BS: On Same-Sex Marriages

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Emma B
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 04:56 PM

many and varied are the forms of "marriage" throughout the world.
Polyandry
"is generally found in areas where difficult physical environments or high populations impose extreme pressures on agricultural systems. It works to limit population growth and to ensure the coherence of agricultural estates. Some theorists suggest that this institutions more often occurs in societies in which women hold relatively high social status"
and Polygny   
"Demographic theory suggests that polygyny may occur because of a surplus of women that results from a high incidence of male warfare. However, polygyny occurs in many situations of relatively balanced gender ratios or even, as in the case of the Yanomamo, where males outnumber females. Accordingly, some men accumulate two or more wives only at the expense of others who never marry, or, much more usually, marry at a later age than women do."

I don't think there are any "rules" for mankind - just whatever "suits" one society at one time

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 03:40 PM

Molly that post was utter pish.

You have simply repeated the same claptrap in a more rambling manner.
Harem? concubine?...I refer to Christian or civil marriage.

And even in ancient Arab culture the Harem was the preserve of the wealthy...perhaps a Sultan.

The rule for the common people was one man ,one woman

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: harpmolly
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 03:19 PM

Ake, you keep ignoring the main point we are trying to make: that "living together" is not the issue, but being privy to the legal benefits that marriage accords is.

And while the "homosexual lobby" might not be totally satisfied with civil unions that provide the EXACT SAME legal benefits as "marriage", it's a damned good start.

No one that I know is arguing that churches should be forced to change their sacraments. If they want to be exclusive and look down from on high at those they disapprove of, as you point out, that is their right. But it is NOT their right to deny anyone their legal rights because of something they choose selectively to enforce (again, we hardly legally enforce every single prohibition in Leviticus, or else we'd all be living very differently).

And as for your claim that "ONE man and ONE woman" has been the sacred definition of marriage for thousands of years, good Lord, man! Apparently the words "harem" and "concubine" are hitherto undreamed of in your philosophy. Sheesh. Have some historical perspective, for Frith's sake.

No, my dear, I would never claim that you want homosexuals to be exterminated. But I don't see you advocating a solution that would allow them to live with the same dignity, respect and equality under the law that they deserve, either. And no amount of kvetching on anyone's part will convince me that any faction large or small, be they Christian, Muslim or Scientologist, has the right to deny full legal marital privileges to gay people because that would "water down their sacred institution". It's being watered down just fine as it is, ta very much.

Molly

P.S. At some point, I would be very interested to hear your personal opinion on this matter. Feel free to PM me if you don't want to lay it open to public consumption.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 03:01 PM

But Molly that is the point!!

For the purposes of this discussion my personal opinion matters not a jot.
I repeat , I am not "anti homosexual" How can any reasonable person be "anti homosexual"? Does that mean they should all be exterminated?
I am not religious, and marriage does not mean a great deal to me.
I believe people can live together just as happily without being married at all. I can be totally objective, unlike those here with a persecution complex...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Emma B
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 02:59 PM

I wouldn't despair too much about Scotland harpmolly.

CRFR and the Scottish Centre for Social Research studied attitudes to changing families based on a specially commissioned module of the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey 2004 that canvassed public views and knowledge on a range of family matters including knowledge of the law about, and attitudes to wider kin relationships. It also provided a baseline of evidence for the Family Law (Scotland) Bill 2005 now completing its Committee stage in the Scottish Parliament.

It found that
"There is increasing acceptance of homosexual sexual relations, which are thought to be rarely wrong or not wrong at all by 42% of respondents, a higher proportion than the 37% who thought so in 2000. Similarly, 39% of respondents thought that gay or lesbian couples should be able to marry if they wish."

I suspect that 3 years later the figures might be even more accepting!

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 02:45 PM

Amos my friend, you guessed wrong.
I have no wish to see homosexuals or any other group deprived of their rights.
What some people don't like, is to see the institution of marriage redefined to accomodate the homosexual lifestyle.
The people who believe in conventional marriage, {defined for thousands of years as the joining of one man and one woman} would feel that redefinition was a knee jerk reaction to political correctness and modern minority morality. This redefinition would alter marriage forever and negate their right to a traditional marriage.

Art has suggested a civil union like the situation Wolfgang has mentioned is in place in Germany.
This civil union could have all the legal requirments without the need to redefine traditional marriage...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: harpmolly
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 01:59 PM

Ake: If you truly have spent all this time and energy arguing a point that IS NOT your personal opinion, I can only say that you must be a very conflicted and sad person. As I said in an earlier post, I don't buy it--"devil's advocate" arguments only go so far. If you feel you've been abused, then maybe you SHOULD bring out your personal opinion. Maybe we'd respect it more than that of someone who claims to be arguing just for argument's sake.

Your patience isn't the only thing wearing thin. Whenever you don't have a reasoned rebuttal, you fall back on the old 'I'm rubber, you're glue" tactic of telling us all that we lack objectivity.   And telling us why we want to shift the goalposts? You sure as hell don't speak for me or have the faintest idea what is in my head or my heart...despite my repeated attempts to reasonably enlighten you.

I'd despair for the future of Scotland, but luckily, Ewan Macgregor balances you out (and then some!) so I feel reassured. ;)

Molly

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 12:31 PM

Fence siutting? The majority would probably agree that a civil union with the same legal rights would possibly be a way out,

And that would include me. Association Football and Rugby Football have a lot in common, but the moves and the rules are different, and the players tend to be different too. So the games have different names, which avoids confusion and bad feeling.

That seems a relevant analogy to me.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 11:43 AM

"In theory there is nothing to stop that definition being changed to allow group marriages or any other weird set up that some minority demands......
Before long the institution of marriage would become meaningless."

Why, no- not 'meaninless' at all...just a more complex and inclusive meaning! Why should marriage be allowed to mean only "what WE get to do in our narrow little concept of joining loving people in a legal union"?

If you want to invent terms to designate the differences between M/F marriage, M/M marriage, F/F marriage, just so you can write about it, be my guest...but if it's a legal, binding, state sanctioned ceremony with all rights enjoyed by M/Fs, a few quaint, whispered words will probably be tolerated...just as they are now about the NON-legal relationships.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 11:20 AM

Well, Ake, I confess I extrapolated from your statements, but -- well, honestly now -- are you telling me I guessed wrong?



A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 10:38 AM

Molly ...Good job there's a glimmer of humour left in you...or I would have to make you "top of the *NASTY*pops"....

Amos ... "The fact that you don't like these people being entitled to the legal priveleges of marriage is no more a barrier than the fact that many Mississippians disliked the Civil Rights Act. It was a matter of justice" I'm disappointed in you Amos, I have never given my personal opinion on homosexual marriage

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 10:29 AM

McGrath ...Is you arse no' gettin' sore wi' sitting on that fence??

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 10:28 AM

Art... The majority would probably agree that a civil union with the same legal rights would possibly be a way out, but I doubt if it would be acceptable to the homosexual lobby.

As Maike Miller said way back. What they really want is public acceptance.

Apologies for being a bit grumpy further up....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 10:21 AM

Ebbie...If you think me *NASTY* then you must have lived a very sheltered life. I can think of quite a few (some on this thread) who are much nastier than me.

I have tried to be objective since the start, only biting back when I could do so with a bit of humour....My patience is wearing thin.
I have never expressed my personal opinion about homosexual marriage, but have throughout this thread been subject to varying degrees of personal abuse.

You all lack objectivity, with the exception of Wolfgang and your continual repetition of the "We just want the same" mantra ,in the face of my explanation as to why you want to shift the goalposts, leads me to the conclusion that you dont really have an argument at all....only a burning belief about an issue that you dont seem to understand.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 09:57 AM

Thanks Bee...I'm glad your father produced something of worth from the stony ground of Cape Breton.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Bee
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 09:45 PM

There is nothing of 'political correctness' in the way I feel about my friends and my neighbours who happen to be in committed relationships, gay or straight. These are real, hardworking, family loving, kind people you are talking about, not some names scrawled on a toilet wall. To make such a statement is just a way of sneering at people who disagree with you, akenaten. You obviously are ignorant of the way civilization operates outside your own narrow venue. If yours are an example of the prevailing views of the average Scot (which I suspect they are not), then I'm beginning to understand why my ancestor left a successful business and hauled himself and his seven sons and two daughters (most of them working adults themselves) out of Scotland to scrabble a farm out of the stony earth of Cape Breton.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 09:22 PM

Please explain this phenomenon to me: Why is it that a person must *ALWAYS* get nasty?

Ake, this has nothing to do with political correctness- do you truly mean that you don't see that?   As Amos said, it has to do with justice.

How do *YOU* define justice? Should I argue that a marriage down the street is detrimental to my marriage? Does a pair of teenagers who are expecting a child and are forced into a marriage that neither wants or is ready for negatively affect your marriage? In my opinion a better case as to marriage being a sham could be made in their case than with two same-sex adult people who love each other. Why aren't you burning up the streets protesting the teens' wedding?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 08:57 PM

IMHO, it is perfectly acceptable (if unnecessary) provided that each kind of partnership brings its members the same rights. Denying a specific right to the members of a "civil union" that is allowed to the members of a "marriage" is just plain wrong, yet that is the reality in many legal jurisdictions.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 08:50 PM

Different games have different names on the sports field. Why is it seen as unacceptable for different human partnerships to have different names?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 06:00 PM

It is not a question of what is PC, Ake. It is a question of what is just. It is not just to divide society and award certain legal rights to one section, and not the other, based solely on a single trait relating to a private matter. It violates the basic right to privacy, for one thing. It violates the fundamental principle of equal treatment under law. The fact that you don't like these people being entitled to the legal priveleges of marriage is no more a barrier than the fact that many Mississippians disliked the Civil Rights Act. It was a matter of justice.

As to indvidual churches being willing or not willing to grant the sacrament of marriage -- a religious and cultural, not legal, state -- that is up to them. The State should have no say in such a bias, however.


A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: harpmolly
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 05:45 PM

P.S. That second-to-last paragraph should end "his or her hand." Sorry to any lesbians in the vicinity. *big grin*

P.P.S. The Nazi crack was a low blow, Ake. You've got quite enough garden-variety bigotry going without us needing to resort to that sort of nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: harpmolly
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 05:40 PM

From: akenaton
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 03:06 AM
It is surely beyond dispute that the majority of people worldwide find the practice of homosexuality disgusting.

From: akenaton
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 02:43 PM
As far as people's rights are concerned, there are many many more Devout Christians and Moslems in this world than homosexuals. Therefore, should this minority (homo sexuals) have the right to subvert the core beliefs of the religious?

From: akenaton
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 04:09 PM
What we are talking about is marriage, not how it is viewed in other countries, but how it is defined in UK/USA.

***
Interesting how your perception of the subject matter changes when you're losing an argument. ;)

And while we're deconstructing your logic on tyranny of the majority:

"From: akenaton
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 11:58 PM
While this view of homosexuality prevails, the rights of the majority are being subverted by "homosexual marriage"
Are the rights of these people not being affected by having a beloved institution altered in a way which most find offensive??"


Well, I find it pretty damned offensive that gay marriage is illegal when it's perfectly legal to drive to Vegas, get drunk off your ass and marry a total stranger (of the opposite sex, of course) in about five minutes--or when two heterosexual people who have never met can legally get engaged on a reality TV show.

