NY activist judges allow same sex marriage

[Yurt]

1) Marriage BEGAN before the god of Abraham religions, as way for a man to "own" a woman.

2) Historically, gay marriage was not unheard of - For instance emperor Nero married men twice. around 59 AD.

3) In 342 AD the Romans outlawed gay marriage.

4) It wasn't until 1563 that the Catholic Church officially "sanctified" marriage as part of canon law.


(as a side note it's interesting that the 13th century the greek orthodox church had a ceremony for the marriage of two men to each other.)



Regards

Andy

A,

If you look at Genisis 23,24 you will find the understanding of marriage for Christians/Jews/ and probably Islam (though not sure about Islam). This idea of "ownership" is actually refuted if you read the Bible in context. Especially, if you read the aforementioned versus, which truly convey, what I think, God intended natural relations to (albeit many relations, such as divorce, were later granted because of the hardness of man's heart, thus God "allowed" certain things solely because of the hardness of man's heart) to be between a man and a woman, as they clinged to ONE flesh. This to me does not indicate "ownership." If it does for you, I would be curious to see why.

As for the other historical, ie, mostly non religious examples (which is fair, as this issue has implications for both parties), they are rather bleak in terms of numbers. That is, in terms of man and woman being the true reality of "marriage." If you want to cite examples of the exception, then feel free. However, you must also agree that this is the "exception." Especially given the numerical ration of said events.

Whether or not the Catholic Church sanctified marriage as "canon" law is truly irrelevant for this discussion. I appreciate you bringing in a close to modern view of marriage, however, fundamentally and historically (on the vast greater majority) marriage has always been and understood to be between a man and a woman.

Good talk

J

 

[Bullypulpit]

There is also marriage as a civil ceremony, which my wife and I opted for, as neither of us felt the need for religious sanction for our marriage. And, we cannot have children, which constitutes a major point of contention for those opposed to same-gender unions, i.e. propagation of the species. Since same-gender couples cannot directly procreate, their union is somehow, "unnatural". Of course, this marginalizes all straight couples who cannot, or choose not, to have children. This, like all the rest of their arguments, fails to hold any water.

It all boils down to prejudice, insecurity as to their own sexuality and the fear which this engenders.

 

[Yurt]

There is also marriage as a civil ceremony, which my wife and I opted for, as neither of us felt the need for religious sanction for our marriage. And, we cannot have children, which constitutes a major point of contention for those opposed to same-gender unions, i.e. propagation of the species. Since same-gender couples cannot directly procreate, their union is somehow, "unnatural". Of course, this marginalizes all straight couples who cannot, or choose not, to have children. This, like all the rest of their arguments, fails to hold any water.

It all boils down to prejudice, insecurity as to their own sexuality and the fear which this engenders.

Well, not entirely accurate. Pro creation is big, among Biblical folks and non Biblical folks. The reality is, that two same sex people can not pro create. For most of history, the union of man and woman has been to pro create (Paul telling those who can not wait or control or something, to get married). This is not lustful, this is maintaining sexual desires by not sleeping around with many partners, thus enhancing the spread of disease. I can not speak for those that have no religious leanings, however, science and history, has even proven that sleeping around creats disease.

Of course, this marginalizes all straight couples who cannot, or choose not, to have children

This is a decent point. However, procreation is not the only central them of a man and woman becoming one flesh. Further, it does nothing to dispell that, should one take this from a Religious point of view, that God has said that the ACT is an abomination. What is this act? IMHO it is anal intercouse. Why? Think about it. Two women, I don't know, but they certaintly do not have relations the way men do. Maybe it has nothing to do with "gay," rather, it has everything to do with sticking your, uuhhuumm, in a place that is not clean. Funny, as I write this, the Bible really only refers to a man lying with a man as with a woman, ie, putting his tool in an orafice. Why?

Is it clean to do so? Is it clean to put your penis in a an orafice that expels numerous bodily wastes? I think maybe this is the point.

If I am missing somehting, then I am open to suggestions.

It all boils down to prejudice, insecurity as to their own sexuality and the fear which this engenders

Let me tell you something, this does not boil down to any insecurity I have about my sexuality. I have extremely close family members who are gay, and have male gay friends (whom I like, whom think I am cute, so what, they have met every girlfriend I have had and like them). This insecurity you speak of must be marginalized, for not all who dislike the idea of the same sex being married are uncomfortable with they are.

0I know, you probably did not intend that, however, that is how it came across.

As to prejudice, can't answer you. As see it as I see it.

 

[no1tovote4]

There is also marriage as a civil ceremony, which my wife and I opted for, as neither of us felt the need for religious sanction for our marriage. And, we cannot have children, which constitutes a major point of contention for those opposed to same-gender unions, i.e. propagation of the species. Since same-gender couples cannot directly procreate, their union is somehow, "unnatural". Of course, this marginalizes all straight couples who cannot, or choose not, to have children. This, like all the rest of their arguments, fails to hold any water.

It all boils down to prejudice, insecurity as to their own sexuality and the fear which this engenders.

I still believe that civil ceremonies should create civil unions, thus not defining them as marriage. This includes all of those type of unions. Simply, IMO, Marriage is a religious institution and we should allow religions to make their own rules and not objectify by the rules of one or the other by setting legal limits on their religious freedom by simply not recognizing their right to unionize couples regardless of sexual orientation.

Since there are Churches and Temples that do have Marriages Sanctified between same sex couples there are clearly Marriages of these types of couples already, just not recognized by the government. I don't think the government should be in the business of Sanctifying relationships or defining marriages at all.

In this the Government can give a secular form of Union, ie the Civil Union. I also personally believe such Unions should not be defined by the role Marriages have in society and that so long as people are adult and consenting they should be allowed this type of ceremony regardless of their roles in their relationship.

Since with consent adults may live together under any circumstance this simply allows for certain legalities and not rights of any religious theme. This would allow the surviving person in a relationship to make decisions at the hospital, etc. Such relationships may not even necessarily be of a romantic or loving type, just have certain legalities authorized by automatic terms limited by law rather than having the same legalities only through serious amounts of money spent to contract lawyers as the only way to reach such legalities. Legalities would be more easily settled without probate if a Civil Union could be reached and the legal progression of the property assigned without serious amounts of money spent, etc.

 

[musicman]

Interesting discussion. Let me ask y'all this:

Legitimization of homosexuality in the eyes of the law would confer a set of rights where no rights now exist. Ultimately, whose decision should that be - the voters or the courts?

 

[nakedemperor]

Interesting discussion. Let me ask y'all this:

Legitimization of homosexuality in the eyes of the law would confer a set of rights where no rights now exist. Ultimately, whose decision should that be - the voters or the courts?

Well, since I believe it to be a matter of constitutional interpretation, it should be for the courts to decide.

I wanted to speak to he to offered the premise that everyone has equal rights because straight men can marry women and so can gay men, and therefore they have equal rights. This is just to throw gas on the fire, but a gay man doesn't have the same rights as women, e.g. to marry men. Therefore equal rights do not exist. And since all men [and women] are created equal, the courts should rule in favor of the same legal benefits of a civil union for same-sex couples as heterosexual civil unions (currently called marriage, right along with religious ceremonies, which I think should also be changed).

 

[Avatar4321]

Do you even <b><i>KNOW</i></b> any gay people?

I've known plenty of straight couples whose relationships were "...purely lust and selfishness...", and they were as disasterous as relationships between same-gender couples based upon nothing more than that. You don't spend 10, 20, 30 years or more with someone based upon "...purely lust and selfishness...". And I've met more than a few same-gender couples who have been together for not just years, but decades...and yes, they DO love each other. And, no, they're not confused. If anyone is confused, it is most likely you.

Forty years ago you would have been spouting the same crap about inter-racial couples.

Yes. Whats your point? relationships based on love dont work out and do not bring happiness in life. what do you think my point is?

I stand by what I said. There is nothing about love in same sex relationships. its purely selfish. You can try to pretend otherwise but those are the facts. Maybe one day when you are less blinded by hatred you will be less confused and afraid of truth bully.

 

[musicman]

t This is just to throw gas on the fire, but a gay man doesn't have the same rights as women, e.g. to marry men.

By that yardstick, then, no man enjoys the same rights as women. Neither of us has the right to an abortion. Who do we see about that?

 

[musicman]

Well, since I believe it to be a matter of constitutional interpretation, it should be for the courts to decide.

.

And, I submit that, as a matter of strict constitutional interpretation, this is the kind of behavioral matter that our founding fathers were wise enough to leave to the people.

