gay marriage

not to join in this discussion in depth, but i was just wondering, would a marriage be any more legitimate if it were between a gay man and a lesbian? is being a man and a woman really some kind of indicator of the legitamacy of a relationship? in part this question asks whether it is same sex marriages that are being looked down upon, or just a general denunciation of gays in general. something to think about.
 
asks whether it is same sex marriages that are being looked down upon, or just a general denunciation of gays in general

I think some people don't differentiate.

I would like to see, and I doubt info is available, what the statistics are for gay couples. What the percentage of breakups are.

Divorce in the US is over 50% for first marriages. My guess is that divorce/breakups of Gay couples would be a lot less.
 
would a marriage be any more legitimate if it were between a gay man and a lesbian?
Click to expand...

Very good, exactly the sort of question that exposes the issue for the farce that it is.

In a similar vein: How much more or less legitimate is a marriage between a man and woman who don't want any kids (such as my wife and I)?

How about a man and woman who can't stand each other, but marry for (oh, say) tax reasons?

Who are better parents, a loving, doting gay couple, or a hetero pair of crackheads living in an abandoned warehouse?

I also love the 'argument by incredulity' - in which the arguer believes he is making a cogent point by saying something like: "that's just messed up" or "that's just wrong". This is another way of saying "it bothers me, but I can't think of any specific reason why" -- which may be true enough, but it hardly forms a reasonable basis for a law.

Here's another question which I think exposes a key weakness of this issue: Why do so many straight people tacitly assume that the right to marriage is - or ought to be - theirs to grant or withhold? Is this any less wrong than when some white Americans tacitly assumed that civil rights for blacks were theirs to grant or withhold? Just who do we think we are, anyway?
 
For me, the issues are simple.

As I said in earlier threads, homosexuals and lesbians are able-bodied people who are not mentally of physically incapacitated by their sexual impediments.

So if they can be productive workers and pay taxes like the rest of us, then let them be. If they want to marry, let them.

What I want to know is, where do we draw the line? Do we continue to allow common sense to be marginalized for the sake appeasing a minority?

In this case, marriage isn't the major issue, but it clearly highlights it.

Please do not make the assumption that I'm drawing comparisons between these two peoples, but this serves as a good example of where we are going all for the sake of political correctness and malformed sense of preserving human rights.

Do we allow people with congenital mental or physical disorders to marry and if so, to we allow them to have children?

Based on the 'right on' attitudes of some of the posters from this thread, the answer would be in the affirmative.

But why?

The chances of the child being even more incapacitated than their parents is increased significantly.

It's most likely that their parents are in care, so what kind of situation are creating for ourselves?

It's quite simple: we're creating a rod for our own backs.

We over-burden the social system even further and everyone must pay for the rights of certain individuals who are probably unlikely to even be able to comprehend love, let alone have a sense of it.

In the case of homosexuals and lesbians, let them marry. But there is a line, and it's very clear, but it's a line that has been trodden on so often, it's almost faded away.

This line is the biological imperative. Whatever can be said, must be measured against the what is biologically correct.

I'll say it, it seems no one else has the courage: homosexuality is not an essential part of our biology, so why do we tolerate it?

The utterly deplorable comparison between gay rights and the rights of woman to vote leaves me agog at it's calamitous stupidity. Woman are an essential part of our species, as are females of most creatures that walk, crawl and fly. Homosexuality -- although observed in other species -- isn't.

If you want simple proof, you look to nature. Do we see gay lions rearing their young? Do we see gay chimps tending to their offspring? It's not difficult, it's very obvious to see.

So we have a breakdown of the once-familiar family structure. So we no longer have the nuclear family. So what do we do? We compound the problem even further with the sort of does-it-matter-any-more shrugging of shoulders.

So simply because a gay couple are loving and have a suitable income to bring up a child, we overlook the screamingly obvious omission of an adherence to some semblance of a normal and productive social environment that we have lived by for millions of years.

