Since there are several folks here who are very passionate about the same-sex marriage issue, I did some checking. A moderator (or anyone who wants to talk about this) may want to move this to a separate topic.
As of right now, only 2 countries in the world allow same-sex marriage. 4 provinces in Canada do as well. Several countries offer RDPs (Registered Domestic Partnerships). President Bush has said he's against the former and for the latter.
Is this such a bad thing? Without getting into a huge historical debate about the pragmatic origins of marriage (and monogamy for that matter) and what it has evolved to mean, is it so important that it be called "marriage"? Isn't the salient point that equal protection and rights are given to same-sex couples?
No one is saying that churches can't marry same-sex couples if the churches choose to do so.
Same-Sex Marriage
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
-
Avatar
- Immanentizing The Eschaton
- Posts: 61791
- Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
- Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
- Has thanked: 15 times
- Been thanked: 22 times
A new topic created for you at your suggestion.
In essence, I agree that the salient point is equality of rights and protection of those rights. From my point of view, it makes no difference whether or not it's called marriage or not.
But in that very same sense, it's merely semantic games, isn't it? Why should same-sex couples not be able to call their union marriage?
Marriage is a civil concept, as well as a religious one. Church is not the only place that a union can be formalised. Does this mean that no marriages not performed in church can be called marriage?
As I said, as long as the same rights are ensured, I don't care what the call it. However, it's not an issue which affects me at all. Someone actually in that position will have their own idea of what is important or not.
--Avatar
In essence, I agree that the salient point is equality of rights and protection of those rights. From my point of view, it makes no difference whether or not it's called marriage or not.
But in that very same sense, it's merely semantic games, isn't it? Why should same-sex couples not be able to call their union marriage?
Marriage is a civil concept, as well as a religious one. Church is not the only place that a union can be formalised. Does this mean that no marriages not performed in church can be called marriage?
As I said, as long as the same rights are ensured, I don't care what the call it. However, it's not an issue which affects me at all. Someone actually in that position will have their own idea of what is important or not.
--Avatar
-
duchess of malfi
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 11104
- Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 9:20 pm
- Location: Michigan, USA
I am not gay, though I feel quite passionately about this issue. To me it is a straight forward civil/human rights issue. I feel that under the Constitution of the United States, it is illegal to single out a minority group, and not allow them the same rights as the majority.
If I am free to marry a man and make my life with him, why can't one of my best friends, who happens to be a gay man?
If I am free to marry a man and make my life with him, why can't one of my best friends, who happens to be a gay man?
Love as thou wilt.
We're one of those provinces. More are expected to follow. I'm all for same-sex marriage and whatever people do in the privacy of their lives. Personally, I take a jaundiced view of the whole institution of marriage itself. It's a ritual that means little to me.Cail wrote:As of right now, only 2 countries in the world allow same-sex marriage. 4 provinces in Canada do as well.
-
Avatar
- Immanentizing The Eschaton
- Posts: 61791
- Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
- Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
- Has thanked: 15 times
- Been thanked: 22 times
I agree with MatrixMan here, in essence, it's simply a ritual. It may impact on the lives of those involved, it may mean more or less to them, but in essence, it serves no real purpose that couldn't be accomplished by simply living together. (As long as legislature recognises "common-law" marriage for instances such as insurance and inheritance.)
As Duchess says, it's fundamentally a human-rights issue. As long as those rights are in place and protected, it makes no legal difference. Emotionally/psychologically though, it may be important to those whom it affects.
--A
As Duchess says, it's fundamentally a human-rights issue. As long as those rights are in place and protected, it makes no legal difference. Emotionally/psychologically though, it may be important to those whom it affects.
--A
-
ZefaLefeLaH
- Banned
- Posts: 357
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 8:19 am
You can diminish marriage to be a simple ritual ceremony, but is marriage really just the ceremony, a piece of paper?
What is marriage?
It is a life-long commitment between two people. That hardly seems like "a simply ritual" to me. It seems to me to be one of the biggest decisions of a person's life.
What is marriage for? What does it serve?
Marriage is for the creation of a family. Men and women unite, become one in sexual intercourse, create a child or children, and perpetuate the family line. Marriage serves also in that a family worker will be generally more dedicated to his work than a non-family member.
What does heterosexual marriage provide?
A man has certain aspects of his genetic makeup that give him certain skills which a woman does not have abundantly as a man has. A woman has certain aspects of her makeup that give her skills which a man does not have abundantly. Moreover, a woman compliments a man with her weaknesses as a man does with his. The woman is better suited to be with a man because her weaknesses are complimented by the man's strengths and his weaknesses are complimented by her strengths.
