Gay Marriage

[Ro-bear]

When the subject of gay marriage comes up, there are a few arguments that we can count on hearing from our conservative Christian friends:

 

1. It's "Adam and Eve", not "Adam and Steve."

 

2. Marriage is for procreation; gay sex does not make babies.

 

3. Next pedophiles will be marrying children, farmers will be marrying sheep, etc.

 

4. For the state to sanction gay marriage violates my religious freedom by teaching my kids that homosexuals are just as moral as heterosexuals.

 

I used to be in favor of civil unions that differ from marriage only semantically. But, due to resistance to this compromise solution from intransigent fundies, and the proliferation of idiotic arguments like those featured in my short list of shame, I am now a militant proponent of gay marriage. I can't wait until gay marriage is shoved down the unwilling throats of the fundy oppressors. The way to deal with foot-draggers is to cut their damn feet off!

 

Wow. That sounded a bit harsh. What I mean is this: whom does it hurt to let gay people marry? Not my wife and me. Not our kids. Why do some people seek validation from the government for their beliefs at the expense of others' rights? Isn't their faith sufficient in and of itself? Must the government echo their beliefs in order to sustain them?

[Yrth]

More than that, too, right? I was just thinking about this the other day when I followed the link to John Stewart's interview of Huckabee. If marriage is *so* great/crucial/foundational for/to our society, then does it really make any sense at all to tell an entire minority that they can't get married? What happened to all that talk of stability, of family life being so important to society? From this perspective, it's not only a crisis of civil rights but it's a social emergency! :-P

[Deva]

Once you are free of the Christian brainwashing-- which is exemplified by Ro-bear's arguments by fundies, there is no rational reason to oppose gay marriage.

 

Another one I never understood was that it would have a bad effect on traditional marriage. How is that exactly?

 

The real reason is that gays are automatically considered to be leading a sinful lifestyle and so anything upholding that is also sinful. That is their logic.

[Vigile]

Don't you know Ro? hurting other's sensibilities is a crime.

[Robbobrob]

Having been to a legal gay wedding here in Massachusetts, and having seen that marriage fall apart in divorce.....gays are just as human as straights. To deny them the right to make the same mistakes, or allow them the same chances at the Pursuit of Happiness (I heard that phrase someplace, now where was it.....) is UnAmerican and just down right un-human.

[ixolite]

What I mean is this: whom does it hurt to let gay people marry?

Fundies. Their kids could learn not to be bigotted idiots and that gays are actually normal human beings. Can't be.

[par4dcourse]

Because it's an abomination unto gawd. He gets abominated a lot for an omnipotent bloke. Gays, seafood, boiled goats, long list.

Considering world population is around 6 1/2 billion, item 2 may be a blessing in disguise. If it wasn't an abomination.

[Thurisaz]

whom does it hurt to let gay people marry?

 

Homosexual morontheists who can't for the lives of them admit to their orientation and need to project their self-hatred onto someone else.

 

And that's exactly all.

 

[florduh]

Gay marriages are actually superior.

 

Either neither spouse will ever have PMS to drive the other one crazy, or both will have it and cancel each other out.

 

What could be more fair?

[Guest Net Eng]

Why do some people seek validation from the government for their beliefs at the expense of others' rights? Isn't their faith sufficient in and of itself? Must the government echo their beliefs in order to sustain them?

 

The religious seek government sanction of their beliefs so that they can cram laws down the rest of our throats.

 

I will echo the other posters here and say "Go for it" to gay marriage.

[HelloWorld]

the Pursuit of Happiness (I heard that phrase someplace, now where was it.....

 

I think there was a movie somewhat recently by that name.

[OpheliaGinger]

Gay marriages are actually superior.

 

Either neither spouse will ever have PMS to drive the other one crazy, or both will have it and cancel each other out.

 

What could be more fair?

 

I thought lesbian marriages were included into gay marriages.

 

[I Broke Free]

I used to be in favor of civil unions that differ from marriage only semantically. But, due to resistance to this compromise solution from intransigent fundies, and the proliferation of idiotic arguments like those featured in my short list of shame, I am now a militant proponent of gay marriage. I can't wait until gay marriage is shoved down the unwilling throats of the fundy oppressors. The way to deal with foot-draggers is to cut their damn feet off!

 

Same here Ro-bear; my partner and I live in New Hampshire and we took advantage of the new law allowing same-sex couples to enter in civil unions. We tied the knot back in February and are grateful for the rights and privileges extended to us by the state, but it is no longer enough.

 

Until a year ago I was satisfied with the idea of a ‘separate-but-equal’ status of civil unions as long as it extended the same rights. (They won’t as long as the federal government does not recognize them) In the back of my mind I rationalized this position by thinking about my parents and their marriage and how they referred to each other as husband and wife. (I don’t think I would ever be comfortable calling my partner husband) and that married meant a man and woman. But now I have changed my mind and it is the religious right that did it. Now I want to be married for one simple reason, TO PISS THEM OFF! If they had stuck to arguments about tradition I could have accepted it, but they insist on spreading the vilest lies about gay people, and now I just want to be married because they don’t want me to.

 

IBF

[BlueGiant]

Yeah, civil unions...separate but equal, right? Oh, wait, that damn Brown v. Board of Education ruling...those uppity-

 

I'm not supporting gay marriage to piss off fundies (actually I support civil unions across the board, leave marriage as a strictly religious thing). I'm supporting it because it is the right thing. Separate is not equal, inherently. The recognition of gays and lesbians to marry their partners, is being unjustly denied by the state and society. They are to be recognized and protected immediately and not on the timetable of those that oppress them.

 

This is not the only right that isn't recognized and protected, but it is a key one.

[chefranden]

Gay Marriage, why is it wrong?

 

Here's why, I looked it up on the internets so it must be right.

 

When two guy's have sex they can only penetrate eachother through the crack which I think is disgusting because of all the crap that's in there. They both must face the same direction and thus one guy's twig and berries will be projecting from the two. Because no man has a vagina they can't become one flesh when having normal sex.

 

Women don't have Jimmy and his two buddies hanging around so they can't naturally penetrate eachother and become one flesh.

 

Oral with dudes can't be natural because the legs will be poking out from different directions as will the ladies if they participate in oral sex.

 

Oral with the opposite sex still isn't natural because you still have the leg issue and often someone is further down if they are not on top of eachother.

 

Anal with opposites is still excluded from natural sex because once again your are sticking your think in a crap hole and a womans tits are usually projecting outward.

 

When the Bible is speaking of becoming one flesh it literally means that there is nothing sticking out in the clear and that the man and woman are facing eachother. Face to Face.

 

Captain Planet '08

, Myspace [Comments (186)] [2006-Sep-22]

 

So you see it is mostly about things sticking out.

[I Broke Free]

When two guy's have sex they can only penetrate eachother through the crack which I think is disgusting because of all the crap that's in there. They both must face the same direction

 

When the Bible is speaking of becoming one flesh it literally means that there is nothing sticking out in the clear and that the man and woman are facing eachother. Face to Face.

 

My partner and I must have misread the manual, we manage to do it face-to-face just fine.

[Vigile]

I never understood why you guys were willing to compromise with just unions. As a necessary step to take care of pressing issues like insurance and inheritance I can understand, but the whole thing was always such a bigoted compromise to begin with; not all that different from Jim Crow laws. Separate but equal my ass.

[mwc]

[snip]

 

When the Bible is speaking of becoming one flesh it literally means that there is nothing sticking out in the clear and that the man and woman are facing eachother. Face to Face.

 

Captain Planet '08

, Myspace [Comments (186)] [2006-Sep-22]

 

So you see it is mostly about things sticking out.

Errr...so the most righteous sex would be between two quad amputees? Maybe two quad amputee lesbians? I not picturing much sticking out there.

 

mwc

[mwc]

How do the fundies explain the all-male relationship that is YHWH, his "partner" the Holy Spirit and their "son" jesus?

 

mwc

[ogilvy]

re the Bible example of righteous marriage. It came up on another forum, about, I think, I Samuel 12, where David is punished for sending Uriah off to battle to get killed so he could have Uriah's wife.....Nahaniel gives David a message from God, saying, "i gave you all your master's wives, etc, ..if you had wanted more I would have given it to you, why did you....."

 

So much for the sanctity of one male one female marriage for lifetime! God GAVE David mulltiple wives!

[I Broke Free]

I never understood why you guys were willing to compromise with just unions. As a necessary step to take care of pressing issues like insurance and inheritance I can understand, but the whole thing was always such a bigoted compromise to begin with; not all that different from Jim Crow laws. Separate but equal my ass.

 

 

I can tell you why my partner and I decided to get a civil union…

 

1) My partner’s employer has been extending medical and dental benefits to same-sex partners for nearly ten years now and I have been taking advantage of it for the last four years. However they have a policy that states if same-sex marriages, civil unions or domestic partnerships are available in your state, then you must take advantage of it if you want to continue getting benefits. In addition last year my employer started offering benefits to same sex partners if they are in a legal same-sex marriage or civil union.. Both my partner and I work in fields that are experiencing layoffs and we want insure that if needed one of us can extend benefits to the other.

 

2) In the eyes of New Hampshire my partner is now legally my next of kin. None of the other legal documents my partner and I completed before our Civil Union did this and it is very important to both of us. Twenty-one years ago I lost my first partner (we were together for eight years) in an aviation accident and his parents (who I had never met and had disowned their son for being gay) took me to the cleaners. Because they were legally his next of kin they sued for Wrongful Death and were awarded $360,000, I got all the debts! If my first partner and I had been in a Civil Union, I could have told his parents to fuck off!

 

 

I agree that Civil Unions are second best and a bit of a slap in the face, but given the circumstances I will take what I can get.

 

 

IBF

[bdp]

I don't even like the term 'gay marriage' - I prefer to call it 'equal marriage.' Putting 'gay' on it just gives it a stigma that it shouldn't have.

[Vigile]

[snip]

 

When the Bible is speaking of becoming one flesh it literally means that there is nothing sticking out in the clear and that the man and woman are facing eachother. Face to Face.

 

Captain Planet '08

, Myspace [Comments (186)] [2006-Sep-22]

 

So you see it is mostly about things sticking out.

Errr...so the most righteous sex would be between two quad amputees? Maybe two quad amputee lesbians? I not picturing much sticking out there.

 

mwc

 

No silly, the most righteous sex is none at all. It's just icky!

 

It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. -- 1 Corinthians 7:1-2

[Taphophilia]

If someone finds another person who they can find comfort in their arms, have the ability to have a long term relationship, contribute to each others personal growth and become better human beings because this person has enriched their life, this should be a cause for celebration not condemnation. The fact that two people who have committed to each other happen to be of the same gender should be of no consequence.

 

You would have to put your head in the sand to believe that just because a marriage is between a man and a woman automatically means that marriage starts on a firm footing. Some of the most miserable and dysfunctional relationships are between a man and a woman.

[pitchu]

For all the time the marriage rights issue has been floating around, I've been wondering about the whole "one man and one woman" aspect of the argument.

 

Who's to say who's a man and who's a woman? How is it determined -- hormone levels? External characteristics and/or internal plumbing? Manner of dress? Presence or absence of facial hair? Personal choice of designation? I mean, really, with all the birth ambiguities and trans-gender stages and natural de-feminization after menopause and de-masculinization in old age and breast/uterus/prostate surgeries and accidents and inaccurate birth certificates ... well... the list goes on... whose job is it to determine the definition of a man or woman and whose job to see that it's enforced? (The enforcement part could lead to a few embarrassing moments at the marriage license bureau, huh?)

 

I, too, think the government should have nothing to do with any concept of a "marriage" and should stick solely to civil unions for everyone. Ceremonies should be a matter of personal and/or religious choice and have no legal meaning.

 

But if we're doing the man and woman thing for real, somebody, somewhere, ought to be assigned to assign incontrovertible meaning to those terms, or else fergettaboutit and let anybody marry anybody they damn well want to.