The "Gay Lifestyle" Myth

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
Well, to whom should the privilege of marriage be 'fairly' applied? Couples of two?
How about any 2 people for any reason?

People need to understand that marriage is a legal contract. Basically it shows that you and one other person are both liable for the things you do. Buy a house, both parties are liable. Take out a loan, both parties are liable. Other legal stuff goes along with this as well. If you feel that your contract is horrible and it's in your best interest to leave the contract, you can always break the contract by getting a divorce.

I actually want someone to try defending this. If you didn't marry for legal reasons, why are you married? Are you trying to trap the other person in a relationship because you're afraid they'll leave you? If you already have someone you love, you already live with them, and you're already splitting costs with them, then why did you want to get married? Was it for the health insurance? Lower rates on car and life insurance? Better tax rates? Those are all legal reasons.
 

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
Why exactly does the government have to consider anything done between consenting adults?
Because the Government (your Government) and Religion (your Religion), do this.

They pay people for being poor, they tax people who are rich.

It's your fucking Government, or Religion... don't ask me to explain them.

-John
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
I admit to having some trouble with this. I understand how this argument starts; it's where it ends that confuses me. It goes like this: "we, the heterosexuals who oppose gay marriage, harbor absolutely no ill will whatsoever toward you gays. Your sexual orientation causes us no ire, no discomfort, no insecurity. We wish you the best in all of your endeavors. Nonetheless, we do not want you to have certain rights that we possess. And the reason for this is _________."

You care to fill in the blank?
The reason is that marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman for thousands of years.

The easiest way to solve this problem is to remove marriage from our legal terminology and return it to its origin as a religious idea.

Instead of getting a 'marriage license' from the state you should get a 'civil union license' and then everyone will be treated equally.

If after getting such a license Joe and Steve want to run around tell everyone that they are married, then good for them. At least the state itself hasn't changed the legal definition of a religious term.
 

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
Instead of getting a 'marriage license' from the state you should get a 'civil union license' and then everyone will be treated equally.
Treated un-equally you mean.

Civally unioned, versus non-civally unioned.

-John
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
Instead of getting a 'marriage license' from the state you should get a 'civil union license' and then everyone will be treated equally.

The reason fundies fight against this is because it doesn't hurt gay people. Regular straight married people would see absolutely no change in their lives, but suddenly gays have some kind of improvement in their gay lives! Oh noes!

*hates fundies more than fundies hate gays*
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,294
6,353
126
I agree, which is why I support legalized polyandry and polygyny, as well as gay marriage. I mean, how devoid of common sense do you have to be to say that this Victorian "sensibility" we so recently conjured up about the supremacy of monogamous marriage somehow trumps the millennia-old traditions of many other cultures? What's even more ironic is that this neo-imperial cultural superiority complex has been appropriated by feminists in the name of abolishing oppression! Seriously, what part of "get your sanctimonious moralizing government out of my bedroom" did they forget?

Yup, I am one of a family of 9 brothers and 11 sisters and we are all married to each other. We have had 32 children but only 5 have survived so far. That's 25 libertarians for you right there.
 

Soltis

Member
Mar 2, 2010
114
0
0
The easiest way to solve this problem is to remove marriage from our legal terminology and return it to its origin as a religious idea.

Instead of getting a 'marriage license' from the state you should get a 'civil union license' and then everyone will be treated equally.

^ This. I've heard the many arguments over things like how a miserable heterosexual couple has the right to get married but not a happy gay couple and etc and really the only way I see to deal with these issues is by redefining what's what. I also dislike how "marriage" has become abit of a joke in our society in that many people treat it just as a scheme to get money from an inevitable divorce or how some only need take their ring off and all vows go out the window. Although I suppose these are blanket statements and it is ultimately about the character of each individual involved, It just "seems" like not much is taken seriously these days.

Anyway, as a christian and heterosexual man, I'm for changing definitions so gay rights can be upheld without conflicting with religious traditions.
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
I've heard the many arguments over things like how a miserable heterosexual couple has the right to get married but not a happy gay couple and etc and really the only way I see to deal with these issues is by redefining what's what. I also dislike how "marriage" has become abit of a joke in our society in that many people treat it just as a scheme to get money from an inevitable divorce

You need to meet a lot of different classes of people to get an understanding of what this is really about. If I had to put a huge blanket statement on it, I would say that less educated people seem to have worse relationships.

When I was a chemistry student, most of the class mates I associated with had somewhat serious relationships. They weren't married or anything like that, but they acted as if they were married (in a good way).
Right now I'm an engineering student, and many of my class mates are in serious relationships, just like the chem students.
In the next hallway over are the electricians. It's a very respectable trade and many of these guys are friendly, but their attitude about relationships is completely different. They obviously like women, but they talk in such a way that I can't ever see them having a woman as a friend. It's obvious they don't see women as being on an equal playing field because I've heard quite a few of them talk about how they want their future wives to stay home and not work.

Lower down are the high school grads and high school dropouts. Many of my friends fit into this category. The relationships in this category are terrible. I wouldn't even call them relationships. It's more like "hey i'm lonely, are you a girl? cool let's date". I bet a lot of people fall into that category of dating someone they don't really care too much about. Gold digger women, horny men, lonely men, lonely women, etc. The combinations are endless.


Luckily I'm not the only person to believe this stereotype. Someone has actually done a study on it!
http://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol10/5/10-5.pdf

from study
4.1 Large differentials in divorce risk by education
The results show a general pattern of negative effects of educational attainment on a
couple's annual odds of divorce, net of all other covariates. The divorce risk declines
with a higher level of the husband's educational attainment and with a high level of the
wife's educational attainment.
This is in line with the economic-demographic theoretical
predictions, even when the effect of wives' increased economic potential due to higher
education is taken into account.


Simply put: divorce rates are not uniform across all classes. Idiots like Tom Leykis get married and divorced 4 times then go on the radio and joke about how much marriage sucks and how bad their wife was. People then hear these bad stories about "my wife is a bitch" and "my husband is lazy" and pair it with a 50% divorce rate to come to the conclusion that this is just how things work. In reality, the success rate per marriage might be 50%, but the success rate per person is much higher. Most people get married and stay married. People like Tom Leykis get divorced over and over again. A lot of people push the LOL MARRIAGE stereotype even though it doesn't apply to them or anyone else they know.


Anyway, back on topic. Hurrrrrrr them gays are going to hate being married. Tom Leykis said marriage sucks!
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
I can't imagine how devoid of common sense you have to be to say that marriage isn't a right.

I was merely going to ask Atreus21 to explain how marriage is not a right, but this approach is so much better, because it insults him as well! We all know that's a constructive part of debate! Thank you again for elevating the level of discourse, Moonie!
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
I think a civilized debate on gay marriage is predicated on two conditions:

1. The true homophobes remain at least silent.
2. That pro-gay marriage folks, while they need not agree with said arguments, simply acknowledge that there are non-homophobic (meaning not motivated by fear and hatred of homosexuals) arguments against gay marriage.

If we could eliminate all the tangents and misdirections brought about by violation of those two conditions, I think we could learn alot from each other.

My main argument for gay marriage boils down to why government is involved in marriage at all: to incentivize ideal conditions. Marriage is beneficial to everyone who commits to it, heterosexual and otherwise and, in turn, beneficial to society as well. For some it's the creation of ideal conditions for raising children, for others it's simply an expression of their intense bond and commitment to each other. In all cases, it's in the government's interest (and, thereby, society's interest) to incentivize these scenarios.

If not all of that, though, government has no place in anyone's relationships. I do not accept that there can be recognition of ideal conditions for only heterosexuals or only homosexuals. Either everyone's are recognized or none are, in the eyes of government.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
I couldn't agree more. However I believe that the "gay lifestyle" is an image perpetuated by gays themselves. The gays who adhere to the stereotype image of the gay man. We all know what that is, and it is completely unnecessary, but for some reason, gay men continue to act like this. Granted, there are many, many gay men who look and act normal, they largely go unnoticed because of the flaunting done by the stereotypical gay male. It is these men who force the straight population into hating the gay community. In short, the problems of the gay community are caused by the gay community and no one else. They have only themselves to blame. They need to police themselves to improve their image. Everyone knows this.

Consider the following:

- Yes, there are some gay men who validate the stereotype, but that's actually a minority.

- Everyone is responsible for their own actions, but they're also responsible for their own reactions as well. So no, blame for the "problems of the gay community" does not exclusively rest with the gay community.

- The concept of "police themselves" in this matter is absurd. There's nothing to police. Everyone is free to be themselves.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Now that I drive a Prius I really feel I can contribute meaningfully to discussions like this, and I have to say he's absolutely spot on.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Prius? Rubbish... give me an Aston Martin DB9, Lamborghini Gallardo Balboni edition, or Lexus LFA any day.

Right now I drive a 2005 Acura TL.

Careful! You better conform to the stereotype, or your gay card is going to get pulled! Those are manly-men cars! Get back in your Miata and pipe down!
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
The reason is that marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman for thousands of years.

The easiest way to solve this problem is to remove marriage from our legal terminology and return it to its origin as a religious idea.

Instead of getting a 'marriage license' from the state you should get a 'civil union license' and then everyone will be treated equally.

If after getting such a license Joe and Steve want to run around tell everyone that they are married, then good for them. At least the state itself hasn't changed the legal definition of a religious term.
Actually the easiest way is just to make the Religious part of marriage ceremonial after all that's all it is with regards to religion. There's no reason to make "Marriage" the sole domain of any religion. Non religious marriages are just as valid. If you have a problem with the terminology tough shit.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |