Gay marriage: where do you stand?

[Lestat84]

I have no religious beliefs whatsoever, I just think gay marriage is repulsive. The very idea of male on male intercourse disgusts me. Furthermore, marriage is a societal institution intended to promote procreation. And procreation is between a man and woman. Therefore gay marriage should not exist. I'm not saying it's a threat, I'm just saying it doesn't make sense. The human race evolved through reproduction based on two opposite sexes. Therefore gay marriage makes no sense logically or biologically.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Your opinion of gay sex is not remotely germane.

Your opinion of gay marriage seems to hinge on it however.

Marriage DOES NOT equal sex. Many of us married men can attest to that!

Furthermore, marriage is a societal institution intended to promote procreation.

Gay marriage may well promote procreation.

Few people actually want to be a single parent. But a married gay couple may well consider hiring a woman as a surrogate, same as a couple consisting of one sterile female. I don't think many single people do this.

But I think that the real point of marriage was most certainly not procreation. Marriage is not at all needed or even helpful to procreation, save maybe indirectly. Perhaps what you want to point to is in fact the "raising of children" in a stable environment, and no, its not the same thing.

So, raising children... to wit:

Therefore gay marriage makes no sense logically or biologically.

Well, there always was the case of a man who is single, whether by divorce or death of a wife, raising children on his own, who may choose to have a man as a partner to help raise the children.

Surely a child with two parents is better off, regardless of their sex.

The science of artificial insemination has made it make even more sense, both logically and biologically.

 

[Shantal]

I have gay frinds that are married to each other and I have to tell you they are just as normal as I am (lets say I am normal, ok?) - they have the same problems, they have also ups and downs in the relationship and yes - they both say that the attention they get from their partner is less now that they are married then it used to be - yeah - join the long line of married&disappointed
As for what they do when they are alone ... who cares - some male-female couples have more bizzare sex lives then my immagination can come up with
Here in Denmark, people can be partners (sharing address/taxes/custody of kids/bank loans...) with or without official marriage - it goes both for same sex and "cross-sex" partnership. Same sex marriage has been legal for a long time and people are rather used to that. Weird enough, the big discussion here is if churches should perform gay weddings or not. I leave that to the smart heads...

 

[casiocasio10]

tonight... Gay marriage starts in Maine.... and i am for it.... I can't wait to see all the just married cars driving about

 

[BrianLewis]

I am not sure how it makes more sense to have 2 individuals that require a lab and a 3rd individual to procreate. Seems pretty contrary to the natural state of things to me. Unless you meant it makes more sense than it use to be by adopting or not having children at all. It definitely does not make more sense than a man and woman having a child in a natural manner, i.e., "naturally."

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

I'm not going to manually search for and publish articles and information about individual cases, but the cultural problems are basically the same as in Norway and they actually have official statistics proving that in every single assault rape in Oslo over a three year period the rapists were immigrants of middle-eastern or african origin.
- Innvandrere bak alle anmeldte overfallsvoldtekter i Oslo - nyheter - Dagbladet.no

I have to wonder if Middle Eastern culture about homosexual rape is similar to male prison culture in America, where rape is a tool of violence and domination, and only the guy on the receiving end is considered gay or the "female" in the encounter, which is a big part of the disrespect intended.
I have to admit that my speculation here is probably derived from the excellent novel, "The Kite Runner" as much as anything.

---------- Post added at 16:35 ---------- Previous post was at 16:26 ----------

I have no religious beliefs whatsoever, I just think gay marriage is repulsive. The very idea of male on male intercourse disgusts me. Furthermore, marriage is a societal institution intended to promote procreation. And procreation is between a man and woman. Therefore gay marriage should not exist. I'm not saying it's a threat, I'm just saying it doesn't make sense. The human race evolved through reproduction based on two opposite sexes. Therefore gay marriage makes no sense logically or biologically.

As I think I've said here already, if it disgusts you, then DON'T DO IT. Don't watch gay porn either. Christ, how much simpler can it be than that? Who's forcing YOU into gay sex?

Your idea that the only purpose of marriage is procreation explains religious prohibitions, but is completely false. Marriage has other equally valid purposes. Life partnership with someone you love. Sex for the purpose of bonding and nurturing. Emotional as well as physical intimacy. Someone who will be your heir and has power to determine your medical care if you become unable to make your own wishes clear.

Many hetero couples don't want kids. Would you declare their marriages invalid? In our age of world over-population, why should people be forced to add more unwanted kids to the human bio-mass?

 

[Lestat84]

This is a liberal thread. I'm no conservative, but I'm no liberal either. This is a waste of time. It's just liberals agreeing with each other here....

 

[Half-n-Half]

This is a liberal thread. I'm no conservative, but I'm no liberal either. This is a waste of time. It's just liberals agreeing with each other here....

Since people disagree with you it's just "liberals" agreeing with each other here? If you can be opposed to gay marriage and yet not be a conservative how come we can't be for gay marriage and not be considered a liberal?

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

This is a liberal thread. I'm no conservative, but I'm no liberal either. This is a waste of time. It's just liberals agreeing with each other here....

The split on gay marriage is now 11 to 8, so you have enough allies here to supply you with the emotional support you evidently need to make your case.

The problem is that your side isn't rationally presenting a case. Unless you consider bigotry rational.

 

[Shantal]

Hatred is mostly Jealousy or One-sided Love.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

This is a liberal thread. I'm no conservative, but I'm no liberal either. This is a waste of time. It's just liberals agreeing with each other here....

And you accused yourself of being a deep thinker in my preferences thread???

---------- Post added at 15:18 ---------- Previous post was at 15:14 ----------

I am not sure how it makes more sense to have 2 individuals that require a lab and a 3rd individual to procreate. Seems pretty contrary to the natural state of things to me. Unless you meant it makes more sense than it use to be by adopting or not having children at all. It definitely does not make more sense than a man and woman having a child in a natural manner, i.e., "naturally."

I did not mean more sense than hetero couples. I meant more sense than it made before.

You get some really strange ideas about my posts. Seems par for the course among people of faith.

---------- Post added at 15:23 ---------- Previous post was at 15:18 ----------

Sorry for this minor digression

Minor?? Slap yourself macro. Next time open a new thread rather than drag mine so far off topic!

This is about gay marriage. NOT semitic gay rape. For fcks sake!

 

[BrianLewis]

This is a liberal thread. I'm no conservative, but I'm no liberal either. This is a waste of time. It's just liberals agreeing with each other here....

I have to agree. They won't even use their own sacred methodology to prove their point. Their only argument is based on assumptions and "feelings." Not the kind of liberals I am use to debating with. You are right that there will be no progress here, not when all rationality flies out the window and people start screaming or laying on personal insults.

You get some really strange ideas about my posts. Seems par for the course among people of faith.

Like that one, and a few before it.

I wonder how Plato would have dealt with those that would come to court in order to rant instead of reason.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I have to agree. They won't even use their own sacred methodology to prove their point.

That was done. You just don't realize it because you think methodology must have more than one step every time. It doesn't.

Their only argument is based on assumptions and "feelings."

You have so lost the plot. The core argument was based on reason, logic and justice and it was the only one needed.

Its you and yours basing your decision on assumptions and feelings, outstanding among them being that a book you hold dear is divine, eternal, and relevant to today.

Not the kind of liberals I am use to debating with. You are right that there will be no progress here, not when all rationality flies out the window and people start screaming or laying on personal insults.

I don't think you would know if rationality ever flew anywhere. You don't seem to be able to know it when you see it. You seem to think that yammering on and on and going off on tangents related only by key words is rationality but you are completely wrong.

Ergo, the topic is gay marriage. So your side brings up gay sex, thinking its related because they share the word "gay". The "logic" is so low and mechanical a child could see it. Its like you think its germane to talk about 2 apples because this is about 2 oranges.

No. Married or not, two gay men can still have sex and they do. Married or not two gay men can refrain from sex and they do that too.

Marriage is not sex and sex is not marriage. But if you want to see it that way for intents and purposes of your religious orgs, go right ahead. Just remember to separate church and state.

I wonder how Plato would have dealt with those that would come to court in order to rant instead of reason.

Pointing to common patterns of irrational thought among certain groups was not a rant. It was an observation that comes from experience.

There is no way a rational mind would have chosen that bit about "even more" to mean the one you did, completely at the exclusion of the other possibility, the only rational one there was.

Your not liking that fact is not relevant. Twisting words will not fix it.

 

[thomas]

On Mark's insistence, I have moved posts not related to gay marriage to another OT thread. Please stay on topic.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Thank you Thomas!

Could you direct us to that thread?

Edit: Here is the thread. OT: Gay culture in the ME

 

[thomas]

It's in the "Serious Discussion" subsection, too, but I am not certain if it's really worth preserving it.

 

[nahadef]

I agree it was way off the topic. The topic is whether marriage should be open to all consenting adults, and not merely based on genitals.

 

[BrianLewis]

Make a post about polygamy. It's the closest cultural parallel, yet I expect you would get drastically different results. The difference is that gay marriage is a topic of pop culture at the moment, and those that want self assurance, seek the assurance of what is popular culturally. Hence the creation of this thread when those involved are already closed minded in their opinion.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Make a post about polygamy. It's the closest cultural parallel, yet I expect you would get drastically different results. The difference is that gay marriage is a topic of pop culture at the moment, and those that want self assurance, seek the assurance of what is popular culturally.

I can accept that. I am the only person I know who is consistent across the board on things like that, although def is pretty close by my estimation.

I am fine with polygamy and polyandry, I just think we need special rules and regulations to make them workable in a legal sense. The ban should be lifted. You won't catch me being two-faced about marriage and sexual rights.

Hence the creation of this thread when those involved are already closed minded in their opinion.

As per above, no, you are completely wrong about my motives for creating this thread.

You are the one who is close-minded, not me. You have no case. Yet you persist.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

Hey, you staunch "conservatives" -- why aren't you showing up in this "liberal's" gun topic? If you're real conservatives, and anti-gay, aren't you also supposed to be pro-gun? Since we're appealing now to stereotype.

Can you guess the common thread between my positions there and here? It's a little word called "liberty." Not liberal -- LIBERTY.

Liberty means that people in groups you may not like have the same rights you do. The same human rights to love, free speech, marriage, self-protection, and so on. This means gay people too.

BrianLewis, what methodology are you talking about?

I'm not taking the bait on polygamy because that looks like another effort to head off-topic. Next someone will want to talk about marrying an animal, and expect us to treat that seriously as if it's like gay marriage.