And, mind you, my post did not say they should be legally barred from being married.
I do think, however, the cry for it shows a desperation to conform to a kind of life that was specifically built to maintain values of monogamy and heterosexuality.
And, mind you, my post did not say they should be legally barred from being married.
I do think, however, the cry for it shows a desperation to conform to a kind of life that was specifically built to maintain values of monogamy and heterosexuality.
there are two great reasons to get married:
1) testify to everyone, including yourself and your partner, that you are dedicated to and in love with one persor
2) you may not feel the need for a social recognition of your love, but you do want benefits of marriage, particularly access to your partner's insurance and of course the tax benefits.
1 OR 2 warrants justification for marriage and people falling in either should be able to marry if they would like to
If you love someone and want to spend your life with them, most see the obvious thing to do is get married.
That's funny.
If this was a thread on Christians wanting more people to stop 'living in sin' and get married, I could see chu, BR and Shawn arguing about how that 'piece of paper' didn't really matter.
I think the cry for it has more to do with too many stories of people shut out of their partners death beds because they weren't family. I could prolly think of more examples, but remember this. Marriage as Howard Stern would say is a legal contract. A contract that gives its signers legal rights and obligations and in my opinion there is just no good reason to deny these rights to homosexual couples.
1) testify to everyone, including yourself and your partner, that you are dedicated to and in love with one persor
2) you may not feel the need for a social recognition of your love, but you do want benefits of marriage, particularly access to your partner's insurance and of course the tax benefits.
1 OR 2 warrants justification for marriage and people falling in either should be able to marry if they would like to
I think we can safely dispense with No. 2, all those benefits would be available under present law or the civil union proposal.
At least be honest enough to admit that is about getting society's blanket approval of same-sex relationships.
BUT there are those who argue that being gay is ammoral but here you have gay people wanting to get married... it turns THEIR world upsidedown... not mine.
If this was a thread on Christians wanting more people to stop 'living in sin' and get married, I could see chu, BR and Shawn arguing about how that 'piece of paper' didn't really matter.
The two arguments are mutually exclusive. It is my opinion that a piece of paper doesn't matter, however, it is not within my rights to forbid any group of two or more consenting adults who disagree with my opinion to get that little official paper.
Monogamy is not a uniquely heterosexual concept. Virtually every gay person I know, all in their 20s, are either in a monogamous relationship, or prefer to be. Which is not to say there aren't promiscuous gay people, there are tons of them. There are also tons of promiscuous straight people.
Frank's problem is that he's trying to lump all gays into one group. But that's a load of BS. Gays are as diverse a group as any other subset of society. It just so happens that a large number of gays are now both out of the closet, and very mainstream in their political, social and ethical views (whereas before, due to the societal situation, being out and thus a public activist for gay rights was mostly a phenomenon of the leftmost fringe of the gay community).
Frank talks about gays moving to the suburbs. Sorry, dear, but we're already there. We're also in the churches, teaching at schools, practicing medicine, you name it. Gay life is as varied and broad as straight life.
And it is these mainstream gays, these gays like me who you would never think were gay unless you saw the little yellow-equal-sign-on-a-blue-background sticker on the back of their car, who want marriage. Because we are already part of the culture of mainstream America, and part of that culture is marriage. So we want full access to all the aspects of the culture we are part of ? the culture we help fund and support and create with our tax dollars, efforts, work, sweat and tears, just like all the straight people who are also part of mainstream American life.
The gay people that Frank wants to lump all gays in with ? the ones for whom mainstreaming would be considered a "betrayal" ?_are but a small subset of modern homosexual culture. They paved the way for the rest of us to come out, but we don't live, act or think like them. So don't treat us as if we're all of one mind.
Nowadays, there are a lot more Ted Scmidts in gay America than there are Brian Kinneys.
It's not about getting society's approval. It's about creating a society that promotes the live and let live concept.
So, regarding that concept, should the argument be made (as we all know it will) would you agree with re-defining marriage to include other kinds of relationships, polygamy, between family members etc.
After all, those would be among consenting adults as well.
So, regarding that concept, should the argument be made (as we all know it will) would you agree with re-defining marriage to include other kinds of relationships, polygamy, between family members etc.
After all, those would be among consenting adults as well.
I am in favor of polygamy. I actually believe that such an arrangement is superior to traditional marriage. As far as family members getting it on, the possibility of having a genetically messed up kid must be weighed against the individual freedoms of consenting adults. I don't have enough information to make a judgment regarding incest.
The two arguments are mutually exclusive. It is my opinion that a piece of paper doesn't matter, however, it is not within my rights to forbid any group of two or more consenting adults who disagree with my opinion to get that little official paper.
You will notice that all my posts have referenced my belief that gay marriage a terribly bad idea. My opinion.
I have not called for anyone to be barred from city hall.
... Laws were made by our predecessors who apparently had a stronger belief in religion than we do.
I don't agree with people putting the blame on nature or God for their sexual preferences. As humans, we are supposed to have control over our emotions and actions. As social beings, we do adhere to a common code which is acceptable by many living in our society. There is no such thing as true freedom. If I was into screwing animals, can I ask for civil rights after marrying an animal? Why am I not entitled to my preferences in that case?
We need to come up with genetic engineering to weed out all sexual urge in human beings and get it over with. Reproduction should be a yearly thing like in the case of other mammals. We could be using our brains for something useful in that case instead of wasting our prime trying to get laid.
Comments
I do think, however, the cry for it shows a desperation to conform to a kind of life that was specifically built to maintain values of monogamy and heterosexuality.
If you love someone and want to spend your life with them, most see the obvious thing to do is get married.
Originally posted by Frank777
And, mind you, my post did not say they should be legally barred from being married.
I do think, however, the cry for it shows a desperation to conform to a kind of life that was specifically built to maintain values of monogamy and heterosexuality.
there are two great reasons to get married:
1) testify to everyone, including yourself and your partner, that you are dedicated to and in love with one persor
2) you may not feel the need for a social recognition of your love, but you do want benefits of marriage, particularly access to your partner's insurance and of course the tax benefits.
1 OR 2 warrants justification for marriage and people falling in either should be able to marry if they would like to
Originally posted by chu_bakka
If you love someone and want to spend your life with them, most see the obvious thing to do is get married.
That's funny.
If this was a thread on Christians wanting more people to stop 'living in sin' and get married, I could see chu, BR and Shawn arguing about how that 'piece of paper' didn't really matter.
Originally posted by progmac
there are two great reasons to get married:
1) testify to everyone, including yourself and your partner, that you are dedicated to and in love with one persor
2) you may not feel the need for a social recognition of your love, but you do want benefits of marriage, particularly access to your partner's insurance and of course the tax benefits.
1 OR 2 warrants justification for marriage and people falling in either should be able to marry if they would like to
I think we can safely dispense with No. 2, all those benefits would be available under present law or the civil union proposal.
At least be honest enough to admit that is about getting society's blanket approval of same-sex relationships.
BUT there are those who argue that being gay is ammoral but here you have gay people wanting to get married... it turns THEIR world upsidedown... not mine.
Originally posted by Frank777
That's funny.
If this was a thread on Christians wanting more people to stop 'living in sin' and get married, I could see chu, BR and Shawn arguing about how that 'piece of paper' didn't really matter.
The two arguments are mutually exclusive. It is my opinion that a piece of paper doesn't matter, however, it is not within my rights to forbid any group of two or more consenting adults who disagree with my opinion to get that little official paper.
Originally posted by Frank777
I think we can safely dispense with No. 2, all those benefits would be available under present law or the civil union proposal.
At least be honest enough to admit that is about getting society's blanket approval of same-sex relationships.
It's not about getting society's approval. It's about creating a society that promotes the live and let live concept.
I haven't heard one yet.
Frank's problem is that he's trying to lump all gays into one group. But that's a load of BS. Gays are as diverse a group as any other subset of society. It just so happens that a large number of gays are now both out of the closet, and very mainstream in their political, social and ethical views (whereas before, due to the societal situation, being out and thus a public activist for gay rights was mostly a phenomenon of the leftmost fringe of the gay community).
Frank talks about gays moving to the suburbs. Sorry, dear, but we're already there. We're also in the churches, teaching at schools, practicing medicine, you name it. Gay life is as varied and broad as straight life.
And it is these mainstream gays, these gays like me who you would never think were gay unless you saw the little yellow-equal-sign-on-a-blue-background sticker on the back of their car, who want marriage. Because we are already part of the culture of mainstream America, and part of that culture is marriage. So we want full access to all the aspects of the culture we are part of ? the culture we help fund and support and create with our tax dollars, efforts, work, sweat and tears, just like all the straight people who are also part of mainstream American life.
The gay people that Frank wants to lump all gays in with ? the ones for whom mainstreaming would be considered a "betrayal" ?_are but a small subset of modern homosexual culture. They paved the way for the rest of us to come out, but we don't live, act or think like them. So don't treat us as if we're all of one mind.
Nowadays, there are a lot more Ted Scmidts in gay America than there are Brian Kinneys.
Originally posted by BR
It's not about getting society's approval. It's about creating a society that promotes the live and let live concept.
Pluralism
Fellows
Originally posted by BR
It's not about getting society's approval. It's about creating a society that promotes the live and let live concept.
So, regarding that concept, should the argument be made (as we all know it will) would you agree with re-defining marriage to include other kinds of relationships, polygamy, between family members etc.
After all, those would be among consenting adults as well.
Originally posted by Fellowship
Pluralism
Fellows
Indeed.
Originally posted by Frank777
So, regarding that concept, should the argument be made (as we all know it will) would you agree with re-defining marriage to include other kinds of relationships, polygamy, between family members etc.
After all, those would be among consenting adults as well.
I am in favor of polygamy. I actually believe that such an arrangement is superior to traditional marriage. As far as family members getting it on, the possibility of having a genetically messed up kid must be weighed against the individual freedoms of consenting adults. I don't have enough information to make a judgment regarding incest.
Originally posted by BR
The two arguments are mutually exclusive. It is my opinion that a piece of paper doesn't matter, however, it is not within my rights to forbid any group of two or more consenting adults who disagree with my opinion to get that little official paper.
You will notice that all my posts have referenced my belief that gay marriage a terribly bad idea. My opinion.
I have not called for anyone to be barred from city hall.
I don't agree with people putting the blame on nature or God for their sexual preferences. As humans, we are supposed to have control over our emotions and actions. As social beings, we do adhere to a common code which is acceptable by many living in our society. There is no such thing as true freedom. If I was into screwing animals, can I ask for civil rights after marrying an animal? Why am I not entitled to my preferences in that case?
We need to come up with genetic engineering to weed out all sexual urge in human beings and get it over with. Reproduction should be a yearly thing like in the case of other mammals. We could be using our brains for something useful in that case instead of wasting our prime trying to get laid.
who says it's blame... why should anyone have to justify loving someone of the same sex at all?
beastiality and pedophilia are completly undrelated issues.