BS: On Same-Sex Marriages

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 - 10:38 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 03:40 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: 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: harpmolly
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 05:02 PM

Ake...I don't accept "Christian" marriage as a valid basis for civil legislation, as we do have separation of church and state (at least in the US). And as a self-proclaimed atheist, I'm surprised that you do. At any rate, if you're going to toss around terms like "thousands of years", you have to allow for more cultural input than just "Christian or civil" marriage. You brought Muslims into this by claiming that their beliefs are being compromised, so you can't go back now and say we're speaking of Christian values only. And as I pointed out earlier, you've been quick to claim that a majority of people *worldwide* find homosexuality disgusting. At some point you're going to have to nail yourself down to one position if you want your arguments taken seriously.

I didn't know it was possible for me to ramble MORE. I'll have to try harder. ;)

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Emma B
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 05:10 PM

Marriage systems
.........
"different cultures have developed a fascinating diversity of regulations and customs concerning prohibitions and preferences for marriage partners as well as expectations between spouses and in-laws. Prominent variations, such as arranged marriages, polygamy, and same-sexed unions provide a rich ethnographic record for speculating about why societies differ. They also challenge our tolerance of different moral conventions at the most basic level"

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: artbrooks
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 05:33 PM

Please note that I have not suggested that a civil union is the solution. I was responding to a question from McGrath, in which he asked why is it seen as unacceptable for different human partnerships to have different names? I answered that it would be perfectly acceptable [but unnecessary] provided that each kind of partnership brings its members the same rights.

The latter part is the key: a civil union must give the participants all of the rights that they might derive from a legal marriage performed (as is common in the US) by a Justice of the Peace. If someone wants to be sprinkled, blessed, or whatever by the clergyperson of their choice, that is an entirely separate matter. It follows then that if a civil union is identical to a marriage, no purpose would really be served by having separate names, other than to mollify the feelings of people who think a certain segment of the population is not entitled to use one word or the other.

The issue is the rights each partner to the association has, not whether you say "John is married to Ralph" or "John is Ralph's partner". And who is harmed if one says that "Mary is John's partner" rather than "Mary is married to John"?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Emma B
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 05:44 PM

Christian attitudes to same sex marriage

"In the Church of England, many Anglican clergy already bless same-sex couples on an unofficial basis but there is no authorised ceremony in England."

Quakers have been welcoming same-sex unions for almost two decades.

"In 1987, British Quakers agreed that local groups could celebrate same-sex commitments through special acts of worship. The Quakers were the first member of Churches Together in Britain and Ireland to sanction the official blessing of same-sex relationships."

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 07:50 PM

So the most straightforward thing would be to give the partners in a civil union the same legal rights as in a civil marriage, and leave aside the business of officially using the same term for it. I'd have thought that would take a lot of the heat off the issue.

To the best of my understanding that is the situation with what are called "civil partnerships" in the UK, and in a number of other countries.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 08:51 PM

I think we need to define some terms here.

The rights to certain protections, insurance, reciprocal ownership and joint ownership within a state are VICIL blessings. There should be NO difference in them based on the gender or lack thereof in the participants.,


The notion of sacrament, blessedness, Spiritual Truth, Virtue According to God's Code, Divine intent, The Sanctity of Virginity, as RELIGIOUS attributes. Religious marriage should comprise whatever the church says it shall include.

The practice of having a best man, giving away the bride, throwing rice or in some groups, corn, negotiating a bride price by a number of cattle, betrothing a daughter to someone chosen solely by the father, are CULTURAL QUIRKS and should be evolved according to the best insights and persuasion of which those partaking in the culture are capable.

The only part of any of this that can be mandated under law is the civil part. The rest is none of anyone's business except the people and organizations immediately participating.

Civil marriage should be the same for any two persons seeking union blessed by the state.
If, culturally, we get to the point where polyamory is m,ore widely accepted, then for any two or more consenting persons of age.



A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: harpmolly
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 09:58 PM

Well said, as usual, Amos. ;)

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 10:12 PM

Thanks kinely. And in Rapaire's case, any one or more person.


A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 01:06 AM

Amos - Yes, I think you've nailed it.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 05:05 AM

We all have opinions. Those are Amos's opinions.

