Same Sex Marriage?

M.Dancer · November 20, 2008

As all the other examples I cited, I believe SSM to be a human rights issue and definitely not change simply 'for the sake of change'.

Marriage is a human right? I think not. Would the fugly, the smelly, the painfully shy, the socially inept be able to sue should they find no one to marry?

g_bambino · November 20, 2008

As all the other examples I cited, I believe SSM to be a human rights issue and definitely not change simply 'for the sake of change'.

Ah, well there's where we disagree. I don't at all believe marriage (of any kind) to be a human right.

Oleg Bach · November 20, 2008

Marriage is a human right? I think not. Would the fugly, the smelly, the painfully shy, the socially inept be able to sue should they find no one to marry?

Marriage should be abolished! That would put a million inept conspiratorial betraying lawyers and judges out of work....who the hell are they to mess with the marriage bed and it's contents - and the contents of a private household! Half of the social problems we have now is the engineered division of the sexes. This engineering has caused animosty and distrust - put it this way - if the sexes were not thrwarted from falling in love - and if the myth of marriage disposablity was not thrust upon society - then all the black gang bangers at Jane and Finch would be peaceful - and planning a future - Instead we perpetuate the idea via rap videos that woman are disposable - as are men....a couple in love and loyal have better things to do than shoot up the neighbourhood in the collection of useless status making bling bling - I say let the young people be together...and dump marriage - it has become destructive to the common good.

g_bambino · November 20, 2008

Marriage in the legal sense is based on social animal husbandry and a means of controlling the breeding of the live stock that is in eccence the population. THAT is the only reason marriage exists - a licence to breed and that licence gives the state property rights over the couple and that offspring - or new the new born calf in the herd.

That is what marriage used to be, and still is in essence; however, over the last couple of centuries, in Western culture, it has taken on this added dimension of love, which has confounded matters completely. From what I understand of the affair (mind the pun), marriage is now generally viewed as primarily an expression of love; The Gays then feel they should be able to express their love for each other in the same manner as The Straights. What else could it be, given that same sex couples could already receive the same legal benefits - and detriments - as any heterosexual couple? This is why I said the super fast push for and implementation of SSM seems based almost purely on symbolism. In itself, that's not necessarily anything bad; but, when it involves toying with an ancient institution, I'd think more pragmatic thought and debate would be necessary before making changes, and even if any were agreed upon, making them incrementally, rather than all at once.

BC_chick · November 20, 2008

Ah, well there's where we disagree. I don't at all believe marriage (of any kind) to be a human right.

When marriage is something that is available to a segment of society, it becomes a right for the excluded because it is otherwise discriminatory.

Education is not a right either, but if it's only available for a certain a majority group, then it becomes a right for all as well.

Oleg Bach · November 20, 2008

When marriage is something that is available to a segment of society, it becomes a right for the excluded because it is otherwise discriminatory.
Education is not a right either, but if it's only available for a certain a majority group, then it becomes a right for all as well.

If you can guarentee that the children of same sex marriage are obtained morally and there is no abuse of the poor who do not have the same disposable income to hire lawyers that may in effect buy or steal children from the disadvantaged - then I may change my mind - and if they in a state of realism - acknowledge that a sperm doner is a father then I am all for it.

g_bambino · November 20, 2008

When marriage is something that is available to a segment of society, it becomes a right for the excluded because it is otherwise discriminatory.
Education is not a right either, but if it's only available for a certain a majority group, then it becomes a right for all as well.

Er, well, I don't see how that works as there's much out there that's available only to one segment of society, yet isn't a right for others to have. Ambassadors get immunity that I don't; union members get benefits and security that I don't; police officers get weapons that I don't; churches get tax exempt status that businesses do not; women get membership in gyms that men cannot; need I go on? So, denying same sex couples the ability to take part in the established ceremony of marriage is not a denial of anyone's human rights; as I said, same-sex couples already had the same legal benefits and responsibilities as any married couple, and The Gays could well have established their own ceremonies of union; nothing has before stopped them from creating community-specific cultural "traditions". I'm still convinced SSM was a symbolic cause, and wasn't thought out properly; I'm sure we'll see whether the experiment works or not.

