Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by T A A on June 28, 2011 at 2:15pm

Philosophically speaking I cannot be "for" marriage and "against" marriage at the same time. On the political playing field, I work against all marriages. Once we get rid of marriage all-together, gays will have the exact same sexual and lifestyle options as heteros.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kirsten on June 28, 2011 at 2:04pm

I really don't understand the point of all the marriage hullabaloo at all. It's a term used to describe people who have made a legal commitment as defined by their country/state which may or may not also have religious overtones. It was originally all about inheritance and strengthening family fortunes. Now it's about property sharing and love; also it serves as a requirement for things like shared benefits and the passing-on of things like social securities in the event of early death.

Marriage is simply the human identifier for a longer-term mated pair. Who cares what gender the persons are, or if there are more than two even? I don't.

Separate but equal never works. There is no good justification for believing it does.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brandon Wilson on June 28, 2011 at 4:19pm

To me the very idea of restricting marriage to heterosexual couples is not only bigoted towards homosexuals, it's sexist to both genders. It defines what you're legally allowed to do because of your gender. It's akin to racism.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Seth Jon Nonnemaker on June 28, 2011 at 5:20pm

Its hard for me to say....I dont dislike gays or whatever, in fact, I have gay friends. But I dont want to see it....you know what I might? I dont even like seeing straight couples making out out in public. When I see a woman and another woman or a man and another man holding hands walking in the mall, all I think of is "Oh, they must be gay." I dont give them the stink eye or anything. Its their.....choice I guess you could say. My friend told me "do you really think I would choose to be a 'social outcast' as some would say?" So maybe its not by choice. I just dont want to see it and stuff. Whatever they do behind closed doors is their business, dont flaunt it around. But to answer your question if I am against equal rights for LGBT, I would say no, I am not against it because even though they are different, they are people. Look past what defines them and see them as a human being.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kairan Nierde on July 1, 2011 at 12:09am

You're always going to see hetero PDA's (and more homo PDA's as time passes)...so you might want to address your issue with it.  I had to do that with my rigid anti-PDA issues (thanks Catholicism) and I'm much more laid back feeling in public now.  There's still a limit to what I can handle but non-slurpy making out is pretty easy to ignore and hand holding is, like, nothing.  By the way, I think a lot of straight young women and girls hold hands if they're just close friends.

 

The thing about "keep it behind closed doors" and "don't flaunt it" is that it really means "pretend you're straight" and "live in denial and shame."  My dad would say I'm "flaunting it" if I even mentioned a cute girl.  When heterosexual guys make a casual comment about a cute girl, do their dad's feel like their son is shoving his sexuality down their throats?  Most of this "flaunting" is just day to day, honest living as an out-of-the-closet person.  Then you have those of us who bitch back at the homophobes or fight for equality.  And one day of the year, you have the gay version of Marti Gras--a celebration of life, a rejection of shame, and a refusal to hide who you are:  the Pride Parade.  Yeah, then we DO flaunt it!

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Erica Sutton on June 28, 2011 at 8:38pm

I personally do not have an issue with it.  In my opinion, gay or lesbian civil unions are not physically hurting anyone so why should it be illegal or why should anyone care.  The only reason it is illegal in most states is because the majority of the population belongs to some type of religion and religion states that it is wrong.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dustin on June 29, 2011 at 12:00am

My father tried to 'argue' in favor of NOT allowing homosexual marriage on the basis of reproduction ability and child raising.  I ripped him to shreds in front of our family and asked him if women who are infertile should not be allowed to marry or if singles should not be allowed to adopt children because they aren't married ... or if he's just being a homophobe.  He even said 'Wow , good point , never thought of that' 

 

I think some of them just don't think about the issue.  He isn't Christian , either.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mindy Gregersen on June 29, 2011 at 3:53pm

Without turning this into an assault on anyone who bravely admits not being pro gay marriage, I'll just tell you what I think.

