Says who?Quote:
Originally Posted by LX_Emergency
Marriage is what we collectively say it is.
Printable View
Says who?Quote:
Originally Posted by LX_Emergency
Marriage is what we collectively say it is.
Says I, and says history.
I don't believe in "truth is what everyone agrees on". Truth is truth. If you feel the need to change a definition for something then why not just create something new?
I thought someone would blurt out how if same sex marriage was legal (as it is in many countries) next people would want to marry their dog. I really thought that was going to be the far edge of ridiculousness. But Alex, here you topped that by a long shot! You are comparing same sex marriage to human sacrifice! Awesome, just awesome. We are talking about the joining of two consenting adults. The word marriage means any close joining or relationship. The flavors in a pot of soup marry. The pieces of a lawnmower are married to each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by LX_Emergency
The funniest thing about your opposition to same sex marriage in the USA is that you live in the first country to legally recognize same sex marriage.
There was a news story in the US about Leona Helmsley, very rich hotelier who left some 25 millions to her dog. They finished a court case that allows the executors to divide the estate pretty much however they want without regard to more than a pittance for the dog. Seems that the dog was allowed to have a legal relationship, since it took many years of court and lawyer time to get this far in the decision. That sounds like a defacto relationship even though they weren't married.
I like Ray's point about "like non Jews wanting to be able to do Bar Mitzvah." There does not seem to be any point to the exercise of forcing society to accept when in the end it may be nothing more than a cultural difference that could more easily be tolerated. Except for the absence of tolerance by the majority...
I voted to say that it shouldnt be legal...
Am I opposed to homosexuality...my social mind says well i dont care i guess...my religious mind says its not right...
but the main reason I dont feel it should be legal is because this may cause a trend of people that arent really homosexual to marry just for benefits like health insurance, tax breaks, stuff like that. And now that DOES affect me because my tax dollars are paying for it.
Finally, someone mentioning a rational argument for being against.Quote:
Originally Posted by erictski
I am not agreeing with you, but at least you have an argument that makes sense. :)
I don't think it would be a big problem, because I don't see it happening in big numbers, any more than gay couples are intermarrying other gay couples for the perks.
Suppose I were single, would I marry by best friend for the benefits? No. I would not marry him, because I don't think it would improve my chances of picking up a single woman :D.
Even if I wanted to arrange for a bogus marriage, I would seek a female friend for doing so. Because all things being equal, I'd rather be fake-married to a woman than fake-married to a man (on account of me being straight).
In short, I think that the people who would abuse the system are already doing so now, and the persons who would marry would predominantly be the ones actually wanting to marry their significant other.
I am right.Quote:
Originally Posted by LX_Emergency
Why am I right?
Because I say I am right.
Humankind has a lot of things in its history that we thankfully abandoned.Quote:
Originally Posted by LX_Emergency
Because then you have to maintain 2 complex legal concepts that affect a lot of things, instead of just one.Quote:
Originally Posted by LX_Emergency
Even civil unions don't confer the same rights and duties as marriage atm, despite the fact that that is already existing for a long time. Creating yet another concept and updating all relevant legal and administrative texts is a metric ton of paperwork and overhead that is unnecessary because it doesn't change anything.
And if you allow for the concept of equal rights for civil unions, then the only difference would be to the people who are not affected by it, yet object to using the term 'marriage' on emotional grounds.
Why is it that when the topic of gay marriage comes up there is the statement that it is marriage or nothing. Civil unions are the rule in many states and afford all the legal rights to the parties involved and the states that do not have it, should. The majority of the American people are not in favor of the "marriage" title. Even O'Bama has come out against Gay marriage. I am sorry, gays do not procreate and that is what any successful society needs to sustain itself. It has nothing to do with civil rights and to infer that being gay is somehow on the same moral ground as the being denied basic rights because of ethnic differences is a fallacious argument.
