Same Sex Marriage (revisited)

[FoxDemonSoavi]

It has been a while and being a bit of a mashocist (sadist?) I wanted to bring it up again. I figured I would start with this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QIEzx8aHuY&NR
as I think it handles a lot of hte points rather well.

this oen is a bit tounge in cheek but also illustrates what the real threat to marraige is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bH2W5FULJCA

and honestly the same things that are wrong with gay marraiges are wrong with straight ones.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8u420FQsf40&mode=related&search=


social conservitives who think marriage should only be for procreation get something pointed out by means of a petition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwppcvPmnZw
I don't 100% agree with the peition but I don't completely disagree either.

 

[FlippyD]

Ok, I looked at the first three videos, and closed the windows thinking "oh great, more pro-gay marriage propaganda." It's not that I'm against gay marriage, it's just that I've seen ads like that before, is there really anything more that has to be said? My parents and my ex-girlfriends parents are both Christian and run the anti-gay shtick, but after sitting down and talking to them about gay marriage (and without delving too far into the subject of my personal life) there is a point where even these people will admit to the obvious wrongs of anti-gay behavior.

All and all you're presenting nothing new (and I have to say I was "offended" by the southern accent so poorly dubbed over that first video as an attack against southerners. But since I don't give a crap half the time about stuff like this I'm going to move on.)

The last video actually has some information worth talking about as it's relevant and fresh. I found myself banging my head against the keyboard halfway through the video admiring the fact that no matter how many ignorant governmental pundits they parade out in front of news cameras I'm always surprised at their ineptitude.

What the hell? Seriously, what the hell?

 

[Volrath]

My big problem with this issue is the fact that it has become such a big issue. When there's something like 11 million kids living in the USA without any health insurance and we've got a terrible war situation in the Middle East and the fucking planet might be melting, it blows my mind that politicians can debate for hours about something like this.

In the other thread, I said repeatedly that gay marriage doesn't hurt anybody. Nobody ever tried to convince me it did...perhaps they knew that they would have nothing to say. I understand why abortion is so tricky....because the crux of the question is whether or not a child has been murdered. Even though I am pro-choice, I can respect someone who is trying to prevent what they see as murder.

But gay marriage....it doesn't hurt anyone. In fact, it doesn't even affect straight people at all, for good or ill. The only arguments I ever hear against it are abstract bullshit. Things like "The foundation of marriage will crumble" or "The population will die out eventually (the assumption being that if we allow gay marrige, suddenly EVERYONE will decide to be gay. Sure, and I own a golden toilet)."

Now, people have to right to disapprove of the idea of it. It's not like I'm going to demand uniform agreement on this. But what infuriates me is that people want a personal hang-up of theirs to be written into federal law! You know, I don't like Tuna Fish. I think it tastes terrible. But I'm not gonna try to get it BANNED just cause I don't like it! I mean, come on now. Let's try and keep our government focused on the issues that literally mean the difference between life and death. War, poverty, health, this stuff's important!

I think the government should respect the rights of the individual on this issue. If two people want to get married, they should be able to. And if some priests don't like the idea, they can refuse the couple and tell them to find another church. Pretty fair, right?

 

[g_man_450]

Well said Volrath, let the people decide. We live in a democracy, let the majority be the judge.

I think most of the arguments against it can boil down to the sheer scientific reason that it is biologically unnatural. From a cultural standpoint, many conservatives see this as a slippery slope to open up other forms of alternative marriage the threaten the structure of a family. Statistics on children raised without the other sex in marriage (mother only or father only) are actually quite startling as to how messed up these kids are (this is NOT meant to be in ANY way offensive to those who come from single parent homes-my point is that divorce is a tragedy, and studies show that children who come from a home with both parents who love and support them turn out better-there are obviously many factors that contribute to the success of a child's rearing, and MANY children from single-parent homes with a loving and supportive parent are excellent people and contributors to society). As to whether those statistics can be transferred to a same-sex couple, I guess that's for you to decide.

I do agree though that this issue has been magnified WAY too much by both sides. With Darfur, Iraq, Aids, immigration, oil dependency, and the multitude of other issues that weigh so heavily on our nation/world; just put it to the vote and be done with it. Many states have already passed legislation and the people voted (though some of the bills were VERY poorly written). Regardless, I think we have many more important social issues to "fix" right now besides this issue that very much boils down to personal preference, regardless of what your moral or religious beliefs are.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

I'm so tired of this topic of discussion I'm just popping in to say the obligatory "I don't see anything wrong with gay marriages" comment... and to point out that New Jersey has legalized gay weddings now.

 

[FoxDemonSoavi]

The majority should not be allowed to vote on the rights of a minority. Also it isn't biologicaly unnatural. Its honestly about as unnatural as poor eye sight. IT has been proven that many other species have this paticular defect. Also in huge populations you need a certian amount of non-reproducers.
I also don't see why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry jsut because they are't going to go add to our already over abundant population.

 

[Lene]

The majority should be able to vote on the rights of a minority. That's why the US hasn't turned into an aristocracy of some sort. But minorities have protection, they always have.

*waltzes out of thread*

 

[FlippyD]

The majority should not be allowed to vote on the rights of a minority. Also it isn't biologicaly unnatural. Its honestly about as unnatural as poor eye sight. IT has been proven that many other species have this paticular defect. Also in huge populations you need a certian amount of non-reproducers.
I also don't see why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry jsut because they are't going to go add to our already over abundant population.

Duders, there's a small issue I see with your argument and it's the fact that you're admitting that there's nothing "biologically unnatural" and then you go on to call homosexuality a "defect". You make a good point, but when you come off confused in your arguments it tends to make people think less seriously of you. Personally I don't see how homosexuality is a defect I-... Ah crap, I got class, I'll be back later though.

 

[FoxDemonSoavi]

IT actualy does make sense. WE have had many defects that are natural to our condition. Like poor eyesight. That happens a lot. I personaly think poor eye sight is a defect. I also don't see how my attraction only to other women isn't a defect. However, I see no reason to be persecuted or held back from being with the woman I choose to love. I also don't see why we can't have the same legal protections of marriage. Its called CIVIL MARRAIGE for a reason. I don't want a religious marraige. Maybe a nudist wedding in vegas.

 

[Roman Candle]

'Defects' are about as natural as it gets. That is the whole point of variation, after all.

 

[FlippyD]

My point wasn't anti-gay marriage or anything like that... -_-;; What I was trying to say before I had to run for the bus was that by saying you have a defect you're only giving people who are anti-gay more ammunition. -_-;;

A defect is a negative stance, and in a way you're saying there's something wrong with you. Poor eyesight can be fixed with glasses or contacts, so then, how do you propose we "fix" your love of other women (rhetorical question)? That's what I'm getting at.

 

[TofuMatt]

Canada has gay marriage, bitches. We own so hard.

Seriously, this shit is ass-backwards -- we fucking need to be able to marry, and there are a lot of other rights that we deserve and aren't getting. I'm not even in the mood to duke it out, so I likely won't revisit this thread, but I just wanted to throw in my stance on the subject.

 

[Junk-Man]

Frankly, I don't care if Gay people want to get married. Its just a bad idea for marriage to collapse the way it has in parts of Europe. We need to find a happy medium.

 

[Lene]

Frankly, I don't care if Gay people want to get married. Its just a bad idea for marriage to collapse the way it has in parts of Europe. We need to find a happy medium.

It'd be helpful if you can explain how Marriage has collapsed in Europe.

 

[Junk-Man]

The majority of births in scandinavia are out of wedlock.

 

[Roman Candle]

That depends if you think of people no longer considering marriage neccessary is a collapse of marriage. If a large proportion of those parents later married, that might be a sign that people who claim to take it seriously don't. A high rate of divorce would do the same (and there is one). But if people simply don't want to get married, then so what?

 

[Volrath]

The majority of births in scandinavia are out of wedlock.

Okay.......and what does that have to do with same-sex marriage again? I don't think there are too many births in those relationships.

 

[Roman Candle]

It was a reply to this:

It'd be helpful if you can explain how Marriage has collapsed in Europe.

 

[Volrath]

I realize that, but that also seems like a total non-sequitur. He implied that gay marriage might have had some role to play in that. Some kind of explanation for that might be nice.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

I just like to point out I made a mistake in my post in this thread when I stated that NJ has legalized gay marriage, when infact all they did was legalize gay unions (which have the same rights as married couples, such as health care and things of that nature but still lack the certificate and title).