Close Topic Options

Are Gays Taboo For You? - Page 3

All three of you have just about said: this is my opinion-deal with it. And that is fine. What would this forum be without people expressing their opinion?

I simply disagree with you. I see no issue with gay men and gay women being gay other than those issues created by those who think it is immoral.

However, where my hackles are raised is for the exact same reason yours are too. You say: why should we have to accept that which we disagree with? Well, why should gay people have to accept a limited life to please your belief system and moral codes?

I am NOT in favour of gay marriages being legally forced on Chapels, Churches, Synagouges or Mosques (unless the presiding officials are happy for them to be performed which I understand does happen) because real politic is the constant search for compromise and asking religious instituions to upturn, overthrow or simply ignore their own doctrines is as unworkable an idea as it is implausible. However, a state sanctioned civil union (which people will call gay marriage but lets try to stick to the correct terms) has nothing to do with these doctrines. For years divorced couples could only marry in a state sanctioned union and the principle is the same.

Now you may well argue that God has given you license to fight even a state ceremony and that is your call but we do not live in theocracies (thank God!) and the state cannot be imposing one religious worldview.

If there is an argument to be made that the new call for equal rights in regards to gay people and more specifically gay civil unions is part of a wider cultural shift (or the slippery slope) then I can understand that argument. It is indeed a new development in the cause for rights for women, ethnic minorities and so on. But remember feminism has its beginnings in Mary Wollenscroft who wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Women back in 1792. The American constituion with its "all men are born free and equal" stance is of the same century. The pursuit
of "civil rights" (in the west at least) begins with the Magna Carta in 1215. We are not really seeing anything new and exciting here. We are simply seeing a continuation of the same movement towards greater freedoms within the general population which has been going on for centuries. Nothing happens overnight. Everything happening in the world today has been stewing for a long time.

Now, as to what might be called the "bad side" of this movement -explicit tv shows, wider access to pornography and so on I have no quarrel with the notion we might want to try a bit more subtlety and less immediate gratification in our lives. And I do ask myself the question: if the high ideal and principle of "equal rights" includes the right to these more grubby aspects of life is it worth having? Ideals are tricky things-often having unforeseen consequences but, for myself, I err on the positive side. Others may not.


I did not mean to imply I thought your views were not yours to have or to express. However, I will express mine just as strongly as you do.

You Taboo Gays Are

I ponder Xander also if the gay union rights is facing an obstacle that may be very wrong but felt by many in that this is one more item causing the average European descent male to feel they are losing one more piece of the stone one which they have stood one for so long. This is not to say it is right or wrong but just one more obstacle for you to over come in your battle.

I still think I would rather see your goal met through a different venue one that would allow the same privilege you seek for more then just gay couples. That is for any living arrangement made in which people must depend on each other to survive to be allowed the benefits seen by heterosexual couples with out the need for a bonding ceremony. Just a simple sign here and there.

For the record I think separating church and state weakens the country. All reasons being based on the bible so I will not go there in this thread.

One item you mentioned that might be worthy of its own thread is the whole idea that flared in Canada (I am unsure how it was done in all the States.). The government were going to try to force Churches to marry homosexuals. Do not get me wrong some will, which to me is silly but again the organized religion of Christianity has done far crazy things in the name of the bible. Most homosexuals I ever spoke to felt the same way as you that it did not make sense. I think it was a ploy to get the bill voted out.

Are Gays Taboo For You? Health & Special Psychology

Krakyn, I definitely agree with your opening paragraph here. Seen from a certain point of view, "progress" is the chipping away of this power base.

Well, I do understand where you're coming from but I have to ask: what's romantic about a non-ceremonial civil union? Its not like the couple can look back all twinkly eyed in twenty years from now and go: "Oh, Simon, remember when we signed that bit of paper in the lawyer's office?"

You might say, well what do they want a party or legal recognition? But of course a bonding ceremony of any kind is a celebration of the couple as well as entering into a legal contract. A gay couple can now go through the same process as a straight couple in order to ensure their rights as a couple are protected whereas before it was an expensive round of legal contracts-if they could afford it. Well, at least in the UK, in America the fight is still to be won.

The same ideas around a living arrangement where people depended on each other being given legal recognition where discussed in the UK too around the time the civil partnership legislation was being introduced. I think its an interesting idea and well worth investigating, however, its important not to lump civil partnerships in with non-romantic living arrangements purely because the two set ups are very different.

Oh, I couldn't disagree with you more but its Christmas so lets agree to disagree!

As to your last point, I'm not sure how any government could think they'd get away with that. I fully support Civil Partnerships but really we have to be realistic about it. Forcing a religious body to do this just creates more bad feeling and ultimately hurts the case for gay rights in general and civil partnerships in particular.

Page 3 You Taboo Gays Are

I think there are some aspects of this Thread being missed.

We have many Threads here about being Gay / Homosexuality from the political and religious perspective. This Thread is about how being around or talking with Gays affects you psychologically. Your own thought process on the matter and your reaction to it is what is being asked, not the sociological aspects.

For other specific areas view these Topics:

Born Gay or Choice?

Gay Pride Day

No Gay Sperm

She is Bigger Than Me - She Must Be Gay

Same Sex Marriage - From a Religious Perspective

Bisexuality

Gay Parents Split