Gay Marriage.

Post Reply New Topic

Back in the Sixties, we were opposed by a very vocal majority. If you called yourself "pro-gay," you were siding with child-raping deviants in the eyes of most people. That didn't stop us, and look how far we've come. It is an inescapable fact, however, that the gay community is motivated by self-interest. Now, contrary to what you may believe, self-interest is perfectly acceptable, but it's necessary for any interest group to compete with other interests on a lawful, peaceable basis in order to pursue its goals. If one of these competing interest groups happens to be in the majority, the nature of this doesn't change, yet the minority can still acheive its ends by working through a big tent party such as those we have in the US. As much as it may chap your prat, this is how a liberal society and government works, and it is really quite healthy in the longrun. Use "market culture" instead if you are uncomfortable with "liberal," but I assure you that the theory is quite sound.

Look Griff, most of us find the idea of gay people getting married to be... well... quite absurd, to put it mildly. May I refer you to the 1980 Concise Oxford dictionary? Here's part of the text following "marriage":

That is how most people in the western world see marriage; indeed it's most likely how the whole bloody world, apart from a few ultra PC liberals, see marriage. Seeing things like that does not mean one is homophobic, bigoted, or generally a bad person. It's just an acceptance that two gay people don't marry anymore than a brother and sister, or a man and his bloody dog.

You know, it's one thing the left re-writing the bible, but the Oxford English Dictionary is just a step too far.

Of course, if gay couples want to get some legal rights as far as inheritance tax goes, or any other legal type matters, then fair enough. If they want their partnership to be state sanctioned, then okay; just don't call it marriage. Furthermore, if they do have the arrangement sanctioned by the state then that opportunity should be extended to all people who, for whatever reason, decide to live together, whether in a sexual relationship or not.

It's also absurd for us to live deprived of affection or swinging from partner to partner, and many of us choose to do neither. It's not really something you consciously pursue, though. It's just there comes a day that part of your brain shuts down, and you're commited to lifelong monogamy before you realize what you're doing. No matter how you may feel about it, this is a part of our lives.

This is exactly what we're trying to remedy, though, and we've had a great deal of success over the past few years. It's really amazing how much people's perceptions can change over a few years. I don't think that we have much longer to wait.

Perhaps not, but it's in my best interests to get everyone convinced that you are. Besides, referring to our marriages as "absurd" does come across as very bigoted. Get real, man. You useless, sociopathic loonies were treating us like criminals back in the 20th Century, and I seriously doubt the motives behind this antisocial behavior have changed much over time. It's still the same dreadful spite that it's always been, and, if I have my way, we'll have you twinks driven out of the country within another decade.

We do, though. A lot of us even have kids, whether by adoption or previous marriage.

I'm not British, and the Fourth Edition of The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language offers a less sexist definition. Besides, the meaning of any given word is determined by common usage, which is why dictionaries have to be updated from time to time.

If all of the legalities are the same, what the union actually is depends upon how we view it subjectively. To us, it's marriage, and that's what we want it called. We don't go to the trouble of having a big white affair just for the slip of paper in the nightstand drawer to refer to it as "domestic partnership." All civil unions really do is add insult to injury.

No. We want something that specifies the nature of our relationship, and that's what we're going to keep pushing for until we get it.

that's the most bigoted, ignorant statement i've read so far...but then again, i haven't wasted my time to read this entire thread.


your beef with gay marriage is that it's called marriage instead of something else? if it's really just that...grow up, no one has exclusive rights to words. in the legal books, marriage grants a certain set of rights....should that have been named under the title "civil unions"? maybe for immature twits who can't wrap their heads around someone outside their little world wanting to be married and share the same responsibilities and benefits.

you're literally saying "it's okay for them to get the rights and benefits, but they can't have my word for it." that's about as base of a bigoted statement as one can get without saying "get the hell away from me, fa***t."


marriage is a social institution, not a religious one (despite all the chest-beating from christians), likewise, homosexuals are a part of society and a part of mainstream society. there is no legal basis for marriage to not include homosexual partnership.

Furthermore, it doesn't make a difference where the word is derived from, and ancient peoples having religious beliefs regarding it still doesn't make it a derivitive of religion. It's in our nature to seek out lifelong partnerships, and it's in our nature to demand some formalization of every type of foreseeably long-term interpersonal relationship we engage in. Our primitive ancestors did it by taking a female home to ask their tribal elders for the special honey, and then they'd disappear for a few days of debauchery. No matter how it manifests, it still gets the same name.

The world has gone to s**t anyway so the f*****g homophobes should just accept that gay marriage is here and they can b***h about another problem instead.

the sad thing is that all the things they want to outlaw...abortion...gay sex....gay marriage....it's stuff that they won't be doing anyways....so they're not affected by the law...so it's not like as if they really take the time to absorb the issue...they just vote their bigotry, prejudices, and ignorance.

I just want to take a moment to say, Griff, I have the utmost respect for you. That lengthy post you made on the previous page was brilliant.

Yeh, um...

'Very few people have legalized gay marriage therefore it must be wrong'

argumentum ad antiquitatem
argumentum ad populum

Two logical fallacies in one setence.

Thank you. One of the reasons that it works is that moral authority over a group depends upon the degree to which it feels connected with that authority. This extends even to our very way of life. Gay leadership are actively seeking that sense of connection and belonging because this acts as a stabilizing force for the gay community as a whole. They conform more readily.

The idea of "Let's give it the same perks as marriage, as long as we don't call it that" is ludicrous. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

One person I know, in response to the "Marriage is a religious concept" argument, is that "Marriage" is a civil concept that has long ago been separated from religion, and that what religions do is "Holy Matrimony". Interesting concept.

And for those of you who insist that the legalization of gay marriage is part of some kind of liberal leftist plot, I am your worst nightmare: I support gay marriage... and I'm CONSERVATIVE.

Jolly good. Glad to know I've not lost the knack.

Anyway, I'll just add that I'm not too keen on gay adoption, either. IMO, kids should ideally be raised by a man and a woman. I can accept that there are circumstances where it may be appropriate for a gay couple to raise another's child, but generally speaking that is not ideal.


Very true. It's like waking in the middle of some bloody nightmare. Gay marriage, parents locked-up for spanking their kids, spy cameras on every street corner, and the once great British nation now destined for dhimmitude. Whatever next?


And that something that specifies the nature of your relationship is not "marriage". Unless, of course, you change the definition of marriage. It's like taking a can of black and a can of white paint to your horse, and saying you've got a zebra because of its black and white stripes.

This is what it is in every possible sense of the word. The only things that set us apart from a heterosexual marriage are those factors determined by our gender.

A word's definition complies with its usage.

Oh, I've heard jokes like that before. Here's a good one: what do you get when a white girl has a child by a n****r? A zebra! She's going to have a zebra roaming around not knowing whether he's n****r or a white boy! Man, we're really funny today!

It's hard work with you, old chap. Look, the gender thing is central to the issue. A gay partnership involves people of the same sex who can't, together, reproduce. Outside of liberal cloud-cuckoo-land, if you ask your average man in the street to define marriage, he will, I venture to suggest, give an answer that includes some recognition that it involves people of the opposite sex. That's how the word marriage is used.

You go on about this common useage of a word defining it's meaning, and I agree that is true. Moreover, that common meaning is as I've described. The way you intend to change that meaning to suit your own selfish purposes is by coercion. The same way liberals/leftists have changed the meanings of other words: not a natural evolution of language, but an Orwellian Newspeak type diktat brought about by politicians pandering to the whims of various minority groups, at the expense of the freedom of the rest of us.

They're engaging in the same behavior, though, and they're calling it by the same name. It isn't necessary to create a seperate term for it, so calling it marriage turns out to be most efficient.

I've already explained why liberalism works well as a social framework. See the lengthy post on the last page addressed to Codarac. Besides, we became "liberal cloud-cuckoo-land" when the Declaration of Independence was signed.

If you were to describe the nature of the relationship between a married couple without specifying their sexes, though, they would say "oh, it sounds like they're married."

Interviewer: Okay, so two people...two people just fell deeply in love with one another, and they decided they were going to spend the rest of their lives together. Just to set it in stone, they had this big ceremony with all their family and friends there, everyone dressed up, and they exchanged vows between each other with the supervision of a priest, other clergyman, wiseman, whatever culture we're living in. Okay, so they've been together thirty years, they've got five kids, one now practicing as a doctor and two of them in university. What term would you use to describe this?

Schmuck: Oh, umm, sounds like they're married to me.

Interviewer: If they were members of the same sex, would you call it something different?

Schmuck: I don't know what else you could call it. Everything they did sounds like a marriage.

Interviewer: But doesn't a marriage require a man and a woman?

Schmuck: I guess, but I don't know. They've done it, so I guess it doesn't.

Interviewer: Would you like to call them 'domestic partners' instead?

Schmuck: I don't know. I've never really heard the term.

Interviewer: So you're sure you don't want to call it something else?

Schmuck: I don't know. If they were calling themselves something different, then I guess so. What are they saying they are?

Interviewer: They're saying they're married.

Schmuck: Okay, that works.

Interviewer: However, when they went to file for a marriage license, the state gave them something different. Here's a copy of one. The legal term for it is "civil union." Is that what you'd call it?

Schmuck: Well, if, legally, that's what it is, then you could say that.

Interviewer: In the eyes of their church, though, they're married. Which would you call them?

Schmuck: It depends. I mean, are you asking me in a legal sense or a religious sense?

Interviewer: In a religious sense.

Schmuck: Then they're married.

Interviewer: Does your church think that two people of the same sex can get married?

Schmuck: No, that's not our belief.

Interviewer: In their church, though, they're married. So are they married or not?

Schmuck: Well, their church must have a different religion than me or just read something different. It's their religion, though, not mine.

Interviewer: If these two people were acquaintances or friends of yours and someone were to ask you what their relationship is, what would your answer be?

Schmuck: I'd have to say they're married.

Interviewer: Okay, now the person who asked you just got a shocked look and said "marriage is between a man and a woman." What do you say to that?

Schmuck: I don't know. What else would you call it?

Interviewer: Legally, it's a civil union.

Schmuck: Well, then I'd just tell them that.

Interviewer: What if we were to change something, though, and the state said they were married.

Schmuck: I'd just tell them that's what the state says and let them argue over it with a politician.

We're trying to change matters, yes. However, I submit that you're a bit of a paranoid twit. Orwell? Seriously, man, just seriously, get your heels back on solid ground.

As far as the issue of giving gays the right to marry without calling it marriage, we've already settled this years ago: you can't have "separate but equal" accommodations. You can't have train cars of similar condition and say "only blacks can ride in car one and only whites can ride in car two".

I don't believe the state should sanction marriage. Marriage no longer seems to fulfill its intended purpose, with people divorcing left and right and people never having children. To top it off, if you do stay together and have children but happen to be gay or polygamist or whatever then you're part of some evil liberal/terrorist/communist scheme to make society different.

If the state wasn't involved, then we could leave all of that metaphysical mumbo-jumbo to spiritualists, and just let people live together as they see fit. If a gay couple wants to get married but their church won't sanction it, tough cookies: there's a separation of church and state.

And hey, conservatives these days are just as responsible as liberals for making an Orwellian society. Hell, I don't trust anyone involved in politics anymore. With my current political leanings (libertarian socialist) I don't think I have any place in modern politics.