Gay marriage

[Dancing Mustard]

Not really. You're both ignoring the entire rest of my original post

Sorry D1G, but I find that resopnse of yours not only rude, but also fairly arrogant.
The reason that I didn't respond to the rest of your post was firstly because it was all premised on the proposition that I demonstrated to be circular in my first reply to you.

The fact is that for me to reply is essentially be useless until you explain why it is that your "I should never have to see anything being permitted which I don't like, because if I do I am magically being FORCED to accept it... Oh yeah, but other people who don't agree with me being forced to see something, that they don't like being permitted, is just fine and dandy" line of reasoning.

The only other 'point' that you did raise was one which Nappy came up with several pages back, and was the "Gays aren't natural, so we shouldn't permit it. Also, people in the past didn't permit it either, and people who live in caves are always right" line of thought.

Those two arguments can be quickly debunked by noting firstly that society has a strong tradition of legislating to create states of affairs which aren't 'natural'. You know, things such as; allowing you to have title to property, laws which let you manufacture detergents, rules providing for the protection of copyrights and trademarks, prohibitions that stop you from dumping sewage on your neighbour's garden, laws against you kidnapping young girls you'd like to rape, little bits of paper that make a person of the opposite sex your life-long partner...

Oh hang on, wait a minute! That last one was heterosexual marriage. The whole point is that 'legal' marriage is an unatural institution in the first place. The whole question of permitting what's 'natural' is already far behind us. It just isn't relevant...

Furthermore, even if you don't take that point, homosexual unions can't be regarded as 'unnatural' anyway. Just because heterosexual unions (however brief) are more common in the wild than homosexual ones (which do occur amongst animal populations, in case you weren't aware) it doesn't give them some magical right to be the only unions that society regards as 'natural'. What you seem to be arguing is that only the most common types of unions are the ones which society should step in to give legal recognition to; and that's just madness.
Here, let's take your reasoning to its obvious conclusion: Homoracial marriages are much more common than interacial ones, both in nature and in society; ought we prohibit them because they aren't the norm? What about marriages in which the age-gap between parties is great, those too are uncommon in nature, should they go too?


To move to your second 'argument': the fact is, that 'great' (read: Powerful) hetro-only societies whose traditions you seek to appeal to, during their ascents to greatness, and before decline set in, as well as engaging in prohibiting homosexual marriage, also engaged in many practices as barbaric and ridiculous as: witch-ducking, gladiatorial mortal combat, slavery, legalised marital rape, the outlawing of Christianity, witch-doctory, cannibalism, and trial-by-fire. Somehow you seem to be expecting me to turn a blind-eye to all of that barbarism and madness, and expect me to believe that a society so backward as to permit the aforementioned things ought to be the one from which we draw our views on which marriages are acceptable. Now I'm sorry, but I don't think I'm quite so easily able to seperate out ancient culture as that; the old-chaps of 0AD got a lot of things wrong, and had a whole bunch of fucked-up ideas. I'm not just going to take you at face value and accept that one ancient practice is magically different from all the rest, and so we should just accept it without thinking (based purely I note, on your say-so).

What you're basically saying is, "stone-age men and primitive tribes-people with no concept of human rights or basic equity didn't do homosexual marriage, and managed to get quite rich at the same time as not doing so; so therefore we shouldn't do homosexual marriage either. The fact that the same people who held those views also had no concept of the right-to-life, habeus-corpus, or the basic equality-of-mankind, should just be kicked under the carpet and forgotten about. I like those barbarian's thoughts about gay people, so we should just think the same thing."

Put simply, the point is this: if you're going to appeal to accepting the same social norms that ancient cultures excluded whilst building prosperous societies, then surely you have to simultaneously appeal to accept the same social norms that those cultures included? Cherry-picking antiquated societal norms that take your fancy, then blaming the entire downfall of a civilisation on an alleged change in those norms (which, by the way, I would dispute) seems both childish and dishonest, not to mention being entirely baseless speculation on your part.

Once again, it is the gay lobby which is seeking to get the government to impose laws which will tell people what they are allowed to believe.

Well once again, it is the anti-gay lobby which is seeking to get the government to retain laws which tell people what they are allowed to believe.

Seriously, which bit of your logic don't you understand is circular? If you need me to explain why that argument is a non-starter for a second time, then just say so. But if you're going to engage in civilised debate, then at least try to comprehend and respond to the points of others. Just bashing out the same old lines regardless of your opponents rebutals and demolitions of them is going to get you, and us, absolutely nowhere.

[MeDeFe]

@ players, I don't recall arguing that the state should not recognize any unions (civil or marriage or whatever one might call them), merely saying that it's a viable alternative.

[PLAYER57832]

@ players, I don't recall arguing that the state should not recognize any unions (civil or marriage or whatever one might call them), merely saying that it's a viable alternative.

My apologies, McDeFe, I looked back and saw it was Alixander who posted that.

[the_lion]

I completely agree. Marriage is GAY!

[bradleybadly]

Except the government can never force you to accept or believe anything.

Couldn't agree more. What I did say was:

If the government declares that same sex relationships are equal to marriage, it forces those of us who don’t accept that to treat them as marriages.

Very different.

[PLAYER57832]

Except the government can never force you to accept or believe anything.

Couldn't agree more. What I did say was:

If the government declares that same sex relationships are equal to marriage, it forces those of us who don’t accept that to treat them as marriages.

Very different.

But how will that harm you?

Specifically, how will it harm you more than, say if your sister or friend decides to marry someone you dislike. How will a complete stranger marrying another complete stranger hurt you? How will keeping the law as it is, and not acknowledging these unions that already exist somehow harm you?

I know you can argue taxes, but marriage provides tax benefits to society -- in the form of more stable behavior, greater liklihood of owning a home, increased likelihood of medical coverage, even better health, to name just a few ways that marriage benefits society. And yes, children. However, even without children... all those other benefits to society apply to homosexual marriages.

Basically, if all you can say is "I don't like it", "I consider it wrong..", etc. then it becomes no different than any other freedom of belief issue. You have the right to believe that, but not to force others to live to your standards. ... and laws that force others to live to standards not their own should be changed .. unless there is compelling evidence that the behavior will harm others.

[bradleybadly]

Basically, if all you can say is "I don't like it", "I consider it wrong..", etc. then it becomes no different than any other freedom of belief issue. You have the right to believe that, but not to force others to live to your standards. ... and laws that force others to live to standards not their own should be changed .. unless there is compelling evidence that the behavior will harm others.

Based on this logic, if all you can say is "I like it" or "I consider it right" then that is no better basis for making or re-making laws as you see fit. You have the right to believe that, but not force the law to be changed to your standards...the laws that force others to live to standards that you want to change them into. Since you all refuse to provide proof for the genetic cause for homosexual behavior, most of you resort to making us look like we're anti-homosexual when what we're really saying is keep the current definition of marriage as is. You don't change the law on the basis of consent or desire.

...........and most people see through that as evidenced by the poll results.

[PLAYER57832]

  You don't change the law on the basis of consent or desire............and most people see through that as evidenced by the poll results.

But that's just it ... we are saying it causes actual, real harm to the homosexual couples and therefore should be changed unless it can be shown that changing the law would cause  more harm (or even any real harm at all) to others.

I won't reiterate the harm here, because it has already been stated many times, including just above.

The genetics issue is irrelevant. (though I did get sucked into that debate, I admit) The issue is does the current law cause harm and would changing it cause more harm.

As for the poll, most people won't get past the "yuck, I don't like it" .. but this IS changing as people realize that people they actually know and sometimes love (as in plutonic friends and family members) are affected, or, as in my case just get butted up with the raw injustice of our treatment of homosexuals. You consider it a choice? Fine .. but like any other choice, if you cannot change the person's view, you don't have the right to deny them that belief. AND, when it comes to actions, ONLY have the right to deny it if it will cause you harm.

Without that causal harm, all that is left is paper that can and should be changed... no matter the law.

[bradleybadly]

But that's just it ... we are saying it causes actual, real harm to the homosexual couples and therefore should be changed unless it can be shown that changing the law would cause  more harm (or even any real harm at all) to others.

I won't reiterate the harm here, because it has already been stated many times.

Go ahead and show us the concrete proof of how they are being harmed. They may not like the ability to marry, but they are not being harmed. Not liking something is not the same as proof.

The genetics issue is irrelevant. (though I did get sucked into that debate, I admit) The issue is does the current law cause harm and would changing it cause more harm.

Then stop yelling at us that "they're born that way"

As for the poll, most people won't get past the "yuck, I don't like it"

How do you know that? Did you interview everyone who voted 'no'? See, this is the thing that you & your side are just not getting. You are driving people away from your position because you proclaim to know the motivations and reasons why others oppose you. None of you are omniscient so stop trying to tell us why we believe what we believe. You would probably do better if you actually tried to listen and understand others instead of calling them bigots at the first sign of disagreement.

