The future of marriage

I do like your proposal, but I don't get your point here. Yes, it does indeed "utterly change the meaning of marriage."”Hoot

Well, for starters, it would mean that same-sexes can get "married." That's of a change, don't you think?

But I thought you'd already agreed to change the meaning of marriage? And allow same-sexes to get "married" in the bargin.Could you explain your position again?

quote:

---

Well, for starters, it would mean that same-sexes can get "married." That's of a change, don't you think?

---

I thought that the definition of marriage was two people who love each other wants to make a permanent commitment to each other?Anyway, I think you will agree that the definition of marriage has already changed at least once, namely from a formal contractual agreement between two families or clans to cement their alliance.

---

This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely

That is exactly what someone would say if he is loosing ground in an open discussion. No, sir, it is you who is palming the pea. My criticism of same-sex "marriage" is my OPINION, just as your criticism of my position is your OPINION. Why do you get so bent out of shape when someone else's opinion opposes yours? The fallacy of my position has NOT been demonstrated, and it is you who is tactically avoiding the issue. I have agreed to NosyNed's proposal for legitimizing same-sex marriage. OK. So what is wrong with my questioning a few of the circumstantial issues arrising from same-sex unions? When was it decided that only the chosen people can ask the questions around here? And, please, what is YOUR opinion of NosyNed's proposal?”Hoot

Disconnect here. All I am saying is that same-sex "marriage" changes the meaning of "marriage." If you agree, then what's the problem? I'm ready to sign off on your proposal.”HootEdited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.

Another bullshit attempt to mislead the audience. The issue is not your opinion. No one really cares what your opinion is. It is your actions, your behavior that we object to. I don't really give a damn what your opinion is, only when you try to make stupid assertions like blood transfusions are related to the issue of marriage do I speak out.As to Nosy's suggestion, I have long advocated a simple, one line Federal Law which supersedes all State and Local Laws. It would say that anywhere in any Law or Regulation the word Marriage or Married is used the term Civil Union or Civilly United may be inserted.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I can tell you this much about myself: I am definitely NOT a conservative Christian or Muslim or Toxic Amphibian or anything religious like that. In fact, I can’t stand to be around them. I’m a leftist by most measures, probably much more liberal than you. I decide for myself what is proper and is not. “Proper” can be defined as almost anything done by consenting adults, so long as nobody gets hurt, especially the children. What straights and gays do behind closed doors is no business of mine . so long as nobody gets hurt.This was entirely good for me, right up until the HIV pandemic when people started to get hurt, often children. I learned about the different ways HIV can be transmitted; sex between gay men certainly is not the only way. Nevertheless, this caused me to start worrying anxiously about what goes on behind close doors between gay men (setting aside lesbians for the moment), which I deeply understand to be none of my business. Yes! I do! But, damn it, I still worry about it. (It is best that I say nothing about gay women, since I understand them even less than gay men. But I do understand that gay people are gay more by way of nature than by way of choice.)In you mind it is bigotry to disagree with your point of view. Your biases toward tabloid political correctness are not serving to open your mind on revelant issues. For example, my point about blood transfusions from gay men is not at all trivial from a clinical point of view. Why do you suppose there has been a ban preventing gay men from donating their blood? Bigotry? I think the ban has been lifted now; but, for the love of Boy George, why was it even necessary in the first place? Honestly, I don’t understand how the same-sex-marriage crowd can let their self-righteous indignation run away with them. Tame down, and look at the facts.”Hoot Mon

True. So you agree that "marriage" has tribal roots. The question here is about how far we should depart from our traditional roots. Nosy's proposal lets the churches decide what should be preserved for the sake of tradition. Let the churches "marry" people in any way they like. Let the people calll themselve "married" if they want to. In legal terms, however, there is no need to even mention "marriage" if CIVIL UNIONS are adequate for protecting the rights of all people, gay or otherwise.

Yeah yeah yeah, but there you are, blabbling on about filthy gay sex and blood-borne disease and HIV transmission between gay men, apparently ignorant of the fact that thanks to widespread condom use, education, and the emerging phenomenon of "sero-sorting", HIV transmission among gay men in America is at the lowest it's ever been since the disease was discovered - but HIV transmission among straights is on the rise.When I see someone who's substituted strongly held beliefs and prejudices for factual evidence, religion is almost always to blame. And it's bigotry when belief and prejudice is used to justify second-class citizenship for a group of people. No shit, HM! We can all see you're scared to fucking death of the idea that you'll get some OMG TEH HOMO cooties in your bloodstream.We get that you're terrified. You need to lighten the fuck up - not oppress an entire class of American citizens to assuage your fear. It's a bigoted smokescreen to bring it up in this debate, and you know it. It's bigoted because it's counterfactual and you don't apply the same reasoning to straight marriage. Originally it was a harsh precaution; at the time, male homosexual activity was a risk activity for HIV. Giving blood isn't a right.The ban, now, persists because of bigotry. The conditions that were believed to neccessitate it no longer are present. No, it hasn't, tragically.But it's irrelevant. The elegibility to donate blood to the Red Cross is not a requirement for entering into a marriage. It's irrelevant; a smokescreen based on bigotry. (A good thing, too, or else I wouldn't have been able to get married - I lived in the UK too long.) You look at the facts. Can you substantiate your assertion that being able to donate blood to the Red Cross is a requirement for entry into marriage?

This doesn't help to make me feel any better. How am I ever going to be able to rest now that I know the homo cooties are out to get me?

I suggest you move to a country that reacts to homosexuals a little more to your liking. Might I suggest Iran?

quote:

---

So you agree that "marriage" has tribal roots. The question here is about how far we should depart from our traditional roots.

---

What the hell are you talking about? We have completely departed from our "tribal roots". "Marriage" is a completely, totally different institution than what was once practiced."Families" used to be the basic unit of production in society. People used to live on subsistance farms; as towns developed some people set up family run market stalls and craftsman shops. Literally family run. Children did a lot of the work in the business and were trained to work the business by the parents.Nowadays production and distribution in goods occurs in factories, offices, and stores that have nothing to do with the family. The parents will work in different locations run by different groups of people. Children no longer contribute to family income or societal production; their education and training also largely occurs away from the family. In fact, since many married couples now choose not to have any children and others decide to adopt non-blood related children, and there are many, many children being raised by single parents, the purpose of marriage is clearly not even to produce or raise children.Marriage used to be an institution that cemented ties between different clans and families. In some cases, love between the couple may have been considered an ideal, it was not necessary and, in fact, the wishes of the couple would be overruled by the interests of the family. Love between the couple was neither necessary to maintain a marriage nor sufficient to produce one. Love really had nothing to do with marriage--it was all about two families, clans, or tribes forming or maintaining relationships.Now, where in all of this do you see a tradition that the homophobic right is trying to preserve? I see not movement, even among the goofy right, to dismantle industrial capitalism in favor of subsistance farming. I also see no movement among even the lunatic "traditionalists" to give rights to the extended family unit to force the younger members of the family into marriages.Instead, we see the moonbat conservatives talk about marriage being a commitment between "a man and woman who love each other" when that was never what traditional marriage was about. The closest they come to traditional concepts of marriage is the rather superficial view that families are to raise children without recognizing that that is no longer what families are for, that this is irrelevant to gay marriage, and that families no longer do (nor can) "raise children" according to the traditional definition of "raising children".Somehow, during the last couple of hundred years, the definition of marriage has changed into a completely, utterly, totally different institution. What we call "marriage" today has nothing to do with "marriage" during Feudal times, or even during Victorian times, nor did their notions of "marriage" have anything to do with our modern concept.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.Now marriage is "a commitment between a couple who love each other." That is a complete change from the older definition of marriage. All anyone is trying to do now is make a minor, an insignificant, a very, very small adjustment as to what we mean by a "couple". Compared to the changes already made from the previous "tradition", extending "marriage" to same-sex couples is nothing.Edited by Chiroptera, : Correct typos. It would be nice if anyone could edit anyone else's posts to correct typos. In fact, it would be really, really cool if Dan Carroll could correct Hoot Mon's post to make them read better.

---

This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely

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.

Why stop there? Sheep are natural.