proudtobegay 0 Posted July 9, 2003 Share Posted July 9, 2003 What do all you heteros think about this topical issue? Should same sex marriage be allowed? ptbg Link to post Share on other sites
MistaSparkle 0 Posted July 9, 2003 Share Posted July 9, 2003 Of course it should be allowed.... what's wrong with two people that love eachother? they're not harming anyone else by being married. Stupid that it's even an issue... Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted July 9, 2003 Share Posted July 9, 2003 It's an issue because marriage has some fundamental implications within society. I trust my wife with our money and with decisions that extend right up to the point where she could choose to turn off my life support system - whereas no other 'partner' of mine has been so trusted. Society and the law recognizes that trust. Traditionally, that trust has been recognized to exist between one man and one woman. Marriage also suggests a bond that will form the basis of a family, again something only a man and a woman can create. Calling other sorts of relationship 'marriage' rather waters down the basic concept, no? At the risk of causing offense (none is meant) what is the difference between two men or two women wanting to get married and somebody wanting to marry their dog? What are the arguments in favour of same sex marriage? stfg Link to post Share on other sites
Goemon 0 Posted July 9, 2003 Share Posted July 9, 2003 Well, if someone loves their dog, the dog loves that person, and they're not harming anyone with their love (I mean physically harming, not that silly "mental anguish" claim)...what's wrong with them getting married? Ocean: Regarding this statement: Quote: Marriage also suggests a bond that will form the basis of a family, again something only a man and a woman can create. 1. You may not be religious, but doesn't that concept of marriage's purpose stem from religious teachings (albeit more deeply rooted in survival tactics of desert-dwelling, nomadic tribes...)? Should our laws be dictated by religion? Should they be influenced by the writings of long-dead, desert-dwellers from another land? 2. What about a man and woman that cannot have children? Can they get married? 3. How does your statement account for artificial insemination? thanks! Link to post Share on other sites
danz 0 Posted July 9, 2003 Share Posted July 9, 2003 to add to goemon... what about adoption?? (perhaps from a mother who chooses NOT to have an abortion )...a same-sex marriage surely should be capable of raising a family in that way... danz Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted July 9, 2003 Share Posted July 9, 2003 Our laws and customs are based to a large extent on 'our' Christian heritage whether we like it or not. It's possible to opt out to a certain extent, but in some areas it isn't. If we happened to live in a society where polygamy was practised, then I would probably seek to see the good in it, and not seek to alter the essence of it if I found some good in it. At the moment, marriage is a priveleged status that also implies certain responsibilities. Now, you can point out that many people don't meet those responsibilities, and some men and women may get married knowing that they can't. Nobody claims the institution is perfect - it's an ideal that people meet as best they can. You can always find cavils such as artificial insemination, but they don't invalidate the basic concept. Homosexuality is a deviancy that afflicts a tiny fraction of the population. Fortunately it's not totally debilitating, and people can still live normal productive lives in spite of it. There are many other similar afflictions one could cite, but we don't seek to accomodate and privilege them in our social structures. If those afflicted want to make it a point of pride and shove it everyone else's face, that's up to them, but they shouldn't expect to be taken seriously or be humoured. Where homosexuals have choice is whether they flaunt it or not. For 'normal' people, tolerance is very important, but tolerance is not made any easier when what is plainly a deviancy is trumpeted as some 'valid alternative'. Since you asked... Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted July 9, 2003 Share Posted July 9, 2003 danz, to answer your point, some people, including myself, think that sexually defective people should not be put in charge of normal children. There are good reasons for believing this. And if people want to play family that badly, they should get the basic units in place first. Certain sacrifices may be required for that. Link to post Share on other sites
MistaSparkle 0 Posted July 9, 2003 Share Posted July 9, 2003 Quote: Homosexuality is a deviancy that afflicts a tiny fraction of the population C'mon, you can't be serious... You're making it sound like a disease that "afflicts" people. As unnatural as you may have been taught to believe, homosexuality is part of nature. As long as you think of it as a disease or deviancy, you won't have an open mind about it.... Link to post Share on other sites
Goemon 0 Posted July 9, 2003 Share Posted July 9, 2003 Ocean: Thanks for answering. I won't argue regarding statistical deviancy. Or defectiveness. Regarding same-sex marriage though: if the majority of the people in the society allow for a minority of people to share the same rights that the majority hold...would you tolerate it? Does it really matter if the minority flaunts their deviancy or not? I imagine you are picturing two gay men, both wearing wedding gowns, singing show tunes at the alter and dancing a jig. What about the case where two people just want to be afforded the same legal privelages that opposite-sex partners enjoy (with regards to insurance, company benefits, etc.)? Link to post Share on other sites
MistaSparkle 0 Posted July 9, 2003 Share Posted July 9, 2003 Quote: Originally posted by Ocean11: danz, to answer your point, some people, including myself, think that sexually defective people should not be put in charge of normal children. There are good reasons for believing this. And if people want to play family that badly, they should get the basic units in place first. Certain sacrifices may be required for that. What is the relationship between a person's sexual behavior and their ability to raise children??? I don't see the connection.... Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted July 9, 2003 Share Posted July 9, 2003 Now don't get carried away boys I'm not thinking anything like what you're thinking I'm thinking. Mr *, I was 'taught' all along what the gay lobby wanted me to be taught. So when gays chased me hither and thither on my travels (believe me, they did), I was unfailingly 'tolerant' of them and unnecessarily polite. After making some 26 years of observation of homosexuals, I have come to my own conclusions. Deviancy is part of nature. There's a wide spectrum of normal behaviour, then there are tiny fractions of deviant behaviour. If homosexuality isn't deviancy by any normal definition, what is it? A 'lifesytle choice'? How can you have become so confused? As for equal rights for homosexual partnerships, they're not equal to heterosexual partnerships in substance, so why should they be so in law? Please understand that I'm not a gay-basher, and I don't normally go spouting off at random gays about this sort of thing. But I think the gay pride thing has got things a bit twisted, and since my opinion has been solicited, I'm giving it. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted July 9, 2003 Share Posted July 9, 2003 Quote: What is the relationship between a person's sexual behavior and their ability to raise children??? I don't see the connection.... Oh good grief! Men's sexuality is on the whole predatory. Having to deal with women curbs that. Men also like younger sexual partners in general. Thus if you took some little straight boy and made him live with two men who 1) don't think that having sex with males is strange and 2) aren't actually related to the child, then you have a recipe for deviancy in the little boy too. Deny it if you will... I can't speak for what the situation might involve for lesbians as I haven't actually met (m)any. Link to post Share on other sites
Goemon 0 Posted July 9, 2003 Share Posted July 9, 2003 Quote: As for equal rights for homosexual partnerships, they're not equal to heterosexual partnerships in substance, so why should they be so in law? I assume by "substance" you are referring to the ability to procreate naturally and without assistance? Or do you mean something else? Not poking holes or fun, I just want to understand your point. Anyway, if you are going to argue that same-sex partners should not be allowed to marry or raise children because said children are likely to become deviants themselves, then I think you are trying to control (or at least influence) that which you cannot. As you know, there are many "deviants" running around there, even in opposite sex marriages. You may not be able to identify them as easily because there are no "Child Molester Pride" parades in your town, but they exist. Even if we assume that the parents are "perfectly normal" by your definitions, there is still a chance (slim or not) that the child will become a "deviant". I admit that this is an extreme extrapolation of your argument, but, considering the above, maybe all marriages should be made illegal? I just don't think the whole "Save the Children" argument holds much water (for any argument), but that's just my opinion. (if you would like to qualify my opinions, please note the following: 1. I have no children 2. I am heterosexual (and PROUD of it!!!) 3. I am very close with a same sex female couple who are raising a male child 4. I own a dog, but we are not married; we have, however, been partners for 13 1/2 years... Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted July 9, 2003 Share Posted July 9, 2003 Quote: I assume by "substance" you are referring to the ability to procreate naturally and without assistance? I mean the potential to make children by whatever means, and the ability to bring them up straight. And I don't mean without fail, and in every case. I know there are a lot of heterosexual couples who fail horribly to bring up their children - who rape and abuse them. But in terms of likelihood of producing a deviant child, I don't think you could find a safer bet than male homosexual 'parents'. Am I alone in thinking that might not be too healthy? No parents are 'perfectly normal' - there's no such thing, it's all a matter of invisible percentages and likelihoods. I think it's fortunate that gay men are not in any danger of producing children, and I see no need to go deliberately giving them children. How are your same sex female couple managing? (I confess that thinking about how that situation came to be makes my head spin...) Link to post Share on other sites
