Why would you care if gays get married?

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 8:05 am

Some persons were noted for their exclusive interests in persons of one gender. For example, Alexander the Great and the founder of Stoicism, Zeno of Citium, were known for their exclusive interest in boys and other men. Such persons, however, are generally portrayed as the exception. Furthermore, the issue of what gender one is attracted to is seen as an issue of taste or preference, rather than as a moral issue. A character in Plutarch's Erotikos (Dialogue on Love) argues that “the noble lover of beauty engages in love wherever he sees excellence and splendid natural endowment without regard for any difference in physiological detail. (Ibid., 146) Gender just becomes irrelevant “detail and instead the excellence in character and beauty is what is most important.

Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy

Having fun yet?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 8:49 am

This is the "sharp stick" ugliness that starts the feuding, but is so hard to resist. I've seen it in myself.

Marie5656 · Post by **Marie5656** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 8:58 am

Good grief, I would be the one right up front throwing confetti and bird seed and stuff when they came out of the ceremony. :-4

I love the argument about how they "can't procreate, therefore why bother. But what of hetero couples who choose not to have children..or cannot have them for medical reasons? Should they not bother to marry? Gee...Rock and I were near 50 when we maried..no family plans. Guess we should not have bothered.

So, it goes against nature? It is not natural for two people to fall in love and want to spend the rest of thier lives together? And have all of the legal rights that go with that union?

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 8:59 am

Accountable;520074 wrote: This is the "sharp stick" ugliness that starts the feuding, but is so hard to resist. I've seen it in myself.

Who is brandishing this stick?

Surely you don't see my introducing a few facts (with no personal comments whatsoever to muddy the waters) as being ugly. It's not my fault that Alexander The Great had homosexual relations.

If I was to pick a moment that this thread started deteriorating in any fashion it would be the moment that someone came in claiming to know more than others and not even saying what that knowledge might contain.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:23 am

koan;520081 wrote: Who is brandishing this stick?

Surely you don't see my introducing a few facts (with no personal comments whatsoever to muddy the waters) as being ugly. It's not my fault that Alexander The Great had homosexual relations.

If I was to pick a moment that this thread started deteriorating in any fashion it would be the moment that someone came in claiming to know more than others and not even saying what that knowledge might contain.
It's the "Having fun yet?" needling I'm referring to. I recognized it as the same thing I did to Saffron the other day. Something gets up someone's nose that we think is silly to get upset about, so we (both you and I, Koan) pick at it with passive-aggressive glee.

I saw it and thought it important to point out - that's all & I'll stop.

Imladris · Post by **Imladris** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:25 am

If you have a Christian (I'm not that informed on other faiths) faith then marriage to you means a man and a woman making a binding committment in front of God. This then means that a gay couple cannot make the same committment therefore cannot be considered as 'married'.

However, a civil partnership is legal now in the UK and I only know personally one couple who have taken advantage of that. They have been together for many years and as well as making that public statement of their love and intention to remain together they now have the same rights to inherit as do my husband and I. This, for me, has always been an issue that I have felt was neglected - a hetro couple share the property, raise a family then one dies and everything goes to the surviving partner (tax free up to a limit set by the government) but not in the case of a gay couple who may also have children. Finally they have equal rights.

Whether you have a religious viewpoint or not, whether you call it marriage or not, the equality surely is more important.

And yes I would go to a gay 'wedding' and celebrate with them.

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:28 am

Accountable;520102 wrote: It's the "Having fun yet?" needling I'm referring to. I recognized it as the same thing I did to Saffron the other day. Something gets up someone's nose that we think is silly to get upset about, so we (both you and I, Koan) pick at it with passive-aggressive glee.

I saw it and thought it important to point out - that's all & I'll stop.

I see no reason for my posts to have gotten up her nose. Apparently she has a well reasoned argument heading our way and I'm looking forward to hearing it. I have fun debating. But only when I get reasoned responses. I'm in fact not having fun because, for the second time, the same person has come into a conversation claiming to have some all powerful information to bless us with and has not gone beyond the "you just wait" phase. I will have fun when I finally get hear what she is on about.

If I'm needling then it is for the purpose of our enlightenment. I really want to find out what she's got that we're all missing out on.

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:35 am

If we want examples of needling I've got three fine ones right here:

I'll watch this topic for awhile get other people to respond then respond myself.

I said I would wait ..dont' push me for an answer spot. you'll only be dissappointed. And this is exactly why I'm waiting . If you're going to 'bash me' then why would I respond?

Bullsit Bullshit Bullshit...Oh god I have to wait till tomorrow ... but you are about to get A history of the world for female dominence of the Planet. It's a load of crap we would fare no better.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:38 am

I would have no problem going to a gay wedding as long as they served hetro food and alcohol as well as the gay food and drink.