Later,
Richard
Thanks ... you know thinking about what you said you are probably right...those that want to abuse the system will no matter what...they will find a way...Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
not good according to who? you? the masses have spoken and the majority of people like it. i realize our country was founded by prudes and puritans escaping from all the exciting sexuality going on in europe :D but seriously, it's a pretty recent idea that the human body is inherently naughty and seeing it is in any way bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by honedright
that's not what marriage IS, it's what you have arbitrarily defined it as. you're a cool guy and all, but just because you think something is, don't make it so. marriage is different for every instance of it. marriage means something totally different to me and my wife than it did to either set of our parents, and we're just garden-variety breeders!Quote:
Originally Posted by LX_Emergency
the point is that arbitrarily outlawing it, even if it seems silly to YOU, is nothing short of tyranny and is an assault upon personal liberty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rajagra
1. if my son is of consenting age, and is that dumb, he can go right ahead and kill himself, he's making the world a better place.Quote:
Originally Posted by LX_Emergency
2. if you legally define marriage as 1 man and 1 woman, you are setting a precedent to make legal decisions about marriage in general. your point seems the opposite of valid here. writing it down in the law books opens the door for the whims of majority to control it in the future. deciding that the gov't shouldn't be involved AT ALL is the only way to preserve freedom for future generations regardless of their preference.
i could make the argument that everyone with more than 2 kids is also making my health insurance premiums go up, but if you tried to argue that having a lot of kids ought to be illegal, you'd get lynched. and i certainly know people that have had children just for the write-off. there will always be ways to "game the system" you can't realistically prevent that. what about straight couples that shack up doing this? are you implying that straight marriage shouldn't be allowed either, just because a few people abuse it for their own gain? i'll be honest, one of the biggest reasons my wife and i are married instead of just living together is the tax breaks and shared benefits. should we not be allowed to be married?Quote:
Originally Posted by erictski
It took about 38 posts but someone finally fed you the red meat you were looking for Brad.:roflmao
Seems to me that Paul the Apostle wasn't too keen on it in the first chapter of the book of Romans a couple of thousand years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by jockeys
To what masses are you referring ? In my state the referendum was soundly defeated. I voted in their favor BTW although I haven't voted in this poll.
As I stated FWIW in the other useless thread (IMO) on this same topic I am all for gays and lesbians having equal rights in civil unions. We all know what my being for it or against it is worth..... Nothing .
Just as bringing up these divisive issues in a forum devoted to straight razors and shaving is just stirring manure. If you stir it it stinks BTW. It ends up being a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.
I am going to go back to reading about straight razors and shaving with them. See ya'.
At one time there was no such thing as marriage and people didn't have last names. marriage was created for the benefit of royalty and the wealthy to pass on what they had including lineage and last names were created to collect taxes from people. Then the marriage idea filtered down to the upper middle classes and then the church got involved and mucked things up turning marriage into something it never was.
So when you say marriage is this and marriage is that its either your experiences and/or upbringing that has colored your thoughts to see marriage in whatever vein you see it as.
There is no absolute when it comes to marriage. Its not like you need oxygen to breath to stay alive or your heart must function to live.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyHAD
when i spoke of the masses i was referring to nudity on television, not gay marriage. i prolly should have included that in the quote, it's a little unclear at present.
This is nonsense. You are suggesting that allowing same sex marriages will open a door for some as of yet unknown abuse of the system. You are suggesting that no one gets married now for reasons other than true love. I think you are joking or just plain old lying for your argument. I find it hard to believe you've never heard of "marriage of convenience" where platonic friends get married to reap the benefits of the married status. How about overseas bride catalogues?Quote:
Originally Posted by erictski
Did you know there are organizations that take large sums of money from American men and fly them to a city in various foreign lands. Let's say you decided you would diig a hot little latina. You pay the organization $10,000. They fly you to Bogata and put you in a hotel room. A man will arrive at your room and march women past you. Once you have selected one, you will take her on a date. After the date, you either marry her or another bevy marches for your perusal. This time you are bound by contract to marry one from either group. The next day you are on a plane back home where you jump through the hoops of legally getting your blushing esposa into the country. The women you chose from all threw down the same amount of cash you did.
A few years back a very attractive young woman from Poland named Sabina met my brother through Alina, a Polish friend of our mother. Sabina was visiting for the summer and had to fly back to Warsaw in a month. My mother wanted to be a nice friend to Alina so she leaned on my bro untl he agreed to take Sabina to dinner in NYC where he lives. While at dinner, Sabina offerred my brother $25,000 and sexual favors if he would marry her before she had to leave. The funny part is that my brother is gay. He refused the offer. I was very disappointed. I was married at the time or I'd have jumped on that offer. I would have taken the cash and the sexual favors. But my brother needed neither.
Warning, monsterpost!:rock:
No, that's NOT what I said. You asked who, I answered the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
Yes, just as human history has many things that we still maintain. Families are thankfully one of those. That is no argument what so ever either. So how about we both give up on that one?Quote:
Humankind has a lot of things in its history that we thankfully abandoned.
Actually you don't. Over here you can get a "registered partnership" which will legally grant you EXACTLY the same rights. It's not that big a problem, add a paragraph to the lawbooks which says something along the lines of "a registered partnership legally grants a person all the rights, obligations and priviledges (spelling?) which are granted unto a person that is lawfully married" and you're done.Quote:
Because then you have to maintain 2 complex legal concepts that affect a lot of things, instead of just one.
Even civil unions don't confer the same rights and duties as marriage atm, despite the fact that that is already existing for a long time. Creating yet another concept and updating all relevant legal and administrative texts is a metric ton of paperwork and overhead that is unnecessary because it doesn't change anything.
And if you allow for the concept of equal rights for civil unions, then the only difference would be to the people who are not affected by it, yet object to using the term 'marriage' on emotional grounds.
As for emotional grounds, yes, we are human beings and are therefore EXTREMELY motivated by emotions. Do not underestimate the power of emotions. You seem to imply that emotions are a bad thing to be motivated by. Or am I misunderstanding this? Reacting to emotions is what makes us human instead of robots. I don't mind that.
I don't really care for being called rediculous. I wasn't comparing gay ,ariage to human sacrifice. I was actually responding to your original question. Your question was: "if it doesn't harm you why should you care?" and I gave an example of why people care even if it doesn't affect them now. Because it could affect them in the future, or simply because they feel it is immoral.Quote:
Originally Posted by icedog
As for marriage meaning nothing but a close joining, maybe it's like that in the english language but it's not the same in the other languages that I speak. In both Dutch and German a mariage can only happen to people. So how about we wipe that argument off the table as well since we're working with a very international group?
As for it being funny that I'm opposed to gay mariage since I'm living in the netherlands? I don't find that very funny at all. I happen to think that the whole of my government is made up out of a group of people that do not care what their population thinks one way or another, I have nothing but disrespect for those in parliament right now and most of those in parliament in past years. I don't agree with my government and probably won't on most things. I'm doubtfull that the gay mariage laws would have passed if those in power would actually have held a referendum or talked to the people that they're supposed to represent.
Good for you, I respect you for having an opinion and having formed your own ideas, but so does everyone. So you're not quite unique in that. A lot of people during the forming of their opinion however find out that they agree with what their parent taught them.Quote:
Originally Posted by jockeys
So be it. Sometimes people do need to be told on what's allowed and what not. I know you don't agree on that but I personally think it's a good thing that there are laws for things such as these.Quote:
the point is that arbitrarily outlawing it, even if it seems silly to YOU, is nothing short of tyranny and is an assault upon personal liberty.
I don't believe you have any children do you? I know you're going to say that that doesn't matter but it does. Logically you might still say the same things about it if a situation had happened like that. However I seriously doubt that your feelings would agree, or those of the wife that you have to share a house with. To most parents their children are the world. And I don't think there are many parents out there in a situation such as that who'd be able to say "thank goodness he apparently was an idiot anyway, good riddance".Quote:
1. if my son is of consenting age, and is that dumb, he can go right ahead and kill himself, he's making the world a better place.
2. if you legally define marriage as 1 man and 1 woman, you are setting a precedent to make legal decisions about marriage in general. your point seems the opposite of valid here. writing it down in the law books opens the door for the whims of majority to control it in the future. deciding that the gov't shouldn't be involved AT ALL is the only way to preserve freedom for future generations regardless of their preference.
Gentlemen I thank you for your thoughts :bowand hope you can hear mine out with the patience that I try to give to you.:tu
My cousin went to one of those "family planning" places to see about an abortion, as she was in an economically untennable position at that time.
She was confronted/talked to by one of those crazy picketing sign wielders and re-considered what she was about to do.
My second cousin (i.e.- her daughter) is now 20 years old, and a wonderful person.
But why should those people have cared? Why should they have "denied" my cousin's *ahem* right to have an abortion?
Maybe it really doesn't matter to them, but it sure mattered to my second cousin!
Can someone also please spell out exactly what legal "benefits" I recieve as a married person? Seriously I'd like to know.
And so, why stump for legal rights for gays to marry, and not simply stump for equal rights for everyone, married or not?
In my opinion, the government should get out of the marriage business completely and leave this to religion. This is not to say that the government does not have an interest in or a need for a contractual agreement for domestic partners, gay or straight, but this interest is entirely based on secular issues such as property, support, and survivorship. Thus, I think everyone would be best served the secular and religious aspects of unions between consenting adults were severed. Under this system, all couples who wished could enter into a domestic union contract with the goverment, and these should be available to everyone regardless of sexual orientation. Religious unions would be handled by the appropriate religion, and would be totally separate and apart from the civil unions. Individual religions would be free to deny union to anyone based on the dictates of their faith. Religious unions would not, however, have any legal basis in the courts.
In my opinion, it is simply one person forcing their ideas upon another.
Is this wrong? Maybe. But maybe its only wrong because we have the luxury of debating about it. We can't know its wrong unless we are educated about the subject. Not so long ago, most of our morals came from the pastors at church. In fact, I would go so far to say that its not all that different today.
People are not generally leaders, people are followers. So if their church leader says "gay rights are a disaster and all gays should be crucified," then the congregation is likely to believe him. They are too lazy to actually research the subject themselves and blindly follow the authoritative figure.
Gay rights may not affect them in any financial way, but it is abhorrent to their beliefs and they probably can't even stand the sight of two men or two women holding hands in public. I would wager, that if they could have their way, it would be like Iran, where homosexuality was a prosecuted crime and the penalty was death.
Personally, I am a little turned off when I see two men publicly displaying their affection, but in the end, I know it doesn't affect me. I also know that their genes will likely die with them. Plus, its a great population control.
As an educated person, I see the big picture. I'm more concerned about global warming and whether my offspring will have a planet to live on. Or if they will have fresh water to drink and clean air to breathe. These are more pressing problems. I could care less about gay rights, honestly. But I think they should have them. Refusing gays rights is simply cruel and unfair. It is similar to punishing a minority for being of a different race. And as a minority, I empathize with that position.
I personally don't really care if they don't get "marriage" and its called a "civil union," but they deserve equal treatment. We don't live in an oppressive government. People in the US should be able to live the life they want.
If It's All The Same To You, Why Deny Others?
It not all the same to me, it bugs me, and I really don't have to have a reason why, I just have to keep voting and speaking against it.....Yep I am an Ameriacn and I have the right to free speech....:y
Who said the human body is inherently naughty, or bad??? Certainly not me. Don't know how you got that from my post... On the other hand, there are some human bodies that, as a public service, should remain well covered.Quote:
Originally Posted by jockeys
The "not good" comment was in reference specifically to actor Dennis Franz's a$$ being displayed on television. But if that is exciting sexuality, to each his own. :tu
But back on topic, my point was that maybe there are good reasons for protecting certain cultural taboos that go beyond religion. Some of these taboos are common to all cultures throughout human history, homosexuality being one of them.
Before we start (or continue) tearing down all the walls, I think we have to consider the long term effects.
Just for starters - consider the designations bride and groom, man and wife, or husband and wife. Those are not just arbitrary are they? Aren't they also legal terms? So what happens in the case of same sex marriage to those designations? Will they be preserved, or abolished?
How would that affect something like polygamy?
My opinion is that life is already too short. I think marriage is something we invented, and it's a way of recognising that two people need to be treated as an entity socially and legally.
I really try and live my life taking people on their merits, on how they present them selves. I have seen loads of straight couples who should NOT be married, what they have is not a marrige - it's an arrangement. Equally, I've met gay couples who've got married and you just couldn't imagine one with out the other. It shouldn't matter who you want to marry, as long as you're doing it for the right reasons and you're in it for the long haul.
1. agreed, the public display of that particular ass ought to be a hate crimeQuote:
Originally Posted by honedright
2. not ALL cultures:
Homosexuality in ancient Greece - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
from TFA "The ancient Greeks did not conceive of sexual orientation as a social identifier, as Western societies have done for the past century."
Quote:
Originally Posted by jockeys
Yes, yes--the ancient Greeks! They had it all correct...not only would they have condoned abortion, but even after a child was born, you could simply leave it out to die of exposure! Yes, let's use them as a blueprint of how things should be done!
(sorry, Jockeys, no personal attack upon you intended, but rather the idea presented)
[quote=LX_Emergency;367944]Warning, monsterpost!:rock:
I don't really care for being called rediculous.
No one called you ridiculous, at least not in writing in this thread.
As for marriage meaning nothing but a close joining, maybe it's like that in the english language but it's not the same in the other languages that I speak. In both Dutch and German a mariage can only happen to people. So how about we wipe that argument off the table as well since we're working with a very international group? I am discussing the denial of rights for citizens of the United States of America so let's not do any wiping off of any argument.
As for it being funny that I'm opposed to gay mariage since I'm living in the netherlands? I don't find that very funny at all. I think it's funny that you are opposed to people from another country on another continent having the same freedoms that your country was the first to grant. I think it is funny that you care at all. Alex, that is exactly the point of my initial question. Why would it cause you any stress if a gay couple in Flint, Michigan, USA wants to join together in a legally sanctioned marriage? I read Glennerator's statement that he doesn't have to have a reason, it just bugs him. Is distaste and/or dislike for a certain group of the population sufficient to deny those people equal rights? I happen to think that the whole of my government is made up out of a group of people that do not care what their population thinks one way or another, I have nothing but disrespect for those in parliament right now and most of those in parliament in past years. I don't agree with my government and probably won't on most things. I'm doubtfull that the gay mariage laws would have passed if those in power would actually have held a referendum or talked to the people that they're supposed to represent. So if you held the scepter of power would you then reverse the rules and deny people the freedoms they have been granted?
Brad
Hey Glennolopolis, I hope it doesn't bug you too much. If you find it's keeping you awake at night I'd suggest some sort of counseling or perhaps some meditation on the Serenity Prayer might help.Quote:
Originally Posted by gssixgun
Braddipillar
Actually I think your second cousin would have been the first to have gotten over it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphim
I realize you like to make outrageous comments, but it seemed to me that you started the thread because you were interested in a discussion about the topics you posted.Quote:
Originally Posted by icedog
So, how on the one hand, can you take a cavalier point of view towards human life, and on the other be seemingly distraught over the fact that gays in most cases are not granted legal marriage rights? Does the fact that they can't get married prevent them from spending the rest of their lives together if they so choose? And even if they can't what does it matter to you if you could care less about what other people think?
The biggest complaint that I hear in regards to the issue of so called equality in gay marriage is medical visitation rights, etc. Simple- you put in a legal document that you want your partner to be your medical proxy and/or have power of attorney and they will then most likely be abe to have full access to see you in the hospital, etc, etc. Right?
i'm a big fan of abortion, pre and post natal alike (or as I like to call it, accelerated natural selection), so you're kinda reinforcing my point here...Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphim
Quote:
Originally Posted by jockeys
Well, Ok, as long as we know where you stand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by icedog
It's ok Brad-o-saurus Rex, trust me that doesn't keep me up at night....
The fact the the US is slowly slipping into the quagmire of special interest groups however does worry me quite a bit.....
The fact that I pay over 50% of everything I make to various taxes that worries me...
The fact that the largest religion in the world today wants to kill most of us in the west that bothers me....
The fact that I live in the middle of nowhere in Idaho yet by looking at the the Sex Offender data base it pops over 50 hits in a 10 mile radius that worries me....
The fact that Obama is the President and is anti-gun that really worries me....
The fact that Obama seems to at every chance denigrate the USA that really bothers me...
That fact the Adam and Paul or Eve and Lilith wanna be together doesn't bother me, I just don't think it should be a "Marriage"...
Excerpt from the above link - (bold underline mine)Quote:
Originally Posted by jockeys
"Given the importance in Greek society of cultivating the masculinity of the adult male and the perceived feminizing effect of being the passive partner, relations between adult men of comparable social status were considered highly problematic, and usually associated with social stigma. However, examples of such couples are occasionally found in the historical record."
And -
"The most common form of same-sex relationships between males in Greece was "paiderastia" meaning "boy love". It was a relationship between an older male and an adolescent youth. In Athens the older man was called erastes, he was to educate, protect, love, and provide a role model for his beloved. His beloved was called eromenos whose reward for his lover lay in his beauty, youth, and promise."
Also -
From: Marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia -
"In Ancient Greece, no specific civil ceremony was required for the creation of a marriage - only mutual agreement and the fact that the couple must regard each other as husband and wife accordingly.<sup id="cite_ref-19" class="reference"></sup> Men usually married when they were in their 20s or 30s <sup id="cite_ref-20" class="reference"></sup> and expected their wives to be in their early teens. It has been suggested that these ages made sense for the Greek because men were generally done with military service by age 30, and marrying a young girl ensured her virginity.<sup id="cite_ref-richEastGreekMarriage_21-0" class="reference"></sup> Married Greek women had few rights in ancient Greek society and were expected to take care of the house and children.<sup id="cite_ref-22" class="reference"></sup>"
I didn't vote, but I'm all for two women arguing about which one should pay alimony. I'd pay to see that!
I am not taking a cavalier point of view towards human life. I believe human life is sacred. However my beliefs are not what I hope this thread is about. What I wanted this thread to be about is why some people tend to want to control the freedoms of others. For the record, I don't think it is appropriate to consider homosexuality as "normal". The system design clearly requires a male and a female to function to full capacity. I do not however feel it is any of my business what consenting adults do behind closed doors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphim
Someone commented they don't like to see public displays of affection between two guys. I think hhe means he doesn't like to see two guys swapping spit. Neither do I but I don't like to see straight couples doing that either. But this thread was not meant to be about abortion or gay marriage. I was hoping it would be about people's fears and need to control.
There's a limited access highway that runs through Fairfield County, CT called the Merritt Parkway. It is one of the most beautiful roads I've driven but it is also one of essentially only three roads running from the New York line to the Housatonic River and New Haven County. As such it is a major commuting route running parallel to routes 1 and 95. It is only two lanes. I see the major causes of delays as tail gating and people riding in the left lane and not passing. In Germany on the Autobahn it is illegal to ride in the left lane. They have a law that (I hope someone from DE will correct me if I am wrong) that in German means "drive right". On the Parkway, people don't care. They will intentionally block the passing lane and state the speed limit as their logic for not moving over. I wonder why.
Brad
I think those things you listed as "facts" are your opinions and not necessarily factual. However I don't want to get into these things as they are all off topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by gssixgun
Absolutely positively totally off topic :D (except the last one)Quote:
Originally Posted by icedog
I'll be quiet now since nothing will ever change my mind :nono:
Yes, you are missing something. We don't live in a (pure) democracy. We are in a representative republic and that's the way the founding fathers wanted it. They were smart cookies and did their best to avoid the "tyrany of the majority". The "democratic" is not the "ideal".Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo
And nobody will ever try to make you. Except maybe Captain. Just gotta get your mind right, that's allQuote:
Originally Posted by gssixgun
http://amog.com/wp-content/uploads/2...olhandluke.jpg
The public gets tired and outraged from any group that is shrill and use gorilla tactics to get their point across. Religious folks that labor the point that "Jesus Saves" over and over again, bomb abortion clinics, and behave like hoodlums are "shown the door", so to speak.
The same can be said about some of the groups that support gay marriage. Over and over again people say that your "head" is not right, you are ignorant, you are evil when you vote against gay marriage. I live in California and when Prop. 8 was voted on the gays outed and posted the names of people that donated against Prop. 8, what a POS position. Behave like civilized people or you will be "shown the door". It is on the same level as straight people publishing the home address of gay people, inexcusable! What a fascist position. What next, apprehend all those that voted against Prop 8 and put them in a camp till "Their minds and beliefs are proper" like they do in China? You can be a fascist no matter what your political position and the almighty left is becoming more and more fascist every day.
Be very careful with using force to accomplish what you want and think you must have, retaliation is often swift and mindless!
Later,
Richard