And what of Gay Marriages?

hardheadjarhead

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
71
Location
Bloomington, Indiana
How many of you approve of Gay marriages?

How many dissaprove?





And how many hold the opinion of the new govenor of California, who was quoted as saying (and I'm not making this up):

"I don't believe in Gay marriages. I believe Gay marriage should be between a man and a woman."

If Arnold ever pushes that proposition through the California assembly, I'm moving to California, having my marriage annulled, and then re-marrying my wife. But it'll be a Gay marriage. I'm not sure what responsibilities that will entail, but it will be in keeping with my iconoclastic nature and will be the talk at ALL the parties.

Seriously, though...how many are pro-Gay marriage? I mean same sex...not Arnold's definition.

What problems/advantages do you see with this?


Steve
 

Rich Parsons

A Student of Martial Arts
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Oct 13, 2001
Messages
16,835
Reaction score
1,079
Location
Michigan
Same Sex Partners, have a problme getting insurance for their 'Spouse' and also have the heir issue if one was to pre-decease the other.

Some large companies offer same sex insurance to their implies if they ask for it. This is good in that people can get group rate insurance. This is bad as it does not cover the man and women living together. So, I see a discrimination suit in the future. :(

The US Military supposedly has the do not ask do not tell policy. What difference does it mean to mean if the guy in the next cube or the woman at the next station on the line as a positive relationship with someone of the same sex? Why should my religious morals affect their legal rights?
 

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,573
Reaction score
456
Location
Terre Haute, IN
Whether it's called marriage or not, some sort of civil union procedure is needed--for health insurance, visitation rights, and so on.
 

michaeledward

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
82
Up until a few days ago, I agreed with this point of view . . .
Whether it's called marriage or not, some sort of civil union procedure is needed--for health insurance, visitation rights, and so on.
. . . that what really mattered was the legal items. I thought it was silly that the discussion essentially came down to fighting over the definition of "marriage".

But my wife has enlightened me. She said that it is the definition of marriage that is being fought over. Why shouldn't our gay friends and family be allowed to share in 'all that emotional stuff' that is included in 'marriage'.

It is not the legal argument, it is the "I love you" emotional thing that they are fighting for. It is the significance of the wedding ring that they are fighting for, it's not just the right to visit a sick lover in the intensive care ward.

I have a very good friend that travelled to Vermont from Georgia to be joined in a 'civil union' soon after this was legal. But even more exciting, is that this past July 4th ... he, and his partner of 25+ years travelled to Canada to get married in Toronto. Both my wife and I thought this a wonderfully, ironic celebration of Independence Day ... to get married in a foreign country.

To see some other very thoughtful discussions on the topic, visit http://www.andrewsullivan.com and check out his link on homosexuality.

Peace & Love - Mike
 

Rich Parsons

A Student of Martial Arts
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Oct 13, 2001
Messages
16,835
Reaction score
1,079
Location
Michigan
Originally posted by michaeledward
. . .
But my wife has enlightened me. She said that it is the definition of marriage that is being fought over. Why shouldn't our gay friends and family be allowed to share in 'all that emotional stuff' that is included in 'marriage'.

It is not the legal argument, it is the "I love you" emotional thing that they are fighting for. It is the significance of the wedding ring that they are fighting for, it's not just the right to visit a sick lover in the intensive care ward.
. . .
Peace & Love - Mike

Mike,

Good Points. I agree everyone should have the option of the joy and pain associated with a marriage. And I think that portion would be much eaiser to accomplish if the legal portions we not an issue. Since, one can get married by a Judge, and not ahve a religous ceremony for their wedding, I was apporaching this from a non religious point of view. Even though I agree with your enlightened Wife, I just did not believe it would all be possible from day one. So, you pick your fights/arguements/issues and make the best of them for the betterment of society as a whole.
:asian:
 

Bob Hubbard

Retired
MT Mentor
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
47,245
Reaction score
771
Location
Land of the Free
I find it interesting to note that those who claim it destroys the 'institution of marage' seem to miss the point that is in fact adds to it, not diminishes it.

I see no problem whatsoever with 2 people who are in love making the comitment to each other. Gender and race are both non issues IMHO.

Again though the whole 'gay is bad' thing is only a recent cultural thing, as both the Romans and the Greeks didn't seem to care about it. Nor do the Japanese today. It seems it is only a big deal in countries with conservative religious hang ups that make it a big deal. (The US and much of the Mid East come to mind).

If they want to marry, let em. If they want to serve, let em. If they want to be able to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happyness?

Let em.

:asian:
 
OP
hardheadjarhead

hardheadjarhead

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
71
Location
Bloomington, Indiana
An interesting article, written by a conservative, agrees with what Bob writes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/22/opinion/22BROO.html?ex=1070529008&ei=1&en=2d02b9ee619250d1

He says that Christians should DEMAND that Gays marry, thereby bringing power to the relationship. The article has some great stuff on marriage and its meaning.

George Barna, a Christian researcher, reports that Christians actually experience divorce at a higher rate than non-Christians (www.Barna.org).

An argument goes that Gay marriages will cause the deterioration of the institution of marriage in our culture. With divorce rates at 50%...what sort of deterioration do they envision? It sounds like heterosexuals are messing it up pretty well without the help of Gays.

What if it were found that Gay marriages are MORE SUCCESSFUL than straight marriages? I doubt that they will be...but were it so, that would certainly sour some people's milk.

Regards,


Steve
 

Ender

Black Belt
Joined
Apr 25, 2003
Messages
684
Reaction score
21
animals and insects should also be allowed to marry!!*L
 

Cruentus

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 17, 2002
Messages
7,161
Reaction score
130
Location
At an OP in view of your house...
Problem is, both sides seem to have different issues.

For those who agree with gay marriage, it is often about why can't homosexuals enjoy the same privliges as hetrosexuals (love expression, unity, insurance benefits, etc.)

For many who disagree with the idea, or "conservatives" it is about 2 things; the christian perspective and adoption.

One: Christians, generally speaking, feel that a major reason for the institution of marriage is procreation. Since Homosexuals can't procreate with the aid of a labratory, then they shouldn't be allowed to be married.

My disagreement in this is that there is a difference in a marraige by the state and a marriage by your church. I can be married by an church if I want to, but if I don't go through the right proceedures, I won't be married as far as the state is concerned. Vice versa, I can go down to city hall without having to get married in a church. So, if I belong to a church that says "no gay marriages here," then fine, but I need to remember that this is not the same as a marriage by the state.

Two: Adoption is a major issue for those who disagree. I have heard from many conservatives that gay marriages bring us one step closer to letting gay couples adopt, and that a child shouldn't be subjected to a "gay lifestyle."

I feel that this a mistake also. A child could be brought into a disfunctional environment whether it is by being brought into a hetrosexual home or not. In my opinion, the adoption agencies need to decide whether or not the household is fit to bring up children. In many cases, a child shouldn't be subjected to certian "gay lifestyles". At the same time, often I could see just as many circumstances that a child would be better loved and brought up by a gay couple then by being left in foster homes. It is up for an adoption agency to determain these things.

So, my conclusion is that Gay marriages should be legal by the state!

:cool:
 
M

MisterMike

Guest
What it comes down to is that there will be a State definition of Marriage, and a religious one.

The State definition will allow the couple State rights.

The religious marriage that takes place at a religous ceremony will grant the couple that religion's benefits.
 
OP
hardheadjarhead

hardheadjarhead

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
71
Location
Bloomington, Indiana
Good points.

And on topic up to a point...does having two daddies or two mommies cause a child to grow up to be Gay?

This, of course, opens up the "nature or nurture" part of the argument, which is a very touchy issue and one brought up elsewhere on this forum.

We might want to bring that up in another thread.

What say you?


Steve
 

michaeledward

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
82
does having two daddies or two mommies cause a child to grow up to be Gay?

Someone very dear to me ... and very heterosexual .. was the product of the marriage of a gay man to a gay woman. She grew up with her mother, and her mothers' lover. She occassionally visits her father, and his partner.

And, while she is straight, her two daughters are experiencing gay / bi-sexual proclivities (although, I think this may be more an self-discovery process in one of the girls, the other girl is gay as the day is long)

Parents of "X" are gay

X is not gay

Children of X are exhibiting gay behavior (?)


Boy, that sure looks like a genetic experiment in recessive genes, doesn't it?

Things that make you go "hmmm" - Mike
 
OP
hardheadjarhead

hardheadjarhead

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
71
Location
Bloomington, Indiana
Well, the argument goes that the "Gay lifestyle" can cause a person to become gay...regardless of the growing amount of information indicating that there is a biological etiology for the syndrome.

Many people don't understand that genetic expression can be purely genetic, such as the case with eye color...and then there is genetic mutation. There is also genetic expression which is abnormal but not necessarily mutational in the sense that we normally perceive it.

Example: A pregnant mother is exposed to high levels of a certain hormone through diet...perhaps something like diethylstilbetstrol (I think I spelled that right), and it causes certain genetic "switches" in her unborn child not to be thrown...or maybe they're thrown when they ought not to be. Result: Child with homosexual inclinations.

That child has a child of his own some day, and the parent is not exposed to any outside influences that might cause an aberrant expression of sexuality. His/her offspring are normal.

In short...there could be a number of biological reasons for homosexuality.

I do not, for one, think it is a matter of choice. I find it difficult to believe I could chose homosexuality. I certainly didn't "decide" to be heterosexual. It "chose" me, as it were.

I could never be Gay. I simply dress too abysmally.


Regards,

Steve
 
Q

Quick Sand

Guest
I personally completely support homosexual marriage.

A lot of people here are using terms like "they" and homosexuals versus "normal people" etc. I don't think there's anything abnormal about homosexuality. It's been seen throughout our entire history, it's not a new fad, and it's also seen in the animal kingdom. (Along with homo sapiens I mean.)

I think that to an extent everyone has the possibility of being homosexual if you meet the right person. Love and marrige are about emotional conntections with another person more then it's about chromosomes isn't it????

I've never been attracted to a person of the same gender as me but I'm not sure that I never will be. How can you close off 50% of the population just based on their genitals? If I can find a person to love and have a commited relationship with than I'll be doing better then a large portion of the popluation on this continent, regardless of their gender. Like was stated before 50% of marriages end in divorce. Aren't you more likely to end up unhappy if you're not open to all possible relationships?

:soapbox: JMHO
 

Bob Hubbard

Retired
MT Mentor
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
47,245
Reaction score
771
Location
Land of the Free
Think about it a moment...

lights are out....you are in a passionate embrase, kissing, cuddling, etc.

Suddenly the lights go on, and its a member of the same gender.

We've all been trained to go "AAAAHHHH!!!!!!!"

But what if we liked it?

I heard an old George Carlin bit a while back that made me think of that....made sence then...still does.

Hate knows no boundaries.

Neither does Love.

Its not the choice for me, but I respect others right to decide for themselves.


Part of the hypocracy of the whole thing is, we secretly (or blatently) display our lust for the thought of 2 gals, while at the same time condeming 2 guys. Something seems 'not fair' there, y'know?
 
R

rmcrobertson

Guest
Hokey smoke, grownups. Are you folks sure you do martial arts?

Anyway, just to add to the conversation, I have for some time now felt that it is none of my damn business--in a profound sense--to worry over who gets married to whom.

By the way, that book on "gay," marriage (they actually had a very different sense of people, sexuality, etc. than we do) in the medieval period apparently considered a union, not a marriage--it was more like an affirmation of a relationship--and further, the book was more than a little trendy.

On the other hand, those who fantasize that "Western culture," started out and has remained straight really need to go baack and read Plato--especially the "Symposium," where the whole discussion revolves around which philosopher gets to sit next to the beautiful young man.

Thanks.
 
OP
hardheadjarhead

hardheadjarhead

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
71
Location
Bloomington, Indiana
I think that to an extent everyone has the possibility of being homosexual if you meet the right person. Love and marrige are about emotional conntections with another person more then it's about chromosomes isn't it????


I'm fully open to the notion that sexuality runs across a continuum. I can even except that some people will move across that continuum. But not ALL will, if given a choice.

I'm talking preference...not behavior under stress or duress. It seems that under the stress of say, prison, homosexual behavior will take place among men who are preferred heterosexuals. Two men trapped on a deserted island...who knows? But given a reasonably stress free environment people will, I think, go with the selection that nature has inclined them towards.

Will there be variation in that? Likely. Perhaps there will be variation in most of the population, with strict homosexuality/heterosexuality existing among a few. But even those variations, I submit, would be largely biological and due to the developmental complexities of the human brain...and societal pressures (or lack thereof) would have very little to do with orientation.

But I don't think Mommy and Daddy's behavior make Billy or Suzie straight or Gay. Nor can Billy and Suzie be "recruited" by someone with a "Homosexual Agenda". It just doesn't work that way.



Steve
 

Latest Discussions

Top