ForumGarden

Honestly, why would you care/object/be happy for them?

My brother and his partner of six years would marry, if it were legal.

They're wonderful people...you'd like them! They have friends and family who'd just LOVE to see them marry, for the joy of recognizing their union!

Why would you object to this?

Or would you like to come to the wedding?

I'll go - no objection issue here.

Patsy

I wouldn't object to it. I really don't see a reason why it shouldn't be legal.

Actually, no...I don't recognize how it would change the fabric of society. People who love each other would marry, form families and live happy lives. That's how I see it.

"Don't fuss me?" I don't understand that. I asked why you'd care if gays get married. You answered. I responded.

Magenta flame;519739 wrote: just because someone decided that they happen to be gay .


I dont think people choose to be Homo or Hetero. I guess they're just born that way.



Magenta flame;519739 wrote:

doesn't mean the majority should have to change to accommodate them.


Who would have to change?

"The majority should have to change to accommodate them....." Sorry...why does the "majority" even care?

If you're married...why do you care if my brother and his partner are married, too?

If you're not married, why do you care if THEY marry?

Diuretic;519754 wrote: Sorry Lulu I was thinking and reading and had just read Magenta's post and I suppose my thoughts were still on that as I made my post.



I don't care if gays get married. The fact that two people of the same sex are able to get married doesn't take anyone else's rights and privileges away. In fact it increases the sum total of rights in a given society. That's a good thing. I know some people object to it on the grounds that it somehow devalues their own marriage. I don't see that. To me that's like saying the existence of divorce laws devalues their marriage. Their marriage is their marriage, it's unique, it's not affected if someone else can get married. Takes me back to the prohibition on mixed race marriage which wasn't that long ago in the States. The world didn't end because blacks and whites could marry. It won't end if homosexual people can marry.




:yh_clap :yh_clap :yh_clap :yh_clap

Lulu2;519741 wrote: Actually, no...I don't recognize how it would change the fabric of society. People who love each other would marry, form families and live happy lives. That's how I see it.


I certainly see no problem with it.

(I couldn't help it) this song started playing in my head after I read this thread.

By BAB's

People,

People who need people

Are the luckiest people in the world

Were children needing other children

And yet letting our grown-up pride

Hide all the need inside

Acting more like children than children

Lovers

Are very special people

Theyre the luckiest people in the world

With one person,

One very special person

A feeling deep in your soul

Says you are half now youre whole

No more hunger and thirst

But first be a person who needs people

People, people who need people

Are the luckiest people in the world.

With one person

One very special person

A feeling deep in your soul

Says you are half now youre whole

No more hunger and thirst

But first be a person who needs people

People, people who need people

Are the luckiest people in the world.

I think gays should be permitted to marry and I don't mean that "civil union" nonsense either. One thing

I do not understand is this notion that it will change/degrade/destroy/affect society. Society is already made up of all kinds. We have interracial and interfaith marriages so why not have same- gender marriages too? I don't understand why people freak out about it and say that it'll destroy the human race any more than I understand how my remaining childless would help destroy the human race. I think it's silly.



Ok, that said, while I don't support a person's "right" to interfere with a gay marriage, I do support their right to find it distasteful for whatever reason, even if it's a stupid reason. People are allowed to have their own opinions about things. Just like I would object to polygamist marriage even though it doesn't affect me personally, some people would object personally to a gay marriage, even though it affects them not.

Brilliant! I love weddings! I'd love to come!

If 2 people love each other and want to marry, then they should. It doesn't matter if they're black and white, cat and dog, homosexual or martian! It doesn't affect anyone else!

In ancient Greece homosexuality was a perfectly normal and acceptable way of life (although only for men, NOT for women!) How can we accept Plato, Socrates, Aristotle et al and put them on pedestals whilst condemning their way of life? It is only todays society which condemns homosexuality. Condemnation for anothers way of life is unacceptable. We need to learn tolerance and acceptance in every part of our lives in order to live without hatred and racial/sexual or any other kind of abuse.

Hiya RhondaLu, welcome to FG. :-6

it really does not worry me if two people of the same sex marry in church outa church its up to them and i hope they find happiness ,i'm not homo phobe at all i have some gay male friends and i would like them to be happy

I think it would be great if they allowed them to get married. I have alot of friends that are waiting for that. I really do not see a big deal in this, they should allow two people in love the chance to marry.:-6

I have no objection to gay people getting married, i think most people couldent care less nowardays. Objections start when they want children.

To me the solution is so simple.... The idea seems to bother people who feel it insults the institution of marriage. So... just call the union something else.

Same legal rights. Same privledges. Just a seperate title.

Lulu2;519733 wrote: Honestly, why would you care/object/be happy for them?

My brother and his partner of six years would marry, if it were legal.

They're wonderful people...you'd like them! They have friends and family who'd just LOVE to see them marry, for the joy of recognizing their union!

Why would you object to this?

Or would you like to come to the wedding?


My sister is gay so no i couldn't possibly object.

I'd attend the wedding. :-6

I'd be honored to be on the guest list.

Send them to Massachusetts, the only state in the union that allows gay marriage.

I'm honored to be a resident of this state

And also

I think gays should definitely be allowed to raise children.

I have seen children in this situation, and if two loving parents are present, then I am all for it.

Maybe it's better to have a male father that stays out drinking all night and fools around? Does that make it O.K., just because it is a heterosexual relationship? I don't think so.

Give children a loving, nurturing home with good & respectful people raising them. :-6

Magenta flame;519739 wrote: I'm just saying that in human history sociologically speaking the society has not survived.How does that differ from saying that in human history sociologically speaking (whatever that means) solely heterosexual societies haven't survived either? I do wish people would give an example or two when they generalize, firstly it makes the assertion rather easier to understand and secondly it gives a way into discussing reality instead of watching a specious agenda being pushed.

Magenta flame;519900 wrote: I said I would wait ..dont' push me for an answer spot. you'll only be dissappointed. And this is exactly why I'm waiting . If you're going to 'bash me' then why would I respond?
Because you've made your uninstanced claim already, that's why. If you were waiting while not putting out such a broad sweeping judgement beforehand that's a different matter. All you've said in effect is "here's my conclusion but I'll not discuss how to reach it until I feel inclined", which is the way Women in Power went too.

I wouldn't dream of bashing you. I'm quite keen to discuss your conclusion with you. Without your instances I'm faced with trawling all of history for something I'm not likely to find and even if I find material that relates to your assertion you're quite likely to respond "oh, I didn't mean those, I meant these".

So, like I said - I do wish people would give an example or two when they generalize. Is that not a reasonable comment?

Magenta flame;519911 wrote: Go talk to yourself ...I'll do it in my own time.


Whatever. Go do your makeup.

Lulu2;519743 wrote: "Don't fuss me?" I don't understand that. I asked why you'd care if gays get married. You answered. I responded.


He actually wrote "Doesn't fuss me [...]".

Homosexuals can't get married, in the religious sense of the word, if they

don't subscribe to a particular brand of religion that allows this. They can

"marry" in a legal sense, that is make the same committment to each other

that a normal couple would make. Seems OK to me, have you a quarrel?

Magenta flame;519920 wrote: oohh an insult

interesting
I apologise unreservedly. I thought I was directly quoting, a bit like replaying a Monty Python sketch.

Magenta flame;519920 wrote: oohh an insult

interesting


Not at all interesting, really. Not at all. You could try taking it to PM, but it seems

to me to be a fact that people don't do that, as they can't publically preen their

egos.

I apologize to both of you, I was directly quoting http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... tcount=123 thinking that the circumstances were very similar. Which they were.

Is there anthing wrong with allowing homosexual people to marry?



No, not that I can see.

Magenta flame;519927 wrote: I'm sorry Bill :-3 I'm not quite sure what I should be taking to a PM I haven't said anything yet.


You don't need to say much 'ere to get everything all stirred up...!

Magenta flame;519955 wrote: You shut the ..up. and apparently all will be well:DYou seem not to have grasped that I'm trying to get you to elucidate, not to become silent!

Marriage as a holy institution is defined and supported (or not supported) by whichever church you're in. If they want to allow or disallow homosexual marriage, polygamy, whatever, it's none of the government's business. It is the church's call completely, at least in the US.



Marriage as a legal contract is defined by the government, which is supposed to support all it's citizenry equally. Since marriage doesn't impose on anyone other than the consenting adults entering into the contract, the government has no grounds to prevent it, imo. That includes polygamy.



People keep trying to entangle the two definitions, injecting legal obligations into holy matrimony, attaching morality to the legal contract. If we could separate the two, I'd think my argument would be self-evident.

Magenta flame;519984 wrote: would someone drag this bloke away from a dictionary?

You sure you weren't waiting for me to annotate, clarify, clear, clear up, decode, demonstrate, enlighten, enucleate, exemplify, explain, explicate, expound, get across, gloss, illuminate, illustrate, interpret, make clear, make plain, prove, spell out, unfold?

Yes, I have a thesaurus too:D

I prefer the word 'explicate' kinda has a nice ring to it, I would suggest.The one thing those words all have in common is that they preclude silence.

What was the subject at hand again?

Oh yeah- if gays should marry. Works for me.

If it's ancient history Magenta is referring to (?) then I offer the following humourous exerpt:

History doesn’t quite reflect the downfall of Greece that way. It seems it had something more to do with internal conflicts, the Macedonian and then the Roman conquest.

Since the Macedonian ruler Alexander the Great was gay, does that mean a gay caused the ultimate downfall of Greek gays?

And didn’t someone once partly attribute the “Fall of the Roman Empire to sexual promiscuity and homosexuality too?

So does that mean that the gays got the great gay’s empire for getting the gays?

Magenta flame;520023 wrote: okay I'm all for this koan ...state your source


The article is linked to in the post.

It is not a scholarly article. I just thought it was funny. :p

Here's another one.

Alexander the Great commanded his first battles while only sixteen years old, and went on to conquer the entire known world, leading his troops from the mountains of northern Greece all the way to the borderlands of India, subduing every opponent in his path, from the Greek city states to the kingdoms of North Africa, Asia Minor and Persia. His ruthlessness in battle, often tempered by his magnanimity to the vanquished, was legendary, but so was his devotion to his friends and companions, and the love which he shared almost exclusively with his male peers from earliest childhood on.

This was no chance event. Born in August of 356 BCE, under the sign of the lion, he was the quintessential product of a patriarchal warrior culture, the very paragon of a male dominated world ruled by masculine values and a masculine aesthetic. His tutor from the age of thirteen on was the philosopher Aristotle, who documented the excesses as well as the values of pederasty. Alexander was to embody those values for the rest of his brief but volcanic life, and even to stretch the accepted boundaries of ancient male love by living out his great romance with a man his own age, his childhood friend Hephaestion.

source