Gay Marriage

[suanni]

You're more than welcome. It is merely my viewpoint.
Homosexuality isn't a life-style choice, it is how a person is born. I understand that for those who are homosexual the thought of coupling with someone of the opposite sex is as repulsive as for a heterosexual thinking of coupling with someone of the same sex. Whilst nobody is 100% of one orientation, most certainly most are at least 75% orientated towards one sex. And I have also seen a man cry because he is homosexual and would give anything to change that but that is the way he is born. It is strange that those who are born homosexual would do anything for their parents, would love to live up to their expectations and produce the many grandchildren that their parents would love to have. I suspect that many feel that they have betrayed their parents by their in-borne sexual orientation.
I also understand that many teenage boys on understanding the true nature of their sexual orientation choose to end their lives rather than live with society's attitude towards homosexuals. They often feel that they are failing their parents and society because of their sexual orientation.
This can't be right!
From what I have been reading there have been advantages in society producing homosexuals
http://signalshift.com/homosexuality.html
A lot of the disadvantages are caused by man who claims to be exerting God's will in discriminating and in some cases brutualising homosexuals. Gay bashing doesn't just exist in the form of words and I would love to know where in the holy books it states that man must half kill someone because of their sexual orientation.
I don't believe that because of one small passage in the Old Testament is the cause of such laws & unnecessary hatred, I think its man himself. It also has to be remembered that the Holy books were written by man who believed he was writing the word of God and that those books have been rewritten many times over. The laws of the land have been written by man. It is the heterosexual male who has the homophobia (and no doubt this has existed throughout time). I suspect that if heterosexual women wrote the laws there would be laws regarding lesbian love. The overall messages of the religious texts throughout the world is to love one another without judgement.
What is strange is that many centuries ago when the mesh of society was no doubt religion rather than politics (before the laws governing homosexuality were put in place), homosexuality was accepted, it wasn't frowned upon. I believe that today we are much more prudish than our forefathers.
As for God created Adam & Eve and not Adam & Steve? God created Adam,Eve, Steve, Dave, June, etc etc. God made us all regardless of our sexual orientation!

[Pagan-prophet]

^--*Applause*

[Kaldayen]

Quote by Paganprophet:
It would not be discriminating to the crack-heads by not giving them something that is not given to everyone else…

Quote by juantoo3:
This is already covered above. Men are not currently legally able to marry men, same for women. Allowing gay marriage would be giving something to a select minority in preference to everyone else.


I'd like to point to juantoo3 that allowing gays the right to marriage wouldn't give something only to them. Straight would also be allowed to marry someone of the same sex! Does that sound weird to you? Maybe because you didn't choose to be straight... the same way that I didn't choose to be gay.

I was born that way and if I could choose not to be, my life would have been much easier...

[Pilgram]

An "abomination" is an "abomination" is an "abomination." The Bible tells us that homosexuality is an abomination. But it also tells us that eating lobster is too. (See the preceding thread, "Be a homo, eat a lobster").

If you believe homos are equal to you, why not give them equal rights?
If you believe they are abominations, why not kill them as God has commanded?

All this "civil union" talk reminds me of the "separate but equal" nonsense put out by bigots who opposed blacks having equal rights. The mere difference in the title of the thing, "civil union" or "marriage" screams that they are not the same thing. This is the intent of those who want to offer an accomodation or settling for something less than "the real thing." Maybe we can placate the homos and they'll go away and leave us alone. AND we can tell the homophobes that only heteros are good enough to have "real" marriages. (Heteros really value their marriages, too. More than half of all first marriages are thrown away.)

Why anyone would care if two women (or two men) wanted to live together "married" is beyond me. I guess some people just don't have enough to worry about with terrorism, domestic violence, child abuse, ad nauseum...

A gay marriage! Wow! Now that will really keep me up nights pacing and wringing my hands.

[I, Brian]

Recently, the British government legislated to allow "civil unions" whih could be entered into by homosexual couples.

It's not marriage, per se, but it is a way that society is made to recognise that there is a very real - and legally represented - way in which two people of the same gender can live together.

Of course, the problem is that all of us "common-law" heterosexual households are still left without the proper recognition in terms of legality and tax issues, unless we go through some of "marriage ceremony". Some of us have chosen specifically to avoid doing so - we do not want to hold a civil gathering simply so we can be recognised as a couple by the tax man, and we don't want a ceremonial act with religious overtones because it simply does not suit us.

I wonder how that affects this entire equation of "civil unions"?

Btw - El Grecko - you deleted your own post, but nothing is actually removed from the database unless I complete the process. Having read your posting I really don't think it was offensive - it was a heartfelt personal opinion. So long as there is civility in postings then I really don't mind what "political" opinion is expressed. Would you like me to restore it?

[Pilgram]

For those of you who may be confused, the post, "be a homo or eat a lobster - same thing" has been moved from the politics and society forum to the the monotheism forum.

I have written asking for an explanation in case anyone was looking for it in the "previous post" that I mentioned above. Confused? I am too.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Kaldayen!

Originally Posted by Kaldayen

I'd like to point to juantoo3 that allowing gays the right to marriage wouldn't give something only to them. Straight would also be allowed to marry someone of the same sex!

Perhaps, but something about this concept just doesn't sit well. I will grant, "marriage" is the legal endorsement of a "committed" relationship. Yet, something about the "two become one" thing, ostensibly with the intent to procreate (realizing as someone else pointed out, that procreation is not always the intent or even possible even in male/female relationships), something spiritual here is being circumvented. I believe the Tao addresses "dragon yang."

It is difficult to pull genuine examples from nature, so few animals are monogamous. I am not talking about extreme laboratory examples, like the overstressed rats. I am speaking of the likes of a pair of geese in their natural environment. I can think of no example of homosexuality in the natural environment between same sex among "mate for life" creatures. In other words, homosexuality is not the natural order of things, and because it's not the natural order of things, I find it difficult to believe there is a genetic cause. Especially if one adheres to evolutionary dogma (read: logic applied to natural science).

Does that sound weird to you? Maybe because you didn't choose to be straight... the same way that I didn't choose to be gay.

But that's my point, I can be whatever I will myself to be.
"I can do anything I want to do, if I want to do it bad enough." corrollary-"If I want to do something bad enough, I will find a way to do it." By extension, in this example, homosexuality is a choice, one wants to do so bad enough, that they find a way to justify it to themselves and to others.

Again, I state emphatically and for the record, I am not participating in this thread to pick on any individual, I am speaking about the concept, the issue.

So, what offends you, the fact I disagree? Would that make you heterophobic? Are you disagreeable to society as a whole granting or not legal privileges based on behavior? Or perhaps your view is more exclusive, that is, as long as society agrees with your position, then it's OK, but if the majority disagree with you, why, then they must be a bunch of backward cretins who aren't possibly enlightened enough to steer social mores.

I was born that way and if I could choose not to be, my life would have been much easier...

That is the propaganda to promote a feel good attitude about the whole thing. If that makes you feel better about yourself, more power to you. I prefer not to disillusion myself with such hype.

[brucegdc]

Originally Posted by Pilgram

For those of you who may be confused, the post, "be a homo or eat a lobster - same thing" has been moved from the politics and society forum to the the monotheism forum.

I have written asking for an explanation in case anyone was looking for it in the "previous post" that I mentioned above. Confused? I am too.

My guess would be because it is 99% quotes from Torah/The Bible, and a forum moderator felt that a biblical argument belonged better there than here.

By the way, it's usually not a good idea to come across as challenging forum moderators :-) It's being impolite - somewhat like being demanding to your dinner host that you want only Grey Poupon, not that yellow "mustard" stuff to put on your hot dog. (Or, lobster, if you prefer)

[brucegdc]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Recently, the British government legislated to allow "civil unions" whih could be entered into by homosexual couples.
<anip>
the problem is that all of us "common-law" heterosexual households are still left without the proper recognition in terms of legality and tax issues, unless we go through some of "marriage ceremony". Some of us have chosen specifically to avoid doing so - we do not want to hold a civil gathering simply so we can be recognised as a couple by the tax man, and we don't want a ceremonial act with religious overtones because it simply does not suit us.

I wonder how that affects this entire equation of "civil unions"?

Tax issues are an interesting problem. (And social security....). My wife's grandmother has specifically not married her long-time partner for income reasons (they're both widowed and get an increased Social Security because of their departed's contributions). Unfortunately over time the government has so complicated things that you end up with massive monetary consequences that are unintended. (In the US you have an income tax "marriage penalty" with two working spouses - sometimes rather severe, sometimes a positive effect).

My thought is that we should treat marriages just as any business partnership for tax and income reasons. If you're a widow/er the SSI survivor benefits should be payable no matter your future marital status. (Of course, that raises the question of repeat widowhood.. but that's a matter of math).

On the other hand, simplifying the tax system would get rid of a lot of these problems, too.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Pilgram

For those of you who may be confused, the post, "be a homo or eat a lobster - same thing" has been moved from the politics and society forum to the the monotheism forum.

I have written asking for an explanation in case anyone was looking for it in the "previous post" that I mentioned above. Confused? I am too.

No PM or e-mail received - but it does indeed address issues of the Old Testament quite fully and directly, so the "Politics and Society" didn't quite seem the fitting place to leave it. I believe I left a redirect so that you would know it was moved rather than deleted.

[Pilgram]

Originally Posted by brucegdc

My guess would be because it is 99% quotes from Torah/The Bible, and a forum moderator felt that a biblical argument belonged better there than here.

By the way, it's usually not a good idea to come across as challenging forum moderators :-) It's being impolite - somewhat like being demanding to your dinner host that you want only Grey Poupon, not that yellow "mustard" stuff to put on your hot dog. (Or, lobster, if you prefer)

As anyone can plainly see by reading my post without a chip on his shoulder, I simply asked for an explanation. Where did you see a challenge or are you just challenging me? Perhaps you are projecting your own impolite tendencies on another? Looking for a fight?

If a moderator felt "challenged" as you seem to think they should have, perhaps it would have been better if they informed me of such. Or is this your bid to become one?

As you can plainly see a moderator did answer my question and, lo and behold, without complaining of being "challenged." It would appear that you interpret simple questioning as challenging. And as for being impolite, perhaps it was impolite of you to step in and speak for a moderator, and even more impolite of you to judge the quality and intention of my question? But since you threw down the gauntlet...

[juantoo3]

Oh great! Derail a thread with a pissin' contest. Do you mind carrying your squabble somewhere else, like maybe the lobster thread?

[Kaldayen]

So, what offends you, the fact I disagree? Would that make you heterophobic? Are you disagreeable to society as a whole granting or not legal privileges based on behavior? Or perhaps your view is more exclusive, that is, as long as society agrees with your position, then it's OK, but if the majority disagree with you, why, then they must be a bunch of backward cretins who aren't possibly enlightened enough to steer social mores.

Geez... I never called anyone a cretin nor was offended by your post.
My post was to point you out something you might have missed in your own arguments. I never intented to be agressive. If I was (and I don't see where), I'll have to put that on my second language english skills.

[I, Brian]

Chill, people - I appreciate that this is a controversial topic, but let's keep our tempers managed, please.

I don't believe that anyone is really looking for a fight here - but you can be sure if one starts, then I will be the one to finish it.

[suanni]

I thought this was a discussion on the rights for gays to 'marry' not on lobster!!!
If a gay is heterophobic, they could well have the right to be. I've never heard of a heterosexual male be seriously beaten up merely because of their sexual orientation by homosexuals.
Homosexuality is legal in our society so let us not be hypocrites. Either allow them to have the same civil rights as any other heterosexual couple or outlaw it again.