Larian Studios Forums General Chat Chat (Anything) The Argumentative Git thread

there's no real problem for same sex couples with marriage. people would get used to it.

the problem is for any kids involved. it's like mixed race marriages - it's all cool for mum and dad, but the kids often end up accepted by neither race of their parents (sad but true) and not feeling like they fit comfortably into any racial 'family' group. they get called coconuts and all sort of other put down stuff. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/disagree.gif" alt="" />

same sort of thing for kids with a gay couple as 'parents'. the other kids tease them, and they can feel confused about where they're supposed to fit in. if they're in San Francisco maybe they're Ok. many other places they're gunna hit trouble and attitudes. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/disagree.gif" alt="" />

some kids from same sex 'families' will be OK, but others won't - same as many mixed race kids don't feel the hassles but others do. it's not as simple as "is it fair". it might eventually be all cool for the kids, but it isn't yet. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/sad.gif" alt="" />

Hm, my definition of marriage is mainly of a social point of view - therefore I fail to see a threat. And about religious thoughts about this kind of marriage => isn't religion simply another social way to determine ways of how society should function? And should be "patched" or "updated" as society has changed in the last 2000 yrs?

About being "unnatural" => air condition, medicine, plastic material, in-vitro etc => are they natural? Nope. Should they be discarded and we should persist to live in caves, to be natural?

What about divorce? What about patchwork families? 2nd/3rd marriages are allowed - they then enjoy the law protection of matrimony, so why not for homosexual marriages? What about infertile people? Wouldn't it be logical to forbid them to marry then? As they don't fulfill this...



Oh, yes - and whilst we're at it, why not forbid marriages between people who have reached a certain age and are not fruitful anymore? Or forbid those to marry who don't want kids?

See? There is a large inconsistency and hypocrisy in the way who is allowed to marry and who not.

My theory is still this => marriage is a social bond - biological production says nothing about the ability to fulfill the social role of a mother and a father. Yes, even here I consider the social role pretty high.

I have friendships to lesbian and homosexual couples. And the way the lesbians Moms take care of "their" kids, regardless of biological "past" or not => they fulfill their social roles. Both share care, responsibility and education - but what if one of them dies? What will happen to the kid of the dead mother? It will lose its other one <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/puppyeyes.gif" alt="" /> (if they wouldn't live in Germany. Even here, the rights of homosexual marriages is not equal to hetero marriages). The homosexual couple I know very well => they share everything! What will happen if one of them dies? What about their mutual possessions? What if one turns disabled - what about the pension then?

These people HAVE a bond! They care deeply for one another - why should the law (whatever, religion or state) butt in?
Kiya


Hm, weren't kids teased if their parents are divorced? In the sense of => you don't have proper parents? What about adopted kids? Teased as well? If so => should this be a reason for a terribly unhappy couple to stick together, so their kids are not teased? Should no child be adopted then? I hope not <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/puppyeyes.gif" alt="" /> - I think, kids of a same-gender family can learn this very early => individuality counts, not gender role. Our society has changed - a society is like a mirror (sometimes with a sort of time lag <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> ) - let's allow the mirror to show a new pic.

@Kris => uncomfortable school memories? Hm, what about this... mothers and fathers running riots because their kids' teachers are heterosexual, so their kids are in constant danger of being molested? Get my point? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> I myself had lesbian teachers at school (didn't even know that) => and I adored one of them, why? Because she took great trouble in helping me to gain knowledge, so I could qualify for high school. Her lover was one I feared, why? She was a choleric. Their sexual preferences played no role in my attitude towards them.
My uncomfortable school memory => a male teacher coming too close. He was wellknown for being a breast grabber. Sexual harrassment against minors was a taboo in the 70es in Germany - we girls silently avoided those teachers instead of screaming and yelling protest. It was a male teacher again who harrassed my female school comrade during a pub visit (he was drunk)

for mixed marriages this is not so true... more exactly it may be true in an Anglo Saxon society where the notion of Community is fundamental... it is less so in a more globally integrating society... i think it is exactly the same for children of gay marriages... it would be probably a disaster for them if gays were seeing things only through a communatarian way (for the reasons Koz enounced)... but there is little chance for that to come. Even in Anglo Saxon societies.

anyway there are many gays (and especially lesbians) who have children of their own without being married and these children are not so stigmatized it could be feared. so it may be a good thing to separate the problems of gays children and gays marriage. anyway it is also said sometimes than chidren of divorced parent have diffficulties (something not so obvious i think but well it is said)... will we make divorce out of law for that?

hmm... i still think gay marriages objections are linked more to a desire to preserve a certain social order than anything else (even religious reasons that has been more than once a mask for theses kind of things). An order where there is a strict difference between man and woman and different kind of things that are obligatory expected if you're a man or a woman. I'm not in a mood for defending this kind of order and then if so: i'm not so sure that gays marriages would change anything for heterosexuals...

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/offtopic.gif" alt="" /> i'm too slow... didn't see kiya's post <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shame.gif" alt="" />

Kiya - you asked this question:



if you really want to know why some people feel that their beliefs are threatened, endangered or hurt, then why don't you try and listen a bit more to those who are trying to offer reasons? you seem keen only on slapping down all who put forward personal or religious reasons that don't line up with what seems to be an angry pre-decided position of yours?

anyway... whatever... i guess you're as entitled to be grumpy as anybody else. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

enjoy the discussions, my weekend starts NOW, so i'm off to have some fun.. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/party.gif" alt="" />

Sorry, you take it as slapping, Koz. Is not my intention - I might be a bit temperamental in my choice of words - but I do listen. And I saw your argument - I just wanted to point out the inconsistency (you described stigmatising as it is, totally correct) - I wanted to merely show the other side and not criticise your point - as you explained the reality.
Kiya

And I fail to see where my words were angry?

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/devil.gif" alt="" />Enter the devil's advocate:

What is the original purpose of marriage? Title of possession!

What was it that instigated early societies to formulate rules and rituals to create a special bond, that was accepted and protected by society, and that went beyond the mutual (?) agreement of the parties involved? To show everyone, this human (historically woman) belongs to me, and all others keep your hands off! All its possessions are now mine to use, from here on ever. Only our children will be exclusive heirs, irrespective of how many bastards I may sire.

For the protection of possession and priviledges more and more rules were created. Sovereign and religion build their power on the influence they excerted - and then came "democracy"!

The sovereign became an impersonal entity - but, as all sovereigns, still in constant need for money and power. But all those priviledges related to marriage had to be preserved, even though wealth is now spread over a much wider population base - since it is very unpopular to take away priviledges.

The percentage of people grew that chose to live and find happiness (the pursuit of happiness being a constitutional right!) outside the "norm". And then asked for the logic behind denying them the same priviledges.

Now it could have been an option to give everybody the same rights and priviledges, but this reduces income. Or alternatively, one could give everybody the same rights and take away the priviledges, but this reduces popularity = power base.

So, since logic does not provide a good excuse, a more subtle approach was required. Religion was very helpful, as usual. And the basic human fear of change, the mistrust of the unusual, deviating, unknown,"other". The threat to take away priviledges - did not even have to be substantiated, the pure indication of the possibility is quite sufficient, to instigate opposition to such "modern" thoughts.

Exit the devil's advocate <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/evilgrin1.gif" alt="" />

WOW <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" /> - Glance, you're sure you're not a Drow Elf? Thanks for these thoughts - this is indeed something new for me to gnaw at <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" />
Kiya <flattened>

If I understood you correctly => a mix out of patriarchism, economical thinking and subconscious gut instincts make a homo marriage a prob? Hm, then I was totally on the wrong track. 2 of my colleagues said, it's religion - I said it's social inconstistency => result of a 5 min. discussion about why the homo marriage was forbidden in 11(!) states during the USA election 2004 => I don't know if all 11 have it in their constitution now, but what I found very astonishing was this: Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Georgia, Michigan, Utah, Ohio allow only marriages between male/female. And the article I'm referring to says that in some cases even living together is forbidden (only Ohio?)? Missouri, Louisiana had already decided the same a few months ago => toto 13. Now you all know, why it was on my backburner, I simply don't understand. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Here's a thought from my end. As I am in the country that has instigated this whole debarcle.
Before presenting my argument I would like to point out that I am all for gays doing what they want.

The banning of gay marriage is democratic unfortunately. i.e. the majority has spoken and that majority (of braindead hicks) has decided they don't want 'fags' corrupting their society. Unfortunately I think this is better for the state of democracy if the minority (however justified they are) are overuled in this case.

So why does the law govern marriage so much? The simple answer is divorce. This is where all the messy legal wrangling starts, custody battles are fought, posessions are divided amd evey lawyer goes home a little bit richer. This has made it necessary for marriage to be legally binding in the first place.

Marriage, a simple religeous custom, has become a legal battlefield. It doesn't matter which religion you belong to the government will have the final say as to whether you are officially bonded in holy matrimony.

Don't talk to your pastor any more about granting a union, speak to your senator. As long as the 'straight' community has greater political influence there will never be gay marriages.

Sucks huh? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/suspicion.gif" alt="" />

Kiya, you do yourself a disservice by banning Christian reasons before we even began the discussion - unfortunately, it makes you look like bad. I am not a Christian but I have friends who are and religion, in one form or another, influences a solid chunk of public thinking. Dismissing their beliefs without even allowing them to be heard smacks of the sort of repression you obviously feel that gays are the victim of. Both sides need to try and keep open minds - not just the "other side". <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

The reason that many people still oppose gay marriage is (as someone else already said) because, at heart, they don't like homosexuals. So why is this? I have long time friends who are homosexual, and apart from a certain degree of lingering unhappiness and confusion among some (mostly men) they seem no different in range, style or behaviour than my straight friends.

But look at the gay roles and images that are on public display - sadly most of them are still pretty negative.

The average person seems to still have an image of homosexuals that is linked with AIDS, tantrum throwing pop and movie stars, mincing gay comedians, paedophile priests and teachers, and a bunch of other reasonably unsavoury behaviours. They see few positive public examples of dignified homosexuals.

Every year here we have a Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras, widely reported and shown on TV. It's still run like a childish freak show, with ridiculous costumes and in your face sexual innuendo. It looks like a lot of fun to participate in, but it's hardly a good PR tool for converting those who are uncomfortable with homosexuality. There's still a big element of deliberately provoking the anger of people who are anti-gay. It is slowly growing up, and there are more serious marchers than before (this year gay police were allowed to march as a group, but not in uniform).

It gets back to something that has been mentioned many times on this thread - respect. Gays don't yet have much respect. If you drew a 'pie chart' of attitudes to gays I suspect that you would find a large section of opinion that was still actively opposed, another large section that represented either tolerance or indifference, and a pretty small piece that denoted real respect.

Now this may not be fair, but it seems to be the way it still is. And the only way to gain respect is to earn it. You can't just demand it on the grounds of fairness or legality. Like it or not, gays have a long way to go before the immediate public image of them is one of respect, and the journey is in their hands.

Until then, mixed feelings about gay marriages - particularly with regard to children - will remain.

I wish them good luck on their journey, but they can't just wave a wand and get respect ( not even a fairy wand... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/devil.gif" alt="" /> )

I particularly liked this bit. At the last place I worked I knew 2 gay guys. One was rather respectable and quiet, the other totally over the top camp. The first one would wince every time the second had a tantrum. He thought he was a disaster to the gay movement and to people socially accepting them.

Oddly enough, the only place the guy could get away with that behavior was at work, where positive discrimination laws were in practice and the HR department wouldn't touch him with a 10-foot pole. He couldn't be fired, plain and simple. He would sue the company for millions.

I definately could not imagine him looking after kids. He is the reason why middle America hates gays.

Guess, I'll better explain, why I asked for not taking religious belief =>
there are some topics where religious beliefs are used and in my case I react like this => hm, ok, religious belief, is like a solid rock, stable. I don't even try to move solid rocks, cause that's futile, it's pre-determined. Why I react like this? I think, beliefs (and not only Christian, other religions as well) consider gays as "unnatural" too - it's like an axiom then. It's like saying => the sky is blue. That's it then. So, in my case, I consider taking a religious belief as "slamming down". Taking a religious belief to explain something has no inconsistency IMO, because everything else building up on it grounds on this belief. And I was longing to hear new arguments - I already know the religious reasons, you see?
Another thing => like it or not: I think religious beliefs are a private, individual decision between a deity and the individual. I can discuss if a constitution is good/bad (made by humans and can therefore be changed) - but a decision made by heart (religion) leaves no room for me to think over the border, over the frontier. So, if I leave out the belief (marriage is religious, gays are unnatural) I can think crosswise then.

