yeah, you definitely drive me insane and I could see you driving more sensitive than I to suicide. You don't understand the seriousness of the things you say.

 

[Barnabas]

Yeah, you definitely drive me insane and I could see you driving more sensitive than I to suicide. You don't understand the seriousness of the things you say.

This is the internet

 

[unpersons]

This is the internet

And the things said on the internet are often more harsh and direct than those in real life. People have killed themselves over things on the internet.

 

[Matt3737]

The Judgment of Solomon
1st Kings 3:16-28

Solomon was the greatest king that ever reigned in Israel and was also one the wisest man that ever lived. When he first came to the throne, God appeared to him one night in a dream, and asked what gift He should bestow upon him.

Solomon prayed that He would give him wisdom to govern his people. God was pleased that he had asked wisdom instead of riches, or conquests, or long life. He told Solomon that because he had done so, not only would He make him wiser than any man who ever lived, but that he should be rich and famous above all kings of the earth. If he would obey Him in all things, long life should also be added to the other good gifts which were to be his.

In those days it was the custom for kings to sit in some public place, where their subjects as had wrongs to complain might plead their cause before them, and obtain justice.

One day two women came before Solomon. One of them told him that she and the other woman both lived in one house, and each had a very young child. In the night the child belonging to the other woman died, and its mother exchanged it for the living one, putting her own dead child in her neighbor's bed as she lay sleeping, and taking the living child to herself.

In the morning, the mother of the living child discovered that the dead child was not her child but the woman whose child was dead would not give up the one that she had stolen. The two women stood there before the king, each one contending that the living child was hers, and that the dead child belonged to the other.

Solomon asked for a sword, when it was brought, he told them to divide the living child in two, and give half of him to each of the women. The woman who had falsely claimed the child made no objection to this decision. But the real mother could not bear it. Rather than have her son killed, she was willing to lose him altogether and she cried out not to harm the child and to give the child to the other woman.

The king saw at once which of them the child belonged and he said, "Give her the living child, for she is its mother."

All the people of Israel, when they heard of this judgment of Solomon, knew that God had indeed given him wisdom to do justice among his subjects and they held him in great awe and reverence.

I see two arguments so far, one from an idealisitic 'big picture' frame, and the other from a semantic, legal definition point of view. [MENTION=862]Flavus Aquila[/MENTION] did not compare homosexual marriage to incestuous relationships. He simply pointed out that the law does in fact arbitrate what constitutes marriage.

Did you know that cousin marriage is one of the most common forms of marriage in the world?

Those of you arguing from an idealistic viewpoint are missing the details entirely. From a legal standpoint, bureaucratic regulations cannot and do not have a vested interest in idealism. It is out of necessity that we have rules to arbitrate disagreements and conflicts. It's not getting married that is the problem, it is when the system breaks down that IS the problem. Who gets what, who owns what, who's rights supercedes others rights, and how do we make these determinations?

I am not personally against homosexuality or gay marriage, but I do disagree when illogical or irrational arguments are put forward to justify such. I think our culture is and will be able to adapt simply because our capitalist culture will force it to do so because there is money to be made by doing so.

[MENTION=5358]unpersons[/MENTION]

I'm curious as to what you mean by saying that marriage is meaningful? Do you believe that marriage would validate your relationship? Do you need validation? We still have people in America that believe Obama is Muslim and he isn't an American citizen and therefore invalidates his Presidency. Do you think that our culture will accept homosexuality by allowing gay marriage?

 

[unpersons]

I'm curious as to what you mean by saying that marriage is meaningful? Do you believe that marriage would validate your relationship? Do you need validation? We still have people in America that believe Obama is Muslim and he isn't an American citizen and therefore invalidates his Presidency. Do you think that our culture will accept homosexuality by allowing gay marriage?

It's a meaningful thing to me. If I am to be with someone it is of the upmost importance that, when necessary, we will legally be in the same position as straight counterparts.

