• 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)

LiquidEyes............I may have misunderstood his point, but I felt he was more concerned with the idea of forcing the church to have to "marry" gays than what the term would be.
Maybe mellow could elaborate on this further for us. I can understand the concept of not wanting Churches forced into doing something they dont believe in, but I really dont think that that should be a reason for denying gay persons the chance to be married. You dont need a church to get married.
As for the word itself...........as I said before, A rose by any other name is still a rose but to be honest I dont think the word itself specifically means that it can only be used by people who are wed in a church..........its surely just a general term that applies to the siogning of a bit of paper by two parties.


Not being up on American history, Im wondering if someone can help me here..........Is it possible, and I suspect it is, that Black Americans were not permitted at some stage to be married in a church???
The reason I bring this up is that, I assume, they now would be and I think that helps us to see that the world is constantly changing and updating its moral fibres and becoming a much more honest society in many ways.

I suspect that with time, our race will be looking back on these days with wonder and amazement that many couldnt accept the concept of men loving men and women loving women.............in much the same way that i look back and wonder what on earth was in my ancestors heads that they couldnt accept Black people as being absolute equals.

I truly believe this day will come, unfortunately it takes time to rid the world of its silly prejudices.
 
michael - of course I read other posts, and several folks posted SO much that deserves reflection and a thorough reply (especially yourself, liquideyes, and DD) that I couldn't do it justice without taking some time to reflect. Which I'm still doing ... but I'll post a couple of other things for the time being for people who consider me a "bigot" because I am not in the least bit proud or stuck-up, actually very much the opposite. (Though I'll be the first to admit I'm often confusing in the way I communicate...something I hate but try to work on.)

-- I regard all humans as of equal worth. After working in corporate america, I honestly think I'm in the minority on that. I think of a CEO or the pope as fundamentally equal to a homeless person...gay or straight. I therefore attempt to show the same amount of respect to all people...which gets awkward at times. Just because I might disagree with someone's lifestyle, choices, or opinions does not mean I regard them as subhuman.

-- I believe that homosexuality is most likely partially or wholly genetic. So there's no need to try to convince me that homosexuality is an inborn trait, because I already agree. I'm not sure why all that was posted in the first place, but hopefully this will save us some text going forward.

-- I feel that homosexuals should have all the same material rights as heterosexuals, which I've communicated many times. I just feel (as I'll post later) , that if everyone already had all the same material rights, the desire of gays to use the term "marriage" is more an assault on an institution than it is a defense of any rights. It might also be helpful to note that I'm not religious or married and probably never will be.

-- I didn't mean to imply anything regarding the existence of a heavenly phallus. I an not currently religious, although I have an interest in spirituality. (especially due to my stance on morality) After surveying the major world religions, the act of Christ stands out to me as more meaningful than the others. It just resonates more with me, even though I respect the philosophies of most of the others.

-- "The Times": I've noticed that something fundamentally different about me (for better or worse) is that I don't believe in the concept of "the times." People say "change with the times" as if to imply that these sweeping changes occur that humans are powerless against. Well, barring natural disasters, the natural world around us doesn't really change. Groups of people (societies) might change their behavior, and these changes might be incorrectly attributed to some imaginary force called "the times," but the truth is that those societies are - keyword - responsible...for changes they might have wrought. People responsible for their actions, imagine that.

-- Morality - yes I truly believe that if something's moral, it was always moral. If it's not, it never was. Although we can certainly be wrong about what morality is at any given time. Notice everything said in response to my post about morality has been a "social" objection. Eg, saying god dammit IN PUBLIC. Or, whether it's "frowned upon" to smoke tobacco? Frowned upon by WHO? We're all adults here, no one's telling us what to do. Who cares what OTHER PEOPLE think of it? If it's moral, it's moral regardless of what other people think, and vice-versa. If your only concern is what other people think, there is no TRUE morality because you'll do whatever you can get away with. "Everything is permitted." It should be obvious now why I believe that if there's no afterlife, there's no morality.

-- I also hate political correctness. I hate politics. I could probably write three books on why I hate politics, but I'll try to summarize lol. 1. Politicians are fake, posturing, actors. They remind me of referrees for pro wresting. "Now let's shake hands and pretend we're having a great time so everyone thinks we're capital fellows!" Blah. 2. Politics and legal proceedings (and to a large extent, this thread) go something like this. You are exposed to an issue, you have a kneejerk reaction to that issue, and then you spend your time trying to find facts and arguments to "prove" your side of the issue. No one ever seems to me to be open-minded enough. 3. Closely related to #2, politics is all about me me me. Regardless of whether people think something is "right," they basically vote for whatever helps their personal case the most. If they proposed a new tax break for people with kids, guess who would support it? Guess who would oppose it? No one would even consider whether it was a good idea for the country, in and of itself.

-- Also, please don't try to belittle my logic skills. I damn near aced the LSAT a few years ago which is nothing BUT logical skill. Ironically I also approached a symbolic logic professor once, but after we spoke he didn't think I would be interested in the course, so I didn't take it. I might be a bit rusty here on bl, but I wasn't initially prepared for anything like this thread when I first clicked on "gay marriages" while pissing away time on the net :)
 
^ For my part, I've never thought of you as a bigot - in fact, you're a fairly forward-thinking person, and quite rational... that's why your attitude towards this suprises me...

I'm just curious (not particularly about you, but about all intelligent people like yourself on the opposing side) - why does it feel like gays are 'assaulting' the marriage institution? What makes it so precious that it needs to be protected from change? Why does it personally bother you?

I mean, I myself simply have an attitude of "what harm would it do to have a married gay couple living next to me rather than a single gay couple?" and I also put myself in their shoes... "how would I feel if I happened to love someone of the same sex... so deeply I wanted to marry them, just like my parents were able to?"

You could argue that marriage is practically just a formality now anyway, and it's rarely held as "sacred" as it used to be in light of the divorce statistics ;) Still, homosexual couples are as seduced by tradition as we all are, and they desperately want to be able to make the same decisions (mistakes?) their straight brothers and sisters do. To me, it feels like denying a boy child a doll if he wants a doll, just because dolls are a "girl toy".

I just find it fascinating that people have such polarised attitudes, like it's going to affect them personally... like it's anything close to a big deal, really.
 
SLM:

I'm about to sleep, but here is why IF everyone had the same material rights (which isn't even true currently) it's an assault, bearing in mind the key fulcrum point above about civic versus religious union. I'm mostly contrasting two options - 1. homosexuals and heterosexuals can all be married alike, and 2. hetero union is called marriage and gay union is called something else. (separate traditions) Even though this provokes rhetoric about "separate but equal" from the days of slavery, in reality I think it's nothing alike. It's more like Easter versus Passover.

-- Why I believe in option 2 instead of option1:

Essentially my argument hinges on marriage being a very arbitrary subjective religious tradition. As opposed to a fundamental "right" and event in everyone's lives like death, taxes, puberty, and graduating high school. That's the best way I know to express it. I might have to clarify later, but we'll see. Moving on...

Marriage is essentially a religious tradition that has meant "bride and groom" for thousands of years at least. So I can't see how there was ever any reason for gays to envy or aspire to marriage.
I believe that for every gay person all this time that has aspired to marriage and envied the "right" that heterosexuals "enjoy," hundreds more have resented the practice, even hated it, and would love nothing more than to see it disappear. Because it's not like graduating high school, and it's not like puberty; homosexuals are not "missing out" on anything by not getting married.

Of all the gay couples today that would oppose option 2 above, maybe a small percentage are religious and actually want nothing more than to publicly declare their love under god consistent with the existing tradition. But let's get real here. I'd put down good money that the vast vast majority of this group (that would reject separate traditions) wants to *hurt* marriage. They want to transform a religious ideal meant to inform and direct a certain way of life into a maybe-religious-but-maybe-not civic "practice" that's open to all people of all genders and all lifestyles. Eventually, the "old" tradition of marriage would disappear and would be thought of as an archaic, religious, and bigoted practice that was "wrong" because it didn't include gays until 2004.

