Let's talk about GAY MARRIAGE!

[Welcome Back Apathy]

I have a question for the few of you who think that calling it something different is perfectly okay. For once, it's not questioning your beliefs, I swear. I'm just genuinely curious.

 

What's the word you think it should be called? "Civil union"? (If so, it's a complete misnomer for some, since many of them ARE religious, and it would be WAY more different from a "civil" union than it is from a marriage. Perhaps just "union".) "Gay marriage"?

 

And if that word passes through...what's the verb? Instead of saying "We're getting married!" what does someone say? Instead of "I'm marrying my boyfriend of eighteen years!" what do they say? I really want to know, from a linguist's point of view.

 

I'm gay marrying my boyfriend!

[passiflora]

Sorry for quoting old posts... I think there's some interesting discussion here. I was just a little late getting in on the action. ;) I haven't read the entire discussion, so also apologies for brining up points that may have already been addressed.

 

So, if that is your reasoning of how marriage works -- shouldn't couples who don't intend to reproduce or have a money be denied their right to marry -- since their not fulling their original role?

 

I have already shown how the concept of marriage, though it has varied over time, has grown from the social conventions of heterosexual interactions (protection, providing food etc). Tailoring it to homosexual interaction is by far the greatest possible shift you can make away from what it is and has been for ever since it began. Say you have two homosexual cavemen. Both are mighty warriors as survival of the fittest used to dictate. They could each fend for themselves. On top of this no family would be created. There was no reason for them to interact in a way that would give rise to marriage. Even if a heterosexual couple is barren, they are hard wired for a family type set-up where the male would provide and protect. I'm not being sexist, this is how it was. And sure homosexual people want families, but a lot of that is simple observation of social conventions around them.

 

Well I already said I support civil unions, provided they offer the same legal rights. But I don't believe we should change what marriage is on such a fundamental level. It doesn't seem right to. Two people can love one another...they can embrace. And they should even have the same rights! But I don't think it should be called marriage as it is not what marriage has been known to be.

I'm kind of confused because you seem to contradict yourself - you say that we shouldn't change marriage fundamentally, but also acknowledge that it varies over time.

 

Marriage today is almost nothing like it was originally. It was pretty much to ensure paternity or it was done for some sort of gain (money, property, peace/agreements, etc.). Nowadays marriage is largely focused on love, as "paternal" and "political" issues can be resolved in other ways. Marriage is known to be different things to different cultures and is even different within the same culture at different points in time. Allowing gay marriage to be called "marriage" isn't changing it nearly as drastically as you're making it out to be.

 

Where do you stand on polygamy? And I'm not asking this as a farce, I'm really curious. If you accept gay marriage you must also be in favor of polygamy. I will explain to you why.

 

It's been your position, as far as I can see, that marrying someone you love and who loves you is a basic human right. The thing about basic human rights is that they are not subject to being conditional. It is truly possible to deeply love more than one person. And if more than one person loved you back, why can't you have multiple marriages?

If you're going to change what marriage is in our day and age, quality*=quantity. Change is change.

 

Keep in mind that if you reject polygamy, you are guilty of the same "discrimination" shared by people who are anti-gay marriage. It just happens to be discrimination toward a different group. And this is true no matter the strategy you implement to try to rationalize differences between the two.

 

 

*Quality here is defined as type (gender), not a judgement.

I wouldn't be opposed to polygamy, however I am hesitant.

 

To me, polygamy serves the same kind of purpose as "olden day" marriage: for an advantage, not for love. In polygamous polygynous societies, multiple wives is more of a symbol of status or power or had other motivations, and polyandry is exceptionally rare. I feel like it's less realistic to implement, or would fundamentally change the idea of what we currently think of as marriage - much more so than gay marriage. I'm not saying that one culture is necessarily more right or that polygamy couldn't work, but I feel like it's a distinct issue to gay marriage (to a degree).

