quote:

ORIGINAL: stella41b
It isn't religion nor the Bible which prevents same sex marriages, but the fears, hostility, prejudice and hatred from other people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stella41b
I cannot see any threat to the institution of marriage coming from allowing same sex couples to marry, none at all. It doesn't change the fact that the family is the bedrock of society, nor does it take away any of the importance of having children or being a parent. From what I can see allowing same sex marriages is something which is inclusive, and as such is something which makes communities and society much stronger through making them more unified.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stella41b

What does it mean for the rest of the world?
 

quote:

ORIGINAL: stella41b

And what does it mean for you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ahumananimal


I dunno. I happen to feel that marriage should be preserved as it was intended to be: between a man and a woman. After all, marriage has always meant that, and it's an institution of religion. Let them have their cake. We can make up another cake with just as many neat perks and recognitions and call it something else...a cross between marriage and civil union.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stella41b

And what does it mean for you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: stella41b
Your thoughts and comments please.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble


Is there harm to freedom to say that a certain percent of the population is not granted the same rights or priviledge to marry because of what's between their legs? Is there harm to freedom to say that no percent of the population shall be denied rights or priviledge because of what's between their legs? Why is what's between your legs more important to the concept of marriage than what's in your heart?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

Sooooooooo, given that argument atheists should not marry. Since they don't believe in said holy books.

Oh, and even though I am not an atheist but believe that these holy books are shit, I guess I wasn't really married.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stella41b

The people of the United States have elected Barack Obama to be their new President. I have witnessed the debates and the arguments over this election for the past 18 months and the past couple of days it would seem that Americans have woken up from a long sleep and have found their spirit. I witnessed the celebrations, watched the speeches, and have read numerous articles, threads, postings, etc and therefore am able to share in the sense of euphoria and happiness of an Obama victiory. But what does it mean for Americans? What does it mean for the rest of the world? And what does it mean for you?

Some people have said that this is a new era, for Americans now have a black President. I disagree somewhat here, and don't believe that it is a new era, but I strongly believe that it can be a new era - and that new era can be one of humanity and inclusivity.

You see I have a sincere hope when it comes to celebrating this victory of Obama making it to the White House. That hope is that one of the reasons behind the celebration of his victory is not because he is a black President, but rather because consideration of the colour of a candidate's skin or ethnicity is no longer an issue. Therefore I would hope that he was elected on the strength of his policies and for no other reason.

I am not American, but I am British, and I am proud to be British no.. I will rephrase that. I take a pride in being British and one of the reasons for this sense of pride is that I feel I am part of the world. This is partly due to the fact that not just me, but people who are also British come in all shapes and forms of humanity and that they are British irrespective of their skin colour, size, gender, sexual orientation and religious beliefs. I wonder how many of you out there feel the same. How many of you feel part of this world?

Race may be seen by some as just one issue, but for me there is no issue, there is one race - the human race. But here again race, or if you prefer skin colour (or shade) is but one part of this whole issue and that issue is humanity. I write this with reference also to the debate over same sex marriages recently in California. We are taught that marriage is a commitment between two people who love each other - traditionally a man and a woman - and who join together in matrimony to start a family. However there are successful families raised by same sex couples, so what is there to stop them getting married too?

Some would say religion. But is there a religion which exists which does not stand for love, kindness, and friendship shown towards one's fellow man? Is it really religion which stands in the way, or someone's own prejudices? Should not marriage be open to everybody who are capable of honouring their vows and creating a marriage out of love?

Love is not a heterosexual feeling, it is a human feeling, something someone feels, and needs, irrespective of who they are, and the same can be said about someone's need to be a part of a family. This can further be extended to say that we all need to feel part of a community, and part of society as a whole. Love is about as fundamental to someone - a human being - as freedom and life. It doesn't matter who you are, whether you are straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered, you are still capable of giving and receiving love, you still need a family and are able to be a part of that family, you need to be a part of that community and are able to be so, and you are a part of society.

It isn't religion nor the Bible which prevents same sex marriages, but the fears, hostility, prejudice and hatred from other people. It is what I would describe as a mentality of exclusivity, of holding others up to a standard. Yes ideally in accordance with the words in the scriptures a man and a woman should come together to love each other eternally and to procreate and have children, but how many people actually live up to that ideal? Is it not hypocrisy to exclude some people because they cannot fulfill that ideal, but then accept others who do not live up to that ideal?

I cannot see any threat to the institution of marriage coming from allowing same sex couples to marry, none at all. It doesn't change the fact that the family is the bedrock of society, nor does it take away any of the importance of having children or being a parent. From what I can see allowing same sex marriages is something which is inclusive, and as such is something which makes communities and society much stronger through making them more unified.

This election victory no doubt will mean different things to different people. It will mean something completely different to someone living in say, Dothan Alabama than it will to someone like me here in London. However for me nothing can take away anything from the fact that during this election with not much it would seem to choose from Americans were able to think inclusively and not discount Obama for reasons of skin colour. However if one can think inclusively in terms of skin colour, then why not gender and sexual orientation?

This is not something I feel which is exclusively American, it isn't, but an issue which can be found anywhere you go in this world and irrespective if who you are and where you come from I am asking the same question. Is it really too much effort for people to start thinking inclusively?

Your thoughts and comments please.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ahumananimal


It's not who and what you are, it's the ideas of a society and what customs hold it together.

I feel that allowing gay marriage will result in a breakdown of marriage itself—because of what it means, not only to religion, but to society.

quote:

It may (and probably will) deteriorate the idea of family as we know it, or in the very least, confuse it—and the ideas of traditional faith attached with it.

quote:

What will come next after that? And where do children fall into all of this?

quote:

It's a big social experiment because of the value we place on marriage in a familial and spiritual context.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ahumananimal

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

Sooooooooo, given that argument atheists should not marry. Since they don't believe in said holy books.

Oh, and even though I am not an atheist but believe that these holy books are shit, I guess I wasn't really married.

It's not who and what you are, it's the ideas of a society and what customs hold it together.

I feel that allowing gay marriage will result in a breakdown of marriage itself—because of what it means, not only to religion, but to society. It may (and probably will) deteriorate the idea of family as we know it, or in the very least, confuse it—and the ideas of traditional faith attached with it.

What will come next after that? And where do children fall into all of this? It's a big social experiment because of the value we place on marriage in a familial and spiritual context.

quote:

kdsub  
As far as gay marriage, at least in California, it was the black vote...70% for and the Hispanic..over 50 percent for... that passed the bill... I was very surprised when I read this. You would think with their experience with prejudice they would have been more understanding.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

quote:

ORIGINAL: ahumananimal

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

Sooooooooo, given that argument atheists should not marry. Since they don't believe in said holy books.

Oh, and even though I am not an atheist but believe that these holy books are shit, I guess I wasn't really married.

It's not who and what you are, it's the ideas of a society and what customs hold it together.

I feel that allowing gay marriage will result in a breakdown of marriage itself—because of what it means, not only to religion, but to society. It may (and probably will) deteriorate the idea of family as we know it, or in the very least, confuse it—and the ideas of traditional faith attached with it.

What will come next after that? And where do children fall into all of this? It's a big social experiment because of the value we place on marriage in a familial and spiritual context.

Yes, because hetro mono marriage works so well. And we know that all those uber sucessful marriages all have super happy and well adjusted children.

Sorry, but I really believe your shallow points are nothing more than empty arguments you are using to try and cover up a fear, or dislike, of homosexuality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FullfigRIMaam

Beautiful thoughts Stella.

quote:

kdsub  
As far as gay marriage, at least in California, it was the black vote...70% for and the Hispanic..over 50 percent for... that passed the bill... I was very surprised when I read this. You would think with their experience with prejudice they would have been more understanding.

I think you're being unfair, if in receiving 70% support, you felt not sufficient support came.  A lot of people with darker pigmentation have had to rely on their God/spirituality to survive, and as such, hold some fairly conservative views.  Being gay and gay marriage is not widely accepted among the less integrated/less educated people in general, black or white.  Marriage for a lot of folks is about religion, not civil rights.   M

quote:

ORIGINAL: stella41b

However for me nothing can take away anything from the fact that during this election with not much it would seem to choose from Americans were able to think inclusively and not discount Obama for reasons of skin colour. However if one can think inclusively in terms of skin colour, then why not gender and sexual orientation?

Your thoughts and comments please.