Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
TrueBeliever

Gay Marriage

977 posts in this topic

No you didn't, you answered a question I didn't ask. I asked a question based on what I thought you implied. No, on second thought, what you said - I was actually asking for some clarification.

It is a bit confusing why you cannot find an answer in my post 915. It clearly explained that when things become disproportionate, society addresses them as best they can. It can be a disease that is prone to appear in certain races but it is disproportionate to that race when compared to all other races. U.S. weather condition at this time is called a national drought because the days without rain are disproportionate to the yearly average.

The idea of what is disproportionate is extremely important and identifies problem areas in whatever field they affect. In the case of gay relationships, there is a disproportionate amount of violence that has been documented and listed as a concern. Yes, domestic violence is also disproportionate to heterosexual couples in the U.S. It is not so disproportionate at the global level but gay violence continues on an international scale.

The greater difference is that domestic violence with heterosexuals is dealt with as programs, organizations, funding, research, etc. emerge and function. Gays, on the other hand, continue to deny the violence or justify it by comparisons that are not valid or accurate.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nope, gay people arent always in a "feminine man/manly man" pairing, in a lot of couples, there is no designated "woman" of the pair (and the same for lesbian couples, they often dont have a designated "man"). the equality should go as far as equality does for a man and woman-cause thats what equality is. spirituality exists everywhere, its not just a religious thing, and no religion can lay claim to owning spirituality. there are many people who consider themselves spiritual, but do not affiliate with a specific religion. churches should still have the right to choose who gets married there, they already do, and have every right to refuse couples who dont fit their beliefs. as long as gay people can get married somewhere, it shouldnt matter, as its not as if i could decide to get married in a mosque (whether i was with a man or a woman), because they have a right to say no to a non muslim wanting to get married there, but that doesnt matter because there are loads of other places i could get married.

I appreciate your reply. I am in agreement concerning the church. My first point, however, is that considering the uncompromising posture of gay activists, where will the concept of an imagined equality end?

Edited by Dr. D
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a bit confusing why you cannot find an answer in my post 915. It clearly explained that when things become disproportionate, society addresses them as best they can. It can be a disease that is prone to appear in certain races but it is disproportionate to that race when compared to all other races. U.S. weather condition at this time is called a national drought because the days without rain are disproportionate to the yearly average.

The idea of what is disproportionate is extremely important and identifies problem areas in whatever field they affect. In the case of gay relationships, there is a disproportionate amount of violence that has been documented and listed as a concern. Yes, domestic violence is also disproportionate to heterosexual couples in the U.S. It is not so disproportionate at the global level but gay violence continues on an international scale.

The greater difference is that domestic violence with heterosexuals is dealt with as programs, organizations, funding, research, etc. emerge and function. Gays, on the other hand, continue to deny the violence or justify it by comparisons that are not valid or accurate.

I don't deny anything? Who is denying? I have no problem with facts. Say all the facts you want I will deny nothing. I can't deny them. They are facts.

Whats scary to me is what kind of conclusions and restrictions people like you will create from those facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do gender roles matter? I don't understand this. It seems sexist. Everyone needs a big strong bacon bringing home man and everyone needs a nice loving stay at home mom?

If two people are allowed to break these stereotypes in heterosexual couples why can't gay couples do the same?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't deny anything? Who is denying? I have no problem with facts. Say all the facts you want I will deny nothing. I can't deny them. They are facts.

Whats scary to me is what kind of conclusions and restrictions people like you will create from those facts.

My reference to gay denial was a collective reference, not to you individually.

The conclusions and restrictions? The conclusion that rights are created by law, not be desire? That there is a process and all the demands will not alter it? That there are specific problems within the gay community that remain unaddressed and ignored and yes, denied by the gay community?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My reference to gay denial was a collective reference, not to you individually.

The conclusions and restrictions? The conclusion that rights are created by law, not be desire? That there is a process and all the demands will not alter it? That there are specific problems within the gay community that remain unaddressed and ignored and yes, denied by the gay community?

I did not mean me individuality. Just because you have some overactive gay pride parade people who don't like you spewing facts the would lead the average bigot to making offensive and unpleasant conclusions and actually giving people more of a reason to dislike them and they are telling you to shuddap dosent mean they are denying anything.

Look at all the facts you shown here. How do you expect bigots to react to this. With logic and a complex debate on rights vs laws and desires? Of course not. Just more hatred and less logic.

Your not taking politics into the equation properly.

Edited by Kazoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not mean me individuality. Just because you have some overactive gay pride parade people who don't like you spewing facts the would lead the average bigot to making offensive and unpleasant conclusions and actually giving people more of a reason to dislike them and they are telling you to shuddap dosent mean they are denying anything.

Look at all the facts you shown here. How do you expect bigots to react to this. With logic and a complex debate on rights vs laws and desires? Of course not. Just more hatred and less logic.

Your not taking politics into the equation properly.

Forgive me, I got lost in the forest of logic.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nope, gay people arent always in a "feminine man/manly man" pairing, in a lot of couples, there is no designated "woman" of the pair (and the same for lesbian couples, they often dont have a designated "man"). the equality should go as far as equality does for a man and woman-cause thats what equality is. spirituality exists everywhere, its not just a religious thing, and no religion can lay claim to owning spirituality. there are many people who consider themselves spiritual, but do not affiliate with a specific religion. churches should still have the right to choose who gets married there, they already do, and have every right to refuse couples who dont fit their beliefs. as long as gay people can get married somewhere, it shouldnt matter, as its not as if i could decide to get married in a mosque (whether i was with a man or a woman), because they have a right to say no to a non muslim wanting to get married there, but that doesnt matter because there are loads of other places i could get married.

I appreciate your reply. I am in agreement concerning the church. My first point, however, is that considering the uncompromising posture of gay activists, where will the concept of an imagined equality end?

the majority of gay people would be perfectly happy with the same rights straight people have-to be able to get married and recognised legally as a couple, to be able to raise children together, and to be able to talk about their partner in conversation and act like a couple in public (within reason of course, the same kind of things a straight couple would be able to do without people complaining about) without fear of descrimination.

after the law is changed to give gay people equality, gradually the rest of it will fall into place, just like it did when black people wanted their rights, and all the other groups who fought for their equality and right to be who they are in the past.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the majority of gay people would be perfectly happy with the same rights straight people have-to be able to get married and recognised legally as a couple, to be able to raise children together, and to be able to talk about their partner in conversation and act like a couple in public (within reason of course, the same kind of things a straight couple would be able to do without people complaining about) without fear of descrimination.

after the law is changed to give gay people equality, gradually the rest of it will fall into place, just like it did when black people wanted their rights, and all the other groups who fought for their equality and right to be who they are in the past.

Exactly, just as I posted earlier. The thing is, however, that this process takes time. How long did women wait to get the vote? The true emancipation of blacks took 100 years. It is a slow and sometimes agonizing process calling not only for legislation but for public adaptation and acceptance. Some never do. We still have the KKK.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, just as I posted earlier. The thing is, however, that this process takes time. How long did women wait to get the vote? The true emancipation of blacks took 100 years. It is a slow and sometimes agonizing process calling not only for legislation but for public adaptation and acceptance. Some never do. We still have the KKK.

Because voting rights and slavery from freedom are really similar to giving two people the right to a legal contract.

These comparisons are silly and far fetched.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think D means that it'll take time for society to change it's entire view point about what's 'right' and 'wrong' with these things, why it's right to let people do things and why it's wrong to stop them from doing it. Though I could be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because voting rights and slavery from freedom are really similar to giving two people the right to a legal contract.

These comparisons are silly and far fetched.

