Re: Bush and the Gay Marriage Issue

[BigJim]

BJ, by your political vies (or what i have bothered to read-hurrah for apathetic laziness) you appear to be an anarchist. good going, man. however, you do not seem to fit the violent anarchistic stereotype. a state of true democracy within a "no-government" political state is the essence of anarchy, at least as far as i understand it.

Me, an anarchist? Sorry mate; barking up the wrong tree there.

Anarchism: (According to the 9th edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary) The doctrine that all government should be abolished.

I definately do not believe in that. I think governments need to wind their collective necks in on a lot of things, but I don't think they should be abolished altogether. I also believe that the system we have needs changing, because the current system is an elected dictatorship. If you don't have the right bloodline, you'll never make it to the top of politics; simple as that. You need the backing, the finances, the genetics and the training. That just isn't given to anyone except those who are quite literally born to propogate the system as it stands. 34 of 43 american presidents have huge blood ties to European royalty and aristocracy; the other 9, less so but still some. That makes the claim of anyone born tomorrow in America could grow up to be the President, utterly laughable. All we have is the right to choose a selected puppet every 4 or 5 years. That isn't freedom and it isn't fair. I believe in an elected government and law enforcement, but I loathe with a passion the gerrymandering, brown-enveloping, public misery propogating, piles of excrement who currently and the past have occupied positions of public service.

btw, your comment on the actual number of homosexual animals: ok, maybe i was wrong on the numbers. however, your assertion that bisexuality - predominant- heterosexuality negates homosexual naturality i think is erroneous. does this mean that animals are "sinning" every time they initiate homosexual encounters? the very fact that they diverge shows homosexuality to be a viable option for them, and therefore natural. if not in a genetic perspective, then from a sexual perspective.

No, of course thy're not sinning. I think it is "natural" (whatever anyone's personal concept of that word is) to occur. Perhaps "automatic occurance" is a more accurate term? At the base of it, sex between anyone is an exchange of energy on a spiritual level. There will be times when two beings of the same sex feel compelled to exchange it with each other. The reproductive instinct is stronger than that I think, so that makes heterosexual encounters seem more "natural" to humans, who have the capability to philosophise on such matters. Animals generally don't do that, they just do what they feel directed to. More humans do that now, in this more culturally tolerant age.You weren't wrong on the numbers, I was agreeing with you. Maybe not ALL species have been witnessed indulging in a spot of chutney-ferreting, but most have, to one degree or another.

the genetic imperative is strong on reproduction. but there are more of us than i feel comfortable with. therefore, homosexuality reduces surplus population. perhaps the increase in gayness and lesbianity is a response on the genetic level to the population problem?

Have you noticed something? Homosexuals can't reproduce, but there's frigging millions of them! Sorry, back to seriousness......

You might possibly be right, I don't know for sure. I do know though that homosexuality has been prevalent in human society for centuries, back when the world's population was a fraction of what it is now. I think it's more likely that the practice of stoning gays to death kept publicity of it down to a minimum, rather than it being less prevalent. People who were gay would be more likely to supress their instincts because of that too.

finally, how do people feel about homosexuality as educated in schools among a sex ed curriculum? and how come no dissenting ultra conservative christian-muslim-jewish-other right wingers have put their 10 cents in. are they being deleted? are there none on our forum?(unlikely) or are they simply uncomfortable talking with a bunch of "******-lovers"?

No, they won't be deleted unless they flame or lay flame-bait. An opinion that is controversial won't be axed for the sake of it. I'm living proof of that. LOL

I have no problem with the idea of education about homosexuality. I know of a boy who was about 16 at the time, who went up to a teacher after a sex-ed class. He told her that he was gay and didn't feel any of he lesson could help him as it was conventional. Could the teacher provide him with inoformation that was relavent to him please? The decidedly un-enlightened teacher pitched a fit and landed him with a week of detention. He hadn't done anything wrong, he just wasn't conforming to what her idea of a normal person should be.

 

[BigJim]

BIG JIM:
I heartily concur with your initial premise here that, "...a part of life is growing in the face of challenges, lessons and adversity," but not necessarily with its extreme conclusion that, "Everyone has to have an equal opportunity to deal with the things that "God" gives them..."
If we agree that one's sexuality is, in fact, biological in nature, then I'm sorry but you WOULD also be implying that if we could prevent Downs Syndrome we still shouldn't, because to do so would interfere with that person's spritual growth. Clearly that child is no more "evil" or "immoral" for being that way than a gay person would be. Yet the biological etiology exists equally for both.

I'm not entirely sure that sexuality is 100% biological, although it is certainly heavily so. Take myself for instance. I didn't develop a tickling fetish till I was 21. I had a foot fetish from a very early age, but didn't develop the tickling one till I got a PC, got online and saw how frequently the two were connected. One purchase of a TC tickling video later and I was hooked for life.

I don't think you can compare the cases of Down's Syndrome and inherant homosexuality. They aren't even remotely similar. Down's is an illness that physically destroys a person's body and causes great suffering. Homosexuality is nothing of the kind. It's a sexuality alignment that causes someone to be attracted to others of the same sex. The only way it could be negative is through suffering at the hands of narrow-minded biggots and you just can't program someone against that. If you're going to do it for homosexuality, you might as well do it for all things it's possible to get teased for. You'll end up with a society that genetically modifies babies who are destined to have bright ginger hair, black skin, thick lips, projecting foreheads, big feet, small dicks and large tits next! Follow your line of reasoning and you'll end up with a designer society that Adolph Hitler would have admired. The great thing about humanity, is the huge spread of it's variety and homosexuality is a part of that. No, you can't plan against something because you fear it'll lead to teasing at school. That thought is totally abhorent.

A parent has not only a right, but an obligation to ensure their child's health, physically, mentally and emotionally. Few things make me cringe more than certain faiths held by parents that prevent them from seeking help (medical or otherwise) for their children while their child tragically suffers needlessly.

Yuck, I know exactly what you mean. You're referring to the Jehova's Witnesses, or The Watchtower Society. (Amongst others.) Their line of reasoning is slightly different from what we're discussing, but it is a case in point I'll admit.

A parent's obligation does not extend in to having a "designer baby". You might just as well shoot John Connor, pass the Funding Bill for Skynet and let the robots take over the world; complete with their identical endoskeletons. I know you're not a Nazi mate, (or at least you ain't given no indications of being such) but that line of reasoning is going right down the selective breeding route.

While I concede your point that there very well may be "higher selves" with "negative energy to work off," it's not meaningful enough for me to stake my own son or daughter's happiness or health, in this life, upon it's possibility. To do otherwise, in my opinion, would be "an act of heinous morality."

You think it'll be impossible for a gay child of yours to lead a happy and fulfilling life? Gay or hetero, any child born into this world is gonna suffer at some point. The parent's obligations mean they should help their child through any problems they have and help them grow from the lessons they learn. Genetically altering potentially homosexual foetuses won't stop kids being bullied any more than getting rid of ginger hair will.

Don't know if it makes a difference to you, but my original question meant to suggest determining one's sexuality at the outset, inutero, not changing it after the fact, assuming we could alter the biological cause. I'm not suggesting "forcing a realignment" on my own child, but rather, if possible, preventing a certain biological "alignment" in the first place.

I knew what you meant. I'm not entirely certain that sexuality is 100% biological in any case. Genetics may certainly have a lot to do with it, but I don't think it's all that way. But I refer you to my above reasoning. Why alter just one of dozens of possible causes for bullying? It will make little or no difference to a person's life. There will always be lessons in biggotry and lack of broad-mindedness to learn, no matter what their alignment is.

You also lament "depriving them of their right to experience what they were meant to [in this case homosexuality]..." Gosh, I can't ever recall hearing about my "right" to experience any particular sexuality. If fact, if you subscribe to the tenets underlying Roe v. Wade, that unborn child doesn't even have a "right" to live.

Well look at it as a person's right to not have their body interfered with by someone else then. Especially so if they have the potential to lead a happy and fulfilling life.

I've not heard of Roe Vs. Wade, so I can't comment. I'm assuming it's got something to do with abortion? My views on that topic are already pretty well known. I'm not in favour of abortion myself, but believe in everyone having the right to make the same choice I did. I am definately against father's not having the right to say their piece and also against the termination of an embryo after 10-12 weeks, as this is the period when brain waves and registerable response begins.(When it ceases being an embryo and becomes a foetus; a being that is more than a bundle of cells with no nervous system and therefore no feeling, but a genuine human life.)

 

[execmail77]

Ahhhh, weekend overwith. Now, back to...

BIG JIM:

Already know how much you miss TC, won't waste time lamenting our loss!

My best guess is still that you simply discovered your fetish, once an opportunity presented itself for recognizing something already existing within you, rather than something just spontaneously occuring.

I believe that predetermining my child to be heterosexual most likely WOULD prevent them from being teased for being gay, wouldn't it? And I have no intention to try to plan against everything that they might be teased about in school.

But I don't see that wanting to predetermine my child's sexuality is any more abhorrent than wanting to predetermine their gender in the first place. Yet many parents today are regularly trying to do just that-- and I'm sure would use any possible future technological means (similar to what we're discussing here for sexuality) to continue to do so in the future. Is that wrong too, given we both probably agree that being either male or female isn't "bad?"

Nazism? Not at all. Again, I'm in no way suggesting that society, or its government, should try to impose specific, similar outcomes on everyone. What I believe we would see occur, is still the whole gamut of choices. Some would choose one thing for their children, others would go another direction. If in fact there would be few who would select "gayness" for their own child, though, I wonder what meaning that holds for our discussion here?

And you cracked me up, so I'll address these by saying:

"bright ginger hair" (I might find that atttractive, personally)
"black skin" (Fine. But my wife and I better have white-skinned kids or she has a lot of 'splaining to do!)
"thick lips" (ahhhh, Angelina Jolie!)
"projecting foreheads" (think I'll pass on that look, buddy)
"big feet" (you know what they say...)
"small dicks" (see previous comment)
"large tits" (excuse me while I stop to ponder the possibilities...)

True, "A parent's obligation does not extend to having a 'designer baby',"... YET! But given the pace at which genetic and other advances are occuring, we may be at that point faster than we're prepared for. What if some parents do opt to engineer some of the more popular traits (inteligence or athleticism) in their own kids in the future? Might we not then actually be faced with an obligation not to put our own children at a deliberate disadvantage by not choosing to do the same? Scary? Yes, but only one of the potential ethical issues we need to grapple with, I'm afraid, before that day arrives.

As for "a person's right to not have their body interfered with by someone else..," I again point out that there are many "rights," including this one, that are not afforded to even born children. And I'll eschew the abortion debate for now, even though I brought it up in the first place... talk about gettin' way off topic!

TICKLEBELL:

Not only have you been fabulous with words so far, but "teaching 50 children in a day camp all week" makes YOU fabulous as well! Mwah, yourself!

Naturally, there are inumerable reasons for one to be miserable their whole life long, straight or otherwise. And of course gay people can and do find happiness and support. But I think you'd agree that support is incomparably harder to come by in our heterosexuality-oriented culture. Is that fair or "right?" No. But until I get that magic wand that lets me change everyone else's minds, I'd have to face what's best for my own children, now.

I don't agree that, "Society is going to be cruel no matter what your child is." While individuals may be cruel for a wide range of reasons, I don't really see too many areas in which our society as a whole is institutionally cruel, in the same way as what we're discussing here, which is the main point. I don't believe anyone's child in our culture today is treated cruely, solely for being heterosexual.

Roe v. Wade? I concur. Nuff said.

ANYONE:

Back to the Gay Marriage issue... Why is it really NEEDED? Frankly, I'd suggest the best solution of all (and here, finally, is my actual current position on this) would be to remove government, ANY government, from the ability to sanction any kind of union at all. Why is that even necessary?

 

[BigJim]

Re: Ahhhh, weekend overwith. Now, back to...

BIG JIM:
My best guess is still that you simply discovered your fetish, once an opportunity presented itself for recognizing something already existing within you, rather than something just spontaneously occuring.

Possibly yes, but neither of us can say so for certain. there is more than a tadge of conjecture invlved here. It could be either way, or a mixture of both.

I believe that predetermining my child to be heterosexual most likely WOULD prevent them from being teased for being gay, wouldn't it?

Now you're just being obtuse for the sake of it. Yes it would. Duuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhh. But so would predetermination of any kind. The discussion has been reasonably intelligent up to now, please don't spoil it.

But I don't see that wanting to predetermine my child's sexuality is any more abhorrent than wanting to predetermine their gender in the first place.

I agree.

Back to the Gay Marriage issue... Why is it really NEEDED? Frankly, I'd suggest the best solution of all (and here, finally, is my actual current position on this) would be to remove government, ANY government, from the ability to sanction any kind of union at all. Why is that even necessary?

In my opinion marriage is something between two people anyway and needs no church or government official to sanction. I don't believe it's got anything to do with anyone other than the two people involved. but for now, we live in a society where "sanctioned" marriage is the norm. That being said, the issue needs addressing. While the government has a hand in marriage (so to speak) then gay people who pay taxes and are registered as voters have the right to representation on this subject.

In this last point, we agree 100%.

 

[execmail77]

BIG JIM:

You agreed that wanting to “predetermine [a] child’s sexuality [isn’t] any more abhorrent than wanting to predetermine their gender” (my view). But I’m unclear on whether you’re now saying that trying to have a son versus a daughter, if it's possible to specify, is abhorrent to you as well, or whether you now think maybe neither is particularly abhorrent?

As for the "last point" above, I think we agree 95%, maybe.

GOVERNMENT "sanctioning" marriage is a relatively new occurence, compared to the thousands of years the institution has existed. And as long as government is empowered to license marriage in particular, and thereby condone one particular living arrangement over another for financial purposes, we'll be fighting this as a "legal" battle (Hence the main reason I think this thread was begun as a battle cry against our President Bush!).

However, marriage is not, and never has been between ONLY just the two people. Not just "for now," but always, it has been a social contract, in every sense, whereby two people choose to publicly elevate their relationship to what has been the "highest level," traditionally, in virtually every culture that has ever existed. And clearly, both historically and in practice today, marriage is firmly rooted in religious tradition, and, if nothing else, has been viewed as a "holy" partnering, based upon whatever religious precepts that given society embraces. Marriage was founded as a religious ideal. Government involvement has only undermined its meaning.

Thus, to say marriage needs "no church" to santion it, is non-sensical. No OTHER type of relationship has ever required official sanctioning, from anyone, but marriage, by it's very nature, is defined by it's "sanctioning."

It appears we do agree that government must be removed from the equation. That also means government may not define for a society, through coersion, who must be recognized as married, and cannot be. Plus, once government and it's financial element is removed from the situation, this debate actually goes away!

 

[Oddjob0226]

Traditon says that a marriage is between a man and a woman. So that's why people don't want gays to be married. It's never really been done before historically, it's wierd, makes people uncomfortable and just doesn't make sense, in the eyes of tradition.

Fine - so come up with a NEW word, not "marriage" but something else, like "graftination" and have THAT be a legally binding ceremony so 2 legal, sane normal-except-this-one-thing-that-freaks-a-lot-of-people- out adults can plan their future, run their own lives, etc. Use a word that packs the entire 100% legal punch that the word/legal concept "marriege" does. Then 50, 100 years from now after plenty of beautiful and moving graftination ceremonies, when people are far more comfortable to call every legal union "marriage" (hetro or homo), let the space people and time travellers of the future do that. It's so dang simple.

 

[Shem the Penman]

Wouldn't removing government from marriage involve repealing all the laws regarding it? No more tax breaks for married couples. No more automatic rights to inherit a deceased spouse's property and Social Security benefits. No more legal right to have a say in a gravely ill spouse's medical care. Or do you want to keep all these rights but somehow bar the government from actually policing and/or enforcing them? That's, to put it mildly, impractical.

Marriage has ALWAYS involved property and personal rights as well as religious and romantic considerations -- in fact, it's marriage for love and family alone that's the recent innovation. And in our society, the government, in the form of the court system, is the ultimate arbiter of disputes over property and personal rights. Do away with the protections listed above, and what do you suggest in their place?

If marriage was also defined as a purely religious affair, you'd force atheists to go through a ceremony they didn't believe in and may find personally abhorrent if they decided to get married. But somehow, I don't think the rights of atheists are especially high on your list.

(And no, I don't know what I'm doing in this thread again, given that I expect execmail will simply nod his head and repeat the exact same argument again in slightly different words. But it had to be said.)

 

[BigJim]

Okay, 95% might be nearer the mark.

