I Support Same Sex Marriage

“the support behind behind this issue” – freudian slip?

Whoops! Fixed!

eh, i do not

I hope you won’t feel the need to interfere with the marriages of others, then

How about “I do NOT care about SAME SEX MARRIAGE”?

Well, I believe it’s an abomination and all that, but I’d be curious to see if there’s any solid non-religious reason against it. I don’t think I know of any.

I’m against it in that if you say that the multi-gender requirement of legal marriage is just an arbitrary standard (and it is) and that its therefore indefensible and should be discarded, then all the other limitations that are just as arbitrary become logical fair game. ie. why does a marriage have to involve only TWO people, oh sure YOU say it should only involve two people, but thats just you pushing your standards on me and my spouses. And since we’re requiring companies to give medical and other benefits to same sex spouses now, than I demand the right to marry my mother who needs vision benefits and life insurance. Again, don’t push YOUR standards on who I can marry. I demand the right to marry who I choose.

Good on you for publicly stating your opinion. This helped remind me of Loving v. Virginia, and that in 50 years our kids will look back in shame at why groups like this even needed to be created.

I am just curious, if a brother and sister are in love, should their marriage be prevented? Two brothers? What about a married man and his mistress? Love is love right?

Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can’t legally get married because the world needs more children.

Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are property, blacks can’t marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

I also support same-sex marriage and I think the usual arguments against it are ludicrous.

I’m looking forward to a day when this discrimination ends, and until then I’m proud to see you stand up in support for equality, Jono. I’m going to sign into Facebook and join you.

What does this have to do with Ubuntu?

Talk about that on your facebook group.

Well I entirely oppose same sex marriage on the grounds that I oppose marriage. But if people want to be dumb enough to let the government into their relationships, who am I to decide that.

Which is a round about way of saying the same thing you said but my way was far more interesting. Of course I am durunk so there ya go.

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

I also support same sex marriage, it is a matter of equal rights. It blows me away that this is even a question today. I joined the Facebook group thanks -Jono

another site on the issue: http://www.couragecampaign.org/

I find it sad that people who are homophobic can’t see two inches above there nose that love is love no matter the gender. I don’t understand why guys mainly ain’t supportive about it. Guys who are gay aren’t competition.

It’s funny also that guys love seeing woman on woman but when it comes to guys on guys it’s a complete different story. I’m straight as an arrow and I respect love is love not based on religion, creed, race, etc.

I wonder when religious bullshit will quit interfering in people’s life’s and quit dictating how one should see others life and judging them.

It’s the 21st century, how about the homophobia’s grow up and let people live their life’s the way they want to. Who are you to judge someone based on anything and tell someone they can’t be together with someone who they love. How would you like it if a woman’s parents didn’t want you around their daughter and/or vice-versa. You wouldn’t like it. That’s how gay’s feel. When will prejudice and discrimination ever just go away.

Nice to show some courrage, from what i know there are quite alot of “conservative” linux users that will flame you for this post. Very interesting to think that they are conservative, a marriage, be it same sex or not, encourages people to stay together and not having affairs all around, so it probably more conservative to be for same sex marriage than against.

When will you support zoophiles? If they are in love with their pets, why prevent them from enjoying that privilege?

Same sex “union” (as it cannot be called “marriage” in the real sense) is wrong in many counts, depending on which angle you want to take:

1. For those who believe evolution, same-sex “union” is disastrous, because if everyone decides to do this, the species will be extinct.

2. From the sociological angle, same-sex couple just cannot compete with traditional family unit in providing children with what they need.

3. For those who believe the Bible, same-sex union is of course a sin.

The issue is decided by: do you believe in God? Do you believe in the Bible?

This is the real issue. Man wants to do his own thing, rather than submit to the Creator’s way.

This is what one must answer: do you believe in God?

In the end, it doesn’t matter what Jono Bacon thinks of same-sex union, it doesn’t matter what I or you think of same-sex union. In the end, what matters is what God thinks of it.

