Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
What Donovan, and I to an extent, are asking is why arent we creating and appropriating some sort of bond or union that reflects our unique relationship to one another, as two men? With of course, legal hospital visitation rights, property taxes, joint income tax relief etc etc that is undertaken by anyone who chooses to commit their life to one another.
Why do we have to take a tradition thats not ours and try to appropriate it? Why not make our own? Something inspired and honored by the unique Mars/Mars combination that make up an intimate same-sex relationship. There is no woman in my relationship yes opposites always attract but that doesnt make one of us the girl. I am a man. We are men there is no bride. There is no wedding dress. My dad sure as hell isnt giving me away to anyone. I choose to give my life for someone else.
Why not create something honorable, unique to our relationships with each other, that are separate from marriages but equal in the legal context. The problem with this whole equality argument is that it essentially gay sounds like spoiled brats who want something just because they cant have it. I am gay, it is a behavioral trait I do not choose to feel desire for men but I do choose to act on it. And Im good with that. I take responsibility for it. No one owes me anything. Im not a victim. Im not oppressed. Im not embarrassed. Im not proud because I didnt pass any test to be into dudes. I just am.
Im a man who loves other men.
I think this is one of the most interesting things I have ever read. It actually raises some questions I hadn't considered, and is one of the best arguments I have ever heard against men marrying men.
What Donovan, and I to an extent, are asking is why arent we creating and appropriating some sort of bond or union that reflects our unique relationship to one another, as two men? With of course, legal hospital visitation rights, property taxes, joint income tax relief etc etc that is undertaken by anyone who chooses to commit their life to one another.
Why do we have to take a tradition thats not ours and try to appropriate it? Why not make our own? Something inspired and honored by the unique Mars/Mars combination that make up an intimate same-sex relationship. There is no woman in my relationship yes opposites always attract but that doesnt make one of us the girl. I am a man. We are men there is no bride. There is no wedding dress. My dad sure as hell isnt giving me away to anyone. I choose to give my life for someone else.
Why not create something honorable, unique to our relationships with each other, that are separate from marriages but equal in the legal context. The problem with this whole equality argument is that it essentially gay sounds like spoiled brats who want something just because they cant have it. I am gay, it is a behavioral trait I do not choose to feel desire for men but I do choose to act on it. And Im good with that. I take responsibility for it. No one owes me anything. Im not a victim. Im not oppressed. Im not embarrassed. Im not proud because I didnt pass any test to be into dudes. I just am.
Im a man who loves other men.
http://www.gaypatriot.net/2013/05/01/guest-post-my-ever-devolving-stance-on-gay-marriage/
I think this is one of the most interesting things I have ever read. It actually raises some questions I hadn't considered, and is one of the best arguments I have ever heard against men marrying men.
http://www.gaypatriot.net/2013/05/01/guest-post-my-ever-devolving-stance-on-gay-marriage/What Donovan, and I to an extent, are asking is why arent we creating and appropriating some sort of bond or union that reflects our unique relationship to one another, as two men? With of course, legal hospital visitation rights, property taxes, joint income tax relief etc etc that is undertaken by anyone who chooses to commit their life to one another.
Why do we have to take a tradition thats not ours and try to appropriate it? Why not make our own? Something inspired and honored by the unique Mars/Mars combination that make up an intimate same-sex relationship. There is no woman in my relationship yes opposites always attract but that doesnt make one of us the girl. I am a man. We are men there is no bride. There is no wedding dress. My dad sure as hell isnt giving me away to anyone. I choose to give my life for someone else.
Why not create something honorable, unique to our relationships with each other, that are separate from marriages but equal in the legal context. The problem with this whole equality argument is that it essentially gay sounds like spoiled brats who want something just because they cant have it. I am gay, it is a behavioral trait I do not choose to feel desire for men but I do choose to act on it. And Im good with that. I take responsibility for it. No one owes me anything. Im not a victim. Im not oppressed. Im not embarrassed. Im not proud because I didnt pass any test to be into dudes. I just am.
Im a man who loves other men.
That is all fine and good but is a matter of semantics. I dont care what they call it and nor should anyone else. If he wants a bromage, it does not matter but the real fight here is the legal equality. That is something that the anti-gay marriage crowd so far has not provided. Civil unions do not provide the full range of benefits that an actual marriage does.
If the TERM is the problem for people then I really have to wonder what the problem is. Semitics is meaningless, ignore the term if you dont like it. So far, I have seen many say they would support a separate but equal tenant but I have yet to see one such proposal anywhere at all. None.
To me, that means that such an idea is actually not supported.
I think this is one of the most interesting things I have ever read. It actually raises some questions I hadn't considered, and is one of the best arguments I have ever heard against men marrying men.
http://www.gaypatriot.net/2013/05/01/guest-post-my-ever-devolving-stance-on-gay-marriage/
That is all fine and good but is a matter of semantics. I dont care what they call it and nor should anyone else. If he wants a bromage, it does not matter but the real fight here is the legal equality. That is something that the anti-gay marriage crowd so far has not provided. Civil unions do not provide the full range of benefits that an actual marriage does.
If the TERM is the problem for people then I really have to wonder what the problem is. Semitics is meaningless, ignore the term if you dont like it. So far, I have seen many say they would support a separate but equal tenant but I have yet to see one such proposal anywhere at all. None.
To me, that means that such an idea is actually not supported.
I personally don't care what they call it either, but the point he is making is that traditional marriage is actually traditional.
I personally don't care what they call it either, but the point he is making is that traditional marriage is actually traditional.
I personally don't care what they call it either, but the point he is making is that traditional marriage is actually traditional.
I got that. Unfortunately, that still is completely semantical. IOW, meaningless.
I think this is one of the most interesting things I have ever read. It actually raises some questions I hadn't considered, and is one of the best arguments I have ever heard against men marrying men.
What Donovan, and I to an extent, are asking is why aren’t we creating and appropriating some sort of bond or union that reflects our unique relationship to one another, as two men? With of course, legal hospital visitation rights, property taxes, joint income tax relief — etc etc — that is undertaken by anyone who chooses to commit their life to one another.
Why do we have to take a tradition that’s not ours and try to appropriate it? Why not make our own? Something inspired and honored by the unique Mars/Mars combination that make up an intimate same-sex relationship. There is no woman in my relationship — yes opposites always attract — but that doesn’t make one of us the “girl.” I am a man. We are men — there is no bride. There is no wedding dress. My dad sure as hell isn’t giving me away to anyone. I choose to give my life for someone else.
Why not create something honorable, unique to our relationships with each other, that are – separate from marriages – but equal in the legal context. The problem with this whole ‘equality’ argument — is that it essentially gay sounds like spoiled brats who want something just because they can’t have it. I am gay, it is a behavioral trait — I do not choose to feel desire for men — but I do choose to act on it. And I’m good with that. I take responsibility for it. No one owes me anything. I’m not a victim. I’m not oppressed. I’m not embarrassed. I’m not “proud” because I didn’t pass any test to be into dudes. I just am.
I’m a man who loves other men.
http://www.gaypatriot.net/2013/05/01/guest-post-my-ever-devolving-stance-on-gay-marriage/
I think this is one of the most interesting things I have ever read. It actually raises some questions I hadn't considered, and is one of the best arguments I have ever heard against men marrying men.
What Donovan, and I to an extent, are asking is why aren’t we creating and appropriating some sort of bond or union that reflects our unique relationship to one another, as two men? With of course, legal hospital visitation rights, property taxes, joint income tax relief — etc etc — that is undertaken by anyone who chooses to commit their life to one another.
Why do we have to take a tradition that’s not ours and try to appropriate it? Why not make our own? Something inspired and honored by the unique Mars/Mars combination that make up an intimate same-sex relationship. There is no woman in my relationship — yes opposites always attract — but that doesn’t make one of us the “girl.” I am a man. We are men — there is no bride. There is no wedding dress. My dad sure as hell isn’t giving me away to anyone. I choose to give my life for someone else.
Why not create something honorable, unique to our relationships with each other, that are – separate from marriages – but equal in the legal context. The problem with this whole ‘equality’ argument — is that it essentially gay sounds like spoiled brats who want something just because they can’t have it. I am gay, it is a behavioral trait — I do not choose to feel desire for men — but I do choose to act on it. And I’m good with that. I take responsibility for it. No one owes me anything. I’m not a victim. I’m not oppressed. I’m not embarrassed. I’m not “proud” because I didn’t pass any test to be into dudes. I just am.
I’m a man who loves other men.
http://www.gaypatriot.net/2013/05/01/guest-post-my-ever-devolving-stance-on-gay-marriage/
That is all fine and good but is a matter of semantics. I don’t care what they call it and nor should anyone else. If he wants a bromage, it does not matter but the real fight here is the legal equality. That is something that the anti-gay marriage crowd so far has not provided. Civil unions do not provide the full range of benefits that an actual marriage does.
If the TERM is the problem for people then I really have to wonder what the problem is. Semitics is meaningless, ignore the term if you don’t like it. So far, I have seen many say they would support a ‘separate but equal’ tenant but I have yet to see one such proposal anywhere at all. None.
To me, that means that such an idea is actually not supported.
Maybe we could have alternate names and laws for all sorts of marriage and relationships? We could have 'we know they won't last' marriage. Think of some, great party game. Then there is some call it 'bigamy' I call it 'multiple marriage.' Or you can't all have a headache! Or who gets all the money marriages, aren't we supposed to share? Just for fun marriages - hm, now that I think of it that may not work? Of course given America's divorce rate maybe we already have all these marriages. I have seen some doosies. Tradition can be a difficult thing to nail down. Full disclosure, my wife of over forty years just called me to bed - ha ha, that was a joke.
Is this the tradition you are referring to? "Abraham had two wives, Sarah and her handmaiden Hagar. King Solomon had 700 wives, plus 300 concubines and slaves. Jacob, the patriarch who gives Israel its name, had two wives and two concubines. In a humanist vein, Exodus 21:10 warns that when men take additional wives, they must still provide for their previous one. (Exodus 21:16 adds that if a man seduces a virgin and has sex with her, he has to marry her, too.)"
Traditional Marriage: One Man, Many Women, Some Girls, Some Slaves | Sexuality/Gender | Religion Dispatches
Excellent piece on gay marriage: Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...if-gop-backs-gay-marriage-10.html#post7005284
The Meaning of Same-Sex Marriage - NYTimes.com
http://www.usmessageboard.com/health-and-lifestyle/50615-know-what-really-causes-homosexuality.html
"Despite how straightforward and commonplace it may appear today, the heterosexual/homosexual juxtaposition was actually less to the fore in pre-modern times and, in effect, was not universally observed. Equally, heterosexual love - however natural it may appear today - was seen in those earlier societies not so much as a rejection of homosexuality but rather as an alternative to nonsexual male-to-male relationships and, for that matter, the love of God advocated respectively by chivalric and religious practices and codes of conduct. There is today a clear need to rethink our attitude to heterosexuality...." 'The Invention of Heterosexual Culture' Louis-Georges Tin
The Invention of Heterosexual Culture: Louis-Georges Tin: 9780262017701: Amazon.com: Books
I personally don't care what they call it either, but the point he is making is that traditional marriage is actually traditional.
I got that. Unfortunately, that still is completely semantical. IOW, meaningless.
That is only true if you ignore anthropology. Traditions exist for a reason, even if we don't understand them.
