can someone explain to me why Gay marriage is an issue?

correct me if im wrong but from what i understand the reasons against it are that it's:
-unnatural
-a "sin"

any other reasons?

why does being natural matter anyway? a lot of things people do are unnatural
also if it's a "sin", isn't that then treading into religious waters? and isn't "church and state" supposed to be seperate in America?

 

"Basic" psychological reasons?

I'd say "it's disgusting/icky" remains the deepest one among anti-gay types, then what I believe happens is that various "layers" are applied on top of that in order to justify this feeling.. Such as:

- Religion (sin)
- Nature (as in it serving no biological purpose)
- Disease risk (HIV ect..)
- Gender roles (because they usually feel threatened by anything which alters traditional roles)

These are the "facets" of homophobic attitudes I have encountered. There isn't much to it, really. All of the above points can and have been debunked thoroughly, though sadly some do not accept those explanations. Some still cling to outdated beliefs that homosexuality threatens the human race/way of life, or that the best way to combat HIV is to shun gay people and strip their rights away. This works about as well as the Pope having condemned condom use entirely.

The normalisation of homosexuality is what will reduce what some perceive as high rates of promiscuity and other problems among gay/bisexual people. Studies have shown that discrimination contributes to self-depreciating behaviour - risky sex, infidelity, drug use, self-harm, ect... Homophobia in society will not be cured overnight but the way we start is by ensuring gay people can hold down a job and get married. By repealing DOMA and passing ENDA (the Employment Non-Discrimination Act). By stopping drawing attention to the differences between gay and straight people by vehemently opposing common-sense legislation in a storm of hurtful rhetoric... Then, when our lawmakers who are meant to protect us ALL stop being discriminatory and act responsibly, society can start to follow the example...

I'm not talking about the irradication of homophobia, just the reduction of it. The people who oppose gay equality and use the aforementioned reasons to justify their opposition are actually RESPONSIBLE in part for the "problems with gay people" they like to talk about so much. Their views are part of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Same-sex marriage helps with reducing the self-depreciating behaviour some gay people engage in via the way it normalises homosexuality. Some gay people won't change their habits overnight but thinking ahead to future generations there's no reason to think that gay people should be any more promiscuous or "unbalanced" than heterosexuals, provided equality happens now. For now at least SSM encourages monogamy, encourages stability, and starts that all-important process of fundamentally altering society's view and guiding it towards tolerance and away from the hatred.

 

The main reason is that gay marriage is a special right for homosexual people. Aka welfare for homosexuals for no other reason then their homosexuality.

Homosexual activity does not require regulation and licensing since it does not affect society in any way while relationship between men and women does.

 

Because without someone to hate, the hateful, intolerant and ignorant would have to look deeper inside their little bubble of self-righteousness. It is unlikely that they would like what they find.

 

Look, that is a STUPID LIE, and those who can think somewhat objectively realize it. YOU need to stop saying that... and I ask that NO ONE tolerate your opinion when you say that. It's disgustingly foolish and homophobic.

More ludicrousness. Where does it end man? Come on, be realistic.

 

You are absolutely correct. Some people aren't happy, unless they can imagine that someone is 'beneath' them.

I'm not going to be very tolerant of the BS anymore in this lifetime. Those who express their irrational animus toward homosexuals or homosexuality, will like always get some response for me.

It is time that America focused upon REAL problems... not those that are as trivial as those generated by the mere perception that something is wrong. There are MANY big issues which are critical to us all, that need to be addressed.

Straight isn't going anywhere and neither is gay; we'd better apply real solutions to/for both types of people and move along to other things. Getting hung-up about someone's sexual-orientation, is an obsession for FOOLS.

 

Its an issue because people feel a need a to use the government to enforce their own religious beliefs on everyone else.

There are some who try and hide it under the thin vial of poorly constructed and self-contradictory "procreation" arguments.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

Johnny, we are not in the army now.
You can't instruct people how to think.
I know, for you, it would be ideal if government establish special committee an punish everyone who dare to disagree with gays.

 

So what? I and others don't have to put up with your ignorance, irrational animus and homophobia. I simply think it's right that people be responded to in-kind, for the BS they spew; simple as that.

And instructing others how to 'think', isn't my goal. My goal is to "instruct" more and more people about how stupid and foolish the kinds of things you're communicating here are. And believe me, there are plenty of smart, honest and reasonable people who understand and relate to every thought I'm expressing here.

No, I wouldn't call for anything like that... but I do eagerly await a day in this society when the kinds of poisonous bias you are proliferating here, will get you stared-down and criticized as you pretty-much should be. People with expressed thoughts like your own, have only contributed to the misery and hatred of others throughout time. I don't think what you're communicating should be tolerated by decent people; and that is the idea I intend to promote as best i can for the rest of my life.

 

Gay marriage is not an issue, it is an oxymoron. Because marriage is defined as a union of a man and a woman, "gay marriage" is by definition an oxymoron. The problem is, liberalism has become such a cartoon of itself, it has allowed it's misguided compassion for the people afflicted with homosexuality, something that used to be called a mental illness, to be taken to unnatural extremes. We seemed to have entered a slippery slope of redefining terms. For if you can redefine marriage to mean what you want it to mean, in spite of what the majority or even a minority is willing to accept, what is the point in changing the meaning?

Marriage is defined as a union of a man and a woman. Liberals have redefined the term to mean a union of two people who love each other. Who is to say that it should be limited to two people? Who has the right to object if we want to insert terms into the definition regarding age, or relationship? So now you can marry you mother and your sister, or a father can marry his underage daughter that he has molested for years. I could be married to five people, who in turn are married to five unrelated people. Where does it end, this constant redefining of terms and language?

Redefining words is what got us into this mess. Once they started redefining homosexuality as a lifestyle choice instead of a mental illness, the cat was out of the bag. The word "gay" used to mean happy. Now it means to love someone of the same sex.

If liberals are allowed to continue redefining words, I have a suggestion of my own...let's redefine the word "retarded" to mean someone who is a liberal.

 

If you remove the financial incentive of state and federal sponsored institutions and instead focus on individual liberty and make marriage between two people in love it would not be such an issue.

I do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle. I believe it’s immoral but how are two people pledging life together inhibiting my rights? They are not. Only when the government steps in and defines what marriage is and sets laws that affect me do I find conflict with homosexual Marriage.

The institution of marriage and religion has no place in public schools or any state sponsored institution. It’s the roll of the government to protect our liberty and not control our lives.

 

Plenty of real small-government conservatives support SSM.

 

Sorry, but one's sexual-orientation does not equate to being a "lifestyle".

 

RE: "Oxymoron"

The thing is "marriage", due to the separation of church and state, is a legal term. The law is constantly evolving and obviously differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and is required by neither history nor religion to stick to any set definition of anything. Simply because there is no greater oversight than the law itself - it is supreme. Same-sex marriage exists in 6 US states, is recognised in Mexico and Israel, and is permitted all over the word; from Canada to Argentina, Spain to South Africa, and is also on the books in many, many more... So you see not only is it established law in quite a few areas of the globe, it is also culturally established the world over. Everyone recognises the term and more than likely has an opinion on it, and whether it be pro or anti, its impact in its short life has been almost immeasurable...

So though it may be counted as an "oxymoron" in jurisdictions that have legally defined marriage as only existing between a man and a woman, its impact on society cannot be underestimated, and NO law is unchangeable.

Ultimately any attempt to claim a higher meaning for the word would HAVE to delve into religion/god. Simple.

The rest of your post is sadly a slippery slope argument that has no relevance to the merits of allowing same-sex couples the right to matrimony. Rights should not be denied on the basis of laziness; on the fear of "opening up a can of worms". All cases should be assessed on their individual merits. A committed same-sex couple harm no-one; they pay their taxes like everyone else and many raise healthy, happy families. That's the reality of the world whether you like it or not... They aren't ever going to go away, and trying to block their rights and freedoms forevermore is a waste of time politically, and a distraction from the real issues affecting the country today. We know now that being gay is not a mental disorder, and homosexuality is not something to fear. It poses no threat to society. They and their families deserve equal protection under the law, just as their heterosexual counterparts do. There's NO reason to oppose it.

 

What are you sorry about?

Sexual-Orientation would never come up with me if folks kept it in the bedroom.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYAUZ3CSqXw"]Teaching about the Homosexual Lifestyle in School - YouTube[/ame]

 

I am not a god fearing man but faith obviously does good for some folks

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrviw8nu7gQ"]X-Gay, Leaving the Gay Lifestyle, Former Homosexuals share their story - YouTube[/ame]

 

That's irrelevant, so be it.

Well, you aren't being realistic in the least. Virtually ANY person's sexual-orientation can be known or exposed if they have a serious relationship with someone. Often, people reveal their sexual-orientation (unintentionally) in casual conversation.

Sometimes, sexual-orientation is indicated (or suggested) by how one responds to humor or numerous others things in their social surroundings.

And finally, I don't see why anyone should keep their sexuality a secret. Most heterosexual people express sexuality either directly or indirectly (as simple as a picture on their desk at work, etc.). So, as much as you don't WANT to know about it, you probably will.

 

Keep what in the bedroom? Sex? ...I'm very sure they do.

 

Amen to that!

 

I understand where you are coming from. However being a conservative in my beliefs I do not subscribe to the notion that sexual behavior heterosexual or otherwise should leave the bedroom. I believe that sexual crimes are for more prevalent in our society than is reported. I think our 'openness' in sexual education and advertising is the root cause and not the symptom.

I do not believe in god but I do believe that a Sadam and Gomorra society is not the society I want to mimic. I believe our current course is taking us there.

As to homosexuality I do not think it’s a civil right any more than heterosexuality is. The government has no business in it. The reason why you feel (maybe?) the need to defend homosexuality as a civil right is because of persecution for same sex relationships. I think a society has every right to choose what type of behavior is acceptable and it’s not up to the government to define that for them.
It’s not like race, gender, age.. Where a person can do nothing about it. A person might be born gay but they do not have to follow through with that behavior any more than someone with any illness that contradicts the morals of the society they are born into. A person might have desires toward children , or the unwilling and its only after they act on those desires that a problem occurs.
In the end I would like control over how my family and children are raised. I do not need a government official to tell me unless of course the child is in danger.

 

Okay.

I can agree that sex-acts should remain private. But despite you 'beliefs', we are going to see people expressing affection or love for significant others from time-to-time. It isn't a realistic or practical value, to think that people will keep every or all aspects of human sexuality under wraps; not all that is sexual will be 'private'. If you don't believe that, then I won't be able to convince you otherwise.

Even so, people will be human despite ANY of our given beliefs; that is the constant that outlives even the longest held religious beliefs. Yes, people are "human".

That is possible. What does that have to do with gay marriage?

Violence against women in many societies (especially where people pretend that 'sex' is so "holy"), is very frequent. Openness about human sexuality (academically speaking) is not THE problem you seem to think/imagine that it is.

Sexual behaviors aren't new. People have been HORNY for centuries. Even so, there is more to the interpretation of the biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah, than I want to get into here. I can pretty much assure you that it wasn't particularly about gay sex. Some Christians will use that story to attack homosexuality... but it is not necessarily about that.

Our GREATEST problems stem from allowing MONEY (greed) to be a God, and the lust for political power in this world. Sex isn't the source of any of these main issues, but certain evil and/or criminal acts involving sex may certainly be symptoms of those greater issues. People need to STOP IMAGINING that "homosexuality" is some massive problem in this world. If homosexuality were the only problem in this world... it would be closer to "paradise" than most seem to know.

It's HUMAN. Therefore in "America", the Constitution affords EACH citizen a measure of liberty and protection overall. It is the LAW... not based on mere opinion or perceptual whims.

I disagree. Where it pertains to ensuring/defending individual rights, I expect the "government" to be right there "in it".

Simple. Because homosexual people (as heterosexual people) are human beings, their rights and liberties under the U.S. Constitution must be defended. (No exceptions.)

Okay. Then we must go to court, and handle it as THIS society has chosen. People's rights aren't based upon your or my perceptions of their rights; their rights are determined as prescribed in this nation's legal documents. And certainly, we cannot vote-away the rights of any minority group. In some ways (above), I'm defining America itself.

Well yes, in very many cases it is. There are significant reasons why conflicts and grievances are taken to court. We can relate our opinions here, but the manner in which LAWS actually affect people's lives are determined far above us and our opinions within any given internet forum. Respectfully, I can only refer you to the U.S. Constitution. (Numerous cases in America's courts are 'pending', as we speak.)

Look... you aren't going to stop people from being "homosexual" anymore than you would stop them from being "heterosexual". We already know this; even under the strong threat of prison or DEATH (as in certain other nations), 'homosexuality' is prevalent. The morals of society (as many should already realize) are things that are kept or held within an INDIVIDUAL. For example, I'm a homosexual man, but I don't think it is good or right to deliberately impose my "homosexuality" upon you as a human being. I respect the men (certainly not all gay) in my life and I love most like a brother. I'm not going to want to hurt them by PUSHING "homosexuality" (in any way upon them). By the same token, those who truly love me (truly as a friend/brother) aren't going to INSIST that I NOT be "homosexual".

Those are REAL and practical morals. This notion that people won't have sex outside of marriage, or will not be anything but heterosexual... isn't realistic. And because people are NOT realistic about these things, it sets up a cycle of socially-neurotic thinking (memes) which direct many away from what is real or practical. I'm NOT saying that any or every behavior is acceptable... only that this misguided crusade against all people/things "homosexual" needs to end.

Pedophilia, deserves its own thread. That is not what gay marriage is about.

Rape, is another topic which can fill its own thread(s) as well.

I think CONSENT is the key overall. Can a given couple or party authorize LEGAL CONSENT (i.e. not intoxicated, underage or of a family relationship prohibited by law)? (That is the real question.) Sexual-orientation does not (always) and should not prohibit those willing to enter into (legal) marriage from doing so.

Again, there are SOLID reasons why the very things we're discussing here are in court (right now).

To a very large degree, you have autonomy over that very thing in America. Even so, in the real world, you and your children will have to find the place with best suits you, in a world of individuals. None of us live in vacuums or on islands; we can/will affect one another. It is incumbent upon us all to find the best methods to communicate and live with one another. And that is the best thing we can do overall.

Well, I can only refer to the above; even so... we can all have some space and limited autonomy, if we determine that all shall have the same. And none of us will ever have all the control or separation we may want in this world; that is simply reality.