Example => there are countries where females are stoned to death by religious belief if they commit adultery. Others are forced to wear the shadore, are not allowed to show their hair, figure etc. Are not allowed to go out on their own etcetc. Reasons? => religion (or to be exact => the way religion is determined and interpreted). Grounded on their belief, causing great harm to other individuals. Force. A singular heart decision turns into group oppression. Some might think, my examples might be bad - but oppression is oppression IMO. I'm comparing apples with pears? I don't think so, the root is the same => a belief is taken as an axiom and determines behaviour and action. Is an axiom good/bad? Nope, it's just an axiom, but leaves no room for thoughts not considering this axiom. Even if "Christian tolerance" is used. The axiom is still there.

In general => I do feel very uncomfortable if a group would decide for me how I want to live, with whom I want to live and forcing an individual heart decision unto me, the other individual who has a different belief. Yes, I am aware that in some countries religion has a high impact on public thinking (it should not have an impact on laws IMO) - I see it as an individual heart decision, I don't accept this impact on public. Why? Because I have a heart myself and this one decided otherwise. Correct me if I'm narrow minded in this case, but individual decisions should remain there where they belong to => between one's own heart and the deity. I see no harm if gays want to live together and live their lives - I see no harm if religious people want to live the way they believe for themselves - but both should not be mixed. Both groups should not force their ways of life unto the other.
Kiya


True <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/puppyeyes.gif" alt="" /> - but a lot of heterosexuals are pretty negative on public display as well - and does their sexual preference play a role in public opinion? Or is it the individual behaviour that is criticized? I'm not talking about sexual behaviour here.


I'm just using your quote, Womble, to explain something I experienced myself and didn't find an answer to, not to criticize you - as I don't know this colleague of yours or his behaviour.
=> Hm, I know heteros who are a disgrace to... what? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" /> Heteros? Humans in general? Blondes? Shorties? Female lib? Parentage? Nope, just a disgrace as a socially accepted individual, I think. The homosexuals I mentioned in my former post, the ones I know: One of them is an excellent teacher, but dares not to "come out". I asked him why? He said => people will start to see me with different eyes then. If I have a bad day and behave inadequately it will then be "because I'm a gay", not because I'm ill-tempered. Sad. His sexual preference dictates other people's approach? A private decision is sufficient to activate fears and prejudices? Does this singular sexual preference determine his whole personality? Or the way others see him? His private decision gives others the permission to determine how he wants to live and therefore judge his total personality? He has a wonderful way with the herd of dogs both own => because he's a gay? Or an animal lover? Or a beard-wearer? Or because of his brown eyes? Would he be different to his dogs if he was a hetero? (Hope not).

Another XP => I like going into gay discos, as I can dance and not be harassed, got to know some gays. One's name was Tommy, I liked him. Then some came in wearing female clothes and heavy makeup. I admired them, because their outfit was aestethic (in my opinion) - he threw a fit and called them a disgrace to the gay movement. I was shocked about his aggressive expressions and asked him, why he excluded and did box-thinking, thus weakening solidarity within an already discriminated group. He remained silent. And I had learned something old again => prejudices are everywhere. The individual is put into a box. He didn't even know them personally (neither did I). I just admired what they wore, his reaction was different. Should he have liked them cause he's a gay? Nope. Disliked them? Nope. Liked/disliked their outfit? Yes, I think, this would have been logical at that state of input info (eyes).

Why do pepole have to write so long posts <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cry.gif" alt="" />?

Übereil

Because such people also like to read!?

[color:"orange"]If you drew a 'pie chart' of attitudes to gays I suspect that you would find a large section of opinion that was still actively opposed, another large section that represented either tolerance or indifference, and a pretty small piece that denoted real respect.[/color]

Which leads me to the question, why is it so - and where in history did that develop? As it has not always been so at all.

The Greeks, revered fathers of democracy, believed very strongly in the spiritual bond between gay (men!). They respected and encouraged it to an extent that it was regarded "weird" and inferior, if any one man had none. No young man, who wanted him to be his mentor? No warrior willing to give his life for him in battle (the 10.000 "immmortals" of Thebes, famous fighting corps of gay couples - ultimately slaughtered to the last man by Alexander). There was respect then.

Jesus Christ, as a historically existent figure, grew up in a Jewish tribe, within a monotheistic religion, governed my a foreign power with a polytheistic society, in which the old Greeks (that are now the ancient Greeks to us) were to some extent idolized. Which leads me to believe, that in those times gay relationships were not unknown - but possibly not worth mentioning as extraordinary, or something to fear or in need to be changed.

Maybe, the devil's advocate is not all wrong?

Some idle thoughts of my own -- not entirely on topic:

"Love" is a very private thing, sometimes a blessing, sometimes a curse, often both; "marriage" is a public declaration of commitment to a union with another person -- for mutual support, for sharing of property, for raising of offspring... Because marriage is "social" in nature, all manner of rules and regulations have arisen to govern all aspects of it -- from the initial pairing, right through to the eventual ending though death or separation or divorce. (As Glance pointed out, theren are always ulterior motives to these rules, and they are not always benevolent!)

So: do I have any problem with "gay marriage"? With gay marriage, no. With marriage -- as a legal institution --, yes.

Often, the public debate around whether to allow gay marriage skirts the supposedly moral issue and cuts right to the chase: property rights, pension rights, death benefits, inheritance, tax benefits, and so on. All the legal baggage. I'd like to see the legislators taking a close look at these issues for all marriages. I question, not whether we should "deny" some of these benefits to gays, but whether we should be extending all of them to anyone. Some are probably good; some are probably outdated relics that should be revised or scrapped.

Gay stereotypes: When I see some gay jerk feeding the flames of negative image, I remind myself of an intelligent, gracious man and brilliant actor: Sir Ian McKellen, who wrote in 1996:

[color:"orange"]There is a fantasy as old as the modern gay rights movement, that if all our skins turned lavender overnight the majority, confounded by our numbers and our diversity and recognising a few of our faces, would at once let go of prejudice for evermore.[/color]

<< Kris? why????? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/puppyeyes.gif" alt="" /> >>

Thanks, folks! Time to move along now...

First, a couple of general observations:

-- Kudos to those of you who pointed out the fear factor. That's undoubtedly a major issue, and whether they are "right" to be fearful of this sort of change in society is another issue entirely.

-- Beliefs. I'm not so sure that religion deserves such a bad rap... I've known, and heard about, many deeply religious people who are accepting and supportive of gay rights; indeed, of rights for all people. Institutional religion, of course, is another kettle of fish. There are also many non-religious people on both sides of the controversy.

-- History. As Glance pointed out, we still claim to admire Greek culture and philosophy; what happened to their social views? Homosexuality also seems to have been accepted to a greater or lesser extent in some military and in many artistic circles.

-- Marriage. Has rarely had anything to do with love over the centuries. As several of you mentioned, it was all about alliances, property rights, blood lines. Love who you please, but marry who you're supposed to! That has also changed ('though not everywhere, and not entirely), and left its legacy. "Nurturing" the kids, is, I think, a fairly recent concept.

I'm sorry that the topic seemed to trigger some difficulties, and I hope they'll fade quickly since we are "safe among friends" here. Some of you dug quite deeply to express your thoughts and feelings, for which I thank you.

And now, to cut to the chase, I'm giving this one to Womble, for his lucid explanation of how it all boils down to democracy in action. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

Over to you, Womble...

oh gee, thanks, rince, for not giving me time for counter-arguments & reinforcements. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/silly.gif" alt="" />

anyways, kiya's arguments are really strong & she covered many grounds, including religious aspect.

personally, i respect kiya's view of religion as man & God, not man via man & God. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" />

kudos to Glance for looking into motives of marriages.

@ kris -> come back, u hear? i'm not done arguing with u yet. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

Called it too soon, did I, jang? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/disagree.gif" alt="" />

I agree there were some fine points raised, and a great deal of thought went into many of the responses... maybe that's why -- somewhat perversely -- I chose as I did a very pragmatic answer... I don't think the controversy is really about thoughtful response to the issue... it's gut reaction on the part of people who do not think beyond their own lives and experiences and unquestioned beliefs... probably exacerbated by the mostly-bad publicity the gay community has received over the years. Since there are lots of these people, democracy takes over and makes them the boss! Are they wrong? Are the desires of the individual more important than the norms of society as a whole? Dunno... that's an entirely different argument!

u're right about that part, rince. womble's brilliant in bringing up that point; democracy. it's the best method so far in detecting preference & readiness of people at large over certain things, & yes, homosexuality included.

when democracy (or what it means to that country) shows that most people reject homosexuality, it can be interpreted as the masses are not ready for it.

man, where the heck is womble? i have a mind to argue with him. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/suspicion.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/silly.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

Good question! Looks likes he's deserted us... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/disagree.gif" alt="" />

Maybe you and I should argue about something while we're waiting. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/silly.gif" alt="" />