I feel badly that I'm giving the wrong impression here, but I think that's the nature of internet forums. No, I'm not a troll. Yes, my beliefs are traditional and conservative, but I am not hateful. I do believe in "Live and let live". I know that love is always a good thing and I believe committed partners should be recognized and celebrated regardless of their sexes. I am trying to be honest about how I feel and I realize that you may vehemently disagree. I'm not going to pretend to feel differently, just as I respect you for your beliefs. Anyways, getting back to words and what they mean to me: Gay=happy, ebullient and carefree. (When I sing "Deck the Halls" to my kids, I explain the meaning of the word in the carol). Could you live with these words? Marriage=the legal or religious contract or covenant between a man and a woman. Wife=the female member of a marriage. Husband=the male member of a marriage. Union=the legal or religious joining of a same sex couple that includes the exact same rights and responsibilities of a marriage. Spouses=the members of a same-sex union. What would be so bad about living with these definitions? I do think we need definitions, boundaries and limits. Like for example, I know a lot of people who refer to their dog as their "baby". So what if that person decided that they wanted their dog to be referred to and considered by society as their son or daughter because they love it so much? I know it's not the same thing that we're talking about, but would you be OK with that? Is there any place for limits, boundaries or morals?
Confused about Gay Marriage
- Thread starter Ramone45
- Start date
Etoile
Mod, 2003-2015
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2000
- Posts
- 17,049
But why? Why can't marriage refer to same sex couples. Why can't two women be wives and two men be husbands. Just because you don't like it? Because it wasn't that way historically? Well, times have changed. It most certainly can apply. You just might have to live with it.
And sure, I have friends who refer to their pets as their kids. Some are infertile, some are childfree (don't want kids), some are single gays who don't want to raise a human child alone. It's not immoral to say that your cat is your kid. It's a bit odd, because "children" usually refers to humans, but it's not immoral.
And you don't have to feel differently. You can have your opinion just like I can have mine. It happens that my opinion aligns with society's emerging view on these words, and yours aligns with the older view, but neither of us has to change it.
Last edited:
Recidiva
Harastal
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2005
- Posts
- 89,726
In principle I don't really care about what words are used as long as they're equal under the law.
However, winning the right to use a "different word" just draws one more unnecessary distinction.
This seems to be about one being "better" and one being "second class" and that's why I would fight for the same usage, despite traditional sense of entitlement. I didn't see anyone objecting to someone being married by Elvis in Vegas as "Chapeled." So it's not about the sanctity of marriage. It's about THEM not getting married, and that can't be hidden by semantics.
Besides, what do you say socially..."I'm married" or "I'm civilly unioned."
I prefer no distinction because to draw that distinction is to create two separate classes of social interaction, even though the legal definition should be absolutely the same.
So I want the same word. Even though the word itself doesn't matter, the practice and the perception does.
Last edited:
Dear Etoile:
Societies accecptance of same sex couple is certainly changing for the better, but I question if it is changing to the extent that you think it is. You have to admit that when the issue of Homosexual marriage if brought to the public for a vote, it's not exactly a landslide. Even President Obama has been on record in the past (I don't know if he has changed his mind) as being "against" homosexual marriage, and he's pretty liberal in his thinking. I wonder if there are more people who feel the way I do that you are willing to acknowledge.
Societies accecptance of same sex couple is certainly changing for the better, but I question if it is changing to the extent that you think it is. You have to admit that when the issue of Homosexual marriage if brought to the public for a vote, it's not exactly a landslide. Even President Obama has been on record in the past (I don't know if he has changed his mind) as being "against" homosexual marriage, and he's pretty liberal in his thinking. I wonder if there are more people who feel the way I do that you are willing to acknowledge.
blade_rocknut
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2009
- Posts
- 26,185
If majority public opinion constituted law, there would not have been a civil rights act in the 60's. Constitutionality is the issue, not what the majority believe. Many, many things happen in this country that the majority do not support, and many many things the majority would like to see do not; for the sake of upholding the rights of someone else. This is not a red state / blue state issue, either. A good many folks differ on this from the official position of their registered political party- even though few want to talk about it in mixed company. I am far from jumping on the political correctness bandwagon by harping on individual rights. I wish to hell we could have representatives who truly follow the template of democracy, rather than the two party nonsense. One party preaches individual rights ( but only in regard to certain issues), the other capitalist values, both worthy causes. But then religion has to come along and screw it all up; like always. How about a party that keeps out of my bedroom, out of my business, lets me treat my employees as well as their performance merits, and doesn't want to tax my guns out of existence. Oh, and doesn't want me to provide social services to everyone lucky enough to place foot on this soil ( illegally).Then maybe we could get past some of these issues and move on to getting out of debt before we all have to speak Chinese.
Stella_Omega
No Gentleman
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Posts
- 39,700
That's very nice of you. In the NEW sense of the word, not the old.
Once we've each stated our beliefs then, what reason to continue the discussion? If you want to argue further with the aim of changing my belief-- then you aren't being respectful at all. Now i will say that I argue to change minds when I can. And I will also say that I do not respect certain beliefs. To claim otherwise would be hypocrisy.
My belief in this matter is this; I don't really care about your semantic worries. If you don't want to call my marriage a marriage, I got no problem with that. I don't know you, and your unwillingness won't mean a damn thing in my life, as long as I and my wife can wake up together each morning, file our taxes jointly, and have right of attorney if either of us get ill, and our families can't take our estates away from our chosen spouses-- to name but a very very few of the things that go along with the word "marriage."
And unless you think that your not-calling my marriage a marriage will make my life better-- why bother with this discussion?
I use "gay" to denote two different meanings. Thousands and even millions of words mean more than one thing. Get over it.
If YOU were the one that had to live with these definitions, and they excluded you-- you would understand what the problem is. But as it happens, I know straight couples who refuse to say "husband" or "wife" because the words have such twisted connotations for them.
If it isn't the same thing we are talking about, let's NOT talk about it, okay? Be very very very careful in your choices of comparisons. You could be very very very insulting without intending to be.
Really, think about it. DOGS???????????? FUUUUUUCK YOUUUUUUUUU if you don't mind me saying so. Seriously. Really. Honest to god, do NOT compare two adult human beings and their lifelong commitment to DOGS. Not if you want to continue the discussion. That's that old "slippery slope" argument. the "Argument from absurdity" argument.
We aren't talking about dogs, we aren't talking about child molesters, as some of your co-believers-in-not-gay-marriage have done, we aren't even, just at this moment, talking about poly marriages.
We are talking about the marriage of two adults to each other. You've said you suport the rights of gay people to live full, happy involved lives. We all of us have all the duties of citizenship, yet we are denied a number of the rights that go along with it. MY federal taxes subsidise straight marriages.
Oh, trust me, we know how many people feel the way you do. They show up here to explain it to us, just like you did. They voted for prop8. They fill the airwaves with their feelings, they picket our dead soldiers, they spit at same sex couples on the streets.
We know.
Last edited:
Dear Stella,
BTW, I had an Aunt Stella whom I loved very much. I wish I hadn't made you curse at me and I'm sure you know I was not comparing humans to dogs. Thanks to the extent you took time to at least consider my opinions. I was hoping to engage a discussion that would help me personally clear up some confusion. It seems like my questions really touched a nerve, and in truth I think I'm just as confused as ever. I didn't enter this discussion to be mean or hurtful, but your implication that I would picket dead soldiers or spit at same sex couples is simply wrong. I think your anger blinds you to the possibilty that someone can respectfully disagree with you. I did not intend to contribute to that anger.
Ramone
BTW, I had an Aunt Stella whom I loved very much. I wish I hadn't made you curse at me and I'm sure you know I was not comparing humans to dogs. Thanks to the extent you took time to at least consider my opinions. I was hoping to engage a discussion that would help me personally clear up some confusion. It seems like my questions really touched a nerve, and in truth I think I'm just as confused as ever. I didn't enter this discussion to be mean or hurtful, but your implication that I would picket dead soldiers or spit at same sex couples is simply wrong. I think your anger blinds you to the possibilty that someone can respectfully disagree with you. I did not intend to contribute to that anger.
Ramone
Stella_Omega
No Gentleman
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Posts
- 39,700
Ramone,
I so rarely read apologies as concise and complete as yours is. I'm hardly ever able to do that, and I'm going to save yours as a model for myself.
I appreciate it and forgive you-- and thank you, too.
You have to admit, your confusion over the words themselves will seem pretty small beans to a person who is beleaguered and terrified about the standing of their most important relationship.
And truthfully, your qualms are still, as far as I'm concerned, only a milder version of the negations which other people try to enforce in uglier ways.
Your questions certainly touch a nerve. They touch the same nerve that has been hammered at by the events of recent times. My anger should be something you take into consideration, if you want to have this discussion. (and at least you didn't say that I "am blinded by hatred" as some people do)
I did say that I understand you can respectfully disagree with me, I think. I can't respectfully disagree with you, sadly, The object of discussion impacts my life. You have a privilege that I am denied, (which includes the word that describes it) and some of us get tired of putting on our emotional armor every morning.
I so rarely read apologies as concise and complete as yours is. I'm hardly ever able to do that, and I'm going to save yours as a model for myself.
I appreciate it and forgive you-- and thank you, too. You have to admit, your confusion over the words themselves will seem pretty small beans to a person who is beleaguered and terrified about the standing of their most important relationship.
See? that's just the reaction I get when people talk about adopting dogs.
And truthfully, your qualms are still, as far as I'm concerned, only a milder version of the negations which other people try to enforce in uglier ways.
Your questions certainly touch a nerve. They touch the same nerve that has been hammered at by the events of recent times. My anger should be something you take into consideration, if you want to have this discussion. (and at least you didn't say that I "am blinded by hatred" as some people do)
I did say that I understand you can respectfully disagree with me, I think. I can't respectfully disagree with you, sadly, The object of discussion impacts my life. You have a privilege that I am denied, (which includes the word that describes it) and some of us get tired of putting on our emotional armor every morning.
Safe_Bet
No she's not back I'm Amy
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Posts
- 8,663
Well, no shit! What the fuck do you expect, dude!
YOU, as a hetero male, have the luxury of discussing some philosophical point that interests you.
WE are discussing our lives. WE are discussing being prevented from being with the persons we love the same way that YOU are allowed to be with yours. WE are discussing a situation in which our freak'in kids can be taken away or a loved one could be dying and we are prevented from giving them comfort.
So, fuck yeah you touched a nerve - a whole lot of them. If you can't understand that then the rest of this discussion is pointless.
jehoram
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2010
- Posts
- 4,962
Sorry. That's wrong. There are plenty of cultures that believe in one man and as many women as he can afford. There are other cultures that have had polyandry ... one woman sharing several men. And several native American cultures institutionalized homosexual marriages, often with the gay person sharing matrimonial duties with straight family members. Finally, I remember coming across a book that described several gay marriages in Europe, beginning with Greece in the classical era and only ending in the Middle Ages, when the church became ubiquitous. In fact, the preponderance of one-man-one-woman marriages is due more to Christianity's penchant for obliterating native mores wherever it goes. (Islam does much the same thing, the principal difference being that they have no problem with multiple wives per se.)
So the one-man-one-woman formula is hardly universal, and hardly ancient. Study a little anthropology. You could learn a lot, and you have a lot to learn.
For my money, I think that all legally recognized unions be called "civil unions," even unions long recognized as marriages. Marriages should be religious ceremonies only, like baptism or last rites. So if your flavor of religion frowns on gay marriages, you don't have to honor them. Your church can marry straight people together to your heart's content, but it wouldn't have any legal standing at all. For that, you go to the justice of the peace and stand in line with all the other gay and straight couples.
In short, let's keep religion out of this altogether, the way we stopped recognizing baptisms and last rights as civil ceremonies as well as religious ones, and conferring on their recipients civil privileges.
Stella_Omega
No Gentleman
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Posts
- 39,700
Brilliant, jehoram.
As far as that goes, there are churches which will officiate gay marriages, all over this country. "Married in the eyes of God," right?
Some years back, an Italian woman I know got married. A couple of weeks before the ceremony, her mother and father came back from the church where they had finally been married in the eyes of the Church-- mom had divorced her first husband and the Pope frowned on that, of course. But they saved their pennies and managed to buy forgiveness so that Mom could give her daughter away in marriage.
here's the thing though-- all those years that they weren't married before god? They were married in every single practical sense. The kids were legitimate. They had each other's care and keeping. They filed jointly. They co-owned property. Things that no one could take away from them.
You know what I'm saying?
Noira
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2008
- Posts
- 730
As someone religious, I adamently opposed gay marriage in Canada when the bill came up. (I WAS a lot younger then, you understand... it's been legal here for a while.) I stood strong with my church when we prayed desperately for marriage to not be tainted by this.
Then it got accepted. It was TRAGIC. We were all very upset and...
Then some time passed and some five years later it hit me that now that we'd legalized it, the gays were perfectly happy and were not getting in our faces anymore about the fact that they were being denied a legal right, and nowhere along the lines were we forced to marry people of the same sex if we didn't want to. My pastor didn't have to marry two people of the same sex, he didn't have to change his marriage papers to say spouse and spouse and no one was forcing me to get married to that hot woman unless I wanted to.
NOTHING HAD CHANGED FOR ME!
