Gay marraige and the end of the world

I don't get your logic there?If I were to equate it to logic, then I would be for making deletion of opposable thumbs by choice, against the law If I would have meant that, I would have said that. This is the 4th or 5th time you have put words into my mouth in this thread alone. It's not my place to decide these things, except for myself (repeats himself again)But it probably represents where the whole concept of marriage came from in the first place.There are many more challenges to a marriage that is one trying to raise a family, than one without children. Statistics would agree.Same goes for straight vs gay. It would seem by the divorce rate of the 2, or separation, whatever. That straight marriages are tougher than gay ones.But it has been argued that gay marriage divorce rate might equal straights should they be allowed to marry by law. But that is here-say. They are not proclamations, as much as it is history, and fact.
IT is not just what I deem, but many more than you. Sorry schraf, but that is your problem, and you can leave that opinion out of this thread.I told you 3 times, I am not insulting you. You are doing what you believe to be correct. You are also within the letter of the law, the law which I have to follow as well. IT's your right to do what you do, and it is my right to state that there is a difference between the two. Like it or lump it. Of course. If I didn't think that, then my logic would be flawed.Also by your logic, I should be insulted by you. Thinking that your marriage which doesn't choose to rear kids, is somehow on the same level as mine. But I d o not think like that, and I am not insulted.So what gives? 2 people who love each other, and want to spend their lives together without kids.BTW the word "real" marriage is yours not mine.Still didn't answer my question.

Well, it's a little deeper than that, and I hope schraf will answer my question so we can get into it.MY thoughts are not absolute.

The subjugation of coloured peoples was history. Luckily, the majority of Americans eventually stopped standing in the way of change.Appeal to tradition - Wikipedia

Actually, marriage historically has more to do with property and creating ties between various groups.One could argue that it's still more about property and procreation. After all you need a license issued by the State to marry, not so for makin' babies.In fact there is a whole host of legal/fiscal implications of marriage that are not present in "baby-daddy"/"baby-momma" relationships. (The obvious counter point being child support).You could even look at marriage as a contract like any other contract. Two men can enter into a business arangement together. Two women can give eachother power of attorney (not at the same time). Two men can buy a house together. Etc.Why should the State's view on marriage be any different than any other State sanctioned contract.Notice, I'm talking only about the State, not a Church. Marriage, as a legal institution has nothing to do with the Church. You know when the minister says, "I now pronounce you man and wife"? Means nothing. What's import is signing the marriage license with witnesses.

I don't know why I'm about to defend RR, but it looks to me like he is saying something different than what you or schraf are suggesting. I don't agree with his argument but it is not this... I think he sees that marriage can be more than mating of beasts, its just that relationships which will involve children have more reasons to be protected using the legal system.It seems to me there is a valid stance that in a nation whose other laws and codes are based off of legal contracts binding people for ownership it is more important that two people who wish to have offspring have such a contract than those who do not. There is less involved in the other relationships.And indeed for any society, or govt, they must be concerned about people procreating. Citizens must have children and be raised properly for the future of the society. I don't think anyone would disagree with that.Again, don't think that I support his position on marriage. I might even bother arguing with him if I thought it would make a difference. I'm just pointing out that his position is less odious than is being portrayed.This message has been edited by holmes, 01-15-2006 05:26 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

But it does not necessarily involve biological mating of the married pair to produce a family with children. Single parent families, blended families and families with adopted children do not have (only) biolgical product of a married couple, but still have the same need for protection of the relationships for those children as well.I think we need to break down all the aspects involved in the concept of marriage to see what needs protection.To me the "traditional" aspects involve:

• license to have socially sanctioned sexual intercourse
• license to have a family
• license to share assets, benefits, resources, and decisions

Such that no one questions your "right" to these {actions\behaviors\etc} if you are married.Whether you call it marriage or a partnership contract for gay couples, the intent of it is to provide the same legal aspects for each of these categories.Anything less would be discrimination eh?

