gay marriage

[battlefields]

left leaning side of the political spectrum. The Opposition was right leaning. I laughed when she said she would vote them in because it would put any debate regarding gay marriage on the back burner for several years. Her naivety was pure expression of how ridiculously uninformed even a relatively intelligent person could be about how to fucking vote for something they want as a society.

While this may seem a little off track, it's because I haven't had the chance to vent that little conversation. It is also here because the conversation I had with her regarding gay marriage saw me as "the douchebag". I had no reason to oppose gay marriage, but there I was, opposing gay marriage.

It's a weird thing looking back just a few short years and thinking (a), what made me change my mind? and (b) what made me think that way in the first place?

I did not have anything against homosexuals, grew out of that by about 19, once the homophobic residue of catholic school had been shaken off by the induction into the real world. The old, "I even had some gay friends/ coworkers" excuse comes into play here.

(a) could have been a number of factors. Working in the not for profit sector with many youth suicide organisations, learnt shocking statistics regarding the gay community. Friends and acquaintances from high school came out of the closet, or at least I had heard they had. Became really close with a lesbian couple. I don't know even know when the change of mind occurred, one day I was all, "y'all fuckheads are stupid for opposing gay marriage". Maybe I just didn't want to be associated with fuckheads with signs saying shit like "GOD HATES FAGS" and gradually put some of my intelligence into the arena instead of abiding by my ignorance. Could also be the two failed engagements. Could be that the sanctity of marriage is a fucking farce, something I have learnt since becoming Internet savvy, with sites like Ashley whatever and all the disgustingly rank shit I have witnessed on and offline where one or both parties defiling their own vows to each other.

(b) is a little harder. As I mentioned, I wasn't homophobic at this time, far from it. I remember my main argument being that, if gays wanted to be recognised in a legal context, then there was already a "civil union" that basically did the same thing. I think I justified it by saying, "the law defines marriage as between a man and a woman", why change the law, in essence.

Not only is that justification stupid as fuck (because there are many, many laws I would love to see changed and would have loved to have seen changed back then as well), but it was easily countered by this woman whom I, looking back on it, probably did not give much credence to her reasoning on this matter on account of her political naivety expressed earlier in the conversation.

So here I am, several years down the track, saying go for it, homos. It's not high on my political priority thus you won't see me marching, or even voting with it on my mind, but I am not opposed to you putting a ring on your boyfriend or girlfriends finger, registering that with the government and fucking under the title of Mr and Mr or Mrs and Mrs.

Marriage is a fucking scam anyway.

[Goju - Joe]

I am pretty convinced that people who are anti- gay marriage and anti gay this and that are people who have some home erotic thoughts and can't handle it.

[Devil]

I am pretty convinced that people who are anti- gay marriage and anti gay this and that are people who have some home erotic thoughts and can't handle it.

Right, because people are always secretly attracted to things they don't like. Mystery solved.

[battlefields]

I wouldn't say that it is an absolute, but considering the amount of anti gay politicians caught involved in homosexual activity, there might be something there. Reminds me of that senator that was checking the Facebook profile of his rival and kicked up a stink about there being advertising on it for gay websites, only for him to become real embarrassed because the ads are tailored to his own search history.

I'm not convinced everyone is what Goju-Joe said, but I'm sure there are many out there that have been conditioned to find it repulsive so when they see it in themselves, they loathe it even more.

[Devil]

I wouldn't say that it is an absolute, but considering the amount of anti gay politicians caught involved in homosexual activity, there might be something there. Reminds me of that senator that was checking the Facebook profile of his rival and kicked up a stink about there being advertising on it for gay websites, only for him to become real embarrassed because the ads are tailored to his own search history.

I'm not convinced everyone is what Goju-Joe said, but I'm sure there are many out there that have been conditioned to find it repulsive so when they see it in themselves, they loathe it even more.

That's a far stretch from what he said though. Politicians don't even count. In order to believe that, you'd first have to believe that politicians are motivated by something other than self advancement.

Politicians in a party that's supposed to be pro gay marriage are going to voice the pro gay marriage opinion publicly. Politicians in a party that's supposed to be anti gay marriage are going to voice the anti gay marriage opinion publicly. What they really believe doesn't matter.