How basic can we get?
A peg fits a slot. A peg does not fit a peg. If you can't figure out what a child can get in 10 seconds then I guess I can't help you. The child isn't going to sit there and rationalize around how the peg can fit an exit slot or how that a peg can still love a peg. The peg goes in the slot in ten seconds flat & the 3 yr old child has identified the obvious.
Should people be told what they can or can't do?
We do it all the time. You can't walk around with a gun strapped on your waist like the good old days. You have to drive on the road and there are speed limits. You can't beat the crap out of your wife even if she likes it. You can't have sex with kids. You can't take the law into your own hands without possible consequence. You can't fly without a permit. You can't fish without one. You can't boat without a license. You can't do very much of anything without being told when and where and how you are to do it. Even in private, you can't download child-pR0n. It's just for you, but you can't do it. YOu can't smoke dope or do crack. You can't inject yourself with PCP or use LCD. YOU CANNOT DO SOMETHINGS EVEN IN YOUR OWN PERSONAL PRIVATE LITTLE WORLD! It is illegal.
So should gay people be allowed to marry?
Nope. Not at all. Never ever ever. It is not marriage. A marriage is not some little certificate you get. It is a way of bridging the sexes. It is a natural method of having a life-long friend and companion. It is a man giving his manhood to a woman giving her womanhood. It is nothing less. It is what marriage means.
If a gay person is allowed to marry another gay person then I should be allowed to marry a cow or a goat. A gay man cannot provide the strengths that a woman has for his weaknesses. He simply cannot do it. As much as he would like to pretend in his whole life about it, he is *NOT* a woman. He is a man. And a man cannot provide the strengths that a woman has for his weaknesses. So therefore, if gay marriage is allowed, I should be able to marry a goat. A goat can't give me strength for my weaknesses. I can pet it, nurture it, make it feel loved, have sex with it. But is it my companion, my perfect opposite of strengths and weaknesses? Absolutely not!
A man and a woman create a circle of life. A man and a man are as useful as a man and a goat. There is no completed circle. It is falacy, false, an untruth. Let them live together in their uncompleted circle as long as they want, it doesn't bother me as I rarely see them in public anyway (and that way I don't have to get into as many fights), but don't tell me that you're willing to taint the sanctimony of marriage with this unreason simply because it is politcially correct to go along with the loud voices of gay freespeech. Sometimes I feel as if these public forums are for people of media vampirized minds to regurgitate whatever is most popular at the time. I bet if we look backward to 9/11 we will see a whole lot of "go get him soldier" posts. But now that the war isn't popular, all of a sudden the public forums are repeating CNN. It's the same thing with the loud voices of gay freespeech. They are a minority that screams at the tops of their lungs to be heard, suing everyone in their wake that says boo, and making certain that their agenda is the basis for a presidential election process. I have one statement for gay freespeech and that is, please continue it. Eventually the nearsightedness of instant-gratification America will stamp you out like an outdated fashion.
I don't care if gay people are born gay or become gay. I don't care if gay people have television shows as long as they don't have commercials for them, because I can turn the channel. I don't care about gay parades or gay holidays because I don't celibrate them. But gay marriage? How is it marriage at all?
What is marriage?
It is a life-long commitment between two people. That hardly seems like "a simply ritual" to me. It seems to me to be one of the biggest decisions of a person's life.
What is marriage for? What does it serve?
Marriage is for the creation of a family. Men and women unite, become one in sexual intercourse, create a child or children, and perpetuate the family line. Marriage serves also in that a family worker will be generally more dedicated to his work than a non-family member.
What does heterosexual marriage provide?
A man has certain aspects of his genetic makeup that give him certain skills which a woman does not have abundantly as a man has. A woman has certain aspects of her makeup that give her skills which a man does not have abundantly. Moreover, a woman compliments a man with her weaknesses as a man does with his. The woman is better suited to be with a man because her weaknesses are complimented by the man's strengths and his weaknesses are complimented by her strengths.
How basic can we get?
A peg fits a slot. A peg does not fit a peg. If you can't figure out what a child can get in 10 seconds then I guess I can't help you. The child isn't going to sit there and rationalize around how the peg can fit an exit slot or how that a peg can still love a peg. The peg goes in the slot in ten seconds flat & the 3 yr old child has identified the obvious.
Should people be told what they can or can't do?
We do it all the time. You can't walk around with a gun strapped on your waist like the good old days. You have to drive on the road and there are speed limits. You can't beat the crap out of your wife even if she likes it. You can't have sex with kids. You can't take the law into your own hands without possible consequence. You can't fly without a permit. You can't fish without one. You can't boat without a license. You can't do very much of anything without being told when and where and how you are to do it. Even in private, you can't download child-pR0n. It's just for you, but you can't do it. YOu can't smoke dope or do crack. You can't inject yourself with PCP or use LCD. YOU CANNOT DO SOMETHINGS EVEN IN YOUR OWN PERSONAL PRIVATE LITTLE WORLD! It is illegal.
So should gay people be allowed to marry?
Nope. Not at all. Never ever ever. It is not marriage. A marriage is not some little certificate you get. It is a way of bridging the sexes. It is a natural method of having a life-long friend and companion. It is a man giving his manhood to a woman giving her womanhood. It is nothing less. It is what marriage means.
If a gay person is allowed to marry another gay person then I should be allowed to marry a cow or a goat. A gay man cannot provide the strengths that a woman has for his weaknesses. He simply cannot do it. As much as he would like to pretend in his whole life about it, he is *NOT* a woman. He is a man. And a man cannot provide the strengths that a woman has for his weaknesses. So therefore, if gay marriage is allowed, I should be able to marry a goat. A goat can't give me strength for my weaknesses. I can pet it, nurture it, make it feel loved, have sex with it. But is it my companion, my perfect opposite of strengths and weaknesses? Absolutely not!
A man and a woman create a circle of life. A man and a man are as useful as a man and a goat. There is no completed circle. It is falacy, false, an untruth. Let them live together in their uncompleted circle as long as they want, it doesn't bother me as I rarely see them in public anyway (and that way I don't have to get into as many fights), but don't tell me that you're willing to taint the sanctimony of marriage with this unreason simply because it is politcially correct to go along with the loud voices of gay freespeech. Sometimes I feel as if these public forums are for people of media vampirized minds to regurgitate whatever is most popular at the time. I bet if we look backward to 9/11 we will see a whole lot of "go get him soldier" posts. But now that the war isn't popular, all of a sudden the public forums are repeating CNN. It's the same thing with the loud voices of gay freespeech. They are a minority that screams at the tops of their lungs to be heard, suing everyone in their wake that says boo, and making certain that their agenda is the basis for a presidential election process. I have one statement for gay freespeech and that is, please continue it. Eventually the nearsightedness of instant-gratification America will stamp you out like an outdated fashion.
I don't care if gay people are born gay or become gay. I don't care if gay people have television shows as long as they don't have commercials for them, because I can turn the channel. I don't care about gay parades or gay holidays because I don't celibrate them. But gay marriage? How is it marriage at all?
The first ever kitten psychologist
-
Avatar
- Immanentizing The Eschaton
- Posts: 61791
- Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
- Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
- Has thanked: 15 times
- Been thanked: 22 times
That one is easy to answer. ObserveZefaLefeLaH wrote:But gay marriage? How is it marriage at all?
ZefaLefeLaH wrote:What is marriage?
It is a life-long commitment between two people...one of the biggest decisions of a person's life.
If, to use your analogy, the "peg" and "exit slot" fit as well as the "peg" and the "slot", the child is not going to rationalise anything. He won't know that a rationalisation needs to be made. He won't know that there is a difference. If it fits either with the same ease, they are interchangable to his mind.ZefaLefeLaH wrote:How basic can we get?
A peg fits a slot. A peg does not fit a peg. If you can't figure out what a child can get in 10 seconds then I guess I can't help you. The child isn't going to sit there and rationalize around how the peg can fit an exit slot or how that a peg can still love a peg. The peg goes in the slot in ten seconds flat & the 3 yr old child has identified the obvious.
Although I agree that government does it all the time, your question was not "Are people told...", it was "Should people be told..." A question you neglect to answer. Should we be told what we can and can't do if it harms nobody?ZefaLefeLaH wrote:Should people be told what they can or can't do?
We do it all the time. You can't walk around with a gun strapped on your waist like the good old days. You have to drive on the road and there are speed limits. You can't beat the crap out of your wife even if she likes it. You can't have sex with kids. You can't take the law into your own hands without possible consequence. You can't fly without a permit. You can't fish without one. You can't boat without a license. You can't do very much of anything without being told when and where and how you are to do it. Even in private, you can't download child-pR0n. It's just for you, but you can't do it. YOu can't smoke dope or do crack. You can't inject yourself with PCP or use LCD. YOU CANNOT DO SOMETHINGS EVEN IN YOUR OWN PERSONAL PRIVATE LITTLE WORLD! It is illegal.
Surely homosexuals are entitled to the same formalisation of a life-long friendship and companionship?ZefaLefeLaH wrote:So should gay people be allowed to marry?