zwelgen 0 Posted July 9, 2003 Share Posted July 9, 2003 I think a lot of the company benefits for married couples is kinda to help out wifey when shes off bearing sproggs and cant work and it is often her that ends up bringing up the kids. Maybe this makes it more likely that the dude will stay with the company and less willing to leave and take his skills and knowledge with him. just an idea. I dont think homosexuals are deviant. Thats like saying virgins are because they are such a small portion of the population! Link to post Share on other sites
Goemon 0 Posted July 9, 2003 Share Posted July 9, 2003 Quote: How are your same sex female couple managing? I suppose they are managing just fine by most standards. They have been in a monogamous relationship for around 10 years and are raising a healthy, soon-to-be 2 year old (who "came about" via artificial insemination). No signs yet if the boy is a deviant or not, but we are watching with trepidation EVERY DAY . Link to post Share on other sites
danz 0 Posted July 9, 2003 Share Posted July 9, 2003 sorry about nitpicking on this adoption thing, but..... I would assume that most (male) same-sex couples would be able to raise a child through adoption of some sort. The other alternative for that child is to grow up in a foster home. If we are talking about probabilities of raising a "deviant" child, I would put my money on the foster home kid... what about single parent families?? should they also not be allowed?? danz Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted July 9, 2003 Share Posted July 9, 2003 zwelgen, you can't be serious with that last comment. It grieves me that people who have been through years of schooling can't see the fallacy in that sort of statement. Being a virgin is no impediment to normalcy, and everyone is born that way. The word 'deviant' isn't necessarily derogatory either, so there's no need to go through contortions to deny the deviancy of homosexuality. Goemon, are you 'dad' by any chance? Link to post Share on other sites
NoFakie 45 Posted July 9, 2003 Share Posted July 9, 2003 Let em get married. And divorced. If the concern is sham marriages, other safeguards could be introduced. Thinking out loud here, but making remarriage after divorce much more difficult (making people wait 18 months, for example) may be a solution. At the same time, if couples, "straight" or otherwise, aren't going to raise kids, I don't see why public bodies should treat them financially as different to two single people. Married couples without kids don't need or deserve tax breaks, priority for public housing, rent subsidies in Japanese cities, etc. Such money should be diverted to folk with kids. So long as they operate within the legal framework, what companies do is their own business. I am part of a childless couple, btw. Link to post Share on other sites
Goemon 0 Posted July 9, 2003 Share Posted July 9, 2003 Quote: Goemon, are you 'dad' by any chance? No, Sherlock, I am most certainly not! The only sperm I've ever donated has been onto various photos of Daisy Duke and the like. Link to post Share on other sites
mogski 0 Posted July 9, 2003 Share Posted July 9, 2003 Who decided what is "normal practice" in the first place?! Must we abide to these "normal pratices" and think no different? In the same way the world has recognised and no longer hold a screwed up stigma toward same sex couples, the same will happen with same sex marriage. It is a matter of course. Law is a living thing. If it weren't it would be written in stone and kept well away from computers. Peoples minds are living things. If they weren't we would still be runnning around in fig leaves and grunting. In my opinion too many people develop their beleifs based on the judgement of a minority of people whom hold "power" over us. Does noone find this strange? Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted July 10, 2003 Share Posted July 10, 2003 Casual onanism is it then Goemon? That's a sin you know. mogski, what is that brain fart that you just let rip? Who is it exactly that has this mysterious power over my thought processes? Until fairly recently, the only 'power' that has influenced my thinking on this is Tom Robinson and people of his kidney. I think the same applies to a great multitude of people. Quote: Let em get married. And divorced. As likely as not... Link to post Share on other sites
mogski 0 Posted July 10, 2003 Share Posted July 10, 2003 I wouldn't refer to it so much as brain fart myslef, but yes I agree it is not structured all that well. By putting up some thoughts of mine I had hoped some others' minds would kickstart into looking beyond the face of the issue. To think why it is they have an issue about this issue. Kind'a Matrix style thinking I guess. Another "brain fart"? Ah...forgive me for my ignorance, but who is Tom Robinson? Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted July 10, 2003 Share Posted July 10, 2003 I have an issue about it because two blokes doing what they do is different from what me and my wife do, and it serves a different biological purpose. It also has different social repercussions. Is that so hard to grasp? If they want to hold a ceremony or whatever fine, but I for one am not prepared to call it marriage. Tom Robinson sang the catchy little number 'Sing if you're glad to be gay', to which I used to dance. There are plenty of other examples of PC brainwashing in our culture that have made people shy away painfully from words like 'deviant'... I agree with NoFakie's take on the financial aspect of it - if indeed money has to be handed out to anybody... Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts