Gay Marriage.

Post Reply New Topic

Look, dude, just look up some information on Greensboro and Asheville, NC. It's like they're competing for the title of "San Francisco of the South."

i know a couple people from NC so i can just ask instead.

Well, all we're missing is the state sanction. There's always a church within a short commute that would gladly help a gay couple exchange vows in the eyes of God, so the church's sanction is not a problem. Now, whether you will believe it or not, children develop very well in the care of parents of the same sex, and I think that the last statistic I was made aware of indicated that about a third of those gay men and women who consider themselves in a spousal relationship are parents. If the majority of the gays and lesbians in this country were to settle into a relationship and tended to follow this statistic, there wouldn't be enough orphaned children in the country to fill that demand. We, the American people, could create homes for children from impoverished countries who have nowhere else to go, children who have lost their parents to war, famine, or illness. This would never again be a world in which a child has to grow up without a family.

Ascan, believe me, you are no Codarac.

Well, we're really quite used to facing opposition. In fact, we've come to be somewhat rely upon it. Really, I have to admit that a major part of my annoyance with civil unions is that they serve to take a lot of the fire out of the gay rights movement. Europe, after all, has had civil unions in place for years, and I think that this is part of the reason that it's taken so long for even the more liberal of them to begin contemplating the possibility of gay marriage. Sweden, one of the most liberal countries in all of Europe, has only just this year determined that they will have gay marriage, a serious step up from the civil union law that they've had in place for quite a long time, and the only reason this happened was that their state church finally came around and stated their willingness to solemnize gay marriages.

You're right, though. We are acting out of self-interest, and this is an inescapable fact. However, the majority of those who are calling for gay marriage are not gay. I don't know the sexual proclivities of the participants in this thread, but I think that a lot of them are heterosexual people who are supporting us simply out of their own sense of justice. I am very thankful for their highly energetic and whole-hearted support.

You see, Ascan, your opposition to gay marriage doesn't just hurt the gay community. There are heterosexual people in this country who feel the sting of this injustice, just as you would feel a very deep sense of outrage if a man who murdered a person you never knew or cared about were set free. Of course, I'm not comparing you to a murderer, but the point is that the consequences of your crime affect not just those you intend to hurt but practically anyone who has a deeply rooted sense of justice.

No. I'm just trying to understand why you would have such strong feelings over this. I'm seriously finding it hard to believe that you'd be making references to Orwell over this if you didn't have some personal reason for feeling uncomfortable with gay marriage.

Would you consider his mate a member of your family? If his sister were to have a child, would you go to the baby shower if it were nearby? If they were to adopt a child, would consider yourself a grandfather? The most important question, however, is this: would you concern yourself over whether the particular man your son was choosing to dedicate himself to was the right person for him, including doing background checks, speaking with his family and friends, and making absolutely certain that your son isn't about to marry an abusive, sociopathic asshat?

Did I just hear Sighold flipping through the Fallacy Files? Sheesh, the geek's probably got them all memorized, but ANYWAY...

Thanks, but the circumstances of our respective lives haven't yet put us in a position to consider this. We prefer to think of each other as "mates," for we're not quite yet integrated enough into each other's lives for the consequences of our relationship to extend significantly beyond just the two of us. When we're more settled in, perhaps our respective families will identify more strongly with one another, but now is not that time.

Dude, I'm so mixed-up, I can't even think of a suitable name for it. You know, what I've discovered and actually helped a few others discover is that, although we have some degree of trouble getting into short-term relationships, we can have some degree of advantage in forming enduring love. We're in a position to learn about love not only as an emotional experience but as a set of inalienable obligations toward one another, and that aspie sincerity is really a lot better for communication than NT evasiveness. The foundation of our relationship is one of unconditional trust, rationalism, responsibility, thoughtfulness, sharing, and unwavering affection. This is a very strong model tested by the fitful weather of time, and it is within easy reach of almost any aspergian.

Tell me what they say. Mind you, there ARE pockets of conservatism in the state, but we're somewhat the last bastion of this breed of person known as "good country people." Everywhere else, they've been heavily replaced by rednecks and white trash.

The big question is why are the major religions against the act of homosexuality. Could it be down to the fact that from a religious point of view is that sex should only be done as reproduction and any sex that does not come into this category.

Or could there be more to this. It would be irresponsible to start changes rules without having a full scientific understanding of why they exist in the first place. Because religions follow the natural laws of evolution that the religions have to say should not completely be discounted as out of date and dogmatic.

