• 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: axe battler | xtcgrrrl | arrall

gay marriages (merged)

If they want to be together with benefits, they should call it a union. Marriage is between a man and a woman. I'm not gay bashing or hating, but that's just how I see it. I believe they should be together if they want to, why should'nt they? But it should be called a union.
 
I'm all for gay marriages or unions. (whatever you want to call it.) I just think they should have the rights of a married couple. When 2 people fall in love and want to commit and share their lives together 'til the day they die, it's beautiful and wonderful. No one should threaten that right.

Back in the old days, Blacks and Whites were not allowed to get married in some states. They were actually talking about writing up an amendment for that. Thank god it didn't go through.

Look...times change and things that used to be percieved as taboo will change.

As for the people talking about religion in this matter. Well, this is a free country, it says on our constitution that STATE and RELIGION should be seperated. So let's keep it that way.
 
This is pretty good.


i like “"If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law." (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10).”



- hey joe, why you only got one shoe on?

- awww man, my brother died and i didn’t want to marry his wife. she nasty. truth.

- dag.


Where Is My Gay Apocalypse?
Over 3,500 gay marriages and, what, no hellfire? I was promised hellfire. And riots. What gives?
By Mark Morford

I have been waiting patiently.

I have been staring with great anticipation out the window of my flat here in the heart of San Francisco, sighing heavily, waiting for the riots and the plagues and the screaming monkeys and the blistering rain of inescapable hellfire. I have my camera all ready and everything.

There has been nothing. I see only some lovely trees and a stunning blue sky and my neighbor walking by with her pair of matching chow chows as a pained-looking woman struggles to parallel park her SUV. Same old, same old.

And this is San Francisco, same-sex-marriage HQ, Sodom-and-Gomorrahville, debauchery central. We are supposed to be careening off the nice, safe road of social acceptability right now, welcoming chaos, exploding into a fiery hell mist of our own sick godless depravity and dropping off the disgusted planet any minute now.

Where is my raging apocalypse? This is what I want to know. Where is the social meltdown? The moral depravity? I was promised an apocalypse, dammit. What am I supposed to do with all these tubs of margarine and confetti and kazoos?

There have been more than 3,500 same-sex-marriage ceremonies in San Francisco so far. Hundreds more are just now kicking up a storm in Oregon and in beautifully rebellious little burgs around New York state. And, yet, nothing. No chaos. No rain of terror. Not even a lousy heat wave. Sigh.

Some homosexual couples have been married for more than three weeks now, living in utter godless sin as they drive their cars and shop and laugh and cry and go to work and pay their taxes and wonder about their dreams. Lightning has not struck them dead. The Hellmouth has not opened wide its gaping maw, hankering for some of the City's trademark Sourdough o' Sin. I am dumbfounded.

After all, same-sex marriage is supposed to ruin the nation, is it not? Induce actual rioting and civil unrest and shirtless anarchy as millions of stupefied citizens pray to a bloody pulverized Mel Gibson-y Jesus for redemption, as they suddenly begin questioning whether ogling the Pottery Barn catalog for more than 10 minutes might mean they're gay. "It's anarchy," some guy named Rick Forcier, of the Washington state chapter of the Christian Coalition, actually whined. "We seem to have lost the rule of law. It's very frightening when every community decides what laws they will obey." Why, yes, Rick. It's total anarchy. Just look at all the screaming and the bloodshed and the gunfire. Run and hide, Rick. The gay people in love are coming. And they've got tattoos and funny haircuts and want to get married and celebrate their love and be left alone. Hide the children.

This was -- and still is -- very much the right-wing sentiment. It was almost a guarantee: Same-sex marriage spelled the instantaneous end of all that is good and righteous and edible. Insurrection was imminent, apocalypse nigh. You could see it in their eyes -- they could hardly wait.