 

[Avatar4321]

There is also marriage as a civil ceremony, which my wife and I opted for, as neither of us felt the need for religious sanction for our marriage. And, we cannot have children, which constitutes a major point of contention for those opposed to same-gender unions, i.e. propagation of the species. Since same-gender couples cannot directly procreate, their union is somehow, "unnatural". Of course, this marginalizes all straight couples who cannot, or choose not, to have children. This, like all the rest of their arguments, fails to hold any water.

It all boils down to prejudice, insecurity as to their own sexuality and the fear which this engenders.

You dont seem to freaking get it. Even if you somehow proved it "natural" how does that make it right? Hatred, fear, intolerance, violence, dishonesty etc. are very natural human activities. does that make them right?

You think the arguments dont hold any water because you cant comprehend the actual argument. Your counter argument is even more illogical. Those who are against gay marriage are somehow insecure with their own sexuality? Who exactly is the group of people trying to justify their deviant sexual behavior? Who is parading around demanding that people accept their sexual choices?

Compare that to who is respecting sex. Who is respecting the power and sacredness of it? Sexual intimacy is a powerful experience. Its the very act of creation itself. Even if a man and a woman dont create life every time they come the act is still respecting the creation of life. You cant tell the difference between respecting the act and mocking it. Thats why the arguments dont hold water for you, you fail to comprehend them. You see fear where there is nothing but respect and see security in feelings through mocking true love.

 

[Avatar4321]

Well, since I believe it to be a matter of constitutional interpretation, it should be for the courts to decide.

I wanted to speak to he to offered the premise that everyone has equal rights because straight men can marry women and so can gay men, and therefore they have equal rights. This is just to throw gas on the fire, but a gay man doesn't have the same rights as women, e.g. to marry men. Therefore equal rights do not exist. And since all men [and women] are created equal, the courts should rule in favor of the same legal benefits of a civil union for same-sex couples as heterosexual civil unions (currently called marriage, right along with religious ceremonies, which I think should also be changed).

Naturally, we should let a bunch of unelected judges enforce their will on the men and women of this nation.

 

[Johnney]

It all boils down to prejudice, insecurity as to their own sexuality and the fear which this engenders.

now how does it boil down to that? im not insecure in the least. or am i in your eyes because i refuse to acknowledge anything in the fag world as legitimate?
:blah2:
i can see the prejudice. fags wanting rights i cant get being a hetro with a finace'. now theres soemthing wrong there no matter how you look at it.

You dont seem to freaking get it. Even if you somehow proved it "natural" how does that make it right? Hatred, fear, intolerance, violence, dishonesty etc. are very natural human activities. does that make them right?

Pay attention to this one bully. just because someone is able to do something doesnt mean they should. i can kill people but i dont.
just because someone can do something doesnt make it right.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Yes. Whats your point? relationships based on love dont work out and do not bring happiness in life. what do you think my point is?

I stand by what I said. There is nothing about love in same sex relationships. its purely selfish. You can try to pretend otherwise but those are the facts. Maybe one day when you are less blinded by hatred you will be less confused and afraid of truth bully.

You can stand by what you say for a month of Sundays, and it still won't be true. And your facts are nothing more than the rehashed opinions of conservative propagandists and pundits.

BTW, how am I blinded by hatred? Can you provide specifics?

 

[Bullypulpit]

You dont seem to freaking get it. Even if you somehow proved it "natural" how does that make it right? Hatred, fear, intolerance, violence, dishonesty etc. are very natural human activities. does that make them right?

You think the arguments dont hold any water because you cant comprehend the actual argument. Your counter argument is even more illogical. Those who are against gay marriage are somehow insecure with their own sexuality? Who exactly is the group of people trying to justify their deviant sexual behavior? Who is parading around demanding that people accept their sexual choices?

Compare that to who is respecting sex. Who is respecting the power and sacredness of it? Sexual intimacy is a powerful experience. Its the very act of creation itself. Even if a man and a woman dont create life every time they come the act is still respecting the creation of life. You cant tell the difference between respecting the act and mocking it. Thats why the arguments dont hold water for you, you fail to comprehend them. You see fear where there is nothing but respect and see security in feelings through mocking true love.

It's quite simple boyo, If the relationship between a same-gendered couple brings no demonstrable harm to either party or to society in general, it is permissible. The examples you give of hatred, fear, violence, dishonesty, etc are wrong because they lead to the harm of oneself and others. Secondly, how do you define "deviant" behavior, and by what criteria do you define it?

So long as you continue to frame the argument in terms of religious doctrine where the moral "payoff" lies in some mythical, metaphysical after life, rather than the consequences in this life and this world, you will continue to miss the point.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Pay attention to this one bully. just because someone is able to do something doesnt mean they should. i can kill people but i dont.
just because someone can do something doesnt make it right.

Killing someone is a case of demonstrable harm to another and yourself. The legitimization of loving, committed relationships between same-gender couples results in no demonstrable harm to anyone.

And demonstrable harm, or lack thereof, to oneself, another or both are the yardsticks by which our actions are to be measured...Objective consequences in the here and now rather than in some "after-life".

 

[Johnney]

It's quite simple boyo, If the relationship between a same-gendered couple brings no demonstrable harm to either party or to society in general, it is permissible. Secondly, how do you define "deviant" behavior, and by what criteria do you define it?

your for real? i think youve conned yourself on this one. no demonstrable harm? they are attempting to make a mockey of the marital system with wanting their deviant behavior recognized as proper! hey bully, i love my animals too, can i marry them? of course not, thats deviant and not proper. theres nothing proper about it.
as for definition... when one guy sticks his cock in another guys mouth/ ass, that sounds pretty deviant to me.

keep that shit behind closed doors where it belongs.

 

[Johnney]

Killing someone is a case of demonstrable harm to another and yourself. The legitimization of loving, committed relationships between same-gender couples results in no demonstrable harm to anyone.

And demonstrable harm, or lack thereof, to oneself, another or both are the yardsticks by which our actions are to be measured...Objective consequences in the here and now rather than in some "after-life".

it does violate. its againt my religeous beliefs to see to fags holding hands or kissing, or anthing those freaks do as a couple.

 

[Bullypulpit]

it does violate. its againt my religeous beliefs to see to fags holding hands or kissing, or anthing those freaks do as a couple.

It is only an offense to your beliefs. No demonstrable harm there.

 

[Bullypulpit]

your for real? i think youve conned yourself on this one. no demonstrable harm? they are attempting to make a mockey of the marital system with wanting their deviant behavior recognized as proper! hey bully, i love my animals too, can i marry them? of course not, thats deviant and not proper. theres nothing proper about it.
as for definition... when one guy sticks his cock in another guys mouth/ ass, that sounds pretty deviant to me.

keep that shit behind closed doors where it belongs.

The very least you could be accused of for wanting to marry your dog is cruelty to animals. Consensual sexual relations between consenting adults is at issue here, not the ludicrous crap you're using as an example. You and Rick Santorum should spend some time together, I'm sure you'd have alot to talk about.

Oh, and is it OK for a man to have a woman fellate him or engage in anal sex with him? If so, what's the difference?

 

[mattskramer]

Hello. I'm still here & interested in the topic of gay marriage. My view has changed little if at all. Government should treat people on an individual basis without respect to race or marital status. It should not be involved with granting marriage licenses. Marriage is simply a commitment, an agreement, that one individual makes with another individual via informed consent. The individuals involved can apply to their particular marriage their beliefs (or other understanding) as they see fit.

I continue to see the old fallacious and irrelevant points made by people who try to support the position that gay marriage should not be allowed.

Examples include:

"Marriage has always been understood to be between an man and a woman" (Something having a tradition does not make that thing right. It was understood that women were not to vote, and that Blacks were property)

"Marriage is for having children" (Some couples choose not to have children. Single people choose to have children. Some individuals or couples choose to adopt children, use sperm banks, or surrogate mothers. Having a child and being married are 2 different things)

"The Bible defines marriage" (We don't live in a theocratic state. People are not obligated to live by the Bible or to even believe in its message. Even if we assume that every sentence of the Bible is true, there are many instructions regarding marriage that even the most devout Christian may oppose)

"It is just normal" (This is a very subjective claim. What someone may feel to be a normal/natural behavior, another person my think is disgusting and abnormal. Is smoking normal? I know some people who think that it is one of the most natural and enjoyable things to do. Personally, I think that it is a filthy, disgusting, abnormal, and sickening thing to do. (Yet, I would not call on government to outlaw it))

Anyway, hello again. I wonder who else is still around.
Take care.