|
Post by keyodie on Sept 14, 2008 10:18:01 GMT -5
What does everyone here think about gay marriage?
Personally, I'm all for it. I don't see anything wrong with it. The only real argument I see from those against gay marriage is that the Bible says marriage should be between a man and a woman. However, I don't think religion should have to do with the government or laws of any kind, and it's not anybody's business except the two people that want to be married.
If they want to spend the rest of their lives together, if that is what will make them happy, for goodness' sake, just let them get married.
I'll wait for someone else to post before saying anything else.
|
|
|
Post by corgilove on Sept 14, 2008 12:38:05 GMT -5
I also agree with complete seperation of governement and religion. It's unfortunate that our government has trouble with that.
Although I am a Christian, I honeslty am not even slightly ircked by gay marriage. I was happy to hear it was legalized in California, I really wish it was legal in all states. I don't even see how it is SLIGHTLY anyone elses business if someone is gay or not, let alone to tell them they cannot marry who they love. It's wrong.
To the Christians who are openly against gay marriage and tell people how to live their lives, PLEASE READ MATTHEW 7:1. Stop preaching hatred and intolerance, for it will be YOU standing before God, and He will ask YOU why YOU condemned His children for it is not OUR place to do so. Let God be God, He will judge His children. We must not confuse OUR roles with His. Another great one: John 8:7. "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone". Both of those verses, really, cannot get any clearer than that.
|
|
|
Post by Caunion on Sept 16, 2008 14:36:22 GMT -5
Same here as well. I personally do not think that the happiness of two people should be barred just because a couple verses in an Iron Age book and around 500,000 people think it is wrong. Civil unions could work, given that couples under a civil union are given the same rights and privileges a married couple are given. But people also need to account for the couple's religion as well. Hypothetically, two Protestant men who wish to marry should be given the right to be married before a priest.
By the way, has anyone noticed that the Bible says nothing about lesbians? They only have something against homosexual men.
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Sept 16, 2008 14:58:00 GMT -5
Okay,
I was going to stay out of this particular thread because the arguments generally tend to drive me a little buggy. However, I once again find myself unable to zip my lips (or tie my fingers as it may be).
I am a Christian who is adamantly opposed to gay marriage, in the sense that you are all discussing it here. I'll get into reasons for that in another post, but before I posed my questions, I wanted to let you all know where I stand on it so you wouldn't feel sandbagged later.
Corgilove, you can be adamantly opposed to something you consider wrong without condemning the people who are committing those acts. Judging an action to be wrong is often confused with, but is not the same as judging a person. That is why I can say I love my ex-husband, although I believe many of his actions were wrong, I can cheer for the progress of the Iraqi people, and weep for their hardships, even if I think some of the things that they believe are wrong. I am capable of discernment, and know how to differentiate between recognizing evil in the world, and recognizing the good in its people. So, in short, the verses you quoted don't particularly apply to how I feel about gay marriage.
Keyodie -
I agree, it's nobody's business what two people choose to do with their lives, but when you seek the sanction of the state, you are required to abide by the laws that are in place for the contract you are seeking to make. There are reasons, beyond the Bible, that marriage is an institution restricted to one man and one woman, which I will get into a little later, after I've heard your thoughts a little more, and have a little more time.
Caunion - You got a little more specific, so I'm going to ask you for a little more information. Where do you get your number of 500,000, or I guess more specifically, whom were you referring to? I agree with you that civil unions will work to provide all the legal protections and rights that married couples enjoy, and actually have very little objection to them, because, as I stated earlier, what two people choose to do in the privacy of their own homes, and their own financial situations, is none of my business. As to the couple's religion, why should the "rights" of that one couple trump the "rights" of the religion and all of its followers, and if you are so adamantly opposed to religion and government cross contamination as you seem to be, how could you justify the state imposing its will on the church? That argument cuts both ways, and is actually much more applicable, according to the constitution, as I stated it.