Nope. Not at all. Never ever ever. It is not marriage. A marriage is not some little certificate you get...It is a natural method of having a life-long friend and companion.
And so you should be, if that was what you wanted to do. I'd have no problems with it. I might laugh, or shake my head in amusement that someone would want such a thing, but the actual fact of it would harm nobody. (It would have to be consensual though.)ZefaLefeLaH wrote:If a gay person is allowed to marry another gay person then I should be allowed to marry a cow or a goat.
And nobody will try and make you marry a man either. Obviously your real problem with this is based on your idea of the "sanctity" of marriage. Does this mean that nobody who does not see marriage as a stringently religious concept should be allowed to get married? Thats the only way I can see of preserving the such "sanctity".ZefaLefeLaH wrote:I don't care if gay people are born gay or become gay. I don't care if gay people have television shows as long as they don't have commercials for them, because I can turn the channel. I don't care about gay parades or gay holidays because I don't celibrate them.
--Avatar
-
duchess of malfi
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 11104
- Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 9:20 pm
- Location: Michigan, USA
One of my problems with the whole idea of marriage being about procreation/family is :
What about heterosexual couples who do not have children, whether through infertility, choice, or simply because they met when older, after the woman is no longer at an age to safely have a baby?
Does that mean that they are not actually married because they do not have children?
And gay couples can adopt children, or have biological children, A gay woman that I work with has recently become pregnant through artificial insemination at a fertility clinic. She has a long time partner, and they are both greatly looking forward to their child.
I'm not sure if this makes me a conservative, a liberal, a libertarian, or something else -- but to me, the more the government stays out of peoples' bedrooms, sex lives, and family relationships, the better. As long as everything is consensual, and no is being hurt, that is. That's where I, personally, would draw the line.
I understand that some people might have religious or personal issues with gay marriage, or with homosexual acts. There are some sex acts that I have never done, and will never do (such as the goat thing that Zeph mentioned) simply because I find the very thought of them extremely distasteful. But no one is, or ever will be, forcing people with those beliefs to enter a gay marriage or do those acts (unless it is molestation or rape, and that is already very illegal).
What about heterosexual couples who do not have children, whether through infertility, choice, or simply because they met when older, after the woman is no longer at an age to safely have a baby?
Does that mean that they are not actually married because they do not have children?
And gay couples can adopt children, or have biological children, A gay woman that I work with has recently become pregnant through artificial insemination at a fertility clinic. She has a long time partner, and they are both greatly looking forward to their child.
I'm not sure if this makes me a conservative, a liberal, a libertarian, or something else -- but to me, the more the government stays out of peoples' bedrooms, sex lives, and family relationships, the better. As long as everything is consensual, and no is being hurt, that is. That's where I, personally, would draw the line.
I understand that some people might have religious or personal issues with gay marriage, or with homosexual acts. There are some sex acts that I have never done, and will never do (such as the goat thing that Zeph mentioned) simply because I find the very thought of them extremely distasteful. But no one is, or ever will be, forcing people with those beliefs to enter a gay marriage or do those acts (unless it is molestation or rape, and that is already very illegal).
Love as thou wilt.
-
ZefaLefeLaH
- Banned
- Posts: 357
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 8:19 am
I refuse to comment.Avatar wrote:And nobody will try and make you marry a man either. Obviously your real problem with this is based on your idea of the "sanctity" of marriage. Does this mean that nobody who does not see marriage as a stringently religious concept should be allowed to get married? Thats the only way I can see of preserving the such "sanctity".
--Avatar
The first ever kitten psychologist
-
ZefaLefeLaH
- Banned
- Posts: 357
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 8:19 am
Okay, let's try this angle then. I found this on another forum. Since I agree with it, I thought I'd post it here.
The National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research 2001 annual report states that out of a total of 8557 reported cases of AIDS 82.3% were exposed by Male homosexual contact and a further 4.5% were exposed by Male homosexual contact and injecting drug use. This makes a total of 86.8% of all reported AIDS cases directly related to Male homosexual contact. Homosexual contact is the major cause of all AIDS cases in Australia.
This is just AIDS, there are a host of other illness predominantly contracted by homosexuals.
How about because it is DANGEROUS! to other people's health? We all get huffy about secondhand smoking. Why not this terrible disease? We don't REALLY know for certain how it is transmitted. We know that bodily fluids transmit it but we're unsure about the other ways it may or may not be transmitted because of some cases which fall out of the obvious needle/sex transmissions. It could be as easy as drinking after a gay man. Maybe not, but their lifestyle is the cause for the highest amount of trasmitting the terrible disease of AIDS. I mean, it was all over the newspapers since day 1 of the disease in America. It's always been largely a gay problem. The fact of the matter is that if there weren't gay people in the world then AIDS wouldn't be such an international issue.
The National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research 2001 annual report states that out of a total of 8557 reported cases of AIDS 82.3% were exposed by Male homosexual contact and a further 4.5% were exposed by Male homosexual contact and injecting drug use. This makes a total of 86.8% of all reported AIDS cases directly related to Male homosexual contact. Homosexual contact is the major cause of all AIDS cases in Australia.
This is just AIDS, there are a host of other illness predominantly contracted by homosexuals.
How about because it is DANGEROUS! to other people's health? We all get huffy about secondhand smoking. Why not this terrible disease? We don't REALLY know for certain how it is transmitted. We know that bodily fluids transmit it but we're unsure about the other ways it may or may not be transmitted because of some cases which fall out of the obvious needle/sex transmissions. It could be as easy as drinking after a gay man. Maybe not, but their lifestyle is the cause for the highest amount of trasmitting the terrible disease of AIDS. I mean, it was all over the newspapers since day 1 of the disease in America. It's always been largely a gay problem. The fact of the matter is that if there weren't gay people in the world then AIDS wouldn't be such an international issue.
The first ever kitten psychologist
Wouldn't that just be a better reason to have them participate in the institution of marriage, which promotes monogamous behavior? People who are married tend to take it seriously and are less likely to have sex with many other people, thus reducing the amount the disease can spread.
Anyone perfect must be lying, anything easy has its cost, anyone plain can be lovely, anyone loved can be lost.
-
variol son
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 5777
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2002 1:07 pm
- Location: New Zealand
Which is why many AIDS activists support some sort of Civil Union or marriage.
This encouragement to be monogamous would also, I believe, end the prevelent attitude withini much of the "gay sub-culture" that having causual sex with multiple patners is somehow spiritually fulfilling.
Sum sui generis
Vs
This encouragement to be monogamous would also, I believe, end the prevelent attitude withini much of the "gay sub-culture" that having causual sex with multiple patners is somehow spiritually fulfilling.
Sum sui generis
Vs
You do not hear, and so you cannot be redeemed.
In the name of their ancient pride and humiliation, they had made commitments with no possible outcome except bereavement.
He knew only that they had never striven to reject the boundaries of themselves.
In the name of their ancient pride and humiliation, they had made commitments with no possible outcome except bereavement.
He knew only that they had never striven to reject the boundaries of themselves.
I had a great post for this topic today that I lost at wotk when my machine crashed (I drove my tractor into a hay bale spilling my Budweiser on my laptop). 
I'll summarize:
The key issue as I see it is equal rights/access, yes? Zef makes a valid (very controversial, but true) point about HIV/AIDS and public safety. At this point in time, "marriage" is a sacred cow to a lot of heterosexuals, religious or otherwise. The President supports civil unions. I believe that the majority of the country supports civil unions. What's the problem with that? Why does it have to be marriage? You're here, you're queer, we're used to it and watching "Will and Grace". Take the rights and be happy.
However, I have a couple of caveats ('aint I a stinker?)....Civil unions should be same sex only. That's right. If Tommy and Gena (or Jack and Dianne) want to share health insurance or tax benefits, get married. It should also be as expensive and difficult to break a civil union as it is to get a divorce. Mr. Gay, meet Mr. Alimony.
From a legal standpoint, there should be no difference between the two.
I'll summarize:
The key issue as I see it is equal rights/access, yes? Zef makes a valid (very controversial, but true) point about HIV/AIDS and public safety. At this point in time, "marriage" is a sacred cow to a lot of heterosexuals, religious or otherwise. The President supports civil unions. I believe that the majority of the country supports civil unions. What's the problem with that? Why does it have to be marriage? You're here, you're queer, we're used to it and watching "Will and Grace". Take the rights and be happy.
However, I have a couple of caveats ('aint I a stinker?)....Civil unions should be same sex only. That's right. If Tommy and Gena (or Jack and Dianne) want to share health insurance or tax benefits, get married. It should also be as expensive and difficult to break a civil union as it is to get a divorce. Mr. Gay, meet Mr. Alimony.
From a legal standpoint, there should be no difference between the two.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
-
ZefaLefeLaH
- Banned
- Posts: 357
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 8:19 am
-
Avatar
- Immanentizing The Eschaton
- Posts: 61791
- Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
- Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
- Has thanked: 15 times
- Been thanked: 22 times
Zeph-- I respect your choice not to comment further on the original posts we made, and understand why, so let me first say that I agree with Duchess when she says:
Now about this:
And given your comments about lifestyle, I agree with Variol Son and UrLord, that legal formalisation will probably reduce incidences of promiscuity.
