what would you say to her? : same sex marriage

[CptStern]

so at dinner tonight at the inlaws, my wife's cousin was there with her 3 kids ..somehow the topic got onto a wedding we had all been to that previous summer when one of the cousin's daughter (age 5) asked if the bridesmaid was married to a woman at the wedding (I guess she saw them togther) ...she asked her mom "are they married?", her mom responded "yes" and the daughter continued by asking "can 2 ladies get married", the mom replied "yes" which puzzled the girl till she asked "why?" ...at this point I was holding my breath (you never know how some people will react to issues around same sex marriage) ..the mom said:

"because they're in love, and sometimes when you're in love you want to show that you want to spend the rest of your lives together by getting married" ...the daughter after a few seconds of thought said:



"ok" and then went back to eating her dessert


why cant we all be as accepting as that little girl?

 

[The Dark Elf]

hehe awwww, there's hope for the human race yet

 

[CptStern]

I hope so

 

[Edcrab]

'Cos many of us have suffered prolonged exposure to religion-inspired ignorance and prejudice, and we're yet to develop an infallible antidote for osmosis-transferred stupidity.

Poor old Stern- your pure, utopian views will never be a reality in this twisted world of ours

 

[CptStern]

heheh ..I've been accused of being anti-american, anti-establishment and even ideologically cynical and morally bankrupt ...NEVER have I been described as "pure" :E

 

[Edcrab]

I'm feeling nice tonight, so there's obviously something wrong with me...

...I'll be right back after a long sleep and an extensive campaign of coffee-chugging and beer-swilling. Then I'll have regenerated my angst levels!

 

[clarky003]

I hope so

me three. The response is great , partly due to the fact that younger people havnt quite developed as keen a sense of identity, so certain egoic elements , feelings, lust and other factors dont influence their judgement as strongly because of their age.

its important to recognise that people should be totally accepting of same sex marriages, purely because you cant interrupt someones inclination of thought towards another person even if you think its not 'normal', especially if its out of love.

 

[seinfeldrules]

its important to recognise that people should be totally accepting of same sex marriages,

You're right. Anybody who dares hold an alternative opinion is surely subhuman.

 

[CptStern]

You're right. Anybody who dares hold an alternative opinion is surely subhuman.

I agree :E


so what would you have said to the little girl seinfeldrules?

 

[satch919]

There is a lot that can be learned from children. When you're young, you don't hate any one particular race, gender, religion, etc. The hate and such is learned from the parents.

The children obviously don't see anything wrong with someone being black, asian, white, hispanic, so why should we?

 

[seinfeldrules]

so what would you have said to the little girl seinfeldrules?

I would have said that they are pursuing their love through a unique tradition known as a Civil Union, just as heterosexuals pursue their love through a unique tradition known as Marriage.

I agree

Oh, what a 'pure' man you are

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Civil unions with the same legal rights as far as that stuff goes I support. Marriage has always been vested in tradition between a man and a woman, that's why the term can't apply for gay unions.

 

[CptStern]

I would have said that they are pursuing their love through a unique tradition known as a Civil Union, just as heterosexuals pursue their love through a unique tradition known as Marriage.

you lost her at "pursuing" ..she's 5 years old ..oh and she wont understand "civil union" or "heterosexual" either

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

you lost her at "pursuing" ..she's 5 years old ..oh and she wont understand "civil union" or "heterosexual" either

"No they have a civil union"

"what's that?"


"Marriage is for a girl and a boy and a union is for two boys or for two girls"

"Why do they have a union?"

"-insert thing about how they love each other the mom told her-"

 

[seinfeldrules]

you lost her at "pursuing" ..she's 5 years old ..oh and she wont understand "civil union" or "heterosexual" either

On this board we are, hopefully, mature enough to understand a few lines that would have taken me a paragraph to outline in 'child talk'. Come on now stern.

 

[CptStern]

"No they have a civil union"

"what's that?"


"Marriage is for a girl and a boy and a union is for two boys or for two girls"

"Why do they have a union?"

"-insert thing about how they love each other the mom told her-"

they live in canada, same sex marriage is legal in her province

 

[CptStern]

On this board we are, hopefully, mature enough to understand a few lines that would have taken me a paragraph to outline in 'child talk'. Come on now stern.

come on seinfeldrules, cant you dumb down your language so that a 5 year old can undersatnd? what would you have said to her?

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

they live in canada, same sex marriage is legal in her province

Then whatever she said fits fine doesn't it? I thought you meant to explain it as if it were here since what she said fits for where she lives.

 

[taeil234]

I hope everyone knows marriage was started as a form of property rights. It was a basically started as a way for women to become the property of her husband. OR should I say a way for the husband to gain HIS wife as property. Either way, marriage started out as a bunch of crock. People find it sooooooo important. It's a ****ing piece of paper that two people sign big whoop. People battle this legally and it won't stop any weddings from happening will it? So much emphasis on a piece of paper that may or may not become void. Now I don't know about these legal rights. But I don't think married couples should get benefits or get penalized for it either by the government. The divorce rate is 50 percent last time I checked? Marriage is dead guys.

 

[CptStern]

Then whatever she said fits fine doesn't it? I thought you meant to explain it as if it were here since what she said fits for where she lives.

ok sorry, I got a little sidetracked ..so your decision stands? you'd say .."no they're not married, they were wed in a civil union" ..so in other words you are teaching her that it's ok to differentiate people according to what gender they are?

 

[seinfeldrules]

come on seinfeldrules, cant you dumb down your language so that a 5 year old can undersatnd? what would you have said to her?

I would have said that they are pursuing their love through a unique (special, kinda like the power rangers) tradition (kinda like your birthday) known as a Civil Union (a man/woman being joined with another man/woman), just as heterosexuals (a man, daddy, loving a woman, mommy) pursue their love through a unique tradition known as Marriage (man joining with woman).

 

[CptStern]

"but why is it different?"

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

ok sorry, I got a little sidetracked ..so your decision stands? you'd say .."no they're not married, they were wed in a civil union" ..so in other words you are teaching her that it's ok to differentiate people according to what gender they are?

Teaching her to differentiate the type of legal bond. I don't think gender applies because man and woman wed each other, and gays/lesbians can have their own thing too. They have the exact same rights and can do the same things at the same places and everything.

"but why is it different?"

Because they can't make babies together.

Then this leads to the entire .. how babies are made explanation, yadda yadda.

 

[seinfeldrules]

"but why is it different?"

Because, just like a man is different than a woman, a marriage is different than a civil union. They are two unique traditions to define unique relationships.

 

[CptStern]

Teaching her to differentiate the type of legal bond.

yes but dont you see? it's a law that would be only applicable in those circumstances ..it's the same as trying to explain to a child why a black person during segregation couldnt use the same toilet, or go to the same schools as white people

I don't think gender applies because man and woman wed each other, and gays/lesbians can have their own thing too.

"seperate but equal" ...as parents/teachers/brothers/sisters we've always been taught (at least I have) that everybody is equal ...wouldnt that confuse a 5 yr old?

They have the exact same rights and can do the same things at the same places and everything.

but they cant call it "marriage" ...that's not the same rights

 

[CptStern]

Because, just like a man is different than a woman, a marriage is different than a civil union.

that's not a fair comparison. Men and women are different because of physicality, marriage and civil union are man made institutions

 

[seinfeldrules]

that's not a fair comparison. Men and women are different because of physicality, marriage and civil union are man made institutions

A man joining a woman is different than a man joining a man.

 

[CptStern]

A man joining a woman is different than a man joining a man.

so it's based on gender?

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

yes but dont you see? it's a law that would be only applicable in those circumstances ..it's the same as trying to explain to a child why a black person during segregation couldnt use the same toilet, or go to the same schools as white people

That comparison would apply if the couples in each legal bond had seperate things that had to be done. In my opinion, it should pretty much all be called civil union. It'd solve all the problems. Marriage is a religious term and should stay that way, the state just takes care of the legal stuff (Pertaining to finances and wills mostly, that's the issue)

"seperate but equal" ...as parents/teachers/brothers/sisters we've always been taught (at least I have) that everybody is equal ...wouldnt that confuse a 5 yr old?

They are different though. I mean that factually, as one is with two of the same sex, and one is two sexes.

but they cant call it "marriage" ...that's not the same rights

They can call it whatever they want. On legal papers it's civil union. People themselves are still going to say whatever they please, husband and wife, life partner, whatever.

 

[CptStern]

That comparison would apply if the couples in each legal bond had seperate things that had to be done. In my opinion, it should pretty much all be called civil union. It'd solve all the problems. Marriage is a religious term and should stay that way,

no it's not ..I'm married and it wasnt in a church

They are different though. I mean that factually, as one is with two of the same sex, and one is two sexes.

so they're different because of their choice?

They can call it whatever they want. On legal papers it's civil union. People themselves are still going to say whatever they please, husband and wife, life partner, whatever.

but they still cant call it marriege ..in other words they cant have the same rights as straight people because of their choice in lifestyles

 

[CREMATOR666]

Two woman marrying I can accept....but two guys marrying is just outright scary

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

no it's not ..I'm married and it wasnt in a church

That's what I'm saying. In my eyes and opinion, you have a legal union but you're not bonded in holy matrinomy. What I'm saying is, marriage has been always a religious term, the states should dole out civil unions to any two consenting people of legal age seeking a bond. I'm saying the state itself shouldn't call anything marriage. That would solve a lot of problems.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

Two woman marrying I can accept....but two guys marrying is just outright scary

That's even more ignorant then outright being against it all together.

 

[GhostFox]

I read a very interesting article the other day, saying that basically marrige should be divided 3 ways. If I remember it correctly there would be Marriage (M+F) Murriage (M+M) and Mirriage (F+F).

The reason for this is to apply correct legal attachments to the different unions. For example, statistically men pay the most into CPP/Social Security/Insert Govt. Retirement Plan Here. They also draw the least from it. Women however pay the least and draw the most. So in a marriage, you have a balance (using made-up numbers) - Man pays in 75, draws out 25. Woman pays in 25, draws out 75. Total = Balance. However if you were to allow same-sex unions to be classified as "marriage" then in the case of a MM union, combined they would pay in 150, and would only draw back 50. Total = -100. They would get screwed. And in a FF marriage, combined they would pay in 50, and draw back 150. Total = +100. They make out.

So the idea of applying the exact legal definition of "marriage" to same sex couples is falacious to begin with. They shouldn't have the exact same rights, becuase those rights were designed with a MF relationship in mind. Instead new terms should be designated for each type of union, with specific legal standings for each of them.

This is the correct way to protect all involved. I fully support gay rights, and after reading the article I am convinced this is the only way to do it.

 

[GhostFox]

THe whole religious issue is contentious as well. If gay "marriage" is legalized, I cannot see how religious orginizations will be allowed to not perform weddings. I know that supposed guarentees will be part of the legislation, but I don't know if they will hold up in court. Think of it this way. Replace the word "black" for "gay" in a mock refusal for marrige by any clergyman.

"Black people are an abomination. Black people don't deserve the right to marry. God hates black people. Black people are all going to hell. I hate sinners and black people are the worst sinners there are. I hate black people and God will smite me down before I marry any of those devil-spawned black people."

Now if this was actually said to a black couple, there would be a huge lawsuit, which they would win. Of course clergymen only have to marry who they want to, but if their sole disclusion is race, they better enjoy selling off their church to cover litigation.

So how is it that if the sole disclusion is sexual preference, said clergymen will get away with it? They might for awhile, but eventually a gay couple would sue and win, thus opening the flood gates.

On a side note, I think that if gay marriage is legalized, all unions between consenting adults must be. Polygamus, Incestuous, it doesn't matter. Any argument against those has been tossed out the window by the sucessful gay marriage argument.

Not that I am against gay marriage. Or any other kind of marriage between consenting adults. I don't care what people want to do. But I think people need to understand what the consequences will be.

 

[gh0st]

I would have told her that if they let 2 girls and 2 boys get married that you might as well let people marry goats. It is, after all, love. Then dessert would have continued, and one more person would understand that the blind ignorance of a 5 year old doesnt quantify logic what so ever.

 

[bliink]

Two woman marrying I can accept....but two guys marrying is just outright scary

jeez.. thinking with the wrong head, mate

 

[HunterSeeker]

I would have told her that if they let 2 girls and 2 boys get married that you might as well let people marry goats. It is, after all, love. Then dessert would have continued, and one more person would understand that the blind ignorance of a 5 year old doesnt quantify logic what so ever.

But the goat is not smart enough to be able to agree to a marriage, so they cant.

 

[Sieg]

Then how do goats get merried to goats?

 

[Edcrab]

They don't. They go behind a tree and indulge in their urges, the filthy animals.

Remember folks, gay people cleary aren't sentient- so screw that consent rubbish! There's something wrong with them, so clearly they can't feel love or normal emotions!

Man, this debate has been around a while... I still don't care what they call the process as long as they're allowed to marry. GhostFox raised an interesting point: because, to me, marriage is an awful financial decision rather than a proper declaration of one person's feelings for another, and thus I really don't care about the classification. I can understand either end of the spectrum.

Plus, aren't people already managing to legally marry inanimate objects and animals in some places? Makes the idea of a couple of men eloping sound mundane.