RE: Gay marriage

RE: Gay marriage (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

GreedyTop -> RE: Gay marriage (10/23/2008 12:24:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GreedyTop noun1. the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union" 2. two people who are married to each other; "his second marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple without love" 3. the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage was conducted in the chapel" 4. a close and intimate union; "the marriage of music and dance"; "a marriage of ideas" I see no mention here of marriage being restricted to ONE MAN, ONE WOMAN. quote: The institution of marriage was developed for hets by hets for the control of property and propagation of the species so that they knew what belongs where via bloodline. How does this relate to the gay experience? There is no bloodline/lineage to document.. and a simple will makes sure your belongings get where you want them after your death. It's no longer about "morality".. just a system that was set up by a group to protect THEIR rights. I wonder what a gay institution of partnering would be like? What would be different for their specific needs? If marriage is a good idea..then create your own ideal law and institution instead of trying to take away from the original. Because that's what it feels like. As has been pointed out, in re: the bolded statement.. by this logic, then, I and anyone else who have either chosen to not have children, or are unable to.. elderly couples.. none of us should be allowed to marry, after all, no propagating the species!\ As far as wills etc., in places where domestic partnerships/civil unions are not recognized, families of the couples have legal recourse to battles the wills, POAs etc. THis is not to say that the families always win, but the fact is that they CAN. And I find it interesting that the definition in the top quote is being so ignored so far in this thread.

Irishknight -> RE: Gay marriage (10/23/2008 12:53:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MistresseLotus It's more the term ... which has always indicated "male/female" union (in regards to the mating game) I think the hets want the differentiation as to avoid any future confusion. You keep beating that same and incorrect horse. It was not invented by heteroes to mean man and woman only. The word meant union, plain and simple. Ever hear the phrase "marriage of ideas" or been told to "marry" two parts of a batter you are mixing. The idea that marriage is one man and one woman only is fairly new to history. For most of history, marriage has been plural despite the need of this country and its state religion to deny that. Seperate but equal is illegal in this country for everything but marriage. To force them to make up another word is telling them that they are subhuman. It is also against the very ideals of this country. Allowing and supporting the oppression of even one group of people inside our borders is an obscenity. All this other talk is just an attempt to hide our own true reasons for oppressing others.

TabrisMaceth -> RE: Gay marriage (10/23/2008 1:17:43 PM)
...Wait, wait, wait. Did someone actually say "the gay experience"? Didn't we all have one of those in college at some point? I'm just diving in mid-conversation here, but here in Cali, we have this thing over gay marriage, too. For some reason, I've only see the anti-gay marriage ads on MSNBC (during Countdown with Keith Olbermann!), but they are such loads of shit. Like, who ever learned about marriage in school? Anyone? Yeah, that's one of the arguements they make; They'll teach your kids it's okay to really like someone of the same sex. Oooooh! Yeah, that'll really cause the downfall of civilization! Not all these xenophobic bigot assholes, but little Susie knowing she can marry a princess someday (which, by the way, would be totally hot)! And y'know, I could be wrong, but I think these "traditional marriage" ads are the only ads to have children in them, or at least give them major speaking roles. So yeah, not only do they seem to be flat-out lying (marriage taught in schools), but they're exploiting children while doing it. Yup, those are some good Christian family values, I tell ya what. -Tabris

MistresseLotus -> RE: Gay marriage (10/23/2008 1:52:25 PM)
I don't know where you found that definition.. but Merriam-Webster has this as the definition of marriage ...plus a few others :) How about a "loving union".. and for the hets that are married for say 5 years and decided or cannot have their own ums.. they would be required to change their identifier to a "loving union". Thatg way those that have ums or are planning a family would b e a lot easier to find in the dating scene after the perevious marriage is over. You see, I could give a rats ass about gayness.. really. Where I am coming from (if you haven't figured it out yet) is trying to stop confusion down the road .. so to speak. "You ever been married"? (meaning.. possible ums or a member of the opposite sex was involved). but onthe same note.. if you say "No, I was in a loving union" you know the person is interested in the same sex and if you are of the opposite sex, you don't need to pursue that person. Now for the bi's.. I have no solution. You are just too special [:D]

philosophy -> RE: Gay marriage (10/23/2008 1:57:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MistresseLotus Where I am coming from (if you haven't figured it out yet) is trying to stop confusion down the road .. so to speak. ...in other words you are trying to draw a distinction between a hetero couple and a gay one, now do you see why i see that as the thin end of bigotry? What is wrong with just a couple......gender or genders irrelevant? There's no confusion necessary.

MistressSassy66 -> RE: Gay marriage (10/23/2008 2:08:12 PM)
A big complaint is parenting by Same Sex Couples... I think its kinda funny that a good majority of Gay couples have hetero parents,Myself and Punk included. My ums have been raised to follow their heart,neither of them is Gay. So for someone to say Gay parents raise Gay ums is messed up.Straight people make Gay ums....LOL Edited to be PC in wording.

MistresseLotus -> RE: Gay marriage (10/23/2008 2:08:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: MistresseLotus Where I am coming from (if you haven't figured it out yet) is trying to stop confusion down the road .. so to speak. ...in other words you are trying to draw a distinction between a hetero couple and a gay one, now do you see why i see that as the thin end of bigotry? What is wrong with just a couple......gender or genders irrelevant? There's no confusion necessary. I find that people choose to be just as offended as they want to be.

Venatrix -> RE: Gay marriage (10/23/2008 2:35:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MistresseLotus How about a "loving union".. and for the hets that are married for say 5 years and decided or cannot have their own ums.. they would be required to change their identifier to a "loving union". Thatg way those that have ums or are planning a family would b e a lot easier to find in the dating scene after the perevious marriage is over. You see, I could give a rats ass about gayness.. really. Where I am coming from (if you haven't figured it out yet) is trying to stop confusion down the road .. so to speak. I don't think people really need to know that my marriage was or was not predicated on procreation unless I choose to tell them.

Irishknight -> RE: Gay marriage (10/23/2008 2:49:07 PM)
So it would be okay to make interracial couples use a different word too? How about "nonmonochromatic union?" And to change the status of those who can't have ums is absurd. We could force them to wear patches on their clothing that say "gay" or "nonbreeder." Then we could make them mark their businesses so that no "decent hetero breeders" would dobusiness with them. Oh yeah, then we can put them in camps to further avoid confusion. When we get enough of them in the camps, lets just gas them and experiment on them too. But lets make it all look respectable by saying that we are protecting the "sanctity of marriage." And as for your dictionary definition, it depends on which dictionary and which printing. Quoting the current "approved" definition in no way changes the past definition and in no way validates it as the original definition. But since you have a dictionary, look up the words "bigotry," "persecution." and "tolerance." Seperate but equal is two of those but not the third. It also misses "fair," "compassionate" and "legal." If we allow gays to be treated this way then we create a lower class who we can walk on and eventually treat as human chattel. If your gay brother or sister decided they wanted to marry, one of us would fight for their rights. I don't profess to love your siblings but I would stand up for their rights.

kdsub -> RE: Gay marriage (10/23/2008 2:56:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MistressSassy66 A big complaint is parenting by Same Sex Couples... I think its kinda funny that a good majority of Gay couples have hetero parents,Myself and Punk included. My ums have been raised to follow their heart,neither of them is Gay. So for someone to say Gay parents raise Gay ums is messed up.Straight people make Gay ums....LOL Edited to be PC in wording. I believe you are saying that gayness, for lack of a better word, is a physical development caused by some sort of error during development of the brain in the womb. And not a result of environment. I think you are right about the physical part but not about environmental influences. We have all known the truly gay man or woman…there is no doubt they are trapped in the wrong body. No environmental influence will change their thinking…no mombo jumbo from a psychiatrist will turn them straight. But in everything there are degrees, and that is true in the development of the brain. There are those that are different degrees of gay…some just a little… others more or less…the bi’s among us. Some follow through on their desires...others are ashamed...or just hide them. Their environment can very easily influence these people. A slightly bi growing in an open gay atmosphere will be more likely to experiment with that side of their nature then one living in a heterosexual environment. I’m not saying what is right or wrong…but…In this homophobic world we live in I would hope my bi son or daughter did not follow the path I did. Butch

NorthernGent -> RE: Gay marriage (10/23/2008 3:01:09 PM)
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 Good question. I believe the answer is: "when it suits".

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Gay marriage (10/23/2008 3:06:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MistressSassy66 A big complaint is parenting by Same Sex Couples... I think its kinda funny that a good majority of Gay couples have hetero parents,Myself and Punk included. My ums have been raised to follow their heart,neither of them is Gay. So for someone to say Gay parents raise Gay ums is messed up.Straight people make Gay ums....LOL Edited to be PC in wording. Yeah, we raised 4 in a poly, bisexual household... 1 is straight and hermetic. 2 are straight and poly. 1 is straight and monogamous. -none- of them are bi or gay.

philosophy -> RE: Gay marriage (10/23/2008 3:08:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MistresseLotus quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: MistresseLotus Where I am coming from (if you haven't figured it out yet) is trying to stop confusion down the road .. so to speak. ...in other words you are trying to draw a distinction between a hetero couple and a gay one, now do you see why i see that as the thin end of bigotry? What is wrong with just a couple......gender or genders irrelevant? There's no confusion necessary. I find that people choose to be just as offended as they want to be. nice sidestep.

GreedyTop -> RE: Gay marriage (10/23/2008 3:20:30 PM)
I am never confused when someone says marriage. It means that 2 people who (presumably) love one another have made vows to one another. I'm not unintelligent, but certainly I'm not THAT much smarter than everyone else in the U.S.

philosophy -> RE: Gay marriage (10/23/2008 3:23:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GreedyTop I am never confused when someone says marriage. It means that 2 people who (presumably) love one another have made vows to one another. ....quite so, this concept of 'confusion' appears to me to be a mask for an underlying assumption. And as i'm fond of quoting Samual Jackson from The Long Kiss Goodnight, "when you make an assumption you make an ass out of you and umption".

JohnnyCanuck -> RE: Gay marriage (10/23/2008 3:56:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MistresseLotus quote: I am curious, however, as to the motive behind the opposition. I mean obviously those opposed to gay marriage are trying to avert some horrific disaster that would make New Orleans a minor pimple by comparison. Just what horrible event will follow on the heels of gay marriage, why has it not yet fallen upon Canada, and if there is no such event, why obstruct those in the gay community who wish to engage in a valid, state-sanctioned honest-to-god "marriage It's more the term ... which has always indicated "male/female" union (in regards to the mating game) I think the hets want the differentiation as to avoid any future confusion. Have you any idea of how DIFFICULT it is for a het to sing the carol "Deck the Halls" and the confusion when it comes to "Done we now our Gay apparel!" I mean.. we don't HAVE any gay apparel [;)] And rainbow.. can we decorate these days with rainbows and not be automatically assumed we are gay? So what you are saying is the homophobic community is afraid that if gays start calling themselves "married" then whenever anyone hears the word "marriage" they will automatically assume they are dealing with a gay person (because lord knows almost no hets ever get married). So regardless of what the government calls it, what will happen to the homophobic community when married gays call themselves "married" and really don't care what anyone else calls them? As you've pointed out, the word "gay" is no longer usable by the homophobic community, and that was a choice propagated within the gay community which now has wide acceptance within the het community of indicating homosexuality. Do you really think they need the government's cooperation to take over the word "marriage"? Is the homophobic community so simple minded as to believe calling gay marriage something else will prevent all gays from ever referring to their marriages as anything but a "marriage"? And what of gay Canadian tourists who are, in fact, "married" by law? We have a reciprocity agreement with America where we recognize their marriages and they recognize ours. How does the American homophobic community propose to re-label Canadian married gays?

JohnnyCanuck -> RE: Gay marriage (10/23/2008 4:00:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy The idea that the distinction is meaningful is, basically, the thin end of bigotry. We talk about being colour-blind in regards to racism, it's time to be....er......sexual-preference-blind too.......(although i admit we need a far more catchy term). Perhaps "gender-blind" might work. From my point of view homophobia is a form of gender-based bigotry. If the partner were of a different gender, homophobes would have no problem. Thus the issue is gender.

philosophy -> RE: Gay marriage (10/23/2008 4:04:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JohnnyCanuck quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy The idea that the distinction is meaningful is, basically, the thin end of bigotry. We talk about being colour-blind in regards to racism, it's time to be....er......sexual-preference-blind too.......(although i admit we need a far more catchy term). Perhaps "gender-blind" might work. From my point of view homophobia is a form of gender-based bigotry. If the partner were of a different gender, homophobes would have no problem. Thus the issue is gender. ....still not so catchy though, how about 'private-parts blind'........brings a whole new meaning to braille.

JohnnyCanuck -> RE: Gay marriage (10/23/2008 4:10:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MistresseLotus I don't know where you found that definition.. but Merriam-Webster has this as the definition of marriage ...plus a few others :) How about a "loving union".. and for the hets that are married for say 5 years and decided or cannot have their own ums.. they would be required to change their identifier to a "loving union". Thatg way those that have ums or are planning a family would b e a lot easier to find in the dating scene after the perevious marriage is over. You see, I could give a rats ass about gayness.. really. Where I am coming from (if you haven't figured it out yet) is trying to stop confusion down the road .. so to speak. "You ever been married"? (meaning.. possible ums or a member of the opposite sex was involved). but onthe same note.. if you say "No, I was in a loving union" you know the person is interested in the same sex and if you are of the opposite sex, you don't need to pursue that person. Now for the bi's.. I have no solution. You are just too special [:D] Now that is very thoughtful: designer labels for designer relationships between non-hets. And no one will view this as giving special rights to gays: creating new institution(s) for their relationships? After all, we wouldn't want to confuse male gays with females, so we will need at least two labels: one for girls and one for boys. And of course the femmes and the butches won't want to use the same label, so we need one for each. We wouldn't want to confuse anyone by using the same label, now would we? And how do you propose obtaining a consensus regarding all these labels? Will the gay community vote? Will the government hold a special election so gays can elect representatives to the conference on Gay Labelling? Will the homophobic community hold veto power over the proceedings? Or will the homophobic community, out of the generous spirit that motivates them, hand down a label from on high: like "fags" or "sodomites"? I am curious as to how you see the mechanics of such a decision working.

GreedyTop -> RE: Gay marriage (10/23/2008 4:11:00 PM)
snort

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875