Gay People Against Gay Marriage

[Castiel]

because the world isn't perfect sometimes practically had to take precedent over ideals, you where a solider, a sniper even, I'd imagine that's a concept you have had to make peace with a long time ago

In this case, as there is already a system in place that give homosexual couples all the legal rights associated with marriage, and for all practical purposes imbues the same legal status as marriage then I would say that the ideal is Equal Marriage for all, as the practicalities are already in place.

The opportunity here was to legislate a bill that offered Equality...and they fluffed it, creating a inequality to replace a former one. Poor legislation should not be passed simply for political expediency.

 

[elmarko]

Ancient Greeks certainly did get married and it was a fundamental part of their social structure, highly formalised and steeped in tradition and symbolism.

I couldn't remember off the top of my head if they got married, but yeah - the main point was that we can't really use tradition as an excuse to persecute homosexuals in regard to gay marriage - as man on man relationships (admittedly in a different form) existed a long time before Christianity.

Some good info there, some I had suspected but have yet to do the research.

I can understand your view regarding civil partnerships, but as you also know that's an argument in favour of revision (to include that element) as opposed to against gay marriage (which some use it for, not saying you are).

 

[Sliver]

I'd like to know at what point gay people will be happy to be gay, and not need to let everybody know how gay they are.

Seriously... will we ever get there?

You could say the same about the civil rights movement or feminism. The answer is simple. You'll soon stop hearing everyone banging on about it once they are treated equally, ubiquitously, under the law, everywhere. Even then, you will get bigots who commit hate crimes or prevaricate in order to keep the pot boiling, so in truth, it might be something that diminishes but never entirely dissipates.

What's wrong with equality is my question ? Am I missing something ? Race, gender, sexuality etc. I say SO WHAT ! Everyone might not be born equal, but at least treat everyone equal under the law.

 

[Gackt]

There's no morally justifiable reason to deny homosexuals to marry - however it should be up to the particular institution to decide whether they want to perform the ceremony.

If I were a homosexual, why would I want to get married in an institution that was against it anyway? I'd go somewhere else.

It's a non-issue that is blown up by bigots.

 

[Castiel]

I can understand your view regarding civil partnerships, but as you also know that's an argument in favour of revision (to include that element) as opposed to against gay marriage (which some use it for, not saying you are).

I fully support Homosexual Marriage, I think that everyone, no matter their creed, colour, sexuality or orientation should have the same social and legal rights in this country. I do not agree however that we should be accepting of legislation that offers a different type of discrimination in order to simply expedite a response to a current inequity, one which for all intents and purposes has no practical impact on the legal standing of current unions. I think that the legislation as presented was discriminatory and therefore requires amendments in order to address that inequality. That some people opposed to same sex marriage will use such as a delaying tactic is just something we have to accept, because in my opinion, passing legislation that effectively contradicts the reason for such legislation in the first place is inherently against the very principles of equality to which we are striving for.

I couldn't remember off the top of my head if they got married, but yeah - the main point was that we can't really use tradition as an excuse to persecute homosexuals in regard to gay marriage - as man on man relationships (admittedly in a different form) existed a long time before Christianity.

To complicate things a little, from a theological perspective the Pauline Epistles that are used to justify the Christian Stance opposing homosexuality are in fact based on the very examples of homosexual relationships that I referenced. Paul, in criticising the acts of the Christians in their resolution of pagan and homosexual practice was opposing Pederasty rather than what we would consider Homosexuality...Pederasty is something that Western Society frowns upon inherently anyway...in this I feel that Christian opposition to current accepted homosexuality is misguided and not in keeping with the very scriptures that they use to justify such opposition.

 

[deuse]

When I was young you could walk down a street and call a young lady gay(originally it meant Happy-bright and showy and they would smile back.

Do that these days and you would get a slap. Worlds gone mad I tell you.

 

[Edrof]

When I was young you could walk down a street and call a young lady gay(originally it meant Happy-bright and showy and they would smile back.

Do that these days and you would get a slap. Worlds gone mad I tell you.

Language changes, granddad.


(*Mischievous giggle*)

 

[aln]

None at all.

Just homophobia & bigotry, along with the church attempting to claim marriage as an exclusively religious ceremony (when in reality it's existed longer than Christianity if I recall correctly).

My thoughts are simply, I don't care what two people I don't know get up-to as long as nobody is harmed.

Is that including the gays who are against it?

Personally I don't see why marriage should have anything to do with the state, for or against, but you seem to tar with a fairly wide brush.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

When I was young you could walk down a street and call a young lady gay(originally it meant Happy-bright and showy and they would smile back.

Do that these days and you would get a slap. Worlds gone mad I tell you.

Were you born during Victorian times?

 

[Curio]

I'm opposed to gay marriage. I have no good reason to be - I know it's silly of me. I just simply think "marriage" should be between a man and woman. Logically and morally I have no leg to stand on - and I really should just accept it.....I just can't seem to though

 

[semi-pro waster]

So my friend posted this:

I'm not convinced there's any point in asking but have you asked them how to explain the fact that marriage existed before the Christian religion did? With an omnipotent and omniscient deity it's possible they were planning so far in advance that they managed to get marriage as a social construct thousands of years in advance of their religion being documented but it might be worth checking anyway what view your friend holds on this...

You could also enquire about couples who are childless through infertility - if they cannot procreate then does that mean their marriage is not equally valid?

