BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)

Subject: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: AgingBohemian
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 08:02 PM

How about this?

It seems to me that both sides in the gay marriage debate are polarized around the word, "marriage". Advocates of same sex unions strive, in the use of the word, for full parity with advocates of heterosexual only unions, while the advocates of the latter wish to retain the use of the word for what they see as the traditional, biblically condoned union of a man and a woman.

I think the solution is not to end the debate one way or the other, but to shift it to where it more properly belongs: to each persons religious community. How?

The state should get out of the marriage business.

That is, the state concerns itself with a couples civil rights. The state therefore performs civil unions, and only civil unions. Churches perform marriages. In that way, couples who wish can share in the rights and responsibilities of such unions, and churches can decide for themselves whether their theology allows them to perform a marriage or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: SINSULL
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 08:10 PM

Big red flag: Are heterosexual couples who choose not to be married in a church or by a religious representative not married?

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: curmudgeon
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 08:31 PM

When done by the "state," magistrate, mayor, judge, JP, ship's captain, et al, it is a "civil" marriage. All others are uncivil.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Once Famous
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 09:20 PM

Men buttfucking each other is not civil and is more anti-social than anything I can be bleeped for.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 10:20 PM

"Holy matrimony" is the business of the church, and if they have any complaint it should be that a "marriage license" is an intrusion into something that is not the business of civil authority.

The "marriage license" exists, or should exist, only to make visible to the community at large that a civil contract exists permitting either party to act on their joint behalf or to execute powers of attorney on behalf of each other in matters of civil law.

Demanding that the civil certification that a contract exists must prescribe what kind of sex the parties to the civil contact are permitted - or required - to have, the bigots are FORCING an even more intrusive civil interference with what they call "holy ritual and covenants."

The assumption that SEX - of any kind - is the only thing that marriage is made for reflects a pretty low opinion of one's own faith and rituals.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 10:29 PM

Ummmm, I like the idea... Let the state deal with the "civil" (in terms of law) aspects and let the churches deal with the spirituality of the relationships...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 10:31 PM

Funny thing Bobert, that's what the US Constitution says we're supposed to do.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 10:38 PM

Yeah, yer right, John... Like what happened?

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: frogprince
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 10:57 PM

I still may have to get my (so far as I know) original bumper sticker made: "Privatise Marriage, not Social Security".

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 03:23 AM

I've been proposing the same thing for some time, and I have made the point that one would think that the churches would want the state to get out of the marriage business. It is a religious, even spiritual, ceremony- the state needn't go there. Everything that the state should be concerned with is in the civil union.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: robomatic
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 07:26 AM

I don't think it will work. It makes sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 02:38 PM

If marriage is regarded as a religious rite, then the state will have no more right to say who can get married, than who can get baptized. Fine with me.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Once Famous
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 02:52 PM

hemmorroids from sodomy should prevent a marriage license.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 04:07 PM

So, Martin, do you have any logic to back up your statement? Should pregnancy or shared venereal disease stop a heterosexual marriage?
Or do your rules just apply to homosexuals?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 05:23 PM

Although I have known several homosexual couples, of both sexes, I can frankly state that I have never seen any of them having sex, and don't know whether they do or not. I see no reason why that's really any of my business.

Come to think of it, I've known quite a few heterosexual couples and I dont' recall ever seeing any of them have sex, and don't know whether they do or not. I see no reason why that's really any of my business.

I have known at least three separate heterosexual couples who informed me that they do not have sex. In two of the cases it was the male who volunteered the information, while it was the female in the third instance. This information was volunteered as an explanation for why the couples had no children, and in all three cases the explanation was "neither of us has any interest in sex." That also was none of my business, and not particularly of interest; but they offered the information because a couple of nosey busybodies asked.

While I would have to agree to an extent with herr Gibsons opinion that men buttfucking is not something that would be something to be desired - if it were my butt - as long as it ain't mine it ain't my business.

Perhaps Martin Gibson has one of those pretty little butts that the boys just can't resist; and I can see how it would be a nuisance to be always in such great demand; but as long as they leave mine alone I'll let him settle his problem with those who want him so badly. It ain't my business to tell them, or him, what to do with his dainty butt. (And it's NOT HIS BUSINESS to tell them what they can do if it ain't HIS BUTT - IMO.)

Freedom of choice, Martin. Just QUIT WATCHING THEM.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 05:42 PM

Well said, JohninKansas. And thanks for the laugh!

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Once Famous
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 06:02 PM

Freedom of choice. Fine.

Freedom of speech to also say it's perverted and unnatural.


Just don't flaunt it at me and worse yet, pretend that the perversion is OK to teach in schools as acceptable behavior.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Once Famous
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 06:05 PM

It's not my rules, Joe. It's society's rules. And they don't have to be rewritten to accomodate a few.

and since when should pregnancy cause a marriage to be denied?

BTW, I'm not talking marriage here. I'm talking about a lifestyle.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: GUEST,MarkS
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 06:52 PM

Great comments from John in Kansas and almost everybody else. If two people of any persuasion whatever want to be joined in a civil union for legal reasons, there is no reason why the State should not issue the permission slip known as a license. (Sure, subject to sensible qualifications of age of consent, not already civilly unioned to somebody else, etc.)
If those same people choose to be joined in the civil union in the church, synagog, mosque, etc of their choice, for reasons of sacrement or tradition, then go for it and much luck and joy to them. You can call it a marriage or whatever language works in your tradition. And if your tradition does not recognize your choice of partner, maybe this is not a real great tradition to be part of anyway!
If you choose to have your civil union celebrated by the mayor at the local firehouse (been there), thats great too.
I still call my former significant other my spouse, and she calls me, well, lots of things, but I digress!
The point: It's a civil union in all cases. To argue about if it is a marriage or not, is one of those things which hey, if it important to you than OK, but the word marriage has no bearing on the legal status of the couple.
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Janice in NJ
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 11:32 PM

Martin Gibson says "BTW, I'm not talking marriage here. I'm talking about a lifestyle." Lifestyle, eh? Since when is one's sexual orientation a lifestyle? Anyway, I'm altogether sick of that word lifestyle. I don't have no stinkin' lifestyle. I have a life! I prefer it that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Apr 05 - 01:32 AM

Well, Martin, I have to admit that I consider most overtly sexual behavior to be offensive if done in public - whether it's homosexual or heterosexual, doesn't make much difference to me. I think some things are best done in private. So, if homosexuals do their mating in private, that's fine with me. I do get very uncomfortable in some situations when the conversation is heavily sexual, whare there's a "sexually charged" atmosphere. If I'm the the one involved in the "charge," I feel completely left out.

You say it's society's rules that prohibit homosexual contact - but who is society to determine what adults do with each other in private? And if two men want to pledge lifelong fidelity and responsibility and love, who am I to stop them? If they want to be married to each other, how can it be fair for me to stop them? I thought lifelong fidelity, responsibility, and love were wonderful "family values."

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 13 Apr 05 - 11:24 AM

"So, if homosexuals do their mating in private that's fine with me" errrrrrrhhh... Joe, homosexuals can't "mate," there can be no offspring.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Once Famous
Date: 13 Apr 05 - 11:30 AM

Good point Flemenco Ted. Maybe Joe thinks a fudgepack will sprout a baby one day.

Janice in NJ, apparently you have never witnessed a gay pride day parade. It is all about a lifestyle and it's flaunted in the straight world's face.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 13 Apr 05 - 03:15 PM

It appears that Martin and Ted agree with the intent of recent campaigns in establishing that:

1. Marriage is completely, entirely, and exclusively all about sex.

2. Only Martin and Ted are qualified to determine what constitutes permissible sex.

3. Since "everybody" agrees with Martin and Ted, the rest of us must not be included in "everybody" i.e. we don't matter if we disagree so it's okay to pass laws to make us do as they say.

4. There is a statutory requirement that Martin has to attend gay pride demonstrations.

Martin definitely holds an advantage over me, as he at least implied that in his schools kids are now taught how to have sex. We didn't get that when I was young, so I had to figure out some of it on my own. Maybe that's where he got his understanding that:

5. It has to be illegal to form a civil contract unless someone gets fucked.

I thought this latter one was just a tradition in Law and Advertising schools, but apparently - to Martin - it has more general applicability. I'll definitely have to look into that.

I'm a little disturbed by the contention that the only purpose of marriage is to have children, since I know several "childless" marriages. I guess I'll need to tell them that their relationship is illegal now. Maybe they just didn't have children because they didn't get that "how to have sex" training as kids. Martin will have to tell us whether he'll allow them to be retrained and taught to fuck right (Martin's way).

I am still a little confused though. I thought that marriage was about forming a relationship in which people share an entire life and lifestyle, and all Martin seems to be able to think about is having sex. And he's never mentioned whether he does it - he's only interested in how others do it....(?). Maybe he didn't pay attention in that class.

Stay with me. I'll figure this out eventually.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Once Famous
Date: 13 Apr 05 - 04:55 PM

While your at it John figure out why anyone would want to live in Kansas.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Apr 05 - 05:28 PM

Toto oh Toto!

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Once Famous
Date: 13 Apr 05 - 05:31 PM

Canned Ass.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: jpk
Date: 13 Apr 05 - 06:54 PM

if in the course of ordinary biological acts, they can beget offspring, then let them marry. (i.e. would they have been a usefull couple to noah on the ark).if they are fruits,i bet that they would not have been on board !!!

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Janice in NJ
Date: 13 Apr 05 - 07:58 PM

M.G. states, "Janice in NJ, apparently you have never witnessed a gay pride day parade. It is all about a lifestyle and it's flaunted in the straight world's face."

A few facts...

• I have not only witnessed many Gay Pride parades, I have marched in several of them.

• I have been an active member of ILGO, the Irish Lesbian and Gay Organization.

• If I were an Eskimo, I would start an organization called IGLU, the Inuit Gay and Lesbian Union. Our slogan would be "Come out of the cold!" (Only joking, but I couldn't resist.)

• It's not a lifestyle; it's my life.

• I don't flaunt anything other than my big Irish ass, and I do that in everyone's face, queer or straight or anywhere in-between.

• If you ask me "Exactly what do you do?," I'll answer, "More than you can imagine."

• I own both a Martin and a Gibson.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Once Famous
Date: 13 Apr 05 - 10:03 PM

So what. Any pervert can own a guitar.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 04:55 AM

John in Kansas,

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Crystal
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 04:58 AM

"It is all about a lifestyle and it's flaunted in the straight world's face."

So?

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 05:07 AM

john in Kansas,
             Rant on dude! My post above is simply a atatement of fact which even you could not deny surely? Mr Offer likes to pull me up on my incorrect use of apostrophes ,so I ought to return the favour and correct his error, ie - homosexuals cannot breed.
             As to the other point of 'flaunting it in the straight worlds face,' think on this one - In ancient Greece pederasty was very common and quite fashionable. If this practise took wings nowadays, would you be banging away on mudcat telling me I have to accept it?

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Crystal
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 05:44 AM

"In ancient Greece pederasty was very common and quite fashionable"

We have an age, known as the age of consent, persons under that age are deemed not mature enough to have sexual intercourse. In Aciant Greece the age of consent was lower (12 I think, but don't quote me). therefore sex with a 12 year old was perfectly legal.
Under UK law a person still needs the permission of their parents to get married or live away from home at the age of 16 (the age of consent). By law they are still a child, therefore sex with them is probably definable as pederasty (although not illigal) and most people accept it.

This is a simple statement of facts (although possibly not very well explained) not a personal attack Ted, I'm pointing out a simple difference in values between two widly disperate cultures.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 06:03 AM

Well said Crystal. The most important point you made was 'difference in values.' The Gay culture is as alien to me as that of Ancient Greece, and the fact that it is now legal wont persuade me otherwise.
My original question still stands though. If pederasty with boys was 'flaunted' openly, and as vociferously in public as homosexuality is, would you tell me to accept that too?

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 06:05 AM

Gibson, I thought you would have wanted to stay away from any views that could lead to persecution of individuals.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Crystal
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 06:09 AM

no I wouldn't tell anyone to accept it if they didn't wish to. I do feel, however that tolerence (which is different to accepting somthing) for those different to yourself is important.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: John P
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 08:11 AM

I think most of the folks in this thread are missing an important point: we have sexual perverts in our midst, and they are trying to force everyone to share their perverted viewpoints. Martin Gibson is loudly and lewdly interested in what other people are doing in bed and I, for one, think that's really sick.

Martin, you sick pervert, get some help.

John Peekstok

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: John P
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 08:13 AM

As for the original proposal of this thread: of course that's the only reasonable solution. Lots of us have been saying that for a long time. And I think that's where it will end up.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 11:12 AM

What makes pederasty different from homosexuality is simply this:
The legislator has no business to interfere with any type of consensual adult sexuality. Even heterosexual couples sometimes do things others may consider 'unnatural'.

Only if the 'consensual' part is missing (rape etc.) or the 'adult' part is missing in one partner (pederasty, paedophily) it becomes the business of the legislator to interfere.

No one expects everybody to find every kind of sex admirable or tasteful. Just accept that others may think differently. If they find an adult partner sharing their preferences it is just a matter of tolerance to accept what they are doing between themselves.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 11:20 AM

Would you have had any complaint martin if the holocaust had been reserved for homosexuals?

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Blissfully Ignorant
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 11:38 AM

Why not just give unmarried couples the same legal rights as married couples? Seems fairly simple to me...

"Under UK law a person still needs the permission of their parents to get married or live away from home at the age of 16 (the age of consent)." Almost....it's different in Scotland. If you're under eighteen and you want to get married, but your parents say no.....just run away to Gretna :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 11:52 AM

Wolfgang,
       You haven't answered my question either.There is also a big difference between tolerance and acceptance. Homosexual couples have more rights in England than unmarried heterosexuals such as Penelope and myself, but you wont find us bitching and mewling for more 'rights'
       If homosexuals want to live together, fine, but please don't call it marriage!

