“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.

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.

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 …

“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…

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.

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.

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.

Next.