Any Dudes Wanna Get Married?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

I think as more and more people are “exposed” to homosexuals, a lot of the anti-homosexual bigotry will go away. People’s opinions will change as they realize the demons in their heads don’t match up to the people in their communities.
[/quote]

But, when they view the various gay parades they will once again be repulsed as any normal American male would.

But that is interesting how there is in general less bigotry toward homosexuals than there was (not a bad thing). But more bigotry toward Christians…funny how that works. And are we better off as a nation today than we were 50 years ago?

Are STD rates up!

AIDS cases up!

Abortions up! (from Roe V Wade in 1973)

Drug usage up!

Number of Alcoholics up!

Traffic fatalities from alcohol and drug use up!

Domestic violence up!

Rape up!

I could go on but you get the idea I hope. We are not so slowly sliding into the center of the toilet bowl. And to those relativists who think that everything is just fine as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else…think again as your tax bill is increased to pay for the immorality that supposedly harms no one. And this will only increase as we move to legalize gay marriage and every other form of marriage that will surely follow.

Obviously, I’m not blaming gay marriage for most of the above statistics (although gay men are indeed responsible for about 60% of all new HIV cases according to the CDC). Gay marriage is merely symptomatic of where we’ve been heading.

222

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:<<< Well, I suppose I’d be joining you in that attic, or at least a corner of it, given that I’m one of the geekiest people there is. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[/quote]A perfectly sensible and levelheaded post Mike as usual from you though I disagree with much of it as usual from me. Thunderbolt has given some reasons why gay marriage is a bad idea from a secular standpoint over the last year or so. I view his views as valid, but only because they ultimately originate from my views =] Hopefully more time later. Man I could write a book on many of these posts in these forums on all kinds of topics. It’s impossible to keep up.

223

<------------- Is sick and tired of people equating the suffering, lynchings and other atrocities associated with the Civil Rights movement with the current arguement of why gay people should be married. LMFAO

IMHO Gay marriage is a slippery slope…oh they’ll be climbing out of the woodwork for polygamy and other perversions of marriage as well.

Like I said, call it gay marriage if you will, but it still will never ever in a million years equate to the true meaning of marriage which has exisited since Adam and Eve(if you believe in that) which is marriage is between a man and a woman. You can try and take marriage and make it your own, but by definition it won’t be. EVER.

And don’t even get me fucking started on why kids have to grow up with two mommies or two daddies lacking the nuture and guidance of the missing sex, IMO that has to be a form of neglect. It’s bad enough kids have to be in single parent homes and while that parent can do a damn good job I still think the kid having the missing sex would be a benefit rather than not. (Providing both parents are not abusers or whatever other fucking excuse you’ll give for why it should be otherwise.)

BTW I don’t HATE gay people. I am NOT a bigot. I got gay friends on FB…lol. I had a whole department full of them in college (Theater) and I got along just fine. But changing the fundamentals of marriage for your own gain is where I find fault. You wanna be gay? You wanna grab your partners hand and run off into the sunset? FINE. But don’t come over on my side of the fucking grass trying to claim my institution of marriage is the same as yours.

You know what the true issue is? The difference in what we believe. Religously. It will always come back to that because if you don’t believe in God and the morals and precepts he has established you will always find excuses for why things should be a different way. And it is EXACTLY one of the reasons why people don’t wanna believe in the first place. They don’t want to be accountable for things they consider right and God considers wrong.

/rant

224

And BTW, to equate The civil rights movement or the holocaust with Gay rights is disrespectful. You’re not getting lynched, gassed in gas chambers, having to eat and drink in seperate restaurants and water fountains.

I don’t give a fuck about benefits. Give them benefits all day long. If all you wanted WERE benefits you would’ve STUCK with civil unions. But no. It’s a personal agenda to cram your lifestyle down everyone’s throat. (And before anyone says Christians do the same, we don’t. No one is forcing you to be Christian.)

If two gay women lived together and were in a union and one partner dies in Iraq, should the other partner get benefits and such? YES. Taxes and all that other stuff too. Sure. Why not. But real issue at the core of this like I said comes back to what we all believe in. And for the gay community, they couldn’t pass up the oppourtunity to take something from the religous community just to say in your face.

