what would you say to her? : same sex marriage

[Razor]

I bet if it was illegal for black men to marry, this whole conversation would be extremely one sided, or if it was Chinese people who couldn't get married, again very one sided. As it's gay men, they're are actually people who will openly call it bad and make up crap.

Why is it that people always have to hate someone, first it's women, then it's black people, then it was communists, now it's gay people, who is next?

 

[CREMATOR666]

jeez.. thinking with the wrong head, mate

I am biased, no doubt in that!

 

[CptStern]

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.

my wife seems to think we're married and not a civil union ..if marriage is solely a religious institution then most people's marriage wouldnt be recognized according to what faith you subscribe to. So a christain wouldnt recognize a buddhist ceremony and vice versa? BTW the United Church of canada allows same-sex marriage; if a religious institution allows it then that's enough of a basis to call it "marriage"

personally speaking why would it matter to you what someone else does with their life? just curious

 

[CptStern]

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.

well what if a person was disabled? I mean they would definately draw more out of social security than say a "normal" male or a female ..should we have a seperate law?

this is about human rights, all other issues take a back seat

and I dont buy that polgamy argument the conservative/religious right have been using this scare tactic for years ..it doesnt even apply here, because they have absolutely nothing to do with each other. From a legal standpoint one involves the question of whether or not monogamy is only for heterosexuals, the other whether or not monogamy itself is permissible ..so allowing one does not open the doors to the other

 

[RZAL]

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.

Have you ever heard the phrase “horny as a three peckered goat”?

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

That’s why goats are horny.

Animals that do mate for life, mate with the opposite sex.

Love in nature: Some animals mate for life
Dr. Kevin Wright
The Pet Doctor
Feb. 12, 2005 12:00 AM
QUESTION: Do animals fall in love?

ANSWER: "Being in love" is one of those states of being that is extremely difficult to define. When you're in it, you know what it is, but if you're not, it is a puzzling thing to comprehend. There are some animals that are monogamous and mate for life. Maybe that's as good a definition as is possible for whether animals fall in love.

First up on the list is the rather dumpy-looking shingleback skink from Australia. Resembling a pair of unopened pinecones that are stuck end to end and splattered with brown and yellow paint, this lizard roams the wilderness alone most of the year. As the shift in daylight hours and rising temperatures cue the shingleback skink that spring is here, it will seek its mate. The same pair of lizards end up together year after year, mating and sharing hideaways together, and then going their separate ways once the mating season is over. Long-term studies have shown that the same male and female pairs have lasted for eight years and longer, with the average length of these monogamous relationships lasting longer than the average American marriage. Maybe there is something to be said about taking separate vacations as a way to keep love alive

Gorillas are monogamous, too. At least the adult females are. A troop of gorillas is led by an adult male, called a silverback, as the fur on his back turns silvery with maturity. The silverback has a harem of females and defends them against other males. Although he has multiple partners, the female gorilla mates only with him, until a younger, stronger gorilla comes along and takes over the family.

A little closer to home, the highly endangered whooping crane mates for life. A whooping crane becomes reproductively mature around age 5. Through a complicated courtship dance, a pair of whooping cranes bond and then mate. In a typical year, each pair of cranes raises only a single chick, so their population does not grow very fast. This low reproductive rate is one reason that monogamy makes sense for the cranes - having two parents working together is more likely to raise a chick than one parent working alone. Furthermore, as the cranes become familiar with each other, their skills as parents improve, giving them more incentive to stay together the next year. Partners for life, the typical whooping crane pair may stay together 10 to 15 years. If one crane dies, the other will move on with its life and try to woo a new partner.

I think the range of animal emotions is very similar to humans'. I can't say for certain that this emotion is felt by all kinds of animals, but I think a few feel something we would call love, if we truly could feel what they are feeling.

Wright is director of conservation, science and sanctuary at the Phoenix Zoo.


http://www.azcentral.com/home/columns/articles/0212petdoc0212.html

 

[Absinthe]

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.

That's a very dumb argument. The goat is incapable of giving consent.

Will you kindly allow me to view your post as a thinly veiled comparison of homosexuality to beastiality?

 

[jondy]

What does gay marriage have to do with any of you, unless you're gay? How does it affect you?

Loaded question, but I'm genuinely interested.

 

[Bodacious]

CptStern, clean out your inbox, please.

 

[CptStern]

heheh just did

seems to happen a lot to me

 

[Absinthe]

What does gay marriage have to do with any of you, unless you're gay? How does it affect you?

Loaded question, but I'm genuinely interested.

What does the subhuman treatment of blacks have to do with any of you, unless you're black? How does it affect you?

 

[Razor]

What does gay marriage have to do with any of you, unless you're gay? How does it affect you?

Loaded question, but I'm genuinely interested.

When someone is being oppressed and treated badly by the ruling, leaders, it is the responsibility of everyone to stand up and say something, not just gay people.

 

[CptStern]

I think that was his point ...I could be wrong though

 

[Bodacious]

What does the subhuman treatment of blacks have to do with any of you, unless you're black? How does it affect you?

*NOTE, THERE IS A DISCLAIMER TO THIS POST, PLEASE READ IT BEFORE FLAMING ME*

Being gay is different than being black, though. Black people have no choice, they were born that way. There are those that hold the idea that homosexuals do have a choice, that they make a conscious decision to be gay or not. Until that belief is eliminated then blacks being oppressed will never be the same as gays being oppressed.

*DISCLAIMER*

I am not going to argue if gays make the choice to be gay or not. The issue is highley debatable. There are people with views on either side of the spectrum and those view have to be respected.

Personally, I am torn on this issue. On one hand, there is a group of people who are oppressed and morally I say to myself that their oppression is wrong. On the other hand I believe these people do make the choice and they are dysfunctional to a degree (I make no distinction between homosexuality, beastialty, necrophelia, pedophilia, etc). So the issue I take is that I should respect people's individualtiy and their choices. It is not my place to tell them how to live. If they choose to fight for rights then so be it, more power to them, that is what makes America great, the power of the people to get what they want from lawmakers. However, as it stands, they are losing. More and more states are abolishing gay marriage.

 

[jondy]

Razor, Absinthe, you misunderstand me

What I meant to be inferred was: why do people not want gays to marry? What has it got to do with them? :|

Bodacious, you make no distinction between homosexuality and beastiality?

 

[Razor]

Razor, Absinthe, you misunderstand me

What I meant to be inferred was: why do people not want gays to marry? What has it got to do with them? :|

Bodacious, you make no distinction between homosexuality and beastiality?

Sorry, got it the wrong way round.

 

[jondy]

No worries, in retrospect it's easy to see how.

 

[seinfeldrules]

so it's based on gender?

No, they are two seperate institutions. You differentiate between a 'man' and a 'woman' dont you?

 

[Pericolos0]

but they cant say that 'theyre married' right? that sortoff sucks as the word has a strong emotional connotation. I say expand the meaning of the word.

 

[CptStern]

No, they are two seperate institutions.

the only difference is this:

civil union:

a legally recognized and voluntary union of adult parties of the same sex

marriage:

The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.



I agree ....seperate but equal .....no other way of looking at it but as legalised discrimination

 

[seinfeldrules]

It isnt discrimination, but differentiation. Just as we hold different words to distinguish between a man and a woman.

 

[CptStern]

It isnt discrimination, but differentiation. Just as we hold different words to distinguish between a man and a woman.

was segregation "differentiation" or discrimination ..it's exactly the same scenario

 

[PvtRyan]

I am not going to argue if gays make the choice to be gay or not. The issue is highley debatable. There are people with views on either side of the spectrum and those view have to be respected.

I'm pretty sure the gay population is overwhelmingly with the "you're born with it" side, and who would know best right? But no, some people will state it's clearly their choice to be gay.

 

[Bodacious]

I'm pretty sure the gay population is overwhelmingly with the "you're born with it" side, and who would know best right? But no, some people will state it's clearly their choice to be gay.

You have to take the other side's argument into account as well. According to the opposition of gay rights the people are sick, they have a disease, just like necropheliacs and pedophiles have a disease. If a pedophile believes what he is doing is right they believe they were born that way, does that make what he does ok?

Note, I am not arguing for the anti-gay side, I am simply making you aware of their position. As I have said, it is not my place to dictate how another person shou ld live their life.

 

[GhostFox]

and I dont buy that polgamy argument the conservative/religious right have been using this scare tactic for years ..it doesnt even apply here, because they have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Of course it does. The only reason for polygamy to be illegal is for "moral" reasons. The same applies to gay marriage. If you make gay marriage legal, then you lose your argument on why polygamy should be illegal. There is no way the illegality of polugamy will stand once gay marriage is legalized. And it shouldn't. If it is legal for gays to marry (and I fully support that) then it should be legal for any consenting adult to marry any other consenting adult(s). Anything else is pure hypocrisy.

 

[GhostFox]

You have to take the other side's argument into account as well. According to the opposition of gay rights the people are sick, they have a disease, just like necropheliacs and pedophiles have a disease

However in this case the other side is plain stupid. There is no scientific argument that homosexuality is a choice. Scientists recently discovered a group of genes that they believe when are all turned on, the person will be gay. Part of the reason this hasn't been completely nailed down sooner is that in the past they have always looked for a specific "gay" gene. They never thought to look at multiple genes working together to make someone gay until recently.

 

[CptStern]

Of course it does. The only reason for polygamy to be illegal is for "moral" reasons. The same applies to gay marriage. If you make gay marriage legal, then you lose your argument on why polygamy should be illegal. There is no way the illegality of polugamy will stand once gay marriage is legalized. And it shouldn't. If it is legal for gays to marry (and I fully support that) then it should be legal for any consenting adult to marry any other consenting adult(s). Anything else is pure hypocrisy.

no, you've been lapping up too much bush/harper/religious right propaganda ...polygamy and same sex marriage are 2 different sets of laws:

From a legal standpoint one involves the question of whether or not monogamy is only for heterosexuals, the other whether or not monogamy itself is permissible ..so allowing one does not open the doors to the other

 

[GhostFox]

polygamy and same sex marriage are 2 different sets of laws

Realistically they are not. Gay marrige and Polygamy are both "moral" issues. If you dismiss the moral argument for one, then it will not stand up for the other. Polygamy will be challenged in court and won very shortly after gay marrige is legalized. There is no rational way around it. It would be the height of hypocrisy to say that a man can marry a woman or a man, and that's ok, but a man marrying two woman is just morally wrong.

How is polygamy not a human rights issue for you anyway? Should a person have the right to marry whomever they wish? I don't think you can make a legal argument against incest between consenting adults either.

 

[CptStern]

Realistically they are not. Gay marrige and Polygamy are both "moral" issues. If you dismiss the moral argument for one, then it will not stand up for the other. Polygamy will be challenged in court and won very shortly after gay marrige is legalized. There is no rational way around it. It would be the height of hypocrisy to say that a man can marry a woman or a man, and that's ok, but a man marrying two woman is just morally wrong.

How is polygamy not a human rights issue for you anyway? Should a person have the right to marry whomever they wish? I don't think you can make a legal argument against incest between consenting adults either.

The courts dont see polygamy and same-sex marriage as being the same ...so your point is moot

 

[GhostFox]

the courts dont rely on "morality" just facts.

What world do you live in? The entire criminal code is based off of a christian-moral code. Morality has been the reason for gay marrige to be illegal all these years.

And I agree that it is silly and gay marrige should be legal. So should polygamy. I just think people need to understand that it is a cascading effect. I think people should know the truth about issues before deciding, instead of trying to pass it off as a conservative scare tactic.

You support gay marrige? Great. So do I. But anyone who says that should also say that they support any consenting adults marrying, or they are just being hypocrites.

 

[CptStern]

"The courts dont see polygamy and same-sex marriage as being the same ...so your point is moot"

 

[KoreBolteR]

cmon guys, is this discussion going to stop people being gay? no.

personally i think people should be allowed whatever they want .

 

[GhostFox]

Are you a supreme court justice? Because unless you know something I don't, the legal experts I have heard speak say that there is little or no chance of polygamy remaining illegal once gay marriage is legalized. Just because you think they are seperate issues, doesn't mean that will hold up in court.

 

[CptStern]

Are you a supreme court justice? Because unless you know something I don't, the legal experts I have heard speak say that there is little or no chance of polygamy remaining illegal once gay marriage is legalized. Just because you think they are seperate issues, doesn't mean that will hold up in court.

yes it will


“We don’t see any connection, I repeat, any connection between the issue of polygamy and the issue of same-sex marriage."

Justice Minister Irwin Cotler

 

[GhostFox]

And you honestly believe that?

Stern, let me ask you. Do you support polygamy? If you don't what grounds do you not support it on when you clearly support gay marrige?

 

[CptStern]

who says I dont?

 

[GhostFox]

I am asking if you do.

 

[CptStern]

it has nothing to do with the current issue, as I've already proved ...I dont have to justify anything to you

 

[gh0st]

That's a very dumb argument. The goat is incapable of giving consent.

Will you kindly allow me to view your post as a thinly veiled comparison of homosexuality to beastiality?

I'd say that in terms of having a point, it makes way more sense than gay marriage. Why not allow goats to marry humans. Can you tell if a goat loves somebody? No? My dog loves me, I can tell because whenever I come home he barks around and licks me. Why shouldnt I be allowed to marry him? He loves me, and I love him. So no, its not a dumb argument, you cant handle the argument. Love has nothing to do with gay marriage, its gay people wanting the RIGHT to marry, and its all very childish.

You can view it however you want.

 

[CptStern]

sigh ....so many ways to shred your argument ...but then again you've already done a good job of shredding it yourself, so I dont have to bother ...ummm thanks?

 

[GhostFox]

it has nothing to do with the current issue, as I've already proved ...I dont have to justify anything to you

It has everything to do with the current issue. The real question is why can't you admit that you don't support polygamus marriages, but you admit that you do support gay marriages. Is it that you know it is hypocritical?