Gay marriage: for or against ?

[TheEaterofWorlds]

Yuki said:

so do killers, rapists, and child molestors. They have the impulse and desire to do what they do and they either resist, get help, or something.

I don't think it's fair to compare the impulse to kill and do harm to the impulse to love someone.

I'm going to get personal, and I know that it's totally unfair, so you don't have to respond, but....

Stop loving Yui. IF someone told you that, could you do it? It's all well and good to be cold and logical and say "That's wrong, so stop doing it." It's another thing to do it. Humans are emotional creatures, we crave companionship and sometimes we surprise even ourselves with who we pick. Show me one person in the world who chose who they fell in love with- it doesn't happen that way.

Also, I do hate when people say that homosexuality would lead to an exceptance of beastiality. Beastiality can never be consensual sex, and I am against non consensual sex- rape, beastiality, and sex with minors. Then there's the fact that while many people support gay marriage, I imagine a beastiality lobby would be quite poorly accepted.

Yes, some homosexuals are monogamous and some aren't. My friend Mike was not in a monogamous mindset until he met his current partner, and now they are. My friend Dennis and his partner Kyle are very close and loyal. On the other hand my other friend is gay and sleeps around. Should Dennis and Kyle not be allowed to get married because someone else can't keep themselves under control?

Even in heterosexual couples there are some people who sleep around and are unloyal. There's no reason a loving heterosexual couple can't get married because of the misbehaving of others.

By not natural, I am saying, not the norm, I.E. a sixth thumb or yellow eyes

Actually, Polydactylism is a dominant genetic trait. That's why there are so many six toed cats, and in certian Amish comunities with a small gene pool, extra fingers can be very common. What is 'normal' changes drastically depending on where you are. You know, to put it another way.... I know a guy who is an albino. He lacks pigmintation of any kind. He's not the 'norm' but if anyone tried to stop him from getting married, there'd be a heyday. The general concept of the American government is majority rules, but the rights of the minorites are protected, so some one or something not being common or 'normal' shouldn't really be a factor. If a minority exists, it shouldn't loose rights by being too rare of a minority.

If I fell in love with a woman - unlikely, but possible- what then? I know that I would be loyal to anyone that I loved, and if they would have me, why couldn't I get married? There is a lot of pain involved for people who find themselves in a 'taboo' relationship. First there's the possibility that someone you love of the same gender will be a heterosexual and not love you back, or even if they are bisexual or bi-curious or maybe even if they don't know what they are and love you back- they feel they can't act on it because society tells them they are wrong. It's all well and good to say that we are living in a permissive society and that gays get to do whatever they want and that they aren't really discriminated against, but... the reality can be very different.

"In 2000, the FBI recorded 1,486 instances of anti-LGBTH violence for the entire country"

"Though most bias-related incidents experienced by the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and HIV-affected (LGBTH) community range from verbal harassment and vandalism to intimidation, 41% involve some type of physical confrontation ranging from physical assault to rape and murder."

Statistics in part from the FBI and in part from GLAAD.

I think for one that the banning of Gay marriage does help to give credence to the mindset that being gay is wrong, that they are less of citizens, and that killing or beating a gay or lesbian is somehow less of a crime than killing or beating a heterosexual.

Once I was reading a website that angered me. It was about how some people feel that homosexuality was wrong and evil- but that's not what bothered me. I'm used to that. No, they were asked why they bothered to fight this group of people when no good was going to come of it- and responded by quoting Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. For a group with only intolerance in their hearts to use the words of that man... boiled my blood. In Dr. King's group of friends and advisors there was an openly gay black man who did much to help the cause of civil rights. However, while he was speaking out against hate and oppression against his race, he had to stay silent about the oppression against him as a gay man (Partially because opponents of King's work had threatened to start a rumor that they were involved)

Some people say that it's not the same, that you can't compare the civil rights movement of the 60s and 70s to the movement for gay rights. Dr. King's widow, Correta Scott King, encourages people to make that connection.

"We believe that the rights of all people must be protected and guaranteed. We believe that the gay and lesbian communities must be supported in their civil rights as well as their right for their own sexual preference."
— Correta Scott King
That is part of a much longer speach that she gave on gay and lesbian rights.

I can't help but be worried sometimes, I don't like to see any group persecuted. I think that when you take a group of people and set them up as inferior or evil or immoral, a very dangerous thing starts to happen. You are creating something that is called a 'subjective reality'. A little more on this;

An expirement was done many years ago, and if you ever watch the footage from it a chill will run down your spine. An elementary school teacher named Jane Elliot decided to teach her class a very special lesson- she divided her class into the children with blue eyes and the children with brown eyes. She then told the class that the children with blue eyes were the superior people, and that the brown eyed children were the lessers. Then collars were put on the brown eyed children

Here's just some of what was said and happened;

"Jane Elliott: I mean the blue-eyed people are the better people in this room.
Boy: Huh uh.
Jane Elliott: Oh yes they are--blue-eyed people are smarter than brown-eyed people.
Children: Huh uh.
Brian: My dad isn't that...stupid.
Jane Elliott: Is your dad brown-eyed?
Brian: Yeah.
Jane Elliott: One day you came to school and you told us that he kicked you.
Brian: He did.
Jane Elliott: Do you think a blue-eyed father would kick his son?
My dad's blue-eyed, he's never kicked me. Ray's dad is blue-eyed, he's never kicked him. Rex's dad is blue-eyed, he's never kicked him. This is a fact. Blue-eyed people are better than brown-eyed people."

The brown eyed children were restricted, teased, and generally treated like garbage by their peers;

"Child #1: It seemed like when we were down on the bottom, everything bad was happening to us.
Child #2: The way they treated you, you felt like you didn't even want to try to do anything"

"JANE ELLIOTT: I watched what had been marvelous, cooperative, wonderful, thoughtful children turn into nasty, vicious, discriminating, little third-graders in a space of fifteen minutes."

I saw the expirement on a psychology show that I like to watch at 4 am, but there was also a frontline version with much the same footage, you can watch it or read the transcript here; www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/divided/

The point of that being that when we make laws against those who are different then us, when we label and sort and hold them beneath us, we are trying to make them into something less than human. Hate has to be taught, and once it is, it's hard to unlearn.

(To be continued)

[TheEaterofWorlds]

(continued)
I know that I go on a lot, and I am sorry about that. It's just not something I can wrap my mind around easily. Some of my friends are gay, some are straight, some are bi, some are black, some are white. I love them all, I love my friends dearly and I could never take away from them something that could bring them happiness. Some people think marriage is stupid, and some don't. Anyone who believes that marriage is the greatest sign of love and devotion should be allowed to share that with their special person. There is so much hate in this world, so much evil, I don't see why we can't let some people love each other. Why we can't love them too. If you don't believe in homosexuality or gay marriage, well, no one's asking you to participate in it. If you truely believe that it's wrong, say a prayer for the souls of the people that you love and think are sinning, but God gave us all a choice to live our lives how we want to. He gave us this choice because we are loved. Let people make their mistakes, if that's what they are. We're not the ones they should answer to. Not everyone believes in God, or the same God. So let's let people live the way they feel is right, and live the way we feel is right. If we're all trying our best, maybe we can put some of these differences behind us and learn to live together.

There are many people I don't agree with, many thoughts that I don't see eye to eye with. This is the difference between letting others live the way they want despite this, or stomping them into the ground. Your religion, life, and love is a very important thing, and no one should be able to limit it or take it away. Humans cannot come to agreement, I guess this is because we are human. Even different parts of the same religion can't see eye to eye. We have to learn to live with each other. I know it's tough... I'll close this super-long post with another quote, this time from 'Pete's Dragon"...

"There's room for everyone in this world, if everyone makes some room...." We're all different, but we're all people. Let's not forget that all people deserve love, and respect if they are Christian, Jewish, Black, White, Hindu, Muslim, Gay, Straight... In the end we're all on the same team- humanity.

[Stal]

<snip TEoW>

Ouch. Attack below the belt.

Anyway, here's the thing, by making those comparisons all I wasn't doing it in a way to make homosexuality look bad. I was going by the fact that those people have "impulses" as well, and impulses can be helped.

I apologize by what was conveyed when I used those. I didn't intend to say they were as bad as killers. I was using the compulses aspect alone in what I meant.

As for the beastiality and polygamy arguments, their valid because animals can give "consent" based on body languages, etc. And if you're going to say that homosexuals can marry, and do away with what we call "Traditional marriage" which is defined as one man and one woman then what parts of the tradition can you honestly tell me that need to be kept? If we're doing away with the fact that it has to be one of both genders, then why not do away with the limit of two? Why not do away with the limit of needing just those of your same species. It's opening a can of worms.

I'm not saying these people shouldn't get the same benefits. I'm just saying their marriage is a no-no. But the benefits that come along with marriage, in my opinion, could be "signed for". The hospital visits, the inheritance, all of that. Their needs to be legal provisions made for those.

And I do have friends that are gay/bi/lesbian. They know my position on their lifestyle. But they are people. I've never lost sight of that. But I will not endorse something I'm opposed to. I just won't.

[theunorthodox]

Well said, TEOW. ^^ I wish I had enough energy to make a case like yours.

