Same-Sex "Marriage" - Carried over from the old 'Kerry' thread

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-23 12:41:51

Someone just sent me this link:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c … ...U31.DTL

:laugh:

"The women were married on June 18, 2003, a week after a landmark court decision legalized same-sex marriage in Ontario, Canada's most populous province. They had been together for nearly 10 years, but they separated after five days of marriage.

The women are now seeking to change Canada's divorce law, which still applies only to marriages between a man and a woman."

It's funny in a train wreck sort of way...

Trebuchet · 2004-07-23 13:46:37

Someone needs to fill in the same-sex couples on something the heterosexuals have known for centuries: Marriage involves three rings. The engagement ring, the wedding ring, and suffering.

But yeah, life is once again funnier than anything comics could dream up.

Gennaro · 2004-07-26 02:37:18

Crazy people. How fun can it be being a sub-culture when you're no longer a sub-culture? Doesn't the gay world need at least some level of repressive tolerance to perpetuate itself?

As for marriages, yeah sure, just as long as it doesn't involve child rearing. There's no reason to feed more potential suffering to the world just because some pitched voiced poof all full of himself can't adjust to his natural deficiencies.
You wanna have babies? Go get a woman. Get over it.

Palomar · 2004-07-26 07:29:46

Someone just sent me this link:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c … ...U31.DTL
...
It's funny in a train wreck sort of way...

*Let me guess: They discovered too late that they now have in-laws!

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if they are activists who sought marriage only or mostly to push the courts to clear the way for legalized gay divorce. But who knows. The heterosexual marriage situation is enough of a circus in its own right (hmmmm...should I have said a *3-ring* circus?! :laugh: ).

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2004-07-26 07:58:45

Ha-ha!! :laugh:

Three ring circus ... How very witty!

clark · 2004-07-26 09:06:40

Perhaps it is my own failing, but where is the humor?

Just more evidence that homosexuals are regular people, filled with love, lust, hate, acrimony, regret, happiness, and a desire to live thier life in the way they individualy choose.

Heterosexual couples get divorced, do you find that funny too? Why? Because it's natural for them to marry, ergo, it is natural for them to divorce...

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-26 09:45:19

Perhaps it is my own failing, but where is the humor?

Ah, clark, feigning a sort of confused offense I see. :;):

C'mon, people fighting to be allowed to marry finally get it, and immediately start complaining that they have to stay married? That's funny. Find the humor in the world around you, clark. It doesn't make you a bigot.

:laugh:

clark · 2004-07-26 09:52:49

The humor I see is the mockery they make of the legal system. :;): Don't worry, I'm not afraid of being a bigot- I hate everyone equally.

Funny though that homosexual marriage is a stronger bond than heterosexual marriage (since it can't be broken). I wonder how god feels about that.

Palomar · 2004-08-12 13:16:52

http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34 … esbians]SF gay/lesbian marriages "void"

--Cindy

clark · 2004-08-12 14:53:19

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040812/D84DTBO81.html

"Shamefully, I engaged in adult consensual affairs with another man, which violates my bonds of matrimony," the married father of two said. "It was wrong, it was foolish, it was inexecusable."
The Democrat said his resignation would be effective Nov. 15.

This, the governor of New Jersey.

I wonder if the religious right will hate him more because he is gay, or because he cheated. Dilema, dilema. :laugh:

C M Edwards · 2004-08-12 15:19:52

All sins are equal in the eyes of God, Clark.

Jerry Falwell's may be another matter...

clark · 2004-08-12 15:26:40

Double dam! :laugh:

John Creighton · 2004-09-20 09:56:23

They had been together for nearly 10 years, but they separated after five days of marriage.

It is time to do a study to see if marriages last longer or common law relationships.

Earthfirst · 2004-09-20 13:34:51

They will all burn in hell! Why do they want to bring the rest of us with them. Stop the homosexualizing of america, will and grace, queer eye for the queers, Rose' O'Donald the queen bicth of them all. I was so happy when the California supreme crout undid all those evil homosexual weddings liences. She is one of the greatest forces of evil after muslems terrosits.
Dought that they would put up with her, make her wear a burka and shut up! It is the way God wanted it in the Koran praise Allay.

John Creighton · 2004-09-20 13:37:59

They will all burn in hell! Why do they want to bring the rest of us with them. Stop the homosexualizing of america, will and grace, queer eye for the queers, Rose' O'Donald the queen bicth of them all. I was so happy when the California supreme crout undid all those evil homosexual weddings liences. She is one of the greatest forces of evil after muslems terrosits.
Dought that they would put up with her, make her wear a burka and shut up! It is the way God wanted it in the Koran praise Allay.

Evil? What harm do they do you? The evil is the opression of thoses who are different?

clark · 2004-09-20 13:47:35

Because there is a party in hell, and all the homosexuals want you to join them Earthfirst.

You know, when people used to get married, it was enough to declare your devotion to another in front of the cross. You didn't need a priest or a judge or any kind of official.

Well, you might realize how this could lead to all matters of misunderstandings- "Yeah baby, I'll be yours forever." Next thing you know, he said she said, and we have melodrama.

So after a few dozen of these kinds of instances, a lot of fathers killing men, and a lot of men running for their lives, some officals decided to figure out a solution.

What was their solution?

A witness!!! Yup, it became a lot clearer to everyone else, and a lot easier to figure out who said what and when. And afterall, the women were happy because now they had a party they could plan (they just love love love it!).

Of course it became a lot harder for men to get away with, "yeah baby, that's a cross, don't worry, I'll respect you in the morning." But that is neither here nor there.

People get married outside of church everyday, the difference being is that when they do, their marriage is not sanctified by god. This is important to many faiths. Should all marriages outside of a church be barred? What sense is there in that? But you see, that is expressly what we should be doing if we ban homo-sexual marriages on the basis that it is a sin. It's a sin to be married outside of the church- it's a sin to be in wedlock and not have it sanctified by god.

But I leave this to you to figure out.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-20 13:58:41

The evil is the opression of thoses who are different?

So now refusing to alter a bedrock social concept to please a radical minority is oppression?

People get married outside of church everyday, the difference being is that when they do, their marriage is not sanctified by god. This is important to many faiths. Should all marriages outside of a church be barred? What sense is there in that? But you see, that is expressly what we should be doing if we ban homo-sexual marriages on the basis that it is a sin. It's a sin to be married outside of the church- it's a sin to be in wedlock and not have it sanctified by god.

Clark, what I find interesting about your arguments on this issue as that you constantly invoke the religious angle even when no one is using that in their arguments. In your efforts to persuade that it isn't about some arcane supersition "in the eyes of God" stuff you keep bringing it up. ???

There are plenty of mundane, non-religious reasons to be extremely wary of redefining marriage whenever it suits a particular faction of the populace.

clark · 2004-09-20 14:03:48

If it ain't religion, then I fail to see how a secular argument can be legitimately constructed and defended denying something that is little more than a contractual obligation between two consenting adults.

Polygamy? Bleh. Who cares? If they are all adults, and they all consent, no skin off my back (I might add that polygamy is observed in a lot of very functional civilizations)

But we can give the homosexuals marriage and still deny the polygamists their desire.

Just change it to between two people.

There is no non-religious reason not to allow it. If there is, it holds as much water as the old laws against inter racial marriages. Of course, if you have one, I would love to hear it.

John Creighton · 2004-09-20 14:08:57

If it ain't religion, then I fail to see how a secular argument can be legitimately constructed and defended denying something that is little more than a contractual obligation between two consenting adults.

Possible resons: Social Engineering? The strength of a family unit in a society? The control of Diseases?

Of course I think as many heterosexuals now have aids as homosexuals. I am not convinced a gay couple would be any less successful the a heterosexual couple at raising kids. Of course just because the laws allow them to get married doesn’t mean the laws should allow them to raise kids. However, a gay couple must be a lot better an arrangement then a single parent for child rearing.

C M Edwards · 2004-09-20 14:17:20

It is time to do a study to see if marriages last longer or common law relationships.

Arguably neither one in Louisiana.

This weekend we adopted an amendment to our state constitution that is supposed to prevent homosexual marriage. However, it also calls common law marriages into question, meaning we're now set to have lengthy court battles over tort law that had previously gone unmolested for half a century.

As for actually preventing homosexual marriage, the only difference this amendment will make is the creation of a budget line item for distributing updated copies of the state constitution. Louisiana's existing laws against homosexual marriage were already iron clad.

*Sigh.* In their eagerness to look good standing up to the homos, the banana republic of the United States has once again forgotten: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

clark · 2004-09-20 14:19:24

A beautiful attempt John.

Diseases? How? Married homosexuals would be monogamous. Of course they may cheat just like hetero sexual couples, but marriage is a means by which society can strengthen fidelity and ties between individuals, thus reducing instances of sexually transmitted diseases.

Strenghting the family unit? Well, one, homosexuals will be hard pressed to produce their own family. Without the aid of science, if they want a family at all, they will have to adopt. Now, we may differ on whether or not a homosexual couple make better parents, but wouldn't an orphan be better served by having someone be their parent? Why continue to have children be wards of the state when there might be loving homes that would take them? It's not as if social services would disappear- there is a system of checks to ensure that children are raised properly and in a safe environment. How would a homosexual couple create an unsafe environment? It seems that they just may be doing society a service here.

As for social engineering, well, I'm sure that some would like to do that, but why let em? It is precisely because some wish to play social gods and decide how people should live that we have this argument to begin with. No harm to me, no care from me. That should be the motto on how we look at this.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-20 14:36:57

But we can give the homosexuals marriage and still deny the polygamists their desire.
Just change it to between two people.

And there's the problem with your position, you want to arbitrarily change the meaning of a term on the grounds that it is exclusionary only to redefine it in an equally arbitrary way to exclude another group. It's a farce.

There is no non-religious reason not to allow it. If there is, it holds as much water as the old laws against inter racial marriages. Of course, if you have one, I would love to hear it.

We've been over this before, but the short answer is:

A: it is generally agreed by the vast majority of society that a traditional family structure is preferable for raising children, meaning a man and a women in a monogomous relationship. Pushing for other arrangements against this accepted norm is itself social engineering.

B: Marriage isn't just about having a party and not sleeping with other people. It carries legal ramifications from joint ownership to power of attorney issues to tax status. Altering the definition once opens the door for continual redefining which in turn affects the other factors.

If you divorce five wives who gets the house?

My solution is simply to get government out of the marriage game altogether, if two guys want to move in together and say they're "married" I couldn't care less. But if they can file joint taxes with deductions and one is on the other's health insurance, then we've opened up a whole new mess and any restriction then imposed is completely arbitrary and unjustifiable on any rational basis. If the whole thing is about "inclusion" than surely we can't deny people benefits because their situation hasn't been defined under the marriage umbrella yet?

Abolish the legal concept of marriage, abolish joint tax filing (or better yet, abolish taxation of wages), let the market figure out the rest. That's the only consistent position.

clark · 2004-09-20 14:53:04

And there's the problem with your position, you want to arbitrarily change the meaning of a term on the grounds that it is exclusionary only to redefine it in an equally arbitrary way to exclude another group. It's a farce.

Life, as they say, is a farce. Are you laughing yet? :laugh:

I pointed out in my preceeding post that I could care less if a polygamist wants to have five wives or five husbands.

It matters not to I, says I. Some wish to live as Soddam, and some wish to live as Gommorah, and some wish to abstain and live as monks. It matters not to I, says I. Let Elvis eat his fried peanut-butter and banana sandwitch to die a fat bloated lonely death upon the urinal. Let others carb count to till the crows come home, or super size their protein shake. It matters not to I, says I.

What do you care if Pablo dies and his five wives fight over who gets the house, and who gets stuck with the corpse? Sounds like a tough legal case- which is why I am not a judge (but often play one on TV!).

Some have fathers who drink too much, mothers who don't love them enough, and siblings that lie in wait for them to sleep to reek untold violence on their sleeping person. Ah, the family unit. The very same one that will leave the kinds in child care, gramps in seniors home, and parents off vactioning with their respective girlfriend or boyfriend.

It's a grand old farce and it's high time we all got in on the action!

A: it is generally agreed by the vast majority of society that a traditional family structure is preferable for raising children, meaning a man and a women in a monogomous relationship.

A: Ah, you make the case for tradition! It used to be traditional for a woman to stay at home, to cook and clean, and not speak unless spoken to. Subserviant to the Alpha male in all things. It used to be agreed by the general public that holding another man in servitude based on the color of his skin was a noble and rightoues thing. It used to be held in general concensus that raping and pilliaging native peoples was a good way to civilize them.

The point? The general concensus is made up of back yard dirt farmers and pig shit pushers. I could care less what the unwashed masses think. F*cking tradition is why I get up on the 25th of december every year to unwrap boxes of electronics at 6AM around a dead tree in my living room, afterwards I eat a roast pig and drink something called egg nog. Why the f*ck I do this? Search me, but I did it since I was a kid, so it's something of a tradition.

B: Marriage isn't just about having a party and not sleeping with other people. It carries legal ramifications from joint ownership to power of attorney issues to tax status. Altering the definition once opens the door for continual redefining which in turn affects the other factors.

Oh drat! I forgot some like to open and close a book once and for all. Sorry Cobra, but it's called self appraisal and being open minded and sometimes it's messy. I fail to see what the hub ub is over two queers wanting power of attorney or some tax break. If you want the tax break changed, fine, that has nothing to do with the marriage. We can change both. You're just making up exscuses.

Give me a reason.

Trebuchet · 2004-09-20 15:26:55

If you divorce five wives who gets the house?

The lawyers.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-20 15:47:03

The point? The general concensus is made up of back yard dirt farmers and pig shit pushers. I could care less what the unwashed masses think.

File that away for later reference...

Oh drat! I forgot some like to open and close a book once and for all. Sorry Cobra, but it's called self appraisal and being open minded and sometimes it's messy. I fail to see what the hub ub is over two queers wanting power of attorney or some tax break. If you want the tax break changed, fine, that has nothing to do with the marriage. We can change both. You're just making up exscuses.

Clark, I'm saying that if we want to grant homosexuals the priveleges of marriage than redefining the term and dealing with the myriad problems it creates on a case-by-case basis is an ass-backwards way to go about it when we can say there is no legal marriage and let individuals figure out what works for them with a few simple changes in those priveleges. This grants everyone the same rights, priveleges and obligations applied to whatever situation fits them. There is nothing more to be gained by redefining marriage except by the divorce lawyers.

Unless this isn't about recognizing gay unions and granting legal benefits at all but about rubbing something in the face of conservative middle America. You know, those "dirt farmers and pig pushers" you malign.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-07-23 12:41:51

Re: Same-Sex "Marriage" - Carried over from the old 'Kerry' thread

#2 2004-07-23 13:46:37

Re: Same-Sex "Marriage" - Carried over from the old 'Kerry' thread

#3 2004-07-26 02:37:18

Re: Same-Sex "Marriage" - Carried over from the old 'Kerry' thread

#4 2004-07-26 07:29:46

Re: Same-Sex "Marriage" - Carried over from the old 'Kerry' thread

#5 2004-07-26 07:58:45

Re: Same-Sex "Marriage" - Carried over from the old 'Kerry' thread

#6 2004-07-26 09:06:40

Re: Same-Sex "Marriage" - Carried over from the old 'Kerry' thread

#7 2004-07-26 09:45:19

Re: Same-Sex "Marriage" - Carried over from the old 'Kerry' thread

#8 2004-07-26 09:52:49

Re: Same-Sex "Marriage" - Carried over from the old 'Kerry' thread

#9 2004-08-12 13:16:52

Re: Same-Sex "Marriage" - Carried over from the old 'Kerry' thread

#10 2004-08-12 14:53:19

Re: Same-Sex "Marriage" - Carried over from the old 'Kerry' thread

#11 2004-08-12 15:19:52

Re: Same-Sex "Marriage" - Carried over from the old 'Kerry' thread

#12 2004-08-12 15:26:40

Re: Same-Sex "Marriage" - Carried over from the old 'Kerry' thread

#13 2004-09-20 09:56:23

Re: Same-Sex "Marriage" - Carried over from the old 'Kerry' thread

#14 2004-09-20 13:34:51

Re: Same-Sex "Marriage" - Carried over from the old 'Kerry' thread

#15 2004-09-20 13:37:59

Re: Same-Sex "Marriage" - Carried over from the old 'Kerry' thread

#16 2004-09-20 13:47:35

Re: Same-Sex "Marriage" - Carried over from the old 'Kerry' thread

#17 2004-09-20 13:58:41

Re: Same-Sex "Marriage" - Carried over from the old 'Kerry' thread

#18 2004-09-20 14:03:48

Re: Same-Sex "Marriage" - Carried over from the old 'Kerry' thread

#19 2004-09-20 14:08:57

Re: Same-Sex "Marriage" - Carried over from the old 'Kerry' thread

#20 2004-09-20 14:17:20

Re: Same-Sex "Marriage" - Carried over from the old 'Kerry' thread

#21 2004-09-20 14:19:24

Re: Same-Sex "Marriage" - Carried over from the old 'Kerry' thread

#22 2004-09-20 14:36:57

Re: Same-Sex "Marriage" - Carried over from the old 'Kerry' thread

#23 2004-09-20 14:53:04

Re: Same-Sex "Marriage" - Carried over from the old 'Kerry' thread

#24 2004-09-20 15:26:55

Re: Same-Sex "Marriage" - Carried over from the old 'Kerry' thread

#25 2004-09-20 15:47:03

Re: Same-Sex "Marriage" - Carried over from the old 'Kerry' thread

Board footer