But WHY? That's the key question. Why on earth would gays WANT to embrace a tradition which has never previously involved them? They wouldn't! But it's easy to see why they might want to destroy it, or better yet replace it with their own version. Or at least, as Venus says, "shake things up a bit." This is consistent with what we're seeing today. People flaunting the law and performing illegal marriages to shake things up. People posting in the lounge "who wants to go to San Fran with me to fuck with marriage."

Like I said, I'm sleepy, a poor communicator, and I already posted too much since I will post responses to other posts (which I supposedly don't read) later. But I think it's pretty obvious that the VAST majority of gays would reject option 2 simply want to fuck with the tradition. It's not that they just adore the tradition and want to participate fully. They DON'T LIKE the tradition, and if they can sell the country on the idea of changing it, they will.
 
TheWord: I agree with nearly everything you said in your post at the top of this page (13-03-2004 06:25).

But as for this notion of "destroying" marriage... (by changing the definition subtley) I strongly disagree.

I guess it comes down to whether you think marriage is fundamentally for straight people, just because it "always has been".

In my eyes, there are the crucial, defining, core elements of marriage:
* that two people are publicly declaring their love;
* that they plan to stay together forever;
* to share all their possessions etc...
* (and in the case of "proper" religious marriage) that it is done in the face of God.

...and there are the incidental matters - if you like the "technicalities":
* that it tends to be between two straight people
* that you wed in a Church
* that you exchange rings etc...

I would argue that you can change the technicalities without altering the core aspects of marriage - as far as I'm concerned, "changing the rules" to allow gay marriage amounts to nothing more than saying a bride "doesn't have to wear white".

In a way it would be a good way of "keeping with the times" (oops sorry mate! ;)) if the Church admitted that it wouldn't really be a violation of their core religious principles to admit (1) God loves everyone equally; (2) that yeah, maybe there are some contradictions in the Bible; (3) marriage is not foremost about sexuality - it's about love; (4) maybe just maybe, some of the stuff in the Bible is there because certain people, several hundred/thousand years ago, were not very open-minded when they wrote it.

Ignoring the silly bits of the Bible, e.g. that say you should stone gays / adulterers / chicken-rapists alike, I think it's fair to say that the definition of marriage as a straight thing is an oversight rather than a fundamental decision. The Bible doesn't specifically say that gay people can get married, but it doesn't specifically say that inter-racial marriage is okay either, and I don't think anyone is seriously advoating prohibition of that right.

Disclaimer: by saying "keeping with the times" I mean nothing more than "admitting that tradition, for its own sake, cannot be used to justify absolutely everything in life". :)
 
Im againts gayness at 99% in any question .
For me , it should be prohibited to show gayness in public because it badly effect the whole community .

I have nothing againts fags as long as they don't show themself .
They can do whatever they want in thier house , playing with each other dick if they want 8) .

All this gaypride crap is not good for kids . I don't think its normal when kids see 2 fags kissing each other on tv .


ANd finaly , i don't understand how they can be proud , they are for sure retarded or they got a brain damage . Anyway , to be sexualy oriented on the same side , your brain got a damage for sure .


Gayness is a sickness , and i expect to see a cure before 2050 .
 
^^

Hello ignorance and intolerance. Thankyou for your views... please educate yourself about oh say genetics and science before bandying about the old bullshit homosexuality is a disease thing.

I am proud to be a person, and that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I am gay. This kind of useless intolerance pretty much makes me sick.

Thankyou, please don't come again...
 
DMX said:
Im againts gayness at 99% in any question .
For me , it should be prohibited to show gayness in public because it badly effect the whole community .

I have nothing againts fags as long as they don't show themself .
They can do whatever they want in thier house , playing with each other dick if they want 8) .

All this gaypride crap is not good for kids . I don't think its normal when kids see 2 fags kissing each other on tv .


ANd finaly , i don't understand how they can be proud , they are for sure retarded or they got a brain damage . Anyway , to be sexualy oriented on the same side , your brain got a damage for sure .


