Why I'm pro gay marriage

[HERBIE1]

To be fair, though, I've never fully understood why skirts are seen as divinely feminine. If skirts/tunics were good enough for the roman legions, and robes good enough for Jesus...

Agreed.

What about those of us who occasionally wear kilts? Traditionally, women aren't even supposed to wear them , so there's nothing feminine about them. LOL

I think that there's a difference between how society should view things and what should be legal/illegal. I think that adultery is morally and ethically wrong. However, I don't believe that it should be a crime or anything that the government should regulate. Most of the examples that you used are a failure of the individuals in society to enforce their views, determine who their employees are, and determine who their associates are. Dress standards? Set and maintain a dress code and fire those who don't conform.

Of course there's no "law" that determines whether or not a company can enforce a dress code. Problem is, that is not enough to keep someone from someone to challenge the validity of such rules. Enter discrimination, harassment, and bias lawsuits. Obviously there are very good reasons for these rules, but too often they are taken to an extreme, and.or taken out of context, resulting in some ridiculous decisions.

People don't have proper manners? Don't associate with them. Forwarding dirty jokes to coworkers who you don't know for certain has a similar sense of humor? That should get discipline up to, and including, termination.

You're missing the point. I'm speaking to the fact that society has changed to the point where these breaches of etiquette, protocol, decorum- whatever term you like- have become so commonplace as to necessitate a response. Yelling or swearing at a teacher in class?

However, when dealing with what the -government- should regulate through the legal system, we now have to determine what rights individuals have. Just because someone has a right to do something doesn't mean they should, however if someone has a right to do something then they have to enjoy -legal- protection for the exercise of those rights. Otherwise they aren't rights. However, having protection from legal consequences and having protection from community consequences (boycotts, isolation, etc) are two drastically different things.

I do think it's the bar that should be set for legal regulation. I think there needs to be a compelling reason for actions to be considered illegal, and many of the vice laws don't really meet that standard. Government should be in the business of protecting rights and administering public goods, not enforcing morality. There needs to be something more than religion or "I find it icky" to justify banning something. If you don't find that polygamy affects you, why should it be banned?

Nobody is talking about banning anything, using religion as a tool, or increasing governmental involvement in this. I was referring to societal standards or norms and what is considered acceptable today vs prior generations. Polygamy IS against the law. Why? It doesn't affect me or anyone else, right? This society has decided that this behavior is unacceptable to the point where it has been criminalized. How about growing your own dope and smoking it. It affects nobody but you- assuming you are not driving or working while impaired, right?

I'm just pointing out that what we consider "normal" today would be unheard of in prior generations, and I do not think this is a good thing. How do you think things have become so causal, informal, etc? Yes, society changes, but I submit than not all of these changes are positive.

[tniuqs]

I don't understand why just because a person is gay they get to be exempt from marriage. Hetero people have to suffer - Gay people should too.

Ok that's funny right there ! I missed it first read through LMFAO !

I come from a very open minded community. We have a alot of people in the "gay" community and I am friends with most of them. I'm just glad that those from Alberta are NOT allowed to date or marry those from BC they would be called Balbertans

Happi: If you had done your native studies (lol) the west coast FN primarily Haida, called them man/woman and usually a shaman (flamers the more derogatory modern day terminology) they were traditionally very artistic (that sounds stereotypical but YES but it was the truth) I have you had the pleasure of meeting Roy Henry Vickers his work I would die to have one print on my wall. But in the great plains Cree, Blood, Sioux, Den'e culture's they the man/woman were ostracised and sometimes executed as they were not considered "warriors" even though the Haida were some of the fiercest.

Even if one goes back to the Greeks in ancient times homosexuality has been around forever, I have 2 VERY good friends that are female gay .. I am called their "Stag Hag" I just wish they would share the videos LOL.

I take no issue with the union of 2 humans I DO take offence that "Special Rights" are sought by the militants amongst the G/L community .

As a Scot .. best not dis me Kilt .. or my Broadsword will be pulled from its sheath, its not a dress lads, it has no zippers so you don't scare the sheep away.

Edited November 30, 2011 by tniuqs

[Happiness]

Ok that's funny right there ! I missed it first read through LMFAO !

Happi: If you had done your native studies I did a study for 20 years and then married him does that count(lol) the west coast FN primarily Haida, called them man/woman and usually a shaman (flamers the more derogatory modern day terminology) they were traditionally very artistic (that sounds stereotypical but YES but it was the truth) I have you had the pleasure of meeting Roy Henry Vickers his work I would die to have one print on my wall. But in the great plains Cree, Blood, Sioux, Den'e culture's they the man/woman were ostracised and sometimes executed as they were not considered "warriors" even though the Haida were some of the fiercest.

Looked up Roy Vickers and yep I can see the Haida influance, but if you are interested in Haida Art you let me know because my house is full of it and I know the dark alleys to go to for some. If your interested in Carvings and want to spoil your self you look up Cory Savard, she is awsome and under the eye of Reg Davidson. The Haidas were very fierce when they raided I would recomend "in the wake of the war canoe" if you want to know what the did to the enemy. The even paddled down to Victoria to cut some politians head off, and they succeeded one less polititian

Even if one goes back to the Greeks in ancient times homosexuality has been around forever, I have 2 VERY good friends that are female gay .. I am called their "Stag Hag" I just wish they would share the videos LOL. So funny story. Went out to the pub one night and had a great time, Next day my friend said ohhhhh I was finally kissed by a fur trader. It took me a very long time to get that one but one I did I made sure that all the lesbians I know, knew of this new term,(the ones with a sence of humor any ways)

I take no issue with the union of 2 humans I DO take offence that "Special Rights" are sought by the militants amongst the G/L community . The unfortunant things thow squint baby is that those special rights are probably freely given to straight peoples

As a Scot .. best not dis me Kilt .. or my Broadsword will be pulled from its sheath, its not a dress lads, it has no zippers so you don't scare the sheep away. Has anyone tried to look under your kilt ? And now since I know your a scott was the song called the sleeping scottsman was made just for you

[tniuqs]

The unfortunant things thow squint baby is that those special rights are probably freely given to straight peoples

Has anyone tried to look under your kilt ?

Actually if you look under Human Rights ACT there is one group not even mentioned, that being White Anglo Saxon Straight Divorced Tax paying Canadian Men. .......... just LOOK .

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/page-1.html#h-4

Answer 2 .. NO very sadly and

[Happiness]

Actually if you look under Human Rights ACT there is one group not even mentioned, that being White Anglo Saxon Straight Divorced Tax paying Canadian Men. .......... just LOOK .

http://laws-lois.jus...page-1.html#h-4

Answer 2 .. NO very sadly and

Well my answer to that would be Why would the ones writting it actually include themselves its just assumed......

[DwayneEMTP]

C'mon, if we can stoop so low as to let women vote, surely we can let gays marry? Of course the point being is that we've evolved and matured as a society as new understandings become evident.

It seems that the argument for many (not here, but what I've heard in general) boils down to whether or not being gay is a choice, and whether or not it's a choice, whether or not it aberrant.

I can tell you that I personally don't believe that the majority of gays choose that life. After 15 years as an animal trainer I can tell you that every species that I've trained had a percentage that was sexually gay, (not sure if there is a separate, strictly mental aspect.). I trained one of the most expensive Arabian stallions in the U.S., valued at well over 1 million dollars. They made a huge amount of money from his stud services, yet he wouldn't mount mares. He had to be 'milked' while mounted on a gelding and the mares artificially inseminated.

I've seen the same in dogs, cats, gorillas, horses, zebras...for me that kind of clinched the 'choice' argument, though of course I can't prove it and have no idea if such things have been studied.

So if it isn't a choice, then why should they be denied the same benefits, social, legal, financial, that other couples share?

And why should polygamy not be legal as well? There is little doubt that biologically males in general are not wired for monogamy. Why make laws that prohibit the natural biologic desires that we know are going to make them mentally unhealthy and much more likely to fail to follow the laws?

Aren't laws meant to protect people from things? By denying a persons ability to participate in polygamy or gay relationships, who is being protected?

Having said that, it seems that I've heard at one time or another that the marriage protections were not only religious, but also meant to give special considerations to people that were willing to responsibly help create the populations needed in many countries...in other words, pump out babies. A

Not sniping at you Herb, as I can absolutely see your point. I can see, what I am reading as, your desire to draw some lines so as to not allow our kids and grand kids to inherit a society with streets polluted with ejected semen, disease, and amorality.

We just need to be really careful I think not to deny kind, loving, committed people to suffer so that others can feel more socially secure.

Dwayne

[systemet]

Just wanted to add this:

http://front.moveon.org/two-lesbians-raised-a-baby-and-this-is-what-they-got/#.TtbsJO1dtsB.facebook

[HERBIE1]

C'mon, if we can stoop so low as to let women vote, surely we can let gays marry? Of course the point being is that we've evolved and matured as a society as new understandings become evident.

It seems that the argument for many (not here, but what I've heard in general) boils down to whether or not being gay is a choice, and whether or not it's a choice, whether or not it aberrant.

If by aberrant, you mean not "normal", then yes, it would have to be. In a biological sense, the only reason to have sex is to procreate. Species would not survive if male/female sex was not the norm. That said, there are all types of dysfunctional issues- physical, mental, biological- that would prohibit some within a species from completing that act. Animals in heat will hump anything- legs, each other, fences- it does not matter. Unlike humans, they are not having sex for the pleasure of the act- recreationally- they are simply preprogrammed to do it.

I can tell you that I personally don't believe that the majority of gays choose that life.

No argument, although there are a surprising number of folks who experiment. I worked with a woman who changed teams almost daily. First she said she was hetero, then she was bi, then she was a lesbian, then she went back to hetero and married a guy. Seriously screwed up in the head, but that's another story...

I do believe there is no doubt people are born with their sexual orientation. How you may chose to ACT is another issue.

After 15 years as an animal trainer I can tell you that every species that I've trained had a percentage that was sexually gay, (not sure if there is a separate, strictly mental aspect.). I trained one of the most expensive Arabian stallions in the U.S., valued at well over 1 million dollars. They made a huge amount of money from his stud services, yet he wouldn't mount mares. He had to be 'milked' while mounted on a gelding and the mares artificially inseminated.

I've seen the same in dogs, cats, gorillas, horses, zebras...for me that kind of clinched the 'choice' argument, though of course I can't prove it and have no idea if such things have been studied.

So if it isn't a choice, then why should they be denied the same benefits, social, legal, financial, that other couples share?

Here's where it gets sticky, if you ask me. As I said before, we are changing an essentially eternal definition- marriage. Up until recently, there was no question about how you define a marriage. NONE. In the traditional sense, the VAST MAJORITY of people got married to share their lives, and to start a family. Again- until very recently- in terms of mankind- the only way to have your own biological family was via heterosexual sex. We'll leave adoption out of this mix for now. Yes, many people now define marriage as more of a business arrangement, but again, I'm talking traditional definitions. So- now we have new technology to go along with our new attitudes towards homosexuality, and as a result, gay couples no longer need to worry about not being able to procreate in the traditional sense. As a matter of fact, you no longer even need a partner- as long as you have enough money for in vitro or maybe a surrogate, or adoption. Nontraditional families. We now have sexual reassignment surgery to completely change what sex you are. Add to that divorces and remarriages which can lead to tubal ligations and vasectomies(as well as their reversals), and we are now redefining not only what a family is, but how we are procreating.

My point is- we are playing God. No, not in the religious sense but as in a mother nature way. We are tweaking life, creating it in artificial ways, and my gawd- even decided that the sex we were born with can and should be changed. That is incredible when you think about it. Is it wonderful that some sterile couples can now conceive? Sure, but there is so much more involved, and I honestly don't know if we have considered(or even fully understand all the ramifications (social, [political, emotional, sexual,religious) of trying to "fool" mother nature. To simply say- people of the same sex are no different than anyone else is simply not true. Should they be discriminated against? Of course not. I'm just saying that we are redefining a basic tenet of society, and I think we are being too cavalier with that. Calling it a civil union I think demeans the notion of what marriage was supposed to be, and it will indeed be a business arrangement- regardless of the intent of the parties involved. Just because we CAN do something does not mean we SHOULD.

And why should polygamy not be legal as well? There is little doubt that biologically males in general are not wired for monogamy. Why make laws that prohibit the natural biologic desires that we know are going to make them mentally unhealthy and much more likely to fail to follow the laws?

Now we note the difference between us and animals. If we are biologically programmed as males NOT to be monogamous, then why are we so picky about who we copulate with? I doubt a simple social stigma would deter many folks if this was such a base desire. I know of no normal hetero male who gets horny and decides that if no women are immediately available they hit the gay bars or a zoo since any hole will suffice to satisfy their need. (Yes, our standards may drop in desperate times, but we generally stay within the same species, and with the opposite sex) We make choices based on societal standards, moral and ethical concerns. If we are married or committed to someone, it is not acceptable to stray from that partner. We make choices to suppress these urges to stray(most of the time) if we have them.

Aren't laws meant to protect people from things? By denying a persons ability to participate in polygamy or gay relationships, who is being protected?

Maybe at some point, but now our laws seem to be more about protecting us from our own stupidity.

Having said that, it seems that I've heard at one time or another that the marriage protections were not only religious, but also meant to give special considerations to people that were willing to responsibly help create the populations needed in many countries...in other words, pump out babies. A

I think the religious aspect developed later. I'm quite sure spouses existed long before there were any religious connotations associated with the act.

I don't know why the religious rite became linked to it- would be interested to know though.

Not sniping at you Herb, as I can absolutely see your point. I can see, what I am reading as, your desire to draw some lines so as to not allow our kids and grand kids to inherit a society with streets polluted with ejected semen, disease, and amorality.

We just need to be really careful I think not to deny kind, loving, committed people to suffer so that others can feel more socially secure.

Dwayne

It's much more than simple morality because some folks feel it's completely normal to step outside their marriages- it's their "right". I just think there is a continuum that we have moved along where it has become perfectly acceptable to challenge, alter, and even eliminate parts of our society and culture for no damn good reason other than we can. I suggest these changes have not been good for us either.

[chbare]

Actually, the role of sex in humans is much more complicated than simply being about procreation.

[Happiness]

Its all about Happiness