Gay Marriage- a general discussion.

[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?

[Horus]

But were it for Civil Unions, about 60% of the country would be in support.

Better something than nothing.

[Storebought]

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!

[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?

[Storebought]

"..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.

[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.

[Storebought]

"..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)

[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.

[Smash255]

to believe a man should control is wife is just plain SAD.  

No, what is sad is that you have allowed yourself to give way to your fear (2Pet 3:6).

I wrote this thinking you were a women.  Then I read your profile- your a 'male'!  So here is some advice:

1) Get control of your imagination by studying the word of God.  Then you won't be tossed to and fro by fine sounding arguments.

2) God has given you, as a man, certain responsiblilities.  Therefore, obey God and be the type of man he is asking you to be.  Stop listening to world, it wants to change you into something you're not.

I have some advice for you as well

STOP THE HATE.  If you trully believed in god's Word you would not discriminate against others.

2  Welcome to 2004, this is not 0004

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I have some advice for you as well

STOP THE HATE.  If you trully believed in god's Word you would not discriminate against others.

2  Welcome to 2004, this is not 0004

Two questions:

1) Since you consider my stand against homosexual behavior as 'hateful', do you also consider 'hateful' my stand against fornication, adultery, lying, stealing, and murder?

2) SInce God was the one that set up the command for a wife to submit to her husband, what was the year between 0004 and 2004 in which God changed the very system that he defined?

[classical liberal]

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.

[Smash255]

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.

For starters comparing gay marriage to slavery is insane

Secondly yes a gay person can marry a straight person, but thats bot what its avout.  You and I are able to marry the person we love, a gay person wants that same right to marry the person that they love.

[Storebought]

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.

But that leads to an interesting question: In ancient Greece, women had no choice of whom they wanted to marry. Daddy could, and usually did, marry his daughter to the town's gay guy if Daddy wanted to gain entrance to the gay guy's (rich) family.

Nowadays, parents don't lease their children for advantageous business relationships anymore. Women are free to marry any guy they wish, within limits. So, what woman would consider marrying a used homosexual?

[migrendel]

I would say that it isn't discrimination based upon sexual orientation for the very reason you stated, Rightwingnut. But it is indeed gender discrimination, because the license is denied because of the gender of one of the couple. Therefore, the line of cases starting at Reed v. Reed, applied to marriage in Orr v. Orr and Frontiero v. Richardson, and recently extended to sexual orientation in Lawrence v. Texas make the current marriage laws Constitutionally illegitimate.

[classical liberal]

Nowadays, parents don't lease their children for advantageous business relationships anymore. Women are free to marry any guy they wish, within limits. So, what woman would consider marrying a used homosexual?

I know a lot of girls who would like to marry the gay guys I know.

[Brambila]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Marriage's goal is to create a family. If your intention is not creating a family, what's the point of marriage? I don't think gays should marry, and I'm starting to lean toward disallowing people of the opposite sex with no intention to have children (either by adoption or natural) shouldn't be allowed to marry. Marriage is not just sexual love of eachother, it has to do with loving eachother so much that they want together to have children, who they will love as well. I mean, if they arn't intending on having children, what's the point of marriage? Civil Unions are perfectly fine too.

But I think that heterosexual marriages- even in cases where they have no intention of having children- should be allowed because there's always the possibility of one of them to get pregnant.

[classical liberal]

Secondly yes a gay person can marry a straight person, but thats bot what its avout.  You and I are able to marry the person we love, a gay person wants that same right to marry the person that they love.

Marriage has nothing to do with love.  It is about creating a stable environment for raising a child.  Every messed-up person I know was the product of an unstable developmental environment.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Marriage has nothing to do with love.  

Huh?

[classical liberal]

Marriage is about stability, not love.

[Nym90]

Brambila-

So you'd ban marriages for people who can't have children? Those who are disabled, or too old to have children? If a woman is close to menopause, does she have to provide proof that she still has her period?

Actually, at one time, the mentally retarded, disabled, etc. were banned from marrying.

My father is a quadriplegic, paralyzed from the middle of the chest down, and he got married after becoming one. Why shouldn't my father have been allowed to marry my stepmother?

[classical liberal]

Brambila-

So you'd ban marriages for people who can't have children? Those who are disabled, or too old to have children? If a woman is close to menopause, does she have to provide proof that she still has her period?

Actually, at one time, the mentally retarded, disabled, etc. were banned from marrying.

My father is a quadriplegic, paralyzed from the middle of the chest down, and he got married after becoming one. Why shouldn't my father have been allowed to marry my stepmother?

Because they could not have possibly created any children in need of raising.  I'm not saying that they can't be together, just that they shouldn't be married.

[Nym90]

Well, it still helps create a more stable home, regardless of whether or not they have any biological children between them. I'm definitely glad they are married.

What about people who can't have kids of their own but choose to adopt? Should they be allowed to marry?

[classical liberal]

If a couple will be raising a child, the couple should marry.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Marriage is about stability, not love.

Where are you getting this definition from?  Certainly that definition doesn't come from popular opinion.  Are you saying that God meant for marriage to be about stability and not love?

[classical liberal]

That was the working definition until around 45 years ago.  Funnily enough, the moral decline in this country coincides with the transition of popular opinion regarding marriage as a union of love rather than one of a stable child-raising environment.