Gay Marriage

[Swift]

Famine, we're talking about gay marriage. If you want to talk about trans-gender switching let's do it elsewhere.

Danoff, I didn't say it should be lllegal. I said it shouldn't be called marriage.

 

[Pako]

*snip*

No. It's about refusing to legally categorize the results of pair bonding. Once we start doing that, we might as well have a different term for interracial couples, a different term for fat couples, and a different term for couples who are different heights.

We could call white people marriages - Married
Black people marriages would be - Black Unions
Interracial marriages would be called - Iter Unions
Homosexual marriages would be called -Homo Unions
Fat marriages would be called - Big Unions
Skinny marriages would be called - Anorexiunions

etc. etc.




Ask those homosexual couples whether they'd like to be considered different legally...

I recognize them as different, just not in any way that's legally significant.

That's what we call marriage now? "Pair Bonding"? Seriously though. Lots of weak sauce.

Again, all of those creative adjectives preceding the word "Union", more of that weak sauce.

Like I said, don't make marriage something it's not. Get rid of the legal term marriage and leave that for the people who want to keep it a sacred union between a husband and a wife. For legal reason, institute a Civil Union for all consenting adults of sound mind, well except for young adults, first cousins and siblings or any other close relatives. Oh wait, what about their civil rights? I guess we have to allow those legal unions as well?


I just thought of what my wife might say when I tell her that we have been "Pair Bonded" for 10 years this July. I wonder how romantic she would think that was.

 

[Danoff]

Danoff, I didn't say it should be lllegal. I said it shouldn't be called marriage.

Illegal to marry.

That's what we call marriage now? "Pair Bonding"? Seriously though. Lots of weak sauce.

That's what it is, pair bonding. I don't see how calling my post "weak sauce" really refutes any of it.

Again, all of those creative adjectives preceding the word "Union", more of that weak sauce.

Like I said, don't make marriage something it's not. Get rid of the legal term marriage and leave that for the people who want to keep it a sacred union between a husband and a wife. For legal reason, institute a Civil Union for all consenting adults of sound mind, well except for young adults, first cousins and siblings or any other close relatives. Oh wait, what about their civil rights? I guess we have to allow those legal unions as well?

Like I said before, I'd be fine with calling them all Civil Unions.

As for the children/cousin/sibling issue. Children aren't adults, and as such have a subset of rights - marriage shouldn't be included in that subset. Adult cousins and siblings should be able to form "civil unions" or "marry" as the term is currently used to describe a legally recognized civil union.

 

[Sureboss]

It might be an improvement

 

[Danoff]

Like I said, don't make marriage something it's not. Get rid of the legal term marriage and leave that for the people who want to keep it a sacred union between a husband and a wife.

...and by the way, what's stopping you religious folks from changing your term for it? Why not create a new term called Christage - which would be a marriage recognized by christ? I think it actually has a ring to it. Christage.... We're getting Christied. I like it.

I just thought of what my wife might say when I tell her that we have been "Pair Bonded" for 10 years this July. I wonder how romantic she would think that was.

I think if I told my wife that she'd love it. It's not romatic at all, but she'd love it anyway.

 

[Pako]

@Danoff:

"Weak Sauce" was a term I was saving for Duke as he felt it necessary to call my replies "weak" because he disagreed with those replies. It wasn't until you used "Weak Sauce" as a response to one of my posts that I was compelled to now use it for every one of your replies that were in fact, 'weak' responses. I think I need to trade mark "Weak Sauce" as it has got a certain appeal to it.

So now we are back to where we were some 50+ posts ago. Civil Unions are OK, just don't call it marriage. Good, lets move on to get all these homosexuals in court so we can pair bond them.

 

[Pako]

...and by the way, what's stopping you religious folks from changing your term for it? Why not create a new term called Christage - which would be a marriage recognized by christ? I think it actually has a ring to it. Christage.... We're getting Christied. I like it.




I think if I told my wife that she'd love it. It's not romatic at all, but she'd love it anyway.

Christage? Now that's just silly but it does have a nice ring to it.

So she would love it, eh? Sounds like something Famine might get off on, but a sensitive woman? I highly doubt it.

 

[Danoff]

Christage? Now that's just silly but it does have a nice ring to it.

That's what I'm talking about. You guys should totally consider coming up with your own word - you can even use Christage (even though I came up with it). That way, you wouldn't have to care what the rest of us did to the word marriage - because you'd have a Christage, and legally that won't get touched.

Plus, it would still allow us to use the word marry, in a more general sense.

So she would love it, eh? Sounds like something Famine might get off on, but a sensitive woman? I highly doubt it.

Sensitive? That's not at all how I'd describe my wife. She's actually a lot like me, but hot... and smart.

 

[Pako]

That's what I'm talking about. You guys should totally consider coming up with your own word - you can even use Christage (even though I came up with it). That way, you wouldn't have to care what the rest of us did to the word marriage - because you'd have a Christage, and legally that won't get touched.

Plus, it would still allow us to use the word marry, in a more general sense.



Sensitive? That's not at all how I'd describe my wife. She's actually a lot like me, but hot... and smart.

Odd, I always pictured you hot and smart....

 

[Danoff]

Odd, I always pictured you hot and smart....

Well... I mean... I am... I just don't think of myself that way. But if I had to be objective, obviously I'm super hot, and super smart too... and humble. I'm the most humble person on the planet. I'll bet you couldn't find a single person who's humbler than I am.

 

[Talentless]

I'm sure there are many good arguments, at least to those making them, but I just can't take most of the anti gay marriage ones seriously, when they appear to rest on two premises, that, a., doom befalls a culture that has it, which appears mostly hypothetical, and that, b., it flies in the face of tradition. There is something to be said for the will of the people, which is an interesting challenge between what some see as the presumptive rights of the minority vs. the minimal requirement of a democracy, majrity rule. Even in a constitutional republic, such a principal would be seen as appropriate to protect. Still, most of it seems to boil down to "tradition above all" and "I'm scared." I don't think majority will is sufficient to claim, let alone hold, ownership of something where an alternative definition to it has a dubious, if any, risk of harm. It, to me, is irrational.

 

[Pako]

Well... I mean... I am... I just don't think of myself that way. But if I had to be objective, obviously I'm super hot, and super smart too... and humble. I'm the most humble person on the planet. I'll bet you couldn't find a single person who's humbler than I am.

Yeah. By the way, did you know sarcasm is a gift from God?

I'll explain it to you some time if you like.

 

[Swift]

Let me ask you something Danoff. Why should the institution change it's terminology for people that choose to be different? It simply makes no sense. If they want to be together fine. But the sheer fact of the matter is that their lifestyle is very different from heterosexual marriage so why should it be the same thing.

I'm sure there are many good arguments, at least to those making them, but I just can't take most of the anti gay marriage ones seriously, when they appear to rest on two premises, that, a., doom befalls a culture that has it, which appears mostly hypothetical, and that, b., it flies in the face of tradition. There is something to be said for the will of the people, which is an interesting challenge between what some see as the presumptive rights of the minority vs. the minimal requirement of a democracy, majrity rule. Even in a constitutional republic, such a principal would be seen as appropriate to protect. Still, most of it seems to boil down to "tradition above all" and "I'm scared." I don't think majority will is sufficient to claim, let alone hold, ownership of something where an alternative definition to it has a dubious, if any, risk of harm. It, to me, is irrational.

hmm...well there seem to be a lot of people in the country that want to keep that tradition.

Oct. 25, 2006: New Jersey state Supreme Court rules that the state Constitution guarantees same-sex couples all the legal benefits of marriage, but stopped short of legalizing same-sex marriage.

Nov. 7, 2006: Voters in seven states (Idaho, Colorado, South Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin) approve constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.

Taken from this article:http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=20695

What's the problem with what they did in NJ? Look, a man and man getting together is fundamentally different then a man and woman. So they don't call it the same thing but they get all the legal benefits(that shouldn't exist anyway).

 

[Omnis]

After all, He created snails, and they're hermaphrodites.

And he created women, and they're a tasty rib.

 

[Duke]

The fundamental difference in this argument is this. Some think homosexuality is natural others thinks it's a choice. If it's natural, then logically they should be able to be "married". Just like any heritage of man and woman. But if it's a choice, then that's a totally different story. If gay people chose to be different from others and then want the same rights, that's not cool. And, that's where I stand.

Really, so it's just cool to be gay and they should be the same as a traditional married couple because they CHOSE to be different?

I'm not trying to get personal, here, Swift, but please contemplate my earlier example.

50 years ago, marrying a white woman could have been worth your life in some parts of the country. 99% of all white people married other white people. 99% of all black people married black people. It had been that way for centuries, since before the Founding Fathers. Those that didn't were likely ostracized by both communities.

You've made a choice to have your marriage be different from the traditionally accepted norm. Why should you be allowed to make that choice and still call it a marriage? If I was of a mind to, why shouldn't I be allowed to prevent you from calling yourself married, since it weakens my long-held traditional family values that white folks should only marry white folks and black folks should only marry black folks?

Why shouldn't I be campaigning to have your marriage declared illegal by Constitutional amendment?

After, let's not forget that THE LAW said blacks are only 3/5ths of a person when our Founding Fathers did their thing. To paraphrase you, if they got that part wrong, what else did they screw up?!

 

[Danoff]

Let me ask you something Danoff. Why should the institution change it's terminology for people that choose to be different? It simply makes no sense. If they want to be together fine. But the sheer fact of the matter is that their lifestyle is very different from heterosexual marriage so why should it be the same thing.

Maybe because the government of the people is not supposed to be discriminatory? Just a thought.

 

[a6m5]

If you believe that marriage is between two people, then Duke and Danoff's argument makes 100% sense. But if you believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, it makes no sense at all.

As long as we can't all agree on what "marriage" is, we won't get anywhere in this thread.

 

[Swift]

I'm not trying to get personal, here, Swift, but please contemplate my earlier example.
*snip*

I or my fiancee didn't chose our race.

Also, the reason that blacks were counted as 3/5 of a person was actually not racially motivated. But to keep balance in the house of representatives since the population of the south was that much greater then northern territories. Granted, it was still wrong, but there was an actual logic behind it.

Maybe because the government of the people is not supposed to be discriminatory? Just a thought.

Heh heh, and yet they are every single day. They charge me more in taxes because I don't have any children. They say that I can't get financial aid because I make to much. They say because I'm black I qualify for certain types of funds, etc.

You act like this is a new thing. Also, I still don't call it discrimination since a civil union does EVERYTHING a marriage does from the legal side of things. Isn't that what the gay community is clamoring for? In this particular case, separate but equal is very equal.

Also, you have said that our concept of marriage is irrational. I'd like to argue that from a purely biological standpoint, marriage to one woman is very irrational for men. With the way we're attracted to women, have sex constantly on our mind and want to spread our seed/name it is actually rather irrational to stay with one woman for our entire life.

 

[Philly]

I'm sure there are many good arguments, at least to those making them, but I just can't take most of the anti gay marriage ones seriously, when they appear to rest on two premises, that, a., doom befalls a culture that has it, which appears mostly hypothetical, and that, b., it flies in the face of tradition. There is something to be said for the will of the people, which is an interesting challenge between what some see as the presumptive rights of the minority vs. the minimal requirement of a democracy, majrity rule. Even in a constitutional republic, such a principal would be seen as appropriate to protect. Still, most of it seems to boil down to "tradition above all" and "I'm scared." I don't think majority will is sufficient to claim, let alone hold, ownership of something where an alternative definition to it has a dubious, if any, risk of harm. It, to me, is irrational.

Honestly, what do we care about tradition. Tradition seems to be a way to support arguments that really can't be backed. Why do you believe that? "'cause it feels right." Ok. Sure. Whatever dude.

Let me ask you something Danoff. Why should the institution change it's terminology for people that choose to be different? It simply makes no sense. If they want to be together fine. But the sheer fact of the matter is that their lifestyle is very different from heterosexual marriage so why should it be the same thing.

So we are denying them rights just because they are different? Haven't we concluded with the civil rights movement/emancipation/women's rights movements that that is unjust? Gay or straight, we are all people. No need to discriminate because they have different beliefs/morals/ethics.

Heh heh, and yet they are every single day. They charge me more in taxes because I don't have any children. They say that I can't get financial aid because I make to much. They say because I'm black I qualify for certain types of funds, etc.

So does that make it right do discriminate one more time? That would be moving in the opposite direction we want to go. (refering to the gov't being discriminatory.)

Also, you have said that our concept of marriage is irrational. I'd like to argue that from a purely biological standpoint, marriage to one woman is very irrational for men. With the way we're attracted to women, have sex constantly on our mind and want to spread our seed/name it is actually rather irrational to stay with one woman for our entire life.

