Gay marriage - Does it matter?

Zaphod

Zaphod

Jedi
I have two positions on this that won't quite resolve in to a one-picture-focus. At a top level, people can marry their toaster for all I care. Why should I be bothered with whom or what someone chooses to gain an emotional bond to, so long as it's the right side of 'reasonable man ethics' and law. But others do care - enough to vehemently fight it, and these people are an indigenous part of our communities and their opinion matters. Christian values have been an invaluable aspect of where we are now, so should the feelings of Chistians not be listened to? Are we just to accept the steamroller of diversity and inclusion - just because diversity appears to be the modern god?

I couldn't care less if someone's gay or not. The gays I've encountered have not been pleasant people as it happens, but I'm happy to conclude that's just coincidence

The alarm bells went off for me when there was a relentless pursuit of marriage. They already had equal rights to married couples through civil partnerships - but it seems that wasn't enough. They had to take the ceremony and the name of marriage from the Christian church. It seems to me, this relentless pursuit of a ceremony that didn't matter to their rights, and they detested because it was Christian, was an act of 'owning' the Christian church. They had the same rights already through civil partnership, so it wasn't about any tangible gain for the gay community, it was about about jabbing the Christian church in the eye. An assault on western Christain values.. and they won at our approval

The repercussions of this development are that homosexuality and same sex marriage are taught alongside heteronormative relationships and marriage in primary schools.. We've voted for it to be normalised and this is an aspect of the normalisation - they have to teach it as normal. Does any responsible parent want that level of confusion introduced to their vulnerable, impressionable children, at a time when they haven't even started to sort out their own gender and sexuality for themselves?

And while we're on the subject, does anyone want their child walking by a gay pride parade?.. with scantily clad adults showing off their intimate parts, simulating sex acts with each other in public? Yet despite these displays that patently go against the laws of public decency, we see the police now joining in and embracing diversity under a rainbow flag and simulating sex acts with each other, rather than shutting this disgraceful assault on public decency down like the law demands they should, and like the public pays them to

Seriously, why are we putting up with this? There's a difference betweeen tolerance/acceptance and obsequious embrace. I very much fear I know which side of the line we're on - and that side doesn't have desireable societal implications.

I'm a live-and-let-live kind of person, but it seems to me, these are troubled times indeed, and for me, that ethos is being seriously tested
 
Last edited:
Zaphod said:
I have two positions on this that won't quite resolve in to a one-picture-focus. At a top level, people can marry their toaster for all I care. Why should I be bothered with whom or what someone chooses to gain an emotional bond to, so long as it's the right side of 'reasonable man ethics' and law. But others do care - enough to vehemently fight it, and these people are an indigenous part of our communities and their opinion matters. Christian values have been an invaluable aspect of where we are now, so should the feelings of Chistians not be listened to? Are we just to accept the steamroller of diversity and inclusion - just because diversity appears to be the modern god?

I couldn't care less if someone's gay or not. The gays I've encountered have not been pleasant people as it happens, but I'm happy to conclude that's just coincidence

The alarm bells went off for me when there was a relentless pursuit of marriage. They already had equal rights to married couples through civil partnerships - but it seems that wasn't enough. They had to take the ceremony and the name of marriage from the Christian church. It seems to me, this relentless pursuit of a ceremony that didn't matter to their rights, and they detested because it was Christian, was an act of 'owning' the Christian church. They had the same rights already through civil partnership, so it wasn't about any tangible gain for the gay community, it was about about jabbing the Christian church in the eye. An assault on western Christain values.. and they won at our approval

The repercussions of this development are that homosexuality and same sex marriage are taught alongside heteronormative relationships and marriage in primary schools.. We've voted for it to be normalised and this is an aspect of the normalisation - they have to teach it as normal. Does any responsible parent want that level of confusion introduced to their vulnerable, impressionable children, at a time when they haven't even started to sort out their own gender and sexuality for themselves?