Anyway, the cases about the Levitical law, how can you say that the homosexuality law has no basis for today? I mean, honestly, I don't understand what you're getting at there. Perhaps you should clarify...?

o0 I don't know how I could be any clearer. There shouldn't be any reason why two people of the same sex can't be together. The bible not only forbids gay marriage, but the act itself. I honestly don't see why. To me, it's just another relationship, if not moreso, because gay couples face a *lot* of brutality and criticism and still manage to stay together.
The main issue, other than morality, I've noted about Christians when it comes to homosexuality is that they can't procreate. Back in the days of old when infant mortality was extremely high and the population was a fraction of what it is now, you really couldn't afford to not have a relationship that would bring babies. Especially since they could help with the chores and work. Now since we *really* don't need to be adding more humans to this race, and since sex is safer because of condoms and such, there aren't really many health concerns with it either.

[Stal]

The said:

Well said, TEOW. ^^ I wish I had enough energy to make a case like yours.



o0 I don't know how I could be any clearer. There shouldn't be any reason why two people of the same sex can't be together. The bible not only forbids gay marriage, but the act itself. I honestly don't see why. To me, it's just another relationship, if not moreso, because gay couples face a *lot* of brutality and criticism and still manage to stay together.
The main issue, other than morality, I've noted about Christians when it comes to homosexuality is that they can't procreate. Back in the days of old when infant mortality was extremely high and the population was a fraction of what it is now, you really couldn't afford to not have a relationship that would bring babies. Especially since they could help with the chores and work. Now since we *really* don't need to be adding more humans to this race, and since sex is safer because of condoms and such, there aren't really many health concerns with it either.

I was confused because you indicated that the saying of homosexuality is wrong in the Bible had its valid reasons for the time, but now it's outdated because we've grown beyond those times. That's why I was confused.

Anyway, I don't think you're looking at the Bible under the majority Christian perspective. If you believe in God, and what He says, then the Bible has meaning to you. It's not something that gets 'outdated', or that God is an 'old fogey who needs to progress'. You see these as the words from the Creator of all things.

In which case you go *bam* I'm in line with that.

But I do find it just as ironically funny as you how some Christians will do away with some parts of the Bible but not others. It is its own form of hypocrisy.

[irishdragonlord]

Ok, I just would love to point out something Dox said...

God does not condemn anyone, and Christianity does not 'reject' homosexuals. Once you gain sentience you are effectively condemned - sinning condemns you, not God - and that's like saying if you commit adultery you are officially non-Christian. All you did was screw up real bad.

Also, think about Leviticus. Would people really have given up slavery because God said so? No one was perfect back then. No one is today. God knew they weren't going to give up slavery, and as for the New Testament thing, still true - until slavery has the means to be abolished, be good and righteous. And, like Stal said, they had it better in far more cases than Civil-war era slaves.

Also, I like what Crystal said - either try to change or abstain. Many straight people manage to abstain; why can't homosexuals?

And yeah, time to find more sources... -_-

I hate Google.

[Stal]

IDL said:

Ok, I just would love to point out something Dox said...

God does not condemn anyone, and Christianity does not 'reject' homosexuals. Once you gain sentience you are effectively condemned - sinning condemns you, not God - and that's like saying if you commit adultery you are officially non-Christian. All you did was screw up real bad.

Also, think about Leviticus. Would people really have given up slavery because God said so? No one was perfect back then. No one is today. God knew they weren't going to give up slavery, and as for the New Testament thing, still true - until slavery has the means to be abolished, be good and righteous. And, like Stal said, they had it better in far more cases than Civil-war era slaves.

Also, I like what Crystal said - either try to change or abstain. Many straight people manage to abstain; why can't homosexuals?

And yeah, time to find more sources... -_-

I hate Google.

IDL, you just used something I have to cringe at when I hear.

You're making the assumption God's law is based on humanity at the time, as if He is subject to humanity's way of life and not the other way around.

It could also be turned on you "Well, he only outlawed homosexuality at the time because it was a bigot society and such and such"...

...which in reality isn't right at all. Homosexuality was a huge thing in the ancient cultures and societies. Even despite that flaw, the same logic can still be used "Well, if homosexuality was such a big thing and people accepted it, then why deny it in the first place if he's to allow slavery."

It just doesn't work like that.

[irishdragonlord]

Yuki said:

IDL, you just used something I have to cringe at when I hear.

You're making the assumption God's law is based on humanity at the time, as if He is subject to humanity's way of life and not the other way around.

It could also be turned on you "Well, he only outlawed homosexuality at the time because it was a bigot society and such and such"...

...which in reality isn't right at all. Homosexuality was a huge thing in the ancient cultures and societies. Even despite that flaw, the same logic can still be used "Well, if homosexuality was such a big thing and people accepted it, then why deny it in the first place if he's to allow slavery."

It just doesn't work like that.

Blech. -_-

Me dumb. XP

That was theory of mine, and it just died.

