Stormig Posted December 10, 2003 Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 Don't know if this has been discussed before, but...With all the hype about gay and lesbian marriages going on, I just felt I had to ask:Why?Why, if you are not capable of breeding? The institution of marriage has religious background, I'm led to believe. It ought to have been religious before it was secularized. It's not because most religions deem homosexuality sinful, but... Something like incestuous marriage is not supposed to take place, not only because of religion but because of biological reasons and HENCE the morality. But, with homosexuality, there aren't biological reasons, even, because you can't breed. Who is keeping you from doing what you like anyway? Is it just the inheritance issues and such? Just what? It just gives the image of a Muslim pressing to get baptized and continue being a Muslim without considering himself a Christian regardless - just what is the point?It really looks like an exercise in futility to me (not because the said groups aren't going to reach their goal but because of the tangible value). OK, it's not my place to tell people what to do with their time, but... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted December 10, 2003 Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 I believe most gays and lesbians want social validation and the need to integrate in society at large. Other reasons are more practical like Tax breaks, hospital patient visits, legal contracts etc.My feeling is that it should not bother anyone who wants to marry with whom. It is a none issue for me. Fundamentals feel threaten by that since it questions the whole concept of their understanding of God.Who has a direct line to God anyway? If God makes mistakes then it is not God since God is perfect and since gays have existed since time immortal then gays are creation of God so all is normal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted December 10, 2003 Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 (edited) Stormy, Why, if you are not capable of breeding?So those hetero couples who are infertile should be prevented from getting married? ... The institution of marriage has religious background, I'm led to believe.That is incorrect. Marriage exists in all religions and even in tribes that did not really have institutionalized religion.. Something like incestuous marriage is not supposed to take place, not only because of religion but because of biological reasons and HENCE the morality.The only reason I might not approve of incest is because it might produce abnormal babies.. other than that, it's not up to me to determine what is moral and what is immoral, as long as it is an act both parties consent to (which is why I disapprove of pedophilia).. But, with homosexuality, there aren't biological reasons, even, because you can't breed.So the only reason for getting married is to breed? ... I highly doubt that. There are a lot of couples out there who get married but don't want to have babies. Who is keeping you from doing what you like anyway?The unfair laws. If I want to get married, I should have the right to do so. I might not go and get married even if I had the right to, but I want to have that avenue open to me. A lot of gay couples don't want to get married, but why prevent those who want to get married? A lot of hetero couples don't get married in church, is that a good reason to take away the rights of marriage from all hetero couples? We all have choices, and we just want to be able to get married when we want to. Is it just the inheritance issues and such?No. Inheritance or money have nothing to do with it. Common law unions cover that, or at least I think they do. Just what? It just gives the image of a Muslim pressing to get baptized and continue being a Muslim without considering himself a Christian regardless - just what is the point?The point is, religion is not as straightforward as you think it is. A lot of people are Christians who pick and choose from the set of beliefs of each church, and have their own version of Christianity. Some of them go to Church too. Going to a church does not imply agreeing with all the actions of that church as an institution. Point is, a Muslim might convert to Christianity for various reasons, perhaps to get married to a Christian woman, perhaps for any other reason we may not be aware of.. I don't know. It really looks like an exercise in futility to me (not because the said groups aren't going to reach their goal but because of the tangible value). OK, it's not my place to tell people what to do with their time, but...Why is the tangible value futile? I don't understand.. I mean, it might not be of value to you, but it definitely is for a lot of people. And I don't understand how gay marriages can shake the foundation of marriage........ that's beyond me. We are not forcing any church to bless our marriages. We know full well that not everyone approves or will approve of our behaviour and lifestyle, but there are churches out there that conduct/bless gay marriages, and they have stood by us through the good and bad times. So why not? Edited December 10, 2003 by Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
