The message says it all. Science, logic, and reasoning fail to make any argument against homosexual marriages. Usually, the logic is for them.
Oh, but please make a religious argument against it - I love pointing the hypocrisy in those
j-krumweedFeatured By OwnerJul 17, 2012Hobbyist General Artist
God, here in Minnesota, the conservatives are trying to get a state constitutional amendment limiting marriage to being between one man and one woman. All this energy going into anti gay legislation and social agendas could be used to right so many wrongs in the world, poverty, lack of good health care, etc. rather then in this non issue. If gays want to marry,I see no reason to stop them.
yeah, I'm twin-cities based too. I'm encouraged by what I've seen from MN so far. Minnesota United is kicking ass on fund-raising, even some Republicans are against the amendment, DeLaSalle High School shut down that bigoted bishop's speech, and not voting on the ballot still counts as a 'no' vote. We'll probably be the first state to ever defeat this kind of GOP legislative led bullshit. -- Really, the GOP only use this crap to cover up the fact that they have had no solutions to our governing problems like they promised in 2010. And, issues like these can motivate their base to show up to vote. That's really it -- that's why they are pushing such hurtful actions: just to win re-election.
j-krumweedFeatured By OwnerJul 18, 2012Hobbyist General Artist
I'm not Twin Cities based, I'm out in rural Southern Minnesota. But that has been good to see. I've seen all the stuff on the news about the opposition to this amendment, from Target to that dude from Prarie Home Companion, churches, organizations and such. And it's good to hear that some Republicans have a heart and aren't backing this thing. I didn't hear about that school though. Good for them. Last thing we need is more hate mongering.
Indeed, it's just a distraction from the fact that the GOP hasn't done what they said they would do.
jollywrecker92Featured By OwnerSep 20, 2011 Traditional Artist
I'm a big pro-gay marriage supporter and pro-equality. People are just stupid and afraid of change when all it is, is just a legal binding of two Human beings. Personally I'd rather drop dead than get married, but regardless, marriage was reserved for no particular gender selection.
Ha! Hypocrisy in religion. HA! funny. that NEEEVEEERRR happens. pfft! haha And I don't see what the big deal on gay marrage is anyways. Love is love. and half the time ppl get married and don't love each other anyways. oh well, I digress.
People are afraid of change.. especially since people have been pretending gays don't exist for years, heh. The same thing happened with blacks. They were ignored through segregation, then it got violent and people started flaunting their race proudly, and now they're equal (if not more than equal with some of the special benefits they get.. but that's a different issue).
it was seen as amoral and a violation of the very principals of marriage, it was something totally against all that marriage was and seen as a folly. but it did not, and you are right, nothing changed. that is the point
I'm thinking, on deviantART, the majority is pretty accepting towards gays. The few comments here (while not necessarily arguments) that were opposed to... well, homosexuality in general, were pretty well blasted by other deviants.
I just wanted to make a point: marriage and marriage rights should be two completely different things. A church can marry a couple, or choose not to; they should reserve the right to do whatever they wish in that area. Whether or not a religion sanctions such an act should have no bearing whatsoever on the rights such a couple would have. From a realistic standpoint, what is the point of marriage? It's economic benefit. Love doesn't have to be the main motivator, either. Tradition-wise, I'd find it sort of sad if that were true, but it certainly makes sense if you're going to save money that way and plan on staying together for some time.
Aside from celebrating the tradition of 'getting married', there is very little point to it. It's why I support domestic partnership for any sort of relationship. Poly-gamy/andry is in there as well, but that's an entirely different conversation. The issue of 'gays getting married' simply annoys me because the main issue isn't the ceremony at all. It's the benefits that one couple may receive versus another that won't because of their orientation.
I wish it were possible to fave comments. It's really amazing to see this topic discussed so calmly, at least on your part. Your piece was also very logical and not just a return of venom and anger. I love this, and it's been featured here: [link]
Here is a point I wish to make. I am straight. I am christian. BUT, I do not believe in the bible. MEN wrote the bible. Not God. Men, humans, whatever, have been spitting lies and tall tales for thousands of years. Being gay isn't even unnatural. Animals have their own homosexual moments as well, do they not? Love has no gender, and it shouldn't be limited to those of "moral" standing( which is just a bunch of BS brain-washing from a Church-dominant society) I am Carolyn L. Sanders and I support LOVE. Gay or otherwise. WOOT!
WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU?! Ok, so you may be creeped out by gay marriage, but it souldnt be your decision to outlaw it, I think love is love now matter what gender it's for and is it fair to prohibit love? I think not! I am a lesbian and this offends me very highly!
A religious argument you say! Well, read the bible! Our loving god has made it clear that marriage is between a man and women, or his slaves, or his brother's widow, or the woman he rapes, or the woman he buys, or his wife's female slaves, and his concubines! Simple, and the way it has always been!
Marriage is between one man and one woman. If gays want the rights of marriage then they should have it, but the title should be reserved for one man and one woman. Marriage is a a religious thing anyway. Now..... Tell me off so I can feel like an arrogant pig.
Marriage, the original institution, was the ceremony where the title of ownership of a woman was transferred from the father/guardian/slave-owner to another man.
Religion was not a part of it.
But as religion encompassed communities, those communities demanded that religion serve their purposes. So, eventually, religion served to validate this transfer.
Point is, your argument is invalid. You don't know what marriage is, or was -- nor do I believe you understand the purpose and active role of religion in society.
No need to feel like an arrogant pig. But I really wish you'd take more time to learn the greater depth of such issues before making a claim that marriage can only serve one purpose for one group and one culture.
Your questions are loaded. You did not do the google search I suggested. There is no source of information you will accept for value. You do not care to learn. You dismiss topics such as bigotry and hatred as cliche. You dismiss me with assumptions. Then you wonder why I may come across as hostile later, when we both know the answer is obvious. You point out a single typo in a response riddled with typos. Then you bugger out.
Fair enough -- then this conversation should not have happened.
Irony: someone with the word 'hollow' in their user name demanding artistic depth they won't accept or apply themselves.
hhmmm.... didn't earlier you say parts of the bible are "out of date". Shouldn't this be so with all things such as marriage. there is no denying that marriage has become a religious thing, and that this passing of ownership has become "obsolete". Don't get me wrong, I'm friends with gays/bis and I am pro rights, but my opinion still stands. *neutral*
...my point is that religion has no real claim on marriage, nor should it want to.
If you review my other opinions on religion in general, you'll see that I believe most religion is only about love of god and the people around you, and self negation. Nothing bad. But everything else was bullshit that people insisted on adding for the sake of signifying their own selfishness.
...god is faith, faith can't be questioned, I say I speak for god and I say that god wants gays to be treated as second class citizens, etc.
If any one religion wants to signify marriage in its name, fine. But that can only define their form of marriage -- not all marriages. If anyone else wants a legal and binding marriage, then that marriage is not bound to any one religious principle. Nor can any one religious principle write the law in America -- as that would be unconstitutional by virtue of freedom of religion.
In this sense, yes, your opinion can still stand as it relates to your religious beliefs -- so no one should be able to force your church to perform a gay wedding. However, that should not hold fast on the definition or the law.
Had I been old enough at the time, I most certainly would have voted for California Prop. 8. Know why? Because I knew what their reaction would be. Even had it not passed, the gay-rights extremists (yes they do exist) would still take every opportunity to rub it in everyone's faces. And when it DID pass, they vented their anger at anyone the DARE hold a different opinion than them. They ruined many small businesses with their tantrums.
You would reject allowing everyone having equal protections and opportunities in this nation (that, by way of the US Constitution, should be granting equal rights anyway), because if they did get them after long having laws written against them -- you fear they would rub it in your face?
What a useless set of opinions you have... That must be the most pathetic excuse for bigotry I've heard in all my activist days.
And yes -- people who are denied the same rights that everyone else enjoys for no good reason tend to throw 'tantrums'. Since you worry about such useless things, I'm guessing you're the fragile type -- I doubt you'd handle such acts of prejudice against yourself very well either.
I believe we deserve freedom FROM marriage and such. I'm not saying I hate gays or anything stupid like that. Now just wasn't the time in California. It didn't help that they retaliated by destroying livelihoods and publically embarassing anyone who would oppose them. My point is that the opressed can be just as bad as the oppressor. I feel it's safer to stick with how it's been than change it if both sides pose equal threat.