BS: On Same-Sex Marriages

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 05:50 PM

Can't agree Hawk.

These people can't just turn the other way.

Acceptance of homosexuality by the Church strikes at their core beliefs....its not like rap music...its about how they live their lives, how they bring up their children, who will be by their side when they "pass over".

They have not the option of holding they're noses, as the mudcat "lefties" will do when they scamper off to vote for Hillary...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 05:33 PM

Bloody hell Mike ,I'm not even a Christian...I'm an atheist!!

You make too many personal assumptions, but you're very entertaining.

The problem is that homosexuality and how we view it has become a political issue, when in fact it is an issue of morality.
Ihis leads to left wing anarchist revolutionaries like me, being lumped in with..... stock car racing, country music playing,Jesus worshipin' American conservatives...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 05:28 PM

All traditionalists are disturbed by things that they see as violating their traditions. That's been happening ever since human society came into being.

For instance, I'm disturbed by the ethos, the overall sound, and the attitude of most rap music. I find it offensive and annoying.

That doesn't mean I want a law passed against it, though. I don't want to take it away from the people who like it. I'd just rather not hear it myself, that's all, so I avoid it as best I can.

Ditto for sexual practices (between consenting adults) that don't appeal to me. I avoid them.

It's impossible to arrange any legal system so that everyone will be happy about everything. Besides, some people quite honestly don't want to be happy...they'd rather be mad as hell about something. It feels a lot realer to them living that way than it would being content with their lives. Why do I say that? Well, I've seen plenty of evidence for it, believe me. I've even fallen into that trap myself on numerous occasions...

For a person who doesn't want to be happy, finding something other people do to get really, really upset about is the icing on the cake that makes their day. And if they are into controlling others bigtime, then they will agitate for a law to be passed which will restrict others in some way.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 05:25 PM

It's a lot easier to detect consent when both parties are human, though.


A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Mike Miller
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 05:14 PM

It is, as akenaton, says. There are sincere persons and groups who are offended by homosexuality and who, rightfully, see marriage as a religious ceremony. That's what comes from giving the clergy the authority to legalize a contract. In our society, which is, constantly, walking the tightrope between majority rule and individual rights, we compromise by giving the religions the power to marry but we don't give them the exclusive franchise. Also, we don't give them the power to break the contract.
Personally, I can't see what is wrong with civil unions. Gays, like oppressed minorities before them, deserve the same legal rights as anyone else. But, for goodness sake, let the religions keep their magic words. Even after civil unions are recognised, those churches who wouldn't marry gays, then, they sure wouldn't marry them now.
I agree with the akester about protecting rights of both sides. The disgust on the left makes the disdain on the right seem downright neighborly. There is, also, an arrogance and self rightiousness that assumes that everyone interested in folk music must be a Democrat.
That said, ake and his band of rightious christians will have to put up with things changing. They can pretend that it's 1947 and they hold season tickets to Ebbet's Field.

                      Mike

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 04:47 PM

I more or less agree with Bill and Hawk, in that I don't really give a flying fuck (don't ask) about what the homosexual agenda is.

But there are sincere people out there who do care.....committed Christians, people who believe in the "sanctity" of marriage, in short, traditionalists just like folkies.

You want rights?.... well think about it and make sure its "rights for everyone"

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Cruz
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 02:26 PM

Well, LH finally kept people from "beating aroung the bush" (no pun intended) He *done* said it out loud.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 01:34 PM

I find anal intercourse disgusting regardless of who the participants are (male/male or male/female), but so what? My solution to that is simple: I don't do it.

I don't give a toot if someone else makes the decision to do it, as long as I don't have to watch them while they're doing it, and I don't give a toot who they decide to marry either. That's their cross to bear, not mine. ;-D

I simply don't care. It's not my business who they marry or what acts they mutually consent to between themselves in the privacy of their own home.

I don't even care if someone marries their dog...a silly example given earlier in this thread...as long as the dog is agreeable to it.

I think that fools should be allowed their foolishness.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 12:10 PM

"I don't think society at large should be pushed in a direction they don't want to go, by a small but powerful pressure group...Ake"

Why would allowing one reltively small group to have freedom as they see it be construed as pushing society at large anywhere? Nothing is changed by same-sex couples have a legal piece of paper...and thus, peace of mind. ....well, unless you mean certain heterosexuals peace of mind! Is that the issue?: having anti-gay folk walking around in frustration just KNOWING that 'those people' have equal status?

