698 replies to this topic

[Yuto]

I really don't care now. However, the thought disgusted me at first and sounded dreadful. I now have no problems with gays. This argument/debate has lasted forever now, since humans can be drawn back to ignorance

We first. We judge this as bad, due to the fact that God says he doesn't like homosexuals. So naturally people assume we should abolish all homosexual marriage. Another reason is just outta pure ignorance and disgust. If someone doesn't like the idea of two males/females being married, then it's apparently the worst idea since the human creation.

Edited by Hyperblade Zero, 19 April 2012 - 01:41 AM.

[Yuto]

NO,God made males and females so we can make sex to reproduce,*** ppl can simply stop their lust and control them self even if your *** you can still make sex with a girl and have a family,ppl who let them self be controlled by their lust are wrong! Governments of this world didn't forbid male marrying male for no reason!!

i agree with your view on "lust" which is notably a sin already, but as far as saying gays are uncontrolable, i'm not sure i completely follow that opinion, or idea.

[LiquidSnake]

I don't think homosexual marriage should be legal. I'm not homophobic and I don't believe in God either. But marriage is a religious thing, a vow between God and a male and a female human. If they want to prove they truly love each with a marriage, they should make a civil union. I think that God, if he exists, created men with desire for women. I think it's a mutation of the chromosomes that differ men from homosexuals. In addition, homos are not totally human. That's why they should have less right than us, the true creation of God. But that's just an hypothetical way to view things if God exist, as I said. I just want to tell everyone it's illogical to marry homosexuals, that's all.

[King D]

Leviticus 18:22

 

Why should any homosexual couples' civil rights be dictated by your interpretation of the parts of the Bible you choose to believe in?

 

And, besides - since when is it okay to let said parts conduct the way people choose to live their lives? The reality is, is that, not everybody limits their lifestyles to what an outdated book tells them to. If you choose to, then, that's fine - you're completely entitled to your beliefs... but, the least you could  do in return is to practice that same tolerance to couples that choose not to.

 

Also,

 

NO,God made males and females so we can make sex to reproduce,Gay ppl can simply stop their lust and control them self even if your gay you can still make sex with a girl and have a family,ppl who let them self be controlled by their lust are wrong! Governments of this world didn't forbid male marrying male for no reason!!

 

I disagree with all components of this post:

 

It is true that men and women were designed to reproduce, but, what does reproduction have to do with marriage? Though one traditionally may link the two, is it not correct to say that there are many couples that are not married and have reproduced or are married and choose not to or are incapable of reproducing? Are those select individuals sinners? Marriage is about commitment, not reproduction.

 

Disregarding the topic of reproduction, and focusing on the suggestion that gays can simply stop their lust and "control themselves" - that just simply isn't true. It's human nature to find attractions to other humans, regardless of their sex. To suggest otherwise is foolish. And, besides, once again - why should a homosexual even have to? If you believe that God truly did create all things, and that all of his creations have purpose, then, what purpose did God have in creating homosexuality? Certainly not to be tormented for practicing it. What happened to "do unto others as you would have them do to you?" - does that not apply for gays, who have no choice in the matter? (By the way, being gay isn't a choice - and even if it were, it should be a choice you are allowed to make.) 

 

Though I agree that lust isn't a good quality to possess, once again, it is human nature to listen to the attractions your body was designed to have, to man or to woman. It is unfair to chastise someone for doing so.

 

You're right - clearly there is some more separation of Church and State left to do... 

 

Homosexuality isn't a crime, and in no way destroys the "institution of marriage", which is founded upon the commitment that two people hold with one another, not the sex of the people that hold it. So, to answer the question - yes, homosexuals should be allowed to marry. 

[SP_]

I believe that homosexuals should have the right to marry.  I am a straight man who enjoys intercourse with a woman and the passion/love that is involved (My partner is my only partner and we will be married soon).  However, I believe that marriage is a state issue, not a church issue.  You can get married to a woman without going to a church, but you cannot get married without go to a courthouse.  So our system is already set up where religion is separated.  

 

That being said, I do believe that is it wrong.  I think that sexual intercourse should be between a man and a woman; the only way our species survives is with continuous reproduction and that only occurs with a male and a female.  But my personal opinions don't matter; in a court of law, where this will be decided, the right to marry should not be denied due to the sexuality of the individuals.  We should not discriminate in the court system.  Short of harassing gays, though, I see nothing wrong with people who believe gays should not be allowed to marry stating their opinions openly.

[Mysterie]

I believe that homosexuals should have the right to marry.  I am a straight man who enjoys intercourse with a woman and the passion/love that is involved (My partner is my only partner and we will be married soon).  However, I believe that marriage is a state issue, not a church issue.  You can get married to a woman without going to a church, but you cannot get married without go to a courthouse.  So our system is already set up where religion is separated.  

 

That being said, I do believe that is it wrong.  I think that sexual intercourse should be between a man and a woman; the only way our species survives is with continuous reproduction and that only occurs with a male and a female.  But my personal opinions don't matter; in a court of law, where this will be decided, the right to marry should not be denied due to the sexuality of the individuals.  We should not discriminate in the court system.  Short of harassing gays, though, I see nothing wrong with people who believe gays should not be allowed to marry stating their opinions openly.

 

If you look back through history, it shows that marriage, in fact, originated as a simple agreement between 2 consenting individuals, usually one woman and one man, stating that one would take care of home and hearth, whilst the other would provide food and other necessities. The reason it was necessary for a marriage to be between man and woman, was to produce children. In lower class families, the children were needed so as to help work the land, so as to produce more food. Among upper class families, however, only the first two male children were important, as an heir and a spare. The rest might as well have been trading goods.

Nowadays, with the abundance of orphaned, abandoned, and unwanted children, couples can have a family without giving birth to children of thier own by taking in children in the foster care system and giving them the families they need. Therefore, there is no reason why two people of the same gender should be unable to marry, following the original meaning of a marriage. However, due to both religious persecution and governmental discrimination, it is difficult for homosexual couples to marry. People have put religious meaning to the word marriage, and have turned a simple agreement into a sacred rite, which is understandable. But the government refuses to even allow a civil union between homosexuals. If they insist on denying them the right to marry, they should at least allow them a civil union, which is essentially the same thing as the original meaning of marriage.

 

As to your second point, while it is true that it takes both a man and a woman to reproduce, you seem to be missing one little fact. As it is, many countries are becoming overpopulated due to so many babies being born, combined with how much the natural death rate has decreased over the centuries. Homosexuals being allowed to marry isn't going to cause that to change. And think of it this way; What the anti-gay protestors are doing is bullying and verbal abuse, plain and simple. It's the same thing that happens in schools. A nerdy kid stands out because he does better than his classmates, so the other classmates begin to harass him, saying cruel, hateful and hurtful things to tear him down until he agrees to conform. Words, if wielded as a weapon, can wound as surely and severely as the sharpest knife.

[reddeath26]

If you look back through history, it shows that marriage, in fact, originated as a simple agreement between 2 consenting individuals, usually one woman and one man, stating that one would take care of home and hearth, whilst the other would provide food and other necessities. 

Although whose history would we be looking back through? As marriage is a concept which has existed in a great many cultures. To the best of my knowledge most societies have some form of marriage. Furthermore the form of marriage shows a great deal of cross cultural and historical variance. The same also applies to the manner in which gender is perceived and understood. 

[38542788]

Short of harassing gays, though, I see nothing wrong with people who believe gays should not be allowed to marry stating their opinions openly.

There's nothing "wrong" with that in the sense that it should be legislated against,  that doesn't mean they should be surprised if people call them assholes.

 

 

 

Although whose history would we be looking back through? As marriage is a concept which has existed in a great many cultures. To the best of my knowledge most societies have some form of marriage. Furthermore the form of marriage shows a great deal of cross cultural and historical variance. The same also applies to the manner in which gender is perceived and understood. 

Pretty much.  All the people advocating for "traditional marriage" don't really seem to be participating in exchanges of dowries, arrangements for child brides, or polygamy, all of which is still practiced in various parts of the world.  In the context of civil marriage in most of the societies implementing same sex marriage, it's just the simplest way of guaranteeing equal protection.

[Floyd5642]

Yes. Most of the arguments against are insulting or silly.

 

Here is a list for your better understanding:

Social Arguments:
Men and women are equal

• Gay marriage lowers the status of women. Men and women serve equally important roles in a society. Stating that a man can do a woman's nurturing job is the ultimate insult to women.
• The same argument for gay marriage can be applied to significantly worse marriage arrangements, such as incestual marriages, plural marriages, and beastiality.
• Attraction between males and females is natural and effortless. A person that is gay, has failed at the most basic level of humanity; attraction to the opposite sex. A society should not be endorsing people that have this block.
• Gay marriage dilutes the value of marriage. It will further weaken the family bonds that society is trying to maintain.

