Would it be 'wrong' to choose to be gay?

[eFestivals]

Waffle all you want but thanks for showing I am correct.

you're failing to spot the difference between what I say and the narrow terms you can onl;y think in Not that you do much thinking for yourself, you mostly defer to the law to do that thinking for you.

This is one example where I recommend that you let the law do your thinking for you, as it will tell you that you are wrong.

Here's the legal definition of bigamy - that makes clear that it's a marriage, but a marriage which is not legally acceptable.

bigamy n. the condition of having two wives or two husbands at the same time. A marriage in which one of the parties is already legally married is bigamous, void, and ground for annulment. The one who knowingly enters into a bigamous marriage is guilty of the crime of bigamy, but it is seldom prosecuted unless it is part of a fraudulent scheme to get another's property or some other felony. Occasionally people commit bigamy accidentally, usually in the belief that a prior marriage had been dissolved. The most famous case in the United States was that of Andrew Jackson and his wife Rachel Robards. Ms. Robards' husband had applied for a divorce, but it had not been granted (it required legislative approval) at the time of her second marriage. She completed the divorce and then the Jacksons remarried. Jackson was embarrassed for life over his carelessness (he was a lawyer and a judge), which had hurt his wife's reputation. Having several wives at the same time is called "polygamy" and being married to several husbands is "polyandry."

[eFestivals]

Is it fair to say I don't really care ?

I posted that to show the religious bigots that their reason for opposition doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

If that includes you, you should care - unless you wish only to be stupid.

[eFestivals]

Opposition to what ? Allowing gays to have state marriages ? Can you read ? I have no opposition to it.

I can read, you clearly can't.

I said that the views of the religious bigots that marriage has always been about a man and a woman doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

You share that view with those religious bigots (you've said many times that you do), even if you can't be bothered to follow thru on that view to oppose a law change.

[eFestivals]

I did write a long response but something went wrong and I lost it... I really can't be arsed keep arguing the same points for them to be ignored...

erm ... you'll find it in the footie thread you plonker.

Would you support allowing anybody who wanted them to have a civil partnership ?

And does anybody know if civil partnerships would now be totally replaced by "marriage" or can people opt for either ? Presuming the vote is passed.

A marriage and civil partnership have always been the same thing in all respects (because that is all of what a marriage is) - but only up until the point that the govt decided to define a civil partnership as something different to marriage.

No one wanted the 'civil partnership' that was introduced, they wanted marriage. They accepted that new form of 'civil partnership' because the govt would not allow them a normal marriage and a 'civil partnership' was better than nothing at all.

I've no idea if this new law intends to remove the new 'civil partnerships' altogether, but if the law has been sensibly thought about then it should be removed .... but as very little thought or sense is going into this new marriage law I presume that the 'civil partnerships' thing is going to remain.

[kaosmark2]

What's wrong with bigamy as long as all 3+ parties consent to it?

[Bobs]

Yes, it would.

Surely, it's being something you are not, and that's just as bad as being 2-faced.

You are who you are, and if you aren't proud of it, and want to be something else, well, that's just poor.

(read the first post, if im off on a tangent, then sorry);

[Guest]

Yes, it would.

Surely, it's being something you are not, and that's just as bad as being 2-faced.

You are who you are, and if you aren't proud of it, and want to be something else, well, that's just poor.

(read the first post, if im off on a tangent, then sorry);

[Bobs]

how do you know what you are?

[Guest]

Well surely it's an inkling, even if you're bisexual, you have a preference right? but don't choose, surely it's a matter of who you are?

For example. I'm Straight, and fancy women, if I chose to be gay, then i'd be against who I was, which is being fake, i'd be being unfair to myself, and to anyone i'd potential 'get with'.

If you were genuinely confused, then exploration would be fine! But i don't understand why anyone would, it's selfish if anything.

Edited February 5, 2013 by tonyblair

[Bobs]

I've never understood the "you are what you are" idea. We 'explore' from the moment we're born. Are we "what we are" before we're born, at the moment of exception? the moment we're born?.. when does this supposed realisation occur? Is that how people decide they believe in god (or whatever), because they have an inkling?

How is it selfish to explore?

Edited February 5, 2013 by Bobs

[kaosmark2]

I think you're missing my point, on the exploration theory, i'll go back to that now.

it isn't something you choose is it? For example, I chose to support Everton, I choose what music i like, and who my friends are. I didn't choose my sexuality, i was attracted to women, and not men, so surely if I chose to like men instead of women, then i'd be lying, well less severely, i'd be denying who i am?

[Guest]

I think you're missing my point, on the exploration theory, i'll go back to that now.

it isn't something you choose is it? For example, I chose to support Everton, I choose what music i like, and who my friends are. I didn't choose my sexuality, i was attracted to women, and not men, so surely if I chose to like men instead of women, then i'd be lying, well less severely, i'd be denying who i am? If i was to go on to date a man, purely cause I wanted to be Gay, it would be wrong on the basis of doing all for the wrong reasons, you'd be hurting them and that isn't fair. It's not to say theres no chance of you ever being attracted to men, but its something you can't choose surely? Obviously you hear stories of people marrying, having children, then realising they might actually be gay. If so, I'd say it's highly unlikely (unlikely, not impossible), they're going to turn around and go, oh i choose to be gay. Sexuality isn't really something you choose, whilst i agree it isn't from the point you're born, the surrounding and such must surely play a role, obviously without trying to sound narrow minded.

For me, you must know, When i see my girlfriend, i get a nice fuzzy glow, and a grin I can't hide (Cheesy as, i know ). From my viewpoint, I couldn't choose to have that feeling, it happens when you're attracted to someone, i certainly couldn't contemplate choosing to be a sexuality, now if that feeling ever happened to me, and it was a male, then fine, but i certainly wouldn't be choosing it, it would just happen!

Oh and, on the exploration point, i certainly was not condemning it, not at all, if you genuinely are unsure, you have to 'dip your feet in' so to speak, you go for your instinct, and obviously if you couldn't decide, you will discover it, again, i don't think it's something you choose, i think it's something, you know!

[feral chile]

what's the difference between knowing which football team, or artist, or food you like, then changing 'your mind' (love that "I've changed my mind"... it sounds so revealing, and important... "I've changed my mind".. it's trivial and monumental at the same time), and changing your mind about what partner you want.. male or female?

How do you know that you're feelings towards the opposite sex aren't, at least partly, down to your upbringing, and your 'conditioning'?

[kaosmark2]

Unless they're a bit effeminate or butch, and people tell them they're gay enough times that they seek homosexual experiences, and maybe feel more accepted in the gay community?

[feral chile]

I know a guy who spent a load of time around gay people and spent 3 years sleeping with guys and believing he was bi before deciding that was a mistake, that he feels a greater level of intimacy with girls and is straight. Anecdotal evidence but I don't believe that can be an isolated case.

I just fail to see why sexual preference would be different from any other tastes.

[kaosmark2]

mmm, but can you choose whether to love or hate Marmite?

[salvador wali]

Anyone know what happens to civil partnerships now ? Surely they are now finished and its just marriage ?

Or are one set of gay people going to be allowed to discriminate against the rest of us who can only get married

[Rufus Gwertigan]

mmm, but can you choose whether to love or hate Marmite?

[eFestivals]

So much for Dave Moron trying to modernise the tory party - over half of them are raving homophobes. Still, I guess that's an improvement from the all of them it was just a few years back.

Isn't it great that the political party with the greatest support are socially backwards?

[zero000]

Never thought I'd say this, but well done David Cameron for passing this and nicely ruining your party your party in the process.

Did anyone see Newsnight yesterday as well? Hilarious yet disgusting viewing at the same time. Francis Maude was on there trying to justify the Conservatives split as a "move to modernization", with some moving slower than others - in other words the majority are still bigots. They also showed some shocking quotes by MPs, one of them I think compared legalization of gay marriage to incest? What an utter c**t.

[eFestivals]

Should be added two lib dems voted against as well.

UPDATE: Correction it was four Lib Dems... and a high number abstained...

Seems 22 Labour MPs voted against as well and 16 couldn't be arsed voting (probably building duck houses or something)...

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/02/05/former-lib-dem-minister-sarah-teather-voting-against-same-sex-marriage-was-the-hardest-decision/

yep - bigots come with views of all sorts.

But tory bigotry is pretty much their central theme, as last night got to re-confirm for anyone who had missed it.

[Guest]

I think there's such a strong social bias towards heterosexuality, that it's more likely that heterosexual people might be socially influenced. So, where would the influence come from for gay people?

Edited February 6, 2013 by tonyblair

[hot_ice]

yep - bigots come with views of all sorts.

But tory bigotry is pretty much their central theme, as last night got to re-confirm for anyone who had missed it.

[eFestivals]

does being against gay marriage automatically make you a bigot? im not so sure

I've yet to hear one rational reason from anyone for why it's wrong.

If you're able to give me a sensible view for why gay marriage is wrong that's not based in bigotry or made-up 'facts' I'm all ears.

[Guest]

does being against gay marriage automatically make you a bigot? im not so sure