Poll: Gay Marriage

[cathou]

being lesbian, married and catholic, i guess i have a fairly good view on all that debate...

Homosexuality being genetic or not, doesnt really change the fact that it's not something choosen. You can only choose if you live with it or not.

Catholic church doesnt approve homosexuality it's true, but they dont accept condoms and lot of things. But that's only the official stand point. I've seen priests that tried to convice me that God wanted me to be strong and resist my homosexual pulsion (yeah because you can be homosexual, but only in a platonic relation, you dont have the right to kiss or have sex). But i've also priests that were totally cool with that. (like the priest who accepted that me and my wife was nominated godmother of my wife's sister's first child.)

Marriage ceremony is rekigious, marriage itself is not. Marriage itself is the paper that you have to sign. Why do you think you have a first maid and best man ? they are witness, they sign the paper to confirm that you have make a contract between you and your wife/husband. Now replace the first maid/best man by two wtiness, and the priest for a judge and the church for a courthouse, and you sure have change the ceremony around it, but you still have the same damn contract. I'm totally cool that the church keep the ceremony exclusive, they can do what ever they want with it, it's their ceremony. I had a really great marriage at the courth, and the judges are really good to make a good ceremony, serioujsly, mine was really great, and cost way less than what it would have cost me at the church...

Why been married ? Yes, part of it is a money thing. Married couple have tax relief because the couple is count as only one entity on a tax level. It's easier to have a morgage to buy an house, to adopt a child, to be put on each other insurance contract (so that my wife is covered by my job health insurances). If i die without a will, all what i posess goes to my family. Now my family hate me, and i hate them. I dont want them to choose what will happen with my stuff and my money after my death. Even with a will they can go in court to change the will. same thing if i'm incapacitated. But been married, all those decision goes automatically to my wife.

Second, it's an emotional thing. Remeber one thing. you are never raised gay. What i mean is that probably every parents raise their child as an heterosexual child. And it's ok and normal. Because homosexuality is generally only "declared" at puberty. So, when you grow you devellop an emotional view of marriage (ok it's probably more true for girls i admit). But when i was a child, i was playing with barbies dolls which is married with ken, we used to fantasise on what my marriage could look like, or who i will marry someday. then i'm 15 years old and i realise that i'm gay. it doesnt change that i was dreaming to be married someday when i was young or my emotional view on the thing. So to me the word mean something.

sorry for the very long post...

 

[cobra_ky]

/sigh... i lost my original response to this so i'll briefly restate the salient points. if i need to i'll go into more detail later.

While your penguins raise excellent questions, the majority of the rest of your post leave something to be desired. The idea that "social pressure" would make a caveman have heterosexual sex is a little silly.

why is that silly? even today, many homosexuals live in denial and try to maintain heterosexual relationships. some even have children.

The edit about recessive genes, only further's my point. Let's say that the gay gene develops with the cavemen, and unfortunatly some of the lesbians are forced into sex with males. They have four kids who have a percentage chance of being gay. Now, factor the number of forced sex occurances with the degredation of a "gay" gene up to today's time. Or for that matter up to the time of the Egyptians. ( one of the earliest "known" cultures with gay people, and you will find that the odds on a person having enough "gay" gene strength to have them actually affected by it, are very, very, low.

that's not how genetics works at all. if an individual possesses the dominant gene, the recessive trait will not be expressed. thus there's no reason the recessive gene will die out, as heterozygous individuals will still carry the gene with no noticeable effects. they may, however, produce offspring who possess the trait. this is how incredibly fatal genetic diseases continue to pass on.

 

[Pandalisk]

If Men like Men and Women like Women then thats fine by me, go at it, though i demand there be less Lesbiens, because its hard to compete against another Woman for a Woman, they got skills.

 

[Asciotes]

I'm for gay marriage, if people want to get married to another person of the same gender, let them. Plus, to all you religous people, the bible says that sodomy is a sin, and the people that follow the religion have interpreted it to mean that gay people are evil. The bible never actually says that you're not allowed to get married to someone of the same gender.

 

[Doug]

being lesbian, married and catholic, i guess i have a fairly good view on all that debate...

May I ask; what do you think of the UK's system, where homosexual marriage is simply called "Civil Union" and has all the benefits of heterosexual marriage?

 

[Captain Blackout]

1: Genetics isn't strictly "survival of the fittest". It's far more interesting and fascinating than that. Too many people use boiled down Darwinism to supplant a fuller comprehension.

2: Sexuality isn't either/or. An entire spectrum exists and much of it is influenced by aspects that are genetically grounded.

3: Homosexuality was endorsed in ancient Sparta in such a way as to promote the flooding of the species with genes that would help influence towards homosexuality and bi-sexuality.

This list goes on and on and on, and each point has a far fuller explanation but I thought this would make a good start to preserve wall-o-texting.

Lets look at your points one by one.

