Gay Marriage.

Post Reply New Topic

Hey! I'm not corrupt!

(Mind you, I don't appear to be anywhere near as conservative as Ascan...)

I'm sure it didn't escape your attention that I used an ellipsis at the end of the quote, thus indicating it was abbreviated and so inviting the reader to re-visit your earlier post. Furthermore, even in full context, your words did seem to indicate some acceptance of different types of relationship being given different labels under certain circumstances.

It took you this long to figure that out? You missed out the Vaguely Defined Socialist Conspiracy, though. I wonder how they'd get on with TimT's Vaguely Defined Humanist Conspiracy?

I suggest that no matter how stupid or provocative ascan's future posts are, no matter how much they beg for correction, don't respond to them. You will simply be met with furious dodging, claims of oppression and mealy-mouthed homophobia.

Find a more reasonable post and respond to that instead.

You have great faith in "the people". It's usually a one-issue group with too much time on their hands who bring these things about, as I described earlier. Anyway, "the people" didn't all of a sudden jump-up and say: "yes, we've had enough of all those solemn vows, we just want to be able to commit adultery when we want, then fleece our spouse for every penny they've got; handing a few £10ks to some scum-of-the-earth lawyer on the way. Oh, joy of joys!!"


You may want it to be irrelevant, but it's very clearly not. I've used that as an example to demonstrate that marriage goes beyond mere legal matters. And I've done that to counter a point you made, not just on a whim. It is still inextricably linked to the church in some way in most countries. You seem to have this huge problem with understanding how something can be relevant if it does not apply universally, unless it happens to fit your argument. The failure in your reasoning is demonstrated by me turning it around and saying that many people get married without a secular ceremony, therefore arguments based on secular values are irrelevant. Do you understand that, now?


Well, it's true that the definition of a conservative has changed even in the UK; they're too left wing for me these days. Your views are still, however, the stock-in-trade of the left. Especially taking this ridiculous equality thing to absurd lengths. It's absolutely crazy to attempt to apply complete equality to things that are substantially different in nature, like heterosexual and homosexual relationships.


As I explained to Sopho, in most real-life situations with human beings there are grey areas. Whatever criteria you apply, someone will come up with an instance that's not adequately catered for. Even the sex criterion of male and female is not infallible because some people are not strictly male or female. However, we still have to make distinctions because that is how we work. Language, communication in general, our whole society requires things to be categorised in order for it to function. As far as marriage goes, the most convenient criterion that identifies the ability to reproduce is that the couple are a male and a female. Surely, that's not too difficult to comprehend? And the point needs reiterating because you have previously asserted that it's a purely arbitrary distinction. Clearly it is not.


Because the reasons are historic ones that never applied to gay couples.


On the contrary, I've demonstrated its relevance by pointing-out that a heterosexual relationship is distinct from a homosexual relationship and therefore when officially sanctioned requires a specific word to describe it. The fact that most countries in the world, including the USA, don't recognise gay marriage speaks for itself: people recognise the two relationships are distinct and separate. Even you must realise that if, based on the number of children of their own they had, you were to survey a hundred gay couples and a hundred heterosexual couples who'd been together for ten years or more that the gay couples would have zero children and the heterosexual ones most likely over a hundred. Then it's not rocket science, Xenon, to see the significance of children to heterosexual relationships. If you're going to marry people, very obviously children will be something that needs to be taken into account for heterosexuals; the one-size-fits-all approach of this blinkered equality charade just doesn't wash!


No! No! We dare not say a bad word against those sacred cows of the left! I can hear Pestilence, War, Famine and Death at my door as I write!


I really find it hard to take that comment seriously. Just because you choose to put a certain interpretation on my remarks I'm suddenly in the same league as Genghis Khan and Nick Griffin.

Neither did the idea of gay marriage appear out of thin air.



You seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of "Separation of Church and State".



As far as the government is concerned, a marriage is a marriage whether it's performed by a priest, a minister, a rabbi, a justice of the peace, or a judge. The government makes no distinction. And since the issue of gay marriage is ultimately a legal one, the church's view is of no consequence. Any church which objects to gay marriage would be under no obligation to perform them. So for these churches, nothing has changed.



You keep repeating that the two kinds of relationships are substantially different in nature. I keep repeating "So what?", since the nature of the relationship is unimportant. We're going in circles.



It's not at all difficult to comprehend. But as I keep trying to tell you, the distinction is irrelevant. From a legal standpoint, marriage is nothing more a legal cohabitation contract that confers certain advantages such as tax breaks and inheritance rights. You are free to attach additional meaning to it, but those meanings would have no legal force, being relevant only to those who share your beliefs. (Eg, my earlier example about church weddings.)



Not in any meaningful way, you haven't.



I am going to say this just one more time. THE FACT THAT GAY COUPLES ARE UNABLE TO PRODUCE CHILDREN IS NOT RELEVANT BECAUSE MARRIAGE HAS LONG AGO CEASED TO BE ABOUT PRODUCING CHILDREN.



Since when is making an insulting remark based on a stereotype not an act of bigotry?

And it's quite all right that you can't take my comment seriously. I can no longer take ANYTHING you say seriously. You keep clinging to an outdated fantasy and base your arguments on it. Let me know when you want to come down out of the clouds and join us in the real world, OK?

It's getting late, here, but I will just tackle the above. Putting it in capitals, Xenon, will not make it reality. You haven't articulated why it has "long ago ceased to be about producing children". Just because a few gay people say so, perhaps? In the UK the majority of kids live as a family with married parents. Those couples each, on average, have nearly two kids. The marriage, and the laws that govern it's existence or eventual dissolution, do have an impact on those children. The laws that govern marriage have to give consideration to that. Yes, it's true, some couples don't have kids, but the majority do. The fact that some heterosexual couples who don't have kids are inevitably included in marriage, does not mean that it's necessarily sensible to include a whole bunch of other people who by their very nature will never have kids, and for that very same reason will have different things they want from marriage. You risk creating the situation where you're liable to have conflicts of interest between the different stakeholders. Why create that problem? The answer lies in the comments regarding taking equality to absurd, completely irrational, lengths. You're trying to force equality on to things that can be demonstrated to be quite different. Where's the sense in that?

Source: National Statistics website

Xenon, I assume you found this cartoon somewhere and didn’t design it yourself. It might raise a few titters, but it’s just plain silly.

The motivation of people who oppose interracial marriages has never been about “preserving the sanctity of marriage”, so the cartoon draws a false analogy.

What’s more, the implication of the cartoon is that we’re all supposed to agree that it’s ridiculous and baffling that anyone at any time could ever have opposed interracial marriage.
But it’s not baffling. And despite the cartoon depicting a white guy in the 1960s, opposition in the 21st century to interracial marriage is far higher in certain non-white societies than in white societies. You won’t find many white parents committing honour killings because their daughter’s been seing someone outside of their own “group”.

The main reason anyone would oppose interracial marriage is wanting to preserve their own ethnic group, an ethnic group being basically an extended family. If this general concept is difficult to understand in today’s political climate, then maybe it is easier to understand when you apply it to groups that could easily have been bred out of existence as distinct entities. For example, Jews and gypsies have survived for centuries as distinct people without homelands by often marrying within their own group.

The commonsense understanding of the relationship between ethnicity and family is backed up by science. For example, if an Australian aborigine and an African pygmy were to have a child together, each parent would be more closely related genetically to everyone in their original ethnic group than they would be to their child.

Furthermore, when it comes to interracial relationships, statistics from countries like the U.S. suggest that certain people tend to lose out (black females and oriental males). Black male / white female relationships are more common than white male / black female. White male / oriental female relationships are more common than oriental male / white female. Oriental male / black female relationships are less common than all of the above.

Personally, I believe in freedom of association. At the same time, I am concerned about the demographic threat to people of European descent that’s been caused by the treachery of their own elites.

Btw, sigholdaccountlost asked a few pages back about how we managed to drift onto the subject of racial differences. It is kind of relevant with regard to marriage arrangements and reproductive strategies. We’ve been talking as if the ideal of a monogamous marriage and a lasting romantic relationship is the norm throughout the world, whereas it’s not.
I still haven’t heard of any non-white society ever sanctioning gay marriage though. (And please don’t say, “so?” again. I’m just making an observation. )

Since I have drifted onto the subject of race, I would just like to reply to skafather who recommened me a book, the Mismeasure of Man by Steven Jay Gould, a few pages back.

The ironic thing is that a small understanding of racial differences would go some way towards explaining why that book was so well-received, and what motivated the author to write it.

The first thing to note is that whites evolved to be more individualistic and less tribal than many other races. Most non-whites evolved in parts of the world where people lived close together and there was a high competition for resources among different tribes. Environments like this selected for tribalism and ethnocentrism, i.e., group cohesion, a high degree of loyalty for your own tribe and a distrust of people outside your own group.
Whites, however, evolved in small isolated groups where there were few threats from neighbouring tribes, and the greatest threat came from the harsh winters. Individual ingenuity played a key part. Furthermore, in such an environment, a random stranger would often be seen as a needed resource and not a threat. Such an environment would therefore select for individualism and altruism far more readily than the environments inhabited by most non-whites.

It’s because of the greater individualism of whites that they are more receptive to the notion that we are all just individuals and that group differences don’t exist, particularly when combined with propaganda that demonises the opposing view. It is only in white societies that you will find the majority fretting about their own “racism”. So, despite all the propaganda, whites are probably the least ethnocentric people on earth.
This helps explain why Gould’s book was so popular. It told whites what they wanted to hear, and made them feel smart for understanding it.

When it comes to what motivated the author to write the book, I would suggest that Gould’s Jewishness was a relevant factor. It is natural that Jews, like people of any other ethnic group, would feel safer as a minority in a society where people believed that ethnicity meant nothing at all.
Jews have evolved to be among the more ethnocentric people, and this is reflected in the disproportionate amount of support some Jews have given to certain causes that make them feel safer as a minority in Western societies, e.g., multiculturalism and hate crime laws. Given the Jews’ recent history, perhaps this is understandable.
Note, there are / have been several other prominent race-denying scientists who are / were Jewish: Franz Boas, Richard Lewontin, Leon Kamin, Richard Lerner, Steven Rose and Jared Diamond.

Notable exceptions are Richard Hernstein (co-author of the Bell Curve) and Steven Pinker.

In response to skafather, I’d recommend Race, Evolution and Behaviour by J Philippe Rushton. I know that’s a bit cheeky of me since I haven’t read Gould’s book, and don’t intend to, but there you are.

It already *is* reality. You're just too blind to see it.



Gays have nothing to do with it. Perhaps you missed the post in which I pointed out that people marry for reasons other than having children. Perhaps you missed the post in which I pointed out that some married couples don't have children at all. And perhaps you missed the post in which I pointed out that many people have children without being married. Your argument holds water if and only if all marriages are entered into specifically for the purpose of raising children, and if all children are raised only by their own to parents together. (The statistics you link to say otherwise: 2/3 of children being raised by their parents = 1/3 who are not. Quite a substantial number.)

Admit that people get married for reasons other than having children, and your arguments become as substantial as smoke.



You fail to realize, though, that conventional, heterosexual marriages will continue to be conventional, heterosexual marriages if and when gay marriage becomes legal. A friend of mine and his wife recently had their first child. The fact that gay people are allowed to marry each other here in Canada didn't prevent this from happening. All your histrionics to the contrary.

I never, ever want children. If somehow I was to meet and fall in love with someone with whom I felt a strong mutual connection, and who also didn't want children, if we were to get married it would be for reasons having nothing to do with kids. This hypothetical marriage would be no different whether the person I married was a woman or another man. The reasons would be the same. The outcome would be the same. The dynamics would be the same.

All that being said, the fact remains that at the end of the day straight people will continue to marry other straight people and have children, just as they always have. Allowing gays to marry each other will have about as much effect on that as allowing people to wear hats while riding the subway. And that, all by itself, reduces your hysterical the-sky-is-falling arguments to just so much noise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_Philippe ... nd_funding



so....this guy is the head of a hate group. figures.

Think about it, skafather. What does the wikipedia article say? The Pioneer Fund, headed by Rushton, was listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a "hate group".

How about finding out who the Southern Poverty Law Center are? They are a "non-profit legal organization, whose stated purpose is to combat racism and promote civil rights". This means that the more "racism" they can identify, and the more "hate groups" they can identify, the more funding they get. The temptation to exaggerate the extent of "racism" is therefore pretty obvious. It's human nature. People like money.

There is a whole industry devoted to this sort of thing, and the SPLC are one of the biggest boys on the block.

so...you think there's a drought of racism that calls for them to just attack at will against poor defenseless funds? dude...get your head out of your ass. i'm one of the few people who supported that idiot don imus. mainly because i can differentiate between actual racism and BS racism...i've seen both. there's a big difference.

Many "religious" people are already practicing polygamy, but noone seems to make a fuss. Everyone has allowed themselves to be distracted with the gay issue. Notice how no candidate during the last "election" ever said one word about oil or gas prices. Hmm.

Marriage is about a couple committing to each other. Kids are optional. We're not pez dispensers. Most married couples in the states now aren't taking proper care of their kids anyway.

once you get into the whole equality thing....if you go beyond simply same species monogamy, marriage is worthless and little more than a dodge. but i think socially, it's still viable to encourage monogamy between two people of the human species.


really, i don't care if someone marries a turnip on their own time....to some extent, i'm married to my music and my guitars....i'm a damned polygamist in that sense....but i would never will my money or need to grant visitation rights to such inanimate objects as, say, a couple where one was in the hospital and extended visitation is only granted to legally married spouses....if you're gay, you can't be by your partner's side in that case...which is horrible. similarly, the way an estate is divided up is different for married couples than it is for those who simply contractually write it up....something in the taxes....it'd take some digging to find it exactly...but it's there....don't take my word for it, though...find it. see what's granted to married couples that isn't granted to civil unions and to those who simply just enter into contracts to each other (which would be the easiest solution to the whole damned thing....just make standard contacts available and eliminate the specifications and remove marriage from the legal language).

fags are so full of s**t