Who doesn't back gay marriage?

@McTag,

Quote:

Since homosexual couples are different, why do they want to appear the same?

I'm sorry, McTag, but that is lame too. They simply want equal treatment before the law. I wouldn't touch marriage - church or state with a ten foot pole. It's for people who are insecure about their love. But no one should be denied by the state what is available to others - that leaves them as 2nd class citizens.

Quote:

I don't think this is about equality. They are accepted, by most right-thinking people.

State deemed inequality causes discrimination against people. If the state does it, it doesn't seem untoward for less than right minded individuals to do it.

Quote:

Just don't mess about with the language. Marriage is not a good word for that situation.

That's a language issue, true, but it's as silly an argument for this meaning as it is for every other situation where meanings shift and morph. Anyway, it's far too late, McTag.

We already marry inanimates.

Quote:

marriage

1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
2. The state of being married; wedlock.
3. A common-law marriage.
4. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
5. A wedding.
6. A close union: "the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics" (Lloyd Rose).
Games The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/marriage

2 Replies

..it wouldn't surprise me at all if this keeps going on heterosexual groups will end up creating a new marital institution out of the need to distinguish themselves from the now mishmash concept of marriage...what then ? Will gay n Lesbian groups require we share with them the new institution if it explicitly states the union between a man and a women ? And how does my choice of having a legal institution reflecting my way of life abuses anybody else's rights eh ?

1 Reply

@JTT,

nah nah nah...this is not about the morphing of concepts and cultural tokens per se...this is about the morphing of a vastly accepted concept as is by a minority...the fitting name is hijacking !

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Have you no answer to Fil's post other than to suggest it is incoherent which is just another way of calling it rubbish or nonsense.

His post looked pretty straightforward to me. And if English is his second language the post is pretty good. It makes your blurts about "nonsense", "drivel" and "rubbish" look what they obviously are. "You are not thinking in English, are you? " is just more snidey and patronising but with no more meaning.

There are many sites on which homosexual critics of the use of "marriage" to denote same sex unions claim that the rights argument is being side-tracked, distracted and held back by the insistence on the word "marriage".

Quote:

We do not look in great cities for our best morality.

Jane Austen.

And where are all the important Media centres located? And where has the agenda being debated here been pushed from? Not just cities. The centres of cities where morality is known to be the most debauched.

Give me a good old-fashioned gay frolicsome "trip the clite fantastic" among the lacy petticoats and embroidered flounces even if it is more dangerous that some men can deal with. Limp wrists are unserviceable in such a situation.

Marriage is very, bloody dangerous. It has laid many a man of my acquaintance, and a few good mates, flat on the bones of their arse. One suicide, a few attempts, weeping inconsolably on the bar and taking to the open road with the rescued belongings in a makeshift bag tied to the end of a stick.

Perhaps people will start claiming that the battlefront is at the end of their road in order to get active service pay.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

No. You see I don't oppose the substance, the rights themselves, I concede and grant that easily so there is no parallel with racism, but I oppose the form which is just as important...the way I see it this is "cultural hijacking" !
There is a confusion between peoples common rights and cultural mishmash...and yes its is quite simple to grasp... perhaps my rookie English is making my point harder to get but then you must forgive me for my poor choice of words as I am no native English speaker...

I suspect the people taking you to task, Fil...are much less bothered by you "English"...than by your thinking.

You are not thinking in English, are you?

What do you believe Frank ?
Have you anything to say regarding my comments of substance or are you just pissed with me in the other thread ?...

I'm definitely not pissed at you, Fil...and quite honestly I have forgotten if we got in a row over something somewhere else. I forget lots of things easily these days.

But my point was that the disagreements I am seeing here have less to do with the way you are explaining your position...than in the position itself.

Separate but equal...which seems to be the direction in which you are travelling...is NEVER EQUAL.

If the government wants to have a vested interest in marriage (which it has, because several legislative initiatives have "marriage" as part of them)...then there should be no disccrimination between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples getting married.

Personally, I think the government should stay the hell out of the institution...and it should be strictly something various churches administer. All references to marriage in all legislation out to be expunged. And if a church is willing to marry people of same gender...that should be accepted as a valid marriage. If a church is willing to marry a dozen people...that should be accepted as a valid marriage.

The disagreement I am seeing here has to do with your position on the matter. I am sure many people will disagree with me and my position.

What could I tell ya?

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

If there is no compelling argument what is the reason for them being denied the privilege in 40 odd states.

We've been over this. The reason can be summed up in six words;

idiot right wing religious nut cases

Quote:

I hope it isn't that the legislatures in those states are stupid and talking nonsense because that would call into question the wisdom and efficiency of democratic processes.

Or more words if one feels such a compunction.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Have you no answer to Fil's post other than to suggest it is incoherent which is just another way of calling it rubbish or nonsense.

His post looked pretty straightforward to me. And if English is his second language the post is pretty good. It makes your blurts about "nonsense", "drivel" and "rubbish" look what they obviously are. "You are not thinking in English, are you? " is just more snidey and patronising but with no more meaning.

There are many sites on which homosexual critics of the use of "marriage" to denote same sex unions claim that the rights argument is being side-tracked, distracted and held back by the insistence on the word "marriage".

Quote:
We do not look in great cities for our best morality.

Jane Austen.

And where are all the important Media centres located? And where has the agenda being debated here been pushed from? Not just cities. The centres of cities where morality is known to be the most debauched.

Give me a good old-fashioned gay frolicsome "trip the clite fantastic" among the lacy petticoats and embroidered flounces even if it is more dangerous that some men can deal with. Limp wrists are unserviceable in such a situation.

Marriage is very, bloody dangerous. It has laid many a man of my acquaintance, and a few good mates, flat on the bones of their arse. One suicide, a few attempts, weeping inconsolably on the bar and taking to the open road with the rescued belongings in a makeshift bag tied to the end of a stick.

Perhaps people will start claiming that the battlefront is at the end of their road in order to get active service pay.

YGMWWTFYATA!

0 Replies

...I'm not even intending to directly address the problem of gay marriage as that is not my target by a mile...what I particularly hate is this modern pathetic idea of politically correct middle ground, of relativistic polite openness which as been the motor of mediocrity dissolving cultural diversity everywhere...gay marriage is just yet another example...I say give them the same exact rights but make them develop their own legal institution for gay unions with their own unique rituals and whatever else they deem needed...I certainly won't be troubled by it nor will reclaim the same right, and I would even attend any such union with pleasure with all my blessings and good will...

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

..it wouldn't surprise me at all if this keeps going on heterosexual groups will end up creating a new marital institution out of the need to distinguish themselves from the now mishmash concept of marriage...what then ?

They are entitled to do that, Fil, but what they are not entitled to do is create laws that make some 2nd class citizens. There are people that have done that with regard to other areas relating to equality before the law. These are mostly right wing nutjobs, eg. white supremacists. But who in their right mind would want to be associated with them?

Quote:

And how does my choice of having a legal institution reflecting my way of life abuses anybody else's rights eh ?

Ummmmmm, what you have described is state sanctioned discrimination. Would you like to see state sanctioned discrimination leveled at people who like to discuss philosophical issues?

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

nah nah nah...this is not about the morphing of concepts and cultural tokens per se...this is about the morphing of a vastly accepted concept as is by a minority...the fitting name is hijacking !

Do you view the civil rights movement as a "hijacking"?

1 Reply

@JTT,

I am debating my position not the matter of fact, I think for 3 times now I conceded the same rights for gay unions or heterosexual relations are just and adequate...so why do you keep insisting in turning my position into the wrong direction ?

...an honest debate is willing to debate as much the strong points of a cause as the weak ones...and this discussion reasons are far from being the linear or straight forward walk in the park you were expecting quite au contraire !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

I am debating my position not the matter of fact,

Noted, Fil. Isn't that rather like debating one's wish to return to a flat earth?

I just wonder why a moral human being would want to deny to others the rights they have.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
I am debating my position not the matter of fact,

Noted, Fil. Isn't that rather like debating one's wish to return to a flat earth?

I just wonder why a moral human being would want to deny to others the rights they have.

No it is precisely to avoid a flat all the same all MacDonald's flat earth that I am making this point...all in favour of same rights and all against cultural relativistic mishmash...

0 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

We've been over this. The reason can be summed up in six words;

idiot right wing religious nut cases

We have indeed been over it. Many times. I've lost count. The use of "idiot" and "nut cases" to win your argument without having to break sweat.

I think it is some sort of social disease.

It graciously grants permission for an equally meaningless response such as "to keep out power-mad, totalitarian, leftie shitbags" and it's not long before you're sticking your tongues out at each other.

It's pathetic but I have little doubt than this won't be the last time I feel like going over it again. I'm beginning to think it is incurable.

You're well and truly Apisad. You need an army with tanks to define idiots and nut cases without being laughed out of court.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

They simply want equal treatment before the law

Why is a civil partnership (and the couple can write their own conditions etc) not equal in all respects to a traditional marriage? I believe it was intended to be, in this country at least.

To me, the point is trivial and childish.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

You need an army with tanks to define idiots and nut cases without being laughed out of court.

Especially when they constitute not far short of 80% of the democratically elected legislatures of the USA.

0 Replies

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

Quote:
They simply want equal treatment before the law

Why is a civil partnership (and the couple can write their own conditions etc) not equal in all respects to a traditional marriage? I believe it was intended to be, in this country at least.

To me, the point is trivial and childish.

Why do tax returns ask questions about "spouses" and whether you are "married" or not?

1 Reply

@McTag,

Quote:

Why is a civil partnership (and the couple can write their own conditions etc) not equal in all respects to a traditional marriage? I believe it was intended to be, in this country at least.

To me, the point is trivial and childish.

They wish to feel normal and just like everybody else Mac.

And yet! As Sir Henry Rider Haggard said after the passage describing Foulata's selfless devotion when nursing Captain Good back from the brink. It comes at the end of the famous paragraph in King Solomon's Mines which begins "Women are the same the world over..."

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Why do tax returns ask questions about "spouses" and whether you are "married" or not?

What's this? Quick Quiz for the infants?

It's because they want to know. They need to know to plan the future.

A tax form is like the confessional in lots of respects. Especially for the middlin orders.

2 Replies

@spendius,

If, for example, they discovered that there was an accelerating spike in people declaring themselves unmarried they would instruct TV companies to show more programmes about wedding bells, grand frocks and happy smiling faces with lots of confetti, horse-shoes and wavings off.

And to downplay marital conflict.

0 Replies

Who doesn't back gay marriage?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know