Sexuality Poll

[Aridas]

I like how you call it "the unmentionable".

[superluser]

Now back on topic. What are the laws regarding homosexual marriages where you live? Here they're legal, but they're not allowed to adopt children. I've heard it's the other way around in some places.

I don't think that our state allows it, but I'll bet you an ISO standard Coke that you can get a JP somewhere in the county to solemnize the marriage.

Personally, I think that marriage is a religious issue, so government should butt out and get into the business of solemnizing civil unions for same- and opposite-sex couples.

[Gabi]

Why do you think marriage is a religious issue? It's not seen that way here. Many people (not all) do have a religious ceremony when they get married, but what counts as legal here is the papers you get at the civil registry.

[Jim Halisstrad]

Now back on topic. What are the laws regarding homosexual marriages where you live? Here they're legal, but they're not allowed to adopt children. I've heard it's the other way around in some places.

I don't think that our state allows it, but I'll bet you an ISO standard Coke that you can get a JP somewhere in the county to solemnize the marriage.

Personally, I think that marriage is a religious issue, so government should butt out and get into the business of solemnizing civil unions for same- and opposite-sex couples.

Oh I agree that it should be left to religion.... Because marrage is obviously holy.

[superluser]

Why do you think marriage is a religious issue? It's not seen that way here.

Most people don't explicitly see it that way here, either.  But tell them that there are going to be same-sex marriages, and suddenly people start pontificating about the natural order and crap like that.

The fact is that quite a number of religions have various rules about what marriage is, who can get married, and so on.  That makes it a religious issue.  I think that we need to divorce civil unions from marriage.  You can have whatever religious ceremonies you want so long as they're not on the government's dime, and you can transfer whatever legal rights you want via civil unions.

Because marrage is obviously holy.

This is actually a good point.  Taking religion and making it separate from the civil union drives home the point that legal rights don't imply anything else, and need to be seen as independent of any real relationship.

[Gabi]

Independent of any real relationship? What's the point, then?

Here there's some talk about same sex marriages whenever one becomes known, but no one brings up the subject of religion. Not that I've heard anyway. Some people do say it's unnatural, but argue from a biological point of view, not a religious one. However whenever the topic arises on English language message boards, religion always comes up. I guess it must be a cultural difference.

[Stygian]

[laughs sardonically]

Such an issue... The connotation obviously comes from the idea that love is something larger than life, and thus immediately ties into other things that bear the same "label". And there are so many who would like to be holding the right to decide where to put that label.

Me, I just ignore it, since from my point of view there is no "label", and not even an idea behind it all that's worth spending any effort on. It's bullshit, like so many other figments of the human mind...

Really. The limitations of the human intellect and instincts, that's all there is one can chalk it up to. It really is that simple. It actually only becomes hard when you put it into a specific context, and when you have to apply the ideas of tolerance, of information exchange, of culture and of thought to it all... But even then, in the beginning of it all, it is just an idea.

Oh, right. And the more extreme christians who go on about the "right and wrong" and the "purpouse of procreation" shit can stick it. These are the people who simultaneously tend to argue about the world being created 4000 years ago, and whose narrow scientific perspective really should not be bothered with.

And those are my uncensored opinions. Now, I could very well apply some more thought and argumentation to this, but I felt that it was probably right to show you the courtesy of telling what is really spinning around on the surface level of my thoughts when I see this.

Thank you.

[Gabi]

You can't have concepts without culture, Stygian. They're a part of it. And so are all human activities, one way or another. Interesting analysis, though.

[Hilary]

Straight. Guys are sexy. ^^ (Except when they have cooties... )

My opinion: Against gay marriage? Then don't get one and STFU.

In North Carolina, there's a pretty big range of opinion on this. Of course, we've got yer stereotypical rednecks that pull out the ol' shotgun if they see two guys holding hands, but luckily there are also those of higher mind. I'm fortunate to live and attend school in an area that is very artistically oriented; I've found that many artists tend to be very open and accepting. Last year, the president of our school's Gay-Straight Alliance was elected prom queen. Wewt!

Lots of my friends are bi. Actually, I've never thought about it before, but most of my close female friends from school are bi. At our high school, the only people viewed with distaste are those who don't accept others for who they are.

