Let's talk about GAY MARRIAGE!

[lilshadowdweller]

Whoa. *claps* Karina, that was incredible. Thank you!

 

Yes, exactly THAT. You want to call it something lesser and NOT be the same -- cannot be equal. If you dared to state such an opinion on people with tanned skin, you'd be back lashed. xD You're stating one group of person isn't the same as another.

 

But I'd just be repeating the argument over and over, since this has come full-circle. Yikes.

[neoskulltula]

^{You are the ones who stated separate means lesser, not once did I. :P Women and men are often separated in sports leagues. Are women inferior to men?}

 

^{Lol these aren't fun when no one else takes your side.}

 

 

Which is exactly what we do with black people. We never refer to them as "people", see? Notice how I keep calling them "black people" here, never just "people". If someone came up to me and said, "Hey, look at that person over there," I would say, "That's nice, but you shouldn't call him/her a person. See, it's offensive to some people with hateful attitudes, so we call them black people instead."

 

 

^{It's another issue entirely about black people and how they refuse to move on as a culture. Hm new topic perhaps? ;)}

^{It's an impasse here, neither side is going to convince the other of anything other than how douchey I look. :P}

 

 

 

^Edit:

You want to call it something lesser and NOT be the same

 

Again just to make a final point, not once did I state that civil unions (the way I am envisioning them to be...and if they aren't this way fix it) would be lesser in any way. In fact they would be the same, just given a different name because it is something different.

 

Aw I didn't get to use one of my shock statements I had planned. Should I go ahead and use it? It's sort of weird with no context. Grrr.

 

 

You're stating one group of person isn't the same as another.

 

 

Actually all I'm saying is one activity isn't the same as another. That's the fundamental breakdown of opinion.

 

I keep adding on to this.

[Welcome Back Apathy]

^{You are the ones who stated separate means lesser, not once did I. :P Women and men are often separated in sports leagues. Are women inferior to men?}

 

Hey, thank you! You gave me an absolutely perfect parallel. ARE women inferior to men? No. Are their sports considered inferior to men's sports? Absolutely. Are women viewed as inferior to men in sports? ABSOLUTELY. "You throw like a girl." Etc.

 

Likewise, with gay marriage...ARE gay people inferior to straight people? No. Are their civil unions considered inferior to straight marriages? Absolutely. Are gay people viewed as inferior to straight people? Absolutely. On a regular basis.

 

And you're right. We are stating that separate means lesser. Because it's true...for the very reasons that I told you that you aren't addressing at all. Because civil unions are legally viewed as inferior EVEN WHEN IT IS WRITTEN IN THE LAW that they need to be equal. *poke article* Seriously, if you don't believe me, read the article. Or I'll sum up what happened here:

 

New Jersey legalized civil unions, and they were supposed to be exactly equal in every way except for the word. Well, Fed Ex had it specifically written in their benefits that "married" couples could receive benefits from them. Oops, that word led to a loophole--even though civil unions were supposed to be equal and all, they managed to say that the wording prevented them from having to give benefits to gay people.

[Trig]

Sorry I haven't replied in a bit...so this message will be long *ahem*. A lot of great things have been mentioned above and I hope you take them into account. Also, like I said- I appreciate that you have your opinion and I have mine. I won't embrace your opinion- but I'll accept it; we're just trying to point out how you could be more accepting and rational. You might believe that homosexuality is wrong for whatever reason, I respect that; but you shouldn't be using your BELIEFS to interrupt someone's RIGHTS.

 

If it's a matter of interruption, more people are interrupted by things such as famine and disease. So, logically, we should begin there first.

A lot of people are affected by famine and disease, and an lot of people are affected by the lack of legalization of gay marriage in many countries/states. Just because we can't completely solve one doesn't mean we shouldn't try and help solve others? People are trying to reduce famine and disease- so why shouldn't we legalize gay marriage to help out other people to? Allowing gay people to marry is NOT a complex issue- you fail to realize this.

 

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.

 

WHOA. WHOA. WHOA. First of all, that's pretty sexist. In some marriages, the female is considered the protector and provider. In fact, in my home, my mom was the only one that worked for the past 3 years after my father lost his job- therefore she was the 'bread-winner' for the family. Also, that is HOW IT WAS. WAS IS THE KEYWORD there. Society progresses- it's natural and beneficial. I also have to take complaint with the fact that you think LGBT people only want families because of what they see around them. EXCUSE ME? Some females are drawn towards children and feel that it is their 'duty' to have a child, does it matter if they are straight, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, pansexual (I could go on). NO. Some men really want a family as well. Being gay doesn't change your draw towards kids. Some straight couples don't want children because they have absolutely no draw towards that way of life- is society telling straight couples not to have kids? NO. In fact, people who don't want children are usually frowned upon in society and seen as selfish!

 

 

I live in Canada, and guess what? Same sex marriage is permitted and.....

 

People of homosexual orientation got married.

 

Guess what else?

 

No one here is marrying cereal boxes or animals! In fact, beastility is consider animal abuse, go figure?

 

Nothing happened. Nada. Zip. Life is the same. I gather it would be the same story in America, too. You know, just judging from the fact our country is still thriving and has a pretty good reputation. :/

Thank you Canada! I mean...people don't consider Canada to be some crazy country where everything goes. Just because the person who lives 3 doors down from you has chosen to marry the person they are in love with doesn't mean that it affects me or anyone else that lives near them. They are allowed to live a happy life- go figure?

 

I'd say it's safe to say what the future will hold after Prop 8 was just deemed unconstitutional lol

I would think so. I mean, our society can old handle discrimination for so long before people realize they have to change. Sure there's still racism, but a lot more has been done and there is race equality. Sure there is still sexism, but we have sex equality. There is always going to be someone who opposes something, but with no logical arguments against a simple thing like this I think the deeming of Prop 8 unconstitutional foretells what will happen.

 

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?

Why can't I have multiple marriages? Does everyone in the marriage consent? Yes. Okay then, there's no issue with it. There are many people who consider themselves polyamorous and there shouldn't be anything wrong with that. I think you will find in another 50 years there is much talk in the government of legalizing that sort of relationship as those people speak up and are more accepted. If it's not hurting anyone- why oppose it?

 

...as long as all the spouses consent to the polygamous relationship and get a say in who future spouse will be...I honestly have no problem. The only problem I have with polygamy--and incest too--is that it's used nonconsensually with one person having power over others. That I don't find okay.

 

But polygamy can be done right, I believe. It just has to be in a consensual manner, that's all. I wouldn't do it personally, but I have no moral qualms about it.

Exactly. Everyone consents to it- then it's okay. Have you ever seen TLC's show Sister Wives? I haven't, but from the commercials I've seen it looks like they are all happy. So why be mad at them? Are they affecting your daily life? Nope.

 

I think really I just want a couple wives. You know, take a break from one if she gets too naggy.

 

Saw this after I posted. There gets to a point where it doesn't matter if something influences or affects you personally, it just shouldn't be done. If someone kills someone that's not me, I'm not personally affected by it. Doesn't mean it should occur.

 

Okay, first of all, first part- sexist again. You're making a farce of this and I'm not liking it- sorry if I'm being to sensitive- but really? Okay, secondly, whoever is killed is negatively affected, whoever is starving is negatively affected, wait...whoever gets married is...what's this...POSITIVELY AFFECTED? No kidding eh? Plus, if you're going with that logic shouldn't we outlaw divorce since usually at least one of the people participating in the divorce isn't happy about it? Personally I think divorce ruins the 'sanctity' of marriage more.

 

Do you plan on entering into a gay marriage? If not, then it doesn't affect you either so why do you care?

 

There's a difference between wanting equality between two groups and forcing your way 100% on an issue, down the throats of the other side. Don't tread on me.

I might not enter into a gay marriage. I might. Who knows. Currently I portray myself as 'straight' (even though I'm not) and I'm fairly confident my relationship will work out- but if it doesn't- maybe I'll try dating someone of the same sex. I don't really care- it's all about who I happen to fall in love with- and I'd be unhappy in the GOVERNMENT or someone's RELIGION told me I wasn't allowed to love that person. Plus, it affects my pansexual brother, my bisexual best friend, and my transgendered acquaintance. It affects my gay teacher, and the families of those children who commit suicide because of the social discrimination for WHO THEY ARE and HOW THEY ARE BORN. So even if it didn't directly affect me, it would affect all of those people- which would usually, in turn, affect me.

 

Also...wouldn't equality be having the same for everyone? Making everything equal? I mean...saying you're going to make things equal...but calling a marriage and a civil union exactly that: a marriage and a civil union, is not making things equal. To do that you would have to call them both marriages, or both civil unions.

 

Okay, and with that I think I'm done quoting all of the points I've missed. I'd like to leave you with a few photos and a quote. I realize you haven't brought religion into this...but most people do when they're opposing gay marriage. All you have to say is that gay marriage isn't what marriage was? Maybe you have religious beliefs behind that, maybe you don't, I don't know.

"Some people think that you can’t let same-sex couples get married without changing the definition of the word “marriage.” When we let openly gay people join the army, did we have to change the definition of the word “Army”? Did Rosa Parks make us change the definition of the word “bus”?

 

It’s one thing to blame the Bible for your bigotry, but don’t blame the dictionary." — California attorney and semi-professional cynic Bill Smith on today’s Ninth Circuit decision regarding Proposition 8.

 

Also, this is the dictionary definition of marriage (while 1.5 say man and woman, there are 3.5 more that don't (: ) :

1. the state, condition, or relationship of being married

2. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities

3. any close or intimate association or union

[Kaana]

WOAH! Woah woah woah woah woah. Woah. Can we not do the religion thing? Please? I'm not sure if I've actually posted in this thread yet, but I have been reading for some time and this is either the first or first in quite a long time religion (read, Christianity. Because that's really what we're saying, aren't we?) has been brought up and would like to shoot this down now.

 

As a fifteen year old, I don't know what my sexual or romantic orientations are. But I do believe in God, I do believe he loves all people for who they are, and I do believe that includes people who are not "straight", which is a horribly blanket term in any case.

 

There are "gay" (again, a horrible, blanket term which doesn't even touch... you know what, I'm gonna stop talking about this now, as I'm probably totally under qualified to really talk about that anyway.) friendly churches, more predominately in America than in Australia, but they're there, as well as several websites dedicated to the subject, including bible quotes that support homosexual, or at least homoromantic, relationships.

 

As a matter of fact, my church has never said anything on the subject of sexual orientation, and I've been there for about seven months - not a long time, admittedly, but, I would think, long enough for a position on a controversial topic like this to be established. The first time I heard mention of the subject was actually at a conference. It's interesting the way it seemed to build up.

 

On the second evening, a speaker mentioned that having homosexual thoughts did not make one a homosexual. Fair enough, and true as far as I know. Third day, a youth speaker says to a room full of 13 to 18 year olds that being homosexual is not natural. Excuse me, what? Third evening - open evening, when you could invite non Christians for free to see what they thought - a speaker gets up, and, as part of his over all message, tells everyone that gender binary is the only way to do things (that is, boys must act like boys, girls must act like girls. Period.), that homosexuals should not be allowed marriage under any circumstances (and actually made a joke in very poor taste on the matter) and that homosexuality is not actually a thing that is a thing, just a state of mind or a temptation. I felt extraordinarily embarrassed. I honestly thought we'd moved on.

 

So, yes there are Christian bigots and hypocrites. Just as there are atheist bigots and hypocrites. Let's not go there.

[hrtbrk]

You're lucky that your church supports gay people!! That's not very common! However, in America, fundamental Christians go on the television to tell gay people they are not equal, write letters to congress requesting gay people cannot marry, think they can "save" gay people from their "problem." (of course all paraded on a public forum for Americans to see) *Of course this could also happen in Australia for all I know*

 

Heck, even men running in the Presidential race use being a Christian as a platform to get supporters by openly hating gay people.

 

You may have the luxury of having more people (of all religions) support people who are gay, in our culture, Christianity (through fundamental Christians) is the driving force against it.

 

You're absolutely right that there are other fundamental people of all religions who are against gay people, but it's harder to involve them because they aren't using their religion as a platform for such bigotry, where some fundamental Christians have made it their clear agenda here.

 

It seems that the topic is more culturally advanced in Australia, so when others mention religion (Christianity), they're not doing so to be malicious or insult your beliefs, it's what we see all the time and it has to be mentioned, in my opinion, just because fundamental Christians have willingly put themselves in the center of the controversy.

 

I'm sure this is known, but should be said for the record, we don't think every Christian or church has this point of view and are speaking of the fundamental Christians who I've mentioned above who go above and beyond.

[Kaana]

I actually don't know my church's position at all. There seems to be a "don't ask, don't tell" mentality. But let's no go too far into that.

 

Your statement about

However, in America, fundamental Christians go on the television to tell gay people they are not equal, write letters to congress requesting gay people cannot marry, think they can "save" gay people from their "problem."

Is basically the same mentality of the speaker I mentioned here:

a speaker gets up ... that homosexuals should not be allowed marriage under any circumstances (and actually made a joke in very poor taste on the matter) and that homosexuality is not actually a thing that is a thing, just a state of mind or a temptation.

In Australia, in case it wasn't clear. And, yes, he was Australian, not visiting from another country.

 

I'd like to point out that Christianity is fundamentally woven into Western Society, like it or not, for good or for bad. It's part of our history, it's there. The fact that Christianity accounts for 33% of religion in the world also means there's more people speaking on it's behalf, more people with bad intentions using it as an excuse.

 

Australia is hardly more advanced in terms of equality. My state was very anti-homosexual until not too long ago, the rest of the country not much better. There are many, many lobbyist groups, both religion orientated and otherwise, against homosexual marriage. There's little education on sexuality outside of hetero/homo/bi. The idea of love without sex, or the eventual having of sex? Never been taught to me or most of the people I have broached the subject with.

 

I do not think anyone on this forum is attacking my religion, or me personally. However, we've managed to go this far without bringing it up. You said yourself,

I'm sure this is known, but should be said for the record, we don't think every Christian or church has this point of view and are speaking of the fundamental Christians who I've mentioned above who go above and beyond.

We all know the Christians you're talking about. I see little need in bringing up (a) well known group/s of people when all that can be said on the matter (without a representative of said group/s showing up) is that some religious people take their religion to extremes, some people use their religion as an excuse for their prejudices and some people have their religion for the religion, which, admittedly, does affect the way people perceive issues and form opinions on those issues, but does not necessarily make them close-minded sheep.

 

:3

[hrtbrk]

Ahh! Sorry for misinterpreting what you said about your church and your culture.

 

I see little need in bringing up (a) well known group/s of people when all that can be said on the matter (without a representative of said group/s showing up) is that some religious people take their religion to extremes, some people use their religion as an excuse for their prejudices

 

So we should just ignore a massive group of people, who are arguably the driving force against inequality when it comes the topic (gay marriage), and who are definitely the most vocal and active on opposing the matter?

 

we've managed to go this far without bringing it up.

Religion was brought up many times in this thread, well before RayRay made that post :P

[jumpingbeans]

I can't even begin to believe why people oppose homosexuality.

For all those who blame Christianity and the Bible for being opposed to homosexuals:

For those who think that gays are 'just wrong':

For those who think it's not normal or disgusting:

And lastly, for those who think it's just 'a choice' and you should be straight, no questions asked:

 

I hope these pictures help a little. :)

[profusive]

Well that's a pretty big generalization. Some Christian communities are ignorant enough to believe that they shouldn't even allow homosexuals into their churches, and there are some pro-LGBT organizations that are entirely faith-based. I think it is a bit silly for someone to say "If I were gay then I'd stay celibate" but it's equally silly to say that a gay person wouldn't be a Christian.

 

And yeah, anyone who actually knows their stuff about Christianity knows that it really isn't a homophobic religion and certainly not one that says we should go around dehumanizing minorities.. I'm an atheist but I've always been fond of the following passage from Mark:

 

29 “The most important [commandment],” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

 

I think that Jesus specifically saying "Don't treat each other like ****, okay?" should be a bit more important than three random verses about same-sex relations (that are all completely irrelevant in context anyway).. but, unfortunately, it's easier for some people to point hate-filled fingers than to actually follow the tenets of their faith :/

 

Yes, besides from all that, the bible also states marriage should be between a man and a women.

 

But that doesn't affect anything against Civil Unions (which most people are against... how Cicil Union relating to the bible, IDK)

Civil Unions are steps to gay marriage, maybe that's why they're scared to even putting homosexuals into any type of ''marriage''

[Kaana]

So we should just ignore a massive group of people, who are arguably the driving force against inequality when it comes the topic (gay marriage), and who are definitely the most vocal and active on opposing the matter?

 

I'm asking what the point is in discussing a group of people with a very clear position that is not going to be changed by a bunch of people on a neopets board. As far as I can see, the responses we'll get from other posters will be

 

a) These people are crazy and take their religion too seriously/use their religion as an excuse for their bias.

b) These people are against homosexuality, therefore all Christians are. Assume war positions.

c) These people have the right to their opinion and also have the right to air these positions thorough the media.

d) These people have the right to their opinion but are imposing on a human right, and so should not be allowed to air these positions through the media.

 

All of which has been established already.

 

You say religion has been brought up already (which I admit, I did miss). Why rake over old arguments?

 

Yes, besides from all that, the bible also states marriage should be between a man and a women.

 

But that doesn't affect anything against Civil Unions (which most people are against... how Cicil Union relating to the bible, IDK)

Civil Unions are steps to gay marriage, maybe that's why they're scared to even putting homosexuals into any type of ''marriage''

 

The bible may state that marriage is between a man and a woman. However, within the first fifty pages, (depending on your bible) we see polygamy, incest, sex slavery (never mentioned only heterosexually) and concubines. None of which is strictly "between a man and a woman". (For the record, I'm cool with any consensual relationship.) The bible (actually, most of this is Old Testament) also states a lot of relationships that would be at the very least frowned upon today, including that a rape victim must marry her attacker if he takes her virginity.

 

Civil Unions, while "steps" in the right direction, lack the connotations of marriage. I've never heard of anyone come up all excited and say "OMG my auntie/uncle/cousin/mum/dad/neighbour's bestfriend's hairdresser's personal trainer's yoga instructor's mexican adopted sister is getting Civilly Union'd!" They get married.

 

Marriage implies a romanticism, a deepness of the bond that Civil Union does not. Civil Union sounds like grey concrete and a dusty court while two people say "yes" to an empty room. Marriage sounds like a celebration full of colour and life and people being noisy and spending a day just for the two of you while everyone else says how they always knew you'd be together one day. That's the difference between Marriage and Civil Unions.

 

Finally, JB: You have all my wows. I'm stealing those pictures :3

[hrtbrk]

I'm asking what the point is in discussing a group of people with a very clear position that is not going to be changed by a bunch of people on a neopets board. As far as I can see, the responses we'll get from other posters will be

 

a) These people are crazy and take their religion too seriously/use their religion as an excuse for their bias.

b) These people are against homosexuality, therefore all Christians are. Assume war positions.

c) These people have the right to their opinion and also have the right to air these positions thorough the media.

d) These people have the right to their opinion but are imposing on a human right, and so should not be allowed to air these positions through the media.

 

All of which has been established already.

 

You say religion has been brought up already (which I admit, I did miss). Why rake over old arguments?

 

 

What's the point in bringing up a group of people who have a clear position more than once... because it's a debate chat? And we're allowed to debate against their views, especially if they've willing put themselves in the middle of the controversy. We're not here to change fundamental Christians point of view about gay marriage on a Neopets forum, we're here to debate our own personal views and why we think that way.

 

If we're only allowed to state one opinion, one time, this forum wouldn't serve much of a purpose.

 

This thread has been open for a long time and all responses in the past regarding religion have been handled very maturely. We've already established that no one thinks that about B (you even agreed). A , C and D are all valid in my opinion, even if I don't agree with some of them.

[Kaana]

I am going to drop the point now. I can see I was hasty in my judgment, and will withdraw into lurker status once again. I tip my imaginary hat to you, hrtbrk.

[Trig]

WOAH! Woah woah woah woah woah. Woah. Can we not do the religion thing?

 

As a fifteen year old, I don't know what my sexual or romantic orientations are. But I do believe in God, I do believe he loves all people for who they are, and I do believe that includes people who are not "straight", which is a horribly blanket term in any case.

 

There are "gay" (again, a horrible, blanket term which doesn't even touch... you know what, I'm gonna stop talking about this now, as I'm probably totally under qualified to really talk about that anyway.) friendly churches, more predominately in America than in Australia, but they're there, as well as several websites dedicated to the subject, including bible quotes that support homosexual, or at least homoromantic, relationships.

 

So, yes there are Christian bigots and hypocrites. Just as there are atheist bigots and hypocrites. Let's not go there.

 

Sorry to bring the religion factor into this- that was just the most accurate photos I could find. If it helps I'm also Christian and know there are many 'gay-friendly' churches. Unfortunately, as hrtbrk said, the majority of the people that oppose gay marriage do so because their religion is stating it isn't right. The only argument, other than religion, that I can find for people opposing gay marriage is that they thing marriage should only be between a man and a woman- which as I addressed in my earlier post is ludicrous. And yes, there are many different groups of people who are biggoted and hypocritical- and I'm not attacking religion, I'm just saying that usually it is these groups that oppose the marriage. I as well believe that there's a God and that he loves everyone irregardless of race, gender, oreintation, etc.

 

 

I'd like to point out that Christianity is fundamentally woven into Western Society, like it or not, for good or for bad. It's part of our history, it's there. The fact that Christianity accounts for 33% of religion in the world also means there's more people speaking on it's behalf, more people with bad intentions using it as an excuse.

 

Australia is hardly more advanced in terms of equality. My state was very anti-homosexual until not too long ago, the rest of the country not much better. There are many, many lobbyist groups, both religion orientated and otherwise, against homosexual marriage. There's little education on sexuality outside of hetero/homo/bi. The idea of love without sex, or the eventual having of sex? Never been taught to me or most of the people I have broached the subject with.

 

And the fact that Christianity is women into society and "more people with bad intentions [are] using it as an excuse" is the problem. I know so many Christians and they are FANTASTIC people; the issue is the Christians who are trying to use their religion as an excuse to TAKE AWAY OTHER PEOPLE'S RIGHTS. In Canada there is little education outside of heterosexuality. We are SLOWLY progressing and now there is more in the way of Gay-Straight Alliances and posters saying that it's okay to be who you are and that it's completely natural. Even then I pretty much just hear about hetero/homo sexualities, and nothing about bi, pan, asex, transsexuality, transgenderism etc. I could write many essays on these topics. I'm sorry.

 

So we should just ignore a massive group of people, who are arguably the driving force against inequality when it comes the topic (gay marriage), and who are definitely the most vocal and active on opposing the matter?

 

This is what I feel. Unfortunately it's this group of people who are the DRIVING force opposing the matter- and they happen to be the most vocal about it and it makes me upset.

 

For the record, I'm cool with any consensual relationship.

 

Civil Unions, while "steps" in the right direction, lack the connotations of marriage. I've never heard of anyone come up all excited and say "OMG my auntie/uncle/cousin/mum/dad/neighbour's bestfriend's hairdresser's personal trainer's yoga instructor's mexican adopted sister is getting Civilly Union'd!"

 

Marriage implies a romanticism, a deepness of the bond that Civil Union does not. Civil Union sounds like grey concrete and a dusty court while two people say "yes" to an empty room. Marriage sounds like a celebration full of colour and life and people being noisy and spending a day just for the two of you while everyone else says how they always knew you'd be together one day. That's the difference between Marriage and Civil Unions.

 

I completely agree with you here. I'm cool with any CONSENSUAL relationship- and if it's consensual then it should be allowed :) I also agree that marriage signifies something different from a Civil Union. Marriage is more about a celebration of love which is something the government isn't recognizing. Marriage is so much more special than a Civil Union which is why people want to be able to get married instead of just having the rights associated with a Civil Union.

 

And since people seem to like pictures here's a few more I have on this whole topic (or PM me for my tumblr which is filled with this stuff).

For those who think it's unnatural/a phase

 

And here's just a bunch of others :)

[Tatsuya]

"Let's talk about MARRIAGE"

FTFY

 

It shouldn't be getting called "Gay Marriage", all that does is insinuate that it's different from 'normal' marriage. When it shouldn't be.

It cant be equal if it's deliberately being named something else to seperate it from what is considered the norm.

 

Allowing same-sex couples to marry won't stop different-sex couples from marrying. It won't affect it at all. Why would allowing two guys (or girls) to get married make yours any less vaild?

 

It wouldn't, and that's my point.

 

(I apologise if I've repeated what anyone else has said. This is a debate, I guess, so if you need me to clarify on anything, let me know. I was kind of unsure on how to word this. And also, just as a side note, I'm Catholic, so don't try to argue that my point is invalid because I "don't understand Christianity', becuase I can assure you, I do.)

[neoskulltula]

No one quoted my statement about the activities being different, which is weird.

 

And I believe there is a place between homophobia and homophilia. To say there's not is a scare tactic.

 

 

 

 

You're making a farce of this

 

I believe in keeping it light and having fun here and there. Just my style sorry if I offend.

[Guest little4lupe]

Uhmm. I skimmed over this topic, and I'll just summarize my beliefs: Let people do what they want and don't have a huge ordeal and bring in legalities if it's not even affecting you.

[Alice ☮]

"Let's talk about MARRIAGE"

FTFY

 

*high fives*

 

 

I believe in keeping it light and having fun here and there. Just my style sorry if I offend.

 

See, the problem with that attitude is that there's a time and a place for fun. Since you're not the one being discriminated against, it's easy to "keep it light" and "have fun." But the thing is, discrimination is a serious issue, and should be treated as such. Comparing gay marriage and murder is in no way funny or clever. That was a terrible analogy you made earlier and a weak argument (if it can even be called that).

 

Fact is, denying a certain group of people the same rights and privileges as everyone else is discrimination. Plain and simple. It's downright wrong no matter how you cut it.

[neoskulltula]

I did not equate gay marriage to murder. Get off my back lady. It was just an argument to the "if it doesn't affect you" theme. Though yes it was obviously weak. The worst thing about this thread is people go back to focus on your weak points and ignore some of your more recent parts. Instead of responding to my strong point on the 14th, someone on the 14th went back the last three days. And never touched it. I was feeling out different areas for discussion so yeah I stumbled along the way. Dunno why multiple people need to bother with them multiple times.

 

 

And anyway it was a polygamy joke I was apologizing for. Not gay marriage. Can't recall a joke I made on that.

 

I am angry in a lot of ways about your post to me. Probably your demeanor combined with lack of understanding.

 

 

Fact is, denying a certain group of people the same rights and privileges as everyone else

 

 

I am not calling for a denial of their rights if you would actually read my posts. So idk what you are going on about.

 

 

You can respond if you want but posts like yours are emotionally draining idk if I'll be back. Tired of this place, sorry for having a view different from all of yours. Peace.

[pang]

I don't know... I don't really have a strong opinion about gay marriage.

In fact, I think that the prejudice here in Thailand will probably make the prejudice about gay marriage you are talking about seem a minor things.

For example, gay people, like all male, have to go draw lot for military training (what do you call it?). There are many qualification that excuse you from doing this like too fat, diseases, and gay (the operated variety). But instead of calling it gay, they call it 'mentally instable' and that make them unable to work the government at all. I remember the gay people raiseing all kind of protest about this but not sure what the outcome is.

[Welcome Back Apathy]

I did not equate gay marriage to murder. Get off my back lady. It was just an argument to the "if it doesn't affect you" theme. Though yes it was obviously weak. The worst thing about this thread is people go back to focus on your weak points and ignore some of your more recent parts. Instead of responding to my strong point on the 14th, someone on the 14th went back the last three days. And never touched it. I was feeling out different areas for discussion so yeah I stumbled along the way. Dunno why multiple people need to bother with them multiple times.

 

Huh. I really cannot see what was so inflammatory about Alice's post. All she did was point out that some of your arguments are offensive--which they are. Pointing that out is not offensive in the least, unless you're offended by the thought that you can't just say whatever you like without being called out on it. You're not the only one allowed free speech on the internet, you know. Whereas "Get off my back lady" is actually inflammatory.

 

However...I re-read what you said on the 14th. I read it through about ten times to see what your "strong point" might be. And I have to say, I can't find it. The only thing you said, really, was "it wouldn't take away rights; they'd have the same rights, just different names." You can't truthfully say that nobody has addressed that. I addressed it personally several times. I gave you an article that PROVED it doesn't have same rights even when written into the law. And everyone else has talked about how the name is a right in itself.

 

We talked about "separate but equal." We talked about how that leads to one group being considered lesser--even if you personally don't consider gay people to be lesser, the group is singled out to be different, and the fact that they are apparently not worthy of the title of "marriage" ingrains it in people's minds that they are inferior. If even one gay person wants the title of marriage, then that person is denied that title by the law not allowing them. Your argument is that it doesn't harm gay people to have a different title--gay people will tell you it does.

[Trig]

"Let's talk about MARRIAGE"

 

Allowing same-sex couples to marry won't stop different-sex couples from marrying. It won't affect it at all. Why would allowing two guys (or girls) to get married make yours any less vaild?

I don't know who you are- but I like you. Thank you for summarizing my incredibly long points up into one :)

 

And I believe there is a place between homophobia and homophilia. To say there's not is a scare tactic.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this? Obviously there is a different. Homophobia significantly impacts the lives of others- CHILDREN ARE TAKING THEIR LIVES BECAUSE OF HOMOPHOBIC PEOPLE (Sorry for the caps- wanted to get my point across and as you can probably tell I feel incredibly strongly about this topic). Homophilia is good? Accepting people for who they are? Sounds good to me!

 

Let people do what they want and don't have a huge ordeal and bring in legalities if it's not even affecting you.

And I would like to high five you as well :)

... there's a time and a place for fun. Since you're not the one being discriminated against, it's easy to "keep it light" and "have fun." But the thing is, discrimination is a serious issue, and should be treated as such.

 

Fact is, denying a certain group of people the same rights and privileges as everyone else is discrimination. Plain and simple. It's downright wrong no matter how you cut it.

You can't relate to someone unless you walk a mile in their shoes- and I can almost guarantee the people fighting for their right to marry would not appreciate joking about the matter. I agree- discrimination is serious, why aren't people treating it that way?

 

Get off my back lady. It was just an argument to the "if it doesn't affect you" theme. Instead of responding to my strong point on the 14th, someone on the 14th went back the last three days. And never touched it.

 

I am angry in a lot of ways about your post to me. Probably your demeanor combined with lack of understanding.

 

I am not calling for a denial of their rights if you would actually read my posts.

First of all, you can have different views, you just aren't really presenting them in the best ways. If you said "I don't necessarily agree with homosexuality because it's against my religion, but gay people can get married because their rights don't affect mine" I'd be like, well I'm sorry that you don't agree with homosexuality, but I understand everyone has their religions and I respect that, but congratulations for being an accepting and fantastic individual! I mean, I'd obviously prefer if you were accepting of homosexuality, but the fact of the situation is that not everyone can be- and I respect that just like extremely religious people should respect my desire to marry a woman.

 

And I have read all of your post, and you are essentially denying rights by not allowing them to call it marriage- I believe that would be considered a right to them :) I mean, you consider it your right to get married- correct? So why can't they consider it their right? They were born into this world just like you, which means that we're all equal. I don't think it's fair that as a bisexual person I can marry a man, but if I fell in love with a woman I wouldn't be able to marry her (actually- this is legal in my country, why am I even arguing? Heh). I mean, half of this doesn't even COVER the whole LGBTQ spectrum. What if a transman decides to marry a transwoman? People aren't going to argue against that? But it's still in the LGBTTQQ2SIPA spectrum (and there are so many more variants on sexualities as well), isn't it?

 

Also- please don't turn directly against anyone. We aren't calling you names, there is no reason for you to do so :) And also- if you read all of my posts (although I know they are lengthy) you would see that I do address everything you've said :)

 

The only thing you said, really, was "it wouldn't take away rights; they'd have the same rights, just different names." You can't truthfully say that nobody has addressed that. I addressed it personally several times. I gave you an article that PROVED it doesn't have same rights even when written into the law. And everyone else has talked about how the name is a right in itself.

 

We talked about "separate but equal." We talked about how that leads to one group being considered lesser--even if you personally don't consider gay people to be lesser, the group is singled out to be different, and the fact that they are apparently not worthy of the title of "marriage" ingrains it in people's minds that they are inferior. If even one gay person wants the title of marriage, then that person is denied that title by the law not allowing them. Your argument is that it doesn't harm gay people to have a different title--gay people will tell you it does.

 

And I just agree with everything you said so instead of elaborating I'm just going to give you a giant high five :) I like you too Karina :) And now for a few pictures :) (Sorry, I have to.)

[Zooba]

By this logic, Asian people can ride the bus, they just have to ride a bus specifically for Asian citizens and call it a shuttle because the term bus 'belongs' to Atheist people. Why have it be different, when it's the same thing?

 

It creates segregation when everyone should be treated equally and should be held to the same standard as the next.

 

 

Sorry, I just couldn't resist pointing out that technically that isn't the same at all. To even out the discrepancies, the analogy would have to go something like this:

 

Type A people can ride the bus, called a bus, which takes them to the grocery market.

Type B people can ride the bus, called a shuttle because type A's have claimed the term bus, which takes them to a barren mountainside.

 

Even if fighting over the title of the vehicle is silly, the fact remains that the destinations are different, even if the modes of transport are the same.

 

For those of you who didn't catch the analogy:

the grocery market = fruit of their loins = they can have kids

the "barren mountainside" = aka no progeny.

 

In the end gay marriage will always be different than heterosexual marriage, no matter who says it is or is not okay and no matter what it is called.

It doesn't create segregation and inequality as those are fundamentally ingrained in the issue. Unequal literally means not equal, not the same, it doesn't mean that one is lower than the other, they just aren't the same thing. Pink isn't green, the two colors are unequal.

 

In my humble opinion, describing someone as white or black or blond or asian or gay or straight isn't racism. Saying "oh look, I love that asian girl's shoes!" doesn't make you racist for identifying the person as asian. Identifying a gay marriage as gay isn't discrimination, its description. It only becomes racist/discrimination when its derogatory or insulting.

[Alice ☮]

Sorry, I just couldn't resist pointing out that technically that isn't the same at all. To even out the discrepancies, the analogy would have to go something like this:

 

Type A people can ride the bus, called a bus, which takes them to the grocery market.

Type B people can ride the bus, called a shuttle because type A's have claimed the term bus, which takes them to a barren mountainside.

 

Even if fighting over the title of the vehicle is silly, the fact remains that the destinations are different, even if the modes of transport are the same.

 

For those of you who didn't catch the analogy:

the grocery market = fruit of their loins = they can have kids

the "barren mountainside" = aka no progeny.

 

In the end gay marriage will always be different than heterosexual marriage, no matter who says it is or is not okay and no matter what it is called.

It doesn't create segregation and inequality as those are fundamentally ingrained in the issue. Unequal literally means not equal, not the same, it doesn't mean that one is lower than the other, they just aren't the same thing. Pink isn't green, the two colors are unequal.

 

In my humble opinion, describing someone as white or black or blond or asian or gay or straight isn't racism. Saying "oh look, I love that asian girl's shoes!" doesn't make you racist for identifying the person as asian. Identifying a gay marriage as gay isn't discrimination, its description. It only becomes racist/discrimination when its derogatory or insulting.

 

I'd just like to point out a few "issues" I have with your modified analogy and comments.

 

A) Women and men who are infertile, too old, or otherwise can't/won't have children would then have to be considered part of group A on the "bus" going to the barren mountainside. These people are also "unequal," and yet they are not segregated. Why should it be any different for two men or two women. (Gay couples, by the way, have a myriad of options which would allow them to have a child. Namely: adoption, artificial insemination for women, and surrogate mothers for men).

 

b) I agree with you on this point: "In my humble opinion, describing someone as white or black or blond or asian or gay or straight isn't racism." But that doesn't extend to how one should be treated. Yes, a gay couple is different from a heterosexual couple. Yes, it's okay to notice. Yes, it's okay to talk about it (in fact, I think this should be encouraged!). The problem arises when rights are stripped away from people for being different. You wouldn't tell a woman who's had a hysterectomy that she can't get married and that she'll have to settle for a civil union, simply because she lacks the ability to have children. This idea is as preposterous as denying gay couples marriage.

[hrtbrk]

The original analogy was fine, imo, considering millions of heterosexual couples get married with no intent on having children or can't physically have children, and procreating isn't a requirement to define a 'marriage' as many people have stated before.

 

In the end gay marriage will always be different than heterosexual marriage, no matter who says it is or is not okay and no matter what it is called. It doesn't create segregation and inequality as those are fundamentally ingrained in the issue. Unequal literally means not equal, not the same, it doesn't mean that one is lower than the other, they just aren't the same thing... It only becomes racist/discrimination when its derogatory or insulting.

 

But they are the same, that's the entire point of the debate lol They are still worthy of the rights that heterosexual couples receive and saying otherwise is derogatory and insulting.