I don't know whether or not I should support gay marriage.

[Nemesis]

I'm not completely sure as to wether I should support gay marriage or not. At this stage in my life, I don't think I would ever want to get married to another male. That could of course change, but right now, I don't think it's something that interests me. It's not just because I'm a young man and I don't want to get trapped down, it's that I also believe that marriage is supposed to be a unity of two halves of a whole. It's supposed to be a balance of nature. Dark and Light. Destruction and Creativity. Yin and Yang. Man and Woman. I think gay marriage is a bit of a mockery of this, and I don't support mocking something so sacred.

I'm a gay male, and at this point in time, I don't support gay marriage.

Now please, make me look like an idiot, and show me why I should.

[distraction tactics]

You're right - it's bad. Evil, even.

Now go to bed.

[Nemesis]

You're right - it's bad. Evil, even.

Now go to bed.
You go to bed.

[rawr]

Having a federal and state goverment recognize a union of 2 people to express their care for one another is mildly retarded in its own way.
If you mean marriage as in a formal union, then yes gay marriage is fine.
If you mean it in a religious sense then no, it doesn't follow suit.

[Nemesis]

If you mean it in a religious sense then no, it doesn't follow suit.
Not religious, spiritual.

[cafe]

When you say marriage, do you mean civil unions, religious unions or both?

[rawr]

Then it really comes down to the individual and their beliefs.

[Nemesis]

When you say marriage, do you mean civil unions, religious unions or both?
Well I suppose religious.

[cafe]

Well I suppose religious.
I could argue good points on civil, but I'll have to pass the baton on the religious end of things. I'm too much of a Bible thumper, I guess.

Unless I can find the website of one of the guys from our Bible college who graduated and started a gay charismatic church in Wisconsin. He might have some good points. I'll look around. My old roomie could probably help me out.

[SeierTapt]

I support gay marriage and I don't see any particularly good reason not to, unless you have moral qualms.

[LongSilence]

One has to accept that marriage has always been society's institution. It has spent its history not primarily as a means to 'entwine two souls' or cement two people's relationship but as a way for cultures to sanctify and support a particular couple. Even rather 'liberally engendered' and previously largely untouched cultures such as Native Guineans and Native Americans had the good old 'Man and Wife' format, even if as two examples the Mohave and the Azande let boys become 'wives' (and rarely women become husbands. Still, someone had to take the 'female' role. Basically, if it wasn't a way to support sexuality, it was a way to enforce gender. Its something rather "new" to have same sex AND same gender marriages.

Of course we could be progressive about this and say that the institution is just naturally evolving with our more permissive and egalitarian culture. But in my opinion you're breaking down society's primary concepts upon which the very idea of marriage is founded and thus giving the whole process an entirely new meaning for an element of society that currently sits parallel to the 'traditional' one.

To me, the desire for same-sex marriage stands as a wayward means to gain an acceptance that will not come unless science makes some serious alterations to the human condition and humans ditch their genders.

[cafe]

I support gay marriage and I don't see any particularly good reason not to, unless you have moral qualms.
That's the thing with religious and spiritual concepts. Morality tends to be very intertwined with such things.

[SeierTapt]

That's the thing with religious and spiritual concepts. Morality tends to be very intertwined with such things.

I think some people just worry too much about things they'd be better off leaving alone, such as two guys or girls wanting to get married in a civil union.

Damn those commited monogamous gays.:whistle:

[cafe]

I think some people just worry too much about things they'd be better off leaving alone, such as two guys or girls wanting to get married in a civil union.

Damn those commited monogamous gays.:whistle:
Yeah, but that is not what Nemesis is attempting to discuss here, unless I'm much mistaken.

[SeierTapt]

Yeah, but that is not what Nemesis is attempting to discuss here, unless I'm much mistaken.

What is he trying to discuss then?

[cafe]

What is he trying to discuss then?
Marriage in the spiritual/religious context, not civil unions.

[SeierTapt]

What about it? A man and another man can't make two halves of a whole(as Nemesis implied)? I don't agree with that statement. When you think of gay marriage in a spritual/religious/moral context, you're going into a world of subjectivity and personal belief. I respect if other people don't believe in gay marriage for such reasons, but I do think it's crossing a line to say that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because basically you(or the majority of people) don't like it for some personal reason of your own. I think we should protect the rights of a minority(gays in this case) when it comes to them having rights that the majority already has.

