Gay Marriage and other problems homosexuals face

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Narona

I wonder what you people mean by "stopping legislating it completely"?

Whether you call it civil marriage or civil union, you think it should not be legislated at all? I let aside the same-sex union problem.

I don't exactly remember how it works in the USA, so i let it aside, but in France, a marriage is not only a signature on a piece of paper, and what you get and what the state compels you to do from a civil marriage is, imo, good for the couple, its family, and for the society.

Yes and no.

What is now termed a legal "marriage" in America should be renamed a "civil union," regardless of whether it is for a hetero- or homosexual couple.

The argument against gay marriage in the US is almost wholly built upon the definition and the ownership of the word "marriage."

If the government were to relinquish ownership of the word, the religious nutcases wouldn't have a leg to stand on, and more states would be able to allow gay and lesbian couples the same rights and privileges that heterosexual couples enjoy.

Edit: And I just want to add, the whole "choice vs. no-choice" argument is wholly defeatist.

It doesn't matter.

Even if it was a choice, it's wrong for people to forcibly impose their will upon others. You know, maybe I like sleeping with other girls. It's not like I have to do it in order to continue to live. I could choose to have sex with men (and hate it) or choose not to have sex at all!

But I choose to live the way I want to live. My lifestyle doesn't hurt anyone or intrude upon anyone. To violently force me to live otherwise is, on so many levels, just fucking wrong.

[npcomplete]

Originally Posted by james0246

Trust me, Texas has many other equally embarrassing laws (then again, most states and countries do ).

Well, they just overturned a ban on selling sex toys last year, so you can buy Tengas in Texas now

(but still not in Alabama)

But yeah, laws vary widely by state. And while Iowa allows same-sex marriage, it was not put up to a vote, unlike California where it was legal for a while until enough there was enough pressure to form and pass Prop 8. In fact: "Iowa legislators hurried to pass a local Defense of Marriage Act to prohibit marriage between gay and lesbian couples to avoid a similar court challenge." It's only because of the ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court that it's still legal.

But there are idiosyncrasies even within each state. Even Iowa does not look so progressive when you see how Chris Handley is facing up to 20 years in prison just for buying "obscene" manga

Originally Posted by Nightbat®

Now I might be narrowminded, stubborn and shallow

but whenever I here the term "Gay community/marriage/whatever"
it's about throwing the homosexuals and lesbians on one big heap

hell even when we use the expression "Homo-huwelijk" here (huwelijk lit. transl. 'marriage')
there isn't even a presumption that they are males by definition

Taking that in account, isn't it ironic when there is a reference to "gays" you immediatly see a male stereotype image?

actually I also tend to associate "gay" with male because that's the popular connotation it has in most of the US/UK/AU/NZ. Of course it can apply to both men and women, unlike lesbian which only applies to women.

I don't know any Dutch but maybe the language uses a more accurate and gender neutral term by using the "homo" prefix to refer to homosexuality which may be why you don't have that male/female split perception in the first place.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Fine. Then the "gay marriage" law should be declared for female-female only. Legalising yuri but banning yaoi.

I hope you are all happy and content with this proposition to make the world a better place. I have confidence in this becoming a success because...

lol, I guess all the fujoshis will have to turn yuri then, which should make the world an even happier place

Originally Posted by Narona

I wonder what you people mean by "stopping legislating it completely"?

Whether you call it civil marriage or civil union, you think it should not be legislated at all? I let aside the same-sex union problem.

I don't exactly remember how it works in the USA, so i let it aside, but in France, a marriage is not only a signature on a piece of paper, and what you get and what the state compels you to do from a civil marriage is, imo, good for the couple, its family, and for the society.

It's like what synaesthetic, Vexx and others have mentioned. The problem is that marriage in the US is technically a non-religious function, just like how you say it is in France. But almost every single politician, legislator and person opposed to same sex marriage uses a moral rationale which in turn is usually influenced by their religious views.

In fact, it's only very recently in the last couple of years that many states have explicitly banned same-sex marriage by amending their state constitution in reaction to Massachusetts' legalization of same-sex marriage (then subsequently legalized in Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and will be in New Hampshire next year).

But even without the issue of same sex marriage, the issue who gets to marry and the rights of women have been very spotty and downright unconstitutional (federally) IMO in the past and have changed over time. See here.

BUT if you actually do the reverse, where you do treat it as a piece of paper and let the people handle however they want to interpret that:

Originally Posted by Telmah

I personally believe the state should stop legislating marriage in general--and in fact remove itself from the entire institution (ie No tax credits for marriage). Leave marriage as a strictly religious union. Follow a seperation of church and state ideal more than they do. All the difficulties with gay marriage tend to disappear then.

-- and you leave marriage simply as a personal or religious union and treat it as you would a contract, and have the government get completely out of the entire business of marriage (divorces, disputes, inheritance, etc. would be treated by the local courts just like any other civil case)--would simply solve the entire issue since it wouldn't be an issue to begin with.

