How exactly does gay marriage negatively affect traditional marriage?

[Island Girl]

Exactly! Steps are being taken to enable same-sex couples all the legal rights that heterosexual couples have a right to.

 

And it can't happen soon enough! YAY!!

 

A Church ceremony is not a legal right and it is not even legally required for a couple to join together in union!

 

A church ceremony is not necessary to be married.

 

A religious person does not need to perform the ceremony either.

 

Under these circumstances it is still called a marriage so what is your point?

[clv0116]

The best solution would be to abolish the legal entity known as marriage altogether and institute civil unions for all if they wish to sign up for some sort of legal couples contract. Heck, a civil union could even potentially recognize 3 and 4 somes.

[NoIDidn't]

Reading this argument by the proponents of gay marriage, I'm increasingly annoyed with the fact that they are attempting to do exactly what they claim has been done to them: silencing the opposition.

 

So what, someone doesn't want to call it marriage! Does that change the legal benefits given? As far as I can tell, this is ONLY about legal benefits anyway. Insulting Silks intelligence was really uncalled for. If you want your argument *heard*, then do the same for the others.

 

That, and she didn't even disagree about the rights being due. She just doesn't want it called marriage. Her opinion and her right to it.

 

I got a chuckle about all tax-exempt organizations somehow being required to perform marriages because of some tax-payer money coming their way to feed the homeless and help the indigent. Maybe their marrying them secretly with tax-payer funds? LOL

 

Churches can not be forced to violate their own principles just because a gay couple wants them to. The Federal and State Governments do not have the power to force them to do that. And I agree with Moai: marriage is legal in Western societies, not religious.

 

Look, I don't care if gays get married or not. I don't care about what they call it. But I am getting tired of feeling like I'm being bullied into it by a small but extremely vocal minority.

 

I have a question. If gays ever do get legal marriage in the US, can the straight people that mistakenly married closeted gays sue them for fraud? Well maybe I just proved that there already IS gay marriage, just not between gays. LOL.

 

Seriously, this yelling people down because they dare have an opinion that doesn't glorify gay marriage or feel an emotional connection to a word that you personally feel is just a word is getting old.

[I Luv the Chariot OH]

the ignorance and bigotry in this thread is disgusting. i can't wait for the day when the conservatism of the baby boomers dies out and we can reflect on this ridiculousness of not "allowing" gay people rights and see how similar it is to not allowing black people and women rights a hundred years ago. thank god for progression.

[clv0116]

So what' date=' someone doesn't want to call it marriage! Does that change the legal benefits given? As far as I can tell, this is ONLY about legal benefits anyway.[/quote']

 

It's coached in terms of being about reasonable and tangible things only for sake of argument. If a proposal is made (civil unions) that satisfies the reasonable and tangible aspects the true colors come out - it's really about cultural desensitization via exposure, shaming and co-opting respected social institutions.

[sally4sara]

Reading this argument by the proponents of gay marriage' date=' I'm increasingly annoyed with the fact that they are attempting to do exactly what they claim has been done to them: silencing the opposition.[/quote']

 

I just love how the opposition tries to be both the persecuted minority AND the righteous majority depending on how solid the argument of the other side is.

 

So what' date=' someone doesn't want to call it marriage! Does that change the legal benefits given? As far as I can tell, this is ONLY about legal benefits anyway. Insulting Silks intelligence was really uncalled for. If you want your argument *heard*, then do the same for the others. [/quote']

 

No one on this site is responsible for the intelligence level of other posters. Some logic gets shone on the hateful attitude and suddenly its "being mean"? Don't worry, even after gay marriage is legal, Silk can still choose to not call those couples "married" for no reason other than it's not what she is use to.

 

That' date=' and she didn't even disagree about the rights being due. She just doesn't want it called marriage. Her opinion and her right to it.[/quote']

 

It was a point already touched on pages and pages ago that she didn't bother reading or she would've known that it isn't a valid reason for denying anyone their rights. We never have everyone agreeing to the same things ever, and never will. And for the love of Santa Claus, everyone has an opinion. It isn't a rare or special thing. Her opinion can stay her opinion without impinging on anyone else's legal rights. I don't know why anyone actually believes their opinion is so friggen awesome as all that.

 

You'll pardon my patience level but the arguments getting posted have already been posted pages ago and each time they just sound shriller and more stupid for the repetition. It makes one think that the poster has not enough care for the oh so awesome opinion of others to be bothered to read through the thread. They actually believe they are thinking some new thought and feel compelled to share it.

