Should Gay Marriage Exist?

originally posted by: TheGreazel
Yes gay marriage should exist , my country was the first to make it legal back in 2001.

Living alone is a hard life , good people deserve a partner what gender they are attracted too is none of my business.

You don't have to be in a licensed/contractual partnership to live with someone and avoid being alone. There are heterosexual couples living together that don't get married.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
By that standard, there was no need to bother with the idea that two men or two women could be married, because common sense told everyone that neither two men nor two women could have a child.

Adoption.

Voltzwagon

What, we're not tossing out random words without additional discussion? Okay, maybe you should elaborate. We were talking about cultures in the past who had varying levels of religion bound to their marriage recognition. Do you have historical information about adoption practices in those cultures?

As an adopted kid myself, I'd be very interested but that sounds like a separate thread.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Do you have historical information about adoption practices in those cultures?

Adoption was a practice in historic civilizations for some time, for example the Romans used it not only to continue the nomen gentilicium but also for political purposes. The Romans also had very detailed marital rites, customs and laws.

It may not be a popular opinion or a touchy subject, but I don't think it should be allowed. They already had a partnership in a union, the only difference is that they did not get any tax benefits, the moment they allowed gay marriage, they started suing churches or people that owned properties that would rent it for a big party and events but did not want it to be used for gay marriage because it goes against their personal beliefs.

The gays that believe in Jesus Christ and the church KNOWN it's a big no, no. But still pushing progressive ideologies. They should have allowed the union to continue and be able to marry through the courts and give them the tax benefits and breaks, but not allow them to get married at a church. You're basically forcing the church and priests to marry you unwillingly. And let's be realistic, none of these people would force Muslims to marry them at a Mosque.

a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

"Should [something] Exist?"

That's always a weird question. As someone wiser than me once said, "What is, is more important than what should be."

Now, when it comes to the question of 'marriage', it's a curious one.

I have some thoughts on ANY marriage.

As an entity living in a body of a 'youngster', I never quite understood 'marriage'. I saw all kinds of weird, superficial, materialistic rituals, where the woman was some kind of princess-goddess, and the man was some kind of 'ordinary bloke, just like everyone else'. What was the point of all that, I wondered.

When anyone ever asked me about marriage, I thought about it long and hard, and couldn't find a benefit that would make it sound like something I would want to do. I was never against marriage, I just couldn't quite figure it out, it was like a mystery to me. Why do people do it? I thought it was probably for pragmatic reasons, like easier family forming, being able to be together (marriage seems to be the easiest route if you move to another country, to stay in that country and be part of the country's population (or is it populace? I always confuse these terms))

I thought long and hard, tried to find something I COULD do when married, that I COULDN'T do without it. Coitus used to be the big thing, historically speaking, I think. That was why many young men wanted to marry - it meant 'guaranteed coitus in ongoing basis', as in 'everyday copulation'. So what if you have to work hard for your family and sacrifice a LOT - it was still worth it, a sweet deal.

However, times have changed drastically, and there's no law that says you can't have coitus without marriage these days, so that motivation is gone. Back in the day, it was a sweet deal for a man, but it was also great for the woman, as the man not only provided everything for free for the woman, a house, a family, security, good social standing, a car, and lots of money, and maybe most importantly, all the free time in the world.

If the woman got pregnant, it was a noble and admirable thing, and because she was married, she was considered sacred and respectable, so it was a win-win for the woman - becoming pregnant outside marriage was considered shameful.

The curious thing about marriage, though, is that although it SEEMS to be a 'love-based philosophical bonding', it's REALLY just 'inviting the government into your bedroom'. It is making a CONTRACT between you and the corporate government and the 'partner', as they call it now. Love has nothing to do with marriage - it CAN be part of it, but it's not a requirement. A signature is.

This is what I can't understand about marriage; you can love without marriage, so why sign some contract?

The way I see it (and people like me would agree), the whole ritual of 'marriage' is originally just supposed to 'exclaim an existing relationship', sort of tell the people in your community that 'hey, me and this individual are now a 'unit'', and that's about it. It's supposed to be about a declaration of a relationship to everyone, maybe a celebration of such a 'happy occasion'. It's not supposed to be about 'promising to be together forever' (look how well THAT is turning out - not to mention promising anything about the future is lying, even if it happens exactly as promised, because you can't really KNOW about the future, even if you are psychic, because future hasn't happened yet, and is subject to change, and your knowledge of it can also change it).

So, as a ritual of declaring, exclaiming or just telling people about an existing love or relationship, I wholly support the idea of 'marriage' (though the word 'marriage' seems to carry 'matriarchal lock'-type tones, which I don't like).

As a CONTRACT to invite the government into your bedroom - well, EVERYONE, including women, should see this as something very COLD and WEIRD to do to a relationship, and should oppose it. Instead, women worship this idea and flock to it. Why are the same women against pre-nup, but love the idea of marriage?

Of course there are a few reasons for this - first, women get a plethora of benefits (man, not so many). In case of divorce, the woman gets the custody. This is not even debatable, even though there are a few, very rare exceptions. A woman can trust this to happen. A woman gets power over the man and his resources, period. If there's ANY discord, any disagreement or if the man gets angry at all, a woman's pointing finger will quickly decide that man's destiny.

It's ridiculous, just how much power woman has in marriage (not to even mention how much women have power over men overall anyway), and how much the woman can absolutely financially destroy a man because of that particular contract.

Woman also gets this ritual, where she's treated as "THE MOST IMPORTANT PRINCESS-GODDESS IN THE UNIVERSE", where nothing and no one matters as much as she does - she's celebrated 'to the max', so to say. She gets to wear some ludicrous, frilly, 'beautiful, unique dress' that no one else in that enormous party is allowed to even be compared to. She gets to be elevated for a day, so many women lust for this occasion - who cares what the man wants, or who the man is, or if there even is a man - as long as the woman gets to experience this 'royal thing', where she's the most important thing in the whole existence?

This is why the women have desired this 'wedding day' since they were little girls, and practiced and played a 'mock-wedding' a zillion times before it happens. It's literally the culmination of all of her fantasies and dreams.

Little boys do not dream about marriage - a man has to put ASIDE, say goodbye and let go of HIS dreams, so the women can have 'her day'.

Many women care more about wedding than marriage, so they want to experience this thing over and over again. These women become 'serial wedders' or something, and marry multiple times in their life just so they can feel 'being special' over and over again.

When you look at women planning for their wedding, browsing the wedding catalogs and all with a selfish lust in their eyes, you can easily see she has forgotten about the 'man' long ago. The 'man' is only part of the equation to make the wedding ritual happen, he's basically an afterthought, if he enters the woman's thoughts at all.

Whereas you'd expect the woman to think about the man, and how happy they will be together, all the things she can do for her man to make their relationship happy and healthy, she basically barely acknowledges his existence. He's expendable, he can be replaced, the woman is unique.

In the end, it's all about CONTRACT with the government, though. Why do this? I mean, you COULD have a 'wedding' without that contract, couldn't you? It would be possible to celebrate BOTH parties in the 'marriage' ceremony equally, a man could ALSO wear something flashy and unique, and they could be celebrated as a unit.

In any case, I can't understand why any man would ever want 'marriage' - I am not saying they shouldn't, I am just wondering what REASON there could be. Ever since 'young bodily age', I have wondered about this question - why would a man marry, what good reason would there be. A woman has plenty of reason to marry, but a man? Stability of family? It's something you are 'supposed' to do?

So when it comes to 'gay marriage'.. (word limitation strikes again)

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Do you have historical information about adoption practices in those cultures?

Adoption was a practice in historic civilizations for some time, for example the Romans used it not only to continue the nomen gentilicium but also for political purposes. The Romans also had very detailed marital rites, customs and laws.

...based in legal guardianship. And that legal guardianship started where...?

When it comes to 'gay marriage', I don't really see it as such.

I see 'marriage' as a CONTRACT between three parties, a government and two people (which probably do this as 'persons', but most people wouldn't understand what I mean, sadly).

To me, and for the purposes of a contract, or even a ritual, the sexual preferences or genders, genitalia or physical bodily structure is immaterial, it's irrelevant. Why should it matter?

Of course when it comes to the 'same gender' (which can't exist if there are billions of genders, and if gender is simultaneously just a social construction, but at the same time, women need men like fish need bicycles, but then, men should be blamed for everything, although woman can't be even defined, and .. yeah, this is the world we live in!) 'marriage' or any kind of intimate relationship and joining, there are some questions.

I always wonder, how do 'gay people' decide who is the 'man' and who is the 'woman'. Do they take turns? Do they not even adhere to that concept whatsoever?

I mean, do they both work hard for the family, do they both sit home and watch daytime TV and eat bonbons all day? Do they take turns in who fixes the roof, maintains cars and computers, and who decorates the home and nags to the other all day long?

When divorce happens, who gets custody, and how do they decide that? Who gets to pay to the 'other half' most of their money and possessions?

Who pays for dinners and such?

A man and woman, as much as as it is just a part of who and what they are (temporary bio-etheric quality), and as much as they really are human beings most fundamentally, and 'man or women' trivially, do compliment each other. They are very different energies, yin and yang, they are in fact, polar opposites.

People are often confused as to what is 'male' and what is 'female', and thinks these can be infinitely redefined.

Let me tell you the truth; man is simply yang, which means 'expanding energy'. It's just energy that expands. Woman is simply yin, 'contracting energy'. It's just energy that contracts.

That's it. You can debate endlessly about hormones, body sizes, muscle densities, mental abilities, brain 'white vs. gray' matter and all that, but at the CORE, it's this 'energy direction' that defines it all. Planets are called female, because they're contracted and maybe even contracting energy, and space is called male, because it's expanding, free-flowing energy. Negative ans positive are equal, and there's nothing 'negative' about 'negative' - it's too bad the word has so many 'negative' connotations, because it's really just a neutral word, meaning 'contracting energy'.

Both energies are needed for the physical side of the Universe to exist, maybe even higher levels as well, and you can see this play of yin and yang everywhere. I think it's erroneous to refer to 'shadow' or 'darkness' as 'yin', though, because light and darkness or light and shadow are not equal - light always wins, and you can't create darkness, you can only block light.

In any case, we can see this energy direction everywhere, if we are honest about it. A woman has a 'receiving' function in their genitals, so it's contracting, going inward. A man has a 'penetrating' function in their genitals, so it's expanding, going outward.

A man usually has 'expanding' way of thinking, he's full of new ideas, he thinks about 'society as whole' and directions like that, he thinks of 'expanding his business' or whatnot, at least he thinks of expanding his life, if nothing else. He thinks of going into the world and making a difference, he wants to go forward and maybe even climb upwards in some way or another.

A woman has a very different approach to life. Besides marriage (which consumes 90% of her thinking - I am just kidding, but there's some truth to this), a woman thinks about her life from the perspective of security and nesting. A woman may go out into the world, but she's not REALLY thinking about climbing the corporate ladder, she's checking out the high-status males she could hitch her life to, and make him pay for stuff. When women talk at the water cooler, is it about corporate opportunities or expansion of their lives? No, it's gossip about men, relationships and other women that she's endlessly competing against and bickering with, while smiling at the women she's stabbing in the back.

A woman thinks about her home, her domestic life, and material (after all, 'materialism' comes from 'mother') goods. She wants to bring in wealth and all kinds of things FROM the world, she's thinking 'inwardly' in this case, not expansively. She wants a big home, lots of kids, and to be treated as a queen of a castle, so she wants to decorate her home and bring IN all kinds of stuff to make it all happen.

This is just natural yang and yin-thinking, though I wonder why it's always said as 'yin and yang' instead of the alphabetical 'yang and yin'.. (isn't this always the case, woman is always mentioned before man, even the 'women and children first' mentions women BEFORE children, although children are the more vulnerable people)

To get back to the topic at hand, I never understood why 'gay people' want a marriage, or why it would even matter what sexual preference or genitalia 'two partners in marriage' have. Why shouldn't two people have the right to subject themselves to governmental misery, regardless of their biological body or sexual preferences? Isn't 'marriag'e supposed to be about two SOULS anyway?

I never understood why so much emphasis is put on biological or etheric qualities when it comes to these things. Sure, women and men are different, think differently, act differently, have different goals, aspirations and sexuality (women are hypergamous, men are polyamorous - men want to spread their seed as much as possible, women want as 'good quality' seed as possible, and to select the best possible mate to make sure the children are top quality - after all, woman used to have to spend nine to ten months with big belly as a consequence of her choices, so they have to choose well)..

..but in the end, we are all humans, and the basic things like rights, contracts and such, should absolutely not concern the physical side, genitalia, sexual preferences or anything like that, just as well as the respect we treat others with should remain the same regardless of the physical side.

If a soul is good, they're good, regardless of what kind of body they are inhabiting at some given moment.

In any case, in my opinion, there is no such thing as 'gay marriage', as the 'GAY' isn't marrying, the 'PEOPLE' are. There are only 'people marriages', and I say, anyone crazy and ignorant enough to want it, go for it, invite the government to as many bedrooms you want, just don't cry about the consequences later on..

I'm gay, and I really don't care if it exists or not. But then I think anyone marrying is pretty darn stupid.... so yeah.

I think the state should only grant "civil unions". Gay or straight, both should be "civil union".

Let churches grant "marriages". Government should just stay out of it. It shouldn't even recognize "marriage" as legally meaningful. (Just as how a "baptism" isn't legally meaningful.)

However........ most people who choose to get married would also meet the requirements to get a "civil union" and a divorce or annulment would still be necessary in order to end them.



Or to put it more simply: I would like the state to get out of my bedroom.

The fact this thread is called "exist" is really weird. Is it not supposed to exist? Existence is a completely different subject. Might as well call the thread should gay marriage be living? Should gay marriage be observable in reality?

So Goverment involved in marriage has a lot more to do with population growth than anything else. It is an antiquated concept for the Goverment to give special benefits for today.

1. Take the Goverment out of the picture
2. Have civil union contracts for anyone who wants to have legal representation of each other
3. Leave marriage to religion

To be honest, marriage is like the worst contract two people can sign. Outside of religious reasons it is not a good thing.

a reply to: TheGreazel

For the time being I think I'll carry on practicing restraint.

The reason being, is that I'm hoping that learning more about me, the mind, my own mind (issues), and stoicism will help me to control my emotions and thought processes.
When I get better at that, I will probably join in more often and hopefully have more fruitful debates /arguments.

Thanks Greazel, I appreciate you. 🍻

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
Homosexuals, whether you like it or not, ARE normal human beings who have sex with a partner of the same sex.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Don't want to be a d1ck as this is a really good post.⬆️
👏🏼
But it might be the 1st post of yours I've ever agreed with and starred 😬

a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

When was the term "GAY" attached to same-sex marriage?

------

Which of these two: www.the-sun.com... would Supreme Court Justice 2-B, Ketanji Brown-Jackson, say is a WOMAN?

a reply to: The2Billies


Where I think you're going wrong Billie, is assuming that LGBTQWRTUOKGGH = ALL gay people. I believe using a (very) broad brush is the better term.

There is a huge, and I mean huge (40 to 100 age group) demographic that do not participate in the scene
Because they know it's full of mostly young loud brash LBGTQRUYIGH idiots, who are giving them a bad name by shoving their lunacy down everyone's throat.

This thread isn't about "should the LBGTQ+ marriage exist?"
It's about should gay marriage exist?"

Now you understand this, I assume you will be separating ( regular life leading) gays and LGBTQWRTUOKGGH as being the same?

Thanks in advance 🍺

originally posted by: JimmyNeutr0n
Huh this conversation got a lot of replies pretty quick...

Just to reiterate my point, there is no reason why the government should give incentives to any married couple because as I said, it leads to disenfranchised people that want to be included in the grab-bag give away. Because we kept gay couples on the outside looking in, they wanted to be apart of that too, because they loved eachother just as much as a straight couple did...why shouldn't they be included in getting tax breaks like all the other married people?

And rightfully so, they can, and I respect gay people utmost for giving their heart to someone else just as much as my heart would flutter for a straight couple because i know what love feels like and love comes in all packages. Love is love in my eyes and nothing can change anything about that, not a government decree or religious decree for that matter. Which is my point......No government can decree anything.

Marriage doesn't prove love, it just gives us tax deductions. Take the tax deductions and benefits away A-C-R-O-S-S the board.

