Forums
Home > General Discussion > Serious question
-
Please, only serious responses.
I am at a complete loss as to how gay (and lesbian) marriage (or civil unions, which seems the same but without the marriage label) has specific adverse effects on my heterosexual marriage, heterosexual marriage generally, the raising of children, or on society generally, here and now.
I can conceive of the opposition to gay marriage having an adverse effect on heterosexual marriage in that there could be a continuation, perhaps even an increase, in gays, under psychological and other pressures, entering into a heterosexual marriage. Since the gay sexual preference continues, these heterosexual marriages may well suffer.
“questions” usually have question marks to signify they are questions?
but i personally don't think gay marriages have any adverse effects on straight marriages. weakening the institution of marriage? i just don't see it.
and some peeps just think two dudes or two chicks kissin n touchin butts n stuff is gross. i think it's ***SeXy***
The “protect the sanctity of marriage” argument is hilarious when you consider current divorce rates.
Thinking about it is your first problem. There's this book written by a bunch of dudes and translated by another bunch of dudes and then edited by yet another bunch of dudes that says an invisible omniscient dude told some special dudes that gay dudes were gross and always had been, starting a few thousand years ago. Why would anyone question that?
It's a very strange and sensitive subject. I'm sure it stems from the Christian belief that it's “unnatural” for a man to be with another man or a woman to be with another woman (pardon if I butchered the real reason – I'm not an expert in Christian values even though I was raised Catholic). If that's the case, I at least understand where they are coming from, even if I don't agree with it. If that isn't the basis though, I don't know what leg they have to stand on given the celebrity sham marriages (Kardashian, I'm talking to you) and divorce rates.
It's just a very difficult topic because on one hand, we're supposed to allow freedom of religion – and this religion believes being gay isn't “right.” On the other hand, we're supposed to have equal rights. That now means the government needs to be in the business of deciding what parts of religion are OK and what parts aren't OK.
Freedom of religion means you're free to practice your religion, but not impose your religious beliefs (or restrictions) on others. If that were the case, Muslims could see that pork be banned and that women wear burqas. Jews could require that we all do no work on Saturdays. Where do you draw the line? Fortunately, someone has said as much pretty eloquently:
“Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific values.”
D’oh said it best. You can’t impose your religion on someone else. Which also means that gay and Lesbian marriages don’t effect anyone except the two people involved.
The hardcore Christians or other religious nuts have no reason to tell others what they can and can’t do. Especially if they have a couple divorces under their belt, their wife is cheating on them and their son is a closet homosexual.
Why should it matter to anyone?JimPB said:
Please, only serious responses.
I am at a complete loss as to how gay (and lesbian) marriage (or civil unions, which seems the same but without the marriage label) has specific adverse effects on my heterosexual marriage, heterosexual marriage generally, the raising of children, or on society generally, here and now.
I can conceive of the opposition to gay marriage having an adverse effect on heterosexual marriage in that there could be a continuation, perhaps even an increase, in gays, under psychological and other pressures, entering into a heterosexual marriage. Since the gay sexual preference continues, these heterosexual marriages may well suffer.
You are at a loss because you are trying to look at this issue logically. What is at work is ideologies which are at once divorced from logic and rational thought and work solely on emotion's and personal identity. No, homosexual relationships can not impact heterosexual relationships unless one of the hetrosexuals are “Bi.” If you notice, any of these liberal/Conservative exchanges on this this forum have no rational underpinnings and just come down to personal beliefs which are just that, beliefs: not truths, not consensus, not science.
internet tourettes said:
What is at work is ideologies which are at once divorced from logic and rational thought and work solely on emotion's and personal identity.
The argument is that it changes the long held definition of marriage.
How would you feel if christian conservatives started using the term LGBT for a kind of hamburger? You wouldn't have problem with changing the definition? Or if people started changing the definitions of gay, or queer to meaning something different, like they've changed multiple times in the past, unlike marriage?
The real question is, and I realize it's not even an option in VA, but what's wrong with having a civil union if you get all the rights a straight married couple get if we're going down the road of giving benefits for private choices, which I don't agree with for anyone, straight or gay..
Fenix said:
D'oh said it best. You can't impose your religion on someone else. Which also means that gay and Lesbian marriages don't effect anyone except the two people involved.
The hardcore Christians or other religious nuts have no reason to tell others what they can and can't do. Especially if they have a couple divorces under their belt, their wife is cheating on them and their son is a closet homosexual.
Why should it matter to anyone?Well, then, we MUST allow polygamous marriage for Mormons and Muslims. Right?
novasteve said:
The argument is that it changes the long held definition of marriage.
How would you feel if christian conservatives started using the term LGBT for a kind of hamburger? You wouldn't have problem with changing the definition? Or if people started changing the definitions of gay, or queer to meaning something different, like they've changed multiple times in the past, unlike marriage?
Oh, come on, Steve. If all you care about is what it's called, then you're a dismal failure. Who cares if someone calls a hamburger an LGBT? What a preposterous objection.
The problem with this debate is that marriage is, by definition, a privilege that is extended only to certain people who satisfy the conditions for it. We can certainly change those conditions any time we want, but it's hard to fit something like this into a rights model or religious freedom model.
For a long time, many states set the voting age at 21 or around that. Then we passed an amendment to change the qualification, requiring all states to let people vote at age 18. That was a liberalization of the qualifications. But we still restrict voting to a certain age. Just like, even after gay marriage, we would still be restricting marriage only to two and only two living adult humans who are not siblings nor parent and child.
novasteve said:
The argument is that it changes the long held definition of marriage.
How would you feel if christian conservatives started using the term LGBT for a kind of hamburger? You wouldn't have problem with changing the definition? Or if people started changing the definitions of gay, or queer to meaning something different, like they've changed multiple times in the past, unlike marriage?
The real question is, and I realize it's not even an option in VA, but what's wrong with having a civil union if you get all the rights a straight married couple get if we're going down the road of giving benefits for private choices, which I don't agree with for anyone, straight or gay..
But the definition of marriage has changed constantly, over thousands of years. It's been a polygamous institution, a diplomatic one, a financial one, etc., often at the same time. Even “one man, one woman” is relatively new- and other countries and cultures don't subscribe to it. It's currently seen (by most in the US) as a union of two people for love, happiness, and family. I don't see how expanding it to include gay couples would hurt it in any way, or redefine it any more that it has been redefined so many times in the past.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
