User Tag List

View Poll Results: Gay Marriage - Yes or no?

Voters
72. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    67 93.06%
  • No

    7 9.72%
Multiple Choice Poll.
First 91011121321 Last

Results 101 to 110 of 245

  1. #101
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    50 years from now, people will look back on it like we look back on women not being allowed to vote 100 years ago.
    Some countries already do.

    But yes, the US will most likely catch up before too long, regardless of all the kicking and screaming by bigots. Probably not to the point of eliminating homophobia for a long time if ever (like racism/misogyny), but at least the legal discrimination isn't likely to last too much longer, I would guess.
    -end of thread-

  2. #102
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    But yes, the US will most likely catch up before too long, regardless of all the kicking and screaming by bigots. Probably not to the point of eliminating homophobia for a long time if ever (like racism/misogyny), but at least the legal discrimination isn't likely to last too much longer, I would guess.
    Basically, from my perspective, the impact of the upcoming SCOTUS stuff will determine whether things will plod along and take another 10-20 years in order to change, or whether they might move along more quickly. I mean, right now, there is no gay marriage in CA anyway, and DOMA is still on the books; the only difference if either of these is upheld is basically the declaration that the court is not going to be involved right now and so it'll be harder to appeal any anti-same-sex marriage laws on the state books. Lines have currently been solidified with 9 states + DC allowing same-sex vs 31 states or so that have laws against it (passed starting in the mid 90's?) on the books.

    As soon as more Boomers die off and the Gen Y/Z voting base solidifies, the same-sex marriage prohibitions are going to disappear, though. I expect the more rural states to hold out much longer than any urban centers, but the world has already changed and we're just waiting for the laws to catch up.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  3. #103
    philosopher wood nymph greenfairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    I think we should outlaw straight marriage and give everyone civil unions.



    Quote Originally Posted by cafe View Post
    Like metalmommy, I was raised Christian. I still consider myself Christian and am attending a church that is considered fundamentalist by people who do not call themselves Fundamentalist. The pastor knows my views on gay marriage, etc but he kind of has to put up with me because I'm his sister.

    I'd like to see marriage taken out of the hands of the state and left in the hands of the church. Churches that want to preform gay ceremonies and recognize gay marriages can. Churches that don't want to don't have to.

    I think the state should offer civil unions for secular purposes. Gender shouldn't matter since it's a secular, voluntary legal agreement. It should offer the same protections and responsibilities as marriage does now. I don't even care how many people are in the union. I mean, you would probably have to limit it for practical purposes, but otherwise, who cares?

    We also ought to adress legal rights/responsibilities for those who cohabit without getting married, IMO. People should be able to opt out voluntarily formally and legally. But not *after* the shit hits the fan.

    Since I don't think anything that sensible is likely to happen, I am in favor of gay marriage.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aesthete View Post
    As long as I don't have to hear about Gay Pride Parades again, then fine. I don't understand the point of walking around in a parade to show off your homosexuality.

    My only problem is if the two people happen to be of a noble nature. I mean, by not being able to reproduce, you're breeding good traits out of the population.
    Actually, many homosexuals do have biological children; and those who choose to adopt can transmit those noble traits which are not of a biological nature but more of a psychological nature to their children by rasing them in a loving and educational family.

  4. #104
    Senior Member cafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    INFj None
    Posts
    9,827

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    I think we should outlaw straight marriage and give everyone civil unions.
    I think we'd be putting a lot of people in jail if we did that. However, I'd be fine with going down to the court house and getting my civil union papers if we weren't grandfathered in if it'd make it more fair for everybody.
    “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
    ~ John Rogers

  5. #105
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    Actually, many homosexuals do have biological children; and those who choose to adopt can transmit those noble traits which are not of a biological nature but more of a psychological nature to their children by rasing them in a loving and educational family.
    Yup. Homosexuals have tried het relationships and sometimes produce offspring from those before deciding that they just can't make the relationships work.

    Meanwhile there are a lot of kids in the orphanage/foster system that need parents to give them a foundation.

    I adopted my daughter from another country. She is not genetically linked to me, but she is still my daughter, and there are parts of her personality that have come from me. Good parents transmit positive traits to their children via more than just their indifferent genetic coding.

