Why Is Gay Marriage Wrong? - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-14-2008, 12:24 AM   #61
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 10:37 AM
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 12:25 AM   #62
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 08:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by yolland

What would you say is the main reason?
The main reason for 2 people of the opposite sex to get married thru the last 6000 years is:


To be able to consummate their love first thru hetrosexual intercourse and then create a family by said intercorse by first entering into religious sacrament and or a covenant/contract between 2 people of the opposite sex.

This is the defintion of the word marriage for most people in America, but not most ppl in FYM

<>
__________________

__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 02:39 AM   #63
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 04:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
The main reason for 2 people of the opposite sex to get married thru the last 6000 years is:


To be able to consummate their love first thru hetrosexual intercourse and then create a family by said intercorse by first entering into religious sacrament and or a covenant/contract between 2 people of the opposite sex.
But this is simply wrong. Marriage based on romantic love between two individuals freely choosing one another as spouses is a quite recent and distinctly Western innovation. In Biblical times (and for centuries afterwards) marriages were arranged by parents, usually in the couple's early teen years if not before, primarily on the basis of socioeconomic considerations and of course with the woman being legally conceived of as property to be transferred from father to husband. The point was to ensure that young people assumed the expected responsibilities of adults, which included (for women) bearing and caring for children and (for men) fathering children and providing for them and one's wife/wives, while creating socially and economically useful enhanced ties between their families of birth in the process. That's not to say that the emotion we now call 'falling in love' was unknown, or that the occasional lucky couple didn't get to marry based on that thanks to sympathetic parents, or that especial tenderness and compassion towards one's spouse weren't important moral ideals; but "consummating" romantic love and honoring it as the basis for lifelong personal commitment wasn't at all the point.

We're lucky enough today to enjoy that privilege (or more correctly, heterosexuals are), so already we've made at least one radical readjustment to the definition. Actually, make that four--because now marriages require the imprimatur of the state, in fact they may be granted directly by the state; because women are now legally equal parties to their spouses; and because effective contraception is now widely available and the state doesn't take a couple's intention to have children (or not) into account when bestowing 'married' status. According to the (US) Census Bureau, as of 2006, 27% of all married couples under 50 had no children--not exactly a typical-of-the-last-6000-years statistic. (Adoption, of course, always was and still is a legally available option for infertile married couples.)

It doesn't seem that we (heterosexuals) have any problems with these changes to the definition of marriage or the expectations placed on married couples when they're made for our benefit. For all the huffing about 'natural order' and 'scripture says,' we don't seem to mind radically redefining the expectations of 6000 years ago where heterosexuals' love lives are concerned. So why the squeamishness about honoring gay couples' love and, where applicable, desires to create families through adoption? Why do we claim for ourselves the legal right to choose whether and whom to marry, and whether or not to have children, and we're fine with those 'little' modifications, but then when it comes to gay couples, it's conveniently all-or-nothing--and since they can't manage the children-through-intercourse part, no dice? I see nothing honorable or worthy in this.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 04:28 AM   #64
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond




i will ignore the predictable posters who result to name calling.

fresh take, VPunk.
i turned down money for sex with men a few times in my youth, what's that make me?

discretionary?
choosey?
prigish?
a bigot?



<>
Afraid of the AIDS?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 04:59 AM   #65
Refugee
 
jonnytakeawalk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: living underground, eating from a can
Posts: 1,233
Local Time: 03:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by VintagePunk


My gut reaction to that article? He's totally closeted and in denial.
I thought being gay was not a choice- something that is inherent. You don't choose to be gay much the same as you don't choose to be straight-You just are. However some of you are suggesting that this guy is a closeted homosexual who has chosen to be straight.

I guess what I'm asking is- for something that is so inherent and so much a massive part of who you are how is at all possible to 'surpress' your sexual orientation. I myself could never make a decision to form relationships and sleep with the same sex because it's just not who I am. I thought it was much the same for gay people.

Social pressures aside if being gay is so much a part of who you are how is it at all possible to surpress it at all?
__________________
jonnytakeawalk is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 05:18 AM   #66
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


See my census reason.

Don't call it marrige because that denotes something else.

So the Govt can track all subgroups fairly (who are bethrothed-straightly or gayly) and be sure all ppl receive benefits equally this way there would be automatic checks and balances for sub groups.


How's that for my secular progressive open minded some what religious govt loving agency folk?

<>
Why don't you do something conservative... cut back the marriage benefits to avoid scams.

Or allow gays to adopt and lesbians buy their way to reproduction with IVF; thats achieving parity. Or remembering that marriage is not a contract to have kids, one may have a child without marrying just as one can freely have sex out of wedlock (which is a very good thing, it stops people marrying young and gives some women a shot at a career that they otherwise wouldn't get).

Opposition to the secular agenda and the establishment clause is anti-American in the truest sense of the word, it goes against the founding principles of the state and what those principles guarantee; freedom for faggotry
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 05:36 AM   #67
Refugee
 
jonnytakeawalk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: living underground, eating from a can
Posts: 1,233
Local Time: 03:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
just as one can freely have sex out of wedlock (which is a very good thing, it stops people marrying young and gives some women a shot at a career that they otherwise wouldn't get).
I agree absolutely. Not sure I understand your 'gives women a shot at a career' argument though but anyway I guess that discussion is for another thread.
__________________
jonnytakeawalk is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 05:55 AM   #68
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:37 AM
In a world where women are expected to marry young and have kids early the proportion half the populations options are severely curtailed.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 08:01 AM   #69
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 10:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by jonnytakeawalk


I thought being gay was not a choice- something that is inherent. You don't choose to be gay much the same as you don't choose to be straight-You just are. However some of you are suggesting that this guy is a closeted homosexual who has chosen to be straight.



you have heard of the term "the closet," yes?


[q]I guess what I'm asking is- for something that is so inherent and so much a massive part of who you are how is at all possible to 'surpress' your sexual orientation. I myself could never make a decision to form relationships and sleep with the same sex because it's just not who I am. I thought it was much the same for gay people.[/q]


erm, i suppressed being gay for a long time. it was called being in the closet. would you like a list of people who have tried hard to be straight, gotten married, had children, and yet lived lives of psychological torment because they were unable to come out of the closet for a variety of reasons? you act as though there are no consequences to coming out, and there are. huge ones. kids are kicked out of homes. parents disown you. so people stay in the closet and feign heterosexuality in order to avoid these homophobic consequences. the impulse to love someone of the same gender will never go away, but it is possible to live a life of denial.


Quote:
Social pressures aside if being gay is so much a part of who you are how is it at all possible to surpress it at all?
have you ever watched the news? have you ever heard of Larry Craig? have you ever heard of Mark Foley? have you ever heard of Roy Cohn? have you ever heard of J. Edgar Hoover?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 08:17 AM   #70
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 10:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


The main reason for 2 people of the opposite sex to get married thru the last 6000 years is:

To be able to consummate their love first thru hetrosexual intercourse and then create a family by said intercorse by first entering into religious sacrament and or a covenant/contract between 2 people of the opposite sex.

This is the defintion of the word marriage for most people in America, but not most ppl in FYM
Really? So sexless marriages (for whatever reason-physical, psychological) are invalid, non-religious ceremonies and marriages between non-religious people are invalid, childless marriages are invalid. Anything else? Lots o' heterosexual intercourse and lots'o kids= wonderful marriage-right? Haha, if only.

Sometimes "definitions" have to be redefined. It's called progress for the good of all humanity, in the name of human equality. Name one perfectly valid way in which any homosexual marriage has any negative effect on your marriage.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 08:39 AM   #71
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 10:37 AM
By AP/ALLISON HOFFMAN

(SAN DIEGO) — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Friday that he would fight an initiative to amend the California Constitution to ban same-sex marriage if it qualifies for the November ballot.

Schwarzenegger has vetoed bills that would allow gay marriage but said he opposes the sort of amendments that are being proposed by two competing groups. Such amendments are already on the books in 26 states, but the governor said it would be a "waste of time" to pursue one in California.

"I will always be there to fight against that," Schwarzenegger said, prompting loud cheers and a standing ovation from about 200 people at the annual convention of the Log Cabin Republicans, the nation's largest gay Republican group.

The Austrian-born governor immediately cracked that he wished activists would instead focus on passing an amendment to allow naturalized citizens to run for president.

Both proposed initiatives would limit marriage to heterosexuals, and one measure would revoke the spousal rights and tax benefits currently extended to same-sex couples under state laws.

Schwarzenegger supports the current benefits for same-sex couples. In vetoing bills that would have legalized gay marriage, he has said he thinks the question should be up to voters or the courts, not lawmakers.

Geoffrey Kors, executive director of the gay rights group Equality California, said Schwarzenegger's opposition could help defeat a marriage ban or even prevent it from getting enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.

"We were thrilled. We have been asking him to do this," said Kors, whose group's volunteers have been working to persuade people not to sign petitions for the proposed initiative. "The governor's support to defeat it is critical."

Kors said Schwarzenegger's stand has precedent. In 1978, former Republican Gov. Ronald Reagan came out against a ballot initiative that would have made it illegal for gay men and lesbians to work as teachers in California public schools, an act that "made gay rights issues nonpartisan," Kors said.

Proponents of the initiatives said Schwarzenegger is risking the ire of conservative voters.

"He says he'll veto legislation redefining marriage but now he says he'll fight a ballot measure protecting marriage," said Randy Thomasson, of VoteYesMarriage.com, whose amendment would revoke domestic-partnership benefits including hospital visitation, community property and child support. "He's pandering to this group."

Andrew Pugno, a lawyer for ProtectMarriage.com, said the intention of his group's less far-reaching amendment was simply to keep the existing definition of marriage approved by the Legislature from being overturned by the courts.

Both groups have until April 28 to gather signatures from 694,354 voters to qualify the measures for the November election.

Schwarzenegger is a defendant in a group of lawsuits brought by same-sex couples seeking to overturn the state's longtime statutory ban on gay marriage. A ruling in the case is expected soon from the California Supreme Court.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 09:04 AM   #72
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 09:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


The main reason for 2 people of the opposite sex to get married thru the last 6000 years is:


To be able to consummate their love first thru hetrosexual intercourse and then create a family by said intercorse by first entering into religious sacrament and or a covenant/contract between 2 people of the opposite sex.

This is the defintion of the word marriage for most people in America, but not most ppl in FYM

<>
You couldn't be more wrong...

Show me where this definition exists outside of FYM...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-14-2008, 09:16 AM   #73
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:37 AM
Religious institutions hold that definition quite a bit, in a secular liberal democracy (a country that protects individual liberty in the confines of elected systems of government) the argument has no place.

This thread just clarifies for the n-th time that the secular arguments against it are few and far between and seem to rest solely on the artifacts of the status quo as retroactive justification for contemporary bigotry.

Although I would love to know how this one man for one woman argument for marriage is getting justified by somebody who's randy prophet had a conveniently sexy revelation for polygamy; I understand that the church changed it's position but that really undercuts those slights that science is useless because it doesn't give absolute truth.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 09:21 AM   #74
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 07:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Although I would love to know how this one man for one woman argument for marriage is getting justified by somebody who's randy prophet had a conveniently sexy revelation for polygamy

__________________
martha is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 10:17 AM   #75
Registered User
 
acrobatique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 68
Local Time: 10:37 AM
Just a question on "choice":

Do people posting here - gay or straight - believe that it is possible for a straight person to enjoy gay sex, yet still consider themselves "heterosexual" in terms of not being romantically attracted to the same sex? Ie, they could not date or be overly attracted to the same sex in a romantic or relationship sense, but in the throes of passion enjoy the lesbian/gay sex act?

Or do they feel that person is 'closeted' or 'in denial'?

I don't think enough weight is given to 'choice' to be honest. I agree with 'it just is' or 'I just am', however some people have done both and like both and simply choose to let one figure more prominently in their lives..a great reason would be a strong desire to bear offspring that are your own and raise them with their father/mother, who you love.

Here's another question: if we call all unions 'marriage', can a person marry both a man and a woman? Have a three-part marriage? Why or why not? What difference does it make?
__________________

__________________
acrobatique is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com