[boppa]

Hmm, I'm not sure if Nemesis is clear on his intention yet......

As for civil unions - yes, it should be legislated, since the legal rights of same-gender couples are untenable at present. For example, joint debts: if both partners are included in a mortgage, or other debt, each is joint and severally liable. If one partner dies/becomes legally incapable (e.g. comatosed, seriously mentally-ill, etc), the other is liable for the entire debt, but not entitled to the partner's share in joint assets. Parental rights, medical decisions, etc are all areas which discriminate against gay couples unacceptably.

For religious purposes - it remains the perogative of the church/leaders of the faith involved. They are, afterall bestowed with the moral leadership of their flock.... If you want the WWGD argument: if he made it possible to be gay, he also gave us the freedom to make decisions about how to handle this. In the JC line of thinking - love, respect, compassion and dignity are paramount principles, ergo that which promotes these is 'just & right', anything that detriments these is not. Does recognition of gay unions promote these principles? Of course it does!

[LongSilence]

Ok, but if you agree with the principle of gay marriages, why not incestuous ones?

[boppa]

Ok, but if you agree with the principle of gay marriages, why not incestuous ones? I'm not against incestuous marriages on moral grounds. Ethically, it's a bit of a minefield, tho. From a health and evolution perspective it is unwise.

[SeierTapt]

I agree with boppa.

[attila_the_hunny]

Ummm just because don't know if I ever want to get married doesn't mean I don't support marriage among heterosexual couples.

[LongSilence]

They don't necessarily have to have kids. All I'm saying is that you can't just select your taboos here if you want to break the selectiveness of the meaning of marriage.

If you argue thats there's no good reason to exclude people, then you should suggest churches support polygamy too, which really would begin to break down what most people think marriage currently means.

In addition, we should address people's socially enforced ideas about the Age of consent for marriage. Spiritually there's no real reason to have any age of consent. The progressive thinking that breaks down the elitist thinking of marriage's significance should not stop just at making it for homosexuals too.

[boppa]

They don't necessarily have to have kids. All I'm saying is that you can't just select your taboos here if you want to break the selectiveness of the meaning of marriage.

If you argue thats there's no good reason to exclude people, then you should suggest churches support polygamy too, which really would begin to break down what most people think marriage currently means.

In addition, we should address people's socially enforced ideas about the Age of consent for marriage. Spiritually there's no real reason to have any age of consent. The progressive thinking that breaks down the elitist thinking of marriage's significance should not stop just at making it for homosexuals too.
Huh? Not following you here, or whether you're referring to a different post, but will take a stab at your point(s):
- Er, yes you can select your taboos....this is what 'morals' are;
- the civil/legal definition is open to be whatever society deems appropriate, polygamy, marrying your dog for that matter could all be sanctioned.
- True, spiritually there is no 'age of consent', but legally there is.

Does this go anywhere near your point?

[LongSilence]

I was pointing out that when you take an egalitarian deconstructivist eye to marriage then you naturally remove all constraints on who and how people can marry in your eyes. No circumstances should then prevent ANYONE from getting married if they want to, even if a family of five all want to marry each other to form a big incestuous commune. Its only people's prejudices that say otherwise.

Marriage has always been a construct of society supported by either by the construct of sex or the construct of gender and, more often than not, both. Break down those supports and the understoodmeaning of marriage gets lost in the great whirlwind of subjectivity. Religiously, marriage has been a recognition that society needs man to have sex with woman, and woman with man. Its just that gay marriage that supports utmost fidelity kinda goes against that idea. Its like saying 'Actually, I don't need to have sex with the other gender, because I don't want to.'

Yes, its all well and good to throw off the shackles of society's 'old-fashioned' constructs and restrictions, but is it not like those non-conformists are going back and say 'actually, i'd like to conform in some ways and be recognised for it please?' It just seems like a weird half measure thats all.

[ApeTheDog]

Maybe you're trying to be interesting - i.e. being the one gay person who isn't in favor of gay marriage. It's not at all an uncommon motivation in teenagers. That is my guess anyway.

[boppa]

I was pointing out that when you take an egalitarian deconstructivist eye to marriage then you naturally remove all constraints on who and how people can marry in your eyes. No circumstances should then prevent ANYONE from getting married if they want to...
True, if you want to take the principle to the nth degree. However, as life is about practicalities, a pragmatist will know when it is appropriate to draw a boundary.....