Only if you choose to believe that a right becomes a reality simply because you want it; that you possess this mystical right that everyone is keeping from you. Do you think heterosexuals have the “right” to marry? They do not. They have legal permission to marry once they comply with the laws and standards governing that institution. There are prohibitions concerning kinship and age. Some Mormons still believe they have the “right” to more than one wife but they are denied that privilege by mandates of law. There are blood tests and licenses and a full set of legal obligations agreed to by accepting the ceremony.

Silly and far fetched? How long will it take for gays to have the right to marry? They can go to some states to do it, but they have to return there to divorce and their marriage will not be recognized in the vast majority of states. With a strong conservative presence in Congress, do you really think a vote is soon on the political horizon? If it happened, how long would the collection of state appeals take? A hundred years? Just like black emancipation? And it’s all far fetched and silly?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only if you choose to believe that a right becomes a reality simply because you want it; that you possess this mystical right that everyone is keeping from you. Do you think heterosexuals have the “right” to marry? They do not. They have legal permission to marry once they comply with the laws and standards governing that institution. There are prohibitions concerning kinship and age. Some Mormons still believe they have the “right” to more than one wife but they are denied that privilege by mandates of law. There are blood tests and licenses and a full set of legal obligations agreed to by accepting the ceremony.

Silly and far fetched? How long will it take for gays to have the right to marry? They can go to some states to do it, but they have to return there to divorce and their marriage will not be recognized in the vast majority of states. With a strong conservative presence in Congress, do you really think a vote is soon on the political horizon? If it happened, how long would the collection of state appeals take? A hundred years? Just like black emancipation? And it’s all far fetched and silly?

Who thinks they have a mythical power to make things magically appear in law? I see you make that assumption alot. No one expects that the worlds just going to make gay marriage within a week. Why do you keep making that assumption? What lead you to the conclusion that all people expect that? No one expects that. I ignored the assumption for awhile but your using it too often now. No one thinks that. Get it out of your head we demand things and expect people to give it to us. Its more then just a law. its a subculture. You can't see pass your silly facts to actually see whats happening. Its more then cause and effects. Its more then just WE WANT THIS. GIVE IT TO US.

Well yes it is far fetched and silly. Nothing you said really changes that. You are comparing peoples right to be treated as equal citizens to people asking to the right of a contract. Even it takes 100 years which it probably won't it still won't be that hard of a struggle. Time is just time. Only time. Time does not mean people struggled more or less.

I'm not going to debate with you about definitions of the word Law and Right. I am probably using them wrong by the textbook definition but its obvious that in your mind you know exactly which one I mean. And I know exactly which one you mean. So get over the word definitions. I'm not going to argue the semantics with you.

Edited by Kazoo
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, just as I posted earlier. The thing is, however, that this process takes time. How long did women wait to get the vote? The true emancipation of blacks took 100 years. It is a slow and sometimes agonizing process calling not only for legislation but for public adaptation and acceptance. Some never do. We still have the KKK.

It just seems many christians only want to fight for THEIR interests and rights and cry persecution if you disagree with them. But they will deny and ignore the FACT that their religion, their Bible has been the basis for much bigotry and oppression from womens rights to slavery and now gay marriage it is the CHRISTIANS who have persecuted...but of course it is so taboo to say that...so controversial to tell the truth and demand christians to examine their bad ideas, just as anyone else has to examine and be accountable for their bad ideas...of course christians don't call gay bashing a bad idea.....it is their duty and their doctrine.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just seems many christians only want to fight for THEIR interests and rights and cry persecution if you disagree with them. But they will deny and ignore the FACT that their religion, their Bible has been the basis for much bigotry and oppression from womens rights to slavery and now gay marriage it is the CHRISTIANS who have persecuted...but of course it is so taboo to say that...so controversial to tell the truth and demand christians to examine their bad ideas, just as anyone else has to examine and be accountable for their bad ideas...of course christians don't call gay bashing a bad idea.....it is their duty and their doctrine.

