Gay Marriage: Put into it's proper perspective

You have been called everything from homophobe to bigot and worse in this section. Your above post is spot on but sadly, will fall upon deaf ears and will spur reprisal upon both of us.

reps given because you nailed it to a tee

 

We don’t require procreation so that’s not a reason to bar any one or to limit marriage to heterosexual couples

 

You would not let homosexuals them marry because the in a gay relationship

Men and men and women and women can do everything that’s required of a married couple

You want to drop labels ok but people should be able to marry someone of the same gender

 

watashi wa otaku desu.

That's something differnt and out of the norm. Why shouldn't I feel proud and safe about what I am?

 

i guess if you had to struggle or if other made you suffer for something about yourself then that trait would become more important or even if you had unusual traits that might make them stand out more in your mind

 

Its the reason that marriage has been limited to heterosexual couples since the dawn of civilization. From BC Roman law

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

From ancient chinese civilization

In traditional Chinese thinking, people in "primitive" societies did not marry, but had sexual relationships with one another indiscriminately[citation needed]. Such people were thought to live like animals, and they did not have the precise concept of motherhood, fatherhood, sibling, husband and wife, and gender, not to mention match-making and marriage ceremony. Part of the Confucian "civilizing mission" was to define what it meant to be a Father or a Husband, and to teach people to respect the proper relationship between family members and regulate sexual behavior.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_marriage#Prehistoric_Chinese_marriages

Only men and women become husband and wife because only women can give birth to children and only men can father those children.

 

gay marriage dos not interfere with procreation you let those that don’t breed marry procreation is not a reason to ban gay marriage

 

it is quite provably false that procreation is the reason. and marriage hasn't been limitted to a man and woman since the dawn of civilization. as you well know.

 

I don't think they had to deal with a world population of over 7 billion.

 

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think you guys misunderstand where it comes from when people consider themselves gay, and hold it as an important characteristic.

Consider why you guys call yourselves "man", and not just "human". Society is structured around these differences, where your role, personality and behavior are expected to be largely defined by your gender. From day one, when the doctor yells "It's a Boy!!!", society has labeled you and you quickly learn to identify yourself by this label.

So you guys criticized gay men for identifying themselves as gay men, and in the process you didnt even realize you were doing the same thing when you called yourselves "men" and not just "human".

This is what society has done to gay men... Society has created and enforced what they view as a substantial distinction between homosexuality and heterosexuality. This strong distinction, and the fact that homosexuals are in the minority is what leads them to identify them as such. When society defines you by your sexuality, it's becomes part of your identity, in just the same way that being a "man" has become part of your identity. It's not that we want to be identified by our sexual identity, rather it's the fact that society has considered it a significant distinction worth identifying people, and treating people differently people based on. Being identified and treated differently is a key element in the development of your identity.

Long story short, society makes the labels that people identify themselves by. As we slowly hope to move towards "normalization", where our label is no longer a significant difference, the label itself will die out - but there will be a lag, and that's a long time in the making, if it ever happens.

I'm happy that you (Sec) have moved beyond the label and simply wish to identify gay men and straight men alike as just "men", distinguished only by an insignificant difference in behavior not deserving of a label. But as long as society at large sees and treats us differently, the label will be reinforced in our identity.

 

The OP is refreshing in light of the recent tragic events where an American soldier killed those folks and all the America bashing going on by the same cadre of haters.

Funny you don't see a one of them denouncing the killing of human beings just for being gay in the ME. Gays 'over there' must be somehow less deserving than gays 'over here' I guess...Pity...If only George Bush were still in office, now THERE'S a scapegoat any liberal can 'appreciate.'

 

I'm sorry, next time I speak, and every time thereafter I'll say "but that's not really important, at least not as important as gay's being killed in Iraq". Unless of course I'm speaking about gays being killed in iraq.

Honestly, what kind of srawman is this. Just because it's not always brought up and mentioned doesn't mean it's not an important issues. I haven't heard YOU speak up about gays being killed in iraq until now, not until it presented an opportunity to put-down gay rights activists.

Frankly, there's little we can do about gays in iraq. Promoting the wellbeing of gays here at home is about the best thing I can imagine we COULD do to help the global position of homosexuality. Picking your battles and fighting where you can make the most difference is a normal and rational human behavior.

 

The same argument for two gay people to get married can be made for two siblings to get married.

A documented history of this type of relationship.
Two consenting adults.
They were born that way.
Both can raise and have kids through adoption and science. Moreover abortion is legal in an unplanned pregnancy. Or one can get fixed.