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 02:33 PM

Ted which rights do homosexual couples have that you don't? And do they really outnumber your rights? I'm thinking laws regarding pensions, claiming social security, maternity/paternity leave, and employment laws regarding time off for spouses, and laws regarding inheritance taxes etc...they don't have any of those.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Once Famous
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 03:11 PM

A few responses:

John P.: I don't care what people do in a bedroom. It's the sickos who have to flaunt their perversion in wide open daylight I object to. Obviously the term fudgepacker makes you uncommmmmmmmmmfortable.

Guest of 14 Apr 05 - 11:20 AM : Typical Jew-hater response that is ignorant on your part. comparing the murder of 6 million people to the plight of homosexual rights and an unnatural butt-fuck is really worth a good laugh at you.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 03:33 PM

So you are unable to answer the question martin? Would you be indignant if the holocaust had been reserved for homosexuals.

And don't pull the jew hating crap just because you are unable to justify your bigotry whilst expecting others to tolerate you.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Once Famous
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 03:40 PM

[bleep - for antisocial behavior]I answered your question, guest moron. It's a totally stupid question completely irrelevant to the holocaust and genocide, you idiot.

and why are you a guest? Afraid to come out defending fags? go back to your dark and dank closet.

and denouncing perversion is hardly bigotry. You may think it is, but not subscribing to your perverted lifestyle is hardly bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 03:45 PM

No martin you didn't and haven't answered my question. It is a simple yes or no. Should I ask you again?

Would you be indignant if the holocaust had been reserved for homosexuals?

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 03:52 PM

The US Census department enumerated something just over 1800 separate "rights of marriage" not too long ago. For the most part these were not "legal" rights, with any laws enforcing them, but were benefits having civil meaning that normally are available to married couples but not to unmarrieds. (The list did not include any rights to participate in any sacraments or rituals of any religion.)

Not too long ago the complaint from the churches was that civil law had no business "interfering" with the sacred ritual of marriage by requiring a license to be married. It was well established that the marriage license is only a recognition by civil law that the two parties to the marriage may act together, or may act separately for them both, and that contracts made by one are binding on them both. This has the legitimate purpose of protecting the rest of the community from entering into contracts or other entanglements without being aware that "the person has two heads."

It was left up to the churches to prescribe their own rituals and sacraments, and to assure that the married couple had the faith to live up to them. Whether you call it a marriage license or a license for civil union or any other name, the license really has virtually nothing to do with the requirements of any faith.

Perhaps a "solution" is simply to abolish the "Marriage License," and issue a "License for Civil Union" to all for purposes of contracts, debts, powers of attorney, inheritance, etc., and let the churches do their own thing under the old name of Marriage, according to each faith's own sacraments and beliefs - without a license if they choose to do so.

Note that this still doesn't grant "them you don't like" any freedom to get one of those licenses, until or unless the Legislature comes up with acceptable rules on eligibility. Most US States have such rules in place. It would perhaps prevent ONE group of religionists from attempting to force their belief on everyone of all (or no) religions.

And a note to Guest: The "holocaust" actually started off with a crusade against homosexuals, under the guise of "controlling undesirables." Some estimate that 60,000 or so "queers" were sent to forced labor camps under the suspensions of civil liberties immediately following Neuremburg 1939, and a majority of them died there. Quite a few didn't make it that far, because abuses based on a "presumption of immoral behavior" simply weren't prosecuted. The numbers from different sources vary quite a bit, but there is no question that they were significant. They also solved their unemployment problems by sending any one who refused any job offered (and the offers could be pretty ridiculous) to forced labor camps where "they didn't count" in the statistics. And a lot of them died there.

Although they appealed to "protecting religion" hand in hand with the protocol for "protection of the purity of the race," in fairly short order it became a crime (subject, without trial, to "rehabilitation" at hard labor) to cite any religious belief in objection to any actions by the "government." This excuse was used against those of the prevailing faiths as well as against jews. Apparently few lived long enough to improve their thinking, although there were some exceptions.

Or so I'm told.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 05:04 PM

Yes John, Himmler was responsible for the creation of the wonderfully tolerantly named 'Reich Central Office for Combatting Homosexuality and Abortion.' You are right, estimates of numbers vary, but their persecution was as systematic as that of the Jews and other unacceptable groups. Numberwise they are obviously going to be less, as there were less of them.

I find it very telling that martin is unable to answer whether he is out raged by their persecution. People who pick and choose their prejudices are undeserving of tolerance.