I don't think the government should recognize marriage in the first place, gay or straight...but that's another topic.
However, since they do, it should not discriminate. So hooray, I suppose.
Printable View
I don't think the government should recognize marriage in the first place, gay or straight...but that's another topic.
However, since they do, it should not discriminate. So hooray, I suppose.
Yeah, pretty much. Why does someone need government recognition of their relationship for it to have a "shot" at being a happy one? It doesn't. It's another emotional appeal type argument that has no place in a reasoned debate on the government recognition of homosexual marriages. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Let me get this straight, by mentioning that people might want to get married in an attempt to be happy, I am being deceptive and dishonest and lowering the standard of debate. Just seeing if I'm understanding this here.
And earlier, by having a laugh at your misphrased and misconceived comment about how "taking a shot at" equated "guarantee," I was dodging. Am I getting this all correct?
Again, you said...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
A couple's happiness has no bearing on whether or not the government grants it recognition. I was happy with my wife before we were married. I continue to be happy now that we are married. We had a very lovely wedding in the church... but the act of filling out the paperwork to make it official in the eyes of the government really didn't register on the happiness scale I'm afraid. If the government wouldn't recognize marriage at all, we would still be happy together. But let's be honest, I'm wasting my typing here. It's obvious from your responses that you know your statement doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It was an emotional appeal.Quote:
why should that stand between a couple and their shot at happiness?
I think my original point was pretty clear, but you decided to take a piss and interpret my shorthand response literally. I think it's cute that when I spell it out for you, you accuse me of being nit picky. :wink:Quote:
And earlier, by having a laugh at your misphrased and misconceived comment about how "taking a shot at" equated "guarantee," I was dodging. Am I getting this all correct?
Regardless, I've made my point. Later.
heheQuote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
heheQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
* goes off to watch some more Beavis and Butthead *
You are all gay.
AII
We prefer mutually interested in singular tunnel-vision aka an anal fixation if you don't mind (and you don't)Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
How the hell is my favorite leftie doing
Do they, or do they simply want recognision for something that the way of things simply won't allow because it's simply impossible. Can scream untill they cough up lung but it's still different, live with it. Can't have real equality because it's different, and everybody acting as if it isn't is not going to change thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
'I salute Fragony for taking an unpopular position, but I'm kinda disappointed he has made so few arguments. And Frags, the ones you are making don't make a metric ton of sense.'
We wouldn't have this conservation if it didn't make any sense,
Plotting world power. It's only a matter of time before we destroy your puny defenses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
On topic. As long as civil marriage entails formally embedded privileges and responsibilities (and it usually does, the substance of those depending on where you live) it should be open to all who are physically and emotionally mature. As for church marriages, I don't give a rat's bum. That's private.
If you feel like declaring victory, by all means, mission accomplished! But this has to be one of the oddest hills you've ever chosen to dig your heels in ... ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Yes, when you take a conditional statement and respond to it as an absolute, you're being very, very clear. The onus is on the reader to interpret your words in a way that makes sense, rather than on you to make a rational point in the first place. Shame on those of us who had a laugh!Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Yes, you've made it abundantly clear that happiness has no place in a discussion of marriage. Kindest regards to Mrs. Xiahou!Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Yup. I don't understand why the religious right is wringing their hands over this. No one is talking about forcing churches to perform same sex marriage ceremonies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
I'll gladly turn that around, why want gay marriage in the first place, there is no need such activism as long as gay couples have equal rights. Which they of course should have imhoQuote:
Originally Posted by Scienter
I'd suggest that it has something to do with the pursuit of happiness, but apparently that's evil and dishonest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Not in the slightest, but I'm not going to consider it to be the same thing. Maybe I am narrowminded, but it is simply impossible for me to see a relationship between same sexes as natural, won't do any harm I actually attended two gay weddings, but I will never be able to see it as the same thing. I don't really care, but I'm not lying either. And it should never be asked from me, and those who think the same way. And that is where things go wrong. You probably know I hate religion and have zero patience with it, but lifes a witch regardlessQuote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Guilty, your honour! Me I'm a just a lesbian trapped in a man's body.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Well thank God I am, if I'd be a girl I'd stay at home to play with my girlie thingies all day long.
This thread needs soundtrack! Lipstick lesbicuriousity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoUaLoeuvtI
Epic bass and drum mix! http://matousmileys.free.fr/party17.gif
Far better than the nineties version.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QaeojQLGQ8
Gay marriage is a stupid, waste of time and wrong headed issue, but I'm glad that we had the oppotunity to vote the damn thing up or down. If New Yorkers want gay marriage, they'll get gay marriage.
Now, since we've gotten past this issue in our state, lets get rid of the civil institution of marriage and make it a purpose neutral legal agreement. Leave the metaphysical to metaphysical institutions, such as churches, or in the case of gay - forrest temples.
If the government has no business in telling us who we can and can't marry, they really have no business in the marriage game at all. Get them out of it and create a values-neutral legal status open to any 2 individuals irrespective of their relationship to one another.
Marriage will be stronger for it.
I think most all of us agree this would be a good solution. Unfortunately, it won't happen quickly. Gay marriage has a sizeable, well-educated and monied group of people pushing for it. A logical re-evaluation of marriage and the state's role? Not so much.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Gutmensch tends to be highly educated, doesn't mean he actually understands anything, he never goes out he got books. Who are you to mess with nature itself there is a logic to creation. It's like alchemy, there is simply no recepy for goldQuote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Ah, the argumentum ad gutmnesch, a surefire way to make friends and influence people. You're onto a real winner there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
So, if you're accusing me of being an educated fool, why not do so, instead of hiding behind your all-purpose gutmensch? Or did you want to take a little shot without having the male reproductive organs to do it directly? Come on Frag, play with the big kids and address me, not your make-believe debate partner, that horrible gutmensch who does everything bad in the world.
Nah not going to, so stop crying allready
Y'all can sink yer homophobic teeth into the magic wands* of gay Paris. :grin:
https://img808.imageshack.us/img808/...ttemagique.jpg
Paris, Berlin, Amsterdam, Kopenhagen. San Francisco, New York. They're all alike, and the only places I feel at home. Vibrant, culturally forward, cosmopolitan. All that matters is that these places remain open, safe. Embracing and inclusive. Hands off of my gay friends! They throw fabulous parties and I wouldn't mind a wedding or two the coming years.
As far as I'm concerned the countryside can chase away their sons and daughters with torches and pitchforks. ('She's....so...different') Send them to the cities. Gay culture, almost by necessity of small numbers, must be physically concentrated. Just as much as creativity, media, fashion, design, publishing, haute culture. There is no such thing as a bustling cultural scene in the province, for the same reason there will never be such a thing as a thriving rural gay scene.
What matters then is that the enclaves can protect themselves from the pitchforked peasantry. (Although really it must be the reverse - when did cities give up their natural right to govern the provinces for them?). This must be one of the advantages of a federal state. Different areas can decide on different regulation. The conservative peasantry managed to vote gay Paris into obscurity. French gays now enjoy less rights than the Spanish or Portuguese. :wall:
Fortunately New York city is dominant enough to impose its will on the rural hinterland. Shame about SF, which can not dominate California in a similar manner - such a difference between hippie central northern California and the socially conservative south - and which suffered the same fate as Paris.
*the pun doesn't really translate
Because it's something that the Bible says is wrong and it can look icky. Plus, if we allow it, then God might punish us like he did to the Israelites.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scienter
Ah, but they are. Homosexual wings within most Churches are agitating for religiously recognised "marriage", because that is the only divinely sanctioned sexual relationship. Ergo, if "Gays" can "marry" they are then sexually equal to heterosexuals - despite still being incapable of creating new life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scienter
As soon as you reappeared I ordered more concrete for the ramparts, the really quick setting kind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
what if they get all the same legal privilages, but it isn't called marriage.Quote:
On topic. As long as civil marriage entails formally embedded privileges and responsibilities (and it usually does, the substance of those depending on where you live) it should be open to all who are physically and emotionally mature. As for church marriages, I don't give a rat's bum. That's private.
I don't think you're being dishonest, but neither love nor happiness are relevant to the theological or legal arguments - so your appeal is merely affective. It's like going before the judge and say, "he's rich and I'm poor, so I stole his stuff" - it shouldn't change the judgement handed down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
One of two things would follow: (1) marriage can be scrapped, or (2) if marriage is retained for purely symbolic reasons, is should be open to all as stated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
In my country the second option is already the case. I am married for one reason only: marital status conveys certain rights and privileges in many other countries, so when we are abroad we face no unpleasant surprises in this regard.
AII
I don't know if you've bothered with all our ramblings, so I'll re-state my original question to this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Why should a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple be considered exactly the same and interchangable - I understand the part about incapacitation and death/inherritence but what I don't get is the demand that we pretend homosexual couples and heterosexual couples are exactly the same.
More questions arise:
Who gets to wear the veil?
If they're Lesbians do they both get given away?
How do you consumate a homosexual marriage, particularly a Lesbian one?
Who's parents are paying for the wedding and who is putting the money behind the bar?
I. just. don't. get. it.
Sounds like a great opportunity for you to go and ask gays and lesbians these questions. Then maybe you can have some insight on why they are the same as homosexual couples.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Tried it with my Gay friends, got nowhere (and yes, they are all still talking to me).Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
They don't pretend it's exactly the same. IT IS the same. A piece of legal paper with a name and data on it. Just that the checks for Male and Female are identical in both.Quote:
Why should a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple be considered exactly the same and interchangable - I understand the part about incapacitation and death/inherritence but what I don't get is the demand that we pretend homosexual couples and heterosexual couples are exactly the same.
I do. And I look lovely in it.Quote:
More questions arise:
Who gets to wear the veil?
Does that even matter? Why do you want to put your own perceived traditional wedding into another one? Ask this: What if a bride (in a hetero marriage) has no father, uncle, stepfather or any paternal relative. Does she get given away? What if it's a private ceremony, does the Ghost of Cato give her away?Quote:
If they're Lesbians do they both get given away?
For the first... I will redirect you to an appropriate video. From which a very educational and popular website took it's name. Also EB units.Quote:
How do you consumate a homosexual marriage, particularly a Lesbian one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhFCPDMg7R0
For the other. Multiply (((6*4)-1)*3. It's optional to add a one.
Whose*Quote:
Who's parents are paying for the wedding and who is putting the money behind the bar?
Do you really think an old fart on his pension will have more money than his successfully homosexual son/daughter? Also, I doubt that you need a ceremony if you don't have the bling. Can't you just spend 10 bucks on a worthless piece of paper from the state. And possibly a condom?
I put the money behind the bar. On a stash, filled with marijuana and a glock, in case the laundry people notice I was their money at their place. Now it's very shiny thanks to Mr. Clean.
Yeah, you don't get it.Quote:
I. just. don't. get. it.
You don't get that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqHQ_wWbG9Y
~Jirisys ()
Um, you do know what consumation entails - it requires 1 man + 1 woman (partly to prevent someone pretending to be a man/woman when they aren't in order to marry someone of the same sex).Quote:
Originally Posted by jirisys
So, that's an integral part of marriage law - no consumation no marriage.
Ergo, homosexuals can't "marry" as Western (Roman) law understands it.
Do you see the problem?