Anyone want to talk about this?

[Merrida]

Originally Posted by MAURER

unfortunately, merrida, even though i agree with you that people shouldn't be so homophobic, im starting to feel as though you are a bit myopic in yourr thinking. you can't seem to get it into your head that not everybody thinks the way you do. even though you probably think the world would be a better place if you could manipulate socoiety to your every desire, not everybody agrees with you.

My apologies if I misinterpreted this but it sounds like you're implying I am trying to "manipulate people" into a certain way of thinking.


for example, your view that the licensing of reproduction "has the interests of innocent children at heart." it is the same exact reasoning that some people have for wanting to make sure gays can't marry.

My opinions about licensure isn't to deny marriage, it's to make sure people are educated and CAN support a family and relationship. No agenda to deny.


they feel as though that if society does not negatively sanction homosexuality, that their impressionable children might be affected by increased exposure to gays.

And exposure to gays would do what? Rub off and make other people gay? This perpetuates my repetitive replies because no one has yet answered what is wrong with being exposed to gay people.


unfortunately, you have to realize that a great segment of society, very likely the majority of society, feels as though homosexuality is a sin.

I think beating spouses and children is a sin (but the right to do so is in the Bible,...what does that make me?) You question my motive of protection, yet I've done nothing but substantiate my sincere interest/motivation.


you may not like that, you may see it as ignorance or intolerance. however thats YOUR opinion. your inability to see things this way, i think, is the reason that you feel that controlling society in a fashion you think would better it, is somehow a good idea.

Controlling society,....again makes it sound like I'm trying to convince (which on one hand you say you acknowledge I'm not trying to do but then I read posts like this which make it sound like I am trying to do so. Ergo, the confusion.

Those are the answers to your questions.

Merrida there is nothing wrong with being exposed to gay people since you have been begging for a specific answer to that specific question.

Going back to the original post, I just want to reiterate my kudos to the Rhode Island Court for their decision. This couple will just have go back to Massachussetts where they got themselves into this mess.

[MAURER]

first, i am not saying that you are trying to manipulate any person here into a certain way of thinking. i'm saying it sounds as though you feel that if you could manipulate an entire society to your standards and ethics, the world would be a better place. i'm merely suggesting that you need to think of how different other people's standards of what is right or good can be.

second, like i said before, i have already acknowledged that you have the best interest of children and families at heart. what i said before and what i will say again is that you need to step out of yourself for a minute and realize that just because you wish things were different, doesn't mean that the realization of your ideas would in fact be beneficial. in fact, many people in the world would even call it evil

third, nobody really knows what the long term effects of increased exposure to homosexuality would be. YOUR opinion (as well as mine) is that it wouldn't be a bad thing and that people shouldn't worry about it. but you're so caught up in your own viewpoint that you can't realize that a lot of other people simply don't agree. and these people have real reasons for their opinions and you have to understand that people from a different world view hold this view for a reason.

fourth, just because something is a sin, doesn't mean it should be banned or illegal. everyone has their own code of ethics. acts such as murder and robbery being wrong are ideas shared across societies. your exact definition of proper child raising isn't.

fifth, yes i said that your idea that there should be licensing for reproduction and heavier restrictions on marriage and divorce is a controlling of society. i said that because thats the exact nature of what it is, a restriction/control/whatever word you want to use. nothing in that statement suggests that you're trying to convince anyone of anything and i don't see where you are getting that from.

Originally Posted by Merrida

The rights to "gay marriage" -- two people who love each other (like you and your wife love each other) wanting to celebrate it legally and have the legal rights (like you and your wife do) for situations .

Just went back and read earlier posts on this and stumbled across the above.

There are many situations where two people who love each other wanting to celebrate it legally and have legal rights would be denied a marriage, such as a mother and her son, a father and his daughter, a brother and a sister, or a man and multiple wives or a woman and multiple husbands (assume all are of legal age).

[TomG]

I wrote:
Gay men do not fertilize an egg, and lesbians do not get IVF after a romantic night of dancing and maybe having a little too much to drink: "Heyy, shweety, whatsay we leave this joint and find an OBGYN . . . hic . . . I lub lub lub you, baby." There is a limit to how much human nature can be controlled.


You wrote:
YES, they do fertilize eggs, yes women can get their eggs fertilized,...and (gosh, imagine this),...it does not have to involve heterosexual sex. There ARE other ways to get pregnant. This is the straight mind at work not seeing alternatives.


Straight mind at work not seeing alternative? What are you talking about? Ok, maybe I wasn't clear. My paragraph was pointing out the problems in having equality if licensing was needed. Straight couples can get drunk and produce a baby. Nobody can be there to license or unlicense them at that moment. Gays and lesbians cannot do their doning and IVFing on a drunken whim, realistically speaking. Those procedures can be controlled and licensed. You will not have equality in having babies. By the way, many fine, happy, loved children were conceived while their parents were a little tipsy - not badmouthing that.

I wrote:
Making marriage harder legally will just have more people living unmarried, and somehow the babies will keep popping out.

You wrote:
People living together w/o being married,...happens all the time, doesn't it? Straight and gay.


You missed the point. You had said marriage should be made stricter and harder to get. I pointed out that it will just make people live together have babies, and try to act like families anyway.


Jeesh, I gotta start writing topic sentences first in my paragraphs. Maybe my high school English teacher was right.

What's up with all this beating talk? Sure, it's horrible, but that does not have anything to do with gay vs. straight marriage. Unfortunately it happens.

[Merrida]

Originally Posted by pierini

Merrida there is nothing wrong with being exposed to gay people since you have been begging for a specific answer to that specific question.

I am not "begging" for an answer to the question about being exposed to gay people, although I did pose that question since it seems some people are having a problem with that.

My question that I am, to use your carefully selected words, "begging" for an answer for, is: Why do you care if gay people get married? What difference does that make to your ability to live a married life with your spouse the way you see fit? What does someone else's marriage have to do with your ability to carry on in your own marriage?

That's it, really. That's my question.

That is ALL, the end, the total, the basic premise of what I am "begging" for a reply to pierini.

[MAURER]

that is where i agree with you. i don't feel as though it is anyone else's business if two gay people want to get married. if churches want to define it as a union between man and woman, thats fine. i don't see why the government needs to make that decision. after all, like you said earlier, recognition of marriage allows one man to be at his lover's death bed and other things like that. with that said, i think calling it a civil union is fine but that so should the legal partnership of a man and woman. that way, i think marriage can be a religious and personal thing and not about financial incentives and such.

Originally Posted by Merrida

My question that I am, to use your carefully selected words, "begging" for an answer for, is: Why do you care if gay people get married? Since marriage is a union between a man and a woman, I will be an apologetic for the sanctity of marriage and vigorously defend it against those who seek to broaden its definition to include unnatural unions between members of the same sex. Call those civil unions, civil confusions, or domestic partnerships but not marriage.

What difference does that make to your ability to live a married life with your spouse the way you see fit? None.

What does someone else's marriage have to do with your ability to carry on in your own marriage? None.

That's it, really. That's my question.

That is ALL, the end, the total, the basic premise of what I am "begging " for a reply to pierini.

My response in red above. I'm going to bed Merrida. Good night.

[TomG]

my views on having children being a priviledge, not a right,

Wow, having children being a privilege, not a right, wow. Do you really mean that, that in your view there should be an outside authority that must first permit a woman to have a baby with her husband? Are you sure you mean that? Sit on it for a while.

Please don't come back with beatings, abuses, murders, and making a kid drink cod liver oil. Simply, do you really believe having a child should be a privilege and not a right.

Now, to back off a bit, I believe all your worries and concerns are legitimate and should be solved by getting the education and training out there.

[MAURER]

exactly tom, exactly lol. imagine a world where a man and a woman who really want nothing else in the world but to have a child but are told... no. you don't meet qualifications. or lets say a couple accidently reproduces and they aren't "allowed" to have that child. thats a very scary, dangerous world in my opinion.

ps... if you want to keep talking about this maybe we should make a new thread since this one is about the divorce policy on gay marriages in rhode island.

[MAURER]

what i want to ask pierini is, what makes a 'union" between members of the same sex unnatural? while i agree that its not normal or mainstream, it seems natural by the fact that homosexuality naturally occurs in society. homosexual activity has even been documented in over 500 other species of animals. while i don't think that necessarily makes homosexuality moral, i do think it makes the case that it is natural. it occurs in nature. also, why do all people need to have the same definition of marriage? in korea, for example, the word adoption is interpretted quite differently than in the united states. is it really the government's job to "define" marriage? shouldn't that be left up to the religious institutions that create them?

[Dan C]

Merrida, just as you have the children in mind with your thoughts of parenting, that's how I feel about the child with gay parents. Gay couples may be able to care for a child just the same (even though they cannot create that child themselves) but they are still raising that child in a biased (and immoral, IMO) environment. That's my biggest concern.

I don't care who marry's who, because it doesn't affect me or anyone else.

If same sex couples want to be able to have a recognized union, fine with me (don't think it should be called "marriage" though).

If they want to visit each other on their death beds, they should be allowed that.

I'm not sure how I feel about these unions reaping the financial benefits as that would probably effect my tax dollar, but that's still not as big a concern to me as when these couples want to raise children.

I grew up with a kid who had two "moms". Poor guy told us Beth was his sister for years. I always thought it was strange that his mom coached the boys baseball team. Maybe this is coincidence, but he ended up being a compulsive liar and later in life became a convicted sex offender.

Either way, I don't believe a gay household is the opportune environment for raising children, and you can't tell same sex couples then can get married and then deny them children... so that's why I'm against gay marriage. One will just lead to another. I view most liberal positions as a slippery slope leading to irresponsibility and the moral decline of society.

[Maxgain]

It feels strange typing this but 100% agreement with Dan

[MAURER]

why does everyone feel though that everything they are against should be illegal? im against lying, adultery, greed, and vanity. i think everyone would be better off without all of these things. therefore i don't think any of it should be "allowed" by the government.

by the way its the same "Slippery slope" mentality that makes muslim extremists think that woman should completely cover their bodies, your hands get cut off if you're found stealing, you must absolutely pray 5 times a day, and if you allow a teddy bear to be named muhammed, people will want you killed (yes that happened in the news recently)..... and a host of other extreme view points. you probably don't see the similarity between your viewpont and these poeple. however, their society is based upon a government which strictly enforced a specific moral code. our government, i believe, was based on allowing each group of people with their own belief structures to be able to live freely. so, if you don't like gay marriages, don't get one. don't condone it among your family and friends. but is it really anyone's place to enforce, by law, that moral code on others? laws are there to protect people's freedoms, not tell people how to live their lives.

Originally Posted by MAURER

what i want to ask pierini is, what makes a 'union" between members of the same sex unnatural?

Well you are still a young man so in addition to reading my response to your question, do me a favor and go ask this question to your Mother and Father.

Attraction to the opposite sex is natural because, in my opinion, our primary purpose is to procreate. Attraction to the opposite sex is not natural, even though it occurs in nature, because it is not possible to procreate. But just because unnatural things (for lack of a better word) occur in nature (because they do), that does not make them natural.

Don't expect you to agree with me, but since you asked, there it is.