I actually put this thread in the CDZ for a reason, I wanted people to try and think about this instead of reacting emotionally. I have pretty much ignored the people that let their emotions and prejudices overrule their brains, even if I agree with them. What I don't get is why anyone would try to turn a gay man talking about why he doesn't want traditional marriage into a rant about partisan politics. Did it ever occur to you that not everything revolves around the Democratic/Republican dichotomy? That there might actually be Democrats who don't want same sex marriage just like there are Republicans who do?
Can you, for once, stop acting like all Democrats are good and all Republicans are evil, and simply respond to something with your intellect? Will you at least try?
I got that. Unfortunately, that still is completely semantical. IOW, meaningless.
That is only true if you ignore anthropology. Traditions exist for a reason, even if we don't understand them.
How so? This has nothing to do with anthropology at all.
If you want to out that in the argument for or against gay marriage then that is fine BUT the semantical part is the argument that we should allow gays to marry but instead call it bromage. That is asinine if you ask me and has nothing to do with anthropology at all. Giving it a different name s meaningless. What matters is the actual outcome that we are going to end up with.
A rose is a rose by any other name. A marriage is a marriage by any other name.
"We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." Anais Nin
I actually put this thread in the CDZ for a reason, I wanted people to try and think about this instead of reacting emotionally. I have pretty much ignored the people that let their emotions and prejudices overrule their brains, even if I agree with them. What I don't get is why anyone would try to turn a gay man talking about why he doesn't want traditional marriage into a rant about partisan politics. Did it ever occur to you that not everything revolves around the Democratic/Republican dichotomy? That there might actually be Democrats who don't want same sex marriage just like there are Republicans who do?
Can you, for once, stop acting like all Democrats are good and all Republicans are evil, and simply respond to something with your intellect? Will you at least try?
Maybe you responded to the wrong thread but I did not mention politics? I noted tradition and law. I have a gay brother, and gay people want equal rights and not alternative definitions that only confuse an already confusing situation.
Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives
"We cannot accept the view that Amendment 2's prohibition on specific legal protections does no more than deprive homosexuals of special rights. To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability on those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint"
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in the decision overturning Colorado's Amendment 2 referendum
"We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." Anais Nin
I actually put this thread in the CDZ for a reason, I wanted people to try and think about this instead of reacting emotionally. I have pretty much ignored the people that let their emotions and prejudices overrule their brains, even if I agree with them. What I don't get is why anyone would try to turn a gay man talking about why he doesn't want traditional marriage into a rant about partisan politics. Did it ever occur to you that not everything revolves around the Democratic/Republican dichotomy? That there might actually be Democrats who don't want same sex marriage just like there are Republicans who do?
Can you, for once, stop acting like all Democrats are good and all Republicans are evil, and simply respond to something with your intellect? Will you at least try?
Maybe you responded to the wrong thread but I did not mention politics? I noted tradition and law. I have a gay brother, and gay people want equal rights and not alternative definitions that only confuse an already confusing situation.
Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives
"We cannot accept the view that Amendment 2's prohibition on specific legal protections does no more than deprive homosexuals of special rights. To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability on those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint"
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in the decision overturning Colorado's Amendment 2 referendum
You cannot acknowledge that it is actually possible to think about the issue any way other than the one that you have already pigeonholed this issue into. That is really sad.
"We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." Anais Nin
Maybe you responded to the wrong thread but I did not mention politics? I noted tradition and law. I have a gay brother, and gay people want equal rights and not alternative definitions that only confuse an already confusing situation.
Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives
"We cannot accept the view that Amendment 2's prohibition on specific legal protections does no more than deprive homosexuals of special rights. To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability on those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint"
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in the decision overturning Colorado's Amendment 2 referendum
You cannot acknowledge that it is actually possible to think about the issue any way other than the one that you have already pigeonholed this issue into. That is really sad.
What ever happened to the Sodomy laws in this country.?
