Poll: Gay marriage

[Apone]

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.

It's actually not like that… and we're not talking about gays and straights we're just talking about couples. People who are bound by love or respect or whatever and are together. Their genders/orientations are NOT an issue here… and nothing you've said in this entire thread has convinced anyone that a gay couple is incapable of functioning as well as a straight couple… in fact, just the opposite.

If you deny them the same rights as other couples based simply on their genders, then that's discrimination. And to use your own example, women who work as something other than secretaries, nurses, stewardesses and teachers don't see themselves as men, they see themselves as employees, and as such they are entitled to the same benefits, salaries, and conditions as other employees, irrespective of gender…

The way you're coming off, you just sound like a guy with issues against gay people.

 

[Apone]

ALSO:

As a bisexual male who has had relationships with both genders, I know for certain that a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple are almost completely identical in every way… if you actually care about someone and they care about you, then even the physical part of it isn't so different… all that really matters is that you like each other and you're comfortable doing what you're doing. Seriously, anyone who has had sex knows that bodies are bodies and what makes the sex good is what your mind does with it.

Sure, gay people can't reproduce… but even then, the 9 months it takes to have a child is nothing compared to the 18+ years that it takes to actually raise one.

The whole homo/hetero dichotomy is only a construct anyways-- some people have bought into it and they've let it become their identity and everything, but it's really not that at all. It's not some big scary weird perverted thing that exists in its own universe… it's a 100% natural phenomenon that doesn't hurt anyone and doesn't have any negative effects on anyone. What's destructive is the bias of people like you who try to make it into something completely separate from your world of 'innate purity' and Jesus and judgment and sin and all other forms of hypocritical self-righteous BS that creates a lot of division and judgment and hate and calls it being a good person.

If you're not into guys at all then that's great for you but don't act like you know what it's all about or understand it when you obviously haven't got a clue.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

It's actually not like that… and we're not talking about gays and straights we're just talking about couples. People who are bound by love or respect or whatever and are together. Their genders/orientations are NOT an issue here… and nothing you've said in this entire thread has convinced anyone that a gay couple is incapable of functioning as well as a straight couple… in fact, just the opposite.

If you deny them the same rights as other couples based simply on their genders, then that's discrimination. And to use your own example, women who work as something other than secretaries, nurses, stewardesses and teachers don't see themselves as men, they see themselves as employees, and as such they are entitled to the same benefits, salaries, and conditions as other employees, irrespective of gender…

The way you're coming off, you just sound like a guy with issues against gay people.

I have issues with stupid arguements.
Your underlying presumption is that for there to be equality between gay and hetero couples, they must be called the same thing. This is what I reject, and what you avoid answering.

Citing your example, women in employment have always been called employees - does this convince you, or anyone else that women have always had equality in the work-force? If you are going to use an example, think about it for more than a second - or at least for a second before using it.

ALSO:

As a bisexual male who has had relationships with both genders, I know for certain that a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple are almost completely identical in every way… if you actually care about someone and they care about you, then even the physical part of it isn't so different… all that really matters is that you like each other and you're comfortable doing what you're doing. Seriously, anyone who has had sex knows that bodies are bodies and what makes the sex good is what your mind does with it.

Sure, gay people can't reproduce… but even then, the 9 months it takes to have a child is nothing compared to the 18+ years that it takes to actually raise one.

The whole homo/hetero dichotomy is only a construct anyways-- some people have bought into it and they've let it become their identity and everything, but it's really not that at all. It's not some big scary weird perverted thing that exists in its own universe… it's a 100% natural phenomenon that doesn't hurt anyone and doesn't have any negative effects on anyone. What's destructive is the bias of people like you who try to make it into something completely separate from your world of 'innate purity' and Jesus and judgment and sin and all other forms of hypocritical self-righteous BS that creates a lot of division and judgment and hate and calls it being a good person.

If you're not into guys at all then that's great for you but don't act like you know what it's all about or understand it when you obviously haven't got a clue.

If you're bisexual, I would think that your experience of relationships is quite different from heterosexuals and homosexuals.

What's with bringing religion into this? Answer: you have no argument. If it were socially acceptable to make demeaning comments about Jews, Asians and Blacks - I'm sure you would have worked that into your most hysterical post yet.

 

[Sloe Djinn]

Sooo, legally, we need a new word for marriage that covers both same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

Will that new word be hashed out any time soon? Nope.

Do I support gay couples having the same benefits by law as straight couples? Yup.

Will I support gay marriage in the meantime even though the term is not semantically correct? Yup.

I don't see the sense in denying gay people the same legal designation as straight people on the basis of "we haven't invented a word for that yet."

 

[the]

I like that there are precise words. For instance there are precise words to describe things as mundane as the parts of a shoe (the vamp, the heel, etc.) Something as supposedly important as marriage should have its own precise words, perhaps its own word as strong as the word marriage, but that describes the unique situation of two men and then another word that describes two women. There is already a word to describe marriages of multiple people.

If nothing else it will be fun to confuse foreigners with our multiple words.

 

[Apone]

I have issues with stupid arguements.
Your underlying presumption is that for there to be equality between gay and hetero couples, they must be called the same thing. This is what I reject, and what you avoid answering.

First of all, you obviously don't have issues with stupid arguments.

And I HAVE answered it. I'm not going to say that gay and straight relationships are vastly different things that should be recognized differently, because they're not... and that's the assumption that you're making here. Unless you've been in a gay relationship or know people who are, which I highly doubt, then you can't say that they are either.

And no, I don't think that women are automatically treated as equals, but that's not because there isn't a special category for them... it's because some people are jerks. But they're still officially recognized as equals and that's what this whole thing is about.

If you're bisexual, I would think that your experience of relationships is quite different from heterosexuals and homosexuals.

I'm not surprised that you would think that, or that you're telling me what my own experiences have been like. You seem to be an expert on things that you know nothing about.

What's with bringing religion into this? Answer: you have no argument. If it were socially acceptable to make demeaning comments about Jews, Asians and Blacks - I'm sure you would have worked that into your most hysterical post yet.

It's relevant because certain denominations are notoriously prejudiced and antagonistic towards homosexuals. The prejudice ranges from benign yet ignorant to apologetic but ultimately discriminatory, to outright hatred and bile. I'd guess you're the middle one, which in some ways is worse.


AND:

After a ten second trip to merriam-webster.com

mar·riage noun \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\

Definition of MARRIAGE


a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

There you go... but that's not to say that even that definition couldn't just say 'the state of being united to a person in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law' and skip the last part, which is basically superfluous anyways.

 

[Nixie]

The problem is that we keep "pretending" we have freedom of religion. Most people think we are a Christian country. If the definition of marriage is religious based, it should have no legal protection for any couple. However, we all know that isn't how that works--hence it has become a non-religious term and commonally means a legally binding union--whether performed in church or not. As such, it's definition can be further refined to include same sex. I believe the discrimination that homosexuals face is religious persecution.

 

[Rferraris]

The problem is that we keep "pretending" we have freedom of religion. Most people think we are a Christian country. If the definition of marriage is religious based, it should have no legal protection for any couple. However, we all know that isn't how that works--hence it has become a non-religious term and commonally means a legally binding union--whether performed in church or not. As such, it's definition can be further refined to include same sex. I believe the discrimination that homosexuals face is religious persecution.

The problem is religion.
Get rid of religion and the worlds a better place.
Amen.

 

[Sloe Djinn]

The problem is religion.
Get rid of religion and the worlds a better place.
Amen.

Vee believe een nossing!

 

[Nixie]

The problem is religion.
Get rid of religion and the worlds a better place.
Amen.

Kinda blows that whole "we should be allowed to do what we want as long as we aren't hurting each other" vibe when you seek to tell others what they can and can't have too. Which make you just as bad as those who would use religion to persecute homosexuals.

 

[Rferraris]

Kinda blows that whole "we should be allowed to do what we want as long as we aren't hurting each other" vibe when you seek to tell others what they can and can't have too. Which make you just as bad as those who would use religion to persecute homosexuals.

Not sure I follow.
I was recapping your sentiment. No?
Me personally, firm believer we should do what we want as long as we don't put someone else at risk. I grew up with too diverse a background to care what
you do behind closed doors. Got my own shit to worry about. I must be selfish cause I don't believe in god enough to fight what other people think are his battles for him. Maybe gods a women. Wouldn't that be a bitch.

 

[Nixie]

If you got "get rid of religion" as the sum of my argument then either I didn't frame it correctly or you didn't understand it or some combination of the both.

The basic argument is that "marriage" is a union between a man and a woman as defined by law. That definition is based on Christianity, not on pure law. As such, it should be stricken. There are many religiously based laws in our country although we "pretend" we have a separation of church and state. Ever hear of Blue Laws?

If we base our premise on the stance that the term "marriage" must be seen as a secular definition--we have the authority to change it. If the claim is made that the state's opposition to gay marriage is based on religous beliefs (which it is) you can make the claim that it is discrimination based on religion and as such, is illegal.

The problem as I see it though will never get solved because I always see the gay side as wanting to force the anti-gay people to "accept" them--which they don't. They just have to accept that everyone is free to choose their way of life. Just as homosexuals see their way of life as right, so do anit-homosexuals. As long as everyone stays in their corner and acknowledges each other's right to life how they want to live without restricting others--who cares.

 

[Apone]

The problem as I see it though will never get solved because I always see the gay side as wanting to force the anti-gay people to "accept" them--which they don't.

I think it's more about society as a whole, not just the anti-gay people.

They just have to accept that everyone is free to choose their way of life. Just as homosexuals see their way of life as right, so do anit-homosexuals. As long as everyone stays in their corner and acknowledges each other's right to life how they want to live without restricting others--who cares.

I agree to some extent... but at the same time, there's a difference between a minority group demanding rights for itself, and a religious group demanding that rights be denied to others.

Like it or not, western society is diversifying and needs to accommodate that... just because a legally defined term has roots in Christianity doesn't mean that the definition can't evolve... because even in the past 50 years, the religion itself has continued to evolve.

 

[Rferraris]

If you got "get rid of religion" as the sum of my argument then either I didn't frame it correctly or you didn't understand it or some combination of the both.

The basic argument is that "marriage" is a union between a man and a woman as defined by law. That definition is based on Christianity, not on pure law. As such, it should be stricken. There are many religiously based laws in our country although we "pretend" we have a separation of church and state. Ever hear of Blue Laws?

If we base our premise on the stance that the term "marriage" must be seen as a secular definition--we have the authority to change it. If the claim is made that the state's opposition to gay marriage is based on religous beliefs (which it is) you can make the claim that it is discrimination based on religion and as such, is illegal.

The problem as I see it though will never get solved because I always see the gay side as wanting to force the anti-gay people to "accept" them--which they don't. They just have to accept that everyone is free to choose their way of life. Just as homosexuals see their way of life as right, so do anit-homosexuals. As long as everyone stays in their corner and acknowledges each other's right to life how they want to live without restricting others--who cares.

Well from what I understand marriage was adopted for legal passage of a dowry or endowment from a father to a new husband. I imagine this has some tax implication as well.

Given that the state or government has its definition of marriage separately than religious institutions, there are multiple definitions.

I think on a purely secular level, gay people want to be recognized as equal participating citizens. I am not gay. I don't understand, on a visceral level, the gay community. I tried being friends with someone that was gay. I think our different lives forced him to not continue our friendship more so than me. But I really didn't participate in any of the things he invited me to. my point is I still don't feel like I'm in a position to approve or deny another person the ability to do as the choose. I haven't really heard an argument that convinces me I'm entitled to do that.