In short: allowing gay marriage didn't effect my life whatsoever. The sanctity of marriage stayed as it was for those who believed that marriage was only okay if it was between a man and a woman because they didn't HAVE to marry someone of the same sex and they could practice a perfectly by the books marriage if they wanted to. So WHAT if two people wanted to get married? And I cite my experience whenever I can: the government allowing gay marriage will not effect you whatsoever unless you happen to want to marry someone of the same gender. It won't effect you if they call it a civil union and it won't effect you if they call it a marriage and it won't effect you if they call themselves spouse and spouse, spouse and wife, spouse and husband, wife and wife or husband and husband, or zorg and blargarg or Pirate and Ninja.
Years later, I'm glad I live in a country where if I chose, I can marry a woman. I like to know that I have the freedom to do things that actually only effect me and the person I marry. Probably a good thing because time has slowly weakened the walls I put up around my love of women.
And yes, I think the word marriage should be okay.
In the end, I can't think of a single person who wasn't interested in marrying someone of the same sex who was effected by the legalization of same sex marriages.
Then it got accepted. It was TRAGIC. We were all very upset and...
Then some time passed and some five years later it hit me that now that we'd legalized it, the gays were perfectly happy and were not getting in our faces anymore about the fact that they were being denied a legal right, and nowhere along the lines were we forced to marry people of the same sex if we didn't want to. My pastor didn't have to marry two people of the same sex, he didn't have to change his marriage papers to say spouse and spouse and no one was forcing me to get married to that hot woman unless I wanted to.
NOTHING HAD CHANGED FOR ME!
In short: allowing gay marriage didn't effect my life whatsoever. The sanctity of marriage stayed as it was for those who believed that marriage was only okay if it was between a man and a woman because they didn't HAVE to marry someone of the same sex and they could practice a perfectly by the books marriage if they wanted to. So WHAT if two people wanted to get married? And I cite my experience whenever I can: the government allowing gay marriage will not effect you whatsoever unless you happen to want to marry someone of the same gender. It won't effect you if they call it a civil union and it won't effect you if they call it a marriage and it won't effect you if they call themselves spouse and spouse, spouse and wife, spouse and husband, wife and wife or husband and husband, or zorg and blargarg or Pirate and Ninja.
Years later, I'm glad I live in a country where if I chose, I can marry a woman. I like to know that I have the freedom to do things that actually only effect me and the person I marry. Probably a good thing because time has slowly weakened the walls I put up around my love of women.
And yes, I think the word marriage should be okay.
Even the dictionary uses it to define more than male/female marriage alone! Look at that last one.
In the end, I can't think of a single person who wasn't interested in marrying someone of the same sex who was effected by the legalization of same sex marriages.
Wait- are you trying to convince us of your viewpoint, or are you trying to find alternative arguments? Since you're saying it, you're looking for some variety of support and backing.
Answer this: will your marriage suffer if two guys are married? What about two women? What if they're hot? Are you less of husband if one of those women is called "husband"?
Yeah, Obama's a politician trolling for votes (I respect the guy, and he's picked a fucked up time to be prez. but it is what it is. His statements carry costs expressed in votes).
[
I like that!
They still do the whole indulgence thing? That's it. I'm starting an ATM cult..uhh... kool-aid free church!! Forgiveness from me =$1. From God $5. From Goddess $20. From the Pantheon $50, but, I'll give you a sign-up discount of $30 on that one. Any takers?
Stella_Omega
No Gentleman
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Posts
- 39,700
next time i go out and sin like crazy, I'll give you a call.
Athalia
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2010
- Posts
- 1,211
The perfect solution. Thanks for posting it.
why not just keep it seperate for straight and gay. Have a civil union be the legal, govt sanction commitment and marriage be the spiritual/religious one. Then all civil/legal rights are afforded by the civil union while the marriage is something between you and your god.
There is no reason that shouldn't meet everyones criteria. Go to city hall and get a 'civil union certificate' instead of a 'marriage license'. Go to your church to get the marriage. The state/fed would only deal with the civil union agreement. Take marriage out of tax law and the courts.
There is no reason that shouldn't meet everyones criteria. Go to city hall and get a 'civil union certificate' instead of a 'marriage license'. Go to your church to get the marriage. The state/fed would only deal with the civil union agreement. Take marriage out of tax law and the courts.
Stella_Omega
No Gentleman
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Posts
- 39,700
I think you meant; "why not just keep it separate for the religious and the secular."
AS I pointed out, there are churches who will marry gay couples "before God." Those married couples can't get many legal rights along with God's sanction though.
Last edited:
Safe_Bet
No she's not back I'm Amy
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Posts
- 8,663
Why not? Because we are EQUAL dammit!
Separate but equal is unconstitutional and I'll be damned if I will be treated as a second class citizen because I just happened to love another woman.
If you want EVERYONE (LGBT AND hetero) to have the EXACT same civil unions, fine. But if there is a difference there is a DIFFERENCE!
Etoile
Mod, 2003-2015
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2000
- Posts
- 17,049
It sounded pretty clear to me that dicknjane was advocating separate institutions for everyone...
I really hate to say this because I don't want to jeopardize the modicum of good-will I've earned here. However, for good or bad, homosexuals will always be "different". Frankly, alot of homosexual couples ar happy to be different. For instance,"Safe Bet", your banner says "Proud lesbian wife and mother!" Why do yo find it necessary to proclaim your homosexuality? Why should we care? YOU are drawing a distinction between you and every other wife and mother. What defines you? Your sexual preference? The fact that you are a proud wife and mother? My wife is a proud wife and mother. She doesn't need to further limit that my declaring her heterosexuality.(But honestly, that's due to socially accepted conventions, and that is what you want to change). I truly understand why you declare your homosexuality. You ARE proud of it and rightly so, and we are on a GLBT Internet forum. I guess what I'd like to suggest is that as homosexuals endeavor to use "Traditional" terminology to describe their relationships, they also sometimes make a point of their obvious differences. 
Safe_Bet
No she's not back I'm Amy
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Posts
- 8,663
I really hate to say this because I don't want to jeopardize the modicum of good-will I've earned here. However, for good or bad, homosexuals will always be "different". Frankly, alot of homosexual couples ar happy to be different. For instance,"Safe Bet", your banner says "Proud lesbian wife and mother!" Why do yo find it necessary to proclaim your homosexuality? Why should we care? YOU are drawing a distinction between you and every other wife and mother. What defines you? Your sexual preference? The fact that you are a proud wife and mother? My wife is a proud wife and mother. She doesn't need to further limit that my declaring her heterosexuality.(But honestly, that's due to socially accepted conventions, and that is what you want to change). I truly understand why you declare your homosexuality. You ARE proud of it and rightly so, and we are on a GLBT Internet forum. I guess what I'd like to suggest is that as homosexuals endeavor to use "Traditional" terminology to describe their relationships, they also sometimes make a point of their obvious differences.
Dude, how freak'in many homosexual couples do you know? On what basis can you make a broad brush statement like that? You obviously are not a member of the LGBTQI community so all I can figure is that you are full of shit and are injecting you own "wants" into OUR reality.
BTW, this is my late wife's account. She was VERY proud to be my wife and to be the mother of our children. The fact that she needs to declare her pride is because so many freak'in heteros spend their lives telling us we should be ashamed of our life and our love.
and Dude... Everybody else might put up with your crap, but not me. I think you're a troll that is just here for the argument. So fuck off, will ya?
@ dicknjane: I miss read. I apologize. We are in complete agreement.
Last edited:
Is this how you treat everyone who has a difference of opinion with you? Close minded-ness? Intolerance? Profanity? Guess what; there is no homosexual community. There is just one community and I'm just as much a member of it as you are. I was trying to learn more about how to interact with members of the community wh have a different life-style and who have legitimate concerns. I obviously came to the wrong place. This is a feel good place where you just want to be stroked, and that's fine. I'm sorry I didn't know that. But you guys blew an opportunity here. I came here to present clear sincere questions and you dismissed and cursed me. Nice job. The homosexuals I know are a hell of a lot nicer than you.
Etoile
Mod, 2003-2015
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2000
- Posts
- 17,049
You weren't trying to learn anything. If you were, you would have said "thanks, now I understand your position" and that would have been the end of it. You wouldn't keep arguing about how gay pride is unnecessary, how words are more important than results, etc. Now, because you're encountering real live gay people who aren't going to bow to your every whim and answer all of your questions with complete kindness and empathy, you're getting pissed off. Guess what? It's not our job to educate you. Some of us tried, because you seemed to be asking in earnest. Now you're just insulting people and suggesting that their personal values are irrelevant, so yes, you're going to get negative reactions.
Oh, and if there's really only one community, I hope to see you marching proudly in next year's Puerto Rican parade, or visiting the barbershop in an African-American neighborhood, or kicking it old-school with me and my friends at the world's only liberal arts university for the deaf. See you there!