Oleg Bach · November 20, 2008

The very word "discrimination" Is being discriminated against. We all have the right to discrimate..discrimination is not an evil term - It is about choice - I have the right to discriminate what is good for me or what is not good for me - as a collective society we have the right to seperate - what is good for the commons and what we believe is not in the best interest of the commons. It is not bad to say I do not like sugarless coffee... no one can force me to absorb what I do not want in my body or the body of society...the writer is correct - if you want to be a distinct and seperate group..set up your own institutions - no one will stop you - Gays and Lesbians have the full right to discriminate also!

g_bambino · November 20, 2008

Gays and Lesbians have the full right to discriminate also!

And they do.

M.Dancer · November 20, 2008

Education is not a right either, ....

Actually it is, article 26 of the UN declaration of human rights.

Marriage on the other hand isn't.

Should a Mans desire to have 20 wives be a right? How about 20 14 year old wives?

A man's desire to be educated though, that's a right.

Oleg Bach · November 20, 2008

Actually it is, article 26 of the UN declaration of human rights.
Marriage on the other hand isn't.

Should a Mans desire to have 20 wives be a right? How about 20 14 year old wives?

A man's desire to be educated though, that's a right.

A mans desire to know the truth (educated) should not be denied. And if I could have and it was permitted I would have been a patriarch with 10 wives...but nooooo - some jerks would have considered that evil and immoral and illegal - much like the way they under the guise of moralty stopped Mormons from having 50 childern - when in fact the real reason was to deny one single patriarch the power of 50 votes.

BC_chick · November 20, 2008

Er, well, I don't see how that works as there's much out there that's available only to one segment of society, yet isn't a right for others to have. Ambassadors get immunity that I don't; union members get benefits and security that I don't; police officers get weapons that I don't; churches get tax exempt status that businesses do not; women get membership in gyms that men cannot; need I go on?

Good argument. Best I've heard yet.

Still, not exactly fair since everything you cite above is some type of membership within an organisation from which privileges are derived. Marriage, OTOH, does not require a membership and is available to the general public.

So, denying same sex couples the ability to take part in the established ceremony of marriage is not a denial of anyone's human rights; as I said, same-sex couples already had the same legal benefits and responsibilities as any married couple, and The Gays could well have established their own ceremonies of union; nothing has before stopped them from creating community-specific cultural "traditions". I'm still convinced SSM was a symbolic cause, and wasn't thought out properly; I'm sure we'll see whether the experiment works or not.

Marriage is a legally binding contract. No law can discriminate according to the constitution. I know it's a gray area, but it's open to interpretation and many see it as I do.

Oleg Bach · November 20, 2008

Frankly - Same sex is not my real issue. They can use the word marriage if it makes them happy - Just don't re-define fatherhood or motherhood or sex it self - because these are not just values but core and important reality...and I am against jerking reality about - it causes problems for all. The bases of my Christian doctrine is not - magical virgin birth or the raising of the dead - or water into wine - but TRUTH...which is reality...to alter language in order to empower those that should not have dominance is unwise. No one special interest group has the right do dominate or force it's will on another...simple as that...and when you creep into my dictionary and start crossing out words I will fight you.

g_bambino · November 20, 2008

Still, not exactly fair since everything you cite above is some type of membership within an organisation from which privileges are derived. Marriage, OTOH, does not require a membership and is available to the general public.
Marriage is a legally binding contract. No law can discriminate according to the constitution. I know it's a gray area, but it's open to interpretation and many see it as I do.

Yet, one needs to apply for a marriage license, and, if approved, by signing the contract and going through the ceremony becomes part of a segment of society that not everyone else is a member of. Those with their membership in the "marriage club" then receive different treatment from those who are excluded, not only by private organisations such as insurance companies, employers, travel/tour operators, and the like, but also by the Crown: for instance, an unmarried person does not, by law, get the same tax benefits as someone who is married; ergo, they are discriminated against by the state. I doubt, however, that an unwed person could claim a violation of their human rights and demand the same treatment as a married person gets. Ditto for the prisoner who's freedom of mobility has been taken away by law; or the CEO being forced by the law to pay more tax than the waitress; or the eighteen year old being denied by the law the ability to consume a beer.

But, as I've said a few times now, before the definition of marriage changed, the benefits and responsibilities that applied to members of the married club already applied to a wider group than just them; one could get the same even by not being a member. Why then demand to be allowed in, other than to make the symbolic gesture of invading a former bastion? IMO, the UK found the best solution by granting same sex couples the ability to wed in a civil union; it kept the matter well away from the realms of organised religion and their ancient institutions of marriage, and left no ambiguity about whether or not a church could refuse to marry two people of the same gender without violating their "rights".

M.Dancer · November 20, 2008

Yet, one needs to apply for a marriage license, and, if approved, by signing the contract and going through the ceremony becomes part of a segment of society that not everyone else is a member of. Those with their membership in the "marriage club" then receive different treatment from those who are excluded, not only by private organisations such as insurance companies, employers, travel/tour operators, and the like, but also by the Crown: for instance, an unmarried person does not, by law, get the same tax benefits as someone who is married; ergo, they are discriminated against by the state. I doubt, however, that an unwed person could claim a violation of their human rights and demand the same treatment as a married person gets. Ditto for the prisoner who's freedom of mobility has been taken away by law; or the CEO being forced by the law to pay more tax than the waitress; or the eighteen year old being denied by the law the ability to consume a beer.
But, as I've said a few times now, before the definition of marriage changed, the benefits and responsibilities that applied to members of the married club already applied to a wider group than just them; one could get the same even by not being a member. Why then demand to be allowed in, other than to make the symbolic gesture of invading a former bastion? IMO, the UK found the best solution by granting same sex couples the ability to wed in a civil union; it kept the matter well away from the realms of organised religion and their ancient institutions of marriage, and left no ambiguity about whether or not a church could refuse to marry two people of the same gender without violating their "rights".

I imagine if they could be recognized as comon law most if not all the benifits of marriage would apply. I think marriage is a ggod thing, but I don't think it is a right or a human right.

BC_chick · November 20, 2008

IMO, the UK found the best solution by granting same sex couples the ability to wed in a civil union; it kept the matter well away from the realms of organised religion and their ancient institutions of marriage, and left no ambiguity about whether or not a church could refuse to marry two people of the same gender without violating their "rights".

I was discussing the definition marriage itself, not the role of the Church within the process.

I actually agree that it should be within the Church's 'rights' to refuse to marry gays.

Edited November 20, 2008 by BC_chick

Oleg Bach · November 21, 2008

I was discussing the definition marriage itself, not the role of the Church within the process.
I actually agree that it should be within the Church's 'rights' to refuse to marry gays.

The Church has no right to interfere with civil authorities, nor do civil authorities have the right to re-define institutions as old as that of marriage. In fact marriage is so old that it is not a true institution. All man made systems are constantly in flux and progression - hopefully. Marriage is formalized breeding- that is the very basis of it. With the issue of same sex marriage it gets down to the idea of the re-definition of human propogation..it's a biological issue. Plus - as I mentioned previously - do not go into my dictionary and start revamping the very language that we adhere to for the sake of clear communication.

We have already changed the definition of sex. We attempt to believe that oral or anal sex is sex....frankly it is not sex it is something else by definition. Once language is changed abruptly in any Orwellian manner there is room for abuse by those with an agenda to control. If you go back to the ancient Greek definition of marriage it literally meant fertilization. Again - this redefinition of sex and marriage is an afront to logic itself. The absolute phyical truth is - there is only one kind of father - the biological one. - There is but one title that is mother - and that is directly connected to what body the offspring is born - the rest is a game of pretend. If gay couples want to pretend and play house and be married...let them - but when a gay clerk starts to refere to his partner as "my husband" - then I know it's illusionary.

Do not re-define man or woman - and please if you can do not re-define natural law - For instance the couple that supposedly proclaims that a man is having a baby is just plain selfish and self endulgent experimentation. It a man has a womb - then he is a wombman...man kind does not need more confusion..order is paramount...If a person states "I did not kill him - I simply changed him" - We don't need that foolishness - and this type of change is blind occultism to say the least - As magic is properly defined as "a trick" - Marriage should remain defined as a male and female naturally creating a child. Anything else is not real....BUT in the alternative if there are people who are happy in different types of unions that may be slightly illusionary - let them have their dream.

guyser · November 21, 2008

Those with their membership in the "marriage club" then receive different treatment from those who are excluded, not only by private organisations such as insurance companies, employers, travel/tour operators, and the like, but also by the Crown:

With respect to insurance, the union of a child or co-habitating 2-3 years means equal treatment.