And while we're on the subject, does anyone want their child walking by a gay pride parade?.. with scantily clad adults showing off their intimate parts, simulating sex acts with each other in public? Yet despite these displays that patently go against the laws of public decency, we see the police now joining in and embracing diversity under a rainbow flag and simulating sex acts with each other, rather than shutting this disgraceful assault on public decency down like the law demands they should, and like the public pays them to

Seriously, why are we putting up with this? There's a difference betweeen tolerance/acceptance and obsequious embrace. I very much fear I know which side of the line we're on - and that side doesn't have desireable societal implications.

I'm a live-and-let-live kind of person, but it seems to me, these are troubled times indeed, and for me, that ethos is being seriously tested
Click to expand...

I kind of see where you're coming from Zaphod as it echoes some of my own feelings on the matter. However, I feel the arguments you push forth are needlessly quarrelsome. It's like instead of putting forth a constructive criticism, the sole goal of your post is for other people to concur and lament over the wretchedness of diversity, the gays and the left. Isn't there already enough such posts and articles here and elsewhere?

Though, heterosexuality is the norm, and most people are heterosexual, throughout history and, I would presume, amongst all society, it has always been possible to find a minority of people who are homosexual.

The problem we're facing, isn't so much homosexuality as such, but people putting on a performance -- and I would argue, the normalisation of this performance. If our society had truly normalised homosexuality (in a healthy manner), then homosexuals would not feel the need to put on a performance, heterosexual would felt comfortable calling out act of indecency enacted by same-sex couples and I wager, that in fact the number of self-identified homosexual might even decrease as I believe quiet a few swearing allegiance to the LGBT flag only do so out of narcissism and a need to inflate their sense of self-importance.

However, note something, if you study the social science there is a whole field on performativity and embodiment. A lot of this ties in with the argument that our gender is nothing more than a role we slip on, rather than something born out of nature. Moreover, indecency, prodigality and sexual decadence are actively promoted in our society, and encouraged if it pertains to woman or LGBT people. What I'm trying to get at, is that all of this is nothing more than a set-up. Hatred and strife is being engineered.

By the way, it's interesting that you zeroed in on Western Christian values -- or that some fight against the LGBT push and that "these people are an indigenous part of our communities and their opinion matters". I think you should speak plainly Zaphod and say what you truly believe. Personally, I do not know what "Western Christian values" is supposed to mean. But again, though I was born in Europe, I'm not originally from that part of the world and I'm not Christians. Perhaps, I cannot understand.

By the way, from my experience and observation, only a minority actually seriously support anything LGBT, and among those there are a number that are mentally ill in one form or another. Some do so because it makes them feel important, some are unhappy in their life and find meanings or solace in social justice, others are like sheep and only repeat what their shepherds say, and then you have those who have serious mental disorders that would require psychiatry.

I think what we should all remember is that just because someone shouts the loudest doesn't mean that people believe in them or that they represent anyone or anything.

Anyway, you're on this forum. You know what's going. We all know what's going on. I get that it's frustrating, but that doesn't mean we should act like victims and moan until our throat are hoarse. Yes, what's happening is bad. But wouldn't it be more productive to understand how we got where we are and what's the end goal? And no, just saying that they want the end of the heterosexual (white) male and destroy Western values isn't enough, unless you're aiming to cause a moral panic where one victimise oneself and lash out at other people. I mean the world and people are getting crazy. I get that. We all get that. But so what? I just think it's more productive to try to spread the truth in a calm and composed manner rather than cry and moan.
 
I, too, am a live and let live person. If someone is going about his/her own business and not harming others, then it's no business of mine who that person loves. But flaunting the type of sex one practices, such as in the parades, does not promote acceptance. It's a show. Not only would I not want a child walking by a gay pride parade, I wouldn't want to either. People mimicking sex acts (whether homosexual or heterosexual) is not acceptable public behavior. (It seems also that a lot of what passes for "dancing" is mimicking sex as well.) So called women's rights marches have become much of the same, with women going bare breasted and sporting various vagina related items. How does that promote the value of women? It doesn't. Once again, it's a show, a side-show distraction.
 
