I think that gay marrige should be approved in every state in the U.S. I know it has been approved in California and just recently in Pennsylvania, but should it realy be allowed? I think it should be, I mean just because your gay doesn't mean you shoud have less rights then straight people. Gays should have the equal rights to get married just the way I do. Shouldn't they?? Tell me what you think.
Though I disagree with most of the article GP posted, there is an area that I agree with. Churches do not have to redefine their definition of marriage. If the government ever legalizes gay marriage, churches should have the choice to perform or to not perform ceremonies for homosexuals. The separation of church and state goes both ways. Church does not interfere ion state, and state does not interfere in church (save for a few rare exceptions like if a religion performs human sacrifice). Though there will be enough liberal churches out there that it would not be a problem.
Alright, I'm back. My wife just had surgery and she's resting so I can comment. She's fine by the way. Just sleeping.
Girl_power I'm with Asherlee. I personally don't care what an old fart of a corrupt system thinks about marriage, gays, beastiallity, whatever. I want to know what you think. I've read your comments before on many threads and am very surprised to see you shy away from this simple question.
thelistman I agree that a church should have a choice, but I don't see why it is a problem. The difference between me, my brother, and Asherlee, is who we have sex with. That's it. We still want to love the person. Grow old with them, I know ya'll are dating and talking Ash. And more importantly, just be who we are without prosecution from anyone.
What kills me, is that most gay/lesbian couples I know tend to shy away from straight people. It's not from prejudice or anything like that. It's they just fel more comfortable around other gay/lesbian couples. I asked a friend of mine why that is, and he said it's because of the stigma that tends to follow him. "Oh look. A gay couple. Those people who are with them must be gay too." How f'ing retarded. It is hard to believe that people are still that closed minded about something that is completely natural. Love.
I agree with thelistman; making it legal does not require a church (or other religious institution) to recognize such unions. Some churches (or other religious institutions) definitely would not acknowledge such a union; others probably would.
This is distinctly reminiscent of the interracial marriage ban; it used to be "the way things were;" now, you risk being politically incorrect if you speak against it. I believe that it will calm down in time, even though it should be resolved now.
@GP: Yeah, regarding that Wikipedia extract (link would have been handy as we need to know exactly which article it came from), I've already shot it down in outlining an argument which effectively circumvents it. Better yet, it even accounts for what thelistman has conceded. Simply put, you can't simultaeneously call upon a restriction of ambiguity and call upon a global monopoly of the term. That's just unreasonable.
Some people on this forum have used this argument- Obama allegedly plans to use it also. Australian PM Rudd already has to great effect. You can keep the word, but don't overextend it into defacing human rights.
@Ichibon- because I can't help myself...beastiality is a common misspelling; the correct form is bestiality. I guess I'll further note that the proper usage of this term in the legal and social sense focuses solely on the aspect of sexual relations between a human and a non-human animal- whereas talk of 'gay marriage' often involves the rhetoric of emotional attachment- love, if you will.
Gay marraige is strictly forbidden in the society I would have It would be punishable by death gays are not welcome in this country neither are people who supprt abortion Just a thought
@ Ichibon - I want to touch on what you say about gay people hanging out with other gays and shying away from straight people. I think it goes deeper than what you said. Though, I agree with it. I know from personal experience that Sara and I always have a better time around other gay couples. When we go out in packs, we are more secure in being who we are and not worrying about it. When it is just Sara and I and we are with our straight friends, we try to be respectful to their ideals as well. We aren't hiding anything, but we aren't making out on a bar like we would with our other gay couples around.
@ daswiftarrow - there is no point in even recognizing ignorance like that. He won't come back in the topic, I'm sure.
And I'd like to touch on what you've said there, Asherlee, as it might go even a little deeper than that.
Insofar as identity politics is applicable, that the attitude of most of those in the "GLBT" community is "we don't want to be seen as different" the distinction still exists and will always exist until the rhetoric of sexual orientation and sexuality in general becomes obsolete.
To this end, I know that when somebody tells me that they are "straight", regardless of how tolerant they are there's immediately a barrier, a sense of suspicion almost. When people tell me they "simply aren't interested" I struggle not to dismiss this as an excuse or an attempt to hide something.
Why would this be? Because profiling works for the majority too. In my experience, most people make such assertions about themselves more because they are anxious to make the assertion, not because they have any particular insight about themselves that allows them to make that assertion with any degree of certainty. Furthermore, the majority of the people who I know who tell me they are 'straight' also tend to be 'heteronormative' i.e. given to expressions that being 'straight' is the thing to be, not just orientation-wise but also in terms of gendered behaviors. I don't feel comfortable with not this behavior, but rather the lack of insight upon which the assertion is based.
Certain subcultures are much more open about what I perceive to be a more neutral and also more accurate demographic distribution of sexuality. From what I've seen, I'm inclined to believe that insofar as I'm licensed to talk about predispositions as a basis for sexuality, that the distribution of 'straight' 'bi' and 'gay' is closer to a neutral bell-curve than the popular assumption of 95:5, which doesn't even allow for consideration of bisexuality.
for me they can get an marriage as long they don't bother other people with it, gay's are also people and have the same right as all the people. they maybe don't like the opposite sex but they are still people.
"Look at me and my cliche stereotypical showings of heterosexual affection in an understood and socially acceptable way, which has a 50% chance of ending in divorce a few years from now and my wife having custody of the kids during the week along with her owning half of everything I own!"
That'll teach all those homosexuals that marriage is something sacred, lasting and great.
...in general, people are not asserting their true identities, but a heteronormative view of themselves?
Sort of- though I'm not sure how strong a claim I can make on this- particularly because heteronormative rhetoric is still so prevalent that I'm not confident of getting a clear answer!
Though I would (to be pedantic), not say it's a case of "not asserting true identity"- after all what exactly is identity based on, esp. re: sexuality. Since it seems unreasonable to relate sexuality entirely to predispositions for all people (for some it may be true and therefore their 'sexual identity' is unambiguous), we tend to look at other characteristics, but all these are modulated by the avenues of social intercourse we have today.
I'm suggesting that if our society were structured differently, such that, for example, more open sexual behavior was not suppressed, and we didn't subscribe to the rhetoric of relationships as we do now, we'd be seeing a rather different balance to what we see today. My partner frequently cites the example that some currently claim simultaeneously that a) they're open to a little no-strings-attached sexual experimentation with members of the same sex b) they still consider themselves 'straight'.
I'd rather do away with these terms altogether, but that's because I don't care much for identity either.
