Is same sex marriage a positive ideology?
Oh yes, yes it does.
Sounds like she finds it "icky"
Okay! wow! I missed a lot here! Lots of things I want to say but I don't really think hijacking a topic of discussion is a good idea at this point-although it seems I've done so already.
First of all-Felix, I'm sure that it is appreciated what you are trying to do here. You have a heart for people. Please stop. If they wanted to know more, this would be a different conversation, and we all know that this is a decision we all have to make individually.
Everyone else, my intentions were only to pick Felix up out of the last mud hole he dug for himself, I did not mean to open this thread back up to hateful back and forth messages between Christians and the rest of us. If I may say one more thing about the matter: God DOES love us according to the bible. John 3:16 is a good example of this.
Logic could say that God wouldn't have spent the time on us if he didn't love us and Jesus would have never come to earth and died as a result because there wouldn't have been a good reason to.
I read earlier on when some of you were saying that you don't have problems with all those who follow God, just the few that don't show empathy or understanding, and I have to agree with you-I have had my share of experiences with members of the church who are not as compassionate as their doctrine may direct that they should be towards others. Personally, I have been beaned with a few bibles and looked down upon by people who appear to be "holier than thou". It is not fun.
However, being ridiculed because someone who believes what you believe is a jerk...that isn't cool/fun either. People are still people. Please don't blame every christian because of the ones that were/are jerks, that puts both parties in a bad light.
To get back on track:
(I know that it is very similar to what is in place now, but in my opinion,) At the very least, the states that don't currently support the formal commitment of homosexual couples, should recognize and honor a couple's rights if that couple moves to a state that does not have supportive legislation for homosexual marriage. The rights recognized should be the from the state giving/recognizing the most benefits in favor of homosexual marriage.
That would spread current rights for homosexual couples across all states until (preferably state) legislation is put in place to honor or bestow rights on all homosexual couples-and that also gives the power to the people to decide when that should be.
It isn't much right now, but no battle for rights was won overnight. It would also show that the homosexual community is not going to just go away, and that gets attention as well. Just don't try to take away my rights trying to get yours and I won't ever have a problem with you.
As for whether or not Homosexuality is a positive ideology, I served in a combat zone shoulder to shoulder with a fellow soldier who is homosexual (a few of them actually.) She is a good person, and a great soldier. I didn't think twice about putting my life in her hands then and I wouldn't think twice about doing it again because of that.
So I would say-Yeah, for the most part it can be positive, but it can be negative too. It depends on the person or group that you are talking to-just like everything else.Your loss is our gain.
I find that a good touchstone for whether something is or isn't "against nature" is how angry people get when someone does it. If it's against nature, it's physically impossible. Water flows downhill because that's what water does. It hasn't got a choice in the matter.
If someone said, "Water should be able to flow uphill if it wants to," nobody would freak out and try to enact laws forbidding the uphill flow of water. They'd merely laugh, and know that uphill-flowing water is impossible, because that's not how the world works
But as for same-sex marriage, this is very different. Two men or two women can in fact have an intimate sexual partnership, therefore "against nature" doesn't even enter into the discussion. Homosexual sex is possible, therefore not against nature. But everyone is freaking out about it. Again, this is not because it's "against nature" for gay people to get married, but because certain people don't like the idea for whatever reason.
That's cool. It's okay not to like stuff. I don't like the idea of "performance art." But I'm surely not going to try to have it banned. I just won't watch performance art, or give my money to performance artists.
Felix, you're right that the questions are because of perversity, but not in the way you think.
- jonnycomelatelyposted 12 years ago
0 - jonnycomelatelyposted 12 years ago0
So, gay people getting married has the same destructive capacity as a nuclear bomb? I'm astonished that the country of Holland hasn't been utterly destroyed, along with the US state of New York.
I like the way the debate is taking on a cosmopolitan perspective. Might be the best cure for the monopoly by liberal gay-agenda north Americans. Mind you, each side will now cite sources to support their views.
Soon people will find alien society in galaxy xx7 which appears to condone something.!!!!
People stick to the revealed will of the Divine Creator and you cant go wrong. Even if you dont believe, just read the Ten Commandments.- jonnycomelatelyposted 12 years ago0
- jonnycomelatelyposted 12 years ago0
How original...I've never heard that before
Many people do not believe in Adam and Eve...I have seen the world much worse so absolutely but if the end is night please feel free to send me your worldly possessions since you won't need them anymore
you sound like the raving homeless guy on the corner anyway .
I see you never made any response to the evidence presented...
Since we should obey all of gods word I am baffled as to why you are here talking about gays instead of going and killing them like your bible tells you to.
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
- jonnycomelatelyposted 12 years ago0
I get it, and I agree with you. I can't interact with bigots in my real world. However, people I don't know from a can of paint on HubPages that I can easily ignore when I get tired of them? That's another matter entirely.
Oh!Window Pain, you are so cynical!
But we can see right through you! Totally transparent!
What does fraud have to do with multiple spouses that really love each other
Nothing. In fact, I have no problem with polygamy between a group of informed, competent, consenting adults. Nor should you, since it has nothing to do with you. I wouldn't join such a group marriage, 'cos that's not my thing, but if other people want to, there's no rational reason why they should be forbidden.
But it was made illegal (and remains so) because once upon a time, the only way to get more than one spouse was by fraud (having, say, one wife on the west coast and another on the east coast) or by coercion (adult men intimidating younger girls into group marriages).
If there were a group of informed, competent, consenting, adult would-be polygamists petitioning for a legal recognition of their group marriage, I'd sign their petition. Why? Because I recognize their right to equal treatment under the law.
Any legal status not afforded by a Civil Union can be fought by the same money, power and political clout used by the LGBT to encroach on traditional marriage.
Please explain how the LGBT community are "encroaching" on traditional marriage? Is marriage some limited commodity that is in short supply? If the gays can get married, will there be less marriage left over for straight couples? Help me out here: how, exactly, is traditional marriage being "encroached" upon?
Gay are different, and that difference is the reason they would have a different but equal bond.
Different but equal (in legal institutions) is inherently unequal. Gay people merely want to get married, just like anybody else. They don't eat gay breakfast, they don't gay drive their gay cars to gay work, they don't go to gay grad school at gay night to earn a gay MBA, and they don't pay gay taxes. Why should they have to get "civil unioned" instead of married like everyone else?
Just because Civil Unions don't currently have equal legal status can be changed.
You can’t just go around changing laws that don’t suit you! Next you’ll be saying that we can change the rules of marriage and let two men get married! Oh, wait….
What cannot be changed is to have marriage conformed forcibly to the requirements of a different nature.
Again, how exactly will marriage be changed, as an institution, when we let gay people get married? Do you imagine that your marriage is going to turn gay or something? Seriously: how will marriage be changed?
You can't shout fire in a crowded place, when there is none.
Correct, because when you do that, people get trampled to death.
So who gets trampled to death when two gay people get married?
If you have examples of that happening, and there are many, it just means that they are not true rights.
No, it could just mean that the rights are being infringed upon, as they are in the case of not letting gay people get married.
So while the US Constitution can be manipulated, it shouldn't mean that we consider it the same rights as was intended by the founders.
And a good thing, too, otherwise some of us wouldn’t be allowed to vote, and some of us would only count as 3/5ths of a person.
In my opinion, marriage should be removed from the power of the federal government. It should be replaced by a contract such as a partnership agreement. This would be far better that the vague and ambiguous contract of marriage. This is the reason why divorce is so hard to settle between the parties.
Well, you might have something there, but really, the niceties of family law are a bit out of the scope of this discussion.
Gender is similar to the poles on a magnet. If you want to bind two magnets into one, you have to place opposite poles together.
Yes, but people of the same sex can and do form long-term domestic partnerships—marriages, if they enjoyed equal protection under the law. That’s the difference between people and magnets. If this analogy were sound, and people were like magnets, there would be no gay people, and this whole discussion wouldn’t be taking place.
There are many couples that can't have children and they can adopt them without the need to be married. Marriage is not the answer to solve these problems.
No, I never suggested it was. You, however, suggested that since gay people can’t procreate, there’s no point in them getting married, which is a different thing.
Since a couple can’t procreate, there’s no point to them getting married. (While I disagree with this assertion, I’ll stipulate it for the sake of argument.)
So, since an infertile heterosexual couple cannot procreate, and since marriage won’t magically enable them to procreate, should they be allowed to marry? (Bear in mind that their inability to procreate means that their marriage would be pointless.) If you think they should be allowed to marry even though they cannot procreate, why them and why not a gay couple?
And you keep running off the road with your comments.
No, I’m pointing out either 1) the inherent unfairness of allowing an infertile hetero couple to marry while forbidding a same sex couple from marrying on the grounds that they can’t procreate, or 2) the silliness of forbidding any couple from marrying on the grounds that they cannot procreate. Take your pick.
Marriage is not a physical attributes that will change whether a human defect can be cured.
I never suggested that getting married changes anything about the physical bodies of the spouses. I don’t know where you got that idea from.
Whenever the constitution and the legal process is manipulated to suit the wishes of a minority, it affects me and the integrity of the country
Okay, but what I asked was how it affects you? Can you give an example?
You truly don't understand the law, and especially the divorce laws in this country. There would be a tremendous effect on the already burdened and incompetent legal system.<snip> The primary point is that traditional marriage fails half the time, and if the same sex marriage even equals that, it will over burden, the more than burdened system.
So, because straight couples getting divorced are clogging up the courts, we should stop gay people from getting married so they won’t clog up the courts? Dude, the obvious answer to the clogged-courts problem is to stop straight couples from getting married until the courts catch up with the backlog. Oh, but that would infringe upon the rights of straight couples, wouldn’t it. Just as preventing gay couples from marrying to keep them from clogging up the courts when they get divorced would violate the rights of gay couples.
The next manipulation or mutation of marriage may be made by bisexuals who may assert that they can marriage, same sex in one marriage, and at the same time marry an opposite sex in another marriage without being a bigamist.
That’d be a silly argument. More than one spouse=group marriage. As long as all the spouses are informed, consenting adults, what would be the problem with that?
Validating the different lifestyle of LGBT is a moral issue and that cannot be validated by law.
No, but the law can be (and is being) used to oppress gay people by forbidding them from getting married. Wait, are you suggesting that we should criminalize things that someone thinks is immoral? So, should drinking be forbidden? Lots of folks think drinking is immoral. Same with smoking. Same with working on Sunday. Same with having sex without being married. No, sorry. Just because you disapprove of something that harms nobody doesn’t mean it should be illegal.
Separate but Equal used by you is taken out of its context, and historical use. The issue there was race, not gender.
True, but the people who insisted that the races should not mix used many of the same arguments you and others use today to argue against marriage equality.
For purposes of marriage, race should not be a difference to exclude it. The basic requirement was a man and a woman, there was no exclusion for race.
Except there were laws that explicitly forbade black people from marrying white people. They were called anti-miscegenation laws. And the people who supported such laws back then look like bigoted jerks in hindsight, don’t they? What does that tell you?
Again, that is why a constitutional right shouldn't be changed by different states.
Yeah, we agree on this. Constitutional rights shouldn’t be abridged by the states. That’s why every state should allow all citizens to enjoy the benefits of marriage. Glad we agree.
More importantly, marriage, especially same sex marriage doesn't help all those couples that want to have a long term cohabitation, but don't want to get married.
Straight couples who want to live together without marrying are a separate issue. If you want to lobby for some kind of legal instrument that isn’t called “marriage” but is functionally identical to marriage, that’s fine. I’ll even sign your petition. But it’s a separate issue from the one we’re talking about. Don’t go off the road.
I have read it [the Constitution], and even went to college for it.
But... you seem to kinda stink at understanding it, and really stink at applying it equally to all citizens.
Do you really believe that the US and its constitution need to make the wishes and life styles of all minorities fit into the norm of society.
If they're not hurting anybody? Yeah, I really do.
Multiple spouses are not allowed in marriage, and yet they are a minority.
True, for reasons I've covered. But in a case of consenting adults, there's no reason why polygamy shouldn't be allowed. Next?
Pedophiles are a minority, should they be included, don't they have the right to love.
A pedophile who acts on his desire violates the rights of someone who isn't a consenting adult. For someone who supposedly went to college and studied the Constitution, you seem to have a hard time telling the difference between a consenting adult and a child who has not yet reached the age of consent. Child molestation is a crime, because the child can't consent. Two adults having consensual sex is not a crime, because the adults can consent. Seriously, this should have been covered in your freshman year, mate.
Smoking cigarettes is legal, but smoking Marijuana is illegal. They both are dangerous and yet MJ users are forced to break the law
So shouldn't we legalize MJ rather than use one injustice to rationalize another?
Actually, the class of people that is most often discriminated is not a minority. It is the average while, heterosexual male.
Yes, that’s why there are so few white heterosexual males in positions of influence and power in the US today. Everything in your next couple paragraphs is silliness about how white dudes are soooo persecuted in modern American society. Why do you feel this is the case? Because it’s no longer socially acceptable to be racist or sexist or homophobic in polite company? Welcome to a closer look at what equality really means. I wonder how you’ll feel when we straight white dudes really are on an equal footing with gay women of color.
The LGBT is FORCING their lifestyle into mainstream society, and that is not right.
Wait, what? Gay people are forcing the rest of us to be gay? Or are they merely insisting on being treated the same as straight couples?
A straight couple can have a big, lavish wedding with hundreds of guests, at the climax of which they will share a kiss right there in church! And afterwards they’ll go somewhere for a big party to kick off their wedding night, where (most likely) the bride will throw a bouquet to the single ladies, and the groom will throw a garter to the single men, and the two who catch them will probably perform a sexually-charged dance together. How is that not an in-your-face pushing of heterosexuality?
But if a gay couple want to hold hands in public, kiss in public, or get married in a quiet civil ceremony, suddenly they’re forcing their sexuality on the rest of us!
Double standard much?
see my previous comment for a [poorly reasoned, invalid] answer
There, fixed it for you.
I already answered this earlier, see your first reference to unequal
And you were wrong then, too, as I’ve demonstrated above.
You need to get out more, do some walking among the people
Translation: I can’t support my assertion with examples, so, ad hominem!
Validation through traditional marriage seems to be the sole motivation of the LGBT political movement
No, they want equal treatment under the law. Marriage, just like the majority gets, is equal. A separate “not-marriage” isn’t equal treatment. Nobody can control whether other people will approve of a given marriage.
not all minorities, especially unpopular ones have the necessary standing to become the norm.
No, but all minorites are meant to be equally protected under the law. Gay folks aren’t trying to be accepted as ‘the norm.’ they’re trying to be accepted as they are. There’s a difference.
do you see any signs of being on a road.
I answered this one earlier, but the race genetics. and now you want to make gender a racial issue. That is a cheap shot, and a red herring. If this was a legal argument it would lack standing, because it has no feet.
It’s not a cheap shot, it’s a logical and valid response to the assertion that genetic differences should not be granted equal rights under the law.
Especially for the purpose of marriage, race doesn't change the attributes of opposite sex, while same sex does.
Okay, two men getting married would look different from a man and a woman getting married. That’s true. But you still haven’t explained why it is bad or wrong for those two consenting adult men to marry. Whose rights are violated? Whose freedoms are infringed upon? Whose property is damaged? Whose body is harmed? Nobody’s. And yet you still want to violate the marriage rights of gay people.
I did [explain how gay marriage would affect me] several times, just in this reply
Except you only offered one concrete effect: there would probably be more cases in divorce court, which, as I explained above, even if true was a better reason to forbid straight marriage than gay marriage. Got anything else?
This is repetitious and I never once mentioned God as a reason.
That’s true. You’ve never mentioned God. You’ve merely fallen back on other old standbys:
“It’s not the way we do things,” and “They’re in the minority so their rights aren’t protected.” Both of these arguments are invalid, as demonstrated above.
I did several times
Badly, and invalidly.
You are the one that has made no compelling arguments,
So now you’re going to play, “I know you are but what am I?” How about “I’m rubber, you’re glue?”
I actually don't give credibility, respect or friendship based on groups, either artificial or natural ones.
Neither do I. I give it to all, until they prove unworthy of those things.
I don't give groups free rides, because I like the group.
Me neither. I also don’t try to infringe on a given group’s rights, whether I like a group or not.
I even have friends that are gay, and I like and respect them. But not because they are gay, but because of their quality of being human beings.
But you’re comfortable with stopping them from marrying their chosen spouse? Some friend you are.
You can't put all your friends in the same room, so you really aren't treating them equally, are you?
Well, I wouldn’t be doing them any favors by trying to make them all fit in one room. Besides, some of my friends are pranksters, and one of them might yell “Fire.”
No, I'm kidding, but more to the point, “marriage” isn’t a room: it’s not like only so many people can fit inside of “marriage” at once. Stop trying to keep all the marriage for yourself. It makes you seem greedy.
I think you should take your opinions and make a hub.
Perhaps I will.
It's very difficult to see where Jeff's input changes to your input.
When it stops making sense....BINGO!
If you were actually reading Jeff's post, you would've seen where the lines were drawn.
Jeff said:
-"Marrying a dog is illegal because a dog cannot consent to be someone's spouse."
The same can be said about a 12 year old girl or boy being married to an adult.
In bestiality there is lack of consent, in pedophilia, there is lack of consent on the younger party, and there is always manipulation involved by the older party.
{Oh, and your precious Mary, mother of Jesus, was about 16. }
Gay people wanting to get married are two, consenting adults, who want to marry each other. It's simple. And as citizens of this country who have to pay taxes and everything else, they should not be second-class citizens because they are gay and you and the conservatives are somehow deluded into thinking that this will affect YOU and YOUR marriages... You are bigots underneath it all. Probably the same ones fighting to keep blacks and other racial minorities as second class citizens, as well.