Marriage used to be lifelong. Now, the divorce allows us to have a polygamy (in a sense, not literal.) We seem to have no problem changing what marriage is, why hold back now.

 

[Swift]

Honestly, what do we care about tradition. Tradition seems to be a way to support arguments that really can't be backed. Why do you believe that? "'cause it feels right." Ok. Sure. Whatever dude.

That's a liberal mindset. Exactly what we are against.

So we are denying them rights just because they are different? Haven't we concluded with the civil rights movement/emancipation/women's rights movements that that is unjust? Gay or straight, we are all people. No need to discriminate because they have different beliefs/morals/ethics.

It's not denying rights. It denying a TITLE. How hard is that to understand? Marriage is between a man and a woman. They can knock themselves out with a civil union all they want without me caring one bit.

So does that make it right do discriminate one more time? That would be moving in the opposite direction we want to go. (refering to the gov't being discriminatory.)

I was making the point that the government that Danoff was talking about does discriminate on a regular basis.

Marriage used to be lifelong. Now, the divorce allows us to have a polygamy (in a sense, not literal.) We seem to have no problem changing what marriage is, why hold back now.

Who said anything about a time table? Are you saying that since marriages tend not to last as long as they used to it's perfectly fine to completely change the institution. Nope, sorry not buying it.

 

[Philly]

It's not denying rights. It denying a TITLE.

And therefore, equality. If they don't want marriage in name, fine. If they do, maybe we should listen.

Who said anything about a time table? Are you saying that since marriages tend not to last as long as they used to it's perfectly fine to completely change the institution. Nope, sorry not buying it.

Would a gay mariage totally change the institution? That requires a solid definition to answer. Yes it could be anywhere from a slight change to a total redefinition.

I was saying that because mariages do not last as long as they used to, we DID change it. If it is malleable like that, why is it such a pain to make adjustments now?

 

[Swift]

And therefore, equality. If they don't want marriage in name, fine. If they do, maybe we should listen.

So we should listen to hippies that want to disassemble the economic and political structure of our country as well?

Would a gay mariage totally change the institution? That requires a solid definition to answer. Yes it could be anywhere from a slight change to a total redefinition.

I was saying that because mariages do not last as long as they used to, we DID change it. If it is malleable like that, why is it such a pain to make adjustments now?

Yes, it would totally change the institution.

 

[Philly]

So we should listen to hippies that want to disassemble the economic and political structure of our country as well?

Are hippies trying to gain equal rights or just putting ideas out there?

Yes, it would totally change the institution.

How?
EDIT: Tricky. Combine both questions into one.


Would it? How would marriage be different? It used to be a permanent union between two people. There are many many instances where that is not true.

 

[3-Wheel Drive]

A man and a woman love each other, want to share their lives, and decide to live together. So they get married. Isn't that essentially what marriage is? What difference does gender make? Race certainly doesn't, so why is gender such a big deal? Tradition, is it? Well, 60 years ago, interracial couples would get a hard time from two communities, because back then, marriage was between a white and and woman, or between a black man and woman, etc. Tradition is one of the primary anti-gay marriage arguments. However, "tradition" is a not always a good reason to keep a practice the way it is. After all, owning slaves used to be tradition. So was chauvinism.

 

[Pako]

Circular discussions here. As Swift and myself have said countless times until we are blue in the face, it is the title and definition of marriage that we aim to protect as we value what marriage is and what it stands for. By allowing any other union beside that of a man and woman would devalue what a marriage is. Duke, Danoff, and the like are not debating for Civil Rights, they are debating for the demoralizing of American law. Because our law was founded on religious principles and morals, any instance where a shred of religious tone or moral is present, they are quick to judge as discriminatory. They want to twist the truth into something that is simply is not and attack good moral practice at the expense of this country. Look around, watch the news, read what their doing in the schools all in the name of liberal demoralization of this country. The country is loosing their moral understanding of how they should behave with boundaries being taken down in the name of civil rights. There are some really good and moral things that came out of changing bad law, hateful law, but this liberal movement is taking our country down a path that is dark and destructive. A little self control goes a long way. Setting boundaries and moral standards is a good thing. Realizing the value of the family unit is a good thing. Being part of your community and contributing to your neighbor is a good thing. Doing without so others can have is a good thing. Keeping the marriage between a man and a woman sacred is a good thing. Don't neglect the rights of homosexuals by denying Civil Union laws, but don't demoralize marriage by changing the definition.

 

[3-Wheel Drive]

Circular discussions here. As Swift and myself have said countless times until we are blue in the face, it is the title and definition of marriage that we aim to protect as we value what marriage is and what it stands for. By allowing any other union beside that of a man and woman would devalue what a marriage is.

Marriage means different things to different people. That's exactly why some contest for gay marriage in the first place.

Duke, Danoff, and the like are not debating for Civil Rights, they are debating for the demoralizing of American law. Because our law was founded on religious principles and morals, any instance where a shred of religious tone or moral is present, they are quick to judge as discriminatory. They want to twist the truth into something that is simply is not and attack good moral practice at the expense of this country.

Whoa, hold it right there. Debating for the demoralization of America? That's a mighty accusation there. Morality is subjective. What is moral to some isn't to others. I may think I have the moral right to attack someone for teasing me. Does that make the action just and right? Not necessarily. Furthermore, religious tones are many times viewed as discriminatory because they can be. By their very nature they may have a bias towards one side, even if not intended. And you cannot twist the truth into something that attacks a good moral practice, if that original morality is flawed. It is possible it is. Why? Well, the views that founded America were the same that favored white men above everyone else, allowing slavery and the social restraint of women. This didn't make America bad, just flawed. We eventually corrected those views. We may need to fix more. I'm not calling for an overhaul, but some things must change with time. As society changes, so must the rules to govern it. It's he way things have gone, are going, and will continue to go. Every so often, "updates" are needed.

That is the problem, though. Morality is defined by the individual. One man's crusade is another's persecution. In this way, moral issues like marriage may never be resolved, unless everyone has the same opinions and views, which is impossible.

 

[Talentless]

Harm from gay marriage isn't in its existence, but in the refusal of others to accept it. Damage caused by it rests at the irrational reactions to it, not by how it inspired that reaction, because without that, no demonstrable harm has been shown, no conclusive data, so far as I've seen. If it exists, it should be shown.

 

[Famine]

Famine, we're talking about gay marriage. If you want to talk about trans-gender switching let's do it elsewhere.

It's directly relevant.

If a guy changes gender to a girl, which is s/he? What gender person are they then allowed to marry in order not to be a homosexual marriage and, thus, okay in the eyes of God?

I understand it's a difficult question - and it's no trick either. I'm not totally sure myself what the answer to the first part is. But I'm not God and so not omniscient.


A second, as-yet-unanswered, question regards marriages of other religions. Is an Islamic/Hindu/Jewish/Sikh/Buddhist marriage valid to Christians?

 

[Mark T]

By definition, marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what the law says.

There should be a seperate ceremony with the same values for those who are gay. Why should the law change when there is a perfectly equal alternative for gay couples? Being gay is different from hetrosexual so there should be a different ceremony for that exact reason.

 

[Famine]

By definition, marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what the law says.

Come on now - we've established that "That's what the law says" is a pretty weak point. Any law reflects what was acceptable/necessary at the time it was made and can be changed when it's no longer acceptable/necessary. Laws were made to prevent women from voting and to prevent black people from owning property because, at the time those laws were made that was acceptable behaviour. They were changed when it became apparent that it wasn't acceptable. Your argument - that's what the law says - indicates that you think law is immutable and shouldn't be subject to change.

There should be a seperate ceremony with the same values for those who are gay. Why should the law change when there is a perfectly equal alternative for gay couples? Being gay is different from hetrosexual so there should be a different ceremony for that exact reason.

Let me just change a couple of words there:

There should be a seperate ceremony with the same values for those who are black. Why should the law change when there is a perfectly equal alternative for black couples? Being black is different from white so there should be a different ceremony for that exact reason.

Now some might opine that one cannot equate black with gay as black is genetic but gay is a choice - which may or may not be the case. So let's fiddle a bit more.

There should be a seperate ceremony with the same values for those who are criminals. Why should the law change when there is a perfectly equal alternative for criminal couples? Being criminal is different from law-abiding so there should be a different ceremony for that exact reason.

As danoff said earlier, "separate but equal" - or rather "equal but separate".