    I would even say the genetics is the lesser part of what a parent gives a child, since children sometimes find unrelated people who are more parents to them than their own genetic heritagel. You can be born into a particular biological line but you actually have to BUILD a family.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  6. #106
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    This guy seemed to have soaked up some nobility from somewhere:


  7. #107
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,804

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I would even say the genetics is the lesser part of what a parent gives a child, since children sometimes find unrelated people who are more parents to them than their own genetic heritagel. You can be born into a particular biological line but you actually have to BUILD a family.
    That is just totally wrong and reveals the radical consumeristic individualism behind this movement. You don't "build" a family, but are rather given a family. Families are not mere commodities people get to pick and choose according to their own desires. The whole point of a family is that you are bound by blood and covenant. This is comforting in that it gives one a small group to which one belongs not based on merit or likability or any other personal feature other than just being family. It is also limiting in that these people can be just as much a pain as they are a blessing. But these types of limits and duties based on our heritage is part of the essence of what means to be human and when we build, not from scratch, but upon what we have been given then we achieve more than mere vapid novelty in our lives, but a profound deep sense of self and belonging as we responsibly steward that which we have been given.

    Under your framework I don't even know how you would raise children. Sure it's your choice to have jr. and his sister in your house, but what if they don't like each other? You'd be a hypocrite to tell them they have to love each other or owe any duty to each other beyond civility. As soon as they reach a certain age they can love whoever they want and forget about their parents, siblings, or whoever. It's their life and they are free and limitless in how they choose to live. Unfortunately limitless freedom goes against the very nature of humanity and will only lead to despair.

    I think Professor R.J. Snell captured this concept in his brief analysis of The Unbearable Lightness of Being.

    In Milan Kundera’s The Unbearable Lightness of Being, the character Tomas is an inveterate womanizer, a man who takes notes on the particular physical differences, however minute, of the women he seduces. He is light, and free, and must find some difference to be able to distract himself from the boredom of it all. One of his conquests, the naive Tereza, manages to spend the night with him, although he had never spent the night with a lover, as it was one of his cardinal rules that he “should exclude all love from his life.” And here she was, asleep, holding his hand, linking herself to him, clutching on, weighing him down, and “an aura of hitherto unknown happiness” finds him. So much so that they both begin to look forward to sleeping together, of sharing a bed and invariably holding hands; the narrator says, in a poignant line, that “I might even say that the goal of their lovemaking was not so much pleasure as the sleep that followed it.”

    ...

    As I look at the way we are now, I see a people who wish to be light, free from the weightiness of responsibility, limits, duties. We want sex without fertility, food without calories, endless consumer goods without (observable) environmental degradation, religion without law, divorce without fault, mobility without loneliness, bodies without aging, entertainments without limits. We want our freedoms to be endless and without cost, allowing us to float free from now this to now that, casting off identities and responsibilities like old clothes discarded.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  8. #108
    your resident asshole
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    4,407

    Default

    I'm too lazy to read an entire eleven page thread, but I wanted to say something...

    Quote Originally Posted by cafe View Post
    I'd like to see marriage taken out of the hands of the state and left in the hands of the church. Churches that want to preform gay ceremonies and recognize gay marriages can. Churches that don't want to don't have to.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't marriage predate Christianity? Or at least, wasn't it once a very secular thing?

  9. #109
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    This guy seemed to have soaked up some nobility from somewhere:

    My right ear was lonely but that guy seems pretty awesome.

  10. #110
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    That is just totally wrong and reveals the radical consumeristic individualism behind this movement.
    You know, you really piss me off by hijacking and twisting my comment to present your own position. I'm not advocating for consumeristic individualism, and I think it's sloppy logic to leap to that conclusion based on the post that I actually made, so I do not know why you're even going there.

    You don't "build" a family, but are rather given a family. Families are not mere commodities people get to pick and choose according to their own desires. The whole point of a family is that you are bound by blood and covenant. This is comforting in that it gives one a small group to which one belongs not based on merit or likability or any other personal feature other than just being family. It is also limiting in that these people can be just as much a pain as they are a blessing. But these types of limits and duties based on our heritage is part of the essence of what means to be human and when we build, not from scratch, but upon what we have been given then we achieve more than mere vapid novelty in our lives, but a profound deep sense of self and belonging as we responsibly steward that which we have been given.
    This entirely misses my point and leaves me with a few things I'd like to say to you.

