First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply My problem with gay marriage (as explained to me)
6506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 2/4/15

morechunch wrote:


Balzack wrote:


morechunch wrote:

Well then maybe you can connect with the fact that marriage started in almost all societies as a woman, as property, being "married" off to a man for a dowry, which nobody cares about now.

This at face value should say a woman is valued higher than a man, you gotta put money into a woman if she's worth it.


We need to bring back dowries! That is probably the incentive I need to find a wife....getting paid off by her parents to take her off their hands.


Hahaha, yes!

I have my own price that I am unwilling to negotiate. 50,000 bucks sent to my brother and his wife and I'm yours, no questions.

This is deviating, is marriage worth a civil union, is a civil union worth marriage?

Why should their be a difference, why should we care about the diffrence?


AND what should we support, no matter what I say?
Posted 2/4/15
it's a case of people/society complicating s__t that doesn't have to be complicated.



And yes it's important to have a voice. equality has to start from somewhere even if it's a small step or the majority strongly disagree. a lot of people use religion as their excuse for not accepting something, but I personally think it's their narrow-mindedness hiding behind an ancient fairy tale.
6010 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
15 / F / Not Heaven
Offline
Posted 2/4/15
Well, there are the natural laws and the canon laws. It just matters how you see the natural laws. The canon laws are usually pretty orthodox. So those two usually never mix, not since, like, Charlemagne's time.
10350 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / United States
Online
Posted 2/4/15 , edited 2/5/15

morechunch wrote:

So here's the thing, I've never been against gay marriage. As a matter of fact, I've never really thought about it. As a straight atheist, nothing could be less relatable to me than wanting to marry someone of my own sex through a church.

I've always said "Whatever, let people do whatever they want."

It was recently explained to me that this is my problem with gay marriage.

I live in a state where same-sex marriage is not recognized. I can hardly recognize any marriage, I was a groomsman at a straight Catholic wedding and the whole time I thought "Why not just sign a civil union paper, legally change a last name if you want, call it good?"

But if you share some belief and you want to tell everybody this is how it is, you should be legally protected. I'm not arguing with the pastors on that.

So my question is why should we actively support a cause that we agree with but don't care about personally? Is it really up to everybody to get this fixed as soon as possible or can we trust it will happen over time?

(to be clear, I am now an ASAP guy on the topic of gay marriage)


Lack of activism doesn't translate to anti-gay; it simply means you aren't passionate about the political issue at hand that does mean a lot to some people. I'm pro gay-marriage - it is unfair to not give someone the same legal tax breaks & other perks that a marriage gives others simply because of gender, but you won't see my marching in any parade to support them either because most political activists are dirtbags who disgrace the LGBT movement & have turned it into a joke.

Everyone's time is limited, to say we should all live our lives attempting to "fix" something outside our immediate control is ridiculous. I have far better things to do with my life that would benefit me and my personal beliefs then to worry about gay marriage; if it pops up in my state to vote, or sign a petition to vote it for consideration, damn right id be all on it, but until then...ehh not my problem. Move somewhere that it is legal; we can't always expect society to mold to our ideologies right? - Norms change over decades, over the last 10 years there has been a significant shift in the homosexual community. Millennials are far more liberal than the Boomers & Gen X.

Idk, I feel the same as you. If someone else feels strongly enough about it, let them change the world. I have more important things to attend to with my time, like anime; when homosexuals are being flogged in the streets and burned at the stake, then i'll be more proactive towards their cause.
27244 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 2/5/15 , edited 2/5/15
I absolutely despise when someone claims something along the lines of "you are either for or against something." That is a twisted and unhealthily-absolute way of thinking that leaves no diplomatic middle ground and creates an awful lot of enemies. The middle grey zone is often much more vast than the extreme lefts and rights. Ignoring it is ridiculous, like saying you understand a book by only reading the first word of every sentence. I have almost never been convinced by any point being driven across to me using this tactic. If anything, it tends to make me not want to agree with the person telling me that. People who sincerely believe that tend to be overbearing and inflexible, IMO. They see only what they wish to and discard everything else.

Controversial issues are controversial for a reason. If they were truly so easy to decide for everyone, they would not be controversial. It bothers me whenever a person is so confident and self-assured they can't understand the position of the other side at all. Someone who truly understands the issue is nearly always affected by a healthy amount of indecisiveness or uncertainty. This isn't because they aren't capable of thinking and deciding. It is because they can see the issue from both sides. Being an extreme left or extreme right does little good in the long run. People only talk like that because they don't want to tackle the complex grey area issues or don't care to understand them. It is one of the reasons I no longer attend church meetings.

Believing in "letting people do as they may" is potentially a result of several different ways of approaching and analyzing the issue. A person can come to believe that through many very different thought processes. To consider them all invalid unless they are self-assuredly against or for something is foolish and comes off as arrogant. You're not a bad person for saying that you don't fully understand (or are too overwhelmed by the complexity of the issues) and aren't comfortable committing to either side, and you are not a bad person for not acting when you have no duty to act.

No elaborate ceremony is really required for a legal marriage, it's just that people tend to want to celebrate such an important event with a big gathering.

You are free to support a cause if it calls out to you and something within you makes it so that you feel obligated to act. You have no "problem with gay marriage" at all. You're not committing a crime if you aren't actively doing something in support of what you believe. If you were legally and morally obligated to act, you'd be a criminal every minute of every day. People aren't capable of being activists for everything they ever support or side with, nor should they be expected to be. You help out because you wish to provide help, not because you wish to be bound to the cause. Simply not acting does not make the existence of your opinion vanish, although people can pretend that it does all they want. You'll always encounter people who don't think the way you do, who don't agree that what you're doing or not doing is okay. That's just how the chaotic world is.