Wow, such a great post. It really is this simple, if you've ever been in love, being in love to a gay person is identical to that. So, people who have experienced real love, should be (theoretically but) naturally more empathetic to gay marriage.

Love is love, let there be love 🥰❤️💜🖤🤍💛🤎❤️🧡🥰

originally posted by: thebtheb
I'm gay, and I really don't care if it exists or not. But then I think anyone marrying is pretty darn stupid.... so yeah.

100% agree. Even though I'm advocating that people in love should have the same rights as anyone else. I think marriage brings unnecessary pain and torment.

A nice eternity ring or somethimg of similar ilk should do just fine.
🍻

originally posted by: RetsuUnohana
It may not be a popular opinion or a touchy subject, but I don't think it should be allowed. They already had a partnership in a union, the only difference is that they did not get any tax benefits, the moment they allowed gay marriage, they started suing churches or people that owned properties that would rent it for a big party and events but did not want it to be used for gay marriage because it goes against their personal beliefs.

The gays that believe in Jesus Christ and the church KNOWN it's a big no, no. But still pushing progressive ideologies. They should have allowed the union to continue and be able to marry through the courts and give them the tax benefits and breaks, but not allow them to get married at a church. You're basicallyforcing the church and priests to marry you unwillingly. And let's be realistic, none of these people would force Muslims to marry them at a Mosque.

⬆️ (my bold)

There are plenty of "out" gay ministers/pastors/vicars (not sure about priests) that perform gay marriages in churches FYI.

:

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: The2Billies

Maybe LGBT shouldn't be trying to cram their bedroom activities down the throats of everyone else

That made me laugh...lol

In my business there are a lot of gay people and I have never encountered what you just described.

It is the I"m gay, be thrilled for me, applaud me attitude that I am describing. I don't want to know if you are gay, I don't care. I don't want to know if you are heterosexual, I don't care. Just be a real person and definitely not a parody of what a LGBT is "supposed" to be. In most encounters with most people, they don't want or need to know what gender person you sleep with or what pronoun you demand to be used when around you.

My daughter had a "flamboyant" gay friend. A few times he was just plain old "Steve" around me, a regular person, no flaming, no arm gestulating, just a real person with a normal tone of voice. Each time I said to him, you are a great person when you are just you, the real you, that is the best you.

A long time good acquaintance of mine, my bank manager, and I have been "friends" and really like each other and do a quickie chat whenever I"m in the bank. I knew him when he was part time and sent the company a message saying he should be full time. When he was full time, the bank manager then, was a total jerk who I could see was awful to employees and customers. I sent the company a message saying my "friend" should be manager and why. He was made bank manager, not because of my messages, but because he is great with people and good at his job. When he was given responsibility of 3 banks I congratulated him and saw a wedding ring for the first time and congratulated him on that. I asked how his wife was dealing with him being so busy at work, he said "my husband". I said "well how is your husband dealing with it." He laughed and said his husband was busy too so it didn't matter. We are still good acquaintances. I asked, he answered, no big deal. That is the way it should be. I didn't know he was gay, it wasn't my business and he did not make it my business until I congratulated him on getting married. That is how it should be with everyone.

That is what I mean. Like transgender, who are like a person I encounter at a store I go to. "She" behaves normally, not a funny walk meant to parody "women", not a weird voice meant to parody women, not weird makeup or hair that is normally only seen on drag queens. She is a normal person with a normal voice etc. I like "her" and she likes me as a person. When she is in the restroom she keeps her "junk" private as do all real XX women. It is when transgender behave as a parody of the biological sex they are not, or display their "junk" in locker rooms or restrooms that forces others to know their bedroom activities, and they expect others to applaud instead of be disgusted that they make their sexual proclivities "in your face" to others.

When LGBT behave in a manner that is a parody of gayness or LGBT that is forcing me to know what they do in the bedroom and putting it out for all to "approve of". That is forcing others to not only know their sexual proclivities but expecting others to applaud - almost in a menacing manner - applaud my sexual activities or else. I find that repulsive and rude.

a reply to: Albert999

I get it, I always got it. Read my reply please that is above this one. I wrote it before I read yours.
Thanks.