Gay marrage..?
- Thread starter Ssushi
- Start date
Guys, it really doesnt matter if any of us are gay and to be frank, us asking each other if we are is really saying that there is something wrong with being gay - in doing so we are identifying the different people...
The chances are that there are gay people on these forums and we chat with them all the time, unless they chose to tell us, we dont need to know...
The chances are that there are gay people on these forums and we chat with them all the time, unless they chose to tell us, we dont need to know...
I know a few MHS's who are close friends, and found out that their preferences in life were different than mine and others, they did date girls, and found no particular interest in them. I raced in one team where..?.. he would kill you on a bike, and he can't stand the word gay as it has denigrated his masculine status into some sort of effeminate limp wristed sterotype. Comments please!Ssushi said:
I dont know about that, like I said before on another thread, I don't like the way that the word gay has been hijacked - people used to be able to say 'He's a gay chap' and it simply meant he's a happy chap - hetro or ****-sexuality had nothing to it...FredC said:
Personally I don't get into the semantics of these things, a while ago in the UK the Social Services decided that you shouldnt call black people black, you call them coloured, then they changed their minds again and said you should call them black again.... feck it! feck it all! If I'm not actually being offensive people shouldnt get offended, they marginalise themselves by making themselves different.
Interestingly, here in Australia, Italians and Greeks and called Wogs. I thought this terrible but they call themselves it also. Its just a term used to describe their background. They are generally proud of their background and just accept the term, a bit like me being a Pom, a Kiwi being a Kiwi, a Paddy being a Paddy...
yes... lots of gay people on this forum.Ssushi said:
By the way, we have families to support too, hence the need for the same tax breaks as other parents.
This can be true, but in the most cases I would have thought not. The best way forward is to stop tax breaks for all married couples until they have children - problem solved.CannonChick said:yes... lots of gay people on this forum.
By the way, we have families to support too, hence the need for the same tax breaks as other parents.
Or - I ask for a tax break as I live alone; two can live as cheaply as one, hence one lives at twice the cost of two, hence I should get a tax break...?
Don't have a problem with homosexuals living together.
Marriage however is a different question.
My understanding is that institution of marriage is for the union of man and woman.
Therefore if homosexuals are allowed to marry - does this not undermine the union of man and woman ?
As I say I have nothing against homosexuals - nothing at all.
Homosexual couples, in a loving/caring relationship, ought to have legal/financial rights.
But to be afforded marriage rights - in the sense of my understanding of marriage - is something I have a difficulty with.
I do however believe that the institution of marriage (union of man and woman) would be undermined if marriage, in the legal/religious/financial sense, is afforded to homosexuals.
Marriage however is a different question.
My understanding is that institution of marriage is for the union of man and woman.
Therefore if homosexuals are allowed to marry - does this not undermine the union of man and woman ?
As I say I have nothing against homosexuals - nothing at all.
Homosexual couples, in a loving/caring relationship, ought to have legal/financial rights.
But to be afforded marriage rights - in the sense of my understanding of marriage - is something I have a difficulty with.
I do however believe that the institution of marriage (union of man and woman) would be undermined if marriage, in the legal/religious/financial sense, is afforded to homosexuals.
Seems it's just a matter of definition. If you define marriage to be the union of man and woman, then it's obviously impossible for a gay couple to marry (unless a gay man marries a lesbian - not very likely). If you think of it as a social/legal commitment to share each other's lives (which I suspect is how most people see it), then I don't see why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.
i didnt make a religious post in the manner that is deemed offensive, i didnt share a view or push my ideas. I stated a simple fact. You cant hide from facts Ryan.ryan_velo said:
People, you have just got to get over yourselves.
Dump the superiority complexes and the holier than thou attitutes and follow the words of Bill and Ted:
"Be excellent to each other"
That's all there is to it. Gay, straight, pink or brown, what's the difference?
Dump the superiority complexes and the holier than thou attitutes and follow the words of Bill and Ted:
"Be excellent to each other"
That's all there is to it. Gay, straight, pink or brown, what's the difference?
Ssushi said:
I knew someone would pick me up on this.
The traditional idea of marriage is man-woman union.
It's society's way of endorsing a relationship and the progeny of that relationship.
A homosexual union - by being afforded that same recognition and that same level of regard - suggests that somehow man-woman union is not the norm.
The norm - and I don't like using the term, norm, but I cannot find another word to convey my thought as I write - is man-woman union.
Nature deems this to be so - primarily for the continuation of the human species.
Man-woman union is the benchmark : anything other than a man-woman union falls short of that benchmark.
To afford the same merits to any other union, made up of constituents parts other than a man-woman union, is to diminish the man-woman marriage benchmark.
I have no problem with legal/financial rights being afford to homosexual couples.
Ruedy said:
I am sounding like Bush !
Must be all you States-sides sending out those negative waves man, negative waves.
limerickman said:
I get what you're saying...but surely the man-woman union is naturally "elevated" (for want of a better word) above gay unions by the fact that only hetero relationships can produce children. That's the way we're built and it's outside our control. But marriage is an artificial, man-made arrangement, and so ought to be adaptable to the changing needs and standards of society. The argument that marriage is a religious institution does not hold because it is possible to get married in a registry office with no reference to religion whatsoever, and a secular marriage has the same social and legal status as a religious one.
Besides, if/when the technology exists for gay couples to have their own kids (actually I think this is already possible, although illegal, with women - or am I wrong?), would that put them on the same level as hetero couples? Moral and ethical decisions like whether or not gays can marry ought to be completely independent of technological advancement.
mjw_byrne said:
Yes, the man-woman union is elevated because they can reproduce and this is why, I think, that marriage between man and woman is marriage ; and that any other type of union is a marriage but not in the pure sense (ie man-woman union).
Don't get me wrong - I think society needs to recognise homosexual relationships : homosexual couples should, as a right, have legal/finanical/inheritance rights.
But should we enact this by prescribing it as marriage ?
Should these relationships be accorded the same merits as man-woman unions ?
Personally, I don't think so.
I think the man-woman union is primary.
limerickman said:
Because if they can call it marriage, they [in a way] destroy the institution of marriage that is based on biblical beginnings. If marriage is just a way to get benefits, then the act of marriage becomes nothing more than a ceremony devoid of anything of a spiritual nature. It is a way to slap the face of the "religious right" for all their dangerous acts of what they see as moral human behaviour being pushed onto people. Without absolutes, whatever feels fine, . . . . is fine. It is the "abstract expressionism" of all human conduct.
I agree,PseudoTrek said:
i think its down to politics once again, you may not get the tax breaks, benefits, concessions if you are not married. Married (in my view) is between a man and a woman. Homosexuals have a right to have a similar type of union with all the benefits of a hetrosexual marriage but its the way the government defines 'marriage' that is at fault. A new term needs to be defined that encompasses all types of union. i dont want to be crass but gays hijacked the word 'gay', 'dyke' etc, why cant they make up a word that describes thier relationship too?
we need to get rid of the term in when it deals with welfare/childcare etc. so that people are dealt with equally by the govenment regardless of thier sexual orientation.
