Same sex marriage, a different perspective

[52ndStreet]

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.?

They got slammed in the butt by state supreme courts

You mean by homosexual judges who were advancing the homosexual aganda on
America.

 

[zombiehunter696]

What ever happened to the Sodomy laws in this country.?

They got slammed in the butt by state supreme courts

You mean by homosexual judges who were advancing the homosexual aganda on
America.

ZOMG! The gays aren't being treated like human shit as much. WAAAAAAHHHHH!!!

 

[MeadHallPirate]

We are talking about semantics here, we are talking about tradition.

I am not making this argument, I want to discuss it because I think it is an interesting perspective. The fact that neither of us actually cares about the issue does not mean that other people don't, and that it is about more than semantics to them.

ahoy Quantum Windbag,

ye make a fair point, matey, but i think the dynamic exists on both sides 'o the debate.

*ponders*

i think that, fer example, young lesbian lasses who love each other with all thar hearts, seek the same journey into "normalcy" that heterosexual couples hath enjoyed - whilst thar be many traditional folks who would rather them two lasses be barred from what they feel be sort 'o an exclusive privilege.

aye?

heterosexual couples who would deny lesbian girls the right to call what they have a "marriage" be puttin' thar foot down, essentially sayin', "yer not like us, don't try to say yer like us, because ye aren't".

imma not sayin' thats whar yer comin' from, but i think many do see it that way.

- MeadHallPirate

 

[KevinWestern]

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/

Interesting, but in practice would be way, way too complicated.

The beauty of allowing same-sex couples to enter into the legal construct of what's currently defined as "marriage" is that we already have a significant portion of the societal infrastructure set in place to support this change.

Corporations understand what 'marriage' is and will grant benefits accordingly - for example. No changes, just modify the rules to say man/man or woman/woman count too (obviously there are additional complexities, but hopefully you get my drift).

Your proposal would require way too much new paperwork on both the Federal and State level, would require companies to adopt entirely new constructs, would open heavy controversy even within the gay community (whose version takes top priority?), ect, ect. Nothing would get done.

There's a virtue to keeping things simple.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

"Tradition" means less than nothing. We've had traditions that were wrong and we had the good sense to end them - beating women is okay as long the implement is smaller than your thumb, ancestors who owned, beat and raped other human beings, children who worked 12 hours or more in a sweat shops ... There are more but you get the idea.

As someone else noted, our most sacred document does not say '... equal except for those with whom I disagree ...'

Even if it was not the law of the land, its simply no one's business.

Ask yourself if you would agree to others deciding who you can and cannot marry.

Of course not because, its no one's business but yours and the CONSENTING ADULT you are in love with.

 

[Big Black Dog]

If a guy wants to be united with a guy or a woman with another woman (no matter how sick I think it is) I think they should be able to do that. However, it should not be called marriage. Call it anything else you would like to call it but marriage is between a man and a woman.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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/

Interesting, but in practice would be way, way too complicated.

The beauty of allowing same-sex couples to enter into the legal construct of what's currently defined as "marriage" is that we already have a significant portion of the societal infrastructure set in place to support this change.

Corporations understand what 'marriage' is and will grant benefits accordingly - for example. No changes, just modify the rules to say man/man or woman/woman count too (obviously there are additional complexities, but hopefully you get my drift).

Your proposal would require way too much new paperwork on both the Federal and State level, would require companies to adopt entirely new constructs, would open heavy controversy even within the gay community (whose version takes top priority?), ect, ect. Nothing would get done.

There's a virtue to keeping things simple.

Strangely enough, corporations already do that, without the marriage thing, so we don't need to worry about that side of the issue. As for the government, they could simply reprint all the marraige licenses, and call them whatever they wanted. They could then change all the applicable laws by passing a new law that eliminates the word marriage from all other laws. It really is a lot easier than you seem to think.

Once again, it is not my proposal, just an explanation by one gay man of why he will not be getting married, even if it is legal.

 

[MeadHallPirate]

"Tradition" means less than nothing. We've had traditions that were wrong and we had the good sense to end them - beating women is okay as long the implement is smaller than your thumb, ancestors who owned, beat and raped other human beings, children who worked 12 hours or more in a sweat shops ... There are more but you get the idea.

As someone else noted, our most sacred document does not say '... equal except for those with whom I disagree ...'

Even if it was not the law of the land, its simply no one's business.

Ask yourself if you would agree to others deciding who you can and cannot marry.

Of course not because, its no one's business but yours and the CONSENTING ADULT you are in love with.

ahoy Luddly Neddite,

'tis surprisin' how many folks wish to cede the power 'o who can, and cannot get married to the Federal Government.

alot 'o big government folks ondeck, it seems.

*frets*

- MeadHallPirate

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"Tradition" means less than nothing. We've had traditions that were wrong and we had the good sense to end them - beating women is okay as long the implement is smaller than your thumb, ancestors who owned, beat and raped other human beings, children who worked 12 hours or more in a sweat shops ... There are more but you get the idea.

Beating women is a tradition where you come from? What color is the sky on your planet?

Traditions, like facts, cannot be wrong, they just are. You might not like them, you can even pretend that you are smarter than people who follow them. What you cannot do is insist that, because you like to pretend you are smarter than traditionalists, that they have to do things your way.

As someone else noted, our most sacred document does not say '... equal except for those with whom I disagree ...'

Wait a second, how can anything be sacred if there are no traditions?

I am glad that you agree that you do not get to impose your way on people just because you disagree with them.

That wasn't what you meant? My apologies.

Even if it was not the law of the land, its simply no one's business.

Except that, by insisting that the government have a say in it, you are saying it is everyone's business.

Ask yourself if you would agree to others deciding who you can and cannot marry.

Once again, I do not oppose same sex marraige. Why is it so difficult for people to track other people's consistent positions from one thread to another. This thread is about why a gay man thinks that it is wrong to violate other people's traditions, which, believe it or not, is a valid point.

In fact, you just argued that we should respect people's opinions even if they are different, yet you reject this out of hand because you are so wrapped up in your personal bigotry against other people that you are completely unwilling to entertain the notion that not all gay men think they are women.

Of course not because, its no one's business but yours and the CONSENTING ADULT you are in love with.

Again, totally beside the point here, and does not even begin to address the issue I raised.

 

[MeadHallPirate]

ahoy all,

a mighty rebuttal from the Governor 'o Rhode Island, aye!

I have been heartened in recent months to see members of my old party coming around on marriage equality, including the entire Republican caucus in the Rhode Island Senate — the first time a caucus of either party has been unanimous in its support. That reflects sound political judgment, and some values that are at least as Republican as they are Democratic, including a belief in marriage as an institution and a desire to keep government out of our personal lives.

The push for equality will continue to grow stronger in statehouses, courthouses and polling places in every state in America. This is, by and large, a generational issue, not a geographic one.

Even in the reddest states, the rising generations are far more tolerant than their parents and grandparents. As this shift continues, marriage equality will inevitably become law in more and more states. The states that cling to their old prohibitions will then be viewed as the outliers. Like Rhode Island in recent years, they will be seen as islands of old thinking.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/o...and.html?pagewanted=all&src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB

- MeadHallPirate

 

[PaulS1950]

Traditions, that have in the past, desciminated against people have been replaced by laws that prevent that descimination. The same will ultimately happen with the legal status of marriage. Churches will not be affected by the law because in most cases churches have marriage as a religious sacrament and there can be no laws requiring churches to perform their sacraments for those the church deems unfit.
My church has already performed same gender marriages - even without the legal status these are marriages just the same. I have, personally, performed same gender marriages and I will continue to do so. Jesus gave us three attributes: Faith, Hope and Love. Of these He told us the greatest of them was love. There is no reason not to join two loving people in marriage if that is what they want.

 

[FA_Q2]

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 are talking about semantics here, we are talking about tradition.

I am not making this argument, I want to discuss it because I think it is an interesting perspective. The fact that neither of us actually cares about the issue does not mean that other people don't, and that it is about more than semantics to them.

I am going to assume (so that it makes sense) that your first statement was supposed to be:
We are not talking about semantics here, we are talking about tradition.

We might be talking about tradition BUT the term marriage is NOT tradition. That is silly. What is tradition is the ceremony, the white dress, giving the daughter away by the father, exchanging gifts, wearing something old/new/blue, having a priest perform the marriage etc. etc. THOSE are traditions and have nothing to do with law at all. Words are NOT tradition, actions are. The word marrage is simply what we call those traditions.

I never stated that his prospective was not interesting or invalid. What I am going to state, and am standing by so far, is that his conclusion is errant. The idea that he wants it called something else is inane, pointless. There is nothing gained either way.

As he mentioned, there is no ‘female’ in his relationship and the idea that one of them would be ‘given’ away by the father equally meaningless. There is a tradition that he does not want to observe. More power to him, not only is that his right but also a rather common thing. Traditions are dropped all the time without a second thought such as taking the man’s name – a tradition that is losing traction. These are all traditions that he can use or ignore at his convince but the TERM marriage is NOT the tradition itself and using another term has no bearing on the reality of the situation (or the fact that it is marriage for that matter).

In the end, what do we gain by calling the legal union something else? What ‘tradition’ is broken or changed? What meaning is altered? I would say none. That is why we are facing an exercise in semantics. There are no traditions that are changed when we extend marriage to gay couples. Instead new traditions are created leaving the old ones in place just as they were before.

 

[midcan5]

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.

One can think about anything they like, real, imaginary or whatever, but equal rights under the law in this case come only with marriage. That's the way it is and that is the tradition and the law. Now let's grant that same right to gays who also want those rights under our laws. Nothing at all sad about it, it is America coming out of its own closet.

Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives

'The Arguments Against Gay Marriage'

"Well, of course there are a lot of reasons being offered these days for opposing gay marriage, and they are usually variations on a few well-established themes. Interestingly, the Supreme Court in Hawaii has heard them all. And it found, after due deliberation, that they didn't hold water.

Here's a summary of the common reasons given:

1. Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman. Well, that's the most often heard argument, one even codified in a recently passed U.S. federal law. Yet it is easily the weakest. Who says who marriage is to be defined by? The married? The marriable? Isn't that kind of like allowing a banker to decide who is going to own the money in stored in his vaults? It seems to me that if the straight community cannot show a compelling reason to deny the institution of marriage to gay people, it shouldn't be denied. And such simple, nebulous declarations are hardly a compelling reason. They're really more like an expression of prejudce than any kind of a real argument. The concept of not denying people their rights unless you can show a compelling reason to do so is the very basis of the American ideal of human rights."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

One can think about anything they like, real, imaginary or whatever, but equal rights under the law in this case come only with marriage. That's the way it is and that is the tradition and the law. Now let's grant that same right to gays who also want those rights under our laws. Nothing at all sad about it, it is America coming out of its own closet.

Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives

'The Arguments Against Gay Marriage'

"Well, of course there are a lot of reasons being offered these days for opposing gay marriage, and they are usually variations on a few well-established themes. Interestingly, the Supreme Court in Hawaii has heard them all. And it found, after due deliberation, that they didn't hold water.

Here's a summary of the common reasons given:

1. Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman. Well, that's the most often heard argument, one even codified in a recently passed U.S. federal law. Yet it is easily the weakest. Who says who marriage is to be defined by? The married? The marriable? Isn't that kind of like allowing a banker to decide who is going to own the money in stored in his vaults? It seems to me that if the straight community cannot show a compelling reason to deny the institution of marriage to gay people, it shouldn't be denied. And such simple, nebulous declarations are hardly a compelling reason. They're really more like an expression of prejudce than any kind of a real argument. The concept of not denying people their rights unless you can show a compelling reason to do so is the very basis of the American ideal of human rights."

Tell you what, I suggest you actually take some time to read the blog post I linked to in its entirety. After you do that feel free to come back and admit that this thread is not meant to be an argument against anything. At its core, the post is an argument against the idea that gay men want to be women. If you want to argue with him about that feel free to post there with your nonsense.

 

[Katzndogz]

There's no compelling reason for the whole idea of having mothers and fathers. So the idea that there are mothers and fathers should be eliminated.

 

[jwoodie]

Even married gay couples are now avoiding the terms "husband" and "wife" in describing their spouses, due to its inherent absurdity. The OP expresses a very mature viewpoint.

 

[PaulS1950]

Children need loving parents and the stability that comes from discipline. Anyone who knows how to love can give both love and discipline to the children in their care. same gender couples are spouses - they are not one husband and one wife. Gay men are not transgendered men they are men. They don't want to be a different gender. They do, sometimes, want to love and live with the one they love for the same reasons that men and women share. They want to be a married couple - spouses. That is their right and blocking same gender marriage is a violation of a basic right - it is discriminatory just as laws against mixed race marriages were in times past.

 

[Polk]

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.

But "traditional" marriage as it's being defined isn't that old.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

But "traditional" marriage as it's being defined isn't that old.

It is older than you are.

By the way, when did you become an expert on traditional marriage, or even tradition?

 

[Polk]

That is only true if you ignore anthropology. Traditions exist for a reason, even if we don't understand them.

But "traditional" marriage as it's being defined isn't that old.

It is older than you are.

By the way, when did you become an expert on traditional marriage, or even tradition?

It's not older than a fair number of people living today, so to say it's something that should be frozen in time seems unusual.