Gay Marriage

[Dragon Star]

Just out of curiosity, what do you think about gay marriage?

[Bill_Thompson]

It is clear according to the scientific community that homosexuality is caused by a certain sequence of genes. Just go to WebMD if you doubt me. So why deny gay people the right to marry just because of who they are? It seems logical to me that they should have that right.

Also, it seems to me that the people who protest this sort of thing actually turn out to be fighting their own internal confects and years later we all find out that they were gay all along.

As argued on Apollo Hoax, the only person who was really against gay marriage had some sort of distorted psycho-pseudo-religious slant on reality and thought that all gay men should be forced into marriage with a woman because, according to their twisted view of reality, that is what God would want and their homosexuality was caused by Satan. Well, even if someone was to go this far and believe this, this is a bad thing. If you take the position that being gay is a bad thing and should be eliminated, by forcing them to have children biologically, you are actually passing this genetic sequence on and could be argued as child abuse.

Another angle is the case that having gay people in a monogamous committed relationship would slow or stop the spread of AIDS. This is the trump card that I feel puts away any argument against gay marriage.

Another issue is the fact that a lot of people who are out to tear down society turn out to be angry because society did not accept them. Telling gay people as they grow up that it is OK to be who they are will stop this.

Finally, the "cat is out of the bag" already. New Jersey and other New England states have legalized gay marriage. The gig is up. What are other states supposed to do? Are they to nullify a marriage once a couple move to that state? That does not make any sense. Love is not a geographic thing.



(it is spelled "absolutely")

[Dragon Star]

It is clear according to the scientific community that homosexuality is caused by a certain sequence of genes. Just go to WebMD if you doubt me. So why deny gay people the right to marry just because of who they are? It seems logical to me that they should have that right.

I agree with that myself. However you have to look at what "marriage" really is. Most people consider it to be of a religious joining, mending of sorts through the ceramony of "Holy Matrimony". So I think the opinion of gay marriage revolves directly around the fact if you are religious or not, and if you believe marriage actually is Holy Matrimony.

Also, it seems to me that the people who protest this sort of thing actually turn out to be fighting their own internal confects and years later we all find out that they were gay all along.

I think that it's true in some cases, but religious believes are more to blame I believe. Some people are scared of the truth, and the repercussions of what that truth may hold.

As argued on Apollo Hoax, the only person who was really against gay marriage had some sort of distorted psycho-pseudo-religious slant on reality and thought that all gay men should be forced into marriage with a woman because, according to their twisted view of reality, that is what God would want and their homosexuality was caused by Satan. Well, even if someone was to go this far and believe this, this is a bad thing. If you take the position that being gay is a bad thing and should be eliminated, by forcing them to have children biologically, you are actually passing this genetic sequence on and could be argued as child abuse.

Yea, I can understand that. I find it strange that all people who believe that in particular also believe that homosexuality is a personal choice, which I disagree with. I think that homosexuality, in most cases, has more to do with the hard wiring of the brain. Until science proves this beyond any doubt, I fear we will always have this problem.

That said, I think women more often partake in homosexuality out of choice then men, based on personal talks with them myself.

(it is spelled "absolutely")

And fixed, thanks.

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

Most people consider it to be of a religious joining, mending of sorts through the ceremony of "Holy Matrimony". So I think the opinion of gay marriage revolves directly around the fact if you are religious or not, and if you believe marriage actually is Holy Matrimony.

If that were true, why legislate marriage it at all?

[Dragon Star]

Most people consider it to be of a religious joining, mending of sorts through the ceremony of "Holy Matrimony". So I think the opinion of gay marriage revolves directly around the fact if you are religious or not, and if you believe marriage actually is Holy Matrimony.

If that were true, why legislate marriage it at all?

It is, and there is no reason to "legislate" marriage, IMO other then for age. Give it parameters, and let it be what it is, a promise to be faithful in your lover, not necessarily God. If you want to get married for religious reasons, by all means, have at it! However I don't agree with this "definition" of marriage. By the current definition, me being agnostic, honestly I can't get "married". I can by law, however I can't by religions faith.

Anyone who has the desire to be together and be able to use a ceremony to prove their love, should be able to do so legally under any circumstances as long as they are of age. It's a devotion of love after all, what else has to be there really?

So by my definition of what marriage should be, shouldn't all sexual orientations have the same right?

[troubleagain]

Another angle is the case that having gay people in a monogamous committed relationship would slow or stop the spread of AIDS. This is the trump card that I feel puts away any argument against gay marriage.

If this argument is what it takes to get gay marriage legalized, then fine, but it doesn't actually hold water to me. Many, many gay couples have been in seriously long-term (20-30 year) monogamous committed relationships without the benefit of a legal blessing.

But I agree with most of the rest of your points.

And of course, like DS, I believe that "marriage" as a religious institution shouldn't be legislated at all. If you want to have a legal bond, great, and more power to you, and that should be available for any two consenting adults anywhere. But the religious aspects marriage shouldn't be considered for any legal standing at all. The govt. needs to stay the hell out of my bedroom, y'know?

[Bill_Thompson]

Another note I might add is this. Studies have shown that children raised by same-gender parents are just as normal statistically as children raised by parents who are male and female.

So some arguments I have heard that adopted kids would be better off with a traditional mom and dad are untrue.

[troubleagain]

Yeah. As if hetero couples can't screw kids up royally.

[Dragon Star]

LOL...

[umop ap!sdn]

In the United States at least, there's the matter of that little clause in the Constitution about no making up laws that favor any specific religion. Since the only arguments I've heard for not allowing gay marriage have been from a religious POV, it seems to me that the laws favoring hetero couples, at least on the federal level, must be unconstitutional.

The law here must allow all couples to officially commit, and must recognize them as such in every jurisdiction to which the Constitution applies. Religions, on the other hand, have no such obligation and can abuse their members as they see fit, so that the worst denominations hopefully (in my opinion) lose all their followers to disillusionment and go extinct.

[MM_Dandy]

I'm with those that say that as far as the legal definition is concerned, the right to be married should not be relegated to only heterosexual people. Religious organizations, however, should not be denied the right to regulate whom may partake in their rite or sacrament of marriage. Umop is right in that it will be up to the members to decide weather they agree or not and take appropriate actions to lobby for change or leave.

However, I don't think marriage is absolutely acceptable. We've already mentioned age as a reasonable exception - one with which I agree. I don't think marriages of an incestuous relationship should be allowed, sexual orientation aside. I guess pre-arranged gay marriages will probably never happen, but I oppose the idea in general. Also, I find it hard to accept polygamous marriages - but I'm not sure whether it should be up to the government to regulate that.

So, I voted "Other" - I find gay marriage to be as acceptable as heterosexual marriage, but neither is absolutely acceptable.

[Bill_Thompson]

I am joking.

[Dragon Star]

[woowoo]

I agree with it. I think girls should be able to marry each other...

[Heid the Ba]

We have had it here for a year or two, no-one really cares (or in many cases haven't noticed). Being pedantic we don't have gay marraige, but civil partnerships for same sex couples that confer the same rights. Some churches are tie-ing themselves in knots over this but church attendance is so low here that most people don't care about that.

My experience is that very few gay couples have registerd as civil partners, I don't know why.

[Enzo]

They heard BT don't like it.