Zaphod said:
The alarm bells went off for me when there was a relentless pursuit of marriage. They already had equal rights to married couples through civil partnerships - but it seems that wasn't enough. They had to take the ceremony and the name of marriage from the Christian church. It seems to me, this relentless pursuit of a ceremony that didn't matter to their rights, and they detested because it was Christian, was an act of 'owning' the Christian church. They had the same rights already through civil partnership, so it wasn't about any tangible gain for the gay community, it was about about jabbing the Christian church in the eye. An assault on western Christain values.. and they won at our approval
Click to expand...

I think you put your finger at the heart of the matter, and I agree. For liberals, "rights" can never be enough, they are incapable of seeing anything negative with ever more rights (Haidt's care foundation). But for conservatives, some things are "holy" (Haidt's sanctity foundation). So if gays are allowed to call their bonds "marriage", or even marry in a church, this means a devaluation and attack on something sacrosanct. It's pretty straightforward, but liberals (in Haidt's sense) cannot understand it.

I mean, respect is a two-way street. If you are a tiny minority, and you want to be respected, you must also respect the majority. As you said, those screaming the loudest about pro-gay marriage sure aren't even practicing Christians! I think the most common sense solution to all this is to have civil partnership for the gays, with equal rights re: taxes, inheritance and the like, but reserve the word "marriage" to traditional marriage - just as it was until recently. Everyone happy. Easy, no? Apparently not...
 
SevenFeathers said:
I, too, am a live and let live person. If someone is going about his/her own business and not harming others, then it's no business of mine who that person loves. But flaunting the type of sex one practices, such as in the parades, does not promote acceptance. It's a show. Not only would I not want a child walking by a gay pride parade, I wouldn't want to either. People mimicking sex acts (whether homosexual or heterosexual) is not acceptable public behavior. (It seems also that a lot of what passes for "dancing" is mimicking sex as well.) So called women's rights marches have become much of the same, with women going bare breasted and sporting various vagina related items. How does that promote the value of women? It doesn't. Once again, it's a show, a side-show distraction.
Click to expand...


Sure, agreed. Live and let live.. but - somewhat counter-intuitively - 'live-and-let-live' has limits. You go in to my child's classrom, as a for instance, and start introducing gender and sexuality confusion to them when they're young and impressionable and were doing fine - you can forget relying on my 'live and let live' ethos - be surprised if you come out of that without a hospital bill.

Well, this is where we're at
 
Last edited:
Zaphod said:
Sure, agreed. Live and let live.. but - somewhat counter-intuitively - 'live-and-let-live' has limits. You go in to my child's classroom, as a for instance, and start introducing gender and sexuality confusion to them when they're young and impressionable and were doing fine - you can forget relying on my 'live and let live' ethos - be surprised if you come out of that without a hospital bill.

Well, this is where we're at
Click to expand...

That's not really a live and let live situation though. To me, live and let live applies to what people do privately and/or has no effect on me or mine.
 
It seems to me like your two main concerns Zaphod are with civil unions vs marriage, and the ponerisation of the younger generation with gay culture. There's no question about the latter being a bad influence on younger children, especially with the tendency to push the age-appropriateness of exposure to such things. Sex education is extraordinarily ponerised, and should only really be taught around the onset of puberty, when children actually begin to start dealing with those issues themselves. "Gay culture" as it stands in the west is, I think, really just a manifestation of an unconscious sexual shadow, which came from repressing themselves socially while living under persecution. That's my theory at least. In a society where gays ARE genuinely accepted and unponerised as a group identity, there probably would be no gay culture as such, except as some vestigal artifact.

With regard to the former question about civil unions, civil unions often don't have the same civil rights as marriages. For example I know in the U.K. (at least in the past) when it comes to civil unions adultery is grounds for divorce in marriages, but not grounds for dissolution of civil unions. That seems like a pretty fixable situation though.