Although in essence, I agree that the rights are the main issue, as I said, marriage by any other name is simply playing with semantics. Apart from anything else, the people concerned will still call it marriage.
--Avatar
Thats where I draw the line too pretty much, that it be consensual.Duchess wrote:...the more the government stays out of peoples' bedrooms, sex lives, and family relationships, the better. As long as everything is consensual, and no is being hurt, that is. That's where I, personally, would draw the line.
Now about this:
I think that by now we're pretty sure how it gets transmitted, and I don't think you're in much danger from getting AIDS by drinking after a gay man. It's not dangerous to your health, as long as you're not having sex with somebody who is positive. You certainly can't catch it by standing in the same room as someone who has it, so I think the second hand smoke argument is, at least for now, overstated.ZefaLefeLaH wrote:How about because it is DANGEROUS! to other people's health? We all get huffy about secondhand smoking. Why not this terrible disease? We don't REALLY know for certain how it is transmitted. We know that bodily fluids transmit it but we're unsure about the other ways it may or may not be transmitted because of some cases which fall out of the obvious needle/sex transmissions. It could be as easy as drinking after a gay man. Maybe not, but their lifestyle is the cause for the highest amount of trasmitting the terrible disease of AIDS.
And given your comments about lifestyle, I agree with Variol Son and UrLord, that legal formalisation will probably reduce incidences of promiscuity.
Although in essence, I agree that the rights are the main issue, as I said, marriage by any other name is simply playing with semantics. Apart from anything else, the people concerned will still call it marriage.
--Avatar
-
ZefaLefeLaH
- Banned
- Posts: 357
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 8:19 am
Okay, I'll just be plain and to the point.
I don't like it. I don't like thinking about it. I do have an active imagination & I don't like thinking about this. Everytime "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" commercials come on television I feel like breaking my TV set or punching someone or something. I imagine biting off my own tongue. I think about taking an axe to little boys and girls standing in line, 1, 2, 3, 4, little heads off. I want to get into my car, go to Bravo studios with a shotgun & tell them what I really think about their forcing me to watch even the beginning of such commercials.
There, happy now?
-------------
Oh and please don't try all these homophobe comebacks on me, like maybe I'm just scared that it's really me in the closet or whatever. I don't like olives on my pizza. It doesn't mean that I secretly like olives on my pizza. Man, some of the stupid logic people come up with.
__________
No marriage. Ever. Never ever. Why should we reward unnatural behavior. Besides, men already make more money than women on the average, why give them more advantages with loans and such or whatever.
And no gays should ever adopt or otherwise obtain a child. That's just cruel. All through school, "Hey look it's Jimmy, he's got two fag dads and no mom, don't you girlie man?" Can you just imagine him introducing his first date or sleepover friend, "I'd like you to meet my dad... and my other dad."
To me, it's like this. I don't care if you do sleep with a goat. Do what you want. But don't get all huffy when normal people in the world don't want to hear about it all the time, see it on TV without aforementioning, or see it in public at anytime ever!!!! When I think of Variol Son, I think of a man first, and I don't consider his being gay an issue. He doesn't force anything on people. He doesn't make pro-gay topics. He doesn't sell commercials to Bravo. In fact, with the exception of these topics Variol Son and myself are in agreement on more things than you might think & we tell eachother that from time to time. That's the way it should be. I don't tell him about the goats in the back, show him commercials about my goats, or inform him all the time about my goats, and when I talk the goats for a walk I'm not holding her hoof or kissing her on the lips in front of him or anything. It's not a normal thing to love a goat and I don't need to show my bedroom or closet or whatever to every passing stranger & then get mad when they won't accept it. I also don't expect to have the same rights as human-human marriages. I don't think its a big deal to have to marry my goat. As long as its okay for us to love eachother, I don't see the big deal that I have to make a stink about it in a political sense. What is the big deal about this anyway? Civil Union is good enough. If that's the top dog of it, then what's the problem? It's still saying I love you Goatsee and you'll be with me forever. But no kids, that's just too damned mean. That's so cruel that its beyond cruelty. It's like naming a boy Amy and making him where pink Tutus to school every Friday. Man, that's harsh. "Dad, can I go to the ballgame with Sammie?" "I don't know, go ask your father." WTF? "Happy father's father's day..." "He's not my real dad & neither is he..."
Sometimes when the obvious is so obvious, it's obvious that the obnoxious media has obviously controlled the mind of the oblivious populace who have an obligation to listen but don't know what those oblong things on their heads are really for.
I don't like it. I don't like thinking about it. I do have an active imagination & I don't like thinking about this. Everytime "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" commercials come on television I feel like breaking my TV set or punching someone or something. I imagine biting off my own tongue. I think about taking an axe to little boys and girls standing in line, 1, 2, 3, 4, little heads off. I want to get into my car, go to Bravo studios with a shotgun & tell them what I really think about their forcing me to watch even the beginning of such commercials.
There, happy now?
-------------
Oh and please don't try all these homophobe comebacks on me, like maybe I'm just scared that it's really me in the closet or whatever. I don't like olives on my pizza. It doesn't mean that I secretly like olives on my pizza. Man, some of the stupid logic people come up with.
__________
No marriage. Ever. Never ever. Why should we reward unnatural behavior. Besides, men already make more money than women on the average, why give them more advantages with loans and such or whatever.
And no gays should ever adopt or otherwise obtain a child. That's just cruel. All through school, "Hey look it's Jimmy, he's got two fag dads and no mom, don't you girlie man?" Can you just imagine him introducing his first date or sleepover friend, "I'd like you to meet my dad... and my other dad."
To me, it's like this. I don't care if you do sleep with a goat. Do what you want. But don't get all huffy when normal people in the world don't want to hear about it all the time, see it on TV without aforementioning, or see it in public at anytime ever!!!! When I think of Variol Son, I think of a man first, and I don't consider his being gay an issue. He doesn't force anything on people. He doesn't make pro-gay topics. He doesn't sell commercials to Bravo. In fact, with the exception of these topics Variol Son and myself are in agreement on more things than you might think & we tell eachother that from time to time. That's the way it should be. I don't tell him about the goats in the back, show him commercials about my goats, or inform him all the time about my goats, and when I talk the goats for a walk I'm not holding her hoof or kissing her on the lips in front of him or anything. It's not a normal thing to love a goat and I don't need to show my bedroom or closet or whatever to every passing stranger & then get mad when they won't accept it. I also don't expect to have the same rights as human-human marriages. I don't think its a big deal to have to marry my goat. As long as its okay for us to love eachother, I don't see the big deal that I have to make a stink about it in a political sense. What is the big deal about this anyway? Civil Union is good enough. If that's the top dog of it, then what's the problem? It's still saying I love you Goatsee and you'll be with me forever. But no kids, that's just too damned mean. That's so cruel that its beyond cruelty. It's like naming a boy Amy and making him where pink Tutus to school every Friday. Man, that's harsh. "Dad, can I go to the ballgame with Sammie?" "I don't know, go ask your father." WTF? "Happy father's father's day..." "He's not my real dad & neither is he..."
Sometimes when the obvious is so obvious, it's obvious that the obnoxious media has obviously controlled the mind of the oblivious populace who have an obligation to listen but don't know what those oblong things on their heads are really for.
The first ever kitten psychologist
I agree with the one point about it's not important to call a Gay union a marriage. It's the rights that are important. The thing is, that's only what the Religous Conservatives say out loud, is that they are trying to protect the sanctity of marriage. But it's not the real reason, they are trying to legislate predjudice against Gays. Bush says he is favor of Civil Unions, but, that is a LIE.
Most (if not all) of the Propositions against Gay Marriage, sell themselves as protecting the sanctity of the word. But then they go on to say "No other Institution may be setup to simulate the rights of marriage" That means Domestic Partnerships are also outlawed.
States that allow Domestic Partnership grant state rights, but, the important rights are the Federal Rights. If Bush is in Favor of Domestic Partnership, those Federal Rights should be granted, not a prayer of that happeneing.
As far as strengths and weaknesses go, I'd be really interested in hearing what you feel they are. A woman is traditionally thought of as the nuturing one who is more emotional and cries more. Lots of men, both gay and straight are stronger in this area than lots of Women are. Alot of Gay women are considerably more butch than alot of straight men. Cooking - nope can't count that one, men have a higher percentage of the best Chefs in the world. Cleaning - nope can't give you that one either, men are just as capable of cleaning as women are. Picking up the kids from school? Nope men can do that too, plus there's the stereotype of women being poor drivers (no offense intended to women, only making a point). What are these strengths and weaknesses?
Civil Unions do not protect a gay couple in the following aspects:
One partner is the breadwinner, one is the homemaker. Couple lives together for 50 years. Breadwinner dies, homemaker has no inheritance rights, no social security, none of that. The family of the breadwinner can completely shut the homemaker out, even take away the home they purchased together, if it's not in both their names. The breadwinners family or the hospital staff can even keep the homemaker away from dieing bedside of the breadwinner. There are no tax advantages, whatsoever. Why should Nikky Hilton get tax advantage for marrying a man for 4 months, yet, I have been in a relationship for 8 years and I get no tax advantage.
It's pure and simple legislation of Predjudice, dressed up as protecting the definiton of a word, and it is a lie, if you check it.
So, if it's for procreation, than a sterile man can't marry, because he can't procreate. Likewise a sterile woman.
How many of these "Family Values" Neo-Cons are on at least their second marriage? They sure don't believe in the sanctity of marriage.
Most (if not all) of the Propositions against Gay Marriage, sell themselves as protecting the sanctity of the word. But then they go on to say "No other Institution may be setup to simulate the rights of marriage" That means Domestic Partnerships are also outlawed.
States that allow Domestic Partnership grant state rights, but, the important rights are the Federal Rights. If Bush is in Favor of Domestic Partnership, those Federal Rights should be granted, not a prayer of that happeneing.
As far as strengths and weaknesses go, I'd be really interested in hearing what you feel they are. A woman is traditionally thought of as the nuturing one who is more emotional and cries more. Lots of men, both gay and straight are stronger in this area than lots of Women are. Alot of Gay women are considerably more butch than alot of straight men. Cooking - nope can't count that one, men have a higher percentage of the best Chefs in the world. Cleaning - nope can't give you that one either, men are just as capable of cleaning as women are. Picking up the kids from school? Nope men can do that too, plus there's the stereotype of women being poor drivers (no offense intended to women, only making a point). What are these strengths and weaknesses?
Civil Unions do not protect a gay couple in the following aspects:
One partner is the breadwinner, one is the homemaker. Couple lives together for 50 years. Breadwinner dies, homemaker has no inheritance rights, no social security, none of that. The family of the breadwinner can completely shut the homemaker out, even take away the home they purchased together, if it's not in both their names. The breadwinners family or the hospital staff can even keep the homemaker away from dieing bedside of the breadwinner. There are no tax advantages, whatsoever. Why should Nikky Hilton get tax advantage for marrying a man for 4 months, yet, I have been in a relationship for 8 years and I get no tax advantage.
It's pure and simple legislation of Predjudice, dressed up as protecting the definiton of a word, and it is a lie, if you check it.
So, if it's for procreation, than a sterile man can't marry, because he can't procreate. Likewise a sterile woman.
How many of these "Family Values" Neo-Cons are on at least their second marriage? They sure don't believe in the sanctity of marriage.
Sin, no disrespect, but you're incorrect.
www.365gay.com/newscon04/10/102604bushMarr.htm
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6338458/
washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/200410 ... -1337r.htm
It looks like he may have <gasp> changed his mind.
I'm open-minded enough to give him some credit and see what he does.
So back to the original point, it seems that everyone here (so far) agrees that it's the rights that are the real issue, yes?
www.365gay.com/newscon04/10/102604bushMarr.htm
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6338458/
washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/200410 ... -1337r.htm
It looks like he may have <gasp> changed his mind.
I'm open-minded enough to give him some credit and see what he does.
So back to the original point, it seems that everyone here (so far) agrees that it's the rights that are the real issue, yes?
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
-
duchess of malfi
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 11104
- Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 9:20 pm
- Location: Michigan, USA
Yes, I acknowledge that is what he said in the debates, and after the debates, but read the State Propositions he was encouraging passage on. Read the Amendment he tried to pass. And I believe the American Public in those states didn't realize what they were voting for, because if you take all the poll numbers for support of Gay marriage, and add them to support of Gay Domestic Partnership Unions, the Propositions should have been defeated as strongly as they won. So, therefore either the polls were horribly wrong, or the folks who are in favor of the Unions, didn't realize the Propositions outlawed Domestic Partnership.Cail wrote:Sin, no disrespect, but you're incorrect.
www.365gay.com/newscon04/10/102604bushMarr.htm
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6338458/
washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/200410 ... -1337r.htm
It looks like he may have <gasp> changed his mind.
I'm open-minded enough to give him some credit and see what he does.
So back to the original point, it seems that everyone here (so far) agrees that it's the rights that are the real issue, yes?
Sure, we can wait and see, and I will surely thank him if he really has changed his stance and brings about the Federal Rights, but his actions do not back up what he said in the debate, nor his actions after the debate.
Although with the way he attacked Kerry for flip-flopping, and stood steadfast on things, saying that was the true sign of a leader, it looks awfully suspicious to me.