Your views on Gay Marriage/Gays in general

[Perxio]

I can let gays live but marriage is still a bit too much. It's too... serious thing. Just let heteros marry.

I don't know about the rest of your post, but that made me laugh.

 

[Zeta]

Gee, Maxim. Thanks for not killing me. I'm so greatful.

 

[Blackjack Gabbiani]

Another thing that anti-gay people use that smacks of illogic is the "definition of marriage" line. Marriage hasn't always meant an equal partnership--it was originally a way for the man to OWN the woman. And if the definition can change from that, why can't it change to mean "a loving couple"?

 

[Girafarig_Magcargo]

Another thing that anti-gay people use that smacks of illogic is the "definition of marriage" line. Marriage hasn't always meant an equal partnership--it was originally a way for the man to OWN the woman. And if the definition can change from that, why can't it change to mean "a loving couple"?

Uh, source?

Besides that, it's undeniable that marriage as an institution, no matter the different ways culture has interpreted it, has always been between the opposite sexes. If you can find me institutionalized gay marriage in history, fine, but otherwise, marriage by definition must be between male and female.

 

[Blackjack Gabbiani]

Must be? Other definitions change all the time. Heck, look at the word "gay" itself. So why can't the definition of this word change?

 

[Tsu4444]

Well, I'm gay, so.... My ideas are quite obvious on the subject

And here's an icon that I really liked that speaks to those against it all for supposed "religious" issues:

I was just like "... That's the perfect icon for me!" xD

And btw, to all who think homosexuality is a choice: news flash. Nine times out of ten, it's not. We have no choice over who we fall in love with; it just happens. So how can it possibly be "morally wrong"?

 

[GrnMarvl14]

Uh, source?

Ooooh, my favorite word:

The Meaning and Origin of Marriage.

Source for the quote below:

One significant development which occurred in the Middle Ages, was the rise of ecclesiastical marriage ceremonies and legislation. Prior to this period, it was left to civil authorities to legislate marriages. The Church concerned itself with only the moral dimension of the marriage relationship.

A History of Gay Marriage.

From Wikipedia:

In China, in the southern province of Fujian where male love was especially cultivated, men would marry youths in elaborate ceremonies

In Hellenic Greece, the pederastic relationships between Greek men (erastes) and youths (eromenos) who had come of age were, it has been argued, analogous to marriage in several aspects. The age of the youth was similar to the age at which women married (the mid-teens, though in some city states, as young as age seven), and the relationship could only be undertaken with the consent of the father. This consent, just as in the case of a daughter's marriage, was contingent on the suitor's social standing. The relationship, just like a marriage, consisted of very specific social and religious responsibilities and also had a sexual component.

Historian John Boswell argued that Adelphopoiesis, or brother-making, represented an early form of religious same-sex marriage in the Orthodox church, and Alan Bray saw the rite of Ordo ad fratres faciendum ("Order for the making of brothers") as serving the same purpose in the medieval Roman Catholic Church. In the Balkans, same-sex marriage survived until modern days, in the form of the Albanian rite of vellameria, "brother bond."

In North America, among the Native Americans societies, it has taken the form of Two-Spirit-type relationships, in which some male members of the tribe, from an early age, heed a calling to take on female gender with all its responsibilities. They are prized as wives by the other men in the tribe, who enter into formal marriages with these Two-Spirit men. They are also respected as being especially powerful shamans.

In Africa, among the Azande of the Congo, men would marry youths for whom they had to pay a bride-price to the father.

The History of Lesbian Unions.

History teaches us much.

 

[The Outrage]

I'm just curious why anyone needs to get married really. Do you really need a fancy ceremony and a certificate to show that you love someone? Or is it just a way for you to seal the deal to keep your lover from running away.

 

[Roses Ablaze]

Laws favor married couples over singles.

 

[Zeta]

I'm just curious why anyone needs to get married really. Do you really need a fancy ceremony and a certificate to show that you love someone? Or is it just a way for you to seal the deal to keep your lover from running away.

Hospital visitation rights, insurance rights, pulling the plug rights, burial rights, custody rights for children, tax breaks, and many many others.

 

[Maxim Posthumus]

Gee, Maxim. Thanks for not killing me. I'm so greatful.

I'll never wanted to kill all homosexuals.

I'll just never let them marry because homosexuality is disgusting and immoral for me. Faith is a separate thing. Wait for next time, and you'll certainly be killed.

 

[Lamia]

I'll never wanted to kill all homosexuals.

I'll just never let them marry because homosexuality is disgusting and immoral for me. Faith is a separate thing. Wait for next time, and you'll certainly be killed.

You're pending for a bending!

 

[GrnMarvl14]

I'll just never let them marry because homosexuality is disgusting and immoral for me. Faith is a separate thing. Wait for next time, and you'll certainly be killed.

So because YOU feel something is wrong, EVERYONE should have to follow suit?

And what does "wait for next time, and you'll certainly be killed" mean, exactly?

But, in related news, an Iowa court has found the state ban on gay marriage to be unconstitutional and thus, a precedent is set. The court ALSO struck down a ruling saying that marriage was strictly between a man and a woman.

The 63-page ruling, written by Judge Robert Hanson states: "Couples, such as plaintiffs, who are otherwise qualified to marry one another may not be denied licenses to marry or certificates of marriage or in any other way prevented from entering into a civil marriage pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 595 by reason of the fact that both persons compromising such a couple are of the same sex."

 

[Maxim Posthumus]

So because YOU feel something is wrong, EVERYONE should have to follow suit?

See the thread title? "YOUR views on Gay Marriage". This is MY personal view. So, not everyone has to follow it. I can have my opinion, can't I? That's my right. And you sounded like trying to take it out from me.

And what does "wait for next time, and you'll certainly be killed" mean, exactly?

It's a death threat! Lol, just kidding. I said that Because Zeta said "Thanks for not killing me". But it's just this time since I'm the best at killing Zeta.

 

[The Outrage]

Hospital visitation rights, insurance rights, pulling the plug rights, burial rights, custody rights for children, tax breaks, and many many others.

Well if they're both gay they could just adopt the children together can't they?

Well i guess all the other stuff is worth fighting for so yeah, but if I were to choose, I would allow them to get married since the only arguement against it is religion.

 

[Girafarig_Magcargo]

Ooooh, my favorite word:

The Meaning and Origin of Marriage.

Source for the quote below:



A History of Gay Marriage.

From Wikipedia:











The History of Lesbian Unions.

History teaches us much.

Well, you learn something everyday. I'm pretty skeptical of the idea of the Orthodox church marrying men together, and you'll have to be more specific than the nebulous "Native American societies," but I'll admit that a few cultures worldwide married men together. As for your first source, I thought it was interesting that the author still defined marriage, despite the many differences mentioned, as nearly always between male and female.

 

[Luna Tiger]

Well if they're both gay they could just adopt the children together can't they?

You'd be surprised the kind of hoops just a normal straight married couple have to jump to even be eligible to adopt. It's not like going to the ASPCA, see a puppy you want, and take him home that night. It's a rigorous process, that involve environment, stability of the couple, collective income, and general ability to successfully finance a life for a child. Marriage is preferable, single parents wanting to adopt is a nightmare, and two unwed people, straight or gay? Just as bad and have to go even farther.

 

[Shuko]

I really hate to begin ANY argument with this, but I have to say that I am a Christian.

However.

As a Christian, I believe that God loves all men and women equally, and unlike many people of my faith, I don't believe that he would hold anyone in disgrace for romantic feelings they cannot control. I find it very sad indeed that gay men and women who are fine Christian people, have to feel guilty for being who they are, and are made even more so by church officials and other people in their communities. Homosexuality is not a disease of the mind (believe it or not, this was actually the belief in the fifties...), nor is it a controllable urge. It's both a mental and physical attribute of a human being. People are MADE that way. I can't claim to understand all of what God does, but the modicum of good sense that He HAS given me tells me that he does not create anyone or anything evil, so any part of a human being that he or she is born with is GOOD, for one reason or another.

I particularly like the argument that homosexuality is our species' means of controlling population. It makes me wonder how many third-world countries could benefit from having more homosexual people among their ranks. Since so many can't seem to either afford or believe in the use of contraceptives, nature (i.e. God) has provided an alternative - a lack of interest for the opposite sex. And how CAN'T it be good, when people who can't find love for people of other gender still CAN with people of their own? Love is love. If it's felt reciprocally, and the two people are old enough and responsible enough for each other, then there should be no question in their union.

That being said, all the benefits that come from the legal definition of marriage should also be allowed to these specialized couples. If two people who DON'T love each other can get married and benefit from it (i.e. illegals, marrying for money, etc), why can't two people who DO love each other do the same?

Don't forget that a more general definition of marriage is, "the union of two entities that fit together naturally." One can argue that the "naturally" bit would be a topic of debate, but to the entities involved in the union, there is no debate.

I'm ashamed that any good Christian would have the indecency to warp our God's most precious gift - his love of us and our brethren - into a means for hatred and intolerance. We're all his people. We all deserve to be treated with respect and kindness. Even those of us who commit the most heinous sins are given good clear chances for redemption, and yet for some reason, people of homosexual natures are treated even worse than those sinners. It's appalling, and it makes me very sad for the mentality of the people in my faith. It makes me want to apologize for the lot of them. But I can't, since I already have so much on my OWN plate to apologize for. The best I can do is speak my peace about it from time to time.

Oh, and to those of you who don't believe in God, or in any of the things I believe in, please don't misconstrue my comments as any attempt to sway your own beliefs. It's all part of that "respect and kindness thing," when I say that I also believe that each person ought to choose his/her own path, and live life as he/she sees fit, not as I think they ought to. xD

 

[GrnMarvl14]

And we could start an entirely different debate on what constitutes a marriage when you're not discussing strict Western terminology. What may translate as "wife" in English might very well mean "lover" or "plowshare" in other language. Husband could mean "owner" or "master" or any number of other terms.

you'll have to be more specific than the nebulous "Native American societies,"

The following is a string of quotes that apply, sometimes vaguely, to what you're wanting:

From a VERY recent article on the subject:

Hembree argued that tribal laws use the words "husband" and "wife," not "wife" and "wife." But in Cherokee, the word "wife" means "cooker," and the word "husband" means "companion." Both are gender neutral. In Mohawk, "my husband" means "the person I live with."

Native peoples have historically had a more fluid view of sexuality. Bisexual, straight, gay, transgender -- hey, it didn't matter. That was how you were made and people weren't going to stone you to death just because you were different. In fact, your differences made you special.

"Two-Spirits" like myself -- the modern term for gay, lesbian, bi and trans Native Americans -- were hailed as medicine men.

Another source:

Many scholars now prefer the term 'two-spirit.' American Indian languages had a variety of terms -- winkte (Lakota), nadleeh (Navajo), hemanah (Cheyenne), kwid-(Tewa), tainna wa'ippe (Shoshone), dubuds (Paiute) and lhamana (Zuni) to identify "a person who has both male and female spirits within," notes Lakota scholar Beatrice Medicine. Anthropologists such as Elsie Parsons long ago observed that two-spirited men often married other men

"Where monogamy - just one spouse - is the norm, there are nevertheless examples of marriage between two people of the same biological sex: two men or two women. This is the case in many Native American societies that recognize a third gender, the berdache, who is anatomically male but spiritually neither male nor female. A berdache may live with a man, fulfilling the role of wife. In societies where descent is traced through the males of the family, keeping the lineage going is more important than restricting marriage to one man and one woman. Among the Kwakiutl Indians of the Pacific Northwest, a man may marry the male heir of a tribal chief as a means of inheriting certain privileges from his father-in-law.

Similarly, a Nuer father in Sudan who has only daughters may ask one of them to adopt the social role of a man and take a bride. The female 'husband' then selects a male mating partner for the wife. Any children born to the wife refer to the 'husband' as father and become heirs of the paternal grandfather."

Two examples from elsewhere in the world are the Nuer people of Sudan in Africa, who allowed women to marry other women, and the samurai warriors of Japan, who sometimes married other men, he says."

Another "history of gay marriage" article. Talks about Egypt, and the Catholic Church allowing gay marriages in the Middle Ages (though they say it's debatable whether or not they were technically marriages).

And, recently, the Cherokee Supreme Court upheld the right for gays to marry, saying it poses no threat to tradition.

 

[maddiejoan]

I'll never wanted to kill all homosexuals.

I'll just never let them marry because homosexuality is disgusting and immoral for me. Faith is a separate thing. Wait for next time, and you'll certainly be killed.

So?

Don't marry a homosexual.

That's about as far as your rights should go.