America-Hye Posted December 10, 2003 Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 The gay power structure has put the cart before the horse. This is a non-issue for me personally as I have been married to a woman before and will hopefully marry a woman again. I have absoloutely NO desire to marry a man, ever. I agree that for those who wish to do so, it is their right. With the present percentage of marriages which do not last, I doubt that letting gays get married could in any way undermine marriage any more than it is already undermined. The gay power structure is focusing on this issue when job, housing, etc. discrimination is still rampant. Gays and bisexuals are still being kiled and maimed. These issues should be focused upon first. A classic case of putting the cart before the horse. They won't listen to me however, since they consider people like me to be a "n-word" of their group. They consider us having less worth and being lower than EVEN transsexuals, solely because we are also attracted to the opposite sex. This doesn't say much about gay tolerance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted December 10, 2003 Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 They won't listen to me however, since they consider people like me to be a "n-word" of their group. They consider us having less worth and being lower than EVEN transsexuals, solely because we are also attracted to the opposite sex. This doesn't say much about gay tolerance. I know. A lot of bisexuals are basically shunned from the gay community because they have had or are having affairs with the opposite sex... as if the opposite sex is our enemy.. I don't like that mentality at all. It gives the wrong image of us as intolerant people. And well, there is a lot of intolerance within our own community... That is one of the reasons I have stopped my involvement with the gay community here in Toronto. I was disappointed by the amount of intolerance directed at specific groups such as bisexuals, transsexuals, and heterosexuals. It's as if only gays and lesbians are the normal ones. Talk about the oppressed becoming oppressors. Even group names like AGLA, GALAS, etc. go to show how restricted and exclusive the range is... I don't know.. And I agree with America-Hye about the issues of homophobia, biphobia, transphobia etc. that should be put first rather than marriage... But I guess there is a time for everything, and fighting the former doesn't happen overnight, whereas the marriage issue can be sorted out once there is enough political pressure.. But yeah, I want to get married to a man and adopt a kid if we could. I'm not sure if gays are allowed to adopt, and if not, that would be another issue we have no rights in.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sev-mard Posted December 10, 2003 Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 Who has a direct line to God anyway? If God makes mistakes then it is not God since God is perfect and since gays have existed since time immortal then gays are creation of God so all is normal. Wow, well said I agree wholeheartedly. No way the "God" that religious people speak of would create something that he would then damn for eternity. And it's not a choice either, who would chose to live with the stigma and pain of it? Your attraction is one of your most primal instincts and urges and I think it's natural either way. People are going to be what they are, and do what they do. As for the marriage issue, I think it could be okay and if they are married and have put in the time and energy of being together, they should be the beneficiaries of each other's earnings and insurance, etc. I think it's valid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted December 10, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 OK, thanks for the views.Next up - marriages of multiple partners? You know, threesomes made permanent and all that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted December 10, 2003 Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 (edited) Next up - marriages of multiple partners? You know, threesomes made permanent and all that.I think it's cool. I wouldn't do that myself, but heck, it's cool with me. Edit note: But then there arises the question of who gets married to whom. Do all 3 get married to one another? Edited December 10, 2003 by Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted December 10, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 Edit note: But then there arises the question of who gets married to whom. Do all 3 get married to one another? Why not? All 3, 4, 5, 10, etc... I mean, if a man can marry a man and a woman a woman, why not several men and women with several men and women? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sev-mard Posted December 10, 2003 Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 eeehhhhhhh, i don't know about the multiple partner weddings, im not even a big fan of mutlipe sex partners(as in at the same time), let alone weddings. That's a bit much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted December 10, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 Sev, you gotta be liberal. Loosen up, dude. See what I'm getting at? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sev-mard Posted December 10, 2003 Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 yeah, and even though I don't think marriage is/ or should be based in religion, the multiple partners is a bit much. I don't know about that, just leads to trouble. For those few cases where each person is truly okay with it, then fine. But if ppl just started jumping into multiple partner marriages, it could get worse than..........than it already is with orthodox marriages! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted December 10, 2003 Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 Sev, you gotta be liberal. Loosen up, dude. See what I'm getting at? Stormy, you're using the slippery slope fallacy. e.g: "If we pass laws against fully-automatic weapons, then it won't be long before we pass laws on all weapons, and then we will begin to restrict other rights, and finally we will end up living in a communist state. Thus, we should not ban fully-automatic weapons." Where does one draw the line? Where consent is no longer used. Personally, I have no issues with polgamy/polyamory. It's none of my business who people make love to in their bedrooms, and whether or not there are more than 2 people in bed.. And if there are churches that bless polygamous marriage, then more power to those who want to get married. No one is forcing the entire society