BS: On Same-Sex Marriages

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Mike Miller
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 07:55 PM

Of course, when we speak of plural marriage, we are, historically, referring to one man/one harem. It is every man's fantacy, to have a bevy of buxom beauties bedded before breakfast. (Excuse me. I have been attacked by a swarm of B's). I am reminded of the end of an Ogden Nash poem.

   Dear, I don't mind being married to you
   But I wish I could marry a carpenter, too.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Cruz
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 12:22 AM

I disagree with the masses here on this issue. Gay marriage should never be legal.

My reasons are not important because they will not change one mind nor would I try. There are some stances in life regarding human behavior that cannot be explained fully as "right" or "wrong" on a broad scale.

I will have to live with whatever decision voters decide in our democracy, but I will always vote against measures allowing for gay marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 12:52 AM

Wal, Cruz, I would be interested in your rationale for the decision to vote against any such measure. What is it you think would happen?



A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,The Caretaker
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 11:08 AM

I agree totally with Guest, Cruz. The masses HERE are in the minority in the real world. Gay marriage is not moral and does not benefit society, only those who do not want to fit into it. It is where tolerance has gone too far and become endorsement.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 11:54 AM

On the other hand, there could only be a tiny fraction of the population who would be interested in engaging in it.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 12:36 PM

ah-HA! Here is "The Caretaker" with some of his agenda from that OTHER thread exposed!

I will say clearly...I endorse people being able to live openly and freely with whomever they wish, under whatever sacraments they prefer, as long as their choices do not affect my own. ...and I cannot imagine how 'gay' marriage would affect me.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,The Caretaker
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 01:10 PM

Of course you wouldn't Bill D. Of course, if it's against the law, I would not endorse it. But I guess there are always outcasts of society who don't like the laws and have to complain about them. But isn't it hard for you to be tolerant of people who don't agree at all with a gay lifestyle. You didn't attack Cruz, who I merely agreed with. If you want to endorse a gay lifestyle, it's your right. Gay marriage is against the law in most states.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Bee
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 01:41 PM

But gay marriage is perfectly legal in Canada, and our society has only benefitted from the tolerance we have for same sex couples, who may now settle (and they do) in contented families, having said their vows before the world instead of in secret.

The only plausible reason for insisting on denying marriage to same sex couples is a fierce desire to force one's personal religious views on those who do not believe in the same religious views. Should the Muslims who form a substantial part of our population force me to wear the hijab?

And why would a non member come to a music board to flaunt his intolerant value system?

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

"Gay marriage is against the law in most states."

well, yes...and those laws are pushed by conservatives seeking to make 'illegal' anything they don't personally like. Not a fair way to treat fellow citizens who have done nothing wrong, it seems to me.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 03:21 PM

And, "Caretaker," what, exactly is "immoral" about a same sex relationship, legal and sanctified or not?

Early on it was frowned on because there was an injunction to "go forth an multiply" to increase the size of the tribe. Later, Paul, of New Testament fame, inveighed against it without giving any rational reasons. And, in fact, there are some well-known theologians who contend that the "thorn" in Paul's flesh that he complained of but never explained might have been that he was aware of having homosexual urges and knowing it was against Jewish law, overcompensated. His occasional homophobic outburst is consistent with the behavior of the closet gay who has nailed the closet door shut even against himself.

Now, what's your objection really all about?

Don Firth

P. S. And, in the light of the First Amendment, what justifies bringing religiously dictated "morality" into discussions of the passing or not passing of what amounts to a civil rights law?"

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 04:18 PM

To my mind, the whole idea of marriage is to be with a partner, to procreate and maintain the species. Procreation is part of the natural order in nature, so I see no point in two people of the same gender becoming attached in marriage. If they want to be together then they have a choice, and accepted as they generally are, there is no need for them to hide their relationship. The 'wanting to get married legally' thing is not a necessity and if a same gender couple want to have some legal rights then can they not draw up legal documents to cover their relationship without involving 'marriage vows'?.......
I believe this whole thing is not about someones rights as such but a snowballing crusade which started somewhere/sometime by some same gender couple who came out and wanted more.
Always ready to be corrected of course....Mike

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Mike Miller
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 04:39 PM

Of course, what gay couples want is social acceptance. That, they will not receive until the predominant religions of the society alter their stand and good luck with that. Legal rights, to which every citizen is entitled, and cultural rights should not be confused. The governing body should get the hell out of the "holy" matrimony business and, simply, enforce its laws and civil contracts.
The government should, no more, tell a citizen who he may live with than they should tell a church what they may believe. Legalizing gay marriage is an affront to religion and forbidding gay union is an affront to the citzenry. Gay couples will have to gain social acceptance on their own. The best their government can do is stay out of their bedrooms and personal decisions.
All marriages are civil contracts. Try getting a legal divorse from your pastor. It is time to recognise the difference between legality and piety.

                      Mike

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.)

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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: pdq
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 06:52 PM

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: PMB
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 09:59 AM

"bot response to a stimulus", Giok?

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