My Week On Facebook (Identities Removed)
Someone I know posted this:
-
A.
I think marraige is a heterosexual tradition. Why should everyone automatically be entitled to it? It has a long tradition. It is a very special committment that a man and a woman make and it is the start of a family. It is one of special rights heterosexuals get to enjoy.
By denying it to homosexuals we are not saying they are inherently bad or worse than heterosexuals... they simply do not meet the requirements of marriage. I do think gay people can raise children just as well as straight people. But straight couples can produce children which is a big responsibility hence a strong union of two people is needed to raise said children. Gay couples don't have to worry about producing children. Just saying.
Like · · Share · March 27 at 9:36am ·
9 people like this.
B. I don't even know where to begin- this hit me really hard and all I can think of is how sad it must be to live in your twisted little world. So, according to your logic...since slavery was a tradition we should continue to have slaves? Your implication that it's okay to deny rights to groups simply because they don't meet the "requirements" (whose? yours?) is sickening. So because women earn less on the dollar than men do, we shouldn't have the right to accelerate into executive positions in corporations? Dude, some hetero couples are infertile--do you mean to deny infertile heteros the right to marry as well? Marriage is between two people who love each other, want to combine resources, and possibly have children. We don't live in the fucking dark ages anymore where women are sold to men to reproduce and carry on the lineage. You said yourself that you believe "gay people can raise children just as well as straight people" so isn't it contradicting to deny them the same marriage rights as heteros? To meet your own standards in the responsibility of raising children, doesn't a "strong union" imply that heteros would be married? So how can you say gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry if they can raise children just as well? And what the fuck do you mean by we don't have to "worry about producing children"? Do I really need to point out all the heteros who are terrible parents and yet they continue to reproduce? Don't want a gay marriage? DON'T GET ONE. When do I get to vote on hetero divorces? I love my partner of two years and I look forward to our future together, we will be married one day and have children...despite the roadblocks we face because of small-minded folks like yourself.
March 27 at 10:27am · Like · 1
C. Finally!! Someone on FB with something else to say about the topic!
So what do you think should happen with homosexuals? Do you think they should have a similar ritual of union under god? Or what do you think?
March 27 at 10:28am via mobile · Like · 1
D. damn A. I didn't know you thought like that. cue womp womp
March 27 at 10:32am via mobile · Like · 1
C. B ^
My wife makes $4 more an hour than I do. Theres more exceptions than we all think.
And I do think homosexual can raise kids, where do they come from though?
A man and a women who made one, that's the way babies are conceived - egg and sperm. Period. So no argument there.
I think EVERYONE should have the freedom of CHOICE.
Since homosexuals already live and raise children together, why not let them have the title? It's not Christian? Believing that is not Christian in itself and is prejudice to not give someone the right to be themselves in any form or fashion.
I am curious on A's input if he thinks they should have a 'separate but equal' union in a similar style.
March 27 at 10:35am via mobile · Like
E. What gives you or anyone else the right to deny equal rights to anyone? Don't sit here and try to justify a prejudice with a weak "they can't reproduce" argument. Plenty of straight couples can't reproduce. Plenty of straight couples are bad parents. It sounds like you have a personal issue with homosexuals.
March 27 at 11:15am via mobile · Like · 2
F. I don't agree but I completely respect your opinion. P.S. we all know need to get together soon!
March 27 at 11:26am via mobile · Like
G. what's worse - A stating his opinion? or getting attacked by you people?
March 27 at 11:27am · Like · 2
E. The opinion
March 27 at 11:29am via mobile · Like · 1
E. Opinions don't go without ridicule. Opinions and your beliefs should be questioned. You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to an unquestioned opinion. You are definitely asking for it if you publicly announce your stance on a controversial topic.
March 27 at 11:31am via mobile · Unlike · 4
G. I don't recall him asking for your input
March 27 at 11:32am · Like · 2
E. I don't recall me asking for yours. I'm getting it though aren't I? That's how speaking publicly works. Do you have anything with real substance to say, now?
March 27 at 11:33am via mobile · Like · 1
H. I am really gonna regret posting on a topic like this.../sigh. First, I want to state that I do not share A's opinion so this is not in defense of that opinion. What I would like to point out is that in his opinion he did not personally insult or attack anyone. Right off the bat B. responded with a post full of personal attacks and profanities...Do you really think that is the best way to get your point across??? If you have to fill your argument with them I feel it makes your point come across weaker...your post was filled with anger.
March 27 at 11:34am · Like · 2
G. agreed H. i'm all about gay rights and love gay people, but the responses in this post are borderline sickening
March 27 at 11:35am · Like · 5
H. filled with anger and hate...isnt that why we are in this mess to begin with?...
March 27 at 11:37am · Like
ME. A, the issue is that as long as we have one set of rights for straight people and another set of rights for LGBT people, LGBT people are considered less in the eyes of the law and the eyes of the public.
