Proof That Gay Marriage Causes Steamy Heterosexual Affrairs

[KMG365]

well, we have some hope that ignorance can be overcome with education.

Definitely. If people are open to education, it's the best route for sure. Unfortunately, there's so much misinformation out there that it's hard to sort out what's true and what's not. For instance, I can't count the number of times I've heard that gay men are more likely to be child molesters than straight men. It's not true and official statistics confirm that it's false, but for some reason, the lie continues to circulate and gain traction amongst people who can't be bothered, seemingly, to verify the information themselves.

 

[hprats]

Heh. All this discussion of kids having trouble understanding the concept of gay marriage made me go "gah!" and I am sitting in a room of my cousins, so one of them said "what?" So I told them (they're different ages, 6-10) and one 9 year old said "what's confusing about that?"


I can't understand is what's confusing about it. Kids can understand adoption, and if they're too young to understand sperm donors, then they are probably too young to wonder about that part anyway.


I feel really strongly about this issue...I always have, but have more since the day my sister found out gay marriage is legal in Canada, is the day she decided she could come out as bisexual to our parents. Gay marriage being legalized as marriage sends a message to everyone that non-hetero relationships should be equally respected by society.

 

[StaceyM]

To be honest, while this is an issue that we, as adults, seem to dwell quite a bit on, I really don't think it would be much of an issue for kids. I remember finding out where babies came from after reading a library book when I was in grade one or two. Despite being grossed out, I really didn't give it a lot of thought. I think being as honest as possible with a child, taking into account the child's age and comprehension level, of course, is probably the best way to approach this subject.

Completely agree.

There are many non-traditional families, including same sex couples with children in our neighbourhood. My kids have grown up accepting different examples of marriage and families. They've never demanded a biological definition of what makes a family, it's really been a non-issue for them. They've learned the (age appropriate) mechanics of what makes a baby, but whose sperm/egg/womb the baby came out of is irrelevant.

With the number of divorces, step-families, single parents and adoptions, everyone's scenario is different. I'm not sure why people can be so terrified of explaining same sex couples.

We define a family based on love, not biology.

 

[jennifervb]

To be honest, while this is an issue that we, as adults, seem to dwell quite a bit on, I really don't think it would be much of an issue for kids. I remember finding out where babies came from after reading a library book when I was in grade one or two. Despite being grossed out, I really didn't give it a lot of thought. I think being as honest as possible with a child, taking into account the child's age and comprehension level, of course, is probably the best way to approach this subject.

Completely agree.

There are many non-traditional families, including same sex couples with children in our neighbourhood. My kids have grown up accepting different examples of marriage and families. They've never demanded a biological definition of what makes a family, it's really been a non-issue for them. They've learned the (age appropriate) mechanics of what makes a baby, but whose sperm/egg/womb the baby came out of is irrelevant.

With the number of divorces, step-families, single parents and adoptions, everyone's scenario is different. I'm not sure why people can be so terrified of explaining same sex couples.

We define a family based on love, not biology.

:yeah:

 

[Petunia]

well, we have some hope that ignorance can be overcome with education.

Definitely. If people are open to education, it's the best route for sure. Unfortunately, there's so much misinformation out there that it's hard to sort out what's true and what's not. For instance, I can't count the number of times I've heard that gay men are more likely to be child molesters than straight men. It's not true and official statistics confirm that it's false, but for some reason, the lie continues to circulate and gain traction amongst people who can't be bothered, seemingly, to verify the information themselves.

