Let's talk gay...

[Jonne]

...marriage!

We haven't had a good thread here and let's see if this starts something. And quoting Jon Stewart: "I pick the gay issue cause nothing bothers Republicans more".

Anyways, this topic has been touched in a couple of threads before but afaik there's never been a topic for it.

So, what are ppls thoughts on gaymarriage?


I'll start with a division into two types, state and church.

From the state perspective, I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be gay marriages. People should have equal rights and one group of people shouldn't be shafted simply because of the way they were born. And since gay marriages don't do any harm to others, there's really no reason why gay shouldn't be allowed to get married. Basically it's just a piece of paper to everyone else except the couple getting married and for them it's something clearly important.
All and all, gay marriages are a natural evolution of the society into a more open society.
Basically there's no good reason, no logical reason why gay marriages shouldn't be allowed. The only reasons people come up with to oppose gay marriages are based either on ignorance, illogical intolerance or religious dogma. Out which the first two aren't in any way good reasons and the last one, well I don't think that laws should be made based on religious dogma

Then from the church perspective, well here I do give some ground. I understand the opposition of the church from a religious point of view due to the nature of religion. So if churches don't wanna wed gay couples, it's understandable. However, personally I think that even religions should evolve to reflect modern times and for that reason I'm glad to see that churches are becoming more and more open towards gay marriages.



Oh and just to clarify, I'm not gay

[UglyOrgan]

my thought on gay marriage is if the US made it legal it would embolden the terrorists!!!!!!!!11111! AHHHH DOOOM.




but srsly

i completely agree and i dont see any logical argument to not allowing gay marriage.

if anything, gay couples could improve the depressing 50% failure/success rate of straight marriages.

i find it difficult to understand the counter argument-it ruins the sanctity of marriage. jesus supports molesting boys, why not support marrying them?

[Jonne]

Yeah, 50% of the marriages don't end in homosexuality.

And I think Britney Spears has done more damage to the sanctity of marriage than gaymarriages ever will.

[Fish]

I will take the bait...

I am against Gay Marriage.

The first question has to be, do you think someone is born gay? I myself do not think someone is born gay, and that it is infact a life style choice. And an important thing to remember is that for every choice we make, there is some conciquence associated with that choice.

First of all, marriage is not a right, it is a religious partnership that has evolved into a State legal document. Love is a right, freedom is a right, liberty and the persuit of happiness are a rights. None of these rights are prevented to gay couples. No one is telling them they can not love each other, no one is saying that they can not do what makes them happy, etc.

Marriage was created based on religion, therefore religion should have the final say over marriage. I myself am not religious at all, but religions should have the ability to have authority over a tradition that started from their teachings and faith.

Now lets shift gears a little and discuss the benefits grainted to married couples. I remember NegativeZero presenting a few good arguments against Gay Marriage a year or two back, and I am going to try and do my best to present similar arguments from memory, so I apologize in advance. If I can recall correctly, -0 stated that the first tax benefits were awared to couples who married as a way to encourage the production of offspring. Assuming that is true, gay couples are unable to produce offspring, therefore the State has no interest in awarding this benefit to gay couples.

Some of the other benefits associated with marriage include the right to transfer ownership of land and inhertience and next of kin, things of that nature, which can be gained (as far as I understand...and if not should be obtainable) threw a Civil Union to gay couples.

The only thing they would be missed would be the tax benefits. With this stance, gay couples should not be allowed to marry as they offer no offspring to the State (therefore should not get the benefit associated with that), but they have all of the other benefits a married couple has with the legal binding document, Civil Union.

Now, lets remember that being gay, according to me, is a choice. And if people are awarded a tax benefit for a life style choice that has no benefit to the State, then I should be allowed to receive the same benefit (the tax reduction) because I choose to be single. My choice is not affecting anyone, it is none of anyones business, but I am punished for my choice to be single (assuming gay couples get the same tax reduction as married couples). That is a problem.

Now lets go back to marriage and where it came from. It came from religion, and why should religions be forced to accept a belief that they do not agree with? There is no reason that a church should be forced to marry a gay couple if said church beleives that being gay is wrong. Churches should be allowed to have their own rules and beliefs. I mean, for ploygimist, they are not allowed to be married to multiple people according to the State, but they are allowed to have as many wedding cermonies and live with as many wives (or husbands) as they want and the State can not tell them they cant. The State just does not reconginse the additional marriages even though their religion does.

