Any Dudes Wanna Get Married?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

[quote]forlife wrote:

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.[/quote]

Keep up. I am not making that argument. In fact, my point was the exact opposite - that marriage for both heterosexuals and now homosexuals in on a trend line to mean that marriage is nothing but an honorarium of individuals’ affections for one another (as opposed to an institution fulfilling the real policy of marriage, social glue for children and child ordering). We see that through: (1) no-fault divorce (which has reinforced this view of marriage for heterosexuals) and (2) gay marriage (which has erected a marriage arrangement that is not and cannot be anything more than a pure honorarium for two people’s affections, and therefore reinforcing the change no-fault divorce made for heterosexual marriage).

Gay marriage is simply the next step taken from no-fault divorce in a transition to converting marriage into nothing more than recognition of two people’s desire to have affection for one another and desire to co-habitate (until they get bored and decide not to). It’s proof we’ve gone whole hog into this “modern” form of marriage, which, as a legal institution, has no purpose in existing.

242

There’s nothing in the traditional marriage vow about having children, nor are straight couples required to have children to be married, nor are gay couples excluded from having children. I disagree that marriage is exclusively, or even primarily, about having children. I know you have a different view, and there’s little value in reiterating our positions.

Calling it nothing more than an honorarium for one’s affections fails to recognize the depth and duration of commitment inherent in marriage, even in states allowing no fault divorce. It is an enormous commitment, with substantial consequences, and as such it is far more than the honorarium that you claim.

243

[quote]forlife wrote:

There’s nothing in the traditional marriage vow about having children, nor are straight couples required to have children to be married, nor are gay couples excluded from having children. I disagree that marriage is exclusively, or even primarily, about having children. I know you have a different view, and there’s little value in reiterating our positions.[/quote]

I rest my case. You’ve made my point for me on the shifting definition of marriage.

None of this is true or even germane to the point. To call it an “honorarium” means that it is afforded legal recognition, and that’s it - you get a certificate and legal sanction, etc. This “honorarium” doesn’t “fail” to recognize the "depth or “commitment”, because the honorarium doesn’t care. You can be committed for 90 years or 9 months - the legal institution doesn’t have an opinion on whether that is bad, good, or sideways.

You are confused as to inportant difference between the relationship and state recognition of the relationship. The state doesn’t care if you are in a committed personal relationship (absent the concnerns you say marriage is not about - children, etc.). The state has no reason to give you the “honorarium” just for being really committed and in love.

That’s the point. Under your theory of marriage - as you stated in the first paragraph - there isn’t a salient reason to formally recognize a “marriage” and dole out perks and incentives to encourage people to get married and stay married: it is a purposeless law. Why does anyone care to give tax breaks, for example, to two people who are in love and co-habitating with one another? What is the social benefit? Who cares?

You can’t square your circle because you are too personally invested in the therapeutic aspects to your version of marriage. Your version of marriage doesn’t need legal sanction, period. You may want it for therapeutic reasons, but society at large doesn’t need it.

244

The traditional marriage vows have been around for a long time, and they don’t mention committing to having children. They do mention staying together in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer, until death do you part. I don’t think the fundamental definition has changed as you suggest, because it has never focused on childrearing as the primary purpose. Moreover, I don’t think the value of marriage as a stabilizing mechanism in society has changed.

You’re misusing the term. Honorarium is defined as, “A voluntary payment that is given to a person for services for which fees are not legally or traditionally required.”

We disagree on the value of marriage to society, aside from childrearing. I think it offers significant benefits (first level financial support before drawing on public coffers, lower promiscuity and STDS, etc.) that warrant being encouraged by the government.

245

[quote]forlife wrote:

The traditional marriage vows have been around for a long time, and they don’t mention committing to having children. They do mention staying together in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer, until death do you part. I don’t think the fundamental definition has changed as you suggest, because it has never focused on childrearing as the primary purpose. Moreover, I don’t think the value of marriage as a stabilizing mechanism in society has changed.[/quote]

This is preposterous. The policy of marriage isn’t derived from the “vows” said in the ritual - the policy is derived from the examination of social ills to be remedied and the enactment of a law to provide that remedy.

Your “proof” that state-sanctioned marriage isn’t really a policy related to ordering the raising of children, etc. because “children ain’t mentioned in the vows” might be the most foolish argument you’ve ever made here. Legislators don’t care what people are saying in their vows - they care about perceived public policy problems and then they pass laws.

Seriously. That was bad.

I’m not using the term in the modern sense - I’m using it as it was originally used. Use whatever word you want - substitute “legal recognition and privileges”, I don’t care.

You are adopting a definition of marriage to suit your personal interests, and you always have. Your public policy “needs” are nominal, and that’s being generous, and you have only backfilled these reasons after already deciding marriage was different than its traditional understanding.

I find it amazing that you can take the undisputed primary purpose of marriage - children, etc. - and the overwhelming public policy problems associated with children that Western society has faced for thousands of years, and sweep it away as “not really all that important because marriage is about other stuff” and then torture me with insistence that marriage has been around for thousands of years really to…give you what you want it to give you.

Look. Stop it. It’s not helping your cause. What you want is a very different concept of marriage than the traditional version so that your personal preferences can be afforded being caught up on this new concept, i.e., so you can get married. That’s fine - just argue it. Just say it. I may disagree that we need to change marriage’s definition, but I respect that viewpoint as an honest argument.

Continuing this trainwreck argument that marriage has never really been about children and has always really, really been about honoring monogamous relationships more the mere sake of honoring them (even same-sex ones) is just plain silly, and you look foolish. I am being dead serious and not trying to insult you. Give up this nonsense - it actually hurts your cause, I’m telling you.

246

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[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?
[/quote]

Right. And if you don’t, Hell’s Bells, why would you want to get married?

The answer, that has been implied throughout this thread, is that the institution of marriage offers a normative method of dealing with social issues- the raising of children, the division of property after death, even hospital visitations- and that this is such a public good the state has decided to subsidize it (joint filing, social security rights of survivorship).

Marriage should be a contract between two consenting adults. The less power the state possesses to interfere in this arena, the healthier it will be.

The solution is not to empower homosexuals to marry, but instead to limit the power of the state to tell people what contracts they can and can’t involve themselves in. Anything else is just legislating morality.

247

[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]

In the state of Texas, Rick Perry is a greater foe to gay marriage than black Americans. Conservative white Christians are also a greater foe to gay marriage than black Americans, because the former vote.

248

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Tirib, let me focus on this part of your statement:
“Gay marriage is simply a natural step in devaluing THE single component that most accounted for our rise and is now the direct cause of our fall. Gays can do what they want. I will not be kicking their doors down, but DO NOT attempt to sell that to me as marriage or a family.”

It sounds like you don’t have a problem with gays per se. >>>[/quote]Follow me please. According to the Word of God it is an abomination. A damnable perversion of the created order of the holy designer. Therefore I abhor the practice accordingly as one who proclaims Jesus as my Lord. HOWEVER, my life before Christ was also a damnable abomination and I regularly committed acts of all kinds that should have bought me a one way ticket to the lake of fire. It is only by the unsearchable grace of a merciful God that I type this as a new creature in Christ having been transformed by the power of His blood and resurrection. I am not allowed to hate or self righteously condescend to ANYBODY.

Take elder forlife as an example. I honestly and truly pray for him AND his “partner”. He may not know or believe this, but I have invested myself in him. I care about him. I want him as my brother. How can that ever be if somebody were to round him up and kill him? That’s not what I want. This is not theocratic Israel. One strike and you’re out. I should have been struck dead where I stood ten thousand times. How am I gonna put my nose in the air and cringe and wince at the “filthy fag and his homo boyfriend”? No sir. To me he’s just another lost man who needs Jesus. My hand is always out to him. [quote]MikeTheBear wrote:<<< I mean, unlike those folks at Westboro Baptist, you’re not looking to round up gays and put them in prison. >>>[/quote]Phelps and his Westboro crew are traitors to the very gospel of grace they claim to preach. They do not know their own sin and it is that that produces their anti-Christian holier than thou hatred. [quote]MikeTheBear wrote:I’m guessing you probably don’t care if gay couples buy houses together, live together, make medical decisions for one another, and inherit property when one partner passes away. You have a problem with attaching the word “marriage” and “family” to such relationships. Is that right? >>>[/quote] As I said. I have a major problem with homosexuality period. My purpose in their regard on this planet though is to reflect to them the everlasting lovingkindness shown to me. As I read the scriptures, that purpose is not served by unduly suffocating their lives. I would like it if nobody was gay, but being that some are, I’m not going to be the one to tell otherwise peaceable citizens who can legally do what within the context of their private life. I will however never relent from calling them to repentance and declaring their lifestyle the horrific sin that it is.

Lastly for now, NO NO NO a thousand times NO!!! Making homosexuality marriage and or family is as I say, another indicative of a society that has clearly lost it’s way and is not long for this world in anything like it’s historical stature. To sum up? I would enter a burning building to drag elder forlife to safety. I really would (as I’m preaching the gospel to him even if he was unconscious =] ) That is not just talk and I would not be sorry I did even if he told to f**k off after I saved his life. The Lord loved me and did not give up on me long after I had given up on myself. How can I give anybody else less? Homosexuality is still a capitol crime before the throne of the most high God and I will never dare call it anything else or accept it’s being given social status reserved for a man, his female wife and their children. Many will write me off (again) as an anachronistic fanatical religious antique best put away in an attic somewhere. I couldn’t care less. [/quote]

I’m sorry, I haven’t read the whole thread yet so I don’t know if someone has pointed this out or not, but when you say you’re praying for forlife and his partner, you’re praying they’ll find God and Jesus and become straight. You’re not praying for a long healthy life, unless that long healthy life is lived as a STRAIGHT person. Please say what you mean when you say you’re “praying” for a gay person. What you mean is, you pray to your God that they find the “error” of their ways and turn straight. Like it’s an option? Again, 99.9% of gay people are born gay. They’ve known it their whole lives. We’ve found genes for a ton of other things, I’m sure at some point they will isolate that gene as well. I think the only cases of people turning gay are women who have been repeatedly sexually abused by men and in turn find men sexually abhorrent and women as sexually safe.

Having said what I’ve said, I’m done with this debate. There’s no use debating with a still wet-behind-the-ears brainwashed catechumen who lost his ability to think without first consulting the Bible and the rest of the religious conservative die hards in here. If it’s not said in the Bible, I guess it isn’t true. FUCK THAT.

249

[quote]forlife wrote:
And that’s where the discrimination occurs, in this case by placing an undue burden on gay couples over what is required of straight couples. A friend of mine was with his partner for 25 years and had medical power of attorney. But because they didn’t grab the documentation in the middle of his partner’s heart attack, my friend wasn’t allowed to visit his partner on his death bed until the parents arrived and granted permission.[/quote]

So what? So what if he wasn’t allowed to visit his partner because he didn’t grab the proper documentation? Why should his relationship be treated any differently than that of two long time pals with the same visitation arrangment, where one has forgotten the proper paperwork? Are gays special because their attachment involves sex? Why are their homosexual activities so special that they’re held up on a state recognized pedestal relative to the two long time friends?

I would love to see this answered. But let me guess. Because of ‘love.’ So, love of friends is real. What exactly is the difference that justifies state discrimination between the two ? An implied promise of sex?! Umm, that can’t be. What the hey does the state have to do with that? What is the state doing discriminating between nonsexual and sexual? Why the bigotry? And what the heck is so special about homosexuals having sex, that we’d grant them ‘rights’ above two people who aren’t having sex? Again, why the bigotry?

250

[quote]forlife said:

I don’t think the fundamental definition has changed as you suggest, because it has never focused on childrearing as the primary purpose.[/quote]

This line is so bad, so incredibly dishonest, I had to highlight it on its own after re-reading it. I simply can’t believe I read that statement as part of an argument.

251

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
And that’s where the discrimination occurs, in this case by placing an undue burden on gay couples over what is required of straight couples. A friend of mine was with his partner for 25 years and had medical power of attorney. But because they didn’t grab the documentation in the middle of his partner’s heart attack, my friend wasn’t allowed to visit his partner on his death bed until the parents arrived and granted permission.[/quote]

So what? So what if he wasn’t allowed to visit his partner because he didn’t grab the proper documentation? Why should his relationship be treated any differently than that of two long time pals with the same visitation arrangment, where one has forgotten the proper paperwork? Are gays special because their attachment involves sex? Why are their homosexual activities so special that they’re held up on a state recognized pedestal relative to the two long time friends?

I would love to see this answered. But let me guess. Because of ‘love.’ So, love of friends is real. What exactly is the difference that justifies state discrimination between the two ? An implied promise of sex?! Umm, that can’t be. What the hey does the state have to do with that? What is the state doing discriminating between nonsexual and sexual? Why the bigotry? And what the heck is so special about homosexuals having sex, that we’d grant them ‘rights’ above two people who aren’t having sex? Again, why the bigotry?[/quote]

They are not “long time pals”, they are LIFE PARTNERS! Just like you and your spouse are LIFE PARTNERS. What’s wrong with wanting the same privileges?

EDIT: Equating a gay relationship to a friendship is ignorant. They love just like you and your wife love. We’re not talking about your best buddy you’ve known since you were 5, we’re talking about the person you want to spend the rest of your life with. Why can’t homosexuals have the same rights we do?

