Trying to understand the anti-gay marriage people

Post Reply New Topic

i just thought of the 'best' reason not to have same sex marriage. in the good old days, men were always the providers. in that scenario, if same sex marriage were legal, the gay male couples would be rich; all the lesbians would be broke; and all the homophobic straight couples would scream it's not fair that the gay men have everything. i wonder, if in secret, that this is the primary concern of those opposed to gay marriage...

i know the logic is horribly flawed, and thus why I laughed when I thought of it. I'm waiting to hear a homologous statement from someone on Fox News....

The lesbian couples I've met don't seem to be hurting financially.

But I don't understand the hatred either.

There's an easier explanation - people are naturally revolted by samesex behaviour as a ways to keep the species alive. i.e. homosexuality is an abberation (a flaw/mixup/mistake). Think about how revolted people get about pedophelia, rape, or incest.

Anyone that is anti-gay marriage cannot be understood because they do not use logic, only faulty reasoning peppered with ignorance and flat-out stupidity. They fear gays because they do not understand them. And I fear homophobes because I do not understand them.

The only possibly rational explanation for opposing gay marriage (and it's a heck of a reach) is that the heterosexual couples are the ones burdened with producing the children, so they're the ones who should receive the sanctioning and social support that goes with marriage.

However, the behavior of some heterosexual couples and the high divorce rate lead one to question how seriously they take marriage, or just why they are considered more deserving of it.

It seems that something else is needed, for both straights and gays, to ensure protection of personal property ownership/transfer rights and to ensure that people will be placed in the care of whomever they choose, regardless of circumstance.

I think there is probably some point that they truly feel is motivating, associated with marriage and family beliefs.

But there is homophobia under the surface, isn't there? A belief that homosexuality is evil and a sin and this is one way to oppose it?

In Arabic Muslim societies, there is a lot of casual male-on-male sex on account of the unavailability of females and the fact that men spend time partying and going out with men. So there are tons of opportunity for homosexual acts and few alternatives. Some men can't even afford wives, ever. So what you have, in a society where women are isolated, unable to work, etc, like your model you proposed where homosexuality would concentrate wealth among gay couples, actually correspond with more gay sex, not less, for the same repressive reasons.

It's just homophobia, IMO.

It's not about that. If the same sex marriges were legal, those couples could adopt kids. That is the main concern here. And I agree. A child adopted by the same-sex parents wouldn't get the proper psychological development. And that is fact.

I don't mind gays and lesbians - if they want to live together, it's their bussiness. But why the hell do they make so noise about their rights? Why they want to have everybody's attention focused on them?

I would say that gay people marrying is
just as stupid as "normal" people
marrying, not better or worse.
It serves no real purpose, you
dont love anyone anymore
because a prist gives you
a piece of paper, its just a
riddicolous human ritual i
have no idea where came
from, its pretty useless.

I have heard several times that marrying
is good for the finances, saving taxes and
whatnot. And i have to say, if you marry
to save $, then theres something really
wrong somewhere.

That being said, i do know it makes alot of
people happy to have a big wedding and
marry and all that. And if i met a girl who
wanted to because it made her happy, I`d
marry the hell out of her, but i see no real
purpose other then making her happy, i
dont see any "need" for it besides that.

So you're lumping homosexuality with pedophilia, rape and incest? I find that completely incongruent, to be honest. Something to consider; the definition of pedophilia today was considered socially acceptable and the age of marriage and consent as recently as just over 100 years ago in Western cultures. Same sex relationships have been seen in many different lights over the ages, from open acceptance to reluctant tolerance for social reasons to being cause for being outcast and killed. People are conditioned, people experience external pressures for conformity - I don't believe in this "revulsion" you speak of.


M.

It essentially all boils down to, "I think what you do is wrong and anti-god, therefore you don't deserve what I get."

I'm anti gay marriage, personally speaking, because it seems pointless to me. I'm all in favour of civil unions with exactly (insofar as it is possible) the same conditions as marriage, mind. I just don't personally see the need to appropriate the pointless ceremony and trappings of "ordinary" marriage, although if someone else wants to that's their business.

I don't oppose gay marriage, but I think that it is only logical that if the same sex people should be able to marry each other, all other variables should also be included in this bill- like threesomes, or even more complex groups.

I doubt the gay and lesbian community could get their point across by performing pantomime. Can you name a civil rights movement that has succeeded by being quiet?

No it isn't.



Yeah, you're right, they're almost as bad as blacks and women, always demanding their rights... they should just shut up and accept their status as second-class citizens.

Because they want their rights unimpeded. I disagree with the statement about parenting; I know plenty of opposite sex couples who should not have children because of the effects being of just being their child could be traumatic. It is opinion, not fact, I'm sorry - and here we disagree.


M.

The problem is that it wouldn't stop there; if gay marriage becomes an issue of civil rights, pastors and priests would be forced to marry homosexuals, even if it flies in the face of their religious beliefs. They should be able have whatever ceremonies they wish and be able to share property etcetera, but this isn't what they want; they want to force universal acceptance. If you think there is no basis to this, please look at the story below. Read between the lines! Radical political movements never state their next step!
http://www.tldm.org/News12/CatholicChur ... ngland.htm