Exilian

...does anyone have any thoughts on this matter? It seems to be resurfacing in both the UK and US.

Mitt Romney has categorically stated that for him marriage is "between one man and one woman" whereas Obama has finally come down on the side of saying he believes it's important that LGBT couples should be allowed to marry. In the UK, it's becoming a tension between Liberals and Conservatives in the coalition government.

So, what are people's thoughts?

Voted yes. But if there was a "don't give a armadillo" option I would have went with it. :P

That's the thing though, for me. I don't think it's my job to judge or decide on what people do in their private lives, therefore I think the state should give everyone all the options and let them choose what to do with them. It's not the government's job to interfere, therefore legalisation is the only sensible option.

Ah now here's something interesting.

I'm not homophobic or anything but I don't think it should be legalised. The point of marriage is to celebrate a union if you will. Now as far as I'm concerned you can do what you like in privacy but as soon as you're in public you should be mindful of certain sensibilities. I am firmly of the opinion that homosexuality is abnormal behaviour and so shouldn't be celebrated. Sorry if this post is a little bit hard to understand, I'm not feeling all that flash.

I would agree with Jubal and say yes to gay marriage. It really doesn't bother me what way people swing, they should have the same options and be treated the same way as anyone else. Of all the gay couples I know, I would not consider one of them to be 'abnormal'. Although one of them definitely did the gay thing in a big way when he came out, mainly to piss off his dad who though he was an abomination. I found it utterly hilarious.

Marriage does indeed celebrate a union - I just don't see the difference really, if two people love each other then they should be given the legal means to celebrate it. I guess it's fair that if some religious groups etc hold views that say it shouldn't be celebrated it's their choice not to hold gay marriage ceremonies, but essentially I don't think that's the business of government either way and therefore legalisation is the only fair option.

Sounds legit, what the gays need to realize though is that they are not entitled to any special treatment or recognition. No more so than any other schmuck at most.

Fair point, I do feel that some campaigners of LGBT or feminism etc. Do forget that ultimately the goal is equality, not preferential treatment. That just continues segregation, except the other way around. Of course there will be the doministic types that actually want that.

I think it's more of a problem for feminists; I don't think I've ever heard an LGBT spokesman or person advocate preferential treatment. I agree though that the goal has to be equality under the law.

It's just that a lot of them are so up in everyone's face about it.

Yeah, my issue with some gay rights campaigners is the blatant parade they put on. Yes, you're gay, that's absolutely fine, but don't keep going on about it for god's sake.

In my opinion a gay marriage is just another gay parade just perhaps a little quieter and maybe a bit more tasteful.

I understand most people disagree with me but I guess it's just how I was brought up. That being said, I wouldn't discriminate against someone if they were gay although a guy did ask me out when I was in year 8. That was vaguely creepy.

Yeah, well the whole Catholic thing is probably an influence.

That said, what's a normal marriage if not a straight parade?  :P

Quote from: Phoenixguard09 on May 16, 2012, 03:35:10 AMIn my opinion a gay marriage is just another gay parade just perhaps a little quieter and maybe a bit more tasteful.

I kinda see and agree with your point here.

I still don't see how this differentiates it from normal marriage, which is another overpriced parade to attempt to conform to a wholly unnecessary societal norm.

Also, we need to consider two forms of marriage: ceremonial and legal. I'm advocating that legally, people should have the rights to marry regardless of who they are as long as both can consent. This is because the government has no place in determining who lives, sleeps, etc, with who, therefore we should give them the full range of legal options to sort out how they do that. As for the ceremonies, again it should just be left up to individual groups to decide what they want to sing, dance, or make long droning speeches about.

I still stand by my original answer, I just think some of them use their ability to marry as part of a "blatant parade" as Marcus was saying.

Yes a normal marriage is a straight parade, you are entirely correct Jubal, but it is still my opinion that it is the societal norm for a reason, namely that homosexuality is not normal.

It's all about your assumptions. In my mind (and I fully appreciate that I'm one of the minority in the circles I frequent) homosexuality is not normal and shouldn't be officially condoned. They want to have life partners? Go ahead. Pretty sure the law was changed to allow that. But marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Idiots who want to marry a dog or whatever else... well I don't know. Novelty items perhaps? Who knows. I reckon that's even weirder. :P

Anyway, really I couldn't care less what happens. Politics give me a massive headache and I really just could not be bothered with it. I don't like the idea of voluntarily gifting people power over me, even if I choose which douchebag in a suit gets it.

I'm not trying to argue my point because I know that I'm being very inflexible and very old-fashioned but my own views will not change on the matter. I still don't think homosexuality is normal and I don't think concessions should be made to allow them to do something that their deviance would heretofore prevent them from doing.

But of course I don't care enough to actually lodge a formal complaint or anything like that. I'll just go with the flow. I wouldn't be happy about it but its not worth fighting about.

Quote from: Jubal on May 17, 2012, 12:15:03 AMAlso, we need to consider two forms of marriage: ceremonial and legal. I'm advocating that legally, people should have the rights to marry regardless of who they are as long as both can consent. This is because the government has no place in determining who lives, sleeps, etc, with who, therefore we should give them the full range of legal options to sort out how they do that. As for the ceremonies, again it should just be left up to individual groups to decide what they want to sing, dance, or make long droning speeches about.

This. Most LGBT people I know don't care about being able to have a Christian/whatever religion marriage in a church, just to be able to be legally married and get the benefits straight people can get from this exact same thing. Discriminating against people just for their sexuality is crazy, UNLESS you have a religious/moral objection to it. By that I mean, as Jubal says, there should be no obligation to churches etc. to provide gay marriages, but the legal option should be there as the government has no right to decide two consenting adults can't display their love in the conventional way.

One other thing, why keep referring to it as gay marriage? The key thing is the desire to be able to get married, like a straight person can. Surely just marriage is a better term ;) .  Equality is the goal. Just a little thing about this whole debate that annoys me a little.

Agree with SOTK pretty much entirely.

Quote from: Phoenixguard09 on May 17, 2012, 04:08:54 AM"marriage has always been between a man and a woman."

No it hasn't.

I pointed out later in that passage Andalus that marriages between dogs and people and such were exempted because really that's all kinds of stupid. :P  I might of course be wrong but to my knowledge, marriage has been between man and woman.

There were same-sex marriages in both Ancient China and Ancient Rome. There's even a Roman painting that seems to depict the marriage of two Christian saints. Then there's centuries of polygyny and polyandry in various cultures around the world. How can you claim that marriage is between "a man and a woman" when often it was between a man and dozens, if not hundreds, of women?

EDIT* armadillo, sorry Andalus I accidentally hit modify post instead of quote.

Sorry mate,
Phoenix

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_FJ9NuT_L9k/T2cvH59u2aI/AAAAAAAABXc/RfuQ7QAKxuk/s1600/biblical_marriage_chart.jpg

Ewwww dude, same-sex marriage... That's like totally gay.


Just joking. I don't have anything against it. You can't stop looove.

Quote from: Andalus on May 18, 2012, 09:53:34 AM
There were same-sex marriages in both Ancient China and Ancient Rome. There's even a Roman painting that seems to depict the marriage of two Christian saints. Then there's centuries of polygyny and polyandry in various cultures around the world. How can you claim that marriage is between "a man and a woman" when often it was between a man and dozens, if not hundreds, of women?

Well I guess that depends on your definition of marriage. I mean really, what is a marriage anyway?

I will concede your point there Andalus, although I'm not entirely sure myself as to whether I consider that a marriage. I mean I've been brought up to believe that you can only get married once, hence in my mind the dozens of other marriages with other people are null and void.

I'm not going to change my mind and by no means do I wish to change anyone else's.

I found Mitt Romney's "marriage is between one man and one woman" quote recently particularly funny given the history of mormonism.

Quote from: Phoenixguard09 on May 18, 2012, 03:38:23 PMI mean really, what is a marriage anyway?

An agreement between people to spend their lives together.

