Welcome to Gaia! ::

The LGBT Guild

Back to Guilds

This is a guild for all sexual orientation equality supporters to chat and feel welcomed. 

Tags: Homosexual, Bisexual, Transgender, Genderqueer 

Reply Politics and Debates
Gay-Rights Article Goto Page: [] [<] 1 2

Quick Reply

Enter both words below, separated by a space:

Can't read the text? Click here

Submit

Le Scratch
Vice Captain

Icy Humorist

31,825 Points
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Megathread 100
  • Invisibility 100
PostPosted: Mon Jun 13, 2011 11:48 pm
kh.ikari
Le Scratch
On the subject of bullying, it's an extremist viewpoint. Not everyone is going to support equality. Hell, there are still those out there that don't support equality for those of African descent and they've been legally equal for over a half century. While it is important to make that aware that such extremists exist, it's also important to note that they are the extreme, not the norm. It's the same way the 'flaming gay' is, while the most visible of the gay community, not the norm. It's never right to bully another group simply because they don't agree and it's also worth noting (as explained below) that anti-gay marriage is not anti-gay rights.

On the subject of marriage, it's a sketchy thing. It always will be sketchy, even if we eventually get equality on a legal level (i.e same benefits as traditional married couples). It's a question of definitions and that will have to be answered by each state and by each church individually. I support equality before the law, not necessarily marriage, and nothing more. Marriage is not conducive to a happy life nor is it necessary, much as statistics suggest otherwise. Correlation does not mean or imply causation and with all statistical studies it is important to note that difference. It takes additional study to prove causation, though I won't go into that here.


That's true. Equality for the LGBT community is much more controversial if you ask me though then equality for African-Americans. I think by that time, people finally realized that they were people just like everyone else, despite race. Race and sexuality are completely different, because it's undeniable that everyone no matter their race is human, but not everyone believes that homosexuality is natural. But people who still don't support equality for African-Americans are just living in a different time is all. And I agree with your take on the extremes. I also like that your brought up the point that being anti-gay marriage doesn't mean you're anti-gay rights. I may not support gay-marriage, but that doesn't mean I don't support things like I mentioned such as civil unions, and protections to prevent discrimination.

I do agree with the first part you said. In my opinion, I feel it's best left up to the states to determine what they want to do about same-sex marriage. I think that the people should vote and if they vote in favor, then make it legal, and if they don't, then ban it. I'm opposed to the federal government or the courts deciding the issue of same-sex marriage because it's strictly regional. The North and the West support legalization, while the Midwest and South do not support legalization. I don't think it should be imposed on everyone. I do think however, that marriage is conducive to a happy life, in most instances, and to a healthier relationship. Without it, I can see infidelity running rampant among couples and lead to a polyamorous society which honestly sickens me beyond belief.
It may not be entirely 'natural' by some viewpoints but it has been present in humanity since prehistory and is present in other species as well ... which in and of itself is evidence that it is indeed natural to some degree.

Infidelity is not something that is stopped by marriage; one need only look at the common cases of famous married men or women cheating and the story making it on television. If a legally binding contract from the state won't stop someone nothing will, so I don't think that a lack of marriage would be cause for concern there. A happy relationship will generally prevent that on its own since it is generally unhappy or unsatisfying relationships that lead to it. There's always an exception to the rule, of course, but that's the general reason.  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 11:22 am
kh.ikari
Shilberu Erikku
kh.ikari
Shilberu Erikku
kh.ikari
Shilberu Erikku

But if we just called ALL state issued marriages civil unions, and reduced "marriage" to an optional stop at a church afterwards, wouldn't the end results just be the same?

I wouldn't consider it the same. To me, marriage is much greater than civil unions. Civil unions, are just a contractual agreements for those who don't fit the official definition of [traditional] marriage. I guess in a way, it's the same thing as far as the government is concerned, but it doesn't carry with it the power that marriage does. Marriage has more emotion to it, whereas a civil union is just going and getting a license saying you're together. Marriage is a ceremony where you have all your family and friends come out and celebrate in your consummation of love together before God. Many wouldn't agree, but to me, marriage and religion go hand in hand. I would only marry in a church because that's the way I believe, or if I didn't get married in a church, I would at least have a pastor or priest there to marry me and my future wife.

So, you're saying an athiest marriage isn't a marriage?

I don't really know. I've never heard of an atheist having a wedding ceremony before. I figured for atheists, they just go and get the proper paper work and that's as far as it goes. I wouldn't really know. There are no atheists where I live as far as I know. I live in the Bible belt.

Actually, a lot of athiests DO get wedding ceremonies,mainly for two reasons:
1. the romantic factor of it
2. the sake of tradition and family.

That makes sense. A wedding isn't a wedding without the whole ceremony. And that's true, it does have a romantic factor, like being able to read your vows.

In that case, why don't we give civil unions the EXACT SAME RIGHTS as marriages, issue everybody civil unions, then have marriage as an OPTIONAL ceremony afterwards for religious or romantic reasons?It'd pretty much the same, but different, and a bit longer in some cases. sweatdrop

There could be interesting implications to this reframing as well. Heterosexual couples who do not want to associate themselves with religion could opt for a civil union instead of a marriage. As a means of compromise the term marriage could be left to the religious, while the term civil union could be applied to both secular and homosexual couples.

Perhaps the best way of getting equality for all is to not use a term so soaked in theological terminology as "marriage" is.  

Shilberu Erikku

1,800 Points
  • Gender Swap 100
  • Dressed Up 200
  • Hygienic 200

Shilberu Erikku

1,800 Points
  • Gender Swap 100
  • Dressed Up 200
  • Hygienic 200
PostPosted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 11:41 am
It's kinda funny how the main hangup seems to be religious people thinking they own the word "marriage", yet every religious marriage ceremony ends the same way.... with the words "By the power of the state", and with the minister signing a state-issued license. So the ceremony is technically "religious" up until that last line in the script. At that point, it becomes a legal process. And the 14th amendment makes it clear that all people are equally entitled to that legal process. Therefore the document should be exactly the same, as well as all legal rights for the couple who signed it. The rest of the ceremony is up to the religious institution to figure out for themselves. Government should not dictate the ceremony, just as the religious institution should not dictate legal documents.  
Reply
Politics and Debates

Goto Page: [] [<] 1 2
 
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum