Who does homosexuality hurt?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

That was inevitable where it was going to go though. There are no arguments against gay marriage that do not include theology. Any "moral" or "social" arguments are not based on facts either. I want someone to explain how this definition of "traditional marriage" came about. I think it was simply made up to counter gay marriage rights. Marriage has meant alot of things over the course of time.
It used to be traditional for the bride's family to give a dowry, should we do that in keeping with tradition? It used to be traditional for the bride's property to then belong to her husband, should we do that in keeping with tradition? It used to be tradition that for the family to arrange the marriage, should we do that in keeping with tradition? It was tradition for a man to divorce a woman for not giving him sons, should we do that in keeping with tradition? You see where I'm going with this I think. The "Traditional marriage" argument has no real standing because there is no such thing in history. Marriage has changed over history, even recently. Those who support this idea, chose one common theme and stuck with just that, because it is the only thing that is in alignment with what they want.

Certainly you could make a case that since there was no other kind of marriage in history that the term "traditional Marriage" only came about because people who were gay wanted to marry and it now introduced an alternative to marriage as everyone knows it. Certainly there is history to it. Arranged marriages were not the status in quo in most cultures, same for dowerys. None of those things were part of US culture. And certainly it has changed over history, and certainly there is this new thing where same sex couples can marry, but to say that "traditonal marriage", as defined between and man and a woman, does not change history. Those who don't support this idea, chose a common theme against it and stuck with just that, because it is not in alignment with what they want. Just a different point of view. I personally don't have to much of an opinion on it.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

Please explain your answer.

I can only come up with one group of people that homosexuality can hurt, family. There is a pervasive attitude in our Me Generation that anyone can do anything and it has little to no consequence, as long as it makes you happy. I think if parents and family are not comfortable with choices you make as teens and young adults and you ignore other peoples feelings who support you, then you should really not be surprised when you loose that support, emotional, financial, educational, etc. So yea, you can hurt those around you, even if you don't mean to do it.

[morethanpretty]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I can only come up with one group of people that homosexuality can hurt, family. There is a pervasive attitude in our Me Generation that anyone can do anything and it has little to no consequence, as long as it makes you happy. I think if parents and family are not comfortable with choices you make as teens and young adults and you ignore other peoples feelings who support you, then you should really not be surprised when you loose that support, emotional, financial, educational, etc. So yea, you can hurt those around you, even if you don't mean to do it.

Family gets hurt by other family members' actions all the time that have nothing to do with their sexual orientation. We can't do everything that "family" wants us to do and be personally happy. At least that is what I've found. I don't ignore their feelings, but yes mine are more important. I don't treat them like bad people or stupid (even when I think they are), I just say "Look, this makes me happy, you love me, then you should just be happy that I'm responsible, healthy and happy." In my honest opinion if your family tells you want religion, sexual orientation, career ect you should have, and pull support from you without meeting those goals they've set...then they don't have any real love for you. You love someone you want them to be happy and successful, thats it. They shouldn't define what makes you happy, just be happy for you when you find your own definition.

[Yznhymr]

All tax payers suffer.

[DanaC]

It used to be traditional for the bride's property to then belong to her husband, should we do that in keeping with tradition?

Actually, that was more than 'tradition' that was a legal constraint. I'm not sure how it worked in the States, but over here property ownership was simply not legally possible for a married woman, until the Married Woman's Property Act, well into the 19th century. Upon marriage the woman entered into the system of 'couverture': she lost her separate legal existence.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Personally I don't care if gay people get married or live in sin or live their life however they choose, just as I feel about straight people, or people who aren't sure about their sexuality, or people who choose to have open marriages even. I don't have any reason to stop anyone from living their personal relationships how the choose to, but some people do, and to most of those that do, it comes down to religious beliefs or social beliefs.

Saying that God has nothing to do with the discussion is like saying you don't like how rain makes puddles, so let's only talk about the puddles that appear because of other things.

But els's point, that still hasn't been addressed (i'm not tail-posting here), is that LEGALLY, god CAN'T have anything to do with the discussion. God is not part of the government, and therefore God can not be the reason to deny two people a social contract.

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Obviously I can't speak for anyone else, but the fact that I'm 'legally' married doesn't mean anywhere near as much to me as the fact that I feel spiritually bound to my husband. In fact, it doesn't really mean anything to me what the law thinks. This is my issue with the whole legal contract argument. There's more involved in getting married than a simple signing of names. If that's all it was, then there'd be no talking or exchanging of vows. People would just send away for the forms, sign them and then send them back.

Again, that's wonderful, but LEGALLY speaking, it is NOT the government's business at ALL how you feel spiritually. Yes, two people can feel that for eachother and not need marriage at all, but if they want the LEGAL rights associated with the LEGAL contract of marriage, they deserve it. Of course marriage is more than just signing forms. But to the GOVERNMENT, it shouldn't be. In a legal sense, only the legal agreement matters.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Isn't it more that they think their vows to each other will be cheapened if 'just anyone' is allowed to go ahead and get married? That's the feeling I get when I read those sorts of discussions.

Well, I see what you're saying, but to me that's the whole point. How could anyone else's anything cheapen another's couple's vows, if what you have is strong who cares what everyone else is doing?

I think vows are cheapened more by serial marriage people: hop from one marriage or relationship to another, or by those who marry for money, or for a million other reasons that, to me, seem aside from what marriage should be about. It's my opinion that pretty much "just anyone" can get married anyway...who am I to limit it or to say Billy Joe and Bobbie Sue can get married because they're in love, even if he beats her or she cheats, but Billy Joe and Bobby Jack who are very committed and believe in a purpose in life can't?

I know I'm talking to a very happily married person, so your opinion is valuable to this discussion. So many are not happy...

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Yznhymr

All tax payers suffer.

When Ellen and Portia got married, my taxes went through the roof. The freaking ROOF, I tell you.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by Ibram

But els's point, that still hasn't been addressed (i'm not tail-posting here), is that LEGALLY, god CAN'T have anything to do with the discussion. God is not part of the government, and therefore God can not be the reason to deny two people a social contract.





Again, that's wonderful, but LEGALLY speaking, it is NOT the government's business at ALL how you feel spiritually. Yes, two people can feel that for eachother and not need marriage at all, but if they want the LEGAL rights associated with the LEGAL contract of marriage, they deserve it. Of course marriage is more than just signing forms. But to the GOVERNMENT, it shouldn't be. In a legal sense, only the legal agreement matters.

Just to try and clarify this one more time.

At this point it is illegal for gay people to marry almost everywhere in the world.

Do I agree with this? nope. Not at all.

Why do I think it's illegal? Because it is socially unacceptable at the moment, and until it becomes socially acceptable it will remain illegal.

Why is it socially unacceptable? Because society is underpinned by religious and spiritual beliefs which conflict with facts a lot of the time, but it doesn't change the fact that religion has a big say in what's acceptable and what's not in most societies.

What do I think needs to happen to change things? We as a society need to recognise the rights of the individual to express their love however they choose to do so which may or may not include marriage.

Why hasn't it happened yet? All change takes time. There have been remarkable leaps forward for the gay community over the last 20 years or so, along with many other minority groups. Maybe it's not fast enough, but things are definitely not stagnant.

Do I believe it will happen? Most assuredly yes.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Well, I see what you're saying, but to me that's the whole point. How could anyone else's anything cheapen another's couple's vows, if what you have is strong who cares what everyone else is doing?

I think vows are cheapened more by serial marriage people: hop from one marriage or relationship to another, or by those who marry for money, or for a million other reasons that, to me, seem aside from what marriage should be about. It's my opinion that pretty much "just anyone" can get married anyway...who am I to limit it or to say Billy Joe and Bobbie Sue can get married because they're in love, even if he beats her or she cheats, but Billy Joe and Bobby Jack who are very committed and believe in a purpose in life can't?

I know I'm talking to a very happily married person, so your opinion is valuable to this discussion. So many are not happy...

I was simply making an observation...trying to put myself in the other persons shoes to try and understand the position.

I don't agree with it, but I think that's what it is.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Just to try and clarify this one more time.

At this point it is illegal for gay people to marry almost everywhere in the world.

Do I agree with this? nope. Not at all.

Why do I think it's illegal? Because it is socially unacceptable at the moment, and until it becomes socially acceptable it will remain illegal.

Why is it socially unacceptable? Because society is underpinned by religious and spiritual beliefs which conflict with facts a lot of the time, but it doesn't change the fact that religion has a big say in what's acceptable and what's not in most societies.

What do I think needs to happen to change things? We as a society need to recognise the rights of the individual to express their love however they choose to do so which may or may not include marriage.

Why hasn't it happened yet? All change takes time. There have been remarkable leaps forward for the gay community over the last 20 years or so, along with many other minority groups. Maybe it's not fast enough, but things are definitely not stagnant.

Do I believe it will happen? Most assuredly yes.

What an excellent post.

[Elspode]

Originally Posted by Pie

Read any RAH recently?

Stranger in a Strange Land, the original poly primer.

[Stress Puppy]

The reason same sex marriage is not legal yet is that the people that make the laws are frequently christians, and those who aren't, were probably raised with a sort of 'christian-by-default' morality. The original lettering said marriage was between man and woman, and then when same sex couples came along and wanted to get married, the fundies latched onto that wording in order to prevent what they perceive as a threat to their belief structure.

To truly maintain separation of church and state, the word 'marriage' should be struck from the law books. In order to get all those benefits that spouses now share, there should be 'civil unions' under the law. 'Marriage' should be a strictly religious term, and governed by the rules of each religion. Which means that couples would have to have two ceremonies. The legal and the religious, and the religious should have -no- influence on the legal.

But that's my opinion, I could be wrong.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

Family gets hurt by other family members' actions all the time that have nothing to do with their sexual orientation. We can't do everything that "family" wants us to do and be personally happy.

I didn't say you should, only that your actions often hurt the ones you love or that love you the most as you attempt to go off and define yourself.

At least that is what I've found. I don't ignore their feelings, but yes mine are more important. I don't treat them like bad people or stupid (even when I think they are), I just say "Look, this makes me happy, you love me, then you should just be happy that I'm responsible, healthy and happy."

Right out of the mouth of the Me Generation. Just because they love you does not mean that your actions, any actions or decisions in your life, cannot be hurtful to them in someway and you at least admit that you don't care if you hurt them, as long as you are happy.

In my honest opinion if your family tells you want religion, sexual orientation, career ect you should have, and pull support from you without meeting those goals they've set...then they don't have any real love for you.

I didn't say they didn't love you or would not love you, only that your actions can hurt them in your atttempt to be whom ever you want to be.

You love someone you want them to be happy and successful, thats it. They shouldn't define what makes you happy, just be happy for you when you find your own definition.

Absolutely. But there is no requirement for them to continue to support you even if they love you. Just because they love you does not mean they owe you financial, material, or emotional support. That kind of attitude says that the only thing in life is what is important to you and screw what they think.

[Sundae]

Ahhhhh, it all comes down to money in the end, Merc?
"If you're gonna be a mary-queen you'll not get a penny out of me!"?
Fair enough. If a child denies the sexual preference they were born with just to get financial, material, or emotional support from their parents then they deserve eachother.

Well - perhaps not the emotional side of things, but it does make them kinda needy. Obviously from having such overbearing parents.