Of course if you say: “I don’t believe in God…”

Ok, I just hope you have very good data and proofs, because if you’re wrong, you’ll be in a lot of trouble.

That’s another topic that’s too much for this comment…

Well, i can only say this on the matter:

http://bit.ly/8gzZ2R

I hate joining Facebook groups though

“I would never want to prevent anyone from enjoying what I am afforded the privilege of enjoying.”

Is that really true? What if the couple concerned are brother and sister? Or if one of them is already married (and the other partner is happy with the polygamy)? Or if one of the partners is 14 and the other is 45 (and, again, both are happy with it)? Would you want to prevent any of those couples from enjoying the privileges of marriage?

I don’t think your position is actually as simple as you state.

(Note for the hard of thinking or logically impaired: this comment is not equating homosexuality with anything else, paedophilia included. It is exploring the logical consequences of Jono’s statement.)

I’ve always felt there’s something very suspicious about you.

Well, if those people are happy with it and reached adulthood, then I don’t think there is anything wrong with it. In the Netherlands we have a few polygamous couples living together with a ‘Samenlevingscontract’ and that hasn’t eradicated society yet. I really don’t see what’s the problem if those people are happy that way. At least we have a proper social welfare system that allows people to divorce when they’re not happy anymore, without having to live on the street as a consequence.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samenlevingscontract

You should have used your head before posting such a repulsive opinion. Keeping you as a community manager of Ubuntu would be genuine mistake. You OUGHT to be fired.

Just for the record, I’m for being out of everyone’s business, as well. I tell you that so that you won’t think I have hidden motives when I say:

“Your political views probably shouldn’t be syndicated on Canonical Voices.”

Though that’s up to your employer, I guess.

Nice statement … but with one big hole. Marriage has nothing to do with love. You do not need marriage to have love, nor do you need marriage to have commitment and security. If you didn’t feel love, commitment, and security until you got married, then you never should have got married. It should be there prior to, not as a result of.

Marriage is a declaration and celebration … to family, friends, and to bureaucracy, and/or sometimes a religious requirement. An affirmation and statement of what you already have in your life.

I don’t disagree with you, but the premise and argument is not befitting. Gay or hetro, you can have love, commitment, and security with having or requiring marriage … and many, many do.

Will you marry me?

Having a pervert in a leading position will eventually hurt the community. I hope for the sake of Ubuntu you leave.

Homosexuals will continue to get together, no matter if we like it or not. Recognizing same sex marriage allows homosexual spouses to have the same rights as heterosexual spouses, and that’s no little deal.

I’m talking about men and men and women and women, not paedopilla, etc. Quit trying to twist my words around.

People regardless of homosexual or heterosexual, would like to get married for a special reason. As marriage is a special moment, special set, in front of friends, love ones, etc.

Signed. I support same sex marriages because I support equal rights (or rites, if you live on the Discworld) for everyone, regardless of race, sex, creed or sexuality.

I do however generally think that marriage is an outdated concept that has no place in a world where most people I care about are not religious. I have been together with my girlfriend for nearly 9 years now and we have lived together about 7 years of that. Why should we marry? To appease the general society? To fit in? I strongly believe that the “security” which this ritual pretends to offer does not exist. A successful relationship comes from the heart, not some esoteric vow you have taken. Staying together takes love and a lot of hard work, wearing a ring is just a symbol. It’s OK if you are into that kind of thing, but it won’t save your relationship.

I support the right for anyone to marry, I just don’t think anyone needs to…

Hehhe. Let me propose you some topics for your next posts: - Capital punishment - Legal abortion - Vim vs. Emacs =)

I support same sex marriage too. I’m from Argentina and some months ago this debate was in the public eye because a female judge approved a same-sex “civil union” between two guys with AIDS. The union was later void. Too sad.

These demoralized perverts would eventually permit marriages (if the term still applies) between son and mother or father and daughter or even any other unthinkable mix. And because the issue cannot be ‘mathematically’ proven wrong it might become trendy at a certain point in the future. Who knows if enough father daughter couples get vocal in demanding their rights “using blogs and facebook groups” then a simple dude with no insight (like Jono) would end up having ANOTHER entry on his blog “boldly and couragesly” congratulating his Dad and sister on their first newborn.

with this logic, you’ll end up being best man in your mother’s wedding (to your brother)!!

