Same Sex Marriage?

[g_bambino]

gmambino:

Had the thought occur to you that maybe the point was to participate in these existing traditions and all they represent?

That should be obvious. Equality also means being able to participate in the same symbolic rites as the rest of society.

I thought I was clear that I see the issue as being one group of people demanding to participate in another group's existing traditions and all they represent. I also thought I was clear on my point that full equality doesn't exist in society, and many people are barred by either custom or law from participating in the traditions/activities/organisations that others do. Yet, a man being denied membership at Curves is not a gross example of gender discrimination and a human rights violation while two women being denied the ability to marry each other is the equivalent for sexual orientation (putting aside the point that there's still zero proof that sexual orientation is as biologically predetermined as gender)? Please.

I will reiterate: while I do see the change as an unnecessary one, and thus am no ardent supporter of the cause, I am not vigorously against it either. All I feel most concerned by is the speed with which something so old was suddenly altered, with nary enough time to fully understand the ramifications. In fact, from my observations of the proceedings, it seemed that negative criticism of the proposal was never seriously considered, instead being batted away as merely insensitive homophobia, and the legislation was enacted with a raucous of politically correct, feel-good, self-congratulation. It all seemed a tad irresponsible.

[Oleg Bach]

Formal marriage provides privledge - I thought that privledge was to be earned. Now we have those that bounce about in a state of total entitlement..they are entitled to the perks that are marriage even though they have not earned them by breeding. Put that aside for a moment - Like I said as far as revisionism and re-definition of language - You go into my dictionary and start crossing out word and adding word that you have made up - then I will fight you ................leave the language alone - Some might say that language changes and evolves and that to re-define sex and marriage is an evolvement into a better state - I am not sure about that - what was wrong with marriage to begin with that it needs to be totally changed and in effect destroyed as we know it ---- I can hear the gays going on about hetro divorce and wives cheating on husbands and husbands abusing their wives....there are people that do love each other - lets's leave it at that.

[Mortui]

I will reiterate: while I do see the change as an unnecessary one, and thus am no ardent supporter of the cause, I am not vigorously against it either. All I feel most concerned by is the speed with which something so old was suddenly altered, with nary enough time to fully understand the ramifications. In fact, from my observations of the proceedings, it seemed that negative criticism of the proposal was never seriously considered, instead being batted away as merely insensitive homophobia, and the legislation was enacted with a raucous of politically correct, feel-good, self-congratulation. It all seemed a tad irresponsible.

I don't quite understand why approaching the matter with haste is a bad thing. To ask gays to shoulder repression of their beliefs for an unspoken amount of time is ridiculous. I admit there may not have been adequate consideration of arguments on both sides.

Also, to the civil union thing. The US Supreme Court has already decided on this. "Seperate but Equal". Ring a bell?

While I have no real justification for an all-woman institution, an all-woman gym isn't quite the same thing as a gay marriage. There is no legal benefit to being a member of a gym, nor a societal recognition of your commitment towards it either.

I would also question why anyone would be against any potential redefinition of marriage. It has already been done. By American women. In the 1800's women began redefining marriage as a thing of love, not of business, to be decided by the father of the bride.

[Mortui]

Formal marriage provides privledge - I thought that privledge was to be earned. Now we have those that bounce about in a state of total entitlement..they are entitled to the perks that are marriage even though they have not earned them by breeding. Put that aside for a moment - Like I said as far as revisionism and re-definition of language - You go into my dictionary and start crossing out word and adding word that you have made up - then I will fight you ................leave the language alone - Some might say that language changes and evolves and that to re-define sex and marriage is an evolvement into a better state - I am not sure about that - what was wrong with marriage to begin with that it needs to be totally changed and in effect destroyed as we know it ---- I can hear the gays going on about hetro divorce and wives cheating on husbands and husbands abusing their wives....there are people that do love each other - lets's leave it at that.

You do realize that the dictionary is constantly being updated....new words being added, old words being taken out...

[g_bambino]

I don't quite understand why approaching the matter with haste is a bad thing. To ask gays to shoulder repression of their beliefs for an unspoken amount of time is ridiculous. I admit there may not have been adequate consideration of arguments on both sides.