 

[hurfdurf]

I'm not convinced there's any point in asking but have you asked them how to explain the fact that marriage existed before the Christian religion did? With an omnipotent and omniscient deity it's possible they were planning so far in advance that they managed to get marriage as a social construct thousands of years in advance of their religion being documented but it might be worth checking anyway what view your friend holds on this...

You could also enquire about couples who are childless through infertility - if they cannot procreate then does that mean their marriage is not equally valid?

Christians are wrong, to combat them on issues usually leaves them looking very dumb and have them unfriending you both on Facebook and irl. It's worth it, a friend is not worth having if they are homophobic scum.

 

[hurfdurf]

Is that including the gays who are against it?

Self hating gays are a real thing, just like there are black people who hate other black people and are extremely racist.

 

[hurfdurf]

In this case, as there is already a system in place that give homosexual couples all the legal rights associated with marriage, and for all practical purposes imbues the same legal status as marriage then I would say that the ideal is Equal Marriage for all, as the practicalities are already in place.

The opportunity here was to legislate a bill that offered Equality...and they fluffed it, creating a inequality to replace a former one. Poor legislation should not be passed simply for political expediency.

It is the far better of 2 evils? The perfect option was not available. Can you not see that?

 

[Xordium]

How do they know you're gay?

1. Did you give yourself a gamertag like 'wutwutinthebutt'
2. Did you spray a picture of two guys going at it all over the map?
3. Did you introduce yourself on the server with "lo guys, I'll be your gay CoD player for today'

In short... how in the 9 hells do they know you're gay?

Answer: you couldn't resist bringing it up. No doubt. You wanted to bring it up to prove how 'intolerant' they all were. So you tell all the other players that you're gay, and probably tell them how much you'd like to do Brad Pitt just for good measure. Then you get angry when a few people take the bait, and have a go at you.

Something like that, eh?

I mean, seriously, if you didn't tell them they were gay, how would you get 'persecuted'? And why tell a group of strangers that you're gay? Why?

I think hurfdurf means those words are used irrespective of peoples sexual interests:

OMG I RAPED THAT DUDE
OMG YOU SUX YOU GAY
OMG THAT SNIPER IS A FAGGOT
OMG IVE NEVER BEEN OUT MY BASEMENT

 

[Xordium]

The perfect option was not available.

It was just not chosen.

 

[Edrof]

have you asked them how to explain the fact that marriage existed before the Christian religion did?

You could also enquire about couples who are childless through infertility - if they cannot procreate then does that mean their marriage is not equally valid?

I did, actually. Sadly, the replies are not the most rational of thoughts:

I believe that God predates all History, as God was there at the very beginning. First marriage was adam ad Eve. Whether one believes that or not, this is where marriage (from a christian point of view) came from, so therefore marriage predates all of that.

Its not the church who are against same sex marriage - its God himself. Procreation is just part of it, however mirroring God's relationship to the church is key.

Even my limited knowledge of the Bible can counter them. I remained very polite and respectful throughout the discussion (as did he), but I must say that everything I said was easily backed up by UK law and lexicographical entries; whereas the counter argument was just practiced rhetoric or missing the point entirely.

 

[Theophany]

I'm of the opinion that gay and lesbian couples can do whatever the heck they want, as long as in doing so they don't hurt anyone.

My thoughts are simply, I don't care what two people I don't know get up-to as long as nobody is harmed.

Before I say anything, I just want to make clear I get on with both of you chaps and find you as better posters within this wonderful community, however, I do have a bone to pick.

Why is it there is a tendency to add words to the effect of 'as long as nobody gets hurt' when stating support for gay marriage? What does it even mean?

Heterosexual marriage can be an extremely destructive force that consumes more people than just the two engaged in the marriage - should we somehow be against that because it hurts people?

Why is it so difficult to just say; "I'm all for gay marriage" without introducing this allusion to pain and suffering?



I may be reading too much into this, but I see and hear it so often that it has come to grate and become rather irritating.

 

[Castiel]

It is the far better of 2 evils? The perfect option was not available. Can you not see that?

The better of two evils? Well two wrongs don't make a right as they say.

The perfect (if there is such a thing) option is certainly available...it only takes a little forethought and failing that an amendment to the bill. As the current position allows for equal consideration under the law then it is not imperative that this bill be pushed through at the expense of the very equality for which it is meant. That is the real evil, the sacrifice of equality in the name of political expediency.

Besides the amendment process is followed for every other piece of legislation, why should this be any different?

It was just not chosen.

Precisely.

 

[Sudden]

Before I say anything, I just want to make clear I get on with both of you chaps and find you as better posters within this wonderful community, however, I do have a bone to pick.

Why is it there is a tendency to add words to the effect of 'as long as nobody gets hurt' when stating support for gay marriage? What does it even mean?

Heterosexual marriage can be an extremely destructive force that consumes more people than just the two engaged in the marriage - should we somehow be against that because it hurts people?

Why is it so difficult to just say; "I'm all for gay marriage" without introducing this allusion to pain and suffering?



I may be reading too much into this, but I see and hear it so often that it has come to grate and become rather irritating.

Don't mean to put words into their mouths (hands?), but I would have thought that they just mean that generally speaking, people can do what they like if they don't hurt others. Similar to - "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

Given the context of the threat, it has been said in relation to it.