Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Gay marriage


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Gay marriage Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Gay marriage - 10/23/2008 9:15:47 AM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnnyCanuck

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnnyCanuck
America has always flirted with fascism.


Did I really say that and fail to mention Senator McCarthy?

~shakes head~


You did. Shame on you :-) .


_____________________________



(in reply to JohnnyCanuck)
Profile   Post #: 181
RE: Gay marriage - 10/23/2008 9:17:28 AM   
JustDarkness


Posts: 1461
Joined: 7/25/2008
Status: offline 		why do people care so much how 2 people want to be happy together.
my god..like there is not anything more important.
you don't have to be in their bed.

(thinking uploud) 

(in reply to JohnnyCanuck)
Profile   Post #: 182
RE: Gay marriage - 10/23/2008 9:21:37 AM   
RainydayNE


Posts: 978
Joined: 10/21/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PlayfulOne

My question is, How can so many people who want the government out of things decide it is ok for the government to legislate something so personal as marriage?

K



that is a very good question and i wonder if any of those people ask themselves that? like i'm so sick of hearing people ramble about how nobody wants the government telling them what healthcare to use or whatever, but then they also want the government to say who can marry who =p doesn't make sense

i dunno, it just seems weird that it has to be any of our business anyway, and there have to be votes on it and everything. (but i also wouldn't think there'd have to be a vote to "legally define" that certain persons are indeed human beings =p) personally, yeah, when i think of marriage i think of a man and a woman, but that doesn't mean that other people shouldn't be able to get married because they DON'T think of that.

it just seems very odd.

< Message edited by RainydayNE -- 10/23/2008 9:25:41 AM >

(in reply to PlayfulOne)
Profile   Post #: 183
RE: Gay marriage - 10/23/2008 9:22:49 AM   
JohnnyCanuck


Posts: 46
Joined: 10/23/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MistresseLotus
I grew up in a family of 4..one of each:  One gay brother, one bi-sexual brother, one lesbian sister and little ol' het me.  I'm closest with my gay brother.  (just an FYI)  Neither bother or sister ever felt the need to be "married" because it just didn't apply.. but then they never were denied their "rights". Maybe because they actually took the initiative to explain their circumstances to those that needed to know instead of being militant.


Should I assume from this that it is your opinion "one-size-fits-all" and you believe your brother and sister should be the models upon which all others must base their behaviour and choices?

Because it is rather obvious that many do feel the need for marriage and you've provided no argument here to deny them that choice.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, swims like a duck .... it's a duck.

People use the word "love" to describe everything from the most intimate of relationships to their relationship with a peanut butter sandwich, but I do not notice any language police patrolling to corridors to correct them.

Whatever you choose to call their relationships, they are going to call it "marriage" anyway, so what do you intend to do about it?

You are willing to give them everything they would find in a traditional marriage, but your sensitivity demands they not actually call it "marriage"?

And you don't find that in the least bit demeaning or insulting, or even silly?

You will let people talk about "loving" a peanut butter sandwich, but you will not let two gay people say they are "married".

Perhaps the reason your brother and sister never mentioned a desire to marry was because they saw no point in discussing it with you.

(in reply to MistresseLotus)
Profile   Post #: 184
RE: Gay marriage - 10/23/2008 9:25:12 AM   
JohnnyCanuck


Posts: 46
Joined: 10/23/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol
Shame on you :-) .


Shame indeed. ;-)

(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 185
RE: Gay marriage - 10/23/2008 9:28:07 AM   
RainydayNE


Posts: 978
Joined: 10/21/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnnyCanuck


People use the word "love" to describe everything from the most intimate of relationships to their relationship with a peanut butter sandwich, but I do not notice any language police patrolling to corridors to correct them.

Whatever you choose to call their relationships, they are going to call it "marriage" anyway, so what do you intend to do about it?

...


You will let people talk about "loving" a peanut butter sandwich, but you will not let two gay people say they are "married".

Perhaps the reason your brother and sister never mentioned a desire to marry was because they saw no point in discussing it with you.


VERY good points here

(in reply to JohnnyCanuck)
Profile   Post #: 186
RE: Gay marriage - 10/23/2008 9:42:21 AM   
beargonewild


Posts: 22716
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline 		JohnnyCanuck, please before you continue the slinging out the wrongs that the United States had been involved in over the course of history, don't forget that Canada isn't so lily white either.

