Gay People Against Gay Marriage

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am against marriage as an institution in general, so there would be no reason for me to advocate for marriage industry to grow further. I am not against people getting married, just the religious connection, the ceremonies and traditions and the legal side of it.

I also advocate the importance of the traditional family, both the father and mother are essential for bringing up well rounded individuals.


I hate this move towards trying make same sex families as something completely normal. I don't think that it is good for society as a whole to encourage same sex relationships. There has also been a push in the west to break down the tradional family structure and same sex marriage is just one part of that movement.
 
hurfdurf said:
Self hating gays are a real thing, just like there are black people who hate other black people and are extremely racist.
Click to expand...

From what I've seen, they're hardly all self hating. One account had the guy say he just doesn't think marriage has much of a place for him, he sees it as a traditional man / woman thing and only wants the equivlent from a legal point of view. He also accepted that other gays who do want marriage should be able to have it, which is a very healthy view point.

Given you snipped my post, you also missed my point. Marriage is only really worth fighting for because the state sticks it's nose in as it gives some rights and rules. In reality, we should leave it down to individual morality and have legal partnership rules seperate from marriage.

Honestly I don't really see how letting a couple of gays get married by a hobo, or a woman getting married to her dog really changes or detracts the church wedding between a man and a woman.
 
Last edited:
7Co2ZJv.jpg
 
People get so pent up and angry about sexuality, the only person's sexuality you should be concerned about is the person that you would like to roger!
 
Naffa said:
One that I was listening to on the radio the other day was linked to the inheritance of pensions. Even if gay marriage is legalised, there's going to be a significant difference in various policies between straight and gay married couples, let alone straight married couples and civil partners.
Click to expand...

The pension rights are the same, but there are issues with applying laws retroactively. So parts of pensions predating the civil partnerships laws might or might not be inheritable (i.e. the pension company can't be forced to make them inheritable).
 
FoxEye said:
But surely in the context of gay as 'rubbish', there is no homophobic sentiment? People don't even associate the word 'gay' with 'homosexual' in the majority of its usage.

The intent to offend of persecute simply isn't there. 'Fag' maybe a bit more offensive, but again in the context of 'that sniper on the roof is a fag', it isn't used as a insult towards gay people.

Does context and intent simply not matter?
Click to expand...

What a messed up place it's become. Gay was once meant happy, then attracted to another man and from the gaming community it's now meant rubbish.

I remember one time many women during work or college said they're away for a quick fag (smoke break) before going back into class or teaching. I just find it so sadly amusing how screwed up things have become because people change the definition on what they see fit rather than what it actually was. Considering how screwed up that (muppet and bestest?) was put into the dictionary.

Thats the part that amuses me. (in children’s use) That and the fact it's not in Apple's dictionary. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/bestest

I couldn't get over one time start of the week for the Isle of Man TT ad on ITV2 HD, the voice over said (bettered) I couldn't get over what a mess it's become grown people changing definitions and talking like children. If you spoke like that in the 90s you'd be laughed silly.


As for the whole gay topic, the biggest thing that concerns me the most that so many don't seem to talk about is the upbringing of children. The confusion as children develop through influence and mixed homes. Two dads? two mothers? it's bad enough as it is with one mother or one dad and the fact that so many normal marriages are broken up because they're bored with each other in this current throw away society. Not all, there are many marriages that last but it seems to be a rarity.

Think about it, once this is all legal, 10 years from now, children below 10 coming through that, the problems this will create through schools. The teenage years... mood swings and urges and what they come through will now be a standard?... or through some people a lot of influence to be gay. Gay teachers becomes a normal thing? gay activity in the playground? people that feel so strongly to push others to follow this way...

The other thing that concerns me, in fact three.

1, How the media pushes it down everyones screens/radios. It's always getting discussed/publicised.
2, It's coming across like a fashion through influence.
3, Politicians pushing it through for nothing but extra votes.

It's a very complicated topic. I just find it all very... it makes me uneasy what could be ahead. A worrying future as society.


I don't know if this was the same one but I remember hearing about it. One was even put out of business. Why not go somewhere else? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19991266
 
The arguing is entirely over the word 'marriage' and nothing else. It's not about legal rights (which are already identical) or social status (which can't be changed by legislation) or even common usage (it's not unusual for civil partnerships to be called marriages). So it's either arguing solely over the word for some reason or it's arguing for the sake of having a fight and imposing dominance on your enemies.

