|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The future of marriage | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5528 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Chiroptera wrote:
Agreed! That's why I endorse Nosy's proposal to forget the legality of "marriage" and move on to "civil unions." Let the churches "marry" whomever or whatever they want to. Why does the law need to get its nose in there and determine whether or not people are "married"? What the law should care about is whether or not they are civilly united.
The definition of marriage has changed -- there is no longer anything "traditional" about. All the traditional notions of marriage have already been drained out of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5528 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Jaderis wrote:
Why stop there? Sheep are natural.
Well, to be blunt, my fingers fit "nicely" inside a woman, my body conforms beautifully to hers (usually...some women are much taller or much shorter or much larger than myself). The penis also fits "nicely," albeit a little more snugly, in an anus (a man's or a woman's). Tongues are good tools for sex, too. Toys are also fun, but I won't push your definition of "natural" too far.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5528 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Jaderis wrote:
Good points. I'll agree that it has very little to do with marriage, per se, if it were not legally binding. I've come around to thinking that "marriage" between any two or more humans shlould be performed in a non-legally binding ceremony, say in a church, per NosyNed's proposal. The entire issue can be solved using the principle of civil unions, where the govenment should actually be involved. Then everybody will feel equal and have the greatest number of choices. Everybody wins and nobody loses. Do you deny the fact that more African Americans are at risk for and get Type 2 Diebetes? Is this equal? They also have a pretty high risk for HIV (see my last post for link), too. Do you deny the fact that women are more at risk for HIV simply because friction against their vaginas during heterosexual sex causes small tears that provide infected sperm a direct route into the bloodstream and/or a natural causeway into their bodies provided by the cervix? How is this equal? What does this have to do with marriage, BTW? And if you hear any straight chickens still cackling about losing the "real" value of marriage, tell them to go to church and take that matter up with the clergy who decide who and what gets "married." We probably can forget about consummation and the body parts, too; men should be allowed to stick it anywhere they like. Once I heard of a prostitute named Sylvia who had a glass eye. Her motto was " I'm keeping an eye out for you, stud." Consummation can be anything and everything you want it to be. ”Hoot Edited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5528 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
nator, I'll let my last post speak to that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5528 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Chiro wrote:
You and I are in complele agreement. It took me awhile to come around. I had to ask all of my "bigoted" questions and a few more to get there, because I felt that "marriage" was something worth preserving as a family tradition, especially for the children. But what is tradition worth if it is shown to be discriminatory? In that respect "marriage" should be redefined, and the government should stay the hell out of it. Nosy's civil-union proposal lets the churches decide what "marriage" means. Issue resolved”civil unions for everybody who can write their own names.... The word marriage should be expunged from the law books and replaced with civil union or similar language. Furthermore, there should no longer be either the requirement nor the option of having the civil union solemnized by a religious authority; the civil union becomes valid when and only when the "Certificate of Civil Union" -- not "Marriage Liscense" -- is signed and appropriate oaths taken in the presence of the legally authorized state official responsible to oversee the signing. And, if the couple feels they need an additional "solemnizing ceremony", they can go on their own to find a religious (or other) authority who will recognize their union. But this would be legally unnecessary: the union would be valid the moment they signed the Certificate in the presence of the state official.... I should also add that it would be problematic to have two different civilly recognized unions side-by-side, namely marriage and civil union. Despite the good intentions of some of the "separate-but-equal" folks, having two separate institutions will make it easy to make and maintain significant differences in the two so that they would not be equal in fact. In fact, I believe that in most jurisdictions that have civil union, it does have significant differences from marriage. By having just one recognized institution, it will make it harder to maintain an unequal difference based on who the couples are. But in America the issue will not be so easily resoloved. Bigots abound here like nowhere else. (But whatsa "bogot," anyway? If Socrates had been a modern American he would have been accused of bigotry, too.) The anti-same-sex-marriage crowd will ask every persnickety question I've asked, and more. I feel the answers I got on this and other threads were pretty good over all, even if some of them were a little barbed and bitchy. In my opinion the discussion was enlightening; indeed it was enlightening enough to change my view on same-sex civil unions. ”Hoot Mon Edited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5528 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Chiro wrote:
Farm animals can be kept around for a lot of good reasons, but consummating same-sex marriages is not one them. I would prefer to let the churches decide what is "marriage" and what is "consummation." If they think farm animals should be involved with that, then I say let 'em. Personally, I see the churches doing a lot worse when they terrorize little children with sin-and-death admonitions issued before life-size statues of Jesus, hanging wounded and suffereing on his cross, bleeding and dying with the full horrific effect to frighten the children into believing their holy dogma. It may be that I have misread your post. Jaderis was describing how a couple could consummate a marriage other than by penis-vagina intercourse. Are you simply adding the possibility of a couple, of any combination of sexes, using a sheep? If so, that would add more methods of consummation beyond heterosexual penis-vagina sex. ”Hoot Mon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5528 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
And as always, he is not a bigot.
Thank you. I was wondering when you would admit that. Oh, but wait, you say you don't like Nosy's proposal? Well, who's the bigoted one now? ”Hoot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5528 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Yep. I think that tearing down the whole institution, just so the fags can't play, is a shitty solution. It's cutting off the nose to spite the face.
No it's not. It's changing the meaning of marriage to preserve the future of marriage. Just how do you accomplish same-sex marriage without changing the meaning of marriage?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5528 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
I thought you just agreed with me that the meaning of marriage has already drastically change, and the gay marriage would be comparatively insignificant?
By degrees, yes. But NOTHING would change the meaning of marriage more than to open up the concept to include "same-sex marriages." I'm saying the law need not differentiate along those lines if civil unions were the standard for granting equal rights and protection under the law. Nosy's proposal is brilliant for letting the churches decide who they want to sanction as being "married." It takes "same-sex marriage" off the table for legislative purposes, and gets it the hell out of my face. Isn't that what we have churches for? To deal with the moralistic aspects of society? If they are the morality cops, as they claim to be, then let them earn their keep. ”Hoot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5528 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
DC dramatizes:
What wrong with: "You two guys. You two girls. You can go ahead and get civilly united"? You two guys? You two girls? You can go ahead and get married. No need to mock what the chuches should do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5528 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
What is wrong with it is that "seperate but equal" is rarely equal. What was wrong with separate schools for whites and for blacks? Well, one of the things wrong was that black schools were crummy.
Don't know how you could object to Nosy's propsal with an attitude like than. In his proposal EVERYBODY is equal in civil matters where the govenment should be involved, and EVEYBODY is equally free to go get "married" in any church or frog museum they choose.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5528 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
So I don't understand your point. The government doesn't regulate what marriages churches have to accept now. Why would they suddenly be able to?
Who says they do, or should? Frog, are you paying attention?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5528 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Look, if some church full of bigots does not want to recognize same-sex marriages as valid, they are free to do so. If homosexuals were allowed to marry, the churches could still continue to show their asses by denying it is a valid marriage.
Exactly. And if homosexuals were allow to be civilly united they would be equal under the law with heterosexuals. Given Nosy's proposal, why would the law even care what churches validate as "marriage"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5528 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
So here is jar's proposal.
Maybe you should call it "jar's anti-Nosy proposal."
Let same-sex couples get married. Then the Churches can call their ceremony Theological-Union. That way everyone has what they want, Churches can recognize or ignore any Theological-Unions and keep their nose out of Marriage.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5528 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Oh shit, suddenly it's my old proposal. I guess that means Hoot Mon will change the subject.
Question: If you crossed a bigot with a fagot would you get a "figot" or a "bagot"?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024