Gayness is a sickness , and i expect to see a cure before 2050 .
Click to expand...


DMX.

Are you aware that you are illiterate?
Are you aware that this probably means that you have brain damage?
Anyway to be that illiterate, your brain must be damaged surely.
Please do not have kids because you may pass on your illiteracy to them.
To be honest I dont think illiterate people should be allowed to show there face in public. Its not good for kids to see it or they may copy you.
Never mind, I expect to see a cure soon for you.


Now DMX........those calls above are all fair based on your logic. Hardly fair is it??

Now maybe you would like to think about it for a little while and then having re-assessed your position, come back and alert us to the fact that you have seen the light.

By the way, learning and continually changing your own ideas about things is a sign of intelligence..........I look forward to your enlightened post.
 
DMX said:
...your brain got a damage for sure .
Click to expand...

:)


DMX said:
Gayness is a sickness , and i expect to see a cure before 2050 .
Click to expand...

if there's any justice, you will come down with a bad case of the "gay" (for which, incidently, there is no cure)...

alasdair
 
DMX said:
Im againts gayness at 99% in any question .
For me , it should be prohibited to show gayness in public because it badly effect the whole community .
Click to expand...

Tell me about it, a gay couple made out in Sarajevo a few years ago, and we all know how quickly that society went down the crapper...

Ever heard of the two guys holding hands on September 10th 2001? Well, we all know the tragic consequences of that.

This shit affects the whole community!!

8)

--- G.
 
The sanctity of marriage...

I'm not sure why George Bush gets to say that gay marriage would destroy the "sanctity of marriage." Gay marriage is no different than regular marriage... If he's so concerned about the "sanctity" of his holy institution he should outlaw divorce. He, and all his conservative buddies, rant on and on about how horrible it is for gay people to commit to each other in healthy relationships while Britney Spears is making another million dollars off the press from her 55 hour mock wedding to a childhood friend. I'd like to know what everyone else thinks about gay marriage. Should it be allowed or not? And why? Since I'm pro-gay marriage, i'd especially like to hear some cogent arguments against it. (If you're against it, don't tell me it's because being gay is "wrong." That's not a valid reason. We live in the United States. Our CONSTITUTION protects our rights to have whatever sexual orienation we want. If you disagree with homosexuality, that's too bad. Just cuz you don't like it doesn't mean other people don't have the right to it. That would be the same as if my religion required me to listen to country music all day in my house but then you told me i have to turn it off just because you don't like country music. What goes on in people's bedrooms is none of anyone else's business according to the document that runs this country.) Now let's see what you all have to say...:)
 
This thread grew so fast I never took the time to read everyone's opinions, and in turn never posted to it. So I'll post to kittyinthedark's post, and try to get around to reading the rest later.

I'll start by saying I do not support a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, and really I think it's just fine all around. Gay people want to get married go for it.

I also agree that Jo Lo, and Britney do more to damage the "sanctity of marriage" than homosexuals.

Beyond that I want someone to explain to me how the word sanctity can be used in the reasoning of any constitutional amendment.

Sanctity
1 : holiness of life and character : GODLINESS
2 a : the quality or state of being holy or sacred :

Now last time I check one of the tenants of our government was a division of church and state. So why would we ever write an amendment to protect the sanctity of anything? The state should not be deciding what is holy/godly and what is not. It's a recipe for disaster.

Now just to play devil's advocate, let me tell you the reasoning old Bush should be using. Marriages recognized by the state are intended to facilitate procreation, and stabilize environments for raising children. Since gay couple can not procreate there is no reason to recognize there marriages.

I've got counter argument for that, but I'll let you play with it instead.
 
Wow, I've read through this entire long ass post. I am amazed about how in-depth this got, but it's not a big surprise, it's a huge human rights issue.

Digital Duality & Michael You guys are the light in this dark discussion (amongst others too) :)

Here is my stance after reading all this...

