Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

[Ronin]

Really unfair to deny gay couples the tax-breaks heterosexual couples get. Not so sure where I stand with adoption my views evolutionised, I used to be dead against it, now just uncomfortable, but that's nasty. Homosexual couples should get all the benefits

I should I care how gay people are gonna raise children? I don´t like children anyway, I don´t want any...let them have them.
as long as they teach them to be quiet in cinemas, and airplanes I´m cool with it.

[Fragony]

I should I care how gay people are gonna raise children? I don´t like children anyway, I don´t want any...let them have them.
as long as they teach them to be quiet in cinemas, and airplanes I´m cool with it.

Don't know where I stand, it screams in my face but I can find no reason to be against it without making a fool out of myself. Counterintuitive as it may be, I decided to agree with gay marriage and adoption as the reality allready proved me wrong as there is no problem at all. I have been somewhat stupid on this, mea culpa

[Empire*Of*Media]

Marriage is on the decline.
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

The economy is in a rut
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

Fewer people are buying houses
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

There are too many single parent households
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

There are too many uninsured Americans
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

We need more educated immigrants
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

Marriage creates a more stable tax base
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

Its too hard to get financial aid for college
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

We need more tax revenue without raising taxes
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

America is secular
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

America is free
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

indeed of course !! in past only sick people or those opposed bad cultural matters that draged them to be Gays (or lesser, lesbian)

but now, Hollywood does anything to spread Gayism and Lesbianism !! and you know, made it NATURAL Thing!! indeed that some have mind and moral problem that must be worked with him and be resolved for him (not Excommunicated!) because of enviremental and some other things influenced him, but legalizing Gayism or Lesbiansim, will hurt the cultural and human essence, specially when they leglized adopting child to two Gays i just was shocked, how they could humiliate the humankind and waiver the moral & spiritual and emotions of a innocent child, like a love and devote oneself of a mother for the child or both father and mother!!

i know some of you will disagree me, because you think its a natural right, but this is not right, this is an insult and humiliate the essence and origin of humankind !

[johnhughthom]

Care to explain why?

[Fragony]

Used to think that as well, but in reality there isn't any problem. I'll admit the thought still makes me somewhat uncomfortable but I totally moved to the other side of the argument. Gays who adopt a child are really devoted and always highly educated and financially well off, rules are strict. These kids come from broken family's who can't provide for them, better off with a homosexual couple. Heterosexual couple I'd prefer but what's the problem really as long as it has loving caretakers.

[Empire*Of*Media]

no i repeat again, this was first an strange problem, but now its a natural problem, im not speaking from religion (i dont have religion) or my culture, it just needs to deeply think and go to your conscience. and raising child doesnt need education, needs love, even if father does not exist, but love and kindness of a mother (female) is strongly vital, man con not, i repeat can not be like women, the natural creations says this, man CAN NOT have the woman's love and patience and tolerance self-devotion &........ as it was for millions of years. this things you say it is what that been told you to believe, i said thats a problem, but it should not be excommunicated or rejected by the community, it should be resolved mentaly and moraly.

this "Horrible" issue that its naturality came in late 20th century is because that life got easier, and of course spreading Atheistism that deletes a Good Human frame, so gradualy the people instead of lovley and have a normal human based life, someو, or in future most maybe, seeks and follows what only brings for them pleasure and and out of normal things !!
and of course Hollywood and those that are helping and supporting the Atheistism and Prostitutionism and PORN industry, make you slowly and gradualy for generations to believe what they wish.

i really can not believe how this false and evil belief is spreaded in their so called civilized nations! even Barbarians and beasts do not do this !!
oh of course Barbarians were better !

if you read OSHO's Great Book, From Sex to Samadhi (From sex to Ultra-knowledge) i'll swear your false beliefs will be changed (Fixed).

[johnhughthom]

You mentioned gay and lesbians above, your argument only touches upon two men bringing up a child. What about two women, surely that would lead to some sort of super baby, going by your post?

indeed of course !! in past only sick people or those opposed bad cultural matters that draged them to be Gays (or lesser, lesbian)

Just out of curiosity, what does the 'lesser' part of that statement mean?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Erm, Go Facism! I suppose.

Personally, I've become apathetic - heterosexual marriage has become completely meaningless - you get the same from spending a couple of hours with a Solicitor and getting him to draw up a legal contract - and it'll be a tenth of the price.

With that in mind, why should I care if homosexuals demand we pretend they're exactly like heterosexuals.

The bit that bother me is the double-speak and the way "homophobe" gets bandied around.

[a completely inoffensive name]

im not speaking from religion (i dont have religion) or my culture,.

If you are not speaking from religion, where do you get your morals from which you are making these arguments?

[Papewaio]

Morals are an emergent phenomena. You can call it magic if you don't understand it, but morals is essentially TCP/IP for humans. It's a bunch of different reactions and rules we have for situations involving other humans and other social network sharers.

Morals determine how we address, communicate, approach, share, talk, listen, back off, avoid, default to another moral gateway such as a parent, priest or book.

Our morals are partly informed by our understanding of ourselves and others. Awareness of self and that others are individuals with feelings to helps inform us on how we should treat each other in a group setting.

=][= As for the idea that men are destructive and not capable of proper parental love, and woman are doves of love. This is confusing ones sex with ones socially assigned gender role.

Nature is quite capable of showing how loving and caring a mother animal is when a human gets between it and its young. If you get between a cow and its newborn calf you will be attacked. Try it with a mother bear and her cubs and its a Darwin Award for you.

As a male parent with children. I look after and love my kids. I took two months off work unpaid to help raise our youngest one this year when she was born to be with her and help my wife. There are house husbands who look after their kids and have wives that work.

Gender roles are little more then traditions that are generally applicable. Not all men are bad cooks or rugged explorers. Not all woman make good mums. Gender roles suffer more from stereotypes as there is a lot of confusion over what is nature or Nuture. Also what we forget is that most people switch roles effortlessly during their day say from husband to commuter, to worker to boss to subordinate to colleague to get fit particapent, to father. Each of these roles will have a varying degree of nature whilst most will have a lot of learned experience.

Gender is not 1:1 with our biological sex.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Dissagree

Gender roles are a case of best fit to role.

Men make better hunters and fighters on average - women make better child raisers and therefore homekeepers.

Aside from the obvious, that men don't get laid up during pregnancy, men are also bigger and stronger - and women are empathetic and better at multi-tasking. There are enough studies of people taking sex hormones that demonstrate this to be basic biological fact.

[Empire*Of*Media]

You mentioned gay and lesbians above, your argument only touches upon two men bringing up a child. What about two women, surely that would lead to some sort of super baby, going by your post?

i dont mean super child, just normal child, and you know, women are more smooth and have a natural strong feel to her child, i dont say for lesbians is good, but very better for a child that born with two gays !! i thank god i did not born in those un-natural & un-normal sick and so called Families !!


Just out of curiosity, what does the 'lesser' part of that statement mean?[/QUOTE]

i meant lesser, because in those times women did not have unlimited power and and they were more obedient, so we had very few lesbians in history, only limited to kings & emperors private palaces!

Dear Papewaio
your post was a very good & reasonable & logical !! thank you !

[Montmorency]

Gender roles are a case of best fit to role.

Yet you don't think that there remains room for optimization?

Whatever variation has existed along a certain continuum before the 20th century - that's the be-all end-all?

As it turns out, traditions do not persist because they tend to promote maximum possible efficiency, just as mega-corporations do not survive by their ability to deliver the best product at the fairest price.

[Beskar]

Urgh... the House of Lords are trying to pass an amendment to stop the Same Sex marriage bill.

I think the arguments for the positives of having unelected nincompoops past their prime just disappears.

Link

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yet you don't think that there remains room for optimization?

Whatever variation has existed along a certain continuum before the 20th century - that's the be-all end-all?

As it turns out, traditions do not persist because they tend to promote maximum possible efficiency, just as mega-corporations do not survive by their ability to deliver the best product at the fairest price.

You're talking about nuance - I'm talking broad strokes. There's a reason the latter stage of pregnancy is traditionally called "confinement".

People like to bring up cases like American Frontierswomen, who dropped the bairn one day and were back in the fields the next - they neglect the fact that these women were within sight of the house for most if not all of the pregnancy.

Why do female bodybuilders take testosterone?

Because it makes them more like men and therefore more able to build muscle.

Urgh... the House of Lords are trying to pass an amendment to stop the Same Sex marriage bill.

I think the arguments for the positives of having unelected nincompoops past their prime just disappears.

Link

The Bill is badly framed and shouldn't become Law - it's a fudge that basically changes "Civil Partnership" to "Marriage" without acknowledging problem like consummation and adultery.

A marriage isn't legal until its consummated, but there is no legal way for a same-sex couple to consummate.

That's a legal problem that has been blithely ignored, because the only solution is to abolish the practice of consummation and the right to annulment, but that won't happen because it requires a fundamental change to heterosexual marriage that would require actual recognition of the issues at hand.

[Beskar]

A marriage isn't legal until its consummated, but there is no legal way for a same-sex couple to consummate.

Usually involves one man on the bottom and the other behind him. However, there is some issue with lesbian couples in similar context without the aid of artificial means. Also depends on whether or not foreplay is classed as "sexual intercourse" or not.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Usually involves one man on the bottom and the other behind him. However, there is some issue with lesbian couples in similar context without the aid of artificial means. Also depends on whether or not foreplay is classed as "sexual intercourse" or not.

That's not consummation, legally speaking. Consummation is a specific legally act, not a merely sexual one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consummation

"Consummation or consummation of a marriage, in many traditions and statutes of civil or religious law, is the first (or first officially credited) act of sexual intercourse between two people, either following their marriage to each other or after a prolonged sexual attraction. Its legal significance arises from theories of marriage as having the purpose of producing legally recognized descendants of the partners, or of providing sanction to their sexual acts together, or both, and amounts to treating a marriage ceremony as falling short of completing the creation of the state of being married. Thus in some Western traditions, a marriage is not considered a binding contract until and unless it has been consummated."

Edit: The article even notes the discrepancy in the Bill - that same-sex marriage does not admit consummation.

Ergo, my understanding of the Law as it stands is accepted by parliament, yours is not.

[Papewaio]

The bit between the bolds is important:

", or of providing sanction to their sexual acts together,"

[Montmorency]

Thus in some Western traditions, a marriage is not considered a binding contract until and unless it has been consummated."

Remove this stricture immediately.

LEGALIZE ASEXUALITY

[Empire*Of*Media]

Remove this stricture immediately.

why you'd like to remove the truth ?!

[Fragony]

why you'd like to remove the truth ?!

It's simply not the truth. Gay-marriage is mostly a tax construction that gives gay-couples the same legal rights. If a homosexual couple can't benefit from tax breaks while they are both bringing in the same money is that fair. For marriage purists there also shouldn't be a problem as it's called 'gay marriage', not 'marriage'. Discrminating gay couples is a flaw in the law that needs fixing. How you think about it is up to you, I kinda agree with you actually somewhat on gender roles, but you don't have to to fully agree with things to aprove them imho

[Ironside]

You're talking about nuance - I'm talking broad strokes. There's a reason the latter stage of pregnancy is traditionally called "confinement".

People like to bring up cases like American Frontierswomen, who dropped the bairn one day and were back in the fields the next - they neglect the fact that these women were within sight of the house for most if not all of the pregnancy.

Why do female bodybuilders take testosterone?

Because it makes them more like men and therefore more able to build muscle.

The problem with broad strokes are that they are just that, broad strokes. My dad and I got a index-ringfinger length ratio assossiated with females and used to identify gender on children in archeology for example, yet any archeologist draving full conclusions on that wouldn't be worthy his title, since the ratio is about 70-30 at 1:1 fingerlength ratio.

Are such ratios common? Yes. Upper body strength difference is commonly refered to when it comes to gender differences and while it's much larger it's also the largest gender difference tested. That means that exceptions to the roles are quite common, rather than exceptional, meaning that it's much better to focus on the induvidual, rather than the gender average.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The bit between the bolds is important:

", or of providing sanction to their sexual acts together,"

But that's secondary as far as the Law is concerned.

If you disagree with that, then you need to admit the Law needs changing - not just re-labeling.

[PanzerJaeger]

That's not consummation, legally speaking. Consummation is a specific legally act, not a merely sexual one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consummation

"Consummation or consummation of a marriage, in many traditions and statutes of civil or religious law, is the first (or first officially credited) act of sexual intercourse between two people, either following their marriage to each other or after a prolonged sexual attraction. Its legal significance arises from theories of marriage as having the purpose of producing legally recognized descendants of the partners, or of providing sanction to their sexual acts together, or both, and amounts to treating a marriage ceremony as falling short of completing the creation of the state of being married. Thus in some Western traditions, a marriage is not considered a binding contract until and unless it has been consummated."

Edit: The article even notes the discrepancy in the Bill - that same-sex marriage does not admit consummation.

Ergo, my understanding of the Law as it stands is accepted by parliament, yours is not.

Interesting. Can you link to the definition of sexual intercourse in English common law? I cannot find it on my phone.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think all this talk about consummating the marriage and other legal technicalities is a bit silly. Ultimately this debate is about whether we view homosexual relationships as being just as natural, moral, and socially valuable as heterosexual ones - in other words, deserving to be brought under the title of 'marriage'. People can take their sides accordingly but this was never about what particular act is needed to consummate things.

TBH I just wish this issue would get resolved because all it is doing is fuelling hate on both sides. Plus, there's hundreds of way in which traditional marriage really is coming under attack, and gay marriage isn't really one of them. It's more an acknowledgement of existing trends, rather than a cause in and of itself.

Which doesn't mean I'm lax about it, I'm still dead against it, but I'm fed up with it, and I know what direction the march of history is heading in anyway.

[Beskar]

if you want "Traditional" Marriage. Separate it from the State. It is the only way you will win. Once it is separated from the state, it will fragment down to the individual religious institutions having their own rules for governing its use, restoring their various versions to the 'Proper way' with Ecclesiastical courts. (Don't forget they could prosecute you for Fornication before marriage as well!)

It is only getting destroyed because people want the state to enforce marriage and the people don't want those rules in regards to marriage.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

if you want "Traditional" Marriage. Separate it from the State. It is the only way you will win. Once it is separated from the state, it will fragment down to the individual religious institutions having their own rules for governing its use, restoring their various versions to the 'Proper way' with Ecclesiastical courts. (Don't forget they could prosecute you for Fornication before marriage as well!)

It is only getting destroyed because people want the state to enforce marriage and the people don't want those rules in regards to marriage.

Separating marriage (religious connect of persons) from legal union (civil contract) would be the ideal. But....that horse left the barn a few millennia ago.

The religious connection between persons and the state's right to tax and regulate it have always been conflated. Thus marriage is, in function, an aspect of a person's legal rights. With it connected to personal rights, it is inevitable that any person whose rights are denied or limited on some arbitrary basis (sex, race, sexual preference, etc.) that cannot be directly related to public safety will have been discriminated against. Courts and the Law must notice this...however slowly.

Same sex marriage will be a legally codified right in all 50 states within a decade or so -- as no other legal result is possible within the framework of our Constitution as written and amended (a constitutional amendment to restrict marriage by sex would change this, but I cannot conceive of such an amendment passing Congress, being signed by the President, AND acquiring the support of 35 state legislatures).

Unlike Lemur, I do construe that, having established the case for same-sex marriage on a "rights" level, the corollaries will include -- in time at least -- the legalization of any other form of "marriage" between consenting adults as well, be it same-sex, polyamorous, or communal. Once marriage is an individual's right, and therefore not to be restricted save where the individual is not competent to enter into such a contract (mental inability, legal minority) or where there exists a clear and present danger to other's rights or the safety of the public, no other result is truly tenable.

Lemur notes that, unlike same-sex marriage wherein the changes would be minimal aside from gender-neutralizing the language, significant practical hurdles would exist in establishing probate rules, tax code, and the like. However, given the byzantine complexity of probate rules and the tax code as is, I actually suspect that the lawyers and accountants would probably just enjoy adding more rules to the party. I do not foresee this practicality concern as something that will trump a "rights" argument under our Constitution.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Unlike Lemur, I do construe that, having established the case for same-sex marriage on a "rights" level, the corollaries will include -- in time at least -- the legalization of any other form of "marriage" between consenting adults as well, be it same-sex, polyamorous, or communal. Once marriage is an individual's right, and therefore not to be restricted save where the individual is not competent to enter into such a contract (mental inability, legal minority) or where there exists a clear and present danger to other's rights or the safety of the public, no other result is truly tenable.

Well it makes sense to consider it a right if you believe that individuals have the right to freely enter into mutually agreed upon contracts. That is what a marriage essentially is according to the government.

I disagree though that this expansion will open the flood gates for everything and everyone. The notion of marriage as being between two individuals is still holding strong because that was never challenged in the first place, only the notion that each of the sexes has to be represented among the two. I personally support same-sex marriage but would oppose marriages for greater than two people.

I think you can make the case that it is arbitrary to demand that a marriage contract must be between members of the opposite sex, but it is not arbitrary to demand that the contract can only have two signatures on it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well it makes sense to consider it a right if you believe that individuals have the right to freely enter into mutually agreed upon contracts. That is what a marriage essentially is according to the government.

I disagree though that this expansion will open the flood gates for everything and everyone. The notion of marriage as being between two individuals is still holding strong because that was never challenged in the first place, only the notion that each of the sexes has to be represented among the two. I personally support same-sex marriage but would oppose marriages for greater than two people.

I think you can make the case that it is arbitrary to demand that a marriage contract must be between members of the opposite sex, but it is not arbitrary to demand that the contract can only have two signatures on it.

I didn't say that such marriages would be common, or even have a lot of social acceptance, just that on a rights level they couldn't be denied. US culture actually sneers a bit at polygamous marriages, polyandrous marriages were cultural rarities world-wide, and communes (to the USA mindset) are free-love etc.

Again, I was making a rights argument here, not denying the comparative lack of popularity.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I didn't say that such marriages would be common, or even have a lot of social acceptance, just that on a rights level they couldn't be denied. US culture actually sneers a bit at polygamous marriages, polyandrous marriages were cultural rarities world-wide, and communes (to the USA mindset) are free-love etc.

Again, I was making a rights argument here, not denying the comparative lack of popularity.

I understand, which is why I stated I think you could make the case that holding the marriage contract to two individuals is not arbitrary. I should clarify what I am saying, I do not think "marriage rights" is going to be treated as a broad "individual rights" kind of thing but specifically relating to the rights and laws regarding contracts. There are many exceptions that can invalidate a contract and I don't see why it would be impossible for the government to conclude that marriage contracts are invalid if there is more than two individuals agreeing to it.