Gay Marriage

[paul]

Ok, how do you guys feel about gay marriage?

[NickNack]

I didn't feel any which way about it until some prick in the White House decided he wants it in the Constitution that I, as a citizen of this country, will never have the right to marry. Telling me that I will never get the same tax breaks as the straight boys and girls. Telling me that my relationship of 26 years is nothing more than bogus because we're both men. Telling me I'm a second-class, 'you'll-never-be-equal' person but we still want your tax money on time. Telling me I have no rights to see my lover when he's sick and alone in the hospital. Telling me I won't be considered family when that day comes and, G-d help me, my lover is gone.

Trust me, I'm feelin' it now. :x It's not about 'traditional values' or walking down the aisle in some church. Religion is not part of this for me. It's about my fucking rights being taken right out from under me by a group of people who don't like what I am. And this time, 'what I am' = Gay. Before, the excuse was 'what I am' = Black. THIS **** MUST STOP because really, what I am is pissed!

[paul]

Hey Nicky, I feel you man!
I believe 2 consenting adults have the right to have their marriage recognized by the state.
My bigger problem is the state issuing license. By inference, the state is giving permission for people to get married. I really believe that goes beyond the freedoms and liberties we say we have.
Ironically, if my memory of history is correct, licensing grew out of miscegenation laws. The laws designed to restrict interracial relationships were used as springboards by the states to establish the need for marriage licenses. Thus states could refuse to offer marriage licenses to interracial couples.
Even more ironic though is my sense that the Black community strongly oppose issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

[QUINNY]

This isn't just a Gay issue.
Heterosexual couples who decide NOT to get married face most of these problems too. What I object to in the UK is that Gay rights have been pushed forward of those heteros who merely decide to live together, just because the Gay community is more vociferous and have a stronger lobby in parliament. As more and more hetero people are deciding not to formally tie the knot, this is potentially a huge problem and already big enough that it should be addressed. In a perfect world, people would get married, but as they're not and this looks like a permanent trend, something should be done. If anything, not having the same property rights etc is more destabilising, as in today's materialistic society, kids and one's responsibilty towards them, come off second best in many a person's thoughts.

The term Gay 'marriage' is a somewhat farcical one IMO, but I'm all for there being formal state recognition of long term/committed relationships under the law, so that everyone has the same property rights, tax breaks, visiting rights etc. At the same time, I am also for the promotion of marriage between hetero couples and don't understand why so many find marriage a leap too far. I suppose there is potential for a moral dilemma in there somewhere.

[Sami M]

The gay marriages seem to make headlines everywhere. For myself marrige with its religious aspects is not important either.

Luckily in Finland it is now possible for gays to register their relationship officially and gain mainly the same legal effects as there are in a marriage, it's just not called marriage and doesn't involve the church. I think it was a major signal to the society, though the disputes of adoption rights are still going on strong.

I can understand the feelings of the more religious gays, who'd like to be accepted by church too. But that's another dilemma, concerning what's in the bible etc.

[K-Bee]

Finland and Denmark seem to be very similar concerning this particular topic. We've had these registration partnerships (ie getting married at city hall and that way recieve a legally binding paper) between two homosexual people since 1989 but official gay marriages in church are still not allowed, which I think is totally ridicoulous. When two people love each other and want to get married, surely they should be allowed to do so, no matter their sexual preferences. It's just a matter of rewriting the wedding ritual to fit gay people as well..how hard can that be?
I have a homosexual sister who was in the same relationship for 12 years and they were never able to get a blessing from the church due to rules and regulations that I believe to be far removed from the reality of today's society

[Sami M]

The law for the registration of gay couples was accepted here in 2001. I've understood Denmark to be way ahead in many ways... :roll:

It's very common in here that straight couples live in marital like status, but are in no way officially registered as a couple. Some are engaged, but that's tradition and has no legal effects. There is some, though light, juridic regulation of this free form of living and it's widely accepted/acknowleged by the society. There is no such option for gays. Gays have to register their relationship or else they are officially concidered just two seperate persons, not a couple.

Only some hundred couples, about 700 by the end of 2003, have made their relationship official. In 2003 there were more female couples than male couples registered.

[K-Bee]

The law for the registration of gay couples was accepted here in 2001. I've understood Denmark to be way ahead in many ways... :roll:

Yes I do believe Denmark was one of the first countries to do so.

[NickNack]

Ironically, if my memory of history is correct, licensing grew out of miscegenation laws. The laws designed to restrict interracial relationships were used as springboards by the states to establish the need for marriage licenses. Thus states could refuse to offer marriage licenses to interracial couples.

You're memory is right on target. This is the same 1919(?) law the Mass. Governor wants to resurrect to block the states gay marriages. The original intent of the law was to block interracial couples from out-of-state from marrying in Mass. So we've taken 1 step forward, 2 steps backward.

Even more ironic though is my sense that the Black community strongly oppose issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

Yes. Isn't it wonderful how quickly we human beings can forget what it feels like to be on the receiving end of discrimination? Most of this sentiment again springs from the Church, but I am not going to go into that issue on the board.

It's so funny. Bill and I met 26 years ago last month. In our second year together he wanted some type of 'committment ceremony' or something. I remember saying what for. I had no desire to emulate straight society in this matter whatsoever. I even dealt with the unfairness of us being a 'couple' and not being able to legally live as one, as long as people left me the **** alone. Now the Republicans and Bush have turned it into a very ugly issue, dividing this country again.

Quinny: I understand what you're saying but it's not the same because as you said: "Heterosexual couples have DECIDED NOT to get married." I can't make that decision. I don't have that choice.

[paul]

26 years for you and Bill Nicky! Impressive and congrats.
As for the "uniter" and his regime establishing laws opposed to gay marriages, nothing surprising here. This is a one party nation.
I hope to see the day when this shroud of ignorance and intolerance goes away. 8)

[Funky Dude]

The block on gay marriages is a big problem in Australia too. Bloody John Howard is trying to put a block on gay marriages over here and sadly the church are backing him too which I think is fucked :evil: !!!!! What's worse, it's claimed Johnny is doing this to get more votes and that is down right disgusting :evil: !!!!! Fair dinkum, what happened to our tradition of giving one a "fair go"?????

John Howard is a George Bush buttkisser because he always does what George Bush says or does, i.e. following George Bush's block on gay marriages, Johnny Howard does the same :evil: !!! I hope Johnny Howard would lose the next election because he is a prick, he is ruining Australia's image of giving one a fair go :evil: !!! I'm voting the Greens next election as that party wants to do good for Australia plus they support gay marriages too.

Johnny Howard says he's blocking gay marriages because he thinks it's not traditional, HAAAAAA :evil: :evil: !!!!! John is old fashioned old fart with old fashioned ideas :evil: !!!! We're living in the 21st century not the 1930s!!!!! This block is a homophobic, prejudice and rediculous waste of space of a law to have, this is soooooooooooooo wrong :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: !!!!!

Anyways that's how I feel about this pointless gay marriage block, it is homophobic, descriminatory and pointless :evil: !!!

[QUINNY]

Looking at things logically, it's not difficult to see why the politicians or the church have taken their stance.

The truth is that the rampant rise of same sex relationships could be hugely destructive to western (all) society. Capitalism is based on ever increasing consumption of manufactured goods. If the balance between same sex relationships and mixed sex continues as it has been in the last 20 years, pretty soon there will be a huge poulation downturn. The signs are already there for all to see. Moreover, because less and less children will be born per capita to hetero couples, the West's finances will be wrecked. There are already signs that our utopia is coming apart at the seams, with less young people in work to help support an ever ageing population. This can only get worse if same sex partnerships continue to rise so dramatically. Condoning same sex 'marriages' would invariably give the whole thing a seal of approval and would promote even more same sex relationships and so the whole downward spiral would continue and gather pace. Just saying that politicians are biased/pricks/homophobic is really not fully understanding the situation.
It's also easy to see why the church is so anti Gay 'marriages'. Marriage, according to the church is partly (but significantly) for the procreation of the human race. Something which by definition same sex couples would be unable to do naturally.
Therefore in a strictly orthodox theological context, how could the church be accepting of it without ripping up the bible?

I would have thought that everyone is for equal rights under the law and it's the Gay's insistance on calling the ceremony a 'marriage' and wanting to do it as a (quasi) religious ceremony that is the real bug bear. If you can't see how offensive that is to many church goers and religions, then it is you who has the blinkers on.

It may well be that homosexuality is nature's own way of exercising birth control for the Human race. It may well be that capitalism will be ousted by an, as yet unknown form of society, within which a large decreasing population can be successfully sustained. Who knows?

A last thought. Is it only heteros that are biased and discriminatory? I wonder what would happen if the boot was on the other foot?

Not homophobic.....just how I see the situation with my pragmatic hat on.

[Nano]

Here in Argentina there is some discussion too. Buenos Aires, DF of the country, has made up a law that condones gay marriage, only that it's not called that, but "legal union". It still has most of the legal rights of an hetero marriage. The church obviously is against it, and adoption rights are a huge issue. There are also some gay people against "legal union" and asking for the full monty (no pun intended), etc.

About what Quinny said above (did you note that he states "IMO" and not "IMHO"? The word "humble" is not on his vocabulary? :) ) yes, that thing about global population going down does make sense, but then right now there seems to be too many people for the jobs at hand. Just look at disemployment rates on any country. I remember that Charlton Heston sci-fi movie, "Soylent Green", with people growing out of physical space to live and waiting for the Government's dose of food. That also makes sense for the inmediate future to be, IMHO.
Our little, capitalist world an Utopia? It seems something went wrong along the way. Remember just when any new gadget comes up (i.e. the PC), somebody says it will make our lives easier, producing the same with less work and more spare time. Then time passes and we work the same time as always (or even more) to produce more, because if the machine can stand that, why not try? And if someone does it, the rest will have to do too, because competition (even of the unfair kind) is the universal law.
That's the main reason of political corruption, the conservative behavior of those in power, and constant infringement of the law. You have the "cloning issue", for instance. As soon as any country makes legal the cloning of humans within their bounds, economical reasons will force the rest to do the same. So political stances tend to be very unstable in Utopia.
Whewwfff!!! OK, I thought too much for today :)

[SandraDee]

As a gay man I personally have no desire to subscribe to straight people's hypocritical & out-dated institution of marriage. Nobody could be more happy & in love than my partner (of 14 years older) & me, while most straight marriages end in divorce & affairs within a few years or less. No thanks, you can keep your dreadful religious ceremonies & rituals.

[paul]

Interesting take all. I didn't realize the gay marriage issue stretched globally and may have global implications as Quinny implies. Speaking of Quinny, I disagree with your broader argument. That being gay marriage will be a sort of slippery slope where by it would lead to lowered heterosexual reproduction. I agree with some of your details, as in the need for capitalism to have an ever growing consumer base to flourish. I don't believe I or most heteros will be more inclined to change my ways. For example, I wont feel the need to find me a gay man because gays can get married. 8) I believe it it will have little to no impact on the current rates of reproduction as a result.
As for the church, it will just have to adapt to more enlightened thinking. Aside from having it's own issues to deal with (pedophiles for example), the days of the inquisition have long since past, except perhaps for Islam.
I do agree that gays are as equally prone to discrimination and prejudices proportional to their population when compared to the hetero population.

[NickNack]

The truth is that the rampant rise of same sex relationships could be hugely destructive to western (all) society.

From this sentence alone I knew I wouldn't be responding. "Rampant rise"? :o I guess my recruiting campaign is working.

[paul]

From this sentence alone I knew I wouldn't be responding. "Rampant rise"? :o I guess my recruiting campaign is working.

Perhaps it is working Nicky. This evening I felt like I was coming down with gay :o

[PhyllisHyman]

Quinny
Substitute the world 'black' or 'jew' for 'gay' in your last post then read it again. Remind you of anything?
Either all people are equal or they're not. Once you start deciding that some are 'more equal than others' then you're on a slippery slope.
And since when is ok for anyone's human rights to be sacrificed for the western economy? Oh..it already is isn't it?

[SandraDee]

If you can't see how offensive that is to many church goers and religions, then it is you who has the blinkers on.

I knew there was a point to gay marriage! The more church goers I offend the better. :lol:

[QUINNY]

Quinny
Substitute the world 'black' or 'jew' for 'gay' in your last post then read it again. Remind you of anything?
Either all people are equal or they're not. Once you start deciding that some are 'more equal than others' then you're on a slippery slope.
And since when is ok for anyone's human rights to be sacrificed for the western economy? Oh..it already is isn't it?

I'm writing this as someone who is largely anti capitalism, and as someone who can think rationally.

Phyllis: I don't think the substituting of other words would actually work. Sure, those people have been discriminated against, but hey, aren't we all discriminated against in our everyday lives, by somebody or some group? Writing as nearly everyone's enfant terrible/black sheep/whipping boy of this site, I know all about discrimination. Let's just face it. Most people ARE discriminatory, given the chance and positively keep others in their place. Or are you going to donate half your salary to help save some poor Africans/Indians or whoever needs it? No, thought not. You care about the under priviledged, but not enough to do anything about it. Are you (we) discriminating against them, by squandering all the world's precious resources, so we can enjoy our frigging Disco records or CDs in our power hungry homes or cars???? Are they equal to you or I? Do you (we) want what we buy to be cheap and plentiful, so long as we don't have to think about the poor sods who earn peanuts pampering to our needs and wants. We are not created equal and we most definitely don't live our lives as equals, so cut the bull.

If you can't see the absolute imperative that the population must rise in order to keep us in the economic bliss that we've all become accustomed to, then I can't help you understand anything. We would not have a half of what we have today if capitalism and a surge in population hadn't happened. Medicine would be 100 years back, Gays would still be in the closet, Disco would never have happened and forget about cars. Economic strength has enabled all the things we take for granted today, to come into being. Capitalism and progress. The two things go hand in hand. If you want stagnation or heaven forbid depression, then stop the birth of babies for a dozen years. We'd be well and truly screwed after a short while. With nearly a fifth of the population already being Gay and rising, the future of the Western World is potentially teetering on the brink of meltdown. Ah! but those Africans/Indians/South Americans are still having enough kids to see us alright.

Human Rights are an absolute falacy. Of course the Western world's need's come before your Human rights. I'm not saying that's right, but what other truth is there? We all have a certain level of Human Rights afforded us, so long as the Government dosen't need to stop them for some trumped up reason, or so long as we pay our taxes. If the Government decided to bomb us all tomorrow, what could you do about it? Can't go the European Court of Human rights if you're dead.

I notice no one has bothered answering my question about what would happen if the boot was on the other foot. Could that be 'cos we all know what would happen. I'd be here bleating about white, hetero's rights, eh? Hypocrisy, not a thing that's easy to own up to, is it guys?

[NickNack]

I notice no one has bothered answering my question about what would happen if the boot was on the other foot. Could that be 'cos we all know what would happen. I'd be here bleating about white, hetero's rights, eh? Hypocrisy, not a thing that's easy to own up to, is it guys?

I won't respond because I can't discuss/argue with you but, I do need to ask you a question:

Where are you getting the information that, "A fifth of the world is Gay and on the rise...". Is there an increase in 'gay babies' being born. What am I missing?

[sirius]

Dear Friends!Dear NickNack!
About 6 % percent of the human population are gay/lesbian.
In big cities about 10%! About 25% on this planet are
bisexual!!! You missed a lot since the 70´s!!!
About Gay-Marriage: I don´t need the roman catholic
church and the pope, being together with THE MAN I LOVE!
The love of God is everywhere...
I am not sure, that gay-marriage will make the situations
of gays better...ignorance and tolerance is made by politics
with or without marriage. Besides every third hetero-
marriage is divorced in Europe.
Nevertheless this discussion is very important, because
the most dangerous thing is being silent or shut up!
Cosmic Love & Kisses From SIRIUS & DARKTUNES...

[QUINNY]

NickNack: To answer your question. I believe it was Peter Tatchell (a Gay rights activist in the UK) who came up with the 20% figure (which presumably included latent Gays whom he wanted to 'come out'). So you have one of your own for spreading the muck.

I've also read somewhere that it's estimated that the world Gay population is approximately 10%. Sirius says 6%, but interestingly 25% bisexual. Fully Gay or partly Gay, what's the effective difference? So take your pick.

Either way, I doubt if there were so many Gays (outed or closet) even 25 years ago and certainly not 50 or 100 years ago.

[NickNack]

NickNack: To answer your question. I believe it was Peter Tatchell (a Gay rights activist in the UK) who came up with the 20% figure (which presumably included latent Gays whom he wanted to 'come out'). So you have one of your own for spreading the muck.

Hey, I just wanted to know where the numbers were coming from. I didn't take it as muck or anything else. Just info I've never seen or bothered to research.

I've also read somewhere that it's estimated that the world Gay population is approximately 10%. Sirius says 6%, but interestingly 25% bisexual. Fully Gay or partly Gay, what's the effective difference? So take your pick.

"Fully Gay or partly Gay"? Why not 'fully straight or partly straight? Never mind...

Either way, I doubt if there were so many Gays (outed or closet) even 25 years ago and certainly not 50 or 100 years ago.

OK --- this is what I'm getting at. Why do you think there is a 'rampant rise' in the gay population from then to now? Why do you think the quoted percentages would be vastly different?

[Sami M]

About the church and gay marriage. I'm not religious person at all myself, but I know that there are very religious gays too, religion is not just for gays. Now, although the marriage has it's function to quarantee the reproduction of human race, it is also about the uniting of two people in an ancient and traditional ceremony. A ceremony that means very musch to very many people, straight or gay. I guess this is the point - the straights and gay see marriage in a different way.

In away the marriage has lost much of it's reproductive significance, at least around here, babies are very ccommonly breed, born and brought up outside of marriges. This has not been the destruction of the society.

It's true that in Europe the number of old people is increasing and it's quite commonly confessed as a problem. But to get more babies is not the solution, I think. For example in Finland we have very high unemployment rates, also with the youngsters age 18 - 25, and many of the highly educated at agegroup of 25 - 35 have only part time jobs. Furthermore the factories etc. are being closed, people sacked out and the functions are moved to China. Now some of the (phone)services and even consulting jobs are transferred to where the labor is cheaper.

So really, why increase the number of babies born when there are no jobs available, and no certainty that there will ever be?

And what comes to the amount of gays now and before - I believe the gay percentage of the population is the same. Earlier they just weren't out and got married, some had babies and so on. Now, just think how much human misory that much have coused.

Furthemore, to my understanding, it is nowdays clear that the state is more and more for people and people are not for the state. I've understood that this is chosen as a guideline in many modern societies.