Not that allowing gay people the right to marry is going to flip a switch that changes every homophobe's mind, but it's a necessary step for homosexual relationships to be recognized as just as valid and fulfilling as straight ones. It's their relationships, after all, that are the only thing that actually makes lesbian, gay, and bisexual people different from heterosexuals. Saying those relationships don't deserve the same recognition as straight people's is the entire crux of the problem that allows people to see and treat homosexuals as fundamentally different, as less.
The reproduction argument, I'm sorry, is ridiculous. I have PCOS and may not be able to have kids. Should I be denied the right to marry or adopt children? I won't be, because I'm straight, but that is what is being denied homosexual people. Producing kids is not the big responsibility in the having kids equation, it's raising them. And frankly, since we're still over replacement rate and there are so many kids out there without families it would actually be a little better if there was less producing going on. But that's besides the point.
There are real rights attached to the title of marriage, so this IS an equal rights issue. But the title of married is important, too, as opposed to civil union-ed or whatever else, because "seperate but equal" as everyone really should understand by now, is not at all equal. It just perpetuates the othering of people and deepens the divides.
You have a right to feel how you feel, but your discomfort and desire to hold on to tradition-- it's not more important than gay people's feelings of love nor their feelings of being discriminated against. A person's discomfort at someone else having a marriage that doesn't fit with the idea they grew up with of what a marriage was doesn't even come close to trumping that 'someone else's' right to equality under the law, nor their right to not be discriminated against or made unsafe by the people around them.
While I understand that your intent in your position on this is to not say homosexuals "are bad or inherently worse," intent isn't everything and whether you like it or not, that is exactly the message that your position sends, to homosexuals and to the people who hate them for being homosexual (and see your arguments as part of their justification).
Marriage as an institution, in actuality, changes all the time. During my parents' lifetime it was illegal for mixed race couples to get married (and actually the issue of denying mixed race couples this right still exists in my lifetime). Not too long ago, marriage wasn't even about love. It is not, nor has it ever been something set in stone, so why are we trying to set it now? It doesn't make sense. Not when people are being discriminated against.
March 27 at 2:07pm · Edited · Like · 1
I. Some opinions are wrong. This is one of them. If you think it's a hetero tradition good for you. I also think people who wear crocs are stupid but I don't go around complaining about it.
March 27 at 1:10pm · Like · 1
J. I support people as human beings... plain and simple.... Just sayin..
March 27 at 1:35pm · Like · 1
K. I am so very saddened that this is your opinion - and by the way what does that make straight couples who cannot physically have children and get married? By your definition they do not have the right to marry either...
March 27 at 2:05pm via mobile · Unlike · 1
L..
March 27 at 2:11pm · Like
M. Seriously, the gays get everything: fashion, hair styling, awesome parties, and much much more. Do we really want to give them marriage too? Come on!
March 27 at 2:20pm · Like · 1
N. Government should have nothing to do marriage. Gay marriage is a politcal football that is tossed about to gain fame and influence over American citizens. We SHOULD instead be focusing our efforts on returning to our American hertiage of strong industry, innovation, and healthy values. America is done for...
March 27 at 2:56pm · Like · 1
O. Without reading the extreme blind flaming from some of the comments on this thread, I UNDERSTAND what you're saying, however, the benefits and legality of marriage change the game, as far as what it means to be married. That and the social aspect of "getting married" as a whole has changed as well... lol
March 27 at 3:10pm · Like
O. Marriage is not simply for people who plan on mating, lol. It is broadly defined, and does and does not cover children, both adopted and... born of the couple >.>
March 27 at 3:12pm · Like
O. I can very much understand the fight for being able to LEGALLY marry, but the title carries no weight for me.
March 27 at 3:13pm · Like
O. And B needs to calm the hell down, lol. Do you even know A in person? Surely you wouldn't flip the fuck out if you did. Jumping down someone's throat for something you believe in doesn't help anyone. It pisses them off and gets you angry. >.>
March 27 at 3:15pm · Like · 3
A. guys, I am straight, and god damned proud. Is that a crime? I think marriage is based on a family type structure. I think marraige is the beginning of a great family, with a man and a woman, having children. I think it EXCLUDES gay couples. In life, you can't get everything you want. This is what I believe.
March 27 at 3:18pm · Like
A. Do I have gay friends? Hell yeah. Are they cool, good people. Hell yeah.
March 27 at 3:18pm · Like
O. Oh shit A is trolling right now
March 27 at 3:19pm · Like
A. so sorry for standing up for what I believe in. When you marry some one of the opposite sex, you are taking on the repsonsibility of kids. Gay people aren't. They shouldnt get the same title if they don't have the same responsibilities. They can't have sex- for me that's a big deal.