[Gabi]

Now that you've brought it up, what do people do in Gay-Straight Alliances? I've heard of them a few times but we don't have them here and I can't imagine what kind of activities they would do.

[Hilary]

Now that you've brought it up, what do people do in Gay-Straight Alliances? I've heard of them a few times but we don't have them here and I can't imagine what kind of activities they would do.

Mission Statement:
1. create safe environments in schools for students to support each other and learn about homophobia and other oppressions,

2. educate the school community about homophobia, gender identity, and sexual orientation issues, and

3. fight discrimination, harassment, and violence in schools.

[Gabi]

Oh, I see. Discrimination was never a big issue when I was in school. As for harassment and violence, there were a few bullies, but they were the ones with issues. And no one ever brought a weapon to school.

I did once attempt to enter another school, though, and was rejected for being Jewish. That wasn't the official reason, of course, but it was too much of a coincidence that all Jewish applicants were rejected.

[Tiny crested flint]

this topic has gone on for 5 whole pages!!! hahahaha that's awsome cause it means actual serious discussion has been going on *was too lazy to read it all*

Me? Male, straight, and proud of it, but I expect everyone different to be proud of theirs also.  I'm not proud as in I dissaprove of others, but I do like my own standing.  I am completely comfortable being friends with gays and whatnot cause I know them and they know and respect me (except for one who's hitting on me, no idea why but I don't scorn him for his sexual orientation)  Got plenty more straight friends also.  That's what is more important: not what everyone's own sex/preference is but what everyone thinks of others.  If you scorn others just because of that, and not because of them as a person, then fuck you.  My said queer friends don't feel any need to support another gay person if they're a jerk (they don't even see the word 'queer' as an insult, just a statement of fact)  Really, the worst thing that ever happened was a few awkward situations: guy hitting on me, gay friends not getting along with straight buds cause of sexual orientation, ect.  There's no problem unless you've got a problem with it.
   That's what I say and if I'm wrong I earnestly encourage you to prove me wrong so that I may better myself.

[Gabi]

I find nothing wrong about your latest statements, Density D. They did sound a bit too defensive, but I agree with the contents.

[King Of Hearts]

Ah, Gay Marriage... I support it personally the Civil kind anyway, but let the religions do about with the marriages in their own rites. [You do your own marriage, we do our own]

My reason for it is the protection of both partners in the eyes of the law. I feel sad when a gay guy loses all he and his lover have worked for in favor of some estranged relative or the government because it is not considered "conjugal property" they dont even have the right that is accorded to people who cohabbit with each other.

[Gabi]

Does that really happen over there? That sounds completely unfair.

[King Of Hearts]

...it happens. Though rare, most people just keep mum on the subject of a gay guy's estate unles someone else makes a fuss of it.

So guys, be kind to your family, keep a will.

[Damaris]

The problem I have with "civil unions" is when you have different classification for different types of people, then rights can be taken away from one group.  I would like to see that all people have to get a civil union, and then if they want, prance off to whatever religious institution they like and go through the pomp and ceremony there.  But if we're going to segregate a whole subsection of people (homosexual marriage) to only be allowed civil unions, I think that the heterosexual marriages have to have the same requirement, or something fishy will happen. 

I mean, who really trusts the politicians to keep it equal and fair?  They've done such a bang-up job so far.

[Gabi]

Good point, Damaris. Actually, what you're proposing is what is done here.

[King Of Hearts]

If the religions allowed for same sex marriages, we really wouldnt have this problem in the first place.

Supposedly that is where separation of Church and State comes in. It will have to depend on the denomination, legally the state cannot affect a legislation affacting that unless the act allowed/disallowed is inherently harmful.

If same-sex civil unions is allowed into law, it cannot be taken away on a whim even if it was a majority of the legislature. The right to union will become a "vested right" unassailable except for extreme measures.

Im not that knowledgable with American jurisprudence but from what Ive read same sex civil unions are similar to heterosexual legal marriages. If at the least they will have the same standing in the eyes of the law.

[Gabi]

Well, some religions allow it, some others don't, but that's their issue. The governments can't force religions to accept or reject anything, but they can decide to give people equal rights as far as the law is concerned.

[superluser]

The problem I have with "civil unions" is when you have different classification for different types of people, then rights can be taken away from one group.  I would like to see that all people have to get a civil union, and then if they want, prance off to whatever religious institution they like and go through the pomp and ceremony there.

Yay!  Someone agrees with me!

[Prof B Hunnydew]

Is it that the law now a day anyway.?  Sure, you can get marrying in a church, but you still need a marriage license from the government to get marrying or the church is qualify to give you one.  What they have a problem is if you want a license to marry your same sex "friend", which same states are making laws for it or against it.

Well, I'm not sure, if this is a good example, but in the Roman Empire, the common people did have a problem with all the same sex tromping going on.  But the Nobles were going to listen to the pleasants..now are they. 

"Hey, they are burning Rome again"

So, things have not change for awhile, have they?

PBH

[superluser]

Well, I'm not sure, if this is a good example, but in the Roman Empire[...]

OK.  Now you're going to get it.  In Rome, there were three types of marriage.  Confarreatio was basically what we'd call a formal marriage, coemptio was roughly a civil union, and usus was like a common law marriage.

So the distinction is pretty old.  I don't think that we need or should have such a distinction in any secular democracy--or at least, it shouldn't have anything to do with sexual orientation or the sexes of the spouses, but it is something that has a long and storied history.

[Prof B Hunnydew]

Thank you Super.. I knew you had the answer...PBH   

[Alan Garou]

Oh, that's easy. I think 98% of people are stupid, and deserve everything they get.

And the other 2% should've left years ago.



Go Darwin Awards.

Amen. Thank goodness idiots came with an expiration date.

[Reese Tora]

On the subject of gay marriage, and marriage in general...

Mairrage is a wholly religious thing.  It was invented by religion, it's "controlled" by religion, and it's annulled by religion.  If one church only considers a couple married if they slap each otehr with live eels, then, in that church, you're not married unless you've been slapped by an eel.

The government, being founded and peopled by religious people, chooses to recognize marriage in a legal capacity by issuing a license allowing those so inclined to take advantage of their status.  The license grants advantages to people who cohabitate, share thier resources, and raise children.

In a perfect world, people would get married, and the government would have nothing to do with it.  In a perfect world, the government would issue licenses to groups of people granting them special rights for chosing to aprticipate in cohabitation, resource sharing, and so on.

In a perfect world, the people next door wouldn't give a damn what Fred and Jed do with the lights out in the privacy of their own home, and human nature wouldn't cause people to be so darn suspicious what what possibly hidden agenda someone has by granting a group of people rights held by another group.

[Gabi]

So your idea of a perfect world is a world ruled by religion? Here there aren't even many religious people in the government. Before 1994 the Constitution said you had to be Roman Catholic in order to become president, but Menem was a Muslim and, although he had to be baptised in order to become president, everyone knew he was still a Muslim. And now that requirement doesn't even exist. Good riddance, I say, because being president has nothing to do with religion, and although I don't intend to ever run for that position, I wouldn't want to be denied the option for religious reasons.

[King Of Hearts]

I think all he's saying is that government shouldnt have a say on marriage.

[Prof B Hunnydew]

On the subject of gay marriage, and marriage in general...

The government, being founded and peopled by religious people, chooses to recognize marriage in a legal capacity by issuing a license allowing those so inclined to take advantage of their status.  The license grants advantages to people who cohabitate, share thier resources, and raise children.

Regardless of Religion, the Government and society has a vested interest in marriage as the best way to raise Future citizens.  Many governments give tax breaks and incentives and rights to encourage people to have children, and we find that the two partner deal is the better than the one parent model to raise a child, where the state often times must give aid to the single parent... To tell you the truth, an extended family model is better for the state and family, where the grandparents are also in the mix and the parents help support their parents and the grandparents help raise the child and keeps Granny feeling alive.

  Same sex couples, some would argue can't have their own children, and may not provide good role models to each sex of a child.  Yet there are have been a few cultures which the uncle or brother would step in to help raise a woman's children, and the father may not even be in the picture.

PBH