:rolleyes:
Look, I don’t care if you have crazy cats, but if you want to compress my words into such a bleak facsimile of what I really said, I have no response for you.
The Dun King
So much for:
“I’ll show you mine, if you show me your’s”.
Peace,
mangeorge
All right, think on that. Here’s a hint to get you started: you’re mistaken.
And another question to chew on: how could you possibly know? Is it all based on your own experience?
I hope everyone realizes that it’d be absurd for me to say that the strongest bond between a man and a woman can’t possibly compare than the bond between two men. Even though I’ve only experienced one and not the other. So how is it valid for you to say that about my relationships, but not valid for me to say that about yours?
I’m sure a lot of us would be interested in hearing the answer to that, because you’ve just very politely told us that we’re living a lie, and that our love isn’t as “real” as yours.
Well, while you’re thinking… when we lived in New Jersey, we lived across the street from a lesbian couple who had been together for 15 years at least, and next to a woman on her third husband. Now, even if the strongest heterosexual bond is stronger than the strongest homosexual bond, don’t you think that there are plenty of homosexual bonds stronger than heterosexual ones?
As for children - after my mom died, my dad remarried at 72. My stepmother was 65 at the time. No way in hell they were having kids - but I assume that was okay with you.
Now for the spirtual part - we got married in the Ethical Culture Society, with no mention of god in the ceremony. I’m not spiritual in the least - but we’ve been married for 26 years and going strong. There are lots of same sex relationships more spiritual than mine.
Now I live close to San Francisco, and I saw lots of coverage of the marriages - and if they were political, it’s news to me. I saw lots of couples moved beyond words by the fact that a government was recognizing their love.
As for gay promiscuity - don’t you think that reciting vows will reduce that, if it does exist? Don’t you think at least some men and women don’t mess around because marriage is important? If you think stability is important (and I do) you should start supporting gay marriage.
Did you really choose to be straight? I didn’t - I could be no more gay than I could flap my wings and fly. So I accept gay people are the same in the opposite way.
Anyway, you’ve given about the best arguments against as I’ve ever seen.
Oh, and to answer the OP, the only difference gay marriage would have ever made to my life or marriage is that we would have had to buy presents for that couple across the street.
Give 'em a toaster, Voyager. Lesbians love toasters. 
The original question was how gay marriage diminishes heterosexual marriage. Even if gay marriages could be proven inferior in some way, the question still wouldn’t be answered unless it could be shown that gay participation can negatively influence heterosexual marriage. By what strange force would this be accomplished? How would its effects be compared with current marriage stresses such as economic pressure, dissatisfaction and incompatibility? Can we measure the effects on marriage of other nontraditional or idiosyncratic unions that we tolerate, such as the mass weddings of the Unification Church or Elizabeth Taylor? How would gay marriage compare? And, once we’ve quantified that, why shouldn’t we just suck it up and deal with it? Mr. Strawman speaks:
“Yeah, the wife and I got married too young. I was never much for holding down a job, she never stopped telling me what a disappointment I was, I guess we both drank a little more than was required, which led to some real nasty fights, and the rotten kids sure didn’t help any, but you know? If it weren’t for those two gals getting hitched up in Massachusetts last week, I know we’d have held the marriage together. Lousy liberals cost me my family.”
I can think of one way gay marriage might have some effect. It might be a threat to all heterosexual marriages containing one or more gay person, who would then be able to have the full panoply of legal rights pertaining to marriage and be with someone more compatible. I’m not sure, though, that these are the marriages anti-gay marriage folks are defending.
That’s really the heart of it. And the original question is the one that makes the most sense – how does it affect anyone else except for the couple involved? If no one can come up with a valid reason, then why is it still an issue?
So many times, we’re left with having to point to loving, long-term homosexual relationships – of which there are obviously many – and hold them up as an example of why same-sex couples deserve the right to marry. But even that is unfair and discriminatory. Why do homosexuals have to prove they’re beyond reproach to show that they’re deserving of marriage, when heterosexuals are allowed that by default?
I just thought I’d throw in, since I actually have this book, he is not publishing his own findings. The book is a survey and summary of other people’s research done over many decades into sexual behavior of hundreds of different species of mammals and birds. Over 700 pages of text and citiations- and pictures!
In effect, he is the disinterested third party you’re looking for.
What you really said was that you think gay marriages are spiritually lesser than heterosexual marriages because gays can’t have children together. The logical extension of that is that you think childless hetero marriages are also spiritually lesser, what with the not having kids thing and all. If that’s not what you meant, then the post needs clarification before we can understand one another. After all, we can’t have a meaningful discussion of the subject unless we both understand what the other is saying. Otherwise, it’s like trying to discuss whether or not the oranges are ripe, when I’m talking about those little round purple things on the vine, and you’re talking about those little oval yellow things in the trees.
What you also actually said is that having kids is the end-all, be-all of existence. While the denotation of that phrase is simply “the most important”, the connotation of it is more along the lines of “the part that really matters or has meaning.” If one goes by the connotation of the phrase, it sounds like what you’re trying to say is that the lives of non-parents lack meaning. Since what we say (or imply) isn’t precisely what we mean, I figured that wasn’t actually the point you were trying to get across, so I asked for clarification.
If you want to avoid the issue, it’s certainly no skin off my butt.
You know, what’s really sad is that, while this thread was being started last Friday night, I was involved in the identical discussion with a bunch of friends at a restaurant, and all of those friends were Mensans! :rolleyes: I won’t repeat the arguments; I’ll just say that I did hear the arguments about marrying cousins or animals (German Shepards, not sheep) which led to me claiming that was discrimination against those who were not attracted to animate objects, getting down on one knee, and proposing to the chair I’d been sitting in a few minutes before. What can I say? It was a whirlwind romance!
The Dun King, you’ve handled yourself admirably so far and I hope I see more of you. Nevertheless, let me tell you about some of the people at this get-together. At the far end of the table from me was a couple who’ve been married a little over a year. They’re both in their seventies, very much in love, and downright cute. The get-together was in honor of another woman in her fifties who’s engaged to a man in his fifties. They’re a nice couple, and it’s a good match. Neither of these couples will be having children. Are their marriages less because of that?
I also wish I could buy your point about soul mates. You see, about 15 years ago, I met a man who I thought was made for me, who I was destined to spend the rest of my life with, and he told me he thought the same. We swore our undying love to each other and, of course, got engaged. For a variety of reasons, we never married, and, I realized today, it’s been 7 1/2 years since I’ve seen him. Should I remain single and celibate for the rest of my life? I’d prefer not to. You see, while I don’t believe in soul mates any more, there’s a fellow in Mensa who seems pretty right for me in a bunch of other ways. I’m now close to 40, and, if I marry, I’m too old to have kids, and I’ve never had any desire to do so. I cannot believe my marriage would be any less sacred or holy because of that, though.
Getting back to the OP, I can’t see homosexual marriage as a threat to any marriage I may or may not have. Indeed, an old friend of mine and his husband will be celebrating their 11th anniversary this Labor Day. What I could see damaging it is people, hetero- or homosexual, who treat sacred vows as disposable objects. I’ve heard my friend and his partner speak of each other. Their marriage and their love for each other is as real and solid as any my heterosexual friends express for each other.
Anyway, that’s my two cents,
CJ
Here’s what our president had to say on the issue. Even with the best minds of the anti-gay camp working on the speech, they couldn’t come up with a reason to ban universal marriage. Nor could they show how such unions could harm marriages between heterosexual couples.
Notice the urgency. They know that the public is going to see gay marriage for what it is, a non-issue.
Is this kind of leadership, a devisive leadership, we can expect when we elect a evangelist president? I’m beginning to really dislike that man. 
Hmm - reminds me of the urgency with which we had to invade Iraq, before Saddam used those non-existent weapons.
New Bush slogan: stop those WMDs (Weddings of Mass Destruction.)
Well, there’s a lot here waiting for me to read and consider. I apologize for being away so long; it’s been a weird, wild, crazy beginning-of-school weekend.
That’s fine. I can accept you feeling that way. For the record, I feel that gay sex is wrong. I think that promiscuous sex is bad, too, but I digress.
But it’s not my intent to debate these things here, even though this thread has moved into Great Debates. I intend to express my opinion, and to take in others’ opinions. By and large, I think we’ve accomplished that.
Well, yes. This is my take on this issue. Except for whether you’ve been living a lie, that’s only for you to decide, and based on the beliefs you’ve expressed to me, I don’t think that’s really a danger.
For the record, by the way, I don’t hold any ill will towards gay people. I’ve known plenty, and have a great deal of respect for quite a few (and probably hold more ill-will, percentage-wise, towards heteros.) Does this mean that I’d let Pete Townsend’s son date mine? Hell, no. Not while my kid is under 18 or living rent-free in my house. After that, though, it’s up to him.
I think that the ultimate purpose of marriage is to form a family. Without children, either by conception or adoption, the marriage is diminished. If a married couple has children that they don’t take care of, that marriage is diminished. If a couple not legally married has children that they put honest effort into raising, and treat each other like human beings, then that couple’s as good as married in my book.
Oh, and I DO support gay marriage, as a POLITICAL measure. Even though gay marriage has been banned in most places by popular vote (or by vote from popularly-elected representatives), I am FULLY aware of the dangers of tyrrany by the majority. More than those here may realize. My opinions don’t really count in this arena - I think it’s what’s best for the populous as a whole. It’s more consistent, it allows for more legally-recognized family-based homes, and it’s one more step in removing religion from the state.
This doesn’t mean that I have to LIKE it.
The Dun King
Dun King, thanks for coming back. You’re correct, it does come down to opinion, and that is what the OP wanted. Not a debate. I appreciate that you’re being open to other opinions.
That said; could you educate me on a few things that I have trouble understanding?
First, you said:
Can you explain why? I can understand “not for me,” or even…well, no, “not for me” is probably all I can accept on that count. Why wrong? I’m not trying to be insulting, but from what I can tell the only “wrong” when it comes to sex is non-consentual between two (or more) adults. As long as I live, I may never understand why gay sex is “wrong.”
I’m assuming it has something to do with this:
I don’t think you digress as much as you think you digress.
Please define. By promiscuous sex do you mean any sex prior to and outside of marriage, or are you terming it somewhat looser? And are you including in “promiscuous sex” certain sexual acts which, by definition, cause the uptight right to cringe in denial? If so, I must say: Dude. Unclench.
Please tell me you did not just tell SolGrundy that you know what he’s feeling better than he does. Please tell me that.
But not in the eyes of the law. Saying “We let you live together and raise children, that should be good enough for you people!” is condescending and bigoted. I will repeat my question from earlier. Why do you feel that this group of people should be denied the right to do the one thing that damn near everyone else in most of the world is allowed to do and takes for granted? Marry each other because they want to. Not just for the expedient of taxes or medical benefits. Because they want to, and they want that recognized.
I think that’s all.
If I’m reading The Dun King correctly, he’s saying he believes gay folks should be legally able to get married. It’s just that he feels they are spiritually less sacred than his marriage.
You know what? That’s good enough for me. I don’t care what his opinion of my (hypothetical) marriage is, as long as the legal protection, benefits and responsibilities are equally afforded to me.
That’s why this thread was originally posted in IMHO, Homebrew. The OP wasn’t looking for legal arguments or political reasons. He was looking for opinions and reasons behind those opinions. No one was real happy the thread got moved, as it took away from the demographic the OP was looking for.
Just out of curiosity, is my intentionally childless marriage more or less diminished than the marriage with the neglectful parents? Are they less diminished because they tried to be parents and failed, or is my marriage less diminished simply because we chose not to have children be part of the mutually-respectful and loving lives we’ve set up for ourselves? Since we knew from the beginning that we didn’t want to have children, would you have preferred that we not marry at all instead of promoting an example of a diminished marriage to others?
The Dun King can speak for himself, of course, but I know I didn’t get that impression from what he said.
As I read it, he went on to say that he didn’t feel that the right to marry should be denied to same-sex couples. Unless I’m completely mis-reading his post, he supports gay marriage as a poliltical measure, but doesn’t like it personally.
Which, as Homebrew said, is probably fine. Opinions do count in this arena, because opinions lead to votes and votes CAN lead to equal rights for everyone. If people either don’t vote because they don’t feel the issue affects them personally, or if they vote for a ban on SSM because of a knee-jerk revulsion to “gay sex,” then that works to deny people their right to happiness.
The Dun King is right; nobody has to like it. Nobody has to do it, or watch it, or even think about it. But they do have to recognize that it doesn’t affect them, and stop being so desperate to ban it.
Now, of course, I wish that people didn’t say that they think it’s wrong. I wish I didn’t have an image of them in the polling booths, holding their noses and reluctantly and dejectedly checking the “NO on same-sex marriage ban” box against their better judgement. I wish that people could talk about same-sex marriage without mentioning intercourse, just as whenever I talk about a heterosexual married couple, I don’t imagine them going at it. I wish that people didn’t talk or think about what I do in private at all.
But then, as long as they leave me alone and don’t pass laws keeping me from getting what I want out of life, then what other people think is really none of my business. I’d be a hypocrite to say that anyone else has to change his mind or else he’s “wrong.” As long as it doesn’t affect me personally, people are free to be uncomfortable with homosexuality.
That doesn’t mean I have to LIKE it.
Dun King, if I misinterpreted, I apologize. But I am still interested in your personal opinion on the other questions I asked.
Go ahead and allow SSM as long as the couple promise to remain celebate 