Oleg Bach · November 21, 2008

With respect to insurance, the union of a child or co-habitating 2-3 years means equal treatment.

It does not! Go into a family law court and you will see that those who are presented as common law - even if the union is decades old are held in polite loathing as if they were operating a car with a inferiour licence...or no governmental permit what so ever. You would think that a common law couple would get respect - but no - If you put a married couple with no children who have been married for a year - beside a couple with children who are common law married for 20 years with children...the formally married onces are treated as insiders and sanctioned by the state - the common ones are treated just as that - lowly and common.

Black Dog · November 21, 2008

gmambino:

...denying same sex couples the ability to take part in the established ceremony of marriage is not a denial of anyone's human rights; as I said, same-sex couples already had the same legal benefits and responsibilities as any married couple, and The Gays could well have established their own ceremonies of union; nothing has before stopped them from creating community-specific cultural "traditions". I'm still convinced SSM was a symbolic cause, and wasn't thought out properly; I'm sure we'll see whether the experiment works or not.

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

But, as I've said a few times now, before the definition of marriage changed, the benefits and responsibilities that applied to members of the married club already applied to a wider group than just them; one could get the same even by not being a member. Why then demand to be allowed in, other than to make the symbolic gesture of invading a former bastion?

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

Oleg Bach · November 21, 2008

Symbolic rites are based on symbols. The same sex marriage conflict is having the insidious effect of changing the symbology. The symbol for man would be altered and the symbol for woman would eventually change. What would be left in time would be a sexlessness. It's all about playing house. If you want to participate in the play you must have roles. Extremists within the straight and gay community want to re-write the play and hire a new director. I just don't think that the upstarts that want to produce a new society have any real talent. Everybody wants privledge and few are willing to earn it - If you want children then find a woman and breed - Many gay men that I have met have natural children of their own. AND in the old days gay men would do their duty and marry within the old confines of the original tradition. Now it looks like they want the easy way out. I say do your duty and grin and bear it boys... :lol:

guyser · November 21, 2008

It does not! Go into a family law court and you will see that those who are presented as common law -

You can think whatever delusional things you want, for example insurance equating family court law, and I will believe what I know to be the truth.

Whats the price of eggs today?

Oleg Bach · November 21, 2008

You can think whatever delusional things you want, for example insurance equating family court law, and I will believe what I know to be the truth.
Whats the price of eggs today?

I don't buy eggs. Someone else does that for me. You can believe all you want but what I witnessed repeatedly - whether it is in a judical system or socially. Most persons in authority are conditioned by that authority to operate according to the unwritten policy that states - If you have not been processed by our system you are not as relevant. This is the same as being prejudiced because of the lack of formal educational credentials. Even if they know you are more than capable of doing the job you will not get the job because credentials are proof that you will comply and your attitutde towards the status quo is in tact - in other words that you have been broken like a horse and are rideable and useful to the system. Common law relationships are considered an afront to the establishment. So it may be law that their is equity - but the law is governed by human ego and not by the books - you simply are not part of the club and exclusionism takes place - Write all the laws you want - Marriage is respected -shacking up is not...even if that shack up is more of a marriage than a marriage.

guyser · November 21, 2008

I don't buy eggs. Someone else does that for me.

Well of course they do.

You can believe all you want but what I witnessed repeatedly - whether it is in a judical system or socially.

Socially? How does one "witness" insurance practice socially ? Thats some mad skillz ya gots there ollie.

Go ahead and believe what you want, but I know that what I wrote is right, and what you believe is wrong.

Edited November 21, 2008 by guyser

Oleg Bach · November 21, 2008

Well of course they do.
Socially? How does one "witness" insurance practice socially ? Thats some mad skillz ya gots there ollie.

Go ahead and believe what you want, but I know that what I wrote is right, and what you believe is wrong.

Oh crap! Insurance Practice...I had no idea what you were talking about - I must have blanked out when I saw the word insurance. Maybe I had better not toss around words like socially ....I need an editor...thanks for the help - great cleaning job of my sloppy work....It's like a pool shot you know you will not make - the insertion of "socially" was much like that - irresponsible of me to be so messy....did have a sense that adding that word was not appropriate. BUT like a cook I tossed in the wrong spiece... :unsure: