Same Sex Marriage?

[guyser]

- ALTHOUGH I DID LIVE WITH A LESBIAN FOR A YEAR.

Who wants to bet she wasnt before she lived with you?

Can I call you Ross?

[Oleg Bach]

Who wants to bet she wasnt before she lived with you?

Can I call you Ross?

That's my first belly laugh in ten years...clever...how long did you have to ponder to set that up? And no I am not Ross....so she wasn't fully lesbian until I got though with her..Is that what you are saying? She was actually a social climbing projects girl who was to stupid to figure out that classy me had no cash.

[guyser]

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.

In the absolute, marriage only has legal ties.

Religious institutions only play a role if one gets married in that church, and only then they primarily are only a facility to do so, with little input above and beyond the ceremony.

I hold the same with respect to the cultural and emotional angles. In other words, numerous marriages dont have to have any of this, but legal construct they most certainly do.

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.

In our lifetime marriage is simply a legal construct. We may frame it in a religious way, but that is choice of the wedded partners. The legal part is no ones choice.

A common law relationship is contractual in the same way a marriage is, but this is imposed by law. If enough time has been spent in the CL way, then the courts recognize it the same a s a marriage except IIRC, with respect to some property rights. The inclusion of a child means all bets are off.

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?

No one is invading anyone else traditions . For that to be true the law would state that a church has no choice but to marry SS couples,and we know that is not the case.

I I marry a woman on a boat, w the captain as minister, it is recognized as a marriage.

If I marry a woman in front of a JP, it is recongiized as a marriage.

If I go to city hall and marry, it to is recognized.

Lets not forget that simple fact that people have trashed marriage for years. Divorce is a simple process for the most part (expensive, but worth it) . Married people cheating and so on means those who hold out for piousness, a la " dont tread on our sacred institutions", are a hypocritical bunch.

I dont ascribe that attitude to you, but in general. If the churches cleaned up the act of the hetero marriages, then it could have standing to say what they say.

But the plain fact is married people have pissed on marriage for so many years they cannot now hold it up as some esteemed position.

Makes one wonder why the gays want it. But they do, and all the power to them if they want to be miserable like the heteros are.

Edited November 24, 2008 by guyser

[Oleg Bach]

In the absolute, marriage only has legal ties.

Religious institutions only play a role if one gets married in that church, and only then they primarily are only a facility to do so, with little input above and beyond the ceremony.

I hold the same with respect to the cultural and emotional angles. In other words, numerous marriages dont have to have any of this, but legal construct they most certainly do.

In our lifetime marriage is simply a legal construct. We may frame it in a religious way, but that is choice of the wedded partners. The legal part is no ones choice.

A common law relationship is contractual in the same way a marriage is, but this is imposed by law. If enough time has been spent in the CL way, then the courts recognize it the same a s a marriage except IIRC, with respect to some property rights. The inclusion of a child means all bets are off.

No one is invading anyone else traditions . For that to be true the law would state that a church has no choice but to marry SS couples,and we know that is not the case.

I I marry a woman on a boat, w the captain as minister, it is recognized as a marriage.

If I marry a woman in front of a JP, it is recongiized as a marriage.

If I go to city hall and marry, it to is recognized.

Lets not forget that simple fact that people have trashed marriage for years. Divorce is a simple process for the most part (expensive, but worth it) . Married people cheating and so on means those who hold out for piousness, a la " dont tread on our sacred institutions", are a hypocritical bunch.

I dont ascribe that attitude to you, but in general. If the churches cleaned up the act of the hetero marriages, then it could have standing to say what they say.

But the plain fact is married people have pissed on marriage for so many years they cannot now hold it up as some esteemed position.

Makes one wonder why the gays want it. But they do, and all the power to them if they want to be miserable like the heteros are.

The lawyers are going to love it once they get preturbed and there are gay cat fights in the matramonial home. There is only one type of marriage - If two people want to be with each other hopfully till death do them part...If gays want to do that fine - I can see why - Nothing more pitiful than and aging guy that's single in leather shorts at a party...or even worse - and I saw this about 30 years ago - a poor gay man dressed in leather carrying a suitcase at 6 in the morning sporting a black eye and weeping. Maybe he could have sued for spousal support...if the unions were legal back then...no one wants to grow old alone and be a loser - that may be what they find attractive about the institution once they lose their pretty youthish looks - your are going to maybe need a bond base on legality instead of vanity.

[Mortui]

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.

Adequate consideration doesn't have a time limit. You can never predict every possible outcome of every situation. When it is a matter of human rights, I would argue that it very much should be treated with haste.

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.

Yes, I would assume that. But try to word it that way next time please. The Declaration of Human Rights was made by the UN. Marriage is a very big part of a majority of societies I would say.

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

While I have mentioned the US. You failed to bring something like this up when I have spoken about the US policies before. If you can't think of an argument, admit that. Don't try to hide behind 'I wasn't talking about the same place'.

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

It would make gays equal to straights?

If you don't know where I got it from then you clearly haven't been reading my "bullshit".

I have been reading it, and I don't understand what logic could make those assumptions.

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.

So, because full equality is absolutely impossible to ever reach, we should give up. We should not strive to make the world a better place for all people to live. Right.

[Mr.Canada]

Adequate consideration doesn't have a time limit. You can never predict every possible outcome of every situation. When it is a matter of human rights, I would argue that it very much should be treated with haste.

Yes, I would assume that. But try to word it that way next time please. The Declaration of Human Rights was made by the UN. Marriage is a very big part of a majority of societies I would say.

While I have mentioned the US. You failed to bring something like this up when I have spoken about the US policies before. If you can't think of an argument, admit that. Don't try to hide behind 'I wasn't talking about the same place'.

It would make gays equal to straights?

I have been reading it, and I don't understand what logic could make those assumptions.

So, because full equality is absolutely impossible to ever reach, we should give up. We should not strive to make the world a better place for all people to live. Right.

And SSM will make the world a better place? LOL, yeah ok. Better for whom? 1% of the population that's gay? What about the other 99%? How does it make the world better for me?

A man sticking his dick into the solid waste chute of another man is disgusting not to mention immoral. This act is making the world a better place? Explain how please.

Edited November 25, 2008 by Mr.Canada

[WIP]

Better for whom? 1% of the population that's gay?

One percent! Do you have a source for that number, or did you just pull it out of your ass?

A man sticking his dick into the solid waste chute of another man is disgusting not to mention immoral. This act is making the world a better place? Explain how please.

Then don't do it! Unless you're incarcerated somewhere, nobody is forcing you to have anal sex or whatever else gay men do; just get out of other people's bedrooms! Whatever they're doing doesn't have to meet your standards of morality!

BTW, what about lesbians! They're not having anal intercourse (unless one of them is using a strap-on or something), do they qualify as moral?

[charter.rights]

BTW, what about lesbians! They're not having anal intercourse (unless one of them is using a strap-on or something), do they qualify as moral?

Well....I think that would be okay as long as he gets to watch....

[g_bambino]

In the absolute, marriage only has legal ties. Religious institutions only play a role if one gets married in that church, and only then they primarily are only a facility to do so, with little input above and beyond the ceremony.

Yet, marriage originated in religious contexts long before the state was involved in it. It would therefore seem to me to only be the domain of churches (synagogues, mosques, insert organization here). Thus, while I realise that in the contemporary scenario the lines are not completely distinct, and that terminology is often used interchangeably, it seems to me that marriage still remains something with different connotations than those of a union made by the state alone. Perhaps explaining that distinction clarifies why I perceive the redefinition of marriage as without much purpose other than as a political maneuver by agenda driven activists that, by overpowering the long standing traditions and tenets of the opposing religious institutions, sent a message of dominance.

Makes one wonder why the gays want it. But they do, and all the power to them if they want to be miserable like the heteros are.

The thing is, every person I know who calls themselves gay has explicitly said to me that they've never understood the reason behind, or the need for, SSM; hence, when I use the term "The Gays" (with capital letters), I speak of those seemingly self-appointed, vociferous activists who claim to be the crusaders against the supposed oppression of their brethren, but who, in reality, don't speak for anyone but themselves.

Edited November 25, 2008 by g_bambino

[Oleg Bach]

One percent! Do you have a source for that number, or did you just pull it out of your ass?

Then don't do it! Unless you're incarcerated somewhere, nobody is forcing you to have anal sex or whatever else gay men do; just get out of other people's bedrooms! Whatever they're doing doesn't have to meet your standards of morality!

BTW, what about lesbians! They're not having anal intercourse (unless one of them is using a strap-on or something), do they qualify as moral?

Oh no, all this talk has gayified some of the members of the board. This thread was not about morality or hetro or gay hate - It was simply if it was a good idea for special interest groups to go around changing language willy nilly. It's about communication - If I were to get in invitation to attend a marriage - I might not go if it is same sex. It's just not real to me - sure it is endearing and a real tear jerker when two socially surpressed lesbians in their 70s have a ceremony. It makes you want to weep because you feel sorry for them - what was wrong with them keeping their buisness in the bed room and out of public scrutiny? You would assume that love was private...or is this the end of love as we know it? Public love? It might disturb the sensiblities of some. Much like the gay day parade where you have to watch 60 year old gay coke heads dance about in leather shorts with the butt cut out - I don't want to see nor will I celebrate it - it's pitiful - so is gay marrage..so is marriage for that matter PERIOD.

[guyser]

Yet, marriage originated in religious contexts long before the state was involved in it.

I understand Marriage to pre-date religion, just an fyi.

. Thus, while I realise that in the contemporary scenario the lines are not completely distinct, and that terminology is often used interchangeably, it seems to me that marriage still remains something with different connotations than those of a union made by the state alone. Perhaps explaining that distinction clarifies why I perceive the redefinition of marriage as without much purpose other than as a political maneuver by agenda driven activists that, by overpowering the long standing traditions and tenets of the opposing religious institutions, sent a message of dominance.

The connotations you refer to exist only in that persons mind. I agree that a hetero married person may feel they have different connotations, but that only goes so far as the court. Once inside, there is no difference.

Political maneuvering or not, it is simply to be able to stand on even ground with the rest, no more no less.

The thing is, every person I know who calls themselves gay has explicitly said to me that they've never understood the reason behind, or the need for, SSM; hence, when I use the term "The Gays" (with capital letters), I speak of those seemingly self-appointed, vociferous activists who claim to be the crusaders against the supposed oppression of their brethren, but who, in reality, don't speak for anyone but themselves.

I suspect those that never understood perhaps did not understand what rights they were denied. DOnt really know what else to think on that.

An analogy, plenty of people dont understand the reasoning behind certain rights we all have, and rail against Judges throwing charges out. It means they are ignorant of the rules that apply to all of us, not just the innocent.

[bush_cheney2004]

....A man sticking his dick into the solid waste chute of another man is disgusting not to mention immoral. This act is making the world a better place? Explain how please.

Irrelevant...has nothing to do with same gender marriage. Do you think the very popular "solid waste chute" of a female is preferred and moral?

[Oleg Bach]

A man is a man and a woman is a woman - and no one is going to get me to believe other wise. The talk on this thread has become casually acedemic - and it's fun I am sure. The very crux of this converstion eventually comes to the point of de-sexing human beings..that a man is not necesarrily a man - because medical science can mutlitate him and create an artifical female and vise vera - so who is to set down the rules here - on what is a REAL male and what is a REAL female? Or does real no longer count these days?

[WIP]

Oh no, all this talk has gayified some of the members of the board. This thread was not about morality or hetro or gay hate - It was simply if it was a good idea for special interest groups to go around changing language willy nilly. It's about communication

-

No, it's not about language or communication; it's about civil rights! From what I understand of this subject, no one is demanding gay weddings in your or anyone else's church! So, if two men or two women want to take on the advantages and legal responsibilities that come with marriage, the risk of offending the moral sensibilities of fundamentalists should not be a hindrance.

When I was young, inter-racial marriage was still being debated, and racists were claiming that their opposition was motivated by concern over the discrimination that the couple's mixed race children would face, even though it was people who thought like them, who were the source of trouble -- that was a bogus argument then, and so is the trumped up concern that allowing gay marriages will somehow devalue traditional marriage now. Your marriage shouldn't succeed or fail based on what the neighbours are doing across the street!

If I were to get in invitation to attend a marriage - I might not go if it is same sex. It's just not real to me

-

REally! What if the invitation was to your son or daughter's wedding, or some other close family member? As soon as I get an invitation to a gay wedding, I'll be going -- if for no other reason than to take a stand for equal rights.

sure it is endearing and a real tear jerker when two socially surpressed lesbians in their 70s have a ceremony. It makes you want to weep because you feel sorry for them - what was wrong with them keeping their buisness in the bed room and out of public scrutiny?

