Bjarki Dalsgarð

Gay marriage, I'm in for it, tough here in the country it is more or less still legal to discriminate them gay folks, hell the politicans do so rather openly.

So there is still a long way for them, which is why most of them move away from the country.

__________________
Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art.

The bitternes of life may consume you, otherwise it teaches you how to live for real.

Jodou1

I will try to explain my views on your question. Firstly I don't think any of those people actually 'changed' their sexuality. A man many may know named Alfred Kinsey created a scale. Now I'm not here to argue about Kinsey and his research, I'm only using his scale(Which isn't entirely accurate seeing as how it completely excludes asexuality).

A scale from 0-6, 0 being entirely heterosexual, 6 being entirely homosexual, and 3 being bisexual.

These people who you think may 'change' their sexuality may have simply fallen more into the 2 and 4 categories. Bisexual people who are attracted to either the opposite or same sex more than the other. Were I a 2 raised in todays society I would most likely identify myself as straight and completely ignore any attraction I had to the same sex. People who do this may later in life decide to explore their own sexuality, or fall for someone of the same/opposite sex where they had previously only dated the other. Seemingly 'changing' their sexual orientation.

As I said the scale itself is flawed because it doesn't acknowledge Asexuality, but I think it served its purpose in communicating the idea. That idea being that sexuality isn't so black and white, that each person has their own and one gay/straight man's sexuality isn't identical to every other gay/straight man's.

__________________
“Infidelity does not consist in believing or in disbelieving: it consists in professing to believe what one does not believe.”-Thomas Paine

duck

Jodou!, that is an excellent reply. I have also read (and it is in the past so I cannot remember the links) most people actually are more bisexual than they would like to admit.

Congrats on the clarity of your reply.

__________________
Religion: The ultimate definition of verisimilitude

ExclusiveSavior

Civil unions = yes

gay marriage = why should a religion change for people they consider evil? If you don't like it, find a religion that accepts it. If not, suck it up or outlet your rage toward the failings of secularism.

SirArthur

I do not care for others sexual preferences as long as it doesn't cross my path or aims for things such as pedophilia and rape.

But I'm also totally against what you US folks call "positive actions", positive actions may end very very negative ones within a medium/long time frame. Do not be naive and expect rewards out of those you "positively acted", it may (and most likely will not) not occur - remember your old pal Bin Laden?

Like ExclusiveSavior said;

civil union, it's ok...
marriage, we can't force any religion to accept them.

__________________
We can never have an idea of what we can achieve. All we can do is follow an interrogation and see where it may lead us to.

The Great Bible & Quran of Atheists and Agnostics:

http://cleanup.awardspace.com/

Astreja

Marriage is not the exclusive property of religion. I do agree that church denominations have the right to control their own ceremonies, but a secular marriage ceremony should be open to both heterosexual and same-sex couples.

Under the laws of most jurisdictions, there is a substantial difference in the rights and benefits afforded to married couples as opposed to unmarried, common law or other unions. A gay or lesbian couple should not have to spend thousands of dollars to give each other the same legal and financial protections automatically given to a man and woman with a $25 marriage license.

NotConvinced

I realistically think civil unions will eventually be more universal.

Beyond that, you're not asking for religion to change. If my religion holds that there's this practice called marriage and X,Y,Z are it's details (X being the couple is heterosexual, etc.), and Bob and Charlie over there on an island that's their own country don't like my religion and don't want to follow it, they can make up their own laws as to how their country will operate. Why does the change in Bob and Charlie's governmental laws change my religion?

I don't think it does at all. Could you use that same argument on any change of US law? If the law changed to allow all abortions no matter how late in the pregnancy they occur, and that they'd be federally funded by YOUR tax dollars, would you again ask "why should a religion change for people they consider evil? Exactly how would the religion itself change?

If marriage was a tradition that was found only in a paticular religion than you'd have much better ground to stand on, but as it's not because of it being virtually global regardless of government or religion, you really don't have any good ground at all.


As far as my response to the thread in general.....
Overall, the opposition to gay marriage can be seen as one of christianitys' sore thumbs sticking out, that needs to be eventually cut off. It's ironic that the true teachings of the Bible indeed point to sexual compassion as a part of compassion in general.

__________________
Everything you think you thought, the water's gone...every drop.

ExclusiveSavior

I guess I should have clarified my definition of marriage in this instance. Mariage = religious, I know it's not really defined as such, but that's how I'm using it.

While I don't agree with anything about religion, as long as it's around it can believe, accept and promote anything it once. We can complain about it, mock them and laugh at the stupid things they do, but forcing them to change isn't really my thing. If you don't like it, leave it.

Astreja

Thanks for the clarification, ES. And I agree that it's futile to attempt to force change on religious bodies. There are "affirming congregations" out there who are willing to bless gay unions, even if they can't legally call them marriages. If I were predisposed to church attendance, I would definitely vote with my feet and join a more welcoming church rather than stick around at a hostile one.

SirArthur

All groups are somehow hostile to others, including religions, politics and whatever groups it might be, it's impossible not to. Groups are around to set positions, not just wondering. It then just depends on "how hostile" those groups are. Some ignore, others laugh, others debate, others kill...

__________________
We can never have an idea of what we can achieve. All we can do is follow an interrogation and see where it may lead us to.

The Great Bible & Quran of Atheists and Agnostics:

http://cleanup.awardspace.com/