Who doesn't back gay marriage?

I can't for the life of me, JL, understand how you can/could respond as you did above when the link takes me back to me saying this.



I object to gay marriage!!?? Who knew?

I've long thought that Spendius is a Monarda.

I don't think anything except that a definite "Yup!" followed by a "may very well" rather assumes that A2Kers are as thick, or as understanding, as the poor sods in your social circles.

You are not supposed to mark your own exam paper (MYOEP) in full view even if it is the only way for you to feel you have traduced the opposition.

The only time you want evidence is when you know it can't be provided. Regarding everything else you're a sucker. You have even fallen for the golf equipment suppliers having a usufruct into what you have admitted are your limited resources.

My position on this mater is odd to say the least n probably both sides will gun at me but so be it...

First I would like to say I essentially agree with all the rights classical marriage provides been given to gay couples for obvious reasons, as in the same tone I also agree with gay adoption being granted prevented that the legal figure of adoption doesn't legally hide the identity of the biological parents nor substitutes or erases their formal condition of natural parents (facts are facts)...thus on this regard, in adoption, there seams to be this need to clarify and distinguish the role of the natural "progenitors" from the role of the adopting parents (here in Portugal there is none), so that a legitimate claim doesn't trump the child legitimate rights or confound the factual nature of the relation being established...

...equally as I look at it from my personnel perspective there is the pressing need to yet again make a clarifying distinction between classical marriage and a gay union not regarding legal rights as they should be exactly the same, but merely in the sense of rightfully preserving the group identity watermarks that classical marriage has provided throughout history with its own distinctive cultural conceptual lore...

...thus is strictly in this particular point that I raise an objection to gay marriage not as an objection to gay rights (they should invent their own institution) but as an objection to the cultural relativistic mishmash through which our contemporary world so provectly unravels millenarian identity marks under the pseudo march of progress and civilization...itself perhaps a greater danger to society, then the obstructing dangers coming from conserving obscurantism, as those are linear in nature...

I think gays in marriage would muck it up.

Civil partnerships are fine. Why demand more?

They're not saying they're the same. And by definition, they're different. So why muck about with the status quo? Is a civil partnership, and you can write your own pre-nups, any less prestigious or binding or anything than a traditional marriage (with all its faults)?

So I say, gays pipe down. Too much already. You're tolerated, even cherished. If you are discriminated against, which I deplore, is "marriage" going to change that?

Hooray for Noel Coward, Elton John and k d laing.

If you had put a period there, Spendius, we could finally have arrived at agreement.



No it doesn't, but I see that once again you are at a loss for something worthwhile to say...so I guess that kind of nonsense babble is better than saying, "uhhh."



WITW?



My clubs and bag are over 10 years old...and I bought them second-hand. My usufruct is even older!

Egad, Spendius, you are a hoot. Why don't you meet with some A2Kers...and have them post your picture here so we can get a look at you? Most of us won't laugh even if you look as silly as you speak.

They don't actually understand the institution of marriage Taggers.

It is all just another example of people wanting to do something they are not allowed to do for no other reason than that they object to not being allowed to do it.

There can be no other explanation other than deficiencies in education. I think they have seen too many ads in which odd moments of faked marital bliss are depicted for the purpose of flogging people various items which reinforce the notion that marital bliss is actually bliss rather than a long, dragged-out series of tormentations, aggravations and repetitious rituals occasionally relieved, decreasing with time, with brief interludes of joyous relief from the nerve-wracking vacuousness.

It always makes me smile to see the incarcerated male giving the matter a sort of low-key romantic twist, copied out of Valentine card inscriptions usually, on the basis that those in the same boat won't laugh at him. He is upset at those who do laugh at him because he simply cannot understand anybody who doesn't think exactly as he does.

Do you think there is an underlying yearning to be straight somewhere in the depths? Or could it be that the works of Jane Austen and Rabelais, and numerous others, Flaubert for example, Stendhal and Proust and Henry Miller, have been removed from the library shelves to avoid anybody getting an incorrect impression?

My business is absolutely dependent on marital bliss and I would say that I hardly have had any customers who were not enthusiastically partaking of it at the times I have met them.

Maybe it's just a gig. A jape. Something to do that doesn't require any particular effort. A project. A pointedly pointless one imo.

Have you seen Cary Grant in Mr Blandings Builds His Dream House?

It's incredibly simple, McTag. Because it discriminates against an identifiable group making them second class citizens.

Separate but equal was never equal.



Exactly. Make everyone have this same type of ceremony, ... because they are fine.

Boys can be Boy Scouts
Girls can't, but they can be Girl Guides.
They're separate, equal, and no-one has ever tried to merge them.

That's good.

Terrible analogy, McTag.

They already do don't they. When a religious ceremony is over there is a civil one in a side room. Without the latter there is no "marriage" from the State's point of view and without the former no marriage from the Church's point of view.

I think the bureaucrat who conducts the secular ceremony in the vestry dispenses with the mumbo-jumbo because he has already witnessed it and simply requires the parties to sign their names.

I assume that a purely civil ceremony contains elements of the mumbo-jumbo and I have heard of robes being adopted by the officiating officer/ess to avoid them looking like they might have been processing driving licences all morning.



It is not that simple JT. because they only feel discriminated against and how that arises is quite a complex matter. The folklore of marriage rather suggests that those stuck in it are the second class citizens.

My intention was not to defend the institution of marriage, Spendius. I personally think that marriage is a farce. That is not to say that meaningful relationships are a farce.

What I am saying is that people should not be made to feel lesser than others for this reason.

But "lesser" assumes "second-class citizens" and thus your argument is circular.

Because they are subjectively deeming themselves "lesser" and discriminated against is not a reason to change the law. People feel discriminated against for a host of reasons.

Marriage is not a farce when taken seriously. It has become something of a farce for many because it is not taken too seriously anymore.

Your argument, Spendi, is one that people from the deep South advanced as a way to keep Blacks in their place.



That's the perfect reason to change a law that is discriminatory.

Sensible people, people who love one another, don't need artificial constructs to validate either their love or sensibleness.

They were objectively discriminated against. Which is a different matter. I bet there are plenty of homosexuals who don't feel discriminated against in respect of marriage.

I daresay there are some who are homosexuals in order to avoid marriage.

Not at all.

Blacks objectively discriminated against because of the color of their skin.

Homosexuals objectively discriminated against because of their sexual preference.

In both situations the discrimination is based on the ignorance of those discriminating.

The two circumstances are not comparable. And I'm surprised you think they are.

So the legislatures of 40 odd states are "ignorant" are they? That's Apisa's mode of argument.

Plain women are discriminated against. People who are in any way out of the ordinary physically are discriminated against regarding prices for clothes.

There's severe educational discrimination against kids that come from poor homes. And when they grow up don't understand tax havens.

The discrimination argument is not going to get a lot of sympathy. It's special pleading.

I bet these homosexuals discriminate against somebody all day long. Or are having it done for them in a way to help them not notice.