The future of marriage

Chiroptera wrote: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.

Jaderis wrote: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.

Jaderis wrote: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?

Chiro wrote:
...
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.

Chiro wrote: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.

And as always, he is not a bigot.

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.

I thought you just agreed with me that the meaning of marriage has already drastically change, and the gay marriage would be comparatively insignificant?

DC dramatizes:You two guys? You two girls? You can go ahead and get married.

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.

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?

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.

So here is jar's 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.

Oh shit, suddenly it's my old proposal. I guess that means Hoot Mon will change the subject.