Your thoughts on Gay Marriage / Homosexuality?

Post Reply New Topic

Count me as for gay marriage too.

Gay marriage will allow gays to enjoy the same rate of divorce as Christians. It isnt fair that they reserve that privilege for themselves.

The problem with a lot of the arguments being made against gay rights is the massive lack of evidence to support such thoughts like "gay marriage encourages bad behavior" or "gay parents = gay children" or "gay marriage creates more dysfunctional family units". You need to do hardcore studies and provide statistics and examples in order for these kinds of arguements to be legit (such as studying nations/states that allow gay marriage). Otherwise such arguements are nothing more than just generalizations and speculations that would never hold up in a real debate.

The people who insist that marriage has to be between opposite sexes seem to think that their religious definition of the word marriage necessarily overrules all of the religions whose definitions allow for same-sex marriage. Plenty of gay people are currently getting married in various churches, but their weddings are not recognized by most states.

I'll repeat my age old opinion. If people truly wish to keep marriage Judaoform, they need to allow parallel institutions - let each group (there are many out there) have its own cultural representations, give all unions a legal umbrella term in place of 'marriage', and let each group have its own say to govern its own customs on how it handles union of this sort.

"But..that's Separate But Equal - Jim Crow again!"

It would be no more 'Separate But Equal' than, say, my inability to have a bar mitzvah as a Catholic. They'd all be called something legally sterile, government would have a similar child custody and alimony/support hand in things as needed all the way cross the board, and it would be obvious - if any of the groups had fewer or more rights that would completely annihilate the whole point.

"But its just WORDS - WHO the hell CARES?"

You have a lot to learn about societies form their sense of reality and identity. Words, symbols, and rituals are all a very big deal. We'd be, culturally, a much richer society where everyone has their own ritual and sub-institution that welcomes them rather than one notion watered down to gruel.

i actually love this idea. i quoted it to someone IRL (the ultimate compliment IMO). why not have gay churchy institutions, where they can get legally married!

So

uh


is this morality you speak of in any way a prescriptive codification of acts that promotes happiness and seeks to eliminate suffering?

Who, exactly, is being made to suffer should ALL sexual orientations be respected and afforded equal legal rights and cultural respect?

It is, most certainly, a valid approach--it is the one used in France. However, once "marriage" becomes a word with no legal meaning, then everyone is entitled to use it. Conservative Christians will lose their monopoly on the definition either way.



Actually, it would--because a bar mitzvah conveys no legal capacity. But leaving that aside, what position would a same-sex couple have in your regieme in the area of adoption? What are the custody, guardianship and access rights of a biological parent's same-sex partner, and do they contrast with those that would be conferred on an opposite sex partner?

Provided that these legal rights are carried forward in step with your neutrally defined legal relationship, then all is well.



Your argument cuts both ways. Words, symbols and rituals are inportant to you--but they are important to us as well.

Personally, I see two approaches that are equally satisfactory. You can cut off your nose to spite your face and say, "if we can retain the exclusive control of the legal state of marriage, then nobody should have it." At that point, the word marriage becomes a free-for-all that we can all co-opt. Alternatively, you can open the legal doors open to everyone, at which point the word marriage means what the law says it means.

So long as we move away from the status quo ante in one of these directions, I am content.

HOLD ON, Bethie, don't get so carried away.

Adult sexual immorality is all-encompassing. Forget about homosexuality, that's only one facet of the whole. We could include prostitution, pornography, "swinging," orgies, rape, incest (though I doubt adults consensually engage in this wholesale, but I could be wrong), three-some, four-some, five-some, x-some, and so on, never mind unwanted innuendos at work/school (sexual harassment). There is a whole range of things that even homosexuals would take issue on a moral level. So we know some things are "just wrong." Forget about religion, too. If so many people hold the same values in common, that indicates something that is part of a global moral fabric which transcends culture and religion.

What we DO attempt to do--everyone, not just Christians--is try to protect our young people from as much of it as possible. We aren't always completely successful, but most people who actually care how their kids turn out at least try to keep them on the right path as long as possible.

I'm not going to bother answering your questions directly. You can draw your own conclusions from what I've said already.

But I will ask you this, based on the quote you took from me: Is it right to tolerate all attitudes regarding sex? Why/why not? Should we remove laws pertaining to consensual sex among minors and between consenting minors and adults? Should marriage be allowed between first cousins and even siblings (adults OR teens, either way)?

Further: Are sexual mores (customs/conventions of a community) objective or subjective? If objective, then what is the source of any moral compass? If subjective, why do so many sexual mores share consistency among cultures which have little or nothing to do with each other, such as laws defining taboo? Is it possible, acceptable, or even justifiable, whether objective or subjective, for a group or sub-group within a culture to act as the conscience of the society at large? If it is possible, acceptable, or justifiable, who decides which group/sub-group is allowed to play that role? If it is NOT possible, acceptable, or justifiable, why make such a fuss? In this latter case, it doesn't matter who is "right" or "wrong," as all people have the right to act, speak, and persuade as they wish. You would have no right, in other words, to be critical of anyone else because you practice the freedom to act/speak/persuade as you will. What does it matter if anyone listens or gets offended? But you also have to understand that turnabout is fair play. If there is no societal conscience, then who are you to judge?

And why even think anything is wrong with, say, rape, forced abortion, incest (even consensual), and other things most of us find unacceptable? What about pedophilia ("we were 'just playing'! What's the harm in a little father/daughter play time in the bathtub?")? If there is so much of a HINT of pedophilia going on, no matter how "innocent," DHS WILL TAKE YOUR KIDS AWAY and put them in foster "care" where they will just end up getting raped by older kids and then have to endure pregnancy. So... Exactly what are the bounds of justice, again?

Morality cannot be defined as "acts that promote happiness and seek to eliminate suffering." It might have that as the end result, but that is not the goal of morality. If it IS, then there should be no problem if men wish to solicit pre-teen and teenage girls for sex. Sex makes people happy, and if people are "suffering," it certainly makes people feel better. So there should be no problem with anyone targeting kids for that purpose.

Yeah. Use that justification in a court of law and see what happens.

What about "you don't choose who you fall in love with"? Ask Mary Kay Fualaau what happened to her. Seems like we have an epidemic of female teachers sleeping with their young students. Maybe we should leegalize that, too.

@ bolded: Thank god the dirty gays have SOME morals then. EVEN THEY dislike rape. How charitable of you to admit that maybe they aren't COMPLETELY evil and immoral....

And where do you live that all the kids in care get raped by older children and end up pregnant? Don't be so ridiculous. Quite apart from anything else, it suggests that all children in care are potential rapists, which is absolute bollocks.

Why do people insist on aligning something as innocuous as being gay with rape, incest and pedophilia? I find it deeply worrying that there is a tone to your posts which suggests you would prefer pedo rapists to gays any day of the week. SO LONG AS THEY AREN'T GAY OMG RUN!! ! Ridiculous.

If anybody needs to be kept away from children it's foolish frothing Christians hell-bent on propagating hate and the utterly ridiculous notion that allowing one utterly harmless sexual preference would unleash a torrent of legalized filth and monstrosity on humanity.

"One utterly harmless sexual preference..."

Sure.

So pedophilia is also "utterly harmless," right? As long as a father and daughter are "just having a little fun," so what? Perfectly harmless, just one big bowl of laughs, right?

Incest: Well, now, you do have all those frozen embryos floating around labs. So it isn't inconceivable (no pun intended) that a brother and sister could "just happen" to hook up, right? Who are we to judge them? They didn't know, so let the poor kids get married already! And even if they are "traditional" birthed to "traditional" parents, who is to say what they do as consenting adults is anybody's business? And science has determined that first cousins are genetically diverse enough as to not cause any problems. So that's ok, isn't it?

In our society, it's acceptable if little kids "play doctor" because generally they don't know better. If we find out that's going on, we gently explain to them that's a "no-no." But what about, "hey, let me show what I saw mommy and daddy doing while they didn't see me looking"? It's just "one utterly harmless sexual preference..."

I won't waste any more space going on about my opinions on the matter. I'm genuinely curious as to what Bethie thinks of all this.

Still doing the same thing. Still drawing parallels between gay sex and pedophilia, even though the two are not the same, as well you know, and apparently trying to suggest that anyone who has no issue with gay sex must also support pedophilia. Ridiculous and somewhat insulting.

And yes, gay sex is UTTERLY HARMLESS. If anything it is even less harmful than straight sex, as there is absolutely ZERO possibility of an unwanted pregnancy, one of the core problems with sex.

Do tell, what exactly IS so terrible about consenting sex between two adults of the same sex? Is it just men on men or does girl on girl count too? And I don't need to hear "Because God said so". Lets get some actual REASONS for it.

Now there are idiots connected to the Tea Baggers who say there is no such thing as a disease like HIV/AIDS. Rather, they claim the symptoms are the outward results of the homosexual lifestyle. They don't seem to realize (or don't want to) that the one group with the lowest infection rate are gay women. I'd like to hear how they explain away the non-homosexuals with the disease.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I would say there are indeed some parallels between a man who has a sexual preference for another man and a man who has a sexual preference for a child (or woman). Unfortunately, anytime someone brings up the notion they are scorned on and on about consent and how they are so different--except, I tend to think, in terms of a sexual preference, they are more alike than they are the same. Before anyone gets confused, I'd also say that heterosexual preferences also share the same parallels as well.

A sexual desire is a sexual desire, no? From whence does it come from? Given the nature of this topic (that homosexual desires are as equally natural as heterosexual ones) it seems sort of odd to cry foul because a certain group is using arbitrary reasoning to define how another group is different while doing so yourself. Sure, we have consent laws--laws that we have created and actually have had much different meaning over the years and with differing cultures.

Hell, the Etoro tribe in Papua New Guinea are known for their young boys being required to ingest semen before being considered as adult males--something that would be abhorrent most other places in the world. But who is right? Us? Them? And on what grounds?

These questions and more need be asked before simply shrugging off the similarities between pedophilia, homosexuality and heterosexuality.

Is that the same bunch as have that daft woman who thinks that scientists are breeding mice with human brains?

If you are going to draw a line, then draw a rational line.

I submit that the objective factor that makes paedophilia objectionable is the fact that a child is not capable of giving a meaningful consent to the act. This also serves to render bestiality and necrophilia objectively objectionable.

To suggest that homosexuality--involving the informed consent of two competent adults--is more readily analogized to paedophilia than it is to heterosexuality is insulting to homosexuals, and it is insulting to the the victims of paedophiles.

The vast majority of cases of paedophilia and of incest involve heterosexual acts. So if we are going to start flinging aspersions, perhaps we had better turn our eye to the straights rather than the gays.

He already stated the parallels between homosexuality and peadophilia and between heterosexuality and peadophilia are the same.

As far as I understood Kaziglubey's post he said the opposite of what you seem to think he said.