The Gay Marriage Controversy

[Canek]

pro-natura = looking for a couple which you are capable of procreate
anti-natura = the opposite

 

[sparkey]

pro-natura = looking for a couple which you are capable of procreate
anti-natura = the opposite

Ergo, infertile couples are "anti-natura" and should be banned from marriage. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Canek]

that's demagoguery sparkey. a children can only be made by a man and a woman, if one of them have some internal disease which makes him/her unable to procreate, well it's back luck, but their marriage is not anti-natura.

 

[sparkey]

that's demagoguery sparkey. a children can only be made by a man and a woman, if one of them have some internal disease which makes him/her unable to procreate, well it's back luck, but their marriage is not anti-natura.

Not so much demagoguery as a logical deduction from your premise. You're going to need to redefine your premise to avoid that conclusion rather than just dismissing it. It could go something like:

pro-natura = a couple able to procreate or fitting a gender pattern that typically is able to procreate
anti-natura = opposite

It still seems like an arbitrary exception to me. Neither an infertile couple nor a gay couple can produce children by natural means. Why should society favor one over the other? All I can think of is that it comes from an instinctive reaction against the one that is perceived to be unnatural, whether it is or not...

Incidentally I would strip governments of the ability to authorize marriage licenses, allowing only civil unions. Civil unions could then support whatever arrangement among consenting adults that people can come up with. Nothing immoral there--just legal contracts. Marriages would then be the responsibility of the religious bodies.

 

[Canek]

ok, i will clarify mi first statement.

pro-natura marriage = a man and a woman.
anti-natura marriage = two persons of the same sex.

 

[civillib]

Marriage shouldn't even be recognized by the state in the first place (regardless of sex orientation). Separation of church and state should trump.

Civil unions should be what the state recognizes (regardless of sex orientation).

 

[sparkey]

Marriage shouldn't even be recognized by the state in the first place (regardless of sex orientation). Separation of church and state should trump.

Civil unions should be what the state recognizes (regardless of sex orientation).

Exactly.

 

[Reinaert]

I don't agree.
The state shouldn't interfere with civil unions whatsoever!

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Period.
I can imagine the state comes up with an alternative cheap contract for alternative unions.
That may include brothers, or sisters, or whatever.
But don't call it a marriage!

 

[Aconform]

When it comes to the state then they should be able to get married like any other couple. So that they don’t have legal problems like if something happens to one the other should be able to inherit.

But I don’t think that there should be a law that forces religious institutions to marry gay couples. That would be stepping on others rights.

 

[sparkey]

I don't agree.
The state shouldn't interfere with civil unions whatsoever!

That doesn't really make sense... the point of civil unions is for the state to recognize some sort of union. Basically, a legally-binding contract of some sort. So clearly we need the state to be there for civil unions. Although if you mean that it should be basically unrestricted as to who should be able to get a civil union, I agree.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Period.
I can imagine the state comes up with an alternative cheap contract for alternative unions.
That may include brothers, or sisters, or whatever.
But don't call it a marriage!

OK, so you can declare from your perspective that gay marriages are not real marriages because they do not fit your definition. And you can tell people who call gay marriages "marriages" that you think that. But it doesn't follow that there should be a law to prevent people (or churches) from calling such a thing a "marriage," does it?

 

[Reinaert]

Well.. If you look at it in the cultural way, man and wife have some ceremony when they want to get married in every culture.
For the rest of the community to see, they are going to live together. In fact, that marriage even asks if anyone has an objection.
So, it's in a sense also an act of acceptance by the community.

Now what, if 2 people from the same sex wanted to get married.
They would be the laughing stock of the community.
In fact, it was done as a joke many times in European history.
Especially with carnival (mardi gras).

The problem arose, when the states in Europe took over the control over cultural habits.
In early European history the Church was accepted to marry people.
Later on, the state took over.
And now, we are facing the struggle between rational logic, and irrational feelings.

The state says, men and women are equal.
So, they were very fast to put military conscription for women into the refrigerator.
Because it's not very popular, and it would cost them lots of votes.
The other way around, gay marriages are a subject that is accepted for the simple reason it produces votes.
Populism is government that isn't based on principles, but what some groups of people want.

In The Netherlands we have gay marriages, and if you ask people about it, most of them have no objection because they don't give a damn about it. But at the same time there is a discussion how to think about community secretaries that refuge to marry a gay couple. From that moment on, tolerance against a civil servant that is against gay marriages has disappeared!

So, in the general opinion civil servants are deprived from the rights and tolerance that normal citizens claim for themselves.!

Really, a strange way of thinking!

And in fact, this kind of situations you get, if the state tries to make more and more rules and laws.
It is getting a bigger mess every day.
It's like in the Arthur story, where Arthur in the end becomes the victim of his own laws.
A tragedy.

 

[Carlitos]

In my country that is Spain is accepted gay marriage, I accept the laws and I have no objection, except to be mad to marry.

 

[Rastko Pocesta]

Before reading the choices of the poll, I thought I would have to abstain sicne I am a vocal proponent of the abolition of marriage. However, this is my exact thought - I feel homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples! No discrimination - no marriage for anyone. If you are religious and want to marry you are free to go to church and do it but it will never exist on paper and state has nothing to do with it.

 

[Riccardo]

Before reading the choices of the poll, I thought I would have to abstain sicne I am a vocal proponent of the abolition of marriage. However, this is my exact thought - I feel homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples! No discrimination - no marriage for anyone. If you are religious and want to marry you are free to go to church and do it but it will never exist on paper and state has nothing to do with it.

I totally agree. Societies are still fighting about this issue in 2011 (in Italy we don't neither have a law against homophoby), because most times homophoby hides homosexuality; that's why many people are anxious to show their homophoby and to limit the rights of people with a different sexuality.

 

[Franco]

In Spain homosexual marriages were legalised in 2005 if I recall well, but very few couples compared to total homosexual population (10% of total population according to some estimations), got married. This contradicts one of the arguments that one could hear back then in Spain in favor of gay marriages which was the big number of gays who were awaiting this law to marry. That simply didn't happen. I think that even homosexuals themselves are not much interested in following the typical heterosexual vital project, that is ,getting married, having children , raising them, buying a a house , two cars and some pets, etc. They are more like "have fun while you can and change your partner from time to time". In my opinion I don't mind gay marriages but I'm a bit more concerned aboug gay adoption. Every child should have a mother and a father, but I guess that if the only option is just one mother and no father , one father and no mother or a gay couple, then that's always better than being orphan. This is my sincere opinion, I hope homosexuals don't find it disrespectful.

 

[PaschalisB]

I think that even homosexuals themselves are not much interested in following the typical heterosexual vital project, that is ,getting married, having children , raising them, buying a a house , two cars and some pets, etc. They are more like "have fun while you can and change your partner from time to time".

This is totally wrong and homophobic. It has nothing to do with being homosexual, I know lots of heterosexual men who do exactly the same as you say (have fun while you can and change your partner) and I also know homosexual couples who have been together for lots of years.

 

[Taharqa]

Live and let live. Why are some people so much against this? What people do in their bed rooms is their own business.

 

[LeBrok]

Though homosexuality turned to be genetic, it is a baffling question, why human homosexuality rate is much higher than any other mammals?
I think that the culprit is and was arranged marriage in combination with intolerant village communities. You wouldn't confess that you are gay in small conservative religious homophobic communities. Bulling and "accidental" death would come rather quickly. So you are trapped in a closet, parents arranged marriage, you have to agree, or otherwise you will not inherit anything. In rural scenario, not inheriting a field to plow, or herd to flock, it is pretty much a death sentence.
Now, all family is expecting kids and making constant nagging and pressure,... I wonder how gays did this trick?
Well, maybe it wasn't so difficult, the night and room is very dark, you touching a soft young body (it's dark so you can't tell boy or girl, whatever lol), in your mind you see a naked handsome guy, the one you saw last summer working with hay without a shirt, ....and vuala, new gay is made. No really it's not that difficult, you see, a straight young herder can have sex with sheep if horny enough, so what's difficult with my gay example, lol.

I'm pretty sure that in free society, where gays are not forced to marriages and having kids, ration gay to straight will fall in coming generations, to be on par with other mammals.

 

[Carlos]

I do not think that homosexuality will disappear in future generations, on the contrary, I think it will increase. The seizure of power of women, the changing role of women in society towards an increasingly female character added to the abandonment of his pleasure in the only concern men to meet women will make more and more men seek freedom sex with men.

 

[Riccardo]

Live and let live. Why are some people so much against this? What people do in their bed rooms is their own business.

I think it's just a way to exorcise a fear. Many people just don't accept the possibility to be "different" and not accepted. This doesn't mean that they are all latent, but they fear it.