Lets debate gay marriage

[Hurlshort]

If you are eating quiche, then you might want to ask yourself a deeper question.

[Aram]

don't talk **** about quiche

[Humodour]

Quiche is ****ing awesome.

[~Di]

This topic isn't likely to cause heated debate around here. I honestly don't think too many of the posters here... if any... disagree on the issue. Of course gays should be allowed to marry... and to adopt children, and to partake in every other privelege/right of living in this society.

 

The problem is that they aren't, and most of us just scratch our heads and wonder... why?

[julianw]

It says you can't be gay in the Bible. And you know how those idiots foollow everything in the Bible. Although no one I know could show me where in the Bible it says so.

It's my understanding that the Bible advises against homosexuality in a few passages. However, there are many more passages there concerning infidelity. All the Christians who are against gay marriages are quite silly; since if gays aren

[Theseus]

If a guy doesnt like gay marriage he doenst need to have one. I was atgainst gay marriage until i heard i didnt have to have one.

[Hell Kitty]

If you are eating quiche, then you might want to ask yourself a deeper question.

 

Whether or not I'm man enough to eat such a manly meal?

[Tigranes]

"Gay" means a homosexual person people, nothing else.

 

It says you can't be gay in the Bible. And you know how those idiots foollow everything in the Bible. Although no one I know could show me where in the Bible it says so.

It's my understanding that the Bible advises against homosexuality in a few passages. However, there are many more passages there concerning infidelity. All the Christians who are against gay marriages are quite silly; since if gays aren

[julianw]

^Could you elaborate on that last sentence? I am not quite sure what you meant by that.

[Tigranes]

Yeah, sorry. That *was* baroque.

 

In previous decades and in certain social climates (i.e. some Asian countries or some that were influenced by Christianity in a particular way), marriage was seen as 'sacred', and with that came a set of conventions and perspectives about what marriage was. Examples include how you had to marry by a certain age (as late as the last decade, in Korea, Japan and some other places if you were over 30 and you were still single there was something wrong with you, i.e. "to not have married by then he/she must have a serious flaw".); how marriage had to happen in a certain way (e.g. invite everyone you know for the wedding and have a honeymoon, which can be a serious financial burden), how married couples had to live, the roles the husband and wife took up in each family, etc. That restricted and normalised your life planning and your relationship in quite significant ways. If you wanted to live a bachelor's life until 35 then start a family then, you were seen as a player, a deviant: apparently it is not proper for some people to stay single longer than others on purpose. (In other words, if you are 18 it's okay to seek a relationship just for the sake of it, but if you're 28 you're expected to look seriously at marriage.) If you wanted to try living together for a few years and then see how it goes before committing to marriage, that wasn't so 'proper' either. Open relationships in some societies is basically adultery under disguise. So on and so forth.

 

For some of you most of those notions might sound antiquated, or restricted to non-Western cultures. For the most part... yes. (By definition, Asians are more 'conservative' because what is 'progressive' has been defined by what Westerners have been doing.) But not always. You've still got a lot of people in whatever ethnic or cultural group that hold particular ideas and views about marriage / life; people who don't see eye to eye with you unless you've got a nuclear family going at the right age. And for me, the furore over gay marriage is just an extension of this dangerously sanctified and narrow view about marriage. I'm not saying the entire controversy over homosexuality boils down to that, or even the topic of gay marriage itself, but a lot of it does have to do with it. And that's why I'm not happy with it. I think we have invested way too much symbolic importance in gay marriage, and framed the debate in the terms of marriage I outlined above. So even though I haven't made up my mind about what to think about homosexuality, I think the fervent opposition to gay marriage is harmful to our society because I think we need to become more open-minded and diversified about the type of lives we build for ourselves and the type of relationships we cultivate. And that's for 'gays' and 'straights' both, and whatever else.

 

And yes, I did exaggerate a bit for those examples, so it might sound like Victorian England. But for huge proportions of Western & non-Western society many such constraints and conventions do hold.

[Walsingham]

Broadly sepaking, I'm against marriage in the form of a lifelong commitment. When we all died of old age, rickets, and heart failure at 32 it probably made sense. Now, with life being a very eclectic journey, I think it's a miracle any marriage lasts more than a few years. I'd be in favour of short term 4 or five year contracts.

 

Keeping that background in mind, I think that if gay people want to make a serious commitment to each other, and to have that reflected in law, then good on 'em.