252

[quote]Grneyes wrote:<<< when you say you’re praying for forlife and his partner, you’re praying they’ll find God and Jesus and become straight. >>>[/quote]God and Jesus aren’t lost, but essentially yes and I never implied otherwise. You have no idea the vey long ongoing dialog we’ve had. He knows what I mean and I’m sure he’s finds it arrogant and presumptuous though I intend nothing of the sort. I’ve said a hundred times that homosexuality is a symptom of being lost in sin. I had my symptoms too and some after I knew better which makes me on that level worse than him.

This is a big topic which I will resist for now, but whether we find it’s genetic or not is utterly irrelevant in my reading of the bible.

253

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

They are not “long time pals”, they are LIFE PARTNERS! Just like you and your spouse are LIFE PARTNERS. What’s wrong with wanting the same privileges?[/quote]

So? You completely avoided the question. Who cares if they’re life partners? Does that make them better than John Doe and his pal? Are they a higher form of human being?

Nope. The reality is, you can’t answer my question without discriminating. Ok, so in the gay relationship they have sex. Um, and? We’re supposed to put them on a pedestal above other forms of human relationships because they’re having sex? Bigotry.

Again, why are you discriminating against one relationship as oppossed to the other? Great you love/have sex with someone in contrast to the love/no sex of a different relationship. Whoopdie-doo, bigot.

What the hell is so special about homosexuals having sex that they’re afforded priviledges above and beyond that of two drinking buddies? WHY are you discriminating?! Why are you carving out a special little niche for homosexual relationships, legaly stamping an approval on it, granting it special privilidges and telling us that this is anti-discrimination when it isn’t?!

Pro-gay marriage folk are so bass-ackwards in thought. In their little quest to stamp out bigotry, inequality, and discrimination the fools have singled out one human relationship to also privilidge above others! And they thought they were doing the opposite the whole damn time, lol.

Why? Because for many of you, it’s a fad. You were tricked into using the state to priviledge yet another group to the exclusion of other forms of human relationship. Lady Gaga said so, it must be done. You folks never stopped to think. Never caught on that you weren’t fighting discrimination. You were instead discriminating all along.

Unless, of course, you’re simply using gay marriage as a launching pad for ‘undefining’ marriage to the point of absurdity. That is, you’d extend ‘marriage’ to whatever imaginative arrangment consenting adults might come up with. Even if it’s John Doe and his best pals/roommates.

Why don’t we really fight bigotry and have the congress classify every american as a married person, no matter sex or lack of it, relationships or lack of ‘em. Marriage could just be redefined to mean, "person.’ Oh, sweet, sweet, progressive utopia.

Geeze.

254

[quote]But let’s flex our imagination muscles why don’t we. A different form of relationship than either a simple homosexual relationship or the nonsexual relationship John Doe has with his best friend. Imagine forlife’s friend DID remember the paperwork, and is allowed the visit. But now a third person shows up at the desk, a woman!. This person says she is the patient’s life partner, but she has left her paperwork back up at home. She is told no, a male life partner has already proven himself. Oh, but the woman explains, the three are involved in an alternative lifestyle.

See, the two men are bisexual, loving each other and her. And her, loving both. They are, she explains, polyamorous. And now here she is, without the proper paperwork. But even after the other partner emerges from his visitation and verifies her story, she is still denied access without her documentation. Well, we’re good little emotional equality crusaders so back to redefining marriage, again!

No, we won’t? Oooooh, but then support of homosexual marriage isn’t based on those buzzwords, anti-discrimination/bigorty. It’s just a poorly thought out cool-kid fad, which suddendly appears completely unprincipled when other human reltionships would ride it’s coattails. Fakers. Frauds. The duped.[/quote]

Redefine marriage, again? It sort of got skipped, which was predictable.

255

Wait, Sloth, sorry for jumping in here, was just lurking. Trying to wrap my head around your point, are you saying that your relationship with your wife & your best male friend is exactly the same? except that you have sex with your wife?

Not trying to start arguement, just not seeing your point.

256

[quote]thick88 wrote:

Not trying to start arguement, just not seeing your point. [/quote]

Ask youself this, why should we discriminate against other forms of sexual or non-sexual relationships by privileging 2 people in a homosexual relationship. What great service does it provide, to deserve it’s pedestal over the polyamorous, the best friends, and etc? Hmm? It offers none. If what two guys do in the bedroom is exclusively their business, even if it’s only to sleep in seperate beds on opposite sides of the room, why the hell am I asked to support ‘bigotry’ by privileging homosexualtiy (which offers manking nothing), above other relationships? Even the relationship of two lifetime-bachelor-bestfriend-roommates?

