Same Sex Marriage?

[WIP]

Odd. For no other reason that to take a stand for equal rights?

You must be one of those annoying liberal straight friends that gays complain about all the time.

Just friends to say you are friends. Otherwise you would be going for no other reason than you are a friend of the couple.

Strange that you would treat them differently than a straight couple. I mean, that IS what you are arguing here, right?

Right! Like gay weddings happen all the time...nothing special I suppose. Maybe in the future it won't be such a big deal! Back in 1968, attending an interracial wedding was a statement against racial segregation, now it's just another wedding!

I have gay friends, I can see why you do not.

Sure you do! Sarah Palin says she has gay friends too, even though she wants to strip all of their civil rights from them! When David Duke was running the KKK, he always claimed that he had black friends also!

[WIP]

Therein lies the point where we diverge. If marriage is a blanket concept that applies to any union of people by contract, then the debate is over.

Myself, I don't agree that it should be a blanket concept that applies to "any" union. But it should be up to the opponents to make a convincing case that a same-sex union causes harm to society. If not, why should the majority have the option of imposing on gay men or women who decide that they would like to get married? Once again, nearly all of the arguments and complaints about allowing gay marriage by the Right were heard 40 years ago when they were applied to interracial marriage that was still banned in some states up until the late 60's.

Awhile back, there was a thread debating whether polygamy should be allowed -- some social libertarians argued that it should be allowed if all of the participants are consenting adults -- my position was that there is enough research by sociologists and anthropologists to find the institution of polygamy to be harmful to the social order. So each proposed new right can be evaluated on the basis of whether it is beneficial, harmful or neutral in respect to society as a whole.

I can't speak for them, but I would guess that my friends and family who are gay didn't understand the SSM hubbub because they simply didn't feel they were being denied any rights, nor was their inability to join the ranks of those who were married seen as any unjust repression. Now that marriage has been redefined, they have certainly never expressed any sense of greater liberation; like most other people (myself included), it's more a shrug your shoulders and roll your eyes kind of affair.

Just because your gay friends aren't interested in marriage, does that mean that others should be denied the option? What if these people change their minds at some later date? The biggest knock against gay men is that they are promiscuous, and therefore prone to contracting and spreading STD's. Isn't part of the problem that at the present time, their relationships aren't legally recognized and are not binding? I don't know if marriage is going to be the answer for many of them, but if it could provide some sense of stability and normalcy, that would be a benefit to everyone.

[Oleg Bach]

It's usually old feminsts eccetric hetro females that push this agenda...they just love it when gay men are legitimized as MEN through "marriage" - These old girls along with their weeping bleach blonde soccer mums adore the concept of weaker more submissive males - Maybe this is just the rebirth of the old Matriarchal sytem - with a dash of man hate well hidden?

[g_bambino]

You find it odd that straight MEN enjoy watching multiple beautiful women together? really?

Not all discrimination is DISCRIMINATION else there would be no male and female bathrooms, merely bathrooms.

alas, that is not the case. Ahh.. hypocricy as you say.

I never said it was odd at all; wherever did you get that from? I said it was hypocritical to not only tolerate, but enjoy that sight, while simultaneously professing that any two men together is abhorrent and/or unnatural. Hence, I raised the example of the swingers clubs, where a man may bring his wife and another woman, but a woman bringing two men would be looked at with suspicion and a man bringing his wife and another man for himself would be downright rejected. Discrimination is discrimination, no matter which way you look at it; some of it we accept and some of it we don't. I may also see some discrimination as inherently hypocritical (like women only gyms being supported by women who want access to male only clubs), but I wouldn't make a Charter case out of any of it. Discrimination, segregation, exclusion, exception, whatever you want to call it, it's an unavoidable part of human society.

[g_bambino]

Just because your gay friends aren't interested in marriage, does that mean that others should be denied the option? What if these people change their minds at some later date?

It isn't about whether or not they have interest in marriage; I said they never expressed any feeling of repression or lamented a suppression of their rights.

[Oleg Bach]

It's the unprincipled de-sexers that carry the banner of hetorsexuality that want gay marriage - to be used as a tool to destroy marriage - theses straights are not the friends of gays..intelligent and informed gays know the game and they laugh privately at the agenda of attempting to destoy male and female - in their crazed hope of creating a grey utlititarianims of sexlessness and racelessness...to destroy marriaga is to destroy the sexes - much as their mulit-culturalism destroys racial lineage withing standard families...gay leaders don't want it so what the hell is with you pushy twits?

[WIP]

It isn't about whether or not they have interest in marriage; I said they never expressed any feeling of repression or lamented a suppression of their rights.

But others were frustrated by not having this option. But since gay marriages have been allowed in Canada for the past few years, it's a moot point anyway; if they want to get married, they have ample opportunity. And so far, I'm not seeing a whole lot of evidence that it is "destroying the institution of marriage" as these knuckle-dragger "defense of marriage" advocates are claiming will happen in the States.

[Oleg Bach]

But others were frustrated by not having this option. But since gay marriages have been allowed in Canada for the past few years, it's a moot point anyway; if they want to get married, they have ample opportunity. And so far, I'm not seeing a whole lot of evidence that it is "destroying the institution of marriage" as these knuckle-dragger "defense of marriage" advocates are claiming will happen in the States.

If you are evolved and loving you will allow others to love. People are so fixated on the genitals and imagine in their minds eye the manifestation of gay pleasuring and to most it is distasteful. Put sexuality aside for a moment and let logic dictate. HUMAN beings want to love and be loved. What must irk and distress the proud and power mongering hetrosexuals is..............the thought of anal intercourse. AND equating it to productive hetrosexual intercourse. The battle that still exists is in the idea that my way of f**king is better than yours....and still in the privacey of the bed room men will tamper with the tabooed anus of the female out of sheer curiousity and boredom.......Put that aside for a moment again - People don't want to be alone..and are meant to walk in pairs - Hetrosexuals are unhappy and they want to share this unhappiness with those that find companionship with the same sex. It's not about sex...It should not be called same SEX marriage - but a union of companionship.

[Oleg Bach]

Jeeez - that's my most compassionate and honest post yet... .....Sexuality - selfish pleasures are normal. Having for the first time in my life befriended so called gays...all I see is people..who don't want to be alone - some gays would like to be with woman..but woman have been engineered to be untouchable - and slandered to be corrupt...it's a human delima of lonelyness - the rest is political.

[WIP]

If you are evolved and loving you will allow others to love. People are so fixated on the genitals and imagine in their minds eye the manifestation of gay pleasuring and to most it is distasteful. Put sexuality aside for a moment and let logic dictate. HUMAN beings want to love and be loved. What must irk and distress the proud and power mongering hetrosexuals is..............the thought of anal intercourse. AND equating it to productive hetrosexual intercourse. The battle that still exists is in the idea that my way of f**king is better than yours....and still in the privacey of the bed room men will tamper with the tabooed anus of the female out of sheer curiousity and boredom.......Put that aside for a moment again - People don't want to be alone..and are meant to walk in pairs - Hetrosexuals are unhappy and they want to share this unhappiness with those that find companionship with the same sex. It's not about sex...It should not be called same SEX marriage - but a union of companionship.

If I get your drift, you're saying 'live and let live,' and we need to focus on other aspects of relationship issues besides the purely physical - which is a good approach to dealing with other people who have different ideas about how they want to live their lives. And I get the impression that you are still bent out of shape about this anal sex thing -- and I don't get it either, since the only people doing it when I was young, were gay men. But, live and let live, I guess.

[g_bambino]

But others were frustrated by not having this option. But since gay marriages have been allowed in Canada for the past few years, it's a moot point anyway; if they want to get married, they have ample opportunity. And so far, I'm not seeing a whole lot of evidence that it is "destroying the institution of marriage" as these knuckle-dragger "defense of marriage" advocates are claiming will happen in the States.

Being denied an option is not necessarily a breach of one's rights, though. People being given the option to marry someone of their same gender isn't necessarily a destruction of the institution either. Frankly, I think both sides (meaning the gay activists on one and the religious activists on the other) have been a bit kooky. Rabidly spouting doctorine rarely results in rational debate, and throwing political correctness into the matter meant that even the option of saying no to SSM was essentially thrown out the window; in Canada, at least. But, yes, the point is now rather moot; how long it will remain such is anyone's guess, though.

[Oleg Bach]

If I get your drift, you're saying 'live and let live,' and we need to focus on other aspects of relationship issues besides the purely physical - which is a good approach to dealing with other people who have different ideas about how they want to live their lives. And I get the impression that you are still bent out of shape about this anal sex thing -- and I don't get it either, since the only people doing it when I was young, were gay men. But, live and let live, I guess.

Nawh - hetros who were hedonists experimented in anal sex...they were usually ungratful for what they had in a woman and explored for any human pleasure available. That's really not the point. Look into the face of a intelligent gay man or woman - they adore the opposite sex. But the opposite sex has failed them. Frankly I really don't believe in homosexuality unless it is a natural fluke. Other than that - people modulate....and choices are made - sure as a young driven sexual male I was tempted...but I made the CHOICE...and found that women were MORE beautiful than males - some males are sweet creatures...but I do not have intercourse with them - but that does not stop me from loving beautuful people.

[Topaz]

I think the women on "The View" had better point to make and said the following... The gay community only wants the word "marriage" because they is the only word that will be it LEGAL for their spouse to recieve any benefits from their spouses after they die. Right now, it would go to a blood relative rather their spouse, at least in the US. So change the laws and this gay issue is in the past.