Not just gay men, many supposedly educated people think that lesbians might pose a threat to little girls- I found this out first hand when it was becoming evident that my daughter had been sexually abused during visitation with her father.
I reported my suspicions and an investigation took place, but I'll never forget the look on the clinician's face when she learned that I was gay. For a short time, they actually focused on me as the potential abuser. It was very hard to suppress my anger over that, but I got thru it, and her father lost visitation because while there wasn't enough evidence to charge him, there was more than enough reason to believe he'd molested her. And he had to pay for the costs of the psych studies and all that at the hospital as well.


as far as gay men being child molesters, obviously ppl don't understand the difference between a pedophile and a homosexual but this group hasn't done much to help clear that up:
http://nambla.org/
:gaah:

 

[jorats]

My best friend is gay and he's my son's godfather. He remained secretive until his mid twenties, although, we always knew he was gay. This is why with my two boys, I always talked about gay being ok, or more being natural and normal. Every time we talked about love, I'd always include homosexuality. Now that my boys are older, they told me that I was too pro gay. That they felt I pushed it too hard. I guess that's cause it truly concerned me that my friend felt he had to keep it hidden... I didn't want my boys to feel they needed to hide anything from me.

 

[KMG365]

they told me that I was too pro gay. That they felt I pushed it too hard.

Just out of curiosity, how is one "too pro gay"?

For a short time, they actually focused on me as the potential abuser. It was very hard to suppress my anger over that, but I got thru it, and her father lost visitation because while there wasn't enough evidence to charge him, there was more than enough reason to believe he'd molested her.

I'm really sorry you had to go through that! It's so depressing that even so-called "educated" people can jump to conclusions like that in this day and age.

 

[kscanuck785]

My best friend is gay and he's my son's godfather.

how funny!! me too, my best friend is gay and is my son's godfather

 

[jorats]

they told me that I was too pro gay. That they felt I pushed it too hard.

Just out of curiosity, how is one "too pro gay"?

Probably...cause I talked about it all the time. When having the sex talk, I even included gay sex... so that's probably what they meant. lol

 

[Moon]

I have since changed my ideas of what a "gay" marriage should be called, but I just wanted to say, as a lesbian, even I had some trouble wrapping my head around the idea of trying to explain to a young child how a same gender couple had children.

To be honest, while this is an issue that we, as adults, seem to dwell quite a bit on, I really don't think it would be much of an issue for kids. I remember finding out where babies came from after reading a library book when I was in grade one or two. Despite being grossed out, I really didn't give it a lot of thought. I think being as honest as possible with a child, taking into account the child's age and comprehension level, of course, is probably the best way to approach this subject.

Slightly off topic, but not really. When my mom first gave me the how-babies-are-made talk, I apparently missed a paragraph and I was marginally worried that standing beside a man on a street corner he could send his little soldiers down, across the pavement and up my pant leg without me noticing. But I had no trouble understanding adoption. I guess what kids understand is as individual as each kid.

 

[KMG365]

they told me that I was too pro gay. That they felt I pushed it too hard.

Just out of curiosity, how is one "too pro gay"?

Probably...cause I talked about it all the time. When having the sex talk, I even included gay sex... so that's probably what they meant. lol

While I may be a little biased, I think what you did was commendable. Even if the information wasn't of personal use to them, teaching children to understand and respect differences is never a bad thing.

 

[KMG365]

I have since changed my ideas of what a "gay" marriage should be called, but I just wanted to say, as a lesbian, even I had some trouble wrapping my head around the idea of trying to explain to a young child how a same gender couple had children.

To be honest, while this is an issue that we, as adults, seem to dwell quite a bit on, I really don't think it would be much of an issue for kids. I remember finding out where babies came from after reading a library book when I was in grade one or two. Despite being grossed out, I really didn't give it a lot of thought. I think being as honest as possible with a child, taking into account the child's age and comprehension level, of course, is probably the best way to approach this subject.

Slightly off topic, but not really. When my mom first gave me the how-babies-are-made talk, I apparently missed a paragraph and I was marginally worried that standing beside a man on a street corner he could send his little soldiers down, across the pavement and up my pant leg without me noticing. But I had no trouble understanding adoption. I guess what kids understand is as individual as each kid.

Those would be quite the hardy little soldiers! :wink:

 

[KMG365]

 

[jennifervb]

:giggle:

 

[maria-mar]

Dunno if someone posted this video already, but it's too awesome not to share ^_^

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-fcI1Xr-NE


And it's been one year since gay marriage became legal in my country!! Yay for that

 

[KMG365]

Dunno if someone posted this video already, but it's too awesome not to share ^_^

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-fcI1Xr-NE

This just goes to show that young kids are perfectly capable of understanding and accepting gay marriage. Many adults have been giving kids too little credit for far too long and they've been using children as a way to excuse their own irrational fears and ignorance about gay marriage.

 

[SQ]

It sounds like the topic of this thread has completely changed.

I am sure that everyone will disagree with me but ....
marriage is a religious term and existed as such long before the state did.
If the state came up with a different term to call ALL unions between same and opposite sex couples, and left the word marriage to religion,
it would solve the problem.
The state has the right to make rules and many places have state/legal unions seperated from religious unions
The state doesn't have the right to impose a different meaning on a religious term with a specific meaning that has a long tradition and meaning.

This would give opposite sex and same sex couples the same legal relationship (name), the same legal rights, and the same recognization from the state. That is the point, isn't it?

 

[KMG365]

It sounds like the topic of this thread has completely changed.

I am sure that everyone will disagree with me but ....
marriage is a religious term and existed as such long before the state did.

That's actually incorrect. Marriage pre-dates religion too - in fact, it pre-dates "reliable recorded history."

The ancient Greeks practised marriage and all they had to do in order to be married was to believe they were married. The ancient Romans had marriage has well. The customs, practices and rights afforded by marriage varied considerably, and even changed over time, depending on the culture and beliefs of the people. Some societies require monogamy while others allow polygamy. The Nuer of Sudan allowed "women to act as a husband in certain circumstances". (Source: Wikipedia) So, while marriage is usually between a man and one or more women, there's obviously no set formula on what constitutes a marriage.

If the state came up with a different term to call ALL unions between same and opposite sex couples, and left the word marriage to religion,
it would solve the problem.

No, it wouldn't solve the problem since marriage has never been solely a religious term.

The state doesn't have the right to impose a different meaning on a religious term with a specific meaning that has a long tradition and meaning.

Again, marriage is not solely a religious term, but let's look at this a different way.

A lot of people object to gay marriage because they're not comfortable with altering the definition of the word marriage.

Before 1929 in Canada, a woman was not considered a "person". To be honest, I can think of few words with such enormous significance as the word "person".

It's probably fair to assume that many people, at that time, were not in favour of extending personhood to women. Some of those people might have wanted to afford women more rights, but were aghast at the idea of changing the definition of the word "person" to include females. I mean, come on, we're talking about changing the very definition of a person here!

So, what would've happened if society had tried to appease those people? What would've happened if women had been granted their rights, but instead of changing the definition of the word "person" to include them, some new, entirely different word was created for them? The new word would essentially be equal, in every respect, to the word "person", but as it negated the need to change the definition of a word, some people accepted the change more readily. A woman wouldn't be a person, but she'd be something else that was probably just as good. So, would that be okay? Would you have agreed to that?

This would give opposite sex and same sex couples the same legal relationship (name), the same legal rights, and the same recognization from the state. That is the point, isn't it?

Sorry. Separate but equal doesn't work. History has shown that time and time again.

 

[SQ]

That's actually incorrect. Marriage pre-dates religion too - in fact, it pre-dates "reliable recorded history." {/quote]

Marriage is a religious term used by various religions and this predates the establishment of city states. It depends on what you define as "reliable recorded history"

If the state came up with a different term to call ALL unions between same and opposite sex couples, and left the word marriage to religion,
it would solve the problem.

No, it wouldn't solve the problem since marriage has never been solely a religious term.

Yes, it is a term that has been borrowed by states and nations. It is time for them to stop borrowing this word and come up with their own word that has the meaning the state requires.

The state doesn't have the right to impose a different meaning on a religious term with a specific meaning that has a long tradition and meaning.

Again, marriage is not solely a religious term, but let's look at this a different way.

A lot of people object to gay marriage because they're not comfortable with altering the definition of the word marriage.

Before 1929 in Canada, a woman was not considered a "person". To be honest, I can think of few words with such enormous significance as the word "person".

It's probably fair to assume that many people, at that time, were not in favour of extending personhood to women. Some of those people might have wanted to afford women more rights, but were aghast at the idea of changing the definition of the word "person" to include females. I mean, come on, we're talking about changing the very definition of a person here!

So, what would've happened if society had tried to appease those people? What would've happened if women had been granted their rights, but instead of changing the definition of the word "person" to include them, some new, entirely different word was created for them? The new word would essentially be equal, in every respect, to the word "person", but as it negated the need to change the definition of a word, some people accepted the change more readily. A woman wouldn't be a person, but she'd be something else that was probably just as good. So, would that be okay? Would you have agreed to that?

Extending the meaning of a word and changing the meaning of a religious term that is deeply ingrained in various religions and tied to deeply held beliefs are not the same. To think that they are shows a lack of understanding of the depth of meaning, tradition, and integrated nature of the concept of marriage into the basic core of many religions.

This would give opposite sex and same sex couples the same legal relationship (name), the same legal rights, and the same recognization from the state. That is the point, isn't it?

Sorry. Separate but equal doesn't work. History has shown that time and time again.

I'm not talking about seperate but equal. I'm saying leave the term marriage to religion where it belongs and use a different word for all unions legalized by the state. That just means equal, same law, same name.
New words are invented all the time.
It seems to me that by demanding to redefine the term marriage, the state and other interested parties are demanding that religions accept this change in meaning and a huge change in their fundamental religious beliefs. That is where the conflict lies.

It makes me wonder if it isn't about being the same in terms of the state with the same rights and responsibilities but that instead it is an attack on religion and religious beliefs. People with strong religious beliefs feel like their basic religious beliefs are under attack .... because they are.
I don't think the two "sides" are even arguing about the same thing.
One side says they want fairness and equality under the law, the other is trying to preserve their religious beliefs - something that is suposed to be protected.
So use a different word, then any argument can be about equality and fairness on all sides.

Anyway, like I said initially, I doubt anyone on here will agree with me.
And unfortunately, it sounds like many may not even understand what I am talking about

 

[KMG365]

I'm not talking about seperate but equal. I'm saying leave the term marriage to religion where it belongs and use a different word for all unions legalized by the state.

Why does the word marriage belong to religion? As I said before, marriage pre-dates religion. Religions have latched onto the word marriage but, by no means, do they have sole jurisdiction over it.

New words are invented all the time.
It seems to me that by demanding to redefine the term marriage, the state and other interested parties are demanding that religions accept this change in meaning and a huge change in their fundamental religious beliefs. That is where the conflict lies.

No one is demanding that religions accept anything that goes against their beliefs. In fact, churches aren't being forced to perform gay marriages or sanction them in any way. However, since religion does not, and has never had, a lock on the word marriage, it is wholly unfair to compel those of us with different views to subscribe to the religious beliefs of others.

It makes me wonder if it isn't about being the same in terms of the state with the same rights and responsibilities but that instead it is an attack on religion and religious beliefs. People with strong religious beliefs feel like their basic religious beliefs are under attack .... because they are.

When interracial marriage was legalized, was that also an attack on religion and religious beliefs? For some people, the answer is yes. They believed, and some still do, that interracial marriage is wrong and immoral.

As with interracial marriage, if you want to believe that gay marriage is wrong, you're free to do so, but the rest of us shouldn't be limited by what someone else chooses to believe. In fact, that's really what's wrong here - not gay marriage, but the fact that some people think their beliefs entitle them to hold the rest of society hostage. I don't share someone's view on something, that truly doesn't affect them in any measurable way, but I'm still supposed to be constrained by their sense of "godliness"? How is that acceptable? So, I ask you, who is really being attacked here?

One side says they want fairness and equality under the law, the other is trying to preserve their religious beliefs - something that is suposed to be protected.
So use a different word, then any argument can be about equality and fairness on all sides.

Religious beliefs are still protected. That has not changed in any way.

To rephrase what you wrote above a little bit, one side says they want fairness and equality under the law, the other side is saying, "No way, you have to believe what I want you to believe because I said so."