Gay Marriage.

Post Reply New Topic

Ah, and not only would the situation initially described by the interviewer cause most people to think of marriage, but most people would also say that they're a family. I think that's the root of it. It's not just me and my mate entering a union, but we're becoming a part of each other's families. This is what is implied by the word "marriage." I think that the issue you have, Ascan, is that you don't want some fa***t cousin or, god forbid, your own son walking down the aisle with another man and expecting you to treat him as a member of your family, someone you're supposed to love simply because it's someone that one of your own blood has chosen to love. Is that what really gets under your skin about it?

BS! your inability to comprehend outside your increasingly small world is the central issue.




so if a woman is barren or a man is infertile...that makes a heterosexual relationship gay? look...just because the pieces fit into how you like doesn't mean that they work. i know a few elderly couples that have never had kids and now can't have kids. would you take away their marriage? what grants them the right over a homosexual couple that'd want to adopt? the homosexual couple is actually contributing to helping with the problem of abandoned kids. the straight couple is just benefiting from marriage without having kids.




and 50 years ago, it was entirely out of the majority public mind that a marriage could be interracial. popular doesn't mean correct...one needs look no further than george w bush, the beegees, backstreet boys, the macarena, and reality tv to see that popular doesn't mean that it's right...and going moreso on this: one needs look no further than the debate of evolution vs creationism to see that popular does not always equate with what's correct.....just what someone wants.





and your denying an entire group of people their basic human rights because their sexual practices are slightly different than tiny world view is bigotry. the change in marriage isn't even a change in the actual legal description...only that instead of it being exclusive to heterosexual couples, it would include gay couples. that's hardly redefining a word.






oh....there's a natural evolution of words? words have sex and produce offspring that are slightly different than their parents and the words that end up with the best features for survival are the ones that make it after 1000s of years? orwell wrote about a totalitarian government that does everything for you. i'd say defining marriage as purely heterosexual and condemning homosexual relations is more like 1984 than people having the freedom to express their sexuality in a legally binding union. pandering to the whims of various minority groups? what? are you a member of the NDP or something?

That is what you'd like marriage to imply, Griff. The fact is that to the majority of people marriage means a state and church sanctioned union between a man and a woman. It implies, to most people, a family arrangement conducive to the development of the children of that couple. That is the foundation on which western society is built. Though I concede it's been more than a little corrupted by left wing politicians over the years. You are not only attempting to forcibly alter the meaning of words, but also to undermine something of much greater significance, as codarac has pointed out. You are doing this out of pure self-interest: you can't currently have something, but you'll do your damnedest to get it whatever the consequences.


And this from the man who accuses others of ad hominem argument! Nothing is further from the truth. If I had a kid I'd have no problem with them having a same-sex partner, if that was what they wanted, and they were both adults. Furthermore, if they wanted to get "married" and that option was open to them, then I'd accept that. That doesn't change my views expressed in this thread, however. Perhaps, it's no so much gay marriage I object to but the way it's proponents go about advancing their argument, and the wider political issues that raises.

Anyway, putting aside my rational political views and taking a more human angle, if you and your boyfriend want to get married then best of luck to you. Happiness eludes many with AS, and if you really have AS (your profile says undiagnosed), then I wouldn't want to take that away from you.

Evolution of language is in some ways analogous to that brought about by natural selection, skafather84.

Oh, analogy has nothing to do with anal sex, btw. Hope that's clear.

my point was that you're saying that the evolution of the word marriage isn't natural just because it doesn't fit your point of view....the evolution makes perfect sense from a secular, societal standpoint.


and whoever said that we're just talking about male homosexuals? i like to fantasize about happily married lesbian couples scissoring on their honeymoon. mmmmmmmm

I agree, it is just a matter of time. I'm actually not going to lose any sleep over it. I mainly wanted to provide some balance to the thread; as far as society is concerned, I'm aware of the direction of the tide.

Fewer and fewer people are getting married these days. Marriage is a dying institution, so I suspect the main reason then that gay people have been making demands for gay marriage is just because they couldn't (yet) have it. Since marriage is a dying institution, I'm not going to fret if people want to give it another kick. I just don't particularly want to endorse the act.

As far as I'm concerned, there are far more urgent issues as far as the "culture wars" are concerned.

As for disappointment, as a Brit I would suggest that - if things carry on the way they're going - British liberals are going to be very disappointed when they realise that most of the ever-expanding immigrant population do not share their views on things like gay marriage.

Well, all we're missing is the state sanction. There's always a church within a short commute that would gladly help a gay couple exchange vows in the eyes of God, so the church's sanction is not a problem. Now, whether you will believe it or not, children develop very well in the care of parents of the same sex, and I think that the last statistic I was made aware of indicated that about a third of those gay men and women who consider themselves in a spousal relationship are parents. If the majority of the gays and lesbians in this country were to settle into a relationship and tended to follow this statistic, there wouldn't be enough orphaned children in the country to fill that demand. We, the American people, could create homes for children from impoverished countries who have nowhere else to go, children who have lost their parents to war, famine, or illness. This would never again be a world in which a child has to grow up without a family.

Ascan, believe me, you are no Codarac.

Well, we're really quite used to facing opposition. In fact, we've come to be somewhat rely upon it. Really, I have to admit that a major part of my annoyance with civil unions is that they serve to take a lot of the fire out of the gay rights movement. Europe, after all, has had civil unions in place for years, and I think that this is part of the reason that it's taken so long for even the more liberal of them to begin contemplating the possibility of gay marriage. Sweden, one of the most liberal countries in all of Europe, has only just this year determined that they will have gay marriage, a serious step up from the civil union law that they've had in place for quite a long time, and the only reason this happened was that their state church finally came around and stated their willingness to solemnize gay marriages.

You're right, though. We are acting out of self-interest, and this is an inescapable fact. However, the majority of those who are calling for gay marriage are not gay. I don't know the sexual proclivities of the participants in this thread, but I think that a lot of them are heterosexual people who are supporting us simply out of their own sense of justice. I am very thankful for their highly energetic and whole-hearted support.

You see, Ascan, your opposition to gay marriage doesn't just hurt the gay community. There are heterosexual people in this country who feel the sting of this injustice, just as you would feel a very deep sense of outrage if a man who murdered a person you never knew or cared about were set free. Of course, I'm not comparing you to a murderer, but the point is that the consequences of your crime affect not just those you intend to hurt but practically anyone who has a deeply rooted sense of justice.

No. I'm just trying to understand why you would have such strong feelings over this. I'm seriously finding it hard to believe that you'd be making references to Orwell over this if you didn't have some personal reason for feeling uncomfortable with gay marriage.

Would you consider his mate a member of your family? If his sister were to have a child, would you go to the baby shower if it were nearby? If they were to adopt a child, would consider yourself a grandfather? The most important question, however, is this: would you concern yourself over whether the particular man your son was choosing to dedicate himself to was the right person for him, including doing background checks, speaking with his family and friends, and making absolutely certain that your son isn't about to marry an abusive, sociopathic asshat?

Did I just hear Sighold flipping through the Fallacy Files? Sheesh, the geek's probably got them all memorized, but ANYWAY...

Thanks, but the circumstances of our respective lives haven't yet put us in a position to consider this. We prefer to think of each other as "mates," for we're not quite yet integrated enough into each other's lives for the consequences of our relationship to extend significantly beyond just the two of us. When we're more settled in, perhaps our respective families will identify more strongly with one another, but now is not that time.

Dude, I'm so mixed-up, I can't even think of a suitable name for it. You know, what I've discovered and actually helped a few others discover is that, although we have some degree of trouble getting into short-term relationships, we can have some degree of advantage in forming enduring love. We're in a position to learn about love not only as an emotional experience but as a set of inalienable obligations toward one another, and that aspie sincerity is really a lot better for communication than NT evasiveness. The foundation of our relationship is one of unconditional trust, rationalism, responsibility, thoughtfulness, sharing, and unwavering affection. This is a very strong model tested by the fitful weather of time, and it is within easy reach of almost any aspergian.

I really don't know, I've never actually had a crush on anyone yet so....yeh.

However, my reasons are far less noble than 'justice'

I would actually also support anti-discrimatory practices for my own selfish reasons.

This is what I added to prove a point.

Stating that "marriage" is a concept that should apply only to heterosexual couples is no different than someone 200 years ago saying that "freedom" is a concept that should be applied only to white people. Back when slavery was taken for granted, people who suggested that black people should have the same rights as white people were (at best) laughed at, or (at worst) thought to be dangerous subversives.

I think that we can help to revitalize it, actually.

This wouldn't be a problem if you'd try to learn something from us yanks about integrating immigrants into your culture. We're really very good at it, perhaps among the best in the world.

Well, there are laws against "discrimination", and they're so vague they can only be a tool for totalitarian oppression.
If there is any sort of witchhunt going on, it's directed against "bigots", which is basically anyone the liberal elite doesn't like.

That's not what I've heard.

I guess how you see things in that regard is influenced by where in the U.S. you live.

Are you of white, Christian ancestry by the way?

Why does the possibility of gay marriage bother people so much?

Perhaps this would be a better analogy as far as 'appeal to tradition' and the folly thereof goes:


There is a woman who, when cooking ham, always begins with cutting off one end of the ham and throwing it away. One day, her young nephew comes to visit. He notices this odd behaviour and in the typical way of children, asks about it. This woman admits that she only does so because here mother did so. Becoming curious herself, she asks her mother, who in turn admits she only does it like that because her mother did so. When the grandmother is questioned, it's revealed that she only did so because it wouldn't fit in her pan otherwise.

You'd be surprised.

Absolutely. South Florida's got a huge problem with immigrants who just CHOOSE not to learn English. It's so stupid. I don't mind us being a bilingual culture, but it should run both ways. We need to be able to live in the same neighborhoods and attend the same schools if we are going to integrate.

I'm related to this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_As ... haftesbury

And this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Graham

By the way, Codarac, did you see the post I addressed to you on page 12?