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 2345614 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 245

  1. #31
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by metalmommy View Post
    The thing is, no one should be asked to change how they feel about the morality of gay marriage. If someone feels it is wrong, they are still allowed to feel that way. That is not the issue. It is about a legal recognition of a partnership. I think @cafe explained it very well, so I won't rehash.

    I just have difficulty understanding why people care who gets married. You're not marrying them, so why do you care? I mean this as a genuine question of logic, not as a judgment. I truly don't get it.

    Churches don't have to marry people if they don't want to. I've known heterosexual couples who have been refused by churches for a variety of reasons. I don't believe this should change. Churches are founded on a certain doctrine, and in this country, that is protected (at least in principle) and that is as it should be.

    Legal unions, however, are about recognition from the state. Neither of my two marriages were sanctioned by any church, but that did not make me any less married.

    And as far as an attack on heterosexuality? I really don't get that. I've never met a single gay person that gives a single crap that i'm straight...well, ok, perhaps the girls I've turned down may have given a crap that they didn't get to sleep with me, but no differently than the men I've turned down. I'm free to love and marry who I want & I don't see why i'm special because I prefer the opposite sex.
    That's kind of my point, actually.

    There's legal and then there's legal union. Legal union as in having formal status that is recognized by the state.

    It shouldn't carry the connotation that the state has suddenly decided that it's morally acceptable and churches now must perform marriages for anyone who wants one - that's exactly part of the reason I'm being particular about the definition.

  2. #32
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by metalmommy View Post
    The thing is, no one should be asked to change how they feel about the morality of gay marriage. If someone feels it is wrong, they are still allowed to feel that way. That is not the issue. It is about a legal recognition of a partnership. I think @cafe explained it very well, so I won't rehash.

    I just have difficulty understanding why people care who gets married. You're not marrying them, so why do you care? I mean this as a genuine question of logic, not as a judgment. I truly don't get it.

    Churches don't have to marry people if they don't want to. I've known heterosexual couples who have been refused by churches for a variety of reasons. I don't believe this should change. Churches are founded on a certain doctrine, and in this country, that is protected (at least in principle) and that is as it should be.

    Legal unions, however, are about recognition from the state. Neither of my two marriages were sanctioned by any church, but that did not make me any less married.

    And as far as an attack on heterosexuality? I really don't get that. I've never met a single gay person that gives a single crap that i'm straight...well, ok, perhaps the girls I've turned down may have given a crap that they didn't get to sleep with me, but no differently than the men I've turned down. I'm free to love and marry who I want & I don't see why i'm special because I prefer the opposite sex.
    I think it is the issue.

    All the campaigning and reforms are all an attempt to use the state and law as leverage to try and resist heteronormativity, make it appear oppressive, even if homonormativity isnt the objective.

    Now I've got a problem with that for a couple of reasons which I can outline fairly concisely, I'll do so and you will perhaps be a little less bewildered as to why anyone can have an issue with this trend at all besides just being the sort of narrow minded jerk or religious bigot that most people try to paint all opposition it as.

    My problem is that typical of all homosexuals I've met and all homosexual texts I've read are massive issues to do with validation, alienation, distress, acceptance and abnormality. I've not met one homosexual who has lived a relatively untroubled life free of any sort of difficulty with parents, peers, society at large. I'm not juding them for that. Some people grow up with that and its even a spur for growth.

    Sources such as Higgn's Heterosexual Dictatorship and pretty much everything associated with academic "queer theory" are all brimming with different sorts of rejection trauma, its a fair question to ask who are they and why do they matter or do they only matter to those who are electing to take a position of opposition to present trends and choose sources liable to represent extremes for the sake of scaremongering. That's fair. I dont believe that these sources are unrepresentative however and they do speak with a voice which does resonate with many members of the homosexual community. Most definitely the most politicised.

    However, that is their experience, it is not going to be to the benefice of either they themselves or anyone else to attempt large scale and deep seated structural and societal adjustments.

    Will it neutralise that zeitgheist or provide the sort of validation or inclusion within a homogenous understanding of equality which superficially appears to be the demand? I doubt it. Will that zeitgheist move on and manifest itself in some other way, perhaps manadatory schooling of young children in homoseuxal lifestyles or habits? I'm sure it will. Would that even be a problem if it happened? Yes it would because historically and presently homosexuals are a minority and there is no evidence to suggest that is changing so all it will achieve is that many more people will share the confusion, distress and unhappy state which was once the preserve of "closetted homosexuals" but they will be heterosexuals aswell homosexuals. The position of society at large will then be more miserable than it was in the first instance and the position of homosexuals liable to be even more miserable if a backlash occurs blaming them all for it.

