Homosexuality and Gay Marriage

I really don't understand what the problem with gay marrages and homesexual public displays of affection really is.

Don't get me wrong, I realize WHERE it comes from but that is not the point I'm getting at. It's just amazingly non-sencical. (Yes I realize that "non-sencical" is not a real word, but you get the point.)

So two people of the same sex are kissing in public. Why is this a problem? Why are others soooo concerned? Why is this cause for unrest? Why ban gay marrage??? If it's not your thing then fine, but all you have to do is look the other way. Quite frankly, it is none of your business.
--------------------------------------------

Let's put this in comparison. And let me note I don't mean this to sound... well rude... in anyway--.

I don't nessesarily like seeing morbidly obsese people making out in public, or being wed for that matter. But does it "harm" me. No. Absolutly not. In any way.

Do I have a problem with overweight individuals? No. But maybe I don't enjoy watching public displays of affection between "fat" people just as others may not enjoy watching public displays of affection between "homesexual" people.

Does this mean that I would even think of telling people there should be not more "fat weddings." Hell no. Does this mean that people over 500 pounds should have to go to certain designated states in order to make their bond official. HELL NO. It is just preposterous.

Who decides what is cause for concern and what is not?

I say leave people the hell alone as long as they are not harming themselves or others, and mind your own damn business.

Comments? Feelings?

I've got no issue with it. I do think it's too much too soon for some. Unfortunately we need to convince some of those some.

I've been regretfully suggesting for several weeks now on other boards that we push for a different term with all the recognitions, benefits, liabilities and hassles of marriage. The reason for this is because no one likes sudden "in your face" type of change al that much. Same rights, different term allows people that are stuck in prude mode a little time to adapt.

I've a bad habit of viewing things as a combat situation. You go lobbing nukes and everyone gets pissed. You fight and win a few battles throughout the course of the war and the change is given time to be accepted villiage by villiage.


People do change. They just aren't generally in the habit of doing so overnight.

The thing I really don't get is how people who are opposed to it can say that it's going to destroy the institution of marriage. If two people want to make a lifelong commitment to one another, isn't that the very definition of marriage?!

I don't get it.

People acccuse homosexuals of being perverse and promiscuous, but when they try and partake in a traditional act such as marriage, which promotes monogamy they get told they can't do that either.

Talk about being damned if you do and damned if you don't.

very good point

i agree with everything everyone has said so far. if you dont like it dont watch it...but let people be. these people that say "gay marriages will ruin the institution of marriage" and "gays shouldnt be able to adopt children" and so on think that being gay is so wrong and it will corrupt children...but they are doing something far far worse by spreading a message of intolerance and hate throughout the entire nation, and especially to the impressionable minds of the children. i really dont understand why people cant just "live and let live"...if anyone could explain that im very interested.

I understand exactly what you mean, and I agree to a certain extent, but I think homosexuals want compleat equality, which includes calling their unions marriages same as everyone else's. Some people seem willing to accept gay marriages without calling them marriage, but homosexuals seem unwilling to budge. It's bizarre that there are so many people with hang-ups over a single word.

Interesting observation...so i was watching Queer Eye for the Straight Guy this week and they were helping htis hapless straight guy try and figure out the most bestest way ever to propose. The thought occurred to methat they were helping him plan and do something that they legally were not able to do and that was sad.

YAY!!

the thought came to me, when i heard about bush saying he wanted to "codify" straight marriage as "real" marriage, that i'm straight, but i don't want to have anything to do with an institution that's defined as being "not gay."

first of all, it's fucked up to discriminate (hello, ever go to kindergarten?), and second of all, what a shitty basis for a commitment. it's like you're supposed to go "hey look, we're not gay, and we have the ring to prove it."

whatever.

[Edited on Aug 16, 2003 by louys]

Both sides seem unwilling to budge. Which is why there won't be a victory anytime soon. Why I say I "regretfully" have been saying to take a different term and give it time is because I agree with you and see no reason it should just apply to all adults willing to committ.

But nothing changes overnight. A different term for a few years while still having all the same legal applications, benefits, hassles and such allows progress and time for wider acceptance among the ignorant.

i have to repost this link everytime the subject comes up:

Here Comes The Groom A conservative case for gay marriage.

okay you posted an op-ed piece. One that is someone else speaking as you did not write it yourself. I'm sorry if I appear to be a major dick, which in some case I do in fact take pride in, but does this mean you fully agree with the piece? when someone posts an op-ed they don't really state their own feelings. where do you stand on the issue? I wanna get to know S5, So my questions are to you.