Also, to the civil union thing. The US Supreme Court has already decided on this. "Seperate but Equal". Ring a bell?

While I have no real justification for an all-woman institution, an all-woman gym isn't quite the same thing as a gay marriage. There is no legal benefit to being a member of a gym, nor a societal recognition of your commitment towards it either.

I would also question why anyone would be against any potential redefinition of marriage. It has already been done. By American women. In the 1800's women began redefining marriage as a thing of love, not of business, to be decided by the father of the bride.

You clarify your own misunderstanding when saying there was perhaps an inadequate amount of consideration given. But, before its quick alteration, the institution of marriage did not deny anyone their right to their beliefs; it just denied some people the ability to belong to a certain segment of society. In doing so, that segment was, in essence, exactly the same as the women-only gyms, which are just one example out of a host of others throughout our culture; forget legal benefits, same sex couples had them already. Thus, it seems the height of hypocrisy to claim denial of admittance to one organisation is repression of rights, while so many other cases of discrimination go either unnoticed or are blatantly supported. Certainly, as you note, change happens. But it is, whether quickly (as was the case for the women's vote) or gradually (as was the case for the 19th century shift in the concept of marriage), normally for a beneficial reason. Of what greater benefit was the redefinition of marriage to be a union between two persons? When, as I mentioned earlier, Gays could well have established their own traditions for unions (as they've obviously felt able to do for other matters), which churches could have embraced should they have chosen to, it seems we're left with your point about societal recognition; it would appear that was all the fight for the redefinition of marriage was about: sending a message to the community at large that The Gays had conquered one of the ancient bastions of their enemies. Political showmanship, and little more.

[Oleg Bach]

I would like to be a woman now - no sex change please...I just want all the perks that woman have - right now! I demand it - I will not be excluded - I want to plead spousal abuse and I want a new washer and dryer - and a thousand bucks a month - and super super low rent..and a free lawyer. I DEMAND TO BELONG TO THE GROUP THAT IS WOMAN! At present I am a lesbian woman living in a mans body---and I also want the state to provide me with a highly medicated hot young chick!

[Black Dog]

I thought I was clear that I see the issue as being one group of people demanding to participate in another group's existing traditions and all they represent.

But you don't seem to understand why that is.

I also thought I was clear on my point that full equality doesn't exist in society, and many people are barred by either custom or law from participating in the traditions/activities/organisations that others do. Yet, a man being denied membership at Curves is not a gross example of gender discrimination and a human rights violation while two women being denied the ability to marry each other is the equivalent for sexual orientation (putting aside the point that there's still zero proof that sexual orientation is as biologically predetermined as gender)? Please.

I don't see why that's relevant at all. To my mind, these exceptions and exemptions need to stand on their own. The "straights only" qualification for state marriage doesn't hold up IMO.

All I feel most concerned by is the speed with which something so old was suddenly altered, with nary enough time to fully understand the ramifications.

I feel the change was not sudden at all, but rather one part of the ongoing evolution of marriage that began with the introduction of divorce. (likely the single most radical change to the institution).

In fact, from my observations of the proceedings, it seemed that negative criticism of the proposal was never seriously considered, instead being batted away as merely insensitive homophobia, and the legislation was enacted with a raucous of politically correct, feel-good, self-congratulation.

Well, speaking for myself, I found the arguments against ssm wanting not on the grounds of homophobia (though that certainly coloured some arguments), but rather on their logical failings, which were and are legion.

[Oleg Bach]

But you don't seem to understand why that is.

I don't see why that's relevant at all. To my mind, these exceptions and exemptions need to stand on their own. The "straights only" qualification for state marriage doesn't hold up IMO.

I feel the change was not sudden at all, but rather one part of the ongoing evolution of marriage that began with the introduction of divorce. (likely the single most radical change to the institution).

Well, speaking for myself, I found the arguments against ssm wanting not on the grounds of homophobia (though that certainly coloured some arguments), but rather on their logical failings, which were and are legion.