225

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

It is quite difficult for me to respond to this line of logic without using sarcasm. I tried twice, but could not. So I’m bowing out before I begin. [/quote]

That’s too bad, because I was really, really looking forward to an intelligent post with original insight from you.

This post doesn’t provide much useful information at all, in large part because it doesn’t address the divergence in how these two otherwise equally identical Civil Rights movements are confronting the evils of bigotry.

Second, your post makes a familiar error - equating tolerance of homosexuals to a reflexive endorsement of gay marriage as a good idea. It isn’t true. While such a caricature makes gay marriage advocates avoid stuff like hard thinking, the “anti-gay marriage = bigot” line of “reasoning” is a dud.

One can be perfectly tolerant of homosexuals but see no reason to expand the franchise of marriage beyind its traditional boundaries. You have never countered this argument, nor has Forlife, and nor has anyone else.

226

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

How could you possibly miss the answer from my response?

YES, YES, YES, YES, YES[/quote]

Excellent.

Now, what have you done to communicate this to the African American community - this consolidated bulwark of bigotry?

You have no greater foe in your state of Texas than black Americans, so surely someone as passionate as you has done something to single out black Americans for this crime of hate?

Let’s hear what you have done.
[/quote]

Why should he single out the black community? Bigotry is bigotry.

Racist.

227

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
And BTW, to equate The civil rights movement or the holocaust with Gay rights is disrespectful. You’re not getting lynched, gassed in gas chambers, having to eat and drink in seperate restaurants and water fountains.

I don’t give a fuck about benefits. Give them benefits all day long. If all you wanted WERE benefits you would’ve STUCK with civil unions. But no. It’s a personal agenda to cram your lifestyle down everyone’s throat. (And before anyone says Christians do the same, we don’t. No one is forcing you to be Christian.)

If two gay women lived together and were in a union and one partner dies in Iraq, should the other partner get benefits and such? YES. Taxes and all that other stuff too. Sure. Why not. But real issue at the core of this like I said comes back to what we all believe in. And for the gay community, they couldn’t pass up the oppourtunity to take something from the religous community just to say in your face. [/quote]

If you support granting the same rights to gay couples that are granted to straight couples, including most importantly those at the federal level, I don’t care what you call it. If it makes you feel better to call it a civil union than a marriage, go for it.

228

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
<------------- Is sick and tired of people equating the suffering, lynchings and other atrocities associated with the Civil Rights movement with the current arguement of why gay people should be married. LMFAO

IMHO Gay marriage is a slippery slope…oh they’ll be climbing out of the woodwork for polygamy and other perversions of marriage as well.

Like I said, call it gay marriage if you will, but it still will never ever in a million years equate to the true meaning of marriage which has exisited since Adam and Eve(if you believe in that) which is marriage is between a man and a woman. You can try and take marriage and make it your own, but by definition it won’t be. EVER.

And don’t even get me fucking started on why kids have to grow up with two mommies or two daddies lacking the nuture and guidance of the missing sex, IMO that has to be a form of neglect. It’s bad enough kids have to be in single parent homes and while that parent can do a damn good job I still think the kid having the missing sex would be a benefit rather than not. (Providing both parents are not abusers or whatever other fucking excuse you’ll give for why it should be otherwise.)

BTW I don’t HATE gay people. I am NOT a bigot. I got gay friends on FB…lol. I had a whole department full of them in college (Theater) and I got along just fine. But changing the fundamentals of marriage for your own gain is where I find fault. You wanna be gay? You wanna grab your partners hand and run off into the sunset? FINE. But don’t come over on my side of the fucking grass trying to claim my institution of marriage is the same as yours.

You know what the true issue is? The difference in what we believe. Religously. It will always come back to that because if you don’t believe in God and the morals and precepts he has established you will always find excuses for why things should be a different way. And it is EXACTLY one of the reasons why people don’t wanna believe in the first place. They don’t want to be accountable for things they consider right and God considers wrong.

/rant[/quote]

You see that mention of Cod up there before the word “morals?” That word right there makes most homosexual young men really, really mad. And, that should tell us all a little something about the homosexual movement.

229

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

It is quite difficult for me to respond to this line of logic without using sarcasm. I tried twice, but could not. So I’m bowing out before I begin. [/quote]

That’s too bad, because I was really, really looking forward to an intelligent post with original insight from you. [/quote]

I don’t think there is much “original” that can be said. You pop up on every gay thread and challenge the world to a debate. Your arguments now are as flat as they were 2 years ago. The only difference is that the world has changed so much in that time in terms of gay rights.

This post doesn’t provide much useful information at all, in large part because it doesn’t address the divergence in how these two otherwise equally identical Civil Rights movements are confronting the evils of bigotry.[/quote]

I apologize, but I haven’t seen people “equating” the movements. You seem to be conflating one side to a caricature. No doubt this makes fighting against the constructed boogieman easier, but it also makes for poor arguments.

No it did not. Read again.

[quote] One can be perfectly tolerant of homosexuals but see no reason to expand the franchise of marriage beyind its traditional boundaries. You have never countered this argument, nor has Forlife, and nor has anyone else.
[/quote]

Thank you for your opinion.

230

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

I don’t think there is much “original” that can be said. You pop up on every gay thread and challenge the world to a debate. Your arguments now are as flat as they were 2 years ago. The only difference is that the world has changed so much in that time in terms of gay rights.[/quote]

Heh - my arguments aren’t “flat”. Your inability to provide an effective counterargument doesn’t make them “flat”. But you knew that.

Then you aren’t reading Forlife’s posts - he unapologetically says they are the same, and believes that those who stand in opposition to gay marriage are the moral equivalent of those who stood against interracial marriage. Read up.

Hmmm, well, let’s re-review - your idea that gay marriage “happens” because people start banishing “demons” in their head pretty much nails it.

231

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Because it isn’t necessary. Public opinion favoring equal rights for gays has progressed steadily, to the point where the majority now support same sex marriage.
[/quote]

During the Civil Rights movement, public opinion had “progressed” and was “progressing”, but that was no excuse for waiting to confront the evils of bigotry.

Something isn’t adding up. Homosexuals should be acting exactly like Civil Rights protesters, etc., and targeting black communities in the same way Civil Rights protesters targeted bastions of bigotry in the South during the 50s and 60s (like bus terminals and lunch counters, etc.).

But they ain’t. And you aren’t. Why is that?[/quote]

It is quite difficult for me to respond to this line of logic without using sarcasm. I tried twice, but could not. So I’m bowing out before I begin.

I think as more and more people are “exposed” to homosexuals, a lot of the anti-homosexual bigotry will go away. People’s opinions will change as they realize the demons in their heads don’t match up to the people in their communities.

[/quote]

Exactly. It’s harder to demonize and stereotype people when you know them personally. That’s when otherwise conservative people like Dick Cheney (who has a lesbian daughter) begin to see the human side of these social issues. People are coming out now more than ever before, from politicians and celebrities to sons, daughters, and neighbors. I honestly think this, more than anything, is what will ultimately drive social change.
[/quote]

Yeah. It is easy to hate something you have no personal connection to. Perhaps if I didn’t have close friends and family who were gay, I could stomach these threads a little better. As it is, I see them in the same way I see a kikuyu explaining why the Luoes are “bad.”

232

I do think it is important to understand this new law in context. Note that not even a year ago, New York became the last state to adopt no-fault marriage.

Nearly a year later, New York enacts gay marriage, a public policy that solves no social ill in need of fixing and, to be frank, mostly benefits divorce lawyers.

If you need an example of just how frivolous and silly the focus of some societies have become, look no further than New York. Marriage isn’t a sacred union that hold society together by the social ligaments of family, community and parental responsibility - it is nothing more than a theraputic honorarium for two people’s affections that can (and will) be quickly dissolved when the sex gets dull and attention spans are all used up.

Don’t be surprised if, within the next decade, the governor of New York appoints a horse to the state senate. We live in sillier and sillier times.

233

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I do think it is important to understand this new law in context. Note that not even a year ago, New York became the last state to adopt no-fault marriage.

Nearly a year later, New York enacts gay marriage, a public policy that solves no social ill in need of fixing and, to be frank, mostly benefits divorce lawyers.

If you need an example of just how frivolous and silly the focus of some societies have become, look no further than New York. Marriage isn’t a sacred union that hold society together by the social ligaments of family, community and parental responsibility - it is nothing more than a theraputic honorarium for two people’s affections that can (and will) be quickly dissolved when the sex gets dull and attention spans are all used up.

Don’t be surprised if, within the next decade, the governor of New York appoints a horse to the state senate. We live in sillier and sillier times.[/quote]

I hope you’re not insinuating that gay couples cannot be committed, faithful, loving partners for life. I would expect such an insinuation from the trolls on this site, but have a higher opinion of you than that.

If you’re referring to the sad increase in ephemeral, hedonistic relationships across the board, I think you have a point.

234

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
And, again, I would say, why does religion have to be brought in to this?
[/quote]
Because marriage has been historically a religious institution. A better question is why did the State butt into the marriage business. [/quote]

This is the million dollar answer, right here, folks.

235

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I do think it is important to understand this new law in context. Note that not even a year ago, New York became the last state to adopt no-fault marriage.

Nearly a year later, New York enacts gay marriage, a public policy that solves no social ill in need of fixing and, to be frank, mostly benefits divorce lawyers.

If you need an example of just how frivolous and silly the focus of some societies have become, look no further than New York. Marriage isn’t a sacred union that hold society together by the social ligaments of family, community and parental responsibility - it is nothing more than a theraputic honorarium for two people’s affections that can (and will) be quickly dissolved when the sex gets dull and attention spans are all used up.

Don’t be surprised if, within the next decade, the governor of New York appoints a horse to the state senate. We live in sillier and sillier times.[/quote]

A no-fault divorce system is simply a recognition that the court system cannot and should not function as a marriage counseling system. This is true. And most people that I know thought long and hard before getting a divorce, and some even managed to reconcile. And this was in a no-fault state. Yes, there will be some people who will end their marriages on a whim. People will always do stupid things, not matter what.

A fault-based divorce system is actually more of a boon for divorce lawyers because the process is so much more involved. A no-fault system actually saves on legal fees.

In a fault-based system you run the risk of couples who decide that, in order to circumvent the divorce process, they’ll just live together. Most laws prohibiting cohabitation have been off the books for decades, and in those states that still have them, they are never enforced.

236

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
And, again, I would say, why does religion have to be brought in to this?
[/quote]
Because marriage has been historically a religious institution. A better question is why did the State butt into the marriage business. [/quote]

This is the million dollar answer, right here, folks.
[/quote]

Because you’re also free to NOT believe in a god or follow a religion perhaps?

237

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

A no-fault divorce system is simply a recognition that the court system cannot and should not function as a marriage counseling system. This is true. And most people that I know thought long and hard before getting a divorce, and some even managed to reconcile. And this was in a no-fault state. Yes, there will be some people who will end their marriages on a whim. People will always do stupid things, not matter what.

A fault-based divorce system is actually more of a boon for divorce lawyers because the process is so much more involved. A no-fault system actually saves on legal fees.

In a fault-based system you run the risk of couples who decide that, in order to circumvent the divorce process, they’ll just live together. Most laws prohibiting cohabitation have been off the books for decades, and in those states that still have them, they are never enforced.[/quote]

No, a no-fault divorce regime is a mechanism that changes the entire point of legally recognized marriage as an institution designed to encourage and promote permanent unions (for the sake of children, primarily) to one where marriage is, well, not designed to encourage and promote any kind of permanent union.

If marriages are this easy to get in and out of, it’s completely contradicts the entire legal function of marriage. Marriage is simply a temporary celebration of people being in love 9AS if society really cares about that very much), and when they fall out of love or get bored, they can get out of it easy, quick and move on to the next thing.

If this is what marriage is - and with the enactment of no-fault divorce and gay marriage, it has to be, there’s no convincing argument to the contrary - then there is no conceivable reason to have legally sanctioned marriage, for the simple fact that, under this aprpoach, legally sanctioned marriage doesn’t do anything for society.

Why give government benefits, etc., to two people just because they happen to enjoy co-habitating and can walk away from the arrangement just about at any time with little resistance? What does society gain from doling out the benefits of this kind of marriage then?

I disagree with the merits of this obviously, but for people who actually believe this, they shouldn’t be calling for an expansion of the marriage franchise…they should be calling for the abolition of its legal recognition.

