marriage

[Peter Pan]

Howdy all,

There is an issue in the political arena currently that I don’t understand. I will start by introducing myself and then my stance on this issue.

I am a fair minded American republican. I am not gay or a gay activist even, but the issue of gay marriage is baffling to me. I say let them get married and share the same freedoms and benefits that straight couples have.

What I gather from polls, is that my stance on this issue is in the minority. Yet, I have never met someone who was able to explain to me the other side of the ball.

Please respond if you are on either side of the issue at hand. I will reserve my own thoughts until a debate has begun.

Chad

[jimmy p]

hmmm the only thing i can think of is that the act of marriage is traditionally i religious thing. Probably still is. Anyway, in Christianity, homosexuality is abhorred and is classed as sinful (i think) so in the eyes of the church, homosexuality is blasphemy and to allow it to continue into marriage would be EXTREMELY blasphemous. I may be wrong...

[Peter Pan]

Jimmy, are you opposed to gay marriage? Just want to know.

[master_coda]

The only argument people really seem to have is that marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman.

Of course, "tradition" is just an argument people fall back on when they don't have a good reason to oppose something. "That's the way it's always been" isn't much of an argument.


All the other arugments are based on the assumption that homosexuals are immoral. Since I haven't seen a good argument for that either, I wouldn't give those arguments much consideration.

[Peter Pan]

My thoughts exactly. It just drives me crazy that fair minded people are not in a majoritly in this country

[Evo]

It's about time. Now gay & lesbian partner's can gain the same benefits reserved only for married couples. Also, now they will have the same legal divorce battles.

[Kerrie]

those who have issues with gay marriage are in a round-about way are inflicting their morals on others...gay marriage does not hurt another person, that is how it should be looked at...

[LURCH]

I think Jimmy has the right of it, it's mostly a matter of marriage being a "relious institution".

Originally posted by master_coda
The only argument people really seem to have is that marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman.

Of course, "tradition" is just an argument people fall back on when they don't have a good reason to oppose something. "That's the way it's always been" isn't much of an argument.

Here I disagree somewhat. I think that tradition is as valid a reason as any if the act in question is nothing but "tradition" to begin with. After all, why do people get married at all? Tradition.

I think that it is at this point that one must remember the difference between the religious cerimony and the legal status recognised by the sate. Seperation of church and state demands that the state cannot force the church to recognise a gay couple as "married in the eyes of God", but niether can the Church dictate their legal status. Just as the Church cannot dictate how two cohabitating women can file their tax returns, so the state cannot order the Church to perform the wedding cerimony between them.

It is here that one's definition of "married" comes into play. If, as has been said earlier in this Topic, it is an issue of getting all the same "benifits reserved only for married couples" (and I assume we're talking legal benifits here), then it should be enough for the gay community that the state recognises them and affords them thjose rigths. If people begin to protest the Church for refusing to recognise such a relationship as "marriage" in the relious sence, then it will be obvious that the gaining of rights was not the real motive here.

If I insisit that I be allowed to live my life as I choose (so long as I'm not harming anyone), then I am fighting for my rights. If I insist that others approve of my lifestyle, even though it runs contrary to their beliefs, then I become the oppresor, the bigot who cannot suffer anyone to think thoughts that are opposed to my own view. This is a pitfall for both sides.

[master_coda]

Originally posted by LURCH
Here I disagree somewhat. I think that tradition is as valid a reason as any if the act in question is nothing but "tradition" to begin with. After all, why do people get married at all? Tradition.

Anyone who gets married just because of tradition is a fool. If you have good reasons other than tradition to get married, then you don't need tradition to back you up, you have good reasons. On the other hand, if the best reason two people can think of to get married is tradition, they should reconsider before making such a major decision for such a frivolous reason.


Originally posted by LURCH
I think that it is at this point that one must remember the difference between the religious cerimony and the legal status recognised by the sate. Seperation of church and state demands that the state cannot force the church to recognise a gay couple as "married in the eyes of God", but niether can the Church dictate their legal status. Just as the Church cannot dictate how two cohabitating women can file their tax returns, so the state cannot order the Church to perform the wedding cerimony between them.

It is here that one's definition of "married" comes into play. If, as has been said earlier in this Topic, it is an issue of getting all the same "benifits reserved only for married couples" (and I assume we're talking legal benifits here), then it should be enough for the gay community that the state recognises them and affords them thjose rigths. If people begin to protest the Church for refusing to recognise such a relationship as "marriage" in the relious sence, then it will be obvious that the gaining of rights was not the real motive here.

If I insisit that I be allowed to live my life as I choose (so long as I'm not harming anyone), then I am fighting for my rights. If I insist that others approve of my lifestyle, even though it runs contrary to their beliefs, then I become the oppresor, the bigot who cannot suffer anyone to think thoughts that are opposed to my own view. This is a pitfall for both sides.

This is a good point, but has little to do with the current issue of gay marriage. Obviously, churches should not be forced to carry out marriages if they don't want to. But that's hardly what's on the table.

I would also contend that marriage is not intrinsically a religous institution. Churches make their own versions of marriage that incorporate religion, but the core concepts of marriage have little to do with religion.

Also, saying that we cannot force others to accept a point of view without violating their rights is rather vague. What does it mean for someone to "accept"? I've seen it argued that by even just allowing gay civil unions, Christians are being forced to implicitly accept homosexuality and so their rights are being violated.

[Phobos]

With the birth of Gay Marriage, we will soon have the Gay Divorcee (1934...Fred Astaire...Ginger Rogers...never mind [:)] )

[Zero]

Originally posted by LURCH


If I insisit that I be allowed to live my life as I choose (so long as I'm not harming anyone), then I am fighting for my rights. If I insist that others approve of my lifestyle, even though it runs contrary to their beliefs, then I become the oppresor, the bigot who cannot suffer anyone to think thoughts that are opposed to my own view. This is a pitfall for both sides. I don't understand what this means, even though I have heard this argument before. Who is forcing straight people to 'approve' of homosexuality?

[jimmy p]

I am not against Gay marriage...in fact i believe that marriage in general is a little old fashioned!! [:D]

[Peter Pan]

I would disagree that marriage is strictly a religious thing. Marriage has been around since before the time of Christ. Ancient Egyptians were wed, Indians have dowries, the Japanese, a culture historically void of religion, take wives. All these different cultures have different marriage ceremonies.


If I insist that others approve of my lifestyle, even though it runs contrary to their beliefs, then I become the oppresor, the bigot who cannot suffer anyone to think thoughts that are opposed to my own view

Dr. MLK insisted people approve of his skin color. I think gays can do the same. Some equalities are natural to fight for. The equal treatment of gays I believe falls under that category. We should not only be tolerant of their lifestyle, but accept it.

[Monique]

Originally posted by LURCH
[B]I think Jimmy has the right of it, it's mostly a matter of marriage being a "relious institution". Is it? Maybe in the US, but certainly not everywhere. And who says that marriages can only take place in a church? The state also performs marriages, which have the same legal status. It is thus logic that the state shouldn't discriminate and allow both homo- and heterosexual marriages.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Kerrie
those who have issues with gay marriage are in a round-about way are inflicting their morals on others... Don't kid yourself - thats what all laws are about.

And religion - this is an issue where there are both legal and religious/moral implications. That makes it a real toughie for the government to deal with. But it has to have a position.

Polygamy anyone?

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters


Polygamy anyone? Sure...for the kids, of course!

[Peter Pan]

Polygamy anyone?

You just pointed out my only reservation for supporting gay marriage. Where should the line be drawn? If gays can be married, then why can’t a man take more than one wife.

I don’t actually know any polygamist, but from what I have read, the communities are not very mentally healthy. Women seem forced into polygamist marriages.

[Monique]

So that is why democracy was invented :)

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by jimmy p
hmmm the only thing i can think of is that the act of marriage is traditionally i religious thing. Probably still is. Anyway, in Christianity, homosexuality is abhorred and is classed as sinful (i think) so in the eyes of the church, homosexuality is blasphemy and to allow it to continue into marriage would be EXTREMELY blasphemous. I may be wrong...


In some christian churches. But then again forty years ago interracial marriage was looked at as an abomination. And they came up with Bible verses to support their cause.

But there are churches, christian churches that not only support the gay community, but perform gay marriages.

So to the people who don't support gay marriages, why should the government only recognize marriages from bigoted churches and not progressive churches?

And to the people who think allowing gays to marry is an infringement on your right to be a homophobe- I think bigotry is an abomination and morally reprehensible, but you don't see me telling you that you can't get married, do you?

[jimmy p]

....still thinking that marriage is old-fashioned...

Anyway when i said religious i didnt JUST mean christian and in the US, its just that i happen to know the christian side of things because i live in a christian country (not the US!). I dont care who gets married to what!

Polygamy....no thanks, some people say bigomy is one wife too many. Then again, most men say that about monogomy!! [:D]

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Tell you what, I'll offer you a trade, I'll read this thread, you read the one below...enjoy!
Church V state (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=4924&highlight=church+and+state)

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Marriage is a "structured ritual"....so is religion, they make a natural pair, and have, from long past.

Just watched a news report on 'Gay week' at Whistler B.C. (I don't recall if it is called 'exactly' that, but it is what is happening there, as tourism, so....) and that that was exactly why one of the couples had come there, from Virginia, to get married...now, legally, they are not married, in Virginia, hence what they are really looking for is the "Right to the Rite"/Ritual" (???)

[Nereid]

How about polyandry?

Though rich and varied, the many thousands of cultures that our dear cousins have developed over thousands of years follow, on average, the sociobiological rules which E. O. Wilson began to explore before he was attacked give a pretty good framework for understanding the Pavlovian responses of the religious right (or is it Right?) in the US.

Forget not the words of forensic accountants - follow the money. If 'the state' would now have to give social security payments to the survivor in a gay marriage, wouldn't that make it even more difficult for Snow to continue doing his snow job?

[Dissident Dan]

Well, I think that marriage has more history being polygamous than monogamous, so then monogamous marriage goes against tradition, so it should be outlawed. Oh, what's that? Society has changed, you say? Well, it's time for society to change again. It's time to cast away yet another unjustified restriction.

master_coda had it right when he said that "tradition" is just a non-argument that you fall back on when you have no real substance to back up your position.

Chemcialsuperfreak made an excellent point when he noted that interracial marriage used to be taboo.

Some say that society should define marriage, and then they appeal to democratic ideals. We live in a Constitutional country, and that's good. That makes it a lot harder for a majority to take away the rights and priveleges of a minority.

There is absolutely no justified reason for opposing homosexual marriage. There is nothing immoral about homosexuality.

The religious right should want homosexual marriage in order to promote monogamous relationships, right?

As far as polygamy goes, as long as it goes both ways and is not used as a tool for one sex to dominate the other, I have no problem with it.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Peter Pan
You just pointed out my only reservation for supporting gay marriage. Where should the line be drawn? If gays can be married, then why can’t a man take more than one wife.

I don’t actually know any polygamist, but from what I have read, the communities are not very mentally healthy. Women seem forced into polygamist marriages. Who says it isn't two men and a woman? Three guys, two chicks, and 5 frigging incomes coming into one big house...and think of the children!! 10 grandparents!!

[Peter Pan]

Who says it isn't two men and a woman? Three guys, two chicks, and 5 frigging incomes coming into one big house...and think of the children!! 10 grandparents!!

I don’t want this discussion to turn into a debate about polygamy. The only reason I commented on the subject was to make a point on were to draw a line. If all parties are willing, I have no problem with it. But, from what I have read and seen, polygamy is seldom the fore-mentioned.

I want to challenge the fact that marriage by definition is a religious act. People have been getting married long before the coming of Christ or even ancient Judaism. The only reason that gay marriage is opposed in the US currently is that we have a lot of dinosaurs that don’t understand the lifestyle nor want to learn and tolerate. I think in the next 15 years, as us young people become the majority gay marriage will not be even an issue in anybody’s mind.

I am still waiting for someone to give a view different from nearly every post on this thread. I can promise that you will not be ouster sized for your opposite opinion. I just want to hear the other side of the story no matter what the reason. Any, as always, is valid!

Pan

[Nereid]

I want to challenge the fact that marriage by definition is a religious act. People have been getting married long before the coming of Christ or even ancient Judaism. And people did, and still do, get 'married' in societies free from christianity. Marriage is a social institution; its purpose was - and largely still is - to do with reproduction. The only reason that gay marriage is opposed in the US currently is that we have a lot of dinosaurs that don’t understand the lifestyle nor want to learn and tolerate. Not so. Many of the opponents are genuinely disgusted and shocked at the idea of gay marriage, for a variety of reasons. Their emotions are quite real. However, there's also a financial aspect; 'marriage' is also a legal concept, and gives certain rights and duties to those who are married (and who are not). The $value of those rights and duties is enormous.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Well, I think that marriage has more history being polygamous than monogamous, so then monogamous marriage goes against tradition, so it should be outlawed. So you just 'make it up' and therefore it should apply HUH?? what?? Oh, what's that? Society has changed, you say? Well, it's time for society to change again. It's time to cast away yet another unjustified restriction.

master_coda had it right when he said that "tradition" is just a non-argument that you fall back on when you have no real substance to back up your position. What comedy, the tradition is the substance, repetition of an 'event style' over time, substantive acceptance by traditional use, hence Historically substantiated
Chemcialsuperfreak made an excellent point when he noted that interracial marriage used to be taboo. Not everywhere...
Some say that society should define marriage, and then they appeal to democratic ideals. We live in a Constitutional country, and that's good. That makes it a lot harder for a majority to take away the rights and priveleges of a minority.
There is absolutely no justified reason for opposing homosexual marriage. There is nothing immoral about homosexuality. Someone who is oppposed to Homosexual marriage need not be against homosexuality, that is simply the (erroneous) generalization that you are making...
The religious right should want homosexual marriage in order to promote monogamous relationships, right?
As far as polygamy goes, as long as it goes both ways and is not used as a tool for one sex to dominate the other, I have no problem with it. It is about the differentiation of a societal viewpoint wherein, one supports the idea of marriage, as it is supporting of the children, by way of reproduction, unassisted by the State, whereas as ALL homosexual, or lesbian, couplings, must have an interventive method of reproduction either State of Societal, but they cannot do it on there own, Male/female couplings can....hence the differetiation between the actuallities of the state/status of (the) marriage....O.K.?

[Zero]

You guys act as though animal husbandry is the most vital aspect of modern human interaction...

...sometimes I seriously believe that Christians are a step down in evolution, and they want the rest of us to join them in their barely-human status.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Zero
You guys act as though animal husbandry is the most vital aspect of modern human interaction... More like, "where the tax dollars get spent"...

...sometimes I seriously believe that Christians are a step down in evolution, and they want the rest of us to join them in their barely-human status. "And Be thou separate..." (unless your afraid..)

[Kerrie]

legally, marriage has it's benefits...here in america, you don't have to be wed by the church...

example: you have found the perfect mate-whether they are the same gender or not...if something were to happen to your mate-say an accident, or medical condition that required another sound mind to make decisions based on what your mate would want, who has the right to make that decision? legally, the next of kin (mother, father, brother, sister, etc) if you are not "legally tied" to your mate...this is not old fashioned in my opinion, but i would much rather have my fiance make these decisions of me over my family as my family doesn't know me as well as he does...

another: health insurance and other benefits...if one is working outside the home and has the ability to obtain these, but the other does not work "outside the home" (because s/he is self-employed, or takes care of children, etc), what about the benefits of covering the other mate?

aside from the whole morality issue with the church, i think LEGAL marriage should be defined as accepting the responsibilities and benefits of another (over age 18) until both choose to end that contract (Divorce)...

i won't even touch the polygamy issue...

Russ~
Don't kid yourself - thats what all laws are about.

laws should only be concerned with protecting the rights of others, not interfering with what people choose to do with their own life...ie: murder, stealing, etc...

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Someone who is oppposed to Homosexual marriage need not be against homosexuality, that is simply the (erroneous) generalization that you are making...

You find me one person who is not anti-homosexuality but is anti-homosexual marriage.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
You find me one person who is not anti-homosexuality but is anti-homosexual marriage. Hi! My name is (as you seemed to have missed it) Mr. Robin Parsons...and BTW I am NOT against them having the same rights, legally, with respect to pensions, health, etc. etc. just the word, (and institution?) of Marriage! as it is meant to be for the purpose of protecting couples, as towards "procreation", something that Gay couples, Lesbian, or Homosexual, cannot do without outside help...a violation of the intent of the 'Sanctity' of marriage, and the 'monogamy' of marriage, the vows, love, honor...

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Hi! My name is (as you seemed to have missed it) Mr. Robin Parsons...and BTW I am NOT against them having the same rights, legally, with respect to pensions, health, etc. etc. just the word, (and institution?) of Marriage! as it is meant to be for the purpose of protecting couples, as towards "procreation", something that Gay couples, Lesbian, or Homosexual, cannot do without outside help...a violation of the intent of the 'Sanctity' of marriage, and the 'monogamy' of marriage, the vows, love, honor... Neither you nor the government is allowed to define or enforce "sanctity".

[master_coda]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
as towards "procreation", something that Gay couples, Lesbian, or Homosexual, cannot do without outside help

I don't see anyone clamoring for fertility tests for heterosexual couples seeking marriage. They can't have children without help either.

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
a violation of the intent of the 'Sanctity' of marriage, and the 'monogamy' of marriage, the vows, love, honor...

None of these attributes of marriage have anything to do with being straight or gay. Or even having children for that matter. How would a gay marriage have less vows, less love, less honour?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by master_coda
I don't see anyone clamoring for fertility tests for heterosexual couples seeking marriage. They can't have children without help either.
Typical someone wants to make 'the exceptions' the rule(rs)....lousy arguement, don't you think?



None of these attributes of marriage have anything to do with being straight or gay. Or even having children for that matter. How would a gay marriage have less vows, less love, less honour? requires outside sexual activity...sorta (yes I know! stop trying to use exceptions to make the rules, we will all live better..)

[master_coda]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
requires outside sexual activity...sorta (yes I know! stop trying to use exceptions to make the rules, we will all live better..)

I'm trying to avoid exceptions. You suggested that the lack of the ability to procreate was a reason to oppose gay marriage...I suggested that the rule should therefore be applied without exception to include all infertile couples, and now you're complaining that I'm using the exception to make the rule?


What is "outside sexual activity"?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by master_coda
I'm trying to avoid exceptions. You suggested that the lack of the ability to procreate was a reason to oppose gay marriage WRONG! This is the kind of thing that makes me simply NOT want to continue cause clearly you are either, intentionally, or ignorantly, twisting what I am saying, and driving at...I do NOT want that! thank you!...I suggested that the rule should therefore be applied without exception to include all infertile couples, and now you're complaining that I'm using the exception to make the rule? No, this is what you said: Originally posted by master_codaI don't see anyone clamoring for fertility tests for heterosexual couples seeking marriage. They can't have children without help either. Where, in that, are you suggesting that the rule should be 'applied without exception'??

What is "outside sexual activity"? Another partner....

I do not oppose Gay union, I oppose the corruption of the word "marriage" as I too am supposed to have some rights to things in life, some protections for MY values as well...right?

As for 'application without exception' simply prove it, by making it work....See: population numbers = "exceptions to the rules" come out, with increasing Population Numbers....

[Evo]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
BTW I am NOT against them having the same rights, legally, with respect to pensions, health, etc. etc. just the word, (and institution?) of Marriage! as it is meant to be for the purpose of protecting couples Unfortunately these rights are only currently available to legal spouses.

as towards "procreation", something that Gay couples, Lesbian, or Homosexual, cannot do without outside help...a violation of the intent of the 'Sanctity' of marriage, and the 'monogamy' of marriage, the vows, love, honor... Many heterosexual couples cannot have children or have decided not to have children, so you're saying that they should not have the right to be married? Homosexual couples are very monogomous and they love, honor etc... the same as heterosexuals.

Are you also saying that people that have physical handicaps that prevent "procreation" should be banned from marriage?

Marriage really is a legal contractual relationship. What ever else you want to describe it as is strictly a personal and romanticized viewpoint.

Originally posted by Mr Robin Parsons - I oppose the corruption of the word "marriage"
Here is the dictionary definition of marriage: From Merriam-Webster

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

Thoughout history, love was rarely the reason to marry, it was for avoiding war, for gaining land and wealth, in most cultures a woman needed to marry for security and financial reasons. Arranged marriages were the norm, and you still see that in many cultures today.

[master_coda]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
I do not oppose Gay union, I oppose the corruption of the word "marriage" as I too am supposed to have some rights to things in life, some protections for MY values as well...right?

How does allowing gay marriage affect your values? You wouldn't be forced to participate in one.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Evo
Unfortunately these rights are only currently available to legal spouses. Hence the NEED for a change, but that does not mean you need change the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman....doesn't need that at all!
Many heterosexual couples cannot have children or have decided not to have children, so you're saying that they should not have the right to be married? Homosexual couples are very monogomous and they love, honor etc... the same as heterosexuals. You too?? WOW!
Are you also saying that people that have physical handicaps that prevent "procreation" should be banned from marriage? Really?, please show me where I have said that! WOW do you people ever twist..."quote me" please
Marriage really is a legal contractual relationship. What ever else you want to describe it as is strictly a personal and romanticized viewpoint.
Here is the dictionary definition of marriage: From Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> A recent revision, no doubt
Thoughout history, love was rarely the reason to marry, it was for avoiding war, for gaining land and wealth, in most cultures a woman needed to marry for security and financial reasons. Arranged marriages were the norm, and you still see that in many cultures today. Arranged yes, between men and women, no problem...but tell me, where in history do we find, EVER a marriage arranged between two men, or two women? HUH?

[master_coda]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Arranged yes, between men and women, no problem...but tell me, where in history do we find, EVER a marriage arranged between two men, or two women? HUH?

What's your point? Evo was pointing out that marriage as we know it in the West bears little resemblance to what marriage was in the past. So arguing that marriage is an ancient tradition is something of a sham.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by master_coda
How does allowing gay marriage affect your values? You wouldn't be forced to participate in one. Because to me the word "Marriage" has always meant between opposite sexes, male/female unions...but you tell me instead, how does 10% of the population arrive at having the right to dictate to the rest of the 90% of the population to the removal of what had been an accepted tradition, and right, for aaaaaaaaaall of those people?

Why do 'Gays' (for use of one word) wish to be labeled (and 'seen as' and 'thought of as' and....) as 'Gay', (Gay Pride Parade) yet when it comes to marriage, they do not want for a separate label, and why do they need to change the label, from what it has meant, for all of these years, why? why can't they simply accept 'Gay Union' ("Same Sex Union") if it gives them all of the same benefits? why need 90% of the population change their understanding of their own values, and lives, just to please 10% of the population who's needs, rights, and values, are not changed by it...why?? (given "Civil Union" as the 'married' Gay term)

[master_coda]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
[B]Hi! My name is (as you seemed to have missed it) Mr. Robin Parsons...and BTW I am NOT against them having the same rights, legally, with respect to pensions, health, etc. etc. just the word, (and institution?) of Marriage! as it is meant to be for the purpose of protecting couples, as towards "procreation", something that Gay couples, Lesbian, or Homosexual, cannot do without outside help

This seems to be an argument that a major part of the purpose of marriage is to protect couples so they can procreate. Thus it appears that you are arguing that lack of ability to procreate is a reason to deny marriage to homosexuals.

If that wasn't what you meant, then I regret that I misinterpreted you. But don't see any other way to interpret what you said.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by master_coda
What's your point? Evo was pointing out that marriage as we know it in the West bears little resemblance to what marriage was in the past. So arguing that marriage is an ancient tradition is something of a sham. Uhmm Evo has pointed out what 'caused' the marriage, not what marriage was, and is, as that ritual has not changed, all that much, the realities of marriage, as between man and woman, haven't changed, just because the reasons for the marriage were different, says little of what the substance of the marriage actually is, but you will take clear note, even Evo agrees(?) it is between a man and a woman....

[Evo]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Arranged yes, between men and women, no problem...but tell me, where in history do we find, EVER a marriage arranged between two men, or two women? HUH? I was giving examples of marriage without love. Since an arranged marriage would be done without input or consent of the two involved, it makes sense that it would be unlikely for arranged marriages to be same sex.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by master_coda
This seems to be an argument that a major part of the purpose of marriage is to protect couples so they can procreate. Thus it appears that you are arguing that lack of ability to procreate is a reason to deny marriage to homosexuals. NO, the reason is to continue the protection of the "procreating family", you know "family values" that said, gays have family values as well, but the purpose of sex, in a gay relationship, is lust, Not procreative possiblities, not the same as in a male/female marriage...and tell me, why can't I have my values protected?

If that wasn't what you meant, then I regret that I misinterpreted you. Thank you! But don't see any other way to interpret what you said. Do you now?

[master_coda]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Uhmm Evo has pointed out what 'caused' the marriage, not what marriage was, and is, as that ritual has not changed, all that much, the realities of marriage, as between man and woman, haven't changed, just because the reasons for the marriage were different, says little of what the substance of the marriage actually is, but you will take clear note, even Evo agrees(?) it is between a man and a woman....

The ritual hasn't changed? The realities haven't changed?

You mean the fact the people can now choose whether or not they want to marry hasn't affected marriage in any way? The fact that people can now choose to leave a marriage hasn't affected it?

All of the responsibilities and obligations, all of the love, all of the honour, all of those things associated with marriage have nothing to do with the contract being between a man and a woman. "Between a man and a woman" is nothing more than an extra rule that's been tacked on (tacked on for a very long time).

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Evo
I was giving examples of marriage without love. Since an arranged marriage would be done without input or consent of the two involved, it makes sense that it would be unlikely for arranged marriages to be same sex. Even without love, it is still a 'procreative' marriage, (situation) isn't it?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by master_coda
The ritual hasn't changed? The realities haven't changed?
Nope, well some, but not that much...it is as you point out below, more choises...
You mean the fact the people can now choose whether or not they want to marry hasn't affected marriage in any way? The fact that people can now choose to leave a marriage hasn't affected it?
People have more choices, sure, but what they are choosing is still the ritual, and practise, of male/female marrriage
All of the responsibilities and obligations, all of the love, all of the honour, all of those things associated with marriage have nothing to do with the contract being between a man and a woman. "Between a man and a woman" is nothing more than an extra rule that's been tacked on (tacked on for a very long time). Tacked on? you mean the 'gays' started the idea of marriage, and we stole it from them, years ago, by tacking on this addition...HAH, not on your life!

[Evo]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
but you will take clear note, even Evo agrees(?) it is between a man and a woman.... No, I was pointing out that what you said about homosexual marriage being "a violation of the intent of the 'Sanctity' of marriage, and the 'monogamy' of marriage, the vows, love, honor..." was historically inaccurate since through the ages marriage was mostly for convenience.

Historically "recorded, public, marriages" were between men and women, but that was mostly due to religious stigma.

I understand that you hold a more romanticized version of marriage, and that's sweet, but that doesn't mean that type of marriage doesn't apply to homosexuals. Explain how two men or two women can't have "'monogamy' of marriage, the vows, love, honor..."

[Evo]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Even without love, it is still a 'procreative' marriage, (situation) isn't it? Not necessarily, don't forget many of the "political" marriages were not for "procreation" they were for material gain or to prevent war, or gain allies, sometimes for the purpose of war.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Evo
No, I was pointing out that what you said about homosexual marriage being "a violation of the intent of the 'Sanctity' of marriage, and the 'monogamy' of marriage, the vows, love, honor..." was historically inaccurate since through the ages marriage was mostly for convenience. That is an historically erroneous statement, the Sanctity of marriage was always meant to be respected, that the few who could afford to force others to marry would violate that, "plus que ca change, plus que ca reste pareill(sp?)"

Historically "recorded, public, marriages" were between men and women, but that was mostly due to religious stigma. Really? not because gays were a small percentage of the population and had no venue to express there outrage at the mistreatment that so many of them have, and still, (sadly) do have, now...along with the simple idea that they simply couldn't have even tried it back then and we all know why!

I understand that you hold a more romanticized version of marriage, And please, just where did you arrive at that idea, without gross assumption on your part and that's sweet, but that doesn't mean that type of marriage doesn't apply to homosexuals. Explain how two men or two women can't have "'monogamy' of marriage, the vows, love, honor..." Easy, bring in the want of procreation and one of the partners MUST exit those vows...right? or is there a way I don't know about yet?

[master_coda]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Do you now?

Yes. Now that you've clarified your position.

As far as I know, gay sex is lust and straight sex is...lust.

Of course, people do have sex to have children. But most people have sex because it's fun.


The reason you can't have your values protected is because your values involve telling other people what they can to do. You're free to not recognize gay marriage. But you can't use the law to force others to not recognize gay marriage.

[Evo]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Why do 'Gays' (for use of one word) wish to be labeled (and 'seen as' and 'thought of as' and....) as 'Gay', (Gay Pride Parade) yet when it comes to marriage, they do not want for a separate label, and why do they need to change the label, from what it has meant, for all of these years, why? why can't they simply accept 'Gay Union' ("Same Sex Union") if it gives them all of the same benefits? why need 90% of the population change their understanding of their own values, and lives, just to please 10% of the population who's needs, rights, and values, are not changed by it...why?? (given "Civil Union" as the 'married' Gay term) I don't think gay's really care what it is called. Apparantly the courts decided it was simpler just to allow same sex "marriage".

[master_coda]

Evo:
I understand that you hold a more romanticized version of marriage, and that's sweet, but that doesn't mean that type of marriage doesn't apply to homosexuals. Explain how two men or two women can't have "'monogamy' of marriage, the vows, love, honor..."

Mr. Robin Parsons:
Easy, bring in the want of procreation and one of the partners MUST exit those vows...right? or is there a way I don't know about yet?

No, they don't have to exist vows. They can have children the same way infertile straight couples do. In vitro fertilization. Surrogate mothers. Adoption. And so on.

Of course, you might consider getting genetic material from others to be cheating, but that's stretching the definition of cheating. You don't need to have sex with others, or even have any relationship with the donors or surrogates at all. And adopting doesn't involve cheating at all, even by that "extended" definition.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by master_coda
Yes. Now that you've clarified your position. O.K. Thanks
As far as I know, gay sex is lust and straight sex is...lust.Plus! (procreative possiblity)
Of course, people do have sex to have children. But most people have sex because it's fun. So I've heard...been a while...
The reason you can't have your values protected is because your values involve telling other people what they can to do. Ahem you have that exactly backwards! I am not tellin anyone what they can do, they are telling me that I can no longer...that is wrong! You're free to not recognize gay marriage. But you can't use the law to force others to not recognize gay marriage. you mean as in the way you are trying ot use the law to force me to recognize a <<CHANGE>> right? (lets keep things on the sides that have always been on, please, not huxtapositioned! cause that is what 'tradition' means)

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by master_coda
No, they don't have to exist vows. They can have children the same way infertile straight couples do. In vitro fertilization. Surrogate mothers. Adoption. And so on. WOW do/did you miss the point

Of course, you might consider getting genetic material from others to be cheating, but that's stretching the definition of cheating. You don't need to have sex with others, or even have any relationship with the donors or surrogates at all. And adopting doesn't involve cheating at all, even by that "extended" definition. Gotta go, be right back if I can....(libraries closing)

[master_coda]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
you mean as in the way you are trying ot use the law to force me to recognize a <<CHANGE>> right?

The government would be forced to recognize it. You would not.

[master_coda]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
WOW do/did you miss the point

You asked how gay couples can overcome the desire for procreation without violating marriage vows. I explained how they can. Perhaps you are the one who missed the point.

[Evo]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Ahem you have that exactly backwards! I am not tellin anyone what they can do, they are telling me that I can no longer...that is wrong! I disagree, no one is telling you that "your" marriage values have to change. Each person has their own interpretation of what marriage means to them.

I had a civil marriage by a judge in a courthouse because I do not believe in organized religion. Some religious people would not even consider that a "marriage" in their sense. Bottom line - marriage in the US is a legal contract in the eyes of the law. Religion has nothing to do with marriage, legally.

My views and how I choose to marry does not force a religious person to change their views of marriage, they can still believe that it is sanctioned by a god, gods, potatoes, whatever. Nor does a same sex marriage force me or you or anyone else to change what marriage means to them personally.

The new law is only allowing more people the choice to marry - legally, gays have been getting married, without the legal benefits, for some time. My gay ex boss has been married for 10 years, now they can make it legal.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by master_coda
You asked how gay couples can overcome the desire for procreation without violating marriage vows. I explained how they can. Perhaps you are the one who missed the point. YUP you explained exactly what I had stated all along the need to go OUTSIDE of the marriage to accomodate procreation....didn't (by God's Grace) miss a thing!

[master_coda]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
YUP you explained exactly what I had stated all along the need to go OUTSIDE of the marriage to accomodate procreation....didn't (by God's Grace) miss a thing!

And you still haven't explained what the difference between infertile couples and gay couples is in this case.


Insidentally, most straight couples go OUTSIDE of the marriage to accomidate procreation. Everyone I know who has children did so with the help of a medical staff at a hospital. I guess their marriage vows were a lie too.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Evo
I disagree, no one is telling you that "your" marriage values have to change. Each person has their own interpretation of what marriage means to them. Ahem! yes, you are forcing me to change what I know as marriage..dis-ir-reguardless of your disagreement with it
I had a civil marriage by a judge in a courthouse because I do not believe in organized religion. Some religious people would not even consider that a "marriage" in their sense. Bottom line - marriage in the US is a legal contract in the eyes of the law. Religion has nothing to do with marriage, legally. Then calling it a 'gay union' or a 'same sex union' should make absolutely NO difference to gay people BECAUSE they should recognize, and be willing to respect, some of the heterosexual communites values as theirs, too....right?
My views and how I choose to marry does not force a religious person to change their views of marriage, they can still believe that it is sanctioned by a god, gods, potatoes, whatever. Nor does a same sex marriage force me or you or anyone else to change what marriage means to them personally. Thats only what you are saying, that doesn't make it so...aside from that, if it is "only a legality" then other 'words' should be able to suffice, and not the usurpation of one that Has a Millenial tradition...MY opinion!

The new law is only allowing more people the choice to marry - legally, gays have been getting married, without the legal benefits, for some time. My gay ex boss has been married for 10 years, now they can make it legal. Now explain to me how you can say; "he was married" then you tell me; "he is going to now get married" are you just a little confused, or is it that you are trying to confuse me (it ain't working)

And BTW I agree with the same benefits, same health care, only want for the preservation of the use of the word "Marriage" as pertaining to female/male couplings, exclusively...but tell me, what is wrong with that? and why-oh-why do the gay people (communities) have to insist that that one falls, as well...haven't you ever studied political revolution how quickly the oppressed become the oppressors...aside from that, if it were only the legalities that counted, they would have ceded to leaving the word "Marriage" to heterosexuals, saving society POUND$ of money, time, resources that could be more effectively, and better spent, elsewheres etc. etc.

[Evo]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Now explain to me how you can say; "he was married" then you tell me; "he is going to now get married" are you just a little confused, or is it that you are trying to confuse me (it ain't working)Evo <----- reaches over and raps MRP sharply across the knuckles with her ruler. Pay attention!!! I said he has been "married" for 10 years, now he can make it "legal". Gay marriages were not previously recognized in the eyes of the law.

And BTW I agree with the same benefits, same health care, only want for the preservation of the use of the word "Marriage" as pertaining to female/male couplings, exclusively...but tell me, what is wrong with that? I don't have a problem with any scenario, I don't care what they call it. To me it's poh TAY toh, poh TAH toh, a rose by any other name...

[b]if it were only the legalities that counted, they would have ceded to leaving the word "Marriage" to heterosexuals, saving society POUND$ of money, time, resources that could be more effectively, and better spent, elsewheres etc. etc. I think the decison did take the simplest and least costly route. All a gay couple has to do is provide proof of legal marriage and they are covered under all of the existing laws, nothing has to change.

[master_coda]

Perhaps the best solution would be to have have the government not recognize the term "marriage" at all. The government should only be concerned with legal matters, so the the government could hand out "civil unions", which would contain all the legal consequences of marriage.

The term marriage and all of its personal and emotional meanings could then be used by individuals and private organizations however they wished.

[Nereid]

Originally posted by master_coda
Perhaps the best solution would be to have have the government not recognize the term "marriage" at all. The government should only be concerned with legal matters, so the the government could hand out "civil unions", which would contain all the legal consequences of marriage.

The term marriage and all of its personal and emotional meanings could then be used by individuals and private organizations however they wished. The spirit of what you propose is admirable. The devil is that 'marriage' (or cognates) is buried deep into a wide body of law. And it's not only the stuff Congress spends your tax dollars writing, it's also the weight of case law (maybe more important in the English system).

Is there a simple, straight-forward way to extend the category without a huge re-write and a couple of hundred yearst to get the case law to follow? Well, there's this 'de facto' concept ...

[master_coda]

Originally posted by Nereid
The spirit of what you propose is admirable. The devil is that 'marriage' (or cognates) is buried deep into a wide body of law. And it's not only the stuff Congress spends your tax dollars writing, it's also the weight of case law (maybe more important in the English system).

Is there a simple, straight-forward way to extend the category without a huge re-write and a couple of hundred yearst to get the case law to follow? Well, there's this 'de facto' concept ...

I am aware the my suggestion is not going to happen. [:(]

However giving homosexuals de facto marriages via "civil unions" isn't a good solution either. Even if the government granted totally equal rights to civil unions and marriages, it would still be easy for this equality to change later on. Only joining the two as a single legal entity would make that difficult.

[Dissident Dan]

MRP, are you saying that you disapprove of homosexual marriage but have no problem with homosexuality? If not, then you still have yet to find someone who fits that classification.

The whole idea that allow homosexuals to marry somehow infringes on YOUR rights befuddles me! How can anyone have a right to say what other people consentingly do that does not harm them?! How can anyone have a right to control what traditions other people participate in?! How can anyone have a right to dictate what word other people use to describe a process?!

The answer is that one can't. It does not harm you that other people may use a word or gain a status or perform a ritual.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
MRP, are you saying that you disapprove of homosexual marriage but have no problem with homosexuality? If not, then you still have yet to find someone who fits that classification.
Humm reading....A-G-A-I-N'-ST the corruption of the word "Marriage" as <<TRADITIONALLY>> (Millenial tradition!!) it means/Meant "Between a man and a woman"...so are you still missing anything here?
The whole idea that allow homosexuals to marry somehow infringes on YOUR rights befuddles me! No doubt it Befuddles me too as to how you have arrived at this conclusion, absence of reading skills perhaps? How can anyone have a right to say what other people consentingly do that does not harm them?! How can anyone have a right to control what traditions other people participate in?! No one does, but then why is pot illegal? harms no one else... How can anyone have a right to dictate what word other people use to describe a process?! Well if they are usurping a word, that already has an appropriate use, and attempting to corrupt the meaning of that word, then the people who want to keep it's meaning, what it has always meant, stand up for it remaining that way....and by the same manner, what, and how, do they have the right to, suddenly pervert/corrupt it? huh?
The answer is that one can't. It does not harm you that other people may use a word or gain a status or perform a ritual. That is simply your opinion, and if it means so little why are they fighting so hard for it, why not simply use the word "Wed", why the express nessesity of the word "Marriage"? HUH?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Evo
(SNIP) I had a civil marriage by a judge in a courthouse because I do not believe in organized religion. Some religious people would not even consider that a "marriage" in their sense. Bottom line - marriage in the US is a legal contract in the eyes of the law. Religion has nothing to do with marriage, legally. (SNIP) Uhmmm, sorry not really true, not from your history, (US) not from current standards, not from anything other then the state allowing you a choice of religious or Civil marriage....if you are unsure, just try getting a religious marriage, by someone who isn't a religious person...the law will show up, (if they find out) or, they, simply put, will NOT recognize the marriage, LEGALLY!

Just cause you didn't have one, and don't want one, doesn't write off the issue legally....not at all!

Broad blanketing statements, such as is emboldened above, serve to mislead...not much else...

[Evo]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
<originally posted by Evo - Religion has nothing to do with marriage, legally.> Uhmmm, sorry not really true, not from your history, (US) not from current standards, not from anything other then the state allowing you a choice of religious or Civil marriage....if you are unsure, just try getting a religious marriage, by someone who isn't a religious person...the law will show up, (if they find out) or, they, simply put, will NOT recognize the marriage, LEGALLY!

Just cause you didn't have one, and don't want one, doesn't write off the issue legally....not at all!

Broad blanketing statements, such as is emboldened above, serve to mislead...not much else... It is a true statement, the "religious" person performing the marriage has to file the proper legal paperwork, otherwise it is not...legal.

Originally posted by Mr Robin Parsons - just try getting a religious marriage, by someone who isn't a religious person...the law will show upDo you mean a religious person who isn't authorized by law to perform a legal marriage? That's exactly what I am saying. "Religion" has nothing to do with legal marriage. You can "find" someone in a church that has received authority (that's why they say "by the powers invested in me by the state of (fill in blank), but that doesn't mean that religion itself has legal authority. I do believe that there is still a separation of church and state.

[Evo]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
That is simply your opinion, and if it means so little why are they fighting so hard for it, why not simply use the word "Wed", why the express nessesity of the word "Marriage"? You seem to suffer from short term memory. You state something, then when someone addresses that statement, you say you didn't say it, even though "it's right there in your post!"

As has been repeatedly discussed here, gay people are requesting the same "rights" under the law as other married people. They don't care what it is called, that is not the issue. But you've already been told this. I suggest you go back through this thread and make notes. You keep bringing up the same issues over and over and over.

[Kerrie]

Originally posted by Evo
It is a true statement, the "religious" person performing the marriage has to file the proper legal paperwork, otherwise it is not...legal.

Do you mean a religious person who isn't authorized by law to perform a legal marriage? That's exactly what I am saying. "Religion" has nothing to do with legal marriage. You can "find" someone in a church that has received authority (that's why they say "by the powers invested in me by the state of (fill in blank), but that doesn't mean that religion itself has legal authority. I do believe that there is still a separation of church and state.

MRP, she is right...I was married by a clergy person that read vows I wrote...many people go the justice of the peace to be married, because that is all that is legally required...

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Evo
You seem to suffer from short term memory. You state something, then when someone addresses that statement, you say you didn't say it, even though "it's right there in your post!"

As has been repeatedly discussed here, gay people are requesting the same "rights" under the law as other married people. They don't care what it is called, that is not the issue. But you've already been told this. I suggest you go back through this thread and make notes. You keep bringing up the same issues over and over and over. To the top I had asked you to quote me, humm, this looks like nothing more then a dodge....

As to underneath that, Come to Canada, it's been in all of the newspapers here, as it has been in our Courts, They Want(ed?) the Word "Marriage"...including the two 'Americans' (mentioned, in this thread, by me) that were featured on the newsbroadcast the other night from Whistler Mountian in British Columbia, Canada!

as to the final emboldened part Perhaps you should read the thread title, again.....