That impression being mine, I am responsible for it because you cannot HEAR typed words. You choose to hear the decibel and attitude you expect. You are responsible for the tone and decibel you apply when you read.

 

Churches can not be forced to violate their own principles just because a gay couple wants them to. The Federal and State Governments do not have the power to force them to do that. And I agree with Moai: marriage is legal in Western societies' date=' not religious.[/quote']

 

Never suggested churches should do things that their dogma is against. They choose to not marry lots of couples that are not gay; they can still choose to not marry gay couples too. But those non gay couples they choose to not marry can still go get legally married. This should also be how gay marriage is handled. Asking them to defer the word marriage is a simple and clear attempt to continue to discriminate against them.

 

Look' date=' I don't care if gays get married or not. I don't care about what they call it. But I am getting tired of feeling like I'm being bullied into it by a small but extremely vocal minority.[/quote']

 

Small minority? We passed the Equal Rights Amend. This is the same issue and should be the concern of anyone who wishes their legal rights to be recognized. I don't have to munch carpet to see how the more rights get taken away just puts me and my rights closer to the chopping block. We should instead, support each other so if our rights become the new target, we have some friends on our side.

 

I have a question. If gays ever do get legal marriage in the US' date=' can the straight people that mistakenly married closeted gays sue them for fraud?[/b'] Well maybe I just proved that there already IS gay marriage, just not between gays. LOL.

 

Probably not since they can just send their gay spouse to some church camp that can pray them straight.

[Island Girl]

Reading this argument by the proponents of gay marriage' date=' I'm increasingly annoyed with the fact that they are attempting to do exactly what they claim has been done to them: silencing the opposition.[/quote']

 

No one on the pro side has suggested silencing anyone.

 

In fact quite the opposite.

 

It has been said over and over that all can have their opinion and say it loud and proud - they can scream it from the roof tops or have peaceful assembly about it, etc.

What the clear concensus has been is that one can live their own life as they so choose, have the beliefs they choose, and raise their children as they choose, etc.

 

HOWEVER, no one's opinion should dictate how another adult chooses to live their life, believe what they choose, and raise their children, etc.

 

So what' date=' someone doesn't want to call it marriage! Does that change the legal benefits given? As far as I can tell, this is ONLY about legal benefits anyway. Insulting Silks intelligence was really uncalled for. If you want your argument *heard*, then do the same for the others. [/quote']

 

What the people IN that relationship want to call it should be up to them. What others want to call their relationship is really of no consequence.

 

If you want to call two consenting homosexual adults uniting a "union" then so be it. But they should be able to define their own relationship however they want to.

If they want to use the word marriage then they should be able to.

It does not and will not effect you in the slightest.

 

That' date=' and she didn't even disagree about the rights being due. She just doesn't want it called marriage. Her opinion and her right to it.[/quote']

 

Exactly she has a right to her OPINION.

 

No one has the right to dictate how two consensual adults define their own relationship.

 

Check posts #518, #520, and #523.

 

Among other misinformation about the word marriage, it was said that:

 

"that is the meaning the marriage (or any word that is translated to marriage has been for the entire being of humanity). It has been between heterosexual people. Sometimes more than one, but always it has been heterosexual."

 

That is absolutely NOT the case. It is completely wrong conceptually and literally.

 

And the fact that the use of the word marriage in another way would devalue the term marriage when referring to a man and a woman is just ridiculous. It's current usages (in the U.S. and worldwide) would more than devalue itif that was in any way valid.

 

 

I got a chuckle about all tax-exempt organizations somehow being required to perform marriages because of some tax-payer money coming their way to feed the homeless and help the indigent. Maybe their marrying them secretly with tax-payer funds? LOL

 

First of all there is supposed to be the separation of church and state.

Everyone in the United States should be up in arms about this since it is directly against what the founders of our country stated and clarified.

 

In that respect churches and other recognized religious organizations are not taxed because they are supposed to be funded by charitable donations ONLY.

 

That money isn't all assistance money for homeless and indigent people. There are no restrictions as of right now as to what they can or can't use the money for.

 

They are getting Federal tax dollars from the big pool of money we all pay into.

All has a very profound importance here as this includes any working homosexual as well. So their tax dollars are going to organizations that have an agenda that includes restriction of their lives and how they choose to live them. Not to mention that most of these organizations make no secret of the fact that this select group of people should be in no way accepted as they are.

That is GREAT isn't it?

 

And no churches do not have to marry gays. But some churches should not dictate what other churches can and can't do either. Should they?

Just like a church that I don't belong to and whose doctrine I don't subscribe shouldn't dictate how I live my life or what I can and can't do with regards to whom I share a consensual relationship with or how I define that relationship. -- They can't and don't.

I wish that all had the same freedoms I enjoy.

 

 

 

Look' date=' I don't care if gays get married or not. I don't care about what they call it. But I am getting tired of feeling like I'm being bullied into it by a small but extremely vocal minority.[/quote']

 

Thankfully that minority is growing as more and more people see that how two people define their own relationship has no effect whatsoever on their lives.

 

 

Seriously' date=' this yelling people down because they dare have an opinion that doesn't glorify gay marriage or feel an emotional connection to a word that you personally feel is just a word is getting old.[/quote']

 

When I say very clearly that I don't care but about the word.

 

The word marriage is used in lots of ways and none of them bother me. Another one won't change that.

 

I wouldn't presume to tell a gay person they HAVE to call their joining a marriage. Just like I wouldn't tell them they can't use that word either. It is up to them what they want to call it.

 

Now on the other side of this issue you have people who are staunchly against the use of this word by this group of people ever and in any way.

 

Who has the emotional attachment to the word again?

[NoIDidn't]

I just love how the opposition tries to be both the persecuted minority AND the righteous majority depending on how solid the argument of the other side is.

 

If you are calling me the "opposition", you would be mistaken. I'm all for giving gays the rights that they want. In fact, I'm all for doing it with or without marriage. Because I really think they want the rights more than marriage, but I could be wrong.

 

 

It was a point already touched on pages and pages ago that she didn't bother reading or she would've known that it isn't a valid reason for denying anyone their rights. We never have everyone agreeing to the same things ever, and never will. And for the love of Santa Claus, everyone has an opinion. It isn't a rare or special thing. Her opinion can stay her opinion without impinging on anyone else's legal rights. I don't know why anyone actually believes their opinion is so friggen awesome as all that.

 

I read her post and she said she's all for the rights desired initially. She just didn't feel comfortable calling it marriage. She didn't say any of what you are alleging. So she never impinged on anyone's rights.

 

 

 

Small minority? We passed the Equal Rights Amend. This is the same issue and should be the concern of anyone who wishes their legal rights to be recognized. I don't have to munch carpet to see how the more rights get taken away just puts me and my rights closer to the chopping block. We should instead, support each other so if our rights become the new target, we have some friends on our side.

 

Now, this, I don't agree with 100%. I can see how the Civil Rights struggle is similar in that we are fighting for rights of some small disenfranchised group, but I haven't seen the signs over the water fountains telling gays that they can't use the nice clean one yet. I haven't seen the Gays Only Restroom. And, I don't know about a Gay section in the back of the restaurant by the kitchen door either. Gays have not been disrespected in this way. That, and gays come in all ethnicities - some even from the offending one that disenfranchised people of color - so likening this fight to the Civil RIghts fight is going to take a couple of water hoses being turned on them during a march for me to come to that conclusion. To me, the Civil Rights Movement was a human rights movement. The Gay Marriage movement only benefits gays.

 

But then again, maybe it is. For Blacks, the "rights" portion was a pretty small desire in comparison to the legitimacy inferred upon getting those rights. I am all for gays getting the rights that their tax dollars are paying for others to enjoy. But I still feel this is more a fight for legitimizing being gay, like its a rebellion of sorts. Being gay doesn't need to be legitimized anymore than they perceive being straight does. Both orientations just, are. Nothing to legitimize, IMO.

 

And, I think its wrong to attack religious people as an entire group just because of a subset of them. There are a lot of religious people in this country that would support the movement more visibly if it wasn't so anti-religion. There are a lot of religious gay people that would be more active in the fight if it wasn't so anti-religious. The fact that this movement sees itself against a "them" is what is hurting it, IMHO.

[NoIDidn't]

No one on the pro side has suggested silencing anyone.

 

In fact quite the opposite.

 

Most of what you typed was to still refute another poster's opinion. And it isn't going to change her opinion so it was pretty pointless.

 

The fact that opinions are getting the smack down is exactly what I mean by attempts at silencing the opposition.

 

When someone's opinion is constantly ridiculed, that's an attempt to silence or minimize them for their opinion. Its not exactly an encouragement to "shout it from the rooftops" as you claim.

 

That was my point. An actual suggestion to silence someone doesn't have to be made. Its the jumping on a poster for an opinion that you don't agree with that is silencing.

 

Now, onto what it is actually called: marriage or something else. Who really cares? For the sake of discussion/argument, is calling it marriage important to the gay community? If so, why if they seem to want the rights more than the marriage? I mean, is calling a Gay relationship a marriage going to change the fact that a child born into the marriage of two lesbians is still biologically not the other mother's going to change what happens in a custody battle for that child? The biological parent is still going to get sole custody in most cases with visitation for the former step parent, right?

 

It was my understanding that the move for marriage is because of the families impacted by property divisions and medical issues. But is calling it marriage, or even giving the rights desired going to change the outcome for the children? I am friends with several lesbian couples that have children. I've seen them breakup and the heartbreak of the woman that wasn't the actual biological parent. But I don't see how marriage is going to change that. It would be treated like a step family situation (I think) and a step parent doesn't get custody of a step child before *real* relatives are considered.

 

Forget about what its called, the question really is does it change the issues that the families are truly facing? I see it changing some of the issues, but not all. Especially if the biological family members are against the "partner" having custody of their family member and are willing to fight it in court. Short of adopting the child, I can't see how some of this can be avoided. (or did I miss where this was discussed already)

[Island Girl]

Most of what you typed was to still refute another poster's opinion. And it isn't going to change her opinion so it was pretty pointless.

 

This is a discussion forum.

 

When one posts an opinion that poster should expect (especially on threads like these) that there will be differing opinions stated and reasons for those opinions as well.

 

I am not seeking or voting to change someone's opinion. I haven't seen that others are either.

 

I have stated that unequivocally many times. MANY times. I thought I further clarified that in my last post.

 

The fact that opinions are getting the smack down is exactly what I mean by attempts at silencing the opposition.

 

This thread title is not "what is your opinion" although I am sure there would be lively discussion over that as well.

 

It is "how exactly does gay marriage negatively affect traditional marriage?".

 

We have yet to see a post about how traditional marriage would truly be affected but seemingly there are plenty of opinions to go around.

 

 

When someone's opinion is constantly ridiculed' date=' that's an attempt to silence or minimize them for their opinion. Its not exactly an encouragement to "shout it from the rooftops" as you claim.[/quote']

 

People are free to have opinions about a lot of things and certainly they can post or "shout" it out as much as they want.

 

That doesn't mean that those listening or reading won't have something to say about it.

 

That was my point. An actual suggestion to silence someone doesn't have to be made. Its the jumping on a poster for an opinion that you don't agree with that is silencing.

 

You needn't worry about being the posting police. We have Mods around here for that.

 

If an opinion is shared there is usually discussion about that opinion both from those that support and those that don't.

It happens on just about every thread here on Loveshack.

 

The dating ones really get lively sometimes.

 

Now' date=' onto what it is actually called: marriage or something else. Who really cares? [/quote']

 

Exactly.

 

Why does it matter what two people call their relationship?

 

Which brings us back OT. What negative affect would homosexuals using the word marriage have?

 

For the sake of discussion/argument' date=' is calling it marriage important to the gay community? [/quote']

 

For some it is. I am sure there are others who have differing opinions.

Which is why what they actually call it should be up to the couple involved in the relationship.

 

If so' date=' why if they seem to want the rights more than the marriage? [/quote']

 

Isn't it more than a little ridiculous to state they can have all the rights but no access to the word? A word used in so many different ways to define all sorts of relationships, etc.?

 

They should get access to it all - the word and the rights - so they can choose to define it as they wish. Their opinions should be the only ones that carry any weight in their decision process.

 

I mean' date=' is calling a Gay relationship a marriage going to change the fact that a child born into the marriage of two lesbians is still biologically not the other mother's going to change what happens in a custody battle for that child? [/quote']

 

Yes.

 

The biological parent is still going to get sole custody in most cases with visitation for the former step parent' date=' right?[/quote']

 

No. The ex would not be a step parent.

 

The ex would have rights such as seeking joint or full custody and of visitation.

 

A step parent has no rights at all to an ex's children and can not seek visitation, etc.

 

It was my understanding that the move for marriage is because of the families impacted by property divisions and medical issues.

 

Those are certainly some powerful reasons.

 

But more importantly it is the right to define and announce their relationship as they want to.

 

When I married my husband I wasn't thinking of property divisions and medical reasons although I certainly gained those things.

I was thinking, "I love this man and I want to share my life with him. I want to make a formal binding commitment to him and only him."

Is it so far fetched that two other people may feel the same way? That they love each other, are committed to each other, and want to define that legally and emotionally themselves?

 

But is calling it marriage' date=' or even giving the rights desired going to change the outcome for the children? I am friends with several lesbian couples that have children. I've seen them breakup and the heartbreak of the woman that wasn't the actual biological parent. But I don't see how marriage is going to change that. It would be treated like a step family situation (I think) and a step parent doesn't get custody of a step child before *real* relatives are considered.[/quote']

 

Likening to a step parent isn't quite right.

 

Likening it to surrogate parents where one may be a biological parent but the other is recognized as the other parent legally would be a better model.

 

Thinking about it in these terms there is quite a difference.

 

In the event a couple splits the children would have access to both parents just as they do now when two hetersexual people have children and divorce.

 

Forget about what its called' date=' the question really is does it change the issues that the families are truly facing? [/quote']

 

It changes the things those families are facing astronomically.

 

It doesn't change my life or yours in any way.

 

I see it changing some of the issues' date=' but not all. Especially if the biological family members are against the "partner" having custody of their family member and are willing to fight it in court. Short of adopting the child, I can't see how some of this can be avoided. (or did I miss where this was discussed already)[/quote']

 

I think the surrogate parent point already addressed this. The issues would be able to be addressed as they are for heterosexual couples in family court now.

 

That is a big difference.

 

But let's just say it did only fix "some of the issues".

 

Isn't the alleviation of whatever pains and heartaches those issues bring enough of a reason?

[sally4sara]

I read her post and she said she's all for the rights desired initially. She just didn't feel comfortable calling it marriage. She didn't say any of what you are alleging. So she never impinged on anyone's rights.

 

If she feels her awesome opinion should keep them from using the word she doesn't want them to use, it would be impinging their rights. It just came off self-absorbed to use dealing with something new as a reason for denying them the use of a word that many other people can use.

 

"They shouldn't use the word because I am not use to it?!?!"

 

Now' date=' this, I don't agree with 100%. I can see how the Civil Rights struggle is similar in that we are fighting for rights of some small disenfranchised group, [b']but I haven't seen the signs over the water fountains telling gays that they can't use the nice clean one yet. I haven't seen the Gays Only Restroom. And, I don't know about a Gay section in the back of the restaurant by the kitchen door either. [/b] Gays have not been disrespected in this way.

 

If being gay was something as visibly identifiable as a person with darker skin, I absolutely believe you would've seen those signs and restrictions. Especially when they were being blamed for AIDS and people knew little about how it was transmitted.

 

Just because you've seen one guy in silver lame' hot pants and a purple tank top holding hands with some other equally dressed guy doesn't mean all gays are as easy to identify on sight.

[stillafool]

How would gay marriage cause straight marriages to lose value?

 

 

It doesn't and it's nobody's business if two adults decide they want to marry. I think it is stupid that people only marry to procreate. What happens when the kids grow up and leave - are you suppose to break up? Or, when your reproductive years are over, is one suppose to move on. People should get married because they love each other and want to share the rest of their lives together. Who those two people are is no one's business IMHO. I also know gay couples who are wonderful, loving parents to otherwise children who wouldn't have homes.

[NoIDidn't]

This is a discussion forum.

 

You needn't worry about being the posting police. We have Mods around here for that.

 

LOL. Me? The posting police? LOL. Seriously. The MODS don't want to have to step into every little spat around here. We should be able to police ourselves without them having to step into everything. But that's besides the point. Back to the thread, for me, the posting police (apparently), LOL.

 

 

No. The ex would not be a step parent.

 

The ex would have rights such as seeking joint or full custody and of visitation.

 

A step parent has no rights at all to an ex's children and can not seek visitation, etc.

 

I fail to see how the ex wouldn't be a step parent when they didn't give any DNA to the child whatsoever. That IS what a step parent is.

 

Likening to a step parent isn't quite right.

 

Likening it to surrogate parents where one may be a biological parent but the other is recognized as the other parent legally would be a better model.

 

However we liken it, it still doesn't change the legal definition of what a step parent is. Now the "step" parent is always free to legally adopt the child, and then become a guardian/parent, if that's the model you seek. But they still have to adopt the child. Even heterosexuals in a marraige where one isn't the biological parent have to adopt step children to avoid the "step" problem. Marriage isn't going to solve that for gay couples, I don't think.

 

It doesn't change my life or yours in any way.

 

I get a chuckle whenever this is used as a real argument. Apartheid in South Africa didn't affect my daily life either. Free health care in France doesn't affect my daily life either. But both can either be positive and negative in their total impacts on all of world population. If the only thing to consider is whether or not it affects me personally, then I'm not really thinking critically and truly considering what I'm being asked.

 

 

But let's just say it did only fix "some of the issues".

 

Isn't the alleviation of whatever pains and heartaches those issues bring enough of a reason?

 

No. Fixing "some of the issues" is not enough of a reason. The only reason I think gays should be allowed to marry is because not doing so takes away fundamental freedoms that they are due as tax paying Americans. This gives them some of the benefits that they are already paying taxes for. Fixing their familial issues is never going to happen by legislation. Its not exactly a straight forward family model. Like it or not, it IS confusing to those in it (I know quite a few lesbians with kids over 18 that have LIVED it) so legal marriage isn't going to fix that.

[NoIDidn't]

If being gay was something as visibly identifiable as a person with darker skin, I absolutely believe you would've seen those signs and restrictions. Especially when they were being blamed for AIDS and people knew little about how it was transmitted.

 

But they can't be identified in that way, and that is precisely my point. They were not routinely discriminated against because of something they truly cannot control how it appears - their skin. A person can hide feminine or masculine tendencies. I can't hide my beautiful dark skin. Believe me, I only said that I didn't agree 100%, not that I completely disagreed. I agree with you that if gays were all born with some identifiable trait, they would have been assigned a water fountain to use - but they weren't so they can't completely hijack the Civil Rights Movement and say they are the same.

 

Just because you've seen one guy in silver lame' hot pants and a purple tank top holding hands with some other equally dressed guy doesn't mean all gays are as easy to identify on sight.

 

LOL. I took my kids to the mall the other day and two of the THICKEST (thick = not obese fat and no where near skinny) lesbians were wearing the SHORTEST shorts EVER and holding hands while they walked. OMG! I saw sparks when their thighs rubbed. My kids didn't notice them. They are too young to care about who is holding hands at the mall or what gender because they are still at that age where they hold both parents hands and it means nothing to them. But those poor shorts. LOL.

[sally4sara]

I agree with you that if gays were all born with some identifiable trait' date=' they would have been assigned a water fountain to use - but they weren't so they can't completely hijack the Civil Rights Movement and say they are the same.[/quote']

 

I don't remember "women only" water fountains....ERA still applies to women.

But then, I suppose the lack of co-ed bathrooms in general could count if one chose to look at it that way.

 

How about being blacklisted?

 

I do remember a time where gays were in the same lot at communists, socialists, Jewish, non-white ethnicities and anyone considered "un-American". Then they were subject to being banned from public places, jobs, and got beat downs once they were discovered. All it took was someone accusing them. Thanks McCarthy!

 

If you look at the definitions of "blacklisting", one of the first things they give for a modern example - Cali Prop 8.

 

LOL. I took my kids to the mall the other day and two of the THICKEST (thick = not obese fat and no where near skinny) lesbians were wearing the SHORTEST shorts EVER and holding hands while they walked. OMG! I saw sparks when their thighs rubbed. My kids didn't notice them. They are too young to care about who is holding hands at the mall or what gender because they are still at that age where they hold both parents hands and it means nothing to them. But those poor shorts. LOL.

 

Ahhh, they were just helping each other find the softball field where those shorts look maaavelously appropriate!

[LaGazelle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaGazelle

Silk, there is a book on the "gay movement" and its related strategies - "After The Ball", which might offer a useful perspective.

 

 

Good suggestion. Will you post the other links as well?

 

Otherwise this is the saddest thing of all.

 

That some will only read so far as to get the minimal information that supports their view but not the entire story or both sides of the argument to form a truly educated opinion.

 

Which is exactly what you went on to do. Ah well...where ignorance is bliss 'tis folly to be wise!

[LaGazelle]

And it can't happen soon enough! YAY!!

 

 

 

A church ceremony is not necessary to be married.

 

A religious person does not need to perform the ceremony either.

 

Under these circumstances it is still called a marriage so what is your point?

 

I made my point in my first post. You seem to have gotten your knickers in a twist! It's not a good use of my time to reiterate myself just because you fail to grasp the point. Besides, your "YAYs" etc. betray a lack of capability to have a mature discourse, where you are able to state your opinion without attempting to ridicule others who do not share your viewpoint.

[LaGazelle]

the ignorance and bigotry in this thread is disgusting. i can't wait for the day when the conservatism of the baby boomers dies out and we can reflect on this ridiculousness of not "allowing" gay people rights and see how similar it is to not allowing black people and women rights a hundred years ago. thank god for progression.

 

Gay marriage is based on a fundamentally different principle to the black Civil Rights movement and gender equality struggles - it has never, despite many many attempts, been proven that being gay is "natural"/anything but a choice, whereas no one could choose the race or gender they are dealt with at birth.

 

All the "studies" purporting to prove a gay gene have been discredited due to the lack of integrity of the "activist/scientists" who led them (tampering of the research sample and discarding results which disproved their opinion/"theory"). When the true findings were uncovered, they rather indicated the opposite finding, and some of the "researchers" were banned from practice for breaching professional ethics.

 

Even in the face of such blindingly obvious facts, gay activists continue to use the related false bases to underscore spurious claims in order to browbeat others to unquestioningly accept their views and lifestyles.

 

People, regardless of their choices should absolutely be free to live their lives how they choose, but others should also remain free to "reject" attempts to have said choices rammed down their throats.

 

By all means, let gays have the same legal rights as straight couples, but society should not be forced to accept use of a term that gives even the slightest possiblity for erosion of others basic rights, which is what gay activists manifestoes such as "After the Ball" propose.

[sally4sara]

Even in the face of such blindingly obvious facts, gay activists continue to use the related false bases to underscore spurious claims in order to browbeat others to unquestioningly accept their views and lifestyles.

 

Question what you want; everyone does already for many things that are not about sexual orientation. Just don't use your, too often rhetorical, questions as an excuse to deny someone the right to do something that does not include you or your rights in any way.

 

People, regardless of their choices should absolutely be free to live their lives how they choose, but others should also remain free to "reject" attempts to have said choices rammed down their throats.

 

Why is it always implied that part of other people living their own lives the way they want is so dependent upon the ability to keep others from doing the same? What you say here is the people who are against gay marriage spend much of their pursuit of happiness by actively denying others from doing the same. Its like you're implying that they cannot live how they want if they have no one left to discriminate. Is their way of life so dependent on hating others?

 

Please explain how two people getting married and calling it being married and checking the "married" box on applications, having choices rammed down throats.

I didn't like it when one of my friends married a person I felt was not well suited to them. They got married anyway. It hasn't caused even one thing to change about my life. Why would this be different if the two people are of the same gender? Why does something, so very not your business become the equivalent of having something rammed down your throat?

I'm certain their are people right here living in my residential block that are married. I don't know them so I don't verbally call them "married". They are still legally married without my recognition.

 

How does this ram anything down anyone's throat?

 

 

By all means, let gays have the same legal rights as straight couples, but society should not be forced to accept use of a term that gives even the slightest possiblity for erosion of others basic rights, which is what gay activists manifestoes such as "After the Ball" propose.

 

This means they can get married too, and call it the same thing even when you or I don't like their partner of choice. Anything less is hateful discrimination.

[silktricks]

If she feels her awesome opinion should keep them from using the word she doesn't want them to use, it would be impinging their rights. It just came off self-absorbed to use dealing with something new as a reason for denying them the use of a word that many other people can use.

 

"They shouldn't use the word because I am not use to it?!?!"

 

 

I feel my opinion is every bit as valid as yours. It's not awesome, but then neither is yours, yet your opinion is still valid. I didn't say they shouldn't use the word because I am not used to it... I said that I don't want them to use the word because it completely changes the meaning of the word that has always been between heterosexuals. Which it has. Sometime a great number of people, but there has been a mix of heterosexuals. Neither polygamy nor polyandry are considered legal marriages either, though historically speaking they are completely normal. I personally wouldn't care if they were legal in the United States. But they aren't.

 

Also, I never talked about how a gay couple chose to refer to themselves in private. I spoke ONLY of legal marriage. They can call themselves married if they want, I couldn't care less. But the debate about gay marriage has never been "how they refer to themselves". It's about how society refers to them, and how their unions are legally defined. That changes many things for many people. The fact that you don't want to see it doesn't mean there is no adverse outcome for others.

 

Claiming that disallowing the use of the WORD marriage is discriminatory is the most ridiculous argument. The reason for the civil rights movement was because of the infringement of people's rights - real rights - they wouldn't be hired, they couldn't go to the same schools, they couldn't drink out of the same water-fountain, couldn't eat in the same restaurants - AND they had NO choice in the matter - they certainly couldn't change the color of their skin. You certainly can't look at most gay people and go... there goes a homosexual. Whether or not a homosexuality is nature or nurture is still argued, and even many in the gay community argue against the idea of "nature".

[I Luv the Chariot OH]

Gay marriage is based on a fundamentally different principle to the black Civil Rights movement and gender equality struggles - it has never, despite many many attempts, been proven that being gay is "natural"/anything but a choice, whereas no one could choose the race or gender they are dealt with at birth.