Think back to to the last world war and how badly we treated the Asian refugges, particularly the Chinese and Japanese and it's only been recently that our illustrious government  (being sarcastic on this) finally admitted to this wrongdoing and been compensating the surviving people.

Then consider during the height of the Irish Potato famine and thousands of Irish came to Canada to start a better life, yet thousands of orphaned children were forced to discard their Irish heritage and names to be more "Canadianized"

Then we have the inhumane treatment of the Native Canadians since the white man first came to this country. Residential schools, children suffered horrible abuse and torment for speaking their native language.  Thousands were taken from their homes and forced to live in these residential schools/prisons. On top of this, countless other were molested by these so called religious authority figures who were supposed to convert these "heathen" into upstanding and moralistic Canadians.

We had the idiotic government decided to do the same thing to the Acadians. Thousands were either forced to conform to the government's ideology or they were forced to leave their homes and driven south across the border.

So as you can see, our Canadian past is quite tarnished also.

* my sincere apology for everyone for getting quite off topic and derailing the OP*

< Message edited by beargonewild -- 10/23/2008 9:43:30 AM >

_____________________________

Do Not Rile da Chosen Bear

Promiscuous boy you already know
That I’m all yours what you waiting for?

Resident MANWHORE ~1000 Bear pts~

10 NZ points
Whips~n~Cuffs

(in reply to JohnnyCanuck)
Profile   Post #: 187
RE: Gay marriage - 10/23/2008 9:42:31 AM   
MistresseLotus


Posts: 443
Joined: 9/19/2008
From: (aka LotusSong)
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnnyCanuck

quote:

ORIGINAL: MistresseLotus
I grew up in a family of 4..one of each:  One gay brother, one bi-sexual brother, one lesbian sister and little ol' het me.  I'm closest with my gay brother.  (just an FYI)  Neither bother or sister ever felt the need to be "married" because it just didn't apply.. but then they never were denied their "rights". Maybe because they actually took the initiative to explain their circumstances to those that needed to know instead of being militant.


Whatever you choose to call their relationships, they are going to call it "marriage" anyway, so what do you intend to do about it?
 
Ask them to define THEIR marriage, not using het terms, so as to define how THEIR circumstances are different as well as exdplaining to me what is lacking in a civil union that denys them the same rights?
quote:


You are willing to give them everything they would find in a traditional marriage, but your sensitivity demands they not actually call it "marriage"?
 

Traditional Marriage:  one man.. one woman by definition.. and they want to use THAT term???  No other word to define themselves as married but different-- Where's the Gay Pride????  Where is the creativity???

quote:


And you don't find that in the least bit demeaning or insulting, or even silly?


Not in the least.   Because I'm not saying they should NOT get married.. just don't confuse the term.
quote:



You will let people talk about "loving" a peanut butter sandwich, but you will not let two gay people say they are "married".


I don't know anyone who has married a peanut butter sandwich.. do you?

quote:


Perhaps the reason your brother and sister never mentioned a desire to marry was because they saw no point in discussing it with you.


I was the one they came out to to begin with.  They never saw a need to be "married." (shrug) 

Nice try at a dig though  

< Message edited by MistresseLotus -- 10/23/2008 10:24:54 AM >

(in reply to JohnnyCanuck)
Profile   Post #: 188
RE: Gay marriage - 10/23/2008 10:10:03 AM   
beargonewild


Posts: 22716
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MistresseLotus

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreedyTop

quote:

ORIGINAL: Irishknight

quote:

ORIGINAL: MistresseLotus

I think it's more about the word "marriage". When you hear it you automatically think "man, woman, kids" ...the word will have no more identity other than just a commitment that is legally recognized.  I always thought a civil union held all the rights as a marriage does..no?

I can see a date.."Hi.. have you ever been married?"  Other:" Yes".."Uhhh.. to a male or female?"

Maybe a unique word to identify a gay marriage?

You automatically think that way.  Being poly, I think man, wife, wife, wife, and kids.  Slaves and subs can be added to that mix as well.  The belief that one man can have more than one wife is common to a number of religions.  Again, the intersection of state and religion.  I have the religious right to have more than one spouse yet am persecuted by the state and only allowed one.
We don't need unique worrds to talk about gay marriage.  We need to use the words "equal" and "fair."  They are supposed to be in our vocabularies already.


I totally agree with the bolded statement.....


Unfortunately, it's impossible when everyone feels they also need to be "unique" and "special".  You are asking the government to legislate equality and define fairness.  My question is.. if a civil union has the exact same rights as a marriage between het couples..why is it so important to use a term that has been exclusively for a heterosexual union?  And while we are thinking about it.. is husband and wife (which is gender specific) going to go by the wayside also in the interest of PCness?  I don't want to be so homogenized.  I'm old fashioned that way :)


I still say that we are not asking to be treated special and it is safe to say that most LGBT people feel the same way I do. If I recall correctly from history class, the turning point to being more pro active in the fight for equal rights for the LGBT community was during the Stonewall riots. Which up until that point, the LGBT voice was basically ignored.

Just a point of info.....being afforded equal rights like out heterosexual couples gives a better guarantee that we have a say in matters of Power of Attorney, a more fair division of property if our spouse passes away. If our partner is unable to make any medical descriptions, we are able to instead of the healthy spouse being ignored as teat right otherwise automatically passes to the ill person's parents. We are able to designate our same sex spouse as a beneficiary and not have to worry that it'll be challenged by a surviving next of kin. Also grants parental rights in child support and child custody if the union/marriage fails and alimony. So this is how it is in place here in Canada.

From what I have seen and from most of my gay friends who have married, either in a church or by a JP, most of them commonly refer to their partner as either spouse, partner or other half. I only know of  three couple who do regularly use the term of husband or wife in referring to their spouse.So I can't see the terms husband and wife disappearing, I see those terms simply to further define a couple as being man and woman


_____________________________

Do Not Rile da Chosen Bear

Promiscuous boy you already know
That I’m all yours what you waiting for?

Resident MANWHORE ~1000 Bear pts~

10 NZ points
Whips~n~Cuffs

(in reply to MistresseLotus)
Profile   Post #: 189
RE: Gay marriage - 10/23/2008 10:19:23 AM   
JohnnyCanuck


Posts: 46
Joined: 10/23/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: beargonewild
* my sincere apology for everyone for getting quite off topic and derailing the OP*


I assure you I am not ignorant of the wrongs of our country.

I am sure such is true of every nation, present and past.

I wasn't trying to lecture from a position of national superiority, but simply addressing on topic issues.

American autocracy is a long-lived phenomenon dating back to an attempt to 'marry' freedom with slavery in one national constitution.

And while the Civil War put an end to the institution, it did not put an end to the autocratic paradigm which families had developed and passed on from generation to generation.

It was very obviously in evidence in the sixties with the opposition to the civil rights movement.

It is just as obviously in evidence today with the opposition to gay marriage.

And in the antebellum opposition to abolition, as now with the opposition to gay marriage, the fundamentalist churches have enormous influence.

Every major Christian denomination in slave-holding states sanctified slavery.

In the justifications given for slavery, based on beliefs in race and God, you hear the justifications in "Mein Kampf". The same arguments. And there also the major denominations played their role in supporting the prevalent bigotry of the faithful.

So you see how the bigotry of race and religion has fostered our persecution of peaceful people.

With gay marriage, race is not the issue.

Gay marriage is a purely religious argument.

The argument runs like this: you can believe whatever you want but you must live by the rules my God has decreed.

My God doesn't allow polygamy or gay marriage, so muslims cannot marry according to the rules their God gave them, and gays can't marry at all.

When one religion decrees citizens must live according to the laws of their God, we call that a "theocracy".

The separation of church and state is a myth, for the voter walks into the voting booth with religious convictions intact. Collectively, Christianity (as practised by the American majority) decrees the laws.

Thus no polygamy, no gay marriage.

Now, as many have pointed out, there is no real-world argument against either. The only argument is religious.

And here is where it turns autocratic: for if those who believed gay marriage was wrong were content to refrain from it personally, without denying anyone else the right to engage in it if they wish, we'd all be happy.

But they are not content with that.

Not only do they wish to refrain from it, they wish to require everyone to refrain from it, with a criminal penalty if they do not obey.