No thinking person can deny that what you say is true. I don’t think, however, it’s necessarily fair to refer to all Christians any more than they should homogenize all gays. But I think it’s wise to remember that it is a struggle against 2,000 years of teachings. Moral standards established and exercised for countless generations cannot be turned off because of the modern phenomena of a gay movement. The truth is that the church dogma is unchanging, unyielding because to conform to a revolutionary thought defies all prior beliefs.

Pope John Paul had the courage to admit the countless errors of the Catholic Church and that brought some degree of change. The idea of infallibility was diminished. To have religion embrace the concept of gay marriage, I predict, will not happen in our lifetimes.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did 2 years of child psychology as a part of a post graduate diploma in education. I must say i was not impressed with the academic state of psychology at tha t time. I spent 5 years as a student counsellor for adolescent students. I read a bit.

My non professional opinion, supported by a lot of writings and evidences, is that this is a very common need in adolescent females. We are caring for a fifteen year old girl whose father commited suicide when she was about two. She stuggles with this loss and absence every day. She talks about it and tries to understand, but It affects her social and psychological well being. I provide such a role model. Her step father also provides a good one but he has 3 of his own biologicla children in the family which complicates matters.

. But yes. For both males and females, especially from about 10 to mid teens, when awareness of such things is at its highest and influences are most critical, absence of one or the other role models can have very measurable negative effects on a child's emotional and psychological well being.

This time is also critical for children who know, or find out, that they are adopted and can cause real stresses in the adoptive family, which did not appear in younger years.

So it is not the gay nature of the parents, but the absence of strong alternate role models which is the problem. W e ALL, in terms of physical and social evolution, need male and female role models, preferrably close to us from birth to adulthood, to model, learn from, and adapt to.

A boy has the same need for his mother or a surrogate female figure. But girls tend to be more aware and vocalise their concerns, while boys bottle it up, and then act out in behavioural forms their inner conflicts.

Your little sister sounds like an intelligent, self aawre and articulate person. It is imortant not to use this issue to drive any wedge between her and her mother(s) who probably love her and want the best for her. The issue is to find an constructive way to involve a suitable male model in her life who is accpetable to her and her present caregivers, Are there ANY candidates, such as uncles or grandfathers, who might be able to do this? In australia there are groups who will help with a mentor of either sex for young people. There might be similar in your area.

Are there any male teachers with whom she feels comfortable and safe, or sporting coaches etc?

Unless the women have a real problem with maculine/male figures in general, it should be possible to find someone suitable.

Are you able to provide any form of guidance yourself, or is this impractical? ( I am not sure of your own age and life experience)

im 17 and i live in Kansas (i left California where my sister is a couple years ago) so all i do is talk to her on the phone when she needs me and are dad is kinda well... ya, but she is very smart and she plays soft ball but i dont think her coaches are that kind of model to her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do gender roles matter? I don't understand this. It seems sexist. Everyone needs a big strong bacon bringing home man and everyone needs a nice loving stay at home mom?

If two people are allowed to break these stereotypes in heterosexual couples why can't gay couples do the same?

idk im fine without my dad (just me and my mom for the most part).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who thinks they have a mythical power to make things magically appear in law? I see you make that assumption alot. No one expects that the worlds just going to make gay marriage within a week. Why do you keep making that assumption? What lead you to the conclusion that all people expect that? No one expects that. I ignored the assumption for awhile but your using it too often now. No one thinks that. Get it out of your head we demand things and expect people to give it to us. Its more then just a law. its a subculture. You can't see pass your silly facts to actually see whats happening. Its more then cause and effects. Its more then just WE WANT THIS. GIVE IT TO US.

Well yes it is far fetched and silly. Nothing you said really changes that. You are comparing peoples right to be treated as equal citizens to people asking to the right of a contract. Even it takes 100 years which it probably won't it still won't be that hard of a struggle. Time is just time. Only time. Time does not mean people struggled more or less.