1. Okay, so I did use the old term to describe evolution. I realize that it is a more complex system than just "survival of the fittest" but the more complicated aspects of it only further my point.

2. I agree that sexuality is genetically grounded, that's how we ( and other species) are able to reproduce. Which is exactly my point, there is a reason we all have sex. Let me simplify my view: A species which cannot reproduce, has no place in the evolutionary system.

3. I don't really understand what you are going for here. I am guessing that you are equating the spartans with prehistoric man in an effort to prove that man would have given thought to the continuation of his own species. If I am right in this assumption, than your equation Spartan = prehistoric man is really ( as you say) bad "math", but maybe I got your meaning mixed up, so please clarify this one for me.

1. BAD MAN! You helped me get yelled at and your avatar scares me because it looks like Jack Skellington in a white sheet. I hope he's not planning on lighting a cross with that candle. Also, we could sit here all day and throw examples from nature at each other about how evolution produces interesting behaviors and what happens with them but even insects have an interesting sexuality. Do you really think human sexuality was fully defined by boys acting like high school football players or can you accept that the genetic sequence extends back to the beginning of sexuality and contains far more possibilities within it than we can lay out here?

2. It's not just that sexuality is genetic, it's that almost everybody is genetically flexible. Look, without socialization we can find all kinds of interesting things attractive. Just ask Larry Flynt.

3. I'm not equating Spartans to pre-historic man, also known as Chas the Cro-Magnon. There have always been groups that promote different genetics traits through socialization. It happens in primates, and it certainly happened in whatever pre-cursors we had. I'm equating Spartans to happy monkey groups that keep a trait not only alive but flourishing.

4. Gender characteristics do not just show up on the X and Y chromosomes. If sexuality follows that pattern of distribution in the genome, and I've got a really long winded argument to show it most likely does, than hetero-flexiblity would not be weeded out. Eventually hetero-flexibility would evolve into homo-sexuality for some members. Every time it does it might get weeded out. If it happens often enough than the above mentioned factors would spread the genes for all kinds of sexualities.

 

[Geekmaster]

Only thing I feel like saying to be honest is "The Fall of Rome."

I'm tired of this, Rome didn't fall because of homosexuality. If anything Rome's fall actually had more to do with its adopting Christianity*. A pacifist religion is hardly the best choice for a militarist state... though today we seem to have worked through that by ignoring the pacifist part.

*According to The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon

Oh, you're tired of it? I'm sorry. I didn't realize. Did I credit it the entire Fall of Rome to gays? No. No, I did not. Besides, Christianity is hardly pacifist. Just because we focus on the whole Jesus part, doesn't mean there aren't chapters of war in our book.

Sum of its parts. Thats what lead to the downfall, being gay was one of them.

Care to explain how being gay had anything to do with it?

 

[tim_the_tam]

its adam and eve not adam and steve

 

[cathou]

being lesbian, married and catholic, i guess i have a fairly good view on all that debate...

May I ask; what do you think of the UK's system, where homosexual marriage is simply called "Civil Union" and has all the benefits of heterosexual marriage?

i will quote myself

Second, it's an emotional thing. Remeber one thing. you are never raised gay. What i mean is that probably every parents raise their child as an heterosexual child. And it's ok and normal. Because homosexuality is generally only "declared" at puberty. So, when you grow you devellop an emotional view of marriage (ok it's probably more true for girls i admit). But when i was a child, i was playing with barbies dolls which is married with ken, we used to fantasise on what my marriage could look like, or who i will marry someday. then i'm 15 years old and i realise that i'm gay. it doesnt change that i was dreaming to be married someday when i was young or my emotional view on the thing. So to me the word mean something.

On a legal stand point. Civil union, if they give the same benefits as marriage (but it's not laways the case) is a good thing. But like i said the word itself mean something too. it have an emotional weight. i like to say that i'm married, not that civily united...

and in some place, gays can only have only civil union, but atheist can be married in a courthouse. if it's the same thing, why atheist can be married ?

 

[Bigeyez]

While I agree that rights should be available to everyone regardless of sexual orientation. I do not accept that it should be called marriage. Marriage is something set forward by the church long ago, and should be accepted as such. I dont object to "married" gay couples, just dont call it marriage.

No actually, this is a common misconception. The Church DID NOT invent marriage. Various cultures had forms of marriage before Christianity ever even existed, the earliest of which traces back to a law in Hammurabi's Code back in Meopotamia. Which many believe is the first civilization (ie groups of humans together in one place) formed. Gay marriages have been happening since around those times as well. In fact in many Greek city states male/male partnerships were often encouraged.

During the Roman time period Marriages were completely seperate from any religion and even from the state. You simply decided to get married, gathered witnesses, had a ceremony, and bam your married. And this was just before the formation of the Roman Catholic Church so religion was very much an everyday part of these peoples lives. And yes Gay marriage and partnership did exist with them as well.

Anyways Marriage should be legal for everyone, period. It shouldn't be called another name, it shouldn't be treated differently, it should be the exact same for everyone. Anything otherwise is discrimination in my book.

Edit: I also forgot to add that the first law banning same-sex marriages happened in I believe 6th century Europe but it is unclear as to why said law was passed. Catechism, which is the definition of marriage the church has now (man+woman) was adopted by the church until 1566. During the second reformation of the catholic church. Around the same time the Church also made it so marriages were null unless done in the presence of a priest.

 

[Doug]

Only thing I feel like saying to be honest is "The Fall of Rome."

I'm tired of this, Rome didn't fall because of homosexuality. If anything Rome's fall actually had more to do with its adopting Christianity*. A pacifist religion is hardly the best choice for a militarist state... though today we seem to have worked through that by ignoring the pacifist part.

*According to The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon

Oh, you're tired of it? I'm sorry. I didn't realize. Did I credit it the entire Fall of Rome to gays? No. No, I did not. Besides, Christianity is hardly pacifist. Just because we focus on the whole Jesus part, doesn't mean there aren't chapters of war in our book.

Sum of its parts. Thats what lead to the downfall, being gay was one of them.

..............?!?!?!?

How? Homosexuality and even pedophilia where accepted norms in Rome from its earliest days. How the hell does that suddenly cause the Empire to collapse hundreds of years later?

 

[Azraellod]

sure. i see no issues with gay marriage.

to be honest i don't really care a great deal, but if it makes them happy, then i don't see why it matters what gender they are.

 

[jodko]

I think marriage should be for a religious ceremony and civil unions for everyone else.

 

[bodyklok]

Gay people should be allowed to get married, so that they can suffer just like the rest of us! It's not fair they get special treatment.

 

[Agema]

If you think people being gay brought down the Roman Empire even in a small way, you are one firm footstep into the territory of bigotry.

I mean, particularly when the Romans had problems like: economic collapse; total political chaos; hundreds of thousands of stroppy, armed barbarians pouring over their borders; and an army that consisted almost entirely of those same barbarians that were carving up their empire. I mean, isn't that enough to explain the fall of Rome? Why would you even need to bring homosexuality into it?

 

[Cortheya]

I think that it should be legal. I say if people want to be gay that's FINE, as long as they don't force it on me. Every bit as much as someone who is gay wouldn't want someone shoving heterosexuality down their throats.

 

[Bigeyez]

Only on paper, but no church, since the church has been against homosexuality for 2000 years so that would be blasphemy

Another misconception. Like I said in my post earlier which I will now quote. "Catechism, which is the definition of marriage the church has now (man+woman) was adopted by the church until 1566." So now the church has not been against same sex marriage for 2000 years. Not that the church even invented marriage anyways. The reason this and other laws regarded marriage were passed in the 1500's is because the Church was reforming for the second time and was launching an enormous grab for power.

Beforehand gay marriage existed and the church never objected to it.

Only on paper, but no church, since the church has been against homosexuality for 2000 years so that would be blasphemy

But you used to go to Hell for eating meat on a friday so why can't they change their opinion on gay marriage?

what you eat meat on friday??!! (just joking)

Well they have preached against it much harder than eating on friday, and they cant just go around changing holy law, its not up to them to change things anyway, some things are better left the way they are.

Um hm seems like I'm going to be quoting you a lot. The Church has changed "holy law" as you say it more times then you can count. They had two HUGE Cathloic Church reformations in the 15th and 16th centuries. The Church changes based on the people and times it's in. if it didn't it would lose all power and relevance.

I personally think in a hundred years we'll see gay marriages happening in churches. Only time can tell that though.

How is marriage not a "religious thing"? Most marriage cermonies take place in churches, and have taken place in churches for thousands of years. Maybe other civilization's have come up with the idea of marriage all on their own, but for most of recorded, modern, history marriage has been resigned to the church.

As to the evolution timeline, I would agree with you there, except that when talking about the inability to reproduce, it takes exactly one generation to cause extinction, so evolution wouldn't have it's normal timeline to faze things out.

You sir have also fallen to a common misconception. The Roman Cathloic Church didn't pass laws stating that marriages had to take place with a priest as a witness untill 1563. 3 years later they passed their first same-sex law. Ceremony taking place solely in churches didn't come until later.

Most civilizations prior DID in fact have marriage and most of them had absoulutely NOTHING to do with religion. In fact the first civilization with laws regarding marriage was Mesepotamia which is largely regarded as the first civilization to exist. The Churchs control over marriage was made because at the time the Church was launching a power grab in Europe. Not only that but gay marriage existed during the Churh's hieght of power and they did nothing against it until 1566 when they banned same-sex marriages. Prior to that gay marriages existed and were like any other union.

Regarding your who evolution talk thats all moot anyways since you can't prove it either way. Your talking based on theories that have yet to be tested let alone proven. So that arguement really holds no water.

 

[George Palmer]

A gay person marrying a pole? Now thats just going to far...

or am I reading the question wrong?