Questions About Gay Marriage

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Magantice
reply to post by EarthEvolves
 


I would like to answer you by saying this.......Many years ago when "people" took prayer out of the schools, they decided there should be a separation between church and state. However the fight against homosexuals has largely been based on religion. No homosexual chose to be born that way. Ask hetrosexual parents why they continue to give birth to gay and lesbian children.

The thing gays and homosexuals want is equal rights under the law. If some ones life partner dies, the surviving partner would like the right to be "next of kin". These people want to be able to file a joint tax return and have the normal legal benefits that straight couples have.


Gay people fight and die for their country, they pay taxes, they fight crime, they are professionals and deserve respect as productive human beings.

Race, religion, sexuality, hair color, body type, etc etc have no place in deciding equality under the law.


There will always be father child bonding but perhaps gay men deserve that right as well.

Gay marriages can be done by a justice of the peace. Churches can decide for themselves what the Christian thing to do is.


People need to worry about serious issues like war, disease, famine etc and quit worrying about who the queen next door is or isn't married too.


I do not believe in a fight against homosexuals on any basis, religious or secular. I do think that my questions stated in the OP should be answered.

Remember that no social change is purely good or bad. Change is simply change. If it changes the way human societies work then it should be critically examined. I stated in the OP that I am more frightened of the divorce of sexuality and reproduction among heterosexuals than I am among gays, given the levels of aggression among straight men.

But then that begs a question. Why are straight men expected to pay child support if reproduction is not a big deal? Why is fatherhood still important then? Should the man still be "the protector" as it was in Beaver Cleaver days? It seems like we have some strange double standards as a society. We want the romance of traditional beliefs but not their cost. A lot of the social change in society has been balanced on the backs of non-elite working males who are demonized. Elite males are the ones who have the levers of power, the tax breaks and the paychecks, but are never challenged the way that working males who cannot afford child support are demonized by feminists.

I absolutely oppose any demonization of gays, women or anyone else. But, I am also for the rights of other non-conformists who seem to have no one to fight for them. Single males who live at home because of social disabilities have few to support them, and yet their cause is as worthy as those of gays and women. They are as marginalized and oppressed. Yet, from the media all I see are hurtful stereotypes against that group of people. Even religious forms of discrimination, calling them "of the Devil," are considered fine and appropriate.

So, the same hard questions must be asked of gays and lesbians that I would ask of any other group asserting rights, including or especially elite white males who want all of these tax breaks. The most important one is whether or not children are hard-wired to need both a mother and father. If so, then their needs might take precedent over the needs or even rights of adults. That is not a popular position on ATS, because it is a libertarian forum, but it is the position of most societies that survive. I agree that it is a mute point, and perhaps not as important as other social issues. But, I cannot understand how critical questions are either not asked or left to fanatical religious groups to assert that sibling marriage is just around the corner or some other nonsense. I often wonder whether or not those same conservative groups will oppose no-fault divorce, another socially sanctioned idea that I am critical of.




posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Would same sex siblings be ok to marry, no chance of birth defects there?



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 10:59 PM
link   
One last thing. I believe that whoever the biological parents are should have priority. If the mother is a lesbian or the father is gay, then they are parents. Denying anyone custody on the basis of sexual orientation is discrimination.

Also, anyone should be able to visit anyone at the hospital, at any time. If the Church hospitals do not like it then they have shown their true colors.



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


I respect a lot of what you are saying, and probably agree more than I disagree. I think that what I am really questioning is the idea of adopting an opinion because it is politically correct. Doing so leads to contradictions. Do we go with gay rights or with Islam? The two contradict one another. Which feminist vision do we adopt, the anti-pornography version or the "liberated" version? Do we side with oppressed workers or wealthy computer billionaires and their schemes to better the planet? Environmentalism or techno-utopianism? Gun control or "arming the working class"?

Of course, being conservative has the same problem. There is no one consistent way to be conservative. Remember the movie that accused Barack Obama of being against British colonialism and therefore un-American? What is America but the result of an anti-colonial revolution? Oh, and yes, the movie was made by someone from India, whose nation was freed in an anti-colonial movement! Does a conservative support or oppose British colonialism? (Toryism and Jacksonian populism have both been labelled "conservative") Does a conservative side with wealthy "godless" corporate elites or righteous salt-of-the-earth poor folk? Do conservatives favor the libertarian vision or the traditionalism of Burke? Religion or Social Darwinism? Do they favor wars to "spread freedom" (insert laugh-line here) or a counter-majoritarian fear of majorities? Frontier ruralism or capitalist development? There is no consistency in what defines a conservative.

It is far more logical to assume that Barack Obama rebelled against his father's anti-colonial stance by becoming Mr. Drone in defiance of his father than that he is an "anti-colonial." I think D'Souza has it backwards. He is as socialist as Thurston Howell the Third and as anti-colonial as Dick Cheney. So much of what passes for political discourse in America is tripe and nonsense.

So, I agree with you that the whole gay issue is a distraction from bigger issues, and is used as a wedge issue by corporate elites to distract working people. At the same time, I also believe that if someone is an advocate of a position then one should be able to address the consequences one's position might have on the Body Politic. All other claimants must pass this bar. Suggesting that the social fabric is no big deal, that things will "evolve," is similar to the nonsense idea that the environment is no big deal, that if we destroy the planet things will simply "evolve" like they did after the dinosaurs. It may be that the opposition to gay marriage has not passed the bar of proof, but how is the "pro" position automatically correct by default? Does it not have to prove itself?

Sure, things might evolve. They might also go extinct. At this rate, extinction is looking like a real possibility.

In any case, if I have to choose between gay marriage and some kind of theocracy---or secular ideology that would curb freedom---- the choice is obvious. I would French Kiss a gay porn model before I would ever agree to Dominionism, Shariah Law, politically imposed Torah Law, or anything of that nature. If the choice is between gay marriage and some kind of religiously based or eugenically based anti-gay position, I chose gay marriage under those conditions. It has not been proven to me that those are my choices, but I am beginning to wonder if it might be the case. If so, then I might well commit to the "pro" position instead of my current "in discovery" position.

So, on that point, I guess I will rest having gotten the responses I expected on this issue. Not a lot of original thinking on either side, sadly.

edit on 11-4-2013 by EarthEvolves because: spelling



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxatoria
 


I have said all I want to say on an issue that is of less importance than so many others. I admit that I would fold and take the Pro position if it were shown to me that the Anti position automatically affirms some kind of repression. I am close to believing it probably might.

I also admit to being tired of the whole issue on both sides.



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthEvolves
 


If someone makes a claim its up to them to provide evidence to support it.

Asking for someone to prove that something you don't have any evidence for wont happen is silly.



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 


I am not sure what you are referring to. I cannot address a statement so vague. Nor do I have an interest.

Final statement: My sense is that it is inevitable, and that it will have the evolutionary consequence of removing certain desirable traits associated with gay people from reproduction like artistic creativity and sensitivity. Designers babies are a pipe dream for the elite and will not be for the masses, no way and no how. Removing whole traits from reproduction will have an effect. If gays and lesbians are prepared for this possibility, and have thought it out, then I support them in whatever they do and wish them happiness in their married lives. At least it should be thought over.

Thank you.



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by MrSpad

Originally posted by Hopechest
Gay marriage will absolutely open the door for incestual marriage as their arguments are the exact same as the ones put forth by the homosexual community.

Whether you agree that is a good or bad thing is irrelevant, the fact is that once you tear down this wall the precedent will be set.

So people need to ask themselves if they are ready to support siblings marrying each other.


Are you kidding me? Do you think that gay people having children leads to large chance of birth defects? Because that is why we have incest laws. You what is disgusting is same argument you make now was made against allowing interacial marriages. Guess what nobody is started to marry siblings or animals then and they will not now. Because you do not want to look like a bigot you defelct the argument it to some silly fantasy. Thats like saying because we let people own guns that we will also have to let them own biological weapons. It is so far off the reservation it goes beyond common sense.


Like I said, what if the incestual couple cannot have children. How would you still deny them when they are using the same reasons to justify their union as gay couples do?

And do you really think there are not family members who have tried to marry, or are not sitting in prison for having an incestual relationship?

You really believe I didn't check that little fact before I started posting this issue? Do a simple search and you may....get ready for this...find current court cases contesting the rights for family members to marry.

Yea, it could never happen at all.


You do not seem to understand that one has nothing to with the other. They are seperate issues. Gay marriage is not the same as incestual marriage period; The reasons for letting two gay people marry are the same as letting to a man and a woman marry. Exactly the same. Letting a man and woman marry is not the same as letting a brother and sister marry. Letting two guys marry is not the same as letting two brothers marry. It is very simple. Honesly what is your fasination with incest and why do you have to drag it into a debate that has nothing to with it?



