Homosexuality: What's up with that? (V.2)

I agree, but my point is that celibacy may be at least part of what creates that illness

I assure you, it does not, and it is not "created" in such a manner. The illness manifests itself much earlier than entrance into the priesthood. If you'd like to continue this debate, we can do so in PM .

 

I must say that the idea that homosexuals do not have the right to marry is wrong. I believe that it is completely a contradiction. Especially in the US. Some of the founding blocks of the US were;

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, and shall not be deprived certain unalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Clearly this would include a persons right to choose homosexuality of heterosexuality. I think it is so hypocritical not to allow a homosexual marriage.

First off, a marriage is not based upon religious belief. I know many agnostic, or aethiest people that get married because THEY WANT TO!! So having this kind of mindset, we should not go about saying that marriage is a religous activity, because it is not. Marriage is not always a holy union unless you believe in religion, for those who do not it is nothing more than an ideal of joining un union of two people until death do they part.

Second, if the homosexual individual is a religous person then they are falable to the requirments of the religion they have chosen. If that particular religion states that homosexuality is wrong in their belief system, than the homosexual indivudual must either change their ways to abide by the religous belief, or choose to drop the religion. If the religion does not state that homosexuality is wrong than what "sin" have they commited? I would say nothing. So that means that they are not breaking any law, religous or governmental.

And finally, the biggest problem is that the United States has a rule of keeping religion and State apart. They are in a way breaking this rule. Now many might just say that the senators just believe that homosexuality is wrong. Well this may be true, but they are bringing in their OWN belief's. They are supposed to be doing what is best for the Country. And in a more targeted way, what is best for their state. They are not doing their job, because if they were actually to be doing what is best for their country, homosexual marriages would have been legalized long ago. Homosexuals are breaking no law, they are not hurting anybody. So why in the world are they not allowed to marry? Because of neo-facist homophobic's. Who believe that what they want is more important than what is good for the country.

And in closing, I would like to state again that the United States believes that there should be equal rights for everybody despite of color, gender, or background. This should be meant to include sexual preference. We say that employment cannot exclude homosexuals for a job, but they are the same people who say that they cannot get married. Can we say hypocrite?

Well the debate rages on!

 

First off, a marriage is not based upon religious belief.

Traditionally, marriage has been a religious and societal institution. The reason I mention both is that because up until recent times, religion and society's rule were often indisinguishable.

I would say that marriage is a religious institution which the government a) has recognized and b) has made into a legal institution as well.

I guess it all depends on your definition of marriage. To me, marriage is a union between a man and a woman. I have nothing against same-sex couples enjoying the same legal privileges, but I do have a problem with them getting "married."

Now many might just say that the senators just believe that homosexuality is wrong. Well this may be true, but they are bringing in their OWN belief's. They are supposed to be doing what is best for the Country.

They are indeed supposed to do what is best for the country and they are judging some of these things based on their own beliefs. We, the citizen, elected these officials to act for us. If we were to completely ask them to remove all beliefs and morals, we would be stripping them of everything they are and they would become useless. Yes, it's true that we elect people with whom we don't agree 100%. But if there is an issue we disgree on with them vehemently, we would not elect them.

 

Once again, personally, I don't care if it's called marriage.

But on the same note, I find it somewhat petty that heterosexuals are so upset by it: "NO! That's OUR word for a union! Ours! Leave it alone!"

It's only a word.

 

True, but look at it from this point of view.

Do we elect the President to do what he (I say he, because there has yet to be a female president) wants to do? No, we elect the President to do what is best for the country. The same is for the Senators. They should not bring in their own personal belief's, because when they do they cease to do what is best for the country, and begin to do what they want done. And that is when facism begins.

Back to the main subject. A homosexual marriage is no different from a heterosexual marriage. Both usually consist of two individuals whom love eachother, and want to spend the rest of their lives together.

As for the whole religous affiliation with marriage. That is very false. People got married before most organized religions were created. There were kings who had wives. So religion does not have anything to do with all forms of marriage.

I guess it all depends on your definition of marriage. To me, marriage is a union between a man and a woman. I have nothing against same-sex couples enjoying the same legal privileges, but I do have a problem with them getting "married."

I am confused. If you are for homosexual rights, then why do you have a problem with them getting married? I don't mean to be a jerk, but I just want to know. Also, that is your definition of marriage, so should we all have to conform to your definition of what marriage is? I believe that marriage is the union between two individuals whom wish to be legally bound together. But not everyone conforms to my definition.

 

It's only a word.

Yeah, which is why I don't quite understand why it bothers me. Maybe I'm not as accepting as I thought

I know some gay people and they're some of the nicest guys around. I have never discriminated against gays, conciously or unconciously that I know of.

The people who are radically against homosexuality aside, has anyone notices discrimination against gays in the general population? The kind of discrimination that people don't necessarily intend to, but do because they don't quite know what to think or deal with it? The kind that can be done quite easily uncnciously?

EDIT:
I am confused. If you are for homosexual rights, then why do you have a problem with them getting married?

Probably because of how I define marriage. I'm all for them having a union, but not marriage. Maybe it's because I grew up pretty religious, maybe not. Maybe it is something that will change, maybe not. Maybe it's part of my loving historical roots of things such as marriage.

Also, that is your definition of marriage, so should we all have to conform to your definition of what marriage is?

Of course not! But neither should we all conform to yours. We as a society are going to have to determine how to best define it to serve society.

 

EXACTLY!! We should find out what is best for society, and then do it. And IMO it would have to be allowing homosexual marriages. Thats about all I have to say on the matter.

for now.

BWAH HA HA HA!

 

What I don't understand is how people seem to think that gay marriage will take anything away from straight marriage.

If gay people get married, how does this affect you, other than the fact that gays can now do what you do?

 

I agree Crwn. If a homosexual gets married, how will this effect you? It will not "degrade" what you consider to be marriage, it will only add on to it. So I think that the basis for this discrimination is both homophobia, and religious background. I think that both of these things can become overcomed. Just because your religous background says that it is wrong for you doesn't mean that everyone else, who is not of your religous background cannot do otherwise. Just like many religions say that drinking is wrong, doesn't mean that it is wrong for everyone. So I think that we need to grow up and accept people.

 

Indeed, Jedi_Master_Anakin!

It all comes down to fear, if you ask me. People are xenophobic and terrified of that which is different: Consequently, they perceieve gay people as a threat and want to limit their ability to legitimize their unions. While religious issues do come into play, I don't fully buy that religion is the primary reason for homophobia - I would say that it is the primary excuse for it.

 

If gay people get married, how does this affect you, other than the fact that gays can now do what you do?

Personally, it doesn't affect me directly. However, it does affect the society we live in. Therefore it does affect me.

What I don't understand is how people seem to think that gay marriage will take anything away from straight marriage.

Hmmm, I don't have an answer for that. Except perception perhaps. Traditionally, marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Traditionally, marriage has also been for the procreation of children although I don't think that factor plays much of a role anymore.

Just because your religous background says that it is wrong for you doesn't mean that everyone else, who is not of your religous background cannot do otherwise. Just like many religions say that drinking is wrong, doesn't mean that it is wrong for everyone. So I think that we need to grow up and accept people.

Just because someting is wrong for some, doesn't mean it is right for others. It could or could not be right. Humanity indeed needs to grow up but that's what it is doing. It's a slow and long process of figuring everything out. But I will keep my right to discern between good and bad. I will accept people for who they are, but I will not accept everything everyone does. I will never accept murder as something that is right. That's an extreme example though.

But from this discussion, I do see that I have some things to figure out and think about. But then again, that's what life is about

 

Oh... Good thought. I had never really thought of religion as the primary EXCUSE for homphobia. I like your thinking crwn. Well I must retire for the day, as I have some important business to attend to. translation: I have to go to work It has been an amazing debate here. Excellent thoughts!

 

Personally, it doesn't affect me directly. However, it does affect the society we live in. Therefore it does affect me.

How does it really affect society, other than give gay couples, who will be together regardless, a legal buffer?

Hmmm, I don't have an answer for that. Except perception perhaps. Traditionally, marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Traditionally, marriage has also been for the procreation of children although I don't think that factor plays much of a role anymore.

And let's not forget that marriage was also traditionally an institution wherein women were essentially free labor and baby machines for men. There was a time when a man married a legal slave, more or less. These things change and I like to call that progress. I'm sure many married women would agree, now that marriage is more egalitarian.

But from this discussion, I do see that I have some things to figure out and think about. But then again, that's what life is about

Yep, yep. I think that's why people such as ourselves enjoy debate - you stand a chance not only to help others see your point of view, but also to see theirs: With luck, you can both learn something.

 

I'm welcoming myself to the new thread.

cwrn- Marriage, in my eyes, is a religious thing. If the government watns to give legal rights to gay couples that they give to married couples (such as medical consent, which we discussed) then I wouldn't mind. However, I think the reason lots of people are concerned about allowing gays to marry is because marriage is traditionally a religious thing between man and woman in pretty much all world religions.

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

cwrn- Marriage, in my eyes, is a religious thing. If the government watns to give legal rights to gay couples that they give to married couples (such as medical consent, which we discussed) then I wouldn't mind.

Well, that's the problem, isn't it? Gay people aren't really bothering with the churches. They want the legal rights and have yet to get them.

However, I think the reason lots of people are concerned about allowing gays to marry is because marriage is traditionally a religious thing between man and woman in pretty much all world religions.

So?

Gays getting married in no way affects those religious marriages. It by no means diminishes the bond of those marriages.

What you're basically saying is "People are upset because they want marriage all to themselves", if I'm correct in my reading of what you said.

 

But at the root level, when it is mired in the concept of rights, marriage is essentially a legal institution, and nothing more. Anyone can be married under whatever faith (or lack thereof) they see fit, but the marriage isn't binding until recognized by the State. So, moral and religious rationales are moot, and the fundamental concern is one of legal codification.

 

Right on.

 

OOH.the Irony.....

Robert Baden-Powel...founder of the boy scouts...WAS A PEDOPHILE!!!!! And he did not really hide it. He was not gay...he was a PEDOPHILE......would that mean he would not be allowed to be a boy scout today......????

Yes folks..that is right..the very founder of the Boy Scouts...diddled with little boys.

 

Oh, that's right - I had forgotten about that. It's probably *why* he started the Boy Scouts. *shakes head*

 

How about we just do away with the concept of legal marriage? It is not like marriage, or people staying married is at an all time high. Divorces are through the roof, bastard children no longer live under the social stigma that it used to. I think 1/3 of all children born today in the US fall within this area, less than 1% of the women who are married each year CLAIM to be a virgin.

Why should we continue the institution on a legal basis? Allow those who want to become "married" for whatever religous reason they choose, let them keep whatever protections they have now, and extend to those who live together, regardless of sex those same guarantees.

EDIT: Almost 3 years, and FINALLY...1,000 posts!!!!!

 

I think the whole thing is illogical when you really think about it, but who ever said the human race was logical?

 

Why should we continue the institution on a legal basis? Allow those who want to become "married" for whatever religous reason they choose, let them keep whatever protections they have now, and extend to those who live together, regardless of sex those same guarantees.

There's nothing wrong with marriage. If people want to commit to each other, in a religious ceremony, or simply through a civil marriage, why shouldn't they be able to? If they get divorced, that's unfortunate, but half of people who get married stay married, so obviously it works for them. Those who don't are probably marrying for the wrong reasons, but that doesn't mean marriage as a non-religious institution should be done away with.

 

Darthmomm, I know the issue of pedophelia is one you feel strongly about, but if you could leave it out of this discussion, it would be greatly appreciated.

 

with all due respect Knight..I was simply commenting on the very begining of the thread...which very often mentioned the boy scouts. I did not see a warning message from you or any other mods..I am sorry if I missed it.

 

That's true, it does mention the boy scouts. However, I don't quite see the necessity in linking pedophelia to it.