gay marriage...

[Androvski]

I'm in the middle of reading a book 'Homosexuality a history'by Colin Spencer.
It appears that gay marriages were common place in the past and that it was quite acceptable for a man to have a wife and a "husband".
Unfortunately,womens rights were pretty much non existent,so lesbian relationships are not as well documented.
It is also quite surprising how many prominent figures in history were openly homosexual.
It seems to me that we could learn a lot from our ancestors when it comes to being open minded about sexuality.

 

[Gardener]

I'm in the middle of reading a book 'Homosexuality a history'by Colin Spencer.
It appears that gay marriages were common place in the past and that it was quite acceptable for a man to have a wife and a "husband".
Unfortunately,womens rights were pretty much non existent,so lesbian relationships are not as well documented.
It is also quite surprising how many prominent figures in history were openly homosexual.
It seems to me that we could learn a lot from our ancestors when it comes to being open minded about sexuality.

As well as giving a different perspective on that label called "conservative". For those who wish to conserve social institutions, why not conserve these you mentioned, instead?

I bring this up because if conservatism is to be based upon nothing beyond the preservation of social institutions, then one has to acknowlege that these institutions are not immutable. Since they are not immutable, people are therefore making a choice as to which they wish to conserve and which they choose not to conserve. Seems to me that this choice can be arbitrary or it can be based upon value judgements, and so unless conservatives can display which value judgements they are using to form the basis of their opinion, they are acting arbitrarily. Conservatism for sake of conservation of social institution alone tends towards a closed loop in terms of logic IMO since there is no single defining origination point. Do we conserve 1970s America (works for me), or 1950's America? 1850 Europe or 1150 Europe? 50 A.D. Rome? 200 B.C. Greece? Neolithic Barbarism?

In the case of the liberal interpretation, I would say that this issue is based upon value judgements -- namely those values of fairness and equality. Seems to me that the challenge to conseravtives is to define their stance based upon something other than "it is this way because it is this way", and to do so without rationalizatin. Otherwise, we might as well go back to the stone age in selecting which social mores we wish to conserve.

 

[ElGringo17]

Androvbsky, since you apprently advocate that we all be "open minded about sexuality" to be consistent taking you own advice, are you also open about other types of sexuality such as bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, coprophilia, etc?

Or is your "open minded about sexuality" suggestion merely a homo-self-seving homosexual propaganda ploy or do you really advocate open mindedness related to all sexuality?

Now, we will all watching you defty avoid the minefield you just laid that I invited you to walk into.

 

[Plain old me]

They are allowed the same rights to marry anyone of the oppsitte sex just the same as normal people are.

But they are not attracted to members of the opposite sex...they harbour attraction for members of the same sex, so why should homosexuals not be allowed to marry? They're both consenting.

Marriage is a serious deal,divorce should not be a option just because a wife no longer loves her husband or a husband no longer loves his wife.Every divorce in this country gives the sick freaks out there another can of fuel to torch marriage.

Okay, marriage is a serious deal...so is getting an education...or a job. We do not imprison people for deciding to change from a Physics degree to an archaeology degree, nor do we imprison people for changing jobs. Why should we imprison people for deciding they no longer want to spend their lives with someone else? It's none of our business to tell someone that they have to stay married to someone, for no real reason.

That is the standard of marriage in this country and many other countries.Men and women can breed and produce children and provide male and female role models to their children.Same sex couples can not do do that on their own.

So what? What bearing does the ability to have children come into it? I would argue marriage has nothing to do with children. One can be married and not have children, similarly people can have children without be married. Just because two people cannot biologically reproduce ooes not mean they cannot be married. Should heterosexual couple who do not have the ability to reproduce be stopped from marrying?

 

[Androvski]

The amount of Pederasty that went on in ancient times,would be (quite rightly)totally unacceptable now.
Some laws have to be kept in place to protect innocents and in the case of paedophillia made considerably harsher!
However I don't see the problem with two consenting adults entering into any legal union that they wish to.
I don't really believe in the concept of marriage anyway,if you love your partner that's all that really matters to me,regardless of their gender,but the same rights should apply to homosexuals as heterosexuals.

 

[ElGringo17]

Well, there you have it, Adrovsky ran away..the old liberal hit and run tactic as their ideas cannot withstand critical review.

 

[morganpony2]

Should gays have the right to marriage?

Yes. I think the best way to explain my view is through answering some of the question that have been raised in this very interesting discussion.

Should gays have the right to marry even though they can not procreate?

I don't see how this really effects whether the marriage is incorrect. It's like saying couples that do not want to have children must never marry, as though family planning is wrong. I do wonder if Jamesrage condones the use of contraception? Which ofcourse he has every freedom to do...

Can gays love?

This sounds like a crazy question, I can see you're thinking, of course why would anyone think otherwise, but Queen Victoria once famously only banned men from being homosexual because she could not fathom that women would go that way. Well whatever your opinion, I believe in love, (I know it sounds crazy but I do). And I also believe that everyone has the right to choose who they love. Just as I have the right to believe this. ^^

That's about it for now, you'll have to excuse the poor arguing, I'm rusty.

 

[Navy Pride]

Marriage should always be restricted to a man and a woman............Gays should have the same rights as all Americans and that can be accomplished through Civil Unions................

 

[YamiB.]

Marriage should always be restricted to a man and a woman............Gays should have the same rights as all Americans and that can be accomplished through Civil Unions................

Why should it be only between a man and a woman? This is a debate, explain yourself.

I don't know if you've studied history at all, seperate but equal is a bad idea. If homosexuals get civil unions from the goverment then heterosexuals should get civil unions from the goverment and only obtain marital rights through that.

 

[ElGringo17]

Re: homo marriage...

Yamo, then explain why homosexuals should be the only non-hetero sexual perversion that you think should be able to get married....why not the other sexual perverts?

 

[vergiss]

Marriage should always be restricted to a man and a woman............Gays should have the same rights as all Americans and that can be accomplished through Civil Unions................

So then you're just getting anal (hah, no pun intended) about a word?

 

[Navy Pride]

If gay marriage was allowed then under the 14th amendment, the dual protections clause, you will have to allow polygamy, family members to marry........It would open a whole new bucket of worms..........Right now gays have the same right to marry as I do.....they can marry someone of the opposite sex..........They want a special right.............

The only reason that there is a high divorce rate is because of young people getting divorced................Its true the overall divorce rate is over 50% but if you go bay age groups it drops drmatically and when you get up to people in their forties and fifties the divorce rate is much lower........

 

[shuamort]

If gay marriage was allowed then under the 14th amendment, the dual protections clause, you will have to allow polygamy, family members to marry........It would open a whole new bucket of worms..........Right now gays have the same right to marry as I do.....they can marry someone of the opposite sex..........They want a special right.............

Right now, straights have the ability to marry the consensual adult that they love. Since this is not afforded to the gays/bis, it is a special right.

The only reason that there is a high divorce rate is because of young people getting divorced................Its true the overall divorce rate is over 50% but if you go bay age groups it drops drmatically and when you get up to people in their forties and fifties the divorce rate is much lower........

"The only reason", I'm sure you can prove that age is the only factor. Psychologists, therapists, and statistics that not only support but can prove this claim. Otherwise it's pure conjecture and unsubstantiated opinion.

 

[Navy Pride]

Right now, straights have the ability to marry the consensual adult that they love. Since this is not afforded to the gays/bis, it is a special right.


"The only reason", I'm sure you can prove that age is the only factor. Psychologists, therapists, and statistics that not only support but can prove this claim. Otherwise it's pure conjecture and unsubstantiated opinion.

I notice you did not mention my comment about the dual protection paragraph in the 14th amendment as far as gay and polygamists go.........

I did not say age was the only factor.........The point I was trying to make is a lot of young people get married at the drop of a hat and the marriage ends in divorce.........As people grow older the divorce rate decreases.............

 

[MrFungus420]

If gay marriage was allowed then under the 14th amendment, the dual protections clause, you will have to allow polygamy, family members to marry

Well, incest is covered under other laws. But, what's wrong with polygamy? It has been the standard in many cultures. It's even mentioned multiple times in the Bible.

It would open a whole new bucket of worms..........Right now gays have the same right to marry as I do.....they can marry someone of the opposite sex..........They want a special right

No, they want the same right to marry the person that they love. They want the same right to be a family. That is denied them.

The only reason that there is a high divorce rate is because of young people getting divorced................Its true the overall divorce rate is over 50% but if you go bay age groups it drops drmatically and when you get up to people in their forties and fifties the divorce rate is much lower........

Totally irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[shuamort]

I notice you did not mention my comment about the dual protection paragraph in the 14th amendment as far as gay and polygamists go.........

Because I don't care what consenting adults do.I don't think my business belongs in other people's private lives and don't think that the government should be concerned either. It's not their directive. Never was when the country was founded and it shouldn't be now.

I did not say age was the only factor.........The point I was trying to make is a lot of young people get married at the drop of a hat and the marriage ends in divorce.........As people grow older the divorce rate decreases.............

Actually,. you DID say that it was the only factor. In case you think I'm accusing you of being a liar without foundation, let's go over your words again. I'll highlight the difficult parts:

The only reason that there is a high divorce rate is because of young people getting divorced

You didn't say the "main reason", the "big reason", or the "majority reason". You said the only reason. :roll:

 

[InDefenseofSanity]

Shuamort, if you really, REALLY believe in your claim you don't care what consenting adults do, then I am sure you favor bring back dueling, right?

Now I am waiting for you to try to waffle out of your claim and parse it by claiming homosexuality is not detrimental to its practitioners.....oh what a trap I have laid for you......

 

[shuamort]

Shuamort, if you really, REALLY believe in your claim you don't care what consenting adults do, then I am sure you favor bring back dueling, right?

Sure, why not? If they want to kill themselves, go right ahead. They've consented to it, their life, their responsibility.

Now I am waiting for you to try to waffle out of your claim and parse it by claiming homosexuality is not detrimental to its practitioners.....oh what a trap I have laid for you......

What am having to waffle or parse my way out of? The horrible slippery slope logic that you're proffering in the "dueling" example. Tsk tsk.


What about you? Do you think the government should regulate every single bit of your life? If you're against gay marriage, you must be against consenting adults doing anything that isn't state sanctioned. I guess I prefer freedom over regulation. How's that for hyperbolic strawmen?

 

[y not peace?]

But, what's wrong with polygamy?

Haha...well its an abomination to womans rights. The man controls all the woman...treats them like s**t, but the worst thing about it is that if the man feels that the woman is no longer needed, than she is banished....BUT when she is banished she can no longer be with another man again because she is viewed as "touched" nand "unwanted".

It bascially means that men are superior and woman have no voice. That is what is wrong with it.

 

[YamiB.]

Haha...well its an abomination to womans rights. The man controls all the woman...treats them like s**t, but the worst thing about it is that if the man feels that the woman is no longer needed, than she is banished....BUT when she is banished she can no longer be with another man again because she is viewed as "touched" nand "unwanted".

It bascially means that men are superior and woman have no voice. That is what is wrong with it.

That may be how it turns out, but the practice of multiple people entering into marriage would be fine.

 

[Busta]

How will allowing gay marriage affect the marriage I have enjoyed for 15 years to my wife?
Bush stated this in the last election saying it would destroy my marriage. How?
How can anyone aside from my wife and me do this?

I for one have never met a gay person that I know of.

Please no rants. And no bs posts.
I would just like to understand

Read this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/08/08/canadian_blokes_get_hitched/

If gay marrage is legalized, then anyone can marry anyone and the exclusive marital relationship becomes unspecial and normal. At that point, why should "We" not just do away with the "label" and "stigma" of being "married" and issue all possible marital benefits to every citizen?

I am not aware of a secular origin of marrage. Could someone enlighten me?

 

[YamiB.]

Read this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/08/08/canadian_blokes_get_hitched/

If gay marrage is legalized, then anyone can marry anyone and the exclusive marital relationship becomes unspecial and normal. At that point, why should "We" not just do away with the "label" and "stigma" of being "married" and issue all possible marital benefits to every citizen?

I am not aware of a secular origin of marrage. Could someone enlighten me?

As far as I know the origin of marriage is unknown. It seems to me that marriage developed in a few places independent of each other.

The argument that if gay marriage is legalized every other form of marriage would have to be legal is idiotic. You look at each case by itself. To use some of the common examples: Incest should not be allowed if the couple is fertile as it causes an unnecessary risk to any children they might produce. Bestiality should not be allowed because an animal cannot consent and cannot enter into the contract that is marriage. Pedophilia should not be allowed because a child cannot consent.

If same sex marriage should not be allowed because its supposedly going to lead to people like the ones above getting married then heterosexual marriage should be made illegal. After all heterosexual marriage wants homosexuals want the equal treatment, if that is eliminated then there would not be a way to lead to those groups getting the ability to marry.

 

[MrFungus420]

Haha...well its an abomination to womans rights. The man controls all the woman...treats them like s**t, but the worst thing about it is that if the man feels that the woman is no longer needed, than she is banished....BUT when she is banished she can no longer be with another man again because she is viewed as "touched" nand "unwanted".

It bascially means that men are superior and woman have no voice. That is what is wrong with it.

You are making an assumption that polygamy is only a man with a harem. Polygamy is having more than one spouse at a time. It applies equally to both sexes. It can be multiple spouses of both sexes, i.e. clan marriages or line marriages.

 

[MrFungus420]

If gay marrage is legalized, then anyone can marry anyone and the exclusive marital relationship becomes unspecial and normal. At that point, why should "We" not just do away with the "label" and "stigma" of being "married" and issue all possible marital benefits to every citizen?

One of the main benefits that people want when they get married is to be legally recognized as the persons next-of-kin. Personally, I think that there should be a change to the system. For the legal benefits, the government would only do "civil unions", let the term "marriage" be reserved for services done in a religious setting. Have a marriage automatically get the benefits of a civil union, the same legal benefits currently considered to be given in a marriage.

I am not aware of a secular origin of marrage. Could someone enlighten me?

In modern times, a common-law marriage. When people have been living together for a set length of time, I believe it is usually 7 years, they can be automatically considered married.

In older times, it wasn't uncommon for people to just declare themselves married. Especially in extremely rural areas.

How about the old tradition of getting married by a captain at sea? I don't think that there was any religious reasoning behind that.

 

[shuamort]

Here's just another example of the secular origin of marriage:

With the rise of "Bushi" warriors, the system of women marrying into men's families called “Yome-iri” was gradually adopted and widely accepted in the 14th century and on. Under the feudal system marriages were often used as political and diplomatic approaches to maintaining peace and unity among feudal lords. Thus the personal will of men and women for marriage was ignored in the face of family interests and the social intercourse of unmarried persons was denied. Marriages came to be arranged by and for families and the role of "Nakodo" go-between became very important in Japan. Now this “Yome-iri” system is quite common in Japan and you can find the traditional procedure in the contemporary marriage.