Sorry...but it seems to me that "society at large" needs to just turn its metaphorical head and look at something else.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: TheSnail
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 11:47 AM

akenaton

I don't think society at large should be pushed in a direction they don't want to go, by a small but powerful pressure group

So are you saying that by forbidding gay marriage "society at large" can carry on pretending that that "disgusting act" doesn't really happen (it does, you know) and that that is sufficient reason to deny the civil rights of a small and, actually, rather powerless minority?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Alba
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 10:43 AM

Tis a tangled web they weave Ake. So obvious tae me that Folks obviously don't know you at all.
That's Politics for you eh.
Let's twist again like we did last Summer and the before that Summer and the Summer before that and the Summer...(you get ma drift)

Good to see You,
Your wee Tunnock's Caramel Wafer,
Jude :>)

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 10:39 AM

By Christ you're all very good at twisting an argument!
My contention was that the main purpose of "Same sex marriages " was to make homosexuality more acceptable in mainstream society.
I also said that homosexuality will never be acceptable to the mainstream while they perceive sex between two men as disgusting.

My personal opinions have no bearing on that.
MM and others asume that I am anti-homosexual, whatever the fuck that means....They are quite wrong, but I don't think society at large should be pushed in a direction they don't want to go, by a small but powerful pressure group...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Mike Miller
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 10:02 AM

Ake and other antifags (I just made the word up) will have to accept the uncomfortable truth that freedom means freedom for everyone. The same society that allows us to, openly, express unpopular opinions allows others to do things that annoy us. Ergo, in a democracy, bigotry flourishes, intolerance is espoused and they are as protected by law as our own saner and truer biases.
As ake appears to be a sexual experimenter, he should be glad that he lives in a society that doesn't intrude into his erotic decisions, positions or choice of partners.
I don't know, for certain, whether homosexuality is inbred or optional (although I find it unlikely that someone would choose a life of exclusion and oppression), but, in any case, it is just one of those things that the aker is going to have to put up with, like ants at a picnic or Republican candidates.

                   Mike

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: PMB
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 09:59 AM

"bot response to a stimulus", Giok?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 08:37 AM

Just keep this issue out of the 2008 campaign. Whatever Mudcatters may think, same-sex marriage is still a classic political loser outside Mudcat--and a great way to bring your opponents to the polls.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Bee
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 08:20 AM

"And what's next? You want to marry your dog and feel that you have a right to? Give me a break. I'm real glad that I don't live in Canada and have to have that madness shoved down my throat." -guest "Caretaker"

Well, this gave me a morning chuckle.

Really, Caretaker. If I ask another human to marry me, he or she will say yes or no. If I ask a dog, he or she may say 'woof!', not translateable as consent: get it?

Ah, the madness here in Canada!

I'd like to address akenaton's contention regarding revulsion. I believe that response is not as universal as you seem to think. Most of us don't spend time visualising our neighbours having sex. People are perhaps repelled by being urged to think about something they wouldn't like doing themselves. But here, in conservative rural communities, same sex couples settle into local life as seamlessly as straight couples. Their neighbours invite them to all the usual events and parties. They quickly become, not homosexuals who do that thing, but Greg the carpenter and Louie, Mike and Robert with the herb farm, Linda the hairdresser and Hannah the dental hygeinist up the clinic, eh.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: TheSnail
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 07:15 AM

akenaton

You're being very silly Snail.

Opposing bigotry and prejudice is silly?

You have promoted the point that "the vast majority of the population perceive the homosexual act as disgusting". I made the assumption that you shared that view. If I am mistaken I apologise but I remain a little puzzled as to what you intend by putting it forward.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 06:53 AM

You're being very silly Snail.

I'm of course talking about public perception, and whether you like it or not that perception is a fact of life.

A large majority of people find any sexual activity between homosexuals disgusting.
The sexual activity you refer to, if between a man and a woman, would probably be perceived as unusual, but certainly not disgusting.

Please stop trying to personalise the discussion, as further dialogue would be difficult in thgese circumstances...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: TheSnail
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 06:06 AM

akenaton

Why should what consenting adults do in private concern anybody else? "Percetion" (by any of Giok's definitions) implies that you judge people by what you believe them to get up to in their bedrooms. I find that fairly disgusting.

I am very fond of sex (hetrosexual) and there are no variations between consenting adults that I would find disgusting...

I have heard it said that precisely the practice you find disgusting between homosexuals is not unknown between heterosexuals.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 03:59 AM

perception noun 1 psychol the process whereby information about one's environment, received by the senses, is organized and interpreted so that it becomes meaningful. 2 one's powers of observation; discernment; insight. 3 one's view or interpretation of something. 4 bot response to a stimulus, eg chemical or caused by light. perceptional adj.
ETYMOLOGY: 17c: from Latin percipere to perceive.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 03:06 AM

Snail...I find your post 7:17pm, offensive and unreasonable.

Why do you personalise my remarks?

It is surely beyond dispute that the majority of people worldwide find the practice of homosexuality disgusting and what we are talking about here is not friendship, but a sexual relationship within marriage.
Homosexuality will never become socially acceptable while this "perception" prevails.

"Gay marriage" is simply a device to promote acceptance as Mike Miller has noted

I am very fond of sex (hetrosexual) and there are no variations between consenting adults that I would find disgusting...(surprising perhaps)...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 12:54 AM

I haven't tried same-sex marriage yet...nor have I had the chance to witness anyone else trying it up close and personal...so I hardly feel qualified to offer a critique of it. ;-)

It doesn't strike me as a world-threatening concept. I don't worry about it. I doubt very much that I would ever worry about it even slightly.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 12:02 AM

yes, pdq, I do favor those things being legal.....gay marriage immediately, and multiple marriages 'someday', after very careful analysis and rule making, so that we avoid all the scheming and misuse of the law by guys just looking to build harems for $$$$ and lots of free sex.

I do not have any idea how it might be worked out, and I doubt that it will be....I just believe that it should, in theory, be legal.

No, I don't think you need worry very soon.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Barry Finn
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 11:28 PM

Riginslinger,
I think the discussion was about consenting adults not 14 yr olds, by the way I don't think you have to worry about same sex couples, triples or foursomes having children & making a fortune ripping off our welfare system in the process. It would be a good case to follow in the courts though.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Alba
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 10:56 PM

What do you take care of exactly Guest: Caretaker?

Just wondering *smile*
Jude

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 10:52 PM

Yeah, Caretaker, I'm sure that's a issue that needs to be dealt with. Maybe we need a constitutional amendment about shepherds who might get overly fond of their sheep.

Or . . . I imagine that having sex with your pet gerbil could be pretty tough on the gerbil. Of course you could always wrap it in duct tape so it won't explode when you—

Yup! A major social problem all right! I'll have my senators get right on it!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,The Caretaker
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 09:44 PM

It's not "bloody stupid" Don Firth. There are people who obviously engage in sex with animals, leave money to them, maybe even love them more than humans. What you might find disgusting about that, the majority of the population feels the same way about gay relationships, or as you would put it, "bloody stupid."

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 09:25 PM

"I favor the right of every citizen to engage in any relationship he likes, so long as it involves consenting adults."

                   I think that's the problem. These Mormon off-shoots, like that guy who was arrested in Nevada recently, marry girls who might be as young as 14 years. Then the girl has a baby, and from that point forward, she's stuck.
                   The guy they arrested had a huge number of wives, I think it was like 30 or something, and each one had a number of children, and all of the wives and children were on welfare. The guy was making a fortune.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 08:53 PM

According to the two same-sex couples that I mentioned in one of my above posts, what Alice said in her post of 2 Sep 07, 05:37 p.m. above is exactly the issue.

And as to "And what's next? You want to marry your dog and feel that you have a right to? Give me a break."

That's just bloody stupid!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: pdq
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 08:10 PM

Mike Miller...your opinions tend to be as solid and reasoned as anyone on Mudcat. As to "libertarian" philosophy, it is much more honest and consistant than "liberal" and "conservative", at least the way those terms are presently used.. That does not constitute an endorsement of Ron Paul's Libertarian Party. I think Ron Paul is a gasbag.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Mike Miller
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 07:49 PM

I will be very clear, pdq. I favor the right of every citizen to engage in any relationship he likes, so long as it involves consenting adults. That means that, if two or more people choose to make a contractually binding agreement, more power to them. Laws against polygamy are as intrusive and oppressive as laws forbidding same sex or interracial unions.
I am, of course, rather libertarian in my views. I do not need my government protecting me from myself, just to satisfy a popular set of standards. By the same token, I have no wish to have my values become Official or the norm. Those gays who wish to change their respective church's stands on homosexuality should not be doing so, through the courts or the congress. They can, always, write out their grievences and nail them to a church door. They will have my best wishes and tacit support.

                   Mike

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 07:41 PM

Speaking of Mormons, there was a television documentary recently that did an in depth study of ritualized multiple attachments amongst Mormons. I didn't see the very beginning so I'm not sure whether this was an offshoot or if it could be considered mainstream Mormonism.

The approach was respectful and the couples (*g*) responded freely. According to them, they got around the legalities by having only one 'wife'; the others were 'sister wives'.

It was interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: pdq
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 07:27 PM

To be even more clear, do you favor the legalization of polygamy and gay marriage?

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

"If we use Bill D's standard that it does not affect the lives of others, then clearly these people should not be in any trouble."

Just to be clear..I am not advocating breaking the law...I favor REVISING the laws, but carefully.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: TheSnail
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 07:17 PM

akenaton

Regardless of "Gay Marriage", homosexuals will never gain social acceptance while the vast majority of the population perceive the homosexual act as disgusting...Ake

"perceive"? Nobody is forcing you to watch. When you are with a heterosexual couple, do you spend all of your time thinking about them having sex? If you knew what some of them got up to in private, you might find it pretty disgusting.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 07:00 PM

From: Mike Miller - PM
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 04:39 PM

"Of course, what gay couples want is social acceptance"

Regardless of "Gay Marriage", homosexuals will never gain social acceptance while the vast majority of the population perceive the homosexual act as disgusting...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: pdq
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 06:59 PM

folk1e asks: "What about the pluralistic marriages undertaken in similar circumstances?"

Well, I live in Nevada which has a very substantial population of Mormans, and they are not allowed multiple partners. It has been against church policy for a long time, and it is against the law. There are a number of men serving prison time right now who simply married more than once.

If we use Bill D's standard that it does not affect the lives of others, then clearly these people should not be in any trouble.

If gay unions become recognised by the government as equal to heterosexual ones, polygamy must also be recognized as equal.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: pdq
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 06:52 PM

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 06:35 PM

I am all for gay marriages...I think the ceremony itself should be civil and/or up to the church in question..but nothing will stop people from forming their own churches and performing ceremonies..

I think strongly that people should not have children unless they are married (except through adoption, and even then should defer usually to married couples), but I do not think it is the only, or even probably the major reason to be married. I think the main reason, at least now, when there are fewer economic reasons than in the past, is to get a guarantee from someone you don't want to get away. That you love so much that you couldn't imagine anyone else and they are likewise. And if you don't have that, breakable as it is, you have pretty near nothing as far as I can tell. It is like buying a house instead of renting. mg

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: dwditty
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 06:34 PM

Same sex marriage will be a non-issue in a few years - my prediction.

Going slightly off-topic, make all marriages leagal - but make the marriage license renewable every few years ;) - save the pain of divorce.

dw

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Alice
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 06:11 PM

Actually, our current concept of marriage as it is in America is a very new concept, not old at all.
Women were property. It was not an equal partnership, and it was often more than one woman for each man
and a man could sell or transfer his wife to someone else.
The advancement of human rights is an ongoing struggle.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: folk1e
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 06:09 PM

If it is legal in Canada and a (same sex) "married" couple move down into America ......... is the marriage not recognized? What about the pluralistic marriages undertaken in similar circumstances?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 06:09 PM

"You want to marry your dog and feel that you have a right to? "

Only if the dog can pass the blood test and sign the forms.

Just read Alice's post...there are reasons aside from just wanting to cohabit.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: TheSnail
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 05:59 PM

Cruz

I love to cuddle near you and listen to you sigh,

Well, gee thanks Cruz but I think we ought to get to know each other a bit better first.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 05:51 PM

Seems to me that conservatives are a special interest group. It's just that there's a lot of 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,The Caretaker
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 05:48 PM

And what's next? You want to marry your dog and feel that you have a right to? Give me a break. I'm real glad that I don't live in Canada and have to have that madness shoved down my throat.

The concept of marriage has been the same for thousands of years.

1 man
1 woman

Please realize that there are plenty of people, you can call them conservatives if you feel that you have to, who are just real sick of the same old, same old special interest groups whining about society.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Alice
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 05:37 PM

It is my understanding that recognizing a married partnership gives the partners legal rights regarding
health care, inheritance, community property, and other such legal matters. I think it is those issues
that are at the core of the desire for legal same sex marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Cruz
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 05:22 PM

Snail,

Bachelor or not, very good comments; you are just as qualified as any other compassionate human with comments regarding these matters. Many of us have been through numerous relationships, break-ups, divorces, annulments, etc. and as I look back the ol' Hank could all teach us a lesson (one that you learned?):

I love to cuddle near you and listen to you sigh,
But git that marryin' outta your head I'll be a bachelor till I die.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Cruz
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 05:09 PM

The Mike's have it. Thanks for those explanations. I had a full page response but it was getting too personal so I did not submit it.

One of the main reasons I wanted to reply was out of my respect for Amos' asking me a question and his deserving a reply. You guys answered very well for me and others. Thanks also, The Caretaker.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: TheSnail
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 05:05 PM

Georgiansilver

To my mind, the whole idea of marriage is to be with a partner, to procreate and maintain the species.

Speaking as an old batchelor, perhaps I'm not qualified to speak. On the other hand, I may bring a certain objectivity to the question.

I know several heterosexual couples who have made the decision not to have children (possibly to the point of surgery). They have, nevertheless, made the commitment of marriage.

I have heard of mixed gender (for want of a better term) couples who, for reasons of physical diasabilty are unable to consumate their relationship but have still chosen marriage.

Why should gay couples be denied the same right?

Marriage is about more than sex and procreation (or so I'm told.)