And as to your observation, yes, actually, I have noticed that, and have often wondered about it myself. The point was first brought to my attention in a Nora Roberts book I once read, and a priest they were using as a consultant mentioned it. I would not, however, in the newer versions of the Bible (those translated after the ascendance of the Catholic Church), there is little mention of women at all in a sexual capacity. It may be simply a matter of omission over the centuries than one of an actual double standard, but we'll probably never know. At least not until we get a chance to ask the author face to face.
I have on my asbestos suit, so feel free to flame away. I'll catch you all later.
LT
|
|
|
Post by Caunion on Sept 16, 2008 22:18:52 GMT -5
I should have clarified. First the 500,000 was a rough estimated number I figured which accounts for the religious homophobes, including the Westboro Baptist Church, a number of the Southern Baptist churches, and several sects of Islam and orthodox Judaism.
Back to my point where gay marriages should be allowed. There are, as I'm quite sure, churches such as the Metropolitan Community Church that marry homosexual couples. However, I realise that the separation of church and state must work both ways here and some states in the United States do not recognise same sex marriage. So, I think that the state should recognise same sex marriage, which would then allow homosexual couples to be married in the church of their wish. This isn't forcing other churches to marry homosexual couples if they don't want to. It's simply giving churches that do want to marry homosexual couples the chance to do so.
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Sept 17, 2008 1:34:57 GMT -5
Actually, there are no laws governing whether or not a church can perform a marriage for gay couples. The constitution also prevents the government from forbidding that in the church. As it stands at the moment, it is just that while a church may marry you, and satisfy any religious need you have to have a religious union, the state will not recognize that as marriage, any more than it will recognize polygamy, bigamy, incestual unions, underage unions or animal unions. And please before you scream about me smearing gay people as pervs, that's not the point. The laws are written for marriage as an institution between a man and a woman. There is a reason for that, and there are reasons it should not be changed, and they aren't religious, they're biological and societal. If you also have a civil union in a state that allows those civil unions under its laws, you are entitled to any rights married couples have. Which is actually the way it is for a male/female couple as well. You get a priest or minister to marry you, which marries you in the eyes of God, and you get a marriage license from the state you live in to marry you in the eyes of the state. So again, what would be the purpose of allowing the so called "gay right" to state recognized marriage?
And, there are 2 billion Christians, and 1 billion Muslims on the planet, the vast majority of them do not accept gay marriage, and it doesn't have anything to do with homophobia. So, I think your 500,000 estimate is probably a little low. However, on a note of agreement, the Westboro Baptist Church (which by the way is not part of the Baptist church and has been disavowed by them) is an example of Christianity twisted to fit the mold of a very hateful man, and those folks give the entire religion a bad name, and I doubt very strongly that God much likes what they do or represent, even as he loves them anyway.
|
|
|
Post by corgilove on Sept 17, 2008 12:03:41 GMT -5
Then, ladytera, please explain why you are against gay marriage. There is a big difference between being agaisnt eating meats than being agaisnt gay marriages. To be agaisnt something people do that is none of your business, and to also be against people getting married IS judging whether you chose to see it that way or not- and it's obvious why you'd like to think condemning people that you personally think is wrong isn't being judgemental.
However, I cannot say that it matters to me why you think is judging because in the end, it won't be me telling you you were wrong.
