Moonlight Graham Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 I would just like to say to those like the sheltered & ignorant homophobe Rob Ford, and to those clinging to a few words in the Bible that were written/edited/re-edited/translated/re-translated by some unknown half-literate men...you may win a few battles along the way, but you will lose the war. In thirty or fifty or a hundred years, however long it takes, gay marriage with be legal in virtually all western liberal democratic countries, and in all 50 states of the American union. Because, just like in the struggle for equal rights for blacks and women, you can slow it down but you can't stop progress. The ignorant sheltered bigots will lose, and love will win the day. (This post goes out to my sister. She is gay, and thanks to living in the great country of Canada, is afforded the legal right marry the one she loves.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) (This post goes out to my sister. She is gay, and thanks to living in the great country of Canada, is afforded the legal right marry the one she loves.) ....where it took "thirty or fifty or a hundred years". Big deal. Edited July 5, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 I would just like to say to those like the sheltered & ignorant homophobe Rob Ford, and to those clinging to a few words in the Bible that were written/edited/re-edited/translated/re-translated by some unknown half-literate men...you may win a few battles along the way, but you will lose the war. In thirty or fifty or a hundred years, however long it takes, gay marriage with be legal in virtually all western liberal democratic countries, and in all 50 states of the American union. Because, just like in the struggle for equal rights for blacks and women, you can slow it down but you can't stop progress. The ignorant sheltered bigots will lose, and love will win the day. (This post goes out to my sister. She is gay, and thanks to living in the great country of Canada, is afforded the legal right marry the one she loves.) As a proponent of gay marriage, I really wish people like you weren't on our side. You do a disservice to the whole cause with ignorant name-calling rants such as these. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 meanwhile, in the land of old news.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) I would just like to say to those like the sheltered & ignorant homophobe Rob Ford, and to those clinging to a few words in the Bible that were written/edited/re-edited/translated/re-translated by some unknown half-literate men...you may win a few battles along the way, but you will lose the war.You would be better to take your argument against pious Muslims, and other third world traditionalists.In 2055, I suspect that your argument (or free-thinking people alive then) will not face Rob Ford Christians/agnostics, it will be against the truly ignorant of this world. MG, with luck, you're sister will be dead by then so she won't suffer the future ignominy. And since most gay people don't have kids, her children won't have to suffer either. Edited July 6, 2011 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 Because, just like in the struggle for equal rights for blacks and women, you can slow it down but you can't stop progress. The ignorant sheltered bigots will lose, and love will win the day.Of course, this argument, taken to its logical extension, means people should be entitled to marry their dogs.The fact is marriage means different things for different people and the government really has no business co-opting what was traditionally a religious concept into civil law. The government should offer "domestic partnerships" to individuals that wish to share a household. If people want to be married they can go to a Church/Mosque/Temple of their choice. You can't get married in Mosque if you are not Muslim nor if you are gay. I see no issue with this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 The fact is marriage means different things for different people and the government really has no business co-opting what was traditionally a religious concept into civil law. There is more history of marriage being a business arrangement, than a religious concept...it is not in our distant past when church weddings were for the rich folk, everyone else simply said I do and did... That being said, business arrangements, the codifying the regulations and so on, have traditionally been the prerogative of government. No one to my knowledge is demanding to be married in a church that does not perform same sex marriages, so that point is irrelevant and you are correct, there is no issue there. In mainland europe, the only marriage that is legal is a civil union....if you want a church wedding, you have one after. I think that is a rational tradition Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 ...In mainland europe, the only marriage that is legal is a civil union....if you want a church wedding, you have one after. I think that is a rational tradition Umm...OK..so when can I marry my sister? She has a great set of...employment benefits! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 Umm...OK..so when can I marry my sister? She has a great set of...employment benefits! If a couple from Arkansas get married and move to Tennessee but then decide to divorce, are they still brother and sister? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 If a couple from Arkansas get married and move to Tennessee but then decide to divorce, are they still brother and sister? Only if the sister marries her mother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted July 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 As a proponent of gay marriage, I really wish people like you weren't on our side. You do a disservice to the whole cause with ignorant name-calling rants such as these. I see your point somewhat, but my "rant" was maybe blunt & name-calling yes but certainly not ignorant. Sometimes you have to be blunt and call a spade a spade. Also, coming from you your comments seem quite hypocritical to say the least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted July 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 You would be better to take your argument against pious Muslims, and other third world traditionalists. In 2055, I suspect that your argument (or free-thinking people alive then) will not face Rob Ford Christians/agnostics, it will be against the truly ignorant of this world. MG, with luck, you're sister will be dead by then so she won't suffer the future ignominy. And since most gay people don't have kids, her children won't have to suffer either. Well, maybe by the year 2552 the majority of countries will allow gay marriage lol. Also, she plans on having children. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted July 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 Of course, this argument, taken to its logical extension, means people should be entitled to marry their dogs. Slippery slope. I would argue dogs are incapable of giving any real valid form of informed consent. But if you want to marry your cousin i don't really care, just don't have kids. I also don't have a huge problem with churches not marrying gays, that's their choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 Slippery slope. I would argue dogs are incapable of giving any real valid form of informed consent. But if you want to marry your cousin i don't really care, just don't have kids. Why not? Same gender (not "gay") marriage is not about sex or procreation. Are you advocating for state mandated restrictions on interfamilial marriage? Are you being consistent? I also don't have a huge problem with churches not marrying gays, that's their choice. It's not just about "gays". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 (edited) You would be better to take your argument against pious Muslims, and other third world traditionalists. Yes, because it is far more useful to engage in critiques of other cultures and societies, which takes zero moral courage and has zero effect, then to speak about issues of domestic rights and justice, in our own democratic societies where the dialogue can help produce concrete results. Any coward can say "Stop criticizing us, and start focussing on the sins of Official Enemies." And in fact, every coward does exactly that. Edited July 6, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 Of course, this argument, taken to its logical extension, means people should be entitled to marry their dogs. "Of course," huh? The fact is marriage means different things for different people and the government really has no business co-opting what was traditionally a religious concept into civil law. The government should offer "domestic partnerships" to individuals that wish to share a household. If people want to be married they can go to a Church/Mosque/Temple of their choice. You can't get married in Mosque if you are not Muslim nor if you are gay. I see no issue with this. I assume you've long felt this way about non-church marriages; so when the innumerable heterosexual couples have gotten hitched through a Justice of the Peace, you have determined that they shouldn't be deemed "married." (Which every one of them calls themselves...the nerve!). Well, no, none of this occurred to you until gay people started getting married. Suddenly the issue arose. But it has nothing to do with homosexuality, lawds, no! At any rate, no, religious people do not "own" the word "marriage." Nothing has been "co-opted," because you simply cannot claim ownership of the word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 Sex is marriage...too have actual real sex by definition you have to have two opposites. I do not support anything that redefines nature - male and female - no more that some Orwellian saying that states war is peace and love is hate. I like things in order _ have a union if you wish and be happy in that if you can - But don't attempt to turn a man into a wife and a woman into a husband...You can't just pop up in the spirit of pop social engineering and suddenly say after 50 thousand years that you are a man - if you are a woman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 I have absolutely no problem with any adults getting married in any combination of genders or numbers, as long as all parties are willing and under no duress. But governments in North America and in Europe flounder on the semantics of the term marriage. By defining it, they create inequity and often have the horrible optics of having different words for the same union, depending on the gender of the particpants. I'd prefer it if govts everyhwere withdrew completely from the marriage business - there is no need at all for them to be involved in the ceremonies or determing what the result is called. Govts should definitely be involved in creating a legislative framework where the tax laws, inheritance, family law and above all the protection of children are addressed, with any registered domestic arrangement getting the same treatment undser the law. They should also ensure that anybody who registers their domestic arrangement contract has that deal respected by all employers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 Since I was 17 - I had been in co-habitation with one woman or another - one for 3 years - one for five - one for 7 and one for 27 years - the later bore 4 of my children...and I did NOT formally marry any of these partners...Frankly - I don't like the idea of the state or chruch telling me what is legitimate or legal. A marriage licence reminds me of a dog licence - or a licence to breed...marriage is for the herd - for dumb animals. The gay populace that believes they are gaining rights are actually losing rights and control over their lives and handing them over to the state. Gays are foolish in their attempt to mimic hetrosexual formal unions....That is as close as I can get to explaining my thoughts on marriage - As for legitimate children - all children are legitimate - It is not for the state or church to devalue a child and call them bastard. All of my children were formally registered in my sir name..because they are mine...I did not need a marriage certificate to achieve a rich family life - nor do gays. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 Why not? Same gender (not "gay") marriage is not about sex or procreation. Are you advocating for state mandated restrictions on interfamilial marriage? Are you being consistent? It's not just about "gays". Here we go with "sex is not bianary" - BC - you spent to much time at sea.....but in gentle seriousness - I don't care who marries who - just don't start messing with the language and calling a woman a husband....or having to listen to one of my gay friend say "my husband" _ I have a difficult time hiding the irritating twitch that over takes my left eye....I just appease the guy and stay quiet...but is it up to me to give this guy a lecture....? NO - but if a kid who is not conditioned through this new educational engineering asks for my thoughts on such matters I will be honest to the not fully formed - uninformed youth....the old gay guys are fully formed and are who they are...husband and all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 As a proponent of gay marriage, I really wish people like you weren't on our side. You do a disservice to the whole cause with ignorant name-calling rants such as these. Your faux outrage tries to divert attention from the fact that it is RIGHT wing pundits, religious leaders and politicians who are fighting to defend marriages like mine from the threat posed by allowing same-sex couples to get married. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 Your faux outrage tries to divert attention from the fact that it is RIGHT wing pundits, religious leaders and politicians who are fighting to defend marriages like mine from the threat posed by allowing same-sex couples to get married. Really? Such a fight is going on in...Canada? I thought the Supreme Court and Parliament already settled that. If you are referring to the United States, federal law (DOMA) was supported by many more than pundits, holy men, and politicians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 Of course, this argument, taken to its logical extension, means people should be entitled to marry their dogs. The fact is marriage means different things for different people and the government really has no business co-opting what was traditionally a religious concept into civil law. The government should offer "domestic partnerships" to individuals that wish to share a household. If people want to be married they can go to a Church/Mosque/Temple of their choice. You can't get married in Mosque if you are not Muslim nor if you are gay. I see no issue with this. If marriage was left to the church it would nearly meaningless. All the most important aspects of marriage are civil in nature. All the church does is conduct a little ceremony, and a growing number of people dont bother with it anyhow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 If marriage was left to the church it would nearly meaningless. All the most important aspects of marriage are civil in nature. All the church does is conduct a little ceremony, and a growing number of people dont bother with it anyhow. Yah what do we need a pledge of "flesh of my flesh bone of my bone forsaking all others" for? Marriage as one French inlaw of mine said was "to see what one person could get from the other" - She was pretty base and could never be fully trusted...also take the typical suburban married couple - remove the income of one and the other will more than likely jettison them from the family home and bed. Wait for a decade to pass once the married gay couples start to bicker and end up in our court system - they will wish they NEVER HEARD OF SAME SEX MARRIAGE OR ANY OTHER KIND OF ARRANGEMENT! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.