No, kind of, and no: marriage would validate it legally, which is just as important as societal validation. There are segments of society that don't believe interracial marriage is marriage, but the law says they're wrong, and the majority does too. Validation is something I seek for those who need it, even if I don't in the future. Some do. Everyone wants validation. About one in two now believes in gay marriage according to polls. Up from 33% in the early 2000s. Validation has almost been attained!

 

[knight in battle]

I think our culture is and will be able to adapt simply because our capitalist culture will force it to do so because there is money to be made by doing so.

I do believe that a capitalist culture is inherently willing to try adapting to it, just as it has adapted to many other things that are legal, "because there is money to be made by doing so". However, I also believe that it will adapt in a manner that would cause some people who engage in officially recognized homosexual marriage to rethink their choices if it doesn't work out. And if, in the long run, it doesn't work out for most people, the nation will have learned collectively that it indeed does not bear the test of experience. But if it does work, it may be difficult to argue otherwise.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

It's a meaningful thing to me. If I am to be with someone it is of the upmost importance that, when necessary, we will legally be in the same position as straight counterparts.

No, kind of, and no: marriage would validate it legally, which is just as important as societal validation. There are segments of society that don't believe interracial marriage is marriage, but the law says they're wrong, and the majority does too. Validation is something I seek for those who need it, even if I don't in the future. Some do. Everyone wants validation. About one in two now believes in gay marriage according to polls. Up from 33% in the early 2000s. Validation has almost been attained!

I don't like quoting myself, but is saves typing:

...
I think that homosexuality's distinct feature, even more than the same-sex attraction part, is the obsessive need for approval. Which would point to homosexuality being an outcome of developmental influences. Two approaches to this would be: 1. Giving approval, which would reinforce the need; 2. Prompting detachment from other's approval, which would stimulate personal development.

If the government redefines the word 'marriage' to include homosexual pairings it will not actually achieve much, except to reduce one word from being a specific term, to being a general, somewhat meaningless term (something which doesn't communicate without additional qualifications). What we currently call marriage will still be what it is - and different from other forms of pairings. We just won't have specific vocabulary for it. The government will then, of course have to change much of its financial regulations regarding "marriage" to avoid massive budgetary holes. At the end of the day the only thing which changes in these debates are the meanings of a couple of words.

My guess is that is broadening the meaning of the word 'marriage' is "achieved" it will do virtually nothing to make homosexual couples happy, except those who might be content with semantic changes.

 

[Quiet]

[MENTION=862]Flavus Aquila[/MENTION] The meanings of words are everything. They are how we percieve, experience and define our world. All that is required to change culture is changing the meaning of words. The labels we put one people and everthing else define how we see others and how we treat them. Politics is about culture, hence it is about the meaning of words. The meanings of words change all the time as or cultural experience and knowledge grows. We adapt words and culture to suit our shifting reality through time. It is never constant or static.

Heterosexual pairs dont need to seek validation because validation is already implict and freely given through our subjective cultural institutions. This validation is very important in how people view themselves and their role within a community.
Homosexual pairs seek validation because they are denied it through our subjective cultural institutions. This denial of validation has a huge influence on how people see themselves and they fit within a community.

It wasnt that long ago that women didnt have the majority of rights afforded to men and couldnt vote in western nations. They were seen as second class citizens, often not even percieved or counted as citizens. This is still the reality in many developing nations. It is easy now to look back in hindsight and see that this was a massive cultural falllacy and the previous position towards women was incorrect, inhumane and ignorant. It is easy to look at developing nations in horror at their understanding and treatment of women. The majority of women that live in the world today are still treated as less then human, as second class citizens.

However, at that time in our history and cultural development, this was simply accepted as reality and a way of life. Women back then were the same beings as they are today. This perception didnt exist because people were ignorant, it was because of the cultural institutions of that time and it was because many people never questioned what they were told and their percieved reality. It was because their experience was limited to their cultural definitions.