And now I shall change my theory -

Maybe slavery was radically different back then. I know God didn't directly state anything in the New Testament - I believe Paul said those things, and Paul obviously wasn't perfect and let his opinions out in certain circumstances (IE about marriage and his views on women, in which cases he clearly said "and this comes from I, not the Lord" and vice versa), so, maybe the New Testament teachings - and Old, because some Old Testament teaching are opinionated - come from men, not from God.

Yes, that theory isn't strong, but it's an improvement.

[The Angry Artist]

IDL said:

Ok, I just would love to point out something Dox said...

God does not condemn anyone, and Christianity does not 'reject' homosexuals. Once you gain sentience you are effectively condemned - sinning condemns you, not God - and that's like saying if you commit adultery you are officially non-Christian. All you did was screw up real bad.

Also, think about Leviticus. Would people really have given up slavery because God said so? No one was perfect back then. No one is today. God knew they weren't going to give up slavery, and as for the New Testament thing, still true - until slavery has the means to be abolished, be good and righteous. And, like Stal said, they had it better in far more cases than Civil-war era slaves.

Also, I like what Crystal said - either try to change or abstain. Many straight people manage to abstain; why can't homosexuals?

And yeah, time to find more sources... -_-

I hate Google.

I can't believe my eyes when you say, "All you did was screw up real bad." You seem to be under the impression that people can choose whether or not to be homosexual. Does that mean heterosexuality is a choice?

[Retired Blub]

Um, didn't I make a thread about this already a long time ago? 0_o

[TheEaterofWorlds]

Blubbeh-Sick said:

Um, didn't I make a thread about this already a long time ago? 0_o

I think so, but you know how it is, this thread came back, IDL has so far had two threads devoted to premarital sex, and there have been countless evolution debates. 'Everything old is new again' so they say. ^__~

[Luna]

I have good friends who are homosexual. They're good people. I don't see why people are against them marrying. It doesn't affect them, they aren't the ones having sex with the same sex. The government has no right to dictate what you can do in your bedroom. People are against gay marriage because of their faith for the most part of what I've seen. Marriage should be about love, not prejudice.

[emmaleighhde]

To put in my two cents worth; what does it matter what 'type' of person you love, as long as you you do love them?

In the past if a black man, kissed a white woman...the black man would be killed...this isn't such a serious case (death over being un-able to marry)...but neither event in my mind is fair.

When there is a gay celebrity being discussed...in class perhaps, I've noticed part of the conversation consists of some thing like; 'OMG! Did you know [insert name here] is gay??'...but why does it make SO much of a difference??

In a way i think you could look at this matter much like the age differences between some married couples. If a 22-year-old and 47 year-old wish to, they could easily marry. Some people won't exactly be extatic about it...but ey learn to accepts it don't they? How may I ask, is Gay Marrage any different to this??

[issue100]

Ok, I'm sorry, but I am very dissapointed by what was said...

For one, God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve for a reason: one is kids do do better with two parents than one or two of the same gender. Proven. It shows how to react when one is grown up, how to act towards the opposite sex, and how to treat people that are of a different gender.

I'll just pretend you didn't actually utter those words.

That's just pure discrimination. Religious reasons? Ah... America is turning into a Christian country, and it's tearing me up inside.

But honestly, how rude can you get? You are treating homosexuals as if they are aliens! They are human! G-d (I'm a religious jew) would not say that, because g-d believes in equality for everyone (not saying you don't).

I don't see what gays have done to others.

[The Angry Artist]

IDL said:

mmm... time for more research on my part.



No, they should not be treated as freaks, but no one said they should.

So, this begs the question - why is it wrong? Simple.

For one, God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve for a reason: one is kids do do better with two parents than one or two of the same gender. Proven. It shows how to react when one is grown up, how to act towards the opposite sex, and how to treat people that are of a different gender.

In addition, does this make it ok for people to love squirrels, more than one person, or relatives? People love their siblings, but it is illegal. What about them? True, the resulting offspring are usually deformed, but they "could" use protection... but that doesn't make it right.

And this whole deny-who-you-are - if you actually believe people who are homosexuals cannot change, you are mistaken, because it is happened, and they are not in denial.

I have nothing against gay person and I would rip harder on someone who hurt a gay person than the gay person themself. But I still think the gay person is wrong.



The adoption thing I see the reason for - the whole psyhchology thing. And, sadly, healthcare and tax breaks are not unalienable rights.

I wouldn't have seen this unless Elementa pointed this out, so I might as well get on with it.

Perhaps God made Adam and Eve for a different reason (i.e. to have children). And I don't know where you get your facts from, but it's been proven that it doesn't matter whether or not the parents are gay. It's been reported that kids do not suffer mentally because they are adopted by gay parents.

By the way, bestiality has nothing at all to do with gay marriage. Animals can't consent, and that is not marriage. Not even a shotgun wedding would convince them to consent. It doesn't work like that.

Do you actually know any gays?