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxatoria
Gay marriage is really the same as straight marriage just it takes two of the same sex rather than one of each and personally i'd say that there should be no difference in it (as approved by your local divorce lawyers) so that they can suffer the same as hetro couples should the relationship go wrong by having to spend 30k arguing over a £20 ornament

Madam,
straight marriage would lead to a child birth but gay marriage would let to mental problems. see I am not speaking of Gay sex but Gay marriage has no meaning, it is not a family ! is it !?



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 02:34 PM
link   
I think it's always great to ask questions respectfully, as the OP has done.

Anything is possible, and maybe siblings who want to marry exist.

We've had gay marriage in SA since 2006, and there hasn't been a single case of gay or straight siblings demanding to marry.
Currently gay marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage: the two partners must be 18 or older, they may not be blood relatives, and they may not be directly related to a former spouse.

We also have customary marriage, which allows for polygamy, for example our Zulu President has four wives.
So far there have been no attempts or demands for gay customary marriages with polygamy.

No religious group has been forced to marry gay people or to accept gay married couples into leading church positions. The Dutch reformed church accepts gay congregants, for example, but gay ministers must be celibate. Both same-sex and religious rights are secured by the Constitution made after apartheid.

Gay and straight couples can qualify for adoption or artificial insemination.
The state doesn't really pay for the latter, although I see nothing wrong with a little help from science for any couple that wants to have children.
Where one partner is HIV-positive (and we have 6 million mainly heterosexual HIV-positive people), couples can also conceive a healthy child with "sperm washing" (although it costs about R15 000).

There are many cultural differences about "adoption", and traditionally in African society an orphaned child would be absorbed into the extended family.
For a couple to adopt a completely unrelated child was not customary.
The HIV/AIDS crisis was however so severe at a stage that adults were dead or dying, and sometimes households were headed by children or by very old people.

Economics have changed a lot.
Whites used black maids to mother their young children while the parents had daytime careers, and the state cared for orphans and old people.
Blacks did get a pension, but they relied heavily on their children and extended families in old-age, which was an incentive to have large families.
Now the available distribution of funds is more equal, which means that whites no longer employ as many maids, and unemployed young and old people may share a home.
I know at least two gay people that care for the children of their siblings during the day.
It's in more extended communal living like this that gay people can really be appreciated.

I know cultures differ on what defines "incest", especially regarding cousins.
However I can't think of a single culture that would allow a biological brother and sister to marry.
Maybe in ancient Egypt, or in the days of the Hapsburg dynasty.
I've heard of siblings that married by mistake, and subsequently found out they were brother and sister.
Here the authorities have been known to turn a blind eye, especially if the kids turned out normal or there is infertility or sterilization.

I think it's so alarmist to say that gay marriage will lead to this or that.
That's like saying if the conservatives get their way adultery or divorce will become illegal, and a raped virgin will have to marry her rapist (according to Old Testament Law). Traditional marriage has also changed a lot, from a female age of consent of 12 in the late 19th century to Jerry Lee Lewis marrying his cousin of 13 in the late 1950s. That was "traditional heterosexuality" in some places that would now be unacceptable.

A much greater debate will develop around the older spectrum of women's fertility.
Now that 40 is the new Western 20, should science help heterosexual couples have kids into their 60s?
There's a chance of something going wrong.
But isn't there always?

I think this will become a bigger moral and social issue than alarmist arguments of incest, bestiality or child-marriage.

I'd like to engage those issues here, but there hasn't been a single case since 2006, at least not for gay marriage.


edit on 12-4-2013 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


What an excellent post!


If our culture refused to take progressive steps because of the possibility of negative consequences throughout history, dare I'd say we'd still be afraid of fire.



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
Gay marriage will absolutely open the door for incestual marriage as their arguments are the exact same as the ones put forth by the homosexual community.

Whether you agree that is a good or bad thing is irrelevant, the fact is that once you tear down this wall the precedent will be set.

So people need to ask themselves if they are ready to support siblings marrying each other.


OMG..

that is the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard..

someone needs to get out more!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   
I actually don't care if siblings want to marry each other, as long as they don't reproduce.
It's really none of my business. I don't care of Joe wants 6 wives, either, as long as they're all consenting adults. And if Jill wants 2 husbands, what business is it of mine?

We're all FAR too involved in the private decisions of other people. Who are we to dictate personal, private behavior? It's the ANTI-freedom way. We need to stop trying to legislate morals and let freedom ring!