Its only people's prejudices that say otherwise.Yes, also known as morals, social conformism, traditions, dogma, etc. Whilst most people claim to support individuality and personal freedoms, I can guarantee many would want to throw me off a bus if I continually swore, or even farted stinky baked beanies (which is an entirely natural act, which promotes my health), etc


Marriage has always been a construct of society supported by either by the construct of sex or the construct of gender and, more often than not, both. Break down those supports and the understoodmeaning of marriage gets lost in the great whirlwind of subjectivity. WHich supports my point that society will decide if it is appropriate to modify, hopefully based on either enlightened self-interest, the common good, or ideally, both. Again, it need not be taken to the nth degree. We are entitled to draw boundaries, and if wise will do so.


Religiously, marriage has been a recognition that society needs man to have sex with woman, and woman with man. Its just that gay marriage that supports utmost fidelity kinda goes against that idea. Its like saying 'Actually, I don't need to have sex with the other gender, because I don't want to.'

Yes, its all well and good to throw off the shackles of society's 'old-fashioned' constructs and restrictions, but is it not like those non-conformists are going back and say 'actually, i'd like to conform in some ways and be recognised for it please?' It just seems like a weird half measure thats all
Harking back to the 'good old days' is a propagandist tactic - 'we need to go back to utopia' is the message. Progressive societies embrace the need to change. I'm fairly sure there is no passage in the bible that says 'Thou shalt not propel thine motorised vehicle in a manner that endangers others' - but we use laws to address this. As would be appropriate for gay civil unions.

[mgb]

From a spiritual perspective, I'm faily certain the concept of marriage pre-dates most the main religions currently in existance. I mean, take Judiasm, Abraham, considered the father of the religion, was already married when his story began.

This indicates that the idea of marriage has a great deal of importance in society that goes past the spiritual realm and takes ownership of the concept of marriage away from religious institutions and puts it back in socio-cultural ones, if such a clear seperation is possible.

I haven't heard much about the idea of gay marriage in some of the more Eastern religions, so I'm sure someone will fill us in to cover all of the spiritual grounds.


That said, who cares who is married to whom? Why should what come people do be afront to anyone else? Why would a gay marriage offend anyone more than a marriage between two straight people?

I also think saying that gay civil unions are ok, but gay marriages aren't is a total cop out and is just another way to attempt not to realize the importance of what a marriage is. As wikipedia notes, "The fact that marriage often has the dual nature of a binding legal contract plus a moral promise." I think by saying only civil unions are ok and not spiritual ones, a person is failing to recognize the "moral promise" the two people being wed are willing to take. Saying that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry is really tantamount to calling them immoral, an extremely subjective opinion really based on little to no knowledge of the participants, which is utterly ridiculous.

[LongSilence]

From a spiritual perspective, I'm faily certain the concept of marriage pre-dates most the main religions currently in existance. I mean, take Judiasm, Abraham, considered the father of the religion, was already married when his story began.

This indicates that the idea of marriage has a great deal of importance in society that goes past the spiritual realm and takes ownership of the concept of marriage away from religious institutions and puts it back in socio-cultural ones, if such a clear seperation is possible.



I'm going to overlook the fact that there were hundreds of religions about before Judaism and agree with you. Like I said, i'm pretty sure almost all societies constructed some concept of marriage but as i said before all of them founded the concept on the union of the two genders. The construct of people possessing a gender was not necessarily built solely around one's genitalia (although it was THE major natural factor) as transvestitism abounded in a fair few societies as did homosexuality. BUT marriage was pretty much always about bringing the two genders together.

Now its hardly much of an alteration at all for the parties involved to be made equal partners, but to break away the founding principle of making a 'male + female unit' celebrated by society, that was the recognition that men needed women and women needed men, takes away the original idea of bringing together sexual differences productively.

[SCARYdoor]

The issue seems fairly simple to me, that the rules in these religions are just not defined clearly enough. Therefore we've got people saying that it's wrong and should not be allowed. Which it might be, according to them, but it can never be proven because the rules (or whatever) they've defined are so vague! Therefore it frustrates me to even think about. I don't think there is a solution.

[Jasz]

It's supposed to be a balance of nature. Dark and Light. Destruction and Creativity. Yin and Yang. Man and Woman.

it is supposed to be a marriage of convenience, nothing else. it's practical. there is no balance in nature.

[NoahFence]

"Beeep. Hi? My name is Misty and I think I maybe got married last night. Could someone call me back and tell me if I could get an annulment? I'm at Circus Circus? Room—honey what room is this—oh yeah. Room 407. Thank you. Beeep."

It just doesn't get much more sacred than that.

Here's my modest request: If you're going to be a crusader for the sanctity of marriage—if you really believe gay marriage will have some vast corrosive, viral impact on marriage as a whole—here's a brief list of other laws and policies far more dangerous to the institution. Go after these first, then pass your constitutional amendment.

1. Divorce
Somewhere between 43 percent and 50 percent of marriages end in divorce. If you believe gay marriage is single-handedly eroding a sacred and ancient institution, you cannot possibly be pro-divorce. That means any legislation passed in recent decades making divorce more readily available—from no-fault statutes to the decline of adultery prosecutions—should also be subject to bans, popular referendum, and constitutional amendment.

2. Circus Circus
In general, if there is blood in your body and you are over 18, you can get married, so long as you're not in love with your cousin. (Although even that's OK in some states). You can be married to someone you met at the breakfast buffet. Knowing her last name is optional. And you can be married by someone who was McOrdained on the Internet. So before you lobby to ban gay marriage, you might want to work to enact laws limiting the sheer frivolousness of straight marriage. You should be lobbying for an increase in minimum-age requirements, for mandatory counseling pre-marriage, and for statutory waiting periods before marriages (and divorces) can be permitted.

3. Birth Control
The dissenters in the Massachusetts decision are of the opinion that the only purpose of marriage is procreation. They urge that a sound reason for discriminating against gay couples is that there is a legitimate state purpose in ensuring, promoting, and supporting an "optimal social structure for the bearing and raising of children." If you're going to take the position that marriage exists solely to encourage begetting, you need to oppose childlessness by choice, birth control, living together, and marriage for the post-menopausal. In fact, if you're really looking for "optimal" social structures for childrearing, you need to legislate against single parents, poor parents, two-career parents, alcoholic or sick parents, and parents who (like myself) are afraid of the Baby Einstein videos.

4. Misc.
Here's what's really undermining the sacredness of modern marriage: soap operas, wedding planning, longer work days, cuter secretaries, fights over money, reality TV, low-rise pants, mothers-in-law, boredom, Victoria's Secret catalogs, going to bed mad, the billable hour, that stubborn 7 pounds, the Wiggles, Internet chat rooms, and selfishness. In fact we should start amending the Constitution to deal with the Wiggles immediately.

[Madrigal]

Maybe you're trying to be interesting - i.e. being the one gay person who isn't in favor of gay marriage. It's not at all an uncommon motivation in teenagers. That is my guess anyway.
I doubt it. Politically conservative gays will always be in conflict with their own rights and freedoms.

[abathur]

LongSilence--you're ignoring a fundamental property of various marital restrictions to be a little sensational about this and paint a black-or-white picture where it really isn't. Laws restricting the age of marriage and marriage to family members are laws that are in place to protect people.

Perhaps if you can prove that a gay marriage ban will protect someone I can be further persuaded to listen to this. Until then, this is similar but a little less sensational than arguing that, if we're going to let black people and women vote, we have to let them kill people too. It doesn't follow. One law attempts to protect people, another just restricts freedom.

Granted, the laws restricting freedom around marriage may not be optimal, but they are, in some cases, designed to keep people from being taken advantage of.

[KC85]

One has to accept that marriage has always been society's institution. It has spent its history not primarily as a means to 'entwine two souls' or cement two people's relationship but as a way for cultures to sanctify and support a particular couple. Even rather 'liberally engendered' and previously largely untouched cultures such as Native Guineans and Native Americans had the good old 'Man and Wife' format, even if as two examples the Mohave and the Azande let boys become 'wives' (and rarely women become husbands. Still, someone had to take the 'female' role. Basically, if it wasn't a way to support sexuality, it was a way to enforce gender. Its something rather "new" to have same sex AND same gender marriages.

Of course we could be progressive about this and say that the institution is just naturally evolving with our more permissive and egalitarian culture. But in my opinion you're breaking down society's primary concepts upon which the very idea of marriage is founded and thus giving the whole process an entirely new meaning for an element of society that currently sits parallel to the 'traditional' one.

To me, the desire for same-sex marriage stands as a wayward means to gain an acceptance that will not come unless science makes some serious alterations to the human condition and humans ditch their genders.

I agree.

[EmmaPeel]

Why not? Aren't you GAY?