You just answered your own question! It was because of their rejection by mainstream society, punitive laws, and religious condemnations, that it was an emotional event!

[WIP]

Well....I think that would be okay as long as he gets to watch....

Maybe it's the porn videos; because I've noticed a few times that many of the most rabid critics of homosexuals seem to give lesbians a pass -- or at least some lesbians.....if they look like Lindsey Lohan.

[Oleg Bach]

-

No, it's not about language or communication; it's about civil rights! From what I understand of this subject, no one is demanding gay weddings in your or anyone else's church! So, if two men or two women want to take on the advantages and legal responsibilities that come with marriage, the risk of offending the moral sensibilities of fundamentalists should not be a hindrance.

When I was young, inter-racial marriage was still being debated, and racists were claiming that their opposition was motivated by concern over the discrimination that the couple's mixed race children would face, even though it was people who thought like them, who were the source of trouble -- that was a bogus argument then, and so is the trumped up concern that allowing gay marriages will somehow devalue traditional marriage now. Your marriage shouldn't succeed or fail based on what the neighbours are doing across the street!

-

REally! What if the invitation was to your son or daughter's wedding, or some other close family member? As soon as I get an invitation to a gay wedding, I'll be going -- if for no other reason than to take a stand for equal rights.

You just answered your own question! It was because of their rejection by mainstream society, punitive laws, and religious condemnations, that it was an emotional event!

You underestimate my coldness - not only would I not attend my sons or daughters gay wedding - I have it in me not to even attend the funeral of my own mother father or child... You seem to be so proud that you fight for equal rights - there is no equality in this world.. It's not a right to get married anymore than it's a right to have sex or eat or go to the bathroom....You just do it...it's natural. If a gay couple marries they can not do it...you have to have opposites in order to have sex and breed - the coupling of people of the opposite sex is and always will be marrigage - Gay marriage should be called FRIENDSHIP - with intimate but loving groping...I really don't care about gays and lesbians retending to be mainstream and demanding mainstream normal perks..go ahead do what you want - but I will never view a woman as a husband - nor a man as a wife....It was irksome when a gay clerk describes his partner as a husband - even the word husband was misused - what could he possibly be husbanding? Nope....a man is a man and a woman is a woman.

[Oleg Bach]

This subject is always a lot of fun. I hope no one takes it seriously.....If you were to ask anyone here if same sex marriage should be stopped and that it leads to the slippery slope to hell...well _ I be no one really cares what the two old gay guys or stately matrons down the road are doing...honestly - who gives a damn...still - If I was a young father with an young son or daughter I would explain to them this modern time - It's still better to marry the opposite sex.......if you can - and if you can't GET OUT OF MY HOUSE

[jdobbin]

As for same sex marriage - I truely believe that if the man can generate a child into the other man and he goes into a state of matrimony - then same sex marriage is marriage - Until a woman can generate a child into the body of her lesbian partner - she is not married because the opposite female - is NOT in a state of matrimoney -

I guess those that adopt are not truly married. Those men who cannot produce children are not truly men. Those women that cannot produce children are not truly women. When a woman ceases to be able to produce children, she is no loner a woman and the man no longer has to be married to her. He can still produce children so he should find another woman who can produce children so he can be married to her.

I think I get this now.

[WIP]

You underestimate my coldness - not only would I not attend my sons or daughters gay wedding - I have it in me not to even attend the funeral of my own mother father or child

...

Nuff said!

You seem to be so proud that you fight for equal rights - there is no equality in this world.. It's not a right to get married anymore than it's a right to have sex or eat or go to the bathroom....You just do it...it's natural.

So, by that reasoning, your next mission is to stop homosexuals from having sex, eating, and going to the bathroom..........and yet you wouldn't see it as oppressing a minority.

If a gay couple marries they can not do it...you have to have opposites in order to have sex and breed - the coupling of people of the opposite sex is and always will be marrigage - Gay marriage should be called FRIENDSHIP - with intimate but loving groping...I really don't care about gays and lesbians retending to be mainstream and demanding mainstream normal perks..go ahead do what you want - but I will never view a woman as a husband - nor a man as a wife....It was irksome when a gay clerk describes his partner as a husband - even the word husband was misused - what could he possibly be husbanding? Nope....a man is a man and a woman is a woman.

Okay, now we're back to your viewpoint on the world. You can call it friendship, and they can call it marriage; the important thing is that a minority of people who are attracted to members of their own sex, and are always present in the general population and have been with us throughout recorded history, be allowed to live their lives in a manner that makes them happy -- for the good of us all, since frustrated, self-loathing homosexuals that try to live secret lives in denial can cause harm to others -- Ted Haggard, Larry Craig and Mark Foley can serve as the poster boys for what happens when repressed homosexuals fall out of the closet.

[g_bambino]

I understand Marriage to pre-date religion, just an fyi.

Therein lies the point where we diverge. If marriage is a blanket concept that applies to any union of people by contract, then the debate is over. Why, then, not just here, but all around us, does the argument go on? I can only fathom that it's because there is still a substantial number of individuals (whatever their chosen orientation) who consider marriage to exist only within a religious context, outside of which different parameters apply. Prior to their alteration, the laws seemed to be in line with that view, and hence the courts would have as well: marriage was a union between a man and a woman, whereas civil and common law unions were between any two individuals. The change, of course, is what we're discussing now, and the reason behind it.

"Rights" is the knee jerk answer that always seems to be put forward as justification for the battle, but the response just doesn't hold any water on its own. Rights are not a euphemism for equality; they are not unlimited, and thus do not give each of us an equal ability to have anything we want just because we want it, lest we cry oppression. In a sphere where freedom has bounds and equality is non-existent, we can only then talk about fairness and justness; concepts that themselves morph with time and context. As our society is presently constituted, we feel certain exclusions and exceptions to be just and fair; marriage is not exempt in that regard, as society has always accepted, and still accepts, the institution's exclusionary tenets, even after its recent redefinition. So, it remains to be said why the exclusion of same sex couples from the institution of marriage was so unjust and so unfair as to warrant the quick change to accommodate them. I can't speak for them, but I would guess that my friends and family who are gay didn't understand the SSM hubbub because they simply didn't feel they were being denied any rights, nor was their inability to join the ranks of those who were married seen as any unjust repression. Now that marriage has been redefined, they have certainly never expressed any sense of greater liberation; like most other people (myself included), it's more a shrug your shoulders and roll your eyes kind of affair.

[g_bambino]

Maybe it's the porn videos; because I've noticed a few times that many of the most rabid critics of homosexuals seem to give lesbians a pass -- or at least some lesbians.....if they look like Lindsey Lohan.

Too true. A lesbo segment is a staple of any "straight" porn. But, hey, I guess that's why swingers' clubs accept FFM groups, but not MMF. Ahh.. hypocricy.

[guyser]

As soon as I get an invitation to a gay wedding, I'll be going -- if for no other reason than to take a stand for equal rights.

Dont get overly excited. Been to a couple, nothing to note from either. One had bad food, which of course any wedding can have, and the other was outside, including the dance and bonfire, which was a blast.

The only thing different?

No mention of " Do you -------- take this man to be your lawfully wedded husband.....

Other than that? Not a thing.

But it does keep some up at night worrying.

[White Doors]

Too true. A lesbo segment is a staple of any "straight" porn. But, hey, I guess that's why swingers' clubs accept FFM groups, but not MMF. Ahh.. hypocricy.

You find it odd that straight MEN enjoy watching multiple beautiful women together? really?

Not all discrimination is DISCRIMINATION else there would be no male and female bathrooms, merely bathrooms.

alas, that is not the case. Ahh.. hypocricy as you say.

[White Doors]

As soon as I get an invitation to a gay wedding, I'll be going -- if for no other reason than to take a stand for equal rights.

Odd. For no other reason that to take a stand for equal rights?

You must be one of those annoying liberal straight friends that gays complain about all the time.

Just friends to say you are friends. Otherwise you would be going for no other reason than you are a friend of the couple.

Strange that you would treat them differently than a straight couple. I mean, that IS what you are arguing here, right?

I have gay friends, I can see why you do not.

[WIP]

Too true. A lesbo segment is a staple of any "straight" porn. But, hey, I guess that's why swingers' clubs accept FFM groups, but not MMF. Ahh.. hypocricy.

I'll have to take your word on the swingers clubs, but the popularity of girl/girl porn isn't hard to figure out since we get to watch a sex video without having to see some guy's dong or hairy ass getting in the way!