Homosexuality could vanish tomorrow, and it’d be like a gnat farting in the wind as far it’s impact goes, yet I’m asked to treat it as if it offers something special enough to be rewarded above all other (besides one form of) relationships?

You’re not a better “bigot” because you’d include a mere one more relationship (homosexual monogamous) in a priviledged status (alongside hetero monogamous marriage) above others. Oh wow, you’re so much better than me with your great big expansion of marriage to include a whopping one other form of relationship. Wow, you titan of tolerance, you!

  1. It’s (support of homosexual marriage) either the ill-thoughtout fad of the stupid.

Or

  1. It’s the launching pad for a much broader goal. That being redefining marriage to mean pretty much nothing to society.
257

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]thick88 wrote:

Not trying to start arguement, just not seeing your point. [/quote]

Ask youself this, why should we discriminate against other forms of sexual or non-sexual relationships by privileging 2 people in a homosexual relationship. What great service does it provide, to deserve it’s pedestal over the polyamorous, the best friends, and etc? Hmm? It offers none. If what two guys do in the bedroom is exclusively their business, even if it’s only to sleep in seperate beds on opposite sides of the room, why the hell am I asked to support ‘bigotry’ by privileging homosexualtiy (which offers manking nothing), above other relationships? Even the relationship of two lifetime-bachelor-bestfriend-roommates?
AAh, just trying to see where you were coming from. Again did not intend insult of any kind.

This explains your arguement much better. Thanks.
Homosexuality could vanish tomorrow, and it’d be like a gnat farting in the wind as far it’s impact goes, yet I’m asked to treat it as if it offers something special enough to be rewarded above all other (besides one form of) relationships?

You’re not a better “bigot” because you’d include a mere one more relationship (homosexual monogamous) in a priviledged status (alongside hetero monogamous marriage) above others. Oh wow, you’re so much better than me with your great big expansion of marriage to include a whopping one other form of relationship. Wow, you titan of tolerance, you!

  1. It’s (support of homosexual marriage) either the ill-thoughtout fad of the stupid.

Or

  1. It’s the launching pad for a much broader goal. That being redefining marriage to mean pretty much nothing to society.
    [/quote]
    AAh just trying to see where you were coming from, again did not intend insult of any kind.

This explains your arguement much better, thanks.

258

[quote]Sloth wrote:
2. It’s the launching pad for a much broader goal. That being redefining marriage to mean pretty much nothing to society.
[/quote]

I’ve said it before and repeat it again, it has already been done, by good heterosexual married couples, there is nothing left for you to save. That somebody somewhere has a lasting relationship is nothing more but an anachronism. Maybe the western world should introduce iranian style temporary marriages as an alternative to lifelong committment.

259

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]thick88 wrote:

Not trying to start arguement, just not seeing your point. [/quote]

Ask youself this, why should we discriminate against other forms of sexual or non-sexual relationships by privileging 2 people in a homosexual relationship. What great service does it provide, to deserve it’s pedestal over the polyamorous, the best friends, and etc? Hmm? It offers none. If what two guys do in the bedroom is exclusively their business, even if it’s only to sleep in seperate beds on opposite sides of the room, why the hell am I asked to support ‘bigotry’ by privileging homosexualtiy (which offers manking nothing), above other relationships? Even the relationship of two lifetime-bachelor-bestfriend-roommates?

Homosexuality could vanish tomorrow, and it’d be like a gnat farting in the wind as far it’s impact goes, yet I’m asked to treat it as if it offers something special enough to be rewarded above all other (besides one form of) relationships?

You’re not a better “bigot” because you’d include a mere one more relationship (homosexual monogamous) in a priviledged status (alongside hetero monogamous marriage) above others. Oh wow, you’re so much better than me with your great big expansion of marriage to include a whopping one other form of relationship. Wow, you titan of tolerance, you!

  1. It’s (support of homosexual marriage) either the ill-thoughtout fad of the stupid.

Or

  1. It’s the launching pad for a much broader goal. That being redefining marriage to mean pretty much nothing to society.
    [/quote]

Couldn’t you use this same argument against interracial marriages? Interracial marriages makeup less than 5% of the population in the US.

Why put mixed-marriages on a pedestal?

260

i’m a polyamorous guy.
but i do NOT advocate polyamorous marriage(s?).

three main reasons :

-i already got more than enough adminstrative chores to do

-I fully realize that heterosexual monogamous marriage is (or was) the most fundamental institution of (western) society. and i don’t feel the need to subvert this for the sake of my sexual happiness.

-I don’t need or desire social recognition.

but then again, maybe i would think differently if i had been bullied, insulted, hated all my life…