I think the other part of the argument is to have some sort of legal basis for acting as their partners spouse in terms of end of life issues. Being able to provide care. Being able to speak on behalf of etc.

It's the non religious definition I think is the one being fought and argued about.
I don't understand how you can argue the religious definition. Someone came up with what god believed and if you subscribe to the whole theology, then I'm not sure how you petition the word of god.

My only contention in this argument is I don't believe anyone trying to stop homosexuals from what they want is based on anything but hate or ignorance. People can say, obfuscate, or confuse the argument all they want.
Nobody ever suggested I either like or dislike what other people do. What's being asked of me is to support the freedom for American citizens to do what they choose to do, and again I support that, as long as you stay out of my way and pose no risk to myself or someone I care about. I mean a health or financial risk. But an inconvenience risk like my kids will grow up with gay thinking friends and that in my mind will hurt them. Too slippery a slope.

So the semantics or using definitions of what marriage means based on something that's 100 years old hold no water. The definition can be what we decide it should be. And I in good conscience can't support hate, ignorance, or prejudice. So just can't do it. And if I have my way I'm stopping you from what you perceive as your right to deny other people their freedoms. (not you personally)

I believe that religion has its hand at the cause of most intolerance and hatred. The irony. So I may have taken what I thought you said out of context. But I reiterate my opinion and that the less religion we have the better out chance of survival. Jmo

 

[Quiet]

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.

I hear what you are saying. it would be counterproductive if we considered homosexual marriage to be an honourary marriage in leiu of a 'true' hetrosexual marriage. This would not create equality, it would only highlight inherent inequality. In regards to men and women, as [MENTION=5090]Apone[/MENTION] mentioned earlier, women and men are both considered employees, or citizens, people, members etc. The gender is only relevant in indentifying people biologically and culturally, but becomes irrelevant when affording individuals rights. Women are still not afforded the same rights as men, because of all the sematic bias in our cultures. The distinction of men and women is fine as long as we realise and accept that both sexes are 'people' and fall under the overaching banner of 'human', and all humans need to be afforded the same equal rights.

I do appreciate your wish to have concise semantic meaning. How would you feel if it was labelled like this:
hetrosexual marriage, lesbian marriage and gay marriage? That way all these partnership fall under the same banner of 'marriage' but they are semantically distinctive.

 

[Apone]

I do appreciate your wish to have concise semantic meaning. How would you feel if it was labelled like this:
hetrosexual marriage, lesbian marriage and gay marriage? That way all these partnership fall under the same banner of 'marriage' but they are semantically distinctive.

Count on [MENTION=4956]Asarya[/MENTION] to bring a sense of collected serenity to any discussion.

I think 'same sex marriage' is fine, personally... there isn't so much need to differentiate between gay/lesbian. And I don't think that it's a distinction that needs to be made all the time either... just when you're getting more specific.

To be honest, the 'separate but equal' argument reminds me of having separate drinking fountains or designated spots on a bus. Sure, both of the fountains give you water in the same way, and yeah, it doesn't really matter where you sit on a bus because you'll still get there-- but I don't think you'd hear too many black people arguing that it made them feel special in a good way,

But I suppose they're so blinded by their 'inherent need for acceptance' that they didn't stop to think about how lucky they were.

 

[Quiet]

Count on [MENTION=4956]Asarya[/MENTION] to bring a sense of collected serenity to any discussion.

I think 'same sex marriage' is fine, personally... there isn't so much need to differentiate between gay/lesbian. And I don't think that it's a distinction that needs to be made all the time either... just when you're getting more specific.

To be honest, the 'separate but equal' argument reminds me of having separate drinking fountains or designated spots on a bus. Sure, both of the fountains give you water in the same way, and yeah, it doesn't really matter where you sit on a bus because you'll still get there-- but I don't think you'd hear too many black people arguing that it made them feel special in a good way,

But I suppose they're so blinded by their 'inherent need for acceptance' that they didn't stop to think about how lucky they were.

