Gays against gay marriage

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2010 1:53 AM GMT
    So I was on facebook a while back and somneone posted the news about California's new marriage rights (that hopefully won't get overturned...again), however something peculiar got my attention: there was a guy who was against gay marriage. Now, I'm not one to judge, I figured maybe he didn't want to get married or was comfortable with civil unions. Nay. His reasons were that marriage "is and has always been religious based, and the goverment shouldn't interfere with religious choices. the government shouldn't be handing out marriages to anybody... marriage is a religious construct. furthermore, marriage is a broken institution that ex...ists to subjugate women and reinforce heteronormative gender roles and sexual binaries... the only discernible benefit nowadays are tax breaks. I also think it's really foolish that the gays wanna emulate their oppressors sooooo badly. Fuck "marriage" I want equality before the law regardless of gender and sexual identity".
    Though his argument made sense, there was part of it that bothered me. What about those churches that allow gays and lesbians to get married? I agree that the government shouldn't tell churches what to do, but saying that marriage reinforces outdated gender roles...it's not the 50's anymore.

    I just rolled my eyes and looked away. I had no idea what to think of it.

    What do people think about that argument? Am I wrong for being against it? (although they aren't bad arguments, but me thinks he was being pretentious at best).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2010 2:18 AM GMT
    inmate_6655321 saidI just rolled my eyes and looked away. I had no idea what to think of it.

    What do people think about that argument? Am I wrong for being against it? (although they aren't bad arguments, but me thinks he was being pretentious at best).

    Some people are idiots, and some gay men are idiots. You merely encountered an example of one. Or he may have been an anti-gay agent provocateur, which the right-wing has been sending out into our community to disrupt, disorganize, and demoralize us. We have several of them here right on RJ.

    One could challenge his arguments on several points, starting with his false contention that marriage is an exclusively religious institution. But that would be tiresome, and you really should already know this.

    The only reason to challenge such statements is not to change the opinion of the person making them, since they are either hopelessly ignorant, brainwashed, or working from an agenda they have been given, as again we see here on RJ too often. Rather, you dispute them to neutralize their bad influence on others, those who may be misled.

    And that, after all, is their purpose. To undermine us and recruit some of us to their anti-gay views. We've got several RJ members here who post daily for that purpose. Fortunately they are not too bright and rather clumsy & obvious, and most of us know what they're up to. But we're obliged to waste time disputing them, or else their lies will be accepted as fact by some, especially the new members who join each day and haven't yet learned about these snakes in our midst.

    So you may have been in the same position. When are lies too stupid to be answered, must they be addressed?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2010 3:17 AM GMT
    I questioned the govt's intrusion of marriage for a while, but have adopted the idea that IF the govt is going to be involved with it, it should be equal across the board for any couple to be married, regardless of genders. The argument of whether or not the govt should be involved is a different argument entirely.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2010 3:22 AM GMT
    inmate_6655321 saidSo I was on facebook a while back and somneone posted the news about California's new marriage rights (that hopefully won't get overturned...again), however something peculiar got my attention: there was a guy who was against gay marriage. Now, I'm not one to judge, I figured maybe he didn't want to get married or was comfortable with civil unions. Nay. His reasons were that marriage "is and has always been religious based, and the goverment shouldn't interfere with religious choices. the government shouldn't be handing out marriages to anybody... marriage is a religious construct. furthermore, marriage is a broken institution that ex...ists to subjugate women and reinforce heteronormative gender roles and sexual binaries... the only discernible benefit nowadays are tax breaks. I also think it's really foolish that the gays wanna emulate their oppressors sooooo badly. Fuck "marriage" I want equality before the law regardless of gender and sexual identity".
    Though his argument made sense, there was part of it that bothered me. What about those churches that allow gays and lesbians to get married? I agree that the government shouldn't tell churches what to do, but saying that marriage reinforces outdated gender roles...it's not the 50's anymore.

    I just rolled my eyes and looked away. I had no idea what to think of it.

    What do people think about that argument? Am I wrong for being against it? (although they aren't bad arguments, but me thinks he was being pretentious at best).


    Atheist get married.

    Boom, done.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2010 3:28 AM GMT
    you're not wrong, and neither is he. i agree with him more than i agree with people fighting for "marriage." i think whatever legal union between adults that is given out in a civic environment should be available equally to all. i don't think "marriage" is that structure (and yes, "marriage" is a religious ceremony that functions as a reinforcement of heteronormative binaries), since i prefer an absolute separation between church and state.

    should the lgbt community have access to the same union that heterosexuals get (inclusive of all the legal rights therein)? yes.

    do i think it should be called marriage for anyone? no.

    what you get from the state isn't marriage, it's conjunction. you get marriage from a religious organization. there are plenty of religions that will perform gay marriages. find one. but keep that spiritual part of it OUT of the legal part.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2010 4:29 AM GMT

    Jack , we didn't get our marriage from any religious organization.
    It's a word that religions took as their own. icon_wink.gif

    wiki has a well worded definition: "Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony."

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2010 6:10 AM GMT
    viveutvivas said

    It seems that you are misrepresenting his argument somewhat with the title of this thread. He is not against gay marriage, he is against all marriage as a state-sponsored institution. With the title of the thread, you make him sound homophobic, which he was not.

    So I think, in all fairness, you should change the thread title to "Gays against marriage".

    This is a very reasonable argument, with which I agree. Marriage is by its very nature a discriminatory institution. I think that to the State, we should all be individuals. People can formalize unions any way they choose, but it really should not matter to the state. Any institution that treats married people of any kind as having rights beyond those of individuals is discriminatory towards single people.

    However, even though I do not agree with it, if the state is going to have marriage, it should be available to gays too. It should also be available to any other cohabitating set of people who want the same rights, for example spinster sisters living together, or best friends living together. Anything less would be discriminatory.


    I have to agree. I dont think the government should issue marriage licenses, but instead union licenses that anyone can get (ie same-sex couples). This way, marriage remains a religious institution, separate from the government, and anyone can be given the rights that marriages now have.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2010 6:12 AM GMT
    bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla is all I got from that. icon_redface.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2010 6:38 AM GMT
    A1EX saidbla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla is all I got from that.


    Hence the monosyllabic reply. Still, it kicks ass to be heard, right?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2010 6:46 AM GMT
    dancerjack saidyou're not wrong, and neither is he. i agree with him more than i agree with people fighting for "marriage." i think whatever legal union between adults that is given out in a civic environment should be available equally to all. i don't think "marriage" is that structure (and yes, "marriage" is a religious ceremony that functions as a reinforcement of heteronormative binaries), since i prefer an absolute separation between church and state.

    should the lgbt community have access to the same union that heterosexuals get (inclusive of all the legal rights therein)? yes.

    do i think it should be called marriage for anyone? no.

    what you get from the state isn't marriage, it's conjunction. you get marriage from a religious organization. there are plenty of religions that will perform gay marriages. find one. but keep that spiritual part of it OUT of the legal part.


    I essentially agree, ie in marriage privatization and a secular civil union available to all for the reasons that Jack outlines, but that´s not how the battle it being fought and so, with mild reservations, I am strongly in favour of gay marriage because of the rights issue.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2010 7:45 AM GMT
    Words and terms evolve over time--marriage is one of these terms. In this country couples can have secular marriages. We use the term marriage because everyone knows what it means... it equalizes diverse couples.

    Do Muslims truly believe Christians are married? Do Christians (fundamentalists) believe Atheists are truly married? Everyone has their own private definition and requirements for marriage.

    What really matters is what the states say--they grant couples the 1100 legal rights. The secular meaning of marriage is all that matters--religious bickering over marriage just falls back to Bronze Age beliefs. Marriage has changed over time—religious people use gay marriage as just another talking point to bitch about the “immorality of homosexuality.” I have doubts that many of those who say they’d support gay civil unions… really would support gay civil unions. These fundamentalists like to whine that this country is becoming less and less dominated by Christian fundamentalism.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2010 5:09 PM GMT
    lol, well I guess we're chopped liver. Anyone got some onions?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2010 5:22 PM GMT
    There are 1100 rights that two individuals partnered in marriage in the US that two individuals partnered in civil union/partnerships are not allowed.

    Ideologically speaking, it would be great for the government not to be involved, scraped marriage and simply recognize all partnerships as civil unions ensuring them their 1100 rights and leaving it up to the individuals to call it whatever they want to be based on their personal belief systems.

    Practically speaking however, the only way to ensure equal rights for same-sex couples in our current system is to allow them their constitutionally given right to be recognized by the government as being in a marriage.

    This movement is about providing equal rights in the system as it is. Wanting to change the system completely is an absolutely different argument that should be taken outside of this debate into another arena.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2010 5:34 PM GMT
    viveutvivas said
    tryandbuy said
    This movement is about providing equal rights in the system as it is. Wanting to change the system completely is an absolutely different argument that should be taken outside of this debate into another arena.


    This is that arena. It is the very subject of this thread.


    Agreed: and I repeat, in the realpolitik then we should be in favour of gay marriage, but given a clean slate marriage should be privatized, stripped of all legal status and be replaced with a civil union. Marriage privatization is a remnant of my libertarian days, and is something that we hear very little of from the right....
  • Latenight30

    Posts: 1525

    Aug 20, 2010 5:38 PM GMT
    Our high education, high paying creative careers pay a lot of taxes but we don't have the same rights as others? We don't have the same rights so why pay the same taxes. I think the churches over the last decade have been much more welcoming than the politics. I think we should cut them off. What are they going to put all the gays in tax prison? Wouldn't that suck.
    On the other hand, if it is a word "marriage" it's a word. But to have visitation rights, shared property and make medical decisions should be something that 2 adults agree on and with the proper forms has to be accepted in any state.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2010 5:45 PM GMT
    paulflexes saidI questioned the govt's intrusion of marriage for a while, but have adopted the idea that IF the govt is going to be involved with it, it should be equal across the board for any couple to be married, regardless of genders. The argument of whether or not the govt should be involved is a different argument entirely.


    I agree. This has always been my position on the matter. The government has no business in marriage but since they are involved there is no reason for not extending the same equal right to gays otherwise it seems like second class citizenship.

    The other argument, however, for why some gays are against marriage and in favor of civil unions is that they don't feel being denied "marriage" is second class citizenship at all, because to them it merely DEFINES the biblical union between a man and a woman. If 4 men and 2 women wanted to get married, should that ALSO be considered "marriage" in order for them to feel that they have "equal rights" or something else? It's something to think about.

    Wilton,

    You are so full of it. Please identify who these people are at RJ who are actually straight implants trying to undermine the gay community. lol, just because someone disagrees with you they must not be gay!

  • TristanLane

    Posts: 118

    Aug 20, 2010 6:32 PM GMT
    Im sorry I stopped reading after the first two sentences.
  • red_series

    Posts: 136

    Aug 20, 2010 6:38 PM GMT
    The bottom line is that marriage has been in the realm of the secular for a loooooong time. If the church really cared about keeping marriage in it's sphere of influence they wouldn't have been on board with the government issuing marriage licenses.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2010 6:47 PM GMT
    I do agree with the fact that it is a religious construct. I can see it not being allowed by churches, but as far as legality goes, I don't see why it should matter to the government.. Maybe they just don't want to give out the tax breaks to the people they know they don't have to since they're gay and won't be marrying the opposite sex. I'm pretty neutral on the whole thing, I stay out of it basically, but this thread title caught my attention. I don't plan on ever getting married anyways so I really don't care one way or another. But kudos to the people that fight for it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2010 6:48 PM GMT
    I wanna get married T__T
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2010 6:51 PM GMT
    I´m amazed that people find this hard.

    marriage should have the same rights attached to it as baptism: none. Since this is not the case, any rights should be given to all.
  • Iakona