19981 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / New Gridania / H...
Offline
Posted 2/5/15 , edited 2/5/15

morechunch wrote:

So here's the thing, I've never been against gay marriage. As a matter of fact, I've never really thought about it. As a straight atheist, nothing could be less relatable to me than wanting to marry someone of my own sex through a church.

I've always said "Whatever, let people do whatever they want."

It was recently explained to me that this is my problem with gay marriage.

I live in a state where same-sex marriage is not recognized. I can hardly recognize any marriage, I was a groomsman at a straight Catholic wedding and the whole time I thought "Why not just sign a civil union paper, legally change a last name if you want, call it good?"

But if you share some belief and you want to tell everybody this is how it is, you should be legally protected. I'm not arguing with the pastors on that.

So my question is why should we actively support a cause that we agree with but don't care about personally? Is it really up to everybody to get this fixed as soon as possible or can we trust it will happen over time?

(to be clear, I am now an ASAP guy on the topic of gay marriage)


Your line of thinking is really close to mind (but naturally phrased better), so thank you for that.

Here is the thing though, I do not mind same-sex marriage, but I do not actively go out to like gay parades and openly express my public support. Even still if I just look at the fairness of it, the root of my position is against the very notion that we need to systematically debate over such a thing.

Why do lawmakers care so much when there are obviously more important issues to settle? Perhaps decide how we improve the economy? Help the lives of PTSD veterans? Get more jobs? Improve poor communities?

Seriously same-sex marriage?

What is interesting is we live in a country where freedom of expression and freedom of belief exists. You are free to believe what you want and support it actively, assuming it doesn't physically (yes I use physical) harm another individual.

The thing is, religion is influencing these policies. That is my problem.

The entire separation of Church vs State is complete flawed. The "church" (essentially religious influence on an individual) completely influences policies of the state. There is no question that Catholics dominate the majority of Americans, which is all right. But keep your religious influence out of political matters. Kinda like Jury Duty.

Generally when I hear of political debates regarding this religion always has an input and that disgusts me. Believe what you want to believe, if you want to live a straight life go for it. I dont think the GLBT and etc are going to hurt you any sense, but I find it odd that the opposition can be so hard-lined towards same-sex marriage folks.

The only plausible thing I have heard is the case regarding natural reproduction. Well it makes sense, but boo-hoo, there are plenty of children that have been abandoned because of their parents that just got it on and didn't want the responsibility.

Actually the more I type the more I am ranting. I guess in the end its a waste of time, I rather deal with pressing matters.

Until someone can provide an adequate reason of the harmful nature of same-sex marriage I support same-sex marriage (but am not GLBT or anything else I missed), just because I CANT find a reason to not allow it.
Posted 2/5/15
Gay weddings seem more fun anyway.
30236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 2/5/15
It seems oppressive to force an unnecessary club to change it's rules.
20321 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / The null void
Offline
Posted 2/5/15 , edited 2/5/15
gay people are kinda annoying, overly opinionated and useless. why would they want to legalize something that's only purpose sets humanity back? lol
30236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 2/5/15

damonthegreat wrote:

gay people are kinda annoying, overly opinionated and useless. why would they want to legalize something that's only purpose sets humanity back? lol


Speaking of kinda annoying, overly opinionated and useless. lol
1398 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 2/5/15

Sir_jamesalot wrote:


damonthegreat wrote:

gay people are kinda annoying, overly opinionated and useless. why would they want to legalize something that's only purpose sets humanity back? lol


Speaking of kinda annoying, overly opinionated and useless. lol



+1
20013 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 2/5/15
Short Answer: To deny a group of people a right, is a way of expressing that those people are less.

It's like denying a race the right to marriage.

It's less about whether or not homosexuals should be aloud to get married, and more about not having them considered inferior to those who are heterosexual.
30236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 2/5/15

solorflare99 wrote:

Short Answer: To deny a group of people a right, is a way of expressing that those people are less.

It's like denying a race the right to marriage.

It's less about whether or not homosexuals should be aloud to get married, and more about not having them considered inferior to those who are heterosexual.


What about the right to refuse service?
20013 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 2/5/15 , edited 2/5/15

Sir_jamesalot wrote:


solorflare99 wrote:

Short Answer: To deny a group of people a right, is a way of expressing that those people are less.

It's like denying a race the right to marriage.

It's less about whether or not homosexuals should be aloud to get married, and more about not having them considered inferior to those who are heterosexual.


What about the right to refuse service?


As long as it isn't the Government refusing the services, then I don't see the problem. If a church doesn't want a Homosexual couple getting married in their establishment then they should have the right to refuse even if gay marriage is legal. But a court room shouldn't be aloud to.

Another example would be if a private school didn't allow a child to attend because of sexual orientation then so be it, but a public school should never have that right. That is how I see it.

An individual should have the right to discriminate and judge, the government should be allowed to just judge, not discriminate.
Posted 2/5/15
I take the opinion that you can't complain or support something without doing anything about it. Doing nothing is allowing the discrimination to continue. It'd be like Britain in WW2 being all "Nah, Hitler's wrong but it doesn't affect me so why should I bother."

I think we need to give people the exact same rights and when that doesn't happen, it's our duty to protect those people who are being hurt. It's easy for us to turn a blind eye when it doesn't encroach on our lives but when we are the ones being mistreated, we will want the help from others.

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.