(Note that this would not mean you can't have tax breaks for having children. They would be treated as 'dependents' as they currently are now for anyone, married or not. You just would not have a different legal status simply by being married nor benifits by law)

[Throne Invader]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Considering what we know of behavioral science, that's outright wrong. What you're saying is behavioral repression.

Is puppy love a carefully arranged multi-generational social engineering construct, or is it, god forbid, natural? How does one fall in love for that first time, and why? So why can feeling attraction to someone of the same sex be a social construct, especially if Western society for the last few centuries viciously opposed anything remotely homosexual?

If it's really a socially influenced thing, we would have seen their extinction by now with those centuries of oppression. On the contrary, children of heterosexual couples in rabidly sexually intolerant societies continue to become homosexual...even if the environment forced them to learn to hide such tendencies from the world. And we now know that intelligent animals like elephants exhibit homosexual behaviors, both male and female.

Homosexuality is natural. The few of us who get it are just waiting for the rest of the world to drop their petty prejudice.

I'm not really in tune with what you said about the behavioral science or behavioral repression thing. Sorry about that. I don't quite understand. I was just stating my opinion even though it came on a bit too strongly

I think that the family is what composes the basic structure of an individual. Now when you meant puppy love I think that already pertains to those small crushes adolescents have and that is the exact period where most growing individuals would wonder why they don't seem to be fancying members of the opposite sex and instead seem to be crushing on same sex people. That would start around 10 or 11 years old I believe. So that shows that there was plenty of room of raising and lots and lots of experiences that could occur in the earlier 8-10 years of a child.

I do not believe that homosexuality is determined solely by genetics only and I really do not plan to dismiss that idea as of now. I would lean more to the environmental factors.

[Narona]

Originally Posted by npcomplete

BUT if you actually do the reverse, where you do treat it as a piece of paper and let the people handle however they want to interpret that:

-- and you leave marriage simply as a personal or religious union and treat it as you would a contract, and have the government get completely out of the entire business of marriage (divorces, disputes, inheritance, etc. would be treated by the local courts just like any other civil case) --would simply solve the entire issue since it wouldn't be an issue to begin with.

(Note that this would not mean you can't have tax breaks for having children. They would be treated as 'dependents' as they currently are now for anyone, married or not. You just would not have a different legal status simply by being married nor benifits by law)

I am not sure that I fully understand you. Whether you call it civil union or civil marriage, I disagree if you want the state to not legislate it. As I said, I studied the case in the USA it a bit but I don't remember some things and I don't want to say stupdities, but in France, the civil marriage is an institution (and the church marriage has nothing to do, and has no legal value), and the legislation works, and I think it is good that way for the sake of the persons involved, the kids, and the society (how they handle divorces, inheritance, etc. and what the spouses are compelled to do.) (i don't feel like writing 3 pages about how it works here, I guess you can find a website about it). Even if tomorrow they allow civil marriage (and there is alreday the PACS in France, I wonder if you checked the link that i posted ealier) of people of the same sex, the legislation of the civil marriage would still work after, of course, corrections to take in account the couples of people from the same sex.


edit, in french. Haven't checked if all the infos are exactly the good ones, but must be: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariage..._fran.C3.A7ais

You might not be able to understand french, but before saying that the legislation is useless and what not, I hope you will read the informations about it in french or in english, the laws related to it, and try to understand it and how it works.

stop making examples with France all the frigging time, does not work

To whoever who wrote that to me in the rep, get some courage and post your thoughts here if you have something against me or France, you shitty coward.

[Throne Invader]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

Thank you Irenicus. I agree with you. I think that most people who are gay or bi have biological factors at work. I'm totally convinced of this.

Think of it, FlagrantFlora, if it was more about nurture than nature, why do so many people 'turn out gay' despite having upbringings where heterosexuality is encouraged (or worse, homosexuality is vilified, on top of it). There have been homosexuals all throughout human history, all over the world. Most cultures have not looked kindly on it. There were gays in America in the 1920s-1950s (and earlier, of course). It just wasn't commonly heard of because people hid it in a society that condemned it. See, it was very condemned...didn't stop the fact that there were homosexual individuals. It is just that most of them repressed it, denied it, hid it from themselves and the rest of the world. Think of how many people are gay in the muslim world but just about no one ever finds out because if that comes out, they'll die? Again, societies where homosexuality is condemned, but there are still gay people in those societies. You see more and more gay and bi people in America these days because people can come out in this day and age and it isn't as terrible as some other countries out there.

I have a question. So you believe it's more nature than nurture?

Next, what do you mean by "heterosexual" upbringing or upbringings where heterosexuality is encouraged? Can I ask for some examples? Sorry if I misunderstood but I'm thinking you mean that parents raise their children to be attracted to the opposite sex? When I was in my elementary years, my mom didn't go like "Oh look honey isn't that little boy over there cute? You should talk to him." And about homosexuality being vilified, I'll have to take a statement from someone else who posted in this thread. Parents don't usually bring up discussions regarding homosexuality with their children unless they actually see one with their children.

And if whether homosexuals repress or flaunt their true orientation, this points to genetics?

Plus, the view that homosexuality comes natural to many gays and bis is not just a baseless view of mine. Scientific studies back it. More and more over time, scientific findings find that gays and bis have biological factors which dictate their sexuality. Like I said, some people are just experimental. But some (most gays and bis, I believe) can't help but be attracted to the same sex. Their inclination wasn't a concrete choice, that is for sure. Like I said before, why would people choose to be gay and put up with the bullshit? No, these people can't help but feel the way they do and they come out and date people of the same sex because it is natural for them and it will lead to a healthier, happier life for them (as someone said in this thread). They'll suffer if they live a lie.

I still believe orientation is developed. It's not only based on nature or whatever inborn trait that could cause it. Growth and development plays a larger part in my opinion. A baby isn't born to automatically love. It's through learning while growing that makes up an individual.

And also, I find you have a wrong view in saying some gay people just "indulge" in the homosexual lifestyle. What do you mean by that? That people who feel that way about physical attraction are wrong for embracing it. They shouldn't date people that they want to date? That is only for the heterosexuals? I know you mentioned your religion calls it a sin, and I can respect that you have views aligned with your religion, but consider if people don't choose this aspect of themselves. It is pretty unfair to speak of them as social deviants over something about themselves they didn't choose.

What I meant by "indulge" is that they take part in homosexual relations. I wasn't condemning them. A person can't exactly choose their orientation but they can choose to kiss or hold hands in a public area.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

Think of it, FlagrantFlora, if it was more about nurture than nature, why do so many people 'turn out gay' despite having upbringings where heterosexuality is encouraged (or worse, homosexuality is vilified, on top of it). There have been homosexuals all throughout human history, all over the world. Most cultures have not looked kindly on it. There were gays in America in the 1920s-1950s (and earlier, of course). It just wasn't commonly heard of because people hid it in a society that condemned it. See, it was very condemned...didn't stop the fact that there were homosexual individuals. It is just that most of them repressed it, denied it, hid it from themselves and the rest of the world. Think of how many people are gay in the muslim world but just about no one ever finds out because if that comes out, they'll die? Again, societies where homosexuality is condemned, but there are still gay people in those societies. You see more and more gay and bi people in America these days because people can come out in this day and age and it isn't as terrible as some other countries out there.

Neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is actually encouraged except by the media and orthodox social expectations, the latter of which has been steadily changing as people start to accept that others are different and just roll that way. Some people hide it because of peer pressure, or because they realize it's more normal for people to appreciate the opposite sex better because everyone else does it, including their friends, or their family isn't exactly accepting of something because of their own expectations. Some people are quite open about it on the other hand.

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

Plus, the view that homosexuality comes natural to many gays and bis is not just a baseless view of mine. Scientific studies back it. More and more over time, scientific findings find that gays and bis have biological factors which dictate their sexuality. Like I said, some people are just experimental. But some (most gays and bis, I believe) can't help but be attracted to the same sex. Their inclination wasn't a concrete choice, that is for sure. Like I said before, why would people choose to be gay and put up with the bullshit? No, these people can't help but feel the way they do and they come out and date people of the same sex because it is natural for them and it will lead to a healthier, happier life for them (as someone said in this thread). They'll suffer if they live a lie.

Yes, some people are genetically bound to be gay, but I have known some people who have actually chosen to date people of the same sex. It could be for any reason, be it boredom of the opposite sex or what to try something radically different. It can go either way.

[Autumn Demon]

I know gay couples can't get married in the UK, but does David Cameron's planned tax break for married couples include gay couples in civil partnerships?

[Mystique]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

Yes, some people are genetically bound to be gay, but I have known some people who have actually chosen to date people of the same sex. It could be for any reason, be it boredom of the opposite sex or what to try something radically different. It can go either way.

Agreed.

I'm seeing too much of the girl/girl side of things to fully believe its 100% 'born with it' without the environment, incl the media playing a big part in terms of social attitudes, the relaxation of them, the access to more information because of the internet and the desire to 'experiment'.
There's too many grey areas to cleary define it almost 100% eitherway.
But, that's to be followed up in the sexuality thread if someone wanted to continue off that.

However, in an attempt to follow from Vexx's post earlier, please copy your posts (if you don't wish to delete them here) to the relevant threads.

Sexuality - For discusson on sexual origin
Religion - For various religions and their views on homosexuality.

Opening poster mentioned that a thread based off almost the same topic was locked 4 years ago, and I doubt it's gonna be the case because of flaming here, since the GC bunch are respectable for most part, but cause it dips into too many side paths which as I'm seeing is turning into a lot of personal posts between groups of pple. :\
So ideally topics regarding the law of marriages, vs civil union, the definition of marriage within a religious instituion and out for each country around the world or for each state of America would be more apt perhaps?

I'm curious to see how the law and homosexuality has developed for other countries in the last 50 years in all honesty and would love to hear from each of you what the local cultural attitudes are like.
(As narona mentioned a French example which kinda surprised me to see they view marriages as civil unions for the default, without the religious aspect)
Perhaps, that'll also help diffuse some of the tension in here while things go waaaay off track.

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

It's often hypocritical to verbally attack people who don't support gay behaviour and same-sex marriage for being "narrow-minded bigots". When it comes to things that we firmly believe to be right, would we be anything other than uncompromising in our stand? So, all I ask for is more civility towards those who hold the opposing view — who are, ironically, very much the intimidated minority in this thread.

Nicely put to be honest.
Respecting choices and posts with opposing views or for views, listening and checking out the differences to global views offers a more level playing field that outright have a spat about who's 'right' and who's 'wrong'.

Play nice now.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Narona

To whoever who wrote that to me in the rep, get some courage and post your thoughts here if you have something against me or France, you shitty coward.

This thread is, very unfortunately, a negrep minefield. Tread with care.

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

Neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is actually encouraged except by the media and orthodox social expectations, the latter of which has been steadily changing as people start to accept that others are different and just roll that way.

Where is the line between "evil/sinful" behaviour and being merely "different"?

I highlight this question not to conflate homosexuality with other issues of sexual morality, but to point out that it's not necessarily straightforward to say that homosexuals are merely different from the heterosexual majority. Pro-gay groups are making certain assumptions that aren't always examined closely.

And, more on topic, if we already accept that homosexuals are "different", then why should they ask to be treated the same as heterosexuals with respect to "marriage"? They could ask for civil unions — to be legally "married" in the eyes of the state — instead of something closely associated with traditional/religious views of what constitutes a "family".

These are questions worth asking, because they lie at the heart of objections from the "conservative" camp. It's ad hominem to paint them as irrational "nutjobs" without seriously considering why they hold their points of view.

It's often hypocritical to verbally attack people who don't support gay behaviour and same-sex marriage for being "narrow-minded bigots". When it comes to things that we firmly believe to be right, would we be anything other than uncompromising in our stand? So, all I ask for is more civility towards those who hold the opposing view — who are, ironically, very much the intimidated minority in this thread.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Mystique

Agreed.

I'm seeing too much of the girl/girl side of things to fully believe its 100% 'born with it' without the environment, incl the media playing a big part in terms of social attitudes, the relaxation of them, the access to more information because of the internet and the desire to 'experiment'.
There's too many grey areas to cleary define it almost 100% eitherway.
But, that's to be followed up in the sexuality thread if someone wanted to continue off that.

Indeed. Nothing is ever just one or the other: either you're gay or you're straight. Like I said just now, there are gay people who may choose not to show their actual tendencies to other people because they are able to understand that other people view them as "abnormal" whereas it is "normal" to be attracted to the opposite sex. These people try to fit in and I know a few of them. So it's not that you can be either one or the other. You may have certain tastes, but for the sake of fitting in, you prefer not to show it publicly. You wouldn't reveal to people that you like to eat something nobody likes. Same concept, although on a much more serious scale. There are also those people who aren't born gay, but choose to go out with people of the same sex, like I said.

And now for the punch-line: there exists such a thing as bisexuals. What do you make of that? If that's no word for gray-area, I don't know what is.

Originally Posted by Mystique

I'm curious to see how the law and homosexuality has developed for other countries in the last 50 years in all honesty and would love to hear from each of you what the local cultural attitudes are like.
(As narona mentioned a French example which kinda surprised me to see they view marriages as civil unions for the default, without the religious aspect)
Perhaps, that'll also help diffuse some of the tension in here while things go waaaay off track.

In Italy, it's a bit similar to France, to bring another example. We don't recognize civil unions between same sex couples, lest it be in marriage or otherwise, although there are certain parties trying to change this, such as introducing PACS like they already have in France. Get this, we even have a gay transvestite in the government.

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

This thread is, very unfortunately, a negrep minefield. Tread with care.

Lucky me, I haven't tripped on one yet

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Where is the line between "evil/sinful" behaviour and being merely "different"?

Evil and sin is a point of view. In terms of this topic, I see nothing evil in being homosexual. That is merely a state of preference, lest it be conscious or semi-conscious. Being different is having different opinions. Being negligent toward other people's needs, dependencies or even lives is what I would define as cruelty and sin. But being homosexual doesn't fall under this category. If anything, I would encourage it because a homosexual would still love another person. That's absolutely not the same as being evil.

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

I highlight this question not to conflate homosexuality with other issues of sexual morality, but to point out that it's not necessarily straightforward to say that homosexuals are merely different from the heterosexual majority. Pro-gay groups are making certain assumptions that aren't always examined closely.

It's true that some people in favor of homosexuality make assumptions about the opposition, and vice-versa. But what makes homosexuals more than different iyho?