I'm not going to debate with you about definitions of the word Law and Right. I am probably using them wrong by the textbook definition but its obvious that in your mind you know exactly which one I mean. And I know exactly which one you mean. So get over the word definitions. I'm not going to argue the semantics with you.

You need to explain your posture to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the Lambda Legal Defense and Educational Fund who were carrying the signs in front of Capitol Hill calling for “Change Now.” The gay organization Act Up has also called for an immediate change for the legal recognition of “gay rights.” Maybe you have the insight to recognize that this is not possible but it is not shared by many who share your cause.

You insist that my reference to black liberation is “silly” and if you believe it, it must come from a lack of knowledge about history. You call marriage a contract and that it has no relationship to the black freedom movement or the civil rights protests of the 60s. But when did blacks gain the right to marry a white person? Was that not a contract? Were they denied to participate in it? So what’s so silly?

So if it takes a hundred years, it’s okay, right? Good. And when that happens the LAW will give gays the RIGHT to marry and have their relationship recognized. No semantics, just plain logic.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No thinking person can deny that what you say is true. I don’t think, however, it’s necessarily fair to refer to all Christians any more than they should homogenize all gays. But I think it’s wise to remember that it is a struggle against 2,000 years of teachings. Moral standards established and exercised for countless generations cannot be turned off because of the modern phenomena of a gay movement. The truth is that the church dogma is unchanging, unyielding because to conform to a revolutionary thought defies all prior beliefs.

Pope John Paul had the courage to admit the countless errors of the Catholic Church and that brought some degree of change. The idea of infallibility was diminished. To have religion embrace the concept of gay marriage, I predict, will not happen in our lifetimes.

FYI The term MANY is not synonymous with ALL. So therefore I do not lump all christians together. But it is the christian Bible they all read and admire and worship from......

YES we are fighting a very long tradition of praising ignorance and barbarity and 'respecting a bunch of very bad ideas. it is my desire to have people respond with reason and common sense and science and logic and to SHUN the religious intolerance and beliefs that have destroyed so many lives. We need people to stand UP, speak UP and not allow anything to be a taboo conversation. So many human beings have suffered and died because no one could stand up to religion without their heads rolling or being burned at the stake.......and people are STILL being bullied into submission. I am asking my fellow humans to speak up for what is right and not be afraid of being bullied. It would take no time at all to fix many things in this world if the good people would just speak up and show support for someone else......because ultimately we are supporting our own rights when we fight for anothers. I ma not trying to simplify all this.....but IMO silence is largely what ails the wortld, not the loud mouthed bigots and racist and homophobes....the good people who utter not a syllable of support for their fellow man because their religion or their sect has dehumanized and demonized their supposed 'enemy'...and although they would like to help THEY will be lumped in with the 'heretic' if they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to explain your posture to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the Lambda Legal Defense and Educational Fund who were carrying the signs in front of Capitol Hill calling for “Change Now.” The gay organization Act Up has also called for an immediate change for the legal recognition of “gay rights.” Maybe you have the insight to recognize that this is not possible but it is not shared by many who share your cause.

You insist that my reference to black liberation is “silly” and if you believe it, it must come from a lack of knowledge about history. You call marriage a contract and that it has no relationship to the black freedom movement or the civil rights protests of the 60s. But when did blacks gain the right to marry a white person? Was that not a contract? Were they denied to participate in it? So what’s so silly?

So if it takes a hundred years, it’s okay, right? Good. And when that happens the LAW will give gays the RIGHT to marry and have their relationship recognized. No semantics, just plain logic.

The thing I find surprising about your argument is that you seem so surprised that people want change now. Of course they want change now! They want change to happen in their lifetimes so what are they doing? They're trying to make it happen. If they sat at home and waited for change, no change would occur.

Change requires people behind it and those calling for change are calling because they want it to benefit them. Is that so silly? Not really. Other rights movements were filled with people that wanted change in their lifetimes. Is it a high expectation? Sure, but I honestly don't get why you act so surprised that it's one people would have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You need to explain your posture to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the Lambda Legal Defense and Educational Fund who were carrying the signs in front of Capitol Hill calling for “Change Now.” The gay organization Act Up has also called for an immediate change for the legal recognition of “gay rights.” Maybe you have the insight to recognize that this is not possible but it is not shared by many who share your cause.

Expect and demand are two very different things. They don't expect that to happen. They WANT it too happen. And of course they want it faster. Can you blame them to want to accomplish a goal faster?

You insist that my reference to black liberation is “silly” and if you believe it, it must come from a lack of knowledge about history. You call marriage a contract and that it has no relationship to the black freedom movement or the civil rights protests of the 60s. But when did blacks gain the right to marry a white person? Was that not a contract? Were they denied to participate in it? So what’s so silly?

It is still silly. Thats only a small portion of the entire movement that issimilar to this. Honestly the right to marry a white person would be the last thing on my mind if I was just freed from slavery. Which is why it was one of the last right to be given. So yes that small part of the movement was similar to this. But to call the entire struggle of slavery similar to this? That is STILL silly.

So if it takes a hundred years, it’s okay, right? Good. And when that happens the LAW will give gays the RIGHT to marry and have their relationship recognized. No semantics, just plain logic.

It probably won't take 100 years. I never said it will be okay. I just said in that scenario it would still not even compare in the struggle from freedom of slavery.

Once again you make the assumption people are logical. Huge mistake. You think history can fall under your textbook definition of "THIS HAPPEN BEFORE. SO THIS WILL HAPPEN NOW". Even thought the thing you are comparing it too is barely alike. You seem to thing everything falls into some sort of complete logical over arching pattern of history.

Edited by Kazoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only if you choose to believe that a right becomes a reality simply because you want it; that you possess this mystical right that everyone is keeping from you. Do you think heterosexuals have the “right” to marry? They do not. They have legal permission to marry once they comply with the laws and standards governing that institution. There are prohibitions concerning kinship and age. Some Mormons still believe they have the “right” to more than one wife but they are denied that privilege by mandates of law. There are blood tests and licenses and a full set of legal obligations agreed to by accepting the ceremony.

Silly and far fetched? How long will it take for gays to have the right to marry? They can go to some states to do it, but they have to return there to divorce and their marriage will not be recognized in the vast majority of states. With a strong conservative presence in Congress, do you really think a vote is soon on the political horizon? If it happened, how long would the collection of state appeals take? A hundred years? Just like black emancipation? And it’s all far fetched and silly?

what laws and standards are there that gay people would have to comply with if they want to be legally married? if marriage changes so it is not just between a man and a woman, there will still be prohibitions on kinship and age.

people cant marry their sister/cousin/dad because of the genetic aspect of it, that if incest was seen as acceptable, babies would be born with genetic problems, especially if the descendants of the incestuous couple also married a relative. if gay marriage was legal, there would still be rules about incest (even if it isnt such a big problem because not being able to concieve naturally prevents genetic abnormalities that come from incest. maybe it would be seen as unfair for a man to be able to marry his brother but not his sister, and they wouldnt want people thinking hetrosexual incest should be allowed too?)

if gay marriage is legal, obviously there would still be age limits. just like it is with straight people getting married, and just like the age of consent is still the same for both straight and gay couples. this would stay in place because there is a reason why teenagers cant get married-because theyre not yet responsible to handle that choice, and theres a reason why a relationship between a 30 year old and a 14 year old is wrong, because of the inbalance of power in that relationship with one being so much older and taking advantage of the younger one, who is not yet an adult and able to make adult decisions. marriage would still be limited to adults, whether they are men or women or both, and would still not make pedophilia ok.

being able to marry more than one person...not something i really have a problem with (i have a friend who is in a relationship involving two women and a man who all love eachother), within reason of course. all people involved must have to be consenting, someone cant just go off and get married without telling their existing partner(s?). and obviously it still woudnt be ok for someone to marry 3 13 year olds, or marry two of their cousins (but what about the guy who is with two sisters and their cousin and none of them are doing anything sexual with eachother)...i think the reason why it was banned was because of men who were having loads of wives and treating them unfairly.