    Why I think that this is far removed from a simple issue of legal rights is that there was a legal alternative to marriage in the UK, civil partnerships, prominent homosexuals like Elton John supported it and said the distinction wasnt an issue for him and his partner but with the passage of just a couple of years he changed his mind as did all the homosexual pressure groups who had first agreed civil partnership was fine.

    Now marriage has always been interpreted different ways and in different places differently and words are bandied about and people will say this is all a matter of semantics in any case, I know the story about a cowboy in the old west marrying his horse and I also know that the legal profession in the UK at least has been very, very quick to exploit gay divorces, politicians and economists have speculated about the division and subdivision of gay fortunes and legacies through all these legal moves. Although I think that state validating major changes like these, which a lot of people are not prepared to own, and a lot of other people are, if they are honest with themselves, are rushing to own because they dont believe those same others will, is a very bad move.

    So, there it is, you dont need to agree with it but that's the argument, its not moral, its not theological, it is sociological, social psychological and it is reasoned.

  3. #33
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    That's kind of my point, actually.

    There's legal and then there's legal union. Legal union as in having formal status that is recognized by the state.

    It shouldn't carry the connotation that the state has suddenly decided that it's morally acceptable and churches now must perform marriages for anyone who wants one - that's exactly part of the reason I'm being particular about the definition.
    It shouldnt but I bet there's a lot of people who think and hope it will.

    While the churches and their morality are less and less relevent by the day they remain one of the only enduring alternatives to the values which are generated by the economy and which suit the wealthy vested interests the very best therefore there's a lot of serious and organised people who want to put the churches out of business permanently.

    The idea that the state could compell churches to perform ceremonies which are anathema to them and penalise them if they do not comply would be a boon undreamt of by the same people.

  4. #34
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,130

    Default

    So, there it is, you dont need to agree with it but that's the argument, its not moral, its not theological, it is sociological, social psychological and it is reasoned.
    It is, more than anything, paranoid.

  5. #35
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    I've never really understood why people want to be married in churches that they don't actively worship in/have fellowship with. I don't think churches should be forced to perform any ceremonies by law, the very idea makes my teeth hurt. At the same time, I know that many churches considered it anathema to marry an interracial couple, and I'm not sure how the law has responded to that (if at all).

  6. #36
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudo View Post
    How so?
    The deeply tyrannical behavour you're attributing to heterosexuals is actually what is feeding the attempt to change the nature of marriage.

  7. #37
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    I've never really understood why people want to be married in churches that they don't actively worship in/have fellowship with. I don't think churches should be forced to perform any ceremonies by law, the very idea makes my teeth hurt. At the same time, I know that many churches considered it anathema to marry an interracial couple, and I'm not sure how the law has responded to that (if at all).
    Are there really? I dont know of any on this side of the atlantic.

    I dont think the conflation of race and sexual orientation is a good thing because they are not the same thing.

  8. #38
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,595

    Default

    @Lark, your explanation is based primarily on conjecture. It isn't enough for a legal argument against gay marriage.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I dont think the conflation of race and sexual orientation is a good thing because they are not the same thing.
    It is true they are not the same thing because race is a social construct and has less of a biological basis.

    What they do have in common is using marriage as a way to preserve the hierarchies in society. Marriage has a long tradition of being based on inequality of individuals and that has been extended to various aspects of society. Allowing interracial marriage upset those former societal inequalities, and allowing gay marriage also upsets long established hierarchies.
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

  9. #39
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fia View Post
    @Lark, your explanation is based primarily on conjecture. It isn't enough for a legal argument against gay marriage.
    Well, that's your opinion, I base it upon what I've observed and experienced and research I've done, all of which I believe amounts to more than conjecture.

    Legally I dont believe there can be marriage between two persons of the same sex becuase the word marriage is a relationship between two people of opposite sexes. Simplistic but there you go.

  10. #40
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Well, that's your opinion, I base it upon what I've observed and experienced and research I've done, all of which I believe amounts to more than conjecture.

    Legally I dont believe there can be marriage between two persons of the same sex becuase the word marriage is a relationship between two people of opposite sexes. Simplistic but there you go.
    No it is not my opinion because you are stating possible consequences that can only be imagined and not proven. I am not disagreeing with your experience or opinions on research. The conjecture I refer to is the future societal upset you present, which is by definition conjecture.
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

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