[Rosbjerg]

...So even though I haven't made up my mind about what to think about homosexuality...

 

I'm a little interested what you mean by this.

 

It kinda sounds like you don't believe in the concept of homosexuality..

[Humodour]

What's not to 'believe' about it? You've never seen two dudes kiss each other? You don't believe they can love each other because you've never felt love for another man? You don't believe they can physically have sex? What?

 

Speaking from the perspective of somebody who was homophobic for the first 18 years of his life, it's a totally retarded worldview.

[Tigranes]

Not at all. I mean, I don't know what to think about it. Is it hereditary or by choice, and to what degree of either? (That is obviously important) Is it deviant from a norm, or simply another legitimately different form of sexuality? If it is deviant, why exactly is it reprehensible? What cosnequences will it have on our society if we embrace (or condemn) homosexuals? It's an issue with a lot of question marks and I'm hesitant to put forth an opinion (i.e. burn them all / they can do whatever) at the present.

[Humodour]

Not at all. I mean, I don't know what to think about it. Is it hereditary or by choice, and to what degree of either?

 

Both. Although people went absolutely nuts at me on this board last time I said that; people who insist it is hereditary seem like they're trying to justify it as an affliction/disease and thus can't be helped. I think that's disgusting. It shouldn't matter who you choose to love, nor why you love, if it's legal.

 

(That is obviously important)

 

How is it important? Why do you care who somebody else loves, and certainly why do you care what causes their love?

 

Is it deviant from a norm, or simply another legitimately different form of sexuality?

 

Is there a difference? Are people who stay single all their lives 'deviant'? Does it matter?

 

If it is deviant, why exactly is it reprehensible?

 

What's your answer?

 

What cosnequences will it have on our society if we embrace (or condemn) homosexuals? It's an issue with a lot of question marks and I'm hesitant to put forth an opinion (i.e. burn them all / they can do whatever) at the present.

 

Where are these question marks? Consequences: gay people will marry. Can you actually think of any consequences? If not, it would appear that you are trying to pad an intuitive revulsion of the idea of homosexuality, which is understandable if you've been brought up socially conservatively, as you probably have, and as I was.

[Hurlshort]

I think the big question when trying to determine whether it is a choice or not is: Why would millions of people choose to be homosexual?

 

To be homosexual means to face discrimination and bigotry on a fairly massive scale. There are places in this world where it is punishable by death. But you still have people being homosexual, despite the climate, and you have throughout human history.

 

It's not a small group either. As I said, it's in the millions, estimates put it at 1-2% of the human population, and that might be a bit low given the fact that many people hide their sexuality to prevent ostracism.

 

I'm sure some people can repress their homosexuality and live a straight life. There are plenty of priests that manage to repress sexuality completely. But that doesn't mean every homosexual should be forced to live that way, just like not everyone should be a priest.

[julianw]

Yeah, sorry. That *was* baroque.

 

In previous decades and in certain social climates (i.e. some Asian countries or some that were influenced by Christianity in a particular way), marriage was seen as 'sacred', and with that came a set of conventions and perspectives about what marriage was. Examples include how you had to marry by a certain age (as late as the last decade, in Korea, Japan and some other places if you were over 30 and you were still single there was something wrong with you, i.e. "to not have married by then he/she must have a serious flaw".); how marriage had to happen in a certain way (e.g. invite everyone you know for the wedding and have a honeymoon, which can be a serious financial burden), how married couples had to live, the roles the husband and wife took up in each family, etc. That restricted and normalised your life planning and your relationship in quite significant ways. If you wanted to live a bachelor's life until 35 then start a family then, you were seen as a player, a deviant: apparently it is not proper for some people to stay single longer than others on purpose. (In other words, if you are 18 it's okay to seek a relationship just for the sake of it, but if you're 28 you're expected to look seriously at marriage.) If you wanted to try living together for a few years and then see how it goes before committing to marriage, that wasn't so 'proper' either. Open relationships in some societies is basically adultery under disguise. So on and so forth.

 

For some of you most of those notions might sound antiquated, or restricted to non-Western cultures. For the most part... yes. (By definition, Asians are more 'conservative' because what is 'progressive' has been defined by what Westerners have been doing.) But not always. You've still got a lot of people in whatever ethnic or cultural group that hold particular ideas and views about marriage / life; people who don't see eye to eye with you unless you've got a nuclear family going at the right age. And for me, the furore over gay marriage is just an extension of this dangerously sanctified and narrow view about marriage. I'm not saying the entire controversy over homosexuality boils down to that, or even the topic of gay marriage itself, but a lot of it does have to do with it. And that's why I'm not happy with it. I think we have invested way too much symbolic importance in gay marriage, and framed the debate in the terms of marriage I outlined above. So even though I haven't made up my mind about what to think about homosexuality, I think the fervent opposition to gay marriage is harmful to our society because I think we need to become more open-minded and diversified about the type of lives we build for ourselves and the type of relationships we cultivate. And that's for 'gays' and 'straights' both, and whatever else.

 

And yes, I did exaggerate a bit for those examples, so it might sound like Victorian England. But for huge proportions of Western & non-Western society many such constraints and conventions do hold.

I see where you objections to traditional marriage come from now... and I agree for the most part. Though in defense of Asian traditions, remember during the times of Confucius, medicine technology is still quite lacking. People also live a lot shorter with lack of nutrition. Your window to give birth to a health baby all the while being productive enough so you can raise him/her to adulthood is very narrow. I would say in those days, you do have a moral obligation to marry young and give your child the best chance to grow up to full adulthood, and many of the older traditions facilitate that process. Nowadays, you can have a baby at say 50 if you are rich enough, and I think that

[Calax]

Shared property, mortgages and inheritance becomes a complete mess if you dont treat the household as one unit.

wills are simple to write. of course, you also need a government that recognizes your right to give your property to anyone you choose, but that's another, deeper issue. the only reason the marriage issue matters is the perverted notion of unequal rights, i.e., some are more equal than others.

 

taks

Couple of things First is not related to the quote. Aristes stated he was for gay marriage but that when it came to prop 8 he voted against it because the leaders of the Pro Prop 8 campaign were smug and full of themselves. At least I think that was his reasoning, which to me is a stupid choice because you're denying a person a legal standing in their partners life.

 

As to the quote, I don't think it's inheritance that drives gay couples to get married, I think it's more a mixture of the tax breaks, and the fact that once you are married, the decisions that need to be made, should you be incapacitated, are shifted to your partner rather than your closest living relative (who may or may not be completely homophobic to the point where the partner isn't allowed to even visit the other in the hospital). Now I don't know if a living will would work around this fault but I sincerely doubt that if a living will were in place, and the parents were homophobic enough, that the partner could mount a proper defense of his/her right to act as their partners guardian. Heck parents have the ability to try to force their way into guardianship of their children in Heterosexual marriages (see the Terry Schivo case), and the fact that a homosexual couple would be denied the right to see each other in the hospital or on their deathbed bothers me to no end.

[taks]

As to the quote, I don't think it's inheritance that drives gay couples to get married, I think it's more a mixture of the tax breaks, and the fact that once you are married, the decisions that need to be made, should you be incapacitated, are shifted to your partner rather than your closest living relative (who may or may not be completely homophobic to the point where the partner isn't allowed to even visit the other in the hospital).

um, i was directly referencing kaftan's quote, which included inheritance. yes, that is a big deal but not the only deal. tax breaks yadda, yadda we all realize are key given the current circumstances.

 

as i have commented in general, if they leveled the playing field for everyone (no one is more equal than another), i.e., if they simply got rid of all of the tax stuff, the only thing that would matter would be inheritance, and that is easy to do with wills. this requires acknowledging individual rights over group rights, however, and few, if any, politicians seem to understand the distinction.

 

taks

[qt3.14159]

It says you can't be gay in the Bible. And you know how those idiots foollow everything in the Bible. Although no one I know could show me where in the Bible it says so.

It's my understanding that the Bible advises against homosexuality in a few passages. However, there are many more passages there concerning infidelity. All the Christians who are against gay marriages are quite silly; since if gays aren

[Humodour]

I think the big question when trying to determine whether it is a choice or not is: Why would millions of people choose to be homosexual?

 

To be homosexual means to face discrimination and bigotry on a fairly massive scale. There are places in this world where it is punishable by death. But you still have people being homosexual, despite the climate, and you have throughout human history.

 

It's not a small group either. As I said, it's in the millions, estimates put it at 1-2% of the human population, and that might be a bit low given the fact that many people hide their sexuality to prevent ostracism.

 

I'm sure some people can repress their homosexuality and live a straight life. There are plenty of priests that manage to repress sexuality completely. But that doesn't mean every homosexual should be forced to live that way, just like not everyone should be a priest.

 

I just think that's a woefully simplistic view of the situation which doesn't consider varying degrees of sexual oppression/liberation across the globe, nor factors such as epigenetics or homosexuality-heterosexuality as a gradient or 'spectrum' rather than a binary dichotomy.

 

E.g.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosexual-...exual_continuum

 

Also, homosexuality occurs at a rate of about 5% worldwide. According to Wikipedia, 12% of Norwegian's have had homosexual sex (not to be confused with actually being homosexual). I dunno how sexually liberated Norwegians are, but I'm guessing it's a fair bit, which bolsters my point.

[Hurlshort]

I think the big question when trying to determine whether it is a choice or not is: Why would millions of people choose to be homosexual?

 

To be homosexual means to face discrimination and bigotry on a fairly massive scale. There are places in this world where it is punishable by death. But you still have people being homosexual, despite the climate, and you have throughout human history.

 

It's not a small group either. As I said, it's in the millions, estimates put it at 1-2% of the human population, and that might be a bit low given the fact that many people hide their sexuality to prevent ostracism.

 

I'm sure some people can repress their homosexuality and live a straight life. There are plenty of priests that manage to repress sexuality completely. But that doesn't mean every homosexual should be forced to live that way, just like not everyone should be a priest.

 

I just think that's a woefully simplistic view of the situation which doesn't consider varying degrees of sexual oppression/liberation across the globe, nor factors such as epigenetics or homosexuality-heterosexuality as a gradient or 'spectrum' rather than a binary dichotomy.

 

E.g.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosexual-...exual_continuum

 

Also, homosexuality occurs at a rate of about 5% worldwide. According to Wikipedia, 12% of Norwegian's have had homosexual sex (not to be confused with actually being homosexual). I dunno how sexually liberated Norwegians are, but I'm guessing it's a fair bit, which bolsters my point.

 

Maybe it's just my overly simplistic brain misunderstanding you, but how does what you said counter anything I've said?

 

The percentage is a pretty heavily debated number. It can range from 1-10 percent depending on the source. I went with the low number because, even if it's only 1%, that's still a huge number of people!

[Humodour]

Maybe it's just my overly simplistic brain misunderstanding you, but how does what you said counter anything I've said?

 

The percentage is a pretty heavily debated number. It can range from 1-10 percent depending on the source. I went with the low number because, even if it's only 1%, that's still a huge number of people!

 

I guess I'm going off that older thread. If I recall you were one of the people who got quite offended when I said homosexuality is a lifestyle choice.

 

Granted, that might have been due to miscommunication. Perhaps I should have said "sexuality is shaped by many aspects including choice and lifestyle, not just genetics", but I got the feeling you guys disagreed with me even then.

[Pushtrak]

um, i was directly referencing kaftan's quote, which included inheritance. yes, that is a big deal but not the only deal. tax breaks yadda, yadda we all realize are key given the current circumstances.

Congratulations. You addressed the first point (if that can be called addressing it) but missed the second point.

[Hurlshort]

Maybe it's just my overly simplistic brain misunderstanding you, but how does what you said counter anything I've said?

 

The percentage is a pretty heavily debated number. It can range from 1-10 percent depending on the source. I went with the low number because, even if it's only 1%, that's still a huge number of people!

 

I guess I'm going off that older thread. If I recall you were one of the people who got quite offended when I said homosexuality is a lifestyle choice.

 

Granted, that might have been due to miscommunication. Perhaps I should have said "sexuality is shaped by many aspects including choice and lifestyle, not just genetics", but I got the feeling you guys disagreed with me even then.

 

Well, the latter statement is a good deal different than the former. I can completely agree that there are many factors that go into sexuality. But I do think genetics play some role, and I see so many religious folks who refuse to consider that.

 

I also think that choice and lifestyle are difficult to prove. If it was all lifestyle, then it would be reasonable to say that most children raised by gay parents would lean towards homosexuality. But studies have shown that isn't true. And again, I can see where someone might make the choice to experiment sexually, but "choosing" to go through life as a homosexual is a much bigger step, one that will create obstacles throughout your life. I'm not saying there aren't some people who make a conscious choice, I just don't think that 5% of the population does. You don't need to take my word on it, there are plenty of homosexuals who testify that the only choice was to be themselves or stifle it.