 

All the "studies" purporting to prove a gay gene have been discredited due to the lack of integrity of the "activist/scientists" who led them (tampering of the research sample and discarding results which disproved their opinion/"theory"). When the true findings were uncovered, they rather indicated the opposite finding, and some of the "researchers" were banned from practice for breaching professional ethics.

 

Even in the face of such blindingly obvious facts, gay activists continue to use the related false bases to underscore spurious claims in order to browbeat others to unquestioningly accept their views and lifestyles.

 

People, regardless of their choices should absolutely be free to live their lives how they choose, but others should also remain free to "reject" attempts to have said choices rammed down their throats.

 

By all means, let gays have the same legal rights as straight couples, but society should not be forced to accept use of a term that gives even the slightest possiblity for erosion of others basic rights, which is what gay activists manifestoes such as "After the Ball" propose.

Oh, I LOVE the "homosexuality is unnatural" ignorance argument.

 

If homosexuality is unnatural, why is it so prevalent in animals, in nature? Do dogs, bison, penguins choose to be homosexual? Bonobos, as a species, are completely bisexual- are they faking it too? (Here's something to educate yourself with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior )

If homosexuality is unnatural, why is it so common for siblings to all be homosexual? Here is a study concerning the genetics of homosexuality that hasn't been discredited: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1925

 

I would love for one of the Christians/bigots to respond to this!

 

Evolution hasn't be "proven", per se, but educated people can see that it is pretty clear it is the case- exactly the same for homosexuality. Maybe you should have some actual sources before you go throwning around inane nonsensical propaganda you heard in 1972.

[I Luv the Chariot OH]

Also: I wonder if the people who think homosexuals get to "choose" their sexual attractions have ever seen, met, or spoken to a homosexual in their lives. Really, just go out in the world and find one, speak to them, ask them why they "chose" that lifestyle! I promise it will be a very educational experience.

[NoIDidn't]

Also: I wonder if the people who think homosexuals get to "choose" their sexual attractions have ever seen, met, or spoken to a homosexual in their lives. Really, just go out in the world and find one, speak to them, ask them why they "chose" that lifestyle! I promise it will be a very educational experience.

 

LMAO! With so many gays in the closet, of course we've spoken to them. This is not an argument.

 

I think being gay is equally choice and biology. I happen to know quite a few that chose it. I also know about four that I swear were born that way.

 

Regardless, choice or biology, they are already here. Just need to get them out of the closet so your reasoning might make more sense. LOL.

[NoIDidn't]

I made my point in my first post. You seem to have gotten your knickers in a twist! It's not a good use of my time to reiterate myself just because you fail to grasp the point. Besides, your "YAYs" etc. betray a lack of capability to have a mature discourse, where you are able to state your opinion without attempting to ridicule others who do not share your viewpoint.

 

Which was my point before I was called the "Forum Police". LOL. You said it far more eloquently. We can all state our opinions without the shouting down of those with unpopular viewpoints.

[NoIDidn't]

Oh, I LOVE the "homosexuality is unnatural" ignorance argument.

 

If homosexuality is unnatural, why is it so prevalent in animals, in nature? Do dogs, bison, penguins choose to be homosexual? Bonobos, as a species, are completely bisexual- are they faking it too? (Here's something to educate yourself with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior )

If homosexuality is unnatural, why is it so common for siblings to all be homosexual? Here is a study concerning the genetics of homosexuality that hasn't been discredited: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1925

 

I would love for one of the Christians/bigots to respond to this!

 

Evolution hasn't be "proven", per se, but educated people can see that it is pretty clear it is the case- exactly the same for homosexuality. Maybe you should have some actual sources before you go throwning around inane nonsensical propaganda you heard in 1972.

 

I'll bite. Though I am far from a bigot.

 

Animals seem to practice some homosexuality for pleasure. Maybe they were rejected by their mothers or some other adverse event. Homosexual acts between animals doesn't seem to occur during actual mating season where the males and females get together to make actual offspring - hence the "bi"-sexual not "homo"-sexual.

 

Homosexuality contributes nothing to Evolution, however. Homosexual pairings can't reproduce naturally (without the help of either someone outside of their relationships sperm or uterus), so it would lead more to the elimination of the Human race than to its evolution.

 

Regarding siblings being gay: that could still be nurture because they are being brought up in the same environment. There is no conclusive proof that homosexuality is genetic. I can argue that it is for the people I know that I have known were gay from the moment that started walking and talking, but I don't know enough of them to make that statement.

 

There is my take. No judgment. Just my two cents.