Why not call gay marriage "garriage" and be done with it?

[Atomic Playboy]

Examples include Ancient classical Greece, modern day Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan just to name a few...

Yeah, I hear gay marriage is really commonplace in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.

 

[Carfax83]

Yeah, I hear gay marriage is really commonplace in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.

In my original comment, I was referring to homosexuality in general, and not gay marriage specifically.

While gay marriage isn't legal in either Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, homosexuality (as in the sexual behavior) is more common in those countries than in other parts of the World, specifically due to their misogynistic sentiments.

It's actually easier for an single man to have sexual contact with another single man than it is for him to have sexual contact with a single female.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

In my original comment, I was referring to homosexuality in general, and not gay marriage specifically.

While gay marriage isn't legal in either Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, homosexuality (as in the sexual behavior) is more common in those countries than in other parts of the World, specifically due to their misogynistic sentiments.

It's actually easier for an single man to have sexual contact with another single man than it is for him to have sexual contact with a single female.

Homosexuality is illegal in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, and those found to be gay are imprisoned or killed. By comparison, homosexuality is quite legal in America, and we treat our women alot better than Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. So, remind me, what is your point? Because if you're arguing that there's some huge prevalence of homosexuality sweeping through oppressive middle eastern countries, I'm really going to need to see some sources.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I just think that it was the norm for a long time, then it changed. I don't think people take too kindly to, please pardon my lack of finding a better term, abnormal behavior.

That's something people used to say about interracial marriages.

 

[Retro Rob]

That's something people used to say about interracial marriages.

But interracial marriages still were between opposite sexes. Not too abnormal.

 

[bfdd]

And how are people not being allowed to gather in one place for a common purpose?

Uh, any sort of federal legislation pertaining to "marriage" infringes on someones right to do it. marriage is a form of assembly, assembly is protected from congresses meddling, hence any Federal law having to do with marriage is unconstitutional. It simply doesn't matter what any PRIVATE institution or entity claims is the definition of marriage for they can still do business in the market in which they define, while others will be able to deal with marriage in the market that they define. It's simply a grouping or forming of a union, same thing when someone makes a corporation or labour union. Would you deny those rights to anyone? Would you say "you know what, two men cannot form a corporation together" "women, women cannot get together for a common future goal", is that right? Absolutely not and it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the Federal Government to intervene in such matters and infringe on ANYONES right to assemble in ANY form they so choose.

Assembly doesn't just protect the right to gather or group in one place or petition the Government. Those are simply extra protections against Governments infringement on assembly or association.

 

[jackstar7]

But interracial marriages still were between opposite sexes. Not too abnormal.

Hindsight.

People at the time were just as frightened.

 

[Carfax83]

Homosexuality is illegal in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, and those found to be gay are imprisoned or killed. By comparison, homosexuality is quite legal in America, and we treat our women alot better than Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. So, remind me, what is your point? Because if you're arguing that there's some huge prevalence of homosexuality sweeping through oppressive middle eastern countries, I'm really going to need to see some sources.

LOL, if you think the fact that homosexuality is illegal in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan in any way diminishes the prevalence of the behavior in those two countries, think again.

Due to the anti-heterosexual policies in both nations, homosexuality is practically rampant. Like I said, it's easier for a man to have sex with another man, than for him to have sex with an unmarried woman..

Gays flaunt it in Saudi Arabia

Gay Afghanistan

Dancing boys of Afghanistan

 

[Retro Rob]

Hindsight.

People at the time were just as frightened.

about what? Really, I don't quite understand. If I DO understand you, are they scared of someday "accepting" it?

 

[hal2kilo]

LOL, if you think the fact that homosexuality is illegal in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan in any way diminishes the prevalence of the behavior in those two countries, think again.

Due to the anti-heterosexual policies in both nations, homosexuality is practically rampant. Like I said, it's easier for a man to have sex with another man, than for him to have sex with an unmarried woman..

Gays flaunt it in Saudi Arabia

Gay Afghanistan


Dancing boys of Afghanistan

Young boys are for fun sex. Women are just for procreation.

 

[nehalem256]

That's something people used to say about interracial marriages.

Feel free to provide evidence that people defined marriage as being between a man and a woman of the same race.

As opposed to saying the mixed-race marriage was possible, but an affront to God.

 

[nehalem256]

Uh, any sort of federal legislation pertaining to "marriage" infringes on someones right to do it. marriage is a form of assembly, assembly is protected from congresses meddling, hence any Federal law having to do with marriage is unconstitutional. It simply doesn't matter what any PRIVATE institution or entity claims is the definition of marriage for they can still do business in the market in which they define, while others will be able to deal with marriage in the market that they define. It's simply a grouping or forming of a union, same thing when someone makes a corporation or labour union. Would you deny those rights to anyone? Would you say "you know what, two men cannot form a corporation together" "women, women cannot get together for a common future goal", is that right? Absolutely not and it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the Federal Government to intervene in such matters and infringe on ANYONES right to assemble in ANY form they so choose.

Assembly doesn't just protect the right to gather or group in one place or petition the Government. Those are simply extra protections against Governments infringement on assembly or association.

That doesn't make sense? A corporation is not defined, and has never been defined in a way you are claiming.

In fact by your logic I could establish a Royal Court of the United States. And if the government refused to recognize me as King that would be a violation of my right to free assembly 🙄

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

That doesn't make sense? A corporation is not defined, and has never been defined in a way you are claiming.

In fact by your logic I could establish a Royal Court of the United States. And if the government refused to recognize me as King that would be a violation of my right to free assembly 🙄

But what if some people were already enjoying the right to form "Royal Courts of the United States?" Upon what basis should we deny you that same right?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Feel free to provide evidence that people defined marriage as being between a man and a woman of the same race.

I define marriage to be between two consenting adults of any gender.

What now?

You seem to think that definitions are somehow binding or objective facts, as if we just discovered the words with their meanings and now we're stuck with them. There is no reason that a definition can't change. The only people that are arguing that it shouldn't are doing so on the basis of bigotry.

 

[Moonbeam]

You can't reach a bigot with regard to his or her bigotry. A bigot has a closed mind that hides behind an assumed certainty that their bigotry is good. No bigot could maintain his bigotry if he could see that his or her bigotry was evil. The evil can only be seen by non bigoted people. This is why bigots deserve nothing but pity. How sorry could a person be who is evil and thinks he is good. A bigot is a person who has been blinded by being placed in a trap at an age before the onset of reason. He or she, for example, may have been overcome mentally, by the oldest of mind traps, religious belief. He is introduced to a text that claims in that text to be the word of God and that those who disbelieve are going to hell. No child has the mental resources to resist this. This is why the world is filled with believers in all the various and many only religions. Once the fear of hell is attached to the notion of deviant thinking the fear of the deviant becomes a way of life. The bigoted are doomed to spend their lives in denial for fear they will go to hell. This becomes instinctual, a truth they know in their guts. They are completely lost to sight and to reason. They are nothing but blind pathetic bigots who have no hope of redemption. The only way out for a bigot is through hell. Trust me, I know, I had to go there to be free and it hurt like shit.

 

[bfdd]

That doesn't make sense? A corporation is not defined, and has never been defined in a way you are claiming.

In fact by your logic I could establish a Royal Court of the United States. And if the government refused to recognize me as King that would be a violation of my right to free assembly 🙄

cor·po·ra·tion/ˌkôrpəˈrāSHən/
Noun:
A company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.
A group of people elected to govern a city, town, or borough.

how is that different than marriage? A group of people acting as a single entity governing a family unit or whatever contract they've decided to come up with to further benefit their "kinship" ? There is no difference, just arbitrary ones so some how people with better bullshitting skills can sneak an advantage over someone else.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Feel free to provide evidence that people defined marriage as being between a man and a woman of the same race.

As opposed to saying the mixed-race marriage was possible, but an affront to God.

What on Earth are you talking about? Have you never heard of anti-miscegenation laws? Loving v. Virginia? All but 9 states have had laws on their books at some point prohibiting people of different racess to get married; the majority of these were overturned post-World War II, and all of them were declared unconstitutional by Loving v. Virginia in 1967. Or are you arguing that a law specifically disallowing interracial marriage isn't "defining" it?

 

[zinfamous]

Homosexuality is illegal in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, and those found to be gay are imprisoned or killed. By comparison, homosexuality is quite legal in America, and we treat our women alot better than Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. So, remind me, what is your point? Because if you're arguing that there's some huge prevalence of homosexuality sweeping through oppressive middle eastern countries, I'm really going to need to see some sources.

actually, it's true. It's not so much the oppression of women, but oppression of sex, in general.

fascinating article from The Atlantic several years ago.

The Kingdom in the Closet

Where a homosexual underground is compared, in terms or practice, to the uncloseted numbers one finds in Cape Cod, for example.

Gay courting in the kingdom is often overt—in fact, the preferred mode is cruising. “When I was new here, I was worried when six or seven cars would follow me as I walked down the street,” Jamie, a 31-year-old Filipino florist living in Jeddah, told me. “Especially if you’re pretty like me, they won’t stop chasing you.” John Bradley, the author of Saudi Arabia Exposed: Inside a Kingdom in Crisis (2005), says that most male Western expatriates here, gay or not, have been propositioned by Saudi men driving by “at any time of the day or night, quite openly and usually very, very persistently.”
Many gay expatriates say they feel more at home in the kingdom than in their native lands. Jason, a South African educator who has lived in Jeddah since 2002, notes that although South Africa allows gay marriage, “it’s as though there are more gays here.” For Talal, Riyadh became an escape. When he was 17 and living in Da*mas*cus, his father walked in on him having sex with a male friend. He hit Talal and grounded him for two months, letting him out of the house only after he swore he was no longer attracted to men. Talal’s pale face flushed crimson as he recalled his shame at disappointing his family. Eager to escape the weight of their expectations, he took a job in Riyadh. When he announced that he would be moving, his father responded, “You know all Saudis like boys, and you are white. Take care.” Talal was pleased to find a measure of truth in his father’s warning—his fair skin made him a hit among the locals.

I think the important point to take is that while many of those who engage in homosexual acts in SA would not consider themselves gay (it seems that only pitching is acceptable) as they are married, and this is all to "relive tensions brought on by a theocratic repressive society that does not allow them to associate with women, in general," this remains a very open and seemingly accepted movement of homosexual behavior.

At the same time, many "real gays" do seem to feel more comfortable here--though also closeted. Many have moved from far more restrictive countries (many in Africa) as Riyadh has become known in the community as "gay friendly," such as it is.

They can't be known to be gay, but their lifestyle is not as frowned-upon as many would assume in such a society.

It's a weird model, to be sure. Openly gay, but closeted under fear of punishment--likely death.

As Carfax said: sex between two men is far more accepted than sex between an unmarried man and woman. And even when you are married, your sexual habits are strictly regulated.

Because, well: fucking religion.

 

[zsdersw]

A single person making minimum wage is above the poverty line.

I have personally been above the poverty line since 16.

And the technical "poverty line" is highly inaccurate, at best. The thresholds were defined back in the 1960s when food was a high-cost item relative to other things like transportation and health care.

So marriage is not necessary to prevent the spread of STDs thanks to condoms 😀

EDIT: Having a BFF also makes people happier and is therefore good for society.

Condoms combined with monogamy is 100% effective in preventing the spread of STDs. What encourages monogamy? A committed romantic relationship that is usually codified as marriage.

 

[IGBT]

same thing with incest and homo bestiality. Who cares if two married homo brothers also wana marry their goats.

 

[nageov3t]

I would be fine with ending all marriage benefits whatsoever for all couples, regardless of their sexual orientation.

but, so long as the government is going to provide those benefits, it should be done without discrimination... separate but equal has been tried in NJ, and "civil unions" have been pretty conclusively found to be unequal to marriage.

 

[JEDIYoda]

But interracial marriages still were between opposite sexes. Not too abnormal.

There are now levels of "abnormal"......

 

[JEDIYoda]

same thing with incest and homo bestiality. Who cares if two married homo brothers also wana marry their goats.

There is always some wack job who posts crap like an idiot....

 

[jackstar7]

There is always some wack job who posts crap like an idiot....

C'mon. It's not just some whackjob -- it's always IGBT.

 

[nehalem256]

But what if some people were already enjoying the right to form "Royal Courts of the United States?" Upon what basis should we deny you that same right?

I currently have the right to form a "Royal Court of the United States"

The better question is what gives you the right to question the word of your King? 😀

Condoms combined with monogamy is 100% effective in preventing the spread of STDs. What encourages monogamy? A committed romantic relationship that is usually codified as marriage.

If everyone was monogamous condoms would be pointless to prevent the spread of STDs right?

I would be fine with ending all marriage benefits whatsoever for all couples, regardless of their sexual orientation.

but, so long as the government is going to provide those benefits, it should be done without discrimination... separate but equal has been tried in NJ, and "civil unions" have been pretty conclusively found to be unequal to marriage.

Explain how civil unions are unequal? What rights is the state denying to people in a civil union?