And to return to your point about the Sacredness of the Big White Wedding: I've always felt that our obsession with the Perfect Disney Wedding is a bit unhealthy. It's all about the money and the show...the dress that costs more than my college loans or the downpayment on a house, the flowers, the caterers. I went to a wedding in Albuquerque that had the symphony orchestra, opera and Charlton Heston giving the reading at the mass. This wedding had cost at least a hundred grand, and shortly before, the couple realized they didn't want to get married, but the family said, "You WILL get married, because this juggernaut is rolling forward and what YOU want is no longer important." They separated immediately afterward. As PT Barnum or whoever might say, "The Show Must Go On!!!".

I can't possibly see how this obscene sham of a wedding could be more sacred than the small yet heartfelt marriage of two men or women who have been together for fifteen years and want to be sure that when one of them dies, the other one is at his bedside holding his hand.

But then again, Akenaton, I probably don't belong to this nebulous and undefined "majority" you keep falling back on to support your arguments. Guess nobody gives a flying fuck what I think.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Wesley S
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 04:55 PM

"But it will make no difference to the PC heros of Mudcat, we will all be classed as bigots....probably Nazi bigots....so original the Mudcat lynch mob."

Ake - In my dictionary the word bigot is defined as : "A person who is utterly intolerent of any creed, belief or race that is not his own." In my mind - when it comes to homosexuals - you fit that description. Do you disagree? In what way am I wrong?

For what it's worth I see nothing "Nazi" about your posts.Just bigoted.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: MMario
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 04:43 PM

In theory there is nothing preventing the definition of marriage from being changed *NOW*.

From what I've seen - most objections to gay marraige are primarily religiously based. the *legal* Basis of marriage and rights of spouses has nothing to do with religion but rather that little piece of paper issued by the state.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 04:33 PM

What we are talking about is marriage, not how it is viewed in other countries, but how it is defined in UK/USA.

Not necessarily. Those are just two countries among many. Any changes to how either of them might legally define marriage would only apply inside the borders of the country involved.

I there was an attempt to get the European Court of Human Rights to rule that polygamous marriages that were recognised in Pakistan should be recognised in the UK, but I don't think got anywhere. I imagine the same would apply in the case of same-sex couples from Belgium or the Netherlands - but I would think they'd be recognised as being in civil partnerships, which seems to be a distinction without a difference.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 04:09 PM

In answer to all who cry "Oh but thats different".

What we are talking about is marriage, not how it is viewed in other countries, but how it is defined in UK/USA.
In some areas the definition of marriage has been changed to accomodate homosexuals.
In theory there is nothing to stop that definition being changed to allow group marriages or any other weird set up that some minority demands.

Before long the institution of marriage would become meaningless.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 03:58 PM

Some words of wisdom from Wolfgang and the German High Court.

Apparently my opinion and theirs are as one.

But it will make no difference to the PC heros of Mudcat, we will all be classed as bigots....probably Nazi bigots....so original the Mudcat lynch mob.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: MMario
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 03:23 PM

in times gone by and still so in some cultures and communities . . .stability and nurturance to a large extent emanate from the extended family. There's many a youngster whose primary influence and safest harbor was a grandparent.

I think a lot of the modern "ills" of society (in the "western" world at least ) can be laid at the feet of the nuclear family when contrasted to the extended family. The nuclear family has only truly existed for a few generations - because prior to that the **NORM** was extended family. Most families had relatives living with them or very near them or (if wealthy) had staff that assisted in the raising of the children. If they did not, it was far more acceptable prior to WWII for neighbors and friends to help with child-rearing, discipline, etc. Godparents in many cases did a great deal of nurture.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Greg B
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 03:11 PM

I guess my anecdotal evidence is as good as any. I know of
a polyamorous 'marriage' which includes a child (who post-dates
the relationship) which seems to work just fine for the people
involved. FWIW, it's one man, two women. However, it's not a
asymmetcal bigamous relationship in the sense of just a man
with two wives, if you catch my drift ;-)

One of the women is an old friend and colleague, and yes I do
'support' them in their committed relationship.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 03:07 PM

Monogamous relationships may well be more stable and thus more nurturing to the young. I wouldn't say that's always true, however, because, especially in times gone by and still so in some cultures and communities (I'm thinking specifically of the Amish), stability and nurturance to a large extent emanate from the extended family. There's many a youngster whose primary influence and safest harbor was a grandparent.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 02:43 PM

Ake:

1. We're talking about monogamy, not polygamy/polyandry.

2. The mainstream argument in FAVOR of monogamy is that it provides a stable relationship which is more nurturing to young. I would suspect that it more enriching, when successful, in other ways also.

