Gay Marriage, Do you support or oppose? Options

[Nashvixen]

Alrighty, I didn't read many of the other posts.
I actually started laughing to hard at the one about abolishing marriage altogether, because that's a flattering idea.
I think gay marriage should be legalized. I was raised a Southern Baptist, very rooted in my faith. Now, I'm chopping down my cherry tree to be more open-minded. Obviously, the male and female anatomy were meant to be joined with opposite sexes. It's a fact of nature. However, marriage isn't solely about sex, and sex isn't solely about physical being if you love someone.
I also don't think that the government should dictate whether two people in love can or cannot become equals to opposite sex couples. Like marijuana, people are going to do it either way. Might as well make it lawful. The stoners are still going to smoke, and the homosexuals are still going to be intimate.
I personally couldn't imagine a world without Will & Grace characters. (My ALL TIME favortie show!!!)
BTW, anyone who cares to know. I'm straight, single, and sleepy. Proud of them all. lol

Attached File(s)

 nashville.jpg ( 27.34K ) Number of downloads: 1

 

[racoons > you]

Like marijuana, people are going to do it either way. Might as well make it lawful.

uh ok... im gonna kill u anyway, wanna make it lawful an save me the trouble of going under cover


you're argument was fine, but that really detracted from it, its ridiculous thing to say

[Nashvixen]

i support it. let people do whatever they want with their lives. i mean people are always saying *live your life to the fullest* and if that means being with someone of the same gender then they should be able to do just that. i also dont get why people are considered gross if they marry within their family.

It's considered unethical because children of the couple can develop serious hereditary complications.

meh, i really don't feel like reading the whole thread... but i'm going to tap into the morality of all this... in my opinion, homosexuals should not be given access to the institution of marriage. marriage is not simply a "right" or even a declaration of love. it has been defined as the social, economic, legal, and spiritual union of a man and a woman for thousands of years in virtually every culture of the world. if homosexuals were given access to this institution simply because they "love" each other, would there be a need to restrict marriage between cousins or even set a minimum age for marriage? by not allowing gay marriage, we aren't depriving them of their "rights;" we're simply upholding the definition of the sacred institution that has been in existence for years and years. we cannot allow a radical movement to simply impose this whole new definition of marriage on our society. previous radical movements, such as anti-slavery and women's suffrage, have succeeded because they are in accord with natural morality and law; however, gay marriage is not in accord with this natural law. i'm not anti-homosexual; i'm actually very tolerant of them; i don't mind homosexual relationships at all. i just don't believe that our society should change the original definition of "marriage."

I have to admit, you have a great point! But as far as marriage being the social, economic, legal, and spiritual union of man and woman: Look at society today. Young, gorgeous women are marrying old, rich men only for the wealth, not any sort of spiritual connection. Half of marriages end in divorce, and just a few years ago, this socially wasn't acceptable. I'd argue that "legally" you can be married and not even know anything about your spouse than their full name!
My sister's father is married to a woman and has been for at least 30 years (and yes, he had my younger sister when he was in his early 40s), and hasn't seen or spoken to his wife in about 10 years. This is simply because neither want to "waste" the money filing for divorce.
I can't argue with you on the cousin/age topic. I don't think minors (like myself) should be allowed to get married, even with parental permission, because 15-year-olds and younger aren't ready for a relationship of that nature and 17-year-olds probably don't know exactly what they want (with some exceptions :wink: ). But nevertheless, you have a good point there.
As far as marriage being a union between "man and woman" for years and years, over time, and still today, there is polygamy, and this is a perversion of what we know as "marriage". If this is the sacred institution as well, I for one want nothing to do with any part in it.
For "years and years", women were "naturally" the weaker sex, so the women's suffrage movement (and pardon, this is a hot topic for me, I'm very passionate) wasn't really "lawful" by the definition of the time. Don't get me wrong here, now, because I'm a feminist and I owe all my being to my foremothers for my freedom as a female, but there are still sexists and male-chauvenists everywhere! (This goes same with racism and "the White Male System").
I, as well, am accepting of homosexual relationships (in fact two close friends of mine are newly dating and are suffering ALOT of judging lately), but I ask everyone to reanalyze the modern-day "marriage" before condemning same-sex marriage.

[Nashvixen]

uh ok... im gonna kill u anyway, wanna make it lawful an save me the trouble of going under cover
you're argument was fine, but that really detracted from it, its ridiculous thing to say

People smoke cigarettes daily. Billions upon billions of cigarettes. It's killing them. It's legal. Same with alcohol. But marijuana isn't any more unhealthy than a Marlboro puffer or a bottle of Bacardi. My point is: if it's outlawed because it's bad, then outlaw all of them. It makes no sense.
Killing on the other hand has... pretty much no positive conditions for the victim, and, if you did kill me, it's not the same as me doing it myself.
I honestly don't think it detracted from my argument, I just wasn't clear. I'd disagree that it was ridiculous.

[yukichan]

i think gay ppl should be allowed to marry..it doesnt really affect others except the ppl hu want to marry their same sex.. to me its just like a man and woman marrying..so i dont see the point y its not allowed..

[picaso_smile]

I'm not in support of being gay... But I do support gay people. I have a really good friend and he's gay. The idea of it makes me uncomfortable but I guess I'll have to get used to it. They're people too. You can't deny them rights becasue of how they were born. It's like telling a person with an extra toe they're not allowed to walk. They can walk, they just do it differently.

I think gays are the new blacks. Anyone else agree with this??

[racoons > you]

I think gays are the new blacks. Anyone else agree with this??

sigh... brace yourself... you are gonna get flack for that...

i know what you mean, but that was an apallingly bad way of putting it

but i suppose you have a reasonable point

[sammi rules you]

i don't wanna go back and copy all of mindy's post, but it's mostly in reply to it.

yes, it has been this way for many years, but why not make a change?it took time for many people to get used to the fact that black people and women were equals among everyone else (and some still aren't used to it), and yes, it would upset some people if gay marraige was legalized, but it upset people then as well. how are those movements moral, and not gay marraiges? i think not letting these people marry is immoral just because it's been a certain way for a long time. it's a new idea, and it's more acceptable to admit you're gay now. people were gay forever, it just wasn't as socially acceptable. but now, more and more people are coming out. it's something that's happening, and the world has to adjust to it. the world will never adjust if we don't let it happen.

[Nashvixen]

i don't wanna go back and copy all of mindy's post, but it's mostly in reply to it.

yes, it has been this way for many years, but why not make a change?it took time for many people to get used to the fact that black people and women were equals among everyone else (and some still aren't used to it), and yes, it would upset some people if gay marraige was legalized, but it upset people then as well. how are those movements moral, and not gay marraiges? i think not letting these people marry is immoral just because it's been a certain way for a long time. it's a new idea, and it's more acceptable to admit you're gay now. people were gay forever, it just wasn't as socially acceptable. but now, more and more people are coming out. it's something that's happening, and the world has to adjust to it. the world will never adjust if we don't let it happen.

Props to you! Agreed.

[innovation]

but women's suffrage and inter-racial marriage have succeeded because they're in accord with natural law and natural morality -- it promotes the value of equality of race. what is the value behind homosexual marriage? marriage based on love? then once again, we have no need to prevent marriage between cousins or even between minors.

and in addition, african americans and women were provided with legal protection for the universal rights that they were born with... homosexuals are (in a large majority of cases) not homosexual when they are born.. blah, this is difficult to explain, but do you know what i mean?

also, adoption by homosexual couples really worries me.. we have enough children without a mother or a father already. the strong influence of both sexes within a family is important to a child's psychological, emotional, and social growth.

[avalon*]

i oppose it because i have strong beliefs that marriage is between one man and one woman since that's the way God created us. it's not the people i oppose, it's what they're doing i oppose. but yeah, i know a lot of people are very liberal and open to this stuff now.

[mouse_3k]

I support it because they cant control that they are gay or not gay. so if they are gay let them do what they want. isnt america suppose to be a FREE country?

I mean its like the whole black discrimination back in the day but now with gays. So let them get married, its their choice. we cant FORCE them not to love.

