Gay Marriage? How about no marriage?

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 76
    smirclesmircle Posts: 1,035member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    GENDER requirements.



    First and foremost a required sexual orientation.
  • Reply 22 of 76
    dmzdmz Posts: 5,775member
    I'd just settle for plain old democracy---people make laws and then follow them.



    It is going to catch on---just wait and see---ruled by the consent of the governed is where it's at.
  • Reply 23 of 76
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dmz

    I'd just settle for plain old democracy---people make laws and then follow them.



    Ever heard of a little thing called "tyranny of the majority"?



    Our system is deliberately, and wisely, designed to make sure that the majority doesn't always get its way, to ensure that some individual freedoms remain outside the reach of majority control.
  • Reply 24 of 76
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    Driver's licenses are almost entirely a state issue, exactly like marriage. Some states allow you to drive when you are 13 provided you are in a rural area and helping in the operation of a farm. Some states require proof of legal residency, others do not. States have entirely different laws with regard to driving in some instances. They also have reciprication agreements that allow your license to be recognized in other states. In many ways it is supremely close to marriage with regard to being a licensing issue.



    You've stated effects, and requirements based on legal status.



    State one personal element, other than age, or physical fitness, for obtaining a driver's license.







    Quote:

    Actually they didn't require any sort of sexual orientation. There is a gender requirement, but there is no heterosexual orientation requirement. It is just assumed because of the gender. However many homosexual marriage advocates will likewise mention that they were allowed to marry when they were still in denial/in the closet, but are not allowed to do so now with their partner.



    And this seems rational to you, in some way.



    Right.



    Quote:

    Ask cohabitating couples, homosexual or heterosexual if they feel the same way about marriage. Marriage is largely being abandoned by heterosexuals. There are plenty of issues where the state can force you into marriage because of a denial of benefits or recognition. If this were true homosexuals wouldn't care or be advocating for marriage rights.







    Right. You guys have fun, this just went right off my 'worth my time' chart.



    Quote:

    Incorrect, plenty of people have argued that marriage is societies way of endorsing preferred family forms, usually for the benefit of raising children, forming legal relationships, etc. Religion doesn't have to have anything to do with it. Most homosexual rights advocates have been arguing it as a states rights issue as of late. The exact opposite of what you contend.



    Exact opposite of... er. Right.



    Quote:

    Try looking harder because I just gave you one.



    Not that I see. You gave me an explanation of what society uses marriage for, not a reason for why it shouldn't be extended to gay couples. Big difference.



    Quote:

    If they seem arbitrary than also look up voting age, the draft, drinking age, marriage being limited to 2 people, retirement age, driving age, etc.



    In each case, there are reasons for the benefits to society (well, except for 2-people marriages - still not sure why n people can't enter in to a socially binding contract since that's all marriage is *anyway* if you take out the religious elements...). Not so in the obstruction of marriage to gay couples. There simply isn't a good reason for society's benefit, once you eliminate that religious element.
  • Reply 25 of 76
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dmz

    I'd just settle for plain old democracy---people make laws and then follow them.



    It is going to catch on---just wait and see---ruled by the consent of the governed is where it's at.




    By definition, the average IQ is 100.



    Sleep well.
  • Reply 26 of 76
    dmzdmz Posts: 5,775member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by shetline

    Ever heard of a little thing called "tyranny of the majority"?



    Our system is deliberately, and wisely, designed to make sure that the majority doesn't always get its way, to ensure that some individual freedoms remain outside the reach of majority control.






    Where does the Mayor of San Fransisco clearly breaking state law fit into this design?
  • Reply 27 of 76
    thegeldingthegelding Posts: 3,230member
    civil unions for all...the government shouldn't be in the marriage business anyway...



    so government gives you a civil union....from there, if you also want to get married, you go to a church to be married...civil union gives you all the old benefits of marriage (tax status, inheritance, health benefits etc), marriage adds only the religious aspect...win win for all...deeply religious people who don't want a civil union don't have to get one (but they would not get the benefits) and can only be married if they like...non-religious people can only get civil unions and not get married if they don't want...and the more moderate can do both (giving money to church and state)...why we give tax breaks, inheritance and health benefits based on a religious ceremony is strange anyway...so all those move to the civil unions and marriage goes back to what it should be about anyway...a commitment to a person and to god...



    this whole defense of marriage is weird to me...i've been married 19 years and have been an atheist for 42... marriage obviously means different things for different people...



    yeah oregon



    smartest state in the union



    g
  • Reply 28 of 76
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,839member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    I have *never* seen a rationale for 'no gay marriages' other than ones based ultimately on religious beliefs. If you can provide one, great. Until then, the churches have no business dictating government policy in this matter any more than they in any other.



    ...mmmm. Trollfood for breakfast.



    I'll admit my opposition to gay marriage is informed by my faith, but I don't think it to be exclusive to faith reasoning alone.



    Many AIers think of Bush as pandering to the Christian right. One area where I think the Christian Right has moved Bush is in the area of funding AIDS relief for Africa. Evangelicals are heavily involved in restoring Africa, with everyone from Billy Graham's son to that 'Prayer of Jabez' guy running relief programs.



    It's the one area where the informed secular media has applauded their efforts. Bush's funding announcement in the State of the Union was directed at Evangelical votes.



    With "Born Again" churches so involved in Africa, their leadership is fully aware of the devastation wrought by the disease.



    Is it a coincidence that the same leaders are leading the fight against Gay Marriage? I don't think so.



    When you talk to Evangelicals, they are genuinely afraid that the nature of marriage will change if Gay Marriage is approved. And I mean change for Heterosexuals as well.



    The likeliest result of Gay Marriage will be the divorce between Marriage and Fidelity. There is almost Zero chance that the Gay community will suddenly adopt wholesale the classic Hetero doctrine of one partner for a lifetime.



    While it's true that many people cheat, it is still looked upon as cheating. When multiple affairs become standard practice for marriage, we will have a problem.



    AIDS didn't strike Africa this hard because of some Divine punishment or because of some genetic flaw. There was a single problem that fanned it.



    African men tend to travel for much of the year to find work. They may not see their families for months on end. It became acceptable culturally for men to have affairs while away, they they came home and infected their wives. In other words, marriage and fidelity diverged.



    I have a friend helping teenagers to learn to farm and sell food in Africa so they can take care of their younger siblings. Both parents are already dead. An entire generation is MIA.



    Traditional marriage [and those Puritan values so derided here at AI] has been the firewall that keeps Western society from a total meltdown like this. When it's "modernized" to be politically correct, I think a future generation will curse us for it.
  • Reply 29 of 76
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Frank777

    [BMany AIers think of Bush as pandering to the Christian right. One area where I think the Christian Right has moved Bush is in the area of funding AIDS relief for Africa. Evangelicals are heavily involved in restoring Africa, with everyone from Billy Graham's son to that 'Prayer of Jabez' guy running relief programs.[/B]



    Although I applaud the efforts of Christian churches in Africa, I must remember that the churches are also trying to convert the people to Christianity. (A good friend of mine, now a Pastor of a Baptist Church, spent a few years in Africa as a missionary. On his return, he spoke more of the number of 'conversions' than of the country.)



    I see something similar every Tuesday night, at the corner of Queen & Sherbourne, in Toronto. It's a dodgy neighbourhood, drugs being dealt openly, the occasional hooker, and every Tuesday night there's that church group with their free hot dogs for the down-trodden. Ooops, I forgot to mention that they're singing evangelical hymns and trying to convince the people who've come for some food to visit the church. (And damn, they're good at it ... a career in life insurance sales would make them rich!)



    Again, I applaud the effort to help others, but there's no such thing as a free lunch. Somehow I don't think it's much different in Africa.
  • Reply 30 of 76
    dmzdmz Posts: 5,775member
    Talk of how government "shouldn't be in the business of defining marriage" is an oxymoron.