 

I didn't say anything about rights, I said that gay couples aren't the same as heterosexual couples because of the fact that they're gay. That isn't derogatory or insulting, its the truth.

But your basis for saying that they weren't the same is that they cannot have children. By that definition, infertile heterosexual couples would be more similar to gay couples and not worthy of the term 'marriage'. It's okay to acknowledge differences, but to pull from your example about identifying races not being racism:

It's okay to identify an Asian person as Asian, but they're still a person. It's okay to say 'gay marriage', and identify it as such, but it's still marriage.

[nelle]

Love is love. Period.

 

I totally agree.

I have a girl-pal that came out of the closet. She was SO worried. But when she told me, I thought, "well, I don't want to date you. So what does it matter to me who you date?".. of course - as long as her partner treats her well (and she does ^_^ ).

Love is love.

[Kaana]

I wouldn't be opposed to polygamy, however I am hesitant.

 

To me, polygamy serves the same kind of purpose as "olden day" marriage: for an advantage, not for love. In polygamous polygynous societies, multiple wives is more of a symbol of status or power or had other motivations, and polyandry is exceptionally rare. I feel like it's less realistic to implement, or would fundamentally change the idea of what we currently think of as marriage - much more so than gay marriage. I'm not saying that one culture is necessarily more right or that polygamy couldn't work, but I feel like it's a distinct issue to gay marriage (to a degree).

 

Just gonna jump back in here, as this is something that I've been thinking a bit about lately.

 

So basically, your argument against polygamy is that people will marry as sort of a "hey look at all the wives I have!"/status kind if thing as opposed to actual love.

 

I'd just like to point out that lots of people still get married for status as opposed to love. Celebrity marriages much? Although it's, admittedly, becoming less common, marriage is/should be a consensual thing. If someone's not happy being treated like a status symbol, they can/should be able to back out at anytime.

 

Just as a thing that's a thing, are you familiar with Neils? (NSFW)

http://nielsg.com/lo...candinavian-way (first comic)

It's become very well known for it's pro-polygamy attitude, even though that's not the comic's main focus. And, yes, it's two men, one woman. It's actually very funny.

 

So we've covered status polygamy, loving sexual relationship polygamy. Are you familiar with the idea of being, say, homoromantic but heterosexual? That is, you only get romantic feelings (love, if you like) for people of the same gender, but sexual attraction for the opposite gender. Very confusing if you don't know that it's a thing that's a thing, but let's not go there. Your choice, as a person, is to marry someone you love or someone you actually are sexually attracted to. If all parties are ok with it, why not do both?

 

This comes back to my underlining thoughts about most of everything - if it's consensual, if everyone's ok with it, it should be ok.

 

I don't see how managing the system would be terribly difficult. It'd just be that persons A and B and C were married, as opposed to persons A and B.

 

/returns into lurkerdom

[Welcome Back Apathy]

I don't see how managing the system would be terribly difficult. It'd just be that persons A and B and C were married, as opposed to persons A and B.

 

I can think of some difficulties. Would they all be married to each other, or does just one of them have multiple spouses? That is, is it a triangle, or is it one person with two spouses? Once we figure that out, how do you write the marriage certificates?

 

But the most fun one is divorce. How on earth would divorce proceedings work? If a guy has seven wives, and each one divorces him one after another, how much does each wife take? Do they split it into eight, or does the first to divorce take half, then the second take a quarter of the original, then the third take an eighth...Really, how would the finances of it work at all if each wife has a job?

 

That doesn't mean I think it should be illegal, or that it's morally wrong. It just WOULD be difficult to set up.

[passiflora]

So basically, your argument against polygamy is that people will marry as sort of a "hey look at all the wives I have!"/status kind if thing as opposed to actual love.

 

I'd just like to point out that lots of people still get married for status as opposed to love. Celebrity marriages much? Although it's, admittedly, becoming less common, marriage is/should be a consensual thing. If someone's not happy being treated like a status symbol, they can/should be able to back out at anytime.

I'm leaning more towards religious/political rather than celebrity. Polygamy to me seems like something that is traditionally not as consensual (although that could very well change), but I agree with the rest of what you've said - people should be able to back out.

 

So we've covered status polygamy, loving sexual relationship polygamy. Are you familiar with the idea of being, say, homoromantic but heterosexual? That is, you only get romantic feelings (love, if you like) for people of the same gender, but sexual attraction for the opposite gender. Very confusing if you don't know that it's a thing that's a thing, but let's not go there. Your choice, as a person, is to marry someone you love or someone you actually are sexually attracted to. If all parties are ok with it, why not do both?

 

This comes back to my underlining thoughts about most of everything - if it's consensual, if everyone's ok with it, it should be ok.

 

I don't see how managing the system would be terribly difficult. It'd just be that persons A and B and C were married, as opposed to persons A and B.

I agree with Karina above - it doesn't necessarily have to be illegal, but IMO there are a lot more factors to consider compared to gay marriage.

 

I don't think it's impossible for a loving, consensual, polygamous marriage to exist; I was mainly just trying to address neoskulltula's concern that allowing gay marriage would change marriage on a fundamental level (it won't, at least not as much as polygamy would), and that thinking gay marriage is okay = thinking polygamy is okay. I believe they're separate issues, and I think polygamy is a more complex one.

[soccer_lover_]

these are the days I'm so overtly proud of being canadian; gay marriage is legal here and i find it completely ridiculous that the united states is still debating over whether or not to legalize something that is a right not an opinion!

[Trig]

these are the days I'm so overtly proud of being canadian; gay marriage is legal here and i find it completely ridiculous that the united states is still debating over whether or not to legalize something that is a right not an opinion!

 

I completely agree with this! I'm going to spare you all and make this post of my much shorter than the posts in the past- mostly because I think everyone's brought up good points and no one has angered me. Heh. But yes! I'm proud to be a Canadian where this is accepted! Love. Is. Love.

 

As well, there are polyamorous people, if everyone is okay with the relationship, why shouldn't it be allowed? Maybe I'm just too exposed to this sort of thing because of tumblr/the internet but yeah. Also I think we are digressing here and it's turning more into a chat about polygamy than gay marriage. Just a little heads up.

 

Also I think, as I've mentioned, a part of the right that gay people want for marriage is being able to call it a marriage. Not a civil union, and yes, as Karina mentioned, would you really say like "I'm civil unioning my boyfriend!" That just sounds silly and there is no reason it shouldn't be called a marriage. A marriage is a marriage no matter the gender or sexual orientation of the people involved. That is that.

[Airotia]

I've been looking up laws on gay marriage, and one problem with getting it nationally legalized is that a lot of states have, in their state constitution/charter, that marriage is specifically defined as being between "a man and a woman." I live in Georgia, which is one of the states that was established with that somehow written in it's charter. Not sure why that was important enough to write out when they could have been writing out, I don't know, taxes or something... but I digress. In these states, it will be a lot harder to make gay marriage legal, because a higher percentage of people have to vote to repeal that little tidbit in the state charter.

 

There are a bunch of states, such as my homestead, that will probably not legalize gay marriage any time in the next three decades, if that. The way my dad put it was, "Not in my lifetime, but we'll see about yours."

 

Which is really a travesty. I don't know how law works, really — this was just something I'd read about, and I'm honestly probably misunderstanding — but I wish there would be some sort of Federal law deeming that marriage is a union of two consenting adults, regardless of gender. They did it for interracial marriage in 1967, when some states were legalizing it but others were not... which is exactly what's happening nowadays. I mean, we have states like New York and Washington that have legalized it, but there are loads of others (like Georgia) that probably won't ever legalize it by choice. Hate to say it, but my state is also one of the states that was refusing to overturn the interracial marriage laws, and only started allowing interacial marriage when the Supreme Court basically made them.

 

The main problem, as I said, lays with the fact that a lot of states have it written in their charters, which I'm not sure if the federal courts can mess with or not.

 

 

 

Also, I'm not a fan of the term civil union — somehow it reminds me of the Dr. Suess story about the Sneeches. You know, where the Sneeches were all basically the same, but some had stars, and the ones with stars acted like they were better? Equality means calling things by the same thing, even if the nature of the marriage is different — really, no matter how you look at it, each marriage is different. Calling homosexual marriage 'civil unions' is just another way of pointing out that homosexuals are in the minority, when I'm certain that they are already aware of the fact.

 

Also, and I know I'm bringing up law again, but it really is a legal issue... calling it 'civil union' could, possibly, open up a huge can of worms. If all of the 'marriage is between a man and a woman' stuff got overturned by the Supreme Court and each state were to be forced to allow 'civil unions,' loads of states... once again... probably Georgia... would jump on that and start making little provisions and or laws that target people in a 'civil union' that do not affect people in a 'marriage.'

 

It also kind of puts homosexuals on the spotlight. I've never been married, but I'm assuming you need to show you marriage license for certain legalities (with all this legal stuff, I should be a lawyer). Instead of showing a marriage license, they'll be showing a civil union license, and everyone around them will automatically go, "WELP THAT PERSON IS A HOMO." I'm not saying that they should feel ashamed, I'm just saying that some people are private and would rather everyone not know that just by looking at a piece of paper.

(Yes I'm aware they could tell by the name. But it's the difference between printing something on a piece of bright yellow paper and printing something on white — it's something that everyone in the nearby area could glance at and know, rather than something that you'd have to be reading carefully to see.)

 

 

And with that. I'll post some pictures of my favorite gays, so that I don't feel like I'm being all super serious.

[Trig]

I really don't know how the law works in the United States either but I'm assuming that it IS possible to have these things rewritten. I figure if Obama can change military laws he can change the laws over the rest of the United States to help stop discrimination. There's no room for it in this world. We could be tackling other issues if discrimination was combated and people just accepted people. If he has to force states like Georgia to change their laws then so be it- but it needs to be done. A lot of the oppression young people deal with, although it obviously occurs everywhere, is most prominent in states that have failed to rewrite their laws. (See this article: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/one-towns-war-on-gay-teens-20120202 ) The GOVERNMENT is sending a signal to young people that who they are is wrong- and that makes me extremely upset. With a government that accepts you, hopefully more people will also learn that acceptance is a good thing and they should open their mind a little bit. Also, I figure this is an appropriate video to post here. I really recommend watching the whole thing. It's incredibly moving and sends chills down your spine.

 

[keiwo]

I haven't yet read this thread so most of what I will say here has probably already been covered. Nonetheless, here we go:

 

I don't know why gay marriage has to be differentiated from straight marriage. I think marriage should just be marriage. We don't have gay housing or gay driving tests or gay insurance. Marriage is no longer much of a religious institution - a LOT of people diverge from the usual holy matrimony in a church business - and some people get married without any ceremony whatsoever. Marriage is legal, not religious, and everyone should be subject to the same rights under the law, regardless of their sexual orientation (or race, or religious denomination, or any other trait). I have no idea why people have a problem with others getting married (or doing anything, really) when it doesn't affect their lives in any manner zzzzzzzzzz

[Puzzles]

I'm 100% against gay marriage.

 

Homosexuality is something that shouldn't be encouraged..

[Alice ☮]

I'm 100% against gay marriage.

 

Homosexuality is disgusting, and not something that should be encouraged.

 

That's quite the argument you have there. A testament to your great intelectual capabilities ;)

 

On a more serious note, perhaps you should have a quick read of what others have written. Might help. (Though it probably won't).

[Puzzles]

Go ahead and insult me. <3

And I will have a quick read through what others have written, but it won't make me change my mind.

 

 

Although, its thank's to you bleeding hearts that my neopets account was frozen! Apparently TNT doesn't appreciate usernames such as "youwerentbornthatway" :sad01_anim:

 

Apparently they've also been brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality isn't a choice.

[passiflora]

Go ahead and insult me. <3

And I will have a quick read through what others have written, but it won't make me change my mind.

 

 

Although, its thank's to you bleeding hearts that my neopets account was frozen! Apparently TNT doesn't appreciate usernames such as "youwerentbornthatway" :sad01_anim:

 

Apparently they've also been brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality isn't a choice.

I feel like you're just trying to troll us, but I'll give you a serious response anyway.

 

There is absolutely no reason that someone would ever choose to be gay. I have a friend who is gay who literally broke down and cried at the thought of having to tell his parents, wishing he was "normal" instead. There is evidence and theories that suggest homosexuality isn't a choice.

 

Did you choose to be straight?

[Puzzles]

I'm not trying to troll.

 

Although, hopefully your friend didn't actually tell his parents.

Somethings are ment to remain secret.

Did he actually try to get over his lust for the same gender?

Or was he one of those who simply never tried?

 

And yes, I chose to be straight.

 

Edit: And before anyone asks, I'm not religious. <_<

[hrtbrk]

I'm not trying to troll.

 

Although, hopefully your friend didn't actually tell his parents.

Somethings are ment to remain secret.

Did he actually try to get over his lust for the same gender?

Or was he one of those who simply never tried?

 

And yes, I chose to be straight.

 

Edit: And before anyone asks, I'm not religious. <_<

You choose to be straight, meaning you have feelings for the same gender but choose to ignore them and only take interest in women?

That's terrible. I'm sorry you have to deny who you are :( Hopefully one day you will get to live as you truly are without society degrading you and making you feel lesser than for following your heart. No one should be suppressed because they're different!!

 

Hopefully one day you can feel it's safe enough for you to come out! All of us here will continue joining together to fight for your rights and freedoms because you are worthy of it!

[Puzzles]

You choose to be straight, meaning you have feelings for the same gender but choose to ignore them and only take interest in women?

That's terrible. I'm sorry you have to deny who you are :( Hopefully one day you will get to live as you truly are without society degrading you and making you feel lesser than for following your heart. No one should be suppressed because they're different!!

 

Hopefully one day you can feel it's safe enough for you to come out! All of us here will continue joining together to fight for your rights and freedoms because you are worthy of it!

 

I had feelings for the same gender.

However I've cured myself .

And no, I'm not denying who I am.

Because, I'm straight.

So yes, homosexuality can be cured.

And therefor, theres no reason for gay marriage to be legal.

<3

[nelle]

Go ahead and insult me. <3

And I will have a quick read through what others have written, but it won't make me change my mind.

 

 

Although, its thank's to you bleeding hearts that my neopets account was frozen! Apparently TNT doesn't appreciate usernames such as "youwerentbornthatway" :sad01_anim:

 

Apparently they've also been brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality isn't a choice.

 

 

I think you also need to read up on some biology.

[Welcome Back Apathy]

I had feelings for the same gender.

However I've cured myself .

And no, I'm not denying who I am.

Because, I'm straight.

So yes, homosexuality can be cured.

And therefor, theres no reason for gay marriage to be legal.

<3

 

Obviously, we're not going to convince you of anything. But can we at least convince you to use facts in a debate? As in, real facts? And logic that actually stands?

 

Even if you think that you were gay but cured yourself, that doesn't mean that everyone's the same. Not everyone can be "cured"--in fact, it's been proven that it is damaging to try to "cure" people of their homosexuality. Even if it were supposedly possible to cure it, though, that doesn't logically follow that there's no reason for gay marriage to be legal.

 

And even if there IS no reason for gay marriage to be legal, that doesn't matter. There's no reason for a lot of things to be legal--it's just that you have to prove why they are supposed to be ILLEGAL to make a law against them. There's no reason for, say, Christmas trees to be legal. Or Neopets, for that matter. I can think of tons of reasons for alcohol to be illegal, and yet it's illegal.

 

Just because you find something disgusting doesn't mean it needs to be illegal. I find zucchini disgusting. It genuinely makes me vomit. I bet you'll find more people in the USA who find zucchini disgusting than find gay marriage disgusting. Where's the legislation against zucchini?

[nelle]

Puzzles...

I'm kinda shocked you went around and rated everyone 1 star who had something to say against you. It's the debate chat. There are two sides. If not, it wouldn't be a debate.

[Airotia]

I'm not trying to troll.

 

Although, hopefully your friend didn't actually tell his parents.

Somethings are ment to remain secret.

Did he actually try to get over his lust for the same gender?

Or was he one of those who simply never tried?

 

And yes, I chose to be straight.

 

Edit: And before anyone asks, I'm not religious. <_<

Honestly, it sounds more like you're in denial than anything else.

 

Biologically, there have been studies done on the differences between the brains of a homosexual man and a heterosexual man — they're still doing studies, but so far, there has been evidence that there is a major difference. You can't just cure something in your brain, nor can you just cut it out... all you can do is cover your own ears and scream that it isn't happening, and live your life as you think you're supposed to.

 

Homosexuality isn't unnatural.. Certainly, it doesn't produce offspring, but homosexuality has 'been a thing' about as long mammals 'have been a thing.' Possibly longer, even. Our species is actually the only one that seems to outright condemn it, or maybe I've just never heard of bonobos stoning lesbian bonobos or tigers isolating the two confirmed bachelors that hang around each other all the time.

 

Homosexuality can't be cured — it can only be personally denied, like a celibate priest or nun. Denial isn't a good thing, it isn't a step forward, it isn't proof that homosexuality is a bad thing... it's a step backwards that just perpetuates gays as being weak and scared. Which they aren't. Being openly gay isn't a walk in the park or one gigantic orgy or anything. It's putting yourself out there and hoping to be accepted (and not you know, tormented) instead of pretending to be 'normal,' even if you're not.

 

 

 

Puzzles...

I'm kinda shocked you went around and rated everyone 1 star who had something to say against you. It's the debate chat. There are two sides. If not, it wouldn't be a debate.

 

What, seriously? What kind of pansy tactics are being perpetuated here? Debate, man! Don't troll people with low ratings. You knew before you posted that your opinion was unpopular and that people were going to argue with you in the debate chat.

[lilshadowdweller]

Go ahead and insult me. <3

And I will have a quick read through what others have written, but it won't make me change my mind.

 

 

Although, its thank's to you bleeding hearts that my neopets account was frozen! Apparently TNT doesn't appreciate usernames such as "youwerentbornthatway" :sad01_anim:

 

Apparently they've also been brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality isn't a choice.

 

Not worth the time and effort buddy. And why on Earth would you go on Neopets in an effort to make your point? o_O That has nothing to do with "bleeding hearts", and everything to do with a troll.

[jumpingbeans]

@Puzzles: I have a few questions for you.

 

Do you like Harry Potter?

Do you like The Big Bang Theory?

Do you like Doctor Who or Torchwood?

Do you like Glee?

Family Guy?

Pirates of the Caribbean?

The Final Fantasy series?

The Mona Lisa?

 

And yes, this is pertinent to the current topic at hand.

[Puzzles]

Not worth the time and effort buddy. And why on Earth would you go on Neopets in an effort to make your point? o_O That has nothing to do with "bleeding hearts", and everything to do with a troll.

 

Because I had nothing else to do.

And annoying people on Yahoo Answers got boring,

;)

 

@Puzzles: I have a few questions for you.

 

Do you like Harry Potter?

Do you like The Big Bang Theory?

Do you like Doctor Who or Torchwood?

Do you like Glee?

Family Guy?

Pirates of the Caribbean?

The Final Fantasy series?

The Mona Lisa?

 

And yes, this is pertinent to the current topic at hand.

 

I don't see how this has anything to do with the current topic at hand.