[sammi rules you]

but women's suffrage and inter-racial marriage have succeeded because they're in accord with natural law and natural morality -- it promotes the value of equality of race. what is the value behind homosexual marriage? marriage based on love? then once again, we have no need to prevent marriage between cousins or even between minors.

and in addition, african americans and women were provided with legal protection for the universal rights that they were born with... homosexuals are (in a large majority of cases) not homosexual when they are born.. blah, this is difficult to explain, but do you know what i mean?

also, adoption by homosexual couples really worries me.. we have enough children without a mother or a father already. the strong influence of both sexes within a family is important to a child's psychological, emotional, and social growth.

allowing gay marriages promotes equality of gays. i don't see the difference.

people ARE born gay, they just don't realize till their hormones start kicking in, just like you didn't realize guys don't have cooties and they aren't so bad till your hormones started kicking in.

i see my dad twice a year and it's been like this for three years, and i'm fine.

[innovation]

allowing gay marriages promotes equality of gays. i don't see the difference.

are homosexuals really unequal? they have the same rights as anyone else, don't they? by preventing homosexual marriage, we aren't removing the rights of gays. before, interracial marriage was socially unacceptable, but it did not defy the ultimate definition of marriage. however, homosexual marriage does completely change this ultimate definition.but the instititution of marriage (as well as the financial and legal benefits that come with it) was created to promote stable family units. now, before you bash me for saying this, i'm not saying that all married couples are stable. mothers and fathers are running away from their families; divorce is rampant. however, the institution still works to encourage the idea, you know? and i'm honestly concerned about homosexual couples raising children; in psychology, we learned that the lack of a great male or female influence can greatly hinder or disturb the emotional, moral, and psychological development of an infant or young child.

and tell me, after gay marriage is completely legalized in all forms, what will the government do about adolescent couples who claim to be madly in love or cousins who also want access to this institution or even three-way marriages?

i am in no way homophobic, but isn't the concept of a world of complete homosexual tolerance a little strange to imagine? children would be taught that homosexual marriage is equal to heterosexual marriage in their schools, which would confuse them and encourage them to believe that gender is not an important factor in choosing a spouse. we might even get to the point where gender doesn't even matter at all when choosing a mate or spouse.. we'd just marry whomever we claim to "love" and want to spend the rest of our lives with, since it's so socially acceptable and promoted. and naturally, adoption would increase; it would be so strange.. everyone raising everyone else's children. nobody would find any of this strange or unnatural at all, and that apathy scares me a bit. would all gender roles disappear? honestly, the concept of ultimate equality in society has freaked me out ever since i read ayn rand's anthem. by encouraging and legalizing homosexual marriage, we are not simply giving them their "access" to this institution-- if this was the only factor involved, i would be a lot more lenient. we are, in fact, progressing toward a complete transformation of our culture that we have not experienced ever before-- complete new values, morals, social norms, etc. it's not even a "social change;" it's a total transfiguration! okay, maybe i've been scared a bit by anti-utopian novels; but honestly, do you know how many different elements of society this actually affects? it's not just marriage that it transforms; it's education, law, tradition, family structure-- our entire culture!

i hope you don't see me as totally intolerant.. i am, in fact, very tolerant of gay relationships. i just don't think that homosexual relationships should be promoted in such a way! our society has enough family structure issues to deal with.

wow, seems like i'm the only one opposing it; tough luck.

[Spirited Away]

wow, seems like i'm the only one opposing it; tough luck.

I opposed for quite a while with the same line of argument as yours. I lost confidence in that thought after a while not due to any superior points the other side presented, but rather the change stemmed from my own morality.

[innovation]

I opposed for quite a while with the same line of argument as yours. I lost confidence in that thought after a while not due to any superior points the other side presented, but rather the change stemmed from my own morality.

i see...

okay, this post was to prevent spam, but i just wanted to say that whooa eric (emeraldknight) was actually on this board for once! why doesn't he ever post anymore?

[Spirited Away]

i see...

okay, this post was to prevent spam, but i just wanted to say that whooa eric (emeraldknight) was actually on this board for once! why doesn't he ever post anymore?

He PMed two days ago saying that he's been too busy, but he doubts he'll ever post again.

[innovation]

He PMed two days ago saying that he's been too busy, but he doubts he'll ever post again.

wah! it's the evil AP courseload!

[f4113n]

i support gay marriage, i think those that are against it are just close-minded bigots.

i saw in this science magazine that if you're gay, its a genetic thing, and it happens all the time in nature with animals. people shouldnt be shunned from society just because of something that just makes them who they are. its like saying, "blonds can't marry blonds, they can only marry burnettes" then having the surpreme court hear it.

when you love someone, you don't love them for their outward appearance. you love them for who they are inside, which has nothing to do with gender.

and for those of you who were amused by the thought of banning all forms of marriage altogether, tsk tsk tsk. haven't you read "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley?

[Spirited Away]

i support gay marriage, i think those that are against it are just close-minded bigots.

You know, if you're so open minded, why don't you accept to be against?

[innovation]

i support gay marriage, i think those that are against it are just close-minded bigots.

i saw in this science magazine that if you're gay, its a genetic thing, and it happens all the time in nature with animals. people shouldnt be shunned from society just because of something that just makes them who they are. its like saying, "blonds can't marry blonds, they can only marry burnettes" then having the surpreme court hear it.

this is a debated issue; there isn't a conclusion on whether homosexuality results from nature or nurture. and we are not shunning homosexuals by not giving them access to marriage. they still have the same rights as everyone else. and that blond/brunette thing is absolutely nothing like gay marriage; i have no idea why you even used that example because i think people take gender into far greater consideration when picking a spouse than hair color.. at least i do.

when you love someone, you don't love them for their outward appearance. you love them for who they are inside, which has nothing to do with gender.

marriage isn't always based completely on love. <insert other stuff i said before>

and for those of you who were amused by the thought of banning all forms of marriage altogether, tsk tsk tsk. haven't you read "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley?

i'm reading that next week in english class.. you 'tsk' now. it could happen.

[f4113n]

this is a debated issue; there isn't a conclusion on whether homosexuality results from nature or nurture. and we are not shunning homosexuals by not giving them access to marriage. they still have the same rights as everyone else. and that blond/brunette thing is absolutely nothing like gay marriage; i have no idea why you even used that example because i think people take gender into far greater consideration when picking a spouse than hair color.. at least i do.

ok. so homosexuality isnt decided by genes. even if it isn't, will someone please tell me whats wrong with gay marriage, besides that its against certain religions. and im sorry, ill admit "shunning" wasnt the correct term to use. but how can homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else if they don't have the right to marry whoever they want to, regardless of gender?

marriage isn't always based completely on love. <insert other stuff i said before>

yes, but if you love someone enough to want to marry them, even if it means being despised by society, then shouldn't you be allowed to marry them?

i'm reading that next week in english class.. you 'tsk' now. it could happen.

did i ever say that it was a bad thing for marriage to not exist?
ok i know this doesnt really apply to the topic, but please consider this AFTER you finish reading it:

would you sacrifice love, liberty, and opinion to be eternally happy? true, in "brave new world" the people dont know the meaning of 'love' or 'opinion' or 'liberty', which are among the top things that we treaure the most today. however, if everyone (minus the "savages") could always be happy, taking <i>soma</i> whenever they didn't feel 1000% happy, would you sacrifice love, liberty, and opinion for that? isnt the whole meaning of life for most people to find happiness? in "brave new world" everyone is already happy, and if otherwise just take some <i>soma</i>, "happiness in a bottle" and you'll be happy.

if you understood my rant, i personally believe that it wouldn't neccesarily be such a bad thing if we lived as described in "brave new world" (where marriage doesnt exist!), because no matter what, people have the one thing that they are constantly searching for (in our world), happiness.

please dont pay attention to all the shit i just posted if you take it as an offense, im just another psychopathic, maniac-depressive teen....

[gaby]

Because it would offend many Christians and not get him re-elected.

Anyway, they should be able to do what they want. They're people too. Treat them like people who have the same rights as others, and then they will be accepted socially too.

I whole-heartedly agree. There isn't anything wrong with homosexuals getting married. How can you deny them the right to spend the rest of their lives together and be recongnized legally? There is no problem with two males or two females getting married as long as they truely love each other. Denying them the right to marriage would be discriminating them. I thought that wasn't allowed. To me marriage isn't about a male and a female, it's about two people who really love each other and want to spend their lives together. In a few decades this will be acceptable.