If you really want to make the case for gay marriage

Why cant two brothers get married or two sisters?

Where do you draw the line? What is the difference?

 

I assume then you support a brother and sister marrying? Since apparently you see no difference between that a non-related man and woman marrying.

If you feel that discriminating against incestuous relationships is justifiable without actually having to give a reason, why are you applying a double standard and saying homosexuals have to justify it?


And since you're so fond of slippery slope arguments... Where do you draw the line on how the government can regulate morality?

The same logic could be used to justify restrictions against marriages between people of different races, body piercings and tattoos. Divorce could be made illegal, contraception could be made illegal, as could lying to your mother.

Where does it stop? What's the limit on how the government can discriminate and legislate morality?


P.S: I don't think you'll see many same-sex marriage advocates specifically opposing even incest in principle. Any objection I've seen, including my own, is strictly based on practical concerns. I'd support the right provided the risk to non-consensual third parties (i.e. their children) is minimized, and actual consent between the couple is assured, not just created from grooming the child into an incestuous relationship from birth.

 

proper perspective?

 

were all spiritual beings... whose to say a feminine spirit could not inhabit a male body or visa versa... what if in your next life you are the opposite sex?

 

it need not and it begins with the gay movement tossing aside the label.

In no way shape or form do I think race and homosexuality are on the same plain but a true story..........

I was giving a phone interview to a woman who after 2-3 minutes I knew I needed her to run my customer service dept. I cut the phone interview short and asked "when can you get here so we can discuss salary and start date"

her reply was " I need to tell you that I'm black"

My reply was " does that affect how you drive?"

she had a good laugh and I got one heck of a customer service manager

I was looking for a good CSM and could have cared if she was polka dotted

I don't need a gay Dr; I need a Dr.

toss the labels from your own lips and you might be surprised at the positive responses

 

Until homosexual people are largely treated as equals, a distinction concerning them (using labels) will always be employed to some degree. Sometimes, in defense (or support) of someone or something... there must be some way to IDENTIFY said person or thing.

A "label" isn't always a 'bad' thing; what matters is how it is used.

But most of the SOCIAL DYNAMICS surrounding those two things ARE very similar. As an African American and a homosexual... I can vouch for that readily.

I get you point; well made. Still, in as far as it concerns YOU, ethnicity is no barrier to you being fair and reasonable. It is NOT that way with each human being.

Great point; but with some people... the "ethnicity" or "sexual-orientation" of those they serve or are being served by... matters. Very often, that leads to fighting for people's rights to be treated fairly in general.

I think there is a proper 'context' (in most cases) where labels apply. Again, it is about how labels are used... not that they are actually applied.

 

I am guilty myself

when a server or person at the counter has lots of tatoos, facial piercings etc I cringe a little.

I wonder that if they don't care how they appear what else do they not care about?

race- i could care

but all those piercings and tatoos...........ugghhhh

 

Thats indeed a good argument.

Incestuous relationships are looked down upon because there is increased risk for developmental abnormalities for incest children. So it is in fact incestuous reproduction that is the reason for restrictions.

So why should not be relatives allowed to marry assuming they will remain childless or adopt/artificial insemination? No increased genetic risk there.

I say abolish legal marriage to solve these non-issues once and for all.

 

if we can’t find a difference that makes legislation of brother and sister marriage unfair to any one or inherently harmful or inherently more risky of unfairness or harm

We probably should allow it

Unless there’s some threat or injustice involved in a kind of marriage it is unfair to ban it

 

Then you'll be happy to know I don't wear it on my sleve either. I only bring it up in appropriate context, like a political discussion on the topic or a discussion about my romantic life, which is usually only with close friends, family, and others who ask. It's not something I would bring up in a job interview or show off with a rainbow colored sticker on my bumper.

Right or wrong, the best of intentions are behind putting that sticker on your bumper. The idea is that it will be seen, and other gays will know they are not alone. It's meant to empower them and make the movement feel like it can stand up for itself.

But I agree, ultimatly the goal is to eliminate the identity, the attitude and the bumper stickers that come with it.

 

i dont know thats true

 

I don't disagree, but I stand by my original assessment of the situation as well - people seem to only bring the idea up in order to argue against same-sex couples' enjoying recognition of their marriages. I don't see anyone actively campaigning to remove government's involvement from marriage.

Asinine.

 

Wrong. My understanding of my orientation predates all that.

Seriously not getting it. We are struggling against being defined as just our orientation.