AlexanderFollow

Marriage has always been as much about property and societal stability as the legitimacy and security of children.

More so, in many cultures/times.

Therefore marriage is not by its nature exclusively heterosexual, in lay terms (no pun intended). And, since gay couples can and do adopt children, the secondary argument does not apply now, any more than it ever did.

No. Don't be deliberately dense. Not all life bonding mammals have marriage, in exactly the way that all life bonding mammals don't read Shakespeare, or build hi-rise buildings. "Marriage" is a legal, civil state (that's what this is about, right?). No one is questioning a gay couple's right to "nest" together. They're questioning whether they should be given a special legal status for doing so. Animals don't have marriage because they don't have written laws. Heck. They don't have writing...



You'll note that I said "settled societies". I'm reasonably certain that you'll find that the institution of marriage comes along right about the same time that the first agrarian societies formed. Um... In fact, laws in general come about at the same time period. Small groups of hunter/gatherers can manage just find without significant amounts of social rules. Big guy makes the rules. Pretty simple, right? Once you settle, you have to make rules and settle disputes. If you don't, your society dies. And at some point, you have to decide on a larger scale what to do about children produced willy-nilly. Small groups will settle that problem quickly and efficiently because they are "small". Larger groups made up of people who don't all know eachother, but share resources, must come up with real rules and real laws.

It's not about extinction, it's about managing larger communities. We'd all do just fine as hunter/gatherers without marriage. But in order to form large communities, and cities, and nations, you have to deal with the issue of offspring and population management. Marriage is by far the most common solution.


I think it's pretty obvious that from that perspective, homosexuality is not a "problem" that requires the "solution" of a marriage contract. It's two people having sex in a way that ensures no children will be formed. For most early communities, with the exception of a potential reduction of population, that does not create a problem. Certainly, the idea that they should allow gay couples to become married would simply not occur to any ancient societies. It's a ludicrous idea. No one would make a law requiring men who have sex with other men to marry them in the same way most passed laws requiring men who had sex with a woman to marry her. They might pass laws prohibiting gay sex, but never mandating marriage as a result of it. As I said earlier, that's simply counter to the entire point of marriage. It makes zero sense.

Wrong by several thousand years.

See? Use fewer words.

Didn't read anything 'cept the OP.

They screwed up the battle of Guagemela.

'nuff said.

Well.. They call him Alexander the Great.. Not by his Greek name.

Does it make the Bible worth less because it's been translated?

I think that the argument about marriage only being for people who can pro-create is by far outdated.

You sya marriage is only for people who want to have kids. No. It's for people who want to commit themselves to each other and most times decide to raise a family. But there are by far many people who get married, because they want to dedicate themselves to each other, and then decide later that they want to have kids. And some don't have kids at all.

I just think the repdocution argument is a bit silly. Now the argument that says, " The women I have spent 30 years with is in the hospital. I have taken care of her, loved her, and been with her all her life. I can only see her during visiting hours? " and then there is all the benefits that marriage opens up legally. Insurance, etc.

People don't get married ultimately to have kids. They get married to root and STABILIZE themselves. And some people then have kids, adopt kids, or don't have kids at all.

Bleh.... This is becoming a dead horse now.

- Weatherwax
)O(

Nobby. You may as well just skip this one. :)



No. I'm saying that marriage as a legal state was created because when men and women have sex, children are produced, and they must be cared for. Marriage is not about people who "want to have children". That somewhat assumes that they want to have them *together* (presumably with all that entails). If 100% of all children were born only by two people who chose to have them and planned to have them, the institution would never have needed to be created. It was created becaues if it didn't exist, most people whould have children *without* planning them. That's the purpose.



Ok. Why? I have many friends that I care for a great deal. I don't have those rights with them. Explain to me exactly why you should. How exactly is your relationship "special" in any legal way? So if I have sex with one of my friends, I get power of attorney over them? Why? Maybe only if we're "really close" friends? Define for me why from any external view, society should grant you rights that aren't granted to every pair of friends who simply chooses to do so as a matter of legal course?



People get married for many reasons. That has no bearing on why the institution of marriage exists, or what requirements there should be on getting married. Also, explain to me exactly why they "need" marriage to root and stabilize themselves? They don't. Marriage is only "needed" to ensure that children (who can't by themselves enter into contracts) are automatically contractually supported by both parents. People might "want" marriage in order to feel better about themselves or something, but that's not the same as needing it.

Two adults are capable of entering into any of a number of legally binding contracts. Including power of attorney, inheritance, joint guardianship, joint finances, etc. You *can* do all of that. Marriage happens to include them all *and* an automatic extension of those contracts to any future children produced by the couple. That's the whole point of marriage. A gay couple really doesn't "need" marriage.

I happen to agree that there should be a simplified legal status that recognizes "life partners" and such. The problem is, do we restrict it to gay couples? What happens if we don't, and a straight couple chooses to get one of those instead of a marriage? What happens if they then have children? Oops! We just removed the original pont of having such a thing in the first place.

Or do we just scrap the concept of marriage totally, and just recognize parentage by paternity and materity regardless of pre-existing contract? After all, we already do that given the large number of children born to unmarried parents today. Do we even need a separate "marriage" to exist? What effect does that have?

Or do we just expand marriage to be between any two people who want to spend their lives together? See, that's ultimately the issue here. Once we do that, marriage stops being "special" in any way. Sure. You may have the best of intentions, but there's no legal distinction that can be made between two people who want the benefits of being married because they love eachother and want to be together for the rest of their lives, and 2 people who just do it because it's advantageous economically or something. We can't give people a "love test" (although we used to give them blood tests. Guess why...). On a related note. Do we now allow relations closer then 2nd cousins to marry? If not, why (support your argument. Bonus points if you can do so without supporting my assertion that marriage is based on the assumption that children may be produced by the couple)? If it's because of inbreeding issues, then do we only allow them to marry if they are the same sex? So I can marry my brother, but not my sister? Is this a good idea? What affect does *that* have on our society? Are we opening pandoras box here? Maybe we should stop and think about this a bit farther then our own personal agendas first?

And that's ultimately the real resistance to the idea of gay marriage. We have gradually eroded the concept of marriage from what it once was to what you're talking about (Just two people who love eachother). Some might say that's not erosion, but evolution. They may be correct. But you have to realize that that's a *major* social change, and a *major* institution that you are turning on it's head. Many people are unhappy enough that divorce is legal, and pre-martital sex is allowed, and point to the high level of single parents struggling to raise children as a direct consequence. Conservatives oppose the idea because they see this as more of the trend that does result in those single parent homes. Liberals charge in with the "solution" of bigger government (more wellfare to support unwed mothers and more administration to determine and enforce child support payments). Conservatives believe that if we would stop actively destroying the institutions that were already in place to prevent that, the problem wouldn't exist in the first place, and the "solution" wouldn't be needed. The Liberals are creating the very problems they then need to solve. Is that progress?


I make this point to highlight that there is a hell of a lot more to this issue then just being "anti-gay". Most Conservatives (even most of the religious folks), don't believe that the presence of gays in our society is damaging at all. But weakening an institution like marriage *is*. While I (and most conservatives) agree that something should be done, the knee jerk Liberal response of marching on marriage is probably *not* the best solution. But until we recognize that there are some major and far reaching sociological effects that would result, and Liberals start listening to the counter arguments instead of holding up signs and chanting slogans, we'll never have the dialogue that's really needed to resolve this to everyone's satisfaction.

Haven't seen it yet either, Will this weekend tho... will report back after ive studied hehehehe

Alexander the Pretty Good,

Not a great movie, but not a bad one either. Alexander was gay. The gay stuff in this movie is tactfully done. In Alexander's time (in Greece) being gay was very acceptable. It did not have the stigma we attach today.

They left out a lot, particularly in his early career. But, in just three hours how do you include everything and not make it a documentary.

My biggest problem with the movie was Colin Farrel (sp?). I think he overacted in way too many seens. Alexander was made to look as if he spent his entire life with inner turmoil, struggling with intense issues.

On rereading my comments I sound to negitive. This was a good movie, but not a GREAT one.

Also, if you purchased the Alexander soundtrack ,listen to track #3 "Titans". Very good IMO.