Yes! Let's suspend all notion of evolutionary order for the sake of political correctness. What the hell does mother nature know anyway? We are the new order.

These are very, very simple issues of right and wrong. They don't take too much thinking about, but because of the world we live in, there is no right and wrong any more. There's no black and white, there's just a big grey smudge where no one knows what the hell anything means anymore...
 
octane, you've pretty obviously never observed many animals. homosexuality among animals is pretty common. even the ordinary housedog is pretty indiscriminate when they're horny. yet somehow they manage to produce in large enough numbers that we have to put many of them 'to sleep' each year. most gays i know would argue that it it their biological imperitive to be as they are. given a choice of being 'normal' & happy and being gay and attacked by society, many (if not most) would choose the former. however, their biology is telling them differently. mother nature is singing a different song to them. but then, "What the hell does mother nature know anyway?"

we're facing world overpopulation and you're spouting about the biological imperitive and surival of the species? please try and explain the logic in that.
 
what irks me is when people like rosie o'donnel state to the world that she is going to marry her "lover" to SPITE the president. now that is a slap in the face to what marraige is about.

on another note, there is something to be said for gay couples raising children. octane raises some good points about it not necessarilly biologically needed. now whether a gay couple raising a child skews that child's development is obviously up for study, but it does make you wonder. it may seem a bit wishy-washy but at the moment i'm inclined to agree with the child-raising point here. why should they get to? there is nothing saything that it is "right", and it is arguably "wrong".

and to hulkaros-like comments. i think i can speak for the majority here by saying that gays are not perfect, but they are people and deserve to be treated as such.

i may have asked this before, but is there a religious group that support gays? to my knowledge there isnt, but i'm curious.
 
EDx, I could pull your rebuttal to pieces all day, you're saying absolutely nothing I haven't heard many, many times before.

These are tired arguments that do nothing more than collect verbal and anecdotal dust as the years roll by.

By the very fact that you chose to pick on this minor excerpt of the my post, I take it as an admission that you have no real or credible answer to the rest of what I said.

Before I step away from this thread, satisfied that I've said all that can be said in defense of sanity and all that is blatantly right-minded, I will say this:

The views of yourself and people like you are the views you'll carry through with you for the rest of your life.

The people here of my generation are the legislators of the future. The laws that you people put in place will take decades to undo and even longer to correct.

Please consider your opinions with more vigor and at least attempt to put the needs of everyone before the needs of the few.

This kind of thing matters to us all...
 
IMHO there is a big difference between humping anything you get the chance to and homosexuality. i'm not saying there aren't any actualy homosexuals in various species, but i am curious as to what they contribute to the progression of the species. do they help raise any offspring?

overpopulation is hardly a reason to promote gay marraige. if that were the case, the government should maybe give out baby licenses.

fact is, at this hour of the morning i'm more inclined to believe that a straight couple is better suited to raise a child. not that they are all perfect, but is it possible that a homosexual couple would face an uphill battle from the start?
 
If you want to focus the attention on children, then let me start by saying that I agree on one point - it probably is not in anyone's best interests for people with severe and debilitating genetic defects to have children. For that matter, I think that even healthy hetero couples are using entirely too many fertility drugs, while so many healthy orphans go unadopted.

Not all gay marriages end up (one way or another) with children, but many that do, adopt. To point out another 'glaringly obvious' issue: adoptive parents do not pass on any genetic traits. Also, gay couples can ALREADY adopt children whether they are legally married or not (you can trust me on that, I know one such couple.) So arguably, allowing them to be legally married can only benefit the children they are already allowed to adopt.

I'd also like to underscore the drawbacks of using biological imperatives as your guide. *THE* biological imperative of any species is for each individual to produce as many copies of it's DNA as possible. For men, this means impregnating anything with a pulse - for a male, monogamy makes no biological sense. A certain amount of this DOES take place, but I don't see anyone saying we ought to see MORE of it...
 
So arguably, allowing them to be legally married can only benefit the children they are already allowed to adopt.
Click to expand...

for one, i dont think it is right for a single parent to adopt. thats not the topic of this post so i wont go into why, but that seems to be how gays get to adopt. correct? i guess my retort to this is i'd rather see the adoption process changed. it just seems right to me that you need to be married to raise kids the "right" way. if divorce/widowing/etc occurs that is something you have to deal with, but to go into it facing an obstacle like being a single parent seems ridiculous.
 
it just seems right to me that you need to be married to raise kids the "right" way

This statement is a joke and a put down to all single parents doing a great job. I was a single parent from the time my kids were 1 and 6. They both turned out great. College grads, never in trouble, making more money than I ever did. Turned out to be very nice people.

Raising a child with both parents in his/her life is the ideal situation, but this doesn't happen more than 50% of the time, at least with both parents living together with the kids. A lot of parents remain in the kids life after a divorce, but a lot don't. That doesn't mean the kids won't grow up normal. Gay people are no different in this regard. ANYONE that chooses to raise a child on his/her own, takes a lot of responsibility and I'd give them credit, Straight or Gay. Too many kids don't have homes and need at least one parent.

I'd like to ask, if I may, how old both Hulk and Octane are. I'm assuming you're both very young. You both have opinions that won't work in our world, as we live in it today.

i'm not saying there aren't any actualy homosexuals in various species,

That's good, because it's well documented.

overpopulation is hardly a reason to promote gay marriage

Don't think I've heard anyone say this.

fact is, at this hour of the morning i'm more inclined to believe that a straight couple is better suited to raise a child.

Please post later in the day to avoid this belief.

but is it possible that a homosexual couple would face an uphill battle from the start?

Only if other people cause problems because of them being Gay.

EDx, I could pull your rebuttal to pieces all day, you're saying absolutely nothing I haven't heard many, many times before.

Same can be said of your posts.

efore I step away from this thread, satisfied that I've said all that can be said in defense of sanity and all that is blatantly right-minded, I will say this:

You're not helping your Sanity defense. Right-minded - you mean for your own mind. Don't think that you represent the majority of people with your opinions.

Please consider your opinions with more vigor and at least attempt to put the needs of everyone before the needs of the few.

This statement has no point on this issue in the US. Gay's marrying each other will not harm you or me.

As I said earlier, some people here are just showing how ignorant they can be on a subject.
 
bobw said:
I'd like to ask, if I may, how old both Hulk and Octane are. I'm assuming you're both very young. You both have opinions that won't work in our world, as we live in it today.
Click to expand...

I'm a 13 years old kid inside a 28 years old body :D As for my opinions not working in our world maybe all you wanted to say is that they don't work in YOUR world? :eek: Because in the world I live each and everyday I don't have ANY problems with other people no matter what their sex is... On the other hand I cannot say the same thing about this thread :rolleyes:

I asked a question before and got no answer even from the high and mighty such as yourself:
What if some humans of this world will want to marry with animals? Not today... Not tomorrow... But maybe just maybe some years down the road... Do I have to accept that too? Why? Because it is their right to do so? Grown up people, civil rights, true love, taxes, and all that? :rolleyes: Pppppplllllleeeeaaaassseeee :eek:

As for people using that old argument of black versus white people being the same thing as gay versus straight marriage, ain't that an absolute BS? Black people even now, get beaten, do not get jobs, get raped, etc. just because they are the wrong color... When was the last time that you could point a place on earth and call it a ghetto full of gay people? Town, city, country, etc. full of gay people? Being black/white it ISN'T the same thing as being a gay/straight. IT SIMPLY ISN'T THE SAME THING! At least I NEVER said so! Get a life! :mad:

bobw said:
As I said earlier, some people here are just showing how ignorant they can be on a subject.
Click to expand...

And the really fun part is that they continue to do so all while thinking that they are the non ignorant... Or could that be, in a fashionable, arrogant way? :rolleyes:
 
I'm a 13 years old kid inside a 28 years old body
Maybe a 28 year old body, but you're showing you do have, and use a 13 year old brain.

You really don't have any life experience yet, or know what life is all about. You are too young to know what you're talking about here.

Black people even now, get beaten, do not get jobs, get raped, etc. just because they are the wrong color.

This happens to all people in all races, it's not confined to Black people. Gay bashing used to be like a sport to a lot of people.


What if some humans of this world will want to marry with animals?

I think a question like this really shows your ignorance. Just my opinion though.
 
hulkaros, I find it very interesting you are greek. The history of Greece, lets say 2000 years ago .. well, was famous for a lot of things. Women were not allowed to go to the theaters etc, sexual relationships between men were considered normal, and of women who knows - maybe Sapphos gives some hints in the poems (if they are interpreted right).


Well. Gays raising kids ...

When I was a kid, I was raised by my parents (a mum and a dad) who were always fighting. The common opinion on htat time was that the kids of the separated parents had problems, but many of my friends had only one parent. And I was envying their peace at home. They could bring friends home too, without having to fear their parents behaviour. Well - untill today, I have never brang friends home (except once when I was small) and can't rally consider being a bf there, not even if I was married to him.

So my point comes to the conclusion no matter what sex the parents are or how many are they, if they love each other and their children, it works. If I had a choise between lets say two dads and the parents I had, I could have chosen the two dads option if it was more peaceful (but not two mums, no I can't imagine it working for me).

At least men tend to understand better how men think, and women supposedly understand how women think. Hm.

Do we have anyone here who would have had two mums or two dads raising him/her? Maybe it's also no different from divorcing and having then a stepdad or stepmom.
 
bobw said:
I'm a 13 years old kid inside a 28 years old body
Maybe a 28 year old body, but you're showing you do have, and use a 13 year old brain.
Click to expand...

Is this a theme around here? Repeating what one said for himself in a post over and over in order to convince who and why? In the end you simply don't know me but hey, keep reading ;)

bobw said:
You really don't have any life experience yet, or know what life is all about. You are too young to know what you're talking about here.
Click to expand...

Thank God that I don't have YOUR life experience on gay marriage! Phew! That was a close one! :eek:

bobw said:
This happens to all people in all races, it's not confined to Black people. Gay bashing used to be like a sport to a lot of people.
Click to expand...

Can you point us to some gay ghettos, counties, countries, etc? :rolleyes: As for gay bashing being a sport: Dunno 'bout you but I certainly don't bash gay people! :mad: I just question their marriage "right" simply because I believe that this specific rabbit hole goes too deep for everyone across the globe :eek:

bobw said:
I think a question like this really shows your ignorance. Just my opinion though.
Click to expand...

Nah! This question really shows your inability to answer that question... Evade all you want but it is the same thing: Being gay is no different than someone loving animals and not humans of the opposite sex to my eyes and thank God to other eyes as well...

As for me being ignorant and this and that: I think your forgot to mention the part about me being ignorant on this subject and not being ignorant overall in my life! You simply cannot call me ignorant in general simply because you are the Super Mod here or because in your eyes I'm ignorant in this matter... Respect... Remember your lessons about that word? What? All of a sudden you don't respect me? Just because I'm not gay or because I don't like gay people getting marry? :mad: Keep it straight (pun intended) :)
 
Giaguara said:
hulkaros, I find it very interesting you are greek. The history of Greece, lets say 2000 years ago .. well, was famous for a lot of things. Women were not allowed to go to the theaters etc, sexual relationships between men were considered normal, and of women who knows - maybe Sapphos gives some hints in the poems (if they are interpreted right).
Click to expand...

I think that there is no secret in this: Modern greek people are nothing like their ancient counterparts especially on this matter... Thank God! :rolleyes: Then again I wasn't there at that age and time and I think no one was there too! And seeing how easily the media can twist ANYTHING in this age and time one can only wonder how badly history is twisted through thousands of years especially for nations that wiped over and over again by other nations :rolleyes:

Giaguara said:
Well. Gays raising kids ...

When I was a kid, I was raised by my parents (a mum and a dad) who were always fighting. The common opinion on htat time was that the kids of the separated parents had problems, but many of my friends had only one parent. And I was envying their peace at home. They could bring friends home too, without having to fear their parents behaviour. Well - untill today, I have never brang friends home (except once when I was small) and can't rally consider being a bf there, not even if I was married to him.

So my point comes to the conclusion no matter what sex the parents are or how many are they, if they love each other and their children, it works. If I had a choise between lets say two dads and the parents I had, I could have chosen the two dads option if it was more peaceful (but not two mums, no I can't imagine it working for me).

At least men tend to understand better how men think, and women supposedly understand how women think. Hm.

Do we have anyone here who would have had two mums or two dads raising him/her? Maybe it's also no different from divorcing and having then a stepdad or stepmom.
Click to expand...

What are you trying to say? Just because your personal "troublesome" childhood was not what you wanted/expected from life it is ok for gay people to get marry and have children? Hmmmm :rolleyes:

As for men understanding men and women understanding women, you solved the puzzle of peace in humans lives! Tomorrow lets convince all companies, countries, people of this world to unite into a huge gay family! We will understand each other better and we will breed kids with no problems whatsoever! Men with men and women with women = No problems in this world... Yeah! Right! And I'm the Incredible HULK :D If that ain't the absolute division of humans then what is? :mad:

Let me ask the wise people of this thread this what-if scenario:
If your parents weren't straight would you exist in order to be right here, right now, to play your democratic, reasonable, righteous, etc. games?

And no! I'm not talking about being adopted or this and that! Even if one was adopted he/she surely didn't came in existence by gay people but from straight ones! :mad:

Damn!
Seed and Seed = No Life...
Field and Field = No Life...
Seed and Field = Life...
Anything else, clearly, is absolute BS!

Even with the aid of modern science the same rules apply! And even after that possible day that a real life Junior "miracle" will occur the same rules will be on!
 
I don't know about 'ghettos' per-se but there are certainly no shortage of predominantly-gay communities, most famously in parts of Manhattan, San Francisco and West Hollywood, but plenty elsewhere too. These places I list here are by no means ghettos, but there is a self-evident reason why this is so:

Gays can hide in plain sight if they so desire, blacks cannot. Gays can often pass as straight, relatively few blacks can pass as white. Bigoted whites WANT blacks herded together into poor neighborhoods, and blacks cannot fly below radar. There are, sadly, few obstacles to the formation of black ghettos, and many factors that encourage it.

By contrast, the only way that gays can usually form large communities is in an environment where they can freely meet one another and operate openly enough to move into a common area, i.e. deliberately 'organize' into communities. Hence, environments like those I have listed - areas known to be gay-friendly - have large and thriving gay communities. These also happen to be upscale, expensive places to live, so they aren't ghettos, per-se. The forces at work are different, but the discrimination is no less real.

In addition, many of the same arguments now being used to oppose gay marriage were once used to oppose interracial marriages (It'll cheapen the institution! The children will suffer! It's a slippery slope; next people will be marrying animals!!) These ideas are no less offensive in this situation than they were in that one. The situations are eminiently comparable.

Not only is it wrong to deny gays the right to marry, it's an act of appalling hubris to imagine that we have any right to sit in judgement. What gay couples do in the privacy of their own homes is nobody's business, in any context. By which I mean this: not only is it improper to ask them about it or look down on them for it, it's also improper for any person or organization to consider it as even a background factor making any sort of decision that affects them, whenever we self-importantly presume to hand down edicts about what they may or may not do.

That unpleasant squirming you might feel in the pit of your stomach has nothing to do with objective reality, and is no basis for making public policy decisions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top