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

And, more on topic, if we already accept that homosexuals are "different", then why should they ask to be treated the same as heterosexuals with respect to "marriage"? They could ask for civil unions — to be legally "married" in the eyes of the state — instead of something closely associated with traditional/religious views of what constitutes a "family".

Because half the time, religion has a huge influence on politics, or individual politicians at any rate. Most of them are raised with some degree of religion and learn morality and learn about what is considered right and wrong from the Bible, Quran, you name it, in the beginning. Most of them will eventually develop their own ideas about right and wrong, but it will be fundumentally based on what they learned in their early childhood. Ergo, religion is the greatest opposition against homosexuals because it also influences politics to some extent. I think from their pov, religion needs to be reformed for them to be more widely accepted.

[npcomplete]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

And, more on topic, if we already accept that homosexuals are "different", then why should they ask to be treated the same as heterosexuals with respect to "marriage"? They could ask for civil unions — to be legally "married" in the eyes of the state — instead of something closely associated with traditional/religious views of what constitutes a "family".

The issue at least in the US, is that they cannot get exactly that. There is no union equivalent to marriage carrying the same rights, privileges and legal status at all. Because there is no "religious" marriage. It's just a certificate that carries a lot weight. But politicians, conservative groups use religious or traditional reasons to deny such legally equivalent unions.

These are questions worth asking, because they lie at the heart of objections from the "conservative" camp. It's ad hominem to paint them as irrational "nutjobs" without seriously considering why they hold their points of view.

Well, their point is quite simple: that it's morally damaging to the country, to the idea of marriage itself, an attack on traditions, etc.

Which is why I say fine. Let's reserve traditional marriage for heterosexual couples and allow churches to deny marrying gay couples, which they can already do. AND let's remove marriage from being a function of the state to be function of the church.

By doing so, we also remove all of these legal benefits reserved only for heterosexual couples in most states today, IF we cannot grant them to homosexual couples as well.

While everyone is different, the law isn't supposed to be concerned about that (especially at the federal level which can override state). At a fundamental level of the US constitution and Bill of rights, it just cares about granting equal rights and privileges and limits what government can do, of which some say we have strayed very far from.

For everything else, the law don't treat homosexual people, nor people of various gender, age, or race any differently. So why do so when it comes to marriage? Note that this does not mean that the law requires people view each other equally. You simply must grant people certain rights without discrimination. But you still have very much the right to preach to the public on the evils homosexuality. The law grants everyone the right to point fingers at everyone else saying they're gonna go to hell.

Originally Posted by Narona

I am not sure that I fully understand you. Whether you call it civil union or civil marriage, I disagree if you want the state to not legislate it. As I said, I studied the case in the USA it a bit but I don't remember some things and I don't want to say stupdities, but in France, the civil marriage is an institution (and the church marriage has nothing to do, and has no legal value), and the legislation works, and I think it is good that way for the sake of the persons involved, the kids, and the society (how they handle divorces, inheritance, etc. and what the spouses are compelled to do.) (i don't feel like writing 3 pages about how it works here, I guess you can find a website about it). Even if tomorrow they allow civil marriage (and there is alreday the PACS in France, I wonder if you checked the link that i posted ealier) of people of the same sex, the legislation of the civil marriage would still work after, of course, corrections to take in account the couples of people from the same sex.

I think I address most of this in the above. To clarify what I mean: yes sure, if you can grant such civil marriages to gay couples, then I see no issue in keeping such laws.

To address the other part about reasons behind such legislation, I suppose it's different in France. Here, there's really no psychological concerns, or concern for being "fit to be parents" (which sort of makes sense to me since it's possible to be married without ever having children too). I mean in the US, anyone can get married--mentally unstable, homeless (no offense), criminals, whoever--as long as they're straight.

It's often hypocritical to verbally attack people who don't support gay behaviour and same-sex marriage for being "narrow-minded bigots". When it comes to things that we firmly believe to be right, would we be anything other than uncompromising in our stand? So, all I ask for is more civility towards those who hold the opposing view — who are, ironically, very much the intimidated minority in this thread.

Personally I'm for everyone standing their ground for their own opinions since they themselves are the only ones who can change it. The problem comes when other peoples attitudes have very real consequences, and negatively affect other people in terms of rights and privileges. That's why I say if people can't reconcile their differences in the idea of marriage, then why not just allow the two camps to go their own way and not interfere with each other? That's what I meant by moving the issue from legal/state/civil to traditional/personal and abandon marriage specific legislation since it's the church/personal side that is affecting the legal/state/civil side.

[Nogitsune]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

It's often hypocritical to verbally attack people who don't support gay behaviour and same-sex marriage for being "narrow-minded bigots". When it comes to things that we firmly believe to be right, would we be anything other than uncompromising in our stand? So, all I ask for is more civility towards those who hold the opposing view — who are, ironically, very much the intimidated minority in this thread.