I agree. The distinction doesnt need to be made all the time, just when we are talking about specifics or statistics. They are all essentially the same and fall under the same banner

 

[Matt3737]

Count on [MENTION=4956]Asarya[/MENTION] to bring a sense of collected serenity to any discussion.

I think 'same sex marriage' is fine, personally... there isn't so much need to differentiate between gay/lesbian. And I don't think that it's a distinction that needs to be made all the time either... just when you're getting more specific.

To be honest, the 'separate but equal' argument reminds me of having separate drinking fountains or designated spots on a bus. Sure, both of the fountains give you water in the same way, and yeah, it doesn't really matter where you sit on a bus because you'll still get there-- but I don't think you'd hear too many black people arguing that it made them feel special in a good way,

But I suppose they're so blinded by their 'inherent need for acceptance' that they didn't stop to think about how lucky they were.

The biggest problem with the 'separate but equal' idea during the civil rights period wasn't the idea itself, but its implementation. The most notable difference being school funding. Black schools were grossly underfunded compared to white schools. If they had indeed been given equal treatment, then there may not have been any resentment to the idea.

Not only was “separate but equal” applied to railroad cars, but also schools, voting rights, and drinking fountains.Segregated schools were created for students, as long as they followed, “separate but equal”. The notion that they were equal though has been controversial. For example the majority of all black schools received old textbooks, used equipment, and poorly prepared or trained teachers. A study conducted by the American Psychological Association found that segregated black students were emotionally impaired when segregated at a young age. Furthermore, many black students were forced to associate with “white dolls” and colors similar, but lighter, than their own skin. Also, state voting right restrictions, such as literacy tests and poll taxes created an environment that made it almost impossible for blacks to vote. This era also saw separate drinking fountains in public areas.

“Separate but Equal” was eventually overturned by the Linda Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court Case in 1954. Separate railroad cars, schools, voting rights, and drinking fountains were established, but they were not equal; poorer services and restrictions on voting rights still limited blacks throughout the United States, and they still were not granted more political and/or social power than before.

 

[Apone]

The biggest problem with the 'separate but equal' idea during the civil rights period wasn't the idea itself, but its implementation. The most notable difference being school funding. Black schools were grossly underfunded compared to white schools. If they had indeed been given equal treatment, then there may not have been any resentment to the idea.

So wait, are you pro-segregation then???

I guess that Catholic schools are an example of 'special treatment', but in a lot of cases I don't think that you can make distinctions without breeding inequality... it's better to have everything fully integrated so that people are exposed to things and they stop fearing them. If natural separations occur, which is probably inevitable, then so be it. I do think that they tend to breed a general ignorance, however...

I would even argue that gay culture (or any minority culture) owes its existence to its rejection by the mainstream-- when the mainstream culture doesn't accept you, you create your own. I think that this has made subtle or slight differences much bigger than they should have been, and I think that these differences create a lot of problems for groups, individuals and society in general... and made it much harder for people to accept and support each other.

So let's say that segregation had continued and everyone had been funded equally and this had led to two separate societies within the country... not that this hasn't happened anyways, but let's just say that the divisions were even more pronounced. What effect would this have had on education? On society? On politics? On human rights?

And I'm pretty hard-pressed to come up with too many special considerations that a gay couple would need in a marriage-- definitely not enough to warrant a whole new definition of the term, or to keep everything separate.

 

[Matt3737]

So wait, are you pro-segregation then???

No, I am not, but I do note that not everything in life can be exactly equal. So we have to come to some sense of balance and accept differences among people while promoting equality. The fact of the matter is that gay couples can not be exactly equal to heterosexual couples. We have to acknowledge those differences in our attempts to achieve equality. A heterosexual couple is going to have different concerns than a homosexual couple even if they are analogous or approximately the same issues.