Hell, even Governator Arnie went on "Meet the Press" recently and proclaimed, semicoherently, that he was actually worried about the riots and deadly mayhem should S.F. continue with its brazen lawlessness. And look. Nothing. Not a peep. Not a single rabid spitting demon to be seen. Unless you count Lynne Cheney. Which you never, ever should.

I believe I have been misled. I was told repeatedly in extra-glowing terminology by multiple raging Bible-quoting drones that The Good Book expressly forbids same-sex marriage and gay sex, and to engage in either spells imminent doom and instant social bedlam and there are specific verses all about it.

Is this true? Are there actual verses decrying same-sex marriage? Are they anything like those other Biblical verses, about the rules and regulations surrounding marriage that are making the rounds on the Net right now? Real verses. Actual verses. Verses o' sanctimonious fun. Have you seen them?

Like this: "Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take multiple concubines in addition to his wife or wives." (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21).

Or maybe: "A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be stoned to death." (Deut 22:13-21) Isn't that cute? Isn't quoting Bible verse fun? Ask your local pastor about that one.

Or how about: "If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law." (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10). Hey, it's right there, in the Bible. So it must be true.

Is it worth showing those verses to the happily sanctimonious and sneering Christian homophobes who are protesting outside S.F. City Hall right now, telling the gay couples what depraved hell-bound sinners they all are? Nah. Why spoil their whiny apocalyptic wet dreams? Live and let live, I always say.

(Oh, and while we're at it, God also really hates shrimp. Maybe you didn't know. Shrimp are evil, as are all shrimp eaters. Clams, too. Hey, it's in the Bible. You can look it up. Why the Right is attacking homosexuals in love and not, say, Red Lobster, remains a mystery.)

So, here we are. Approaching a full month after the first of S.F.'s marriage ceremonies, and nothing. The universe is smiling madly. The world is shrugging. Anonymous supporters from all over the nation have sent flowers to hundreds of loving gay and lesbian couples. As of this writing, there is no scathing hellfire. No fanged demons of destruction (Lynne Cheney excepted). No meltdown whatsoever. I would know, right? I mean, wouldn't the power go out, or something?

Maybe it's still to come. Maybe total screaming misery and unspeakable sociocultural collapse coupled with wanton bestiality and incest and the giving away of free anal beads to innocent teenagers takes more than a month. Maybe I'm just a little impatient.

Maybe Satan is taking his sweet time to marshal his leather-clad armies, watching as other U.S. cities get in on the same-sex-marriage act, listening as mayors and governors all chime in their support and say what's the big deal. Maybe Beelzebub is waiting for a big moment so as to really leverage the coming news flash, the special report, the sudden activation of the Emergency Broadcast System. Something like:

"This just in: Earthquakes rocked the globe today as giant fire-breathing bees of death swarmed the countryside, feasting on fat white heterosexual babies mostly from Texas and Colorado Springs and Utah and Idaho, as the institution of hetero marriage careened around the mad vortex of space-time like a savage drunken pinball high on black-tar heroin, just like the Christian Right predicted.

"Horrors bled into the streets, terrorists were spawned by thousands, presidents openly lied so as to lead a nation into bloody violent unwinnable wars, thousands of Catholic priests sexually molested tens of thousands of children over a 50-year period without the slightest punishment, the environment teetered on the brink due to heartless government rollbacks as air quality and water quality and food sources were ravaged in the name of corporate profiteering, the economy crumbled like Jenna Bush after her 10th beer bong as hate and fear and bogus Orange Alerts ruled the land.

Oh wait. That was all before the same-sex-marriage thing. My bad.

SF GATE
 
The Word said:
-- I saw nothing on page 1 to refute the "if we allow x we must allow y" argument.

wow, you finally managed to raise an issue i haven't already shown to be fallacious. i'll explain it to you with a paraphrase. it meant "FOR FUCK'S SAKE WE'VE ALREADY BEEN OVER THIS MULTIPLE TIMES."

-- Tell ME why YOU are so sure it won't hurt anyone or anything?

let's reverse this - tell me how you are so sure it will hurt anything?

if there ARE meaningful institutions of polygamy or gay union, ... "what harm comes from having separate traditions?"

they are not "meaningful institutions;" they are marraiges. performed in churches by ministers, as are many gay weddings already. they fit your twisted, modern definition of marraige already.

Of course words change.

concepts change too, you know. like for example, marraige, which was originally a common law, civil affair. for some reason you think it's ok that it changed from the original but not evolve back because of changing mores.

Oh wait, except it's the exact opposite.

oh wait. it isn't. why don't you cite some evidence, as hashish2020 did?

seuss (and others), we are talking to a wall here. he's obviously not paying any attention t our posts; i am continuing to respond only in the hopes someone on the fence sees how myopic the anti-gay marraige crowd's arguments are.
 
Blaxican707 said:
If they want to be together with benefits, they should call it a union. Marriage is between a man and a woman. I'm not gay bashing or hating, but that's just how I see it. I believe they should be together if they want to, why should'nt they? But it should be called a union.

this is an arguement repeatedly trotted out by the anti crowd. let's paraphrase here:

"there's no difference, so why should it matter if it's called a union instead?"

if there's no difference, why does it need to be called something different?

why is marraige "between a man and a woman?" it's certainly not by the definition of the word, as has already been shown. it certainly has nothing to do with religion, as many modern churches formerly performed gay unions. it certainly has...

ah, fuck it. i've already shown all these things. i should just accept that some people are too insecure to realize these things.
 
Kazzy Kaz said:

Some people see homosexuality as wrong or sinful. You can't change their beleifs, because as long as they ain't hurting anyone they're not doing anything wrong (legally anyway).


I find it amazing that you think that no one is getting 'hurt' over this.

You have no idea.
 
DigitalDuality said:
We created the idea of marriage.. we can redefine anyway we want to. If that means a couple of homophobes get too scared to leave their houses.. fine. Let the fuckers rot. The world would be better of without their participation anyways.

see that sounds surprisingly like the rhetoric that the Bush government is spouting now.
 
onlysweetpea said:
I find it amazing that you think that no one is getting 'hurt' over this.

You have no idea.

so please explain. all the objections i've heard so far pretty much center around two main arguments:
  • we can't change it because this is how it's alway been
  • we can't change it because of what it will lead to
both of these arguments have been thoroughly dismantled in these forums.

i am ready and willing to listen to an argument which changes my mind on the issue on its merits - would you care to present one?

alasdair
 
Last edited:
I am yet to see an argument that will convinve me beyond my current convictions that gay marriage is a necessary/to-be-sought feature of our society.
 
Kazzy Kaz said:
Some people have a strong Christian belief that marriage should remain the way it is because it is a 'holy' institution. You can't change their beliefs nor should you be allowed to offend their beleifs by forcing things on them.

i haven't seen anyone argue that churches MUST perform gay marraiges.
 
Mellow*D said:
I am yet to see an argument that will convinve me beyond my current convictions that gay marriage is a necessary/to-be-sought feature of our society.

so, you don't think equal rights for all are neccessary in society?
 
DigitalDuality said:
hmm..no more opposition i see...

Well I actually tried to reply shortly after Strawberry_lovemuffin posted but Bluelight was undergoing some readjustment or something because it refused to post what I said. Now I've started Uni I don't have all the time in the world y'know.

Regardless of what has been said (as well-written and 'nice' as it is), funnily enough I'm still not convinced as to the merits of homosexual marriage as opposed to homosexual union. And I am bisexual so all the stuff about homosexuality being wrong is lost on me. Good for homophobes though :\

And denying all those points about homosexuality in the bible by presenting other points is useless i.e. the adultery etc. Im not trying to say the Bible is the be-all and end-all. It's just bloody easy to see it's stance on this issue.