You need to explain your posture to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the Lambda Legal Defense and Educational Fund who were carrying the signs in front of Capitol Hill calling for “Change Now.” The gay organization Act Up has also called for an immediate change for the legal recognition of “gay rights.” Maybe you have the insight to recognize that this is not possible but it is not shared by many who share your cause.

You insist that my reference to black liberation is “silly” and if you believe it, it must come from a lack of knowledge about history. You call marriage a contract and that it has no relationship to the black freedom movement or the civil rights protests of the 60s. But when did blacks gain the right to marry a white person? Was that not a contract? Were they denied to participate in it? So what’s so silly?

So if it takes a hundred years, it’s okay, right? Good. And when that happens the LAW will give gays the RIGHT to marry and have their relationship recognized. No semantics, just plain logic.

yeah, but no reason why not to allow gay people to marry now. there was loads of opposition to slavery being banned, loads of opposition to women being allowed to vote....but once laws are passed to allow it, society will change to be more accepting.

it may take 100 years for being gay to be seen as completely acceptable and not an issue, judging by how there are still racists and sexists out there, but theres no reason not to start that progress yet, as the first step in changing society seems to be changing the laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what laws and standards are there that gay people would have to comply with if they want to be legally married? if marriage changes so it is not just between a man and a woman, there will still be prohibitions on kinship and age.

people cant marry their sister/cousin/dad because of the genetic aspect of it, that if incest was seen as acceptable, babies would be born with genetic problems, especially if the descendants of the incestuous couple also married a relative. if gay marriage was legal, there would still be rules about incest (even if it isnt such a big problem because not being able to concieve naturally prevents genetic abnormalities that come from incest. maybe it would be seen as unfair for a man to be able to marry his brother but not his sister, and they wouldnt want people thinking hetrosexual incest should be allowed too?)

if gay marriage is legal, obviously there would still be age limits. just like it is with straight people getting married, and just like the age of consent is still the same for both straight and gay couples. this would stay in place because there is a reason why teenagers cant get married-because theyre not yet responsible to handle that choice, and theres a reason why a relationship between a 30 year old and a 14 year old is wrong, because of the inbalance of power in that relationship with one being so much older and taking advantage of the younger one, who is not yet an adult and able to make adult decisions. marriage would still be limited to adults, whether they are men or women or both, and would still not make pedophilia ok.

being able to marry more than one person...not something i really have a problem with (i have a friend who is in a relationship involving two women and a man who all love eachother), within reason of course. all people involved must have to be consenting, someone cant just go off and get married without telling their existing partner(s?). and obviously it still woudnt be ok for someone to marry 3 13 year olds, or marry two of their cousins (but what about the guy who is with two sisters and their cousin and none of them are doing anything sexual with eachother)...i think the reason why it was banned was because of men who were having loads of wives and treating them unfairly.

yeah, but no reason why not to allow gay people to marry now. there was loads of opposition to slavery being banned, loads of opposition to women being allowed to vote....but once laws are passed to allow it, society will change to be more accepting.

it may take 100 years for being gay to be seen as completely acceptable and not an issue, judging by how there are still racists and sexists out there, but theres no reason not to start that progress yet, as the first step in changing society seems to be changing the laws.

what laws and standards are there that gay people would have to comply with if they want to be legally married? if marriage changes so it is not just between a man and a woman, there will still be prohibitions on kinship and age.