That is autocracy. That is theocracy.

Neither honours the principle of freedom or equal rights.

And this is why they present such poor arguments opposed to gay marriage or polygamy.

How do you argue enslavement to those you would make your slaves?

And how else would you characterize such a relationship when they seek to dictate to others how others should live?

(in reply to beargonewild)
Profile   Post #: 190
RE: Gay marriage - 10/23/2008 10:27:36 AM   
JohnnyCanuck


Posts: 46
Joined: 10/23/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MistresseLotus

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnnyCanuck

Whatever you choose to call their relationships, they are going to call it "marriage" anyway, so what do you intend to do about it?
 
Ask them to define THEIR marriage, not using het terms, so as to define how THEIR circumstances are different as well as exdplaining to me what is lacking in a civil union that denys them the same rights?


And who are you that they need to explain this to you before being able to marry?

Since when did we nominate ourselves to stick our noses in the lives of others and tell them what they can and cannot do?
quote:


quote:


You are willing to give them everything they would find in a traditional marriage, but your sensitivity demands they not actually call it "marriage"?
 

Traditional Marriage:  one man.. one woman by definition.. and they want to use THAT term???  No other word to define themselves as married but different-- Where's the Gay Pride????  Where is the creativity???


I assume you are aware that a Traditional Marriage in Islam allows for more than one wife.

As did Judaism.

And Mormonism.

And we won't go into all the possibilities of pagans, savages, and other non-Christians.

Can you explain why we must use the Christian definition and not one more generically suited for all people?
quote:


quote:


And you don't find that in the least bit demeaning or insulting, or even silly?


Not in the least.   Because I'm not saying they should NOT get married.. just don't confuse the term.


In what way would they be confusing the term if they say they are "married"?

Why should I be confused if a man talks of his "husband" or a woman her "wife"?

Does a Muslim with two wives confuse the term when he says he is "married"? Should he use a different term?

< Message edited by JohnnyCanuck -- 10/23/2008 10:34:23 AM >

(in reply to MistresseLotus)
Profile   Post #: 191
RE: Gay marriage - 10/23/2008 10:28:16 AM   
MistresseLotus


Posts: 443
Joined: 9/19/2008
From: (aka LotusSong)
Status: offline
quote:

Just a point of info.....being afforded equal rights like out heterosexual couples gives a better guarantee that we have a say in matters of Power of Attorney, a more fair division of property if our spouse passes away. If our partner is unable to make any medical descriptions, we are able to instead of the healthy spouse being ignored as teat right otherwise automatically passes to the ill person's parents. We are able to designate our same sex spouse as a beneficiary and not have to worry that it'll be challenged by a surviving next of kin. Also grants parental rights in child support and child custody if the union/marriage fails and alimony. So this is how it is in place here in Canada.


THIS is what I wanted to know.. is this also the same in America?

(in reply to beargonewild)
Profile   Post #: 192
RE: Gay marriage - 10/23/2008 10:34:57 AM   
MistresseLotus


Posts: 443
Joined: 9/19/2008
From: (aka LotusSong)
Status: offline
quote:


As did Judaism.
  The operative word is "did"
quote:


And Mormonism.
again... The operative word is "did"

It still was a marriage between a man and woman.

All I'm saying is to create a word that defines GAY marriage.  Aren't you proud of what you will accomplish?  What if het people wanted to use the term for a gay marriage?  The mind boggles!!!!

< Message edited by MistresseLotus -- 10/23/2008 10:36:20 AM >

(in reply to JohnnyCanuck)
Profile   Post #: 193
RE: Gay marriage - 10/23/2008 10:36:53 AM   
BitaTruble


Posts: 9779
Joined: 1/12/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline 		~FR~

Just had a thought here.. if the US federal government approves a constitutional ammendment defining the word 'marriage', isn't that a violation of the 1st ammendment?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
 
Seems to me that if you disallow certain segments of the population from being allowed to call their unions a 'marriage' then any petition to the government to redress grievances regarding that marriage would also be disallowed and that's a direct violation of my 2nd favorite ammendment!

Nope. Don't fuck with my Constitution.. not gonna have it.

edited to add the quote marks around the 1st Ammendment

< Message edited by BitaTruble -- 10/23/2008 10:53:40 AM >

_____________________________

"Oh, so it's just like
Rock, paper, scissors."

He laughed. "You are the wisest woman I know."


(in reply to JohnnyCanuck)
Profile   Post #: 194
RE: Gay marriage - 10/23/2008 10:37:21 AM   
JohnnyCanuck


Posts: 46
Joined: 10/23/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MistresseLotus
THIS is what I wanted to know.. is this also the same in America?


In Canada there is absolutely no distinction between a gay marriage and a het marriage. Legally they are identical.

Sorry but I cannot speak for the American models. As I understand it there are several.

(in reply to MistresseLotus)
Profile   Post #: 195
RE: Gay marriage - 10/23/2008 10:37:28 AM   
beargonewild


Posts: 22716
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MistresseLotus

quote:

Just a point of info.....being afforded equal rights like out heterosexual couples gives a better guarantee that we have a say in matters of Power of Attorney, a more fair division of property if our spouse passes away. If our partner is unable to make any medical descriptions, we are able to instead of the healthy spouse being ignored as teat right otherwise automatically passes to the ill person's parents. We are able to designate our same sex spouse as a beneficiary and not have to worry that it'll be challenged by a surviving next of kin. Also grants parental rights in child support and child custody if the union/marriage fails and alimony. So this is how it is in place here in Canada.


THIS is what I wanted to know.. is this also the same in America?


It could be MistressLotus, I wasn't going to presume that the marriage laws of both our countries were the same. Since I do very little on how the marriage laws are for the US, I didn't want to make a statement which was entirely incorrect and wasn't going to be presumptuous in assuming it was.


_____________________________

Do Not Rile da Chosen Bear

Promiscuous boy you already know
That I’m all yours what you waiting for?

Resident MANWHORE ~1000 Bear pts~

10 NZ points
Whips~n~Cuffs

(in reply to MistresseLotus)
Profile   Post #: 196
RE: Gay marriage - 10/23/2008 10:40:27 AM   
beargonewild


Posts: 22716
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnnyCanuck

I wasn't trying to lecture from a position of national superiority, but simply addressing on topic issues.



Thanks for clarifying this as I did interpret your post as being such. My apologies.


_____________________________

Do Not Rile da Chosen Bear

Promiscuous boy you already know
That I’m all yours what you waiting for?

Resident MANWHORE ~1000 Bear pts~

10 NZ points
Whips~n~Cuffs

(in reply to JohnnyCanuck)
Profile   Post #: 197
RE: Gay marriage - 10/23/2008 10:41:15 AM   
JohnnyCanuck


Posts: 46
Joined: 10/23/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MistresseLotus



~smile~

I'll second that motion ;-)

The thing is, it is obvious gay marriage is coming. Canada has already established the model for North America.

It is inevitable.

Like the dinosaurs there will be those who hold on a while, but eventually those nimble little mammals will take over and this will just be another part of America's problematic history with equal rights for all.

(in reply to MistresseLotus)
Profile   Post #: 198
RE: Gay marriage - 10/23/2008 10:43:18 AM   
BitaTruble


Posts: 9779
Joined: 1/12/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnnyCanuck



The thing is, it is obvious gay marriage is coming.




_____________________________

"Oh, so it's just like
Rock, paper, scissors."

He laughed. "You are the wisest woman I know."


(in reply to JohnnyCanuck)
Profile   Post #: 199
RE: Gay marriage - 10/23/2008 10:50:59 AM   
JohnnyCanuck


Posts: 46
Joined: 10/23/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: beargonewild
My apologies.


None needed. I appreciate the opportunity to provide clarity.

The argument over gay marriage in Canada is won. For me the greatest hurdle to equal rights in Canada is the Notwithstanding Clause (and an unfortunate habit of governments bribing Quebecers to stay in Confederation, but that is decidedly off-topic).

It astounds me that with a Constitution as fine as the American version there is any argument over this at all.

But it never pays to under-estimate the primal religious influence and the associated anti-intellectualism that undermines any progress.

I have to admit, I never really understood this contradiction in American society until I read Greeley's "American Conflict".

His explanation of American autocratic principles and their origin shed a lot of light on the subject.

(in reply to beargonewild)
Profile   Post #: 200
Page:   <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Gay marriage Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.096