MERGED (yet again): All Gay Marriage Discussion Here Please

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
BrownEyedBoy said:
How would the species carry on? Everyone would be married to people of the same sex so reproduction would be out of the question...


Where have you been? Gay couples have children all the time through a variety of fertilization techniques. Reproduction wouldn't be "out of the question" at all. Is reproduction the only reason to get married? Because if it is, then I'm fucked. If you'll pardon the pun.
 
BrownEyedBoy said:
May I pose a hypotethical situation? What if...in some strange psychological cataclism(highly unlikely but bear with me here) EVERYONE and I mean absolutely everyone decided to turn gay and get married? How would the species carry on? Everyone would be married to people of the same sex so reproduction would be out of the question...

If this occurred would you even think about encouraging same-sex marriage?

(BTW, I just wanted to see what you thought...I don't agree with same sex marriages but that will never give me the right to try to enforce other people to think like me.)

Cheers

This is a ridiculous question. First of all who cares, we'd have a happy and short lived species. I'd rather have that than a long living unhappy one.

Second, so we're going back to the marriage is only for breeders argument? So my widowed grandmother who remarried, my friends who can't or have no desire to have kids, these marriages are void? So we should go to running a nation that will only allow those who plan on having the 2.5 kids, dog and picket fence get married? Might as well take it a step further and just implement everything from Brave New World.

Hey let's all "turn gay".
 
:eyebrow: Why discuss and impossible scenario? Even if it were possible in that crazy scenario it would make any reproductive difference if you allowed people to marry or not. What if something happened in the environment that caused everyone to go sterile, would you support opposite-sex marriage then :wink:?
 
Agree with the others. The whole world won't "turn gay" anytime soon, which makes me wonder why people bring it up, and besides, we're overpopulated as it is-there's no danger of the population dying off anytime soon, believe me. If a few couples here and there decide to not have children, I think we'll all still be just fine.

Not to mention, can somebody please tell me what business it is of anybody else's whether or not a couple chooses to have children in the first place? That's a decision the couple makes on their own, they don't need everybody else's input.

Angela
 
BrownEyedBoy said:
May I pose a hypotethical situation? What if...in some strange psychological cataclism(highly unlikely but bear with me here) EVERYONE and I mean absolutely everyone decided to turn gay and get married? How would the species carry on? Everyone would be married to people of the same sex so reproduction would be out of the question...

If this occurred would you even think about encouraging same-sex marriage?

What an absolutely ridiculous question. Same-sex marriage is *already* happening, and, guess what? I don't see straight people suddenly "turning gay." As expected, a minority consistent with projections on the population of gays (<10%) of all marriages are same-sex marriages.

Think about it from your own POV. You know yourself; you'll know whether you're straight, bisexual, or gay. Now, in light of same-sex marriages occurring somewhere in the world, has your sexuality changed? I didn't think so.

Melon
 
BrownEyedBoy said:
May I pose a hypotethical situation? What if...in some strange psychological cataclism(highly unlikely but bear with me here) EVERYONE and I mean absolutely everyone decided to turn gay and get married? How would the species carry on? Everyone would be married to people of the same sex so reproduction would be out of the question...

If this occurred would you even think about encouraging same-sex marriage?

(BTW, I just wanted to see what you thought...I don't agree with same sex marriages but that will never give me the right to try to enforce other people to think like me.)

Cheers

Well...it's an impossible scenario so I don't know why it's even worth discussing.

Firstly - some people are gay, some are straight, some are bisexual. You can't make straight people gay any more than you can make gay people straight. So allowing gay marriage will have no effect on the number of gay people in the world.

Secondly - gay marriage is already legal in several countries around the world and... *drum roll* people aren't turning gay!

Finally - you can't base support or opposition to something based on an extreme hypothetical situation that will never occur. You have to base your decisions on the real world, on what's actually happening, not on an impossible hypothetical.
 
I agree with Fizzing and some other people. You can't base opinions on unrealistic hypothetical situations.
 