March 27 at 3:22pm · Like · 1
O. People marry for many reasons, including: legal, social, libidinal, emotional, financial, spiritual, and religious. Marriages can be performed in a secular civil ceremony or in a religious setting. The act of marriage usually creates normative or legal obligations between the individuals involved. Some cultures allow the dissolution of marriage through divorce or annulment. Polygamous marriages may also occur in spite of national laws.
Marriage can be recognized by a state, an organization, a religious authority, a tribal group, a local community or peers. It is often viewed as a contract. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution irrespective of religious affiliation, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction. Forced marriages are illegal in some jurisdictions
March 27 at 3:24pm · Like
K. A, You still haven't addressed infertile straight couples - by your argument they shouldn't be allowed to marry either - do you really agree with that too? And what defines sex? Isn't anal sex called so for a reason?
March 27 at 3:35pm via mobile · Like
A. sex- a male depositing sperm into a females vagina (the necessary steps for creating a baby). That is how I define sex. I sill use the term oral sex and anal sex etc., but sex is still that basic thing. I think allowing gay couples to marry cheapens marraige for straight couples, because gay couples do no have the burden of kids. They CANNOT start a family naturally. I think that marriage is linked to family. Gay people can't create a family. There for they can not be married.
March 27 at 3:49pm · Like
A. and as far as infertility- that is rare. It is being worked on, and there are several ways to work around it, if I am not mistaken. And if a couple is infertle, i still think they should be allowed to marry. Because one day their infertility may be treatable. And it is tradition for a man and woman to marry, so they should be allowed to.
March 27 at 3:50pm · Like
O. Wait wait wait, so you're saying, that people who DO NOT WISH to bear children, AT ALL, for ANY REASON during the course of their marriage, should NOT be allowed to marry?
March 27 at 3:51pm · Unlike · 1
O. THIS is what you mean?
March 27 at 3:52pm · Like
O. Because it sounds a lot better to me, like that
March 27 at 3:52pm · Like
A. no no, because they could accidentally have kids. It is there responsibility to use that power at their best discretion. It's like giving people in police uniforms water pistols instead of actual ones, but then still having to call them cops
March 27 at 3:53pm · Like · 1
O. YOU ARE SO TROLLING RIGHT NOW
March 27 at 3:53pm · Like
A. not trolling bro, I swear, but I am not going to lie, I like getting a rise out of people. That may make me a jerk lol
March 27 at 3:55pm · Like
O. That's trolling
March 27 at 3:57pm · Unlike · 1
O. That is NEARLY the very definition of trolling
March 27 at 3:57pm · Like
A. nearly
March 27 at 3:57pm · Like
O. And you just meta trolled, by trolling about trolling
March 27 at 3:57pm · Unlike · 2
O. What
March 27 at 3:57pm · Like
A. I didnt state my argument mearly to get a rise out of people, but that was a side effect, one which I am not necessarily upset about
March 27 at 4:05pm · Like
A. we need to have a straight-pride parade
March 27 at 4:07pm · Like · 5
A. "I", how is an opinion wrong? And how is footwear related to what we're talking about?
March 27 at 4:10pm · Like
K. I like how you're my "friend" and yet if I find the girl of my dreams you are telling me I don't have the right to marry her, or legally be at her side if she gets in some horrific accident and is in the hospital - how two-faced of you...
March 27 at 4:17pm via mobile · Unlike · 1
A. i think you should be entitled to all the legal rights as a hetero married couple with a same sex spouse. There should be paperwork that allows this. But do not call it marriage. that is a heterosexual tradition
March 27 at 4:20pm · Like
A. why do gay couples need the validation of something that is a heterosexual tradition?
March 27 at 4:21pm · Like
A. why do you have to come and tell me that what used to be a right of me and heterosexual brothers and sisters is now your right, without me putting up a fight?
March 27 at 4:22pm · Like
K. So you believe in "separate but equal" okay so segregation is the way!!!
March 27 at 4:23pm via mobile · Unlike · 1
K. Because the last time that mindset was used it worked out so well
March 27 at 4:25pm via mobile · Unlike · 1
A. i never said they are equal, i did say they are separate. we need a different term besides marraige for the gays. why can't we co exist with two different arrangements, marraige and civil unions, for example? Why do we need to accomodate gay people into a hetersexual tradition? Show a little respect for the tradition and ritual of marraige. I am not being a smart ass, I don't see the need for you to be
March 27 at 4:26pm · Like · 1
A. it's kinda ironic because you are trying to celebrate peoples diversity, and so am i, but you insist on grouping everyone together into one tradition
March 27 at 4:27pm · Like
H. K, he isn't trying to make you sit in the back of the bus or go to separate schools...the comparison is a bit extreme
March 27 at 4:29pm · Like
K. That's a cute way to spin the argument - and you just said in a prior comment that gays should be entitled to all the same stuff, just call it something different - i.e. the DEFINITION of separate but equal - you'd realize it if you were paying attention to what you're saying genius
March 27 at 4:30pm via mobile · Unlike · 1
K. He was the one that defined it as such H, not me, I'm just pointing out what he's saying
March 27 at 4:31pm via mobile · Like
A. if you want to take marragie from me, and tell me that two people getting togehter, but never having to worry about having children and the responsibilites that arise as a direct result, is the same, then I will forever disagree with you.
March 27 at 4:32pm · Like
K. I'm done because clearly nothing good can continue from this - close-minded people sometimes cannot wrap their brains around reality - there are so many holes in your argument that you are completely ignoring - I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall at this point
March 27 at 4:34pm via mobile · Unlike · 1
K. Because kids define marriage of course how could I not see it before!
March 27 at 4:35pm via mobile · Unlike · 1
A. kids define family. Marraige starts family.
March 27 at 4:35pm · Like
H. And why question his friendship which is what you did in a previous post if he agrees with gays having the same legal rights? There is a different title for our lifestyles so what is the huge problem with a different title?
March 27 at 4:35pm · Like
K. I guess in some countries little kids can marry...
March 27 at 4:36pm via mobile · Like
A. lol
March 27 at 4:36pm · Like
A. gay people do not have the same responsbility as straight people, and need to recognize and appreciate that
March 27 at 4:37pm · Like
K. I think that's a cop-out - and a huge one at that
March 27 at 4:38pm via mobile · Like
H. I guess you weren't really done...
March 27 at 4:39pm · Like
A. i disagree. And will continue to do so. So we will have to wait for the day it comes to vote
March 27 at 4:39pm · Like · 1
P. I respect your opinion A, but like my mom used to say any dumbass can have a baby....
Marriage is a tradition but unfortunately like most traditions they grow, alter and change with modern times.
March 27 at 4:40pm via mobile · Like
K. And H, how is it that different? A minority group lobbying for equal rights and getting a "separate but equal" speech? Yeah worlds apart
March 27 at 4:40pm via mobile · Unlike · 1
H. I'm not opposed to gay people having the right to get married. I just found this thread ridiculous because of all of the angry responses. People are far less likely to try and see someone else's point of view when being personally insulted and cussed at...
March 27 at 4:42pm · Like
P. I'm reading you arguments A and you have touched s ome
March 27 at 4:44pm via mobile · Like
P. Some valid points*
March 27 at 4:44pm via mobile · Like
ME. No, P, he hasn't. All he has said is that marriage is about giving birth and sex is about depositing sperm into a vagina. These arguments have no basis in reality and are potentially dangerous. What about sex with a condom, that's not sex? It's not depositing sperm into a vagina. Does that mean if a guy rapes a woman but wears a condom it's not really rape because it's not really sex? You can tell me this is irrelevant, and sure it's tangential, but when you make an argument to define something you should be thinking of the ramifications of your definition.
Here's some reality: marriage is not about sex. It's not about children. Some people get married because they want to have children, sure, but most people get married because they love each other and want make a commitment to the other person that will be recognized by the people around them and afford them the safeties and opportunities that marriage provides. One of those opportunities is having a socially approved family unit that includes children, but there are MANY, MANY child-less married couples, and many, many more who have had children by invitro or adoption or surrogates. These methods of having children can and are also used by gay and lesbian couples. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. And infertility is an issue a lot of people face, actually. There are many more people (like my sister, happily married for 5 years) who do not want kids, and those people have every right not to want kids, but still want to be married. Because the two things are NOT the same.
March 27 at 11:00pm · Edited · Like · 2
P. He made a point and supported it, I acknowledged his opinion for what it is A OPINION which everyone is entitled to.
I didn't say I had the same beliefs on said issue.
March 27 at 5:32pm via mobile · Like
ME. Also, A, check your privilege. You have never, and will never, face any kind of adversity for being attracted to and wanting relationships with women. Maybe you should recognize how lucky you already are and stop trying to horde even more rights and priveleges for yourself.
March 27 at 11:00pm · Edited · Like
ME. P, I understand that. You said he had "valid" points which is basically saying that his points were logical, supportable, and realistic. I'm saying, while he had points that he has argued, and yes he is entitled to his opinion, I don't agree that those points are valid and stated my opinion. It wasn't meant as an attack on you at all, I just wanted to say how I think his arguments are flawed and contain logical failings.
March 27 at 5:39pm · Like
Q. Marriage and children don't necessarily go hand in hand. Ultimately it all comes down equal rights for ALL. It's not up to you to speculate what ones responsibilities are. Marriage is not something most couples commit to based on their responsibly to one another, but rather an elective ceremony that even heterosexuals rely on to validate their relationships. To use the argument of tradition is the worst route to take because tradition is usually antiquated & is the way it is simply bc it always has been- which is the problem in this scenario. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, as you do not have to agree with homos getting married. But has it ever occurred to you that your opinion shouldn't determine whether a couple can get married or not? Just bc you don't approve doesn't equal them not having the right.
There was a time when women didn't have the right to vote. People thought it was a tradition strictly for men & that women couldn't handle such responsibility. Isn't that crazy?...and all too familiar
P.S. The strong union needed to raise said children does not require marriage.
March 27 at 5:40pm via mobile · Unlike · 1
K. Q, those are some great points - if it was truly as traditionalized as A thinks it would still be called hand fasting!!
March 27 at 5:43pm via mobile · Like
P. Valid points from his stand point, he was raised with traditional values where men and women have traditional roles his argument supports that.
March 27 at 5:45pm via mobile · Like
H. He said they should have the same legal benefits. Yes, women were not able to vote. Had they said "now you can but we are going to call it something else" would it really matter what it was called? As long as my "vote", no matter what label it had, counted as much as anyone else's then what difference does it make?
March 27 at 5:45pm · Like
H. "Maybe you should recognize how lucky you already are and stop trying to horde even more rights and privileges for yourself." So he is so very lucky that he has that natural instinct to procreate?...
March 27 at 5:50pm · Like
ME. H and A, on the separate but equal issue I'm just going to say what I've said in an earlier post:
As long as we have one set of rights for straight people and another set of rights for LGBT people, LGBT people are considered less in the eyes of the law and the eyes of the public.
It's a necessary step for homosexual relationships to be recognized as just as valid and fulfilling as straight ones. It's their relationships, after all, that are the only thing that actually makes lesbian, gay, and bisexual people different from heterosexuals. Saying those relationships don't deserve the exact same recognition as straight people's is the entire crux of the problem that allows people to see and treat homosexuals as fundamentally different, as less.
The title of married is important, too, as opposed to civil union-ed or whatever else, because "seperate but equal" as everyone really should understand by now, is not at all equal. It just perpetuates the othering of people and deepens the divides.
You have a right to feel how you feel, but your discomfort and desire to hold on to tradition-- it's not more important than gay people's feelings of love nor their feelings of being discriminated against. A person's discomfort at someone else having a marriage that doesn't fit with the idea they grew up with of what a marriage was doesn't even come close to trumping that 'someone else's' right to equality under the law, nor their right to not be discriminated against or made unsafe by the people around them.
Marriage as an institution, in actuality, changes all the time. During my parents' lifetime it was illegal for mixed race couples to get married (and actually the issue of denying mixed race couples this right still exists in my lifetime). Not too long ago, marriage wasn't even about love. It is not, nor has it ever been something set in stone, so why are we trying to set it now?
March 27 at 5:54pm · Like
H. I am not on the "separate but equal" band wagon. Your arguments, as well as his, have flaws. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion though. A flaw in your argument is that you say you hear that he wants equal rights legally yet you say, and I quote, " A person's discomfort at someone else having a marriage that doesn't fit with the idea they grew up with of what a marriage was doesn't even come close to trumping that 'someone else's' right to equality under the law".
March 27 at 6:00pm · Like
ME. "Instinct to procreate" =/= heterosexuality. You can be heterosexual and have no desire to procreate (I can even name you some people), you can be homosexual and have a strong desire to procreate (again, can name you some people). You can be infertile and want or not want children. Sexual preference is not a function of child-bearing desire or capability. Neither is love. I take issue with your using the word "natural". By using it you imply, whether you mean to or not, that homosexuality is "unnatural". The lack of desire to reproduce occurs in nature, homosexuality occurs in nature so implying that one way of being is natural while these are not is just categorically untrue.
March 27 at 6:00pm · Like
H. If humans did not have the instinct to mate with the opposite sex then we would become extinct. Yes, I believe it is an instinct most people are born with in order to ensure the continuation of the species. I agree that many people do not want the responsibility of children but that is a different topic.
March 27 at 6:03pm · Like
ME. "Equality under the law" refers to how the rights are named as well as what they are, it goes back to the separate but equal issue. Mainly though, I wrote that post before he said he would afford homosexual couples the same rights. If you scroll back through the comments you can read the original post in full. Thank you for pointing that out.
March 27 at 6:04pm · Like
H. That being said I have nothing against people being gay. I have nothing against couples that do not want children...in fact I think too many people have children they either don't want or cant support. It is not meant as an insult, but we do have many instincts for survival.
March 27 at 6:07pm · Unlike · 2
ME. I understand that, I do. I honestly didn't think you meant to imply it, but as I've said before what we intend to say and what we actually say don't always line up, and I just meant to point out that this was one of those cases, especially in the context of this thread. To your earlier point, I do think he should feel lucky to be straight. I do. I'm glad I don't have to deal with being downgraded as a person or a citizen of my country, I don't have to be afraid of someone trying to hurt me physically or emotionally or sexually simply because of who I am attracted to or who I love, I don't have to worry about the social stigma or coming out to my parents, I don't have to have people say "you're cool and all, but you can't have the same opportunities that I have." I feel lucky that I will be able, if I choose, to marry the person that I love. I shouldn't have to feel lucky about this though. Being straight and being cisgendered and being white and being American are all things that I am lucky for. I did nothing to earn the freedom from discrimination these things have given me. Neither has anyone who is not one of those things done anything to earn any form of discrimination they get. It does not mean I am apologizing for the way I was born, just that I can recognize that I was lucky. Because I am.
March 27 at 6:22pm · Like
H. You twisted it though. You then went on to talk about desires rather than instincts. Many people do not desire to have children, yet the instinct to procreate is there hence the need for birth control.
March 27 at 6:34pm · Like
R. I think it's a very interesting take you have on the issue. It is true that there are a lot of traditions that for hundreds of years have only acknowledged a man and a woman to enter into an arrangement of marriage. But if we look to western history of marriage and the influences that have caused that definition to change even within the realm of a single man and single woman being able to enter into this arrangement, we find that it's not nearly as cut and dry. Ancient Athens was a special period, a citizen was expected to take a wife and raise a family, but also allowed for homosexual relationships on the side, especially with boys. If we look to ancient Jewish practice, we see that in many cases, one wife was indeed expected, but for royalty, concubines and other legal means of bedding more than one women were allowed, encouraged, and looked up to. So we can say something like, "well, things have changed now, and our concept of marriage is now defined to mean: the singular relationship between one man and one woman legally bound by the state and acknowledged at the federal level for taxation purposes and legal rights to the spouses aforementioned agreements. Like medical rights to a partners' last will and testament." if we look at it that way, it is a bit harder to justify historical context, seeing as many of these ideas are a modern take on legality and rights. Minor caveat, not all straight couples can produce children. If you want the definition to really work the way I have assumed you assumed it, we should try to really consider the consequences of said definition. In summation: historically it's not quite that cut and dry, the definition has changed throughout varying cultures and times, (sometimes dramatically), and the definition in the original comment is not full enough to encompass the implications thereof.
March 27 at 7:15pm via mobile · Unlike · 1
A. Thanks everyone for your input. It has really caused me to think and re consider my original stance. This is a complex issue that hits a deep chord with a lot of people. I don't have a lot of experience in debate, or in forming my ideas and thoughts clearly into words, but my main point is, that I have a strong feeling about family. Man meets woman, falls in love, share their genes, create a child, and the cycle of life continues. I just have a really deep-set idea of family and marraige and how it relates to kids, if that makes any sense. I think it is a life-long commitment and straight couples must grapple with the "kid" issue a lot, and it deserves our respect and attention. Gay people have to worry about stds, so I am not saying they can have all the sex they want and not worry about it. Gay people can get people pregnant too so I know that technically they have to worry about that also. I know the definition of marraige has included some ridiculous aspects as ashley and others have pointed out. I hope we all learned something. I will continue to think on the issue. I appreciate all the well thought out, personal opinions that were shared. I, as you, want everyone to live as peacefully as possible. Thanks again.
March 27 at 7:29pm · Unlike · 3
R. By the by, absolutely nothing wrong about wanting strong family units whose focus is the children and raising them to be responsible adults. I think it's wonderful that people still find that an important aspect of what it means to have a family.
March 27 at 7:33pm via mobile · Unlike · 1
ME. H, I don't think that there's necessarily a clear distinction to be made between instinct and desire in this case (I've generally considered wants for sexual and romantic contact desires, just ones often independent of the desire to procreate), but I definitely understand what you're saying. Your original statement is still problematic to me, though. Generally speaking I think it's best to not assume that someone having a non-heteronormative desire or identity should be considered somehow missing something or in some- even very minor- way less human or less useful or any such thing because 1) since we don't really definitively understand that much about how people tick it IS assumptive, 2) it can oversimplify the complexity and variety of human experience, and 3) it can be expanded upon in a very negative way. I'm really not trying to blame you or imply anything about your character or even say that you're necessarily wrong, I hope you understand, I just wanted to explain the way I see it and that I think your phrasing was problematic. I didn't intend to twist what you were saying, but I was coming at your statement with a history of hearing the "it's unnatural" argument and the perception, like I hope I explained above, that "instinct" and "desire" are pretty much interchangeable in this particular case.
March 27 at 11:04pm · Edited · Like
H. I did not say that not having the normal instinct to reproduce made anyone "less human" or "less useful". People over time evolve and there are mutations. Do I think Mila Kunis or Kate Bosworth are "less human" because they both have a genetic mutation that causes their eyes to be different colors? No. They are both absolutely beautiful women with or without the mutation. Not normal doesn't equal bad.
Thursday at 12:29am · Like
H. That may not have come out right or even made sense...im like half asleep so I should have waited to respond to that tomorrow...lol
Thursday at 12:34am · Like
ME. The "less human" or "less useful" thing was more an example of how the idea can be expanded upon negatively, and with all the talk above about the "responsibility to reproduce" it seemed relevant in the context of the thread. I understand what you mean and we're really in agreement here, as far as I can tell. I'm sorry I was putting words in your mouth, I didn't mean it that way. I just meant it as an example of how the "they don't have this human/natural/normal thing (in this case, instinct)" can be a problematic way to look at or describe someone (even unintentionally) who is different unless you know for sure what's causing that difference. It's hard to do though, I know, and I don't mean to be nit picking or to gang up on you, I just want there not to be ambiguity that could lead other people who see this thread to come away with the idea or feel supported in the idea that homosexuals are unnatural or missing something or in some way less than heterosexuals.
Thursday at 2:58am · Like · 1
H. My point right now is that I don't feel I should have to walk on eggshells or tip toe around using certain words because it brings up emotions related to what you have heard people with extreme views say. I am not them. I personally would vote for gay marriage BUT everyone has their own opinion and as long as it is not hurting anyone then I'm fine with that. A did not personally attack individuals in his original post but right off the bat he started getting insulted and cussed at. For one, that is not the way to change anyone's opinion. Secondly, things will change with or without A's approval. The only reason I posted to begin with on this thread is because of the angry insulting comments that got posted at first. I am not seeing that anymore so you're right, we probably are in agreement.
Thursday at 12:04pm · Edited · Like
ME. I agree with you that angry comments and attacks aren't helpful and undeserved. Which is why I went back and removed the "freaking" from my comment, which I wrote in frustration over some of A's response comments. I know it doesn't undo it, but I was genuinely pissed off by some of what he said and the implications thereof. I would say, too, in defense of B (who I don't know) since all of you also pretty much jumped on her immediately, she said, "I love my partner of two years and I look forward to our future together, we will be married one day and have children...despite the roadblocks we face because of small-minded folks like yourself." Which I take to mean she is in a homosexual relationship, herself.
If someone you knew, who had an opportunity that you didn't -- not because they worked for it or earned it in any way, not for any other reason but how they were born -- was saying that you -- soley because of how you were born -- shouldn't ever have that opportunity, would your first response to that really be gentle and calm? If someone told you you couldn't marry the person you love if you choose to make that commitment, that wouldn't offend you personally, or piss you off at all?
You're right that A didn't attack anyone, but when you're advocating denying another person something that you have, soley on the basis that they were born different from you, if you are the person they are denying the opportunity to it's probably going to feel like an attack. I am not saying that her comment was right, or helpful, or that A deserved it or anything, but I think assuming that the people who got offended are just over sensitive, angry jerks isn't fair or helpful either.
On the "walking on eggshells" thing. Whether you like it or not, people come into conversations with baggage and what you or anyone else says is filtered through that baggage, so I'm just advocating that when someone talks about another group of people and difficult issues that effect people's lives they try and think about how what they're saying can be misinterpreted, and other people try and make sure they're understanding correctly too (which is what I was trying to do). You don't have to do it, but I doubt I was the only person who would have jumped to the wrong conclusion about some of the things you said. Again, I wasn't intending to say you were against gay marriage or in any way at all homophobic, just to point out how the thing you said could be badly misinterpreted. And again, I'm sorry if it felt like I was putting words in your mouth and misrepresenting you. That wasn't my intent.
Thursday at 4:33pm · Like
H. There is a difference between being offended and losing control over your emotions causing you to personally insult and attack. A is an adult so I'm sure he can handle insults so mainly my point was that attacking and cussing at someone is not going to get the same result as a calm, level headed response. I do not consider "freaking" a cuss word, nor did I ever say that your responses were personal attacks on A. Also, I did not ever say that people that got offended were over sensitve, angry jerks.
Thursday at 4:43pm · Like · 1
A. Why should gay people get the same title, if they don't have the same responsibilities? I think they should get benefits if they chose to share their lives together, such as hospital visitation, tax-breaks, etc. But just as staright people need to respect and appreciate their love for eachother, gay people need to respect straight couples also.
Friday at 9:56am · Edited · Like · 1
A. hope I don't seem like thishttp://www.upworthy.com/a-stand-up-comedian-sums-up-the-gay-rights-debate-in-30-seconds?c=ufb1
A Stand-Up Comedian Sums Up The Gay Rights Debate In 30 Seconds
www.upworthy.com
Why can't the truth always be this hilarious?
Friday at 10:02am · Like
ME. Because the responsibility of marriage isn't living with the potential to get pregnant or get someone else pregnant. For one, that is a responsibility that exists outside of marriage also. For two, that responsibility is absent from many straight marriages as well.
The responsibility of marriage is in committing yourself to another person, in loving and caring for and respecting them even when times are hard, even when you are furious with them. The responsibility is in choosing to spend your life supporting them, letting them support you, and working together even when it feels impossible. That is the responsibility you take on when you say "I do," in fact, it is written into most vows. And it is exactly the same for homosexual couples.
The responsibility of bringing a child into your family and raising them is also present for homosexual couples. They may get more of a choice in when,how, or if it happens than some straight couples end up getting (or less, if they live somewhere that refuses to let them adopt), but like I said earlier, the major responsibility of having a child is in raising that child (and I don't, by the way, take the pregnancy or giving birth part lightly at all, but that is -if we're being this cynical in assigning responsibility - a woman's responsibility, not a man's, gay or straight. Lesbians can get pregnant (hello, invitro) as well.)
Here is the thing, A. I understand that your definition includes the responsibility of producing and having children in the traditional way (and I really hope that you and your future spouse are both capable of living up to that, if that's what you want). That's completely fine, as long as your partner is on board. You should be able to define your relationship in the way that is most meaningful and relevant to you and your partner (so long as you're not hurting anyone) and have that relationship respected and the responsibilities you take on together acknowledged and appreciated. The thing is, the same holds true -not just for you- for everyone.
I fail to see how gay people are disrespecting straight couples by wanting for their relationships to be given the same validity as straight people's. Am I disrespecting you when I say that as a woman, I should have a vote, too, and that it should be called a vote, and count the same? And yes, to the commenter who mentioned this, if my vote were called something else, I would be freaking upset by that. Because it implies that just because I have a few different parts, my choices and decisions and civil responsibilities are somehow fundamentally different from yours. This is divisive, it allows people to focus only on differences, and differences are frequently read, whether we intend to or not, as strange, as scary, and/or as something that makes that person less than us. The words "savage" and "uncivilized" have pretty much been defined by this principal.
If we give them the rights, but call it something else, we are focusing on the differences only, and giving license for everyone to do the same. We are sending the message to them and the people who would do them harm that homosexuals/bisexuals are strange, they are scary, they are less. That is the message you send, whether mean to and whether you mean the sentiment. If you really fail to see setting up an entire group of people for continued persecution as a human rights issue that trumps the need to hold onto traditional definitions (especially of something that is in actuality, changing all the time), then I just plain don't understand you.
Meanwhile, you will still be able to define your relationship exactly the way that you and your partner choose. You can include making babies in your vows, even.
Gay people want to be able to call themselves married for the same reason that straight people do. The word has significance. It has power. It represents a social acceptance, but also a stage in a relationship. It's signifies security in their commitments to one another. It is, as Edie Windsor said, a magic word.
You are not respecting LGBQ people's love as much as you respect your own and that of other straight people when you deny them the word. It's as simple as that, really. And they are not disrespecting you - they're taking nothing away from your future marriage or your parent's marriage or anyone else's- by wanting the same right to the word. You still get to define it for you, your parents get to define it for themselves, etc.
You just don't get to define other people's relationships for them.
Yesterday at 12:55am · Edited · Like
ME. And A, in response to your second comment: I don't think you do, but that doesn't mean that what your saying isn't problematic.
Yesterday at 1:07am · Edited · Like
S. I can't believe someone actually believes in the can't accidentally have children argument. That is the most asinine attempt I have ever heard of. How many people have kids out of wedlock? Just because a couple has the physical makings to be parents doesn't mean that they are any better at it. Nor does it mean that they have any greater right over any other couple.
15 hours ago · Like
S. Seriously, why don't we just take away a woman's right to vote while we're at it. I mean, we can't carry the same weight as men so obviously we don't deserve the same freedoms, am I right?
15 hours ago · Like
A. Everyone who is a citizen should have the right to vote. Gay people are regular people- they are just as good at raising a child as a straight person. Being gay does not affect anything but your sexual preference, which is completely unrelated to anything moral, so I don't see how it would affect their ability to raise children, and I never stated otherwise. Why is it tradition for a couple to wait to have sex before getting married? Answer that question for me please. Thank you, I hope to continue this discussion.
6 hours ago · Like
T. I like how the argument comparing Gays right to marry is mentioned on the level of SLAVERY. If you have made that point, you are more ignorant than the traditionalist bigots you bash.
5 hours ago via mobile · Like
ME. Who has compared it to slavery?
3 minutes ago · Like
[EDIT: A. wrote back into the thread the other day with this:
"[ME], and anyone interested, I have changed my mind and think that gay people should be allowed to be married. Their love for eachother can and should be celebrated, in any way they see fit, so long as it does not interfere with another persons rights, which it really shouldn't. If I am not mistaken there are benefits for married couples with children that gay or infertile couples will not receive, and rightfully so. A title is just a title, and people rearing a child, whether married or not, is a feat which speaks for itself and a legal title will not change the work that adult did in raising that child. No one can force a man to stay with a woman he impregnates, only he can, and his actions will speak for themselves."]