Do you support gay marriage?

[Rui]

I think it's the fact that the government has made the distinction between straights and gays. Straights get "marriages", gays can only get "civil unions". Separate is not equal, we learned this from mid-1990s America. Countries like Spain and Belgium and Holland have gay "marriages", I don't see why the UK and Ireland should have anything less ....

Then I think the solution is to clearly define "marriage" in our country. If it's a religious [in this case Christian orthodox from the comments] thing, non-religious marriages have no business being called "marriage" either, and putting those in the same light as civil unions would remove some of the stigma for those forced down that path. If it's a reproduction thing, people with fertility problems or lack of desire for children are doing something slightly different too to the standard "marriage" as so many comments in this thread involve children when it's not a criteria for marriage as far as I know. Everyone here seems to have different and idealised views of what the word "marriage" connotes.

Blocking homosexuals from getting married in case they adopt children (which isn't an easy process and sorely needs more people doing it anyway - if straight people aren't rushing to do it and instead having IVF etc, let the homosexual couples give kids some love in their place...) is like blocking women from having careers in case they decide to have children later in life. They might not. In my personal opinion even if they do it wouldn't be a problem if they're good people, but gay parenting is clearly a touchy subject here right now so one thing at a time!

I call my wedding a marriage, but if it was actually technically a civil union or whatever it wouldn't bother me. So long as it has the same legal and social power as a church marriage, I'm more than happy to share its full status with the homosexual community too.

R

 

[melonpan]

I don't have a problem with it but at the same time I don't think actually getting married is worth all the hassle and expense anyway, hetro or otherwise. I don't see anything wrong with just living together as a couple because apart from owning a document saying that you are legally bound to each other there doesn't seem to be much advantage to it really.

I was going to post my view, but I think I just read it right there, to a tee.

 

[Dracos]

I really could care less about anyone getting married if they want to. At it’s base marriage was basically a way of saying this woman now no longer belongs to her family, but to her husband. Then religion got involved and now politics where it is used as a tool.

However I can see why homosexual couples would want to fight for the rights given out to married people in this country, it is another step to equality and why shouldn’t everybody be entitled to that. Though we could also say why are unmarried couples on any description not offered the same protection under the law if it can be proved that they have been living as though married for at least a set time.

P.S. I am not sure if C.G. set this out on purpose, but if you stick out "Troll Bait" expect to catch some Trolls.

 

[Chaz]

Well, I'm officially lost in this discussion... Far too much text to catch up on. ^_^' I'll comment on what I can though.

I'm sorry to say this, but I don't believe you're born gay (or hetro). From a physical point, our species is formed to nurture the hetrosexual combo, so we can have kids. And without a male/female combo, the gay community wouldn't even exist if, per say, "Adam and Eve" didn't have sex. If we were all gay/lesbian, then we'd be screwed. Er, per say...

But from a mental point, we are taught to like something. Traditionally, it's male/female couples, but in life, experience and feelings are the thing that influences the heart/love. How is it that a gay man came to place? Evolution? If that was the case (with all due respect) it would be a backward-evolution, which does exist. To my knowledge, it was when someone felt most comfortable with another guy. Not like father and son's bond together, but it's as deep as that.

As for bullying, yeah, it's just slander and egotistical bull- that only came across because people aren't used to it, so it sounds insulting. It's like being called a freak because you had nasty burns, but the fact is they're just as normal as the person next to them.

As for the church/christianity discussion, I couldn't care much. I'd be happy if it was just marrage for christians and civil union for everyone else. It's their ceremony, not the athists. Hindu's have their version of marrages, but they have different views on it too. Muslims with the "no seeing women unless their married to you" is another religious thing that's linked to this. (If I'm correct.)
Civil union should be like marrage in terms of them having all the usual rights to marrage for the norm. It may not be a white wedding, but that's what you have to acknowlege and accept, because you're not part of their beliefs.
If the government accepts gays, then there should be a place for them to have their ceremony, with their own certificate or whatever of unity. I'm not married, so I don't know anything about marrages/unions.

 

[Rui]

I think environment has a lot of impact for sure. It's pretty much impossible to know what makes a person think and act a certain way though (so generalisations like "you had no father around" etc are just conjecture).

But just on the point that homosexuality is backwards; in terms of evolution that's certainly right. But so are disabilities and infertility and the trend that intellectuals have less children than chavs in developed countries - and I don't mean to disparage homosexuals by that at all. My point is just that if an infertile man and woman marry, it's just as pointless in an evolutionary sense as a man marrying a man, yet society has a problem with one and not the other. That's not fair.

If orthodox religious people want to have their own super religious and backwards "No Gays Allowed" club that's up to them as I see it, so long as it doesn't infringe on the same freedoms of love and thought being extended to anyone else. So Catholics should be able to stop gay people marrying in a Catholic service if they want - their service, their rules - but not stop them marrying completely if they're not even Catholic themselves. They stop Catholic people marrying in Catholic services already if they don't jump through hoops so it's nothing new for them to exert their authority (then wonder why attendance at Mass plummets as they continue to refuse to keep with the times...). Last time I checked, Christians didn't come up with marriage at all, let alone had the right to be the Wedding Police. It seems strange that something which predates it can be controlled so much in this country by an arbitrary and fragmented religion.

Sorry for always using Catholicism examples; it's the strictest demonimation I know anything about. Same comments apply to any others with the same rules in this case.

R

 

[Chaz]

I think environment has a lot of impact for sure. It's pretty much impossible to know what makes a person think and act a certain way though (so generalisations like "you had no father around" etc are just conjecture).

But just on the point that homosexuality is backwards; in terms of evolution that's certainly right. But so are disabilities and infertility and the trend that intellectuals have less children than chavs in developed countries - and I don't mean to disparage homosexuals by that at all. My point is just that if an infertile man and woman marry, it's just as pointless in an evolutionary sense as a man marrying a man, yet society has a problem with one and not the other. That's not fair.

Probably because we think as one being an accident while the gay subject is voluntary. You're right, it isn't fair. That's just how others look at it with their ignorance.

If orthodox religious people want to have their own super religious and backwards "No Gays Allowed" club that's up to them as I see it, so long as it doesn't infringe on the same freedoms of love and thought being extended to anyone else. So Catholics should be able to stop gay people marrying in a Catholic service if they want - their service, their rules - but not stop them marrying completely if they're not even Catholic themselves. They stop Catholic people marrying in Catholic services already if they don't jump through hoops so it's nothing new for them to exert their authority (then wonder why attendance at Mass plummets as they continue to refuse to keep with the times...). Last time I checked, Christians didn't come up with marriage at all, let alone had the right to be the Wedding Police. It seems strange that something which predates it can be controlled so much in this country by an arbitrary and fragmented religion.

Sorry for always using Catholicism examples; it's the strictest demonimation I know anything about. Same comments apply to any others with the same rules in this case.

R

Catholics shouldn't have anything to do with this, but they're probably the base of what influences the people who should make acceptances for the gay society; The government. Even if it's to let private run "churches" to wed them, they should expand the needs of the couples by ajusting/making the laws and powers, or by funding it. But I bet a good sum of the government is catholic, but this is speculation.

 

[rick]

I think you'll find any other straight male would also feel disgusted by it.

No, you're wrong here, too! Just look at this thread, the majority of the straight guys here have said that homosexuality really doesn't bother them, and the poll shows that the grand majority support same sex marriage.

While I don't really give a damn whether two men get married, I can't help but feel that two men having, dare I say, intercourse to be extremely disturbing.

I would have preferred an "I don't care" poll option (or something to that extent), to be honest. In actuality I neither support it, but nor do I condemn it - neutral if you will.

 

[Chaz]

I think you'll find any other straight male would also feel disgusted by it.

No, you're wrong here, too! Just look at this thread, the majority of the straight guys here have said that homosexuality really doesn't bother them, and the poll shows that the grand majority support same sex marriage.

While I don't really give a damn whether two men get married, I can't help but feel that two men having, dare I say, intercourse to be extremely disturbing.

I would have preferred an "I don't care" poll option (or something to that extent), to be honest. In actuality I neither support it, but nor do I condemn it - neutral if you will.

Well, to me, guy-on-guy action is disturbing to imagine for myself. I believe you, me and a few others have same opinions on that matter. I have no problem with you not caring about them.

I think what Ryuzaki means is it's nice for the gay society to have their rightes etc. But Ryuzaki and a majority of straight males would find imagining the sex crindge worthy, due to hetrosexuals only wanting to have intercorse with females.
Difference between Ryu and me is that I support the rights needed. Ryu wouldn't but wont spit on it either.

Hope I've cleared it all up. ^_^

 

[CitizenGeek]

But just on the point that homosexuality is backwards; in terms of evolution that's certainly right. But so are disabilities and infertility and the trend that intellectuals have less children than chavs in developed countries - and I don't mean to disparage homosexuals by that at all.

This isn't true. Homosexuality is not a freak genetic mutation (like a disability) nor is it akin to infertility (I'm pretty sure most gay men and women, just like most straight men and women, are indeed fertile). There are various theories as to how homosexuality fits into evolution, it doesn't have to be "backwards".

Well, to me, guy-on-guy action is disturbing to imagine for myself. I believe you, me and a few others have same opinions on that matter. I have no problem with you not caring about them.

I think what Ryuzaki means is it's nice for the gay society to have their rightes etc. But Ryuzaki and a majority of straight males would find imagining the sex crindge worthy, due to hetrosexuals only wanting to have intercorse with females.
Difference between Ryu and me is that I support the rights needed. Ryu wouldn't but wont spit on it either.

Hope I've cleared it all up. ^_^

Yeah, Chaz, that makes sense! I wish more had your maturity on this subject. Not being comfortable with gay sex is perfectly normal for a heterosexual man; nothing wrong with that at all.

 

[Rui]

This isn't true. Homosexuality is not a freak genetic mutation (like a disability) nor is it akin to infertility (I'm pretty sure most gay men and women, just like most straight men and women, are indeed fertile). There are various theories as to how homosexuality fits into evolution, it doesn't have to be "backwards".

I didn't mean it quite like that; in terms of raw evolution it is at best a dead end since participants are less likely to reproduce or contribute to genetic advances of the race; but it certainly doesn't mean there is no role for homosexuals (and the other examples) in furthering society in other ways. I meant backwards as in against the flow of the standard reproduction scheme which expands our species' numbers. Though as is evident from the exploding global population despite the advances of contraception and understanding concepts such as homosexuality and people choosing not to bear children in the "developed" world, we're not in much danger of dying out anytime soon anyway. Bad choice of phrasing, sorry!

And disabilities aren't just genetic; people can be mutilated horribly through accident or disease later in life too. Similarly a non-reproducing couple could be down to only one partner actually being infertile but still be a "dead end" if they stay together. The important thing is just that all of the people listed are just as human and valuable as any other, no matter what the circumstances or how many biological children they have.

R

 

[Zen 2nd]

Homosexuality is Mother Nature's population control.

What if you didn't want to be a homosexual?

 

[Chaz]

This isn't true. Homosexuality is not a freak genetic mutation (like a disability) nor is it akin to infertility (I'm pretty sure most gay men and women, just like most straight men and women, are indeed fertile). There are various theories as to how homosexuality fits into evolution, it doesn't have to be "backwards".

I didn't mean it quite like that; in terms of raw evolution it is at best a dead end since participants are less likely to reproduce or contribute to genetic advances of the race; but it certainly doesn't mean there is no role for homosexuals (and the other examples) in furthering society in other ways. I meant backwards as in against the flow of the standard reproduction scheme which expands our species' numbers. Though as is evident from the exploding global population despite the advances of contraception and understanding concepts such as homosexuality and people choosing not to bear children in the "developed" world, we're not in much danger of dying out anytime soon anyway. Bad choice of phrasing, sorry!

