But they might say "We CAN'T stop thinking about it, it's all around us now with gay couples in the newspapers, on the TV, everywhere I go I end up seeing them!" How do you negotiate a situation like this with them? Surely there has to be a more holistic and considerate way then having to say something like "Well, if you don't like seeing us in the papers or TV, don't watch the papers or TV"? I mean, for my money it's a good thing if these people tune out of the media, it might decrease their presence in society and whittle away at the social conservatism that I find so repulsive... but that's just me, and it's not fair for ME to say that these people should be whittled away simply because I don't like them. As repulsive as I might think they are, they presumably don't think that they are repulsive, and furthermore presumably very much feel that they have a right to exist and to have their opinions. How could you make both parties happy? Perhaps a 'straight media' would emerge to serve these people in a setting outside of the otherwise mainstream 'mixed-sexuality media'? Or you'd have a decentralisation of power, where-by homophobic people could start their own 'gay-free' town and make certain that gay people/media keeps out of it... which would be sheer fucking hell for any poor bastard who was unlucky enough to be born in such a town and ended up being gay.
rational people? thats the Stupidest thing ive every heard we are ALL human we all bleed the same love is love , period !
If they don't like seeing it on the papers or the TV then they should stop opposing it and making such a fuss. If it wasn't for the opposition there'd hardly be any coverage for it because it's really a no brainer. If i'm being honest though I don't see why we should have to negotiate, when we're given the oppurtunity to block heterosexual marriage i'll give a shit about their opinion. Until that day I genuinely don't care whether or not it offends them, in fact i'm quite glad when it does. For one of the first periods in history the moral religious crowd are the ones at the but of a little joke and offense. The shoes on the other foot and they can't handle it. Besides, they'd happily ignore our feelings on gay marriage and keep it illegal if given the chance so it seems only fair to extend them the same curtesy. That's great, they do exist and the do have opinions, forcing them on others to the removal of liberty is fucked up. So again, I don't care how they feel because they don't care how I feel.You get what you give. You can't make both parties happy on an issue like this, so the reasonable thing to do seems to be to approach the situation logically, not religiously. Anyone who believes in the seperation of church and state should support gay marriage, there isn't ANY other reason blocking it. No I didn't, that's what's called a straw man. Nature doesn't purposefully create anything.
Well, he was saying gay sex serves no purpose in nature. Sex between a male and female does serve a purpose. Marriage is based on this unique natural fact, it helps guide people in this direction. When it comes down to it, it has absolutely nothing to do with hate. You cant say gay marriage is the same as straight marriage, it would ignore the deeper meaning of marriage. At the very least, people should understand why some feel it should remain unique to male and female. There are reasons for it, its silly to say its because of hate.
That's a load of fucking horseshit. How many times have you had sex with the sole purpose of recreation? Probably not very many times. Sex between a male and female for the purpose of procreation does serve a purpose. Sex for pleasure does not. And what is this deeper meaning bullshit? And please don't get religious, because non religious people are married too, but I guess they're just sinful little disobeying meaningful humans.
The ultimate purpose of sex is for procreation. Pleasure is a byproduct. I already explained the deeper meaning. Its about raising children together, expanding the family, etc. Sure, not everyone who marries will have children but for the most part thats one of the main purposes of a male and female uniting.
I don't understand the whole its not natural for a man and a man to marry. When did it become "natural " to be bonded to one person human when we have sexual urges to track anything that moves. How is this forced relationship, marriage, a natural thing to begin with?
If only there was a way for gay couples to have children. If only someone had come up with something like surrogate mothers or adoption...
I like your attitude brother, I'm among you in opposing that crowd, agree that we've all put up with their shit for too long and am not bashful in saying that I have no sympathy for their complaints of 'being persecuted' when they are forced by minority groups to relinquish their dominance and give the underdog the freedom that they always should have had. Still, "Do to others as you would wish to be done upon you", 'turn the other cheek' and all the like - I think the noblest thing (especially after all the abuses gay people have suffered over history from a homophobic society) is to let them engage with and appreciate gay culture and marriage on terms that they can't say gay people have pushed or even forced onto them. To counter an immoral and unethical mindset with what the social conservatives would very likely consider an immoral and unethical mindset is a half-victory, and a victory won only in the short term as the latent causes of the hatred/intolerance of social conservatives towards gays continues to simmer away in unaddressed bitterness. I mean, let's face it, to do this would be to create a kind of 'new cultural underclass', of people who belong to a society that was once dominant, people from social contexts that are obsolete and outdated compared to the mindsets of the progressive society, people who would feel as though their ideologies and lifestyles are being persecuted by the dominant society just as gay people surely thought their ideologies and lifestyles were being persecuted by the dominant society. Personally, I wouldn't feel much sympathy since we're doing nothing more than giving people the freedom to live their lives as they please, and if these people don't like it then they're not being physically persecuted with the force that the state and they themselves weilded against gay people, they've at best being perseucted by the 'second and third faces of power'. Above all this, I'm sure we can all agree with the fact that if social conservatives really have such a massive and unreconciliable problem with living in a society that is tolerant of gay marriage, then they should be free to either leave the country or seceede from the country and live in whatever backwards way they please. Removing the liberty for gay people to marry is one of those situations that would only occur if a huge amount of the population DID have this opinion that gay marriage was something they didn't want to be exposed to in their society - like, 90% of people saying that they didn't like the idea of gay marriage and of seeing gay couples in their society. With such an overwhelming majority saying this, we seriously do have to consider - does their sheer numbers allow them to over-ride the personal liberty of the minority group, even considering the historical abuses they've infliced on that minority group? I think that there's a 'historical reparation' that they owe gay people that should trump any argument that permitting gay marriage in such a community would spoil the notion of a community as being an entity that purely serves the will of the people who comprise it; even if it is a move begrudged by the community, they have a historical debt owed to gay people for persecuting them for so many years. That's the only just thing, to my mind, letting the majority continue to oppress the minority simply because they always have oppressed the minority is a very fickle morality that hinges simply on the fact that one is a majority and one is a minority, which is a mere argument-from-higher-numbers. I hate to respond so tit-for-tat, but methinks that there are people out there who believe in the seperation of church and state and indeed could even be athiests who oppose gay marriage. I guess that might be a good way for the OP to have stated the question; is there anybody here who doesn't like gay marriage for reasons totally unrelated to religion? It'd good to hear from them, see what sorts of reasons they'd put across... still, I'll agree that if the anti-gay person purely feels that way because of their religion, then they either respect the seperation of church and state or go down the path of arguing for a theocracy, I see no other way for them to reconcile religious persecution of gay people with the state.
Marriage was never about raising a family. Marriage was originally about men keeping their bitch in line. Europeans used to marry young women to ensure their virginity would be theirs. Often in their teens, sometimes younger. Is that... is that to raise a family or get some tight pussy? Marriage was only about family in the man's eyes. Suppress the woman and make sure she raises my god damn kids. What about marriage between royalty? You're sometimes selected to marry somebody before you're even born. The only thing that has to do with family is greed. Marriage has evolved and changed over the years. Nowadays it has no sanctity, and no meaning whatsoever (assuming it ever really did). If you can get married dressed as Elvis when you're fucking wasted then I hardly see why anybody could be against gay marriage.
You just said it yourself, the fact that its difficult for a lot of people to control their sexual urges is a reason for marriage and commitment. Going around having sex with everything that moves would be destructive.
Nature knows what the fuck it's doing buddy. You know why? Because nature can't do anything wrong. Everything that has ever happened and is happening is natural. Marriage is as natural as a waterfall. It might not happen in other species but neither do blow-jobs, and we all know some girls be naturals at that.
Just because people used marriage to "keep their bitch in check" doesnt mean thats the reason it was created. Not a single religion would suggest anything close to that either.
Okay, i'll say MOST religions. I havent researched Islam enough to judge whether or not it suggests it. I'm sure thats what you're thinking of.
An ideology such as theirs was bound to fall apart and become marginalized over time. As much as I believe people should be free to believe and worship as they will let's face it, religious systems like fundamentalist Christianity or extreme Islam and such are a bit retarded and don't really have a destiny other than obseletion. When this happens they'll still be able to live and marry as Christians, so the two situations aren't comparable. I agree, logical progress isn't something people should stand in the way of. This liberty doesn't exist, it can't be removed. No. Just because there's more of them doesn't really mean anything, it'd be foolish to argue that the slave trade was justified because a lot of people thought it was. The collective doesn't really mean anything. I don't agree with historical repartition. In the past the gay community has been treated appallingly by the religious community. The religious of today aren't the religious of the past. I don't feel they owe us anything, but I do feel they should get over it, fuck off and leave us alone. I've talked to non-religious folk who don't agree with gay marriage but I've never found any who oppose it. No it isn't the same, it's better for overpopulation. Which was my original point, just because we can't add to overpopulation doesn't matter so long as surrogates exist or we can adopt children cast aside by irresponsible heterosexual couples.
At least we know grammar. I'm sorry, a waste of our human sperm? Whatever have you been doing behind closed doors?