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 06:42 PM
link   
"we cannot dismiss the fact that for fathers to feel bonded as fathers they must have a genetic buy-in. Separating sex from reproduction severs that buy-in."

If this is true, why or how do we allow adoption? Does this mean that all adopted children are not "bought in" by their adoptive fathers? How about blended families/stepfamilies?


"1) Can supporters of gay marriage say that the altering of traditional norms will not have social consequences that could be negative?"

Traditional norms constantly change over the past thousands of years, wouldn't you agree? We no longer do what our ancestors did in 500 AD, or our grandparents in the 1930s. Society is organic and constantly changing. Noone can be sure if these changes will be negative or positive.

"2) I have no question but that there are loving gay and lesbian homes. Please do not misunderstand me. Loving gay parents may even be the salvation of someone's life. However, is not the purpose of the genetic buy-in to act as a check and balance on *UN-LOVING* people? In other words, is not the purpose of male domestication to tame the brute? Compare our families to Chimps, who do not have pair bonding and you will see. Again, this is a discussion of straight males who would probably have a higher level of aggression than gay males or lesbians, but precedents have a way of extending outwards. "

I know MANY straight effeminate, or timid/quiet males and many overbearing "brutish" females. I've seen good kids come from crazy families with no discipline, and horrible kids come from strict upbringings. Being a parent only takes someone loving, patient and consistent. It really is not rocket science or a magic equation

3) Why are civil unions (which I fully support) not enough? Why the romanticism around marriage? It is hard work. The union of marriage involves struggle and sacrifice. If there is no genetic buy-in, the does not marriage become another form of tax shelter?

Let me ask you this - why do heterosexual people get married? I'm having a hard time understanding this genetic buy-in you keep throwing out. Do you mean reproduction? If so...many couples can't have children, what is their genetic buy-in?. Why do you link marriage with reproducing? Many straight couples can't have children, don't want children, have decided to not overpopulate the world and give a home to an adopted child etc. I guess depending on where you live, could a lifelong gay partner be on their partner's benefit plan from work? Spousal death benefit on life insurance? Be classified as a dependent if not working on a partner's taxes? I could go on.

4) Is it not natural for children to want a mother and father? Is this not genetic?

Perhaps...I'm not sure on that one...but would a person growing up in a home of two same sex parents not consider that they DO have a mother and father...that is until some snot nosed kid makes fun of them on the playground.

Again, not sure why you are equating marriage with children as one does not mean the other (another traditional norm that has flown the coop over the past 20 years). If gay marriage was outlawed and made illegal... how exactly do you believe that would make our children better? Gay people wouldn't suddenly say "ok I give up...i'm gonna be straight cause I can't marry...let me find someone of the opposite gender....make some babies and have a genetic buy-in to save civilization"



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Michelle129th
 


Your response is intelligent. I appreciate it. I don't know where this sibling business came from but it is ridiculous. I never introduced it!

I believe that we can only separate marriage from reproduction if we engage in Idealist philosophy of some kind of metaphysical union or "soul mates." Ironically, this is the very argument that opponents of gay marriage would offer, that there is some Platonic Universal called "male" or "female." No such universals exist. Male and female evolved through selection and will, in billions of years or sooner, probably be superceded by something else. If sexuality is divorced from reproduction we will probably see gender disappear a lot sooner. Good or bad, it is probably inevitable if the human race does not go extinct first. (If we do, let us resolve not to take other species with us, please!)

I have no problem with effeminate males as long as they are brave, or "butch" females as long as they are compassionate. Nor do I believe in any "outlawing" of anything. We are discussing a change in the existing law, not an outlawing of gay marriage, a crucial distinction. If the change in the law is good, I need to see evidence other than just vague statements about equality and freedom. I need to see why it would be good for humans and the planet. I would ask the same question of the vague rhetoric of Thomas Jefferson and his slave owning compatriots, seeing a few hundred years later that their "land of liberty" has stolen Indian land and belched out more CO2 than most other nations.

It may be that homosexuality limits the population, which is certainly a good thing in our crowded world. It may also be that "rich uncles" and aunts helped human evolution. It is certainly true that desirable traits are accompanied by homosexuality, including sensitivity and artistic creativity. (Leonardo, Michelangelo, et al) One concern is that by openness and liberation one might convince someone "on the fence" to leave the arena of reproduction and that those traits might actually leave the human population. This would be a disaster. But, there are other concerns.

I think that we are all a little bit "bi" if we are honest. Human sexuality is fluid. Women especially seem to have a liminal "bi" nature, which is not as frowned upon in female culture as it is in male culture. I think that this is part of what makes human society so darned frustratingly difficult to understand, but also very beautiful in its complexity. And, if gays and lesbians believe in eternal love and the like, then they are bigger believers in "love" than I am. I also think that this idealism about marriage may blind people to what it really is, an arrangement to raise children that is in accord with biology. I think that the whole "marriage" movement seems to believe that marriage means equality. Trust me, oppressed peoples who are "married" are just as unequal as anyone else.

One more thing. Someone stated that it may be best for children to have a mother and father, but that what is natural is not necessarily good. I am curious about that statement. Is what is best for children not what we should aim for? Forget "natural." Nuclear radiation is natural. If it is *best* for children to have a mother and father then is this not at least a consideration if not a prima facie? In fact, do not gays and lesbians themselves not see their own home lives as ideally being of a mother and father? I often hear how the gay community wishes that their parents would accept them. Is this not an implicit recognition that it is *THEIR* parents, their mothers and fathers? Why else want *THEIR* parents to accept them? If the family unit as human societies traditionally understand it does not matter, or is one among many options, then why is it so important that PARENTS accept someone?

If someone can answer the last point, I will rest my case here.



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 07:40 PM
link   
At this time in human civilization, there is no reason not to afford all the civil liberties to all peoples regardless of race, culture, sex, disability, age and sexual orientation. I'm sure I missed a few.

To support limiting the civil rights of consenting adults is anathema to our constitution. We must get past this. If one group steps on the toes of another, it opens the flood gates to discriminate against others.



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 08:37 PM
link   
I dunno, this all seems so confusing to me when I watch European TV.

Here it seems gays should be able to marry, but the right to reproduction is taken away.
I'm not sure, but it appears that gay married couples won't immediately be given medical help if they want to reproduce, like heterosexual infertile couples might.

So there's still a concern about gay parenting.

This is rather strange, because a main charge against homosexuality is that it cannot reproduce.
However with science and a donor, gay people can reproduce.
So we could but we shouldn't?

Science helps many people to reproduce.
It's virtually eliminated the mother-to-child transmission of HIV/AIDS in many countries.
It's helped many infants and mothers to survive that would have died otherwise.
Why should science not help gay people to become parents if they want to?

OK, in SA where the state hospitals are cash-strapped I can understand that it is not a right or a priority.
But in richer Europe (with a low population increase) I'd have thought it would be celebrated.



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 08:54 PM
link   
this is the thing, gay people are having children by the dozens.. im gay and have a child with a couple (Lesbian, but one is transgender female to male) and i know more than 50 children that have gay parents..

i even know single lesbians who ordered some sperm online and had a baby by themselves..

gays are reproducing in a big way.. marriage laws need to change (in my country its only civil unions)..

the posters that have talked about incest on this thread are really not very smart, and obviuosly live in little towns and have no experience with dealing with gay people or the wider world..



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by thewhiteribbon
this is the thing, gay people are having children by the dozens.. im gay and have a child with a couple (Lesbian, but one is transgender female to male) and i know more than 50 children that have gay parents..

i even know single lesbians who ordered some sperm online and had a baby by themselves..

gays are reproducing in a big way.. marriage laws need to change (in my country its only civil unions)..

the posters that have talked about incest on this thread are really not very smart, and obviuosly live in little towns and have no experience with dealing with gay people or the wider world..


The "incest" business was never something I desired or invited.

I would be interested in your answers to the questions posed in the OP. You might find some assumptions problematic, but your insights would be welcome.



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 12:35 PM
link   
In any case, if someone can show that an argument against gay marriage automatically leads to eugenics, I would be required to fully adopt the "Pro" stance instead of my current "Unsure" stance.

My sense is that an evolutionary argument against gay marriage would have eugenicist implications. If so, then I have to go with gay marriage. No one has yet shown me that being against gay marriage on a biological basis leads to eugenics, but I think that there might be a good case for it. As it is, I am neutral and skeptical but that one argument could convince me if proven conclusively.

Maybe the best thing is for the State to stay out of marriage, I don't know...

Thanks for the conversation and perspective. On both sides we can all agree to despise religious hatred, funeral protests, scaring people with hell, child abuse, and fascist control of women. Let us all agree on that!

End of my participation on this thread. Thanks!





top topics
 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join