# What's the matter with gay marriage?



## Fruitythebeetle (Apr 28, 2019)

> what's the matter with gay marriage anyway?
> 
> The Supreme Court redefined a several hundred year old legal term to mean something it never meant which, incidentally, is not within their power to do.  So it's a combination of blatant judicial activism crossed with judicial overreach by unelected, unaccountable people.




So I was in a politics thread and someone justified why they were against gay marriage. This was the same guy felt like it was a requirement to "shoehorn" gay people cuz apparently "God forbid" gay people are treated as people ...

Sigh...why do people hate lgbt people again? It isn't the end of the world as we know it. People aren't gonna turn gay or some shit. Like people , actual human beings be happy. And if it takes a middle finger to the legal definition of marriage to do so, I would happily take that chance.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Apr 28, 2019)

Fruitythebeetle said:


> So I was in a politics thread and someone justified why they were against gay marriage. This was the same guy felt like it was a requirement to "shoehorn" gay people cuz apparently "God forbid" gay people are treated as people ...
> 
> Sigh...why do people hate lgbt people again? It isn't the end of the world as we know it. People aren't gonna turn gay or some shit. Like people , actual human beings be happy. And if it takes a middle finger to the legal definition of marriage to do so, I would happily take that chance.


In a word, nothing.

I'm sorry you for what you are going through right now, both here and elsewhere.

I'd say more, but I'm cooking breakfast so I'll settle for replying to the choice comments that are sure to come.


----------



## Infrarednexus (Apr 28, 2019)

I came out to my parents and told them I was in a relationship with another man a few months ago and both my mother and father were very supportive and proud of me. They offered to give me all the help I needed in meeting with this person. I am not as concerned with what some stranger online thinks of who I want to marry. It's my friends and family who's opinions I care about the most.


----------



## Narcissa_x (Apr 28, 2019)

One of the biggest issues is that there are people who care far too much about other peoples business!
There's nothing "wrong" with gay marriage. It's an awful term to use. 

I'm bisexual and my best friend is gay; he doesn't like using the word 'marriage' because of it's associations with the catholic/christian faith but that his personal feelings. A lot of LGBT people, including christians, want to get married - and there's no reason not to! 

People are bigots and want power over others - that's all there is to it. ​


----------



## dragon-in-sight (Apr 28, 2019)

Fruitythebeetle said:


> Sigh...why do people hate lgbt people again?



This has multiple reasons. But they're equally irrational.

*machoism -* as an ideological transfigured concept of gender roles, belives in strickt and rigid patterns that make a guy manly. Anything that deviates from this corset is seen to be a threat for society. But since most machos are born out of an insecurity in regards to their own male qualities, the real fear for them is to be seen as week when they don't macht their strickt norms. So they call out and bash everyone who deviates from these even more, to distract from their own wealness and flaws. 

*chauvinism -* similar to the macho, the chauvinist belives in a normative world view in which he and his actions are superior to these of others. Only normal things have a right to exist, while at the same time normal translates to them like: "The way I am, feel, act and belive." So if the chauvinist isn't LGBT himself. He is likely to reject it in a most radical way, aswell as anything else he doesn't like or understand.

*power -* Since Love and Sexuality is a form of Freedom it's a thread to these who aim to controll the lives of others. This is why most Authoritarian regimes or Religios institutions despise LGBTs. Because they act out of the moral codes they use to enforce their law and ideology on the people.

*traditionalism -* When the persecution of certain minorities was commited over a longer periode of time. Peole are rather less prone to question these ideological patterns. They are viewn as good old traditions that should have their place even none kwos their origin anymore. Traditions give people a sense of community and stability. So they will fight with claw and teeth to preserve them even if they no they are wrong.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Apr 28, 2019)

Backward primitives continue to think that ancient mythology has any bearing on how modern, civilized humans should act.


----------



## Yakamaru (Apr 28, 2019)

What thread was this in?

As for gay marriage: Who cares? The majority of those who are against gay marriage are religious anyway, using outdated notions of who and what someone is allowed to marry.


----------



## AppleButt (Apr 28, 2019)

Nothing is wrong with gay marriage.  Most people around have no problem with it.  

The problem is people who don't care one way or the other, a lot of times aren't going to fight against the stigma against it.


----------



## MaetheDragon (Apr 28, 2019)

Yeah, everyone else in this thread pretty much summed it up. People against gay marriage today are just old fossils who can’t keep up with modern society. I don’t think any sane person today would be against it, unless they were somehow raised to be that way.


----------



## Yakamaru (Apr 28, 2019)

MCtheBeardie said:


> Yeah, everyone else in this thread pretty much summed it up. People against gay marriage today are just old fossils who can’t keep up with modern society. I don’t think any sane person today would be against it, unless they were somehow raised to be that way.


It's how religion survives: Through being raised on it as a child.


----------



## MaetheDragon (Apr 28, 2019)

True. That’s how religion thrives.

I was raised on it, myself. If there’s anything I learned from that, it wasn’t to persecute people based on who they want to marry.


----------



## Moar Krabs (Apr 28, 2019)

I myself was also raised on religion. But I don’t hold a dagger to someone’s throat and say “You can’t marry this person” unlike other people


----------



## Jackpot Raccuki (Apr 28, 2019)

Because: "New thing bad. Change bad. Grrs."

Pretty sure I was baptized, even though my family aren't heavily religious, like sure I've seen them pray, but y'know not the kind of people to even bring it up.
Plus they're open, or at least my mom is, I know my dad can be... Iffy on some stuff though I wanna assume he's trying to make a joke about his age.


----------



## CrookedCroc (Apr 28, 2019)

People think it would ruin the sanctity of marriage but tbh straight people already do that


----------



## MaetheDragon (Apr 28, 2019)

Smexy Likeok4™ said:


> Because: "New thing bad. Change bad. Grrs."
> 
> Pretty sure I was baptized, even though my family aren't heavily religious, like sure I've seen them pray, but y'know not the kind of people to even bring it up.
> Plus they're open, or at least my mom is, I know my dad can be... Iffy on some stuff though I wanna assume he's trying to make a joke about his age.