When you say 'marriage can only happen once' I can pretty much say that this is no longer the case. 'Till death do us part' appears to have been forgotten, and there's plenty of divorces not long after many ill-conceived marriages. So the sanctity of marriage is pretty much dead in the water except for those who wish to actually stay true to their vows, and in my opinion this situation is worse than letting same-sex couples marry.

My statement above is my opinion based on general observation over the years, and not on any particular facts, so if they are wrong, feel free to tear it apart with stats.

I think it's partly a materialism/consumer culture thing, people think of love as something that can be shopped around for rather than really trying to work at a relationship. Obviously there are cases where divorce is the best option - in fact in most of these cases it's probably the best option - the issue is that people are marrying who don't know well enough that they're prepared to spend their life with that person.

I agree with both of the above posts completely. As I said before though Marcus, while the majority of people today may not subscribe to the "one marriage" belief, I'm not one of them.

God it's hard to argue this without falling back to, "It's against my faith." I mean it might be true but faith really shouldn't come into the debate. :P

Have faith in yourself. :)

If your argument comes from faith/culture, I think it's best to state that it's a faith based position. I mean, the danger is that when people argue from a faith-based platform but feel they need to have a more cogent argument it sort of becomes an argument where you have the answer and you're looking for evidence rather than vice versa, which doesn't work. Faith-based positions are by no means unacceptable in a debate, but in my opinion at least come off better and more reasonable when displayed as what they are.

Fair point I guess but I still don't really like bringing faith into debates like this. Feels like a bit of a copout.

Quote from: Jubal on May 19, 2012, 12:49:46 PM
If your argument comes from faith/culture, I think it's best to state that it's a faith based position. I mean, the danger is that when people argue from a faith-based platform but feel they need to have a more cogent argument it sort of becomes an argument where you have the answer and you're looking for evidence rather than vice versa, which doesn't work. Faith-based positions are by no means unacceptable in a debate, but in my opinion at least come off better and more reasonable when displayed as what they are.

Agree with this, but in this debate faith is a secondary issue imo. Gay marriage should be an option, simply for the sake of equality. Faiths can come into it later on, when institutions are deciding if they want to hold marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, but to deny the option altogether is just silly.

Quote from: Son of the King on May 19, 2012, 01:31:19 PM
Agree with this, but in this debate faith is a secondary issue imo. Gay marriage should be an option, simply for the sake of equality. Faiths can come into it later on, when institutions are deciding if they want to hold marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, but to deny the option altogether is just silly.

Also agreed.

Don't see the point in marriage myself, but if other people want to get married I don't care whether or not they put their pecker in another fellas pooper.
I don't think a faith should be forced to marry a gay couple though, because if you're stupid enough to be homosexual and proscribe to a vile homophobic faith then its your own fault for being a portugal for wits.

How colorful, yet true. :P

Colourful* but, yes quite.  :P

You really miss the "don't give a armadillo" option. I mean, they should be allowed to get legaly married. Although, there is one thing about gay marriage/people that bothers me and it's when they get in your face acting like they're better than everyone else(I met a person like that and he really pissed me off). Anyway, their sexual orientation is their private thing and they should have same legal rights as any other person.

I agree with Ashanorath.

Sexual orientation is like a dick. You have one and it's ok to be proud of it. What is not ok is taking it out in public and shoving it into somebody's face.
And marriage is just an old norm invented by possessive people long ago, in order to prevent cheating. Because all-knowing god sees everything, of course. And once you say "Yes, I do." that all-knowing god suddenly sees even more.

The comparison is a bit crude, but true nonetheless.

Quote from: Silver Wolf on August 04, 2012, 01:33:29 AMSexual orientation is like a dick. You have one and it's ok to be proud of it. What is not ok is taking it out in public and shoving it into somebody's face.

I see you've been on facebook. ;)

I haven't. I remember seeing it somewhere else.  ;)
It's quite a common phrase, actually.

Yeah, I guess I think we're going to get a much better chance of normalising the situation so gay people don't feel they have to be communal or very public about things if there aren't these clear discrepancies in people's rights.

Also, remember it was only a decade or two ago that being outed as gay could sink someone's career. We shouldn't be wholly surprised if there's a few years of backlash to that before things settle down again.