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

clark · 2004-09-20 15:55:03

So instead of giving them the right to the same legal relationship as heterosexuals, you would rather redefine the system in place so that all heterosexuals are catagorized in a similar manner as homosexuals, in terms of legaly defined relationships?

I take my hat off to you sir. Equality ass backwards... I'll have to chew on that (not literaly of course).

This isn't about putting conservative America in its place. It's about telling them to shut up and get in the back seat. The 50's are over and we ain't listening to daddy's AM no mo'.

John Creighton · 2004-09-20 15:58:38

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.

Rubbing what in conservative middle America's face. Rubbing in the fact that gay people have most of the same hopes an dreams as any American. Rubbing in the fact that they exist and that many of them may have gay relatives? Rubbing in the fact that often have to fight harder for the same dignity as any American would expect.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-20 16:07:12

So instead of giving them the right to the same legal relationship as heterosexuals, you would rather redefine the system in place so that all heterosexuals are catagorized in a similar manner as homosexuals, in terms of legaly defined relationships?

Clark, what you're talking about is redefining "the system in place so that all heterosexuals are catagorized in a similar manner as homosexuals, in terms of legally defined relationships" so what are you objecting to?

Oh, I get it. It's not really married unless a county clerk stamps your card.

This isn't about putting conservative America in its place. It's about telling them to shut up and get in the back seat.

:laugh: That's a resounding yes in response to the question. And it begs another, if you find it so acceptable to trash the values of one segment of the population on what grounds can you justify your objection of the same toward another? Is it just that "tradition" makes it wrong? Is this about social mayhem for its own sake?

You have managed to erode the foundation of your own argument in record time, you're out of practice.

clark · 2004-09-20 16:14:39

Clark, what you're talking about is redefining "the system in place so that all heterosexuals are catagorized in a similar manner as homosexuals, in terms of legally defined relationships" so what are you objecting to?

I realize that, I just find your solution to be full circle to my own that they somehow meet back again. I was commenting on that. I'm not objecting, I'm saying it's a backwards approach to progress.

Oh, I get it. It's not really married unless a county clerk stamps your card.

It's not really married till it's consumated dude. But I'll send you a book to explain in detail.

And it begs another, if you find it so acceptable to trash the values of one segment of the population on what grounds can you justify your objection of the same toward another?

The impostion of ones values on another with no clear and distinct rationale other than it bothers you to see them be who they are is grounds to ignore their values. They don't like queers, and they try to tell them how to live. The homosexual community isn't telling them who they can and cannot marry- the dead in the eyes white heterosexual people are the ones telling them they can't get the clerk to stamp their card because they just don't like it.

It's bullshit.

Is it just that "tradition" makes it wrong?

Some traditions are worthwhile, some are worth borrowing, and some are best left to our grand fathers graves. Of course, we could always start lynching black men or Irish again. That was traditional.

Gennaro · 2004-09-20 16:20:12

In principle, I couldn't care less if homos got married. The actual problem is that it's only a stepping stone to the next objective, which is child adoption, and that should never be tolerated.

So, consequently, since there is nothing gained with accepting same-sex marriages, I see no reason for it.

clark · 2004-09-20 16:21:57

"first they'll be sittin in the front of the bus, and next thing you know, they'll want to vote..."

Gennaro · 2004-09-20 16:27:39

"first they'll be sittin in the front of the bus, and next thing you know, they'll want to vote..."

Child molesting isn't fun either. Gay culture is frantically glorified nowadays, and most often quite hypocryptically at that, but historically there has always existed a link to 'the love of young boys' within this specific brand of sexual deviation.

clark · 2004-09-20 16:32:06

Well, now that there is a fine piece of stinking horse dung. :laugh:

By the same token, we might as well declare all heterosexual men as unfit to raise their own daughters, or their adopted ones as there has always been a "historic link between the 'love of young girls' and their specific sexual prefrence."

You quote Plato and you come up with that?

Gennaro · 2004-09-20 16:51:39

It's not the same thing. A marriage between a man and a woman is usually geared into creating a family whereas gay 'relationships' are generally only about sex.

Also, perversions differ by nature and some do tend to overlap more into others. You read books, don't you clark? You can't be entirely oblivious about such references throughout literature?

Yeah, Plato almost comes to mind here.

Bottomline, same-sex marriage serves no social function, so why take unneccesary risks? It's not worth it.

clark · 2004-09-21 06:07:07

It's not the same thing? In one instance, you generalize, in another, you are specific... do you see a problem here?

If gay marriage is all about sex, then pray tell, why would they want to marry in the first place? It would seem to my less than astute mind that marriage would lead to a monogamous relationship with one individual where coitus could only be engaged within the bonds of said matrimony, while remaining unattached, as it were, would leave the door open to any and all opportunities to engage in any sexual offer by any other. I admit, I'm not that well versed, but it is often remarked by those long in the throws of blissful matrimony that they engage in less sexual relations with their betrothed than prior to their union. I only mention this, as gross generalities seem to be the basis of which our mutual intellect is informed.

I readily concede that heterosexual unions, in their traditional form, lead to the fruitful multiplication of the species- that is of course a function of biology, something which I was taught against the better wishes of my church. However, it is also a function of biology that women are weaker than their male counter parts (at least in the physical sense, I leave the emotional debate for another time), shall we then also accept that since biology has dictated that women are physically weaker than men they should therefore be subservient to men? If so, is it so far off to also suggest that biology has made some men stronger than others, therefore, as with women, let the lesser men be subservient to the stronger males?

Ah, biology, the Natural Law, it leads to a paradise of bliss, no?

As for these perversions you refer to in literature, I am aware. I am aware of words, of sentences, written on fine pages, brought forth by the works of suffering minds, enlightened or deranged, compiled in tomes, left to dust and time within the cold empty halls of shelves. In essence, I am aware that it is nothing more than a book, a story, and not subjected to the expectations inherent in real life.

Of course you may read about Santa Claus, perhaps you believe that to be true too. It's in a book after all.

C M Edwards · 2004-09-21 07:23:44

Actually, Gennaro, contrary to what you might see on the news about high priced adoption agencies, there are still orphans and disowned children who go begging for adoption. Whether homosexual marriages can serve a social reproductive function is very much dependent on whether they can adopt. Allowing them to adopt would have a much greater impact than slight improvements in reproductive technology simply by virtue of the sheer numbers of children available for adoption, and serve a useful social function.

I do have misgivings about that, though. It's been my experience that while a homosexual relationship can last as long as any heterosexual relationship, the average homosexual relationship lasts a much shorter time. I'm not sure how the introduction of children will affect that. If there's no change in relationship stability, I'd say don't let homosexuals adopt. However, I've got no idea of whether that's true or not - no data.

I guess I'm just going to sit back for now and let the great sociology experiment continue...

C M Edwards · 2004-09-21 07:26:08

Oops! Wrote my last one before Gennaro accused all homosexuals of being child molesting perverts. Sorry! :laugh:

Gennaro · 2004-09-21 07:40:40

Well, basically, given a certain amount of generalising, all I'm saying is that gay couples are often known to be rather promiscious. It's a well known facet of their culture, and I'm not sure that the environment, full of squeeky-voiced self-centered poofs, would be very healthy to a kid.
One should think about the child. Don't you think it would miss having a mother? I know I would. Who's to cater to his emotional needs without him constantly having to reaffirm his identity for not being gay as well? What about teasing in school, that sort of thing? I can see all sorts of potential emotional mayhem developing, even without the horrible risks of pedophilia being present.
What if the gay couple suddenly grows tired of their political mission and recently acquired toy?

It's real people we are dealing with here and I don't find it justifiable to make children into social ginuea pigs, just to further some generally well to do, aggressive lobby's irrelevant agenda.
The interests of the child is the only factor worth considering.

Then if a guy wants to be a man and father, well be one! Get over your cold-hearted career mother who never hugged you as a child and go get a warm-blooded wife. If you don't like to, well then children supposedly aren't for you. Fundamentally, it's a free choice.

Getting down to it, I could very well imagine marriage for homosexuals (not that I see the point, really) on the condition it would never include child adoption, sort of a concession to end all concessions, but the way the debate is presently construed, I don't see that happening. Right now, it's all just a slippery slope.

clark · 2004-09-21 07:46:06

In Gennaro's defense, he was speculating that homosexuals, as a group, have a greater propensity, due to their particular predilection, to engage in acts of child abuse, most notably among young boys.

Of course, the same line of reasoning would lead one to assume that young boys should not be left in the company of the clergy seeing that their particular profession is rife with instances of their chosen life style leading to the abuse of young boys.

I do believe that other similar arguments can be made along other lines as well, many based on literature, take for instance gross acts of violence. If we follow along, we might conclude that men, as a particular gender, of a particular species, are more predisposed to act out in aggressive, and often times, violent manners. Women on the other hand seem to show a bit more restraint and sensibility when resolving disputes, fairly often avoiding physical confrontation altogether. I would surmise, based off of literature, as our fine young Gennaro has done, that it would behoove society, and us as individuals, if we disallowed men from owning or handling any type of tool that may be considered, or may be used in a manner to attack another. We might even go another step and simply restrain all men's hands and legs, seeing as this too might be used to enact violence against their fellow man. If we still need to worry about the protection of our society and our own personal safety, it would seem that we are best defended by only allowing women the right and option to use tools that might cause harm to another. Ah, the things we learn from literature when we turn the mind on. I am very much impressed.
:laugh:

Palomar · 2004-09-21 07:46:34

What about teasing in school, that sort of thing?

*A couple of years ago I heard of plans for a special private school in New York for teens who identify themselves as gay and for children of gay parents. These kids are being targeted for bullying, hate crimes, etc.

Some people were opposed to the segregation...others felt it was necessary for safety's sake.

Not sure what's become of it and I've not heard any updates.

--Cindy

::edit:: As for parenting skills, home stability, and partner fidelity...honestly, I don't see modern-day heterosexuals being paragons in that regard either. The abysmal track record of the heterosexual community in the past two decades especially undermines the campaign to keep gays from legally marrying.

Gennaro · 2004-09-21 08:05:49

Ah, the things we learn from literature when we turn the mind on. I am very much impressed.

Literature this and literature, that. Truth is I don't have any hard numbers or facts to go on (unlike in certain other areas). Nevertheless, I thought this possible phenomenon might be worth mentioning.

*A couple of years ago I heard of plans for a special private school in New York for teens who identify themselves as gay and for children of gay parents. These kids are being targeted for bullying, hate crimes, etc.
Some people were opposed to the segregation...others felt it was necessary for safety's sake.
Not sure what's become of it and I've not heard any updates.

Yeah, it was something like this I was referring to. Must say it would probably be better for those kids to become segregated, yet it also raises the issue of who's to pay for this sort of thing when gay adoption becomes a public right.
What's the problem of solving the issue by simply not letting it to occur from the outset?

clark · 2004-09-21 08:09:03

Ah, now we get to the heart of the matter- or at least a spoonful deeper!

I do believe that Gennero, who is wholly consumed by his personal desire to see that all children have nothing but the best possible parents, is concerned that effeminate males might damage the young souls, inhibiting their development in ever so slight a way. Of course, there are a great many heterosexual men who are effeminate, womanly, if you will (I of course beg the pardon of all ladies, wherever they may be for this gross comparison), yet they still manage to raise fine, straight, up-standing children. How do we reconcile this problem?

I agree, of course, promiscuity within a marriage can be disastrous, for all parties, but it is hardly a problem held to just one group, be it heterosexual or homosexual. When sex is involved, we all tend to be the same animal, just with different skins.

Of course, we must still think of the child. the poor, poor parentless child. Gennaro asks if the child might miss a mother? I simply ask, would you the option of having one parent, or no parents, which might you choose? If given the option, would you rather two parents, who love and dedicate their lives to you, but happen to be the same gender, or none at all?

Perhaps you know your choice, but would you so readily make the choice for everyone else, and expect that you are wise enough to choose correctly?

As for the vagaries of life and adolescence, it is never easy, but we could take a more proactive step in ensuring that children have a pleasant childhood, free of strife and name calling. I hear in Canada they have a name registry, and certain names for children are disallowed. Think how much angst might be prevented if we instituted something like this to prevent the idiosyncratic parent the possibility of naming their child whatever fancies them.

But that is neither here nor there, children tease and get teased. Denying someone the right to love another, to raise them, seems hardly sane based on the concern that others might poke fun.

Then there is the bit about the gay couple calling it quits- well, that happens all to often in heterosexual couples now, yet somehow the very fabric of our society endures. I wonder what the magic is?

Anything else besides vague generalities and your own predisposed bias?

Gennaro · 2004-09-21 08:19:12

I do believe that Gennero, who is wholly consumed by his personal desire to see that all children have nothing but the best possible parents, is concerned that effeminate males might damage the young souls, inhibiting their development in ever so slight a way. Of course, there are a great many heterosexual men who are effeminate, womanly, if you will (I of course beg the pardon of all ladies, wherever they may be for this gross comparison), yet they still manage to raise fine, straight, up-standing children. How do we reconcile this problem?

Nonsense, but on the other hand, do you suggest "effiminate" males are somehow naturally predisposed to shagging guys in the kitchen?

Then there is the bit about the gay couple calling it quits- well, that happens all to often in heterosexual couples now, yet somehow the very fabric of our society endures. I wonder what the magic is?

Presumably old habit to a large extent, thankfully. I never said gender relations were at their best in our present time.

Anything else besides vague generalities and your own predisposed bias?

The bias is on purpose, simply because you're all so full of political correctitude, you need harsh words to note other sides to the issue.

clark · 2004-09-21 08:25:11

Ah, gender relations are surely poor today in comparison with the good 'ol days of yesteryear. When women knew their place, in the kitchen, and men were the bread winners, upon whom the entire family depended. Equality of the sexes has wrought nothing but travesty and misery upon untold millions, for untold years. Equality among people has only led to the disolution of our tried and true social hierarchy that placed every man, woman, and beast into a nice waiting receptacle to toil, or to leisure, depending on their birth or their gender.

Woe is me for the changes that have brought the end of such good times, when people had betters, and betters had their choice of servants! As they say, good help is so hard to find these days. I do believe this may be the reason.

I thank you for your purposeful bias, it's not every day I meet a consiously ignorant fool.

Gennaro · 2004-09-21 08:34:34

Ah, gender relations are surely poor today in comparison with the good 'ol days of yesteryear. When women knew their place, in the kitchen, and men were the bread winners, upon whom the entire family depended. Equality of the sexes has wrought nothing but travesty and misery upon untold millions, for untold years.

Yes, this "equality" you are referring to has without a doubt shattered thousands of lives apart from practically prohibiting free choice in the area alluded to. I believe in equal rights for all citizens, any 'affirmative action' in excess of that or whatever you call it in America (or England) is bound to create more problems than it solves.

As for the rest of your ramblings, you're free to announce whenever you feel like getting out of the strawman mode.

clark · 2004-09-21 08:37:15

You believe in equal rights, so then I pose this question to you:

Is it equal to deny two individuals of the same gender the choice granted to any other two indivduals who are of opposite genders?

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-21 08:46:06

Is it equal to deny two individuals of the same gender the choice granted to any other two indivduals who are of opposite genders?

Yes, they're two different things. Gay men can marry a woman just as you or I can. They just choose not to.

Palomar · 2004-09-21 08:46:38

*Looks like Dingaling is simply trying to rattle peoples' chains again.

--Cindy

Gennaro · 2004-09-21 08:49:23

Is it equal to deny two individuals of the same gender the choice granted to any other two indivduals who are of opposite genders?

It's an interesting question and I think the answer relies on the consideration that the ability to produce children isn't some right at all, but a fact of nature.

It's like asking whether a one-legged man has the right to win an equal number of hundred meter sprints in the Olympics as his two-legged professional competitors, even though his prerequisites are somewhat lacking without massive positive discrimination and alterations to the rules.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-21 08:51:03

Excellent point, Gennaro.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-09-20 15:55:03

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

#27 2004-09-20 15:58:38

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

#28 2004-09-20 16:07:12

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

#29 2004-09-20 16:14:39

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

#30 2004-09-20 16:20:12

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

#31 2004-09-20 16:21:57

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

#32 2004-09-20 16:27:39

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

#33 2004-09-20 16:32:06

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

#34 2004-09-20 16:51:39

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

#35 2004-09-21 06:07:07

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

#36 2004-09-21 07:23:44

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

#37 2004-09-21 07:26:08

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

#38 2004-09-21 07:40:40

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

#39 2004-09-21 07:46:06

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

#40 2004-09-21 07:46:34

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

#41 2004-09-21 08:05:49

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

#42 2004-09-21 08:09:03

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

#43 2004-09-21 08:19:12

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

#44 2004-09-21 08:25:11

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

#45 2004-09-21 08:34:34

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

#46 2004-09-21 08:37:15

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

#47 2004-09-21 08:46:06

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

#48 2004-09-21 08:46:38

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

#49 2004-09-21 08:49:23

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

#50 2004-09-21 08:51:03

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

Board footer