• S E X
    L O V E +
    R E L A T I O N S H I P S


    ❤️ Welcome Guest! ❤️


    Posting Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • SLR Moderators: Senior Staff

gay marriages (merged)

The Bush amendment won't be passed; it's just a way for him to bolster support on the right.

However, I also believe that the DEFINITION of the word "marriage" is as between a man and woman, WITH religious connotations and all that jazz. Therefore "gay marriage" to me is not a real term. I think that's what the president also believes, but I'm not sure.

I also have no problems whatsoever with gays, except for their propensity to spend their lives fighting for stuff like this. That's for another thread, but it sounds like gays want 2 things, 1. the public "declaration of love" that heterosexuals achieve through marriage, and 2. the tax breaks etc. that might occur in a marriage. Why would a "commitment ceremony" that uses another word, ANY other word besides marriage/matrimony whatever be so bad? Given my believe that "gay marriage" isn't a real term anyway, it makes sense to me.

Oh, and the reason conservatives are pissed (damn I SOUND a lot more cons. here than I really am) is that accepting the term "gay marriage" and having it sancioned by the state would INSTITUTIONALIZE the philosophy that marriage has nothing to do with gender. This means, that in 100 years it would be so commonplace that people wouldn't even think of marriage as "between a man and woman" or as "holy matrimony." THAT is what gays WANT to have happen and it's what conservatives sure as hell DON'T want to ever see.

The whole constitutional amendment thing is conservatives trying to use the recent tactics of the ACLU against them. It you can't beat 'em, join 'em, right? No one's going to read a post with this much text this far down the thread, but whatever LOL.
 
So, just to be clear, I think it's not really about "I'm gay and I love Bill so much I just HAVE to be able to use the word marriage with us," it's about "I'm gay and I want the nation to have a broad cultural change where eventually the word "marriage" does NOT mean between man and woman."

That's why you won't EVER see gays agree to use ANY other word. Sorry my previous post was just a little dense.

So all these post about "how does it hurt you" and "what does it matter" are just misdirections.
 
so was it wrong when the fight against slavery stated "i want the nation to have a broad cultural change where eventually the word 'land owner' dos NOT mean wealthy white males".....

(im hoping i am not offending anyone by some of my comparisons, but i believe that denying gays rights as americans is just as offensive as segregation/ denying rights to people who were "different" was....

and i believe the reason you will not see homosexuals use any other word is because they feel strongly that they should be accepted as "married"... not because they want to be total dicks about it.....
 
Joseph- Don't come in here trying to preach that crap just because nobody in CE&P will believe that non-sense.

There is absolutely no correlation between two CONSENTING ADULTS, wheather straight gay or whatever as marrying a child or an object that can't consent. As for polygamous marriages there are direct reasons how this would affect society greatly, same-sex marriages on the other hand do not.
 
There is absolutely NOTHING in common between slavery and gay marriage. Except maybe to people who want to appeal to extreme emotion.

You should never bring up things like Slavery or the Nazis unless there's a very compelling similarity. Comparing the issue of gay marriage to the issue of slavery is like comparing the insurgence in Haiti to WWII.

Homosexuals want to change the definition of the word, something I completely disagree with.

Again, I repeat I have ZERO problems with homosexuals using ANY OTHER WORD and enjoying ALL of the benefits. Why NOT just use another word??

EDIT: ash01e, i.e., if they had all the "benefits" of the union without the actual word, why doesn't that constitute acceptance?

To me it's like changing the word "Christmas" to also mean Hanakkah. (sp?) We don't do that because each word ALREADY HAS sacred meaning to certain groups of people. The only difference in this case is there is not yet a "new word" for the union of gays.
 
Last edited:
actually with the statement you made about "I'm gay and I want the nation to have a broad cultural change where eventually the word "marriage" does NOT mean between man and woman." im pretty sure thats along the same lines of the arguments people made about making cultural changes in order to allow african americans to have the same rights as whites, and ending slavery/ segregation (yes i know 2 different time periods, BUT the same issues involving not allowing people in america to share the same rights as everyone else just because they are different....) which is why i brought it up because laws WERE changed in order to allow african amercians the same freedoms as whites (and some people stated above about changing laws, etc)... is it fair to say we can change laws to accept one group of people, but not accept others because of their beliefs and lives? i dont think it is... i think everyone should be accepted equally no matter who they are, and that it is not right to discriminate and deny rights to people just because of race, sexuality, or whatever else....

america is supposedly the land of the free, but to me, the definition of "the free" is "those who share the same beliefs, practices, etc. of the majority"- ie, christian, straights biggots who feel they need to push their ways of lives onto everyone else.....
 
JosephTHeSequel said:
I understand what it is, but it will start this country down a path I really dont want to see, a country which should be based on traditional family values. If gay marriage becomes legal, you can use the exact same basis to support polygmous marriages, marriages based on incest, or marriage with someone underage. Screw laws that are laready there because activist judges and rebel mayors already decided we dont have to follow them.
Click to expand...

You need to get a new argument - you keep using the same incest/underage/poly crap, and it's old.

Also - fuck traditional family values! This country does not have a "traditional" family left in it - everything has changed so much each decade, and we as a culture, should reflect that. We cannot cling to old ideas that no longer work for us as a nation.
 
It's WORLDS different!!!

I don't "own" several gay people who pick tobacco out on my front lawn while i whip them, feed them slop, and give them only unfashionable burlap to wear!!! Sheezus... COMPLETELY different dynamic at work here!

Marriage would never exist without religion, at its very core it's a religious construct and a religious idea. So to me, "marriage" simply does not apply to gays, in the same way having a barmitzvah does not apply to me. (since I'm not Jewish) So I don't go around lamenting about how I don't have equal rights of a Jew because I can't have a "recognized" barmitzvah.

However, I thoroughly believe that any additional benefits (taxes, etc) that occur because of marriage should also apply to gay unions. In the same way I can go out and have the essence of a barmitzvah, it's just not CALLED that. I could call it anything I want. Just like gays can call it anything but "marriage."
 
Matrimony isn't necessary 'holy' in the christian or jewish sense of the word. A testiment to this is the number of pagans/athiests/agnostics/ect who are happilly married. Therefore you can't ban gay marraiges by saying it's a religious institution because it simply isn't. And without religious reasons I don't see how gay marraiges could be illegal, it's almost as if they'll have to change the constitution to keep them illegal..........
 
If the state had the power to "marry" any pagans/athiests/agnostics, it did so because of the historical christian underpinnings of our country. So, those people were essentially exploiting a loophole in the system, and hardly serve as a "testament" to anything.

This issue is not about "rights." (gays *should* have them)
It's not about "two people loving each other"
It's not about "but how does it affect you"

I agree it's extremely wrongheaded not to give gay unions all the same rights as straight unions. (marriages) But I'm convinced gays won't stop there, it's not what they're REALLY after.

What they want is to destroy the portion of the meaning of the word "marriage" that is "exclusively between man and woman." Simply because marriage started with religion and that is it's tradition, I personally am opposed to this destruction of meaning. And that's ALL I'm opposed to :)
 
if you read what im actually talking about im comparing the THOUGHTS many people had towards african americans during slavery and segregation (as in they were denied many rights because they were not the "ideal" of an american during those times).... i KNOW that they are not the exact same issue, but in a way, it is similar in the fact of DISCRIMINATION... THAT is what i am getting at...

i also responded to a post about changing laws, and i just stated that laws had been changed before in order to not discriminate in the past, and that it is no different than if it were to happen now....
 
yes yes...people who discriminate against homosexuals are similar to people who discriminate against blacks...we get it. and discrimination is wrong, we get that too. But bringing up THE most abhorrent form of discrimination the country has ever known (ie, oppose gay marriage? why that's like slavery!!) and comparing it to this is nothing more than an emotional appeal. And unnecessary, as most people on this board agree with you.

So...you think my view (in the above post) is discriminatory? How about addressing the idea that gays get 100% equal rights but simply cannot use the word "marriage" ?
 
ibizakat said:
Who said anything about these marriages being performed by churches?

Plenty of people are married by non-religious ceremonies - ever heard of a justice of the peace? Guess what they do - perform marriages. If a church has problems marrying gays, then they don't have to. It's their choice. Just like some churches won't marry one of their members to a member of another church. BUT if two people want to get married, they should be able to go down to the Justice of the Peace's office and get a marriage license giving them the rights that they deserve as citizens of the united states. It's so simple. The religion argument is simply invalid - marriage as we're discussing here is in the eyes of the law, not in the eyes of the christian god. First we need legal marriage rights for homosexuals, THEN they can start petitioning their churches or found their own churches if they want to be united in the eyes of the god and/or gods that they subscribe to. That's a completely different issue, and not one that's really even debatable, except within the church itself.

In case you didn't realize this, it isn't the church ceremony that makes a marriage legal - it's the marriage license, issued by the state. Why can't the state issue marriage licenses to two people of the same sex?

(sorry about the rant. this issue REALLY gets me fired up.)
Click to expand...

Did you even read my original post? Yeah try it.
 
I think homosexuals should be allowed to marry as you described it. Just not in a religious ceremony where they are not welcome
 
^^^
i thought jesus loves everyone and god accepts all his children and those who attend church.... or is that just another part of the hypocracy of christianity?
 
my personal opinion - what get most gay's panties in a twist (im allowed to say it like that, im gay mwahaha) is that they arent given the same rights in their union that a straight couple would through marriage.

if a commitment ceremony granted participants the same rights as a marriage, i highly doubt there would be all this fuss. a lot of what annoys people on the issue is when it comes to the times where things go wrong... say a couple living together for the past 50 years, one of them dies... the remaining partner does not get looked after the same way a widow of a marriage would be by the government.

its really about equal rights, not so much the word marriage i guess.

...and on the topic of some churches to not perform the ceremonies, i doubt they have a problem performing them for straight couples that dont believe in god at all... jsut in interesting side-comment i thought...
 
ash01e said:
^^^
i thought jesus loves everyone and god accepts all his children and those who attend church.... or is that just another part of the hypocracy of christianity?
Click to expand...

Okay for a start God loves all equally if they recognise their sins and repent for those sins. He still loves you if don't repent of course. (this is my interpretation and those of the church I used to follow)

But if you live in a state of sin (one of which is defined in the bible as homosexual union - see Leviticus 18:22 I think it is) and continue to live that way as if it is righteous, flouting God's law..... well thats like screaming abuse at God.

Plus a million people can attend church, if none of them believes then none of them is Christian.
 
little_vandal said:
if a commitment ceremony granted participants the same rights as a marriage, i highly doubt there would be all this fuss. a lot of what annoys people on the issue is when it comes to the times where things go wrong... say a couple living together for the past 50 years, one of them dies... the remaining partner does not get looked after the same way a widow of a marriage would be by the government.

its really about equal rights, not so much the word marriage i guess.
Click to expand...

Thankyou :) +1

...and on the topic of some churches to not perform the ceremonies, i doubt they have a problem performing them for straight couples that dont believe in god at all... jsut in interesting side-comment i thought... [/B]
Click to expand...

Thats a 'don't ask don't tell' kind of occurence. Any atheist couple wishing to get married would, I would assume, go and get a certificate off a marriage celebrant rather than a costly church wedding for a deity they don't believe it. A priest would be unable to tell if an atheist couple were atehist unless they told him. I'd assume he wouldn't marry them if that were so. But if two women come in and want to get hitched, its a little different-looking.
 
i found this essay online to be interesting regarding same sex relationships http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marj.htm in the bible, and how translation and interpretation varies on this topic.... and also notes 3 different same sex relationships in the bible....

if you want to pull out the bible card (ie, saying that whatever the bible says is law) once my crazy family leaves and i have time to brush up on my research, i will start spouting out things stated in the bible as being "abominations" that noone even takes seriously anymore, yet they are stated as being wrong (and since it is written in the bible it must be right)... i took a college course called "sex, sexuality and the bible" at a catholic university, and one thing that stood out to me is that no matter how hard one tries to look into the issue condemning homosexuality, there is no way to prove what is exactly meant in the passages that are translated as "homosexuality is wrong"

leviticus 18:22 http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm this has the many different translations used in different bibles about this passage, and notes the difference in interpretations......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top