Homosexual Rights.
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
| Faye Merci Salute You in Your Grave  Age: - Gender: - Posts: 4473 | byerk: I do. What if we made it so that black people couldn't get married, but they could be "civilly united"? Well, that would start a civil rights movement. But because we're talking about gay people, "it's not really a big deal." It would be unfair, because it's bullshit. That's the concept of equal but different. By saying you don't think it can be called marriage, you might as well be against gay rights in general. Think about it if we said that short people, or black people, or asians, or blonde people, couldn't get married - but could get "civil unions". Wouldn't you still want the right to say you were married? Personally, I would. It IS a big deal. Put it in perspective. Let's say I told you because of your race, or because of the color of your hair, you could never get married. You can go to a town hall and get "unioned." But not married. I doubt that would be okay with you. byerk: And why is this okay? Why should they be denied this simple, yet life-changing status? Think about it, again. Imagine you love someone so deeply you want to commit your life to them and grow old with them. You want to get married. And I tell you, sure, you can have all the rights of marriage, but legally, you can't say you're married. It's cruel. It's heartbreaking. All homosexuals are asking for is equality. And yet, they can't have it. Why? Because they sleep with someone of the same sex? So where does the law stop? When can I draw the line? What if you sleep with someone of a different race? Or a different country? Can I say that you don't have the right to marry them, just because you love them and sleep with them? I don't think so. |
| Jenny. Moderator  Age: 30 Gender: Female Posts: 19720 | Guys, please remember that profanity isn't allowed on the discussions forum. |
| Faye Merci Salute You in Your Grave Age: - Gender: - Posts: 4473 | Vanya Hargreeves:seriously? what happened to freedom of speech? |
| questionable content Always Born a Crime  Age: 28 Gender: Female Posts: 5604 | profanity distracts from the discussion and in say, a serious discussion, like in the government, saying f-bombs all over the place is not acceptable discussion board rules |
| Faye Merci Salute You in Your Grave Age: - Gender: - Posts: 4473 | always: I guess. Personally I believe that words only offend if you let them. It's just meaningless sounds but ok. |
| Marilyn Monroe Awake and Unafraid  Age: 30 Gender: Female Posts: 13140 | Honestly, I agree with some things your saying. But marriage was originally a religious thing, and it's the legal union of a man and a women, (N.B) I'm not homophobic, I am bi... so you know, but I'm just saying that that is what a MARRIAGE is defined as. |
| Jenny. Moderator Age: 30 Gender: Female Posts: 19720 | always: Thank you. |
| tabitha Bleeding on the Floor  Age: 45 Gender: Female Posts: 1831 | The idea that a gay couple can not legally consider their partner to be their spouse is unfair. Two people in love, male/female or same sex, deserve to have the same rights. The fact that I am someone's wife, that I have the right to call the man I love husband, is a right that should be able to be shared by all. I saw an interesting macro the other day of a black man holding up a sign against gay marriage, and the caption read along the lines of "I'm glad the equal-rights movement gave me the ability to discriminate against people different than me" -- and I agree. Black, white, Hispanic, Asian, male, female, gay, straight; we are all *people* and should all be able to live our lives as we choose. |
| Faye Merci Salute You in Your Grave Age: - Gender: - Posts: 4473 | Young Hannibal: You're kidding me, right? Marriage was originally the trading of one's man's daughter to another man. A woman was nothing more than chattel with dowry. And if you take religion (especially the bible) into account, many of the men had plural wives. And even further back, marriage was when your lord or master decided he needed more slaves so he would unite you and some maid so that you could reproduce babies. And if you want to go before medieval times, then there's the Roman and Greek times where it was perfectly acceptable to be gay or have several wives. So no, marriage was NOT originally a religious thing. Jesus did not come up with marriage, I'm afraid. |
| severus. Awake and Unafraid  Age: 33 Gender: Female Posts: 12901 | Young Hannibal:Actually, there is nothing inherently religious about the institution of marriage. It was originally a way of forming ties between families and transferring the property (the woman/bride) of one man (her father) to another man (her husband). That's no longer how we view marriage anymore, especially in the Western world. It's funny that people who are against gay marriage argue about the redefinition of marriage as if marriage has never been redefined and expanded before. That's what social institutions are supposed to do, they're supposed to change and adapt to the current time. Else they become archaic and irrelevant. |
| youhaveissues!! Killjoy  Age: 29 Gender: Female Posts: 9 | yey someone understainds me you see im in love with another girl and i love her soo much i get picked on a school they tell me im not normall and they say im only going out with her because i cant get a boyfriend  i think there is nothing wrong with it at all !!!!!! |
| Jenny. Moderator Age: 30 Gender: Female Posts: 19720 | youhaveissues!!:That doesn't belong here. You're better off putting it into the personal questions forum. |
| tabitha Bleeding on the Floor Age: 45 Gender: Female Posts: 1831 | Faye Merci is correct in what she says. Marriage was once viewed as the transfer of ownership of a woman, her dowry and property, from her father to her husband. The idea of marrying for love was for the lower classes, if at all. In today's society, however, marriage binds two people who are in love. Currently it is only allowed between heterosexual couples in most places. Marriage to someone you love is now seen as a right; the idea of parents arranging marriages is not practiced in most countries (although it is not completely unheard-of) and it is up to each person to choose the person that they love and want to share their life with. If that happens to be someone of the same sex, and they are happy, then they should have the same right to a wedding and marriage as any other person. |
| t'lema Salute You in Your Grave  Age: 33 Gender: Female Posts: 2109 | I may be wrong, but doesn't marriage allow certain priviliges that civil partnership doesn't? In the lack of a will with one spouse or benefits (in the UK) I believe marriage offers rights that civil partnerships don't. I could be wrong, but that's how I understand it. Marriage also shows that the union of the two people is recognised by God. That isn't so in civil partnerships, and that can give an exclusion to christian gays. (Also it's not just heterosexuals who can get married, bisexual people who fall for someone of the opposite sex can too. Unfair, if one relationship they have i recognised and another one a few years later isn't imo.) |
| Jesse Lacey; Awake and Unafraid  Age: 28 Gender: Female Posts: 12077 | Faye Merci: Hey, you've got me on all of your points- but you could use some of your arguments to support other things- pedophilia, for example. If two legal adults have the right to say "i do" because people were afraid of discriminating, what if a man and a young child were to use the same argument? |
| Jesse Lacey; Awake and Unafraid Age: 28 Gender: Female Posts: 12077 | Huck.:Only federally- granted rights aren't given. The government can either change the definition of marriage, or come up with something else to call it. Personally, I prefer the former. You can't change the meaning of words just to fit situations. |
| IcyColdNights Jazz Hands  Age: 31 Gender: Female Posts: 395 | I am, and have always been, and will continue to be a supporter of homosexual rights. The reason that I think that gay marriage hasn't been legalized in all countries is that people aren't that ready for that big a change. People have heard from their parents and grand parents that being gay is "wrong", per say. Some religions argue that being gay is a sin, and for many people, religion comes first. People have simply been raised like that, and that is the truth. Religion is obviously a touchy subject for many, including myself, and I will not persist with it. I think that we, the new generation, have the ability to change the ideas of the older generations. Many of us are extremely forward-thinking any obviously many accept gay rights and gay marriage, just from reading a few earlier posts. |
| Faye Merci Salute You in Your Grave Age: - Gender: - Posts: 4473 | byerk: Because I'm talking about two adults who are capable of making choices - not an adolescent who can be easily fooled. Pedophilia and homosexuality are far apart in my mind. You yourself said it, I'm saying that two ADULTS can say it. I said nothing about two people (young or old) in love as an example. I didn't use the love is love debate - which is pretty much the only way to vindicate pedophiles. I was talking about equal but different civil rights status being a form of racism towards two adults. I definitely was not implying that such a debate could be used to rationalize pedophilia, because that isn't the same thing as this debate, the debate being equal but different for two ADULTS. When I mentioned that two people who loved one another thing, I assumed I had already made clear in my introduction that I was talking about adults. Sorry if I wasn't clear. |
| Person0001 Always Born a Crime Age: 43 Gender: Female Posts: 5099 | byerk:There is legislature that clearly states that minors do not have the legal right to consent. Faye Merci:Actually, any testimony I've ever read by pedophiles verifies that they consider their acts to be those of compulsion, not love, and I've never seen one defend their actions - they know they're sick. |
| blow Bleeding on the Floor  Age: - Gender: Female Posts: 1137 | byerk: I see that you completely ignored what Faye said. The term marriage originally meant trading a women to a man. That's obviously not what the word means today. Today marriage is the union of two consenting adults. I don't see what the problem is with the two adults being the same sex. But obviously you do have a problem with that. Marriage is not a privilege it is a human right, so by denying marriage to gays you're saying that they aren't human, I guess. And marriage is not the same as holy matrimony or a union performed by the church. It is a legal matter. If two people want to get married they don't have to go to a church they can just go to a courthouse and have a document signed. Calling it marriage also doesn't mean that God has 'recognized' the union. Words are always changing, society changes words all the time to have a better meaning. The dictionary is not set in stone. |
Options
Go back to top
Go back to top