    Posts: 367

    Aug 20, 2010 6:52 PM GMT
    Here in Canada, Marriage is legal, and I appreciate it more then anything. I consider myself to be religious, and grew up wanting to marry the person that I love.
    I am now married, and happy that I have the right to do so. It's something that we fought for, and is something that we are blessed with. So for those who are fighting for it, keep fighting. It will come in time.
    Don't forget, marriage might not be what you want or you may not be religious, but some people are, and it is really important to those people.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2010 7:03 PM GMT
    I know that he was against the institution. Im just not sure if anyone else agrees with him. Personally, I believe that people wouldn't be fighitng for the term "marriage" if civil unions had more "benefits" than regular marriage. has. As someone earlier stated - Athiests can get married...right? It's not who has the better argument, it's about opinion. Technically, he's not against "getting married" but against the whole state-institution about giving marriages. I agree with the idea of finding a church that allows gay marriage, but I don't exactly agree with the idea that marriage is religious. Not really. icon_rolleyes.gif It just doesn't process in my head like that. In the end everyone's idea of marriage is a little different depending of religious dogma, values, ideology, etc.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2010 7:56 PM GMT
    Gays
    Against
    Gay
    Marriage

    GAG 'M
  • ZacktheMan

    Posts: 340

    Aug 20, 2010 8:17 PM GMT
    I agree that the word marriage should not be used for male to male unions precisely because Marriage is not of government origin, but of Biblical origin given by God for reasons that have nothing to do with human endeavors.

    God's Word gives two reasons why He set up Marriage.

    1. To develop the sanctuary of the family unit of Father Mother and their offspring. Infants bond with their mother initially. Then it is essential around age 3 for the male child to begin bonding with His father to establish his maleness over the coming years. The daughter will learn her femininity from her mother, then she too will bond with the father to establish her attraction to the male. For all this to work, it is essential for the mother to truly respect her husband, and for the Father to truly love his wife, and both love and respect their children, and it will follow the children will respect and love their parents.

    In today's' world, as among the ancient Greeks and Romans, the marital relation has gone from pristine to discordant, the family unit breaks down, and confusion results as our human heart needs and physical needs go unfulfilled. We then seek alternatives to provide what we so desperately need, but have not.

    2. God created Marriage as a shadow of the perfect ultimate union between us and Him. He being perfect, and we being perfected through faith in His Son and the Indwelling Holy Spirit Whom works in us to transform our very inner nature that we may do naturally the good He created us to do: To genuinely love of one another, as reflected in what we do and how we treat one another


    Now you may ask, why is this guy here, is he really gay. My answer is yes. As a teen I was attracted to males. But then again, I had a terrible relationship with my dad, there was no bonding. Add a few really bad experiences with the opposite sex, and with guys being so much more friendly and easier to bond with and become friends, my attraction toward males increased overtime, and my sexual needs needed to be defused on a regular basis, as did theirs. But I still deeply love God, and His Word I trust, and I accept what Jesus accomplished for me on the cross, wherein God has cleanse me of all my sins past, present, and future. Sin has no hold on me, I am not under the Mosaic Laws (613 of them) and I am free to love and seek to do good without fear a sword hanging over my head for not being perfect.

    And in all truth, none of us are really male or female, our bodies are. We are spirit. Our body is a machine that we occupy. We think and our body obeys as we command it to turn to the right or left, to lay down to sleep or rise up and walk around. About 99% of its' functions we have no control over at all, they work without any input from us.

    And in the end, we go to Heaven, which Flesh and Blood can not enter, and there will be no stars or planets, but God is there and He sustains everything. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which demands complete DEATH of our Galaxy and Universe, will not be operable in Heaven. Heaven is everlasting.

    So let us be at peace with one another and love one another. That we may be called - Children of God, Who Himself is Love.

    As for Marriage, let what is God's intent be untouched, but by all means Gay unions ought to receive every government benefit and any other benefits that is bestowed upon male and female Marriages. And if anyone does not like the term 'Civil Unions' find some Greek or Latin word (or one you make up) that you like.

    Peace,

    Zack