The politicization of homosexualityFollow

I wasn't trying to prove my point with that last post, but rather pin you down on yours. You have now made yourself abundantly clear.

On the issue of race: I have no difficulty with inter-racial marriages for the simple reason that there is no difference between an Oriental man and a black man, and a Latino, and a white, or an Eskimo. Skin pigmentation has as much weight in terms of the differences between alike genders as does blonde hair from red hair, or brown eyes from blue eyes.

However, there is a fundamental difference between a man and a woman. Obviously. If we have to discuss this then we shouldn't be talking. However, when it comes to marriage and marriage only it is a traditional institution that happens between a man and a woman. If two men want to get "unionized" (and I'm not speaking of limp wristed longshoremen here, folks) that's their business. No problem. But when it comes to marriage and marriage only, that happens between a man and a woman.

To ask why is like asking why a man can't get pregnant. Because he can't. Need we ask why? I guess we can implant an embryo on the intestinal wall so we can say technically he's pregnant, but that's forcing the issue. The same applies to gay marriages-- we can force the issue, but that's not the way it traditionally is done.

So leave it alone.

But the question that lingers still is why are they clamoring for marriage and then not partaking in it? At least in Toronto? I suppose only a homosexual could tell us why marriage is not something they wish to participate in, but then why all the fuss about marriages when unions are already in place for these people? The ironic thing is that it hardens the stance of people who have up until this point quietly tolerated homosexuals. It just goes to show that the vocal minority within a minority is so far out of touch with mainstream thinking that they will cut off their nose to spite their face. There is a point where mainstream America will not cross and we are fast approaching it.

We haven't needed or even wanted a Constitutional amendment, but when having issues we'd just as soon quietly ignore shoved in our face, I predict the vocal minority will quickly discover how bad it can get.

Totem

Totem

I still can't believe laws were passed to allow the working class to vote in the UK. That started the slippery slope to allowing women to vote. What will it be next? 2 year olds voting? Sheep voting? Where will it stop?

Do you know what? At the last local elections only 30% of the UK population voted. So some 70% of the people who ostensibly would benefit from being allowed to vote do not actually partake in the practice which they supposedly were fighting for. So what exactly was the goal of the pesky proletariat and ******* who really should be at home cooking dinner without worring their silly little heads about politics?

Bwahaha. You are a piece of work. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh so it is a tradition. Now I see your argument. Why didn't you say so earlier!

During any paradigm shift in society it is truism that a tradition is rejected as no longer relevant. Whether the issue was surrounding race, gender, or class. Arguing that something shouldn't change because it is a tradition is about as unintellectual as it comes.

Ok then, Smash, if we eliminate marriage as an institution then I should have been legally able to claim my roommates back in college as a tax exemption. After all, we were living together and they were always eating my groceries. If the only basis for marriage is for tax purposes-- if I'm reading your response correctly --then yeah, marriage should be available for anyone and everyone. And I should be due a fat refund for living with those guys during my four years in college.

Marriage has been between a man and a woman since time began. It derives its' meaning from the recognised union between that pairing, both civilly and religiosly. To say that now marriage can be between two members of the same sex is like all of a sudden renaming red to blue. It doesn't make any sense, but that doesn't seem to be stopping people from trying.

Totem

Well, actually, you could have. You don't have to married to be a dependant, so I'm sort of lost as to what your point is there.


There's no tax incentive to be married. Marrige conveys a whole slate of rights to the two parties involved. Come on, you know this. I can recite you dozens of horror stories of gay couples who lived managamously together for fifty years who weren't allowed to see the other as they lay in a hospital dying because they weren't "family".


Just religiously actually. States are just now adding the language about men and women. It was just between the same races for a long time too. It was an arranged thing for a long time. It was only between those of the same faith for a long time. Etc. etc. etc. This certainly wouldn't be the first change to the "institution" of marrige.



No. Specifcally preventing gays from getting married doesn't make any sense. You haven't presented a single reason where the harm is in letting gays marry. What's the negative impact of it? It'll change marrige. Ok. That's not inherantly negative. It changed marrige when we let interacial couples marry. You still haven't argued ANYTHING here other than:

CHANGE BAD!!!

What did you hope to gain from the official institution of marrige?

The answer will be the same, my friend.



Intreacial marrige. Same argument applies.



Because It's the right thing to do. Because it's FAIR. Because to do so brings joy and equality to hundreds of thousands and hurts absolutely no one

Any time we can do something that brings joy and equality to hundreds of thousands and hurts absolutely no one...I'm going to be in favor of it.

That's just me though. I'm not intrested in legislating my morality onto other people. Unlike SOME helicopter pilots from norther California who shall remain nameless.

The civil union supercedes the family's wishes. In other words, if one member of a gay couple lays dying, the union certificate trumps the unaccepting family's desires to keep them apart. As for the distribution of wealth, a simple will takes care of that.

I can see your points, both you and Pat, but the institution of marriage conveys a built-in assumption of a child producing couple.

And gosh, it's late and I had an argument I wanted to make, but am unable to clearly convey anything except images of a soft sleep inducing pillow and freshly laundered sheets. I'm headed off to get some shut-eye before the next call comes in and I lurch my way out to the helicopter to save someone else's bacon again tonight.

G'night.

Totem

More importnatly, will ******* beat Chealsea on Saturday?

Good lad!

Since when? 1940? The 50's? I'm a straight girl from a third-world country, for crying out loud, and I never thought that being married meant I had to produce children. Not even sure I want to, kids are messy and loud. Does that make me unnatural? Maybe. Does it impede my right to marry? No.

These issues don't exist in a vaccuum. Eventually all the people with hardcore attachments to old ways die off, and the younger, more progressive ideas take over. It's the way of the world. If it doesn't happen now, it will in time. And before you refute with the incest argument, I don't care who marries as long as they're committed to each other and in it for the long haul.

Maybe they haven't found the right partner yet ? But should they, it'd be nice to have the right to be married if they so chose.

You take the right to marry for granted. You're married. It's part of the "natural order of things" to grow up, get married. I'd say it's a traditional expectation.

As Smash pointed out, it hurts NO ONE.

As far as this opinion :



I'm not quite sure what this topic is about anymore (i got lost around the 15th post) but in my own personaly opinion, stupidity and closemindedness are wrong ! very wrong not to mention very gross ...

so marriages between stupid and closeminded people should not be allowed ! and people shouldn't be stupid and closeminded !

Vagely ralated to the topic at hand. Marriages and child bearing.

http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/utah/index.shtml



Next up are common law marriages combined with gay marriage. I don't know the accuracy of this website but it quotes Pennsylvania as saying:

If you change "a man and woman" to "a man and man or a woman and woman" there's a pretty decent possibility of some bad mojo happening in the courts. Most of my roommates while going to college were male. One of my roommates said he refused to have a female roommate because one of his past roommates decided to mess with his life. According to him, this former roommate of his couldn't pay rent a couple of times so he covered it. After enough crap he tossed her out. Next thing Alan knew he had papers summoning him to court. His "common law wife" wanted alimony from him. It became a battle of "he said, she said". In the end Alan won the court battle but it still cost him a chunk of change. Now if gay marriages are made legal do you think Alan will ever have another roommate, male or female, again due to the past?

I will be the first to admit this is an extreme example but anybody that institutes gay marriages would have to be pretty shallow and trusting to think something like this couldn't/wouldn't ever happen.

Whenever you want the US government to confirm or enforce your religous views you will run into trouble because the constitution is pretty specific about that. Don't let the government define marriage for your religion - or try to have the government enforce your religion's peculiar wishes on anyone. Call being legally married a "civil union" - for *everyone* and call religious marriage "marriage". Let's separate the two.

I don't think the US public can accept this yet so likely it will be in the courts for some time.

Personally, I'm embarassed that my state California - not exactly a bastion of right wing ideology - had a proposition pass defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. It's obvious to me this is a religous definition and that we will have gay marriage eventually. It must be so frusturating to be a conservative; you must know you are going to loose eventually.

The legal benefits of marriage such as not being forced to testify against each other, being able to pass property from one to the other without taxes, being able to be married and file income taxes either jointly or separately, etc. are numerous and well established. It is two people saying they want to be considered as just one entity for these purposes why not allow any two people to enter into such an arrangement?

Let's be specific, all we are talking about is legal marriage. Your religion can restrict marriage based on shoe size to hair length ratio for all I care.