    Point #1:
    I have a father who has cut me out of his family circle. He was never much around either when I was growing up, and when he was, he was more like the father in "Dead Poet's Society" than a loving father.

    He will always be my father, and I will always feel a connection with him regardless of whether or not he chooses to ever speak. That's why I continue to hurt over this. I can't disown him, because his absence is as relevant as his presence regardless of what I do. And if he chooses to speak with me again, I will make an effort to maintain some level of connection there.

    But realistically, the only thing he has actually contributed to me was his sperm, and a few moments of history that might have been positive; the bulk has been emotionally abusive or negligent, and literally no advice he EVER bothered to give me has made my life better.

    In this vein, if I happen to find an older man who treats me like a human being and daughter, who I can actually trust to care about me and look out for me, I'm going to view him as my surrogate father. And I see much positive with that, and nothing at all negative... aside from the fact my bio father didn't do his job. But that isn't my fault, is it? It's the result of a fallen, imperfect, selfish world. And I'm not the one being selfish here, as despite all the hurt I'm still willing to give him access to my life if he changes his tune; my bio father is the selfish one, ultimately.


    Point #2: The whole context on my post referred to ADOPTION. How did you miss THAT? You plucked out the part you wanted and ignored the CONTEXT.

    My daughter was abandoned on the streets of China as a three-year-old because she wasn't good enough for her parents to keep. I presume they wanted a boy, and in the face of the one-child rules, she was the child sacrificed so that they could have their boy.

    We spent a lot of money and heartache finding her and then adopting her, and we've had our share of heartbreaks in taking care of her. But there is no doubt that she is OUR daughter. We have been her parents. We took care of her when she's been sick. We've spent countless hours struggling with her through schoolwork that was difficult for her since she came to the US late. We've dealt with her teenage angst and had to make some hard decisions about her family.

    She is not our BIO daughter, she will always be the bio daughter of a nameless couple in China, and she has a hole in her past that grieves her and she needs to come to terms with. Because she was born to another couple. But in every other response, SHE IS *OUR* DAUGHTER. Not these faceless people who abandoned her.

    And that's exactly my point here, which somehow you have completely MISSED.

    1. If a gay person has a child in a het relationship, even if they end up being in a same-sex relationship later, they are still that kid's parent. You've stated it very clearly. So yes, gay people can have custody of and raise their own bio kids regardless of marriage status.

    2. If a het couple can't parent their children effectively and/or abandones their child, and a gay couple is providing the love and respect and parental responsibility that that child needs to feel loved and secure and grow properly, then YES, more power to them. It's not the gay couple's fault for doing the right, kind, loving thing; it's the het parents' fault for abandoning their child. I'm shocked you would attack people who are doing the right thing (and something you're not doing yourself), over some crazy abstracted philosophical difference like this.

    And to drive the point home to you, because of your religious background, too bad Jesus was adopted. I'm pretty darned sure he viewed Joseph as a father and a large portion of the man he was came from Joseph, even if he was beholden ultimately to JHWH.



    Under your framework I don't even know how you would raise children. Sure it's your choice to have jr. and his sister in your house, but what if they don't like each other? You'd be a hypocrite to tell them they have to love each other or owe any duty to each other beyond civility. As soon as they reach a certain age they can love whoever they want and forget about their parents, siblings, or whoever. It's their life and they are free and limitless in how they choose to live. Unfortunately limitless freedom goes against the very nature of humanity and will only lead to despair.
    Again, my comments were in context of adoption. Thanks for taking them out of that context.

    We are unfortunately bound to blood relatives regardless, and since it takes more than one to fix a problem, if the other person is psychologically abusive, disinterested, unwilling, or destructive, then there is no relationship to be had. You will always be related to your bio/blood relatives, so I don't think you can abandon them; but at the same time, there are limits to what that relationship can be if your family members happen to be harmful to you and you can't interact with them.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

Similar Threads

  1. Gay Marriage. Yes or no.
    By highlander in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 12-09-2012, 12:19 PM
  2. Gay Marriage. Yes or no.
    By highlander in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 12-09-2012, 12:19 PM
  3. Preschool, Yes or No?
    By Tigerlily in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 01-07-2009, 12:18 AM
  4. Homeschooling: yes or no?
    By Oberon in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 91
    Last Post: 04-04-2008, 06:01 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO