Conservative View On Same Sex Marriages

[DivinerSage]

OKOK!!!

I agree with same sex marriages but im conservative ....so I agree only if both chicks are hot.

[Foree]

Divi spoke my mind

[Ummon]

For innumerable reasons I do not agree on homosexual marriages. The most important ones are:

1) Marriage is a social construct meant to protect the procreating couple. An homosexual couple cannot naturally procreate (although it's probably feasible to have 2 females procreate artificially).

2) I disagree with the principle that our goal in life should be to make everything we want possible. We remain free as long as we have limits. To be completely (edited to correct a possible misunderstanding) without limits, is to be a slave to one's desires for life.

[Shackled Phoenix]

Well Ummon, I'll give you credit on one part of that, you made the first NON biggoted point against homosexual marriage. But I have to ask a question. If a woman is barren then, does she no longer have the right to marriage?

As for your second point, also true enough, but should we not seek to be equal to others, even though we may be different? It is true we can't all have what we want, for then murderer's and rapist, etc would be in abundance and society would disappear into complete chaos. But I do believe that we should all have equal rights, without laws created based upon rules set down by church, be it christian, muslim or other.

[MVB]

I think equality is completely A-OK. Here is my problem with the situation. I talked about this with forsaken yesterday.

I think civil unions between same-sex should have all the legal rights of heterosexual civil unions, which include marriage w/in their legal terminology last I checked (inclusion in wills, visitation rights in hospitals, etc.). I think the word marriage, to a vast majority of people in this nation, means "a lifelong union between a man and a woman," and does NOT mean "a lifelong union" between a man and a woman, if you catch my differentiation. I don't mind homosexual unions with full legal rights at all, but allow those people to whom 'marriage' as a word is sacred to KEEP that sacred word in its full meaning. This is called "compromise."

Additionally, I can't go "I demand to be called Black, and I want all the rights that an African American gets," validating my argument by saying well a Black man is a "man" and so am I, so why can't I get all those special affirmative action-style treatments he gets? The definition of a Black man is NOT simply a "man," b/c while that is true it is an incomplete definition, just like "a lifelong union" is an incomplete definition of marriage. For a lot of people, it is just as offensive to cut out that all-important "between a man and a woman" as it is for African Americans to have that "man who is black" definition complete. I don't advocate removing the RIGHTS of homosexuals to the legal benefits of marriage, but I also do not advocate violating an important aspect of the lives of many americans by changing the very definition of the union they have. Marriage is a LABEL for a TYPE of Union. Grant legal rights for those UNIONS to gays, but do not steal from married men and women the state of union they have. Why is this so hard for people to grasp? A little compromise would go a long way.

[Shackled Phoenix]

Well MVB, personally I agree with you, I could care less what it is called. But to some, not being allowed to call it marriage is like being told they cannot love the same way as a heterosexual couple. The definition of marriage as "a lifelong union between a man and a woman." comes, once again, from the church, in this case the christian church. Other, some older, religions define marriage as simply "a life long union" for they do not discourage homosexual relations.

That is my only problem with your idea, but again, I personally do not care what it's called, I only wish for the right to choose my partner as I please.

[Karmashock]

yeah... I'm cool with civil unions... you can have one with any one or anything if you like... but marriage is between a man and a woman... period.

[Ummon]

To be more clear, there is an absolute sacrality to the union of man and woman because it's purpose is the continuation of life. Sterility is an incident, and does not interfere with the longing of people to fulfill their biological destiny despite illness. Homosexual love doesn't possess this attribute of "longing to fulfill one's biological destiny".

You can either consider homosexuality:

1) a choice (I disagree, homosexuality has in my opinion mostly subconscious motives).

2) a natural form of love which doesn't possess the life-continuating purpose of heterosexual love (I disagree on psychological ground with this too, albeit some genetic predisposition to homosexuality is acknowledged)

3) a form of psychological regression produced by a trauma (this is my opinion)

The fact that I adhere to 3) means that I believe that we have absolutely NO right to deny homosexuals to pursue happiness to the best of their capacities and desires, and neither we have the right to judge homosexual people inferior, or perverse, or in any way discriminate them. But we do have the right to point out the difference between the two types of relationships.

Finally, not to give-in to one's desires, implies control, not loss of control. Rape and other forms of violence are not motivated by loss of freedom, but motivated by personal choices, unless a serious mental illness comes into play.

Affirming the principle that heterosexual unions and homosexual unions are the same because this makes homosexuals "equal" is simply false. Homosexuals already are equal, as citizens, it's the form and scope of the union which is different.

[shutupandshave]

Men have been having sex with men (and boys) for thousands of years, and in some parts of the world it still goes on. It is the "have sex with men for pleasure, and women for pro-creation". Perhaps if there were less stigma attached to bi-sexuality then homosexual men would not really be so homosexual anymore? Perhaps they would be more likely to breed.

[Ummon]

Actually, two men or two women cannot breed, as things are. You can't have a progeny from two individuals of the same sex (but two women could theoretically have one artificially, and the funny thing is, these babies would all be females, thus eliminating the need for a male gender).

Greek homosexual love was not for life, although it generally lasted for long. But many of those Greek "homosexuals" had wives too. And it was an entirely different thing from marriage. It was much more like a master-pupil relationship, and sometimes completely without sex. Having sex with a man was a lot more common than now, but the reasons were sociological (greek women were forced to retired lives in the gynaeceum) and the bond between homosexual lovers was not alternative to that between man and woman.

[shutupandshave]

all these babies would all be females, thus eliminating the need for a male gender).
I dont think sierra would have it. Their sales would plummit.

I would hope no one would ever think that two men or two women could naturally breed.

Hmmm I always thought the bixsexual relationships between men and men in those times were a lot more frivolous and less serious than they appear to be.

[Karmashock]

Women don't breed because they find it inconvenient.

[Ummon]

The Sacred Band was a Theban regiment of 150 couples of homosexuals. They had incredible morale, since they fought in line with their lover: infact they were the first ones to ever beat Spartan infantry in a field battle. All were killed by Macedonians in Cheronaea when the Thebans and Athenians fought Philip and Alexander.

Socrates was the lover of Alkibiades, Achilles the lover of Patroclos, etc. etc. etc.

Generally, homosexual love had big social importance.

Of course there were "just-for-sex" homosexual relationships, but those who pursued them were widely spurned, both the older ones in the couple, and the young boys, who were referred to as "pornòi" or prostitutes. You can see it's similar to the term porn, infact "pornòs" means sex in ancient greek.

[JADezimar]

The definition of marriage as "a lifelong union between a man and a woman." comes, once again, from the church, in this case the christian church.

If it werent for the church. Marriage wouldnt have existed. Marriage was defined that way clear to ancient history from the church. And marriage was Created cuase Christian history thought it wrong to partake of certain activities etc without a special Clad-Lock Unification of the couple.

I Dont c the problem with Gays and Lesbians Being able to marry, they should. But maybe a compromise like mvb's is fair. In fact Ive had many gay and lesbian friends if anyone wanted to ask.

[Critta]

If it werent for the church. Marriage wouldnt have existed. Marriage was defined that way clear to ancient history from the church. And marriage was Created cuase Christian history thought it wrong to partake of certain activities etc without a special Clad-Lock Unification of the couple.

I Dont c the problem with Gays and Lesbians Being able to marry, they should. But maybe a compromise like mvb's is fair. In fact Ive had many gay and lesbian friends if anyone wanted to ask.

Marriage existed before the Christian church came along. Pagan religions have marriage ceremonies dating back well before the birth of Christ.

The Romans (pre-christ) had marriage ceremonies as have every other major civilisation that I have ever studied.

To say the Christian church "invented" marriage is laughable at best, they just adapeted a ceremony that had been used for thousands of years and put their own slant on it, including the banning of homosexual marriage.

Now everyone seems to think they invented it. It just isn't true.

[Critta]

Actually, two men or two women cannot breed, as things are. You can't have a progeny from two individuals of the same sex (but two women could theoretically have one artificially, and the funny thing is, these babies would all be females, thus eliminating the need for a male gender).

Two men or two women cannot naturally breed, however with the increase in the number of adoptions / artificial pregnancies etc. in recent years it is more than possible for gay couples to adopt or find a donor to allow them to have children, just as a heterosexual couple would if for example the woman was barren.

If it can been seen as ok and natural for a heterosexual couple to "fulfill their biological destiny" in this way, and this is your main problem with gay marriage - surely it would be hypocritical to deny homosexual couples the same privelidge (i.e marriage)?

Personally I don't see what all the fuss is about, let people marry who they want. It's not like it's gonna hurt anyone.

[shutupandshave]

Personally I don't see what all the fuss is about, let people marry who they want. It's not like it's gonna hurt anyone.

It only hurts christian fundamentalists... and there was me thinking christianity preached tolerance and love.

Does the new testament say that homosexuality is wrong?

[Critta]

But does it really even hurt Christian Fundamentalists? They'll be a bit pissed of for a while and that's about it. Why do the details of other people's private lives need to have any effect on them anyway?

I believe in the fact the bible says a lot about "loving your brother" but then maybe I've taken a quote out of context there :P

[shutupandshave]

lol

Yes it does hurt Christian fundamentalists. The bible says that homosexuality is wrong, and so it is completely unacceptable to in any way allow that to happen.

I think however, it is more the old testament that complains about homosexuality... This is the same part of the bible that says god is vengeful, and doesn't mention the devil at all.

I dont see why you cant have same sex marriages.

I think the word marriage, to a vast majority of people in this nation, means "a lifelong union between a man and a woman," and does NOT mean "a lifelong union" between a man and a woman, if you catch my differentiation.
I dont think this is that a valid reason for discrimination. It's sounds like a whole bunch of "you cant play in my sandpit because you're different".

[MVB]

Read my argument again. If you simply grant them all the legal rights of marriage when they're engaged in official civil unions, but don't let them use the title "marriage," everyone will be happy. Gay people are a horribly small minority, and Christians are a huge majority. The problem, and the one I have, is that the word Marriage -- in my opinion if you must -- means "a union between a man and a woman" and not "a union" between a man and a woman, in the same way that "African American" means "an American who is Black" and not "an American" who is black or "an American" from Africa.

If I'm born in Africa, and live in America, but am white, I certainly am not allowed socially to go around calling myself an African American. It's not that it's "wrong," but that it's socially unacceptable.

In my opinion, you should not force socially unacceptable changes on society as a whole. The majority of U.S. society has proven overwhelmingly with vote that it does not yet find gay MARRIAGE acceptable, because most view that word as sacred, and not legal. We have such a thing as an official civil union in America, and some states already allot full legal rights to one, and it is legal for gays to engage in one. Making gay marriage legal would upset (for many greatly upset) a huge percentage of the population just to make a tiny tiny minority "happy" or whatever. Instead, enact national law that grants them full legal rights from civil unions, so they can go to the local government office and make it official, but don't force the socially unacceptable change of allowing them to "marry" on society when it isn't ready for it yet.

In the future, who knows, maybe the nation will want gay marriage, or will at least find it acceptable. To date, it doesn't, and as long as you ensure all legal rights to gays, you're not denying them any rights ... marriage is ALREADY defined as being between a man and a woman, so gays inherently do not have the right to it, unless they wish to become ungay or something (not implying that's possible).

People will say "I don't find marriage means b/tween a man and a woman, so who cares?" MOST people do find that's what it means; the minority should not hold sway over so strong a majority.

[Ummon]

The matter of gay couples adopting children is another one entirely. I think that allowing gay couples to adopt children is not the right thing to do under any circumstances, in the best interest of the child.

My view of this issue is that what one child needs most is emotional stability, a model of the same gender to imitate and one of the opposite one to love in oedipic fashion.

Gay couples might have difficulties fulfilling every single one of these conditions.

1) A man entrusted with the role of mother will never be as caring as a real woman would do, for biological reasons again.

2) A woman entrusted with the role of father might not be able to pass on her values as well as a father could.

3) A girl growing with two mothers and a boy growing with two fathers is bound to experience difficulties when comparing his experience with that of kids of his age who have "normal" families.

And so on, with many other points I'm not treating now because they're really complicated psychological stuff...

What we keep ignoring here is the fact that the more we distance ourselves from the natural predispositions of our species, the more we're making things difficult for ourselves. So, homosexual people should not be hampered in enjoying their freedom, but this is it. No children for gay couples would be the most adviseable choice.

[shutupandshave]

but don't let them use the title "marriage," everyone will be happy.
I'll wait and see on this one. I have a feeling that you may be mis-understanding the problem slightly. I dont think you realise that it's not just the tax benefits that people are complaining about, but it's the freedom to get married. Not legally bonded, but MARRIED.

Abolishing slavery was socially unacceptable for a long time, but we got there in the end. I dont think this is a problem to the same degree, but it is a problem of the same nature. It's a fight for human rights...by a group of people that are seen as lesser, and different by many.

[Winoman]

The problem is that marriage is one of 7 sacraments. it s a catholic concept who played a major social role in the past. Catholics are not ready to lost this important social concept.

so lets the word mariage for catholics. the others (non catholics homosexual and heterosexuel, including others religion) should use civil union.
the most important thing is if 2 people love each over, the civil union permit to have some assurances (tax, inheritance, couple facilities...).

for homosexual catholics, it isnt a problem because the Church of Rome doesnt accept homosexulaty. its normal to not accept homosexual marriage. So, where is the problem.

personnaly im atheistic. it s become a problem if states dont accept civil union between same sex persons. they must have same couple rights. if not, its mean that state is govern by religious considerations.

[Critta]

Then I believe the question which needs to be asked is why are fundamentalists so picky about which bits of the Bible they choose the defend vehemently and which bits they choose to ignore completely.

I could try and explain what I mean, but a better idea would be to have a look here (http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/wink.htm) - the section entitled "The Problem of Authority sums up a lot of what has been said if you can't be bothered to read the whole thing.

Along the same lines, how can the same group of Fundamental Christians who condem abortion because it goes against the 6th commandment, actively choose to vote for a president who is willing to send them or their children to war - where they themselves will likely break the self same commandment.

There are a lot of inconsistencies in their arguments, and a lot of prejudice generated despite these inconsistencies. As Suas mentioned, Christianity is supposed to be a religion predisposed towards tolerance. How come they treat this issue with such intolerance?

As to your reference to gay people being in the minority, please have a look here (http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/howmany.html) - they are not as much of a minority as I had suspected. The actual numbers are hard to discover for the numbers to be accurate, so I will go for the middle of the range.

10% of Americans are gay... are you saying that you are prepared to let 1/10th of your population be unfairly discriminated against by the fundamental Christians, let me use this as an example:

72% of the population define themselves as Christian. This is also a major slide from 83% in 1991 -- in excess of 1 percentage points per year. (Source: 2001 US Census)

Add to this that only a small amount of this 72% will be vehement fundamental christians, and the situation becomes a lot less huge majority - say 50% of these people are die hard fundamentalists - I think this is more than fair, that gives you 36% of the population strongly against gay marriage.

So you end up with a minority of the population against a minority of the population. With the rest of those who are against gay marriage being those who can't decide so decide to vote against it because they don't understand, or because they are immensely homophobic for no good reason.

Basically, my point is this: Fundamentalists of all religions are a dengerous group, they take writings which were supposed to guide people thousands of years ago before two centuries of scientific and social advancement and try and follow them to the letter.

It is like throwing out every new law made in the past 2000 years and then trying to run a country based on this set of laws, it is utterly preposterous.

[shutupandshave]

Now that is an interesting proposition. Seeing as the word Marriage is just a catholic things, lets not allow any one that isn't Catholic to marry... it's civil unions for all.

If it really is a catholic invention, then I would have no problem with it just being available to practising catholics (like communion for example). What I have the problem with, is it being available to everyone except homosexuals.

[MVB]

Christians will be morally offended by marriage being dropped by LAW to something their religion opposes. People like myself will be offended that the word in what I believe to be its true meaning will be destroyed.

That 10% (if it even is that high) does not deserve to have a word changed that will greatly offend the RIGHTS of many other people in America, and also will be mixing church and state, because in America marriage is a distinctly religious event.

This is not at all on the same lines as slavery in terms of rights, because we are not arguing the RIGHTS involved with marriage, only the use of a word that many people are deeply tied to on moral, ethical and other levels.

The word catholic inherently means universal; what you are doing, and have been doing, is ignoring the fact that to most people the word marriage MUST involve a MAN and a WOMAN to exist. This isn't a case of people refusing to let gays ride the bus, or refusing to let gays have any number of legal rights. It's a case of people not wanting to change the definition of a word they find sacred to suit a small, noisy and (some think) petty minority.

[Ummon]

It's NOT a matter of rights. All rights in this instance belong to the children. Children are not a tool to be used by homosexual couples to feel equal heterosexual couples. Parents have duties towards, and not rights on, their children: I hope I am making myself clear.

[Critta]

The matter of gay couples adopting children is another one entirely. I think that allowing gay couples to adopt children is not the right thing to do under any circumstances, in the best interest of the child.

My view of this issue is that what one child needs most is emotional stability, a model of the same gender to imitate and one of the opposite one to love in oedipic fashion.

Gay couples might have difficulties fulfilling every single one of these conditions.

1) A man entrusted with the role of mother will never be as caring as a real woman would do, for biological reasons again.

2) A woman entrusted with the role of father might not be able to pass on her values as well as a father could.

3) A girl growing with two mothers and a boy growing with two fathers is bound to experience difficulties when comparing his experience with that of kids of his age who have "normal" families.

And so on, with many other points I'm not treating now because they're really complicated psychological stuff...

What we keep ignoring here is the fact that the more we distance ourselves from the natural predispositions of our species, the more we're making things difficult for ourselves. So, homosexual people should not be hampered in enjoying their freedom, but this is it. No children for gay couples would be the most adviseable choice.

Ummon, I was raised in a single parent family, are you trying to tell me that I am emotionally unstable, or in some way worse than I could have been if both of my parents had been present during my upbringing?

1) Rubbish, all parents are equally capable of caring for a child whether they be male/female, gay/straight. I wouldn't really know, I grew up with my mother.

2) This one I KNOW is bullshit.

3) Or perhaps it would help to ease back on the homophobia which is instilled in children at a young age, they might get a bit of stick for it, but they'd grow up a stronger person. Kids will always have difficulties adjusting to things that are different to the way they are used to, they learn to do so, that's what's growing up is all about.

Homosexuality is a natural choice, if you want to get into the nitty gritty of it, it is frequently seen in animal popultions as a trait which emerges when there is overpopulation. What is more natural than tendencies mimicked in the natural world? With the world as packed as it is today, it seems kind of obvious that there is a growing homosexual population appearing.

If you will accept homosexuality for no other reason, accept it because it is doing the world a favour, with the rate of population growth today, we need to encourage those practices which help to keep the population down, not frown upon them and treat them with prejudice.

[Critta]

Christians will be morally offended by marriage being dropped by LAW to something their religion opposes. People like myself will be offended that the word in what I believe to be its true meaning will be destroyed.

But this is a word that wasn't even invented until the 1300's. How can Catholics claim that this word (commonly used even when marriage does not have a religious basis) is restricted to be used only as they see fit?

What reasons do you personally have to be offended by a minor change in the meaning of a word? If the changing of definition of that word means extra happiness and security for millions of people?

Take the word "gay" itself for example. 40 years ago, the only definition for the word was "happy and carefree or brightly coloured". Since then it has become the standard word to refer to homosexuals. If the definition of that word can be changed so easily, why not "marriage"?

That 10% (if it even is that high) does not deserve to have a word changed that will greatly offend the RIGHTS of many other people in America, and also will be mixing church and state, because in America marriage is a distinctly religious event.

10% is not a small minority, for example 10% is the difference between Bush winning and losing the past 2 elections. There are more homosexuals in America than there are Jews, if people were discriminating against the Jews, there would be uproar. How come it is socially accepted to discriminate against gays?

As far as the rights of the rest of America goes, they will be ENTIRELY unchanged. Fundamentailst christians will still be able to have deeply religious marriage ceremonies.

People like you can still hold true to your definition of marriage and marry someone of the opposite sex.

The difference? A minority of people will be able to have EQUAL rights to you. You never have to meet them, interact with them, just be a decent enough human being to allow some other people the same rights that you have.

Do deny this based on the definition of a word is possibly the most petty thing I have heard in a long time.

[shutupandshave]

You talk about people being heavily emotionally tied to the word marriage, yet at the same time assume that Homosexual people are not. Perhaps they are just as attached to the word as hardline christians are?

It is not about the civil rights that come with Marriage, it is a fight for the right to be called Married... just as towards the end of slavery many slaves were actually as free as most are now - it was the fight to be able to say "I am free" not the right to be able to go and do what they want in the evenings.

I dont think religion should hold ANY sway over this decision, as there are lots of rules in the bible that we choose to ignore.

My definition of marriage is "a life long commitment between two people that love each other". I guess this is where liberal and conservative views really start showing their differences.

[Critta]

It's NOT a matter of rights. All rights in this instance belong to the children. Children are not a tool to be used by homosexual couples to feel equal heterosexual couples. Parents have duties towards, and not rights on, their children: I hope I am making myself clear.

Who ever mentioned the rights of children being overlooked? Has it even entered your head that gay couples do not want to use children as a tool to feel equal, they just want to have a child that they can raise and love as any other couple would.

Why would gay couples be any worse at fulfilling their duties towards their children? For a gay couple to have a child they have to be utterly commited to it happening, it can never be a mistake, or something undertaken lightly. It would involve an immense amout of organisation and commitment - hell, 2 loving, commited parents is a LOT, LOT more than a lot of children get.

[MVB]

This argument seems to be completely being missed by both sides, so I think it's rather stupid, BUT I will go into the history of the word marriage; it is horribly inaccurate to call it a catholic machination of the 14th century.

Here is why;
Marriage is a term which means the same thing as matrimony and other words, in the sense that it refers to a Wedding. In fact, the official catholic church does NOT define the word marriage at all; they refer to it as the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, so wherever you read that Catholics developed the word marriage was wrong. Matrimony is a Roman word, naturally coming from the Catholic church's popularization through its growth in the Roman Empire; the word matrimonium is derived from the word mater, meaning "mother." This alone points toward some of the reason why the word is not about a union between same sex; in Roman society, the "first purpose of marriage was to create a family, to produce legitimate children." Romans engaged in bisexual life practices, although they were rarely gay, and did not believe marriage could be applied at all to man + man, only to man + woman.

Marriage as a practice between a man and a woman, including relative cultural/language words for matrimony/wedding/etc. existed well back into the times of ancient Hindu, Greek, Egyptian and other cultures. They uniformly referred to a man and a woman, and were uniformly related to the continuance of one's family, with child-bearing and what-not heavily involved in the definitions.

Now, the Catholic Church -- long before the reformation and the schism between Catholics and Protestants -- did make matrimony a sacrament, as it was not one of the "originals," but even on that your dates are off ... it is first actually referred to as a sacrament -- using the word matrimony and marriage depending on the situation -- before the year 1200, placing it's "invention," if you insist, earlier than the end of the 12th century, not the 14th. Nonetheless, various aspects of Catholic doctrine refer to matrimony as a sacred event involving a man and a woman within less than a couple hundred years of Christ's death.

My own rationale for it all is that historically, with every culture on Earth, marriage has meant and continues to mean man and woman, not man and man, or man and goat, etc. etc. Where do you draw the line, anyway? Certainly then all animal lovers should be allowed to be "married" to a goat if they so please. What about marrying 3 or 4 women, or a woman marrying 3 or 4 men. Certainly if it's not specified as anything other than a union between people, I can have multiple unions, since it's no longer between A man and A woman.

Also, I am not advocating the denial of any rights, unless you also believe that I am denied rights by not being able to call myself black. Fact is, I'm NOT black; I have every legal right that a black person has, but I don't have the right to call myself black as well. Gay people should have all the legal rights that straight people have, but should not be able to pretend they are straight by following straight institutions. Rather than accepting THEMSELVES for what they are, they are attempting to CHANGE the world of people who are not gay to suit themselves, and that is highly inappopriate, and certainly the WORSE breach of legal and even human rights.

[shutupandshave]

And here is the crux of the misunderstanding....

Rather than accepting THEMSELVES for what they are, they are attempting to CHANGE the world of people who are not gay to suit themselves

What are they trying to change in MY world... you've seen my definition of marriage. Now consider that other people may feel the same way I do. Now consider that whole countries agree with me... now consider that perhaps the world has already started changing... and the US is being held back by it's conservatism.

[MVB]

Now consider that I disagree; John Kerry was opposed to gay marriage, and he is considered a bit of a radical liberal. If the US is not ready for it yet, they should not be forced into it. There's not much more to it. I don't believe YOUR world, Mr. Suas, has any right trying to stick its ass in the social atmosphere of MY world, because they are clearly quite different. I don't think gays in America have a RIGHT to change most Americans' views of what marriage is to suit themselves. They have chosen to pursue a gay lifestyle; just like people who choose to fuck animals (or hell, if we insist it's genetic, people who are born with a fucked up desire to screw animals) can't earn the right to gain a legal marriage to animals.

It's not a matter of what an individual, or what a highly liberal country things. Maybe the world that you talk about is moving itself way to fuckin' fast towards something, being forced forward by its liberalism. You live on one side of a coin, suas, and while you're a brilliant arguer and I've gained a great deal of respect for you that I never had earlier, I think you rarely pull yourself away from the coin to look at it from both sides, despite attempting to do so and claiming that you do. You believe the "normal" world is more liberal, and the "abnormal" world is "held back by conservatism." The shoe might fight the other way around.

OR we could realize that some nations have different degrees of liberalism and conservatism, and they should treat their social problems according to the way their nation works with it, and not according to pop culture or international liberalism (or conservatism).

[Critta]

Ok, I stand corrected on the date of origin of the word "marriage", the article I read stated that it was in the 14th century. Anyway, it makes no difference to what I was trying to say.

Looking at the historical reasons for marriage being between a man and a woman, we come again and again to the point that a man and a woman can continue the race, raise children etc.

So your reasoning behind being against gay marriage is that it has always been that way? If that was the case in all things women would be expected to be subservient to their husbands (one of the major criticisms against Islam afaik), black people would still be slaves and servants, people would still be burnt at the stake for practicing witchcraft and so on and so forth.

Also, your statement that it has always been this way with every culture on Earth is simply untrue (see below articles)
First one (http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IEW20040204131617&Page=W&Title=World&Topic=0&)
Second one (http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6617736%5e1702,00.html)

As you can see, there are several cultures which do not hold true to Catholic beliefs and go as far as allowing people to marry animals. I disagree with marrying animals, was just using this to illustrate a point, but iff they can allow that, surely the "leaders of the free world" can allow people the freedom to let a man marry a man, or a woman marry a woman?

The final piece of reasoning I can find is that marriage should be exclusively for the continuation of the species, a man and a woman can have children etc. etc. even this reasoning has now been nullified by advances in medical science, it is now possible for a gay couple to have a child, by whatever means (and there are several!)

Finally I'll refer to your point about polygamy. The bible does not outlaw this practice in any way, if you re-read the article I posted earlier (http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/wink.htm) (again the only section you need to look at is the one entitled "The Problem of Authority") I'm sure you will find it quite interesting, as a talking point if nothing else.

The point I am trying to make, which I think you are overlooking is that gay people are not trying to change anything for you. What difference does it make to you if gay people are allowed to marry? ABSOLUTELY NONE, your world will no be changed as you are trying to make out, why do people fight so hard to stop it?

[shutupandshave]

I do see it from your point of view MVB, however if someone said to me "sorry but XXX country is not ready to stop burning witches yet" or anything else equally archaic I would take the same view with them too.

This is a world issue, and not just an American issue. I have my definition and you have yours. Mine makes everyone happy, yours doesn't. Based on that fact surely it's better to use mine? Screw the people that are actually against it, they dont have a leg to stand on.

[MVB]

Stop referring to them as Catholic beliefs; these are not Catholic beliefs alone at all, and it is inappropriate to label them as such. Even if they were, that would not inherently be wrong at all.

You are horribly off about the women still subservient to men, etc. etc. because marriage at any point in history does not specifically refer to women as subservient at all, and so your analogy is unrelated; women were often queens even in ancient times, and were much superior to the men they were married to.

The professor you link to has an awful argument on polygamy being acceptable to the Church. Jews also practiced murder for years after the new testament and up to today. That doesn't make it acceptable to their religion or any other.

Gay people are trying to change the definition of marriage in this country. To many people, for a variety of reasons, it is important that it not be changed. If Americans changed the definition of Black American to include caucasians, it would not necessarily "change" life for Black Americans, as long as none of their rights were affected, but it would be unfairly offensive to them, for it would be taking something away from them that they valued. You're completely overlooking the feelings of a majority of the population in some desperate attempt to defend the contrary feelings of a minority. It's not about rights -- I'm firmly in favor of all rights being given to gays; Marriage is not a right ... a legally-binding civil union is a right ... marriage is an institution, and not given to everyone. Just like a person can't marry their daughter, because marriage does not apply to unions between a man and his daughter. Please note this difference .... I don't know why people must obssess so much over a word that is important to so many people in its status quo; grant the rights, don't offend the majority; both of these things can be accomplished, without a lot of trouble to gays; MOST gays I've spoken to on this issue find it important for reasons such as hospital visitaiton rights, will rights, etc. ... they realize there is a stigma about marriage + gays, and they understand the rationale that their minority feelings should not be imposed on the feelings of a much larger body of people.

[MVB]

Suas, your view does NOT make everyone happy. It horribly offends a majority of Americans, as stated above. You're insane if you think it makes everyone happy. Pure and simple. And I don't mean that offensively; it's just the way things are; because YOU aren't offended by the change and are straight, doesn't mean all straight people are that way; you argue "they'll get over it," well gay people could get over it as well, as long as their legal rights were guaranteed.

This can be a world issue to you; it's not to me, and it's not to many Americans.

Additionally, in regards to the witch-burning comment, you yourself once said "one man's freedom is another man's tyranny" and people should nto be allowed to impose their beliefs on the beliefs of another culture -- I agree most assuredly in this case, b/c that is what is being attempted; a minority is attempting to impose its beliefs on a majority, and it's certainly not nearly as severe a case as witch-burning; but perhaps, on that issue, you'd like to begin a crusade against Indonesia, where witch-trials and witch-punishment goes on to this very day.

[Ummon]

Read well Critta: "Might have difficulties".

I haven't said they can't do that. I said it's less probable that they can do it right. A lot less probable actually.

Human beings are flexible creatures. Of course a human being is able to withstand most of the challenges life will pose him, but the law is meant to grant to each citizen the best possible conditions, and the most important part of any family is the children. I would never personally forbid anyone (homosexual or eterosexual) to try to have children, but my opinion is: homosexual couples as parents are not the best possible option for children. By far.

The same goes for couples more than 60 years old trying to adopt a baby. Am I an Old-o-phobic for this reason?

If a judge came and asked me: "Is it better for this child to have this gay couple as parents or that eterosexual couple?", my answer would be, given the same socio-economic and psychological conditions, 100% in favour of the heterosexual couple.

The idea that "everything is the same" is simplistic and dangerous. Many, many things in life are risky, wrong and counter-productive under specific circumstances, and laws exist to regulate human behaviour so that nobody has to pay for anyone else's freedom.

Sadly, the general level of human reasoning has fallen so low that simple truths are seen as oppressive bonds imposed by external authorities. Nonetheless a child naturally needs a mother and a father. He can survive and even thrive otherwise, as he can suffer and have problems even under ideal conditions. But laws regulate behaviours on a large scale, and cannot take into account single cases. Infact a law is a rule, not an exception.

Homophobic is actually someone who perceives homosexuals as inferior and despiseable, I only perceive them as different, as much as a woman is different from a man.

Having children is not a right, it is a JOB, and you want me to pick the wrong people for that job because otherwise they would suffer? My answer is: no, thanks.

Life is made of choices. The day I picked Medicine I effectively renounced Physics, at least until I have time for a second sojourn in my University (maybe when I get old I will). If now I went there and asked a grade in Physics too because otherwise I would feel different from those who have made that course of studies, and discriminated, that would be ridiculous (and typical liberal/leftist way of thinking: "if I want it it's my RIGHT to have it!").

Same is with homosexuality: your feelings, natural tendencies or subconscious lead you to choose a member of the same sex as partner for life? That's cool by me, but that's a choice. Every time you make a choice you get something instead of something else.

If instead of respecting a homosexual person's choice I pitied it, maybe I would support gay marriages and adoptions. But I respect the free will of those who, accordingly with their life and values, have chosen that path. And coherently I say: gay couples should not marry, nor should they be allowed to adopt children.

As to your refuting (or trying to refute) my single sketchy examples of a homosexual couple's difficulties with children, I cannot answer here. A thorough discussion of the matter would take days with me explaining you the basics, and then proceeding in explaining you why I have stated what I stated. It's not that I think you're stupid, it's that it is quite technical, subtle and controversial stuff even for someone who works in the field.

[JADezimar]

Marriage existed before the Christian church came along. Pagan religions have marriage ceremonies dating back well before the birth of Christ.

The Romans (pre-christ) had marriage ceremonies as have every other major civilisation that I have ever studied.

To say the Christian church "invented" marriage is laughable at best, they just adapeted a ceremony that had been used for thousands of years and put their own slant on it, including the banning of homosexual marriage.

Now everyone seems to think they invented it. It just isn't true.

But that marriage was alwayz between a man and a women. Am I not correct ?

[shutupandshave]

MVB: do you think it makes non-catholic Americans unhappy? You're a non-catholic - would it bother you if nobody else minded?

I am not trying to change US policy, I am merely disagreeing with it.

Find me an Indonesian and I will show them my armchair wrath :P

[MVB]

I took a course on witchcraft last year, and a guest speaker came in who was a cultural immersion anthropologist, and had spent the years prior living with an Indonesian society. They engaged in a full blown witchhunt and trial period while he was there, with striking familiarites to the witch hunts in Europe during the middle of the 2nd millennium. I actually had the priveledge of watching these trials in class, as he recorded them all visually; at one point he even intervened to a degree, which nearly invalidated his years of immersion research and which is a HUGE "no no" for that type of anthropologist.

I am a Catholic, but my offense/views are not at all based on my Catholicism. Protestants, in my experience, are much more offended and made unhappy by it than Catholics are. MOST Catholics are immensely understanding and accepting of gays, because Catholicism teaches loving and accepting your neighbors. The majority of the anti-gay HATE in America comes from Protestants, especially hard-line Baptists.

[shutupandshave]

Hmm, I wonder if these same baptists/catholics are equally offended that other old-testament rules are ignored - such as sacrifices and polygomy... ;).

Well I dont agree with the US marriage stance, but then I have a different definition of marriage. I also think that I am being more open-minded about it - but that doesn't really count for much in the real world - because of course... I would think that my views were right.

However, I dont believe that "I" have the right to try and tell the Americans what to do here... if they were talking about re-instating witch hunts then that would be a whole different matter... I would be quite happy to tell you all that you were wrong... but you're not (I am just illustrating that there are times where I feel it is okay to try and tell people what to do). I do however feel I have the right to voice my opinion... which is that a ban on single sex MARRIAGE is an abuse of freedom.

[MVB]

There is no ban on single sex Marriage. There simply exists a definition for marriage which inherently means heterosexual. In America, gays are allowed to "marry," but to do so they'd have to marry women and/or men if they were women. Reason being, marry MEANS man and woman. That is all.

Again, that's like saying I'm banned from being an African American, when in reality I simply don't fit that definition, so it's silly to say I'm banned from it. At least I have all the legal rights that an African American has, so there are no true injustices, just a status quo of definitions of words.

You're free to disagree, and I see where you are coming from. The fact that I disagree is simply that ... a state of disagreement. I think in either case, it is not an abuse, not truly. I think that word is far too strong for the situation. IMO America is just not socially ready for that kind of change, and I believe myself to be part of the America that is NOT socially ready for it.

[Tigre]

I agree with all of you regarding a compomise and creating Civil Unions and keeping Marriage as a "holy sacrement" in the eyes of the church. My wife and I have many gay friends and it is shameful how we treat them in this society (USA). It is hard enough to find lasting love in this time and age, why not give them every legal right afforded to them by "legal marriage" according to the existing laws...... Right of Survivorship, Healthcare, Retirement Benefits, Immigration etc. After all isn't this the definition of Freedom and Liberty!

[shutupandshave]

There is no ban on single sex Marriage.
Yes there is. People of the same sex are not allowed to get married. Just because there are justifiable reasons, doesn't mean there is no ban?

[Forsaken]

Rather than accepting THEMSELVES for what they are, they are attempting to CHANGE the world of people who are not gay to suit themselves, and that is highly inappopriate, and certainly the WORSE breach of legal and even human rights.

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-George Bernard Shaw

[shutupandshave]

All depends on your perspective. To two homosexual people in love, it could be that the world is trying to tell them they are not fit for marriage, because they are not in love enough, or they dont deserve it because their homosexuality is wrong.

To someone that believes that marriage is something that happens just between a man and a woman (as opposed to two people in love) then the homosexuals are trying to change things.

Anyway, that statement is stupid. Going back to the slave example - they were unreasonable for trying to change the world around them (abolish slavery)... I dont think so. How about Iraq - we're there trying to change things.

I think it's a good saying, but inappropriate.

[Forsaken]

No, the thing about the statement is that it can be adopted to mean many different things. In MVB's example, he thinks that homosexuals are being unreasonable for not just accepting civil union equality. So the quote could be used to say that homosexuals, if they were to win, would be the ones enacting change. In suas' slavery example, we might not think of them as unreasonable, but if you put yourself in the perspective of someone at the time, arguing for a slave's right might seem like it was pretty unreasonable.

Perhaps the words are archaic in meaning or such. Maybe keep reasonable as it is, change "unreasonable" to "stubborn", and change "progress" to "change".

[JADezimar]

Hmm, I wonder if these same baptists/catholics are equally offended that other old-testament rules are ignored - such as sacrifices and polygomy...

You havent studied religion enough saus. The rulz of the old testament were done away with and thrown out the door to Most Christian type religions when Christs came into the picture.

Yes there is. People of the same sex are not allowed to get married. Just because there are justifiable reasons, doesn't mean there is no ban?

Suas What mvb is saying how do you ban something that wasnt suppose to exist? The writers of the original laws never even saw this as a possibility or at the time even thought this would be an openly admitted relationship between people let alone propesed and fought for in the public eye.

[Critta]

You havent studied religion enough saus. The rulz of the old testament were done away with and thrown out the door to Most Christian type religions when Christs came into the picture.

What you mean apart from some of the groups of fundamentalists (the groups of Christians we've been mainly discussing in this thread.)

They the rules of the Old Testament away when Christ came into the picture? Christianity didn't exist until Christ "came into the picture", not the old testament, not the new testament - none of it.

Maybe it's you who hasn't studied religion enough??

Suas What mvb is saying how do you ban something that wasnt suppose to exist? The writers of the original laws never even saw this as a possibility or at the time even thought this would be an openly admitted relationship between people let alone propesed and fought for in the public eye.

Bullshit, people have been openly gay since Christ was born and well before. However in those times, people tended not to be exclusively gay. Before modern day times, people would need to have a wife and children in order to ensure the continuation of the species... nowerdays we've overfilled the planet, so IMO this is not required any more.

[shutupandshave]

Forsaken - Fair enough... I dont think I read the last few words closely enough either.

JAD: I think Critta has pretty much summed up what I would have said... however, in addition I would like to emphasise the fact... where in the new testament does it say "Jesus said no gay marriage"... the anit-gay rule was from the OLD testament...

[JADezimar]

Bullshit, people have been openly gay since Christ was born and well before. However in those times, people tended not to be exclusively gay. Before modern day times, people would need to have a wife and children in order to ensure the continuation of the species... nowerdays we've overfilled the planet, so IMO this is not required any more.

Plz give examples of people being openly gay.

[shutupandshave]

JAD, read MVB's post about all the greeks that loved each other good.

edit: I will find you some links in a minute

[shutupandshave]

http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/sexuality/a/aa011400a.htm

[JADezimar]

Alot of that looks Like 1 willing partner and another unwilling.

meh.

Doesnt mean they were gay or hetero. And did they marry gays back then ?

[shutupandshave]

No, nobody married anyone back then.

[MVB]

Romans married. They used the word Matrimonium, and a few others; where did you read/hear that Romans never married?

[JADezimar]

K just wondering. Me and Suas both wrong ;p

[/<yle]

Romans married, Jews married, hell, Marriage has been around as long as homosexuality, and its never been used to describe the union between man and man or woman and woman.

[shutupandshave]

MVB: I was actually going on the definition that Marriage is a special word, and if you dont use the special word then it's not marriage.

[MVB]

It is, but it's a special english word, and can be directly translated to any of the 3 or 4 words the Roman's used for it; the Church originally used only latin for most of this stuff, when it had them using Matermonium/matrimonium; when they developed the word into non-latin, Marriage was what came out.

That's like saying Mater and Mother don't mean the same thing, since Mater is the latin for mother, and Mother is the English, therefore since the Romans didn't use the word Mother, they had no Mothers.

[shutupandshave]

Indeed it is a special English word, so it's very unlikely that any Romans were using it ;p

[MVB]

lol

point is, Romans got married; they used a different word, because they didn't speak English, not because the practice didn't exist

[shutupandshave]

Once again, it is back to definitions. I have always been taught that Marriage occurs between two people that love each other. Your definition (also the "correct" dictionary definition) has more strings attached.

I think the tide is turning in Europe, in fact I think the tide mostly has turned... I wonder if we have made a mistake, or whether the US will need to catch up.

[MVB]

I don't think it can be seen as mistaken or unmistaken. You have to progress along the route your society is ready for; if Europe was ready for it, fine for Europe.

[/<yle]

Dont fk with interstate politics. This isant foreign policy so its really none of your buisness.

[Karmashock]

You should be happy with civil unions... expecting it to be called a marriage is going too far.