Sunday, April 16, 2006

Same Sex Marriage Discussion

Originally posted on Myspace, April 13, 2006 2:31am:
Here is an excerpt from a forum discussion I was involved with on the Off Topic board at This discussion took place over several days, and is actually still going on. As lover of great debating, I thought that it was interesting exchange.

You wrote: I don't see god smiting down homosexuals, so until then, everyone should just let them be. God is the only one who can judge any of us. As Whoopi Goldberg once said, "If you don't like homosexuals, then don't marry one."

melodymaestra wrote: whoopi quote is great...

crazy_legs_1205: It has nothing to do with liking homosexuals or not. It's about upholding the definition of marriage, which is seen as sacred or special, and shouldn't be changed. Many people who are fine with homosexuality are still against same-sex marriage. I don't think that five-year-olds should be allowed to get married, but that doesn't mean that I'm prejudice against five-year-olds. It's just that five-year-olds don't fit into the traditional definition of marriage, which is that marriage is for mature adults. Similarly, same-sex couples don't fit into the definition of marriage, which is that it is between one man and one woman. And again, this is just how I personally feel.

EVILBSTD wrote: Why do all the liberals in this thread have such a hard time respecting other opinions than their own?

LSyd wrote: I'm fairly liberal myself. I don't have a hard time respecting the opinions of others, I just hate it when people use their opinions in order to prevent others from having certain rights that others take for granted. Fine, you don't want it to be the same as marriage. But homosexuals should at least be able to have a 'civil union' which works in a similar fashion and confers upon the couple the same rights and status for various services as a heterosexual married couple would otherwise have. For example, some things require a couple to be married - a de facto homosexual relationship doesn't work. There should be at least some form of recognition for a homosexual couple similar to marriage for legal purposes.

You wrote: The same could be said for a lot of conservatives. The only problem that I have with Conservatives is that they feel that because they live a certain way, everyone has to live the same way. If you don't like Broccoli, then that doesn't mean that no one can have it. Just because you don't like same sex marriage, doesn't mean that homosexuals should be deprived of it. I've said it before, and it still applies.

"If you don't like homosexuals, then don't marry one." -Whoopie Goldberg-

crazy_legs_1205 wrote: Well, a lot of liberals look down on everyone who doesn't like all the "fresh new ideas" that they have. So they're just as guilty.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: it has nothing to do with liking homosexuals or not.

You wrote: And a lot of conservatives look down on liberals because they have "fresh new ideas" contradictory to their own.

crazy_legs_1205 wrote: And a lot of liberals look down on conservatives because they have traditional ideas contradictory to their fresh new ones.

You wrote: Not all "fresh new ideas" are necessarily bad. If no one had them, then there would still be segregation, Social security would never have been instituted, Prohibition would never have been repealed, and women would not be able to vote. Like women's suffrage in the 1900's, prohibition in the 1920's, and segregation in the 1950's; same sex marriage is just our generation's social issue. At the time, people were vehemently against desegregation in the 50's. When Truman desegregated the military in 1954, he did it against great opposition. People hated it at the time, but they eventually got over it. It is the same thing with same sex marriage.

melodymaestra wrote: good point.

crazy_legs_1205 wrote: And not all traditional ideas are necessarily bad either. I don't see what's so wrong about wanting to keep certain things the same.

Humblah wrote: There isn't anything wrong with keeping some things the same. But when someone's civil liberties are in question, maybe it's time for change. Think that a lot of that "sanctity of marriage" stuff is rather hypocritical.

crazy_legs_1205 wrote: There are laws against marrying someone closely related to you. Doesn't that infringe on someone's "civil liberty" to marry their sibling or cousin?

There are laws against marrying someone if you're already married. Doesn't that infringe on someone's "civil liberty" to have seven wives?

There are laws against minors marrying. Doesn't that infringe on a kindergartener's "civil liberty" to marry the cute little girl that sits across from him?

The answer to all of these questions is NO. Having "civil liberties" doesn't mean that you are allowed to do anything and everything you want. It means you have certain rights that the law grants you. The law grants every adult the right to marry, as long as they fulfill certain qualifications. And one of those qualifications should be that the person they marry be of the opposite sex. It's not out of discrimination against gays; it just how marriage is defined.

Similarly, there are certain qualifications you must meet in order to run for president. Two of these are that you must have been born in the U.S. and that you must be at least 35 years old. This is not out of discrimination against naturalized citizens or young people; it's just how the law has defined it.

You wrote: It's funny that you use the word discrimination.
Function: noun
1 a : the act of discriminating b : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently
2 : the quality or power of finely distinguishing
3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment

Now, how is not allowing tax paying citizens to marry because they are homosexual not discrimination?

crazy_legs_1205 wrote: Sorry about that. I was using "discrimination" in the negative sense that most people think of it, not the more neutral dictionary sense. When people hear "discrimination" they usually think of unjust hatred and bigotry. That's what I was talking about. Most people aren't against same-sex marriage because of bigotry toward gays. A lot of people are fine with gay people, but just can't agree with same-sex marriage.

You wrote: You didn't answer my question. How is it not discrimination?

crazy_legs_1205 wrote: You asked "how is not allowing citizens to marry because they are homosexual not discrimination". My point is, being against same-sex marriage isn't the same as being against gay people. We don't forbid same-sex marriage because we don't like people's sexual orientation. We forbid it because two people of the same sex marrying doesn't fit into the definition of "marriage". It's not about sexuality; it's about upholding the definition of marriage.

You wrote: A definition that is based on a Judeo-Christian belief. A definition, which was in fact changed in many states to specifically say "between a man and a woman" to prevent homosexuals from getting married. Laws changing the definition of marriage were passed with the sole purpose of removing a group's civil rights just for being different. THAT is discrimination.

schyzofroggy wrote: Agree, well said

crazy_legs_1205 wrote: Are you sure about that? There's a branch of Judaism that allows same-sex marriages, and there are certain Christian churches that do as well. Even if you do consider it "discrimination," I'd say that not allowing gays in the military is even more discriminatory. That is undoubtedly about their sexuality and nothing else.

You wrote: The military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy does not prohibit homosexuals from joining the military. Homosexuals are free to join the military if they choose. The military opposed desegregation, but they adapted. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell may not necessarily be politically correct, but its progress.

Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin Judaeus Jew -- more at JEW
: having historical roots in both Judaism and Christianity

Judeo-Christian refers to a commonly held belief. Yes I know that there are different denominations that do condone same sex marriage, Unitarians for example which are the church that my Lesbian cousins attend, but these are looked upon by Judaism and Christianity as fringe groups. A lot of Jews and Christians follow the belief set forth in the bible. Just because it is in the bible, that doesn't mean that people should be stripped of their civil liberties.

LSyd wrote: Not all children who live with homosexual couples are adopted. An example is my brother's friend. His father divorced and left, and his mother is now in a lesbian relationship. He is currently living with his mother and her partner.

This kid is perfectly normal, despite living in a house with the two "parents" being the same sex. There is nothing wrong with this, just like there shouldn't be anything wrong with a homosexual couple adopting a child if it is in the child's best interests. But for that to be possible, there needs to be some form of legal recognition for a homosexual relationship equivalent to marriage which is currently available to heterosexual couples, and adoption needs to be available to people in said legally recognized relationship.

You wrote: Agreed. Two of my cousins are gay with children, and they are perfectly normal well-adjusted kids. Granted they have their average teen issues, but no more than any other kid.


Post a Comment

<< Home