News Politics & Marriage: Chad's Stance

[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?)" [/color]

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![/color]

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[/color] 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?[/color]

 

[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[/color]
As far as I know, gay sex is lust and straight sex is...lust.Plus! (procreative possiblity)[/color]
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...[/color]
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![/color] 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)[/color]

 

[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[/color]

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 accommodate 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 accommodate 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[/color]
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?[/color]
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![/color]

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...

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?[/color]
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?[/color] 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...[/color] 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?[/color]
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"?[/color]

HUH?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Evo
(SNIP)[/color] 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)[/color]

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 up

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.

 

[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...