[innovation]

first of all-- to all the bush haters, honestly. do you think that someone would dedicate his life to all this stress and political BS for four freaking years just to get elected for another four freaking years of MORE stress and political BS? no. stop assuming that politicians only care about their image; they actually do care about the causes for which they dedicate their entire careers to. wow, i am constantly shocked at all this bush-bashing. some more logic behind it, please! now, i do not support many of bush's policies but give some credit to the guy for what he has done! well, i guess it is the public's job to ignore a president's achievements and mock his flaws. but frankly, most bush-haters aren't even activists with a cause; they're just caught up in the whole high school bush-hating fad.

anyway, back to the topic of homosexual marriages.

ok. so homosexuality isnt decided by genes. even if it isn't, will someone please tell me whats wrong with gay marriage, besides that its against certain religions. and im sorry, ill admit "shunning" wasnt the correct term to use. but how can homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else if they don't have the right to marry whoever they want to, regardless of gender?

because as traditionally defined, there is no such thing as homosexual marriage. by not giving them access to this institution, we are not removing any of their rights. by giving them access, we are changing the definition of marriage to make it applicable to homosexuals. i did not mention religion at all in my arguments! don't assume that i'm another southern protestant republican. and did you read my post before? there are a lot of things that could go wrong if gay marriage is promoted so strongly in society.

yes, but if you love someone enough to want to marry them, even if it means being despised by society, then shouldn't you be allowed to marry them?

should we make these radicals "happy" by endangering the stability of society? is that really worth it? besides, if you love someone, shouldn't an eternal relationship with him or her be enough to make you happy?

and MARRIAGE IS NOT BASED SOLELY ON LOVE. if it was, why not stop cousins from marrying each other out of love? why not stop a man from marrying his horse or dog, whom he claims to love? why not stop 13-year-olds from marrying?

did i ever say that it was a bad thing for marriage to not exist?

i was joking, as were the people who claimed to want the abolishment of marriage altogether. seriously, did you actually think that we were in support of or even thought it possible to abolish an institution like marriage that has been in existence since the beginning of time?

ok i know this doesnt really apply to the topic, but please consider this AFTER you finish reading it:

would you sacrifice love, liberty, and opinion to be eternally happy? true, in "brave new world" the people dont know the meaning of 'love' or 'opinion' or 'liberty', which are among the top things that we treaure the most today. however, if everyone (minus the "savages") could always be happy, taking <i>soma</i>  whenever they didn't feel 1000% happy, would you sacrifice love, liberty, and opinion for that? isnt the whole meaning of life for most people to find happiness? in "brave new world" everyone is already happy, and if otherwise just take some <i>soma</i>, "happiness in a bottle" and you'll be happy.

if you understood my rant, i personally believe that it wouldn't neccesarily be such a bad thing if we lived as described in "brave new world" (where marriage doesnt exist!), because no matter what, people have the one thing that they are constantly searching for (in our world), happiness.

also, i'm not really sure where you're going with the whole aldous huxley thing.. and once again, i have never read brave new world. perhaps you should start a new thread if you'd like to discuss this topic.

the "whole meaning of life" is the following: to live for the goodness and well-being of oneself and to live for the goodness and well-being of society. there must be a steady balance between the two, in my opinion.

conflict and a variety of emotions are absolutely inevitable, as well as crucial to society. i would never give up independence, exploration, and freedom of thought for "pure" happiness. it's different feelings that define who a person is and what a person feels; we cannot sacrifice individuality for ultimate joy. if there was ultimate happiness, how could we appreciate it without sorrow, grief, anger?
</irrelevance>

[Nashvixen]

Ahw, gracious. REPLIES!

but women's suffrage and inter-racial marriage have succeeded because they're in accord with natural law and natural morality -- it promotes the value of equality of race. what is the value behind homosexual marriage? marriage based on love? then once again, we have no need to prevent marriage between cousins or even between minors.
and in addition, african americans and women were provided with legal protection for the universal rights that they were born with... homosexuals are (in a large majority of cases) not homosexual when they are born.. blah, this is difficult to explain, but do you know what i mean?
also, adoption by homosexual couples really worries me.. we have enough children without a mother or a father already. the strong influence of both sexes within a family is important to a child's psychological, emotional, and social growth.

Yeah... Well, I expected that would come back to bite me in the butt, however with Interracial marriage, incest, and minors' marriage there are chances of offspring deformities. Homosexuals are incapable of sexually reproducing with each other. It is against nature to fit ying with ying instead of yang, but ying and ying don't make a yong. LOL Get it?
Many children grow up without one parent anyways. Honestly, I'd rather have two fahters than just one! Single parents sometimes struggle with income and such, so two parents in any situation could help plenty. Plus, children can get further emotional support from outside the home, especially when they seek it out.

allowing gay marriages promotes equality of gays. i don't see the difference.
people ARE born gay, they just don't realize till their hormones start kicking in, just like you didn't realize guys don't have cooties and they aren't so bad till your hormones started kicking in.
i see my dad twice a year and it's been like this for three years, and i'm fine.

I agree. Just like transgendered children recognizing their need to actually BE the opposite sex even before the horomones kick in, homosexuals may sometimes know they are "different" from the other kids.
My mother kicked me out at 15, and I consider my father a sperm donor. I confide in non-reltive sources, and that tends to fill my emotional needs 150%.

i'm honestly concerned about homosexual couples raising children; in psychology, we learned that the lack of a great male or female influence can greatly hinder or disturb the emotional, moral, and psychological development of an infant or young child.
and tell me, after gay marriage is completely legalized in all forms, what will the government do about adolescent couples who claim to be madly in love or cousins who also want access to this institution or even three-way marriages?
i hope you don't see me as totally intolerant.. i am, in fact, very tolerant of gay relationships. i just don't think that homosexual relationships should be promoted in such a way! our society has enough family structure issues to deal with.

I remember you telling us that you were tolerant of gay relationships. That's fine! It's okay... I'm not bashing you at all.
I already addressed cousins and minors, etc. And you used the argument about "the way it's always been" in some aforementioned post, but pologamy at one time was, "the way it's always been". Didn't King Solomon have thousands of women? Concubines, wives, and just plain women?
I've also addressed the external sources of emotional needs aside from family.

this is a debated issue; there isn't a conclusion on whether homosexuality results from nature or nurture. and we are not shunning homosexuals by not giving them access to marriage. they still have the same rights as everyone else.

Hmm... well, actually, every right except... let's see... THAT one.
Land of the free. If I don't like it, I'll move.

ok. so homosexuality isnt decided by genes. even if it isn't, will someone please tell me whats wrong with gay marriage, besides that its against certain religions. and im sorry, ill admit "shunning" wasnt the correct term to use. but how can homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else if they don't have the right to marry whoever they want to, regardless of gender?
would you sacrifice love, liberty, and opinion to be eternally happy? true, in "brave new world" the people dont know the meaning of 'love' or 'opinion' or 'liberty', which are among the top things that we treaure the most today. however, if everyone (minus the "savages") could always be happy, taking <i>soma</i>  whenever they didn't feel 1000% happy, would you sacrifice love, liberty, and opinion for that? isnt the whole meaning of life for most people to find happiness? in "brave new world" everyone is already happy, and if otherwise just take some <i>soma</i>, "happiness in a bottle" and you'll be happy.
if you understood my rant, i personally believe that it wouldn't neccesarily be such a bad thing if we lived as described in "brave new world" (where marriage doesnt exist!), because no matter what, people have the one thing that they are constantly searching for (in our world), happiness.

I'd love a place where there was no marriage...
Okay, maybe not... but I'd love a place where I don't feel pressure whatsoever to get married. I search in other palces for happiness rather than another pitiful human searching for the same. I don't want to satisfy anyone before I experience life.

MARRIAGE IS NOT BASED SOLELY ON LOVE. if it was, why not stop cousins from marrying each other out of love? why not stop a man from marrying his horse or dog, whom he claims to love? why not stop 13-year-olds from marrying?
i was joking, as were the people who claimed to want the abolishment of marriage altogether.

True about the Bush-hating fad.
Yes, there is plenty reason *cough* divorce rate rising *cough* to abolish marriage, among even MORE reason.
I agree that marriage is not based solely on love...so THERE... that makes the rest of your argument obsolete. Marriage since the dawn of time has been irrelevant to anything except offspring. You don't even need to be married to reproduce!