I agree that verbal attacks won't get us anywhere, however, I don't think it's hypocritical of me to view something as narrow-minded. There are many believes that are valid and perfectly reasonable in this world, and there are at least as many that are not.
If someone believes killing people for personal gain is right, I can refrain from insulting them, but it doesn't make me a hypocrite if I do or simply get annoyed at them. Likewise, I don't randomly throw insults at people who believe that men are stupid, women should do nothing but bear children or that gay people are sinful; but if I did, "hypocrite" would not be the word that applies.

I regard asexuality as another prove that in most cases, you can't change your sexual orientation. There are a lot of asexuals who thought something was wrong with them and tired to "fix" it, but what they learned in the end was that that's just how they are, and that as long as they are happy, that's perfectly all right.
A sexual orientation is not a morally relevant factor, and therefore, heterosexuals and homosexuals should be treated the same as long as there is no other morally relevant difference. If there are Christian gay communities, let them have their own branch of the religion if you must, but let them marry in church. It's not like the bible doesn't get constantly interpreted differently already.

[Zu Ra]

People are social animals, we have been existing together for survival even before creation of society . We still have the reminiscent of that herd mentality . Marriage in its earliest form was a just a union for existence (reproduction and survival) . Marriage was more of an understanding or in the most basic vulgar way marking your territory . Marriage became a social process of sorts with the creation of society . Marriage became a union of two souls in the presence /approval of eyes a deity . Over the period of time the religious aspect/ritual of marriage became a lot stricter . But in core it was a union of two souls . The highest authority or law in ancient times has always been the deity at that time .

That still lingers in our psyche, either for the sole reason of approval from a higher power or traditional aspect of it . When two people form that union and decide to spend a large part of there lives together . Irrespective if they are married or not it doesn't belittle the emotions involved or love . Marriage in modern times is associated more with ritual / tradition than the religious aspect of it . Marriage also sets in approval of the couple in eyes of society . So process of marriage religious or legal in just a elaborate ritual to elevate the love two people share . Marriages doesn't increase loves between couples it actually decreases it . With marriage, partners take each other for granted ... and thats just dulls out the fireworks IMO .



So why is marriage such an important issue for same sex couples ??? .


They are madly in love so being married or not doesn't change anything . Same sex couples have always existed on the fringes of society due to there orientation . For once they want to be accepted for who they are . Marriage is a ticket to that ... Refusing marriage of same sex couples is basically an underhanded way of displaying unapproval of there orientation and union . Live and Let Live should have been the motto in these troubled times . But we just cant be happy for people as they are . We have to insult there love/bond/union by denying social acceptance / religious acceptance or at times both when it comes to marriage .

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

Being negligent toward other people's needs, dependencies or even lives is what I would define as cruelty and sin. But being homosexual doesn't fall under this category. If anything, I would encourage it because a homosexual would still love another person. That's absolutely not the same as being evil.

The bolded part being the crux of contention. You see, for someone who believes in the word of Christ, it would be negligent of him to ignore the plight of someone who is danger of causing grave spiritual harm to himself. Hence the Christian agitation against "promoting" gay lifestyles and marriage. To a Christian — and, in fact, many other people of mainstream faiths — homosexuality is a perversion of nature. They don't hate the person but the sin (admittedly, this crucial distinction is not always made clear), and they are therefore upset that modern society appears to champion such behaviour as something "normal".

It always important to remember that there is nothing intrinsically right about believing that homosexual sex is normal and that homosexuals are just people with different sexual preferences. As you've pointed out yourself, it's merely another point of view, one that has gained increasing popularity in today's "liberal" society — which is why it's not completely wrong for some Christians to claim that their views are being violently silenced by a strident pro-gay agenda. One only needs to look at the kind of verbal abuse being hurled at conservative "anti-gay" groups to see why they feel as though they are under siege.

When considering debates over morality, it's critical to be aware of the different axioms that lead to the different sets of beliefs that each individual holds dear. It's as easy to attack the assumptions of the pro-gay camp as it is to ridicule the so-called "outdated" views of traditional/religious people. Or, to put it another way, why is it necessarily "progressive" to adopt a pro-gay agenda? In the view of conservative people, such an agenda would be regressive instead.

To me, the concept of "harm" lies at the heart of any debate over morality. An act of evil is something that causes harm to an individual or a group of people. Yet "harm" itself is a word that is in dire need of a stronger definition. What must happen before harm is rendered? In the eyes of the law, "harm" extends beyond just physical damage and includes intangible damage as well, such as to mental well-being or a person's reputation, to name but a few examples.

So, when homosexual people attempt to adopt traditional institutions, such as "marriage", it's not hard to see why they would inevitably offend many people. Just like how they view homosexuality to be a perversion of human nature, conservatives view the granting of marriage to same-sex couples as a perversion of a cultural tradition that sanctifies the union between a man and a woman.