It is only because some people continued to challenge these meanings that culture changed and we are where we are today. Everything changes. What is important is we move foward together and towards a fairer world where human rights become implict for everyone

 

[Flavus Aquila]

@Flavus Aquila The meanings of words are everything. They are how we percieve, experience and define our world. All that is required to change culture is changing the meaning of words. The labels we put one people and everthing else define how we see others and how we treat them. Politics is about culture, hence it is about the meaning of words. The meanings of words change all the time as or cultural experience and knowledge grows. We adapt words and culture to suit our shifting reality through time. It is never constant or static.

Heterosexual pairs dont need to seek validation because validation is already implict and freely given through our subjective cultural institutions. This validation is very important in how people view themselves and their role within a community.
Homosexual pairs seek validation because they are denied it through our subjective cultural institutions. This denial of validation has a huge influence on how people see themselves and they fit within a community.

It wasnt that long ago that women didnt have the majority of rights afforded to men and couldnt vote in western nations. They were seen as second class citizens, often not even percieved or counted as citizens. This is still the reality in many developing nations. It is easy now to look back in hindsight and see that this was a massive cultural falllacy and the previous position towards women was incorrect, inhumane and ignorant. It is easy to look at developing nations in horror at their understanding and treatment of women. The majority of women that live in the world today are still treated as less then human, as second class citizens.

However, at that time in our history and cultural development, this was simply accepted as reality and a way of life. Women back then were the same beings as they are today. This perception didnt exist because people were ignorant, it was because of the cultural institutions of that time and it was because many people never questioned what they were told and their percieved reality. It was because their experience was limited to their cultural definitions.

It is only because some people continued to challenge these meanings that culture changed and we are where we are today. Everything changes. What is important is we move foward together and towards a fairer world where human rights become implict for everyone

Why is it that homosexuals - or at least those who have set the whole 'gay marriage' debate up - think that validation of homosexual pairings is only achievable through equating them with heterosexual pairings?

Did women get the vote by having the law term them men?


If anything, it seems to be counter-productive to say that homosexual pairings are only validated, when they can be called by the same name as a heterosexual pairing. To use the example of women's lib - it would be like saying that a woman who has shown herself worthy of respect and responsibility is worthy of being called a honorary man. It just seems so ridiculous to me - and even more ridiculous that so many people are 100% passionately committed to such a twisted notion of equality.

 

[Kgal]

Why is it that homosexuals - or at least those who have set the whole 'gay marriage' debate up - think that validation of homosexual pairings is only achievable through equating them with heterosexual pairings?

Did women get the vote by having the law term them men?


If anything, it seems to be counter-productive to say that homosexual pairings are only validated, when they can be called by the same name as a heterosexual pairing. To use the example of women's lib - it would be like saying that a woman who has shown herself worthy of respect and responsibility is worthy of being called a honorary man.

It just seems so ridiculous to me - and even more ridiculous that so many people are 100% passionately committed to such a twisted notion of equality.

Aw come one Flavus.

What is wrong with wanting to be treated equally as human beings with all the rights that come with it? What is wrong with wanting to be validated as a human being? Every human needs it. It is part of our intrinsic nature.

The white anglo saxon protestant group from antiquity has oppressed various groups throughout history since it came into power back in the dark ages.

Just from a U.S. perspective I can list a few groups of them oppressed By LAW:

Blacks (African Americans)
Women
Native Americans

and now LGBT

If governments would just cut the bullshit and treat everyone the same we wouldn't be having this discussion.

It's not about the validation by marriage - it's about not being oppressed as a group any more.

It's too late to try to save the word Marriage. Governments around the globe screwed it up when they tied Property Law to the word Marriage.

I liked your initial proposal of coming up with a new word for marriage between a man and woman.

But when it comes to Law... I'm tired of being treated less than the traditional little nuclear family of Man/Woman/Child who get tax breaks - handouts - and access to personal privacy - "just because it's legal".

Speaking as one from the Oppressed Group of Women: I want to be validated as an equal human being.