Gay Marriage? Is it against the religion? If so, then yes, it should not be allowed. Pretty horrible, eh? Well, I'm not the religious person and if you're religion forbids it then you may try rethinking your stance because it doesn't seem to agree with you on, what I'd consider, a MAJOR issue.

I think gay people can be together all they want but "marriage" is a religious topic. If they start bending that rule, left and right, what else is subject to change?

hell no, it just doesn't seem natural to me and it goes against my religious beliefs. 2 men married, thats just icky eww.

2 men married, thats just icky eww.

I've been brought up and been told that homosexual activity is wrong. Sorry but that's all I can say.

Well that's one of those things that's a matter of opinion. I'm straight myself, but I am open minded enough to realise that gays and bi's are just as human as I am, and deserve an equal chance at life..... And that's honestly one of the things I dislike about organized religion, it spreads hate under the guise of compassion. More specifically, the popular interpretation of Islam and Christianity. Although, both of those religions are largely subject to interpretation, so one might say that neither Christianity or Islam are against gays if they were to interpret their respective religion in a way other than what most of society does..... I mean the bible has been interpretted wrongly before, to attempt to justify the holy wars, witch trials, halucaust, slavery, female bondage, all sorts of nasty things.

As far as the issue of giving gays the right to marry without calling it marriage, we've already settled this years ago: you can't have "separate but equal" accommodations. You can't have train cars of similar condition and say "only blacks can ride in car one and only whites can ride in car two".

I don't believe the state should sanction marriage. Marriage no longer seems to fulfill its intended purpose, with people divorcing left and right and people never having children. To top it off, if you do stay together and have children but happen to be gay or polygamist or whatever then you're part of some evil liberal/terrorist/communist scheme to make society different.

If the state wasn't involved, then we could leave all of that metaphysical mumbo-jumbo to spiritualists, and just let people live together as they see fit. If a gay couple wants to get married but their church won't sanction it, tough cookies: there's a separation of church and state.

And hey, conservatives these days are just as responsible as liberals for making an Orwellian society. Hell, I don't trust anyone involved in politics anymore. With my current political leanings (libertarian socialist) I don't think I have any place in modern politics.

To Codarac:

Your criticisms of liberalism are based upon a poor understanding of liberalism.

…

Your objections to liberalism seem to be based primarily upon your objections to individualism, and the basis of your argument seems to be that the greater good of society should be held to be more important than individual gratification. What you seem to be positing is that the greater good of society is seperate from individual interests. What liberal philosophy posits is that society is made up of individuals, and the greater good of society is acheived by allowing or facilitating the liberty of these individuals to pursue their diverse interests. If a society has acheived a high rate of individual satisfaction, it is successful. Even if you are thinking in the long-term, you are still operating under this precept.

Did I just hear Sighold flipping through the Fallacy Files? Sheesh, the geek's probably got them all memorized, but ANYWAY...

Perhaps this would be a better analogy as far as 'appeal to tradition' and the folly thereof goes:

There is a woman who, when cooking ham, always begins with cutting off one end of the ham and throwing it away. One day, her young nephew comes to visit. He notices this odd behaviour and in the typical way of children, asks about it. This woman admits that she only does so because here mother did so. Becoming curious herself, she asks her mother, who in turn admits she only does it like that because her mother did so. When the grandmother is questioned, it's revealed that she only did so because it wouldn't fit in her pan otherwise.

I don't run the Floridian government. It's their problem.

Interviewer: Okay, so two people...two people just fell deeply in love with one another, and they decided they were going to spend the rest of their lives together. Just to set it in stone, they had this big ceremony with all their family and friends there, everyone dressed up, and they exchanged vows between each other with the supervision of a priest, other clergyman, wiseman, whatever culture we're living in. Okay, so they've been together thirty years, they've got five kids, one now practicing as a doctor and two of them in university. What term would you use to describe this?

whether you will believe it or not, children develop very well in the care of parents of the same sex, and I think that the last statistic I was made aware of indicated that about a third of those gay men and women who consider themselves in a spousal relationship are parents. If the majority of the gays and lesbians in this country were to settle into a relationship and tended to follow this statistic, there wouldn't be enough orphaned children in the country to fill that demand. We, the American people, could create homes for children from impoverished countries who have nowhere else to go, children who have lost their parents to war, famine, or illness. This would never again be a world in which a child has to grow up without a family.

You're right, though. We are acting out of self-interest, and this is an inescapable fact. However, the majority of those who are calling for gay marriage are not gay. I don't know the sexual proclivities of the participants in this thread, but I think that a lot of them are heterosexual people who are supporting us simply out of their own sense of justice.