Therefore, such people cannot simply sit idly by and allow a minority group to cause damage — harm — to their way of life. We are fond of saying that we shouldn't impose our ways of life on other people. Well, if you think about it from the other point of view, you could say that pro-gay groups are attempting to force their values on the heterosexual majority. Hence the potential ugliness that such debates can arouse.

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

I agree that verbal attacks won't get us anywhere, however, I don't think it's hypocritical of me to view something as narrow-minded. There are many believes that are valid and perfectly reasonable in this world, and there are at least as many that are not.

Similarly, it is not hypocritical for conservatives — who include more than just Christians — to point out why they think many pro-homosexual people are being "narrow-minded" for not seriously considering their opposing points of view.

Seriously, how often do you see atheists or agnostics giving religiously-inspired beliefs fair say? As we've already seen in such threads on this forum, it has become a norm to attack religious people for being deluded, and therefore not "rational" (hur hur hur, they believe in entities that can't be empirically proven to exist, therefore they must be mad).

All this is not to say that I necessarily agree with the conservative view against homosexuality and same-sex marriage. It is, however, my attempt to show that while I may not agree with what they say, I will staunchly defend their right to say it.

[Nogitsune]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Similarly, it is not hypocritical for conservatives — who include more than just Christians — to point out why they think many pro-homosexual people are being "narrow-minded" for not seriously considering their opposing points of view.

Agreed.

Seriously, how often do you see atheists or agnostics giving religiously-inspired beliefs fair say? As we've already seen in such threads on this forum, it has become a norm to attack religious people for being deluded, and therefore not "rational" (hur hur hur, they believe in entities that can't be empirically proven to exist, therefore they must be mad).

Well, how should I as an atheist seriously give the belief that homosexuality is a sin "a fair say"?
If I don't believe in it, then there's not much room for discussion. The Christian (and not all Christians think being homosexual is a sin, by the way) will say that that's how God wanted it, and I will say that if there is no God, then he can't have wanted it that way.
And then we will get into a religious debate on how likely it is that Christianity is right.

All this is not to say that I necessarily agree with the conservative view against homosexuality and same-sex marriage. It is, however, my attempt to show that while I may not agree with what they say, I will staunchly defend their right to say it.

I will defend everyone's right to express their beliefs, but I will not defend those beliefs themselves. If they are unwarranted and harmful, they need to go. I'm aware that both sides think they're doing something good, but like everyone else, I have my opinion on the matter.

Hm... but I wonder... how can you defend this "hate the sin but not the person" thing when the bible states you should murder homosexuals? And if you don't take it literally, then how can you be sure homosexuality is a sin at all?

[synaesthetic]

They can say whatever they want.

They cannot legislate it though.

And seriously, they cannot possibly argue from the same basis as we can.

The LGBT community is hardly championing laws and constitutional amendments that would prevent heterosexual people from getting hitched. That would be intruding upon their lifestyle.

I don't know a single lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered person who would believe banning heterosexual marriage was anything but lunacy.

But it's pretty easy for the other side to accept taking our rights away. Very fair and impartial, don't you think?

Like I said, they can say what they want. They just can't legislate it.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Spoiler for space:

The bolded part being the crux of contention. You see, for someone who believes in the word of Christ, it would be negligent of him to ignore the plight of someone who is danger of causing grave spiritual harm to himself. Hence the Christian agitation against "promoting" gay lifestyles and marriage. To a Christian — and, in fact, many other people of mainstream faiths — homosexuality is a perversion of nature. They don't hate the person but the sin (admittedly, this crucial distinction is not always made clear), and they are therefore upset that modern society appears to champion such behaviour as something "normal".

It always important to remember that there is nothing intrinsically right about believing that homosexual sex is normal and that homosexuals are just people with different sexual preferences. As you've pointed out yourself, it's merely another point of view, one that has gained increasing popularity in today's "liberal" society — which is why it's not completely wrong for some Christians to claim that their views are being violently silenced by a strident pro-gay agenda. One only needs to look at the kind of verbal abuse being hurled at conservative "anti-gay" groups to see why they feel as though they are under siege.

When considering debates over morality, it's critical to be aware of the different axioms that lead to the different sets of beliefs that each individual holds dear. It's as easy to attack the assumptions of the pro-gay camp as it is to ridicule the so-called "outdated" views of traditional/religious people. Or, to put it another way, why is it necessarily "progressive" to adopt a pro-gay agenda? In the view of conservative people, such an agenda would be regressive instead.

To them, it may be a perversion of nature, but only because they were taught by a book written 2 millennia before they were even born (one that's been butchered beyond recognition over time, if I may say so). The problem with religion is that a lot of things just don't hold out within modern civilization where there are so many things whose concept was never even imagined when the bible was written. Homosexuality has existed for a very long time and, despite what I said earlier, there is _some_ scientific proof that homosexuality is genetic. By definition, that is entirely natural. In other words, to a Christian, God's perfect creation came out wrong.

I think it depends entirely on what their Point of View of what is natural and what isn't. I can understand why they believe it's more natural for a man and a woman to unite (without having to mention the specifics), but when you have scientific proof regarding homosexuality, that also can't be diregarded as natural. But then again, we all know how science and religion have always been at odds over many things, like evolution and the shape of the universe, but that's a discussion for another time. My point is, religion is but one gargantuan point of view for masses who, over the course of history, have needed a certain source with which to form their own opinion.

The fact of the matter is, the bible or any religious text is no longer the sole source of information on which an individual can create their point of view. Considering the hyper speed at which information goes around the world today, people can compare different sources that can come in contrast with the first source. An example is science. Another is what they see with their very own eyes. It is up to the individual to believe which source is more reliable and which one isn't. The problem lies in the fact that there are people who prefer to rely on a single source rather than multiple ones.

Conflicts between the church's views and more modern ones have existed all throughout history, like my example of evolution and the center of the universe, the former of which is still being debated today. The problem here, as you suggested, lies in what is considered natural and what isn't. Feelings of love are considered entirely natural, but what gives anyone the right to define love? Love can take as many forms as there are people on the planet, and that's quite a number. One point of view cannot possibly encompass all of those forms, and it rejects the idea that love can exist between people of the same sex because the sexual act should involve a man and woman to promote childbirth. But let me pose this question: if the bible's idea of love is based on the sexual act of intercourse to make children, is it implying that sex defines love? That is but one definition of love in billions, and as things are today, we know that sex can never define love. Just go watch a pr0n flick and you'll see what I mean. Sex is just a feeble action compared to real emotions.

Perhaps that is the reason Christians feel they are attacked by the more liberal arguments proposed by modern society. The writings of the bible never took account of the great amount of change that occurred since its inception. That is why some people believe it is progressive thinking to act in favor of this change of outlook. The bible, being a single point of view shared by a collection of authors, failed to take account of all the different forms love could take. That is why some people believe it is progressive thinking to do such a thing, or try to at any rate. To religious hardliners, it can be deemed as regressive thinking because it goes against their idea of nature, but that was at a time when science was hardly able to explain the wonders of the world.

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Spoiler for more space:

To me, the concept of "harm" lies at the heart of any debate over morality. An act of evil is something that causes harm to an individual or a group of people. Yet "harm" itself is a word that is in dire need of a stronger definition. What must happen before harm is rendered? In the eyes of the law, "harm" extends beyond just physical damage and includes intangible damage as well, such as to mental well-being or a person's reputation, to name but a few examples.

So, when homosexual people attempt to adopt traditional institutions, such as "marriage", it's not hard to see why they would inevitably offend many people. Just like how they view homosexuality to be a perversion of human nature, conservatives view the granting of marriage to same-sex couples as a perversion of a cultural tradition that sanctifies the union between a man and a woman.

Therefore, such people cannot simply sit idly by and allow a minority group to cause damage — harm — to their way of life. We are fond of saying that we shouldn't impose our ways of life on other people. Well, if you think about it from the other point of view, you could say that pro-gay groups are attempting to force their values on the heterosexual majority. Hence the potential ugliness that such debates can arouse.

I agree that an act of evil is an action that causes harm to an individual or a group of people, but what makes harm inherently evil is deliberate harm, not accidental or perceived harm. When homosexual couples attempt to adopt these traditional values of marriage that you speak of, I honestly believe they have every right to do so. After all, is it not the bible itself that promotes every human being should be treated as equal? Or was God lying when it said everyone is equal beneath the eyes of the Lord?

The only reason religious hardliners are offended is because they want to be offended by other people's actions which they perceive to be unnatural and thus harmful to their way of life. Gay couples do not want to get married to attack other people's point of view, but because they love each other. That is not deliberate and thus cannot be classified as evil. Like I said before, the bible states that the natural union of marriage is between man and woman for the purpose of childbirth. But like I said, childbirth (hence sex) is not the sole definition of love. It is but one in billions.

The majority group, therefore, only considers their actions harmful simply because they let it be harmful to their way of life. Realistically speaking, it's a marriage between two people who, by the end of the day, have no realistic effect other people's lives. Their marriage isn't killing anyone. Love can never be harmful to anyone.

[mg1942]

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

... how can you defend this "hate the sin but not the person" thing when the bible states you should murder homosexuals?

can you cite me the exact chapter and verse for that?

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by mg1942

can you cite me the exact chapter and verse for that?

Yeah, kinda curious about that too now that I've read it O_o

[Nogitsune]

Originally Posted by mg1942

can you cite me the exact chapter and verse for that?

Leviticus 18:22 - "And if a man lies with mankind as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

@Yoko Takeo:
Nice posting, by the way.
Even though a consequentialist would argue that something can be evil even if it wasn't intended to be harmful. For example, if someone believes they are saving my soul by burning me, I would still consider the act very much evil due to a failure regarding epistemic duty.