[DCS]

I wouldn't say that it is an absolute, but considering the amount of anti gay politicians caught involved in homosexual activity, there might be something there.

http://my.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdf

[Omega Supreme]

Most people say there is no logical reason to prevent homosexual marriage. Logic is actually the only reason we should not have homosexual marriage.

There are certain criteria or points that need to be made and concede to without emotion but by pure fact.

1. Is homosexuality normal?

answer: No.

While we have to admit that it's very normal and it does not make a person bad or good homosexuality is not normal. In the sense that a person born of auburn hair, with dwarfism, with two different color eyes, is not normal.

2. What is the definition of marriage?

answer:
It depends upon who you ask but if we were to take this out of the religious context then it's a legal binding between two people as acknowledge by a specific community.

Now if we were to agree that a marriage between two people of the same sex is legal then are we regulated to define that because, as it stands, we find one person marrying a couple, and couples marrying a couples. Yes, we need to truly define this law. If we were to agree to at least one person to one person then to what advantage does the community benefit from this marriage? An unusual question? No, a lot of marriages we performed as a union between two families.

It can be argued that marriage is observed by the community as a legal binding to say that the offspring is the legal and observed joining of the male and female. How do we determine this in cases of same sex? Adoption? Artificial means? You don't have to be married for these two things to happen.

What about tax purposes? The Roman Empire instituted tax exempts for married couples and even more in case of children. This was to help motivate the perpetuation of it's society. These tax breaks are given for single parents but why should a same sex couple benefit from those tax breaks?

Can one gain marriage advantages without being married?

Through wills and powers of attorney, common law couples and same sex couples can gain certain powers over their significant others properties and needs as outlined by these legal documents. Again we have to ask the question, why would we need marriage if you don't need it to secure these rights?

There are plenty high profile couples that have had children, had great relationships, but never got married.

Homosexual marriage makes no sense, there are no benefits except piece of mind, and in that case, move to an area that will marry you. Aside from that it should be a moot point.

Lastly, most people stand on these points as a moral certainty; either condemning homosexual marriage or condoning it. Those who condone sometimes believe themselves ethically better yet when we started conversation I was ignorantly called a bigot. I do not hate nor am I intolerant of homosexuality or homosexual marriage. So when we automatically point a finger in the opposite direction because a person doesn't have the same beliefs as you aren't we being a tad hypocritical. Irony?

(your turn-typed in haste between my classes so excuse grammar misspellings and rambling on my part)

[alex]

Most people say there is no logical reason to prevent homosexual marriage. Logic is actually the only reason we should not have homosexual marriage.

There are certain criteria or points that need to be made and concede to without emotion but by pure fact.

1. Is homosexuality normal?

answer: No.

While we have to admit that it's very normal and it does not make a person bad or good homosexuality is not normal. In the sense that a person born of auburn hair, with dwarfism, with two different color eyes, is not normal.

so people with dwarfism and different coloured eyes arent allowed to marry? this is news to me. also, how do you define normal? something that has a higher % chance of happening, or something that happens naturally? i guess it depends on how broad your brush is. but like i said, whether being gay is normal or not, i dont see why that would have any effect on whether someone can get married. im sure there are less zoroastrians in this country than gay people, and they can marry.

2. What is the definition of marriage?

answer:
It depends upon who you ask but if we were to take this out of the religious context then it's a legal binding between two people as acknowledge by a specific community.

Now if we were to agree that a marriage between two people of the same sex is legal then are we regulated to define that because, as it stands, we find one person marrying a couple, and couples marrying a couples. Yes, we need to truly define this law. If we were to agree to at least one person to one person then to what advantage does the community benefit from this marriage? An unusual question? No, a lot of marriages we performed as a union between two families.

im not sure what your point is here tbh. of course its defined in law- its hard to pass something into law without giving a fairly specific definition of what it can and cant involve. polygamy is not the subject here. what advantage does the community gain? so a marriage shouldnt take place unless the community is enhanced in some way?

It can be argued that marriage is observed by the community as a legal binding to say that the offspring is the legal and observed joining of the male and female. How do we determine this in cases of same sex? Adoption? Artificial means? You don't have to be married for these two things to happen.

i hate to use this worn out trope but does this mean barren women cant marry? what about guys whos sperm cant swim? also i dont know if ive ever heard that kids are the "legal and observed joining" of a marriage. im not sure using made up legalities is ever a good idea when putting forward an arguement.

What about tax purposes? The Roman Empire instituted tax exempts for married couples and even more in case of children. This was to help motivate the perpetuation of it's society. These tax breaks are given for single parents but why should a same sex couple benefit from those tax breaks?

Can one gain marriage advantages without being married?

Through wills and powers of attorney, common law couples and same sex couples can gain certain powers over their significant others properties and needs as outlined by these legal documents. Again we have to ask the question, why would we need marriage if you don't need it to secure these rights?

i dont know enough about tax law to get into this- not to mention im sure it varies from country to country anyway.

There are plenty high profile couples that have had children, had great relationships, but never got married.

im sure your extensive research into womens day celeb relationships is vital in some cases but i dont really see its value here.

Homosexual marriage makes no sense, there are no benefits except piece of mind, and in that case, move to an area that will marry you. Aside from that it should be a moot point.

bingo. im assuming you meant peace. luckily gay kiwis no longer have to move to vancouver and freeze to death, since they can marry in their home country, and stay with their families and friends. im sure someone as smart as you realises how ridiculous the arguemenet "why dont they just move?" is.

Lastly, most people stand on these points as a moral certainty; either condemning homosexual marriage or condoning it. Those who condone sometimes believe themselves ethically better yet when we started conversation I was ignorantly called a bigot. I do not hate nor am I intolerant of homosexuality or homosexual marriage. So when we automatically point a finger in the opposite direction because a person doesn't have the same beliefs as you aren't we being a tad hypocritical. Irony?

(your turn-typed in haste between my classes so excuse grammar misspellings and rambling on my part)

it comes from a disdain of people who hold unreasonable and illogical positions.

[Omega Supreme]

so people with dwarfism and different coloured eyes arent allowed to marry? this is news to me. also, how do you define normal? something that has a higher % chance of happening, or something that happens naturally? i guess it depends on how broad your brush is. but like i said, whether being gay is normal or not, i dont see why that would have any effect on whether someone can get married. im sure there are less zoroastrians in this country than gay people, and they can marry.

This is a strawman argument. The issue is what is normal. Since we agree that homosexuality is not normal then the idea of being normal to get married is irrelevant.

[alex]

which makes your point before irrelevant.

[Omega Supreme]

im not sure what your point is here tbh. of course its defined in law- its hard to pass something into law without giving a fairly specific definition of what it can and cant involve. polygamy is not the subject here. what advantage does the community gain? so a marriage shouldnt take place unless the community is enhanced in some way?

We are laying a definition of what marriage is, if you agree then just say so.

[Omega Supreme]

i hate to use this worn out trope but does this mean barren women cant marry? what about guys whos sperm cant swim? also i dont know if ive ever heard that kids are the "legal and observed joining" of a marriage. im not sure using made up legalities is ever a good idea when putting forward an arguement.

Again, not the point of this discussion, we are simply clearing up meanings.

which makes your point before irrelevant.

Alex, it's not a point, it's a clearing up of definitions.

[Omega Supreme]

bingo. im assuming you meant peace. luckily gay kiwis no longer have to move to vancouver and freeze to death, since they can marry in their home country, and stay with their families and friends. im sure someone as smart as you realises how ridiculous the arguemenet "why dont they just move?" is.

I never met a permanent move, I simply meant got to somewhere that will marry you for your peace of mind. (I did post qualify my arguments).

[alex]

i wouldnt know what im agreeing to because i dont know what you are trying to say. its hard to tell between the appeals to authority and red herrings that have nothing to do with the subject. do i agree with you that anyone who isnt normal shouldnt marry, people who are unable to bear children shouldnt marry, and that allowing gay people to get married will make polygamous marriages a thing, (which is an interesting discussion but not for this thread) then no, i dont agree with you. the definition of marriage is whatever someone wants to make of it- as long as it falls within the law of its country.

[alex]

I never met a permanent move, I simply meant got to somewhere that will marry you for your peace of mind. (I did post qualify my arguments).

you realise getting married somewhere where its legal does not automatically make it legally binding in another country right? not to mention the cost involved in such a thing. if you want a marriage ceremony there is no reason you couldnt have one anyway, but being allowed to have a pretty wedding is not what this is about, its about equality.