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Sept 17, 2008 17:44:24 GMT -5
Then, ladytera, please explain why you are against gay marriage. There is a big difference between being agaisnt eating meats than being agaisnt gay marriages. To be agaisnt something people do that is none of your business, and to also be against people getting married IS judging whether you chose to see it that way or not- and it's obvious why you'd like to think condemning people that you personally think is wrong isn't being judgemental. However, I cannot say that it matters to me why you think is judging because in the end, it won't be me telling you you were wrong. I have a little time, so I will happily comment on why I am against gay marriage, and as I said earlier, it has little to do with my religious views, and nothing to do with being afraid of or hating homosexuals, which is what homophobia actually means. First, what did you mean by the comparison between eating meats and gays? I was just curious, as it struck me kind of oddly, and maybe I caught it out of context. I have ABSOLUTELY nothing against a gay couple finding a church that views gay marriage as okay according to its doctrine, and getting married. I have ABSOLUTELY nothing against two grown adults entering into a legally binding contract with one another that lays out the rules, benefits and liabilities of a life long partnership. I have a HUGE problem with the concept of "gay rights", just as I have a huge problem with "women's rights", "african-american rights", or any other specialized rights. And gay marriage is a gay rights issue that is designed to impose the view point of a small minority of people on a majority of people who do not agree with them, entitling them to rights the rest of the population DO NOT share. There are three main issues that cause me to be opposed to redefining marriage, which is in essence what we are being asked to do here. The first is the family unit. This has been an important part of our society as a whole, and have been the foundational bedrock of what we are as a people. This is biologically as well as biblically based, but let just stay out of the realm of religion, and focus on some basic facts. Human children are unable to care for themselves during infancy, toddlerhood, childhood, and into the early part of their teens. They require at least one, preferably two adult humans to take care of the basic biological needs, food, shelter, water, clothing. Psychologically speaking, it has been proven that the best chance of success for a child developing into a fully functional adult is if they have a mother and father as part of their lives growing up, whether it is a female or male child. The scientific reasons behind this are probably too numerous to count, but some basic ones that jump out are that first, role models help us define acceptable behavior within a society. A female needs a female role model to define female behavior in society, and a female needs a male role model to define relational behaviors within male female relationships within society. A male needs both for the same reason. That's first. Second, men and women function differently. Men tend to have a logical, problem solving approach to life, with a more structured view of the world in general and their place in it, women have a more fluid and intuitive view on the world that involves emotion more so than men. The yin and yang talked about elsewhere. For a child to develop a full understanding of the world around it, and how it works, whether the child is male or female, they need both of those perspectives. Also, biologically speaking, it is necessary for the human population to maintain itself, and this can only be done with a male and female partner. While a person should not be condemned for behavior that is contrary to this natural imperative, any more than a disabled person should be condemned for their disability or a colored person should be condemned for the color of their skin, it should also not be normalized as it is dangerous to the human race as a whole. You can make the argument that family dynamics have changed over the years, and society should be more accepting of this. But I'll simply argue that divorce rates have caused more depression at younger ages, less ability to have healthy relationships for those coming out of those broken homes, and many other obstacles to the mental, emotional and even physical well being of those subjected to the new norms. The communities of blacks in this country are a prime example. We often hear about the unfairness of the higher crime rates, incarceration rates, and lower graduation rates in these communities, but we rarely hear that one of the number one underlying causes of all of that is not racism but a lack of fathers in the households that are producing such sad statistics. Societally speaking, for a society to maintain itself, it must maintain and grow its population. If it does not, it will eventually fall to outside forces. For a society to maintain itself, it also must maintain its rules of behavior, or again it will eventually fall to inside and outside forces. One of the key components in Western society, and most other societies as well, is the family unit. Whether it is the current form, of husband, wife and child, or the older versions of several generations living together, it is the basis by which all children learn by example the basic beliefs, behaviors, and rules that allow them to be a part of the society as a whole. When you begin to tinker with those basic units, even as we did in moving from multi-generation families to individual family units, parts of your history, and parts of the ideas and spirit of what holds your society together begin to be lost. Third, and often most discounted, is simple human nature, and the concept of the slippery slope. If you allow one group to redefine a fundamental principle of society, for their sole benefit, it will not be long before another group will clamor to redefine it even more, for their sole benefit. We have already seen the beginnings of this in states where gay marriage was allowed. Shortly thereafter, you had groups advocating for polygamy, and pedophilia be be legalized as well, because, after all, if the religious beliefs of only a few people by law couldn't be allowed to keep it from being redefined for gay people, why should the religious beliefs of only a few be allowed to keep it from being expanded even more. Once you move the argument into the realm of moral evalutation, and then into the realm of moral equivalence, rather than being about the good of society as a whole, you open the door to any belief that screams loudly enough, and set the precedent for allowing pretty much anything. My last argument, and it is more for an amendment that protects marriage as it stands than against gay marriage itself is this. It is part of the federal law that any contract made in one state must be recognized in another. Proponents of allowing states to decide their own marriage laws say that this wouldn't apply, however it must. If I am married here in Georgia, and move to Massachusetts, the state of Massachusetts must recognize that marriage. Therefore, if a gay couple is married in Massachusetts, even though it would be a violation of the laws here in Georgia, Georgia would still be forces to recognize that contract. Because it is one of the few actual Constitutional mandates of the Federal Government to arbitrate interstate contracts, the Federal Government needs to make a policy regarding this matter, and the reasons I stated above are why it should be the protection of the institution of marriage as it currently stands. Corgilove, as you can see, this isn't about my judgment of any particular type of behavior, it is about the historical and scientific facts and ramifications.
|
|
|
Post by misaki on Sept 20, 2008 5:35:20 GMT -5
I somehow feel that, thanks to my lovely new sig set (*drools* slaps self* )... I am at the risk of not being taken really entirely seriously xD But yeah. Just ignore the moving sexiness and try not to concentrate on the tattoo. ( I know it's hard..err..*slaps self again* ;D ) Hopeless fangirls have brains too! Even if they're blond. *nods* I'm pro-Gay Marriage. Because I think that, no matter what your religion says, or what your idea of the world deems 'normal' and 'as it should be', no one has the right to tell people if they can marry another free individual or not. The so-called 'scientific' reasons are ridiculous. Not everyone is suddenly going to become gay if it's legal, it will always be a minority. Aside from that, giving gays the right to adopt is a completely different matter. Gay marriage has been legal in the Netherlands for years, yet there were, a short while ago, still issues about gays wanting to adopt. Marriage being allowed doesn't necessarily mean adoption is allowed. Anyway, I think a child would be a lot happier with two very loving mums or dads then children of divorced or ever bickering parents. Yes, children ideally should have a male and female role model. but seriously, how often is that a relative? My parents are sweet and all, but certainly not my role models. I guess every teen picks their own role models at some point, and there are enough males and females around to provide one or more. On the subject of gay marriage causing things like pedophilia being allowed; nonsense. Like I said before, gay marriage has been legal for quite a long time over here. And no such thing happened. By the way, don't you think comparing gays to pedophiles and polygamists is rather strange? Polygamist suggests a situation with one 'powerful' individual and several submissive persons, in most cases not out of free choice. Well, not the choice of the submissives, that is. |And pedophile is almost as bad as incest, that's just plainly harming another person's psyche. Gays, however, aren't forcing anyone to be gay. It's not a disease. So I think that's a rather discriminating comparision. And those things being questioned where gay marriage was recently made legal could also mean gay marriage is in that case a result of an already changed stat of mind. more open, to both the bad and good sides of human nature.
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Sept 20, 2008 21:39:37 GMT -5
Thank you for posting Aerlinn. I must have had more time on my hands than usual this week, 'cause I noticed the last umpteen posts were mine, I'd kind of gone on a tear, so they were also huge, and I was afraid I'd scared everyone else into silence. ;D God knows I've been a bit of a witch this week for some reason anyway!
If you will notice, I did not once object to a church whose doctrine allows for it being allowed to marry a gay couple, nor did I once object to legal civil unions. Regardless of what my morals may say, I live in a country where freedom of expression and freedom of religion are both sacrosanct, which means that people who do things and say things I don't like are just as protected as anyone else. The legalization of gay marriage is a different kettle of fish, and it applies to the laws of our society, nothing more, and nothing less. Laws in a society are designed to protect society as a whole, and are by nature an infringement of individual liberty, albeit a necessary one. In this case, the social ramifications are many, many of which cannot be comprehended until they come to fruition, at which point it will be too late to change them.
You notice as well that I did not say everyone would become gay if gay marriage was legalized. Again, not the issue. You are correct that they will always be a minority, and as such are entitled to the same rights and protections under the law, but not special rights to accommodate them that impose their world view as the norm on the rest of society.
Absolutely. Adoption is a whole 'nother issue, and I'll get into that later if you wish. But again it's not the point. The examples of what has been proven to be the most stable environment for a child were illustrative of why marriage is a legal institution reserved for one man and one woman, rather than a definition left up to the individual. A society must raise functional children into functional adults, so while we may recognize that there are often less than ideal circumstances, the ideal circumstance, for the good of society, must be encouraged.
While you may believe this now, and for the moment, it may actually be true. As you grow older, for good or ill, most of your behavioral patterns will be a combination of your parents behaviors, or a direct opposite of them. Like it or not, the people you grow up with are the largest influence on your development, and their influence will be the one that sticks as you move past the phase of figuring out who you are as an individual instead of just who you are as a child.
I don't know the history of your country, so I can't speak to that. I do know the history of mine though, and what I stated was fact not supposition. They did press for both of those things, and if an when the controversy over gay marriage settles down in favor of it, they will press for it again, and eventually they will win.
Couple things, first I didn't compare the three. I simply stated that those two things were pressed for to be included in being legalized as a form of marriage within a year of the first states legalizing gay marriage here. Again, not comparison or conjecture, but fact.
As to your comments regarding polygamy and pedophilia, how do you determine that? A polygamist would say that it is their right to enter into as many relationships as they wish legally, and their partners would tell you that they want to share. From your perspective, that might seem like a dominant submissive situation, from theirs it would seem like either a natural things, or even a religious obligation, and who are you to tell them they are wrong? Same for pedophilia. The pedophile will tell you that their love is pure, and their partner is willing, and often times, their partners will tell you they are perfectly willing as well, and that it is the first time they've been loved in their lives. Who are you to say that that is harming someone's psyche, or that is is wrong? What is plain to you, is obviously not plain to them, and if there is no absolute right or wrong, only your perception of it, what is there except the societal norms you criticized in your first paragraph, to say that those are unacceptable behaviors?
Actually, if you accept the research that being gay is genetic, rather than some other external force, then it is as much a genetic disorder as Down's Syndrome or Fragile X. If on the other hand, you believe it is solely due to external forces, then you could say that by causing people to be afraid to be thought bigoted if they don't like homosexuality, they are attempting to perpetuate their personal life style by forcing society to accept it as normal, to be allowed to expose younger people, at a more impressionable point in their lives, to the idea that not only is it okay to be gay, but that the idea of being gay should be embraced. So, either way, the push is to force homosexuality on people. If it wasn't they would happily live together, sign contracts to cover the legal aspects of that, and be married by a church willing to do so, if that was their wish, without trying to change the rest of society in the process.
This may be true. However, my point was that laws are designed to protect society from the bad side of human nature, and changing them to accommodate a small minority of people, and in the process negating a major building block of that society, is detrimental to society as a whole, especially when there is no need to do so to protect the individuals seeking the change from society as a whole, and the change is solely due to a desire to force social change, especially when the future ramifications to society are not taken into account.
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Sept 23, 2008 21:04:10 GMT -5
When I find more time, I will be able to write a longer post, but for now I just wanted to bring up a couple points:
I too am against special rights being given to minority groups (african american rights, women's rights, etc.). I'm Asian, and I have dealt with racism, but I don't think that should give me special rights. For racism to be completely gone, there has to be adjustments on both sides. I'm tired of minority groups acting like victims. Race and sex shouldn't matter. Period.
However, "gay rights" isn't like "african american rights" or "women's rights". African Americans, women, they all deal with prejudice, but they aren't restricted. They can still apply for whatever job they want to, they can serve in the military, they can run for office. What these groups are trying to do is get even more rights than the majority. Gays ARE restricted. They aren't allowed to marry. THAT is what I am against.
