Your thoughts on Gay Marriage / Homosexuality?

Post Reply New Topic

I personally am for Gay Marriage.

Who cares? there isn't any valid reason for a government to be against gay marriage, this thread is kind of a waste of time.

EDIT: In my opinion

The state shouldn't be involved in marriage, of any kind, period.

As for homosexuals in general? I don't care how they live their lives, whatever floats their boat. If two people love each other, whatever kind of relationship it is, it's a beautiful thing.

the government not having a valid reason to prohibit something that the government currently prohibits is actually a very very good reason to discuss it.

I am STRIDENTLY for the freedom of two loving individuals of the same or opposite sexes to marry and STRIDENTLY against the usage of bronze age mythology to prevent such union.

I don't know if it's just bronze age mythology. Unfortunately it seems like homophobia is something that's programmed into the lizard brain of the a sizable portion of the population, regardless of religion. The lizard brain is essentially opposed to any kind of "wasteful" pleasureful activity. Basically anything that isn't geared towards maximal procreation is shunned as "immoral".

I agree that the Abraham religions aren't helping matters though.

I think anyone should eb able to marry anyone else. As long as the people involved are happy and consenting why is it anyone else's business?

I'm married to a woman

Claire

I'm pro. Who am I to decide that some people are free to marry and some aren't? I've had enough of attitude myself for being different from the others so I'd be happy to show tolerance.

I think people should be allowed to marry whoever they want.

I'm for gay marriage as well. If you don't like gay marriage, don't get one. It's that simple. It's not going to "ruin the sanctity of marriage." If they were so concerned about that, they'd make divorce illegal too. Basically they're contradicting themselves left and right. :/

Love is love. people should marry whoever they want, male, female, bit of both who cares.

I should probably keep my opinions to myself on the matter.

I think what is important is more WHY those lizard-brains among us see gay marriage as problematic. The primary judicial attitude regarding gay marriage is a matter of definition. By nature, marriage involves opposite-sex coupling for a variety of functions, in part the support of reproduction and moral/spiritual/cultural transmission of values. Heterosexual relationships are the only ones that exist in nature which provide this in the most complete context. Homosexual relations, by nature do not accommodate this as a start-to-finish life cycle. It's problematic in part because homosexual partners cannot conceive children together in such a way that children are a result of both partners' genetic traits. This is only possible through adoption or some artificial means of conception.

So in terms of how marriage is necessitated through "natural" laws, it is incompatible with homosexuality. It's not even necessary. Now, I do think there are instances in which some kind of civil union is necessary for legal and emergency purposes. This benefits even those who are non-sexual partners but do have an interest in another person. In fact, these are the kinds of partnerships I would encourage people to have, anyway, because of so many uncertainties in life (death of a mate, absent children, no surviving family members, and so on). There is no reason why such a legal partnership couldn't apply to homosexual partners as well. Understanding this, the question should be asked "why would homosexuals WANT to get married?"

And that, I think is the real issue. Homosexuals have made great strides culturally and historically in this country to gain recognition, abolition of laws forbidding homosexuality, and some freedom from persecution at the hands of opponents. OK, we live in a free country, ergo we should be free to express ourselves in such ways as are protected by the constitution and cause no harm to others. So while one is free to express his opinions in opposition to homosexuality, he is not free to cause physical harm to a gay person, nor may he defame or slander such a person. A gay person, likewise, may express his opinions and present arguments against opposing viewpoints IF he holds to the same standards: No physical harm, no defamation. I'm free to say "I hate gay people," but that is simply how I feel. I cannot, for instance, spread lies or rumors about a gay person that results in, for example, the loss of a job, loss of reputation, or other kind of disenfranchisement (arrest on trumped up charges, being "blacklisted" from job opportunities--it CAN happen, refusal of credit at a financial institution, being unduly smeared by the media, and so on). By saying "I hate gays," though, all I should risk is simply being called out and being held accountable for my opinions. A gay person can attack whatever support I have for my opinions, or he can attempt to change my mind through argumentation. I can attack his viewpoints in a similar way for a similar purpose. That's the beauty of living in a democracy. We can DO those kinds of things.

Where the waters turn murky is when we have to apply legalistic definitions to what exactly our freedoms are. To be "free" in accordance with the law and the Constitution, each citizen must be free to express his opinions within the boundaries of what I've already mentioned. And this is where the religious right and homosexuals butt heads the most, I think. Conservative evangelicals hold that homosexuality is governed under the rubric of idolatry and is, thus, an abomination. Homosexuals recognize this, so they know fighting a religion is a losing battle. Thus the cultural war that homosexuals have been fighting is not a war of changing religion per se, but rather changing public perception of homosexuality. IF homosexuality is LEGAL, then no one has a right to persecute homosexuals. If no one has the right to persecute homosexuals, then homosexuality must be tolerated. If it must be tolerated, then it must be accepted. And if it is accepted, then public opinion must turn in favor of its respectability.

Christians balk at the tolerance-acceptance stage of the war. We can "tolerate" something in the sense that we "love others as God loved us." But that does not imply tacit approval and acceptance of something the Bible expressly forbids. You might say we are hypocrites because we don't do more to rid ourselves of premarital sex, as well as other sins that aren't as often mentioned. For one, sex can be remedied (made acceptable) through acceptable (Biblically speaking) marriage. Homosexual sex, on the other hand, cannot be remedied through any Biblical Christian doctrine. You have nothing to do other than abandon the practice, which committed homosexuals are unwilling to do.

But while Christians oppose the acceptability of homosexuals, we can't speak for the rest of public opinion. So if homosexuals win cultural battles elsewhere, then homosexuality becomes acceptable and, in turn, respectable among every sub-group except one. And if THIS happens, which it already has in many ways, then it means that one sub-group, the Christian evangelicals, are non-comformist, intolerant bullies. The ultimate (in the VERY END) result is that it becomes a "hate-crime" to believe what the Bible says about homosexuality (and many other crimes as a result), which exposes homosexuals and liberals to an entirely new quandary: Infringement of religious civil rights. It may take longer, but the pendulum WILL inexorably swing away from favoring homosexuals towards a more equitable representation of all beliefs on the matter. In the long run, homosexuals do more damage to their own rights if they are guilty of the same or worse civil rights violations. Hypocrisy, perhaps, is the least tolerable of all the sins.

And gay marriage represents that in the minds of evangelicals. It represents the forced imposition of respectability on all citizens, whether or not they agree with it. When this happens, regardless of the viewpoint that is being promoted, you take away a person's right to think. Christians will see this as a very dangerous pattern, and there should be no surprise if we vehemently oppose it. If gay-marriage proponents are really promoting "tolerance" and "acceptance," they should carefully weigh the merits of a legal piece of paper against the best interests of all people involved, not merely their own self-interest. A better solution would be to find legal solutions and pass laws that are not quite so destructive.

And my apologies if that offends anyone. That's not my purpose, nor am I prepared to debate about it myself. I did, however, notice that there wasn't a wide diversity of viewpoints on the matter. It might do everyone some good to have one!

There is nothing natural about marriage. The majority of straight couples do not get married in support of spiritual values. If we are to accept marriage as what it is - a legal union between two human beings who love each other and wish to be treated as a single unit - there is no reason to exclude same sex couples from the right to such a union.

Moral and cultural values have changed. The institution of marriage should also change to reflect this.



All of which is irrelevant to the subject of marriage. Marriage does not exist for the purpose of procreation. Indeed, many straight married couples choose to not reproduce.



How can a legal contract that requires people recognise the union of two people be incompatible with homosexuality? It isn't necessary for anyone to get married.



Because they wish to do as the majority of couples who marry do - express their love and commitment to each other.



I'm not sure what point you're making in relation to gay marriage in the above paragraph.



Yes, it must. The church no longer has authority over marriage, and nor should it. Marriage is no longer defined in terms of old-fashioned and out-dated Christian values. And frankly, if those elements of the church focused on spreading a message of peace rather than one of bigoted intolerance, they might actually have some credibility.



If you are of the belief that homosexuality is against the word of 'God', then don't practice homosexuality. However, until you find the passage that states "Thou shalt enforce thy beliefs on those who do not agree with thee", you have no right to make the same demands of those who do not share your beliefs. The majority of people in the world do not share your faith, and yet we tolerate your lifestyle. We all expect the same of you and your kind.



What a ridiculous and convoluted argument. It is not a hate-crime to choose to follow the precepts of the Bible. Trying to enforce those views on others, however, leads to such idiocy as crusades and inquisitions. In my opinion we should not accept that either homosexuals or Christians are a 'minority group'. In fact, we should get rid of the phrase altogether, and start focusing on what makes us the same. 'Hate-crime' is a stupid concept that promotes the idea that we are different; that highlights those ways in which we are different.



You have failed to show that gay marriage is against the best interests of the majority. Respecting someone's rights is not the same as agreeing with them. I accept the rights of church-goers to practice their faith, yet think the whole process is a superstitious nonsense that has its basis in control of the masses via fear. I am, in fact, just as vehemently opposed to your system of beliefs - if not more so - as evangelicals might be towards homosexuality.

The point is, there already exists a balance between disagreement and tolerance. Nobody is oppressing the views or rights of Christians to practice their faith, but legalised same-sex marriage should be enough to tell those Christians that they also can not oppress the rights of others, regardless of their beliefs.



I don't think anything you wrote was offensive, but nor do I think you made anything resembling a valid point. And I don't blame you for your viewpoint, yet ask you to reconsider it. For as long as Christians - or anyone else - demand the right to choose how other people live their lives, they will be in the wrong.

It shouldn't even be a question anymore. This is 2010, not 1810.

That said, there is a good argument against it:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW31ruQG1Xk[/youtube]

Magic Mushrooms: the cure for the lizard brain.

asp-z beat me to one of my favorite top-tens. this is usually the only one i need to use, though.