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.
I am an atheist and I am not opposed to gay marriage. I am opposed to the benefits that come from any kind of marriage. I feel like people shouldn't get benefits just because they are married. People who aren't may love each other more than a married couple, yet, they don't get those benefits.
It sounds, Haaziq, like you are not at all against marriage. You are against the term "marriage." A rose by any other name, etc, etc.
Hetero couples can seek a civil marriage - one sanctioned by the state and not recognized by a religious institution - and receive the same benefits as a religious marriage. No couple's benefits come from a religious institution's blessing, but rather from a recognition of union by the federal and state governments. Most homosexual couples are not able to seek a similar, state-sanctioned union (regardless of religious affiliation).
What's to keep a brother and sister from doing that now?
Not to mention, marriage to family is illegal anyways. I can't comment for sure, but I believe sibling marriage in all 50 states. First cousin marriage is only legal in a handful of states (seven maybe? with two of them having restrictions on the relationship of the parents, etc...).
Im thinking that allowing a homosexual spouse to enjoy the benefits of their partners Social security, Pensions, medical Ins, Life Ins etc... is going to throw the actuaries of these agencies and corporations into quite the tis
Im thinking that allowing a homosexual spouse to enjoy the benefits of their partners Social security, Pensions, medical Ins, Life Ins etc... is going to throw the actuaries of these agencies and corporations into quite the tis
[pre-cursory warning: meant to be funny, not offensive or argumentative]
I've met some of those actuaries... they deserve a good shake-up once in a while.
I'm well aware that a number of folks think homosexuals are morally depraved based upon their religious beliefs. The Holy Bible even says something along the lines of "man should not lay with man; it is an abomination." However, I'm a firm believer in the separation of church and state and that Congressmen should NOT be bringing their faith into political decisions that affect the will of the many, including those with divergent spiritual affiliations.
As such, I was just wondering if any of you in the right-wing could give me some solid reasons to be opposed to homosexuality other than your cliche "God wouldn't want it to be that way." I've heard that argument incessantly on this forum, and I'm tiring of listening to people who think that faith and politics are interchangeable. I am indeed one of those dreaded homosexuals (don't worry, I won't shake your hand and give you AIDS), and for the life of me I can't understand how bans on same-sex civil unions are passing by such large margins in many U.S. states unless people are indeed acting irresponsibly and merging the Holy Bible with the U.S. Constitution. Anyone care to enlighten me why you oppose same-sex relationships WITHOUT dragging "well my God says this" or "the Bible says that" into it? We already have a very heated thread for that.
Let this be a warning that any reply that attempts to bring your faith into play will be ignored by me and given no credence, as it will be detracting from the intention of this thread. I want to hear economic, social, and other implications that may arise from the "normalization" of same-sex relationships. If you want to rant on and on about how I'm hellbound according to the Holy Bible/U.S. Constitution, then rant on the other thread. As Pennsylvanians will likely be voting on as to whether or not same-sex civil unions should be banned as early as next year in our state, I'm just trying to hone my debating skills now on this topic to better prepare myself for when I start firing off newspaper editorials, protest rallies, etc. next year. I'm already well-acquainted with how to counter faith-based arguments, but to date I have yet to hear a credible, solid, lucid argument against same-sex relationships for any other reason. Please enlighten me.
Okay, my simplest argument is, "It's not for me." Now, it might be just fine for you, but I couldn't see it for myself. I like the opposite gender, you like the same gender, we're different.
People generally prefer to make associations with other people based on commonality.
Got nothing to do with religion. Its nature & reality.
If there were no social benefits normal couples would still marry. Thats why it exists. For eons the only benefit was recognition by God or the Gods, depending on the society.
Why didn't gays invent marriage if its so important to them? Because its only important if theres goodies to be had.
My point is that neither of these countries provides a social model that is worth emulating. I thought that was self-evident.
Please do show me where I made any comments about "social models" that should be emulated?! I simply addressed the post of another member who said that in Turkey a civil ceremony is what makes it a legal marriage, not a religious ceremony.
It appears some people still live in another century.
__________________
The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it. ~Henry David Thoreau
I guess you could characterize me as a "right-winger", though I doubt if I display many of the stereotypical behaviors/beliefs which you would ascribe to those such people (though it is amusing to hear those of the left stereotype right-wingers as "people who stereotype others"!)
As the opening respondent to your post, may I ask that you refine your query to a degree? You seem to be confusing opposition to same-sex civil unions with the denial of civil rights to homosexuals. To my mind at least, these are entirely different issues.
Since you do not mention same-sex marriage, I assume that you would join me in opposing this on the grounds that marriage by definition is the union of a man and a woman, and a metaphor for the human experience of becoming whole by joining openly and completely with another who is your opposite and who completes the human union of mating, as is the general order of things in most of the natural world of which we are a part.
Having said that, I do not believe in demonizing anyone on the basis of their sexual preference, as long as it involves consenting adults, nor do I believe in practicing legal discrimination against anyone who obeys the law.
I think it is important to recognize that the normalization of civil unions may also open the door to any legally recognized relationship involving two people...or three....or four.....or more. What is to keep, say, two brothers from forming such a union for tax advantages or other legal purposes? If the concept of civil union is expanded, what is to keep a group of people from forming a "civil union" with another group?
Radical changes in the nature of our culture and society need to be approached with an eye on their value to the greater good as well as the consequences attendant on their promulgation. I am not convinced that the former outweighs the latter -- but this does not make me either a bigot or a religious fundamentalist -- especially since, as you may have noted, I have not once referred to religion in my post.
When it comes to my current predicament I must say I'm 100% opposed to what is being proposed for Pennsylvania because the ban will include both same-sex marriages and same-sex civil unions. You and I can both agree that same-sex marriage is something this nation is not ready for due to the reasons you provided, but I must respectfully disagree with your slippery-slope argument that legalizing same-sex civil unions will open a Pandora's Box of everyone imaginable wanting to line up to scam the system. As such I firmly think this ban will fail in PA because just about everyone whom I speak to about the issue says they oppose same-sex marriage but honestly couldn't care less one way or the other about civil unions and likewise think it is too overbearing to permanently ban them. If this amendment was only to ban same-sex marriage, then it would likely pass on a 55/45 margin in this state, if not even a 60/40 split, as conservatives still outnumber liberals here by a healthy ratio. However, a lone ban on civil unions would probably fail on one of those same two aforementioned margins, as a good percentage of those opposed to same-sex marriage are not opposed to same-sex civil unions.
As I said in your reputation comment box, I'd like to thank you for permitting me to view this from a different perspective in a level-headed manner WITHOUT throwing the "God hates gays" types of arguments into play.
It sounds, Haaziq, like you are not at all against marriage. You are against the term "marriage." A rose by any other name, etc, etc.
Hetero couples can seek a civil marriage - one sanctioned by the state and not recognized by a religious institution - and receive the same benefits as a religious marriage. No couple's benefits come from a religious institution's blessing, but rather from a recognition of union by the federal and state governments. Most homosexual couples are not able to seek a similar, state-sanctioned union (regardless of religious affiliation).
No..I'm against the benefits that come with marriage. I have nothing against the word marriage. I don't know where you'd get that assumption from.
So who is harmed? I've heard it said that teenagers are experimenting more with gay partnerships when they aren't really gay at all. This is different than those who are really gay. Does this encourage that sort of thing and does it add to the psychological problems of growing up? I don't know the answers.
You actually bring up various eloquent and excellent points, but I'll focus on this one specifically since this is the first time I saw it raised on this forum that I can recall. I don't know how things were in prior generations, but I can definitely say that males in today's college-aged generation are definitely more "open-minded" towards sexual experimentation on various levels, including the gender of their partners. Discussion of a menage a trois, for example, involving one female and two males is definitely more commonplace now as opposed to in the past when you'd never get two males to consent to this (I suppose this is a win-win for the young ladies out there). As for me, I'm admittedly rather attractive and have been propositioned in the past by single straight males who wanted a little "help," if you catch my drift.
I'd have to say that there is nothing inherently unusual about such acts. There are various pornographic film producers who actively scout for "pay-for-gay" scenes in which straight males would be paid top-dollar to perform for them. In such cases every straight male has a price, so to speak. I can guarantee that if I were to put up a MySpace bulletin saying "If you want $1,000 and "satisfaction," then come to my dorm room, I'd have guys storming to get in? Why? Avarice. Moral ethics will get tossed by the wayside for 20 minutes of awkwardness if the end result (cash) is deemed to be greater than the feelings of guilt or confusion.
I'm sorry if that last paragraph was a bit "graphic" or "birds and the bees-ish," but I tried using as many euphemisms as possible to get the point across that PLENTY of heterosexual males engage in sexual actions with other males on a regular basis while still remaining 100% heterosexual. Hell, if someone said they'd give me $1,000 to star in an adult film with a woman, I'd be horribly tempted myself, so I could just imagine how tempted those with less of a moral compass would be. Then again, there's not a market of women looking for pornography involving gay males in the same sense as there's a market on the other side for gay men looking for pornography involving straight males.
To answer your final statement where you say "I really don't know the answers," I'd have to chime in and say "No. This likely does NOT lead to future psychological problems." Granted I'm talking about more mature males (18-24 range), but let me just say from a past....errrm..."experience" with one of the aforementioned heterosexual males (who is still straight as an arrow to this day), he's perfectly normal. As far as younger ages are concerned, well, I'd hope young teenagers aren't as sexually active as we college students, but if they are then I'll concur with you that the potential for emotional or psychological harm to be done is indeed a distinct possibility.
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.
We already have a very heated thread for that. 
Then again, there's not a market of women looking for pornography involving gay males in the same sense as there's a market on the other side for gay men looking for pornography involving straight males. 