The same thing applies here, the State can reconginse a gay couples Civil Union and offer all of the benefits (execpt the marriage tax reduction because no potential for offspring) and the actual word marriage because it is a religious word. If they allow gay marriage, I will be the first person to try and marry myself to receive the same tax reduction.

[LightsabeR]

The first question has to be, do you think someone is born gay? I myself do not think someone is born gay, and that it is infact a life style choice.
I think this is what it comes down to. There are those who believe that people choose to be gay and there are those who say they are born gay.

If the former is true, then many of the arguments you made hold water, if the latter is true, then they don't, at least not to such an extent.

I also find it weird that you seem to think the main reason people want to get married is tax cuts and at the same time repeatedly state that marriage is a religious partnership.

I think that's rather contradicting.

But I gotta say the reasoning behind why married couples get tax benefits and how that doesn't apply to gay people since they can't produce offspring is a good one. Had not thought of it that way.


Anyway. From my personal point of view, the main issue I have with gay people living together, married or not, is whether or not they should be allowed to raise a child. I mean, if a child grows up with two daddies, then I think he might get the wrong idea of how stuff works lol.
Oh and just to clarify, I'm not gay
Yeah, we know, you're a closet heterosexual.

[yude*]

[quote=Fish;2948869]I will take the bait...

I am against Gay Marriage.

The first question has to be, do you think someone is born gay? I myself do not think someone is born gay, and that it is infact a life style choice. And an important thing to remember is that for every choice we make, there is some conciquence associated with that choice.

i have to say your wrong ,1st off you need to be a gay person to tell me its just a choce that you like too suck cocks, other then that its just a nongay pov and have no clue on the subject, you dont see black ppl telling ppl whats it like to be a white.

[Goldshlager]

Voted no on prop 8

[*CCCP*]

It's pretty amusing to see uptight, old, white, christian folks having that much hate/fear of homos.

[TreasureDuDe]

[QUOTE]

i have to say your wrong ,1st off you need to be a gay person to tell me its just a choce that you like too suck cocks, other then that its just a nongay pov and have no clue on the subject, you dont see black ppl telling ppl whats it like to be a white.

so some men are born with the urge to stick thier peepee up another mans poopoo?

[yude*]

i cant speak for any1 other then myself, but w/e makes you happy.

[OmGee]

lets see

I will take the bait...

I am against Gay Marriage.

The first question has to be, do you think someone is born gay? I myself do not think someone is born gay, and that it is infact a life style choice. And an important thing to remember is that for every choice we make, there is some conciquence associated with that choice.

the American Psychological Association has stated "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

First of all, marriage is not a right, it is a religious partnership that has evolved into a State legal document. Love is a right, freedom is a right, liberty and the persuit of happiness are a rights. None of these rights are prevented to gay couples. No one is telling them they can not love each other, no one is saying that they can not do what makes them happy, etc.

its pretty much the opposite , marriage begun as a contract of a family merge or what ever word you can use for this. It had nothing to do with religion and sometimes it didnt even involve any kind of ceremony or paper sign, it could even be just on words


Marriage was created based on religion, therefore religion should have the final say over marriage. I myself am not religious at all, but religions should have the ability to have authority over a tradition that started from their teachings and faith.

Nowadays marriage pretty much has nothing to do with religion, as it is pretty much a contract. If you want to take it that far just read up... first came contract then came religion... Who the fuck cares what religion thinks anyway lol..


Now lets shift gears a little and discuss the benefits grainted to married couples. I remember NegativeZero presenting a few good arguments against Gay Marriage a year or two back, and I am going to try and do my best to present similar arguments from memory, so I apologize in advance. If I can recall correctly, -0 stated that the first tax benefits were awared to couples who married as a way to encourage the production of offspring. Assuming that is true, gay couples are unable to produce offspring, therefore the State has no interest in awarding this benefit to gay couples.

uhhhmmm... so?!