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Mating is the most common way to have kids, but I don't think RR was saying that people who are adopting don't need to get similar coverage.I'm not interested in debating the issue as it stands now. The concept of "protections" itself means accepting premises I wouldn't necessarily agree with. So we're a couple steps past my caring.I was just stating that it didn't seem RR's position was being accurately portrayed. If it matters, I do disagree with his position and do find the results of his argument to be arbitrary, if not discriminatory.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

precisely. marriage liscensure is about the long history of trading women with dowries. you marry a woman, you get the land her father says is 'hers'. marriage was never about children. plenty of so-called illegitimate children got plenty of titles in history (oh god if you ask me to demonstrate this, i'll scream). fatherhood is not proveable outside of modern medicine. therefore, marriage as a proof of legitimacy is a sham. in the states, marriage was about property too. not so much land always, as just the woman herself or monied dowries. this idea of marriage as a bastian of children is a new-fangled fundie one. marriage contracts exist to create a paper-trail and prevent abandonment of the spouse. note, child support is a separate legal matter from alimony. alimony is money you pay to your former spouse who used to depend on you for a certain living standard and no longer has that luxury. you have to maintain that standard of living because you have broken contract which was supposed to be enduring. alimony is a fee for breaking contract. the marriage contract is made between spouses not their children. child support payments are separate from alimony and can be demanded outside of the existence of a marriage. thus, marriage legally has NOTHING to do with children.biblically, if marriage was about making legitimate babies, then why do almost all the big guys have multiple wives and concubines? it's about possessing women and the land they come with. how do you think solomon expanded his kingdom?if you chose to decide that you don't desire children outside of wedlock, and that you think that wedlock is made for children, you are free to continue in your delusions, but i suggest that you seek professional help prior to suffrage. but then that's just my personal opinion and means nothing.

Totally different topic.No matter what, you can't make a black person white, and you shouldn't even try to.If you truely understood what I am saying, and read all that I wrote, you would have never said that, pay attention please.

If you try to make a gay person straight, you can't either. There are a lot of suicides in the 'ex-gay' movement.

For all cultures? So should we make it legal to have multiple wives also?I mean whats the difference, if everyone consents, then its a go.Which also brings up a good point, and that is the evidence of what marriage is supposed to be today, according to Jesus. One man, one woman. I am not taking a religious stance here, but this just goes to show what our nation was founded on, and it was Chrisitanity. Our laws followed suit of Jesus's teachings, amoung other teachings.I don't know about the rest of you, and since schraf is not going to answer my question about how she came into existance, but I have always desired to be close to my natural parents, not some other parents, or 2 guys, or 2 girls.Of course, if I had no other options, then I would take what I could get, and be grateful for it. This however does not change my desire to have a biological mother, and father who both care for me, and treat me with love.The fact that this hardly happens anymore, doesn't mean that we should allow to gays to marry. It only shows that we as a society need to address this, and somehow take steps towards correcting it.I kill myself in my relationship with my wife, and take many scrafices to hold together a family, and raise my 5 kids. It is not easy, but I'll be damned if my children have to go through what I went through, as long as it is in within my power to prevent that from happening.I am still waiting for 2 answers in this thread to help me understand all this.#1 Why does beberry think he is gay
#2 How did schraf come into existance?You know, I am in a position, being a leader in a church to change peoples ways, or at least try, if they are wrong about how they treat gays, and whether or not we should be allowing them to marry. ( I do not think anyone in my church would ever treat a gay person bad, and would only treat them with love, or else I wouldn't go there. We live in a relativly liberal area, so there is more tolerance.)I ask many people about how they feel, and I actually do not like some of the answers I hear. They are very judgemental, and condenming. I want the judgement to stop. Jesus came to save the world, not judge it.And I think I felt the earth stop spinnig just for a moment when holmes stepped in.

Making a joke here, but there is some truth to it.Aren't we trying to make them like straight couples when they want to be married?I also do not believe that you cannot make a gay person straight, I know many who have changed, I know them personally. It is from what they tell me about it, that I get some of my thought processes. My close cousin was gay, and now has a family. He explains to me that it is a whole lifestyle, something that people in here swear it's not.except for that joke, something like, you could make love to a thousand woman, but if you suck one penis, your a fag for life. It's just a joke, so no one take offense please.

it really depends on what you mean by founded. that i don't know. but probably for more cultures than marriage is one man and one woman. there are cultures where two men will mary the same woman because they can't each afford a woman. (women are bought property in those). when of if they can each afford a wife, they don't either divorce the first. but are we really going to base our society's legal contracts on any of these old traditions? really. outside of religious conviction, there is NO REASON to restrict marriage of any sort. there isn't a reason people can't be married (or beholden) to more than one person. and there isn't a reason people can't marry someone of any sex. we proclaim minors protected from these unions but it really isn't that we're protecting them. it's that they are not suffraged and not recognized by our legal system as having the right to make contracts. that's nice. but that isn't what we should be basing our laws on. we give children in adoption to those who are willing and able to care for them. funny thing, those in childless marriages tend to be more able to care for children than those who do not control their procreative activities. but willingness is the major key. in fact, many who are neither willing nor able to care for children have them. so you're suggesting that these irresponsible people have more right to marriage than those who know that they are unwilling or unable to care for children because you've decided that marriages must produce offspring?some people want nothing to do with their natural parents because their natural parents are irresponsible or crazy or sick or abusive. are you suggesting that we should force these relationships because you liked your parents? it only takes a quick fuck to make a parent. it takes a lot more to build a relationship. i find it insulting that you would make marriage into this. show me a quote where jesus says this. jesus, not paul, not the old testament.further, one man, one woman. this says nothing of children which you keep pressing. good for you. but this has no bearing on our laws. would you dare to suggest that a gay man can't love his children enough to break his neck to provide for them? i dare say that science is probably close enough to making an ovum out of an ordinary cell. i can't imagine it being that difficult. what if two men were able to conceive their own child? (two women is easy. it's half a step from the cloning they're doing. you just use the dna from the other woman's cell to fill the ovum.) then would you say after such hard work that they would love him any less or work any less hard than you to support, raise, and love him? #1 because he does. it's not your place to force a woman and children on him just because you think it's right.#2 i imagine her dad boned her mom. that's the way it generally works. but that doesn't mean she has to repeat the act. the earth has a population of 6 billion plus. there is no danger of humanity going extinct (aside from iran being shit nuts). your desire to force her womb is wrong and frankly offensive. i have no desire to marry or have children. would you do the same to me? just because you exist doesn't demand that you pass on your genes. maybe she has a recessive defect or something that she doesn't want to risk passing on and is doing the noble thing and refraining. you have no idea and yet you proclaim that she isn't really married cause she hasn't squirted anything loud out. just because you don't yell at them or tie them to fences doesn't mean you're being tolerant and loving. except for marriage. he's all about judging marriage. especially if you don't want to have kids. *swoons*

of course it's a whole lifestyle. because our society has decided and demanded that gay people have to be different. and because of jokes like the one you just shared. it's not funny. it's not funny at all. movies don't mean much but they can be a reflection of our culture. many movies and television (an episode of the l word last week said something about it) suggest teams. if you screw up and become attracted to the wrong person, then suddenly you're batting for the other team. we're so set on defining and labeling people that we can't just let people love whom they desire without making them suddenly gay or suddenly straight. the joke you stated... it works the other way to some. you can suck a thousand dicks, but if you are with a woman once, then suddenly you're straight and out of the movement and you've betrayed everything that everyone has worked for. our society is so completely polarized about sex that it's become a war. why can't sex just be a way for people to connect? why can't marriage be a way for people to spend the rest of their lives caring for each other alone and not some massive social statement about the correctness of some sexual act or another? why? because people like you have forced the issue. and they respond in kind. what would you do if they won and breeder marriages were outlawed? what if the only legal children were contract children made to supply a happy, loving, right gay marriage instead of a desecrating breeder marriage which isn't about love but only about breeding? what if it all turned around? what would you be saying? what if the religion of the day had a leader 2000 years ago who said that breeders were desecrating love and that marriage should only be between members of the same sex because they can better understand each other. what if jesus had said one man, one man; one woman, one woman because men cannot properly love women because they cannot understand them just like women cannot properly attend to a man's needs?

Certainly for the Judaic Cultures. Dowries or power. But totally a financial purpose. Marriage is nothing but a legal contract.As to your two questions, if I were either of the people addressed I'd justtell you it's none of your business. They are totally unrelated to the subject. Sure. Why not? Or in these economic times multiple husbands and even group marriages. Totally irrelevant to the discussion. If anything, such a consideration MUST be dropped from any discussion of the issue as illegal. Yet you support oppressing others. Strange.This message has been edited by jar, 01-15-2006 02:31 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion