To the OP:
I think everybody knows that, aside from it being an easy way to start a circle-jerk it isn’t very effective.
To the whole “If you don’t like A, don’t have A”…really, I stopped using that when I was 8 or 9…and it’s getting old and isn’t very clever
It’s not hate…at least no even remotely of the level I’ve seen on the thread. if most of you simply bury your heads and say it’s the stupid guys who voted against SSM, many of them voted with you on other issues, do you reject their votes?
I’m sure it has no effect in the ammount of sex (of the pam pam pam varitey or otherwise), but I’m pretty sure no-one expected that.
Marriage is not a right given by the state any more than human rights are. They exist regardless of the law or actual application. SSM is playing basketball with poker chips…play if you want, but it ain’t basketball even if you call it like that.
Just before some smart-ass asks: Gay marriage does me no damage at all, but if personal, actual damage it the moral/legal/ethical yardstick, then those Darfur guys can keep on dying, they do me no harm, and those stoning can keep on going, they do me no harm.
If push came to shove I’d actually prefer to abolish civil marriage and replace them with simple contracts. Marriage would become a personal hobby sponsored by whoever wants and the state would not have a say.
Again, if push comes to shove; not my prefered state but better than state-santioning of people’s lifestyle and calling them marriage.
Marriage is, to me at least, a guy and a gal; like no two forward passes in the NFL. If the very definition of marriage will get “broken”, then yes. Have a lwawyer draw a contract with custody, insurance, visitation, whatever…two (or more) people doing what they want with their lives. If they believe God/god/spirit tells them to be together through some special ceremony…they can get “united” to the Marianas Trench.
For me, marriage is a natural institution, if a society tries to destroy or alter a natural institution then, let’s cut our loses. Apartheid had to be so ridiculous in its bigotry because it went against the natural equality of humans.
I wouldn’t have a problem with changing how marriage is done in our society (if we change it to basically a contract or whatever). The problem I have with the way things are done now is the way people are denied the benefits of a marriage-type contract based on their sexual orientation. Also, if we change how marriage is done, we change it for everyone, not just the people who aren’t doing things the way the majority think it should be done.
But what does it matter what I think? My country legalized same-sex marriage years ago. (By the way, it hasn’t caused Canadian society to collapse or anything. Imagine that.)
Orly? Then why do you have, dunt dunt duh! Socialized Medicine! :eek: Clearly, legalized buttsex causes one to contract socialized medicine. And we’ve got enough problems in the US, what with our socialized schools, interstates, police forces, health inspectors, and military. Illegal buttsex is the only thing keeping us from become a fullblown socialist nation! Why, the socialism we do have is so entrenched, and desperately trying to spread such that we can hardly beat it off the ramparts as it tries to ooze its way into our society!
More importantly, why do they vote to deny us the full bill of marriage rights in the first place? It’s a moot point when we don’t have those rights, as we don’t.
I would. I’m looking for common ground, rather than stooping to my debate partner’s level by jumping in and starting a fight.
Sexual orientation is not a “lifestyle”, nor a choice, but a natural condition imbued upon us (all of us, one way or another) before birth, as evidenced by the many right-wing, vehemently anti-gay politicians with wives and children and otherwise exemplary traditional lifestyles who also pick up men in airport bathrooms.
What is it, exactly, that makes same-sex marriage so different from opposite-sex marriage that it would “break” the very definition of the thing?
I think you mean “losses”, and how is opposite-sex commitment the only “natural” order? You imply that same-sex relations/relationships are “unnatural”, yet there exist hundreds of species which are naturally bisexual (like the bonobo) and many others with a small percentage of members who exhibit exclusively homosexual behavior (like humans, dogs, and, rather famously, penguins).
Really? It seems to me that inequality is the natural state of human society, and that we must collectively act in unnatural ways to make society better and more inclusive. There’s quite a bit more support of this theory (ie, just about every society in the history of the world–some, like the US and India, more than others) than I can see for the example you just pulled out of your ass. Or do you have anything to back all of this rambling up with?
Don’t you love the “it’s unnatural!” argument against homosexuality, which most certainly occurs in nature across the board, but touting hetero marriage as the “natural order” when it’s clearly a man-made construct and an artificial state at best?
Eh, every part of nature sets up a system to sort out “who’s your daddy?”, humanity’s just happens to be marriage (although this is changing as social mores change).
I’m more annoyed that right after I say bigots aren’t any kind of majority in the US that one pops up and tells us we’re all going straight to hell for condoning the sexing of the butt.
To the whole “If you don’t like A, don’t have A”…really, I stopped using that when I was 8 or 9…and it’s getting old and isn’t very clever
[\QUOTE]
You haven’t actually presented and arguement against it though, have you?
I don’t like to drink or smoke or have sex with other men, so I don’t, but I don’t try and stop anybody else.
I don’t like drunk drivers or child abusers but I do try to stop those.
The difference is impact on others, and no one has shown me that being gay, acting on that nature, or marrying has a negative impact on others remotely equal to the harm to society of discrimination.
Robin: Did you read the part where I said I didn’t care? The man-dog argument is used by those who do.
And, if there’s a law about it ain’t natural? That’s what you said?
**Featherlou **and Tuckerfan: I never mentioned any society collapsing.
Hostile: Are you saying that all gay people are born gay?
Rubystreak: Please show me proof of across-the-board same-sex itercourse in nature. I’m sure there are a couple of examples, but even mopst of those are non-penetrative.
Outliern: So you are in favour of forcing you morality on other because of your “negative impact” “iffiness” factor?
I said “natural institution” which means that it’s part of humanity as a whole even if it is invented. Homosexuality is natural, SSM is not a natural institution.
Also, I meant equality in our condition and dignity as humans.
I do not understand your question, please clarify.
I’m saying that “if you don’t like A, don’t do A but don’t interfer with others who do” is a valid default response unless A can be shown to significantly harm those who haven’t chosen to participate.
I finished HS in 1986. Didn’t know of anybody in the class who was gay, ehr, excuse me, GLBTetc. Personally I didn’t even bother with the question, but then, I also don’t give a shit about what my coworkers do out of hours so long as they’re awake at work.
Some of the folks in my HS class are now married to same-gender spouses.
If you’d asked me a year ago whether the US was more likely to get a female white President or a male President of “any color other than shiny white” sooner, I would have put my money on the white chick - and lost. Do you guys think I’ll live to see a married, openly GLBTetc American President? That’s more or less the next 60 years
Ají, did you ever decide who to feel attracted to? I know I didn’t. Back in 7th grade I had social problems because the official heatthrobs of the moment left me ice-cube cold. I figured that gay folks didn’t choose their tastes any more than I chose mine (I’m straight, but I don’t usually like blondes, nor do I like any guy who happens to be a blonde, or any guy who happens to sing pop - this labeled me as “strange” according to She Who Doesn’t Fart & Co).
Well, I’m not Rubystreak but I’ll answer this one anyway. Amongst many species of birds NO sex is “penetrative”, not even that which results in reproduction. My cockatiels, as an example, have “cock” in their species name, and they are “cocks” because they are male birds, but they do not, themselves, have “cocks” (i.e. a penis) because they aren’t made that way. Nonetheless, the species manages to reproduce (like bunnies, actually, which is why we have two males because we didn’t want a flock and can’t bear to make teeny-egg omelets) so I’d have to say that “non-penetrative” sex can still be real sex, in any sense of the word.
(My birds, alas for them, also appear to be entirely heterosexual but there are documented cases of “tah gay sex” in their species, among others)
Although it didn’t work on as wide a scale as protesters and organizers today, the Mattachine Society got started in the 1950.
The Daughters of Bilitis similarly has been around since 1955.
Although this may seem to be proving your point about “not in our lieftimes” because it’s taking longer than we thought, I’d say we’ve been fighting and will continue finding. It’s just that now the tides of time are with us more than ever. Look at the laws that have been put on the books. Even if many of them have been overturned/thwarted, we’re further along than ever.
(By the way, it hasn’t caused Canadian society to collapse or anything. Imagine that.)