people cant marry their sister/cousin/dad because of the genetic aspect of it, that if incest was seen as acceptable, babies would be born with genetic problems, especially if the descendants of the incestuous couple also married a relative. if gay marriage was legal, there would still be rules about incest (even if it isnt such a big problem because not being able to concieve naturally prevents genetic abnormalities that come from incest. maybe it would be seen as unfair for a man to be able to marry his brother but not his sister, and they wouldnt want people thinking hetrosexual incest should be allowed too?)

if gay marriage is legal, obviously there would still be age limits. just like it is with straight people getting married, and just like the age of consent is still the same for both straight and gay couples. this would stay in place because there is a reason why teenagers cant get married-because theyre not yet responsible to handle that choice, and theres a reason why a relationship between a 30 year old and a 14 year old is wrong, because of the inbalance of power in that relationship with one being so much older and taking advantage of the younger one, who is not yet an adult and able to make adult decisions. marriage would still be limited to adults, whether they are men or women or both, and would still not make pedophilia ok.

being able to marry more than one person...not something i really have a problem with (i have a friend who is in a relationship involving two women and a man who all love eachother), within reason of course. all people involved must have to be consenting, someone cant just go off and get married without telling their existing partner(s?). and obviously it still woudnt be ok for someone to marry 3 13 year olds, or marry two of their cousins (but what about the guy who is with two sisters and their cousin and none of them are doing anything sexual with eachother)...i think the reason why it was banned was because of men who were having loads of wives and treating them unfairly.

yeah, but no reason why not to allow gay people to marry now. there was loads of opposition to slavery being banned, loads of opposition to women being allowed to vote....but once laws are passed to allow it, society will change to be more accepting.

it may take 100 years for being gay to be seen as completely acceptable and not an issue, judging by how there are still racists and sexists out there, but theres no reason not to start that progress yet, as the first step in changing society seems to be changing the laws.

Basically, we are in agreement.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing I find surprising about your argument is that you seem so surprised that people want change now. Of course they want change now! They want change to happen in their lifetimes so what are they doing? They're trying to make it happen. If they sat at home and waited for change, no change would occur.

Change requires people behind it and those calling for change are calling because they want it to benefit them. Is that so silly? Not really. Other rights movements were filled with people that wanted change in their lifetimes. Is it a high expectation? Sure, but I honestly don't get why you act so surprised that it's one people would have.

Who said I was surprised? I only said that when compared to other rights movements, it will take a very long time. One poster stated that no one expected it to happen quickly and I reminded them of the gay activist organizations calling for change now, that’s all.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expect and demand are two very different things. They don't expect that to happen. They WANT it too happen. And of course they want it faster. Can you blame them to want to accomplish a goal faster?

It is still silly. Thats only a small portion of the entire movement that issimilar to this. Honestly the right to marry a white person would be the last thing on my mind if I was just freed from slavery. Which is why it was one of the last right to be given. So yes that small part of the movement was similar to this. But to call the entire struggle of slavery similar to this? That is STILL silly.

It probably won't take 100 years. I never said it will be okay. I just said in that scenario it would still not even compare in the struggle from freedom of slavery.

Once again you make the assumption people are logical. Huge mistake. You think history can fall under your textbook definition of "THIS HAPPEN BEFORE. SO THIS WILL HAPPEN NOW". Even thought the thing you are comparing it too is barely alike. You seem to thing everything falls into some sort of complete logical over arching pattern of history.

I think what’s silly is your insistence. How easy it is to minimize the desire of others while defending your own. How irresponsible to ignore the grievances of others while promoting your own. It took 45 years of legal action to permit interracial marriage. One hundred and seventy one couples were sent to jails and prisons. They faced the same . . . . exactly the same . . . . problem as gays face today. They could marry in some states and be arrested in others.

What would be on your mind if you were a freed slave doesn’t mean a hot damn. History speaks for itself and if you think the similarities are incidental or unassociated, you need to read more. And don’t misquote me. The only reference I made about slavery was that the process to obtain complete freedom (including interracial marriage) took a hundred years.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.