That’s pretty similar to my religious experience, too. My family is pretty casual about religion, and are open to all sorts of things that don’t necessarily fall in line with our religion. Except for my dad.

He’s stubborn to a fault... I hold out for hope that he’ll get there one day.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 28, 2019)

@Smexy Likeok4™
That made me realise.
I was christened under the Church of England. So while I can get married in the UK in a secular service, or in a Quaker church, I'm legally forbidden from being married in any church belonging to the denomination that is officially 'mine', and that is the official Church of this country.

I guess we're two-thirds of the way there on marriage equality in the UK.



CrookedCroc said:


> People think it would ruin the sanctity of marriage but tbh straight people already do that
> View attachment 60623



I dare you to have a furry wedding. :]


----------



## Slytherin Umbreon (Apr 28, 2019)

That's ghey


----------



## Moar Krabs (Apr 28, 2019)

Slytherin Umbreon said:


> That's ghey


----------



## Yakamaru (Apr 28, 2019)

CrookedCroc said:


> People think it would ruin the sanctity of marriage but tbh straight people already do that
> View attachment 60623


.....

Hon, get the flamethrower.


----------



## CrookedCroc (Apr 28, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> I dare you to have a furry wedding. :



I can't, I would need a partner first


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 28, 2019)

CrookedCroc said:


> I can't, I would need a partner first
> View attachment 60625



I think we can find a mutually beneficial solution here. ;]


----------



## SeleneVerdelho (Apr 28, 2019)

I like to hope that maybe there aren't as many horrible people in the world as we think... Maybe we just hear the most horrible ones, because controversial stuff gets more hits and clicks and stuff in media. So the few bad ones who can't let go of dumb beliefs from the past are all we see - but maybe most of the world is okay and knows that everyone should just be being themselves?


----------



## CrookedCroc (Apr 28, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> I think we can find a mutually beneficial solution here. ;]


Deal, I want the wedding to be in a garden during spring btw


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Apr 28, 2019)

SeleneVerdelho said:


> I like to hope that maybe there aren't as many horrible people in the world as we think... Maybe we just hear the most horrible ones, because controversial stuff gets more hits and clicks and stuff in media. So the few bad ones who can't let go of dumb beliefs from the past are all we see - but maybe most of the world is okay and knows that everyone should just be being themselves?


I strongly doubt this.


----------



## Trevorbluesquirrel (Apr 28, 2019)

What's the matter!!!!?

Why, if everyone were equal, how could anyone possibly feel the superiority they crave!!!?


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Apr 28, 2019)

Fruitythebeetle said:


> Sigh...why do people hate lgbt people again? It isn't the end of the world as we know it.


 Probably because the haters are gonna hate, no matter what is said and done. 

And, as a gay man myself - if I discover that someone hates me (for who I am) - then... generally, I just shrug it off, and go about my day... as some arguments just aren't worth it.


----------



## Trevorbluesquirrel (Apr 28, 2019)

Chuck Lorre said it best!

*CHUCK LORRE PRODUCTIONS, #231*

I believe that inherent within the God-given right to the pursuit of happiness, is the equally God-given right to the pursuit of unhappiness. That is why I support gay marriage.

Ba-dump-bump!


----------



## CertifiedCervine (Apr 28, 2019)

Yakamaru said:


> It's how religion survives: Through being raised on it as a child.


I’d say it depends on how it’s taught. Some religious parents will casually share with their children, and support them regardless of their choices.

But sometimes parents enforce religion over their kids to gain more control of them, and both can depend on how a child views religion. Some repeat what their strict parent did (unfortunately) but some kids who still feel comfortable with religion are able to repeat what their kind parents did, and be open to newer concepts, such as gay marriage. I wouldn’t say it’s a religious problem, but more of an “older people stuck in their ways” sort of thing, that is sometimes tied into religion or politics by older members of the belief.


----------



## Yakamaru (Apr 28, 2019)

TacomaTheDeer said:


> I’d say it depends on how it’s taught. Some religious parents will casually share with their children, and support them regardless of their choices.
> 
> But sometimes parents enforce religion over their kids to gain more control of them, and both can depend on how a child views religion. Some repeat what their strict parent did (unfortunately) but some kids who still feel comfortable with religion are able to repeat what their kind parents did, and be open to newer concepts, such as gay marriage. I wouldn’t say it’s a religious problem, but more of an “older people stuck in their ways” sort of thing, that is sometimes tied into religion or politics by older members of the belief.


Indeed. Mine was casual about it, and didn't react much to me officially saying I was an Atheist. I think I'm the first one in my family to leave the state church and go in such a direction.


----------



## Dragoneer (Apr 28, 2019)

Fruitythebeetle said:


> Sigh...why do people hate lgbt people again? It isn't the end of the world as we know it. People aren't gonna turn gay or some shit. Like people , actual human beings be happy. And if it takes a middle finger to the legal definition of marriage to do so, I would happily take that chance.


Because people are stupid. People like to make the argument that a Biblical marriage is defined between a man and a women, but... marriage isn't a religious endeavor in a lot of countries. Using the Bible as an excuse to curtail LGBT folk from marrying is backwards.

Governments regulate marriage, governments issue marriage licenses, and governments take the fees for it. Marriage, in the United States, is a government institution, _not a religious one.  _To say that a marriage needs to be between two specific people is ridiculous since they've taken the church completely out of the topic.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 28, 2019)

Dragoneer said:


> Because people are stupid. People like to make the argument that a Biblical marriage is defined between a man and a women, but... marriage isn't a religious endeavor in a lot of countries. Using the Bible as an excuse to curtail LGBT folk from marrying is backwards.
> 
> Governments regulate marriage, governments issue marriage licenses, and governments take the fees for it. Marriage, in the United States, is a government institution, _not a religious one.  _To say that a marriage needs to be between two specific people is ridiculous since they've taken the church completely out of the topic.



In addition, many Churches are welcoming to gay people- after all there's no single correct version of religion, so the state forbidding those marriages entirely represents an intrusion into people's religious freedom.


----------



## Dragoneer (Apr 28, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> In addition, many Churches are welcoming to gay people- after all there's no single correct version of religion, so the state forbidding those marriages entirely represents an intrusion into people's religious freedom.


The problem, as I see it, is people define religion based only on the religion _they follow_. There's tens of thousands of branches of Christianity. They've all got slight differences, and nobody can genuinely seem to agree on what the central ideals mean. They're different to everybody.

So to force one religion's ideals on other people when it has _nothing to do_ with marriage as an institution is insane.


----------



## LaPandaBlasee (Apr 28, 2019)

everyone summed it up really, religion is cool when people arent dickwads. That's it, atleast my family doesn't try to stop or fight you for being gay unlike some others with the need to be edgy and important.
So yeah, really just don't give a fuck about those religious bitches, they smell bad anyway.


----------



## WolfyAmbassador (Apr 28, 2019)

I think with a separation of church and state, I'm cool with churches deciding if they want to perform them or not if it's part of their beliefs.


----------



## Dragoneer (Apr 28, 2019)

WolfyAmbassador said:


> I think with a separation of church and state, I'm cool with churches deciding if they want to perform them or not if it's part of their beliefs.


The biggest problem wasn't the churches, but the benefits. Because the Old Guard(tm) was still in power at the time they wanted to deny people the right to gay marry, but since marriage is a government institution in the United States, that meant it was up to the government to define what marriage is or isn't. Civil unions between LGBT members existed, but unlike a marriage, it didn't come with benefits. "Marriage" as a term only mattered because it gave people additional legal rights that civil unions did not.

Every church could deny gay marriage, and that'd be within their rights, but since you can just go down to townhall and get married...


----------



## WolfyAmbassador (Apr 28, 2019)

Dragoneer said:


> The biggest problem wasn't the churches, but the benefits. Because the Old Guard(tm) was still in power at the time they wanted to deny people the right to gay marry, but since marriage is a government institution in the United States, that meant it was up to the government to define what marriage is or isn't. Civil unions between LGBT members existed, but unlike a marriage, it didn't come with benefits. "Marriage" as a term only mattered because it gave people additional legal rights that civil unions did not.
> 
> Every church could deny gay marriage, and that'd be within their rights, but since you can just go down to townhall and get married...


 That's understandable, I'm merely talking about people who demand churches and religious people change their ways and traditions.


----------



## Alopecoid (Apr 28, 2019)

Some people are just always going to be assholes and hate people who are different from them. We know that pretty well as furries, right? It's a sad fact about humanity, and I've found it's futile to try to understand why some people are like this.

Thankfully, public opinion on gay marriage and LGBT rights in general has shifted a lot in a positive direction. And all the hysterical predictions homophobes made about the consequences of gay marriage were - shocker! - shown to be total bullshit.

The caveat, though, is we're seeing an ugly resurgence of bigotry and violence in various forms in this country. Just the other day there was another shooting at a synagogue. This is scary shit.

So I hope young people who grew up taking things like a  gay marriage for granted realize that all this progress is being threatened and could easily be wiped out. And I hope they - and the rest of us - get out there and vote, because that's the only way to protect it.


----------



## Saurex (May 2, 2019)

Fruitythebeetle said:


> Sigh...why do people hate lgbt people again? It isn't the end of the world as we know it. People aren't gonna turn gay or some shit. Like people , actual human beings be happy. And if it takes a middle finger to the legal definition of marriage to do so, I would happily take that chance.


A lot of people don't like the LGBTQ community as a mass because there are some really "loud" people in that community that insist on being in everyone's face 24/7 about the fact that they are gay.

Yes, there are terrible people out there who just want an excuse to hate. Yes, there are people who firmly believe that whatever divine power they ascribe to frowns on any relationship that is not between a man and woman. Yes... human beings are terrible little monsters that enjoy conflict, torment and power. There are, however, a lot of us out there who flat out do not care. My personal opinion has always been that who you peg or who you choose as a life partner is none of my business. However, I also expect the same courtesy. It's not my business to tell you what to think, so don't try to tell me what to think.

That, I believe, is what upsets most people. There is a push from many sides to strong-arm people into not just saying "okay they can get married" but to embrace, condone and support the LGBTQ community regardless of what they think. There are voices on both sides of the issue trying to shout each other down and those of us caught in the middle would like both sides to just be quiet. Let the LGBTQ community get married (or whatever term they wish to be). It's their business. Let them be. At the same time, I know a lot of people who are wearied by the constant barrage of media telling them that because they don't agree 100% with the LGBTQ community they're the worst kind of scum on the face of the earth and that unless they change their minds they're homophobes, bigots, etc. etc. etc. and you can only hear that for so long before you say, "You know what, fine! I do hate them!"


----------



## David Drake (May 2, 2019)

The offending line in the Torah that got carried over when Christians adapted it to their "Old Testiment" was put there because Judaism was still relatively small. We wanted to grow more of them the old fashioned way, so why waste the raw materials?

Of course, modern understanding negates a lot of the old laws, and all but the most stupidly orthodox sects of Judaism have no real issue with at least the LBG anymore (not sure on their stance on the T - my own Judaism has been more ethnic than spiritual for a while so I haven't kept up - and individual bigots do still exist because people suck)


----------



## Tendo64 (May 2, 2019)

Absolutely nothing. It's just that some people forget that America is not a theocracy.

Have your beliefs, but don't force them on everyone else. America gives us the right of freedom of religion--which means its laws aren't going to abide to the bible.


----------



## Fallowfox (May 2, 2019)

Saurex said:


> A lot of people don't like the LGBTQ community as a mass because there are some really "loud" people in that community that insist on being in everyone's face 24/7 about the fact that they are gay.
> 
> Yes, there are terrible people out there who just want an excuse to hate. Yes, there are people who firmly believe that whatever divine power they ascribe to frowns on any relationship that is not between a man and woman. Yes... human beings are terrible little monsters that enjoy conflict, torment and power. There are, however, a lot of us out there who flat out do not care. My personal opinion has always been that who you peg or who you choose as a life partner is none of my business. However, I also expect the same courtesy. It's not my business to tell you what to think, so don't try to tell me what to think.
> 
> That, I believe, is what upsets most people. There is a push from many sides to strong-arm people into not just saying "okay they can get married" but to embrace, condone and support the LGBTQ community regardless of what they think. There are voices on both sides of the issue trying to shout each other down and those of us caught in the middle would like both sides to just be quiet. Let the LGBTQ community get married (or whatever term they wish to be). It's their business. Let them be. At the same time, I know a lot of people who are wearied by the constant barrage of media telling them that because they don't agree 100% with the LGBTQ community they're the worst kind of scum on the face of the earth and that unless they change their minds they're homophobes, bigots, etc. etc. etc. and you can only hear that for so long before you say, "You know what, fine! I do hate them!"



If you feel like you're being persauded to hate others, try to walk  a mile in somebody else's moccasins. 
Consider things from the perspective of, say, a lesbian who just wants the same freedoms as other people- to be respected as anyone else would be. 

In order to achieve that, you raised your voice to make yourself heard. How would you feel about being told that doing so made you too brash and loud, and that this alone was enough not just to dismiss you but to hate you and all people _like_ you? 

I think the solution is plain to see. If we find that watching the news exasperates us, we can just turn off the television. The mild inconvenience we might experience being asked to change our minds, or being engaged in a vociferous discussion, is a trifling complaint compared to being unequal under the law, anyway.


----------



## Saurex (May 2, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> If you feel like you're being persauded to hate others, try to walk  a mile in somebody else's moccasins.
> Consider things from the perspective of, say, a lesbian who just wants the same freedoms as other people- to be respected as anyone else would be.
> 
> In order to achieve that, you raised your voice to make yourself heard. How would you feel about being told that doing so made you too brash and loud, and that this alone was enough not just to dismiss you but to hate you and all people _like_ you?
> ...


So I'm a bad person because I won't stand with the LGBTQ community and engage in the shouting down of people who disagree with them but who also have no influence or power in the arenas where real change can be made?

And who still watches the news? When I say media I am referring to almost all platforms of media. Heaven help anyone who says "I don't agree with you, but I'm not going to get in your way either." Doing so apparently (judging by your response and others I've encountered elsewhere) makes you a hater who wants people to suffer.


----------



## Fallowfox (May 2, 2019)

Saurex said:


> So I'm a bad person because I won't stand with the LGBTQ community and engage in the shouting down of people who disagree with them but who also have no influence or power in the arenas where real change can be made?
> 
> And who still watches the news? When I say media I am referring to almost all platforms of media. Heaven help anyone who says "I don't agree with you, but I'm not going to get in your way either." Doing so apparently (judging by your response and others I've encountered elsewhere) makes you a hater who wants people to suffer.



I'm not trying to accuse you of being a bad person. 

I'm just pointing out that exasperation due to petty arguments and the like- while definitely understandable (we all experience it at some point!) isn't a very good reason to decide that we hate other groups of people. 
If we _do_ feel like we're falling into that way of thinking, the tonic is to try imagining what the world is like from other people's perspectives, and then often after taking the time to do that, we won't feel exasperated anymore anyway. :]


----------



## Luminouscales (May 2, 2019)

Honestly, I think that gay relationships shouldn't be encouraged at all by allowing homosexual marriages, but since changing a person's orientation is extremely unlikely, I guess it's just a thing for old people.

Oh, and thanks Saurex for being smart.


----------



## Bluefiremark II (May 2, 2019)

There's always going to be someone to hate on something, people who disagree but are nice about it, people who agree with it, and people who agree and participate in said thing. For every dingle thing this is a valid statement. It's just how the world is. Opinions.


----------



## MaetheDragon (May 2, 2019)

Saurex said:


> So I'm a bad person because I won't stand with the LGBTQ community and engage in the shouting down of people who disagree with them but who also have no influence or power in the arenas where real change can be made?
> 
> And who still watches the news? When I say media I am referring to almost all platforms of media. Heaven help anyone who says "I don't agree with you, but I'm not going to get in your way either." Doing so apparently (judging by your response and others I've encountered elsewhere) makes you a hater who wants people to suffer.





Fallowfox said:


> I'm not trying to accuse you of being a bad person.
> 
> I'm just pointing out that exasperation due to petty arguments and the like- while definitely understandable (we all experience it at some point!) isn't a very good reason to decide that we hate other groups of people.
> If we _do_ feel like we're falling into that way of thinking, the tonic is to try imagining what the world is like from other people's perspectives, and then often after taking the time to do that, we won't feel exasperated anymore anyway. :]



If I may interject, Saurex thinks very similarly to the way my dad does. He too doesn't like the LGBT community due to the members that might be more loud and obnoxious than others, but he's not about to go out of his way in order to stop them from living their lives. In that case, I say you can feel free to believe in what you want, as long as it doesn't hurt other people or cause conflict in the process. I've had the privilege of seeing both sides of the story, so I respect people who might not want to stand with a community they see as a little hateful, based on their experience. Saurex isn't impeding anyone by doing so, he's simply sitting on the sidelines. He doesn't have to feel obligated to consider certain things if he doesn't want to, he is a human being, after all. Only he can decide what he believes, at the end of the day.


----------



## Saurex (May 2, 2019)

Bluefiremark II said:


> There's always going to be someone to hate on something, people who disagree but are nice about it, people who agree with it, and people who agree and participate in said thing. For every dingle thing this is a valid statement. It's just how the world is. Opinions.


May I just say I love the fact that you used the term "dingle"? Post of the day!


----------



## Fallowfox (May 2, 2019)

MCtheBeardie said:


> If I may interject, Saurex thinks very similarly to the way my dad does. He too doesn't like the LGBT community due to the members that might be more loud and obnoxious than others, but he's not about to go out of his way in order to stop them from living their lives. In that case, I say you can feel free to believe in what you want, as long as it doesn't hurt other people or cause conflict in the process. I've had the privilege of seeing both sides of the story, so I respect people who might not want to stand with a community they see as a little hateful, based on their experience. Saurex isn't impeding anyone by doing so, he's simply sitting on the sidelines. He doesn't have to feel obligated to consider certain things if he doesn't want to, he is a human being, after all. Only he can decide what he believes, at the end of the day.




I feel I should point out that...we kinda shouldn't hate a whole bunch of people 'because some can be annoying'.
But as soon as I do that I'm aware that people will think 'I'm one of the annoying ones'.

It's like the only way out is to shut up and _hope_ that other people don't decide they hate you because of other people's actions that you have no control over. :C

I'm always surprised how regularly we see these sorts of sentiments on a furry forum. It shouldn't be a place where gay people come and read comments about how people who might hate us are being perfectly reasonable. ;^;


----------



## MaetheDragon (May 2, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> I feel I should point out that...we kinda shouldn't hate a whole bunch of people 'because some can be annoying'.
> But as soon as I do that I'm aware that people will think 'I'm one of the annoying ones'.
> 
> It's like the only way out is to shut up and _hope_ that other people don't decide they hate you because of other people's actions that you have no control over. :C
> ...



I understand, but people are fickle, y'know? You don't have to stop talking about your opinions because someone mentions an opposite opinion, you can say whatever you wish.

I also don't see you as annoying, fren. I just want to say my peace, I respect you for voicing your thoughts.


----------



## Saurex (May 2, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> I'm not trying to accuse you of being a bad person.
> 
> I'm just pointing out that exasperation due to petty arguments and the like- while definitely understandable (we all experience it at some point!) isn't a very good reason to decide that we hate other groups of people.
> If we _do_ feel like we're falling into that way of thinking, the tonic is to try imagining what the world is like from other people's perspectives, and then often after taking the time to do that, we won't feel exasperated anymore anyway. :]


I agree with the perspective shoes exercise and it's why I just stay out of the way. I believe humans are humans, regardless of any factors. They should be treated just like any other person. However, I have no influence on the world as a whole and my impact on my community on a local, state and national level is also nonexistent. So, when people get super heated because I won't engage on their behalf against those they count as enemies, I understand why there are those who take up arms for the other side of the debate.
Honestly I'm glad there are activists out there. They are sorely needed. I just expect them to respect my ability to make up my own mind, you know? As Bluefiremark II said: Opinions


----------



## Saurex (May 2, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> I feel I should point out that...we kinda shouldn't hate a whole bunch of people 'because some can be annoying'.
> But as soon as I do that I'm aware that people will think 'I'm one of the annoying ones'.
> 
> It's like the only way out is to shut up and _hope_ that other people don't decide they hate you because of other people's actions that you have no control over. :C
> ...


You aren't annoying


----------



## MaetheDragon (May 2, 2019)

I think, at the end of the day, what this debate is really about is learning to understand that not everyone is going to be happy with a certain opinion, regardless of perspective.

I just hope people can understand that it's okay to speak your mind, regardless if someone stands against it. At the end of the day, if you don't agree, then that's that. No one is stopping you from spreading what you believe- what matters is that you have conviction in those beliefs, @Fallowfox 

It's hard, but just know there are people who will respect you. I certainly do, and I agree with what you're saying!


----------



## quoting_mungo (May 2, 2019)

Saurex said:


> That, I believe, is what upsets most people. There is a push from many sides to strong-arm people into not just saying "okay they can get married" but to embrace, condone and support the LGBTQ community regardless of what they think. There are voices on both sides of the issue trying to shout each other down and those of us caught in the middle would like both sides to just be quiet. Let the LGBTQ community get married (or whatever term they wish to be). It's their business. Let them be. At the same time, I know a lot of people who are wearied by the constant barrage of media telling them that because they don't agree 100% with the LGBTQ community they're the worst kind of scum on the face of the earth and that unless they change their minds they're homophobes, bigots, etc. etc. etc. and you can only hear that for so long before you say, "You know what, fine! I do hate them!"


If you go out of your way to treat queer people differently than straight people you _are_ being homophobic/bigoted, though. I do believe we need to be very careful about applying labels like that to _people_, but if you're, say, complaining that gay people are kissing where your kids may see it, and don't have a problem with them seeing a straight couple kissing, your _actions_ are homophobic. If you can live and let live and keep your opinions to yourself, you can have basically any opinion you want for all I care. 

Some things I have seen recounted all too commonly:
- Different tolerances for public displays of affection between gay and straight couples. If it's okay for Bob and Sue to hold hands, it's okay for Mark and Steven, or Jane and Mary. If you (gen.) don't approve of it, that's your problem.
- Different content ratings depending on whether content shows a straight or a gay couple. Rating a movie PG when it features a straight romance but PG-13 if the romance is between two same-sex individuals is pure anti-gay bias.
- Objections to non-hetero sexualities even being _mentioned_ in the school system. Hearing about gay people won't make kids gay, any more than being taught about birds and bees makes you pregnant.

You (gen.) don't need to condone homosexuality (though if you can't bring yourself to be supportive if your kid turns out to be gay I reserve the right to think you have a stick up your ass and are being a pretty shitty parent), but you should, as a grown-ass adult, have the self-control to not treat them differently than you would straight people. As you (Saurex) said, it's their business, so let them go about their lives without giving them grief.


----------



## Angelcakes (May 3, 2019)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with same-sex marriage. Not one thing.


----------



## Shadow of Bucephalus (May 3, 2019)

Fruitythebeetle said:


> So I was in a politics thread and someone justified why they were against gay marriage. This was the same guy felt like it was a requirement to "shoehorn" gay people cuz apparently "God forbid" gay people are treated as people ...
> 
> Sigh...why do people hate lgbt people again? It isn't the end of the world as we know it. People aren't gonna turn gay or some shit. Like people , actual human beings be happy. And if it takes a middle finger to the legal definition of marriage to do so, I would happily take that chance.


I don't have a problem with Gay 'Union(s)'.
The word 'Marriage' does have a long tradition of one single meaning-  Man and Woman (or women, dep. on theology/cultural perspective).
Hijacking a word the vast majority of people believe means one thing,,,
and trying to alter it to suit the ambition(s) of a minority?
That's just causing trouble for litigations' sake.
The Judicial System doesn't need more of societies' $$$.


----------



## Fallowfox (May 3, 2019)

Shadow of Bucephalus said:


> I don't have a problem with Gay 'Union(s)'.
> The word 'Marriage' does have a long tradition of one single meaning-  Man and Woman (or women, dep. on theology/cultural perspective).
> Hijacking a word the vast majority of people believe means one thing,,,
> and trying to alter it to suit the ambition(s) of a minority?
> ...



Words exist to serve our needs, rather than the other way around, so we're always adapting words' meanings. Like the word 'computer', or 'car'. ;D 
Same sex marriages actually have a pretty long history in the ancient world anyway though; having occurred in ancient Mesopotamia, Greece, Assyria and Egypt. 
There were even Roman emperors who had gay weddings! 
Gay Weddings only stopped in Rome after Christianity became the official religion. So if anything, we're actually *returning* to some of the ancient ways. ;]

As a gay person I think that extending marriage to include us is a good thing regardless of whether the Romans did it of course, because marriage is not just a word- it comes with important legal and religious weight, (yes gay people can believe in religion too and have a right to worship freely without state intervention!). Our only ambition in achieving this was to have the same access to cultural and legal institutions that everybody else already enjoys- so it was a pretty reasonable thing to ask for. 
Now that we have it in many countries, life continues as normal and people wonder what the fuss was ever about.


----------



## Shadow of Bucephalus (May 3, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> Words exist to serve our needs, rather than the other way around, so we're always adapting words' meanings. Like the word 'computer', or 'car'. ;D
> Same sex marriages actually have a pretty long history in the ancient world anyway though; having occurred in ancient Mesopotamia, Greece, Assyria and Egypt.
> There were even Roman emperors who had gay weddings!
> Gay Weddings only stopped in Rome after Christianity became the official religion. So if anything, we're actually *returning* to some of the ancient ways. ;]
> ...



Again, I have no problem with two adults (gender doesn't matter), loving one another, and wishing to be wed.  
The world has a severe lack of love.
It is the word 'Marriage' that is causing (has caused), so much trouble.
Most married people are heterosexual.  They make up the majority of a many-centuries-based foundation of 'Definition'.

You hijack tradition, you can't expect open arms and happy sentiments from the majority that don't share your orientation.

Hell, I feel much the same way with the word 'Liberal(s)'.  THAT has been warped 180 degrees from what it ONCE meant!  (and I am not a supporter of THAT, either).

Why pick a fight when it isn't necessary?  Too much drink?  Chip on the shoulder?  Arrogance?  Pride?

As a living Pagan/Heathen, I'd be a hyprocrit in trying deny 'Love/Affection/Lust' two (or more?) people share.  Rut-on, and don't mind the audience!


----------



## Fallowfox (May 3, 2019)

Shadow of Bucephalus said:


> Again, I have no problem with two adults (gender doesn't matter), loving one another, and wishing to be wed.
> The world has a severe lack of love.
> It is the word 'Marriage' that is causing (has caused), so much trouble.
> Most married people are heterosexual.  They make up the majority of a many-centuries-based foundation of 'Definition'.
> ...



We didn't want to have access to marriage because we were_ drunk, proud or arrogant_. We wanted it because it was necessary to have the same legal and religious standing as other folk.
Why did we need those things...well, why do _you _need them? We need them for the same reasons you do.

Now that it's been achieved, I feel most ordinary people are happy to include us in this institution. C: In the next decades people will be surprised that we ever weren't allowed to marry.
It will be like how people to today are shocked to contemplate that women used to need a man's permission to open a bank account a few decades ago. (Women in the UK got this right in *1975*!)


----------



## Peach's (May 3, 2019)

A reminder that while gay marriage might be the case in the US, there are many states were gay people cannot adopt and where you can legally discriminate them.


----------



## Shadow of Bucephalus (May 3, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> We didn't want to have access to marriage because we were_ drunk, proud or arrogant_. We wanted it because it was necessary to have the same legal and religious standing as other folk.
> Why did we need those things...well, why do _you _need them? We need them for the same reasons you do.
> 
> Now that it's been achieved, I feel most ordinary people are happy to include us in this institution. C: In the next decades people will be surprised that we ever weren't allowed to marry.
> It will be like how people to today are shocked to contemplate that women used to need a man's permission to open a bank account a few decades ago. (Women in the UK got this right in *1975*!)



You're preaching to the choir, Fallow.
A legal 'Union' providing all the benefits of 'Marriage' already established by Law/Custom is fine.
The appropriation of a word that strikes an extremely deep chord in a NEGATIVE way towards all the hetero-married people in the world, is not the best way to get gay acceptance forwarded.
Unless causing that angst is/was the objective, too?  Rub their noses in it?  

For the record, I and my late wife were never 'Married' in any Court, by any Judge.  We were 'Hand-Fasted', and due to being together for x-amount of years, the 'Normal Court' called it 'Common Law' (though I suspect we listed our Ceremony as being 'Hand-Fasted' helped shush the Court of any real effort to nullify our Vows/Commitment?).

We never said we were 'Married'.  We didn't have to.  She was my wife.  I was her husband.  That is how we talked to other people about our relationship.  Of course, that's easy when you're heterosexual.  We had no issues with legal matters (perhaps we were simply lucky?).  I had access to her bank accnt., she, mine.  When she was sick and dying, no Doctor/Hospital ever made any attempt to limit my visitations or inquires about her health, treatments and such.  Now, we were never rich.  We did not own Stocks, we did not have an 'Estate'.  Perhaps being poor also worked in our favor, by minimizing anything the govt. MIGHT otherwise have wanted to grab it's greedy little fingers on, when she died?  (This 'Inheritance Tax' horseshit being one that comes to my mind, first)

Homo or Bisexual Unions by default (normally there's no doubt as to the genders involved, but for the love of all the Gods, let's not erode this topic into THAT pool of terminal miasma), automatically raise eyebrows in the hetero-world/society. "Say what, again?"  : raising of the eyebrow(s) :: )

I am all for two people who want to be together, and afforded ALL the Rights, Legal, Heterosexual Marriages provided, too.

I just don't happen to believe appropriating the same word which by Tradition meant something else, was a wise move on the LGBT's part.


----------



## Cat-!Cross!Sans (May 3, 2019)

i don't really think about it much i don't agree or disagree with gay marriage just live your life how you want to


----------



## Shadow of Bucephalus (May 3, 2019)

CrookedCroc said:


> I can't, I would need a partner first
> View attachment 60625


heh
Hell, if I had enough time left in this life, to meet a fellow furry?
I'd do it!
(I want Duke as the Host/DJ, along with FoxAmoore ticklin' the Ivories!)
That'd be an *EPIC* event...  Do it at a Con...


----------



## Cat-!Cross!Sans (May 3, 2019)

mm no idea wat dat means but oki
?


----------



## quoting_mungo (May 3, 2019)

Shadow of Bucephalus said:


> A legal 'Union' providing all the benefits of 'Marriage' already established by Law/Custom is fine.


The issue here is that you'd then have to add "form of union" to discrimination protections - it would be trivial for businesses to say "we will serve wedded couples but not union-ed ones" if they wanted to. And most of the people who opposed marriages being opened up to gay people, would then bitch just as much about how truly making the two equal is compelled speech or whatever. "Separate but equal" is just a bad idea, history has shown that much.

If you (gen.) absolutely have to protect the word "marriage" just convert the legal institution wholesale. You can still be married in a church as a personal ceremonial thing, but the legal side would be called something else _for everyone_. 

As Fallow pointed out there's also historical precedent for gay marriage, so... *shrug* I don't think arguing semantics or attempting to give one group ownership of a word is a good idea. Hell, far as the tradition/majority argument goes, majority of people having sex are having heterosexual sex, but that doesn't mean they should be allowed to define what sex can and cannot be, either. (Sodomy laws can go sit on a cactus.)


----------



## jffry890 (May 4, 2019)

Remove government involvement in marriage and you just have a religious ceremony.  There would be no such thing as gay marriage if the government didn't give out tax breaks for a marriage contract.  You can't (shouldn't) force a religion to perform heretical acts for no reason.  Forcing a priest to marry two gays is like forcing a Jew or Muslim to eat ham.  Or better yet, force them to perform a gay wedding (which you never see because they're vehemently anti-gay as opposed to the more progressive Christians).  The government should completely separate from marriage because it's ruined the sanctity of marriage with alimony, child support, and a whole host of stupid shit.  

tldr: There's nothing wrong with gay marriage in and of itself, just government involvment in marriage


----------



## Jackpot Raccuki (May 4, 2019)

Maybe I'm weird, but I don't want an actual wedding, I'd rather get a document and be done together with my future husband, assuming I get one and that he doesn't convince me otherwise. (Although that's my stance on marriage in general, not gay marriage.)

It feels like a pain since there's... "those" kind of people who reject any new change because new stuff bad and are too stubborn to accept new changes.
Yes, I am aware it's a change in culture, but this is about living people, the same people who wanted rights and "those" people never seem to understand what it's like to be in the other's shoes, it's like they're on a pillar; imagine how they'd feel if the tides were different? I bet they'd be whining and complaining, or maybe forced to suppress themselves like many of us were.

I'm not one of those who are flamboyant and rub my homosexuality everywhere, seriously I too hold back on wanting to slap them. (It's worse when I say I'm gay aswell.)
But people are doing that for attention because they have been suppressed for years and only recently have they had the freedom not to fear death for being gay.



Luminouscales said:


> Honestly, I think that gay relationships shouldn't be encouraged at all by allowing homosexual marriages, but since changing a person's orientation is extremely unlikely, I guess it's just a thing for old people.
> 
> Oh, and thanks Saurex for being smart.


And I honestly think that suppressing relationships such as that shouldn't be encouraged.

I don't expect people to like nor fully accept gay relationships, but for god's sake man, stop with this suppressing already, it's bad enough there's still those kind of people to yell death threats at me.
Yeah, thanks man. I'll enjoy knowing you want to stone me to death because I'm gay, thanks for your religion of peace, I'll be sure not to think of 'satan' as the good guy.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (May 4, 2019)

Priests aren't being forced to mass marry the gays, but some gay people are in fact Christian, so the term wedding is highly appropriate. 

The fact people are getting up in arms about the sanctity of a word that at one point in history represented a business transaction rather than a loving conviction between partners is astounding. 

And yes, there are priests who willingly and happily perform gay marriages. 

The fact that people are endorsing discriminatory behavior toward gay people is somewhat revolting.


----------



## ConorHyena (May 4, 2019)

Why should we care about the sentiments of those not caring about us in any way?

I'll say screw it, I'm marrying my BF and calling it marriage c:


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (May 4, 2019)

ConorHyena said:


> Why should we care about the sentiments of those not caring about us in any way?
> 
> I'll say screw it, I'm marrying my BF and calling it marriage c:


Why not mawiage?


----------



## ConorHyena (May 4, 2019)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> Why not mawiage?


 *whacks*


----------



## jffry890 (May 4, 2019)

ConorHyena said:


> I'm marrying my BF and calling it marriage c:


And what magical being is going to stand by and reinforce this definition of marriage?  A god?  The law?  You're definition of marriage doesn't exist without another incarnation to begin with.


----------



## ConorHyena (May 4, 2019)

jffry890 said:


> And what magical being is going to stand by and reinforce this definition of marriage?  A god?  The law?  You're definition of marriage doesn't exist without another incarnation to begin with.



In my case it'll be the law c:


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (May 4, 2019)

ConorHyena said:


> In my case it'll be the law c:


Or the Norse godess Frigg.


----------



## Shadow of Bucephalus (May 4, 2019)

quoting_mungo said:


> The issue here is that you'd then have to add "form of union" to discrimination protections - it would be trivial for businesses to say "we will serve wedded couples but not union-ed ones" if they wanted to. And most of the people who opposed marriages being opened up to gay people, would then bitch just as much about how truly making the two equal is compelled speech or whatever. "Separate but equal" is just a bad idea, history has shown that much.
> 
> If you (gen.) absolutely have to protect the word "marriage" just convert the legal institution wholesale. You can still be married in a church as a personal ceremonial thing, but the legal side would be called something else _for everyone_.
> 
> As Fallow pointed out there's also historical precedent for gay marriage, so... *shrug* I don't think arguing semantics or attempting to give one group ownership of a word is a good idea. Hell, far as the tradition/majority argument goes, majority of people having sex are having heterosexual sex, but that doesn't mean they should be allowed to define what sex can and cannot be, either. (Sodomy laws can go sit on a cactus.)


ok, I'll just concede that I'm too Olde-Fashioned and out-dated.

:: Backs-away slowly  ::


----------



## quoting_mungo (May 4, 2019)

jffry890 said:


> You can't (shouldn't) force a religion to perform heretical acts for no reason. Forcing a priest to marry two gays is like forcing a Jew or Muslim to eat ham. Or better yet, force them to perform a gay wedding (which you never see because they're vehemently anti-gay as opposed to the more progressive Christians).


I am aware of no country that does this, though. Affording legal marriage status to two men or two women does not mean a priest has to wed them. It means they can get married in their church _if the church supports it_, or that they can go down to the city hall and sign a piece of paper, or anything in between. Equating the right to get the same legal status with forcing religious institutions to perform ceremonies is a common misunderstanding, but it's not reflected in reality.

You also do have Jewish rabbis officiating ceremonies for same-sex couples. Not all, no, but neither do all Christian denominations officiate gay marriages. While I can't find references to whether publicized Muslim gay marriages were religious or secular, I did find an article suggesting that in the US white evangelican Christians are more hostile to the idea of gay marriage than Muslims are. So maybe let up on the "more progressive Christians" rhetoric, hmm?


----------



## Fallowfox (May 4, 2019)

quoting_mungo said:


> I am aware of no country that does this, though. Affording legal marriage status to two men or two women does not mean a priest has to wed them. It means they can get married in their church _if the church supports it_, or that they can go down to the city hall and sign a piece of paper, or anything in between. Equating the right to get the same legal status with forcing religious institutions to perform ceremonies is a common misunderstanding, but it's not reflected in reality.
> 
> You also do have Jewish rabbis officiating ceremonies for same-sex couples. Not all, no, but neither do all Christian denominations officiate gay marriages. While I can't find references to whether publicized Muslim gay marriages were religious or secular, I did find an article suggesting that in the US white evangelican Christians are more hostile to the idea of gay marriage than Muslims are. So maybe let up on the "more progressive Christians" rhetoric, hmm?



In England actually many in the Church of England have expressed that they would be happy to marry same sex couples. The British government currently forbids our official Church from performing same sex marriages though. 

So if I had a Muslim boyfriend I could get an Islamic wedding ceremony, but it would be illegal for us to get married in my local church.


----------



## Sirocco~ (May 4, 2019)

I'm a proud supporter of gay marriage and I always will be

Also, I'll leave you with this


----------



## foussiremix (May 4, 2019)

Sirocco~ said:


> I'm a proud supporter of gay marriage and I always will be
> 
> Also, I'll leave you with this



This is sooo true
Omg the tea


----------



## Fallowfox (May 5, 2019)

Since I mentioned marriage in Churches in the UK, I noticed that there was an article about this very subject this morning. 

Because the UK's official Churches, like the CoE are prohibited by law from marrying same sex couples, a lot of gay people don't know that they can get married in _some _Churches, like some Unitarian Churches. 
Gay couples' church weddings 'reluctance'

If I ever do get married I'd like it to be in a Church, because that's the tradition.


----------



## jffry890 (May 5, 2019)

ConorHyena said:


> In my case it'll be the law c:


Must have been drunk and don't even remember writing that.  What a stupid thing to say because I answered my own question.
Am also drinking now.


----------



## Jaekada (May 7, 2019)

Fruitythebeetle said:


> So I was in a politics thread and someone justified why they were against gay marriage. This was the same guy felt like it was a requirement to "shoehorn" gay people cuz apparently "God forbid" gay people are treated as people ...
> 
> Sigh...why do people hate lgbt people again? It isn't the end of the world as we know it. People aren't gonna turn gay or some shit. Like people , actual human beings be happy. And if it takes a middle finger to the legal definition of marriage to do so, I would happily take that chance.



God, God, God and...God. It's usually all religious reasons, no matter which argument is presented that goes against LBGT+.


----------



## Simo (May 7, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> In England actually many in the Church of England have expressed that they would be happy to marry same sex couples. The British government currently forbids our official Church from performing same sex marriages though.
> 
> So if I had a Muslim boyfriend I could get an Islamic wedding ceremony, but it would be illegal for us to get married in my local church.



Wow...that's odd that the Government forbids what a church can do. Is there less separation of church and state here? I'm guessing this must have arisen in some historic sense. Still very odd and thanks for pointing this out...I'd never realized this.


----------



## Peach's (May 8, 2019)

Jaekada said:


> God, God, God and...God. It's usually all religious reasons, no matter which argument is presented that goes against LBGT+.



I love it when you come across homophobic atheists who twist themselves into knots trying to rationalize their hatred for the gays.


----------



## Kinare (May 8, 2019)

I used to be one of those people that hated gays with a passion. I was raised in strict Christianity and taught that it wasn't just sinful, it was disgusting and wrong for other reasons aside from religion (such as it being "unnatural" and the like).

Then a good friend came out to me, full well knowing what I was like in my stance. It changed my world. No, gays are not disgusting, because he wasn't, so how bad could the rest really be? I'm eternally grateful to him that he had the courage to come out to me. If he hadn't I don't know what I'd be like today, possibly the same closed-minded person I was back then. I've had multiple LGBTQ+ friends since and they've all been nicer than my straight ones, ha!

That friend didn't just make me see that gays are good, but me being wrong about that made me question everything else that religion and my parents tried to force-feed me that I just bought without question. Now as an adult I've tried my best to be open-minded about things and find my own way, not just take someone's word for it. I still accept some things from religion (like an afterlife and spiritual things because I have seen evidence of that stuff myself), but for the most part I'm a completely different person now that I was then.


----------



## Fallowfox (May 8, 2019)

Simo said:


> Wow...that's odd that the Government forbids what a church can do. Is there less separation of church and state here? I'm guessing this must have arisen in some historic sense. Still very odd and thanks for pointing this out...I'd never realized this.



Anglican Christianity is England's official religion and the Queen is its head. This is mostly a historical hangover, (relatively few people in the UK even believe in God!) but the Church's capacity as the nation's official religion means that it still wields a surprising amount of political influence, such as representation in our house of Lords.


----------