More dellusional Orwellianism - PHOBIA ? What the heck - no one in their right mind is afraid of gays...hate that term...ooops did I say HATE...ok....I am "comfortable" with that term. This thread has evolved into a debate that is about language...we made the consession of giving away the delightful word "gay" - now there are those that want to give away that anciet word MARRIAGE. I'm keeping it! Let them get their own damned word - marriage belongs to us hetros...can I say hetero? I know I have a phobia about the word homo - it's bad...so I have been forcefully instructed to believe.

[g_bambino]

But you don't seem to understand why that is.

Maybe I don't. But, until it's proven otherwise to me, I think I am clear on why the case of SSM was one of people demanding to participate in another group's existing traditions: namely, symbolism; representation; appearance; sending a message, if you will. I imagine that some people believe the sending of that message to be meritous enough in itself to justify the changes that were made. I remain unconvinced by that, though; doing something solely for the message it sends smacks of agenda driven propaganda, to me. Perhaps some of the arguments against SSM were lacking in logical fortitude, but I could equally say that I was struck with that very feeling about the majority of arguments in favour of SSM (those that I heard anyway), and, it is my understanding that the onus is generally on the one proposing an alteration to the status quo to convince others of his case rather than the other way around.

As I already said, change (or evolution, as you put it) is unavoidable, and, like the other exceptions and exemptions that will always be, in one form or another, part of human society, those within the institution of marriage have no immunity to that inevitability. But, barring catastrophe, evolution usually takes place gradually. SSM emerged and was established within less than a decade, which is an infinitesimal amount of time compared to the six, seven, eight(?) millennia that marriage has been with us. When no greater legal equality was achieved, and other ceremonial options were readily available, why the desperate need for this, and only this, specific course of action to be carried out almost immediately? I just didn't see what the real emergency was.

[ed. for sp.]

Edited November 24, 2008 by g_bambino

[Oleg Bach]

It would be like being on stage during an open mike night - You have a great drummer - good base and guitar player - all seasoned - THEN you you get the guy who wants to participate...who is tone deaf and cannot generate beautiful music - much like the SSM guy - who wants to be a father but does not know how to have sex with a woman - or a woman that wants to be a mother but does not want to be husbanded by a male ....you either play the notes or get off stage - Marriage is for breeding - if you refuse to or can not breed stop looking towards the sperm bank - SSM - in time with artifical insemination will destroy fatherhood - You have already destroyed the Patriarchy and Matriarchy - what's next - casteration of all viable males?

[guyser]

I think I am clear on why the case of SSM was one of people demanding to participate in another group's existing traditions:

Doesnt that say it all? "..in another group's existing traditions:..."

[Oleg Bach]

Before you are welcomed into that group and willingly without coersion excepted into that group - to participate in that groups traditions - you are an invasive force - and that group has the free will to exclude invaders..It's not the gay community that is pushing this - it's the bleach haired soccer moms and the socialist peeps - gays from what I see and understand are not pushing this....it's the damned adultering straights who are the same ones that go to wife swaping parties and have "open" relationships.

[g_bambino]

Marriage is for breeding

No, insemination of a fertile female is for breeding. One doesn't need to be married to do that, nor do married persons need do it.

Edited November 24, 2008 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

Doesnt that say it all? "..in another group's existing traditions:..."

Indeed it does.

[Oleg Bach]

No, insemination of a fertile female is for breeding. One doesn't need to be married to do that, nor do married persons need do it.

Then why are they married if they do not have a need to propogate? Let them remain single and have re-creational pleasure for ever. As I stated this is about matrimony...or motherhood - and under natural law a couple is not married untill the female is with child - that is the only real committment - other than that...one can committ to the eternal friendship of the a dog - and call that marriage.

[g_bambino]

Then why are they married if they do not have a need to propogate? Let them remain single and have re-creational pleasure for ever. As I stated this is about matrimony...or motherhood - and under natural law a couple is not married untill the female is with child - that is the only real committment - other than that...one can committ to the eternal friendship of the a dog - and call that marriage.

I thought marriage was, generally, a union with legal, cultural, emotional, and religious connotations (with variations, of course, across time and civilisations). As I said earlier, breeding may play a part in it, but that act is not the full definer of marriage, either by state law or religious canon. I've no idea what this "natural law" is supposed to be.

[Oleg Bach]

My mate did not romance me - nor did we make plans while courting - There was no courtship nor was there any talk of children or marriage.. I was the piano player and she was the bartender...She became pregnant..*I did my duty - we raised four children..this was marriage..no formal declaration - I guess I am bitter. I propose marriage once in my life...and that is as close as I care to get...it was to a woman I loved - To me natural law took place - I had sex - I had children and there was no real love or loyalty - The kids are grown and very interesting and wonderful - she is still the disgarded broodmare...I hope you are shocked - she started it>

[guyser]

I thought marriage was, generally, a union with legal, cultural, emotional, and religious connotations

Yes, no, no and no.

And SSM should be merely a legal construct, same as hetero marriage.

Thus the "another groups existing traditions"

[Oleg Bach]

Yes, no, no and no.

And SSM should be merely a legal construct, same as hetero marriage.

Thus the "another groups existing traditions"

Let the gays and lesbians and other odd balls simply go in and sign the contracts in private and get out of my face..end of story. I am not in their face...lets call a truce - let them become property of the state though the legality of a contract with that state - fools. I thought gay was about freedom.

[Mortui]

You clarify your own misunderstanding when saying there was perhaps an inadequate amount of consideration given.

How...I was agreeing with you that some people haven't thought out all of their arguments. I certainly have. Plus, being able to see that there are some fallicies in every argument is not a misunderstanding. It is understanding. Don't try to say that I don't understand what I'm saying.

But, before its quick alteration, the institution of marriage did not deny anyone their right to their beliefs; it just denied some people the ability to belong to a certain segment of society.

The institution of marriage itself can't deny anything, because it doesn't have a mind or voice or body. It is people that are denying other people their 'ability to belong'.

Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Marriage is a bit more than a 'certain segment of society'. It is a huge part of society, a part of culture. A huge part of culture, EVERYWHERE. To deny a certain group to be a part of their country's culture is ridiculous.

In doing so, that segment was, in essence, exactly the same as the women-only gyms, which are just one example out of a host of others throughout our culture; forget legal benefits, same sex couples had them already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

Read that and then try to tell me that bullshit again. Civil Unions are legal in six states. Six. Domestic Partnerships are legal in five states, and only one of those(California) gives rights equal to mariage. Two states allow same-sex marriages, one of which is in with Civil Unions. So, 8/50 with full benefits. Equal my ass.

Thus, it seems the height of hypocrisy to claim denial of admittance to one organisation is repression of rights, while so many other cases of discrimination go either unnoticed or are blatantly supported. Certainly, as you note, change happens. But it is, whether quickly (as was the case for the women's vote) or gradually (as was the case for the 19th century shift in the concept of marriage), normally for a beneficial reason. Of what greater benefit was the redefinition of marriage to be a union between two persons? When, as I mentioned earlier, Gays could well have established their own traditions for unions (as they've obviously felt able to do for other matters)

Women's suffrage come about quickly

The greater benefit of the redefinition of marriage between two persons, not a man and woman, was equality in the United States. That is the idea of the United States. What you mentioned earlier was untrue. Either way, to expect them to establish their own traditions for unions, expecting them to not participate in a huge part of American Culture, of World Culture, is absurd.

, which churches could have embraced should they have chosen to, it seems we're left with your point about societal recognition; it would appear that was all the fight for the redefinition of marriage was about: sending a message to the community at large that The Gays had conquered one of the ancient bastions of their enemies. Political showmanship, and little more.

It had absolutely nothing to do with 'conquering an ancient bastion of their enemies'. Where did you get that it even remotely appears to be that from? I'll say it once more. The belief that everyone is equal, regardless of wealth, race, religion, past, and culture is uniquely American. It is what this country was founded on. To now take away that equality because your beliefs don't sit well with someone else's beliefs is uniquely unAmerican. And I'll not stand for you saying that the Gay's desire for equality is 'little more than political showmanship' and purely to so they can 'conquer one of the ancient bastions of their enemies'.

Edited November 24, 2008 by Mortui

[g_bambino]

Yes, no, no and no.

Um, I think you'd have as hard a time telling religious institutions that they have no role in marriage as you would telling married couples that emotion had nothing to do with their union. I'd also like to hear how you think marriage has no cultural role.

Marriage has never been simply a legal construct. When you speak about unions based solely on contract, it is common law relationships and/or civil unions you're talking about, which obviously differ from marriages. When, if I remember correctly, same sex couples could already have the former, and could have had the latter, and could even have established their own variation of union, why invade another group and violate its existing traditions?

[Oleg Bach]

I observed closely what was taking place in our family law system...speaking of womans sufferage..it appeared that the woman were abandoned by their feminist sisters. It seems since so much time has passed that the leaders of the womans movement had aged and had become comfortable just like the old men - and they did not give a damn about womans right - or the rights of children and certainly not about the rights of men - These old feminist had become what they dispised...all to human I suppose. Woman have no rights..nor do men.

[Oleg Bach]

OK OK - THEY CAN GET MARRIED IF THEY WANT....AS LONG AS I DON'T HAVE TO MARRY THEM - ALTHOUGH I DID LIVE WITH A LESBIAN FOR A YEAR....SHE WAS HOT AND SO WAS THE SEX....I REALLY COULD NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT...WELL I COULD...LESBIANS DON'T LIKE STUPID MEN - AND GAYS DON'T LIKE NASTY WOMAN....BUT GAYS DO LIKE BEAUTIFUL ANGELIC FEMALES...AND LESBIANS ADORE REAL MEN...NOT THOSE MONKEY TYPES.

[g_bambino]

How...

Allow me to repeat your words for you:

I don't quite understand why approaching the matter with haste is a bad thing. I admit there may not have been adequate consideration of arguments on both sides.

Adequate consideration takes time. If you admit there may not have been adequate consideration of arguments, then you understand why approaching the matter with haste was possibly a bad thing.

The institution of marriage itself can't deny anything, because it doesn't have a mind or voice or body. It is people that are denying other people their 'ability to belong'.

I'm sure you're well aware that the word "marriage" is being used for the sake of brevity to stand for all those people who compose the organisations that define and administer marriages. Once someone is married, they become different, in a number of ways, from those who are not married; that makes married people a certain segment of society, though how big compared to those who are unwed, in which societies, I don't know.

Read that and then try to tell me that bullshit again. Civil Unions are legal in six states. Six. Domestic Partnerships are legal in five states, and only one of those(California) gives rights equal to mariage. So, 7/50 with full benefits. Equal my ass.

Perhaps you should be more familiar with my bullshit; I never once made any mention of the US.

The greater benefit of the redefinition of marriage between two persons, not a man and woman, was equality in the United States.

I don't see how same sex marriage made every individual in the United States identical to one another.

It had absolutely nothing to do with 'conquering an ancient bastion of their enemies'. Where did you get that it even remotely appears to be that from? I'll say it once more. The belief that everyone is equal, regardless of wealth, race, religion, past, and culture is uniquely American. It is what this country was founded on. To now take away that equality because your beliefs don't sit well with someone else's beliefs is uniquely unAmerican. And I'll not stand for you saying that the Gay's desire for equality is 'little more than political showmanship' and purely to so they can 'conquer one of the ancient bastions of their enemies'.

If you don't know where I got it from then you clearly haven't been reading my "bullshit". Whatever myths Americans believe, and whatever you stand for or don't, there is not, nor will there ever be, such a thing as full equality; life, in all its reaches, simply does not function on that premise.

[Oleg Bach]

If I agree with same sex marriage - will that make me gay??? I don't want to be gay. There is only one solution to this problem - out law all marriage and let the gay community lobby to bring it back. It makes sense to me if we did not have marriage they would not have the idea of wanting it for themselves...as if the gays could come up with such an idea all on their own.