"They're different! And we don't like/are scared of different!" Sentiments of an irrational child. Not supposedly reasonable adults.
Really. REALLY? You propose that the US government start beheading people? Or even that beheading people who come against your set and stone views of marriage should be beheaded ... ?
That happens all the time. What do you think happens in court rooms? If that were the case, there would never be a law against cyber-bullying, and any other newer obvious "crimes" that are hard to fit in the definitions of certain crimes we have now. It's called progression. You see it even in dictionaries. You'll find what words mean today are quite different from what they meant just 50 years ago... 100 years ago... Your clinging to old-fashioned bigoted ideas will continue to retard this country's progress.
He was making a similar argument... Except for the "only a man and woman" part.
LoL, you must be a pleasant person to be around.You are quoting things I did not write,
Yes, that was a mistake. I confounded you with lb radmaster. I think I can be forgiven for mistaking you for each other: you make similar arguments in a similar style. But I do apologize for quoting lb radmaster and attributing the quote to you. That was an error.
Though, in all fairness, you did mention procreation above, when you said
The question is -- What purpose does a gay marriage lifestyle choice serve -- procreation?
I think it's reasonable to infer that you were saying procreation is a pretty important part of marriage, and that since gay couples can't procreate, there's no point to them getting married.
So by extension, an infertile straight couple shouldn't be allowed to marry either: what's the point? What purpose does a marriage between an infertile straight couple serve -- procreation?
And then you responded with this goalpost-moving gem:
So obviously the issue of procreation is not criteria.
That's funny, 'cos in your previous post, you made it sound like procreation was one of the criteria. Of course, when the foolishness of this assertion was made clear, you bailed out on this argument like it was a plane with engine trouble.
You did bring up polygamy -- isn't that men having more than one wife?
Yes, and it's a common thing for the anti-equality crowd to bring up. "If we let men marry men," the say, "pretty soon we'll be legalizing group marriages, too, which is equally ungodly!"
Except polygamy is all over the place in the Bible, and (unless I'm mistaken) is not one of the abominations unto the Lord listed in Leviticus. I don't even know why the anti-equality crowd even brings it up--it weakens their arguments (which is really saying something, considering how weak their arguments are to start with).
For the record, I'm also not against polygamy between informed, competent, consenting adults. It's not something I'd practice myself, but if five grownups want to join together in a group marriage, that's no skin off my nose. As long as all participants are consenting adults, no harm, no foul. Good luck finding an adult who will consent to being someone's co-wife or co-husband, though.
Thanks Jeff...you're giving me headache.
That achy feeling is what happens when you use something you haven't used in a while. Feel the burn! Work through it. Eventually you won't have that achy feeling after our conversations.
-
Because they want children. What do you give a damn for?
If you want children, are you going to let others stop you from having a child?
If you're not going to permit others to stop you, then you shouldn't be in the way of others having children, regardless of sexuality.
Related Discussions
- 25
Same sex marriage - is it a civil or political issue?
Same sex marriage - is it a civil or political issue?It is my opinion that it is civil enmeshed in political arena simply because of the privileges in a society.
- 12
Can same sex marriage be consumated....?
Can same sex marriage be consummated, as in the sense of a traditional marriage?I just read an interesting Hub - by a New Hubber, with lots of questions and decided to post one of them here, as no one had answered any of them yet. Please comment on question above (it’s not from me, it’s one...
- 19
How would same-sex marriage affect our society?
How would same-sex marriage affect our society?President Obama just confirmed that he is pro same-sex marriages.
- 715
Vote: no for same sex marriage
I believe we are as human kind we should defend our human rights and our wellness from any harmful act such as same sex; so, let's come together to protect our human rights and keep our society safe for us and next generation; it's our responsibility to say "no" for same sex because it's...
- 34
Same sex marriage - Equality or Not for gay people?
Same sex marriage - Equality or Not for gay people?Ireland recently voted 68% to 32% by referendum to allow same sex marriage, the first country in the world to do so. Is this true democracy at work? How do you view the decision - is it good for a whole country to be given the chance to vote on...
- 21
What are the reasons for keeping same sex marriage different to that of opposite
What are the reasons for keeping same sex marriage different to that of opposite sex?With the marriage equality referendum looming in Ireland I am seeing a lot of Vote No posters that claim children should not be brought up in same sex marriages and that opposite sex marriage is more special than...