But you got to admit it was fun or at least mildly entertaining to think about it for a while...:wink: .

I just wanted to see what you guys thought. Gay people can marry the daylights out of each other for all I care.
 
It's not just gays, a lot of people have problems with their family and friends not accepting their marriage. What about interracial and interreligious marriages? Or in my case, people just don't like the guy?

Being a loser has made me even more sympathic to the plights of others than I already was. It's a sad thing not be accepted for what you are, to have those in your life withhold love or acceptance unless you meet certain criteria, such as, you are just like them, or you at least agree with them, or you are something they can brag on. I have a hard time with this because I am not rich and don't live in a fancy place they can brag about, and I married someone they don't approve of. It's a sad and lonely thing to be rejected for what you are. I mean, if somebody is an asshole and has done something bad I can understand it. But to reject, shun or not accept someone just because of their financial status or sexual orientation is just stupid, rude and a waste of everyone's life:(
 
Kamal Ahmed and Gaby Hinsliff
Sunday March 28, 2004
The Observer

The first laws giving gay people the right to 'marry' are to be unveiled this week in one of the most significant changes to Britain's social make-up since the passing of equal opportunities legislation in the 1960s.
Attempting to show it still has a radical edge, the Government will say that all couples who sign up to a committed relationship should have the same rights, regardless of sexual orientation.

'It is about equality,' said a Whitehall source. 'It is not about special favours - they will have the right to commit to one another and the responsibilities that brings.'

Under the Civil Partnerships Bill to be published on Wednesday, same-sex couples will be able to sign a register held by the register office in a procedure similar to a marriage. Although the Government will insist it is not officially a 'marriage' but rather a contract between two people, the fact that couples will have to announce their intentions beforehand in a similar way to the reading of the banns before a wedding reveals its true effect.

Couples will have rights to pensions similar to married couples, will not have to pay inheritance tax on property passed between them when one dies and will have access to hospital records similar to that allowed for a spouse.

The distress caused by the lack of rights for gay couples was highlighted by Trevor Bentham, who lived for 22 years with the actor Sir Nigel Hawthorne. Bentham had to pay a six-figure tax bill on Sir Nigel's half-share of their home, a 15th-century manor house in Hertfordshire, when the Yes Minister actor died.

The Government has decided not to demand that gay couples should go through an official ceremony as heterosexual couples do but will leave it to the discretion of local authorities. It is likely that most councils will allow ceremonies to take place.

Couples who then want to split will have to go through a dissolution in the courts, similar to a divorce. If there are children, maintenace payments will have to agreed.

The publication of the Bill reveals the remarkable change in the political status of gay people in Britain - and the main political parties are now scrambling for the gay vote. Tomorrow the Conservatives will hold their first ever 'gay summit' and will demand that the Government go even further. The party that introduced Section 28, banning the promotion of homosexuality by local authorities, will now argue that it is the place for the gay vote.

Whitehall sources close to the drafting of the Bill said it may not go far enough for some members of the gay lobby. It appears that pension rights for surviving partners will not be as generous as for married couples. Pension rights will not be backdated as they are for married couples, meaning gay couples will get a smaller amount. Some officials blamed the Treasury for blocking it because it was too expensive.

Ben Summerskill, director of the leading gay campaigning group, Stonewall, said: 'Most people's objective for civil partnership is full equality. It is not something we can introduce gradually.'

The Tories hope that disappointment on pensions may give them an opportunity to attack the Bill. 'It may well be that we turn out to be ahead of the Government here,' said Alan Duncan, shadow constitutional affairs Minister and the only openly gay Tory MP. 'We are watching very closely to see if the inheritance tax provisions are fair and match those of a married couple.

Duncan will speak out on civil partnerships at tomorrow's Tory summit on gay issues. It will tackle problems from getting health insurance to homophobic bullying in schools. Brian Paddick, the gay Metropolitan Police commander, will discuss homophobic hate crime alongside Steve Norris, Tory candidate for London Mayor and an outspoken advocate of gay-friendly policies.

Summerskill said: 'At the moment it is a question of (the Tories) dipping their toes in the water, and I'm not sure that gay electors will be skinny-dipping with Michael Howard just yet.'

At the last two elections research suggests nearly half the 'pink vote' backed Labour: around a third of gay electors voted Liberal Democrat, with only nine per cent for the Tories.
 
For gay Catholic, marriage video shown at Mass was 'vile'
By Associated Press, 3/29/2004

To the devout Catholic, it seemed sacrilegious: a video shown at the end of Mass that he felt ridiculed his rights and disparaged the lives of countless other Americans.

So when the eight-minute antigay marriage video ended yesterday at the St. John the Evangelist Church in Canton, Chuck Colbert stood up and told the congregation: "I'm a gay Catholic man, I'm engaged to be married, and I will be married on May 20 in Cambridge. I mean you no harm."

On the day before state lawmakers were scheduled to continue considering a proposed amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that would outlaw same-sex marriage, some parishioners spoke out against him, and ushers asked him to leave. Church officials called the police.

"The law is that there is no disrupting a worship service," said the Rev. Michael Doyle, the church's pastor, who noted that the video was distributed by the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, an advocacy arm of the Catholic church that has lobbied lawmakers against gay marriage. "Mass isn't a time for people to voice their opinions about what they agree with or disagree with."

For Colbert, 48, speaking out was a matter of conscience. The Cambridge freelance writer, reached at home by phone yesterday, said he went to Canton after a friend told him about the video.

"It was the most contemptuous, vile, slanderous piece of political propaganda that I have ever seen in a Roman Catholic church," he said, adding that the video suggested that wedded gay couples would take away benefits from the poor and elderly. "What they said was so scandalous, I felt out of the gospel values I hold dear, I had to bear witness to the truth of my own life." Similar sentiments were expressed yesterday at Old South Church in Copley Square, where clergy from area churches and synagogues met for an interfaith service titled, "Praying for Freedom, Confronting Oppression, Celebrating Justice."

At the 9 a.m. Mass at St. John's in Canton, the presiding priest, Father Hal Obayashi, delivered a sermon about adultery and then showed the video, which he introduced by discussing how Christians should be tolerant of others but not avoid speaking the truth, Doyle said. Later in the day, after Colbert left the church on his own, Doyle said it was not a typical part of Mass to show a politically oriented video. But, he added, "These are extraordinary times."

The bolded statement above is, at least, one of the reasons why I have major issues with Catholicism today. A "good Catholic" is supposed to shut up, and this is pretty much the culture of the entire religion. You have all these grumbling followers who, pretty much, while they may have vast disagreements with the hierarchy, still give the priests the illusion that everything is okay.

I also tend to think that this fits many of the practicing Catholics in here even; some major disagreements with the Church, but they still go, as if nothing was wrong. All I have to ask is "Why?" Why is this culture of silence somehow okay? This is a sincere question, and I would like an answer, if someone has one.

Melon
 
melon said:

All I have to ask is "Why?" Why is this culture of silence somehow okay? This is a sincere question, and I would like an answer, if someone has one.

Melon

Fear, it's like this nation as a whole is in a coma. We're instilled the values of respect your elders, we're taught that those in power somehow always know what they're doing, but very few are raised to question everything. When we're young we question everything(I mean just hang out with a 5 year for a day), but then something happens we get to an age and we're just comfortable believing what we're handed.

I ask this question of myself and my peers all the time, and what's scary is most don't see it as a problem. But most of them have a family, have a place to live, descent job, and all their rights safely secured with a nice little bow called a 401K.
 
It's against the law to get up and say something in church? Just to say something? I mean, I certainly understand being loud or violent, but just to say something?

Also: does this mean I can call the cops every time someone's cell phone rings during Mass? :hyper:
 
I dont think I can post pictures because I'm not a premium member. http://img20.photobucket.com/albums/v61/Mydako/Gaia/gay.gif

but I like this banner. It for me also brings back to the topic about is marriage just for procreation.

Speaking from semi-personal experience...I dont mind it when people don't agree with being gay or whatever. I dont understand it. And I think that may be the only reason I dont always like people bitching about gay marriage ruining the world. What I dont understand is why people see it as a threat or anything. Why not just let people be?

I've experienced some really homophobic attitudes at my school for the past few years. Luckily nothing violent has happened because of the situation. But still. I dont like having my friends or myself taunted. I find it strange. I dont really get offended. I feel that the person doing the taunting just looks dumb. Ya know, being accepted is just being rejected by those who arent accepted.

I hope this post made some sense. I really dont know what my point is/was. I'm just trying to relate this to a personal experience.
 
I was reading in the paper today that the marriages performed in Massachussetts next month will not be invalidated by the amendment, if the amendment is finally ratified. Those couples married in Mass. after May 17 will be always married.


That made me happy, in a quiet and celebratory way. :)
 
Donot be happy yet,,,,,,THe Governor is attempting to get the court to hold off marriages until the commonwealth gets to vote on the ammendment.

So far the AG is refusing to approach the court on this.
 
Dick Cheney's Wife's Lesbian Tale
by Beth Shapiro

Posted: April 1, 2004 5:02 p.m. ET

(New York City) It might have gone unnoticed, relegated to a small corner of the archives, but with the focus of the nation on gay marriage Lynne Cheney's past is coming back and it could haunt the GOP through this year's presidential campaign.

Cheney is wife of Vice President Dick Cheney and the mother of Mary Cheney who is out. But, Lynne Cheney has her own lesbian past; a 1981 novel she penned called "Sisters".

Penguin books is republishing the book in paperback. It will be out next week.

Billed as a novel about feminism in the Old West, the book features all of the things her husband's party reels against. There are plenty of condoms, lots of prostitution and a torrid lesbian love subplot.

The book is bound to raise the hackles of conservatives. Dick Cheney has already been forced to disavow comments he made during the last election campaign that gay marriage is an issue that should be left to the states. The Vice President now joins his boss in supporting an amendment to the US Constitution to ban gay marriage.

And, Cheney once proud to discuss his lesbian daughter on the campaign trail, refuses to answer questions about her reaction to his flip flop on gay marriage. (story) As for Mary Cheney, she is running her father's campaign, but has refused to comment on either her father's newly found position or gay marriage.

It is likely mom Cheney's book which shows lesbian relationships in a positive light will feature prominently in attacks on the administration.

In announcing the republication of the book Publishers Weekly said "Sisters" contains "lots of turgid prose, heaving bosoms, female characters who are proto-feminists and practice safe sex with multiple partners -- and a juicy lesbian subplot."

Lynne Cheney has spent much of her professional life writing and speaking about the importance of history and holds a Ph.D. with a specialization in 19th century British literature from the University of Wisconsin.

One gay bookstore has already seized on the opportunity to politicize the book.

Left Bank Books in St. Louis says it will donate 10 percent of proceeds to the scholarship fund of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's annual Creating Change Conference.

Oh what is the GOP to do with those Cheneys? :happy:

Melon
 
with all due (???) respect to people's opinions, if the attack comes down to an assault on a novel written 23 years ago, byt the WIFE, then they have certainly hit the bottom.


but as they say, this is politics, and anything goes right?
:crack:
 
Angela Harlem said:
with all due (???) respect to people's opinions, if the attack comes down to an assault on a novel written 23 years ago, byt the WIFE, then they have certainly hit the bottom.


but as they say, this is politics, and anything goes right?
:crack:

Well I think there is a certain point to this. One I think it says something about our society that two women together is much more accepted than two men. And two a politician is involved in an administration who's trying to take away homosexual's rights, yet they had no problem making money off it's alure.
 
162.jpg


Read more excerpts here:

http://whitehouse.org/administration/sisters.asp
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


One I think it says something about our society that two women together is much more accepted than two men.
is that true?

I thought the only difference is that more horny males would want to know what goes on in the bedroom of 2 women

but I wouldn't call that more accepted
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom