Any Dudes Wanna Get Married?

[kaaleppi]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[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]

Didn’t even get touched, of course.
[/quote]

I shouldn’t answer because I’m away for a couple of days. That sounds more like a typical bureaucratic problem to me, I’ll throw the nazi-card here, that’s what made nazi-germany possible, that mindset. No set of rules will ever abolish that threat to humankind and gays are nothing to compare with that samaritarian you just described there.

[ZEB]

[quote]forlife wrote:

Marriage is about two people deciding to become a FAMILY.[/quote]

Whahahaha…thanks for the laugh. No really and some were saying that you bring nothing to these forums other than hissy fits. Ha…(wiping tears from eyes).

[ZEB]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]Your opposition to gay marriage is similarly based on your moral conviction that gay sex is categorically wrong, whether inside or outside of marriage.

This is what I’ve been saying all along. The battle for gay rights is ultimately, unavoidably, a MORAL debate. People who are morally opposed to homosexuality will resist gay marriage to their dying day, and no amount of logic or evidence will make any difference to their views.[/quote]

maybe it’s true in sloth’s case. but in mine ?

remember i’m an unbeliever and an “alternative lifestylist”(if such a word exist in english).
a fair number of my partner are bisexual girls and men.
I could even consider gay sex myself, if i ever find a man attractive and seductive enough.

i have absolutely nothing against gay sex, or gay romance, or gay household. Monogamous, polyamorous or otherwise.

but I still remember that marriage is not about romance or long-term commitment. it’s about becoming a member a the smallest and most fundamental social institution : a family.

I’m fully aware that my alternative lifestyle is just that : an alternative.
It’s not a model nor an institution, and it is not supposed to be one.

my relationships are not “a family” in any way or shape, the State has no more reason to support it than a local football club or an internet forum.

I have no reason to pretend otherwise.

Insisting to label my polyamorous relationships “plural marriages” and asking for their “legalization”, while whining about “discrimination” and “bigotry” would be grotesque.

And that’s exactly what you’re doing here.

The day gay marriage become legal, ALL existing marriages suddenly take a new and different meaning.
It’s no more the basic social institution. it become romance “officialized” and “defiscalized”.

and you should understand that some people don’t want to see their marriage becoming meaningless in order to appease an anguished minority.

[/quote]

Sounds like you’re merely sexually liberal, rather than capable of falling deeply in love with another man, and committing the rest of your life to him. Given that perspective, it doesn’t surprise me that you don’t consider committed gay couples to be families.

Fortunately, the majority of Americans disagree with you. Admittedly, it’s a slim majority and we have miles yet to go. But it will happen, and my partner and I will be there to celebrate.[/quote]

Wrong, the majority of Americans are against same sex marriage. As proven by the many referendums on gay marriage which are always defeated. Is gay marriage okay? Not according to the American people who do not want it in their state.

[ZEB]

[quote]kamui wrote:

Sounds like you’re merely sexually liberal, rather than capable of falling deeply in love with another man, and committing the rest of your life to him. Given that perspective, it doesn’t surprise me that you don’t consider committed gay couples to be families.

no.
I’m perfectly able to fall deeply in love and to commit the rest of my life with someone.
the vast majority of swingers are, you know.

But i still don’t think it’s enough to qualify as a family. And i’m not exhibitionnist or insecure enough to ask the State and the whole society to acknowledge, confirm and promote my long-term romance(s).

being a family is being part of a social, legal and cultural institution.
It’s about being a “societal model”, in a specific culture.
My relationships, long-term or not, romantic or not, doesn’t qualify.

yours qualify even less.

“libertine marriage” could be such a societal model… in another civilization, another time, another culture.
It would require vastly different parentality and filiation laws, and a vastly different mindset… otherwise it would (will ?) be catastrophic.

Gay marriage on the other hand will never be such a “societal model”, because it’s simply not a viable model.

[/quote]

Well said Kamui.

[Gambit_Lost]

[quote]kamui wrote:

no.
I’m perfectly able to fall deeply in love and to commit the rest of my life with someone.
the vast majority of swingers are, you know.

But i still don’t think it’s enough to qualify as a family. And i’m not exhibitionnist or insecure enough to ask the State and the whole society to acknowledge, confirm and promote my long-term romance(s).

being a family is being part of a social, legal and cultural institution.
It’s about being a “societal model”, in a specific culture.
My relationships, long-term or not, romantic or not, doesn’t qualify.

yours qualify even less. [/quote]

Could you elaborate on what you mean by this? Are you implying that the model must include children? Why must the model exclude homosexuals specifically?

[Sloth]

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

no.
I’m perfectly able to fall deeply in love and to commit the rest of my life with someone.
the vast majority of swingers are, you know.

But i still don’t think it’s enough to qualify as a family. And i’m not exhibitionnist or insecure enough to ask the State and the whole society to acknowledge, confirm and promote my long-term romance(s).

being a family is being part of a social, legal and cultural institution.
It’s about being a “societal model”, in a specific culture.
My relationships, long-term or not, romantic or not, doesn’t qualify.

yours qualify even less. [/quote]

Could you elaborate on what you mean by this? Are you implying that the model must include children? Why must the model exclude homosexuals specifically?

[/quote]

I’m quessing because there’s a bit of a reproductive problem with homosexual sex. And no, we’re not talking about adopting children. We’re talking about having more children brought into the world, from here to eternity.

[kamui]

Are you implying that the model must include children?

it must include at least the possibility of children and gender differences, among other things.

but it’s not really the problem :

first of all, our civilization already HAS a model.
this model is patrilinear, monogamous, heterosexual.

admittedly, other models are certainly possibles and other models have existed in other cultures or in other times.

But none of these models have ever been “sexually indifferent” or “gender indifferent”. (there need to be at least some rules)
And none of these models have ever actively and openly promoted infertile relationships.

but in any case, you don’t change a civilizational model, especially fundamental structures like the structures of kinship, based on the desire of a minority.

the problem here is that the gay community will make the very thing they want (marriage) meaningless.

yes, Forlife and his partner will probably see their victory, and celebrate it. But the marriage they will get won’t be anything close to the marriage they want. Because Marriage itself will have been changed in the process, becoming more meaningless it already is.

And for this very reason, it won’t be enough for them.

[Gambit_Lost]

[quote]kamui wrote:

Are you implying that the model must include children?

it must include at least the possibility of children and gender differences, among other things.

but it’s not really the problem :

first of all, our civilization already HAS a model.
this model is patrilinear, monogamous, heterosexual.

admittedly, other models are certainly possibles and other models have existed in other cultures or in other times.

But none of these models have ever been “sexually indifferent” or “gender indifferent”. (there need to be at least some rules)
And none of these models have ever actively and openly promoted infertile relationships.

but in any case, you don’t change a civilizational model, especially fundamental structures like the structures of kinship, based on the desire of a minority.

the problem here is that the gay community will make the very thing they want (marriage) meaningless. [/quote]

Thanks for sharing. You have an interesting perspective.

[quote]yes, Forlife and his partner will probably see their victory, and celebrate it. But the marriage they will get won’t be anything close to the marriage they want. Because Marriage itself will have been changed in the process, becoming more meaningless it already is.

And for this very reason, it won’t be enough for them. [/quote]

Not trying to be crass but… how can you think you have any idea of what will “be enough” for an internet entity and his partner that you’ve never even “internet-spoken” with?

[Makavali]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
until we suddenly decided that infidelity wasn’t so bad after all[/quote]

And pray tell, when did we “decide” this? Infidelity is just as bad as it always was, it’s just far easier to get caught now.

[kamui]

maybe because i know an internal contradiction when i see one.

but you’re right. I don’t positively know what will be enough for them, specifically.
I was thinking about gays in general. And i should have make it clear.

[Makavali]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

You did.[/quote]

No, you did.

[/quote]

??

You don’t think you made conflicting statements?

In one post you say gay marriage will sky rocket if legalized nationwide and in another you say less than 1% of the population is interested in gay marriage.[/quote]

They are not conflicting. If 1% of all homosexuals who want to get married follow through and get married, then gay marriage will sky rocket.

Let’s not argue for the sake of arguing. In fact, let’s not even argue. Has anyones mind ever been changed in an Internet debate?

You’re pro gay marriage and I’m against it.

Simple.

The End.

(Edit: You’re a 25 year old Canadian. We are never going to agree my friend take care:)[/quote]

You’re very good at ignoring what he actually said.

[Gambit_Lost]

[quote]forlife wrote:

When people actually know gay men and women, especially when those people are friends and family, their perspectives change. And that, far more than any discussion in a bodybuilding forum, is what will move us forward as a society capable of respecting and even appreciating people that are different from us.
[/quote]

I think this is true. 'Course, I think we agreed on this a few pages ago (a few years ago I suppose if we take it far enough).

[ZEB]

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

You did.[/quote]

No, you did.

[/quote]

??

You don’t think you made conflicting statements?

In one post you say gay marriage will sky rocket if legalized nationwide and in another you say less than 1% of the population is interested in gay marriage.[/quote]

They are not conflicting. If 1% of all homosexuals who want to get married follow through and get married, then gay marriage will sky rocket.

Let’s not argue for the sake of arguing. In fact, let’s not even argue. Has anyones mind ever been changed in an Internet debate?

You’re pro gay marriage and I’m against it.

Simple.

The End.

(Edit: You’re a 25 year old Canadian. We are never going to agree my friend take care:)[/quote]

You’re very good at ignoring what he actually said.[/quote]

Your reading comprehension has not improved in all the time you’ve been here at T Nation. I answered his concern DIRECTLY prior to signing off. Run along now Mak.

[Cortes]

[quote]forlife wrote:

Are you denying that you have an aversion to homosexuality? Do you honestly believe it’s morally acceptable for gays to have a committed long term relationship? If so, I would be pleasantly surprised. And please do answer the question, it’s not rhetorical.
[/quote]

Look, forlife, it doesn’t matter if I’m a Nazi member of the Ku Klux Klan attending Westborough Baptist crushing a kitten’s skull under my jackbooted heel as I type, you are still obligated to address the actual arguments I make, or we might as well all go home. This is exactly what you got so upset at TB for supposedly doing to you, yet here you are assigning or implying latent motives to my arguments where none are necessary.

I completely agree that society benefits from heterosexual couples getting married and having biological children. I just get tired of the double standard.

The “double standard,” and the point, to bring us back off this side-track, exists because one kind of relationship confers upon its society basic benefits that the other kind of relationship does not. Period.

You have yet to demonstrate otherwise.

[Grneyes]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Grneyes wrote: Again, a gay relationship is just like any other ROMANTIC relationship.

Um, you still haven’t explained to us why we’re supposed to reward romantic relationships with special statuses and privileges…You continue to answer without actually dealing with the question. What is it about gay romantic relationships that is so critically important to humanity. There must be some irreplaceable service it provides to justify your discrimination over ever other form of human relationship (but one).

Romance, isn’t an answer, it simply describes the friggen nature of the relationship. What the heck does their romance have to do with anything? I’ve already pointed out the obvious reason why we do privilege hetero marriage. Now you tell me what justifies your new novel discrimination; raising homosexual ‘romance’ up onto a pedeastal.

At least us traditional marriage folk easily provide an argument for the present 1 man and woman model, justifying our discrimination and privileging between human relationships. You on the otherhand have yet to give us a rational argument for privileging a mere one more human relationship (you titan of tolerance). You want us to favor homosexual relationships without ANY justifiable reasons. Who is the bigot here? The one with rational reasons for discriminating, us? Or the person, you, wanting society to discriminate based on some irrational emotional attachment?[/quote]

Ummm, because heterosexuals in a romantic relationship are afforded special status, duh. Romance and love, have everything to do with the relationship, whether straight or gay. That’s why those relationships are afforded special status of MARRIAGE. Otherwise, they would be as you say, roommates with benefits. You just proved my point.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< When people actually know gay men and women, especially when those people are friends and family, their perspectives change.[/quote]Not mine.

[Sloth]

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

Ummm, because heterosexuals in a romantic relationship[/quote]

We don’t extend it to the polyamorous, are you agitating for their inclusion, too? Otherwise, we’re still talking about discrimination. Please, please, I’m begging you to answer this.

Anyways, do your really think state recognized marriage is to reward you for your romances? What does that have to do with anyone else? Besides, your romantic relationship is not objectively better than the relationship of two best friends. That is a personal and emotional opinion, period. This is not why we’ve made a state recognized institution of marriage, to pat you on the head for finding romance? Really? Come on folks…

[Sloth]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< When people actually know gay men and women, especially when those people are friends and family, their perspectives change.[/quote]Not mine.
[/quote]

Same.

[Gambit_Lost]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< When people actually know gay men and women, especially when those people are friends and family, their perspectives change.[/quote]Not mine.
[/quote]

Same. [/quote]

I believe he mentioned elsewhere, and I firmly believe, that those with (what I consider to be) extreme religious beliefs, will not change their views.

[Sloth]

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< When people actually know gay men and women, especially when those people are friends and family, their perspectives change.[/quote]Not mine.
[/quote]

Same. [/quote]

I believe he mentioned elsewhere, and I firmly believe, that those with (what I consider to be) extreme religious beliefs, will not change their views. [/quote]

Is that why you guys won’t change your minds and agree with me? I hadn’t thought of it…