Any Dudes Wanna Get Married?

[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]
Homosexuality happens. It’s genetic. [/quote]

Maybe. But then, maybe alcoholism, pedophilia, and breast cancer is genetic, too. Genetic does not mean “good.”

[quote]
If homosexuality wasn’t supposed to exist, then it wouldn’t happen since your G-d wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah. If your God had done it the right way the first time, we wouldn’t still have this “problem”, would we?[/quote]

G-d lets lots of bad things happen. People have lots of explanations why. I defer to G-d’s answer to Job, which was “where were you when I created the Heavans and the Earth.”

In short, His ways are way above our pay scale

(Also, G-d made no pretense of whiping out ALL homosexuals in S&G. There were lots and lots of things wrong in S&G.)[/quote]

The State butts in because there are legal issues that arise when one person dies. Who gets their pension benefits? What about medical insurance? What about any children? How are they protected? The State HAS to butt in. Marriages were never about religion in the past. It was about what the woman could bring to the man in her dowry and what the father could sell her to the man for in recompense. It was never about religion. It was to align families, lands, money. NOT religion.

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Never mind, damnit. Edit didn’t go through at all.

What I said was that you would respond that pedophilia does not involve consenting adults, to which numerous other distasteful arrangements which do could be substituted without changing the substance of my point. [/quote]

Hahaha…I was going to ask “what edit?” I hate when that happens!

Marriage outdates any of the abrahamic religions. In the past it was used basically to form strategic alliances.

Who cares if religion has loomed over marriage? Marriage started in the SECULAR world.

[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]

Nope. Historically, marriage began as a legal institution. In feudal times it was a way for the landowning elite to accumulate more land and pass that land on to “legitimate” heirs. Marriages were arranged - love was irrelevant. Only children born of the marriage could inherit the land. If a young nobleman decided to have a romp in the hay with a cute peasant, any child conceived from this little romp was illegitimate and could not inherit anything. The church became involved because the clergy were eager to please the wealthy who provided for the church’s support. Calling marriage “sacred” and prohibiting divorce was just another way of keeping arranged couples together in what were probably loveless relationships. Marriage was thus started for purely economic reasons.


SOCIETY WILL CRUMBLE

[quote]Makavali wrote:
SOCIETY WILL CRUMBLE[/quote]

LOL…I LOVE IT!!! If society was made of gold lame’ (sorry, can’t get that little accent thing) gays would RULE society!!!

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
IMHO Gay marriage is wrong. IT should be called something else…like same sex union. Because it will never, ever in a million years be marriage by definition. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Give em rights all day long, but to disgrace the meaning of marriage is unacceptable. [/quote]

I couldn’t care less what you call it. I just want equal legal rights with my partner.[/quote]

You have equal rights already. Each of us have the option of marrying any women who will say yes. That is EQUAL rights. What you want are special rights. [/quote]

No, no he doesn’t. In a hospital situation, he does not have the right to be with his partner or make choices for him if the partner is incapacitated. They will go to his IMMEDIATE family, which would be the partner’s parents. A heterosexual’s IMMEDIATE family is considered their spouse, which he would not be considered. He’s just a lover or a partner. The word “spouse” has a lot more power than those words. That is not equal rights.
[/quote]

We’ve rehashed this countless times on this site. We all have equal rights. My best buddy who I’ve lifted weights with for years can’t have a say when I’m in the hospital either (good thing he’d tell them to pull the plug:). The point is we all have the same rights. Homosexuals want special rights under the law.

[quote]Makavali wrote:
SOCIETY WILL CRUMBLE[/quote]

LOL…that was pretty funny Mak.

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:<<< Nope. Historically, marriage began as a legal institution. >>>[/quote]Read De Tocqueville’s very studious and considered observations on marriage and the relations between the sexes in the United States in the 1830’s and get back to me. He would think that interplanetary space travel had been perfected in his absence and this could not possibly be the same earth he studied this country on were he to rejoin us today. He’d think he’d been transported to some alternate universe where the United Sates has become a national whorehouse. Go ahead and see how legalistic the decidedly Judeo-Christian marriage model we were built on actually wasn’t. See how he describes the abject misery the poor wenches were subsisting in then. In the normative main that is. Of course not absolutely everybody was the same.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Oh dear. PWI has this odd effect of being like the movie Groundhog Day. Arguments long since eviscerated just resurface anew, as if time somehow corrects their flaws.

Gay marriage has next to no analogy to inter-racial marriage. This should be obvious for a variety of reasons, but not the least of which an inter-racial heterosexual union still (theoretically) fulfills the function of marriage as a social institution.

And, attempts to prevent inter-racial marriage had nothing to do with marriage - it had to do strictly with race issues, i.e., perpetuation of racial supremacy/solidarity, etc.

And, of course, I always offer this up, but gay marriage advocates always shrink away from it - if gay marriage is the equivalent to the Civil Rights issue of inter-racial marriage, then ipso facto that must mean that opponents to gay marriage are the moral equivalent to opponents of inter-racial marriage during the Civil Rights movement.

Okey dokey, well, then - the black community overwhelmingly disapproves of gay marriage. So, of course, based on the above, that means that black Americans are the moral equivalent to those that opposed inter-racial marriage. They have to be. They are the modern KKK on this issue.

So, why won’t gay marriage advocates just come up and say this to black Americans?[/quote]

Great Post!

[quote]therajraj wrote:<<< So is there a valid non-religious argument against gay marriage? >>>[/quote]The religious reasons were the ones that set the trajectory of this nation while she was on her unprecedented meteoric ascent and its the abandonment of those very reasons that is as I type this ushering in our bloodless demise. You can line up egg headed bookworms, studies in hand from my front door to the Ambassador Bridge. Nothing, I MEAN NOTHING will dissuade me from what I see right in front of my face pounding me in the forehead. I gave my reasons already.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
IMHO Gay marriage is wrong. IT should be called something else…like same sex union. Because it will never, ever in a million years be marriage by definition. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Give em rights all day long, but to disgrace the meaning of marriage is unacceptable. [/quote]

I couldn’t care less what you call it. I just want equal legal rights with my partner.[/quote]

You have equal rights already. Each of us have the option of marrying any women who will say yes. That is EQUAL rights. What you want are special rights. [/quote]

No, no he doesn’t. In a hospital situation, he does not have the right to be with his partner or make choices for him if the partner is incapacitated. They will go to his IMMEDIATE family, which would be the partner’s parents. A heterosexual’s IMMEDIATE family is considered their spouse, which he would not be considered. He’s just a lover or a partner. The word “spouse” has a lot more power than those words. That is not equal rights.
[/quote]

We’ve rehashed this countless times on this site. We all have equal rights. My best buddy who I’ve lifted weights with for years can’t have a say when I’m in the hospital either (good thing he’d tell them to pull the plug:). The point is we all have the same rights. Homosexuals want special rights under the law.
[/quote]

No, they want the SAME rights. Why can’t a gay couple have the same rights as a straight couple?

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Nothing, I MEAN NOTHING will dissuade me from what I see right in front of my face pounding me in the forehead. I gave my reasons already.
[/quote]

Well, in New York, you can now consecrate the bond between you and the owner of that mysterious object pounding you in the face.

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

No, they want the SAME rights. Why can’t a gay couple have the same rights as a straight couple? [/quote]

Because marriage is between a man and a woman. People of the same sex getting ‘married’ is not marriage, just by definition.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

No, they want the SAME rights. Why can’t a gay couple have the same rights as a straight couple? [/quote]

Because marriage is between a man and a woman. People of the same sex getting ‘married’ is not marriage, just by definition.
[/quote]

So, it doesn’t have anything to do with the fact the majority of opponents cite the Bible as the reason? It’s just the definition of marriage that is the problem? BULLSHIT. If it was just the definition, we could just change it, add to it. No, this is a purely religious problem. Religion has taken over marriage and want to claim it all to itself. Marriage is not a religious institution, it’s been taken over by religion. It’s a legal institution, pure and simple. And because some people are religiously against homosexuals they are stopping people from having the same rights they do. It’s the religious community discriminating against outsiders…like always.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:<<< Nope. Historically, marriage began as a legal institution. >>>[/quote]Read De Tocqueville’s very studious and considered observations on marriage and the relations between the sexes in the United States in the 1830’s and get back to me. He would think that interplanetary space travel had been perfected in his absence and this could not possibly be the same earth he studied this country on were he to rejoin us today. He’d think he’d been transported to some alternate universe where the United Sates has become a national whorehouse. Go ahead and see how legalistic the decidedly Judeo-Christian marriage model we were built on actually wasn’t. See how he describes the abject misery the poor wenches were subsisting in then. In the normative main that is. Of course not absolutely everybody was the same.

[/quote]

Well, I was going back further in time to more like the 1400s when the purpose of marriage was to acquire wealth through land ownership through arranged marriages and to make sure that this wealth was passed down to the proper, “legitimate” heirs.

What I want to know is the exact mechanism by which gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage and child-raising. The only way I can see this happening is if heterosexuals who otherwise would have entered into heterosexual relationship, got married, and had kids, decided instead to try the gay thing since laws allowing gay marriage signify that it’s okay to be gay.

My question is sincere because I’m really trying to see the mechanism for this societal breakdown. I’m a big believer in strong marriages as evidenced, in part at least, by my own marriage of 20 years. I have no intention of moving to NY and hooking up with some gay guy. And if this law had been around 20 years ago I guarantee you that I still would have married my wife. Because of my experiences, I’m having trouble seeing how this would impact heterosexuals at all.

Just for you Mike. Once again:

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:<<< If we heterosexuals are so virtuous, >>>[/quote]You’re smarter than this. That is not what I said. Heterosexual hedonism has been and IS, far and away more destructive than homosexuality if for no other reason than sheer numbers. 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. Reread the whole post please. All of it is required to get the message.
[/quote]

Maybe I’m missing something. You’re suggesting that ‘THE single component that most accounted for our rise’ is heterosexual marriage?

I realize it was a page ago. Seemed pretty important to understanding your argument about America’s downhill course.[/quote]No, I’M not saying, the founders told us that religious morality was essential for their experimental government to work. Denying that the religious morality they were talking about was Christianity doesn’t pass the chuckle test. THE major social component of that morality was, is, the new testament model of monogamous marriage, family and sex. The God of the bible was recognized there and everywhere else. It’s simply false to say otherwise. Yes, that was the bedrock for absolutely everything else. While God was acknowledged and that family model was considered normative this country ascended on every level like no other in human history.

When that was abandoned in the 60’s the decline began immediately and is now in a full flaming tailspin.

I’m not typing this all over again (for the 100th time), but here from a few pages ago when somebody told me this would have no appreciable effect on our future har dee har har.:

[quote]Tiribulus said:Gay marriage is the latest component in a national suicide that began in earnest in the 1960’s. It HAS AND IS having an appreciable effect. A devastating suicidal one. This country was built on the social/political/economic foundation of very limited public government through privately and voluntarily practiced Judeo-Christian morality.

Oh yes it was. Our founders clearly told us that. “The reason we can give you so few rules boys n girls is because you’re already so well behaved on the whole” to paraphrase in a nutshell. Even the total hypocritical pagans like Jefferson and Franklin clearly understood this.

The soil out of which new citizens grow is their family or lack thereof. Every single last issue killing this country is a direct consequence of that. The founders assumed that we would continue in the new testament model of one man and one woman for life wherein boundaries that engender self sacrifice, self control, decency, modesty and HONESTY in the act of upholding one’s vows because one’s word actually meant something. All of this was predicated upon the assumption that God designed it that way. That was the soil for new citizens they absolutely counted on for their experiment in self government to succeed and it did.

We skyrocketed into the most prosperous, powerful, feared and respected nation in all of human history over the course of a few generations BECAUSE despite our human foibles we were the most moral because we were the most Christian. Look at the soil our citizens are growing in now. Children of the hippies. Hedonistic, self obsessed, narcissistic, materialistic whores whose mission in life is bringing themselves the most pleasure in the most rapid fashion possible.

ALL the economic woes we are now in ARE, make no mistake, the consequence of the sexually moral degeneration of this nation’s citizenry resulting in the destruction of the foundational social unit upon which she was built and out of which her members are spawned. Even Stalin understood this. He told the world that the United Sates would never be defeated as long as she maintained her spirituality and hence MORality.

Wanna know what’s rotting this nation dead from the inside out like an oozing flesh eating virus? Go look in your Sex and the Male Animal forum. We will destroy OURSELVES to the snickering glee of our many enemies without a shot being fired, all in the name of getting laid. Gay marriage is just the latest chapter. [/quote]

[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
FYI-- The world has enough people! We should discourage procreation. The only people having kids in America are the poor and the Mormons anyway.[/quote]

So, what you’re saying is you fear poor people.

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
60s with the Civil Rights[/quote]

Um, sexual revolution is not the Civil Rights movement. I’m sure the black folks really like being compared to homosexuals.

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
Homosexuality happens. It’s genetic. Heterosexual people create and give birth to them. If homosexuality wasn’t supposed to exist, then it wouldn’t happen since your God wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah. If your God had done it the right way the first time, we wouldn’t still have this “problem”, would we?[/quote]

It’s not genetics, unless you got some awesome proof that I haven’t seen. If so, please put it forward. Otherwise, I’ll sit with the psychological proof that homosexuality happens by nurture and not nature.

Well, by destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, God didn’t destroy evil as folks still have the free will to remove themselves from the love of God.