You must realize of course what this will lead to … gay divorce! The horror.

I am pretty amused that just because I say that I understand that two gay people can love each other and should be able to marry, that it is assumed that I support a brother and sister to be able to marry.

I am not talking about brothers and sisters marrying, people and their pets marrying, or people marrying children: I am merely saying that I can see the love that is shared between two gay people as can be shared between two heterosexual people, and that that love should be able to be celebrated with marriage in the same way heterosexual people can.

Ah see? Here you are imposing your arbitrary standards and judgments on the love of two people that want to marry just because they are brother and sister. Why is your limit on who can marry right when you say other’s view is wrong?

I like what Jon Stewart had to say about gay marriage,

Jon Stewart: “Initially I was against gay marriage, because I love my wife, and I’d hate to have to leave her for a dude”

Larry King: “You thought it was compulsory?”

Jon Stewart: “Well I heard all the fuss and I so I thought that it must be because hetrosexual people would be forced into gay marriage. But then someone explained to me that it was only gay people who would get gay married it didn’t seem so scary any more. It didn’t seem like such a big deal.”

…I’m from New Zealand and here we have marriage (hetro adults) and civil unions (any two adults). My wife and I ended up getting a civil union in support of gay rights because it’s the inclusive option.

(as it’s an option over here, Civil Unions are considered to )

That is really sad. Who got the child custody? the taker I suppose as he’d be more motherly

Plz keep this filth away from Ubuntu. If necessary have a separate blog where your personal crap could be dumped.

I find it rather abnormal for someone to be amused when thrashed. Jono dear, these people know you didn’t mention brothers and sisters nor pets and people. These replies are merely trying to extrapolate your reasoning to help you identify your mistake but obviously that’s beyond your comprehension.

So you support same sex marriage, too.

“Of course if you say: “I don’t believe in God…”

Ok, I just hope you have very good data and proofs, because if you’re wrong, you’ll be in a lot of trouble.”

Augh, man… that’s a pretty dangerous argument! What if there is not one God but a whole lot of Gods (think Roman or Greek mythology), and they’ll get angry at people worshiping only Zeus? What if there’s a God who condemns people who believe in a God?

I hope you have very good data and proofs about your concept of god, because if you’re wrong, you’ll be in a lot of trouble.

There’s nothing inherently wrong about brothers and sisters marrying, that’s a genetic limitation. If you get a vasectomy or something, power to you, marry your sister.

That is true..

Whoa now, brothers and sisters marrying, THAT’s not popular yet!

Care to point out what, aside from genetics, would be wrong with it?

Was it a slip to include this on Ubuntu feeds? If so, that’s forgiveable.

But if you intentionally did so, think about the repercussions. I would hope the free software community would avoid such contentious politics.

Free software should be inclusive. Such postings turn people away, no matter what view you ascribe to.

I, as a Christian, believe homosexuality and same sex marriage is a sin. Obviously this is a personal belief which I cannot prove to be correct to anyone else.

But I don’t have any right to stop people from living that lifestyle, just as no one has any right to get involved in anyone else’s life through force (government = force). To anyone who thinks they have a right to forcefully interfere in someone else’s life, the burden of proof is on you.

I see no valid reason for government to be involved in marriage at all. To say there were would be saying that there is a valid reason to initiate force against someone else. Using government is nothing more than some people forcing their arbitrary beliefs on others.

And posts like this, if too closely associated with Ubuntu, probably aren’t good for the Ubuntu community.

The fact that some people equal showing you respect different kind of people and don’t discriminate to expressing an political opinion that could hurt your employer baffles me. What is it that is so controversial about homosexuality?

If statements like the one Jono made don’t go well with some community members, then it’s not the statement that should be withdrawn, but its the people that are offended by a message of equality who should reconsider if an open and accepting community of different individuals is the right place for them.

I find tiresome reading over and over the same *against opinions even at different countries. 1) What about brother and sister marriage?: If it’s only marriage there isn’t anything wrong. If in the future they have children then it’ll be wrong because it causes diseases. 2) What about marrying several women/ men? Against, if they freely choose to do it there’s nothing inherently wrong. 3) And what about zoophiles? To begin with, so far there isn’t any mean of knowing if the animal is alright with the situation, therefore, no way. 4) That’d be the end of heterosexual marriage!: Obviously, it has nothing to do with it and, furthermore, it might reinforce it because it’d spread marriage.

As I said before, when the same exact views are found at several places it usually means people have read or watched it somewhere so, please, forget the “sacred” books, forget the lobbies and think freely about it. After all, talking now about the catholic church, why should you let somebody who decides not to have a family run yours?.

There are first-world countries where homosexual marriage and even adoption is legal and those countries still remain united.

Even more simple, put yourself in their place: some get bulled just for being gay/ lesbian at school, high-school, college and their workplace, some can’t take the hand of the person they love, some can’t tell their parents, siblings or friends because they fear their reaction, etc.

And maybe more important, do you like to think about your country as a free country? Because we should avoid that word if we foster the discrimination of our fellow citizens.

Finally, please, have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_homosexuality_laws.svg and decide if you’d prefer your country to be amongst the blue group of countries or amongst the red one.

Zeke the only plausible explanation for your nonsense comment is your young age. I assume you haven’t yet had the opportunity to leave the media controlled cocoon that you live in. Once you get the chance to see other places in this world you will realize that 90% of the people who live in it find your claims about homosexuality to be profoundly nauseating.

Hofs, equating right and wrong is a prime sign of ignorance. Men having anal sex are opposing the nature of creation. Humanity in its entirety and throughout history abhorred this most disgusting act regardless of race or religion. Only very recently, with the aid of forced spoon-feeding via TV, and in just a handful of affluent countries did this concept become semi-normalized. You need to try to understand the opposing opinion before making lame and silly comments.

This is my personal blog. Hence the personal discussion.

according to zeke, since gays arent competition men should support them. it follows that if paedophiles arent your competition then you should support them?!?! dats freakin’ stupid

ftn 1-These first-world countries you mentioned barely compromise 20% of the world’s population. Don’t you have any respect for the opinion of the remaining 80%. 2-We do not let the church run our lives. Hint: we don’t follow the church otherwise we would have become like you. If your ‘sacred books’ are worthy of forgetting, the same doesn’t apply to others’ sacred books. 3-Just because someone gets bullied at school or elsewhere doesn’t necessarily mean he’s right. Bullying is one issue. The act that caused it is another. Don’t mix them up. 4-If according to your definition freedom means losing our morals and ethics and accepting men whom take turns to screw each other in bed then you can keep this alleged freedom to yourselves. We would rather be restricted by ethical code than live like a bunch of mad pigs where everything is allowed. I shan’t comment on your last paragraph. it is empty as is.

hmmmm. you know, this isn’t very clear to everybody.

I don’t have time to read all the comments, however, I’ll throw in my weight to support same sex relationships:

Hate the sin, love the sinner.

Yeah, I’m religious. LDS to boot. You know what? My church has publicly come out against defining civil marriage as the union between two members of the same sex. That’s okay with me. Want to know why? Because if the church does not want to recognize homosexuals as members of their religion, that’s fine. They can join another.

To churches, mine included, same sex marriage is all about abomination, sin and damnation. To everyone else outside of religion, it’s about the basic fundamental rights humans have in their culture. Tax breaks, medical benefits, inheritances, and so forth.

It was wrong to discriminate against women, it was wrong to discriminate against blacks, it’s wrong to discriminate against homosexuals.

People who think same sex marriage is a slippery slope argument, don’t understand basic civil rights and cultural beliefs.

Most cultures, no matter how simplistic or complex, have an “incest taboo”, which defines sexual intercourse (which marriage universally morally grants access to) between siblings, parent/descendant and first cousins, as morally wrong. Further, marriage is a civil union between two consenting adults.

So, saying that same sex marriage will give rise to marriage between siblings, parent/descendant or first cousins, shows the person creating the argument has no idea what they are talking about.

You should read my comment above about the incest taboo in culture and the civil arrangement in marriage. This argument holds no water at all.

Are you a comedian? Do you dress up in a clown outfit, and entertain for a living? Because that’s the most entertaining comment on this post.

Marriage is a civil union between two consenting adults in almost every complex culture. To even imply that same sex marriage gives way to marrying animals shows you haven’t the faintest clue what marriage is, or even what you’re talking about.

That argument is good for a far fetched laugh, and that’s about it.

I thought the URL made it pretty clear, myself.

Wow Jono! I came here after seeing you reference the Google result on Twitter. It’s a shame that so many people who found it that way clearly spend their days tracking down people they disagree with online so they can try and discredit they opinions.

As far as the issue itself goes, I personally believe that marriage is a bit of an outdated concept (although you’d obviously disagree with me on this), so I won’t be joining the group. However, if a couple wants their relationship to be made ‘official’ in the eyes of the state/god/etc, I don’t see why it should matter if they’re two men.

This certainly seems a hotbed of discussion. Perhaps you should do a Shot of Jaq about it?

This argument is pointless. It doesn’t hold an ounce of weight. Search for “incest taboo”.

Or yours. Slippery-slope arguments usually hold little to no value. Saying same-sex marriage opens the door to people marrying their sibling, an animal, or an inanimate object for crying out loud, clearly don’t understand:

1) how inductive logic works 2) anything about the culture they live in 3) the civil rite of granting marriage

The Ubuntu Planet is a collection of blogs of the personal lives of its contributors. As long as it adheres to the Code of Conduct, it’s fit to be on the planet.

Fab, I should have read your post before I replied, because I quite simply agree with every word you wrote.

Aaron, what a fantastically balanced and well written comment that summarizes your views. Thankyou for your wisdom.

I’ve been following the comments here and they are a bit strange for a guy like me.. I’m a christian gay guy living with my boyfriend here in Norway, where same-sex marriages were allowed in 2008 (even though the state-run church isn’t forced to wed same-sex couples yet).

It seems to me that the definition of marriages have always been defined by laws and social construct. It isn’t THAT long time ago since white and non-whites in the U.S. couldn’t wed in all states.. and of course, there are loads of different age requirements in different countries.. some even make it unlawful for people of certain religions to marry people of certain other religions. And of course.. the right to end marriages? That’s quite modern..

I just can’t see the argument that some people gaining some rights will lead to other people’s status being diminished. That’s just bizarre thinking.

But of course, people are free to think what they wish, and one should respect everyone .

I would have thought it being called jonobacon.org being fairly clear. Maybe I need to clarify this in the sidebar or something.

Not wanting to make a flame out of this, but talking about civil rights in a civilized manner is always a good thing.

I agree with you, the first-world countries where homosexual marriage is allowed are a minority, but they represent a counter- example to the thesis that gay marriage destroys families: they are the living proof that demonstrates gay marriage doesn’t hurt heterosexual marriage, the country or the family whatsoever.

I didn’t meant to disrespect anybody, sorry if someone got offended, but once a minority said the Earth was spherical, that men and women should have the same rights, and so on. What proves being a majority doesn’t mean to be right.

Sorry again, but to my understanding being religious means to live according to the moral believes you follow, thus, letting it drive your life at least in part, which, by the way, is OK from my point of view. But it isn’t when one tries to impose his/ her believes to others.

I share your idea that because someone gets bullied at school or elsewhere doesn’t necessarily mean he’s right. In fact, this isn’t about being right or wrong, this is about equality and realizing a state has no right to arbitrarily subjugate their citizens based on their sexuality.

In your fourth statement you do something I read several times before: mixing your moral and the moral of the place you live. But by it’s definition, a place, a state or a country has no moral: people do, and there’s a myriad of different ethics in a place like the US.

Again, please, I know it might be hard but try to empathize and think how they feel: most of them don’t think about screw each other in bed just as heterosexuals don’t think about screwing their men/ wives.

Legalizing homosexual marriage too represents to be restricted by an ethical code, the only difference is that code admits that different sex people might live in partnerships.

By the way, homosexuality stopped being considered a mental pathology by American and international organizations decades ago.

Furthermore, I am sure that in a bunch of years we shall see homophobic comments as meaningless as those sexists or racists.

And I don’t understand all the fuzz against it because, after all, it won’t affect your rights at all if your heterosexual but it will make the life of your fellow citizens easier giving them equal opportunities.

Definity, birds of a feather block together.

Maybe this code of conduct should restrict topics to be Ubuntu related. People follow this link to find recent news about Ubuntu, not gay affiliations.

I believe the confusion is not due to the name but rather to the link being located under the “Ubuntu news” section via the main page of the Ubuntu official website. Even the name “Ubuntu Planet” doesn’t indicate anything personal about it. Why not call it something like “Ubuntu Personals” to remove the disambiguation. You must understand that a huge number of Ubuntu users aren’t US or EU nationals and don’t abide to your values. Throwing such objectionable material in their faces is very offensive. You could at least keep it as far away from Ubuntu as possible. I and many other Ubuntu forum users have steel strong beliefs that many of you are very unlikely to accept yet we never even hint to them just so as not to disrupt the main purpose of being on this site which is to use, promote and develop an excellent open source OS for all humans to benefit from. I am not obsessed with changing jono’s personal convictions but being a community leader his post was very unthoughtful, probably unintentionally. If you genuinely want collaboration then you must identify others’ sensitivities and act accordingly.

I support same-sex marriage. It’s already legal in my country and is part and parcel of a broader civil rights movement which respects rights of the disabled, mentally retarded and so on. Nevertheless some people still argue that people with intellectual defects should not be allowed to have sex. If a person with Downs syndrome wants to hook up with a normal person, what then? Where does one draw the line between wanting to protect a citizen from harm, and causing harm by denying the most basic natural rights? Just my two cents. Go Jono Go.

But saying “incest is a taboo” doesn’t get you anywhere. For the last few thousand years, homosexuality has been in pretty much the same category. Now, in some cultures, it’s not. How can you be sure that incest won’t move similarly? And if it did, would it suddenly become right? Is morality decided by the majority?

Also, does your argument hold for polygamy?

Gerv

I disagree with Jono on this issue, but I think that comment was utterly out of line.

Gerv

We’re assuming you support brothers and sisters marrying, not because of the fact you support gay people marrying, but because of the reason you gave for supporting it. Because that reason (“I don’t want to deny the joy of marriage to anyone”) certainly could be used to support brother/sister marriages. So we are asking: why don’t you? Aren’t you being inconsistent by opposing them, and being as nastily restrictive as the people you oppose on the gay marriage issue?

Or do you actually have a different reason for supporting gay marriage, which can logically be used to support it but not brother/sister marriage?

Gerv

Of course you support this issue, you’re sensible and sane. But might I ask that you add a link to the HRC (Human Rights Campaign – the non-profit behind those “=” signs on bumper stickers) or consider endorsing that too as a means to effect actual legal change in the US? I’ve been a member for a number of years now.

Jon.

Re – Bashar Just remember this is Jono’s OWN website and he has the right to express his opinions without getting flamed. Also his own personal views are nothing to do with his job!!

As someone who has a job role that includes promoting respect within the community, this is on-topic for Jono. Aside from that, I’d doubt I’d have a problem with inclusive political speech in general; IMO it encourages people to feel welcomed within the community.

Only superficially does this work.

Homosexuality and pedophilia are two very different things, and the fact that you’re trying to equate them is sickening.

The act of pedophilia is legally equivalent to rape, since sex must be consentual and those under the age of consent are legally incapable of giving informed consent to sexual acts.

Pedophilia is also, almost always, exploitative. The perpetrator abuses the victim’s trust and naivety to their own ends. It is ethically indefensible.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, when performed properly, is neither of these. Being performed between two consenting adults, it is not a form of rape, and, likewise, both parties have the developed mental capacity to understand what they’re doing and walk away from it.

Informed consent.

Next.

Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion.

I do not believe in any god(s). The constitution of the country I live in protect me from the religious beliefs of others, and them from mine, by stating that religious belief cannot be allowed to inform policy. Where the two do agree, it must only be when there is as good, secular justification.

The question of whether or not god exists, or whether I believe in him, is moot.

In order:

Siblings producing offspring carries an incredibly high risk of genetic deformity. If they were unable to reproduce, then ethically, I see no issue with their pairing. Society may not be ready for that. Note that same-sex pairings carry an incredibly low risk of reproduction.

There is also no grounds upon which to object to polyamory, when all partners are informed to the extent they wish to be and to which it has been agreed, and all are open to addressing one another’s needs openly and honestly.

14 year olds, where I live, are not able to enter into a legal contract, such as a marriage contract. They are also not able to give informed consent to the sexual act.

As a queer man, I thank you for this. I live in Australia, and we’re currently fighting for gay marriage.

Now, to address those who reacted negatively:

Marriage is, at present, a contract. It can only be entered into by those able to legally enter into a contract, such as those over the age of 18.

Now, most developed, Western nations have some form of anti-discrimination policy in effect. These policies will generally ban government bodies and corporations from disciminating against any individual on the basis of anything in a given list (which generally includes sex, race, religion, and sexuality). For the purposes of what follows, I shall refer to the items in this list as grounds for discrimination.

A government body, acting under such a policy or law, cannot bring into effect any policy or law which plays favourites on the basis of one of these grounds for discrimination. If a government body were to bring into effect a law or policy which prevented individuals from utilising a state-sanctioned institution on the basis of one of these grounds for discrimination, that would be a violation of that state’s anti-discrimination policy.

Thus, preventing homosexuals from reasonably entering into a marriage, while it is understood or explicitly stated that the parties of a marriage enjoy a romantic relationship, is discrimination.

Minors cannot get married. They are unable to enter into a legal contract (in some states, not without permission from a legal parent or guardian) and thus cannot be legally wed.

While I can think of no ethical objection to romantic and sexual relationships between siblings, where there is no appreciable risk of reproduction, I am aware of no anti-discrimination policy which includes personal relationships as a grounds for discrimination. Thus, it is legally consistent to explicitly prevent siblings or parent and offspring from marrying.

These slipper-slope arguments either hold no weight, or can easily be avoided.

Hofs, equating right and wrong is a prime sign of ignorance. Men having anal sex are opposing the nature of creation. Humanity in its entirety and throughout history abhorred this most disgusting act regardless of race or religion. Only very recently, with the aid of forced spoon-feeding via TV, and in just a handful of affluent countries did this concept become semi-normalized. You need to try to understand the opposing opinion before making lame and silly comments.

“Men having anal sex are opposing the nature of creation.”

Homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom. It was around long before humans were, and even so, this doesn’t say anything about whether or not it is acceptable. You know what else opposes the nature of creation? Computers. Are you writing your comments on a stone wall with berries and dirt mixed with water?

“Humanity in its entirety and throughout history abhorred this most disgusting act regardless of race or religion.”

Many cultures throughout history have embraced homosexuality (such as the Romans). Even if they all opposed it, I find it odd that you would defer to their judgement over ours. These were the people who kept slaves, slaughtered entire villages for believing something different, oppressed the women of their cultures, and practised corporal and capital punishment. We are, at the very least, just as valid a judge of right and wrong as any other culture in human history, and with our more atriculate ethical perspective, I would argue that we are the greatest authority on the subject that has existed to date.

“Only very recently, with the aid of forced spoon-feeding via TV, and in just a handful of affluent countries did this concept become semi-normalized.”

Funny how only those affluent countries, the ones with the most free time one might devote to intellectual pursuit, such as forming one’s own opinions on the basis of rational thought, were the ones to accept homosexuality…

Err, I forgot to delete the copy of the previous comment I kept for reference. Ignore that, please.

Well, I’m not gay but I belive people has a right to choose freely sexual prefences and marriage.

Imagine that , if you live in with homosexual society , and you don’t have a right to married with opposite sexual.What do you gonna do about it ?

By the way, homosexuality is not just about the prefences it’s also hormonal …

Joshua, please be genuine in your comments. Jono did use the word people – pets would be your attempt to derail the topic. If you would like a further guide on how to not appear so silly – http://www.derailingfordummies.com/

BTW brothers & sisters marrying? Really dude? Next thing you know it will be 2 unicorns or 2 Pegasi…

Personally, I have never understood why some people are so concerned with other peoples private lives. Equality is a good thing.

Good so do I, if they can be happy that is all that matters because straight people just get divorced and remarry several times… Rant about it

It’s amazing that a positive post demonstrating compassion, empathy and support for a minority who aren’t given equal rights summons such vitriolic and bigoted responses, especially from a community such as Ubuntu’s. Actually, here’s a definition of the word “Ubuntu” as offered by Archbishop Desmond Tutu:

“A person with Ubuntu is open and available to others, affirming of others, does not feel threatened that others are able and good, based from a proper self-assurance that comes from knowing that he or she belongs in a greater whole and is diminished when others are humiliated or diminished, when others are tortured or oppressed.”

I actually feel ashamed that there are fair few in the Ubuntu community that would harbour such hostile views.  I can easily imagine having the same conversation 150 years ago talking about black citizens, and having the same difficulty trying to understand why people are so opposed.

And there are so many straw-man arguments given about it.  There always are.  People use their personal disgust about what gay men do in private as justification for them not getting married, or saying it’s not what nature intended.  Guess what, nearly everything we do isn’t what nature intended.  In fact nature doesn’t have an intention, but the same barriers are encountered when trying to explain evolution to creationists.

Bigots will be bigots, haters will hate, people will believe what they want to believe, and it’s very difficult to bring such people around to a more compassionate point of view.  To think people who enjoy one freedom would so happily deny it from another.

And apparently the Bible speaks out against the whole gay world.  Well that’s a whole Pandora’s Box of counter-arguments religious types open because the Bible not only directly contradicts itself well over a thousand times, but it also forbids a wealth of things that pretty much everyone ignores.  As I said, people will believe what they want to believe.

I entirely agree with Jono in his support of equal marriage rights.  You can’t claim to have a civilised society, but decide there are some people who can’t have the same rights as everyone else.  BTW, talking about brothers and sisters marrying is a complete distraction from the debate.   How about “Allowing black people to marry white people?  Where would it end?  Would you allow people to marry swine or horses?  Don’t be so absurd!  Marriage is for white men and women of a certain class.  Don’t ruin marriage for the rest of us by extending it to black people, poor people and even animals.  It will fundamentally damage the heart of our society.”  Yes, insane, which is how these arguments sound, and I’m sure virtually no-one left in the world would think like this anymore.

And telling the government to stay out of the church’s business suggests that marriage should bear no legal rights whatsoever.  If it was entirely the church’s business, the government should revoke all laws relating to marriage and refuse to recognise any marriages.  The government grants those rights, and they have a bearing on inheritance, welfare benefits and many other legal aspects.  And there’s not only one religion, and each religion has its own sub-groups too, with different variations of belief.  For one group to say their view on marriage should be the prevailing one is equally discriminatory.

The argument that gay people are sexual deviants who sleep around as an argument against marriage is a demonstration of ignorance.  MANY heterosexual people sleep around, yet are still granted marriage rights.  Britney Spears was allows to get married on a whim and just have it annulled 3 days later, yet gay couples who have been in a loving relationship together for decades are denied the right to have their relationship recognised as equal to any other heterosexual couple.

If people actually took away the major lessons from their religions, they’d find it’s to treat everyone with respect, help those who need help and let love win over hate.

Please be respectful.  You may not share the same view as others, but it doesn’t mean you have to be insulting, hateful and exclude people.