Of course it would cause a chain reaction. What doesn't? That isn't a good enough reason in my opinion.
And honestly, if people were really advocating those things, I doubt that anyone took them seriously.
As for the whole "good for society" thing, I'm sure that is a very controversial subject, so I won't get into that. Too tired.
|
|
Larael
Student
"Does the Walker choose the Path, or does the Path choose the Walker?"
Posts: 24
|
Post by Larael on Sept 26, 2008 20:11:04 GMT -5
Although I am a Christian and pro-Gay marriage I also find myself agreeing with several points that ladytera has made. There are certain "problems" I see with Gay marriage, however Gay people are human beings and they do deserve the same rights as everyone else, which, all religions aside, includes marriage.
|
|
Gil
Apprentice
teh spazzy queen
Posts: 54
|
Post by Gil on Sept 30, 2008 16:31:48 GMT -5
I'm a Christian and believe that homosexuality is a sin - HOWEVER, I don't think that has anything to do with the state's business, and I don't see homosexuality as a worse sin than any other - I hate how many Christians make fun of/abuse/hate/whatever homosexuals. What was that verse....before you try and take the speck of dust out of another's eye, take the plank out of your own? Something like that Anyway, I have had a few homosexual friends in the past, and I love them =] They're great fun, and really, I don't even remember that they're homosexual half the time. But all that is beside the point =P I have nothing wrong with a civil union between homosexual couples. I think that they should have all the same legal and financial rights as heterosexual couples. However, I don't know enough about the difference of a civil union and marriage when it comes to the state, so I can't really comment on that. However, I will say that I think that a lot of points ladytera has made are thought-provoking, and maybe even quite valid
|
|
dark
Student
Woah.
Posts: 16
|
Post by dark on Sept 30, 2008 16:48:51 GMT -5
I believe that love breaks through all barriers, if you are stopping someone from showing their love by not allowing them to get married, it's a mark against nature in my mind.
Love knows no bounds, and if it's two men, or two women doing the loving, I see no difference between letting them get married and allowing a straight couple to be married.
It's discrimination in my mind when same sex couples are not allowed to marry, it sounds cliche but marriage is a human right, not a heterosexual privilege.
|
|
sakaido
Journeyman
Ryuichi+Coffee=Best icon ever.
Posts: 111
|
Post by sakaido on Sept 30, 2008 17:27:54 GMT -5
This is hard to explain... I've actually had to wait a few days to gather the right words.As a non-religious person, I understand why Gay Marriage shouldn't be allowed. Marriage is, as ordained by god, the holy union between a man and a woman in a church with a priest. I do NOT believe that marriage then, should have any legal binds or privileges within the state for monetary purposes and whatnot. Or, Gay's should be extended a union equal to that of marriage, without the title, church, and whatever involved.I don't believe it's fair from either perspective. Why should devote Christians have to share the holy union with people the bible CLEARLY states are sinners. And unholy. And it's not fair that Gay people, being denied the right to a union of any kind are told it's not ok to love each other. That's fucking wrong. Pardon my french.
When the vast majority of gay people want the marriage to Devote themselves to each and to get the legal benefits involved. Give them the devotion, the benefits, don't call it marriage. But don't tell them it's wrong to be in love. Sheep even show signs of homosexuality. It's not totally unnatural.
It makes perfect sense to me.
OH! I also don't think it should have had anything to do with the presidential election. It should be left to churches to decide whether it's morally right or wrong. Being as it's their union. Apply that to everything written above and i don't seem nearly as cold hearted.
|
|
Joker
Student
How about a magic trick? *Dada*
Posts: 19
|
Post by Joker on Sept 30, 2008 18:25:56 GMT -5
I think people who are gays have some issues with the logical thinking. I mean why people want to marry another of the same gender unless he or she is physchologically ill. That kind of people needs to receive treatment so they can live their life like average people though you can ask who I am to decide as to what life a person should pursue. Call me narrow minded I do not see the marriage between the same genders as good but I do not discourage them getting married as long as they are not my friend or neighbour.
