But same sex marriage would destroy the institution

cawacko said:
Hmmm, good question. Can't really say I've given that much thought. I understand the argument people make about wanting the state out of marriage and that makes sense to me. However the way the system is currently set up at the end of the day I guess (edit: I shouldn't I guess, I know) my position holds a definite double standard.

I guess I also don't consider it much difference if a couple gets married in a church, at a court or wherever.
Click to expand...

I am one of those who believes that the state should get out of the marriage business.

I also believe that having the same institutions with two different names is pacification by semantics.
 
WinterBorn said:
I am one of those who believes that the state should get out of the marriage business.

I also believe that having the same institutions with two different names is pacification by semantics.
Click to expand...

I get what your last sentence is saying. So essentially either say yes gays can get married just like heterosexuals or say gays can't married at all (meaning eliminate the name change like i suggested?).
 
cawacko said:
I get what your last sentence is saying. So essentially either say yes gays can get married just like heterosexuals or say gays can't married at all (meaning eliminate the name change like i suggested?).
Click to expand...

I think the state shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, but especially where there is such a discrimination.

Having marriage as a religious institution and civil unions as a secular institution works for me. But if we do that, we need to have civil unions for all secular marriages. If you get married in a church you call it a marriage, and if its at the courthouse or other secular method, you have a civil union.

But then we also get into what we would do with churches (or any religious organization) that allows gay marriages.

The best case scenario would be having civil unions for the gov't benefits and have marriages as a strictly religious institution. If you want to get married and get tax breaks ect, you have to get both married and a civil union. This would apply to all consenting adults.
 
cawacko said:
I believe in God but will say you won't see me at church every Sunday (or very few Sundays).

Yet I still believe a marriage should be between a man and a woman for the purpose of having children......
Click to expand...


So your position is that marriage is only for people under the age of 40; i.e., those that are able to procreate?

Wow, cawacko, I've gotten married with no intention of having children, and plenty of older people get married who are too old to procreate. I had no idea that marriage wasn't meant for us! You learn something new everyday!
 
Cypress said:
So your position is that marriage is only for people under the age of 40; i.e., those that are able to procreate?

Wow, cawacko, I've gotten married with no intention of having children, and plenty of older people get married who are too old to procreate. I had no idea that marriage wasn't meant for us! You learn something new everyday!
Click to expand...

Somewhere in my line of thinking there is something to coerce married women into having sex with their husbands. While I'm not married yet I figure once it happens my wife will probably cut me off. This way she will somehow feel to need to put out to me. Convoluted thinking yes but I believe there to be some logic somewhere in there.
 
cawacko said:
Somewhere in my line of thinking there is something to coerce married women into having sex with their husbands. While I'm not married yet I figure once it happens my wife will probably cut me off. This way she will somehow feel to need to put out to me. Convoluted thinking yes but I believe there to be some logic somewhere in there.
Click to expand...


Ha! I get it now, I see your logic!
 
WinterBorn said:
Dixie, I think Soc posted this with his tongue firmly in his cheek.
Click to expand...

I think that is Prissy's dick in his cheek. But to each his own!

It is hilarious that people claim that gay marriage would destroy the institution, when the straights have already done more harm than the gays could possibly do.
Click to expand...

Right... and it's hilarious that people claim 10-year-old drivers would destroy highway safety, when the drunks and incompetents have already done more harm than 10-year-olds could possibly do!

The truth is that allowing gays to marry will have no effect at all on my marriage, Soc's marriage, or even SM's marriage. None whatsoever.
Click to expand...

10-year-old's driving would have no effect on my driving or yours!

I don't recall anyone ever making the argument that Gay Marriage would effect their own marriage, so the premise is completely flawed and false. When people say it will "destroy the sanctity" of marriage, it means something more profound. Marriage is an important religious tradition and custom, and vital to the institution of family. It means something very specific, and it has a very specified purpose from a religious and moral standpoint. Not everyone respects that, but it doesn't change what it means to those who are religious. It's like prayer... What if someone wanted to change the definition of "prayer" to include Rap Lyrics? It wouldn't effect prayer for religious people, they could still do their thing, but it denigrates the sanctity of a religious tradition. Denying rap lyrics to be defined as prayer, doesn't prohibit a rapper from praying, or deny the rapper any right that others enjoy.

Let me turn Soc's 'dick-in-cheek' OP around on you... Does the possession of a piece of paper issued by the State, with the word "marriage" at the top, have anything to do at all, with how much the two gay people love each other? Why is that piece of paper with that word so important to a gay couple? If it is a matter of benefits or rights, we can remedy that with comprehensive civil unions legislation, and I think it would probably pass. Most people I know who are opposed to gay marriage, are not opposed to gay couples having the same benefits or rights of traditional married couples. Their position is based on a respect for religious customs and traditions, against what they view as an affront to those customs and traditions.

If the "issue" is benefits, privileges, or rights, then it is the "Pro-Gay-Marriage" crowd who is preventing that from happening! And they are supposedly doing so, for the sole reason of a piece of paper with "marriage" at the top, and nothing more. That doesn't seem to make much sense, so we have to conclude the REAL reason they continue to push for Gay Marriage, is specifically to destroy a religious tradition and custom.
 
cawacko said:
I believe in God but will say you won't see me at church every Sunday (or very few Sundays). Yet I still believe a marriage should be between a man and a woman for the purpose of having children. I mention I have a gay aunt who lives with her partner and I love them both dearly. I believe gay couples should have every right that married couples do, from financial to visiting rights at hospitals etc. If they want to get married I just believe it should be called something else. That probably doesn't sound all that logical but it's where I stand.

And yes I got the tounge-in-cheek humor of the OP.
Click to expand...

Let me ask you, if your aunt and her partner chose to begin calling their relationship a "marriage", what could you do about it?

People can say they aren't "for" GM, but in reality, "marriage" is just a word, and nothing more than an intangible state of mind. Yes, there are some tangible benefits that come with the term, but those were set by man. My wife and I didn't get married until we'd been together for 13 years, but I told everyone who asked, "yes, we are married".

If a gay couple want to claim they are married, what would you do about it? What COULD you do about it?
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Let me ask you, if your aunt and her partner chose to begin calling their relationship a "marriage", what could you do about it?

People can say they aren't "for" GM, but in reality, "marriage" is just a word, and nothing more than an intangible state of mind. Yes, there are some tangible benefits that come with the term, but those were set by man. My wife and I didn't get married until we'd been together for 13 years, but I told everyone who asked, "yes, we are married".

If a gay couple want to claim they are married, what would you do about it? What COULD you do about it?
Click to expand...

You're right if they want to say that I couldn't stop them nor would I care to. I guess I was speaking more from the legal perspective but if my aunt and her partner or any other gay couple wanted to just say they were married I wouldn't be offended and wouldn't try to tell them they are wrong or anything like that.
 
IMO, Marriage is fundamentally a religious institution. The fact is (yes it is a fact) there are many churches that provide marriages for homosexual couples, and IMO they would be as married as any couple with a government issued "license" to be married.

The passive acceptance of the government stepping into "marriage" is just fundamentally wrong to me. If you want to be "married" go to a church and get married, let's get rid of these stupid laws that "sanctify" one relationship over another. It isn't their business who you "marry" (so long as they are of age and willing). The only legitimate place for government in such relationships is to ensure that kids are not abused by being forced into a spousal relationship before they have the capacity to understand and make such a choice.

Why are we ever so willing to accept another layer of government into our personal relationship with whatever Deity (or non-Deity) we choose to believe in? What is so fundamentally "good" about having the government "bless" your relationship with another?
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Let me ask you, if your aunt and her partner chose to begin calling their relationship a "marriage", what could you do about it?

People can say they aren't "for" GM, but in reality, "marriage" is just a word, and nothing more than an intangible state of mind. Yes, there are some tangible benefits that come with the term, but those were set by man. My wife and I didn't get married until we'd been together for 13 years, but I told everyone who asked, "yes, we are married".

If a gay couple want to claim they are married, what would you do about it? What COULD you do about it?
Click to expand...

Great point! I have often argued the same thing! And I will take it further... There is no law that prohibits gay couples from holding a 'wedding' ceremony! I actually attended a gay wedding in the 1980s, IN ALABAMA! There wasn't any southern sheriff there sayin', "I'm gunna have to run you queers in to jayul fer this!" Didn't happen! Did I mention this is ALABAMA? No law against it, no hassle, no problem... the gay couple were 'married' on a hilltop by a Rastafarian minister in a beautiful ceremony... they have a Wedding Album, they went on a honeymoon, they have the little souvenir invitations and bags of bird seed... and they have been happily 'married' for 25 years!

What is really amazing to me, is their 'conservative' viewpoint regarding the issue of "gay marriage!" They see the issue as being a hindrance to their objectives! All they want, is the right to adopt children, have insurance together, and be eligible for the tax deductions. Those things could easily be made available to them through some kind of civil unions legislation, but the left is hell bent on hijacking a religious custom and tradition, and really doesn't give two shits about their personal concerns.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Let me ask you, if your aunt and her partner chose to begin calling their relationship a "marriage", what could you do about it?

People can say they aren't "for" GM, but in reality, "marriage" is just a word, and nothing more than an intangible state of mind. Yes, there are some tangible benefits that come with the term, but those were set by man. My wife and I didn't get married until we'd been together for 13 years, but I told everyone who asked, "yes, we are married".

If a gay couple want to claim they are married, what would you do about it? What COULD you do about it?
Click to expand...

i agree....i would add though, in some states your claim would have given rise to a common law marriage.

marriage is just a word and unfortunately our government has hijacked that word and put religious constraints on who can marry. i have no problem not allowing marriage for those who want to engage in illegal acts, but, homosexual acts have now been ruled legal, in that, anyh law forbidding them, is unconstitutional. thus, among other reasons, imo, any law forbidding homosexuals to marry is unconstitutional
 
Dixie said:
Right... and it's hilarious that people claim 10-year-old drivers would destroy highway safety, when the drunks and incompetents have already done more harm than 10-year-olds could possibly do!
Click to expand...

Um, how is that analogous to gay marriage? Are two dudes having sex going to crash into your bed?


10-year-old's driving would have no effect on my driving or yours!
Click to expand...

They very likely would not have any effect on your driving. But again, where is the comparable danger? Where are these out of control beds smashing in to unsuspecting heterosexuals?

I don't recall anyone ever making the argument that Gay Marriage would effect their own marriage, so the premise is completely flawed and false. When people say it will "destroy the sanctity" of marriage, it means something more profound. Marriage is an important religious tradition and custom, and vital to the institution of family. It means something very specific, and it has a very specified purpose from a religious and moral standpoint. Not everyone respects that, but it doesn't change what it means to those who are religious. It's like prayer... What if someone wanted to change the definition of "prayer" to include Rap Lyrics? It wouldn't effect prayer for religious people, they could still do their thing, but it denigrates the sanctity of a religious tradition. Denying rap lyrics to be defined as prayer, doesn't prohibit a rapper from praying, or deny the rapper any right that others enjoy.
Click to expand...

Religions have been using popular music to sing praises for as long as religion has existed. Kanye uses the rap/hip hop form to express his religious views. You show your ignorance and slavish devotion to the past by pretending that there is something inherently religious about one music form over the other. There is not.

Life is change. Customs and traditions evolve, thankfully. Devotion to tradition solely for the sake of tradition is stupid at best and counter-productive at worst. Religions change or die. Christianity would be but a memory if not for it's ability to change and accommodate new practitioners. If it were still preaching that Rock n Roll is the Devil's music it would have faded. But dumbasses, like you, who claim reverence for the past fail to learn any lessons from it.
 
Yurt said:
are you serious? california for starters and DOMA has the feds not recognizing any gay marriage
Click to expand...
He's arguing that if they go to a church and get married they won't be put in jail, not that the government is recognizing the marriage.

I just can't get over people letting the government into this at all. Why the hell do we need the government to define or "recognize" anything about this? It's none of their fricking business.
 
Dixie said:
Great point! I have often argued the same thing! And I will take it further... There is no law that prohibits gay couples from holding a 'wedding' ceremony! I actually attended a gay wedding in the 1980s, IN ALABAMA! There wasn't any southern sheriff there sayin', "I'm gunna have to run you queers in to jayul fer this!" Didn't happen! Did I mention this is ALABAMA? No law against it, no hassle, no problem... the gay couple were 'married' on a hilltop by a Rastafarian minister in a beautiful ceremony... they have a Wedding Album, they went on a honeymoon, they have the little souvenir invitations and bags of bird seed... and they have been happily 'married' for 25 years!

What is really amazing to me, is their 'conservative' viewpoint regarding the issue of "gay marriage!" They see the issue as being a hindrance to their objectives! All they want, is the right to adopt children, have insurance together, and be eligible for the tax deductions. Those things could easily be made available to them through some kind of civil unions legislation, but the left is hell bent on hijacking a religious custom and tradition, and really doesn't give two shits about their personal concerns.
Click to expand...

Again, you claim reverence for the past while showing your ignorance of it. "Separate but Equal" has been tried and has failed miserably. There is no reason to repeat that.
 
Last edited:
Um, how is that analogous to gay marriage? Are two dudes having sex going to crash into your bed?
Click to expand...

Nope, but who says a 10-year-old is going to crash into my car? You presume a 10-year-old is not a safe driver or something. I'm sure they would probably be just as safe as the drunks and incompetents on the road today! So what's your problem, tight ass?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top