As to whether or not the word 'marriage' is religious...the origin of the word is pre-Christian Latin. So if there is a religion to be associated with the word 'marriage', it's the ancient Roman religion. Not that ancient Roman marriage was religious, apart from a rare, unpopular and archaic form only ever used within the nobility. Religion was often added, but it wasn't the marriage-making thing.

My preferred solution would be to drop the word 'marriage' entirely. It currently splodges sloppily over three different and distinct things and I think it would be much better to treat them as the three different things they are:

Personal. Promises between the spouses. Whatever promises they choose - this is the personal aspect of it. I'd call this 'wedding', since 'wedding' means 'to vow'. Purely personal - neither the law nor religion is involved. This is about the spouses.

Legal. A legally binding contract containing whatever rights and responsibilities the legal system attaches to it. Purely legal - neither individuals (edit: by this I mean that individuals don't set the rights and responsibilities) nor religion is involved. I'd call this 'civil partnership', since that's what it is.

Religious. Whatever rituals anyone wants for any religion (unless the rituals break other laws, but that's hardly likely nowadays). Purely religious - neither individuals nor the law is involved. Any religious officials can refuse to perform the rites for any reason they please, or no reason at all. I'd suggest 'blessing' as the name, but they can call it anything.
 
Last edited:
V F said:
[..] It's a very complicated topic. I just find it all very... it makes me uneasy what could be ahead. A worrying future as society.
Click to expand...

The future has always been worrying. Certainly throughout recorded history and probably before it. I've no doubt, for example, that the invention of farming made plenty of people worried about the future. That changed society far more than changing views about homosexuality has done or will do.

There will be some people adversely affected by changes in society (usually as a result of other people's actions against them), but that's always true. The key things are to consider what is fairest and to minimise any harm caused by changes towards it. So yes, many kids with two parents of the same sex will get more hassle because of other kids, but that should be transitory and is best tackled by addressing the other kids.

Another example regarding marriage comes to my mind. In the Roman monarchy and early republic, marriage wasn't allowed between patricians (nobility) and plebians (commoners). That was changed as Roman society changed. People got used to it.

Change happens. People get used to it.

I don't know if this was the same one but I remember hearing about it. One was even put out of business. Why not go somewhere else? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19991266
Click to expand...

Because having the law allow gay-only things while forbidding straight-only things is a powerful sign of power and dominance, i.e. political success. Being gay doesn't automatically make people nice.
 
Angilion said:
There will be some people adversely affected by changes in society (usually as a result of other people's actions against them), but that's always true. The key things are to consider what is fairest and to minimise any harm caused by changes towards it. So yes, many kids with two parents of the same sex will get more hassle because of other kids, but that should be transitory and is best tackled by addressing the other kids.
Click to expand...

They can't even do it in schools as it is.


Change happens. People get used to it.
Click to expand...

You haven't been in the Windows 8 threads when so many people freaked out about a missing start button and had to bring it back. Out came the tambourines and kum ba yah my lord. They never got used to it.
 
V F said:
They can't even do it in schools as it is.
Click to expand...

Good point.

You haven't been in the Windows 8 threads when so many people freaked out about a missing start button and had to bring it back. Out came the tambourines and kum ba yah my lord. They never got used to it.
Click to expand...

That has genuine reasons though - Windows 8's UI is designed specifically for small-screen touch-based devices and is therefore worse for other uses than Window 7's UI. It's not just about change. It's simply worse.
 
I don't care if two gay people get married, call it what you will, as long as they're happy. However I don't believe it's right to force certain institutions to marry people if they don't believe it's right for whatever reason.
 
V F said:
Some could say the same about this topic or when it was on Question Time. Depends on who's side you agree with. Change that some can and cannot accept. Better or for worse.
Click to expand...

There is a key difference. People who say that Windows 8 UI is worse when used on devices it wasn't designed for can and do provide rational reasons for doing so. It's hardly surprising that an UI designed for small-screen touch devices is worse for large-screen non-touch devices than an UI designed for large-screen non-touch devices. People who say that granting state recognition of homosexual marriages is worse than not doing so have no rational reasons. Very often they have no reasons at all, they're just doing what they've been told to do without thinking. If they do have a reason, it's just that they think their religion should control the law of the country.
 
What I find funny is that you have people who are trying to preserve the meaning of the word 'marriage', whilst simultaneously telling us to accept that the word 'gay' is now on it's third meaning....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom