Gay Marriage- a general discussion.

[Gustaf]

Well, it doesn't seem your idea about different threads worked, huh? I will make a comment here anyway. I agree with most of your points but I don't think marriage should be the state's business anyway. In Germany you get "married" by a state official making you legally married, and then marry in church (if you want too). The first should be open for everyone, the second is up to the churches and not to the government.

[Gustaf]

I oppose gay marriage because of what happened in Sweden. The divorce rate went out of the roof as did births out of wedlock. The Swiss Government blamed gay marriage for their problems with marraige.

That's interesting. I didn't know that. You know, you should really tell us Swedes about it, since I never read or heard this anywhere from anyone. It is even more interesting considering the fact that we haven't even introduced gay marriage yet...

[Gustaf]

I oppose gay marriage because of what happened in Sweden. The divorce rate went out of the roof as did births out of wedlock. The Swiss Government blamed gay marriage for their problems with marraige.

That's interesting. I didn't know that. You know, you should really tell us Swedes about it, since I never read or heard this anywhere from anyone. It is even more interesting considering the fact that we haven't even introduced gay marriage yet...

well he went from sweden to switzerland in one sentance.......

Also, impressive. And the divorce rate going up...I had no idea, I wonder why this national crisis of ours isn't being discussed in Sweden at all.

It's nice, btw, to see one of Ryan's old threads getting digged up like this.

[Gustaf]

The point on popular opinion is still invalid. The whole point of laws is to protect the minority from majority opression, once again something that Republicans of all people should be understanding of.

On Sweden, I once again thank those who point out our national crisis. I was not at all aware of the sharp increase in divorces since we legalized civil unions, what was it (Lidaker?) a year ago or so? I do know that the yuong generation is the most religious and valueing of morals in decades, but I guess that doesn't fit your prejudice. But I have felt a little less moral since we allowed gays to engage in civil unions, I guess it works like a plague or something...

[Gustaf]

72% of Swedish children aged 1-17 live with both their biological parents. I don't know how this relate to other countries though. Children born out of wedlock in the sense that they have never lived with both their parents has risen like this:

1966-1975: 2.1%

1976-1985: 3.1%

1999:          4.8%

I will look for more stats later...the point remains that the notion that there has been a sharp increase in recent years due to the legalization of civil unions is utterly ridiculous.

[Gustaf]

a demographics organization run by the EU.

Need I say more?

[Gustaf]

a demographics organization run by the EU.

Need I say more?

?

You would actually believe EUrostat? Their executive director got arrested last year for corruption...their reports use themselves as sources, which is ridiculous. And they have a tendency to only publuish their material in French...I wouldn't trust them to do anything whatsoever right.

[Gustaf]

I've managed to steer clear of this threadline for weeks. Merely posting on it makes me feel, 'dirty'.

But I will say this much: the social right LOST this battle! It doesn't matter what anyone's objections to gay marriage may be, because the Media and a claque of leftist judges in Mass have already made our decision for us.

The social right lost this issue by allowing this debate to proceed to the judiciary, the one branch of government under leftist lock-and-key control.

If the American people, through their state legislatures, could vote, about 60% would rightly vote against any state recognition of gay 'marriage.' The issue would wither on the vine.

I repeat myself: the social right avoided state legislatures and headed directly for the court system. They brought their misfortune on themselves, and the rest of the US, besides.

Yeah, allowing courts to uphold people's rights is really liberal. Man, if we could just allow some majority oppression...why allow property rights and free speech for instance?

[Gustaf]

I've managed to steer clear of this threadline for weeks. Merely posting on it makes me feel, 'dirty'.

But I will say this much: the social right LOST this battle! It doesn't matter what anyone's objections to gay marriage may be, because the Media and a claque of leftist judges in Mass have already made our decision for us.

The social right lost this issue by allowing this debate to proceed to the judiciary, the one branch of government under leftist lock-and-key control.

If the American people, through their state legislatures, could vote, about 60% would rightly vote against any state recognition of gay 'marriage.' The issue would wither on the vine.

I repeat myself: the social right avoided state legislatures and headed directly for the court system. They brought their misfortune on themselves, and the rest of the US, besides.

Yeah, allowing courts to uphold people's rights is really liberal. Man, if we could just allow some majority oppression...why allow property rights and free speech for instance?

In order that you may know what marriage is, and what it isn't, I quote a paragraph from a CHILDREN's encyclopedia on the subject:

"In one form or another marriage has existed as long as civilization itself. Marriage is a universal institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family. This union is regulated by society, and society's laws, rules, customs, beliefs, and attitudes about the rights and responsibilities of man and woman"


You can't define marriage any simpler than that. And, nowhere in that definition will you find "homosexal". Marriage isn't about homosexuals--it doesn't discriminate against them, it doesn't exclude them, it's not defined by them. Marriage isn't about homosexuals, period!

It doesn't actually say that men and women are joined with each other...

But it's a moot point. Words are defined by men, since we make them up. We can change those definitions over time. I have an encyclopedia at home from the 1940s that says negroes have the intelligence of 15-year olds. What does that prove?

[Gustaf]

"..men and women are joined..."

Adding "to each other" to that phrase could imply men among men and women among women, which has never been recognized in any society throughout time.

I attach particular meaning to words, even if I misspell them occasionally. One's words bear witness to one's soul. And I would never let my words betray me and my soul condemned to dust by implying that relationships among members of the same sex could ever pretend to be marriage.

And comparing modern marriage to 1940s era eugencs is race baiting of the worst sort (and I live in Louisiana, 1/3 black). You're above that.

Well, I am a godless European so I'm not above anything (perhaps a Greek maybe). Homosexuality was tolerated, even viewed as refined in Greece (probably explains their rottenness?) in the Classic era. Have you seen Troy? Ever wondered why Achilles gets so upset when Patroklos dies? Yep, that's why...

My point remains. WE define words. Once upon a time Earth was defined as something flat. Now it isn't. Once upon a time whites were defined as better than blacks. And so on.

[Gustaf]

"..men and women are joined..."

Adding "to each other" to that phrase could imply men among men and women among women, which has never been recognized in any society throughout time.

I attach particular meaning to words, even if I misspell them occasionally. One's words bear witness to one's soul. And I would never let my words betray me and my soul condemned to dust by implying that relationships among members of the same sex could ever pretend to be marriage.

And comparing modern marriage to 1940s era eugencs is race baiting of the worst sort (and I live in Louisiana, 1/3 black). You're above that.

Well, I am a godless European so I'm not above anything (perhaps a Greek maybe). Homosexuality was tolerated, even viewed as refined in Greece (probably explains their rottenness?) in the Classic era. Have you seen Troy? Ever wondered why Achilles gets so upset when Patroklos dies? Yep, that's why...

My point remains. WE define words. Once upon a time Earth was defined as something flat. Now it isn't. Once upon a time whites were defined as better than blacks. And so on.

Ancient greek aristocracy  regarded homosexuality the same way upper-class Victorian gentlemen did. Get it out of your system as a young kid, then settle down with some bosomy woman named "George" and rear proper children by her. Of course, those upper-class men who remained homosexual past youth were immediately marked for social destruction ('toff', 'fairycake', 'bugger', 'old sod' etc.)

The ancient Greek population, much like the rest of 19th century English society, never conceived of such a thing as a homosexual. Read John Derbyshire, National Review, for a good idea.

And, still no: words have definite meanings, even if they do mutate over time (Ex: network once actually meant the interstices among the interconnections of a net)

Robert Walpole did fairly well despite being a homosexual. And Achilles was viewed as a grown man, I believe.

Words are defined by us. Who decides what words mean? We do. Therefore, if over time we decided to use them in another way, we can. There is nothing odd about that. Definitions of intelligence have changed, for instance. There was a time when behaviour that we now tolerate was viewed as madness. Etc.

[Gustaf]

I love it when people bring up Greece on this issue because it makes my point fairly well.  In ancient Greece, even if a man was gay, he still married a woman and fathered her children.  Marriage was even then about child raising.  Despite being gay, the man would be with a woman in marriage.

For the record:

A gay person doesn't have the right to marry another man, but neither does a straight person.  The only difference is that the gay person wants that right and a straight person doesn't.  There is no disparity; a gay man can still, as in ancient Greece, marry a woman and sire children.

On a similar note:
After the 13th amendment to the US Constitution, former slave owners lost their rights to own slaves.  However, at the same time abolitionists too lost THEIR slave owning rights.  The only difference was that the slave owners wanted that right and the abolitionists did not.

That's nonsensical...discrimination is still discrimination. We can always remove all choices but one, that's discriminating against those who want other choices. PLain and simple. Saying that everyone has the same right to vote for the communist party does, for instance, NOT constitute a democratic system.

[Gustaf]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For those who are not able to have children, I think the should be married, becuase there's always a possibility they could concieve- most cases of infertility are not definite. Further, they could always adopt a child.

If somebody who is quadroplegic gets married, he must open up the possibility of having children by adoption at least. Otherwise, I see no reason why they would want to marry. Civil Unions are just as good. I mean, if you're not going to have sex/have children... what's the point?

It isn't your, or anyone else's decision. Who are we to question responsible individuals for their personal choices?