IF Marraige is a RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION then ?WHY? do STATES get involved w/ adding tex/insurance benefits. I was under the impression that the U.S. does NOT mix CHURCH & STATE, but aparently Marraige is an exception? Since the government has already changed Marraige in the way that it's incorporated it into a nation that supports EVERYONE who is a citizen (including Homosexuals) then shouldn't (if marraige is now a state issue) marraige be extended to Homosexuals with the same name as it already has?

I just don't understand how it's ok for the government to allow church & state to mix for heterosexuals but for homosexuals it should be separated & segregated into a "civil union"

Oh and btw....so if gays are only allowed to have Civil Unions then what the fuck do they say to someone who asks them are you two together? Are they supposed to say "we are unified"...fuck Marraige is a word & a concept. Like said before in this thread, concepts CHANGE.

Hmmmmm I could be out-stepping my bounds here by making this comment but...

Does anyone else find that it's so dumb that society is still argueing over religion (if any) when we don't fucking know WHICH religion is actually factual, and that we are letting these unproven instututions run everyones lives EVEN those who don't give into the whole religious deal?

Also one more thing. How come heterosexuals who aren't religious and don't believe in god can get married in churches, temples etc (sp?) can be unfied but homosexuals cannot? I thought that if you do not believe in god you shouldn't be able to use these "religious institutions???"

....Time for sleep.
 
Dan1584(2) said:
How come heterosexuals who aren't religious and don't believe in god can get married in churches, temples etc
Click to expand...
Quite. If anything, this, and divorce, are much more of an infringement on the "sanctity of marriage" than something trivial like allowing gays to marry.

Also, I would argue that NOT allowing gays to marry is much more of an infringement on their rights, than ALLOWING gays to marry is an infringement on the supposed "sanctity" of marriage (which is basically just an excuse for blatant bigotry). But of course these factors are not quantifiable so it's rather subjective!

Like you said - the word "marriage" has changed in meaning - deal with it!
 
The Word said:
Marriage is essentially a religious tradition that has meant "bride and groom" for thousands of years at least. So I can't see how there was ever any reason for gays to envy or aspire to marriage.
Click to expand...

This is simply because marriage does not mean "Bride and Groom" as you have defined. Look at the wedding vows exchanged at a typical ceremony. Usually the bride could read the groom's vows and the groom could read the bride's and nothing would change - just a rephrasing of how the two love eachother.

Marriage means so much more than simply "bride and groom". It means giving yourself to your partner and sharing the rest of your life with them. It means making a choice to show the world that you and your partner intend to grow old together. It shows that you are not involved in some simple dating relationship, but something more.

I believe that for every gay person all this time that has aspired to marriage and envied the "right" that heterosexuals "enjoy," hundreds more have resented the practice, even hated it, and would love nothing more than to see it disappear. Because it's not like graduating high school, and it's not like puberty; homosexuals are not "missing out" on anything by not getting married.
Click to expand...

I don't hate marriage, I hate only the fact that we are not able to participate in this important practice. I definately would not like to see it dissapear. Do you think heterosexuals would be "missing out" if they were denied the right to get married as well. If you are that blase' about it then who cares if marriage disappeared? I WOULD! Marriage is so much more than just a religious institution.

Of all the gay couples today that would oppose option 2 above, maybe a small percentage are religious and actually want nothing more than to publicly declare their love under god consistent with the existing tradition. But let's get real here. I'd put down good money that the vast vast majority of this group (that would reject separate traditions) wants to *hurt* marriage. They want to transform a religious ideal meant to inform and direct a certain way of life into a maybe-religious-but-maybe-not civic "practice" that's open to all people of all genders and all lifestyles. Eventually, the "old" tradition of marriage would disappear and would be thought of as an archaic, religious, and bigoted practice that was "wrong" because it didn't include gays until 2004.
Click to expand...

I am anything but religious but I would LOVE to get married a man. This has nothing to do with religious traditions. I want to be able to show the world that I am in love and that i would like to spend the rest of my life with this person. I do NOT want to HURT marriage, I want to celebrate marriage for what it is - the celebration of love between two people who love eachother. Marriage has changed an incredible amount over the centuries, why shouldn't it be able to change now? Years ago, a prodestant person could not marry a jew. An atheist couldn't marry a muslim... Hell, a catholic person couldn't marry anyone but another catholic person, right? Imagine having to tell all these people that because their do not follow a religious ideal they instead have to get a civil union. This does not convey the true meaning of a marriage - LOVE. A civil union sounds like a legal contract not a declaration of love.


But WHY? That's the key question. Why on earth would gays WANT to embrace a tradition which has never previously involved them? They wouldn't! But it's easy to see why they might want to destroy it, or better yet replace it with their own version. Or at least, as Venus says, "shake things up a bit." This is consistent with what we're seeing today. People flaunting the law and performing illegal marriages to shake things up. People posting in the lounge "who wants to go to San Fran with me to fuck with marriage."
Click to expand...

Why would women want to vote after a tradition (spanning from ancient greece) that had never perviously involved them?

Don't take posts in the lounge so seriously. Especially as this is a serious issue.

But I think it's pretty obvious that the VAST majority of gays would reject option 2 simply want to fuck with the tradition. It's not that they just adore the tradition and want to participate fully. They DON'T LIKE the tradition, and if they can sell the country on the idea of changing it, they will.
Click to expand...

How many gay couples do you know that have been together for several years that simply want to participate in this cultural tradition? I can assure you that we do not want to change ANYTHING, except allowing two grooms or two brides.

MARRIAGE IS ABOUT LOVE
 
I strongly believe that people can do what ever they want. NO ONE! and i mean NO ONE! should be able to tell some one different. Thats the problem with this world in the first place other people are trying to decide what someone else can do with their life. You would want someone to tell what to do so why would you?Its sad that with all the things going on in the world like the war in iraq and how our soldiers are dieing and some of them don't even believe in the cause he can pick what someone is doing in their own home and make that more important than pulling our men and women out of their before their all dead:p im glad he has so much time on his and that he would rather fret over something he really has no control over then to care about one of the things he does:p personally that how you know you have a problem when the i'm wants to start dictating what goes on inside your bedroom. While he is trying to ban gay marriage he might as well ban LOVE cause thats what its really about two people who LOVE each other :)
 
The Word said:
Marriage is essentially a religious tradition that has meant "bride and groom" for thousands of years at least. So I can't see how there was ever any reason for gays to envy or aspire to marriage.
Click to expand...
This is a very shallow argument. Getting married isn't about the "status" or "tradition" of being called "bride and groom" - it's about publicly declaring your LOVE!

Your statement is a bit like saying: "Marriage is essentially a tradition that has meant the bride wearing white for hundreds of years. So I can't see why anyone would want to get married in a black dress."

In other words, the superfluous details of the marriage - whether it is between a Catholic and a Jew, whether it is between a white man and a black woman, whether the couple choose to wear pink on their wedding day, whether it is between a man and another man, etc. - have no impact on the core meaning of marriage.

Fuck tradition - so often it's just an excuse for bigotry.
 
thanks liquidEyes i personally dont plan on wearing white for my wedding and neither do a couple of my friends. some traditions shouldnt be broken but if thats what makes people different and happy then why stop them everyone deserves the right to be happy and that shouldnt be taken away
 
i haven't read all of this thread yet, but i think there should be a new 'category' in the world of the union. In understanding some of the needs of the queer community due to a personal attachment, i can say that traditional marriage isn't for everyone; gay, straight, whatever. Alot of the men and women i know do not agree with the societal implications behind having a good 'ol catholic wedding. And would find being married, in the traditional sense, to be against everything they have made thier lives to stand for. On the other hand, my ex girlfriend parents are both gay and her fathers are both ministers, (yes it's the truth), so i can safely say that her family is definatley religious. I this case i would not want any of them to be denied union under their system of belief.

I guess i'm saying that the rules need to be expanded in order to include these differing needs. People of all sexualities should have the right to choose how they want their union to be "represented" by the state without having it ignored or damned because it follows a different path.

I know its not that easy but at the same time I don't understand why.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top