Civil Rights Arguments:
Gay marriage is not a civil right, by definition

• Civil rights are based on socio-economic changes rather than emotional wants. This thought process breeds ignorance of socio-economic issues and emphasizes knee-jerk meme reactions.
• Replaying the 60's civil rights movement by crossing out "civil" and replacing it with "gay" does not solve anything.
• No one is being denied civil rights as long as homosexuals have the same access to marriage (as currently defined) as heterosexuals. They may not want to marry someone of the opposite sex, but they're not barred from it.

Children Arguments:
Just the tip of the iceberg

• Healthy mental sexual reproduction is the core basis for raising children.
• Children who are not raised by both their biological parents are at a disadvantage to those whom are.
• Men and women are born with innate psychological differences, and children should be influenced by a male and female role model.
• Gay men/women will not provide a traditional paternal/maternal role model, to the detriment of the child.
• Gay men and women have higher histories of childhood sexual trauma than others. Two people trying to raise a family based on their previous sexual traumas will be the detriment of the child.

Health Arguments:
Still in the iceberg

• People that are homosexuals significantly contract and spread more HIV, Gonorrhea, Syphilis, and other STDs than the rest of society.
• Women that are lesbians are more prone to violence than women that are heterosexual.
• People that are homosexuals are at substantially higher risk for emotional problems, including clinical depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance abuse, and suicidality; even in regions where homosexuality is not stigmatized.
• Even after decades of acceptance in many parts of the world, people that are homosexuals by and large still practice extremely risky sexual behavior.

Religious Arguments:
It is based on a vulgar action that even goes against evolution

• Gay marriage is anti-evolution and completely against nature.
• All major religions of the world are opposed to it.
• Gay sex is a form of idolatry where people worship each other instead of G-d, mankind should not be endorsing these actions.
• Gay marriage exposes us to even more risqué and vulgar behavior which does nothing for mankind.
• As a future society, we will look back on the witch hunt that was used against religious institutions to support this cause and be filled with shame. The movement to support gay marriage has strong parallels to McCarthyism in the 1950s.

Retrieved from http://www.quora.com...st-gay-marriage

[reddeath26]

• While I recognize that these views are not to be attributed to you, I would still like to address some of them.
•  

• Gay marriage lowers the status of women. Men and women serve equally important roles in a society. Stating that a man can do a woman's nurturing job is the ultimate insult to women.

   

  On the contrary, it is more commonly asserted that patriarchy arose out of the binary nature of males and females roles within society. Through cross-cultural and historical analysis it has been argued that the more distinct these two realms are, the more prevalent misogynist attitudes and behaviours are. Consequently the argument can be made that increased awareness at the scope of people, of differing aptitudes to perform such roles would raise the status of women as opposed to lowering it.

 

 

• The same argument for gay marriage can be applied to significantly worse marriage arrangements, such as incestual marriages, plural marriages, and beastiality.

   

  It gets more complicated when you remember issues like knowing consent. In beastiality for instance it cannot be satisfactorily demonstrated that such a union meets any reasonable benchmark of consent on the part of the non-human animal. Plural marriage I don't oppose. Incestual is more complicated. 

It should also be noted that arguments against same sex marriage can also be applied against interracial and interclass unions. Indeed they could be applied against any social groups which are deemed to be naturally, or divinely, sanctioned in their separation. 

 

• Attraction between males and females is natural and effortless. A person that is gay, has failed at the most basic level of humanity; attraction to the opposite sex. A society should not be endorsing people that have this block.

   

  One of the arguments in favour of recognizing same sex marriages is that to ban it is to dehumanize those who would want such a union. This point here is subsequently quite forthcoming with it's attempt to do exactly that.

 

• Civil rights are based on socio-economic changes rather than emotional wants. This thought process breeds ignorance of socio-economic issues and emphasizes knee-jerk meme reactions.

   

  Same sex marriage is a socio-economic issue. I am unsure how there can be any confusion on this matter.

 

• No one is being denied civil rights as long as homosexuals have the same access to marriage (as currently defined) as heterosexuals. They may not want to marry someone of the opposite sex, but they're not barred from it.

   

  This point is just nonsensical. The current definition is what is being contended. It cannot therefore be used as grounds to support itself. 

 

 

[deeluna]

I think the entire reason this entire debate started in the first place (not here on this site but nation wide in the states) began with health institutions refusing to recognise someone in a civil union with a partner as "family of the patient" and would refuse visitation.  Then there are the tax benefits to marriage that I am unsure whether civil union gets the same benefits.  Should they be allowed? I think what needs to happen is that the civil Union needs to be recognised for all situations similar to this.  That way the religious zealots can keep the "marriage" sacred and the homosexuals can get the benefits they were after in the first place.

[reddeath26]

I think what needs to happen is that the civil Union needs to be recognised for all situations similar to this.  That way the religious zealots can keep the "marriage" sacred and the homosexuals can get the benefits they were after in the first place.

I would disagree with your proposed solution. As while it does address the policy issues you identified, it does practically nothing to deal with the cultural dimensions. Indeed it would still leave heteronormativity largely untouched. As having a separate system for same-sex unions serves only to reinforce public imaginings of heterosexuality being normal and same-sex relationships being the "other." I would much rather have same-sex marriage. Marriage is, after all, a cross cultural and historical institution. The religious zealots you are referring to have no monopoly over it.  

[deeluna]

I would disagree with your proposed solution. As while it does address the policy issues you identified, it does practically nothing to deal with the cultural dimensions. Indeed it would still leave heteronormativity largely untouched. As having a separate system for same-sex unions serves only to reinforce public imaginings of heterosexuality being normal and same-sex relationships being the "other." I would much rather have same-sex marriage. Marriage is, after all, a cross cultural and historical institution. The religious zealots you are referring to have no monopoly over it.  

 

Actually a civil union has nothing specifically to do with just homosexual unions, it is just used that way.  It is basically a legal union of two concenting adults under the law.  That said I do see your point.  I was just making a simple proposition of what would give all sides as close to what they want as possible without stepping on toes of one side or the other.

 

As for the marriage... Originally it was done as a holy union (for some it still is) between a man and woman under God (or whatever God was culturally normal for the given area of the world).  It was officiated by the church (or mosque, temple, religious leader, etc.).  Now I understand that people are trying everything they can to throw that part of history out, but it happened. and it is how marriage used to be (and for some they believe it should stay that way).  Many religious people all over the world, not just Zealots, do not like the bastardization of marriage as they see it becoming.  It's only the Zealots that really get riled up about it as the regular joes of the religious follow the "You must pitty them" view that is stated within the bible. (at least on the christian and Jewish side. I heard of Homosexuals being burried up to their chest and then stoned in some middle eastern countries)

 

So the entire idea of what I proposed was to let the religious have their word but give the homosexuals the "Rights" that they want.  The cultural norms be damned.  You have to think about the world wide rammifications for a subject such as this.

 

There are many that take the scientific approach and laugh about it in the way of "Well look at that, they removed themelves from the Gene pool."

Edited by deeluna, 06 September 2015 - 08:37 AM.

[reddeath26]

Actually a civil union has nothing specifically to do with just homosexual unions, it is just used that way.  It is basically a legal union of two concenting adults under the law.  That said I do see your point.  I was just making a simple proposition of what would give all sides as close to what they want as possible without stepping on toes of one side or the other.

I am aware that civil unions are not exclusively for homosexual unions. I could have been clearer in the wording of my response. A simpler proposition would be to only have the state offer civil unions and to leave marriage as a private affair. This way people would be free to get married under the circumstances that they choose. As the state would be concerning itself solely with civil unions. As I mentioned earlier however, I do not think this is an ideal approach. It is incorrectly recognizing claims to sole ownership of marriage.

 

I am sorry but you are incorrect when it comes to the institution of marriage. Indeed my very argument is that the religious zealots are guilty of ignoring history and cultural variation. Theirs is not, and never has been, the exclusive understanding of marriage. It is not even a new discovery that there is diversity and variation when it comes to marriage. Indeed it has been said that if one was to supply a definition which is informed by the data what results is

 

"while we used to define marriage as the union of man and woman, cross cultural perspectives lead us to conclude it needs to be defined more broadly as the union of two or more people."

Edited by reddeath26, 07 September 2015 - 08:51 AM.

[deeluna]

Oh yeah... forgot the two or more part... some parts of the world and some groups (ex. mormons) do the poligamy thing.   That said your suggestion of the state just setting up civil unions for all and then letting marriage be a private thing would be a much better solution than what exactly I was suggesting.  But I do recognise that it wouldnt't fix much else either.  I guess we are on the same page now at least now.  I still think this subject is hard to deal with due to the psychology of everyone in the world being different.

 

I will note that I am not wrong about the past of Marriage, it wasn't like I was saying it changed in my lifetime, but it was that way way back in the early times... it's just that it doesn't apply anymore.

 

*Warning, slightly off topic below*

 

Heck there are places that refuse to cater for gay wedding receptions and such... but then again, I say for that... That's their choice if they don't want perfectly good money.  That doesn't mean they should be sued because all that does is make the one that is suing look like a whiney little brat.  It turns into a lose lose situation for everyone involved...  It's like the kid that gets punched in school and cries about it all the way to the teacher.  Everyone sees the one crying as a wuss all before the teacher can take care of the situation.  This was something I learned early on in that the more attention you draw on yourself, the more you are either hated or picked on.

Edited by deeluna, 09 September 2015 - 06:39 AM.

[reddeath26]

That said your suggestion of the state just setting up civil unions for all and then letting marriage be a private thing would be a much better solution than what exactly I was suggesting.  But I do recognise that it wouldnt't fix much else either.

One of the big problems would be the complications with the already existing marriages. The amount of emotional and psychological distress which would be inflicted by such a move could be quite catastrophic. 

 

 

 

I will note that I am not wrong about the past of Marriage, it wasn't like I was saying it changed in my lifetime, but it was that way way back in the early times... it's just that it doesn't apply anymore.

I am not sure what you are asserting here? What do you mean when you say that you are not wrong about the past of marriage? As we have both acknowledged that marriage was not universally monogamous. Approximately two thirds of cultures had polygamy in them. Most of these were in the form of polygyny (one male and two females) but there were also cases of polyandry (one female and two or more males). Social Science in general, and Anthropology in particular, are also well aware of cultures which had same-sex marriage. This should not be a point of contention as it was known about as early as the 19th century, if not earlier. Even the notion that marriage is strictly an arrangement between the people getting married is a falsehood. There are numerous examples of society where marriage was a way in which groups formalized obligations and responsibilities with each other.

 

So no, cross culturally and historically I am not seeing how it is that you are correct. I am not even going to touch on primordial times. Such endeavors typically consist of little more than the speculative projection of "contemporary" cultural understandings of gender relations onto a mythical template.

 

Furthermore, the origins of the institution of marriage are not particularly relevant to the topic at hand. As it, falsely, presupposes that culture is an immortal fixed entity. Cultures do not exist in a magical vacuum removed from the passage of time. Rather they exist in a constant state of flux. This is inevitable due to cross-cultural contact and the imperfect nature in which culture is transmitted between individuals. Social positioning plays a huge role on how one goes through the processes of enculturation and acculturation. This brings me to why banning same-sex marriage is so problematic. It promotes, and is representative of heterosexism. By excluding one form of social group from engaging in marriage we are denaturalizing them. Turning them into the "other". Heteronormativity as a cultural system is one which devalues and denies same-sex couples. It is something, consequently, which should be resisted and denounced. 

[deeluna]

Well that would be a problem if the marriages were not already instated by the state anyway, just changing the wording of how it is said by the law wouldn't change anything really, basically that all marriages are civil unions which I think isn't to far off really.  but I could see how some might take it as "Hey look we aren't married anymore so I'm leaving, bye!"

 

 

(On the not wrong about marriage part)

No no I was meaning that it was lead by the spiritual leaders in the past. I guess I should have said I wasn't entirely wrong.  Sorry for the confusion.

[reddeath26]

In some cultures it was, however this was not universal. In many cultures for instance it was simply the result of negotiations between the two families. Even in cultures where there was a "spiritual leader", there is no easy universal pattern to determine what meaning this had. Like many sociocultural elements, there is incredible diversity and variety here.

[deeluna]

Negotiated, yes, but still had to have the priest or shaman or whatever finalize it. (Minored in anthropology FYI)

[reddeath26]

I must admit to being a little confused. So I am asking simply for clarity. Could you please explain what you mean by the assertion that every marriage was overseen by a religious figure? As the breadth of our discussion has become quite all encompassing and ambiguous. 

[deeluna]

Certainly, in the past many marriages where, yes of course, set up by the family or individuals involved, typically by family/tribes of course. but due to the way that the union was done in, (as far as the research goes that is) there was always a form of spiritual leader involved in the final ceremony.  Whether that be a shaman, a priest, the tribe leader (look at ancient Isrealites for example) who also happened to be the Spiritual leader of the tribe/family.  At any rate, final ceremonies were always handled by a Spiritual leader of the group.  Usually entailing the usual vows but with each cultures own twists on how the wording goes.  Though I guess that really isn't clearing much up is it?

 

As an afterthought,  I guess the big thing that I was forgetting for the modern times is there is a differentiation between marriage(the union) and a wedding. (The Ceremony)