Actually, I think it was my fault. I was the one who said backward-evolution... But what you said was spot on.

 

[CitizenGeek]

What if you didn't want to be a homosexual?

Well, I'm sure homosexual animals don't really care whether they're gay or not, so this issue only really concerns humans. Being gay and not wanting to be gay is the same being born brunette but wanting blonde hair. You can fool yourself and everyone else by temporarily altering your hair to be blonde with synthetic dye, but you're still always going to be brunette.

It's absolutely not a choice, which I think it the point you're making. Gay people can trick themselves into being straight, but they're still gay. Besides, why would anyone choose to be gay? Don't get me wrong, I love being gay. It's awesome! But, I won't deny that it's an easier life being straight. Much easier.

 

[Warmaster]

Yes, absolutely and without exception.

I mean I'm not gay, but I have several friends (male and female) who are, and for one, they are all much more suited to being parents than I am. So yes, absolutely.

 

[Zen 2nd]

What if you didn't want to be a homosexual?

Well, I'm sure homosexual animals don't really care whether they're gay or not, so this issue only really concerns humans.

That's pretty obvious since we have higher intelligence than animals.

Gay people can trick themselves into being straight, but they're still gay.

What makes a straight person gay then? Or are they just pretending?

 

[Chaz]

What if you didn't want to be a homosexual?

Well, I'm sure homosexual animals don't really care whether they're gay or not, so this issue only really concerns humans.

That's pretty obvious since we have higher intelligence than animals.

Gay people can trick themselves into being straight, but they're still gay.

What makes a straight person gay then? Or are they just pretending?

It's usually refered to as someone living "in the clorset," i.e. a clorest pervert is someone who himself denies looking at naked women/men for pleasure. In reality, they're the kind who edge their way to have a little peek anyways.

 

[CitizenGeek]

What makes a straight person gay then? Or are they just pretending?

I'm not sure what you mean, but I think you are referring to people who live their lives as straight people and then eventually come out as gay, yes? Well, these people were always gay, they just didn't know it. Like our fantastic President here in Ireland once said, homosexuality is a "discovery not a decision". Or maybe, as is often the case, they just lived a straight life because they couldn't handle society's cruel treatment of gay people (this isn't the case anymore; society is more accepting, and less and less gay people feel like they have to pretend to be straight).

 

[Kurogane]

That brings up an interesting point actually.

There's numerous cases of people becoming married, having children then eventually coming out of the non-gay closet.

Tell me, if these people were always gay like you claim-- how could they have put up a marriage (which needs a healthy sexual relationshop to survive), and raise kids?

To me, that's bisexuality, or greediness. :lol:

 

[CitizenGeek]

Tell me, if these people were always gay like you claim-- how could they have put up a marriage (which needs a healthy sexual relationshop to survive), and raise kids?

Well, just talk to (or listen to, or read something by) one of these such people. They'll tell you that they got married to women because of the overwhelming pressure to conform in the past. It's still there, indeed, but not anywhere near as overwhelming as before. Marriage does need a healthy sexual relationship to survive; this is why none of the marriages involving gay men or women survived

 

[Zen 2nd]

What makes a straight person gay then? Or are they just pretending?

I'm not sure what you mean, but I think you are referring to people who live their lives as straight people and then eventually come out as gay, yes? Well, these people were always gay, they just didn't know it. Like our fantastic President here in Ireland once said, homosexuality is a "discovery not a decision". Or maybe, as is often the case, they just lived a straight life because they couldn't handle society's cruel treatment of gay people (this isn't the case anymore; society is more accepting, and less and less gay people feel like they have to pretend to be straight).

How can you be so certain that every person who is gay was actually born gay?

Well, these people were always gay, they just didn't know it.

So these people were unaware that they were gay and were having fun with the opposite sex but then all of a sudden something clicks and they are gay?? Doesn't that just boil down to personal preference then? Like as a child I didn't like to eat fish but now I love it, is that because a little switch decided to flick to "Like fish"? Did nature always intend for me to like fish?