    Codified law is simply a matter of realizing presuppositions socially. The underpinnings of America are still vaugely Christian with, more importantly, several centuries of "the law of nature and nature's God" informing how America approaches codified law.



    That system is under assault by athiestic/postmodern approaches to civil conduct/individual rights---a bit like the Frech Revolution, but in slow motion. Setting the individual at odds with the collective is insidious thinking at its root. The direct assault by the Gay lobby on Christian/Muslim/Jewish marriage has nothing to do with equal rights, but is a simple attempt to end the paradigm of the family as we know it. To be fair the Gay lobby is only finishing what other secular impulses started with the widespread acceptance of no-fault divorce. Marriage is nearly meaningless in the West, since it has been separated from it's religious underpinnings.
  • Reply 31 of 76
    smirclesmircle Posts: 1,035member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Frank777

    The likeliest result of Gay Marriage will be the divorce between Marriage and Fidelity. There is almost Zero chance that the Gay community will suddenly adopt wholesale the classic Hetero doctrine of one partner for a lifetime.



    There is almost zero chance all gays think, feel and behave the same. IF they can marry, there might even develop a monogamous gay community (I know, christians loathe the idea even more than gays fvcking around).



    I'd venture the guess that more married hets are having affairs than committed gays (not by percentage, just because there are more hets). So, in a way, we have a problem already... and yet the world has not ended.



    Quote:



    AIDS didn't strike Africa this hard because of some Divine punishment or because of some genetic flaw. There was a single problem that fanned it.



    African men tend to travel for much of the year to find work. They may not see their families for months on end. It became acceptable culturally for men to have affairs while away, they they came home and infected their wives. In other words, marriage and fidelity diverged.




    Silly me, I thought inferior medical standards, lack of condoms and a weak social status of women were major aspects that led to the AIDS crisis there...

    Since only 4.6 condoms are user per grown-up male african per year, we can safely say that the failure of HIV prevention can be placed right at the feet of abstinence campains and could have been avoided by promoting condom use.



    Oh, and one of your believes' infamous by-products is that abstinence-only programs teach that sexual intercourse is legit only in marriage - which of course is denied to gays by the same folk programs. Nice way to deny joy to gays
  • Reply 32 of 76
    kirklandkirkland Posts: 594member
    I do not want to "destroy" the concept of family. I want to have a family. I want to be family with the person I love. I want us to have the protections and structure that enable families to endure good times and bad times.



    Why should I be denied to have my family be legally recognized?



    Why should I die alone in a hospital room while my lifelong spouse is kept outside because we're not "family"?



    Why should I be required to testify against him because we're not able to be "married"?



    Why should your morality define my life?



    Live however you want, believe whatever you want, I don't give a rat's ass. But don't expect me to deny who I am and who I love just to conform to your backwards, bigotted, hateful worldview.



    Kirk
  • Reply 33 of 76
    kirklandkirkland Posts: 594member
    <Fine, it's gone.>
  • Reply 34 of 76
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,839member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by audiopollution

    Although I applaud the efforts of Christian churches in Africa, I must remember that the churches are also trying to convert the people to Christianity.



    I see something similar every Tuesday night, at the corner of Queen & Sherbourne, in Toronto. It's a dodgy neighbourhood, drugs being dealt openly, the occasional hooker, and every Tuesday night there's that church group with their free hot dogs for the down-trodden. Ooops, I forgot to mention that they're singing evangelical hymns and trying to convince the people who've come for some food to visit the church. (And damn, they're good at it ... a career in life insurance sales would make them rich!)



    Again, I applaud the effort to help others, but there's no such thing as a free lunch. Somehow I don't think it's much different in Africa.




    Yes, because if you found something that helped with your problems, you'd just keep it to yourself, right?



    Queen and Sherborne is a nightmare these days, and while I'm not familiar with the group you're mentioning, I'm glad somebody's helping with Toronto's "downtrodden."
  • Reply 35 of 76
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Frank777

    Yes, because if you found something that helped with your problems, you'd just keep it to yourself, right?



    Queen and Sherborne is a nightmare these days, and while I'm not familiar with the group you're mentioning, I'm glad somebody's helping with Toronto's "downtrodden."




    Not that I don't think you've missed the point ... but, just in case ... help=good.



    My experience has shown that converting people to Christianity is the objective, and the help provided is just a means to that end.



    Of course, everyone has motives for every action.
  • Reply 36 of 76
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,839member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Smircle

    There is almost zero chance all gays think, feel and behave the same. IF they can marry, there might even develop a monogamous gay community (I know, christians loathe the idea even more than gays fvcking around).



    You will notice I mentioned the "wholesale" adoption of Hetero values. Of course there are gays whose relationships will be similar to Heterosexuals.



    My post dealt with the likely changes to the institution of marriage over time. Some of these changes are being reflected now in Europe's more liberal member countries, where the rate of marriage is plunging. (will find link later.)



    Quote:

    I'd venture the guess that more married hets are having affairs than committed gays (not by percentage, just because there are more hets). So, in a way, we have a problem already... and yet the world has not ended.



    Yes, and STD are a growing problem in the West. But the problem is still manageable. It's manageable now but requires a growing amount of tax money to fend it off. That could easily change.





    Quote:

    Silly me, I thought inferior medical standards, lack of condoms and a weak social status of women were major aspects that led to the AIDS crisis there...

    Since only 4.6 condoms are user per grown-up male african per year, we can safely say that the failure of HIV prevention can be placed right at the feet of abstinence campains and could have been avoided by promoting condom use.




    Wow, so now the AIDS epidemic in AFRICA is Christianity's fault. That's a new one. The "safe sex" campaigns run in American schools have been tried and failed miserably. More African countries are ASKING North American Christian groups to come in and teach abstinence. Makes sense. The cultural divorce between marriage and fidelity must be mended, and that seems more of a religious task than issuing a Ministry of Health directive.



    Quote:

    Oh, and one of your believes' infamous by-products is that abstinence-only programs teach that sexual intercourse is legit only in marriage - which of course is denied to gays by the same folk programs. Nice way to deny joy to gays



    The Bible, and thus traditional Christian teaching, does not accept homosexual practice as healthy, so it's no surprise that church programs teach such things. Part of the whole "Freedom of Religion" thing.



    FYI, Christians hav been condemning unmarried heteros "living in sin" for as long as they've been preaching against homosexuality. It's not some personal vendetta against homosexuals being happy.
  • Reply 37 of 76
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,839member
    I was ready to reply to Kirkland's first post, but his second is beyond the pale.

    I will not dignify such hate-mongering nonsense with a response.
  • Reply 38 of 76
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    Kirk Read the sticky posted at the top of the Forum and please abide by the rules.



    Fellowship
  • Reply 39 of 76
    kirklandkirkland Posts: 594member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Frank777

    I was ready to reply to Kirkland's first post, but his second is beyond the pale.



    Fine, it's gone.



    Quote:

    I will not dignify such hate-mongering nonsense with a response.



    You're the one who wants me to die alone. You're the one who wants my family to be treated as less than yours. You're the one who wants me to deny the most fundamental, unchangable and core facets of my humanity. You're the one who wants codified discrimination to be brought to bear against me. And, what, I'm supposed to be nice?



    I'd love to see you try to rationalize away the issues I raise, or any of the millions that come along with it.
  • Reply 40 of 76
    jimdreamworxjimdreamworx Posts: 1,095member
    Boy, did this get off topic fast!



    Back to the article... hurray!

    Govt gets out of the marriage business.

    No more licenses means squat for two (or more) people in love.



    I mean, love is what it's all about, isn't it?

    And not some sanctioning by govt.

    Besides, how can a govt turn around and say, yes, you two, we agree that you are in love. It always struck me unusual that govt wanted to license something that is between two people.



    Good riddance!
Sign In or Register to comment.