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:52 am

YZGI;520117 wrote: I would have no problem going to a gay wedding as long as they served hetro food and alcohol as well as the gay food and drink.

you mean like beer for the men and sherry for the ladies ... but some of the er men could be the wife and want a sherry ... or a woman could be a husband partner and want a beer what then ... and how about the food :-3

buddy i think we best leave this one to the other people to debate

you know it wont be long before one of us upsets someone

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:55 am

I care that gays are permitted to marry because I believe they should be entitled to medical benefits of their spouses and other legal matters including pensions, property and estates.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:59 am

jimbo;520131 wrote: you mean like beer for the men and sherry for the ladies ... but some of the er men could be the wife and want a sherry ... or a woman could be a husband partner and want a beer what then ... and how about the food :-3

buddy i think we best leave this one to the other people to debate

you know it wont be long before one of us upsets someone

Good point jimbo. I guess I will have to hit post #2,000 before I can be a wise poster.

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 10:07 am

YZGI;520139 wrote: Good point jimbo. I guess I will have to hit post #2,000 before I can be a wise poster.

nah i'm not posting anything even slightly controversial till 20 000 posts just in case :rolleyes:

venus · Post by **venus** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 10:28 am

save me a seat and order me the veggie platter..

love is love ..

aslong as your both adults and no one is being hurt/forced etc etc..

let them marry...

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 10:33 am

I have a question. If gays are allowed to get married, Will there be gay shotgun weddings?

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 10:36 am

koan;520134 wrote: I care that gays are permitted to marry because I believe they should be entitled to medical benefits of their spouses and other legal matters including pensions, property and estates.

You're at least a year behind the times. The Civil Partnership Act 2004 came into

force on 5 December 2005

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/en2004/2004en33.htm

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 10:47 am

Bill Sikes;520191 wrote: You're at least a year behind the times. The Civil Partnership Act 2004 came into

force on 5 December 2005

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/en2004/2004en33.htm

And when all countries allow for it then things will be peachy keen.

SuzyB · Post by **SuzyB** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:32 am

I have many gay friends and i think it's only right that they should have the same rights as a heterosexual couple. I think the dark ages are gone and the majority of people especially the younger generation don't bat an eyelid if someone chooses a partner of the same sex.

Live life and be merry :-4 :-4 :-4

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:37 am

I live in Kansas. I think the reason they wont allow gay marriage here is they are afraid they will remake The Wizard Of Oz and The Lion, Tin Man and the Scarecrow will have a threesome and Dorothy will be left out. Cant Have Dorothy Eyeballing little TOTO now can we?

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:41 am

YZGI

Follow the yellow brick road - get the hell out of Kansas

Patsy

SuzyB · Post by **SuzyB** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:45 am

YZGI;520253 wrote: I live in Kansas. I think the reason they wont allow gay marriage here is they are afraid they will remake The Wizard Of Oz and The Lion, Tin Man and the Scarecrow will have a threesome and Dorothy will be left out. Cant Have Dorothy Eyeballing little TOTO now can we?

Ok

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:45 am

Patsy Warnick;520256 wrote: YZGI

Follow the yellow brick road - get the hell out of Kansas

Patsy
You have a buisiness all set up for me to run elswhere?

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:11 pm

Gosh who would have thought that a thread about gay marraige would be controversial eh?

Just in terms of male homosexuality its interesting talking about the Greek example because that certainly was a culture that was certainly very masculine and war like, and yet also very much involved the freedom of its privileged male citizens to have sexual access to young boys, slaves, girls, and each other,while also having wives and and they did do all these things with a will, I am not sure if there is any other example of a culture in where male homosexual practices and pedastry were not only tolerated, but celebrated and actually in many cases integral to the social and military codes of the time (sparta is a good example), and it does make you ponder what the reality of male sexuality is when it comes down to it doesn't it?

As a fairly bog standard white heterosexual male, I would say that I am average in that I am not overtly homophobic, more or less relaxed about the fact that a large number of people are gay and that this is what they are and its natural, I have a couple of male gay acquaintances who are pretty cool guys as well, but I wouldn't see myself exactly singing Babara Striesand songs at a gay wedding or marching along in the love parade in Berlin either, I also get bemused whenever I hear homosexual people bemoan the fact that heterosexual people don't understand them, and its my opinion that this is probably for the same reasons why homosexual people don't understand heterosexual people (because we are just different maybe?), and although I am not inherently anti-gay or anything like that, I don't really understand male homosexuality or homoerocticism, or really find it something I would want to ponder much. Its interesting and there is definetly a male ego threat thing going on in there I guess, but I suppose like most people, once you are secure in your own sexuality the need to dump on others because theirs is not the same is not the most pressing issue in the world, and I think that's the same whether you are straight or gay.

I hope that came out right and isn't offensive to anyone, it isn't meant to be, just trying to come up with something useful in terms of an opinion.

Wolverine · Post by **Wolverine** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:50 pm

having gays get the right to be married, doesn't mean the end of society. it's not like they're askng to marry a farm animal or something.

if a 89 year old man can marry a 19 year old girl, why can't to 20 something men/women get hitched??

Wolverine · Post by **Wolverine** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:52 pm

Diuretic;519742 wrote: Doesn't fuss me. I've held the position for a long time that marriage is both a civil legal process and as well it can be a religious process. I don't see the world ending if the definition in this country (federal law governs marriage in Australia) were amended to mean two people could marry. If churches or other religions don't want to marry two people of the same sex then they shouldn't be forced to.

well said

guppy · Post by **guppy** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:03 pm

I think gays should be able to get married!!! no problem

eyesopen · Post by **eyesopen** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:34 pm

Its legal where i come from as long as you say union and not marriage!! I agree who should care send me an invite!!!!

laneybug · Post by **laneybug** » Mon May 07, 2007 5:05 pm

I wouldn't care if gay people got married. Why not? Heterosexuals have screwed up and butchered the whole meaning of marriage with divorce, cheating, abuse, etc., so why not let homosexuals see if they can get it right??

jamiebocc · Post by **jamiebocc** » Tue May 08, 2007 8:13 am

EL SHADDAI created Adam and Eve not steve and steve.

crazygal · Post by **crazygal** » Tue May 08, 2007 8:14 am

I don't see a problem with it. You don't choose to be gay, you just are so why should they not be able to get married just like us straight people?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue May 08, 2007 10:11 am

jamiebocc;608790 wrote: EL SHADDAI created Adam and Eve not steve and steve.

Surely nobody believes in the genesis myth literally any more? If god created eve was he the first voyeur?

laneybug · Post by **laneybug** » Tue May 08, 2007 12:14 pm

crazygal;608792 wrote: I don't see a problem with it. You don't choose to be gay, you just are so why should they not be able to get married just like us straight people?

Actually, some say they are born gay, and some say its a lifestyle they've chosen meaning they had bad experiences with the opposite sex or whatever was the circumstance. I've heard both from homosexuals. Still, however they came about being gay, it doesn't matter really. So long as a homosexual doesn't want to convert me, I'm fine with them getting married. Love is love.

laneybug · Post by **laneybug** » Tue May 08, 2007 12:17 pm

gmc;609007 wrote: Surely nobody believes in the genesis myth literally any more? If god created eve was he the first voyeur?

Of course people still believe in what the Bible says. To Christian sects it is not seen as a myth at all, which is why many Christians believe homosexuality is wrong.

And how would God be a voyeur by creating Eve? That's kind of like saying a man is a voyeur by having a female child. I'm not getting this connection you're trying to make.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Tue May 08, 2007 4:43 pm

Call it a civil union with the same rights as marriage and I think it would be fine..

Pheasy · Post by **Pheasy** » Tue May 08, 2007 4:50 pm

Why would I care. I say live and let live, I have never had an issue with gay people and why would I? :-6 :-6

NotToday · Post by **NotToday** » Tue May 08, 2007 5:47 pm

love = love = love

only people in love should get married.

doesn't matter who you love (as long as it's not a relative or something :wah: )

Pheasy · Post by **Pheasy** » Tue May 08, 2007 5:59 pm

NotToday;609250 wrote: love = love = love

only people in love should get married.

doesn't matter who you love (as long as it's not a relative or something :wah: )

I agree, and I know the relative joke is just joking and I laugh too. Like you said love = love = love. My brother is gay..... when he was born I was old enough to look after him. I loved him then and I love him now. I don't understand this gay thing - cos I'm not gay. But what I see in my brother is a decent human being, who would never hurt anyone. Being gay is causing him alot of hardship - which saddens me. Bottom line for me is - I don't understand being gay - but do I have too.....are gay people hurting anyone?? :-4

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue May 08, 2007 8:59 pm

I don't agree with calling it a civil union. This prevailing idea that "God" never meant for marriage to be between two of the same gender makes me irritable because of that presumption that everyone goes by the same god and that it's the christian one. I think dumbing it down by calling it a civil union or anything other than a marriage, degrades the integrity of what the people in question feel for each other. I also think it insults the intelligence of many- gay people as well as straights who support gay marriage. It gives a nod to objectioners and I don't feel that's deserved or warranted. It's almost like giving a wink to those who oppose. Why should gay people have to have this special term just to assuage others? Why should they have to acquiesce? Where do we get off determining what love is for someone else and how they can seal their deal? A marriage is a marriage. I don't think it's up to anyone else to decide what that means for the people involved and by labeling it anything other than marriage, I think that's what's being done.

laneybug · Post by **laneybug** » Fri May 11, 2007 1:32 pm

RG, I'm so glad you replied to the "civil union" BS. It couldn't have been said better.

SuzyB · Post by **SuzyB** » Fri May 11, 2007 1:39 pm

RedGlitter;609302 wrote: I don't agree with calling it a civil union. This prevailing idea that "God" never meant for marriage to be between two of the same gender makes me irritable because of that presumption that everyone goes by the same god and that it's the christian one. I think dumbing it down by calling it a civil union or anything other than a marriage, degrades the integrity of what the people in question feel for each other. I also think it insults the intelligence of many- gay people as well as straights who support gay marriage. It gives a nod to objectioners and I don't feel that's deserved or warranted. It's almost like giving a wink to those who oppose. Why should gay people have to have this special term just to assuage others? Why should they have to acquiesce? Where do we get off determining what love is for someone else and how they can seal their deal? A marriage is a marriage. I don't think it's up to anyone else to decide what that means for the people involved and by labeling it anything other than marriage, I think that's what's being done.

:yh_clap :yh_clap Very well put Red, thats what I would of wrote, had I attended school regularly

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Fri May 11, 2007 1:43 pm

I just think it would be more widely accepted if it was called soemthing else, I really don't care what it's called.

SuzyB · Post by **SuzyB** » Fri May 11, 2007 1:58 pm

magenta flame;610967 wrote: We have two gay women at the moment who are suing a man for child support who donated his sperm to them. Isn't that just lovely, sorry but that says it all for me.

Could the same be said about women who trick men just to have a baby, then claim money for child support?? I personally know 3 women that have done that, just to satisfy their need.

laneybug · Post by **laneybug** » Fri May 11, 2007 2:46 pm

zinkyusa;610945 wrote: I just think it would be more widely accepted if it was called soemthing else, I really don't care what it's called.

It would be more widely accepted, you're right. And that's the sad part. Marriage should be about what two consenting individuals want, not what society thinks is right. Homosexuality is still a very taboo subject. Like I said earlier, though, as long as I'm not pushed be that community to be like them, I'm fine.

Which makes me wonder.... would gay people be offended if I put a bumper sticker on my car that said "Straight and proud?" I don't see why anyone's sexuality has to be at the forefront of society, whether gay, bisexual or straight. Seems more of a personal issue to me. As is marriage.

laneybug · Post by **laneybug** » Fri May 11, 2007 2:52 pm

magenta flame;610967 wrote: We have two gay women at the moment who are suing a man for child support who donated his sperm to them. Isn't that just lovely, sorry but that says it all for me.

Yuck. Now that's just wrong to me. But SuzyB is right. Straight women do that all the time to men. Same deal, really.

SuzyB · Post by **SuzyB** » Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm

magenta flame;611049 wrote: Okay I don't know about in other countries but there are laws protecting females in marriage, specifically females! So how do the laws cover same sex marriage ? who's the female in the union? and if it's two females which one plays the man in that relationship according to the laws ...........I'm damn well not losing my rights in my marriage and my position in my marriage under the law because a small number want to change the laws for everyone. and that's why it shouldn't be in the same concordance of hetrosexual marriage. It should definately be different because the dynamics of the relationship are different.

society as some are caling it means societies laws and norms Laws that protect certain individuals and the community as a whole

Over here I am almost sure that their are no special laws to protect the female. Just depends how good your solicitor is :rolleyes:

laneybug · Post by **laneybug** » Fri May 11, 2007 6:19 pm

magenta flame;611049 wrote: Okay I don't know about in other countries but there are laws protecting females in marriage, specifically females! So how do the laws cover same sex marriage ? who's the female in the union? and if it's two females which one plays the man in that relationship according to the laws ...........I'm damn well not losing my rights in my marriage and my position in my marriage under the law because a small number want to change the laws for everyone. and that's why it shouldn't be in the same concordance of hetrosexual marriage. It should definately be different because the dynamics of the relationship are different.

society as some are caling it means societies laws and norms Laws that protect certain individuals and the community as a whole

In the US there are laws protecting women when they get divorced, especially if they have children. Sometimes I don't agree with that. A woman makes a choice to get married and shouldn't take a man for all he's got because they get divorced. Unless of course he was out cheating on her, etc.

As for what happens in a homosexual relationship.... who knows. I would think they'd have to do a prenup. Perhaps the divorce process would be entirely different. I really don't know. In most places in the US gay marriage is illegal anyway, so the whole divorce thing hasn't really come up. It's a good question, though.