We're not talking the concept of domestic partnerships. we've gone beyond that issue. We're talking the acceptance of. The countrywide recognition of.

Many here seem to agree that a good and quick answer would be acceptance of the union under a different term so that the rights are made equal immediately , and all states would have to recognize them.

This would make the third time I would have asked you about something that would take time to fully accomplish as opposed to the wishful thinking that change can be made immediately.

It's not so much a matter of belief than it is as to method when it comes to you and I.

In short the op-ed you posted never reaches a real conclusion.

By posting it, are you agreeing with myself and a few others or arguing against our thoughts?

[Edited on Aug 17, 2003 by Troll]

i like the andrew sullivan piece, because it takes a conservative look at what's typically seen as an anti-conservative issue. you're right that the article's focus on domestic partnership isn't really relevant to this thread, but he makes some good arguments about how gay marriage doesn't dilute straight marriage, and in fact, only strengthens the institution of marriage by bringing it to more people. the fact that i posted the article during this point in the thread isn't related to the question about whether or not we should call them "civil unions" or "marriage". i think he makes some really solid arguments, and i thought i would throw them into the mix. ultimately, i think gay marriage should just be called marriage, but i don't have a fully formed opinion yet about how or when that's going to happen.

hope this helps.

okay. that I understood. and agree with in concept.

365 Days

"The frank use of technical terms is never allowed to detract from the basic beauty of the Divine Plan."




The Christophers... The Marriage Union (for teen-agers)

chortle

[Edited on Aug 17, 2003 by louys]

[Edited on Aug 17, 2003 by louys]

Homosexual citizens pay the same taxes straight ones do, which means they should be afforded all of the same rights and privlidges that straight citizens are, including marriage. Perhaps all the gay people in America should unite as one and stop paying their taxes until they're afforded the right to be married. Hit the government where it hurts. Sure one or two people doing it wouldn't make that big a difference, but can you imagine if every gay person in America took part in such a protest?

Being pretty ignorant on how the GLBT community is perceived outside of the US, Europe, and the Middle East, I would like to hear insight on how non-Judeo-Islamic-Christian groups handle marriage/unions among homosexuals. Is it a case of many Americans' opinions on the matter being affected by the cultural relevance that the Torah/Q'uran/Bible bring to the table and how that applies to marriage (i.e., God looks down on homosexual relations), or is this an across-the-board phenomenon? I'm gonna try to do some limited, Internet-based research on this in the next couple days (it's late as shit here), but I would also welcome fact-based opinions from anyone on the boards.

[Edited on Aug 17, 2003 by Phoebus]

Yeah, they'd get 20 minutes of news coverage and then small sentences. And still end up having to pay the freaking taxes and fines before they could be released. But your idea givers them the added bonus of learning about life in prison too

i was very reluctant to get married (again) because of my political views-do i want to be involved in an institution that excludes a large number of people?-but i did anyway, because it was important to my boy. what really freaked me out, though, was when i called to tell my health insurance people about the change, and they told me that i would no longer have to pay taxes on my boy's insurance just because of a piece of paper (that i signed while drunk, in a bar). marriage is a social contract, and should be treated as such-catagorically denying anyone the benefits of marriage is just plain wrong. churches that choose to deny gays the right to marry should be allowed to do so, but the state should recognize their unions as identical to those of straight people. and both my boy and i are bisexual-how does that effect (affect?) the state sanctioning of our uniion?

A couple of very important things:

Xenophobia is hard wired into the mammalian brain. We see us and them by design. Homosexuals have been put in the 'them" camp by the forbears of our society for a hundred generations and rather vehemently for the last ten. Thats not going to change overnight, especially with the myriad of groups in whose vested interest it is to keep that division alive.

That said however, all the semantics about marriage versus union and the proud tradition and all that is a bunch of complete horeshit. Our tradition of marriage is a hundred years old at best. It is a product of mass media and urbanization. Prior to that it was little more than a means of consolidating and preserving wealth and property. It had nothing to do with love or romance or a spiritual bond, it was about control. In fact in the lifetimes of many present, women were still considered bonded chattle in many US states. In Virginia married women could not own individual property until 1972. We abandoned that tradition a generation ago, maybe its time we abandoned the fictions that go with it.

Nice work, repro.

I confess I haven't looked through all the links posted here. But I know one of the arguments about "gay marriage" is that it's about social and legal recognition of the existence of a committed relationship. More specifically, such acknowledgement would allow resolution of inheritance issues that tend to be legally murkier in gay de facto relationships.

This is what I've heard anyway, and it seems to be a good reason why things should change.