BIG JIM:

You agreed that wanting to “predetermine [a] child’s sexuality [isn’t] any more abhorrent than wanting to predetermine their gender” (my view). But I’m unclear on whether you’re now saying that trying to have a son versus a daughter, if it's possible to specify, is abhorrent to you as well, or whether you now think maybe neither is particularly abhorrent?

A son versus a daughter? Sorry mate, you've completely lost me. What is it you're saying exactly?

And as long as government is empowered to license marriage in particular, and thereby condone one particular living arrangement over another for financial purposes, we'll be fighting this as a "legal" battle (Hence the main reason I think this thread was begun as a battle cry against our President Bush!).

Yep, I think that's a pretty accurate assessment of the situation.

Thus, to say marriage needs "no church" to santion it, is non-sensical. No OTHER type of relationship has ever required official sanctioning, from anyone, but marriage, by it's very nature, is defined by it's "sanctioning."

Nonsensical only from your point of view. I personally regard organised religion as the greatest evil ever to sweep the surface of the planet and cause the millions of innocent deaths and mutilations of the mind and body that it has. To my mind, nothing has served the agendas of murderers, thieves and megalomaniacs more. That being the case, I wouldn't let anything to do with religion anywhere damn near the most precious thing in my life. (I'm not maried like yourself, but I'm assuming it'll be pretty darn important to me, when I am.)

My personal take, is that people don't need a bloke to dress up in a funny frock and wave his hands about in a pagan temple otherwise diguised as a church, to conceive a holy bond between each other. Everyone on this planet has the ability to directly access the divine without the pathetic preamble of a religious 15%'er. I will be perfectly content with myself and my future wife making the affirmation on our own. If everyone is spiritually equal, why does any couple need anything but their own intent and love?

It appears we do agree that government must be removed from the equation. That also means government may not define for a society, through coersion, who must be recognized as married, and cannot be. Plus, once government and it's financial element is removed from the situation, this debate actually goes away!

Yup it surely does. That's the wonderful thing about institutions we hate. We don't have to fight them. If we fight them they always win because it's playing their game, their way by their rules. All we have to do is walk away and the whole house of cards just comes tumbling down.

 

[BigJim]

Wouldn't removing government from marriage involve repealing all the laws regarding it? No more tax breaks for married couples. No more automatic rights to inherit a deceased spouse's property and Social Security benefits. No more legal right to have a say in a gravely ill spouse's medical care. Or do you want to keep all these rights but somehow bar the government from actually policing and/or enforcing them? That's, to put it mildly, impractical.

Marriage has ALWAYS involved property and personal rights as well as religious and romantic considerations -- in fact, it's marriage for love and family alone that's the recent innovation. And in our society, the government, in the form of the court system, is the ultimate arbiter of disputes over property and personal rights. Do away with the protections listed above, and what do you suggest in their place?

If marriage was also defined as a purely religious affair, you'd force atheists to go through a ceremony they didn't believe in and may find personally abhorrent if they decided to get married. But somehow, I don't think the rights of atheists are especially high on your list.

(And no, I don't know what I'm doing in this thread again, given that I expect execmail will simply nod his head and repeat the exact same argument again in slightly different words. But it had to be said.)

I agree with 99% of that post Shem, but there is a point I'd like to make.

A couple are perfectly capable of declaring themselves common-law spouses. If they want to have a ceremony of some sort to do that, it's up to them. It makes no difference if there is no ceremony, they jump over a broom or a cardinal says the words in a cathedral; the covenant beween those two is santified by their own will and love. Not some spasmo-hippy in a funny coloured frock, waving his hands about in a pagan temple.

I don't think removing government from the equation administratively, necessitates government not recognising marriage as an institution. Just in case anyone didn't realise yet, I see need for neither church OR government in this matter, unless the people involved specifically desire it.

 

[BigJim]

Traditon says that a marriage is between a man and a woman. So that's why people don't want gays to be married. It's never really been done before historically, it's wierd, makes people uncomfortable and just doesn't make sense, in the eyes of tradition.

You've come right to the crux of the matter Oddjob. "People" don't want gays to be married.

Where the hell does anyone get off by interfering with the level of committment anyone else has? Even if the Christians are right in their spiritual outlook, judgement is the Lord's prerogative, not theirs. Quite worrying about other people's affairs and concentrate on getting into heaven ya'self y'all.

Good post OJ.

 

[execmail77]

SHEM THE PENMAN:

Naturally, "removing government from marriage [would] involve repealing [many if not] all laws regarding it"... but, so what? There are already in place other simple remedies that unmarried people now use every day.

I don't see that the small marriage tax deduction I can take justifies the government being able to reward one lifestyle over another, do you? I'd rather see it rolled back into the child credits, where it belongs, for those-- married or otherwise-- who have kids to support.

As for any "automatic rights to inherit a deceased spouse's property," in many states, this is anything BUT automatic, especially if one spouse dies without any kind of Will, Living Trust, etc. Simply having one of these in place addresses that issue entirely, as it does now for anyone not married as well.

Social Security? Don't want to waste space in this thread on the massive changes needed in that system, of which spousal benefits are only the teeniest part...

Having "a say in a gravely ill spouse's medical care?" Who has that say now for unmarried persons? Children/next-of-kin/someone else? Same here.

I'm not saying at all that there's no need or way to police these. Simple contract law, that applies now to all individuals equally, would suffice. What we could, and would, do away with is the entire Family Law system, to which one now automatically relinquishes all of their rights, when they sign a "legal" marriage licence. Not impractical in the least! And, this would immediately level the playing field, financialy, for every kind of relationship (at least with regard to artificially imposed incentives by government), thereby removing the underpinnings to both sides of this "legalized gay marriage" debate.

I think you misspoke by saying that "Marriage has ALWAYS involved...romantic considerations," but that "love... [is a] recent innovation." I think you meant to say that both (which could be interchangeable) are recent innovations, which I agree with. But I'd include "family" with "property and personal rights as well as religious" beliefs as having long been the primary reasons for marriage.

And please, don't try to make me out to be something I'm not. The rights AND responsibilities of everyone are "high on my list." But, Atheists marrying? Why? If it were no longer a "legal" institution at all, what possible motivation could there be for them to "marry," given they could secure the same benefits by remaining unmarried, particularly if they find the whole concept abhorrent. And if they still wished to "tie-the-knot," as BIG JIM points out here, I suppose they could just "jump over a broom" too.

ODDJOB

Completely agree with your initial premise, but reject the proposed solution as it still assumes the keep-it-"legal" paradigm. I think you'll find that the outcome you're looking to find would still occur "50, 100 years from now" or maybe even faster and more smoothely without the "legal" debate obscuring the deeper issues. So, yes, it is that "dang simple"! 🙂

BIG JIM

Quoting you: "Where the hell does anyone get off by interfering with the level of committment anyone else has? Even if the Christians are right in their spiritual outlook, judgement is the Lord's prerogative, not theirs. Quit worrying about other people's affairs and concentrate on getting into heaven ya'self y'all."

Amen, brother!

And by trying to have "a son versus a daughter," I meant a couple being able to predetermine the gender of each/any of their own children, if it were scientifically possible to do so (just as we've been talking about engineering their sexuality, if possible).


p.s. Someday I've GOT to figure out how to do that cool "quote" thing you all use on these...!

 

[Oddjob0226]

Well, BigJim, Execmail, I'm just a simple guy, traing to make my way through the world, trying not to spill hot coffee in my lap. Whenever you mess with established traditions, goood or bad, from slavery to co-ed military schools, the hornets always come out.

Oh, to use the quotes thing.... go to the bottom of the screem where the specific thread reply is that you liked. There's an array of "buttons" to click on.... Profile, Edit, Buddy, Quote and so on. That "quote" one is the one you want. When you reply, the ENTIRE post will be in quotes, so you have to delete whatever it is that you don't want to quote. If you want to quote from several other posts, all I can find to do is cut & paste at that point, and put those pasted replies in BOLD text. And remember 4 quotes make a gallon.

But if you're quoting me, please fix my spelling.

 

[TKpervert]

OddJob needs another rum and coke.

With no knowledge of any nuances from previous posts (I didn't read em), I'll jump in here and say that any societal recognition of gay marriages is nothing more than political correctness run amuck.

back to basics

 

[Oddjob0226]

Gay, straight or in between, rum + coke = YUM!

 

[BigJim]

But, Atheists marrying? Why? If it were no longer a "legal" institution at all, what possible motivation could there be for them to "marry," given they could secure the same benefits by remaining unmarried, particularly if they find the whole concept abhorrent. And if they still wished to "tie-the-knot," as BIG JIM points out here, I suppose they could just "jump over a broom" too.

I know this was addressed to someone else Exec, but I think I need to correct someone here. Marriage is not a religious ceremony for all people. Some people, particularly those like agnostics and atheists, regard it as a ceremony where they declare their commitment to their partner. Even those with no spiritual beliefs want to do that most of the time. I think they should be allowed to do it themselves with no sanctioning needed from any registrar or vicar.

 

[BigJim]

I'll jump in here and say that any societal recognition of gay marriages is nothing more than political correctness run amuck.

back to basics

Basic what?

Interesting point of view Perv, but why exactly do you think people who aren't heterosexual should be prevented from the legal benefits that commitment to a long term partner gives a hetero couple?

I'm the least poloitically correct person in the world. I hate political correctness with a passion so strong that I'd like the bludgeon it out of people with a 15 lb lumphammer. But even I can see it's unfair to refuse legal backing for same-sex relationships.

 

[drew70]

I think it's bizarre that the government has any regulations about marriages whatsoever. Why should two people (of ANY gender) who decide to commit to each other be of any concern to the government?? There's an old saying that says "It's a free country" that just doesn't seem to apply any more. It's not a free country. We've got way too many laws on the books as it is, and they keep cranking out new ones. While I'm personally opposed to gay marriages, I don't believe the government should have the right to say who marries who. I don't believe the government should be telling us how much alimony to pay, or child support. I don't believe they have any business telling us we have to file legal forms should one of us decides to split. Stay the hell out of our personal affairs, Uncle Sam. You've got way bigger fish to fry.

 

[BigJim]

I'll echo all of those sentiments Drew. Well said.

One question. (Feel free not to answer if you're uncomfortable doing such.)

Why are you personally against gay marriages?

 

[drew70]

I'll echo all of those sentiments Drew. Well said.

One question. (Feel free not to answer if you're uncomfortable doing such.)

Why are you personally against gay marriages?

Me, uncomfortable giving out opinions? Okay, here it is. To me, marriage is something that goes way beyond sexual preference. It's a commitment to spend the rest of your life with that person, to share feelings, experiences and responsibilities. I absolutely abhor the idea of divorce. People shouldn't marry unless they are willing to commit the rest of their lives. Till death do us part, not till we get tired of each other and want some strange. Some will no doubt ask, "Drew are you saying that a married couple should remain together even if they are miserable in that relationship?" No, not necessarily. I'm just saying that divorce is an extreme measure and should only be resorted to under extreme situations.

That said, I'm convinced that an opposite gender relationship has a much greater chance of success. I think one reason why so many marriages fail is because they are based on a sexual relationship, or sexual preference. As long as the sex is good, the relationship will appear solid. But that's like building your house on sand. When the wind and the rains come, the sands will shift, and your house will come crashing down. But a marriage that is based on a commitment so deep you're willing to make drastic lifestyle changes for your partner, that's like building your house on a solid rock.

Somebody will no doubt want to ask, "But Drew, isn't it possible to have that level of commitment in same sex marriages?" Yes, I suppose it is possible, but not very likely. I don't have any statistics, just my own observations and experiences. Gay relationships tend to be frought with conflicts and emotional upheavals. Most don't last a long time. A heterosexual marriage brings enough diversity to the table to make for a more lasting bond. Not very politically correct maybe, but true nonetheless.

 

[Haltickling]

Somebody will no doubt want to ask, "But Drew, isn't it possible to have that level of commitment in same sex marriages?" Yes, I suppose it is possible, but not very likely. I don't have any statistics, just my own observations and experiences. Gay relationships tend to be frought with conflicts and emotional upheavals. Most don't last a long time. A heterosexual marriage brings enough diversity to the table to make for a more lasting bond. Not very politically correct maybe, but true nonetheless.

It seems you're falling for the most stereotypical prejudices concerning homosexuality: Promiscuity and lack of emotional stability. I don't doubt your own experiences and observations, but an existing prejudice often results in selective perception: You see only what you expected to see anyway.

The divorce rate here in Germany has reached 30%, most divorces happening within the first 10 years. Not much different in America, I guess. That's a whole lot of "greater chance to success" gone awry. OTOH, I know 3 gay couples who have lived together for more than 15 years, one of them is a well-respected City Council member in my hometown. Two of the couples married last year when gay marriages were legalized in Germany.

But that's missing the point anyway: Who is the government to judge who marries whom? Are they able to pick the more stabile couples? No. The Bush government's motives can't be found in doing something for heterosexual families. They want the votes of the Bible Belt and all other strictly conservative Christians, which makes a big chunk of the total votership.

 

[BigJim]

Okay, here it is. To me, marriage is something that goes way beyond sexual preference. It's a commitment to spend the rest of your life with that person, to share feelings, experiences and responsibilities.


I absolutely abhor the idea of divorce. People shouldn't marry unless they are willing to commit the rest of their lives. Till death do us part, not till we get tired of each other and want some strange. Some will no doubt ask, "Drew are you saying that a married couple should remain together even if they are miserable in that relationship?" No, not necessarily. I'm just saying that divorce is an extreme measure and should only be resorted to under extreme situations.

I found myself nodding my head a lot while reading your last post. I do think people base their relationships on physical sex, waaaaaaaay to much. I think we differ on the subject of divorce though. We would agree that people resort to it too often and too easily, but I think people create too much guilt (for both parties) and resentment when a relationship starts to irretrievably break down. Sometimes the energies of two people in a relationship are just drawing in directions that are too different for them to have that sort of depth in their relationship. That's when all the guilt, anger and resentment start to come in. So pointless. 🙁 Life would be so much more constructive if people involved in that sort of thing could let go of all the negativity and accept that some things weren't meant to be. They could wind up being good friends a lot more easily that way.

OTOH, I know 3 gay couples who have lived together for more than 15 years, one of them is a well-respected City Council member in my hometown. Two of the couples married last year when gay marriages were legalized in Germany.

But that's missing the point anyway: Who is the government to judge who marries whom? Are they able to pick the more stabile couples? No. The Bush government's motives can't be found in doing something for heterosexual families. They want the votes of the Bible Belt and all other strictly conservative Christians, which makes a big chunk of the total votership.

I'd agree with nearly all of your post Hal. ( Especially the bit about the bastard politicians. )

 

[Knox The Hatter]

"Sex education, under new Bush guidelines, is evaluated not by the resulting sexual practices of participants but by their subsequent sexual beliefs, and condoms are scorned, dismissed for disease prevention and contraception although the data are compellling that they are useful for both. There is more than one way for a president to lie about sex. This one is actually dangerous."
-TOM TEEPEN, columnist, COX NEWSPAPERS 7/18/03

Not surprising, of course. This administration has proved itself, since day one, to be a constant, sustained insult to the intelligence of the informed voter. Much of what they do or stand for is utterly shameless. But then, obviously they are far less dangerous than their predecessors. After all, a politician having an affair with a young, unmarried woman? How outrageous, how outlandish! Who cares about the environment? Better to ruin the environment and bankrupt our unborn children than to let us have a president once again run around with an ambitious, young single girl and lie about it...

 

[BigJim]

Not surprising, of course. This administration has proved itself, since day one, to be a constant, sustained insult to the intelligence of the informed voter.

Not an insult to very many people then.

 

[execmail77]

Stirrin' it up...!

In defense of Gay Marriage, people are seemingly starting to agree here that "consenting adults" should have the right to "marry," whatever that might mean to them, but that government should get out of the business of sanctioning it.

Now, let me ask this (something yet to be addressed here). What about consenting adults, who are closely related-- such as an adult male and his mother; and adult female and her father; adult siblings, adult first-cousins, etc?

Please, let's be clear, I'm asking about consenting ADULTS here, not adult/child relationships. So let's not revisit THAT.

I've seen nothing in the arguments expressed thus far that would condone preventing these marriages from occuring, yet I'm guessing there's some resistance around here to that idea...

(And I'd like to know about the issue of the marriage itself, NOT the ramifications of having children in those relationships).

I'm just wondering upon what moral (or other) grounds these types of "marriages" could be denied, based upon what I've read here so far, as the reasons for allowing "gay marriages?"

 

[Haltickling]

"Inbreeding" bears severe genetic risks for the offspring, as far as I know. That's enough to forbid such marriages, for the sake of the future children.