Some of the other benefits associated with marriage include the right to transfer ownership of land and inhertience and next of kin, things of that nature, which can be gained (as far as I understand...and if not should be obtainable) threw a Civil Union to gay couples.

so what ? you suggest that if 2 gay people love each other and want to share their properties or stuff of this nature should pay taxes wheras "normal" people should be able to do it anytime? uhmm lol

The only thing they would be missed would be the tax benefits. With this stance, gay couples should not be allowed to marry as they offer no offspring to the State (therefore should not get the benefit associated with that), but they have all of the other benefits a married couple has with the legal binding document, Civil Union.

i find it hard to understand whats the difference between civil union and.."be a couple" lol...its not only about the offsprings taxes thingy..

Now, lets remember that being gay, according to me, is a choice. And if people are awarded a tax benefit for a life style choice that has no benefit to the State, then I should be allowed to receive the same benefit (the tax reduction) because I choose to be single. My choice is not affecting anyone, it is none of anyones business, but I am punished for my choice to be single (assuming gay couples get the same tax reduction as married couples). That is a problem.

there are maannyy experts in the field that say that being gay is not a choice your argument is just invalid lol

Now lets go back to marriage and where it came from. It came from religion, and why should religions be forced to accept a belief that they do not agree with? There is no reason that a church should be forced to marry a gay couple if said church beleives that being gay is wrong. Churches should be allowed to have their own rules and beliefs. I mean, for ploygimist, they are not allowed to be married to multiple people according to the State, but they are allowed to have as many wedding cermonies and live with as many wives (or husbands) as they want and the State can not tell them they cant. The State just does not reconginse the additional marriages even though their religion does.

sorry but i dont quite understand what you wanna say here but still as i said, NO marriage didnt come from religion

The same thing applies here, the State can reconginse a gay couples Civil Union and offer all of the benefits (execpt the marriage tax reduction because no potential for offspring) and the actual word marriage because it is a religious word. If they allow gay marriage, I will be the first person to try and marry myself to receive the same tax reduction.

This is just descrimination why "normal" people can get "married" and gay people can only get civil unified??! no , it is not a religious word. get over it dont just pull stuff out of your arse. Why not give gay people marriage jsut removing the tax reduction of the offspring..?(i dont think if this is even debatable .. why would they give them tax reduction of possible offspring considering they gave them marriage?)





Anyway , i am pro gay marriage (As long as a fag doesnt propose to me ) because i just believe in human rights and it is proven that being gay is not a choice. Only thing i wouldnt like to see is gay marriages being able to adopt children, it just doesnt sound right/healthy to me.

Now it is possible that there will be abuse of people wanting to transfer property. But then again come on , do they ask straight people if they want to marry because of love or because they want to make a money contract ?

Thats it ...pff tired of typing.

[Tom]

i didn't read any of the replies.

i'm a conservative, and speaking from a US point of view, i believe that govt shouldn't be in the business of telling us who can marry who. They should make a generic civil union for business purposes and drop it

[Tom]

on another note, people who say they are against gays based on the bible of all things, really like to pick and choose and cherry pick the bullshit they enforce and the shit they conveniently ignore

[josh]

i love tom

[Jonne]

I will take the bait...

I am against Gay Marriage.

The first question has to be, do you think someone is born gay? I myself do not think someone is born gay, and that it is infact a life style choice. And an important thing to remember is that for every choice we make, there is some conciquence associated with that choice.


I think this is the point where basically every person who opposes gay marriages goes off track. It's the first major ignorance that leads into a huge amount of faulty logic.
I've known several gay people in my life and discussed his issue with several of them and no one of them has at some point in their life made a concious decision to become gay. And I've never heard of one either. Some of them have been gay since they were 13 or 14 years old. Do you really think that someone at the age of 13 makes a concious decision to be gay and then carry it on all the way into adulthood?

Now I don't know if people are literally born gay or if it's something that's picked up in early childhood, but I'm certain that it isn't a concious choice. And afaik scientists pretty much agree on this.

[Jonne]

on another note, people who say they are against gays based on the bible of all things, really like to pick and choose and cherry pick the bullshit they enforce and the shit they conveniently ignore

IMO every bus driver who works on a Sunday should be executed. Like it says in the Bible. Plus I wanna sell ppl to slavery. Like it says in the Bible.

Oh and when my brother dies, I want his current wife to be forced to marry me, like it says in the Bible, cause she's hot.


Actually the last one was bullshit, I don't have a brother

[Jonne]

Anyway. From my personal point of view, the main issue I have with gay people living together, married or not, is whether or not they should be allowed to raise a child. I mean, if a child grows up with two daddies, then I think he might get the wrong idea of how stuff works lol.


Yeah but then again, there's no control over what kind of parents heterosexual couples are.
I'm pretty sure that two loving and caring homosexual parents is a lot better for the kid than a wifebeating dad and a mom who is addicted to Valium.

[LightsabeR]

Yeah but then again, there's no control over what kind of parents heterosexual couples are.
I'm pretty sure that two loving and caring homosexual parents is a lot better for the kid than a wifebeating dad and a mom who is addicted to Valium.
Yes, but same goes for a "partner beating" dad and another dad who is addicted to Valium as well.

I know there is no control over what kind of parents a child gets, but I just think it's better when a child grows up in a biologically normal family environment (father and mother) rather than a partnership of two gay people. If the child then turns out to be gay, then that's fine, but if the child grows up with two gay parents I get the feeling that he or she might think that being gay is the more natural choice.

Why do I say that being gay is not a natural choice? Well, because gay people can't reproduce. :p

As I said, I have no problem with gay people getting married, but them being allowed to raise children doesn't seem right to me. I think of myself as a fairly open minded person, but that's just one of those things I can't come to terms with and I'm not sure I even want to.

[Jonne]

Yes, but same goes for a "partner beating" dad and another dad who is addicted to Valium as well.

I know there is no control over what kind of parents a child gets, but I just think it's better when a child grows up in a biologically normal family environment (father and mother) rather than a partnership of two gay people. If the child then turns out to be gay, then that's fine, but if the child grows up with two gay parents I get the feeling that he or she might think that being gay is the more natural choice.


Yeah but the thing is, with gay parents there is control. I mean it's not like two gay parents end up drinking too much tequila one night and then 9 months later end up with a kid.
To have a child, gay people either need to adopt one or then do a surrogate mother or a "surrogate" father thingydoo. In both cases, they really need to want to have a child. Which most likely means that the child would be really cared for.
But yeah I do think that the optimal case is a loving mother and a loving father living in the same home. However, that's just the ideal case. Reality is often totally different. There's loads of kids living with single parents who for one reason or another don't or even can't really take care of the kid and loads of families with two parents where the parents don't really give a shit. Not to mention loads of kids living in orphanages. So I'd say a child adopted by two loving gay parents will most likely have a better life than the average child.

If there is some proof that children who have gay parents turn out to be somehow abnormal when compared to regular children, then ok there might be something wrong with gay parents. But afaik, that's something that there's no proof of.

[Jonne]

Marriage was created based on religion, therefore religion should have the final say over marriage. I myself am not religious at all, but religions should have the ability to have authority over a tradition that started from their teachings and faith.


Except that marriage wasn't originally a religious tradition. At least not a Christian tradition, what happened was that Christianity took an already existing "institution" and then added their own touches to it which then eventually ended up as a combination of the "legal" aspects of marriage being combined with the religious aspects of marriage.
And now that the two things are separate again, I don't see any reason why homosexual couples should be excluded from the legal aspects of marriage.

As for the taxation thing, giving tax breaks to married couples might have originally been some sort of a way of encouraging people to have offspring but I'd say that in the modern world that is pretty much null and void because nowadays unmarried couples are having children just like married couples (something that wasn't really happening in the past) and many married couples aren't having children. And I think that if heterosexual males want to evade taxes, gay marriage isn't a method they're likely to use.
Furthermore, you're a fiscal conservative right? Who thinks that taxes should be low? Well isn't gay marriage just the right thing for that, I mean it makes more people eligible for tax breaks.

[TehPwn]

Jonne a lot of what you say doesn't make all that much sense.

Please do tell me: are you gay?

P.S. Don't worry, I won't discriminate you.

[Jonne]

I make perfect sense

[TehPwn]

I think this is the point where basically every person who opposes gay marriages goes off track. It's the first major ignorance that leads into a huge amount of faulty logic.
I've known several gay people in my life and discussed his issue with several of them and no one of them has at some point in their life made a concious decision to become gay. And I've never heard of one either. Some of them have been gay since they were 13 or 14 years old. Do you really think that someone at the age of 13 makes a concious decision to be gay and then carry it on all the way into adulthood?

Now I don't know if people are literally born gay or if it's something that's picked up in early childhood, but I'm certain that it isn't a concious choice. And afaik scientists pretty much agree on this.

AFAIK all scientists don't pretty much agree on this. Talk to scientists on both sides, and you'll see this. Part of what brings on this great ignorance among the pro-gay marriage croud is the fact that nothing that disagrees with their beliefs matters.

Fish's post was right on, and I do agree that gays need something legally equivalent to marriage.

Just get you Civil Union and the law makers can work on expanding it to providing the same legal/beneficial rights as marriages, which are usually religiously spoken of.

All the logic in the world will not change civilization itself (not saying you have as much). You seem like you started the thread to tell people how stupid what they write is.

P.S. Again, are you gay? You almost speak as if you are. If you aren't, then I shall have to ignore half of what you write. We all make sense to ourselves. I personally think I'm brilliant...

I know gay people who are against gay "marriage" but totally for "Civil Unions". I think they make sense too. Most desperate liberally-minded people have likened it to the Civil Rights Movement to get an upper hand in the argument!

The decision to be gay doesn't always come in early childhood. Some people don't turn to a gay lifestyle until after they have been married and have children in high school. Phenomenon? Or was the punany that good?

[Jonne]

AFAIK all scientists don't pretty much agree on this. Talk to scientists on both sides, and you'll see this. Part of what brings on this great ignorance among the pro-gay marriage croud is the fact that nothing that disagrees with their beliefs matters.

Fish's post was right on, and I do agree that gays need something legally equivalent to marriage.

Just get you Civil Union and the law makers can work on expanding it to providing the same legal/beneficial rights as marriages, which are usually religiously spoken of.

All the logic in the world will not change civilization itself (not saying you have as much). You seem like you started the thread to tell people how stupid what they write is.

P.S. Again, are you gay? You almost speak as if you are. If you aren't, then I shall have to ignore half of what you write. We all make sense to ourselves. I personally think I'm brilliant...

I know gay people who are against gay "marriage" but totally for "Civil Unions". I think they make sense too. Most desperate liberally-minded people have likened it to the Civil Rights Movement to get an upper hand in the argument!

The decision to be gay doesn't always come in early childhood. Some people don't turn to a gay lifestyle until after they have been married and have children in high school. Phenomenon? Or was the punany that good?

Show me some scientific studies that show that people choose to be gay. Hell, show me some gay people who say that they've chosen to be gay.
I can give that much ground and say that the reason might not be genetic, as in people aren't born gay, but to say that homosexuality is a choice seems to be a huge case of ignorance.

And yeah some people don't "come out" until they have a wife and kids. But do you really think that these people, after being married for years and have children suddenly say "to hell with this, I'm going gay"? Or is it something that they've actually always been and just haven't accepted it until a later point in their life. Considering all the prejudice there is towards gays, I'm not surprised at all that people go on for years hiding it and trying to convince themselves that they're something else.

As for the definition of marriage, the way I see it from the eyes of the state homosexual couples should be on equal footing with heterosexual couples. So if the union between heterosexual couples is called marriage, then the union between homosexual couples should be called marriage as well. If you want to make marriage a religious institute, then that's ok. But then it should be purely a religious institute, state shouldn't have anything to do with it and it shouldn't have any "legal" force.

As in either:
a. From the eyes of the state, civil union would be the only option between both homo and heterosexual couples. With equal right for both. And the term "marriage" would be reserved for only religious use, it would have nothing to do with the state thus it wouldn't have any legal powers.

or

b. From the eyes of the state, the institution between a man and woman will be called marriage and then the institution between same sex couples would be called marriage as well. With equal rights. And whatever the churches do is up to them.

As for whether I'm gay or not, I already stated that before. If you aren't able to read, then it's not my problem

[Jonne]

Oh btw, personally I think that even if homosexuality was a conscious choice, gay marriages should still be allowed.