Gay Marriage: Pro or Anti?

[afleitch]

In a perfect world, the right to a civil union would be extended to both straight and gay people and marriage would remain a purely religious institution that isn't state-sanctioned. In this world, pro-gay marriage.

I don't support it.

Care to elaborate?

Does that also count for siblings and people living in polygamous relationships? "Marriage Equality", by definition of the term, obviously involves much more than gay and lesbian couples.

I don't see why marriage between multiple people and/or people who are related should be prohibited though polygamy would probably be harder to deal with, practically speaking.

Thanks for your answer, which makes sense to me. My point in posting in this thread was to show how problematic the use of the term "marriage equality" is if it is solely applied for same-sex marriages. While I may disagree with your point of view, it is certainly conclusive.

Bit of gymnastics there if you ask me. Man loves woman, both not related = they get to marry. Man loves man or woman loves woman, both not related = they get to marry. That is marriage equality by definition is it not? I've just filled out my registration forms for my civil parternship; it tells me precisely who I'm allowed to have the partnership with and who I can't. At present we allow people with heterosexual attractions under certain circumstances to marry each other. What is unequal is that people with homosexual attractions cannot because their attraction is to the same sex. Changing that = marriage equality. What has has incest or polygamy got to do with it?

[afleitch]

I take offense to those who are against it.

lol

I'm reminded of a white man in the south Rhodesia of the 60s laughing away the notion that blacks might be equal.

Perhaps you think Holmes is "uppity"?

Corrected.

[afleitch]

Supersonic is not against gay marriage, though.

It was in reference to Rhodie. Quotes are a bit off :/

[afleitch]

I struggle with it. I myself am bisexual and don't think it is something that is biologically healthy, or something that should be validated. I won't lie to myself to make myself feel better about it. But I don't want it to cloud my judgement about constitutional rights and whatnot. I'm just not sure.

What do you mean? Pray tell.

I don't think it makes sense that it is not a genetic defect of some sort, although we don't all just to procreate, it is still without a doubt the natural reason for sexual attraction. Same sex attraction does not seem to serve a purpose naturally. People on the left seem to want to validate by making it the same thing as black vs white, it's not the same to me because there is no huge difference between races, or gender, there is no 'advantage' there. But people of the opposite sex can have children together, and people of the same sex cannot. So sexual orientation just doesn't make sense people looped in with those other things, and since same sex attraction serves no natural purpose (and actually hinders procreation for those who have it) it is a defect to me.

I change my avatar all the time, I don't label myself as anything.

You have to be a robot to think that sex is solely about procreation. Jus' sayin'.

Essentially yes. Biologists will tell you that it was a mistake to view sex as a means of procreation; it is also an act of social bonding. Given that same sex attraction and sex is found in all observed species that have sex by procreation separated by at least 100 million years of evolution (therefore we can conclude animals have been doing it for millions of years) it is natural (though not common) and by extension biological state. To view it as 'defective' is a human construct not a reality.

[afleitch]

I believe that homosexuals should have all the rights of heterozexual couples, but don't redefine marriage.  For me, it's a language issue, not an equality one.  Of course they should have equal benefits, but call it a "civil union".

Then it isn't equal. 'Seperate but equal' isn't genuine equality. I do find it out how defensive people get over marriage. 1 in 3 marriages in the western world ends in divorce; it's THE most annulled legal contract people can enter into. Not only that, people can enter into it twice, three, four, five times in their lives. People can get married for money, for a passport, for an inheritance, for fame or for a magazine spread. People get married under coercion, or under force.

As an exclusive plaything for straight couples on the whole it's been cheapened. Individual marriages though make it all worthwhile. The idea that the marriage of two men or two women is going to threaten or 'redefine' marriage is absurd. It get's 'redefined' every day the moment someone enters into it for a dishonest reason or runs away from it for no reason at all.

How is Kim Kardashians 72 day marriage more 'worthy' because she was a woman and the other person was a man than say Michael Stark and Michael Leshner who married in Canada in 2003 after 22 years together?