3. I have not seen any evidence and wonder if you have that indicates in any way that these advantages manifest differently when the monogoamous couple are opposite versus the same gender.


A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 02:41 PM

Well, multi-person marriages are common enough in many countries. In the case of the UK, when people in such marriages come here, the marriages aren't recognised. Or rather only the first one would be. (It happens quite often, especially in relation to Pakistan.)

This just brings up the truth that "marriage" can mean a lot of rather different things in different parts of the world. Just because it's called a marriage in one place, and is legally recognised, that's no guarantee at all that that'll be true elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: MMario
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 02:32 PM

That's a different issue.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 02:23 PM

Right Come on the lot of you ....if you're hard enough..:0).

How many of you would support the idea of multi- person marriage?

As Wolfgang has confirmed multi person relationships are common among homosexuals. If a man had two or three sexual partners and wanted to marry them all, would refusal to allow it be an infringment of his rights?

Those with the capacity to reason, will soon find themselves in a minefield

Pease feel free to discuss amonst yourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 02:20 PM

I am shocked. Shocked, I tell you. I can't convey how dishonored I feel my own wedding to be. I got married in a church as all decent people do, and to a man, no less. My marriage, that ended 43 years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 01:34 PM

I guess mine would, too. We got married in the park under an old oak tree. Had a pot-luck dinner afterward. The flowers were lilacs from the bush in our yard (we had co-habitated prior to taking the vows, I suppose that would de-value those expensive weddings as well).

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Bee
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 12:45 PM

Akenaten, apparently your anecdotal evidence is more evidential than anyone else's. What you believe to be the norm where you live is not necessarily the norm elsewhere. I repeat, even in rural areas in my part of Canada, it is a rare person indeed who cares whether gay couples get married or not, and they certainly don't think it impacts or lessens the value of their own straight marriage. I would think that ease of divorce would be a far more significant devaluing of ye old until death do you part vows.

Your description of the Sacred Photo Display memorialising the Expensive Wedding does not move me to feel differently. What a ridiculous bit of reasoning! As if someone would throw out the wedding album because a gay couple also got married!

I suppose my own wedding, costing less than a thousand dollars, including church, clothes and food, and my 'wedding album', consisting mainly of photos of 150 or so well lubricated friends dancing to the fiddle in a friend's field dotted with tents, devalues their expensive wedding as well.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: harpmolly
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 12:28 PM

And I can't resist quoting from the Roy Zimmerman video I posted earlier...

"It's nobody's business who you love...it's interesting, but it's nobody's business. No, it's nobody's business who you love, where you love, what equipment you might use...well, actually, the equipment issomebody's business..."

;)

And also to quote the great (and newly discovered by me) Michael Franti:

"It's not about who you love, but do you love."

(possibly slightly misquoted, as it's from memory.)

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: harpmolly
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 12:22 PM

So you're telling me, Ake, that a couple who spends $100,000 (or, pardon me, £50,000 ;)) on their wedding day would throw a tantrum, smash the cake, and declare the whole thing worthless if the reception hall next door hosted a gay wedding at the same time? Give me a break.

Greg said it brilliantly:

"Being comfortable at the expense of denying others equal opportunities
in the world on the basis of the race, gender, or sexual orientation
is NOT a human right. "

The civil rights analogy is apt ("Apt!!!" as Lisa Simpson would shout). Frankly, if there were black people who were offended by the comparison, I would be sad for them--that they couldn't feel empathy and compassion for another group of people being discriminated against because of their biological makeup and others' irrational prejudice.

As to the screws, if I needed them, you'd probably need to go up a size again. *grin* Unfortunately, my considerable derriere is still firmly affixed to my body. You'll have to try harder next time.   

"I believe multi -person sexual relationships are much more common among "homos" than "hetros"" --akenaton

"The data: True for male homosexuals, wrong for female homosexuals.
One better should always consider these two groups as separate. Averaging data here makes no sense." --Wolfgang

Wolfgang's answer doesn't negate mine. Cultures across the world have engaged in multi-person sexual intercourse (my, is it getting hot in here?) The ancient Greeks may have had their share of gay orgies, but there are thousands upon thousands of harem girls down the ages that would contest your claim. If you'd care to re-word your statement more specifically, we might have the basis for discussion. And again, some data to back it up (on Wolfgang's part too) might help, but I know the chances of getting you to quote any sort of statistics is less likely than the chance of Britney Spears taking up the hammered dulcimer. ;)

"Oops, I did it again..." *tinkle tinkle* "I played with your heart..." *deedledeedle*..."got lost in the game..." *flimflamflimmaflamma* hmmm...I like it!

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Greg B
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 11:28 AM

Most of these people see homosexuality as a perversion, and to have the institution of marriage thrown open to homosexuals diminshes its status.

While this view of homosexuality prevails, the rights of the majority are being subverted by "homosexual marriage"
Are the rights of these people not being affected by having a beloved institution altered in a way which most find offensive?

Most members of the all-white country clubs that predominated until
very recently thought that the membership being thrown open to people
of color and Jews diminished its status.

Have their "rights" been diminished by the (sometimes legally
compelled) inclusion of otherwise-qualified people of color?

Absolutely NOT.

Being comfortable at the expense of denying others equal opportunities
in the world on the basis of the race, gender, or sexual orientation
is NOT a human right.

To position it as such is, once again, the refuge of self-justifying
bigotry, a vile and evil corruption of the notion of 'freedom of
association.'

The racists' (and homophobes) problem is their own racism or
homophobia, not the race or sexual orientation of those whom they
encounter in this world. It is up to them to sort it out; not to rid
their little world of "those people" who make them uncomfortable.

There are human and civil rights which the "majority" doesn't get
to over-rule.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 11:24 AM

The German situation is that there is marriage and a life partnership law regulating homosexual partnerships.

Of course, homosexuals have gone to all courts to be allowed the access to marriage and our highest court (interpreting the constitution) ruled that it is unconstitutional to allow homosexual marriage. The marriage between man and woman has to be different from other kinds of partnership. Equal rights are not involved the court did rule, for everyone has the right to marry a heterosexual partner. Equal rights are only involved if exactly the same thing is not granted to a part of the population.

It is not my opinion, but the court's argumentation is fairly close to Akenaton's.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: TheSnail
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 05:27 AM

akenaton

Giok posted something further up the thread which sums up the positions taken here....."By what right do people ride rough shod over other people's sincerely held beliefs screaming ME ME ME!"

I don't know akenaton, you tell me. Why do you do it?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: PMB
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 04:07 AM

To try to equate the homosexual marriage issue, with black civil rights is an insult to all who took part in the Civil Rights Campaign.


You just don't get it, do you? Discrimination is the point. You're entitled to see YOUR marriage in any way you like. But trying to impose YOUR values on someone else's relationship- that's what you are doing, you are saying that homosexuals don't love their partners in the same way that you love yours- is no different from devaluing those people for being black, Jewish, low- born, or any of the thousands of reasons the mean- minded have used to justify their bullying.

To support discrimination is an insult to the Civil Rights campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 12:45 AM

Ake, you tell him to talk sense- but I assure you that not too long ago, at least in the USA (I'm sure that Scotland, in its apparent liberalism, condoned/allowed/endorsed mixed marriages long before. *g*) mixed marriages and relationships were most definitely considered a perversion and an abomination. In fact, it wasn't long ago at all the last miscegenation prohibition was taken off the books.

Dick, more money would be paid out- but more would be coming in, too.

Ake, "in your neck of the woods", I suppose you rarely have divorces, multiple serial marriages, mistresses and broken homes?

Frankly, I had thought that in your neck of the woods you were much less puritanical than we are in the USA. And more frankly still, at the moment I am quite proud of my country.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 12:43 AM

To try to equate the homosexual marriage issue, with black civil rights is an insult to all who took part in the Civil Rights Campaign.

The people who organised the "Anti mixed marriage brigade" were more interested in political power than morality. As seen in South Africa.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 12:29 AM

How the fuck could anyone see mixed marriage as a perversion?
Its still the traditional male/ female relationship, regardless of colour. Talk sense!

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 12:19 AM

Not that long ago, when I was a teenager, that particular rant would have/could have gone like this:

You say to me. "Don't you KNOW anyone in a mixed marriage...well of course I do. Two or three, but I know literally hundreds of people who are married to people of their own race, who went through a marriage ceremony and believe marriage means the joining of a man and woman, but that race mixing is just wrong. To many people in my neck of the woods, their wedding day has been, or will be, the most important of their lives.   They spend money on the big day, everything has to be perfect, the wedding album has pride of place in the home, the wedding picture will sit beside the pictures of children and grand children.
Most of these people see mixed marriage as a perversion, and to have to recognize the marriage of a black man to a white woman just diminishes the status of their own marriage.

Hopefully, times will continue to change.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 11:58 PM

Molly... you are quite wrong to suggest that I am incapable of holding an objective discussion.

Giok posted something further up the thread which sums up the positions taken here....."By what right do people ride rough shod over other people's sincerely held beliefs screaming ME ME ME!"

Now I'm not religious, I don't care a toss what homo's or hetro's(sorry Ebbie)   do in private, and personally, I see pleny of things which could be improved about conventional marriage, but I do care about hypocrisy....and that is what is being projected by the majority of posters

"how does the granting of those rights to homosexuals deny or affect the rights of the Christians or Moslems?"

You say to me. "Don't you KNOW any homosexuals...well of course I do.
Two or three, but I know literally hundreds of people who are in conventional marriages, who went through a marriage ceremony and believe marriage means the joining of a man and woman. To many people in my neck of the woods, their wedding day has been, or will be, the most important of their lives.   They spend money on the big day, everything has to be perfect, the wedding album has pride of place in the home, the wedding picture will sit beside the pictures of children and grand children.
Most of these people see homosexuality as a perversion, and to have the institution of marriage thrown open to homosexuals diminshes its status.

While this view of homosexuality prevails, the rights of the majority are being subverted by "homosexual marriage"
Are the rights of these people not being affected by having a beloved institution altered in a way which most find offensive?
What will be the next change? Multi-person marriage?   Anything goes?
Is there nothing you would not condone in your battle against the bigots.........Or is it as Giok says...."one issue politics."

And by the way Molly, I have a packet of screws here that you can use to fix your arse back on after reading Wolfgang's post.
I can let you have 8's or 12's...depending on the size of the job...:0)

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 08:14 PM

"And still I wonder - how does the granting of those rights to homosexuals deny or affect the rights of the Christians or Moslems?"

Well, the only way I can think of is financial; if same-sex couple could enjoy all the same legal benefits that married folk do, they might get a bit of money that they can't at present. Which money would have to come out of the common pool, conceivably resulting is a minuscule increase in the tax rate. WHich seems, IMO, like a pretty chickenshit reason for this sort of discrimination.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Emma B
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 04:57 PM

According to the statistics quoted on this series of programmes looking at sexual behaviour in the UK, if you compare the number of multi - person sexual relationships between young homosexual males and heterosexual males of the same age with no family the numbers even up considerably!