As for "stealing" the word marriage from the Christian Church, governments have long been able to marry people in the west in civic weddings and ceremonies, where the whole thing just comes down to a contract. That's just another drop in the bucket in terms of the amount of power that's been transferred from the Church to the State, historically. Today some Churches recognize same-sex relationships and wed them, while other's don't. Even gay myself, I would be very uncomfortable if religious institutions weren't offered that freedom of conscience, and that includes cake-baking department.

As for whether gay couples deserve to be called marriages, that really comes down to your opinion on what a marriage is. Is it a formal recognition of the rights and obligations of two people who are romantically bonded? Or is it a collaborative project for rearing children? Both? Either/or? Historically parents have often played a role in arranging marriages between young couples, often because young people are foolish when they're in love (see Romeo and Juliet) and so can make not only bad decisions, but PERMANENT bad decisions due to their inexperience and naivete (marriage is until death, after all). I think the shift from the child-rearing focus of marriage to the romantic aspect may have come about through technology. With things like birth control, abortion, contraception, and the like marriages seem less and less needed as a social technology to manage the organic consequences of human biology and sexuality (and I think that can be seen as a good thing). Because of that, I think marriage is just seen more as a manifestation of the romantic element. And if that is the definition, you can't really deny same-sex marriage on the grounds that the love they experience is somehow less real than that of heterosexuals, because that's a very subjective call. And of course, some people (whatever their sexuality) have confused love with some very unhealthy types of relationships and bonding.
 
I think that it is not so much a christian thing, men and women create bonds regardless, it is the values inherent in different religions that defend this bond in different shapes and "flavors", to me it falls on the category of "lost knowledge" in the sense that as religions got corrupted so are many things in them and people recite and do things without understanding the purpose of following any given set of ethical values.

Men and women have a vital role in society and the world, it is through that bond that everything comes to be, the relationship between these two is what needs to evolve IMO in order for things to evolve in the world, what I mean is that I think that evolution of society is probably only possible through the evolution of thought.

As far as gay rights and gay marriages, I do agree that civil partnerships are enough, were enough, the push for adopting the social roles of the opposite gender is in a sense a mayor interference in the development of that very relationship between men and women, and therefore the evolution of thought and society, that is at a more philosophical level, and works its ways down. I think.

Having a ceremony that celebrates the union between two men is ok, much in the way one would celebrate a birthday, you commemorate a friendship , a partnership and a union, however the difference with men/women is that there is this direct relationship between the bond, the structure of society, the purpose of the role of each gender, and how a society grows and evolves.

When a gay couple attempt to adopt the traditions, they do so not understanding that these traditions are a mere facade of what the roles in-tell. (not that everyone has such awareness either) but I feel a heterosexual couple is better able to fit in like gears in a system, I.e. society, almost as if they could feel it as opposed to gay couples who have the nagging struggle of both identity and sense of belonging. So you are left with two problems, preservation of society and to have a place in that mother society that doesn't leave any minority or group out. And that is essentially the problem. there is a corner for everyone but there is a main pillar.

My criticism of the LBGT business is precisely the result of attempting to take over that system, adopting a child for instance, and the more hardcore examples such as a woman-male having a child after hormone therapy or early hormonal interventions, in this attempt to take over of the functions of social roles they do not realize that this is very detrimental.

The fact that this is being pushed with such intensity, and I agree with others that, IT was good enough the way it was, is telling of something nefarious using the frustration of that minority and hiding behind it to sabotage a new generation, sabotage the social structure and the perception of morality and ethics.

The only problem I see is that many religions have an apathy towards those groups, and as I said, it falls on the category of lost/corrupted knowledge on the part of religion, there could be ways for them to have a place in society other that persecution,
I can understand that religions are trying in a sense to protect the development of society, it is the FORM that appears to me unethical, just a combination of the worse factors possible, so to speak.

With what we know from what the C's have said, knowledge protects, we can avoid wrong approaches of persecution or radicalization and see people through the scope of critical thinking, rather than "stoning the gays" or "chop their heads" for one, or the complete disregard for the reality that men an women are the reason everything exists. It is about the tedious and hard work of having to resolve the mysteries of the world and pursuit of an explanation.