There are many millions throughout the world who would not agree.
Are they to be allowed to debate their rights?
(Or shall it be the world according to Amos)

McGrath seems as usual to have all the common sense....and I can understand the words ...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 05:25 AM

McGrath says..... "So the most straightforward thing would be to give the partners in a civil union the same legal rights as in a civil marriage.
To the best of my understanding that is the situation with what are called "civil partnerships" in the UK, and in a number of other countries.   

Now that should be a reasonable solution and deprive no one of their rights, but is totally unacceptable to homosexuals, who see that solution as maintaining a *difference*, while refusing to accept that many millions see *their* lifestyle as very different from their own and the traditioal definition of what marriage should mean...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: TheSnail
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 06:30 AM

akenaton

There are many millions throughout the world who would not agree.
Are they to be allowed to debate their rights?

Of course they are but, curiously, none of them have chosen to do so on this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: artbrooks
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 07:23 AM

Now that should be a reasonable solution and deprive no one of their rights, but is totally unacceptable to homosexuals. Please provide a link to a policy statement by a major homosexual organization in the UK or US which makes that assertion.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: goatfell
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 09:48 AM

As a Christian I'm supposed to be against such tihngs, however if men and wmen want to do such things as same sex marriages then good on them and I hope that they all have a happy life together.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: goatfell
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 09:49 AM

And anyone who doesn't like this, then where is their Christain love for their fellow man/woman

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 09:58 AM

Ake:

Which of the three categories of issues do you think is just an opinion? Do you think the civil regulations and recordations of marriages are religious rituals? Or that the customs from different cultural legacies are civil or religious?


A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 11:23 AM

Well for a start Amos your opinion of me was quite wrong, in that you thought I wanted to deprive peopole of their rights.
No one can have the "right" to do anything, without regard to the effect that right has on others. I could give numerous examples but I'm sure you grasp my meaning.

"Civil marriage should be the same for any two persons seeking union blessed by the state."    Your opinion. The vast majority of people who care about the institution of marriage would say, the definition of MARRIAGE is the union of man and woman. To redefine MARRIAGE as Man/Man, Man/cow, Man/Man/neither of the above, affects the rights of those people.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 11:53 AM

Ake:

You are referring not to a civil definition, but to a cultural or religious bias. That's the whole point.

And no, it does not effect the rights of heterosexual marriages. In what way specifically fdo you think it does? Are their vows any the less true because others take them? Who said anything about cows, anyway? They make lousy housemates, I believe. Hard to toilet train.


A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: artbrooks
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 11:56 AM

Is that not rather like saying that, if I have a beer in the privacy of my home (or in my local pub), I am affecting the rights of those who think that drinking alcohol should be banned?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 12:16 PM

Or perhaps like saying that if everything with any alcohol in it had to be called "beer", that would make drinking much more confusing than it already is. Especially if you fancied a cider.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 12:17 PM

Well thats about the most ridiculous comparison in a tread chok full of ridiculous comparisons.............You havin' a joke Art?

Amos I am refering to civil definition. I have many friends who were married in Registrars office and would be very unhappy with a definition other than man/woman.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: artbrooks
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 12:36 PM

A joke? Not at all. You seem to be saying that, if one set of people exercises a right, than that can adversely affect the value of another set of people's rights to do something similar. I have a right to drink a beer (or quaff a cider) and someone else has a right to their opinion of that action, but not the right to tell me I can't. Exactly parallel to that is the right of a homosexual couple to get married and the right of somebody else to their opinion of that action. However, the marriage of a homosexual couple has no effect whatsoever on the validity of a heterosexual couple's marriage or on any rights that marriage gives the participants. One person's rights should end where another's begins.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Bee
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 01:00 PM

Akenaten: I apologise for snapping at you so severely in my last post. In my defense, your arguments cut close: I have dear lifelong friends who are the target of what I see (as in, it is my opinion) as your homophobic nonsense (as in 'having no sense'): it is hurtful to me to see their families compared with 'marrying dogs, cows', etc.

You still have not provided an actual reason why their marriages in any way harm or devalue the marriage of a man and woman, other than that the man and woman might not like the idea, or have religious objections. I didn't like the idea that a friend of mine planned to marry a known abusive alcoholic, but her marriage in no way 'devalued' mine.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 01:06 PM

This is surely an argument about language, not about freedoms. Changing language can be important, sometimes essential - but in this particular context it seems pretty irrelevant.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: artbrooks
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 01:25 PM

McGrath, I think that depends on where you are. In the UK, if it is correct (as I gather) that civil unions and marriages have the same legal rights, then you are entirely correct. In the US, where "marriage" has a legal meaning restricted to unions of a woman and a man, and numerous legal entitlements are directly tied to membership in a marriage, then it is very much a freedom and rights issue.

What is the old saying - "two nations divided by a single language"?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 01:26 PM

Bee.. you are amazing.

First you apologise, then you insult me.
Do you not see the word homophobe as an insult?

No matter I am finished here, without intentionally insulting anyone I hope

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 01:31 PM

McGrath ...I don't agree, to people committed to conventional marriage, the language is very important.

And even more important to the homosexual lobby.

Sorry I'm supposed to be finished here.....I'll get my coat.

Thanks to all for the argy-bargy....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 01:48 PM

In December, Barbara and I will have been happily married for thirty years.

In our wide circle of friends and acquaintances, we know four same-sex couples, three of which are composed of men and one of women. Two of these couples are just living together, but have been for over ten years. Two others have been married in church ceremonies.

Even though this has been asked in one form or another all through this thread, no one, including Ake, has been able to provide an answer to it:

How do these same-sex couples, particularly those who are married, affect—in any way whatsoever--Barbara's and my marriage?

Well. . . ?

I didn't think so! Case closed!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Greg B
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 02:34 PM

Spake Ake:

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.

Have a care about that 'thousands of years' argument. For 'thousands
of years' the 'majority' you so revere would punish by various means
lawful and unlawful, those who were religious non-conformists. They,
too, spoke of their 'right' to live and raise their children in a
Papist state, or an Anglican country, or a Protestant one, or an
Islamic one, or a Mormon one, a Jewish one, etc. The presence of
non-conformists, or infidels, or Protestants, you see, or the legitimization of the faith of same, you see, reduced the legitimacy of their own faith. Which, of course, is the 'one true' religion.

And somehow, along the way, 'those people' became just a little less
human in the the eyes of the powerful and all-sacred majority. Or
a lot. A little or a lot less deserving of the same rights to 'life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'

Ake, you have yet, in your broken-record rhetoric, shown one
single way in which the marriages of 'traditional marriage'
proponents are reduced in value by those of homosexuals. Not
one.

Your argument seems to be the 'because they say so' tautology.

On the other hand, very good arguments can be made for the
converse...that marriage has a variety of definitions. To
Catholics, for example, it is immutable between living partners.
To Protestants, not so much so. Muslims and Jews have entirely
different rules. Different sovereign states, too, differ on what
makes a marriage.

This has been the case 'for thousands of years.'

I have yet to hear a Catholic seriously claim that Catholic marriages
are diminished by Protestants' allowance for divorce and re-marriage,
except perhaps in the most abstract of moral theologies. Nor have
I ever heard a Catholic argue, with a straight face, that Protestants
who have divorced and remarried while their spouse was still living
ought not be accorded civil recognition of the union as a marriage.
This is even though, in the strictest sense and for religious
purposes, the Church of Rome doesn't recognize the second marriage
as being valid.

The whole argument about 'thousands of years' and the 'rights of
the majority' and 'the diminishing of traditional marriage' is a
subterfuge--- it is, purely and simply the refuge of those who
are looking for a ways to marginalize a group who practice what
Ake likes to call 'the homosexual lifestyle.'

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 02:40 PM

I think Ake would reply that, if you don't feel it does, it does not. But he asserts that some people believe the map and the territory are inextricably bound together, and for them, entering into a state of marriage MEANS they are heterosexual and not of the same gender.

Here are a few civil definitions:

the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce)

two people who are married to each other; "his second marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple without love"

the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage was conducted in the chapel"

a close and intimate union; "the marriage of music and dance"; "a marriage of ideas"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Marriage is a relationship and bond, most commonly between a man and a woman, that plays a key role in the definition of many families. Precise definitions vary historically and between and within cultures, but it has been an important concept as a socially sanctioned bond in a sexual relationship. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

The state or condition of a community consisting of a master, a mistress and two slaves, making in all, two.
www.answers.com/topic/the-devil-s-dictionary

There are others which include the notion of sanctity of union between man and woman. But this is outside the bounds of the civil registration of marriage or any bounds the civil authority could put on it, unless they want to legally discriminate against people on the basis of their sex.

At present, such discrimination is generally illegal.

The church, however, can grant its title of marriage according to whatever torsion it cares to apply to the meaning.


A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 03:19 PM

My final words, just for Don.

You were obviously married in a time when homosexuality was still illegal, probably homosexual marriage was unthinkable to you and your wife. You accepted the concept of traditional marriage and feel secure in that.

Today the people who believe in traditional marriage see that redefinition could lead to nighmare conclusions (group marriage ect ect) They see the institution of marriage changed beyond recognition,needlessly...There is no security for these people or their children.

Case well and truly open and will remain so...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Metchosin
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 03:21 PM

Thank you Amos, my little bastards have just claimed legitimacy.LOL

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 03:22 PM

"...numerous legal entitlements are directly tied to membership in a marriage".

I understand thta - but it just strikes me that it would make more sense to tackle the issue at that point, in the same way as has happened in the UK, so that these same legal entitlements would apply to civil unions between people of the same sex, rather than trying to achieve the same result through changing the definition of marriage in a way that is clearly generating additional opposition.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 03:29 PM

I keep getting two impressions of your 'impersonal' stance, Ake.

Number One: That male/male union bothers you far more than the idea of female/female. And yet the emotions are the same.

Number Two: For an atheist you seem perilously close to relying on what may (or may not) be religion's views.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: TheSnail
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 03:31 PM

akenaton

could lead to nighmare conclusions (group marriage ect ect)

Actually it's "etc." (abreviation for et cetera) not "ect". How do you expect to be taken seriously if you can't even get that right?

(Sounds more like a wet dream than a nightmare.)

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Stringsinger
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 03:33 PM

A marriage between two committed people whether gay or straight makes absolute sense.
Anyone opposed to this for whatever reason is a bigot.

A committed relationship should not be denegrated in any way.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 03:58 PM

Baseball and cricket both make as much sense as each other. But we don't feel it necessary to call them by the same name.

Look at the way that any mention of "football" here always gets someone in a tiz, because the same name is attached to different games.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 04:09 PM

Well, heck, Ebbie, I find male/male union quite a bit less appealing than male/female union...and I bet if the truth were told, that is true of most of us here. Haven't most of us chosen male/female unions? That speaks for itself. As for female/female union...I find that reasonably in the middle ground, appeal-wise. In other words, I find it more appealing than male/male union, perhaps because I am male myself...perhaps because of things I've learned from Taoism regarding the use of sexual energy as pertains to good health.

So what????????? What difference does it make what I find appealing and what I do not? Should I be afraid to say so?

Seems to me that all I keep hearing on this thread is a lot of people just bending over backwards to PROVE to the whole world that they are NOT prejudiced, by God! This is dangerous to the spine after awhile, and it impresses no one. At least it doesn't impress me. I call it "PC Whiplash Syndrome".

I bet that at least 95% of the present population finds male/female union much more appealing than male/male union. So what????

95% of our population finds eating raw meat less appealing than eating cooked meat too...but that doesn't mean much. In Japan it is considered quite normal to eat raw meat. Matter of fact, I like sushi. Again...so what?

People may be allowed their preferences. It doesn't threaten me in the least if some males want to marry each other...that doesn't mean I need to find it "appealing" or that I'm some kind of bad, bigoted person if I say that I don't find it appealing. It doesn't mean I should cheerlead for them either and persecute anyone who doesn't...just to prove how goddamn liberal I am... (And I am liberal. Better believe it.)

To not personally find something appealing does not equate to denigrating it or attacking it. It simply indicates one's own tastes and preferences, that's all. We all have tastes and preferences. To be made afraid to even express them because it is not presently PC to do so does not help matters one bit. It's evidence of bigotry masquerading as liberalism.

I agree 100% with Strinsinger's last statement: "A committed relationship should not be denigrated in any way."

Correct. It should not. Nor should a religious choice! That doesn't mean I will necessarily find every form of committed relationship or every form of religious choice "appealing". I won't.

And if someone can't handle that? Tough.