to become polygamous or homosexual. You see my point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted December 10, 2003 Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 Why not? All 3, 4, 5, 10, etc... I mean, if a man can marry a man and a woman a woman, why not several men and women with several men and women? Stormy, I'm not saying "no". I'm simply pondering how it might be conducted. i.e. methods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted December 10, 2003 Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 Why not? All 3, 4, 5, 10, etc... I mean, if a man can marry a man and a woman a woman, why not several men and women with several men and women?I can't emaging a family where there are a few mothers and a few fathers, and dozens of grandmas and grandpas, and hundreds of other relatives... I mean, how are you ever going to manage your Christmas shopping (perhaps you could start it in the summer) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted December 10, 2003 Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 I can't emaging a family where there are a few mothers and a few fathers, and dozens of grandmas and grandpas, and hundreds of other relatives... I mean, how are you ever going to manage your Christmas shopping (perhaps you could start it in the summer) no no Sasun jan... that's a good thing. then you'd have an excuse for actually not getting anyone anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted December 11, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 Peoples, if something like the Oneida Community of the 1800's existed today, it, too, would be seeking recognition of "Complex Marrige"... And, come on, nobody jumps into marriages once they are 18 for the experience, because it is "new"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 OK, thanks for the views.Next up - marriages of multiple partners? You know, threesomes made permanent and all that. I'm all in favor of this concept! LOL And while I also think that same sex marraiges may be a bit strnage - i fully understand why folks might want to legitimize their relationship - for a variety of reasons. More power to them I say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted December 11, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 I'm asking a serious question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 I'm asking a serious question. OK. And seriously _ i have actully given some thought to this before....and I'm all in favor of the idea. I know of some communities where folks live communally and share in raising children and also who are more loose in regards to sexual relations between adult members. I think this is a great way to live - really - if folks can handle it mentally and emotionally. I think this concept of community is an advanced one - and frankly has great appeal to me. I also can fully see "threesome" marraiges and the like as well. I see no reason why such could not work out - again - if the right folks were involved. I certainly don't see that such should be banned or restricted. So girls...whose ready to join in the big THOTH family? LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted December 11, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 I don't think the relationships are banned or restricted in the West! We're talking about state recognition in an institution borrowed from religions (churches, imams blessing the marriages)! Why would anyone want this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted December 11, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 Yoo-hoo... Hey, come on, don't be shy. I mean, your kids could be contemplating such in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 We're talking about state recognition in an institution borrowed from religions (churches, imams blessing the marriages)! Why would anyone want this?Stormy, we're talking about a nationwide ban on same-sex marriage.. like I said, not all churches are against homosexuality. so if there are those who want to bless gay marriages, why have it banned? i don't get it. no one would be forcing those churches to conduct marriage for gay couples if they don't want to, but at least those who want to CAN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted December 11, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 but at least those who want to CAN. Is that recognized legally by the state? Why are you limiting the stuff to churches? What about Muslims? Buddhists? There are a lot of churches that "marry" people off just like that, but are they recognized? Nope. That's what I'm getting at. Civil code, if you will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 Is that recognized legally by the state? Why are you limiting the stuff to churches? What about Muslims? Buddhists? There are a lot of churches that "marry" people off just like that, but are they recognized? Nope. That's what I'm getting at. Civil code, if you will. recognized? as far as I know, there is no single Christian authority. there are different churches, but no one higher authority that governs all of them. and when i say "churches", i am just using the short form to refer to all religions. certainly there are open-minded buddhists, muslims, christians, and Jews. e.g.: here in Toronto, there's the MCC, it's a Christian church... they have no illegal activities (if that's what you're referring to by saying "recognized")... and they bless gay marriages... and I believe it is their right to do that, just as it is gay people's right to get married. another thing, governments should have no say in what churches believe in or practice - so why get involved in religion when state and religion are really separate? why do religious figures want to pressurize the government to ban gay marriages.. how would they have liked if their religion was made illegal by the government? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.