Same Sex marriage - my view point

[Red Irish]

As my son would say, "that's silly".

No sillier than you explaining to him that two men or women holding hands in the park form a part of a civil union rather than a marriage. Or, telling him, if and when he arrives at your home with a boyfriend, that he can enter into a civil union with your blessing, but not a marriage. Now, that is silly.

You seem to be appealing to the tradition of marriage. Bear in mind that in the Middle Ages, girls often married at 11 or 12. How far do you want us to go back in time before we reach the ideal definition of marriage? Presumably only so far as proves necessary to have your bigotry and inability to accept change bolstered by a misguided appeal to historical practice.

 

[sportage]

Well Im telling the Gay community. You are going about this same sex marriage thing totally wrong... You should be smarter than that, to set yourself up for defeat after defeat. And especially when the "law" is on your side. Your undeniable strengths? Law!
Whenever judges and courts examined and interpreted the constitutional laws vs same sex marriage, the Gay community wins every time. You have to build on that. You need to hit congress, local and federal. Lobby lobby lobby!!! Get the laws changed from the inside out. Protest when possible, and put a face on that same sex family for your community to see. Make them aware they are voting on peoples lives, and not just some abstract issue. Be more creative just as the opponents are, and use the law and law makers to your advantage. For example, if same sex marriage rights were defined as an civil right issue, needing a 60% ballot approval and not just a 51%, then that alone would have handed you wins in California as well as Maine, instead of a loss. It can be done. That is what local and federal lawmakers are there for. Rethink and be more creative, just the way your opponents have already mastered. As it stands now, you will never experience a true victory by allowing a ballot vote, state by state. Maybe the tide will turn in your direction “some day”, but do you really want to wait that long? And a long wait it will be.

 

[actuarial]

OK my bad. I do know. I wouldnt give a rats ass what it was called. Call it Shuma Shuma for all I care *shrug*

Yes I just made that argument. I apologize for the lack of a /sarcasm tag, even if there is a bit of truth in it.

What I don't understand: If you don't give a rats ass what it's called, why do you give a rats ass what THEY call it? Or is it just you don't want it to be called what you call yours?

And LOL at the thought of celebrating your 50th civil union anniversary. "My life partner and I have been civil unioned for 50 years."

 

[Brainonska511]

This whole thing always reminds me of that South Park episode on the issue:

Governor: I believe that I might have come up with a compromise to this whole problem that will make everyone happy! People in the gay community want the same rights as married couples, but dissenters don't want the word "marriage" corrupted. So how about we let gay people get married, but call it something else? You homosexuals will have all the exact same rights as married couples, but instead of referring to you as "married," you can be “butt buddies”. Instead of being "man and wife," you'll be “butt buddies”. You won't be "betrothed," you'll be “butt buddies”. Get it? Instead of a "bride and groom," you'd be “butt buddies”.
Mr. Slave: We wanna be treated equally!
Governor: You are equal. It's just that instead of getting "engaged," you would be “butt buddies”.

 

[LunarRay]

This whole thing always reminds me of that South Park episode on the issue:

Governor: I believe that I might have come up with a compromise to this whole problem that will make everyone happy! People in the gay community want the same rights as married couples, but dissenters don't want the word "marriage" corrupted. So how about we let gay people get married, but call it something else? You homosexuals will have all the exact same rights as married couples, but instead of referring to you as "married," you can be “butt buddies”. Instead of being "man and wife," you'll be “butt buddies”. You won't be "betrothed," you'll be “butt buddies”. Get it? Instead of a "bride and groom," you'd be “butt buddies”.
Mr. Slave: We wanna be treated equally!
Governor: You are equal. It's just that instead of getting "engaged," you would be “butt buddies”.

I wonder why folks seem to always have in mind Man/Man relationships when referring to Gay folks? Women are not 'Butt Buddies' when they are in Lesbian relations...
I suppose I also wonder about all those Man/Women Married folks who sorta experiment with their spouses in a manner of the Man/Man notion mentioned by the 'Governor' above. Is that 'experimenting' indicative of some deep seated homosexual desire on the part of the man?
Guess the Peacock by any other name is a Duck and ergo, the Duck Test!

 

[blackangst1]

What I don't understand: If you don't give a rats ass what it's called, why do you give a rats ass what THEY call it? Or is it just you don't want it to be called what you call yours?

And LOL at the thought of celebrating your 50th civil union anniversary. "My life partner and I have been civil unioned for 50 years."

Um, I dont. Im neither for it nor agaqinst it. In fact, the one time it was on a ballot in an election I voted in, I didnt vote one way or the other. I left it blank. Thats how much I dont care either way.

 

[blackangst1]

I wonder why folks seem to always have in mind Man/Man relationships when referring to Gay folks? Women are not 'Butt Buddies' when they are in Lesbian relations...

They are when they strap it on

 

[shira]

I wonder why folks seem to always have in mind Man/Man relationships when referring to Gay folks? Women are not 'Butt Buddies' when they are in Lesbian relations...

They are when they strap it on

Um, no. Lesbian couples typically engage in vaginal sex, not anal sex.

 

[jonks]

Um, no. Lesbian couples typically engage in vaginal sex, not anal sex.

you're not watching the right porn

 

[LunarRay]

you're not watching the right porn

Porn is for men... hhehehehehehe The lot of it is for men... Men don't have a clue bout women and their mind set... (a quote from my Lesbian daughter who laughs at the notion that men think they do.)

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Same sex marriage is extraordinarily straight forward and the same people against it today were against inter-racial marriage, for the same reasons, 40-50 years ago. They'll be looked at in history the same way years from now that the inter-racial marriage nuts were looked at in the 50's and 60's; as bigots.

This.

Here is a perfect situation going on in the news currently.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/15/interracial-couple-denied_n_322784.html

This guy refuses to marry bi-racial couples. Does that mean he is a bigot/racist? He claims no, but public opinion seems to be yes. I would love to have somebody actually be able to tell me what the difference is between this guy discriminating against bi-racial couples, and the GLBT community being prohibited from marrying the same sex. I'm anxiously awaiting anybody that cares to argue how what this Justice of the Peace is doing is discrimination, but denying gays from marrying isn't.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

What I don't understand: If you don't give a rats ass what it's called, why do you give a rats ass what THEY call it? Or is it just you don't want it to be called what you call yours?

And LOL at the thought of celebrating your 50th civil union anniversary. "My life partner and I have been civil unioned for 50 years."

I hope you're not seriously saying that people couldn't (and wouldn't) say they were "married" if the government started recognizing all of em as civil unions instead, because that's not an argument that you can win.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

you're not watching the right porn

Or friends with the right women

 

[Corn]

So a gay person comparing their relationship to a straight person's is like a child who thinks he's a cat. Do you see how that comparison might be just a tad insulting to gay people? You're flat out saying that their love is not as valid as a heterosexual couple's love, that they are "imitating the cat," though they can never be it. What basis do you have for saying that a gay couple's relationship is less valid than a straight couple's? Your own definition? Because your definition sounds like textbook bigotry.

This reply embodies the abject stupidity or intentional misrepresentation by the average lefty. At no point do I compare the relationship of anyone to my son's roleplay. As well do I state or imply anywhere that homosexual love is not as "valid" as heterosexual love. Quite the contrary as I've state over and over in this thread that committed homosexual couples should have every right afforded to them that heterosexual couple enjoy.

I just think that it is rather silly to be so bent out of shape when it comes to the desire to redefine the term "marriage" to include relationships that fall outside of its traditional definition. My mother-in-law has been in a committed relationship with her boyfriend for nearly 25 years. They are not married and I certainly don't believe for a moment that their love is not as "valid" as anyone else's simply because their relationship is not defined by the term "marriage".

Feel free to continue this discussion when you can act rationally and present your arguments in an honest and thoughtful manner, otherwise be ignored.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

This reply embodies the abject stupidity or intentional misrepresentation by the average lefty. At no point do I compare the relationship of anyone to my son's roleplay. As well do I state or imply anywhere that homosexual love is not as "valid" as heterosexual love. Quite the contrary as I've state over and over in this thread that committed homosexual couples should have every right afforded to them that heterosexual couple enjoy.

I just think that it is rather silly to be so bent out of shape when it comes to the desire to redefine the term "marriage" to include relationships that fall outside of its traditional definition. My mother-in-law has been in a committed relationship with her boyfriend for nearly 25 years. They are not married and I certainly don't believe for a moment that their love is not as "valid" as anyone else's simply because their relationship is not defined by the term "marriage".

Feel free to continue this discussion when you can act rationally and present your arguments in an honest and thoughtful manner, otherwise be ignored.

The flaw with your mothers analogy, is that they *choose* to not get married. They have the right to at anytime they want. They haven't by their own choice, not because society has said they cannot.

The "traditional definition" of marriage in the Middle Ages was 18+ year old guys with 13 year old girls (and in some countries this still happens). The definition was changed so that was wrong. The "traditional definition" of marriage 100 years ago was one white man married to one white woman (or substitute "white" for any other race). Bi-racial couples were outside the "traditional definition" of marriage. The point here is that marriage is a word that defines a form of relationship, and being a word it's part of language. Languages change over time, and word meanings evolve.

I don't care what it's called (marriage, civil unions, butt buddies, dingleberries, Obama, etc), as long as any two people of legal consenting age who freely choose to get married can. Be that gay, transvestite, straight, bi-racial, etc. If the religious people are okay with it as a civil union, fine then all "marriages" are "civil unions" in the eyes of the state. If they are okay with calling it a "gay marriage" that's fine by me as well. Regardless of what your sexual orientation is, your race, or religious beliefs it should all be called the same thing. Period.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Okay for those of you who think it should be called something different for gay couples then it is for straight couples, let me ask you why can't we have a "gay" high school and a "straight" high school?

Since you say that race isn't an even comparison, fine lets do away with it. Why can't we segregate GLBT's into different schools, different movie theaters, different bathrooms, different public transportation, etc since we can segregate them when it comes to marriage.

 

[Bird222]

What the "problem" comes down to (although most in the anti-gay crowd won't actually admit it) is that the bible is being interpreted to mean that God doesn't like homosexual behavior. Therefore, legalizing same-sex marriage is (to this crowd) tantamount to approving of sin. They rationalize their opposition with all sorts of transparently inane arguments, but that's their real "problem" with same-sex marriage.

That brings this to mind if it's all about what God wants. How 'bout we outlaw the eating of shellfish? How 'bout we stone people to death for certain sins? How 'bout we outlaw DIVORCE? I wonder how much support from the religious right we could get on those issues?

 

[LunarRay]

That brings this to mind if it's all about what God wants. How 'bout we outlaw the eating of shellfish? How 'bout we stone people to death for certain sins? How 'bout we outlaw DIVORCE? I wonder how much support from the religious right we could get on those issues?

You forget who it is that tells us WHAT GOD WANTS... It is the folks who decide for God what God wants. I think God wants our Souls and gave us Free Will to live as we choose. Who are these people who decide What God wants and feel they need to save me from my destiny... These hypocrites and vipers all...

 

[fskimospy]

This reply embodies the abject stupidity or intentional misrepresentation by the average lefty. At no point do I compare the relationship of anyone to my son's roleplay. As well do I state or imply anywhere that homosexual love is not as "valid" as heterosexual love. Quite the contrary as I've state over and over in this thread that committed homosexual couples should have every right afforded to them that heterosexual couple enjoy.

I just think that it is rather silly to be so bent out of shape when it comes to the desire to redefine the term "marriage" to include relationships that fall outside of its traditional definition. My mother-in-law has been in a committed relationship with her boyfriend for nearly 25 years. They are not married and I certainly don't believe for a moment that their love is not as "valid" as anyone else's simply because their relationship is not defined by the term "marriage".

Feel free to continue this discussion when you can act rationally and present your arguments in an honest and thoughtful manner, otherwise be ignored.

The world redefines words on a daily basis. Why get so bent out of shape that this one is being redefined? In your opinion the validity of a relationship isn't based upon the label assigned to it, so why care? In many gay people's minds they are concerned that they will be placed into a 'separate but equal' system, and if history is anything to go by this concern is a pretty valid one.

Sorry if I don't buy the 'we can't let gay people marry to save the dictionary' argument.

 

[actuarial]

I hope you're not seriously saying that people couldn't (and wouldn't) say they were "married" if the government started recognizing all of em as civil unions instead, because that's not an argument that you can win.

When you say 'all of em', as in straight AND gay marriages, I agree, and that's an equal compromise (it's still stupid in my mind, but whatever). What I'm talking about is the government having 'marriage' licenses for tradition marriages and 'civil union' licenses for gay marriages, which is what a lot of people seem to be advocating.

 

[Red Irish]

This reply embodies the abject stupidity or intentional misrepresentation by the average lefty. At no point do I compare the relationship of anyone to my son's roleplay. As well do I state or imply anywhere that homosexual love is not as "valid" as heterosexual love. Quite the contrary as I've state over and over in this thread that committed homosexual couples should have every right afforded to them that heterosexual couple enjoy.

I just think that it is rather silly to be so bent out of shape when it comes to the desire to redefine the term "marriage" to include relationships that fall outside of its traditional definition. My mother-in-law has been in a committed relationship with her boyfriend for nearly 25 years. They are not married and I certainly don't believe for a moment that their love is not as "valid" as anyone else's simply because their relationship is not defined by the term "marriage".

Feel free to continue this discussion when you can act rationally and present your arguments in an honest and thoughtful manner, otherwise be ignored.

Traditional marriage in the middle ages = paedophilia

You are picking and chosing those aspects of the tradition of marriage that are in keeping with your point of view and ignoring those aspects that you find distasteful. Homosexual marriage existed in the Roman era, so basically we're discussing your opinion of what should constitute a marriage rather than a standard that should be upheld.

Nobody is redefining marriage, unless you adhere to a model that has little to do with the tradition of this institution and more to do with personal perspectives.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

This is really about CIVIL rights so then the emphasis should be on CIVIL union rights, not marriage rights. Gay people, my advice is take the word "marriage" out of your campaign, and fight to get state laws changed so that the licensing process allow civil unions for any two adults, which gives everyone the same civil legal rights.

Let the religious have their term marriage. Religions still have the right to deny gays the option to marry, but there are many churches who will marry gays, if gays choose that route.

I think alot of people in the gay community would be suprised if they knew who was going into the voting booth and voting against same sex marriage. Often people say one thing to your face or seem supportive, then in the privacy of the voting booth do something far different. As long as the religious right can steer the issue to the ballot box (and they're doing a masterful job of it) marriage equality is going nowhere. Civil rights should never be handed over to voters, but the right has turned it into a work of art in this case. It's working for them, and they'll continue to do it.

 

[Corn]

Tsk tsk Beemer, your bigotry is showing.

 

[blackangst1]

Tsk tsk Beemer, your bigotry is showing.

tsk tsk you knee jerked. What you read wasnt bigotry, it was truth. Sometimes it hurts.

 

[Corn]

Ummmmmm, I you might want to recalibrate your sarcasm meter BA.