I don't know if you've actually said that, Player but it's usually the case. I'm probably responsible for at least 10-20 votes for the "yes" side because of what I've said. The problem is more with how you guys try to argue for what you believe then what you actually believe.

You consider it a choice? Fine .. but like any other choice, if you cannot change the person's view, you don't have the right to deny them that belief. AND, when it comes to actions, ONLY have the right to deny it if it will cause you harm. Without that causal harm, all that is left is paper that can and should be changed... no matter the law.

Yeah, I consider it a choice. Show me the fuckin' gay gene or genes. As far as causing harm goes, if it causes harm to society by cheapening marriage based on consent or desire I oppose it. If it was just a piece of paper then your side wouldn't be so worked up about forcing your views down everyone's throats.

Whether or not homosexuals want to admit it, other groups such as pedophiles and polygamists are waiting in the wings to legitamize their desires as well based on consent. Why do you think they're trying so hard to lower the age of consent in the first place? I even heard someone here say that if someone wanted to bone their sister there's nothing wrong with it as long as it's consensual.

[Frigidus]

But that's just it ... we are saying it causes actual, real harm to the homosexual couples and therefore should be changed unless it can be shown that changing the law would cause more harm (or even any real harm at all) to others.

I won't reiterate the harm here, because it has already been stated many times.

Go ahead and show us the concrete proof of how they are being harmed. They may not like the ability to marry, but they are not being harmed. Not liking something is not the same as proof.

Would taking away their right to free speech be fair? They might not like it but they aren't harmed.

The genetics issue is irrelevant. (though I did get sucked into that debate, I admit) The issue is does the current law cause harm and would changing it cause more harm.

Then stop yelling at us that "they're born that way"

Fine. As of now we can't prove it either way, so we'll drop it.

As for the poll, most people won't get past the "yuck, I don't like it"

How do you know that? Did you interview everyone who voted 'no'? See, this is the thing that you & your side are just not getting. You are driving people away from your position because you proclaim to know the motivations and reasons why others oppose you. None of you are omniscient so stop trying to tell us why we believe what we believe. You would probably do better if you actually tried to listen and understand others instead of calling them bigots at the first sign of disagreement.

I don't know if you've actually said that, Player but it's usually the case. I'm probably responsible for at least 10-20 votes for the "yes" side because of what I've said. The problem is more with how you guys try to argue for what you believe then what you actually believe.

But what other than "I don't like that" can be used to deny gay marriage. Arguing that it corrupts marriage necessarily states that gay relationships are capable of corrupting. This shows a distaste for gay relationships. It's sort of implied.

You consider it a choice? Fine .. but like any other choice, if you cannot change the person's view, you don't have the right to deny them that belief. AND, when it comes to actions, ONLY have the right to deny it if it will cause you harm. Without that causal harm, all that is left is paper that can and should be changed... no matter the law.

Yeah, I consider it a choice. Show me the fuckin' gay gene or genes. As far as causing harm goes, if it causes harm to society by cheapening marriage based on consent or desire I oppose it. If it was just a piece of paper then your side wouldn't be so worked up about forcing your views down everyone's throats.

If marriage was a stock it would be worth about two cents a share. It only means as much as the married couple feels it does, hence why there are so many people who have divorced ten times.

Whether or not homosexuals want to admit it, other groups such as pedophiles and polygamists are waiting in the wings to legitamize their desires as well based on consent. Why do you think they're trying so hard to lower the age of consent in the first place? I even heard someone here say that if someone wanted to bone their sister there's nothing wrong with it as long as it's consensual.

Pedophiles can't because children can't consent. The age of consent won't be lowered because most people understand that kids need to be protected from exactly that sort of person. I don't care about polygamy. Threesomes are legal, so why should I care about what social contract they make?

[reminisco]

i read this article this past sunday. and yes, i am one of those literate commie pinkos who get the NY Times delivered to my home. you should all read it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/magaz ... tml?ex=136

and any of you who say it's too long to bother, really shouldn't be posting your opinions in this thread. both sides of the argument will find valuable information contained therein.

[PLAYER57832]

But that's just it ... we are saying it causes actual, real harm to the homosexual couples and therefore should be changed unless it can be shown that changing the law would cause  more harm (or even any real harm at all) to others.I won't reiterate the harm here, because it has already been stated many times.

Go ahead and show us the concrete proof of how they are being harmed.  They may not like the ability to marry, but they are not being harmed.  Not liking something is not the same as proof.

I have, other people have,  Reminisco just posted and article ... you blithely ignore anything that doesn't match your agenda.       

   But here is a quick summary:            

ability to pass on property without paying inheritance taxes or hiring expensive lawyers.            

ability to allow your loved one to make medical decisions in an emergency -- without hiring an expensive lawyer and WITHOUT having to worry about constantly carrying the necessary documents with you whenever you travel .. and without having to worry that even with all those documents, the hospital may still choose to ignore them if the administration or nurses don't happen to like your lifestyle.            

ability to have joint custody of children.         ETC.  there are more issues, but you have yet to acknowlege any of it yet.

The genetics issue is irrelevant. (though I did get sucked into that debate, I admit) The issue is does the current law cause harm and would changing it cause more harm.

Then stop yelling at us that "they're born that way"

I haven't shouted, did not say there was proof they were "born that way" ... I DID talk about mounting evidence that its biological, made it QUITE clear that was much more than "just genetics"  .. and that there are folks on all sides of this debate ...   but that isn't even truly pertinent to this topic and further discussion should be in another thread.

As for the poll, most people won't get past the "yuck, I don't like it"

How do you know that?  Did you interview everyone who voted 'no'?

Sort of .. marketing folks, political folks are continually assessing this ... 

See, this is the thing that you & your side are just not getting.  You are driving people away from your position because you proclaim to know the motivations and reasons why others oppose you.

Now who is claiming omniscence?    I doubt most of the folks who voted have even read  the posts.  They certainly have not addressed our real arguments.  If someone is going to be swayed by "I hate them, they will lead to incest, pedophilia", etc. etc. ....  well that just proves MY point -- that those who believe this are not interested in truth, they have their opinion and won't look beyond that ... Anyone who actually READS the discussion will find very little supporting your position other than untrue attacks (the pictures, for example ..taken WAY out of context), name calling and ludicrous analogies (that approving legal recognition of homosexual unions means we approve pedophilia, for example) and name-calling. (commie liberal being one of the more mild... though why those labels should even matter is another irrelevant question).   In fact, many of those who agree with your vote were among the first to point out how ludicrous your arguments are.  

  None of you are omniscient so stop trying to tell us why we believe what we believe.  You would probably do better if you actually tried to listen and understand others instead of calling them bigots at the first sign of disagreement

.Except we, time and again, address your arguments ... yet you blithely ignore ours.  As a prime example, you claim that we need to "show you the proof".. of "harm" ... yet ignore any postings we make that DO show that very thing.     

I'm probably responsible for at least 10-20 votes for the "yes" side because of what I've said.   The problem is more with how you guys try to argue for what you believe then what you actually believe. 

If you want to tell your friends to come here and vote ... so be it, it proves nothing.   We have asked you CONSTANTLY to provide evidence that this will harm others ... the INITIAL QUESTION... and you keep skirting it, pushing forward innaccurate and plain ridiculous assertions such as claiming that homosexual marriages will mean we have to approve pedophilia.   You have YET to TRULY answer our arguments -- you go off on tangents (such as genetics, which we did even answer by-the-way, but you ignored it  ... again)

You consider it a choice?  Fine .. but like any other choice, if you cannot change the person's view, you don't have the right to deny them that belief.  AND, when it comes to actions, ONLY have the right to deny it if it will cause you harm.  Without that causal harm, all that is left is paper that can and should be changed... no matter the law.

Yeah, I consider it a choice.  Show me the fuckin' gay gene or genes. 

Once again, you choose to over-simplify to the point of being untrue.  BUT, this is not even truly relevant to the question, which I repeat was "how will legalizing homosexual marriages harm anyone?"

As far as causing harm goes, if it causes harm to society by cheapening marriage based on consent or desire I oppose it.  If it was just a piece of paper then your side wouldn't be so worked up about forcing your views down everyone's throats.

If marriage will be harmed by what 2 complete strangers are doing in the privacy of their home accross town ... or even next door to you .... or by the fact that the state recognizes that union officially ... then your marriage isn't very strong.  Ironically, your argument that it is not "just a piece of paper" is precisely why homosexuals are pushing so hard FOR the recognition.

Whether or not homosexuals want to admit it, other groups such as pedophiles and polygamists are waiting in the wings to legitamize their desires as well based on consent.  Why do you think they're trying so hard to lower the age of consent in the first place?  I even heard someone here say that if someone wanted to bone their sister there's nothing wrong with it as long as it's consensual.

THIS ... AGAIN?  How about using your brain .. yes, that was condescending, but frankly, this is about the thirtieth time you have tried to press that claim!  Though you will almost certainly ignore this like you have ignored any intelligent refute to your claims, here goes, AGAIN:   

You want evidence?  It is not so long since a very similar argument WAS put forward by the majority .. that homosexuals were more likely to be pedophiles because if you can break one social norm, you will break others.   What happened is that science proved it false.   The REALITY is that pedophilia is absolutely separate from homosexuality.    The reality is that while there are pedophiles who are attracted more to little boys and others who are attracted to girls, this has nothing at all to do with attraction to adults of the same sex.    Are there some that do both ... yes, of course, there are sickos in every community.  But, the attraction to children is complete separate from attraction to adults. Pedophilia IS overwhelmingly the result of the person having been sexually abused, IS a true sickness (unlike homosexuality).  The overwhelming majority of pedophiles are heterosexual males, not homosexuals. .. and in either case, NO ONE in the real homosexual community (as opposed to the fiction some right wingers try to put forward as "truth")  is in ANY WAY in favor of pedophilia ... any more than within the heterosexual communities.  Yes, I know there are some sick individuals in both communities ... but they represent only their own sick group, not anyone else.

The REAL truth, which I said before... and which you found convenient to ignore .. is that you almost certainly know and work with or otherwise associate with homosexual individuals WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING so. .... THAT is how "harmful" they are.   Most people don't even know how many in their communities are homosexual.  (How do I know this is truth?  as I said before, because of work through my church ... where it was studied and discussed because this has been up for vote and debate in our synod and national church body, as well as other protestant churches).

ONCE AGAIN ... "WHAT IS THE HARM" in ensuring the law recognizes homosexual unions.   

... to be clear:
claims that it will somehow force everyone to acknowledge pedophiles is plain silly.

claims that it will "harm marriage" are also silly ... as if marriage is just about a legal document.   The legal document benefits the individuals and society, but is hardly a prerequisite for the institution (and PLEASE note, I DID talk about benefits to society and harm to the individual from the state failing to recognize  unions)  Marriage existed long before governments authorization and will continue despite it.  What is in question is whether the benefits provided to heterosexual marriages, for historical reasons of benefits to society overall, also should be applied to homosexuals... not any "taking away" from heterosexuals. 

claims that it is a choice... are plain irrelevant.  You have the right to choose your own religion or lack of religion.   To my mind, that absolutely will cause harm to you and your children.  But, you have that right.  Why? Ultimately, because I want the right to teach MY children the way I choose without your interferance ... and if one of us has our right to teach and think refused, then eventually, there is nothing to stop everyone from having their rights curtailed.      The line is and should be the test of harm.     If your beliefs go from something other than talk into actions that HARM others, then your ACTIONS need to be curtailed.  Here, though you try to claim otherwise, you want to continue to allow the government to curtail people's actions ... not just their thoughts.   That is the difference!

Claims that it is "yucky", "wrong", "sinful", "against the Bible", etc. are all matters of choice and the argument is the same as for any choice. When we allow certain ideas to have sway over others without evidence of harm, then we begin the route to theocracy.

Oh, and finally, to get into polygamy ... this is also irrelevant to this argument.   The discussion is about unions between 2 consenting adults of the same sex, not Polygamy and discussion of polygamy belongs in a different thread.  I will say, though, that there are historical reasons for disallowing polygamy.. the high birth rate, subjugation of women, fear that all these kids would be dependent on the state much more than children of heterosexuals, etc.  These issues do not apply to homosexual unions at all.   I am not agreeing or disagreeing, just pointing out why the two issues are different.  Again, the debate  over polygamy doesn't belong here .. because it IS a different issue.

Those seem to be the only arguments you have put forward for how it will "harm" us.  None of them are real or valid arguments.So, where is the real harm ... we all would like to know.

Bottom line, there WAS a time when folks, scientists, society at large truly did believe that homosexuality would cause real and pervasive HARM to society, WOULD lead to pedophilia, etc, but now we KNOW BETTER. People, society HAS changed. To quote M. D'Angelo "We did the best we knew ... when we knew better, we did better". It is time to "know better" about homosexuality. Granted Some refuse to acknowledge this. Prejudice does die hard.

And I am afraid your arguments go more to prove this last point than anything else. But, I have confidence that, in time, TRUTH will prevail.

(oh, and not to get off on yet another tanget, but I am not homosexual nor even convinced it is fully acceptable behavior under God ... I AM convinced it is acceptable within a free and open society including many individuals who do not share my personal religion .. a HUGE difference!).

[Snorri1234]

This thread is awesome now.

[suggs]

Abolishing marriage (all of it) is the only sensible way forward. Marriage as we know it is based on a load of Catholic mumbo-jumbo (which, to simplify, they came up with in the Couter Reformation, to try and jazz the Church up a bit, in response to thye Protestant threat).
I only say that because so often its referred to as "an ancient institution" or some such guff. Sure the Romans (and Greeks? -dunno) had marriage, but the whole4 monogamy, mariage="love" nonsense was made up in the 16th century. Well, the love bit was more the fault of the Victorians.
Anyway-its not sacrosanct is my point-why we still persist in these outdated, arbirary social norms/straightjackets is beyond me.
Personally, from the mans point of view, i think monogamous union is fundamentally dishonest-theres no way i could ever marry some one and not still want to shag around. That would just lead to repression and unhappiness on all sides.

So nah

For more info, please see Morrissey, "Will Never Marry", on his "Bon Drag" album.

[Frigidus]

This thread is awesome now.

It's been about the same since the first page.

[suggs]

Thanks for your contribution.

[PLAYER57832]

Abolishing marriage (all of it) is the only sensible way forward. .

Thank you for at least presenting a legitimate argument. This was discussed earlier. There are practical reasons for the state to acknowledge marriage Specifically, simplifying inheritances, custody of children, a general stabilizing influence -- particularly on young males (note: this is documented, really does happen, its not just my opinion), a general tendency to stay put and invest more within a community post marriage. (not as true now as once)

Marriage as we know it is based on a load of Catholic mumbo-jumbo (which, to simplify, they came up with in the Couter Reformation, to try and jazz the Church up a bit, in response to thye Protestant threat).
I only say that because so often its referred to as "an ancient institution" or some such guff. Sure the Romans (and Greeks? -dunno) had marriage, but the whole4 monogamy, mariage="love" nonsense was made up in the 16th century. Well, the love bit was more the fault of the Victorians.

I would like to see Tzor's take on this ... he is more knowledgeable than I on Roman Catholic history and ancient backgrounds. However, the bottom line is even I can tell you your facts are just not correct here. The Victorians may have popularized the idea of "romantic love", but they did not invent the idea by a long stretch. You find references to it in many ancient cultures and religions. It is, in fact, one of the oldest institutions of humanity.

Anyway-its not sacrosanct is my point-why we still persist in these outdated, arbirary social norms/straightjackets is beyond me.

There are practical reasons, as I noted above. For a more complete discussion, page back a few. It has been brought up more than once.

Personally, from the mans point of view, i think monogamous union is fundamentally dishonest-theres no way i could ever marry some one and not still want to shag around. That would just lead to repression and unhappiness on all sides.

This is where that "freedom to be" part come in. If you feel this way, then I STRONGLY suggest you not get married. There have always and always will be those with this view, but to deny that there are many, many, many happily
married folks is to deny truth. This includes not only heterosexual couples, but also perfectly faithful homosexual couples, which was/is the reason for this thread.

So, to sum, it seems that you don't like the institution of marriage for anyone ... but I still don't see how legalizing homosexual unions, specifically, actually harms anyone? Or how legalizing marriage at all harmed anyone? You are most definitely free to not marry... but why shouldn't those who DO want to marry and DO like the idea of monogamy, children and the like ... not be able to do so?


OH, and "old fogey" that I am, and married, too boot ... I have seen more than a few young males think this way up until the point they met "the one" or, sometimes, saw the light in their children's eyes. (even "unexpected", "unasked for" children) Once again, this is another thread topic, but ... I would never EVER suggest this is always the case, but you might be surprised at how common such changes are. (and, yes, there are also plenty of men turned OFF of marriage after divorce ... again, another thread topic).

[suggs]

Yes, your last poi t is the best- why shouldnt people get married if they want to? I'm in favour of the least possible sate interference, so on the face of it, your argument is sound.
I dont really know the answer-but somehow we need to make marriage the "non -norm"-perhaps a bit like going to church-some people like it, but most sensible people know its redundant.

I forgot to quote you, so i am going on memory.

But you misunderstyood my point about romantic love-clearly, the victorians didnt "invent" Rlove. My point was that they did tie it up, inextircably with marriage. IE, if you are in love, yOu should get married. My point was thats pure BALLS. Marriage has nothing to do with love. You can, and people do, fall in love-why bring marriage into it>
As for marriage being a stabiulising influence:

a) Stability can also effectivlely mean stagnation and an unreasoning aherence to "tradition" and conservatism.
b) More prosaically, how stable are most marriages. i) the high divorce percentage., ii) the unhappy, faithless disfunctionaol mariages-harder to quantify, but they are out there, in vast numbers.


My point really was that most people ( particularly women ) ae conditioned by society at a vey early age to think that marriage is the norm, and indeed ESSENTIAL to happiness-and that the sort of brainwashing we somehow need to get rid of- otherwise, we will continue to see vast numbers of peop[le continuingt o be unhappy, purely because they see themselves as "failures" -and that swhy marriage is such as dangerous instition, it maks people unhappy, and that just aint right

[suggs]

Oh, btw: if we insist on marriage, then obviously gay marriage MUST be allowed-anything erlse is just laughable. The fact thats it not allowed merely shows how dumb most people are.

[suggs]

ps I blame Disney

[PLAYER57832]

Yes, your last poi t is the best- why shouldnt people get married if they want to? I'm in favour of the least possible sate interference, so on the face of it, your argument is sound.

Thank you.  

I dont really know the answer-but somehow we need to make marriage the "non -norm"-perhaps a bit like going to church-some people like it, but most sensible people know its redundant.

A bit condescending aren't we? .. but no, I don't want to get into an argument over this.  You are most definitely entitled to your opinion.  I doubt I can convince you to believe as I do, so I have no right to deny you that right.  But, the real truth is that despite science and logic and modern society ... sometimes precisely because of those things, religion persists.  You don't ahve to understand it, but a good many very, very intelligent and learned individuals really and truly do believe in God and their religion.   To say otherwise is, well, ignorance -- be it intentional or inadvertant.   This is another tanget, for another thread.    

But you misunderstyood my point about romantic love-clearly, the victorians didnt "invent" Rlove. My point was that they did tie it up, inextircably with marriage. IE, if you are in love, yOu should get married.

Perhaps you misunderstood me?   None of this is in any way new.  The only time it really gets noted as "new" is in reference to western society specifically ...  Also, class matters.  Sometimes only certain classes, certain groups have the priviliage of marrying for love ... still the idea is always there.  I don't mean that marriage for love is necessarily the "norm" always, but it is generally considered the ideal, and always has been.

My point was thats pure BALLS. Marriage has nothing to do with love. You can, and people do, fall in love-why bring marriage into it>

Actually, your above points answer this quite nicely.  Though romantic love has been tied as the ideal to marriage throughout history,  marriage often has little to do with love.  This is a practical matter.  Marriage is often about support of chidren and children's inheritances.   In many, many cultures there is a distinction between children born within wedlock and without.  THAT is one distinction I am glad we have largley dismissed, but though the distinction between in-wedlock and out-of-wedlock births is no longer so great (at least in the legal sense), there are still legal niceties honored through marriage.    Spouses can almost always dually own a house .. or, if the title is held by one, more or less automatically pass it on to their spouse upon death without a lot of hassle.  It is possible to create trusts and such for inheritance, but they require lawyers and the rights and methods vary state by state.   Interestingly, though unmarried male/female couples can have joint custody of children, secure inheritances outside of any marriage certification, homosexual couples cannot .... and that is one VERY big reason why homosexual marriages should be recognized by the state ... to protect children, just as a traditional marraige was necessary to protect children of those unions in years past.

As for marriage being a stabiulising influence:a) Stability can also effectivlely mean stagnation and an unreasoning aherence to "tradition" and conservatism.b) More prosaically, how stable are most marriages. i) the high divorce percentage., ii) the unhappy, faithless disfunctionaol mariages-harder to quantify, but they are out there, in vast numbers.

You need to check your facts a bit.  The divorce rate is certainly high, but the majority of folks still do marry and stay married for life.   As for the "unhappiness" recent studies have shown that  a man, in particular, is more likely to live longer and to be happier if he is married.   I was not able to locate the study, but it made the national news here recently and has been often quoted.

My point really was that most people ( particularly women ) ae conditioned by society at a vey early age to think that marriage is the norm, and indeed ESSENTIAL to happiness-and that the sort of brainwashing we somehow need to get rid of- otherwise, we will continue to see vast numbers of peop[le continuingt o be unhappy, purely because they see themselves as "failures" -and that swhy marriage is such as dangerous instition, it maks people unhappy, and that just aint right 

Yes, you can argue that folks are conditioned to want marraige, particularly women. OR you can argue that marriage is an institution largely created by and for women to protect their children. As far as the unhappiness bit... there isn't space to do more than just barely, barely touch on this topic here.... and it is pretty well off the topic.

To sum, if I understand correctly ... you think that if any marriage is recognized, homosexual ones should be, but would just as soon see no marriage recognized... because you consider it an out-dated and generally poor, constraining or unreasonable institution? I disagree, but acknowledge the validity of your arguments. I have touched on a few points relative to your argument, but real discussion of the pros and cons of marriage as a whole should be in another thread.

[suggs]

You make a good case. I guess my central point was: , we cant ban marriage-folks are free to do what they want.
But so many cultural "norms" foster bigotry and repression (its normal to be straight etc)-and marriage is one of these " norms". I just want to see it dymystified amd marginalised. You meantioned it as an "ideal"-and thats precisely the sort of language that fosters unhappiness. Why should entering it an out dated contract be the "ieal" of love. (we'll skip the philosophical question of whether "ideal" love really mkes any sense".

As for your point about practicalities-people who dont get married and have kid seem to manage ok.
I'm sorry, but your study about men who are married living longer and being hppier doesnt mean anything, without some knowledge of the population sampled, their ages, the nature of the questions they were asked etc.

I suppose my point can be boiled down to: when kids are young, i just wish that parents mention that Cinderalla got divorced afte a year, and spent the rest of her life in some cool dynamic career, had some kids, had a few other lovers and generally had a Ball...

[PLAYER57832]

You make a good case. I guess my central point was: , we cant ban marriage-folks are free to do what they want.
But so many cultural "norms" foster bigotry and repression (its normal to be straight etc)-and marriage is one of these " norms". I just want to see it dymystified amd marginalised. You meantioned it as an "ideal"-and thats precisely the sort of language that fosters unhappiness. Why should entering it an out dated contract be the "ieal" of love. (we'll skip the philosophical question of whether "ideal" love really mkes any sense".

As for your point about practicalities-people who dont get married and have kid seem to manage ok.
I'm sorry, but your study about men who are married living longer and being hppier doesnt mean anything, without some knowledge of the population sampled, their ages, the nature of the questions they were asked etc.

I suppose my point can be boiled down to: when kids are young, i just wish that parents mention that Cinderalla got divorced afte a year, and spent the rest of her life in some cool dynamic career, had some kids, had a few other lovers and generally had a Ball...

You make some interesting points which would be nice to debate in another thread. Legal niceties and sociological ideals are very different. I would never propose homosexuality as any kind of "ideal" or even necessarily say that marriage is an ideal for homosexuals.

I WILL say that one's sexual orientation should not limit one's ability to get the benefits provided legal marriages in our society, such being able to have joint custody of children and so forth.

But also, remember dreams are rarely about other people. If you are happy with who you are, then it becomes much easier to accept others -- whether you agree with them or not.

One point you made, though I definitely have to dispute. Many people, fathers and mothers and single grandparents, etc. ... absolutely raise "together" and happy, productive children. But it is much harder to do it alone. Those who do are rarely truly "alone". They have the help of family, friends, and (often) the stayte -- in terms of money for food and childcare. Not always, but a good deal of the time.

Ironically, this is yet another reason why society would benefit by legalizing homosexual unions. Currently, homosexuals are considered single... and therefore they show a lower income than married folks, are more likely to be eligible for assistance than heterosexual married folks. Probably not a significant gain ... but there.

[Plutoman]

I've always considered the entire thing no different than racism. We spent hundreds of years getting blacks to have rights, and mexicans, and American Indians. We have troops around the world and the United States exercises it's influence to stop the spread of bigotry and other prejudices (though I believe they're wrongly there). All this is is sexism, based on personal beliefs.

Personal belief's allowed the use of slavery and racism. Personal beliefs are now allowing sexism, and intolerance for gays in society. Another social reform that hasn't been done yet.

Precedents have been set though, and hopefully it can be done sometime soon.

[PLAYER57832]