This is for anyone who can't understand why I think gay people HAVE to push for marriage and not just civil unions...
[url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/4648535.stm"]Same-sex couples may not use "Wedding Room"
The distinctions are already being made in the United Kingdom where they now allow civil unions. The message is clear- civil unions are considered LESS than marriage. They just allow the "appearance" of doing something while continuing to allow discrimination.
Oh damn that makes me angry
And here in the US I was even shot for saying that we should recognize gay marrige as just that, marrige! And then UK takes it and twists it!
There is a portion of my daily five hour rant
Hi Fallen Icarus,
My main problem is the assumption that gay marriage (or gay people for that matter) is something that people need to be protected from. I'm very tired of being lumped with "it's not as bad as 'this' " catagories.
We are talking about a relationship between adults where no one is being harmed or even put in harm's way. One of the main criticisms of the conservatives has always been that gay people are too promiscuous, but apparently they aren't happy with the idea of gay people in a monogamous relationship either.
Let's be honest. They are homophobic. They fear that by allowing gay people rights and visibility that somehow we are going to "turn" the whole world. It's a ridiculous fear. Relationships... and a sense of "family"... promote stability. Not the "downfall of western civilization". They aren't fighting to protect anything. Just the opposite.
Grr, only a few posts, and it seems like every one here I end up on the wrong side of the fence on these issues. While again, noting that I am in favor of gay marriages, I do have to point out where some of my fellow conservative Christians are coming from, in reagrds to their hesitancy.
Sure, it's a bit of a ridiculous step to assume that homosexual marriage will result in polygamy, bestiality, or a wave of other things being introduced into legal protection. However, we have to remember the conservative Victorian standards that we hail from. Sex as taboo has been a major theme in American and Western Lifestyles for a good many years now, and only recently has it been so liberated, still awakening from a dark age, or so one school of thought goes.
As we become a lot more liberated, we become more comfortable with ourselves, and practices that would have resulted in a lynching are now being celebrated in groups, and the internet and ability to mobilize into groups of similar interest quickly and easily has helped this as well. However, there are some acts, which I hope we would agree, are a little beyond what society can stand, or in my opinion, should have to endure. Things like bestiality, extreme bdsm, and erotic asphyxiation. If there is anyone reading this that is into any of these things, I apologize. It seems to me that there are some things that DO degrade the idea of sex, again in my opinion.
Homosexuality, really, is not one of those things. But when conservatives and those against gay marriage see the tide of degradation, crying out in the name of 'liberation,' is it not unfair for them to be equally wary of all such battlecries of liberation?
I think that, yes, homosexuality isn't a problem. And I think that gay marriage would not degarde it any more than rising divorce rates are, for crying out loud. But conservtives are not all nutjobs who hate gays and just want others to suffer. They have their conerns, and fairly legitimate ones, for the most part. How they want them implemented is another thing entirely.
I know what you mean. For some out there reason people seem to think that if homosexual marriages are legalized then you'll be able to marry anything under the sun whether it be your dog or the tree on your front lawn. Come on now....
I really don't see that allowing (legal) gay marriage is going to open the floodgates for other types of unions. One of my biggest pet peeves is the line... "If we allow gay marriage, then people will want to be allow to marry their dog." PLEASE!
Let anyone get married if they want to get married. And let them call it a MARRIAGE.
-Mariah
[QUOTE=Quote (tacosandbattons @ July 28 2005,18:18)]Im bisexual and i believe in gay marriages .. Its just once gay people are aloud..... Then 3 people will wanna get married to each other.... To except gay marriage and not except mmm or fff or mmf ect.... Would be just wrong ... So sticking the the mf is what we should do ...[/QUOTE]
I dont think that would happen.
First off polygamy is illegal, being gay isn't!
Thats a big distinction.
Of course plural marriages still exist among some societies.
Like the EXTREME Mormons. I forget their actual title.
I read a book about it called Under the Banner of Heaven.
It was some crazy stuff.
But anyhoo, lol, a marriage should exist between just 2 people. Be them gay or straight
Im bisexual and i believe in gay marriages .. Its just once gay people are aloud..... Then 3 people will wanna get married to each other.... To except gay marriage and not except mmm or fff or mmf ect.... Would be just wrong ... So sticking the the mf is what we should do ...
LOL... It's hard sometimes NOT to become so angry that you fall into name-calling.
Believe me when I say, that I've had this conversation with MANY people. At first, I was one of those that thought civil unions would be an okay solution. It wasn't until I started seeing the lines of discrimination already being drawn that I changed my mind.
No group owns the copy-right on the word marriage. It's already used by many different societies that view it many different ways. If someone is offended by gay marriage, then they shouldn't have one. Just don't tell me that I can't.
[QUOTE=Quote (iamawesum69420 @ July 12 2005,20:34)]Ok look I've researched this topic quite a bit and I've heard all these "valid points" and they don't affect my opinion.
And I just get so frustrated by these people that I call them things like idiots. It's just my little way of venting. Don't read so much into it.[/QUOTE]
Ok, like I said I didn't want to offend you. I have a brother who does that ALL THE TIME, call people close-minded while he is being close-minded so I get a bit sensitive to it. But I definately understand that people need to just vent sometimes.
Ok look I've researched this topic quite a bit and I've heard all these "valid points" and they don't affect my opinion.
And I just get so frustrated by these people that I call them things like idiots. It's just my little way of venting. Don't read so much into it.
[QUOTE=Quote (iamawesum69420 @ July 12 2005,19:32)]You're exactly right. Having civil unions in place of marriage is just ANOTHER form of discrimination. My god this is the new millineum and we still have these close-minded idiots out there. WHY?![/QUOTE]
Not to be mean, or start a huge argument, but calling people "close-minded idiots" is kind of close-minded in and of itself. While you and I may disagree with them they have their opinions and we need to respect that, we can argue with them all we want, but the second you call them idiots and dismiss them as such you are being the very thing you are trying to fight, close-minded.
Maybe you should go and seek out someone who believes civil unions are a good thing and try to discuss with them why they believe what they do, I think you'll find that at least some of them will have valid points, and while they probably won't change your mind on the issue, they might just make you understand why they believe what they do.
You're exactly right. Having civil unions in place of marriage is just ANOTHER form of discrimination. My god this is the new millineum and we still have these close-minded idiots out there. WHY?!
I just find it interesting that exactly what I said would happen, IS. By making a distinction between civil unions and marriage, you give those that would discriminate the opportunity to do so. It creates a case of second-class citizens.
Damn that makes me mad. AAHHHHH!!! That's my rant for the moment HAHA.
-Mariah
Good rant.
I hope more people come to the same realization.
This article just reminds me of how much ignorance there is in the world. Why is it that two homosexual people who love each other express their love the same way that heterosexual couples do? I mean if there can be arranged marriages or marriages for money or reality marriages then why not gay marriage? A loving gay marriage is more of a marriage then some of these freak show marriages you see on some of these reality tv shows. I've heard the argument that if we allow gay marriage then that will somehow change marriages for straight couples. WHAT?! That's crazy. It doesn't change heterosexual marriages. It just allows more couples to get married.
Well that's my rant for the moment.
from what i can see,
the main reason a person would be pro civil union, and against same sexed marriages lies in tradition
the idea that a MAN and a WOMAN are joined together in holy matrimony.
[tell me if i'm wrong, or being stereotipical, or offending anyone, i don't mean to, this is just the way have come to see it]
i live on the west coast of the US where the majority of the people are not particularly religious, the life style we live does not call on traditions, and its hard for me and my piers to see why anybody would be against same sexed marriage.
at times its just a voting issue. In the US, the majority lies against same sexed marriage, and therefore the lawmakers who are against same sexed marriage are in power.
many people are very passionate about their beliefs on marriage, and the idea that it is between a man and a woman.
I do not believe anyone has asked the church or their religion to accept the marriage. However, a civil marriage (not civil union) has no bearing on anyone with the exception of the two involved.
I am Catholic, without an annulment I cannot marry in the Church. I can marry by a Justice of the Peace or another qualified individual. My religion will not recognize this marriage. So be it, if I was to remarry in a Civil ceremony (yes they can be elaborate if you choose) is a legal marriage. So under these circumstances where is it a Holy Matrimony?
Case in point; getting lawmakers to recognize civil marriages as being "legal" for gay couples is where the crux of the problem is. I believe you might be confusing a civil marriage with a civil union. How to change the system? Petition law makers 2-The Gay reps (not certain of the specific interest group on this one) need to get some of their people into political power.
Having civil unions is just another form of discrimination and is incredibly hateful and bigoted. Gays should be allowed to have marriage just like heterosexuals with absolutely no differences!
The real kicker to the entire matter; Iowa & Mass. allow same sex marriages yet let the couple move to another state and you are no longer married.
It's the Federal Government's way (under DOMA) to segregate a group of individuals and restrict their right to marry the person they wish to & love. Imagine applying a similar segregation to race; a ban against any inter-racial or culturally mixed marriages.
The right of gays to marry has no bearing on a straight persons marriage and their ability to live freely; therefore, why enforce restrictions on others? If I was a married person again, since I am straight, does a gay marriage by another couple dilute the value or meaning of mine? Nope. It's the ultimate isolating mechanism still present in the US. Even those states which allow for gay marriages; they do not grant all the 1,130+ rights as opposite sexed couples.
Over here (Canada), gay marriage is legal, both as a religious/civil ceremony. It is up to the priest/pastor/rabbi/head of the church/etc whether or not he/she wants to marry the couple. I quite like it this way, it gives equality but does not force anyone to do something against their morals.
Our current Prime Minister is conservative(republican) and one of his campaign issues was changing the laws on homosexual marriage but it was reneged because when he brought it up after being elected, there was almost a non-confidence vote.
On a side note...in Ontario the consent-to-sex is 14 if you're straight, but 18 if you're gay/bi. :confused: Isn't that strange?
[QUOTE=curious_woman;192520]Over here (Canada), gay marriage is legal, both as a religious/civil ceremony. It is up to the priest/pastor/rabbi/head of the church/etc whether or not he/she wants to marry the couple. I quite like it this way, it gives equality but does not force anyone to do something against their morals.
Our current Prime Minister is conservative(republican) and one of his campaign issues was changing the laws on homosexual marriage but it was reneged because when he brought it up after being elected, there was almost a non-confidence vote.
On a side note...in Ontario the consent-to-sex is 14 if you're straight, but 18 if you're gay/bi. :confused: Isn't that strange?[/QUOTE]
I don't like the fact that the Gov't has downloaded the task on to the religious sect to make that decision! Quite easy for Gov't to say..yah it's okay,but each religion has it's own theory on that...it's a cheap way out for the Gov't...me personally, hell ya, let them get married and have the same benefits, not sure though about how the religious sects can work around that without being labelled..too bad..
[QUOTE=HardNgood;192521]I don't like the fact that the Gov't has downloaded the task on to the religious sect to make that decision! Quite easy for Gov't to say..yah it's okay,but each religion has it's own theory on that...it's a cheap way out for the Gov't...me personally, hell ya, let them get married and have the same benefits, not sure though about how the religious sects can work around that without being labelled..too bad..[/QUOTE]
Yeah I know what you mean but it seems to work for people. Kept the government in power, the "family-values" fundamentalists happy enough, and it gives people who are gay/bi more rights than they would have otherwise.
If the government stated that the religious institutions had to marry them no matter what, people would start bitching about a dictatorship and crap :p.
My problem is that judges take it upon themselves to create laws. Judges are supposed to interpret and inforce laws, not create them. Bring it to the ballot, and I will gladly vote for it, but I have tough time supporting it if it is imposed on me by some judge. Checks and balances, you know.
[QUOTE=curious_woman;192546]Yeah I know what you mean but it seems to work for people. Kept the government in power, the "family-values" fundamentalists happy enough, and it gives people who are gay/bi more rights than they would have otherwise.
If the government stated that the religious institutions had to marry them no matter what, people would start bitching about a dictatorship and crap :p.[/QUOTE]
Haha.
I like those "family value" people.
In the words of Rick Mercer;
"Check out their site, click on 'Spongebob Squarepants'. You'll see, they think more about gay sex more than gay people!"
People really need to get out of this white picket fence of ours to understand the words "dictatorship and crap".
In order to function as a society we need the family values people and the political extremists (liberals); somewhere in the middle balance is struck. Everyone lives in their own "Wally World" . Creating equity is a separate topic. The pendulum swings.
[QUOTE=-wittyphrasehere-;192700]Haha.
I like those "family value" people.
In the words of Rick Mercer;
"Check out their site, click on 'Spongebob Squarepants'. You'll see, they think more about gay sex more than gay people!"
People really need to get out of this white picket fence of ours to understand the words "dictatorship and crap".[/QUOTE]
:D:D:D I <3 Rick Mercer he's a genius, what he rants about really does make sense! And its damn funny ;).
[QUOTE=sera300;192701]In order to function as a society we need the family values people and the political extremists (liberals); somewhere in the middle balance is struck. Everyone lives in their own "Wally World" . Creating equity is a separate topic. The pendulum swings.[/QUOTE]
Good point.
Can't have extremes if you don't know what moderate is.
The opposites define each other and you can't have one without the other.
[QUOTE=curious_woman;192706]:D:D:D I <3 Rick Mercer he's a genius, what he rants about really does make sense! And its damn funny ;).[/QUOTE]
Damn straight.
He's the reason why I know anything about politics in Canada.
Man, I can't wait for the new season.
Who is Rick Mercer???? My age is showing!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=BhTZ_tgMUdo
and now you know the rest of the story:)
[QUOTE=sera300;192715]Who is Rick Mercer???? My age is showing![/QUOTE]
Lol no its not sera, Rick is a Canadian comic. Most of the shows he's starred in don't get exported.
And yeah, NEW SEASON! :D
On the topic of religion and gay marriage, I AM NOT suggesting that any denomination be forced to perform a ceremony with which they do not agree. As Sera points out, the Catholic church restricts many different people from being married in their churches. I grew up in a very conservative [Independent] Baptist household. They are as restrictive- if not more so- than the Catholics. IF these churches don't want to marry gay couples...Fine. However, there ARE churches in just about every denomination that WILL perform gay marriage ceremonies. Who is anyone to tell them that they can't??