238

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

A no-fault divorce system is simply a recognition that the court system cannot and should not function as a marriage counseling system. This is true. And most people that I know thought long and hard before getting a divorce, and some even managed to reconcile. And this was in a no-fault state. Yes, there will be some people who will end their marriages on a whim. People will always do stupid things, not matter what.

A fault-based divorce system is actually more of a boon for divorce lawyers because the process is so much more involved. A no-fault system actually saves on legal fees.

In a fault-based system you run the risk of couples who decide that, in order to circumvent the divorce process, they’ll just live together. Most laws prohibiting cohabitation have been off the books for decades, and in those states that still have them, they are never enforced.[/quote]

No, a no-fault divorce regime is a mechanism that changes the entire point of legally recognized marriage as an institution designed to encourage and promote permanent unions (for the sake of children, primarily) to one where marriage is, well, not designed to encourage and promote any kind of permanent union.

If marriages are this easy to get in and out of, it’s completely contradicts the entire legal function of marriage. Marriage is simply a temporary celebration of people being in love 9AS if society really cares about that very much), and when they fall out of love or get bored, they can get out of it easy, quick and move on to the next thing.

If this is what marriage is - and with the enactment of no-fault divorce and gay marriage, it has to be, there’s no convincing argument to the contrary - then there is no conceivable reason to have legally sanctioned marriage, for the simple fact that, under this aprpoach, legally sanctioned marriage doesn’t do anything for society.

Why give government benefits, etc., to two people just because they happen to enjoy co-habitating and can walk away from the arrangement just about at any time with little resistance? What does society gain from doling out the benefits of this kind of marriage then?

I disagree with the merits of this obviously, but for people who actually believe this, they shouldn’t be calling for an expansion of the marriage franchise…they should be calling for the abolition of its legal recognition.[/quote]

I’m not sure why gay marriage is being equated with no fault divorce, since it has no bearing on the duration of heterosexual marriages.

Aside from that, you have a point on no fault divorce potentially reducing the longevity of marriages. But where do you draw the line? Making divorce illegal would surely increase the longevity of marriages. But at what cost? Longevity is not always a good thing.

Also, no fault divorce doesn’t mean there aren’t significant costs to divorce. You still have to pay alimony and child support, divide your property, etc. Nobody would do that on a whim. I think annulment laws are far more damaging in that regard, relative to no fault divorce laws.

239

[quote]forlife wrote:

I’m not sure why gay marriage is being equated with no fault divorce, since it has no bearing on the duration of heterosexual marriages.[/quote]

Because it operates on the same concept - that marriage is nothing more than an honorarium of two people’s affections for one another. No-fault divorce supports this theory of marriage, and so does gay marriage, and neither supports the traditional theory of marriage.

Longevity isn’t always a good thing, but if we have decided that marriage is something we want to recognize in society, then longevity is more often than not a good thing. If we were of a mind that longevity was not, then we’d have to believe marriage also was not, as the theory of marriage is dependent on a presumption that longevity is desirable.

If longevity is not desriable, no problem - don’t have marriage.

As for a bright-line to draw, no one knows - no one can. But the benefits outweigh the costs, and always have. If they don’t (or no longer do), why have something called marriage at all?

No one is arguing that - the argument is rather than the presence of no-fault divorce doesn’t make the costs high enough to fulfill and preserve the mission of marriage: encourage permanence of the union.

240

Just because the people aren’t opposite gender doesn’t mean marriage is no more than an honorarium of their affection. The traditional marriage vows to love and cherish each other until death do you part apply regardless of the couple’s orientation. More to the point, it has no bearing whatsoever on the longevity of opposite sex marriages. How does my marriage impact yours in any way? Are you going to leave your wife if my partner and I marry? No fault divorce may make it easier to leave your wife, but gay marriage does not.

It’s true that as a general rule, longevity in marriage should be encouraged. But there will always be exceptions, and no fault divorce still includes substantial penalties that would prevent most people from divorcing for frivolous reasons. We live in a no fault state here in Texas, but my divorce was enormously painful, from both an emotional and a financial perspective, and we never would have divorced without having very solid reasons for doing so.