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Sept 30, 2008 21:13:27 GMT -5
I think people who are gays have some issues with the logical thinking. I mean why people want to marry another of the same gender unless he or she is physchologically ill. That kind of people needs to receive treatment so they can live their life like average people though you can ask who I am to decide as to what life a person should pursue. Call me narrow minded I do not see the marriage between the same genders as good but I do not discourage them getting married as long as they are not my friend or neighbour. Wait, so you wouldn't have a problem with gay marriage unless one of your friends or one of your neighbors happens to be gay? That doesn't sound like "logical thinking" to me. People want to marry another of the same gender because they are attracted to that gender. It's not as absurd or as alien as you think it is. It happens often in nature, it's been happening for a very long time. And why would they have to receive treatment for being gay? There is evidence that homosexuality can be passed down, and there are many happy homosexuals out there. Where did you get the idea that there is something psychologically wrong with them? And why do you think gay marriage is a bad thing? From what I understand, marriage is about love, and love has no boundaries.
|
|
Larael
Student
"Does the Walker choose the Path, or does the Path choose the Walker?"
Posts: 24
|
Post by Larael on Sept 30, 2008 22:20:27 GMT -5
Mmm, see, that's where I have a problem. Gay people do not have psychological problems that make them more susceptible to being gay. Being gay, in my own opinion, seems to be a personal preference. Just as I prefer males over females, a homosexual male will prefer other males. That doesn't sound like a mind problem. That sounds like being a normal human. How homosexual people get to the point where they have such a preference is beyond me though. I think it'd be interesting to hear from someone who is homosexual, or even bisexual, as to why that occurs.
|
|
Joker
Student
How about a magic trick? *Dada*
Posts: 19
|
Post by Joker on Oct 1, 2008 18:27:16 GMT -5
Let me clarify things easy for ya. Well, I mean if a person wants to get married with someone of same gender or opposing gender, I am fine with it. They can go further as much as they like. The thing is... what I am trying to say as long as it does not happen to me, I let them get married. This is where my narrow minded ideas come into play, I do not believe in no way a logical person, if treated right during his/her chidhood, prefers the same gender to opposing gender. I mean come on, Let's be sound. You have gotta have something to make that choice. I am not saying it is horrible though it sounds horrible to me. There should be more to those people who happened to choose to pursue a gay life than meets the eye. And again I am not saying it false but it sounds false to me.
|
|
Raivynn
Journeyman
...my winter storm
Posts: 187
|
Post by Raivynn on Oct 2, 2008 17:07:09 GMT -5
Mmm, see, that's where I have a problem. Gay people do not have psychological problems that make them more susceptible to being gay. Being gay, in my own opinion, seems to be a personal preference. Just as I prefer males over females, a homosexual male will prefer other males. That doesn't sound like a mind problem. That sounds like being a normal human. How homosexual people get to the point where they have such a preference is beyond me though. I think it'd be interesting to hear from someone who is homosexual, or even bisexual, as to why that occurs.I just want to address this part here. I myself am Bisexual and it's as natural to me as you or other heterosexuals. How do you yourself have your opposite gender preference? It just is the way you are, right. It's exactly the same for homosexuals and bisexuals. Some find it easy to come out. Others, like me struggled with it. Not because I felt it was wrong, but because so many outside influences constantly making mention of it being "abnormal". Plus back when I was beginning to realise I wasn't like the other girls, people weren't always so kind and tolerant of homosexuality (and of course Bisexuality) I only felt comfortable coming out when I was about 25, even then it was bit by bit. Anyways...before I stray too far off topic (sorry). I'm firmly for allowing gay marriage. I cannot think of one good reason for it not to be allowed. Sorry that's not as in depth as others' posts.
|
|