Reply Sat 2 Jan, 2010 06:09 pm
I've heard mentioned by certain heterosexual A2K users during debates that a strong reason why they are against gay marriage is because it will change the traditional definition of marriage into something they don't feel they want their marriage associated with. It would 'devalue' their marriage so to speak.

I realised recently that my opinion runs antithetically to this. At present, I do not see myself marrying since I believe the term still holds a lot of sexist connotations that I do not wish to associate myself with, although as time goes on this is abating.
I would not want to get married under the 'traditional' gendered conception of marriage. I would want it to stand for my love and nothing else- thus why i conceive the redefinition of marriage and the legalization of gay marriage as directly beneficial to myself as well as homosexuals.
I was just wondering if anyone else felt anything similar to this?
I know a lot of people are reluctant to get married, but what relation does this pose to the status of gay marriage?
pq x
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 5 • Views: 2,184 • Replies: 13
No top replies

 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jan, 2010 06:45 pm
@The Pentacle Queen,
I was married in a civil and not a church ceremony, so right there some would posit that I was never married all those years - which, to me, is their problem. Anyway, I was happy being married for quite a long time.. no gripes, except that that ended.

I don't think religions own the concept of marriage, although I don't mind that religious folks can marry too, whatever their sexuality at the fore.

To me marriage is a cultural construct of sometime value to some people, who can, frankly, write their own code as far as I'm concerned (though I have certain boundaries on that, another subject, having to do with abuse of power) as long as it becomes a legal tool for the welfare of children.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Mon 4 Jan, 2010 09:53 am
@The Pentacle Queen,
The Pentacle Queen wrote:

I've heard mentioned by certain heterosexual A2K users during debates that a strong reason why they are against gay marriage is because it will change the traditional definition of marriage into something they don't feel they want their marriage associated with. It would 'devalue' their marriage so to speak.

That's rather like saying "I wouldn't want to belong to this country club if it allowed blacks/Jews/Catholics to become members." I suppose there are some people out there who consider marriage to be an exclusive club. In its purely religious sense, that may indeed be true, and if marriage were a purely religious ceremony much of this debate wouldn't be happening (or would occur within the confines of the church, as is the case, e.g., with the ordination of women or gays in the Catholic and Episcopalian churches). But the state has decided to confer public benefits on people who are married, and no one should claim to have an exclusive right to those benefits merely on the basis of their sexual orientation. After all, no one says: "I feel like my driver's license is devalued because gays are allowed to drive too."

In any event, heterosexuals have been devaluing the institution of marriage for decades. It's time to give the homosexuals a shot at it.
The Pentacle Queen
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jan, 2010 02:45 pm
@joefromchicago,
Quote:

In any event, heterosexuals have been devaluing the institution of marriage for decades. It's time to give the homosexuals a shot at it.


Hear hear! Laughing
0 Replies
 
NoOne phil
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2010 01:57 pm
@The Pentacle Queen,
Every living organism survives by what it can acquire from the environment to maintain and promote its life. Generalizing one can formulate a definition;
An environmental acquisition system of a living organism is that system of an organism which must acquire something from the environment, process that which it has acquired for a product that maintains and promotes its life.

Now, We don't have to ask God, or man, we simply ask what is independent of either to solve our problem.
The above definition yields the sacred seven of Judeo-Christian Scripture.
1) The Ocular System.
2) The Digestive System.
3 ) The Respiratory System.
4) The Vestibular System.
5) The Manipulative System.
6) The Procreative System.
7) The Judmental System.

The failure of any of these systems lead to some form of death, quick or slow.

There is no behavior, considered moral, or ethical, which establishes a difference bewtween a human being and themselves.

This includes sexual behavior.

The only difference between good and evil is that one leads to life, the other to death.
Damn, and people call themselves intelligent?
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2010 06:51 pm
@NoOne phil,
Now who can argue with that? I think we're all in debt to NoOne phil for stating what needed to be said. Not only was it authentic pseudo-philosophic gibberish, it expressed the courage little seen in this day and age.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:dcOqidfK--zybM:http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v728/sirlarkins/16421-1934.gif&t=1

"Ribber rubble!"
ragnel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Oct, 2010 05:02 am
@joefromchicago,
Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
ragnel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Oct, 2010 05:47 am
@joefromchicago,
Sorry Joe, I meant to ask -
Were you quoting from Matthew, Mark, Luke or Duck?
0 Replies
 
The Pentacle Queen
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 08:02 am
@NoOne phil,
NoOne phil wrote:

Every living organism survives by what it can acquire from the environment to maintain and promote its life. Generalizing one can formulate a definition;
An environmental acquisition system of a living organism is that system of an organism which must acquire something from the environment, process that which it has acquired for a product that maintains and promotes its life.

Now, We don't have to ask God, or man, we simply ask what is independent of either to solve our problem.
The above definition yields the sacred seven of Judeo-Christian Scripture.
1) The Ocular System.
2) The Digestive System.
3 ) The Respiratory System.
4) The Vestibular System.
5) The Manipulative System.
6) The Procreative System.
7) The Judmental System.

The failure of any of these systems lead to some form of death, quick or slow.

There is no behavior, considered moral, or ethical, which establishes a difference bewtween a human being and themselves.

This includes sexual behavior.

The only difference between good and evil is that one leads to life, the other to death.
Damn, and people call themselves intelligent?


'Some form of death' 'the judgmental system' ?
What are good and evil?
0 Replies
 
spidergal
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 08:12 am
@The Pentacle Queen,
Bm.
0 Replies
 
spidergal
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 08:26 am
I am of opinion the problem with the people who do not accept homosexuality/gay rights/gay marriage is they do not understand homosexuality. If they did, they would be able to sympathize with the gay folk.

Just like some of us are born with haemophilia (genetic disorder) or a genetic predisposition toward, say, diabetes - which has a certain likelihood of surfacing depending upon an individual's environment - some of us have been endowed with a predisposition toward homosexuality. This is not to say it's a disease. It's just something you're born with or have a high likelihood of developing due to your genetic constitution.

I'm sure the anti-gay folk do not have a problem with haemophilic or diabetic individuals marrying.

I fail to understand what's the big deal.
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 08:43 am
@joefromchicago,
i'm so glad the children were here to witness this as well


classic film
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2010 09:20 pm
@NoOne phil,
Phil,

It all leads to death.
0 Replies
 
keithtra
 
  2  
Reply Tue 29 Nov, 2011 01:11 pm
@The Pentacle Queen,
Over the years the issue of same sex marriage has crossed the minds of just about everyone in the United States. Some believe that allowing homosexual partners to get marriage would ruin the traditional marriage, but what is the "traditional" marriage? As a heterosexual male I believe the traditional marriage is defined as a bond between two people that love each other. Stripping this away from homosexuals is neglecting them of a deeper law binding relationship. To me it doesn't make sense that a male and a female can marry without even knowing each other, but a homosexual couple who has known each other for years can not. Marriage should be for everyone and not exclusive to just heterosexual people.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Gay Marriage.
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 09/17/2021 at 05:50:07