Please come back and play.

see above.

so, you don't think equal rights for all are neccessary in society?

oh please. Tell me how a union that grants EXACTLY the same rights as a marriage would be any different in terms of granting rights? Have you even READ what I've been saying all this time???????? And obviously depriving some Christians of their right to enjoy their religion's sanctity wouldn't be wrong?

i haven't seen anyone argue that churches MUST perform gay marraiges.

Then why are people arguing with me?? lol thats the only problem I have with gay 'marriage'!!!!

Let me restate my point(s):

1. Homosexuality itself is NOT wrong
2. A Union of two loving homosexuals granted exactly the same rights as a married couple is in fact DESIRED
3. I don't believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry in churches where they are not welcome which is entirely possible were a bill to be passed allowing same-sex marriage.
 
marriages are not always performed in churches... i am married by common law, and had it notorized (in order to prove that i am married in order to get insurance, even though i have been technically "married" in the state of pennsylvania for 2 years).... it was not performed in a church, but legally i have to go through a divorce if things should not work out because i am recognized as being married...

be more specific- are you saying same sex marriages should just not be allowed in churches, or are you saying they should not be allowed period (ie, common law, justice of the peace, and any other non-church forms of marriages)...

and also, saying homosexuals are not welcome in churches is not a factual statement.... i recall seeing in the news about a bishop of the episcopal (sp?) church being the first homosexual elected into a high position in the church... and i am sure there are many homosexual priests...

and another thing, marriages are NOT strictly christian ceremonies... believe it or not, there are other religions that perform marriages... the arguments you post seem to give off the impression that you believe marriages are for christians, and christians only.....
 
well I could be arrogant and say thats the way God intended it lol but I won't because I don't believe it.

No I believe I said it clearly when I said

3. I don't believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry in churches where they are not welcome which is entirely possible were a bill to be passed allowing same-sex marriage.

And where have I said that homosexuals are not welcome in churches?
And where have I brought in other religions? But its true for them also. I would hate to be a faithful Muslim seeing a homosexual marriage under the laws of the Koran.

Homosexual 'marriage' should be allowed, just call it something else and have it performed the same way bar religious ceremony. Simple.
 
The Word said:
That is, if we make the institution of marriage less specific, let's say "any two people who love each other" or "ANY union according to ANY religion" does that mean I can marry my mother?
1. Who said anything about changing the meaning of marriage to "any union"? A more useful definition of the scope of marriage, in the context of this discussion, would be "any two consenting adults that wish to publicly their love, intent to stay together indefinitely as a couple, and thereby enjoy the state benefits of marriage [such as exemption from inheritance tax upon death of the spouse]". Whether you do so "in the presence of God" is a matter of religious standing, and whether you do so "strictly as a heterosexual couple" is a secondary matter (unless you subscribe to the bigotry cited in the Bible). In other words, why can't you accept that the original definition of "marriage" was a bit small-minded?

2. Are you equally opposed to the use of the word "marriage" to describe the state marriage of an athiest couple?

3. Your sole argument seems to be that, because the USA is historically founded on Christianity, you should stick to Christian teachings. The moral & social components of law must be inseparable from the religious elements, ergo the meaning of the word "marriage" is fixed forever. In other words, sod anyone whose beliefs aren't the same as yours!

4. Do you selectively adopt the teachings of the Bible or do you take it all at face value? For example, I can see that you are not willing to reinterpret the meaning of "marriage", on the sole basis of what it says in the Bible. Do you also accept the other teaching of the Bible quoted in this thread? E.g. that if a man shags a chicken, the chicken should be put to death?
 
Last edited:
Mellow*D it could be implied from your statement that gays are not welcome in the church, I understand that you are not saying that, but are in fact saying that gays are not welcome to be married in a church, right?

Now I am all for that as I think churches and the Christian religion are quite happily FUCKED anyway, but this begs the point about gay people who ARE religious, Catholic even, why should they be denied their faith and their love because of some misguided principle?

CB :)
 
Originally posted by Mellow*D
Regardless of what has been said...I'm still not convinced as to the merits of homosexual marriage...
...
Then why are people arguing with me??
 
Top