 

I think two consenting adults should be able to get married. If I would change anything about marriage, it would be the age of that consent. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who isn't in their mid-twenties and thus doesn't have a fully formed brain isn't capable of making the kind of decisions a lifetime commitment (which is, after all, what marriage is supposed to be) entails.

 

I don't think we use procreation as a barometer for marriage. That is not what marriage is about. And I also don't think that only religious people should marry... So, if atheists can get married, why can't homosexuals? Isn't the Bible also anti atheism? Wouldn't the same god that frowns on gay marriage frown on atheists marrying? (Since people want to pretend it is a religious institution, and it it is not. And even if it was, most of the homosexuals I know are christians, so what is wrong with them partaking in a religious institution, anyway?)

 

The Bible isn't really a place to go for morals on marriage. After all, it says you can sell your daughter to her rapist, a woman who turns out not to be a virgin on her wedding night (no comment on how they could even be 100% sure of that!) should be executed, and wives should basically be slaves, dependent on their husbands for salvation because they are wicked and unclean.

 

Obviously, atheists aren't taking the biblical position. So why any atheist would be anti-homosexuality is beyond me. Then again, atheists are just people who don't believe in god. They aren't all rational, in other aspects of their lives.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Daria Black on June 29, 2011 at 4:09pm

Then again, atheists are just people who don't believe in god. They aren't all rational, in other aspects of their lives.

 

Unfortunately, I have found this to be true in some cases. In there defense, the attitudes they have may be holdovers from their belief system or upbringing. I think that as time goes by and they learn to use their critical thinking skills that these type of people will eventually see their bigotry for what it is. This is what happened to me in a few of my personal beliefs that were holdovers from when I was a Christian. As I grew as an atheist I began to realize how ridiculous it was to have them.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by T A A on June 29, 2011 at 7:41pm

Certainly something around oh let's say 99% of marriages on this planet are through religious institutions and have been since the 13th century. Before that, people were much less stiff about who and what reproduced, but marriage contracts did not exist other than between royalties uniting territories civil marriage contracts followed centuries after. So taking away the word marriage leaves: two humans choose to share their lives and procreate, fine, go about it, no matter your life choices. People don't need contracts for that.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kairan Nierde on July 1, 2011 at 1:22am

People often forget that marriage isn't the only civic inequality facing LGBT people.

 

I've always been more passionate about securing federal protection from employment and housing discrimination.  I think marriage is the "number one issue" in the LGBT community because it matters to the most empowered and privileged members of the LGBT community, not because it is the most important issue for the welfare of all LGBT people.  Marriage isn't as immediate when you're struggling to put food on the table or worried about keeping a roof over your head.

 

But as for marriage...

 

I'm against the existence of the institution of marriage and believe it should be abolished in favor of civil unions.  However, as long as marriage exists, it should be as equitable as possible.  I support the right to marriage for same gender and intersex couples. 

 

Whether I end up with a female, male, transgender, or intersex person, I would prefer not to marry because of its symbolism and history--but I will not sacrifice the extra benefits afforded to married couples.  I have had enough of being second class citizen.  I'm conflicted about whether or not I would be ok with marrying while that right is withheld from LGBT people in other states... 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Suzanne Olson-Hyde on July 1, 2011 at 6:13am

Absolutely equal rights for LGBT - but I don't really get why people want to get married in the first place - in the scheme of things, it doesn't make any difference - just have a big party, make a public announcement you are together, and that is it.

What difference does marriage make? Husbands will still cheat and leave, wives still cheat - children are abandoned, domestic violence on the rise - in reality, what difference does marriage make. The mistake, mostly women make, is that marriage protects them. Wrong...

 

The really big question is the legal one - If there are differences in the legalities, that should be fixed, total equality after two years in a relationship.

You don't need marriage when there is respect, love, both working at the partnership and looking after children. Marriage is a facade, but if gays want to do it let them. No questions asked.

 

And don't forget that catholics bought in 'no marriage for priests etc' because of property. If a pope, archbishop, priest married, the wife and children could be a burden on the church. Now that was not going to happen.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• Next ›
• Page