When Gays get Married, Who does it Really Bother?

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1807109,00.html?imw=Y
from JoeUser Forums

For some people, marriage between two people of the same sex insults their sensibilities. (and that is putting it mildly!)  It is religiously wrong, because they have some document that proves that it is wrong.  It trumps their sense of right and wrong.    All the implications that can be thought of for why this should not be, they will find it!

 

There are so many boxes that have been created in our lives.  Everything we do and all that we represent fits in those boxes.  You can't be a cirle and fit in a square box, that doesn't work.  You're going against the grain, against all that is natural, known and dare I say holy?  In essense  homosexuals do not fit the roles or the boxes that we have created in this life!  Not in our lifetime, not in our backyards!

 

Am I being immoral because I have no objections to people of the same sex marrying each other?  Some people do think that, I have no doubt about that.   Same sex marriage is not an abomination of marriage in general, or against God as some like to quote.  Same sex marriage does not make my own heterosexual marriage unimportant or less than what it is.  What matters fundamentally is the right of each individual to choose the path that is their God-given right to do.

 

Although the legal papers now says that these people have the right to marry whomever they choose, they still do not have the legal rights, all the rights that a man and a woman in a marriage do.  They won't be able to file taxes together, they won't be able to get all the benefits that a man and a woman in a marriage can from the government, if they need it, because although the law says they are allowed to marry, they are still not equal or legal in every aspects of their lives.

 

The article I have linked above, written by John Cloud, defines and clarify some of the things  the California rulings does or does not do  with the confusion to many about Gay marriage.

 

Marriage between homosexuals doesn't take away our rights as heterosexual individuals just because two men or two women seek to marry each other, but those who object gladly seek to take away what is a fundamental right of each person, their freedom!

 

 

 

marriage bigotry blogging
495,565 views 225 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Doesn't bother me, they deserve to suffer just as much as the rest of us.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Excellent article, FS.

Whenever I hear someone ranting against homosexual rights, the first question that ALWAYS pops into my mind is "Why do YOU care? It has nothing to do with you."

I doubt the anti-gay crowd will admit it, but the real reason gays get such a hard time is people's fear of things they don't understand. They use religion as a crutch to support this fear, but I see through it.

Some of the kindest and most competent people I've known in my life are gay. If people would just let them be, everything would be fine.
Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top

I've heard people say it would destroy marriage. How exactly that could occur or even how they would even know when gays get married is never defined.

I feel it's no different than one religion saying just the fact they know other religions exist cheapens their own beliefs. 

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am sure there are some that are against it purely on a "deviant behavior" basis, or "cause the bible tells them so". And there are others that are against it because "it has always been that way". But there are many for, against, and indifferent to it for many other reasons, very few having to do with the fact it is Adam and Steve instead of Adam and eve.

If you boil it down to the groups listed above versus the proponents, you are never going to get a fair discussion or debate, as you have asked and answered your own question. If you look at all the reasons, pro and anti, you can get a real good discussion going on the subject. And probably be surprised at some of the answers.
Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top

I have no problem with gay marriage at all. 

+1 Loading…
Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top

Marriage is a religious rite. I have no problems with a homosexual union, but the term marriage is saved for a man and a woman for a lifetime commitment.

Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top

Sorry for DP. Darn auth error.

I still believe homosexuality a sin, but I'm not gonna police it if it's not called a "marriage", for a marriage is a religious rite, not a civil union.

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Marriage is a religious rite. I have no problems with a homosexual union, but the term marriage is saved for a man and a woman for a lifetime commitment.


Actually marriage is a civil legal status, pure and simple. For some the wedding itself is a religious rite, for others it's a civil ceremony. Stop being so narrow minded. Plenty of non-religious people, including atheists, get married every day.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
mar·riage Pronunciation[mar-ij] –noun
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
mar·riage Pronunciation[mar-ij] –noun
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
mar·riage Pronunciation[mar-ij] –noun
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.


I really don't see why we should live our lives in the manner in which some godawful nerd says we should. Dictionaries are written by people too - they're not an infallible source of wisdom, nor do they necessarily reflect how most think about words right now.

The meaning of a word changes over time. This is inescapable, inexorable. You cannot order the sun not to shine, you cannot order the waves not to break, you cannot keep a word fixed in time.

So if you believe that a word should only be used for one purpose, you're going to have to justify it. If we changed the definition so that marriage can only be used for breeding pairs of humans, then that could work. But simply saying it should be man and woman when the overwhelming force of linguistic inertia seems to be pushing to make it 'two people joined together' isn't going to work.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
mar·riage Pronunciation[mar-ij] –noun1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.


Yes, I do realize that the dictionary definition includes "man and woman" and "husband and wife". Under the laws in most states that's still accurate. The point was that "marriage" in and of itself is not religious in nature but rather a legal status.

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
they deserve to suffer just as much as the rest of us.


 :LOL:  EXACTLY!
Reply #14 from Stardock Forums Top

Foreverserenity writes:

I have no objections to people of the same sex marrying each other?

MasonM posts:

Doesn't bother me,

CACTOBLASTA POSTS:

I really don't see why we should live our lives in the manner in which some godawful nerd says we should.

LOCAMAMA POSTS:

I have no problem with gay marriage at all.

OCKHAMSRAZOR POSTS:

If people would just let them be, everything would be fine.

How about Tom, Dick and Harry getting married? Or Tom, Dick and Sally? Or Tom, Sally, Julie, Heather and Kate? Or Sally and her loving cat?

 

 

 

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
How about Tom, Dick and Harry getting married? Or Tom, Dick and Sally? Or Tom, Sally, Julie, Heather and Kate? Or Sally and her loving cat?


Well since this isn't about polygamy or bestiality, what exactly is your point? Why must those who feel the need to oppose gay marriage also feel the need to bring up bestiality? It has bearing on the issue at all.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
FOREVERSERENITY WRITES:
Same sex marriage does not make my own heterosexual marriage unimportant or less than what it is.


STUBBYFINGER POSTS:
I've heard people say it would destroy marriage. How exactly that could occur


Of course re-defining marriage to include other arrangements is going to destroy it.


Explain to someone who served in the armed services that the veterans' benefit he justly earned are now going to be extended to those who never served. Explain to senior citizens who get discounts in many different venues that their benefits are going to be made available to everyone regardless of age...and then tell veterans and senior citizens that the new policy will have no effect on them.
Reply #17 from Stardock Forums Top

Explain to someone who served in the armed services that the veterans' benefit he justly earned are now going to be extended to those who never served. Explain to senior citizens who get discounts in many different venues that their benefits are going to be made available to everyone regardless of age...and then tell veterans and senior citizens that the new policy will have no effect on them.


What's their phone number?



I think somebody losing the early bird special discount is bull. It's not about that and and saying it will go to some crazy extreme, well, that's just extremist.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
How about Tom, Dick and Harry getting married? Or Tom, Dick and Sally? Or Tom, Sally, Julie, Heather and Kate? Or Sally and her loving cat?


Well since this isn't about polygamy or bestiality, what exactly is your point? Why must those who feel the need to oppose gay marriage also feel the need to bring up bestiality? It has bearing on the issue at all.


Oh, but it does have bearing on this issue.
Critically think it through to its logical conclusion.

If marriage gets re-defined, then anything goes. We can't discriminate against anyone. To accomodate 2 homosexuals in the name of so-called equal rights, then what't to stop Tom and Dick from falling in love with Harry and claiming "equal rights" to include him in the "marriage"? Would you deny Sally who loves her cat and wants to marry it her "equal rights"? That would be discrimination wouldn't it and we can't have that, can we?



Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Of course re-defining marriage to include other arrangements is going to destroy it.


Nonsense. Men and women will still get married just as they always have. This is a purely nonsensical statement.

Explain to someone who served in the armed services that the veterans' benefit he justly earned are now going to be extended to those who never served. Explain to senior citizens who get discounts in many different venues that their benefits are going to be made available to everyone regardless of age...and then tell veterans and senior citizens that the new policy will have no effect on them.


What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with veterans benefits or senior citizen discounts. Say what you mean. You mean to say that you somehow feel threatened that gay couples will be entitled to the same legal and financial marital benefits as straight couples and in your mind believe that it will somehow take them away from you. That's absurd and has no basis in either logic or fact at all.

Trying to equate marital benefits to veteran's benefits or senior citizen discounts is, in a word, insane. Truth is you and your kind are grasping at silly arguments in an attempt to justify your religion based bigotry.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
lula posts:
How about Tom, Dick and Harry getting married? Or Tom, Dick and Sally? Or Tom, Sally, Julie, Heather and Kate? Or Sally and her loving cat?

MasonM posts:

Well since this isn't about polygamy or bestiality, what exactly is your point? Why must those who feel the need to oppose gay marriage also feel the need to bring up bestiality? It has bearing on the issue at all.


Oh, but it does have bearing on this issue.
Critically think it through to its logical conclusion. Permitting homosexual "marriage" would open a pandora's box of sexual behavior and relationships.

If marriage gets re-defined, then anything goes because it will become impossible to virtually exclude any "relationship" based on "love" and "commitment". We can't discriminate against anyone. Then when Tom and Dick fall in love with Harry then what's to stop them from claiming "equal rights" to "marriage"? Would you deny Sally who loves her cat and wants to marry it her claim to "equal rights"?



Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
FOREVERSERENITY WRITES:
The article I have linked above, written by John Cloud, defines and clarify some of the things the California rulings does or does not do with the confusion to many about Gay marriage.


The link refers mainly to the court's ruling which favors "a few" over the voting will of "the many".

The Court's ruling permitting same-sex “marriages” was in direct opposition to Proposition 22, an initiative to preserve marriage as a union of one man and one woman that was passed in 2000 by more than 61% of California’s voters.

When you think about it these California voters were upholding the mores and later the laws in every higher civilization in the history of the world who inherently understood and sanctioned marriage as an institution as the union of one man and one woman.

These California voters and not the unelected judges realize the grave importance of marriage as something special...Marriage, the union of a man and a woman begins a family which is the virtual building block of cultures and until recent history was treated specially in custom and law. If marriage isn't something special, isn't intended for the good of children, becomes only a secular union for the state to manipulate, then it will be destroyed...and history warns us against such nonsense.

Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
FOREVERSERENITY WRITES:
The article I have linked above, written by John Cloud, defines and clarify some of the things the California rulings does or does not do with the confusion to many about Gay marriage.


The link refers mainly to the court's ruling which favors "a few" over the voting will of "the many".

The Court's ruling permitting same-sex “marriages” was in direct opposition to Proposition 22, an initiative to preserve marriage as a union of one man and one woman that was passed in 2000 by more than 61% of California’s voters.

When you think about it these California voters were upholding the mores and later the laws in every higher civilization in the history of the world who inherently understood and sanctioned marriage as an institution as the union of one man and one woman.

These California voters and not the unelected judges realize the grave importance of marriage as something special...Marriage, the union of a man and a woman begins a family which is the virtual building block of cultures and until recent history was treated specially in custom and law. If marriage isn't something special, isn't intended for the good of children, becomes only a secular union for the state to manipulate, then it will be destroyed...and history warns us against such nonsense.

Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
FOREVERSERENITY WRITES:
The article I have linked above, written by John Cloud, defines and clarify some of the things the California rulings does or does not do with the confusion to many about Gay marriage.


The link refers mainly to the court's ruling which favors "a few" over the voting will of "the many".

The Court's ruling permitting same-sex “marriages” was in direct opposition to Proposition 22, an initiative to preserve marriage as a union of one man and one woman that was passed in 2000 by more than 61% of California’s voters.

When you think about it these California voters were upholding the mores and later the laws in every higher civilization in the history of the world who inherently understood and sanctioned marriage as an institution as the union of one man and one woman.

These California voters and not the unelected judges realize the grave importance of marriage as something special...Marriage, the union of a man and a woman begins a family which is the virtual building block of cultures and until recent history was treated specially in custom and law. If marriage isn't something special, isn't intended for the good of children, becomes only a secular union for the state to manipulate, then it will be destroyed...and history warns us against such nonsense.

Reply #24 from Stardock Forums Top

I'm not a big gay marriage proponent, BUT, I think people are people no matter what.  I also do not think that it is okay to deny people who are in a committed, monogamous relationship just like a married heterosexual couple the tax benefits and employment benefits that I receive just because I am a woman and I chose to marry a man. 

Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
The wolf is coming, the wolf is coming!