Same -Sex Marriages--- Any other opinions?

Life LGBTQ+ Forum
21

I understand mod lang’s frustration.

I’ve read many of the recent news articles on this issue, and seen the opinions of those opposed to gay marriage. The arguments are not rational, and in my opinion, are bigoted. The only people who seem reasonable about this are those who support gay marriage but want to see the laws change prior to allowing gay marriage. I can see the arguments for rule of law. But change the damned laws as quickly as possible.

Bottom line for me is that people should be allowed to marry whomever they want to marry. I always go back to wondering how I would feel of 90% of the population were gay. I’d be incredibly frustrated with a legal system that prohibits me from getting married, just because I like women rather than men.

I’m going to sign the petition in favor of gay marriage today. Thank QM, for the reminder.

22

There was a great prog on cable about gay animals recently. I reckon, using time honoured traditions we should experiment on animals first. Get a couple of gay dogs/ monkeys/ rats and marry them. Then see if they can successfully survive the pressures of a modern day gay marriage. It works with cosmetics. Ill get me coat…
btw if people of the same sex want to marry then good on them.
Also, the question was about ‘same sex’ so maybe 2 straight people want to get married to each other for some reason.

23

That was destroyed centuries ago by government’s involvement.

You know, he might be able to get in under refugee status if he can prove that his life is threatened in his native culture. (Of course, fat chance of that with Taiwan – I think the case I heard about was from Mexico or Central/South America – but maybe he could find a sympathetic (or gullible, or bribable) clerk.)

How about mosques, ML? Oh, my bad, I forgot that homosexuals are stoned to death under Sharia law. (Well, MOST interpretations of Sharia law – there is a debate about whether gays should be buried up to their necks and then stoned, or have a stone wall knocked over onto them (which isn’t officially “stoning”).)

I vaguely recall that Hindus also kill gays, or at least treat them like dirt. Anyone have a cite?

So homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of Christianity – at least they let gays live, gays just have to become celibate priests/monks/bachelors.

24

My cousin just sent me this from Bill Maher’s Valentine’s Day show. You can find the complete “rant” here. You have to scroll down almost to the bottom to find it in the transcript.

[quote]And finally, New Rule, Special Valentine’s Day Edition: You can’t claim you’re the party of smaller government and then make laws about love. On this occasion of this Valentine’s Day, let’s stop and ask ourselves what business is it of the state how consenting adults choose to pair off, share expenses and eventually stop having sex with each other. And why does the Bush Administration want a Constitutional amendment about weddings? Hey, why stop at weddings? Birthdays are important; let’s put them in the great document. Let’s make a law that gay people can have birthdays, but straight people get more cake. You know, to send the right message to kids.

Republicans are always saying we should privatize things like schools, prisons, Social Security. Hey, how about we privatize privacy? Because if the government forbids gay men from tying the knot, what is their alternative? They can’t all marry Liza Minnelli.

You know, Republicans used to be the party that opposed social engineering. But now they push programs to outlaw marriage for some people and encourage it for others. If you’re straight, there’s a billion-five in the budget to promote marriage, but gay marriage is opposed because it threatens or mocks or does something to the ‘sanctity’ of marriage, as if anything you can do in Vegas, drunk off your ass in front of an Elvis impersonator, could be considered sacred. [/quote]

By the way, Tomas & mod lang,

I can understand the frustration. However, it seemed to me that mod lang was criticizing those of us in this thread for “compromising” and I didn’t see any of that. And, instead, I think all of us who feel strongly about it should focus our frustration (and/or anger) on changing things.

I apologize if I went a little overboard in my reaction, but this issue is a sensitive one for me. I should have taken cableguy’s more peaceful tact.

I agree, though, that laws need to be changed so that every marriage is a legal one. I know the marriages in San Francisco are not legal. However, I think it still makes a statement that that many people are willing to travel tlong distances, even for an invalid, illegal marriage license. Says something, to me, about how many gays and lesbians want to be in a committed, long-term relationship.

25

You know, he might be able to get in under refugee status if he can prove that his life is threatened in his native culture. (Of course, fat chance of that with Taiwan – I think the case I heard about was from Mexico or Central/South America – but maybe he could find a sympathetic (or gullible, or bribable) clerk.)[/quote]

This would probably only work if your mother always trying to get you to be the “good son,” get married and have kids counts as persecution. :laughing:

So homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of Christianity – at least they let gays live, gays just have to become celibate priests/monks/bachelors.[/quote]

Priests & monks are celibate? :shock: Tell that to the Catholic church! :laughing: But, you have a point. In most cases being gay is a sin, but not worthy of death. Unless you are someone like Fred Phelps. Then you figure it is God’s justice if gays die. And, since they’ll probably die anyway from AIDs, it doesn’t hurt if he or one of his other “loving Christians” helps them on their way a bit early.

26

You guys are right, I was over the line with that rant. But sometimes, for whatever reason, you get in one of those moods and have to vent a little.

27

I don’t mind so much that you ranted. Hell, I’ve ranted enough about this in the last 24 hours. It just seemed that your rant was aimed at the wrong group… shall we say, you seemed to be preaching to the choir… or should that be the “queer.” :laughing:

Again, I’m sorry if I jump a bit too “far” down your throat about it. Peace… and…ah… want to get married? :mrgreen:

Just kidding, if I marry anyone it will be my one and only…

28

You all took my idea of the debate being “stupid” correctly. There are all sorts of ridiculous marriages going on between opposite-gendered people. People get married because they got chosen in front of a live studio audience, because someone’s pregnant, because they need a green card, because they want to get at someone’s term insurance, to resolve family feuds, as a publicity stunt…cough, cough, Britney, because they were drunk and Vegas is the home of weddings dammit. Why on earth do people pick marriage between two people of the same gender as being the immoral one?

I still can’t get over people who say homosexuality is a choice. That’s like saying race is a choice. Hmm, should I go with the majority and have people fully accept my relationships no matter how bad they are or be a part of that minority and be constantly subjected to persecution over who I love? Gee, I think that second “choice” sounds pretty nice. :unamused: My 4th graders know that tattling is when you tell on someone when it a) does not involve you and b) doesn’t involve someone being hurt. I think homophobes could learn a thing or two from my students. No one’s getting hurt and it’s none of their damn business.

Let’s not let idiots get married. Then they can’t pass their bigotry onto their offspring. Now that sounds moral.

29

You all took my idea of the debate being “stupid” correctly. There are all sorts of ridiculous marriages going on between opposite-gendered people. People get married because they got chosen in front of a live studio audience, because someone’s pregnant, because they need a green card, because they want to get at someone’s term insurance, to resolve family feuds, as a publicity stunt…cough, cough, Britney, because they were drunk and Vegas is the home of weddings dammit. Why on earth do people pick marriage between two people of the same gender as being the immoral one?

I still can’t get over people who say homosexuality is a choice. That’s like saying race is a choice. Hmm, should I go with the majority and have people fully accept my relationships no matter how bad they are or be a part of that minority and be constantly subjected to persecution over who I love? Gee, I think that second “choice” sounds pretty nice. :unamused:
My 4th graders know that tattling is when you tell on someone when it a) does not involve you and b) doesn’t involve someone being hurt. I think homophobes could learn a thing or two from my students. No one’s getting hurt and it’s none of their damn business.

Let’s not let idiots get married. Then they can’t pass their bigotry onto their offspring. Now that sounds moral.

30

[hijack]

It’s not directly relevant to this thread, but given Taranto’s ending comment, I just had to post this here:

opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004721

[quote=“James Taranto, WSJ”]Florence of Arabia
People sometimes ask why we write so much about Saudi Arabia, and we just want to say that we like the Saudis, but only as friends. What prompts our defensiveness is an article by John Bradley in London’s Independent, which reports that “Saudi Arabian men are taking advantage of the emergence of an increasingly tolerated Western-oriented gay scene”:
news.independent.co.uk/world/mid … ory=493196

[quote=“John Bradley, The Independent (London)”]“I don’t feel oppressed at all,” said one, a 23-year-old who was meeting in one of the coffee shops with a group of self-identified “gay” Saudi friends dressed in Western clothes and speaking fluent English. “I heard that after 11 September, a Saudi student who was going to be deported on a visa technicality applied for political asylum because he was gay,” he added, provoking laughter from the others. “What was he thinking of? We have more freedom here than straight couples. After all, they can’t kiss in public like we can, or stroll down the street holding one another’s hand.” . . .

In an unprecedented two-page special investigation, the daily newspaper Okaz said lesbianism was “endemic” among schoolgirls. It justified the article with a saying of the Prophet’s wife Ayeshathat “there should be no shyness in religion”. The article told of lesbian sex in school lavatories, girls stigmatised after refusing the advances of their fellow students, and teachers complaining that none of the girls were willing to change their behaviour. . . .

“A particularly beautiful boy always gets top marks in the exams because he’s some teacher’s favourite,” said Mohammed, an English teacher in a government high school in Riyadh. “On the other hand, I know many older boys who deliberately flunked their final exams so they can stay . . . with their younger sweethearts.”[/quote]

But don’t worry, there’s no danger to the sanctity of marriage, which Saudi law defines as the union of one man and four women.[/quote]
[/hijack]

31

I read about people who married a tree, ther dead boyfrind, their pets etc…so why not just someone the same sex?!

32

[quote=“cableguy”]Quiet Mountain

The truth is that they, the conservatives/"religious wrong, simply think that homosexuals are sick, degenerate people and they use the bible and religion to mask their own feelings of hatred toward others. [/quote]

This is a straw man attack. You paint anyone who disagrees with you in a certain way and then attack them. Your description doesn’t encompass any rational viewpoints against gay marriage.

[quote=“modlang”]
Anyone who opposes freedom of marriage for anyone who wants it is a BIGOT, plain and simple.[/quote]

And this is just rude name calling. These attacks are meant to end any rational debate before it can even begin. Is it any wonder no one has come forward to argue against gay marriage?

There are many intelligent reasons for not supporting gay marriage. Let me offer some places to find such intelligence:

Maggie Gallagher is a columnist for the New York Times. She frequently covers marriage and family issues.
townhall.com/columnists/magg … hive.shtml

I particularly recommend “Goodridge decision” and “Mass. decision.”

The following is a group of scholars in the social sciences that cover family issues. There blog is pretty good as well.
marriagemovement.org/

The best single editorial I’ve read for a constitutional amendment to stop gay marriage is at:
firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0 … orial.html

Finally, I’d like to recommend a lecture given by Dr. Elizabeth Fox-Genovese at Princeton University in December 2003. As an academic, she is a bit longwinded but her insights are worth listening to. I recommend all three lectures if you have the time but “Marriage on Trial” is the most relevant to this issue.
princeton.edu/WebMedia/lectures/

I don’t think that by posting this stuff I will change anyone’s mind. That’s not really my intent. What I want to show is that some of us who oppose gay marriage do so on rational grounds. We’re not all like Fred Phelps.

33

A country’s laws should conform to the moral standards of the community. The US is a Judeo-Christian nation. Therefore, US laws should be based on the bible, and it says in the bible that queers shouldn’t marry.

But, I’d go a step further. I favor a constitutional amendment that would require all marriages to comply thoroughly with the bible. Maybe something like this:

Marriage consists of one man and one or more women (Gen 4:19, 4:23, 26:34, 28:9, 29:26-30, 30:26, 31:17, 32:22, 36:2, 36:10, 37:2, Ex. 21:10, Judges 8:30, 1 Sam 1:2, 25:43, 27:3, 30:5, 30:18, 2 Sam 2:2, 3:2-5, 1 Chron 3:1-3, 4:5, 8:8, 14:3, 2 Chron 11:21, 13:21, 24:3).

Nothing prevents a man from taking on concubines in addition to the wife or wives he may already have (Gen 25:6, Judges 8:31, 2 Sam 5:13, 1 Kings 11:3, 1 Chron 3:9, 2 Chron 11:21, Dan 5:2-3).

If a woman cannot be proven to be a virgin at the time of marriage, she shall be stoned (Deut 22:13-21).

A rapist must marry his victim(Ex. 22:16, Deut. 22:28-29) - unless she was already a fianc

34

opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110004727

[quote=“John Fund, WSJ”]
Both sides would do well to recall Ronald Reagan, who courageously opposed a 1978 initiative in California that would have barred gays from teaching in public schools. When a small group of gays met with him after his opposition led to the measure’s overwhelming defeat, he was asked his opinion of gay marriage. “Well, now,” he told them, “I would just warn you that if you get in bed with the government, you’ll get more than a good night’s sleep.”[/quote]

BTW, I would just like to point out the name RONALD REAGAN in the above to the homosexuals reading this. Next time you bitch about him, you might try to remember him from reality instead of Democratic demonizations.

35

People, read more!

Thank you regular guy for your suggested readings list where we can find the “true” reason for marriage - and why it is not meant for gays:

"One of the most fundamental prerequisites of social order, it has been almost universally recognized, is the containment of the otherwise unbridled sexual activity of the human male, and marriage is

36

Regular Joe… I don’t think that everyone that opposes same-sex marriage is like Fred Phelps. Mr. Phelps is an extremist… I will grant you that. I’m sure my parent’s oppose same-sex marriage. Though, I’ve never asked them. And, they are nothing like Fred Phelps or his followers.

I only saw the main page of this Maggie Gallagher site you listed. I tried to go further, but was having trouble with the website. However, I noticed that the website is full of calls to “protect conservativism” and “fight against the liberal agenda.” I don’t know that I really need to see anymore, to know what she will say. Anyone that uses “buzzwords” like those is only going to repeat the “party line.” And, that goes for whether you are liberal or conservative.

However, instead of leading us to articles, written by others, I’d like to ask you to tell us, in your own words (no quotes from other sources, please) your logical reasons for opposing same-sex marriage. Even though I have quoted from others, my original post was my own opinion and ideas, based on my own life and experiences. I was not just regurgitating something that was said by someone else.

It is too easy to take on the ideas and opinions of those around us, without actually thinking them through. Besides, I can probably find just as many “learned experts” that support same-sex marriage. So, that doesn’t prove anything. By the way, I am not specifically accusing you of this, just making an observation. But, this is why I’d like to hear these “logical” arguments in your own words, to help me judge how much you’ve thought through them.

I grew up in a very conservative, very Christian home. I know all of the arguments against homosexuality. But, as a gay man, in a committed relationship, I also know how wrong those arguments can be.

Some time, I’d like to meet with you, or anyone who opposes same-sex marriage, and talk to you face-to-face. In fact, I urge all of you to meet with a gay man (or lesbian) in a committed relationship, one who is interested in marrying his (or her) partner, one who does not fit the conservative “ideal” of a promiscous gay man. Talk to him (or her) about what it is like to try to maintain a same-sex relationship in the US. How much discrimination they face on a day-to-day basis (and, I realize that other groups face discrimination. I am not saying, in anyway, that gays and lesbians have a monopoly on discrimination.) Etc.

Also, I’d like to ask you to think of this… if marriage is so beneficial for straight couples, why is it not beneficial for gay couples, as well? If marriage helps to “calm down” the sexually active (straight) male, and this is one of its “societal purposes,” then why couldn’t this be a benefit for the “promiscuous” gay men? If marriage brings stability to society through the building of families, etc… why won’t the additional families that are created (even childless families) bring more stability to society?

Give me some logical, well-thought out, arguments of your own that we can discuss/debate. Also, bring an open mind that maybe, just maybe, the conservatives have it wrong… just this once. :wink:

Thanks.

37

[quote=“MaPoDurian”]http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110004727

[quote=“John Fund, WSJ”]
Both sides would do well to recall Ronald Reagan, who courageously opposed a 1978 initiative in California that would have barred gays from teaching in public schools. When a small group of gays met with him after his opposition led to the measure’s overwhelming defeat, he was asked his opinion of gay marriage. “Well, now,” he told them, “I would just warn you that if you get in bed with the government, you’ll get more than a good night’s sleep.”[/quote]

BTW, I would just like to point out the name RONALD REAGAN in the above to the homosexuals reading this. Next time you bitch about him, you might try to remember him from reality instead of Democratic demonizations.[/quote]

I don’t have anything against Ronald Reagan. In fact, I am often disturbed when I hear other gays and/or liberals bash him and make fun of the fact that he has alzheimer’s. I think this is in really bad taste.

However, I would remind everyone that the Democratis do not hold a monopoly on demonizations. Both parties… actually, more accurately, all parties (including, non-major parties), demonize people from “the other side.” In fact, in general, as humans, we all tend to do this to some degree when talking about people who “oppose” us in some way.

Why should a conservative make gay people out to be normal? If they did that, they wouldn’t be able to push their agenda. Why should a liberal make religious people, especially Christians, out to be normal? If they did that, they wouldn’t be able to push their agenda. Etc… etc… ad naseum.

I will now get down off my soap box for tonight.

38

[quote=“QuietMountain”][quote=“MaPoDurian”]http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110004727

[quote=“John Fund, WSJ”]
Both sides would do well to recall Ronald Reagan, who courageously opposed a 1978 initiative in California that would have barred gays from teaching in public schools. When a small group of gays met with him after his opposition led to the measure’s overwhelming defeat, he was asked his opinion of gay marriage. “Well, now,” he told them, “I would just warn you that if you get in bed with the government, you’ll get more than a good night’s sleep.”[/quote]

BTW, I would just like to point out the name RONALD REAGAN in the above to the homosexuals reading this. Next time you bitch about him, you might try to remember him from reality instead of Democratic demonizations.[/quote]

I don’t have anything against Ronald Reagan. In fact, I am often disturbed when I hear other gays and/or liberals bash him and make fun of the fact that he has alzheimer’s. I think this is in really bad taste.[/quote]
I’m glad you’re a Republican supporter, QM. :slight_smile: Please tell your friends. :slight_smile:

My rant was prompted by CBS’s actions surrounding their recent “The Reagans” miniseries. In addition to other deliberately scripted-in lies against Reagan, they also painted him as a “fags will burn in hell” homophobe. The outcry against their inaccurate portrayal resulted in the miniseries quietly being cancelled, but frankly, there is no low to which the liberals won’t stoop.

I disagree on the demonization sermon, BTW, but that’s a different thread entirely.

39

Just wait one dang-blasted, cotton-pickin’ minute. I NEVER said I was a Republican supporter! Don’t insult me like that. :imp: I will admit that, at one time, before I had my own thoughts (and, still just held to those of mommy and daddy), I was registered as a Republican and voted for Republicans. Though, I didn’t vote for Reagan, as I was not yet eligible to vote then. Then, as I came to start thinking for myself, I registered as an independent, and that is, generally, how I see myself.

I believe that each of the two major parties has positives and negatives in their platform/agenda. And, I do not believe that either party is the be-all-end-all of political rightness. I recently registered as a Democrat, but that is only so I could vote in the PA primary and help pick the person that would oust Bush. Of course, by the time the PA primary rolls around, it will probably be decided as Kerry. But, this is another thread.

Ah… the same thing could be say of the conservatives, too. Neither side is very truthful (there is probably a better word than that) when it comes to saying whatever they need to say to push their platform/agenda.

BTW, you sound like my father. He is a staunch Republican and thinks that every thing that they say is correct and everything the Democrats say (or, rather, non-Republicans say) is lies. Please don’t tell me your really think the Republicans/conservatives never lie and never “stoop low” in pushing their platform/agenda. :unamused: But, again, this is for another thread!

P.S. My above comment about believing whatever mommy & daddy say was not a slam against Republicans – i.e., saying that they can’t think for themselves. It was a slam against me, at the time, because I didn’t think for myself. Rather, I just accepted what my parents told me as “gospel.” Both Republicans & Democrats, liberals & conservatives alike fall into this trap, believing whatever someone tells them, just because that person is their parent, an “expert,” etc… without thinking for themselves.

40

So, what are the rational grounds? I read through all of the links, but found no real rational arguments. Maybe you could paraphrase what you read for us.