Who doesn't back gay marriage?

@Hulk,

Hulk wrote:

Does it matter who doesn't back marriage or gay marriage? The only matter of relevance are those who proactively support such an institution in the political spectrum. And in the western world, the majority, to my knowledge, back gay marriage. So what's the problem here?
And good luck converting the anti-gay conservatives who see homosexuality as an abomination with those questions.

The only matter of relevance?

Thanks for speaking for everyone on earth.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Oh you're referring to my quote:
"The only matter of relevance are those who proactively support such an institution in the political spectrum."

I was only describing reality here, but if you need further explanation, I'll be happy to provide an ample one. There is a group of people who support the institution of marriage. In such group, a sub group believes it should be between a man and a woman, and another sub group believe that homosexual partnership should also be considered to have the right to be part of this institution. And frankly these two subgroups are the only matter of relevance in the discussion. Let them battle it out. What are you gonna do? Make those who have nothing to do with marriage to take sides against their will to have nothing to do with such an institution?
I think you have an ax to grind, but you've got the horns pointed at the wrong person.

2 Replies

@Hulk,

"I was only describing reality."

Well, as the arbiter of what is solely relevant, I would expect nothing less.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Alright you win.I will bring my dog and talking parrot to get their opinions on the matter. But don't expect anything more than a 'Nay' from my horse.

1 Reply

@Hulk,

It's not a competition unless you think it is.

Your comments in this forum are what you write. If they don't convey what you really mean, admit it rather than defending them.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Yes, what I wrote earlier is to be the commencement of some sort of contest. Rolling Eyes

I'm not defending anything man. I wrote something that actually does convey what I mean. You're the one who can't seem to dissect the meaning of what I wrote. You tried to make a clever retort without actually reading what I wrote, and it seems all this rejoinder back and forth is done in vain to save your face.

1 Reply

@Hulk,

OK Hulk.

0 Replies

@Hulk,

Quote:

What are you gonna do? Make those who have nothing to do with marriage to take sides against their will to have nothing to do with such an institution?

I don't think anybody here has the power or the desire to make anybody do anything against their will. And somebody who has nothing to do with marriage has obviously stumbled into the thread by mistake. It is about marriage.

How does somebody have nothing to do with marriage? The building regulations and planning decisions are centred on marriage. How would you lay out accommodation if there was no marriage?

Having nothing to do with marriage is an abstract idea. In reality there are 30m people of each sex in the UK and 155m in the US.

Explain how you would organise them whilst having nothing to do with marriage.

0 Replies

I agree with your post wholeheartedly. Countries such as Britain and France are moving forward in the fight for equality for homosexual marriages, it seems that the United States should take the hint as well. A nation founded in pursuit of the chance of a happy life, we are responsible for controlling our own destiny, not another's. This Monday, however, the Obama administration did amend previously denied marital benefits to homosexual militant spouses so I suppose that's a real move forward. What do you guys feel about this change, which some argue breaches the DOMA?

1 Reply

@shikki19,

Any homosexuals who think that they need the word "marriage", like a sort of magic wand, to make their life happy has already lost all chance of happiness.

It's a ridiculous idea.

3 Replies

@spendius,

are you suggesting marriage is itself ridiculous?

(it sounds like you are)

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Any homosexuals who think that they need the word "marriage", like a sort of magic wand, to make their life happy has already lost all chance of happiness.

It's a ridiculous idea.

The word homosexual can be replaced with heterosexual, and the statement true holds as well. So what's your point?

0 Replies

@spendius,

It's not so much a "magic wand" as it is a chance to live life as they wish without interfering on the happiness of others. The benefits and experiences of being one's spouse are much more different than being their partner. I want to play tennis with a "partner" but the person that I choose to spend the rest of my life with should be much more than that. Happiness is defined differently by each individual just as what constitutes true, fathomable love. Life is a continuous stream of perception and I just do not comprehend how it is in any person's power to rule what defines marriage. It's not just a title, it's much more than that.

1 Reply

A late entry into this already fully discussed question. FM's post says a lot about the question. Many of the wedge issues will be solved in this way. This is encouraging to me.

I can see no reason why gay or lesbian or transsexual couples should be denied the same right to marry that heterosexual couples enjoy. I don't care if you call it marriage, and I wouldn't care if I were a lesbian. But many people do care and if they do, the option to call it marriage, on an equal basis with all others should be theirs. Separate but equal.........not likely. The legal rights and benefits of marriage are important to all couples, if not when they are young and healthy, more so as they age.

2 Replies

@Lola,

Quote:

A late entry into this already fully discussed question. FM's post says a lot about the question. Many of the wedge issues will be solved in this way. This is encouraging to me.

I can see no reason why gay or lesbian or transsexual couples should be denied the same right to marry that heterosexual couples enjoy. I don't care if you call it marriage, and I wouldn't care if I were a lesbian. But many people do care and if they do, the option to call it marriage, on an equal basis with all others should be theirs. Separate but equal.........not likely. The legal rights and benefits of marriage are important to all couples, if not when they are young and healthy, more so as they age.

Well said, Lola.

In contrast to Spendius' last post which was:

Quote:

Any homosexuals who think that they need the word "marriage", like a sort of magic wand, to make their life happy has already lost all chance of happiness.

It's a ridiculous idea.

If (some) homosexuals think using the word marriage to describe their relationship will make them happier...who the hell is anyone on the outside to say it is ridiculous.

Why does Spendius think that he can set the standard for what is...or is not...ridiculous in this regard?

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

in his defence, he did have a huge breakfast this morning.

it might be indigestion...

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I agree with you Frank that people have the right to think or believe anything. I include spendi in this. If he think's it's ridiculous, then he does. I'm not a religious person and find no use for religion for myself. Some people do find religion useful or relevant to their lives. I think some people have religious reasons for wanting to call their legal agreement with their primary loved one a marriage. Some want it with no religious reason, just to be inclusive. Whatever their reason........

Why they prefer the word marriage is a far more interesting question than whether they should or not. And each answer is idiosyncratic.

Now you and spendi get along!

0 Replies

@Lola,

You bring up a valid argument. Many rely on religious affiliation in denying equal opportunity marriages, however, as times progress it seems that the church has chosen to evolve as well. Stoning a woman for adultery is now illegal although the Bible once condoned such actions. So I can't help but wonder why exactly two innocent people that are in love are not allowed to live their lives accordingly.

2 Replies

@shikki19,

Well, the people I worked with this Summer who were trying to legalize same-sex marriage didn't care whether certain churches "evolved" or not. If the Catholic Church doesn't want to marry same sex couples Massachusetts isn't going to force them. The fact is, though, that the Catholic Church should not be able to tell non-Catholics whether they can get a marriage license or not.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

And some of my long time married friends got married at the time for tax reasons. One couple my smartassgroup and I ribbed a lot, again, at the time, said they would stay together only as long as they wanted to, and refused to use the word commitment. That was 44 years ago.

1 Reply

Who doesn't back gay marriage?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know