Author Topic: Gay Marriage  (Read 11799 times)

Offline Hangtime

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10148
Gay Marriage
« Reply #75 on: June 25, 2005, 11:53:39 AM »
...match, game and set.

Congrats, Chairboy! I'm constantly amazed how religion seems to consider the partnership of marrige to be an exclusive secular deal.

It ain't...  (insert religious brand here) does not dictate terms of partnership... it ain't even in the definition of the partnership.

According to Webster:

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union
The price of Freedom is the willingness to do sudden battle, anywhere, any time and with utter recklessness...

...at home, or abroad.

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
Gay Marriage
« Reply #76 on: June 25, 2005, 11:57:16 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Chairboy
Hi Seagoon,

Implicit in your post seems to be that marriage is necessarily religious.  Marriage existed before Judaism/Christianity, and can be completely secular.  Mine is, for example.

With that established, it seems pretty clear that using biblical interpretation to determine what should be recognized as the law of the US (which must not respect the establishment of state recognized religious institution) is counter indicated.

Regards,

cb


chairboy that's beent wisted into seperation of church and state.  The state HAS to recognize some sort of establishment in order to govern OVER it.  

For those of  you who say "how does them getting married effect me?"

I'm still looking for the article I read the day before but in it it said that a church was being sued by a private party to have their tax excempt status removed because the church refused to perform a gay marriage.  

In the suit it sited that the refusal was "discriminatory" and as such a "bigoted" organization should not enjoy the benifits granted to it by the state.

you write a "special rights" law wether it be for minorities or homos it effects us ALL.

Offline Seagoon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2396
      • http://www.providencepca.com
Gay Marriage
« Reply #77 on: June 25, 2005, 01:48:04 PM »
Hi All,

I had wanted to get all of my cards on the table prior to entering into dialogue on the subject, so I'll try to reply to Chairboy's excellent point in a following post.

Here I do want to discuss the pragmatic or practical arguments against gay marriage, because while I do not believe they have nearly as much weight as the theological arguments (especially for me) they are compelling in their own right. I should begin by giving a hat tip to Dr. Timothy Dailey, who compiled much of the following evidence from the CDC and other secular medical and psychological sources.

Marriage implies a monogamous relationship for life, yet the homosexual lifestyle is normally exceedingly non-monogamous

Webster's (1913) includes in it's definition of marriage: "the legal  union of a man and a woman for life." I want to leave aside the "man and a woman" part for the moment because that is obviously the point in question, and concentrate on "for life."

In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison reported that in a study of a hundred-fifty-six males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years, Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years.

Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.

In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.

Other studies have tended to produce the same figures regarding the short terms of these relationships, and the general committment to promiscuity inherent in the lifestyle, for instance in his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."

Both of these factors are so generally accepted within the gay community so there has been a corresponding drive not only to redefine the participants in a marriage, but also the parameters of a marriage so that it is no longer defined as life-long or exclusive.

But once we have done that, in what way is this any longer "a marriage"? A temporary, non-monogamous, cohabitation by two persons of the same sex ceases to have any relationship to the traditional definition of marriage and becomes merely an expedient to gain the legal status and attendant political benefits that come from the married state. i.e. insurance, inheritance, parental rights, and ultimately the perception of absolute equality with heterosexual married couples, all without the attendant social constraints.

Additionally, there are other factors that make the idea of conferring marriage benefits on homosexuals, problematic.

For instance, homosexual relationships tend to be more prone to domestic violence than heterosexual ones, for instance, in the book Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence, Island and Letellier report that "the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population." This evidence tends to be confirmed by police in a major cities who report a higher incidence of domestic assault and even murder within the homosexual community than without it.

There are a number of other factors that would seem to argue against creating the category of gay marriage with its attendant rights to adoption etc. including a dramatically reduced lifespan (43 amongst homosexual males according to the CDC), a much higher incidence of suicide (at least 6 times) and depression. As one ex-gay man working with a ministry in Philadelphia put it to me, "There's nothing "gay" about the gay lifestyle. Manic would be a better definition." This is a subjective assessment but it tends to confirm my own experiences counseling.

There are other lifestyle factors that could be called upon, but that should be enough to at least raise the question of  whether this is a wise decision from even a pragmatic point of view, not the least of which is the legal slippery slope. Once we have so radically redefined marriage, what legal impediment could there be to further redefinition as to number of participants, or even their age and potentially even species? This may seem absurd to many, but at one time in Western History, the very idea of gay marriage was more than just absurd, it was unimaginable.

- SEAGOON
« Last Edit: June 25, 2005, 01:52:10 PM by Seagoon »
SEAGOON aka Pastor Andy Webb
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
Gay Marriage
« Reply #78 on: June 25, 2005, 03:51:27 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Hangtime
...match, game and set.

Congrats, Chairboy! I'm constantly amazed how religion seems to consider the partnership of marrige to be an exclusive secular deal.

It ain't...  (insert religious brand here) does not dictate terms of partnership... it ain't even in the definition of the partnership.

According to Webster:

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union


hang I hardly see how it is a civil rights issue either.  I have yet to see anyone explain that one to me.

Offline thrila

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3190
      • The Few Squadron
Gay Marriage
« Reply #79 on: June 25, 2005, 05:16:44 PM »
Gunslinger, I disagree that it is against nature.  Homosexuality exists amongst animals, so many animals exhibit homosexual behaviour i fail to see how it isn't seen as part of nature.  If it is genetic it is possible for it to be passed on is it gene to be passed on if it is a recessive allele.  Even if the mutation is counter productive, it is still a  part of the natural world.

Seagoon i don't see the devauluation of marriage exclusive to homosexuals.  The divorce statistics of hetero couples is no doubt appalling too.  It probably doesn't help that all the hollywood role models have many, short term marriages.

I agree the real argument is with the use of the word marriage.  The meanings of words is dependant on the agreement of their use between people.  The problem is that there currently is no agreement.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2005, 05:20:09 PM by thrila »
"Willy's gone and made another,
Something like it's elder brother-
Wing tips rounded, spinner's bigger.
Unbraced tailplane ends it's figure.
One-O-nine F is it's name-
F is for futile, not for fame."

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
Gay Marriage
« Reply #80 on: June 25, 2005, 05:30:19 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by thrila
Gunslinger, I disagree that it is against nature.  Homosexuality exists amongst animals, so many animals exhibit homosexual behaviour i fail to see how it isn't seen as part of nature.  If it is genetic it is possible for it to be passed on is it gene to be passed on if it is a recessive allele.  Even if the mutation is counter productive, it is still a  part of the natural world.

Seagoon i don't see the devauluation of marriage exclusive to homosexuals.  The divorce statistics of hetero couples is no doubt appalling too.  It probably doesn't help that all the hollywood role models have many, short term marriages.

I agree the real argument is with the use of the word marriage.  The meanings of words is dependant on the agreement of their use between people.  The problem is that there currently is no agreement.


if all animals in nature were homosexual how would they reproduce?

Offline Manedew

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1080
Gay Marriage
« Reply #81 on: June 25, 2005, 05:30:50 PM »
Funny how easily folks miss the point, maybe because they refuse to.

the words Male and Female might be conveint for you ..... but the defeinition is ambiguous

genetics can't define it ... neither can mere apperance .....etc etc  SOME PEOPLE ARE BORN WITH TESTIES AND OVERIES!

maybe your Bible defines Male and Female, but Sience can't.

and you folks come and try to define marrige as something between a man and a women?

I'd like to see you answer tho's questions that PHD's trained in THAT area can't.

I guess ignorance is bliss.

People just want the same rights everyone else has.

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
Gay Marriage
« Reply #82 on: June 25, 2005, 05:36:02 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Manedew
Funny how easily folks miss the point, maybe because they refuse to.

the words Male and Female might be conveint for you ..... but the defeinition is ambiguous

genetics can't define it ... neither can mere apperance .....etc etc  SOME PEOPLE ARE BORN WITH TESTIES AND OVERIES!

maybe your Bible defines Male and Female, but Sience can't.

and you folks come and try to define marrige as something between a man and a women?

I'd like to see you answer tho's questions that PHD's trained in THAT area can't.

I guess ignorance is bliss.

People just want the same rights everyone else has.


what world are you living in?  Boys have a noodle Girls have a vigina!  that's basic birds and bees.  Science clearly defines male and female of the species.  It is not hard to do.

HUMANs born with both parts are an anomoly NOT a normality.

If all animals in nature were homosexual they'd have a hard time reproducing.  Even so they'd probably survive by some other means but it wouldn't represent 90%  oF ALL NATURAL REPRODUCTION!  There's that word again, nature.

EDIT:  Show me ONE right that a gay persond doesnt have???????

Offline Nash

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11705
      • http://sbm.boomzoom.org/
Gay Marriage
« Reply #83 on: June 25, 2005, 05:39:55 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Show me ONE right that a gay persond doesnt have???????


The right to get married?

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
Gay Marriage
« Reply #84 on: June 25, 2005, 05:44:42 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Nash
The right to get married?


I don't know of a single law that says they can't get married like anyone else.

Offline Nash

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11705
      • http://sbm.boomzoom.org/
Gay Marriage
« Reply #85 on: June 25, 2005, 05:45:31 PM »
Then what's all the fuss?

Offline thrila

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3190
      • The Few Squadron
Gay Marriage
« Reply #86 on: June 25, 2005, 05:46:43 PM »
Gunslinger not all animals have to be gay for it to be natural.  Just like how not all animals are male.  Nature is diverse.
"Willy's gone and made another,
Something like it's elder brother-
Wing tips rounded, spinner's bigger.
Unbraced tailplane ends it's figure.
One-O-nine F is it's name-
F is for futile, not for fame."

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
Gay Marriage
« Reply #87 on: June 25, 2005, 05:54:54 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Nash
Then what's all the fuss?


that's what I say.  Why can't they be happy having equal rights.  THat's not what they want though, they want special rights.


Quote
Originally posted by thrila
Gunslinger not all animals have to be gay for it to be natural. Just like how not all animals are male. Nature is diverse.


I didn't say all animals had to be gay or strait.  I said it's against nature to be gay.  IF all animals were gay there'd be no reproduction hence no nature hence it would be against nature.

all this BS about there's no male and female species blah blah blah is just horse hocky.

I don't buy it for a minute that "many animals exhibit homosexual behaviour "  There's just no way.  If you want to get down to brass tax its UNATURAL for HUMANS to be gay.  I said it, it goes against nature.  Fact or not this is what I beleive.  You can through all they psyco bable about whatever you want but for humans to reproduce naturally a man (male) has to have sexual intercourse with a woman (female).  That to me is what nature intended.  That is what comes NATURAL in most humans.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2005, 05:57:26 PM by Gunslinger »

Offline Nash

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11705
      • http://sbm.boomzoom.org/
Gay Marriage
« Reply #88 on: June 25, 2005, 05:57:59 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
that's what I say.  Why can't they be happy having equal rights.  THat's not what they want though, they want special rights.


Oh, I get what you're saying.

Gays have the right to marry women. Lesbians have the right to marry men.

And it's not a right to marry eachother, because no law was made to give them that right.... therefore they should be fine with that, because they aren't being denied the rights given to everyone.

While that's a valid argument, in a semantics kind of way, it's kind of obvious, no? Because everyone knows that. It's what they're challenging. It isn't about being happy within the rights given, but expanding them to include other people.

Because unless you want to see a family explode, it's generally not a good idea for gays to marry women. Same goes for lesbians marrying men.

So they will never get all of those other rights given to married couples. Seems like that's what they're really asking for.

Offline Mini D

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6897
      • Fat Drunk Bastards
Gay Marriage
« Reply #89 on: June 25, 2005, 05:58:44 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Manedew

the words Male and Female might be conveint for you ..... but the defeinition is ambiguous
LOL!