Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The same can be said about people who believe in God. And there's a LOT more data that shows sexual orientation is not chosen than there is data that shows that any god exists.
First off, I'm not just straight, I'm Damn straight. I have a difficult time comprehending how a man can look at another man and say "oh yea, that's sexy...". My opinion on homosexuals was: "do your dirty deeds behind closed doors, I don't care, but don't make me look at it or think about it or I'll puke up my whiskey.
So I was a little bit uppity when a openly gay man was moved next to me at work. But we talked, were open about the subject and I've learned a lot about the gay perspective from him.
Anyway, today he was upset because he suspected his boyfriend of cheating on him. It had never occurred to me, but my co-worker's relationship was not about dirty deeds in back rooms after all. He sought out and longed for companionship just like any straight couple does.
I pried a little more and my co-worker told me that infidelity among gay couples is a continual problem in the gay community. 2 and 2 came together... it was obviously that way because they had nothing to keep couples together. No children, no marriage, nothing.
It is clear to me now that allowing gays to get married is the right thing to do. They suffer and are held back because they cannot publicly make vows to each other that are psychologically necessary to create stable, trusting long-term relationships of the sort heterosexual couples enjoy and also allow civilization to function well at large.
So I'm officially about-facing. Let gays get married.. NOW!!!
Nice post. Here's my two cents: as things stand now, the "marriage penalty" which remains enshrined in our income tax code is a tax on heterosexuality. If we can sucker committed gay couples into marriage, tax revenues will go up, the budget deficit will go down and heterosexuals will no longer suffer tax discrimination.
But the main thing is, it is the right thing to do--as you say.
There is absolutly no science that backs it up, there is only opinion. Common sense tell us otherwise.
Common sense?
Common sense says that all people are created equal that consenting adults should be able to do whatever they choose.
So sorry that it offends you. NOT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimimomx3
If I were gay, I'd find a willing minister (of the church of whatever) and get married. I'd buy rings and throw a party. I'd fill out a new will, a medical directive and change my name. Voila. Married.
As representatives of the state, a minister or other representative of the state must follow the state laws.
It's not a "religious" thing.
If people divorce, they don't do it in a church, they do it through the state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roaddog
Thats your opinion, back it up with proof.
What conscious decisions did you make to be straight?
Yeah, someone would choose to be gay and harassed, sometimes beaten, discriminated against, discussed, have laws directed against them, etc.
Yeah, that's some choice.
Last edited by chielgirl; 10-09-2010 at 12:45 AM..
The institution of marriage should be held sacred. Straight marriages support society by adding more people to it. Evolution supports straight marriage.
Gays should be allowed to marry and I'm conservative on every other issue and straight. If people say marriage is an ideal people should aspire to, and I also believe that to be true, then gay couples should be allowed to partake in it and people should want them to if they truly believe that marriage is a good thing. Also, married people live longer so it's not just a social issue. I don't see how someone else's marriage either makes your own marriage better or hurts it whether you are a man and a woman couple or a gay couple.
If a religion nixes it, then there are plenty of other religions that will perform the ceremony. I don't believe in forcing a religion to do what's against their teachings. I also don't believe in having the government overruling the vote of the people. I'm more for the hearts and minds winning over the public approach than cramming it down people's throats. Gay marriage shouldn't be a political issue. It's supposed to be about love, commitment, stability and long life. Who would be against that?
Gays should be allowed to marry and I'm conservative on every other issue and straight.
They are allowed to get married. The problem is that marriage is between a male and a female. Sometimes this point seems to be missed.
Homosexuals have all the rights and privleges of everyone else in society.
What you are really asking is that the definition of marriage be changed.
And BTW I don't believe everyone thinks that marriage is the end all be all or, "an ideal that people aspire to" as you put it. There are many people who don't and lead wonderful productive lives without the benefit of marriage. Many people it seems aren't cut out for marriage. I think it is better to live happily single than miserably married.
You know, this argument that marriage has to be between a man and a woman so they can reproduce is getting so old. Marriage is so much more than that, and if you've had a good marriage, you'd know it. I'm a very lucky woman. I've been married for nearly 25 years to my best friend--he is my life companion, and we'd both be lost without each other. It's not just about the reproductive biology of it--it's about attraction, friendship, trust, love, and the willingness to commit your life to another person. That's what everyone wants in a marriage--gay people too.
By your definition, my husband and I should never have been able to marry. I had to have an emergency hysterectomy (ovaries removed too) when I was 26. By your definition (my ability to produce a child, justifying that marriage be between a man and a woman) it would be unnatural for me to marry. For the record, we went on to adopt 5 children together.
So--according to your standards--new rules. All marriages without children should be annulled. Women past the age of menopause will be banned from marriage. Everyone must take a fertility test, and undergo genetic testing, upon application for a marriage license. If you are found to be infertile or sterile, you are not eligible for marriage. If you are found to have genetic abnormalities that could limit your ability to produce healthy children for the collective gene pool (that's what it's all about, right? What makes sense in reproduction?) then you will be denied a license AND be sterilized.
Like those rules? Think they're fair? If not, then think through the logic of what you're saying.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