Just some thoughts.
 
When I was in my 20's I used to march in pride festivals etc. but ultimately I began to feel as though things were being taken too far. Being visible to the degree that it's acknowledged that there is a community of gay people living and working in society for purpose of acceptance and tolerance is one thing, but pushing the boundaries to the point that integration into society as a useful member becomes a challenge because you hold yourself as being dramatically different and butt up against peoples tolerance limits is quite another. I used to wonder if the the extremes that the gay community were going to would actually make it a lot harder for the next generation of gay kids by going too far. It seems as though that is the case, though not in the ways that I imagined it would be and it's not just gay kids that are paying the price. With that in mind, I never really felt as though I was missing out on anything by not being able to marry and actually voted 'no' in the recent plebiscite on same sex marriage - civil unions provide enough and so why go upsetting a whole bunch of people by infringing on those institutions that they feel should be held to tradition?
 
Jones said:
When I was in my 20's I used to march in pride festivals etc. but ultimately I began to feel as though things were being taken too far. Being visible to the degree that it's acknowledged that there is a community of gay people living and working in society for purpose of acceptance and tolerance is one thing, but pushing the boundaries to the point that integration into society as a useful member becomes a challenge because you hold yourself as being dramatically different and butt up against peoples tolerance limits is quite another. I used to wonder if the the extremes that the gay community were going to would actually make it a lot harder for the next generation of gay kids by going too far. It seems as though that is the case, though not in the ways that I imagined it would be and it's not just gay kids that are paying the price. With that in mind, I never really felt as though I was missing out on anything by not being able to marry and actually voted 'no' in the recent plebiscite on same sex marriage - civil unions provide enough and so why go upsetting a whole bunch of people by infringing on those institutions that they feel should be held to tradition?
Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely. And 'tradition' is enough reason to protect a 'way' of doing things. , if we cannot deem that tradition to be malfeasant or socially degenerative. It didn't become a tradition for no reason. There seems to be a current social imperative to embrace every change that challenges traditional norms of society and I can't help feeling this is a very dark direction. You can find yourself in awful places in your life, that you've got to by placing one foot in front of the other, and never recognising the importance of the individual steps that got you there. And being led to take the next step because it's 'new'.. well, at a 500 mile above the earth view of humanity that might have value - but at a 5 foot something view above the Earth, that can involve a lot of personal pain

And of course, the same is true for societies as well. Most reasonable (non-religious) people would want gay people to have access to marriage. Well why not? I'm not an advocate of restricting people. But would those same people vote for gay marriage if they realised an innate consequence of what they were voting for would involve their pre-pubescent children being thrown in to confusion about the nature of mother/father parenthood - and that that level of confusion would give nothing to their lives that would ever be of any benefit to them, nor to societal progression at large?

I find this a complicated issue, and the last thing I want to do is anger anyone. Like I said, I am a live and let live kind of person but beyond that, there is concern for the best welfare of our kids, and the progress of 'us' as a species and a society. Not all directions are equal, not all directions lead to the same outcome or guarantee species survival or continuation. The universe does not care about the outcome. Tehre will always be more outcomes. But in my short time here, I do care, and have to care
 
Last edited:
whitecoast said:
As for whether gay couples deserve to be called marriages, that really comes down to your opinion on what a marriage is. Is it a formal recognition of the rights and obligations of two people who are romantically bonded? Or is it a collaborative project for rearing children? Both? Either/or?
Click to expand...

I think these definitions all fall short. It's first and foremost a symbol for the union of a man and a woman which is THE bedrock of society - it's a spiritual nucleus of a sort. I live on the countryside and I see that every day (to the degree things are still functional here). A functioning couple is the seed of all life, and not only in the biological sense of children, but of social and community life as well. In that sense, it serves a strong spiritual function as a foundation. Whatever gay partnerships are or can be, they surely are not that. And I think that's the reason many people are perfectly fine with civil partnerships between homosexuals, even with full equal rights, but draw a line when it comes to the word "marriage". It's something deep and sacred that cannot be relativized. And I think the gay community should respect that. For the "gay rights extremists", it's just a symbol for "full equality", but for most people, traditional marriage is an important symbol as well. So it's "symbol against symbol". And since gays are a tiny minority, to me it's pretty clear that they should respect traditional marriage. You can't have everything in life, it's just like that.
 
luc said:
I think these definitions all fall short. It's first and foremost a symbol for the union of a man and a woman which is THE bedrock of society - it's a spiritual nucleus of a sort. I live on the countryside and I see that every day (to the degree things are still functional here). A functioning couple is the seed of all life, and not only in the biological sense of children, but of social and community life as well. In that sense, it serves a strong spiritual function as a foundation. Whatever gay partnerships are or can be, they surely are not that. And I think that's the reason many people are perfectly fine with civil partnerships between homosexuals, even with full equal rights, but draw a line when it comes to the word "marriage". It's something deep and sacred that cannot be relativized. And I think the gay community should respect that. For the "gay rights extremists", it's just a symbol for "full equality", but for most people, traditional marriage is an important symbol as well. So it's "symbol against symbol". And since gays are a tiny minority, to me it's pretty clear that they should respect traditional marriage. You can't have everything in life, it's just like that.
Click to expand...

Exactly. By now, in western societies, being gay is more than accepted, if not celebrated, and in most countries, even Greece where religion is more deeply woven into the social fabric of everyday living (by preference and tradition, not by law) gay couples can enjoy rights through civil unions. So why push the limits?

Like said many times on this forum, these kinds of “requests” for more rights for minorities seem designed to create more confusion and divisions among people and to corrupt traditional values which have held for centuries, and which created communities and keep holding them together. And probably to destroy common sense, because common sense can see through nefarious agendas.

For years I lived in countries other than my own, and being in the minority, I had to learn to speak the language and respect the laws and traditions of the country that welcomed me. Had I insisted that everyone spoke to me in Greek, I would probably have more right in a way to do so, because the language one speaks from childhood encompasses SO much: the way of thinking and viewing the world, how a person's character is shaped and how one feels or expresses these emotions. Being gay is just about who you sleep with. So learning a new language is way more dramatic (and traumatic in some cases) than accepting that one will be united with their partner for life (hopefully) at the city hall instead of the church. Yet people around the world do it every day, they accept their minority status if they find themselves in a new land, and they give up a lot but also take up a lot in order to coexist peacefully with their new neighbors. And it's not because they are genius or anything, they are just following common sense.
 
whitecoast said:
"Gay culture" as it stands in the west is, I think, really just a manifestation of an unconscious sexual shadow, which came from repressing themselves socially while living under persecution. That's my theory at least. In a society where gays ARE genuinely accepted and unponerised as a group identity, there probably would be no gay culture as such, except as some vestigal artifact.
Click to expand...

I think that, in Western societies, the persecution and nonacceptance of gay people is long gone.

However, the illusion of persecution and nonacceptance of gay people is thoroughly maintained by the social engineers who manipulate, control and exploit this minority.

It's the same modus operandi with other minorities like the Jewish or the black people. Alleged hate crimes, antisemitism, homophobia, racism are hyped up, if not fully fabricated. When the minorities believe this message of hate and fear, they feel severed from the rest of the population and logically turn towards their 'leaders' who claim to be the only ones able to protect them from this threat.

It's exactly the same as a racket operation. The gangster asks for money from a shop owner for protection, protection against the threat created by this very same gangster!

It is why the minority social engineers push for proselytism (gay prides, strong media presence, enforcement of new norms, positive discrimination,...) They know that creating a noisy privileged obnoxious minority is what will trigger a rejection from the majority and push the minority in the arms of its social engineers.

Talk about a self-fulfilling hate prophecy!

The above summarizes the policy conducted by Talmudic rabbis toward Jewish population for centuries and each time it worked like wonder. Now, other minorities are learning from this pioneering group.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom