NationStates Jolt Archive

So i was thinking, and i can't figure out why it bothers people. Its not like thier forced to watch or their firstborn is killed, or any thing bad happens to them. The Bible says its wrong, but so what do you care? They'll all be down in hell and you'll still be in heaven, so what exatclty is your problem?

Note i am a straight atheist, and dont turn this into a flame war, i jsut want to know the reasoning behind it.

Wow, shocking! A thread about gay marriage! Unprecedented! :eek:

Wow, shocking! A thread about gay marriage! Unprecedented! :eek:
well the other ones werent very useful, so fuck you.

well the other ones werent very useful, so fuck you.
Flaming already? The sign of a weak mind. I'd watch it if I were you.

There are religious nuts out there and people who think this will compromise the sanctity of marraige. Which is a load of shit. I have no problems with homosexuals getting married or adopting kids.

Flaming already? The sign of a weak mind. I'd watch it if I were you.
bah humbug

Well, people think gays are icky (but not the lesbians, of course), find a passage in a random book that can sorta be interpreted to support that, then politicians figure they can use that to get power.

It's simple bigotry. Because gay people are evil perverts, they don't deserve equal rights.

1. They consider marriage the church's domain, and want society to enforce their rules. They only believe in seperation of church and state when it suits their purposes.

2. They know recognized marriages will make it easier for gays and lesbians to adopt children and establish joint custody. Many of them actually believe children raised in gay households will be somehow turned gay.

3. They're homophobes. Well, they're all homophobes, but I'm talking about beer-swillin', shit-talkin', macho guy. He's against anything for "them damned fag-its. It just ain't natrall."


Btw...not gay...just pissed my home state actually passed a constitutional amendment for the express purpose of restricting someone's civil liberties, by popular vote. It was the first time in my life I was ever ashamed to be a Texan.

Umm... something about losing the "sanctity" of marriage, and another thing about "perverted" homos tying the knot... and a thing about "screwing up" society and shit..

yeah....

So there really isn't a good reason then? They all are just homophobes? Well, screw that. Im not supporting a constituional amendment for it then.

So there really isn't a good reason then? They all are just homophobes? Well, screw that. Im not supporting a constituional amendment for it then.
That is basically the flawed reasoning adopted by most who would support an amendment. Furthermore, I think this is a case of Bush trying desperately to show his Christian Right supporters that he is doing what they want him to. Still failing in any case though.

It's probably also worth noting that a lot of people have the strange, delusional belief that "gay people will be allowed to get married" = "my priest/minister/rabbi will be forced to marry gay people whether he/she likes it or not," and therefore are, in their own nonsensical way, attempting to defend their church's right to decide who may be married there.

They're worried about them fucking eachother up the arse?

Because there always needs to be an "major" oppressed group. Used to be black people and the civil rights movement (not saying that they still aren't), and now it's gays. It's a way for people to feel superior. Big bullies like. It's sucks.

So i was thinking, and i can't figure out why it bothers people. Its not like thier forced to watch or their firstborn is killed, or any thing bad happens to them. The Bible says its wrong, but so what do you care? They'll all be down in hell and you'll still be in heaven, so what exatclty is your problem?

Note i am a straight atheist, and dont turn this into a flame war, i jsut want to know the reasoning behind it.


Because CHristians and just about any religion are opposed to homosexuality. Giving them marriage isn't what the moral minded person would want. They got their unions, yet that didn't satisfy them.

1. They consider marriage the church's domain, and want society to enforce their rules. They only believe in seperation of church and state when it suits their purposes.

2. They know recognized marriages will make it easier for gays and lesbians to adopt children and establish joint custody. Many of them actually believe children raised in gay households will be somehow turned gay.

3. They're homophobes. Well, they're all homophobes, but I'm talking about beer-swillin', shit-talkin', macho guy. He's against anything for "them damned fag-its. It just ain't natrall."


Btw...not gay...just pissed my home state actually passed a constitutional amendment for the express purpose of restricting someone's civil liberties, by popular vote. It was the first time in my life I was ever ashamed to be a Texan.

You werent ashamed when the worst governor in history became the worse president in history came from your state?

They're afraid all hell will break loose once the gays get hitched! Look at the disaster of gay marriage in the Netherlands, in Spain, and effing christ in Canada!!!! :eek:

Because gays like penises in their asses.
And if I am ok with gays getting married, then maybe I am ok with a penis in my ass.[/sarcasm]

You werent ashamed when the worst governor in history became the worse president in history came from your state?

No, then he'd get all kinds of death threats and radio stations would stop playing his songs.

:D

Giving them marriage isn't what the moral minded person would want.

There should be no "give" involved. If two people want to get married it's up to them. I don't give a damn about marriage personally, but I don't give a damn about baseball either and I still think gay people should be allowed to play baseball if they want. And none of this nonsense about how we "gave" them softball and they should be happy with that.

And what is a "moral minded person," anyway? Someone who thinks about morals a lot? Someone who wakes up in the morning and says, "Before I have breakfast I'd better think about morals for a while."

Giving them marriage isn't what the moral minded person would want.
Do to others as you would have them do to you. Luke 6:31 (NIV)

My Lord wasn't very moral, He just preached and practiced accpetance.

They got their unions, yet that didn't satisfy them.
Seperate is not equal. Chief Justice Warren, U.S. Supreme Court

Anything that denies rights to condenting adults for no reason beyond some vague religious imperative, and does so under the guise of protecting marriage, is against the spirit and the text of the Constitution and is very un-American.

Because CHristians and just about any religion are opposed to homosexuality. Giving them marriage isn't what the moral minded person would want. They got their unions, yet that didn't satisfy them.
So forbidding a priest of any sort from marrying someone, even if they are willing to do so, is the government's ambit? It should be up to the religion and its institutions, not the government. That is what most gay-marriage proponents ask for. Not for the notion to be forced upon said institutions.

Because CHristians and just about any religion are opposed to homosexuality.

I don't think it's fair to say that all Christians are bigoted. Just a large number.

Giving them marriage isn't what the moral minded person would want.

Bigotry is against my morals, hence my support for gay marriage.

They got their unions, yet that didn't satisfy them.

And why should they be satisfied with anything short of equality? Let's not forget that they haven't yet "gotten their unions" in much of the United States.

People like to feel superior to others.

Although I really do wonder if this will open up the door to demands for state recognition of polygamous marriages. No country that recognises same sex marriage also recognises polygamous marriages. When the argument in favour of same sex marriage is "consenting adults should be able to do as they please", then how can you deny recognition of polygamous marriage between consenting adults?

Although I really do wonder if this will open up the door to demands for state recognition of polygamous marriages. No country that recognises same sex marriage also recognises polygamous marriages. When the argument in favour of same sex marriage is "consenting adults should be able to do as they please", then how can you deny recognition of polygamous marriage between consenting adults?

You can't, and you probably shouldn't, as long as the consent is actual consent.

Although I really do wonder if this will open up the door to demands for state recognition of polygamous marriages. No country that recognises same sex marriage also recognises polygamous marriages. When the argument in favour of same sex marriage is "consenting adults should be able to do as they please", then how can you deny recognition of polygamous marriage between consenting adults?
Might happen in Canada.

Although I really do wonder if this will open up the door to demands for state recognition of polygamous marriages. No country that recognises same sex marriage also recognises polygamous marriages. When the argument in favour of same sex marriage is "consenting adults should be able to do as they please", then how can you deny recognition of polygamous marriage between consenting adults?

You can't.

Because CHristians and just about any religion are opposed to homosexuality. Giving them marriage isn't what the moral minded person would want. They got their unions, yet that didn't satisfy them.

Funny, I always thought that treating all people as human beings worthy of respect was fairly moral behavior. I guess I must not be moral-minded, since my morals dictate that it's better to be a kind and respectful person than to shriek ad infinitum about how superior I am to those icky gays.

And since when is the right to marriage yours or anyone else's to "give"?

Might happen in Canada.

Not with our current PM, since the feds still have the ability to invoke the notwithstanding clause.

Right. Well. This again.

Because I'm mean like that, my religious argument for the legalization of gay marriage.

Marriage comes in two forms in our society because it has long ago been appropriated from familial/tribal leadership by governments and religious organizations. Two different forms of marriage have developed as a result of this dual appropriation. One is a legal and financial arrangement and the other is a social and spiritual union. The problem we face as religious folks is that we have the same word for two different things. English is funny like that. So we tend to confuse the two forms of marriage and see them as one.

The theological issue is that the legal and financial arrangement can't be the same thing as a spiritual union designated by God and recognized by the faith community, because the state is not God and does not have the authority to designate a spiritual union. If we allow gay folks to get married within the church then we are disrespecting God's purpose for such a union, but when we allow them to get the legal arrangement certified by the government we're just giving them equal privileges under the law.

Although I really do wonder if this will open up the door to demands for state recognition of polygamous marriages. No country that recognises same sex marriage also recognises polygamous marriages. When the argument in favour of same sex marriage is "consenting adults should be able to do as they please", then how can you deny recognition of polygamous marriage between consenting adults?

I just don't see it happening whatsoever.

Multiple wives, multiple children... multiple contracts... I just don't see it happening... its too goddamn confusing... theres a line that has to be drawn.

I just don't see it happening whatsoever.

Multiple wives, multiple children... multiple contracts... I just don't see it happening... its too goddamn confusing... theres a line that has to be drawn.

why do you think of polygamy as "monogamy over and over again"? It can have a different setup.

Although I really do wonder if this will open up the door to demands for state recognition of polygamous marriages.

What does marriage affect? Taxes, custody of children, power of attorney, visiting rights in hospitals, estates.

If we can work out how to get marriage out of these issues, then we sort of get government out of marriage. Taxes - shouldn't be difficult. Custody of children - depends on what's best for the child and to a lesser extent genetic relationship. Visiting rights and estates also shouldn't be too difficult. Then people can do what they want with their social lives and get married twelve times in a Klingon ceremony with ten gay men and a sentient front end loader if they want.

why do you think of polygamy as "monogamy over and over again"? It can have a different setup.

Yeah but then what if a guy has like 4 wives or something and then theres multiple children from that family... and then a wife wants to separate and then theres custody battles over this and that... and then they go to court for shit... you know?

Pardon mon francais, but really what kind of slut gets married to more than one person at the same time...? :mad:

Pardon mon francais, but really what kind of slut gets married to more than one person at the same time...?

What kind of slut enjoys watching baseball? I don't like baseball, I don't want to watch it myself, I don't want it in my house, but I'll defend people's right to engage in baseball if that's what they want. Even if I think it is stupid. (Which is pretty similar to my attitude towards smoking dope.)

What kind of slut enjoys watching baseball? I don't like baseball, I don't want to watch it myself, I don't want it in my house, but I'll defend people's right to engage in baseball if that's what they want. Even if I think it is stupid. (Which is pretty similar to my attitude towards smoking dope.)

Touche my friend, touche.

What kind of slut enjoys watching baseball? I don't like baseball, I don't want to watch it myself, I don't want it in my house, but I'll defend people's right to engage in baseball if that's what they want. Even if I think it is stupid. (Which is pretty similar to my attitude towards smoking dope.)
There's actually a new series coming out on polygamy on TV in the UK. American, of course. It's three women married to one guy, and they could've made it a bit more mixed up, but it should be interesting.

There's actually a new series coming out on polygamy on TV in the UK. American, of course. It's three women married to one guy, and they could've made it a bit more mixed up, but it should be interesting.

Married to three women? I have trouble enough handling one romantic relationship with a woman and being friends with many more. I'd rather not attempt three romantic relationships.

Married to three women? I have trouble enough handling one romantic relationship with a woman and being friends with many more. I'd rather not attempt three romantic relationships.
The whole notion is alien to me - I can't think of having a guy who is faithful to to someone else in addition to me. I'm too selfish, I suppose. In any case, being married to three people sounds like a bit of a nightmare. :confused:

Ah yes... one big happy family! (http://www.christiantoday.com/files/ame/ame_20040318_polygamy.jpg)

Yeah but then what if a guy has like 4 wives or something and then theres multiple children from that family... and then a wife wants to separate and then theres custody battles over this and that... and then they go to court for shit... you know?

And why do you assume polygamy means "one man, many wives"? As for custody...Well, I think we need a topic on that, don't you?

And why do you assume polygamy means "one man, many wives"? As for custody...Well, I think we need a topic on that, don't you?
Yeah, I hate it when people assume that it will always be one man to many wives, or purely heterosexual. I suppose another topic is mandated though.

And why do you assume polygamy means "one man, many wives"? As for custody...Well, I think we need a topic on that, don't you?

Using it as an example... most of the polygamous families I've heard of usually consist of one guy and many women.. as opposed to one woman and many husbands... which technically is possible...

Not with our current PM, since the feds still have the ability to invoke the notwithstanding clause.
Of course.But a study into the matter found that the law banning it should be repealed. They found that woman would benifit becuase they could come out and squeal if there husband is abusive. Never mind the fact that none of the higherjudge in the country would actually enforce the law.

Using it as an example... most of the polygamous families I've heard of usually consist of one guy and many women.. as opposed to one woman and many husbands... which technically is possible...


or three wives and two husbands, or just three guys...Whatever, really.

Using it as an example... most of the polygamous families I've heard of usually consist of one guy and many women.. as opposed to one woman and many husbands... which technically is possible...
Or even many women/men to many men/women (delete as appropriate).

or three wives and two husbands, or just three guys...Whatever, really.
or, sixteen women:p

Or even many women/men to many men/women (delete as appropriate).

Thats one helluva of a wedding ceremony...

"Now you may kiss the bride, bride, groom, bride, groom, groom, bride... I pronounce you man and man and woman and man and woman and woman..."

Thats one helluva of a wedding ceremony...

"Now you may kiss the bride, bride, groom, bride, groom, groom, bride... I pronounce you man and man and woman and man and woman and woman..."
And loads of kissing too...sort of like a snog-fest.

And loads of kissing too...sort of like a snog-fest.

I wonder... how would one keep track of who they have or haven't kissed yet...

I wonder... how would one keep track of who they have or haven't kissed yet...
I suppose it would be rather easy.

When my sexbot passes a Turing test can I marry it, or do I have to wait for it to turn 18 first?

And why do you assume polygamy means "one man, many wives"?

Well, it could partially because that's exactly what polygamy means. Polyandry would be one woman with many husbands.

I'm unaware of any specific terms for multiple homosexual spouses or multiple bisexual spouses (eg. one person marrying two men and three women).

When my sexbot passes a Turing test can I marry it, or do I have to wait for it to turn 18 first?
Yeah, but it only takes abbout ten minutes to install.

Well, it could partially because that's exactly what polygamy means. Polyandry would be one woman with many husbands.

I'm unaware of any specific terms for multiple homosexual spouses or multiple bisexual spouses (eg. one person marrying two men and three women).
The wik says otherwise:
Polygamy exists in three specific forms, including polygyny (one man having multiple wives), polyandry (one woman having multiple husbands), or group marriage (some combination of polygyny and polyandry).

What about a polywanakraka?

The wik says otherwise:

It's the wiki. :p

And the dictionary I used to look it up years ago is either inaccurate or outdated, it seems. That or my memory is faulty or Wikipedia is wrong, but what are the chances of that, right? ;)

Not to label myself throgh my words (which invariably happens in such discussions), but I'm become puzzled by the repeated arguments that cite the forbidding of gays to marry as a 'denial of civil liberties.'

Now, granted, as a lawyer, I've heard the various arguments (legal) on both sides, and still can't reconcile with this statemnent. Simply put: We, as a society have laws. As we all know, the laws both permit and prohibit certain things. Sometimes, these prohibitions and permitations apply to certain "classes" of people (key word). The effect of these laws in many instances, is that they focus on a group of people and apply regulations to that group. Such regulations can be enacted through popular vote, or through judicial or legislative creation.

One such example is underage drinking. Singles out a class of people (under 21 individuals) and applys a regulation. And while you could make the argument that these individuals are being denied a certain "right" by being prohibited from partaking in an activity granted to the rest of the nation, it is widely understood that such regulations exist as a part of the very foundation of society.

Now, if you GO to that foundation, you are left with the inescapable conclusion that our society is based on certain principles. Like it or not, its a give fact. The US still subscribes to overwhelmingly Christian-based principles on some of its most fundamental decisions. These principles both shape the opinions AND the vote of the people. How does this translate? Basically, we see the workings of these values through our enacted laws. Hence, children under 21 cannot legally drink alcohol, because the United States (as a societal whole) does not wish to endorse the behavior.

Similarily, (and I'm not making an exact comparison here), the traditional (and yes, largely Christian-based) principles underlying the US Constitution as well as its various laws speak to an understanding that society has not wished to condone the homosexual lifestyle as being equally as acceptable as that of the heterosexual one. Like it or not, that's the way things work.

In conclusion, although I have my personal beliefs on the matter, I wanted to shed a bit of light on why the US often makes the decisions it does. Rather than looking at is as a bunch of bigots trying to suppress individual rights, look at it as a culture, based on some very fundamental (Christian-based) values, that have an effect on the laws of the nation.

What would be the effect then, of giving a legal 'nod' to gay marriage? The effect would be that the enacted law would begin to conflict with the underlying framework. The subtle but immediate effect would be to create an unrest. This would seem to make sense, as unrest would be a natural consequence of a conflict between the values of a society and its laws. When it comes to that point, either one or the other will have to give. The two cannot live at odds, and I think it will be then that we will either see a return to the 'traditional' US values, or a radical move towards a re-defining of some of the most basic understandings about both the laws of the country as well as the nature of the person themselves.

<snip>

What would be the effect then, of giving a legal 'nod' to gay marriage? The effect would be that the enacted law would begin to conflict with the underlying framework. The subtle but immediate effect would be to create an unrest. This would seem to make sense, as unrest would be a natural consequence of a conflict between the values of a society and its laws. When it comes to that point, either one or the other will have to give. The two cannot live at odds, and I think it will be then that we will either see a return to the 'traditional' US values, or a radical move towards a re-defining of some of the most basic understandings about both the laws of the country as well as the nature of the person themselves.

Very insightful. Good first post. :)

It's the wiki. :p

And the dictionary I used to look it up years ago is either inaccurate or outdated, it seems. That or my memory is faulty or Wikipedia is wrong, but what are the chances of that, right? ;)
1:5

In these times of great darkness where barbaric people without moral let people mixed and reproduced like animals, diseases come out fast, abnormalities become inherited, the kingdom falls down and priests come to the rescue.

Like a third power between the people and the princes, the church is the hypocritical absurd mass to restrain the future to grow fast, the church takes time to let things be like it must be.

The church gives credit to a "god" when "time" is the master of the evolution.

Happy believers who do not mess up in vain futilities and let the world to the way of wisdom with an atheist as pope of all religions in case someone would start to believe in the mysterious ways god uses to fuck up everything...

What the use of rules for non-reproductible genders?
Laws apply when productivity is concerned, here the matter is of pure intellectual vanity.


The High Priest
- Holy Jesuites -

They consider marriage the church's domain, and want society to enforce their rules. They only believe in seperation of church and state when it suits their purposes.

Voting based on beliefs that are taught by a religious institution is not violatory of the separation of church and state. The separation refers to the disallowance of the church itself to have governmental authority.

Because gays like penises in their asses.

Most homosexual males prefer mutual masturbation over anal sex, and oral sex over either of those.

And why do you assume polygamy means "one man, many wives"?

Because polygyny (multiple wives) is, by far, the most common form of polygamy. I'm only aware of a single extant polyandrous (multiple husbands) culture, and am not even sure there's a "proper" term for a marriage of multiple members of both sexes ("snog-fest" sounds good, though).

I bet 50 people posted while I was putting that together :(

You know what I would like? I'd like to take a peek on the computers of all these guys who are opposed to gay marriage and see just how much lesbian porn is on their hard drive. I think it would be an interesting percentage to look at.

You know what I would like? I'd like to take a peek on the computers of all these guys who are opposed to gay marriage and see just how much lesbian porn is on their hard drive. I think it would be an interesting percentage to look at.

And stealing their porn could be a bonus for you too. :)

And stealing their porn could be a bonus for you too. :)
Yes. And steal their porn.

brief and simple: religion and anotomy. God made woman for man; the penis goes in the vagina.

brief and simple: religion and anotomy. God made woman for man; the penis goes in the vagina.
So what is it doing in your hand?

Now, if you GO to that foundation, you are left with the inescapable conclusion that our society is based on certain principles. Like it or not, its a give fact. The US still subscribes to overwhelmingly Christian-based principles on some of its most fundamental decisions.

Perhaps the U.S. should apologize profusely to England and go back to obeying their Queen or King.

A good post, but not an arguement I think Americans should be making as it could have been used to support monarchy back in 1776.

Confusing words

What?

So what is it doing in your hand?


Messy.

brief and simple: religion and anotomy. God made woman for man; the penis goes in the vagina.

Why limit yourself? :p

If God exists he must be the greatest voyeur of them all

Why limit yourself? :p

If God exists he must be the greatest voyeur of them all
I bet knowing how it's all gonna turn out ruins it for him.

A very insightful study that Ican dig up the link for later was very useful for my thinking....

Bascially, _world wide_ and _cross culturally_, one way of viewing people's ethical systems are what categories of behaviour are given ethical norms for people to follow.

The five most prominent categories in the opinion of the researchers were

Harm avoidance: to try and harm others (and have them harm you) as little as possible

Equity: to try and be just, fair and consistent in applying any rule or law

In-group solidarity: to promote closer ties to people from the same society or subsociety as yourself, and to reject ties with outsiders

Hierarchy respect: to obey the orders of authority figures in the society or subsociety

Purity promotion: to promote guarantees of the virginity of brides, the fidelity of wives (yes, and it is generally almost always a double standard) (and this underlies "honor codes" that are mostly concerned with redressing grievances arising from extramarital sex), as well as special stigma for anyone who handles "unclean" materials (the dead, excrement, or things that stink (like tanners)) as well praising those who overcome "material hungers" (pro-asceticism.

(Purity is a weird one, but the underlying rationale is it was a crude attempt to :
(a)promote social stability (concentrate on the behaviour of the unempowered women rather than the already fractious menfolk)
(b)encourage hygene (which was poorly understood, and this encouragement often had huge gaps of ignorance or wrong headedness in it)
(c) encourage less consumption of high end goods so that more economic activity could focus on necessities for the army : food, weapons, supplies. (even though this made the society as a whole less affluent, a less affluent society was typically easier to manage, look at pre-Punic Wars Rome vs. Principes era Rome))

Anyway, the point is, tradition societies all have comprehensive rules about all five categories

Modern societies tend to mostly toss everything but harm avoidance and equity, since equity is opposed strongly to in group solidarity and moderately to hierarchy respect. Plus, Hierarchy respect is undercut by the fact that most modern societies largely or even primarily refer to _science_ (often hypocritically; the scientific method in America is becoming debased, as discussed in the recent book "the Coming Dark Age") for justification, not intrinsic authority. And purity promotion...science basically took over and did everything related to hygene and ecnomic management better than that...not perfectly, but demonstrably better. And Equity is antagonistic to the viewpoint in purity about women.

A key point is that traditional ethical structures have as their lock and key the value of Hierarchy Respect. Because that value is ultimately the top one in the strucutre, they look at the notion of "the objective pursuit of better ways of living" as _intrinsically wrong_. The scientific worldview is not perfect, but it _is_ diametrically opposed to large portions of the ethical precepts of traditional societies. And so whereas a modern society adherent starts an argument saying "this is what is demonstrably good by study and evidence" a traditional society adherent starts by "this is how it has been demosntrated to be and no further inquiry is necessary".

This is something of an oversimplification. But I think it captures the essence of why "liberals" and "conservatives" (yes that's not the right set of labels but I'm in a hurry) do not see eye to eye. Think of the world as a bunch of jigsaw pieces

The liberals see one big picture out of all the pieces. (every ethical issue is ultimately about harm avoidance and equity). The conservatives see TWO big pictures (one with harm avoidance and equity, one with purity, in group preference and hierarchy respect) that are related, with the latter picture being more important. Neither side can grasp how the other could possibly see the same basic evidence in such strongly different ways.

The point is, historically, traditional society values were rooted in material circumstances. there was no science. the degree of skill specialization compared to today was laughable. it was a society of rulers, not the laws the rulers followed. it could not reasonably have been any other way.

The changes in the material circumstances have thrown everything into chaos. Now, it is possible to do things differently. It is not necessarily established whether the new way is sometimes, always, or never better. It will be very hard to establish this, given the transparent biases on both sides.

By the premises of traditional society, it MUST resist modern society, to the degree that it's adherents believe in their values. (another abstraction here is that people are imperfectly ethical creatures; it is easier for traditional adherents to feel ethical because it is more prohibitive in nature and oriented on rote learning; modern adherents have to negotiate more ambiguous choices that require more abstract thinking skills. since human talent hasn't changed, this leaves a large portion of a modern society which is only weakly committed to it's precepts, because many citizens cannot understand enough of the world around them>)

So that's why the culture wars.

And Gay marriage is a violation of "purity" because sex laws are in that grouping. Sexual behaviour in a religious context, historically, has been akin to gang colors. it wa not just a purity issue but a hierarchy respect issue. Any sexual "deviance" from a society's sexual norms in a traditional society will be treated most harshly.

Btw, I'm a modern society advocate all the way. There are serious challenges for socieities where our values hold sway...but I think the effort to negotiate them (even imperfectly) is better for the welfare of the average citizen than going with the auto-pilot of the partially (largely, immo) obslete traditional societies' ethics.

Hope that makes sense :)

In the UK "civil partnerships" are lagal. They give gays the same rights as married straight couples but they take place in a registry office, not a church.

In the UK "civil partnerships" are lagal. They give gays the same rights as married straight couples but they take place in a registry office, not a church.


I'm wondering if there will ever be a gay equivalent to the Common Law Wife ruling.
( Sharing the same roof for 6 months may lead to being declared hubbie + wife )

If there be one, I'll have been Common Law Gay several times.

I'm wondering if there will ever be a gay equivalent to the Common Law Wife ruling.
( Sharing the same roof for 6 months may lead to being declared hubbie + wife )

If there be one, I'll have been Common Law Gay several times.
"I'm sorry sir, you can't get married."
"Why not?!"
"According to our records you are a Common Law Gay"

"I'm sorry sir, you can't get married."
"Why not?!"
"According to our records you are a Common Law Gay"


Which leads me to wonder to what extent Civil Partnerships ( and Common Law relations ) stop you from having a normal marriage as well.

nothing is wrong with it

None have kept their homosexuality in the closet and so painfully as the fundementalists.

Anything you emotionally (rather than logically) rail against is something within yourself that you are too weak to control or subvert. When you see this in others, especially in others who are unashamed, it becomes maddening.

Armeggaedon is the ongoing inner war of the Self vs the personality. It is no wonder that fundementalist's are obsessed with it (in its outer, fictionalized form as written in Ezekiel and Revelation.) They have some of the least psychologically integrated personalities on the planet leading them, setting their example, forming their politics.

Shakepeare said, "Me thinketh he protesteth too much." Well said, Bill.

Not with our current PM, since the feds still have the ability to invoke the notwithstanding clause.
But he already swore he would not use it.

None have kept their homosexuality in the closet and so painfully as the fundementalists.

Anything you emotionally (rather than logically) rail against is something within yourself that you are too weak to control or subvert. When you see this in others, especially in others who are unashamed, it becomes maddening.

Armeggaedon is the ongoing inner war of the Self vs the personality. It is no wonder that fundementalist's are obsessed with it (in its outer, fictionalized form as written in Ezekiel and Revelation.) They have some of the least psychologically integrated personalities on the planet leading them, setting their example, forming their politics.

Shakepeare said, "Me thinketh he protesteth too much." Well said, Bill.

Please refrain from lumping all fundamentalists in the same group.

I am a Pentacostal fundamentalist, and I am bisexual, and everyone in my congregation, place of work, etc., knows it. I am also married to a woman, and belong to several swinging clubs.

Take your generalization somewhere else.

why do you think of polygamy as "monogamy over and over again"? It can have a different setup.

It was drawn, at the union of one man and one woman. If we are redrawing the boundaries everything between consenting adults is up for grabs.

Because gays like penises in their asses.
And if I am ok with gays getting married, then maybe I am ok with a penis in my ass.[/sarcasm]

Here's what I don't get. No one is opposed to women getting it up the ass. How come no one is opposed to that?

By your logic, if you are ok with me have tomatoes on my salad then that means you get them on your salad too, whether you like it or not. You know that is silly. Or maybe you DO want tomatoes on your salad, but you feel social pressure to insist that tomatoes are disgusting and no one should have them. Hmm?

There should be no "give" involved. If two people want to get married it's up to them. I don't give a damn about marriage personally, but I don't give a damn about baseball either and I still think gay people should be allowed to play baseball if they want. And none of this nonsense about how we "gave" them softball and they should be happy with that.

And what is a "moral minded person," anyway? Someone who thinks about morals a lot? Someone who wakes up in the morning and says, "Before I have breakfast I'd better think about morals for a while."

:::slappin her knee and laughing::::


You rock, Brains... =D

Although I really do wonder if this will open up the door to demands for state recognition of polygamous marriages. No country that recognises same sex marriage also recognises polygamous marriages. When the argument in favour of same sex marriage is "consenting adults should be able to do as they please", then how can you deny recognition of polygamous marriage between consenting adults?

Can we cross that bridge when we come to it? I hate to see the homosexuals denied the right of expensive divorces because the 3-way down the street might want to be legal too.

But in that respect. I don't have a problem with polygamy. As long as the state has laws that protect youngsters under 18 (with court allowed, pre-defined exceptions only) from marraige. If a dozen folks can live together happily, sharing a sex life, power to them. Patriarchy, not Polygamy is the cause of young girls getting married to old men.

There is one easy simple answer to the whole debate. Let the government get out of the marriage bussiness. If they stop recognizing marriages as "Legal" and let it just become a ceremony then there is no problem. Take away all the benefits of marriage and then it's up to the individual. Marriage at that point would become a simple contract between two individuals andnot the Individuals and the state. That way Churches could refuse to marry whomever they wanted. Gays could get married to whomever they wanted (and call it whatever they wanted) and polygamists could marry however many as they wanted and new age freaks could marry snakes and frogs if they wanted.

What right does the government have to tell anyone their relationship is "Legal" or "Illegal"?

There is one easy simple answer to the whole debate. Let the government get out of the marriage bussiness. If they stop recognizing marriages as "Legal" and let it just become a ceremony then there is no problem. Take away all the benefits of marriage and then it's up to the individual. Marriage at that point would become a simple contract between two individuals andnot the Individuals and the state. That way Churches could refuse to marry whomever they wanted. Gays could get married to whomever they wanted (and call it whatever they wanted) and polygamists could marry however many as they wanted and new age freaks could marry snakes and frogs if they wanted.

What right does the government have to tell anyone their relationship is "Legal" or "Illegal"?
Exactly.

There is one easy simple answer to the whole debate. Let the government get out of the marriage bussiness. If they stop recognizing marriages as "Legal" and let it just become a ceremony then there is no problem. Take away all the benefits of marriage and then it's up to the individual. Marriage at that point would become a simple contract between two individuals andnot the Individuals and the state. That way Churches could refuse to marry whomever they wanted. Gays could get married to whomever they wanted (and call it whatever they wanted) and polygamists could marry however many as they wanted and new age freaks could marry snakes and frogs if they wanted.

What right does the government have to tell anyone their relationship is "Legal" or "Illegal"?


*sings*
Because marriage is a public contract, and not a private ceremony.
Public Contracts are defined by public authority, and not by private consent.

*sings*
Because marriage is a public contract, and not a private ceremony.
Public Contracts are defined by public authority, and not by private consent.

And why is it a public contract? It is a personal issue.

Yeah but then what if a guy has like 4 wives or something and then theres multiple children from that family... and then a wife wants to separate and then theres custody battles over this and that... and then they go to court for shit... you know?

Pardon mon francais, but really what kind of slut gets married to more than one person at the same time...? :mad:

Why is another family's legal laundry your concern? And why is a woman who loves more than one man a slut? That's seems kind of like a high-school, knee-jerk comment, if you ask me.

If you were older, you would understand that marraige isn't about sex. Sex doesn't need marraige. Marraige is about love and committment, about sharing a life, about joining forces to be more productive, about growing old together, about thick and thin, about sickness and health. Believe me. Marraige is NOT ABOUT SEX.

And why is it a public contract? It is a personal issue.


You can declare yourself 'married' as much as you like.
Which is a personal issue. It don't affect anyone else.

But if you want anyone else to pay heed to it, you got to get a so-called contestabele contract, ie. one that outsiders have to respect.
The one called marriage is a public contract.

Law isn't that hard - just focus on sticking to the rules.

Because gays like penises in their asses.
And if I am ok with gays getting married, then maybe I am ok with a penis in my ass.[/sarcasm]
LMAO! Actually, not all that far from one of the main reasons some people oppose gay marriage. Good one! :)

When my sexbot passes a Turing test can I marry it, or do I have to wait for it to turn 18 first?

Assuming that your sexbot had all the emotional maturity and capacity to safely give birth the day she rolled off the assembly line, I would say you could marry at any time. I suggest before her 3 year warranty runs out.

Anything that denies rights to condenting adults for no reason beyond some vague religious imperative, and does so under the guise of protecting marriage, is against the spirit and the text of the Constitution and is very un-American.
Amen, bro! PREACH it! :D

And why do you assume polygamy means "one man, many wives"? As for custody...Well, I think we need a topic on that, don't you?

polygamy literally means, many 'women'(wives)... multiple husbands would be polyandry.

Married to three women? I have trouble enough handling one romantic relationship with a woman and being friends with many more. I'd rather not attempt three romantic relationships.


Three women is two too many. And arguably three too many.

There is one easy simple answer to the whole debate. Let the government get out of the marriage bussiness. If they stop recognizing marriages as "Legal" and let it just become a ceremony then there is no problem.


Why would there not be a problem if one does that ? The whole debate is centered around the "sanctity of marriage". Why do people think the government involvement is even an issue ?

Why would there not be a problem if one does that ? The whole debate is centered around the "sanctity of marriage". Why do people think the government involvement is even an issue ?
Because they're scared of homosexuals and homosexuality. It challenges their preconcieved notions about the world and what "should" and "should not" be allowed.

OMG! Next they'll force all of us to marry someone of the same sex!!! :eek: :eek: They'll force us to be gay!


I actually know people who think like that.

Because they're scared of homosexuals and homosexuality. It challenges their preconcieved notions about the world and what "should" and "should not" be allowed.

It so does.
But pre-conceived does not mean that such a notion is wrong.
Nor does 'wrong' mean that we can't use those as the legal fictions that we use to operate on.

We decide on those legal fictions collectively.

( Which is why I oppose the federal gay-marriage-ban amendment - this is an issue to be decided upon by the States. )

Like it or not, its a give fact. The US still subscribes to overwhelmingly Christian-based principles on some of its most fundamental decisions. These principles both shape the opinions AND the vote of the people. How does this translate? Basically, we see the workings of these values through our enacted laws. Hence, children under 21 cannot legally drink alcohol, because the United States (as a societal whole) does not wish to endorse the behavior.

Firstly, thank you for your intelligent and well thought out post. It's a rare thing in these forums.

I am not a christian. I grew up with a love of Jesus in a agnostic home. I was always attracted to the church as a child, and deeply religious in my own childlike way. As an adult I went to a christian seminary. It was there that I came to the conclusion that I am not a christian, by the church's (and by this I mean ANY christian church) definition because 1) I do not believe that hell is a place you go/experience AFTER death, but rather a place you are psychologically BEFORE & AFTER death. and 2) I see the Bible as a collection of myths rather than the literal word of God. I believe the Word of God is alive in each of us, regardless of belief system, and manifests itself in our Consicousness (not to be confused with conscience). 3) I see no division between God and the Creation. I experience it all as ONE. The label that suits me best, if one must be applied, is PANTHEIST.

Anyway, that being explained, it is the right of the few, in this case, the non-christian or similarly, those who do not subscribed to christian doctrine, although they may consider themselves christian, that I speak for, myself included.

Change is brought about by dissent. On the matter of gay-marraige I dissend from the christian-based values that have shaped the laws. I do not like it, therefore I speak out. We are not a theocracy, and I will do everything in my power to see that we don't move in that direction.

Again, thank you for your intelligent post.

You know what I would like? I'd like to take a peek on the computers of all these guys who are opposed to gay marriage and see just how much lesbian porn is on their hard drive. I think it would be an interesting percentage to look at.

No shit. LOL

You know what I would like? I'd like to take a peek on the computers of all these guys who are opposed to gay marriage and see just how much lesbian porn is on their hard drive. I think it would be an interesting percentage to look at.

A more interesting statistic would be the number of them that have gay porn on their hard drives. Or at least those who have copies of "The Brotherhood" movies in their video collection.

I don't remember where it was, but I saw read about a study that took equal numbers of men who all declared themselves heterosexual, but half of whom scored high on a written test designed to guage homophobia (because just asking "are you an intolerant prick?" got skewed results).

Both groups were shown Straight porn, gay porn, and girl-on-girl porn (I don't call it lesbian porn because there is a genre of porn geared towards lesbians and it's stomach turning to a straight guy). And they were hooked up to monitoring machines to determine how turned-on they were.

Well, the non-homophobe men were turned on by the girl-on-girl and the straight porn. 80% of the homophobes however were also turned on by the gay porn. So simple intolerance and bigotry only accounts for 20% of the homophobia out there. The rest is just bitter self-loathing.

brief and simple: religion and anotomy. God made woman for man; the penis goes in the vagina.

So do tampons. Or vibrators. Or douche bags. Speaking of which....

So do tampons. Or vibrators. Or douche bags. Speaking of which....

Or breadsticks. Wait, that's just disgusting...

Or breadsticks. Wait, that's just disgusting...

Or cigars in the Oval Office :eek:

Or breadsticks. Wait, that's just disgusting...
Breadsticks! YUM! :D

Or cigars in the Oval Office :eek:
I wonder what one of those would bring on E-Bay? :D

Hope that makes sense :)

Great post. Thank you.

I wonder what one of those would bring on E-Bay? :D

*thinks*
50% of a Gap Store Dress with stains...
:p

What bothers me about gay people getting married is that gay relationships are so much better and superior to heterosexual ones that we as gay people shouldn't be emulating something as flawed as the breeders' attempts to assuage their fears of dying alone.

Then again, I guess that those who want to do just that should be able to, no matter how vexing it is that they're throwing away the possibility for us to pursue our own alternatives and be the vanguard yet again, and instead are happily skipping towards the intellectual death that is mimicry of heteronormativity.

*thinks*
50% of a Gap Store Dress with stains...
:p
LMAO! Good one! :D

Please refrain from lumping all fundamentalists in the same group.

I am a Pentacostal fundamentalist, and I am bisexual, and everyone in my congregation, place of work, etc., knows it. I am also married to a woman, and belong to several swinging clubs.

Take your generalization somewhere else.

Thank you Kimchi, for I stand corrected. You will admit with me, of course, that your lifestyle coupled with your religious affiliation, is a rather rare occurence. How long WERE you in the closet, Kimchi? And what were the social ramifications for you coming out? I know there is some interesting experience there you could share with us. I refuse to believe that your congregation slapped you on the back and said, "Good Man!"

If the people decide that heteronormativity is the norm, then that is the norm.
And Bob's your Uncle.

What annoys me is the attempt to make the norm perennial.
I aprove of the norm in itself, but I object to making it engraved in stone forever.

While it is our norm, we should live by it.
But when it no longer is our norm, we should not be tied down by it.

People are opposed to gay marriage because it will destroy the sacred institution of marriage. Here's how the gay community's plan works.

step 1. Get the right for gays to marry.

step 2. Collect underpants.

step 3.

step 4. Destroy the sacred institution of marriage.

See how it works?

What bothers me about gay people getting married is that gay relationships are so much better and superior to heterosexual ones that we as gay people shouldn't be emulating something as flawed as the breeders' attempts to assuage their fears of dying alone.

Then again, I guess that those who want to do just that should be able to, no matter how vexing it is that they're throwing away the possibility for us to pursue our own alternatives and be the vanguard yet again, and instead are happily skipping towards the intellectual death that is mimicry of heteronormativity.
Good morning, Fass! I see you're being your usual inimitable self! :)

Actually, it's far too much of a stretch to say that the primary reason for hetro marriage is "to assuage their feard of dying alone." Since I came very close several times to dying alone, I have no fear of that. What I DO want to insure is that I leave the world a somewhat better place, and part of that is having been able to raise five good people to carry on after I'm gone. You should be glad that I have blessed the world with a tribe that can continue my benificient wisdom. :D

OMG! Next they'll force all of us to marry someone of the same sex!!! :eek: :eek: They'll force us to be gay!


I actually know people who think like that.

Sadly, me too.

I had an occasion a few years back to go away on a mom's weekend with my old best friend from high school. We had not seen each other in years. In conversation, the issue of gay marraige came up and she said (I shit you not),

"You seriously want homos in the schools teaching kids how to have gay sex?"

OK. How she made that leap is beyond me. But there is the fear. Under the circumstances, rather than argue with that level of intelligence, I ordered a double Maker's Mark straight up and wondered how the rest of my weekend was going to go....

Good morning, Fass! I see you're being your usual inimitable self! :)

It's late afternoon/early evening in Europe.

Actually, it's far too much of a stretch to say that the primary reason for hetro marriage is "to assuage their feard of dying alone." Since I came very close several times to dying alone, I have no fear of that. What I DO want to insure is that I leave the world a somewhat better place, and part of that is having been able to raise five good people to carry on after I'm gone. You should be glad that I have blessed the world with a tribe that can continue my benificient wisdom. :D

There are better ways of not only having children, but also raising them than in the confines of a patriarchal-based two parent household that has settled for being limited by law in order to gain its bigoted recognition.

I'm Catholic, and I have no problem with gays getting married civilly. I think that they should be afforded both the same rights and benefits, and the same consequences, for making this legal contract.

Do I think this means that any CHURCH should be forced to recognize the civil marriage? Of course not.

Do I think this means that a couple has the right to demand an officiant representing any religious associate should be forced to recognize the marriage? Of course not. Hell, there are divorced and remarried people who saw a Justice of the Peace; the church does not recognize their marriage.

Do I think people trying to block the ability of two consenting adults to be insecure idiots? Of course I do. They are often the same people who are trying to restrict other aspects of reproduction in others -- such as the availability of abortion, emergency contraception, sexual education that goes past the obvious but ineffective "don't", et cetera. One might wonder why anyone is so bloody obsessed with the sexual practices of others...

I don't remember where it was, but I saw read about a study that took equal numbers of men who all declared themselves heterosexual, but half of whom scored high on a written test designed to guage homophobia (because just asking "are you an intolerant prick?" got skewed results).

Both groups were shown Straight porn, gay porn, and girl-on-girl porn (I don't call it lesbian porn because there is a genre of porn geared towards lesbians and it's stomach turning to a straight guy). And they were hooked up to monitoring machines to determine how turned-on they were.

Well, the non-homophobe men were turned on by the girl-on-girl and the straight porn. 80% of the homophobes however were also turned on by the gay porn. So simple intolerance and bigotry only accounts for 20% of the homophobia out there. The rest is just bitter self-loathing.

Here is a useful link for more information on that very study:

http://www.psych.org/pnews/96-09-20/phobia.html

It's late afternoon/early evening in Europe.
I don't live in Europe. Something of which I'm sure you're glad. :D


There are better ways of not only having children, but also raising them than in the confines of a patriarchal-based two parent household that has settled for being limited by law in order to gain its bigoted recognition.
Tsk! A tad testy, are we?

My family is anything but "patriarchal," dude! :p

Yeah but then what if a guy has like 4 wives or something and then theres multiple children from that family... and then a wife wants to separate and then theres custody battles over this and that... and then they go to court for shit... you know?

Pardon mon francais, but really what kind of slut gets married to more than one person at the same time...? :mad:

Dunno. Ask the men who favor this arrangement.

I don't live in Europe. Something of which I'm sure you're glad. :D

You ask too much of me in the way of being concerned in any fashion about the location of your domicile.

Tsk! A tad testy, are we?

My family is anything but "patriarchal," dude! :p

If you claim so.

Do I think people trying to block the ability of two consenting adults to be insecure idiots? Of course I do. They are often the same people who are trying to restrict other aspects of reproduction in others -- such as the availability of abortion, emergency contraception, sexual education that goes past the obvious but ineffective "don't", et cetera. One might wonder why anyone is so bloody obsessed with the sexual practices of others...
I've often wondered about this very thing. It seems to me that the more restricted people are about their own sexuality, the more horrifyingly fascinated they are with the sexual proclivities of others. I suspect that it's at least partially due to fears about their own dimly glimpsed sexuality than it is about anything else. Someone of my acquaintence was in the process of learning about the deep wellsprings of her own sexuality and was so frightened by it that she retreated into fundamentalism.

Dunno. Ask the men who favor this arrangement.
IMHO, that's just demented! I had only one wife and she nearly killed me! I can't even begin to imagine what TWO or more would do! :D

"You seriously want homos in the schools teaching kids how to have gay sex?"
How else are the children going to learn how to have gay sex?

Not to label myself throgh my words (which invariably happens in such discussions), but I'm become puzzled by the repeated arguments that cite the forbidding of gays to marry as a 'denial of civil liberties.'

Now, granted, as a lawyer, I've heard the various arguments (legal) on both sides, and still can't reconcile with this statemnent. Simply put: We, as a society have laws. As we all know, the laws both permit and prohibit certain things. Sometimes, these prohibitions and permitations apply to certain "classes" of people (key word). The effect of these laws in many instances, is that they focus on a group of people and apply regulations to that group. Such regulations can be enacted through popular vote, or through judicial or legislative creation.

One such example is underage drinking. Singles out a class of people (under 21 individuals) and applys a regulation. And while you could make the argument that these individuals are being denied a certain "right" by being prohibited from partaking in an activity granted to the rest of the nation, it is widely understood that such regulations exist as a part of the very foundation of society.

Now, if you GO to that foundation, you are left with the inescapable conclusion that our society is based on certain principles. Like it or not, its a give fact. The US still subscribes to overwhelmingly Christian-based principles on some of its most fundamental decisions. These principles both shape the opinions AND the vote of the people. How does this translate? Basically, we see the workings of these values through our enacted laws. Hence, children under 21 cannot legally drink alcohol, because the United States (as a societal whole) does not wish to endorse the behavior.

Similarily, (and I'm not making an exact comparison here), the traditional (and yes, largely Christian-based) principles underlying the US Constitution as well as its various laws speak to an understanding that society has not wished to condone the homosexual lifestyle as being equally as acceptable as that of the heterosexual one. Like it or not, that's the way things work.

In conclusion, although I have my personal beliefs on the matter, I wanted to shed a bit of light on why the US often makes the decisions it does. Rather than looking at is as a bunch of bigots trying to suppress individual rights, look at it as a culture, based on some very fundamental (Christian-based) values, that have an effect on the laws of the nation.

What would be the effect then, of giving a legal 'nod' to gay marriage? The effect would be that the enacted law would begin to conflict with the underlying framework. The subtle but immediate effect would be to create an unrest. This would seem to make sense, as unrest would be a natural consequence of a conflict between the values of a society and its laws. When it comes to that point, either one or the other will have to give. The two cannot live at odds, and I think it will be then that we will either see a return to the 'traditional' US values, or a radical move towards a re-defining of some of the most basic understandings about both the laws of the country as well as the nature of the person themselves.


The Bible endorsed slavery, and fortunately, the United States decided as a society that that was a "traditional value" that was outdated and immoral. Under the "traditional Christian values" of the bible, treating people of color as property was endorsed as proper moral behavior. So was treating women as chattel and preventing their right to vote.

I think we understand the laws of the country and the "Christian" basis on which they were definied just fine... unless of course you meant to defend these inequities and think that women and blacks are plain inferior and should not vote, own their own property, and have self determination?

How else are the children going to learn how to have gay sex?
teh intranet.

The Bible endorsed slavery, and fortunately, the United States decided as a society that that was a "traditional value" that was outdated and immoral. Under the "traditional Christian values" of the bible, treating people of color as property was endorsed as proper moral behavior. So was treating women as chattel and preventing their right to vote.

I think we understand the laws of the country and the "Christian" basis on which they were definied just fine... unless of course you meant to defend these inequities and think that women and blacks are plain inferior and should not vote, own their own property, and have self determination?


Point of order: is Christianity defined by following the Bible?

How else are the children going to learn how to have gay sex?

Priests.

Shakepeare said, "Me thinketh he protesteth too much." Well said, Bill.

It was, but actually, it's "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." (Hamlet, Act III, Sc ii)

Point of order: is Christianity defined by following the Bible?


I think you would have to ask all the people who shout the loudest that they are Christians and affirm that the Bible tells them that X is wrong.

Myself, I think it's following the teachings of Christ, which pretty much boiled down to "love one another and treat each other with respect." ;) Which oddly enough, people seem to have a VERY difficult time following.

You werent ashamed when the worst governor in history became the worse president in history came from your state?

Meh...I kept telling myself he wasn't really a Texan, and I really didn't realize how bad he was until after he became president. In 2000, I thought Tipper was scarier than Dubya. I'd love to hear her whining about song lyrics right about now.

It was, but actually, it's "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." (Hamlet, Act III, Sc ii)

Thanks for looking that up. My memory has ill-served me.

Adam and Eve.
Not Adam and Steve.
Nor is it Madam and Eve.

Adam and Eve.
Not Adam and Steve.
Nor is it Madam and Eve.

And Hokan...All alone.

polygamy literally means, many 'women'(wives)... multiple husbands would be polyandry.

The term polygamy (literally many marriages in late Greek)

Polygamy exists in three specific forms, including polygyny (one man having multiple wives), polyandry (one woman having multiple husbands), or group marriage (some combination of polygyny and polyandry).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

So i was thinking, and i can't figure out why it bothers people. Its not like thier forced to watch or their firstborn is killed, or any thing bad happens to them. The Bible says its wrong, but so what do you care? They'll all be down in hell and you'll still be in heaven, so what exatclty is your problem?

Note i am a straight atheist, and dont turn this into a flame war, i jsut want to know the reasoning behind it.


Two words (so that this does not turn into another rant, as this thread probably has enough already):

Moral Indignation

Adam and Eve.
Not Adam and Steve.
Nor is it Madam and Eve.
Does God also fill your head with silly sayings?

It's all about control and feelings of moral superiority. These people think that they know best and therefore have the right to impose their notions on others in the form of law.

One of the most fatuous things I've heard recently was when a co-worker of mine (a man with a Masters in Botany, for shit's sake) said we needed the amendment because it protected those who had no voice. It just shows that education does not indicate intelligence.

Adam and Eve.
Not Adam and Steve.
Nor is it Madam and Eve.
It was Adam and all the animals too. Once he got bored of them god gave him a woman.

It was Adam and all the animals too. Once he got bored of them god gave him a woman.
Two women actually, according to Jewish Myth. But the first liked to be on top and Adam got scared and complained to God and that one was turned into a demon. Eve seemed nice and liked it from the bottom but then she committed original sin. Adam was basically a nice guy who couldn't deal with the women God gave him.

It was Adam and all the animals too. Once he got bored of them god gave him a woman.


Ten points.

Ten points.
Any points for random esoteric knowledge?

Two women actually, according to Jewish Myth. But the first liked to be on top and Adam got scared and complained to God and that one was turned into a demon. Eve seemed nice and liked it from the bottom but then she committed original sin. Adam was basically a nice guy who couldn't deal with the women God gave him.
God should have just made them both "bisexual"(bisexual like girl on girl porn stars bisexual).

God should have just made them both "bisexual"(bisexual like girl on girl porn stars bisexual).
Well, who knows what it really means to "bite the apple"?




I'm going away now.

Well, who knows what it really means to "bite the apple"?




I'm going away now.
Ewwwwwww

Alright. So someone created another thread about gays. Ok.:fluffle:

First of all, the "morality" of anything is all about human will. Man decides whats right and wrong, and then a few more people join him, and then it soon becomes the majority. That could be anything; like killing. If the cave man (if he ever did exist) suddenly decided that killing was O.K., and got his friends to think the same, then I suppose that would be considered O.K. today. Course, a lot of us would be dead. :eek: :sniper:
What I am trying to say is that gay marriage is considered immoral simply because the majority of people who have ruled superior throughout the centuries believe that it is.
And then comes along the gay man. :p He believes that he has the right to do whatever he wants to do with his reproductive organs, and should have the right to marry anyone of any sex. He gets his friends to think the same (mostly male ones) and leads a group of his own. Simply because he is the minority, he will be frowned upon, and as we can see today, he is. Just like Catholics. Since everyones Catholic, nobody frowns on them! The freakin Newscasts were all over the pope! Because Catholics have become the majority, they are not frowned upon. Since Jehovah's Witnesses have become the minority, they are frowned upon.

What is right and what is wrong is all about what the ruling man thinks. If he thinks waving to anyone is wrong, then it would become law. If he thinks killing your mother after shes 50 is right, then it would become law. Is that right? Depends upon the majorities opinion.
Do I think gays should be allowed to marry?
There is no way that man can stop another man from doing anything that he thinks is wrong. Even if outlawed, gays are still gonna do it. Stealing is outlawed; does anyone listen? Killing is outlawed; does Keanu Reaves listen?
I'm going to make my own choices. Will I allow anyone to have gay sex? No, I won't. Its against MY morals. Can I stop it? No. They can make their own decisions, but I'm not lettin any son of mine to screw his best friend Pablo; simply because I have the power to stop it.

Make your own decision; just don't do it on my lawn.:sniper: And please, if you've got gays in your movie, please write it clearly on the label (effing Brokeback Mountain for example.)

Make your own decision; just don't do it on my lawn.:sniper: And please, if you've got gays in your movie, please write it clearly on the label (effing Brokeback Mountain for example.)
All I can say is WTF?!

Its against MY morals. Can I stop it? No. They can make their own decisions, but I'm not lettin any son of mine to screw his best friend Pablo; simply because I have the power to stop it.
So your morals count, but not your son's? I hope any children you have put you in a home full of gay elderly people.

All I can say is WTF?!

I tried to reply, but there was so much hatred, and so little punctuation or correct grammar.

ATTN: All those trying to argue. Please take a moment to use A) A spellchecker and B) Punctuation and Correct Grammar.

Make your own decision; just don't do it on my lawn.:sniper: And please, if you've got gays in your movie, please write it clearly on the label (effing Brokeback Mountain for example.)
You should check out the Crying Game. Really nice romantic movie.

I tried to reply, but there was so much hatred, and so little punctuation or correct grammar.

ATTN: All those trying to argue. Please take a moment to use A) A spellchecker and B) Punctuation and Correct Grammar.
It made my brain cry.

It made my brain cry.

I mourn for the lost brain cells.

I mourn for the lost brain cells.
The others want a Memorial Day for their lost comrades.

Because CHristians and just about any religion are opposed to homosexuality. Giving them marriage isn't what the moral minded person would want.
If religions are all against homosexuality, then why allow it at all? It is silly to think that religious morality ought to govern the behaviour of all in matters that don't affect other people.

If religious people want to be moral then they should not be gay.

Although I really do wonder if this will open up the door to demands for state recognition of polygamous marriages. No country that recognises same sex marriage also recognises polygamous marriages.
It won't. Polygamy would obviously destabilise society, and make the law into an even more confusing spiderweb.

Monogamy ensures that a greater number of people get the right to reproduce.

Polygamy would be a return to a more barbaric, primitive state of society.

When the argument in favour of same sex marriage is "consenting adults should be able to do as they please", then how can you deny recognition of polygamous marriage between consenting adults?
That has been the argument for a lot of expansion of civil liberties. Yet it has not caused polygamy yet.

What would be the effect then, of giving a legal 'nod' to gay marriage? The effect would be that the enacted law would begin to conflict with the underlying framework. The subtle but immediate effect would be to create an unrest. This would seem to make sense, as unrest would be a natural consequence of a conflict between the values of a society and its laws. When it comes to that point, either one or the other will have to give. The two cannot live at odds, and I think it will be then that we will either see a return to the 'traditional' US values, or a radical move towards a re-defining of some of the most basic understandings about both the laws of the country as well as the nature of the person themselves.
Why think this? Such problems did not arise out of mixed-race marriages, despite the fact that it was mostly "good Christians" campaigning against them - the same group that campaigns today against same-sex marriage.

You can declare yourself 'married' as much as you like.
Which is a personal issue. It don't affect anyone else.

But if you want anyone else to pay heed to it, you got to get a so-called contestabele contract, ie. one that outsiders have to respect.
The one called marriage is a public contract.

Law isn't that hard - just focus on sticking to the rules.

I'm not sure whether I'm vexed more by the condescending tone or the fact you didn't read the original post. She was asking "why is the government involved in marriage _at all_."

She is asking the reader to consider hypothetically a scenario where government is _uninvolved_ in marriage. Where there are _no specific laws_ relating to property division, custody issues, tax consequences etc. arising from two people living together. She's asking about a case where there are _no benefits_ to either or both parties because of the existence of a sufficiently long term, intimate relationship.

Currently, there are a number of statuatory priveleges (and a few disadvantages) to marriage. yes, as long as people want those conditions to apply, the government must be involved to decide where a marriage exists, and what type of relationships are 'worthy' of those conditions.

Here's what she said


Take away all the benefits of marriage and then it's up to the individual. Marriage at that point would become a simple contract between two individuals andnot the Individuals and the state.


This (by my reading) is a statement that we should make it the norm that people learn the relevant contractual law about dividing shared property, child custody, etc (all the things that marriage law currently regulates) by the principles of the _general civil law_.

Maybe this desire is unreasaonable (most people can't even learn how to drive properly much less understand the basics of the legal system much less the general principles of these legal issues even in a "For Dummies" approach)...but that wasn't your response.

So how did you arrive at the conclusion she wanted there to be a continuation of the current regime of priveleges and liabilties, just without any outside adjudication of what constitutes a marriage ?

Yenshuallia, am I reading you correctly ?

It won't. Polygamy would obviously destabilise society, and make the law into an even more confusing spiderweb.

Monogamy ensures that a greater number of people get the right to reproduce.

Polygamy would be a return to a more barbaric, primitive state of society.

Eh? How do you come to these conclusions?

Eh? How do you come to these conclusions?
Look what happened to Utah.

I'd like a moment of silence.

Eh? How do you come to these conclusions?
It would devolve humanity into a Darwinian society. The "alpha males/females" would most likely amass harems. I believe it would cause a more heirarchical society, and undo all the equality that we have fought for.

but I'm not lettin any son of mine to screw his best friend Pablo; simply because I have the power to stop it.

And how would you propose to do that?

It would devolve humanity into a Darwinian society. The "alpha males/females" would most likely amass harems. I believe it would cause a more heirarchical society, and undo all the equality that we have fought for.

Just like how letting gays marry would end up with us marrying our pets?

Look what happened to Utah.

I'd like a moment of silence.

Something happened to Utah??? Wha???

:::turns on the tv::::

It would devolve humanity into a Darwinian society. The "alpha males/females" would most likely amass harems. I believe it would cause a more heirarchical society, and undo all the equality that we have fought for.

Oh boy, this is great. Could you finish the rest of this story? I can't wait to read it!

Just like how letting gays marry would end up with us marrying our pets?
That is illogical. Pets can't consent to get married. Thus, permitting same-sex marriages will not result in zoophilia marriages.

It would devolve humanity into a Darwinian society. The "alpha males/females" would most likely amass harems. I believe it would cause a more heirarchical society, and undo all the equality that we have fought for.

So, by allowing gays to marry would destroy civilization as we know it.
nope. dont think so.

That is illogical. Pets can't consent to get married. Thus, permitting same-sex marriages will not result in zoophilia marriages.

Oh, so now we're using logic. So...The logic basis for "The 'alpha males/females' would most likely amass harems" and "it would ... undo all the equality that we have fought for" would be?

Thanks for looking that up. My memory has ill-served me.

Heh. That one's in memory. I've taught the play often enough. ;)

Are You Really A Ninja???

Heh. That one's in memory. I've taught the play often enough. ;)
I used to carry a copy around with me. I should go back to doing that.

Are You Really A Ninja???
Of course. I was trained in Okwanishito, Japan. I am in the Order of the Black Dragon. We fight to rid Japan of its imperalistic invaders. Sometimes we drink beer.
Or not.

So...The logic basis for "The 'alpha males/females' would most likely amass harems" and "it would ... undo all the equality that we have fought for" would be?
If there are equal numbers of men and women, then polygamous marriages will result in large numbers of people (mostly men, if empirical evidence is anything to go by) without someone to marry.

This would only serve to divide people, which would encourage heirarchy.

I can't think of any societies that allowed polygamous marriage that I would consider healthy, or desirable to emulate.

If there are equal numbers of men and women, then polygamous marriages will result in large numbers of people (mostly men, if empirical evidence is anything to go by) without someone to marry.

This would only serve to divide people, which would encourage heirarchy.

I can't think of any societies that allowed polygamous marriage that I would consider healthy, or desirable to emulate.

...How would you be without someone to marry, considering that married people are still...marry-able. And just what societies were you thinking of?

...How would you be without someone to marry, considering that married people are still...marry-able.
And what about those who don't want to marry into a group? It would make their lives much more difficult.

And just what societies were you thinking of?
Various Arab and African societies, Mormons, etc and so forth. I don't think we should take pointers from any of them. Please, enlighten me with tales of past polygamous paradises.

Various Arab and African societies, Mormons, etc and so forth. I don't think we should take pointers from any of them. Please, enlighten me with tales of past polygamous paradises.

Various Arab and African societies also employed the wheel...But eh, let me do a bit of looking around....

So, by allowing gays to marry would destroy civilization as we know it.
nope. dont think so.
He was talking about allowing polygamy, not gay marraiges. Pay attention.

The Bible says its wrong, but so what do you care? They'll all be down in hell and you'll still be in heaven, so what exatclty is your problem?

My biggest problem with gay marriage are the endless stream of threads about them.

Especially the ones posed in question form.

He was talking about allowing polygamy, not gay marraiges. Pay attention.
No, he was saying if we allow gay marriges we must allow polygamy, and therefore destroy the world.

My biggest problem with gay marriage are the endless stream of threads about them.

Especially the ones posed in question form.
No ones making you read them.

No ones making you read them.


I'm feel compelled, because most of them are so awful.

Like in a mystery science theater 3000 sort of way.

I'm feel compelled, because most of them are so awful.

Like in a mystery science theater 3000 sort of way.
ahhh i see. Well, you should make a thread to stop it.

No, he was saying if we allow gay marriges we must allow polygamy, and therefore destroy the world.
I said nothing of the sort. I think that same-sex marriage should be legal but that polygamy should not.

Various Arab and African societies also employed the wheel...But eh, let me do a bit of looking around....
That's because the wheel worked well. Those societies which used it became prosperous and advanced. Those societies which encouraged monogamy have also become more successful than those which encouraged polygamy.

I said nothing of the sort. I think that same-sex marriage should be legal but that polygamy should not.
oh. well, i was paying attention. i just misunderstood the post.

ahhh i see. Well, you should make a thread to stop it.

Why?

I need something to do when I smoke.

That's because the wheel worked well. Those societies which used it became prosperous and advanced. Those societies which encouraged monogamy have also become more successful than those which encouraged polygamy.

So...These various societies failed because of polygamy?

well the other ones werent very useful, so fuck you.

And this one started off SO much better.

And this one started off SO much better.
Thats right it did.
He used a smilie. It was called for.

It, itself doesn't bother me. The idea that we would be agknowlaging they are are normal, and gay is fine. A man marrying a man...DOES NOT COMPUTE! What is this world coming to? Oh, and by the way. This is one-heckuva origanal post!

It, itself doesn't bother me. The idea that we would be agknowlaging they are are normal, and gay is fine. A man marrying a man...DOES NOT COMPUTE! What is this world coming to?

The removal of obsolete units?

The removal of obsolete units?
Oh, a MAN wants to marry a MAN. And if I don't like to make it legal, I'm some backwards Nazi? Don'tcha undahstand? Gay is cool, and hip, and if you don't like things that don't make sense, you're a facist, and not up to date.

The best argument for gays so far is that they are a method of population control. But, straigt marrige has a PRACTICAL reason, gay marrige doesn't.

Oh, and by the way. This is one-heckuva origanal post!
I sense sarcasm. Perhaps i could have put a bit more thought into it.....but nah, didn't feel like it.

Oh, a MAN wants to marry a MAN. And if I don't like to make it legal, I'm some backwards Nazi? Don'tcha undahstand? Gay is cool, and hip, and if you don't like things that don't make sense, you're a facist, and not up to date.

The best argument for gays so far is that they are a method of population control. But, straigt marrige has a PRACTICAL reason, gay marrige doesn't.

Nah, just the "DOES NOT COMPUTE" thing isn't what you expect in a comuter of modern sorts. And who cares if gay marriage has a practical reason or not?

Oh, a MAN wants to marry a MAN. And if I don't like to make it legal, I'm some backwards Nazi? Don'tcha undahstand? Gay is cool, and hip, and if you don't like things that don't make sense, you're a facist, and not up to date.

The best argument for gays so far is that they are a method of population control. But, straigt marrige has a PRACTICAL reason, gay marrige doesn't.

Yeah, the practical reason being that the couples union will be officially recognised, and they will get the legal benefits associated with marriage. How is this different for straight people?

Because the defining reason for heterosexuals to marry is to go forthand multiply. Homos are incapable of forming families, so gays are just mocking that divine purpose by pretending to form similar bonds.

Because the defining reason for heterosexuals to marry is to go forthand multiply. Homos are incapable of forming families, so gays are just mocking that divine purpose by pretending to form similar bonds.

But straight people can and do raise families without getting married, while others get married and never have kids.

There is one easy simple answer to the whole debate. Let the government get out of the marriage bussiness. If they stop recognizing marriages as "Legal" and let it just become a ceremony then there is no problem.

I agree. If we're going to treat marriage as something anyone should be able to do, then lets at least give it the credit it's due.

What I've noticed is that, in the midde of all the debate about gay marriage, rising divorce rates, etc, etc, your average American citizen still likes to think of marriage as something "special". Why otherwise, would be buy the rings, take the vows, hire a photographer, invite all the relatives, and sign a piece of paper? Why does all this cerimonialism stress a level of "commitment" that is often a mere facade?

Let's have some consistancy people. If we're going to re-define marriage, let's treat marriage they way it should be treated in the eyes of the law. Anyone can get a marriage license, fine. From there, we leave it to the individual, religious groups to decide how THEY (individually) will treat the marriage covenant. They can decide to either recognize or not gay marriages within their communities, and thereby preserve that particular aspect of the "traditional" marriage ideal.

But spare me the hypocricy. Let's not pretend that we're treating marriage as a "special commitment". If we must make it a legal arrangement, fine. But that, alone, is nothing "special."

Yeah, the practical reason being that the couples union will be officially recognised, and they will get the legal benefits associated with marriage. How is this different for straight people?
Er, no. I don't beleive in marrige without children, straight or not.

But straight people can and do raise families without getting married, while others get married and never have kids.
But normal people have the capacity to form genuine families. Some choose to abuse that bond, but the opportunity is there. Same-sex relationships, however, are already a perversion just by their design.

Nah, just the "DOES NOT COMPUTE" thing isn't what you expect in a comuter of modern sorts. And who cares if gay marriage has a practical reason or not?
Droid, not computer. Define "marrige"? Is it a man-and-a-woman, a man-and-a-man, a woman-and-a-women, a geek-and-a-computer, a weirdo-and-a-dog...WHAT IS MARRIGE TO YOU PEOPLE? First it's only opposite sexs, then it's ONLY humans, next it will be...

Er, no. I don't beleive in marrige without children, straight or not.

what about infertile people, or couples who meet when they are too old to have kids?

But normal people have the capacity to form genuine families. Some choose to abuse that bond, but the opportunity is there. Same-sex relationships, however, are already a perversion just by their design.
Absoulutely. But...I...know...gay...marrige...will...one day...be legal...it's inevetible...:(

what about infertile people, or couples who meet when they are too old to have kids?
Good point on your part. I guess, what it is that those people are opposite sexs, and they are missing that. Gays, on the other hand, are not only missing that, but have something else. The real reason I don't want gay marrige is it will continue. Man-on-man, man-on-dog, man-on-rock...

Good point on your part. I guess, what it is that those people are opposite sexs, and they are missing that. Gays, on the other hand, are not only missing that, but have something else. The real reason I don't want gay marrige is it will continue. Man-on-man, man-on-dog, man-on-rock...

man on dog? Doesnt that seem abit riduculous? Man on rock? Come on? I dont think anyone is that weird. BuT hey, even they are, who are u to judge them? Everyone has teh right to fall inlove and get married and raise children, whether they be opposite sex or same sex. if they are inlove, what does it matter. They dont walk around forcing their beliefs on you, why should they have to cop it from you. Who are we to decide who should marry and who shouldnt. As long as its for love, what difference does it make?

man on dog? Doesnt that seem abit riduculous? Man on rock? Come on? I dont think anyone is that weird. BuT hey, even they are, who are u to judge them? Everyone has teh right to fall inlove and get married and raise children, whether they be opposite sex or same sex. if they are inlove, what does it matter. They dont walk around forcing their beliefs on you, why should they have to cop it from you. Who are we to decide who should marry and who shouldnt. As long as its for love, what difference does it make?
It, as I said, doesn't bother me one bit. If they want a church of their own to marry them, let them have it. Just, don't make ME agknowlage it.

But normal people have the capacity to form genuine families. Some choose to abuse that bond, but the opportunity is there. **Same-sex relationships, however, are already a perversion just by their design.

Your statement requires revision.

Same sex relationships, however, are already a perversion just by their design - in my humble opinion.**

** denotes that this is in fact an opinion, and your bigotry isn't fact.

Just trying to be helpful.

PS: Do you even know what your name means in French? Your posts smack of irony.

It, as I said, doesn't bother me one bit. If they want a church of their own to marry them, let them have it. Just, don't make ME agknowlage it.

Make u acknowledge it? It's none of ur business what they do. How are they gonna make u acknowledge? It's their lives, their frenz and family will support them. I dont see what it has to do with you.

Good point on your part. I guess, what it is that those people are opposite sexs, and they are missing that. Gays, on the other hand, are not only missing that, but have something else. The real reason I don't want gay marrige is it will continue. Man-on-man, man-on-dog, man-on-rock...

Oh darn it Cletus! Maybe we should stop the heteros from having sex and getting married too! That might be where the homos are getting the idea from. Slippery slope, what the hell was the government thinking letting people solemnise love and fool around in the bedroom without interference. No more hetero marriage or sex! It only sets an example for the homos! Let's try that, shall we?

</sarcasm>

Your arguement is fallacious. Two men, or two women in a loving relationship are recognised under law as persons, and can give consent to be bound in marriage. Rocks and animals cannot. Get a brain.

Oh darn it Cletus! Maybe we should stop the heteros from having sex and getting married too! That might be where the homos are getting the idea from. Slippery slope, what the hell was the government thinking letting people solemnise love and fool around in the bedroom without interference. No more hetero marriage or sex! It only sets an example for the homos! Let's try that, shall we?

</sarcasm>

Your arguement is fallacious. Two men, or two women in a loving relationship are recognised under law as persons, and can give consent to be bound in marriage. Rocks and animals cannot. Get a brain.

Right on.

Absoulutely. But...I...know...gay...marrige...will...one day...be legal...it's inevetible...:(

It's legal in Canada already, homosexuals won the RIGHT to marry, and be recognised by our government.

However, our Christofascist conservative government is trying to REPEAL that right.

I'm looking forward to seeing their asses turfed by the Canadian voters. I know I personally will never vote for the Conservative party just because of that action.

Good point on your part. I guess, what it is that those people are opposite sexs, and they are missing that. Gays, on the other hand, are not only missing that, but have something else. The real reason I don't want gay marrige is it will continue. Man-on-man, man-on-dog, man-on-rock...

You're taking a moral stand against Pygmalion and Galatea? Bestiality crosses the consent line - since animals can neither have intelligent consent nor communicate it - and so doesn't even come close to being covered by the "all is fair given informed consent" blanket.

Your statement requires revision.

Same sex relationships, however, are already a perversion just by their design - in my humble opinion.**

** denotes that this is in fact an opinion, and your bigotry isn't fact.

Just trying to be helpful.

PS: Do you even know what your name means in French? Your posts smack of irony.

But that adendum wouldn't be accurate, since it isn't my opinion, I was just illustrating the argument.

Good point on your part. I guess, what it is that those people are opposite sexs, and they are missing that. Gays, on the other hand, are not only missing that, but have something else. The real reason I don't want gay marrige is it will continue. Man-on-man, man-on-dog, man-on-rock...

But why would it escalate? gay people are a specific group who want equal rights. this has nothing to do with the occasional wierdo who wants to marry a rock or his TV. if straight people can get married, and so can gays, then there arent any groups left who might want to.

"Rights"

If there's one word that riles up people, it's that. I'm nearly convinced that, in any debate, once that word is spoken (or typed) minds shut off and bickering begins. I see that here, and the mental vaccuum being created is almost rediculous.

Perhaps the posters here could take a minute to think about what they are writing and the implications of their arguments. For instance, with this whole "rights" issue we are talking about here, I'm a bit confused.

What we seem to be wanting to do with legalizing gay marriage is to create a new set of "rights" based on sexual expression/gender identity. Why do we need this new category? First of all, I guess the question is, why do heterosexuals "need" marriage? On a purely economic level, I always assumed that it was for the governmental benefits that accompany marriage such as property ownership, medical benefits, childcare benefits, etc.

The problem I see is that if you try to make the same argument for gay marriage, I see it as being pointless. Civil unions exist already to provide gay couples with some (if not all in some instances) benefits that are afforded to married people. So why do we need the label of "marriage"?

As I inquired in my previous post, what's the big deal? If marriage is just a piece of paper that allows two people to call themselves something (married), what's so important? Do gay couples want to be called "married"? Is it really so important to have that lablel?

This just doubles back into my previous argument. Why are we trying to have marriage "mean" something? Let's take a look away from "rights" for a moment, as that has already been addressed, and let's look at needs. Why do gay couples "NEED" marriage? I'd like to see an argument that addresses why so much of a fight has been put up over the ability to recieve a pice of paper that, essentially, means nothing in the eyes of the law.

This seems rediculous.

I have no problem with the concept of marriage when it's a socially sanctioned and weighted ceremony which illustrates that the people in this sexual/romantic/intimate relationship are commited to caring for eachother and maintaining that relationship, which then gives the participants in that relationship some stability and the assurance that they can rely on eachother.

But the fiscal and practical partnership which constitutes legal marriage seems unrelated. Why does "who I fuck for ever and ever amen" have any bearing on "who I want to have binding decisions over me should I be incapacitated" or "who I want to share financial decisions and responsibilities with"?

"Rights"

If there's one word that riles up people, it's that. I'm nearly convinced that, in any debate, once that word is spoken (or typed) minds shut off and bickering begins. I see that here, and the mental vaccuum being created is almost rediculous.

Perhaps the posters here could take a minute to think about what they are writing and the implications of their arguments. For instance, with this whole "rights" issue we are talking about here, I'm a bit confused.

What we seem to be wanting to do with legalizing gay marriage is to create a new set of "rights" based on sexual expression/gender identity. Why do we need this new category? First of all, I guess the question is, why do heterosexuals "need" marriage? On a purely economic level, I always assumed that it was for the governmental benefits that accompany marriage such as property ownership, medical benefits, childcare benefits, etc.

The problem I see is that if you try to make the same argument for gay marriage, I see it as being pointless. Civil unions exist already to provide gay couples with some (if not all in some instances) benefits that are afforded to married people. So why do we need the label of "marriage"?

As I inquired in my previous post, what's the big deal? If marriage is just a piece of paper that allows two people to call themselves something (married), what's so important? Do gay couples want to be called "married"? Is it really so important to have that lablel?

This just doubles back into my previous argument. Why are we trying to have marriage "mean" something? Let's take a look away from "rights" for a moment, as that has already been addressed, and let's look at needs. Why do gay couples "NEED" marriage? I'd like to see an argument that addresses why so much of a fight has been put up over the ability to recieve a pice of paper that, essentially, means nothing in the eyes of the law.

This seems rediculous.

Why has such a fight been put up to restrict the ability to recieve a piece of paper that means nothing to the law?

"Rights"

If there's one word that riles up people, it's that. I'm nearly convinced that, in any debate, once that word is spoken (or typed) minds shut off and bickering begins. I see that here, and the mental vaccuum being created is almost rediculous.

Perhaps the posters here could take a minute to think about what they are writing and the implications of their arguments. For instance, with this whole "rights" issue we are talking about here, I'm a bit confused.

What we seem to be wanting to do with legalizing gay marriage is to create a new set of "rights" based on sexual expression/gender identity. Why do we need this new category? First of all, I guess the question is, why do heterosexuals "need" marriage? On a purely economic level, I always assumed that it was for the governmental benefits that accompany marriage such as property ownership, medical benefits, childcare benefits, etc.

The problem I see is that if you try to make the same argument for gay marriage, I see it as being pointless. Civil unions exist already to provide gay couples with some (if not all in some instances) benefits that are afforded to married people. So why do we need the label of "marriage"?

As I inquired in my previous post, what's the big deal? If marriage is just a piece of paper that allows two people to call themselves something (married), what's so important? Do gay couples want to be called "married"? Is it really so important to have that lablel?

This just doubles back into my previous argument. Why are we trying to have marriage "mean" something? Let's take a look away from "rights" for a moment, as that has already been addressed, and let's look at needs. Why do gay couples "NEED" marriage? I'd like to see an argument that addresses why so much of a fight has been put up over the ability to recieve a pice of paper that, essentially, means nothing in the eyes of the law.

This seems rediculous.

Yes. Marriage means nothing. No one needs it. So long as you ignore the 1000 rights and priveleges associated with marriage. I'm sure when a gay man is on welfare because his spouse died and he didn't receive benefits like he should have, he doesn't need marriage, does he? When a lesbian is not allowed in the room at a hospital because she's not 'family', she doesn't need marriage, does she? If a gay man dies and wants his estate to become his husband's estate with the normal exceptions for a spouse but cannot get them, he doesn't need marriage, does he? When both parents are treated like parents of their child, when government benefits are denied, when protections in legal proceedings are necessary, when they split, when they simply want their love for one another to be properly recognized.... there are literally over 1000 reasons. But hey, if you simply ignore those reasons, you're right, there's no reason.

Incidentally, do you think artists NEED to be allowed to paint a picture without discrimination? Do you think people who are not guilty of a crime NEED to have protections from illegal search? Interesting how easily you're willing to simply destroy rights.

The real power behind gay marriage is $$$$$$$$$. Big business doesn't want to fund health cre for AIDS. They know if they wrap anything in religion they can sell it to the masses.

The real power behind gay marriage is $$$$$$$$$. Big business doesn't want to fund health cre for AIDS. They know if they wrap anything in religion they can sell it to the masses.

Given what spreads the disease, it certainly seems if that were the driver that encouraging monogomy would be an advantage. Also many insurance companies recognize significant others without requiring marriage. The evidence does not suggest that this is an insurance issue.

People are stupid. Its quite simple really.

I have no problem with the concept of marriage when it's a socially sanctioned and weighted ceremony which illustrates that the people in this sexual/romantic/intimate relationship are commited to caring for eachother and maintaining that relationship, which then gives the participants in that relationship some stability and the assurance that they can rely on eachother.

But the fiscal and practical partnership which constitutes legal marriage seems unrelated. Why does "who I fuck for ever and ever amen" have any bearing on "who I want to have binding decisions over me should I be incapacitated" or "who I want to share financial decisions and responsibilities with"?
What are you trying to say here?

Are you saying that the social/religious ceremony of marriage and the legal benefits of householding should be two separate and unrelated things and that BOTH gays and heterosexuals should have access to both?

Or are you saying that you want to add insult to injury against gays by letting them get married but then still denying married gays the same legal benefits you would give to heteros?

But the fiscal and practical partnership which constitutes legal marriage seems unrelated. Why does "who I fuck for ever and ever amen" have any bearing on "who I want to have binding decisions over me should I be incapacitated" or "who I want to share financial decisions and responsibilities with"?

Ever think that 2 gay people might actually love each other? Its not only about the sex, asshole.

"Rights"

If there's one word that riles up people, it's that. I'm nearly convinced that, in any debate, once that word is spoken (or typed) minds shut off and bickering begins. I see that here, and the mental vaccuum being created is almost rediculous.

Perhaps the posters here could take a minute to think about what they are writing and the implications of their arguments. For instance, with this whole "rights" issue we are talking about here, I'm a bit confused.

What we seem to be wanting to do with legalizing gay marriage is to create a new set of "rights" based on sexual expression/gender identity. Why do we need this new category? First of all, I guess the question is, why do heterosexuals "need" marriage? On a purely economic level, I always assumed that it was for the governmental benefits that accompany marriage such as property ownership, medical benefits, childcare benefits, etc.

The problem I see is that if you try to make the same argument for gay marriage, I see it as being pointless. Civil unions exist already to provide gay couples with some (if not all in some instances) benefits that are afforded to married people. So why do we need the label of "marriage"?

As I inquired in my previous post, what's the big deal? If marriage is just a piece of paper that allows two people to call themselves something (married), what's so important? Do gay couples want to be called "married"? Is it really so important to have that lablel?

This just doubles back into my previous argument. Why are we trying to have marriage "mean" something? Let's take a look away from "rights" for a moment, as that has already been addressed, and let's look at needs. Why do gay couples "NEED" marriage? I'd like to see an argument that addresses why so much of a fight has been put up over the ability to recieve a pice of paper that, essentially, means nothing in the eyes of the law.

This seems rediculous.
Your questionning is valid. Here is the answer I would give you:

Separate but equal has been proved not to be equal at all. Not when the only reason given for it is "because we don't like you and we don't want you using the same buses/water fountains/civil institutions than we do." That adresses the "why" part.

Moreover, homosexuals have had to put up with much prejudice, discrimination, and violence. That all still continues in certain parts of the world, most notably middle eastern fundamentalist theocracies, and sadly enough, many places in the USA. Only giving civil unions while regulating marriages for heterosexuals reinforces the idea that gays and lesbians are second-class citizens; this is a notion both ridiculous and uncceptable. Homosexuals simply wants their government to recognize on the same level as anyone else: as human beings with aspirations, feelings, responsibilites who contribute to the society. Hence the big push for having marriage as well.

Because convincing other citizens that gays are really equal is that much harder when even the elected authorities and governments institutionalize a pernicious segregational system.

I agree that sexual imbalances can be a problem. When China brought in it's One Child Only policy it lead to increased female infanticide in rural areas. If you can only have one kid, apparently you don't want it to be a girl. So they relaxed it so that in some areas if your first child is a girl you can have a second child without being penalized. Unfortunately that doesn't solve the problem. If most couples will have either 1 boy, or else 1 boy and 1 girl, there are still going to be more boys than girls. Later on that means more men than women, which can be a serious problem.


I'm not sure that polyamory introduced at this point would cause sexual imbalances though. Not in the cultures you find in the USA and Canada anyway. Many people are putting off marriage later and later often they don't even start thinking about it until the late 20s or early 30s, getting married in your teens is almost scandalous now. It also isn't unusual to get divorced, in school nobody is going to think you are weird if you come from a single parent home (in some neighbourhoods single parent homes are more common than two parent homes). Getting remarried, having step parents, step siblings and half-siblings is also pretty common. You won't get many funny looks at your second wedding. There is a small stigma associated with having been married 3, 4 or more times, but it is more along the line of people saying "why does she even bother getting married?" than thinking you are degenerate freak. If you think about it, you could consider a high divorce rate to lead to serialized polygamy. :p In this culture it is unlikely that many men will want to or be able to snag multiple wives.

Even if some guys did want multiple wives and managed to get them, it wouldn't necessarily lead to a problem, at least not in the US. In many poor neighbourhoods, or "ghettos," in the USA there is a shortage of men. A disproportionate number of males die or are in prison before the age of 25. So there is a pool of women who have difficulty in finding a husband if they want one. If these women have children, then those children are also out of luck. Kids that are already disadvantaged by being born into an economically depressed area are then further disadvantaged by being raised in a single-income home. If polygamy caused a shortage of women in some areas, the problem could easily be be addressed by looking for mates outside your traditional race/class options. But I don't think it would come to that.


Daycare is expensive. The cost of living is expensive. Some people want to stay home with the kids, some don't. Some people who want to stay home and take care of the kids aren't able to because they need a multiple income household. A poly marriage could solve those problems. You can have two (or three, or four, etc.) adults in the workforce, and you can afford to have one or more adults stay home. The kids get the stability of being raised by people that love them, rather than a parade of day care workers doing it for the money, and they still get the economic advantages of a multiple income family. It's the American dream.



* * *


If marriage is purely a religious institution, then the government shouldn't recognise it at all. For anyone. The government doesn't recognise it if you have a bris, baptism, confirmation, bar mitzvah, or other significant religious event, so why weddings? It doesn't make sense. Everyone should get civil unions, which will be completely separate from any religious ceremonies you choose to participate in.


Making gay marriage legal wouldn't infringe on anyone's religious rights any more than allowing divorce infringes on religious rights. Religions already have different rules about marriage than the state.

For example: A Catholic usually church won't marry you if you were married by the Catholic church before and got divorced. You have to get an annulment, a special dispensation, or wait for your ex to die. If your ex dies then you are a widow(er), so getting re-married is OK. However, if you were married in another church or a civil ceremony and your marriage was never formally recognised by the Catholic church, then they will be happy to marry you, because from the churches standpoint this is your first marriage, the other time(s) you weren't married, you were just living in sin. Despite the fact that you are legally allowed to get married and divorced as many times as you want, no one forces Catholic Churches to marry people that have previously been divorced.

Another funny tidbit, only tangentially related to the topic: you can not become a minister in the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada if you have been divorced. However, you can become a minister for them if you killed your wife. If you kill your wife and repent, you are good to go. If you got divorced you are barred, unless perhaps you first re-marry the person you divorced, which would effectively undo the divorce. If you get divorced and then kill your ex-wife you are out of luck forever. Presumably if you have been divorced twice you are really out of luck, because even if you re-marry one of them you are still divorced to the other one . . . unless perhaps you re-marry one, kill her, repent, and then re-marry the other one.

Religions are allowed to have whatever restrictions on marriage that they want, and the government does not force those religions to preform marriage that they don't approve of. Allowing homosexuals and heterosexuals to be equal under the law wouldn't change that.

However, the government does restrict the freedom of a religious institution to perform marriages that the government does not agree with. If gay marriage is illegal, then your church is not allowed to perform a marriage for a gay couple, even it is A-OK within that religion. Churches that don't have a problem with gay couples (or at least prefer committed monogamous relationships to promiscuity, even for gay people) are stuck performing lame Commitment Ceremonies or Blessing Ceremonies instead of marriage ceremonies.

Likewise, the government forbids multiple marriage, so even religions that permit multiple marriage are unable to perform them.


If marriage is purely a religious institution, then government should get the heck out of it.

Marriage is a legal contract. If 2 people can knowingly, consciously sign the paper, who gives a flying fuck? Put the white hoods away, people.

I just really don't find it necessary that President Bush is making it a national issue. He has to know that Congress will never pass it. I think this is a states' issue. If states care about this issue enough, they should offer a referendum to the voters to vote on it.

I don't have a strong opinion on this issue, but I just think it's dumb that President Bush and the right wingers in Congress are worrying about this while the country is at war.

Furthermore, if Bush wants to try to rally his conservative base, he should reconsider his policy on illegal immigration instead of suddenly throwing a anti-gay marriage amendment at everyone.

Furthermore, if Bush wants to try to rally his conservative base, he should reconsider his policy on illegal immigration instead of suddenly throwing a anti-gay marriage amendment at everyone.

Well an immigration policy plan, aside from "kill them all", would be difficult to come up with that would satisfy his base. So he just takes the easy road and says "loli haet gay ppl".

Because the defining reason for heterosexuals to marry is to go forthand multiply. Homos are incapable of forming families, so gays are just mocking that divine purpose by pretending to form similar bonds.

So, if a heterosexual couple marries and either cannot have children or chooses not to have children, then they should not legally marry. And, of course, adopted or foster children don't constitute a family. Puh-lease.

what about infertile people, or couples who meet when they are too old to have kids?

Or God forbid, folks who CAN but just don't WANT TO have kids?

Good point on your part. I guess, what it is that those people are opposite sexs, and they are missing that. Gays, on the other hand, are not only missing that, but have something else. The real reason I don't want gay marrige is it will continue. Man-on-man, man-on-dog, man-on-rock...

A dog cannot consent. Neither, I am fairly sure, can a rock. :p

Given what spreads the disease, it certainly seems if that were the driver that encouraging monogomy would be an advantage. Also many insurance companies recognize significant others without requiring marriage. The evidence does not suggest that this is an insurance issue.
It depends on what policy the business buys. "Significant others" are not usually defined as a homosexual relationship. Beyond insurance, there are all of the other costs associated with marriage. Social Security can be drawn on a spouce's income but not on a relationship.

Because the defining reason for heterosexuals to marry is to go forthand multiply. Homos are incapable of forming families, so gays are just mocking that divine purpose by pretending to form similar bonds.

Really now I think that the Earth is populated enough without making having children a requirement for marriage. Not to mention there are plenty of people I would want having pets nevermind kids.

It depends on what policy the business buys. "Significant others" are not usually defined as a homosexual relationship. Beyond insurance, there are all of the other costs associated with marriage. Social Security can be drawn on a spouce's income but not on a relationship.

The last two places I've worked had a policy that would include a homosexual couple. My current company frequently opens meetings with a prayer. Companies are recognizing gay couples because it is going to start affecting their bottom line.

I agree that some of those things are true, however, given that many who are arguing against gay marriage are willing to give such things in their seperate but equal solutions, I'm fairly certain this is really about not allowing anyone to accidentally treat those icky gays like, you know, people.

Marriage was originally done for economic/political purposes. You created allies and economic advantages by choosing partners for your children that supported that. Sometimes these marriages, frequently between minor children, were sexless. Quite often there was no attraction between the people involved. Basically, they were contracts between families or nations. Having children was part of the contract, not because God said "be fruitful and multiply", but because it prevented conflict over inheritance. Religion had nothing to do with it until the Church got it's hot little hands on the institution. The Church wanted to control marriage because it gave them control over reproduction, which is a pretty basic function. You control reproduction, you control those obstreperous naked apes called people. Since the Church is patriarchal, it was particularly useful in controlling women. And homosexuality could be placed directly where it belonged, in the priesthood along with pedophilia.

Absoulutely. But...I...know...gay...marrige...will...one day...be legal...it's inevetible...:(
Thank god for that ... the biggots cant fuck with our lives forever

That is very inspiring

It depends. The probably least religious reason is the Rome Downfall theory(My personal name for it). A big part of the reason for the roman empire's fall was because the society became insular and obsessed with decadence in various forms. A result of this is that old traditions were thrown away or seriously changed. Therefore, people want to stop gay marriage because they think by stopping such an obvious twisting of tradition that they can halt said progression. My problem with this theory, is that even if it's right, which in many cases it looks to be, the issue of marriage itself is a relatively unimportant one. The imposrtant traditions, like reliance on oneself before appealing to others, are already long under assault and in the end much more important cultural underpinnings. Even if they were to 'win' the battle, in the end it wouldn't change the trend itself.

How come 16 to have straight sex, 18 to have gay sex and how come you can get married at 16 with consent (or none if you are in scotland) but you cant if you are gay?

If marriage is purely a religious institution, then government should get the heck out of it.

The problem is that I don't think that the American government and religious organizations have arrived at a consensus on whether or not marriage is to be a purely social, or purely religious institution. Currently, it is a mixture of both. You get the license (social, right?) go to the ceremony (generally somewhat religious) and then you are deemed "married" (social again).

So no, I wouldn't disagree with you. And this is why I see a need for a clear definition of the country's understanding of marriage. If religious, then fine. If social, then fine. In both scenarios, we'll be seeing a re-definition in the other area to compensate for the first. Let's just not have this muddled, "in between" vagueness that is the very source of our problems in the first place.

Warning: long posts. Sorry guys, but AF is claiming that gay marriage advocates are not thinking things through. That "reason" is being tyrannized by "politcal correctness". On this he is wrong and I'm going to demonstrate how.

"Rights"
What we seem to be wanting to do with legalizing gay marriage is to create a new set of "rights" based on sexual expression/gender identity. Why do we need this new category?


First, if you're saying "let's think about rights for a sec here" why don't we get back to the definition of what a right _is_.

A right is a legal freedom from having force used against you with impunity. Either force by the government itself, or force mustered by party(s) which the government remains indifferent to their exercise of.

Historically, humans have had few rights. The government reserved force as a nearly universal and unconditional option in its activities. Privelege (literally, "private law") reserved for many special party(s) a degree of "option on force".

So what is the purpose served by a wide proliferation of rights ? Well, historically, consensus on who was giving the orders and the expecation that the orders would be obeyed didn't function smoothly or easily. Someone else was always thinking they should be in charge. Many folks thought that they shouldn't have to bear their portion of the costs of governance. Relentless application of force as the first resort was the basis for civil stability. (or, by non government parties, an important "perk" to secure their loyalty and obedience)

Government was so wrapped up in just getting "the basics" (taxes, military resources, control of deicision making, continuity of succession of power)....that things like "learning to do things better" or "doing more than the minimum needed for survival _right now_" was pretty much hopeless.

You can force a slave to do work for you, but the efficiency and enthusiasm of the labor decreases the value of the work considerably. Yet if you use more slaves to compensate, then you either have to have more overseers (thus eating up the "savings" of "free" slave labor) (to make sure passive neglect isn't out of hand), or you have even -more- scope for "pouring sand in the gears" as supervision gets restricted more and more to a few major aspects of the effort the slaves are yoked to.

The original "passive resistance" is the ability of a slave to make things quietly difficult for the master. It's a tricky game, but one which historically humans have proven themselves ingenious at playing.

But then everything changed withe the Industrial Revolution. Now, it was relatively simple to feed, clothe and shelter everyone _and_ provide for a well equipped and large armed forces. And there was still "spare" productive capacity left! Before, sacrcity was the tyrant that stood over all rulers. No matter how well you managed your nation, some important function(s) were _always_ suffering "Robbing Peter to pay Paul".

Economic power is the wellspring of political and military power. Now that there were no deep struggles about being _able_ to provide for "necessities" (there were still struggles over who should profit most)...there was "spare" power looking for a use.

Some rulers spent this power reinforcing the status quo. But intriguingly, they fell behind rulers who decided to follow a more innovative allocation scheme.

Essentially, they decided to emancipate as much of the population from "slavery" as possible. (yes, there were degrees of slavery; literal chattel slavery, serfdom, social dominance over marginal social groups, etc.) Each type of slavery had a mythology justifying it's existence. But the government saw that while having to "pay" a "fair value" for labor of all types was expensive, it would allow the economy to grow much faster. The phrase "the dead hand of slavery" was not just a moralistic slogan.

Piece by piece, governments dared (from a combination of moral and practical reasons) to "free" one group after another. And with each group receiving a few simple rights, they saw the overall power available to government continue to grow.

Initially, rights were partly a bribe to obedience. Rights granted could theoretically be revoked (though nowadays most people realize this is very unlikely)...there was a debt of gratitude for a generation of two....

But in the long run, the conferred rights were the "give" to a group which justified the bigger "take" from the government. Freedom from the arbitrary and everday application of force at someone else's whim. What an amazingly persuasive benefit this is! To look around the world and see people without your rights and know that you are safe to assert your needs and your attempt to sate them.

We have become a society more of rules than men, though some would have it otherwise. This is an accomplishment of tremendous importance. People +will+ accept _absolute_ use of force upon them...but only _if the rules have been broken_. And they moreover have the assurance that the rules are reasonably just and that efforts will be made to maintain and expand this justice.

All that the government asked in return was "contribute to the _absolute_ sanction of force where rights are _not_ conferred". That is, commit to the absolute and unconditional legitimacy of the rules you _do_ have to live by.

A Greek Tyrant would climax just thinking about the degree of powers modern government has over the people. Powers the people yield if not enthusiastically then at least without more than grumbling. Power to have any law that is passed be obeyed. Power to have absolute security for the political office holders from revolt or rebellion. Power to gather information over most relevant aspects of life. Power to gather taxes and have them paid in full and on time. Yes, you can quibble "well people don't do all these things _absolutely_"...but the degree of compliance is stunning compared to past claims in these regards.

And MOST importantly, _power so that force can be the last resort_. Government doesn't have to send a battalion of marines to get Enron to yield up it's executives for prosecution . They just need a couple police officers. If there's a change in government in California, you don't see Schwarzenegger's appointees slaying or exiling their predecessors "to be on the safe side". This is a HUGE savings of the economic resources of society, not having to spend blood and time enforcing obedience for the most part.

The greatest right of all is the expectation that the _default_ course of action by the government is to _not_ use force and to act zealously to contain _any_ unilateral uses of force. It is the right that everyone can expect their rights to be respected and almost always have avenues of appeal if those rights are violated.

The greatest power of all is the concession of the vast majority of people to "go quietly" when the rules say they must or must not do something. That people can protest if a rule is just or necessary, but that ultimately, no one can escape obedience to the rule with impunity (in principle).

(again, there are exceptions to this, but there has been a sea change in how "normal life" is regarded. The Klan might still be a force for terror and discrimination in MS, but they know they better damned well keep a low profile on the national scale if they want to continue to enjoy their priveleges (private laws))

Rights are not arbitrary. They are not intellectual constructions devoid of practical utility. Rights are the way of buying consensus and cooperation and loyalty so that society can function with degrees of efficiency and effectiveness previously undreamed of.

Yes, the rights of groups whose emancipation offends your personal mythology may make you grind your teeth....I certainly grind my teeth at the Fundamentalist Christian dominated communities and states....but time has proven that the more rights that are conferred, the more productive power of society that is unleashed and the more happiness is potentially possible for the citizens.

Yes, some rights conferred are "abused"...but the fact that year after year society continues to be stable in it's basic mechanisms....continues to maintain the compact "We will let you do what you want as long as you agree to do what we say when we present our demands". What an amazingly fragile agreement, so subject to abuse on both sides. And yet, it more or less works most of the time, with far more benefit to all parties than any previous form of government and law.

So, hey, Farrington, the reason we need a new set of rights based on sexual orientation is because you know...pursuit of sexual gratification and pairbound relationships is kinda important to people. In fact, to most people it's (one of) the most important thing(s) in their lives.

To allow private parties or to seek to enlist the government in _using force_ to impede this pursuit is against _the whole paradigm of society_ which we have proven to _work_ by exhaustive trial over the last two hundred years.

Everytime a group had a barrier removed from it's pursuit of happiness, someone raised a stink. Citing the same sorts of concerns you and yours do.

The point is, we have people who are in an _exactly_ comparable situtation to people who have already have this right (to be free from the pursuit of their sexual gratification and long term relationships) who are being denied _solely_ on the grounds that the mythology of "sexual deviants are bad people" is so pervasive.

People who make their lives divining and arbitrating rules (the judges of the justice system) look at the evidence, apply the rules we live by and _cannot_ find any other response but to confer the right. And you presume to say "well, they're just wrong. Damned activist judges".

The attempt to create an exception based on questions like "Are they having children?" or "well, did the founders intend this?" is spurious unless you are simultaneously advocating a change in ALL laws in line with these objections (robbing marriage status with equal vehemence to non reproducing couples, rewriting all laws to be "fundamental" etc).

And I somehow doubt either the courts or most people would agree with such proposals when all the details were explained and laid out.

Ever think that 2 gay people might actually love each other? Its not only about the sex, asshole.
I was talking about the whole concept of "legal marriage," and the fact that neither love nor sex have a lot to do with the partnership provided by legal marriage. I was making no distinction between gay and straight relationships, it's the relationship between legislative bodies and individuals forming partnerships which I was questioning. Nothing I said there was homophobic, or even adressed sexuality.

What are you trying to say here?

Are you saying that the social/religious ceremony of marriage and the legal benefits of householding should be two separate and unrelated things and that BOTH gays and heterosexuals should have access to both?

Or are you saying that you want to add insult to injury against gays by letting them get married but then still denying married gays the same legal benefits you would give to heteros?
I made no particular statement about who should have access to which kind of partnership, so that'd be a no to both (although I'm particularly baffled by how you came up with option B...).
I think the social recognition of sexual/romantic/intimate comitment should be available to any informed and consenting adults, but things like joint medical coverage, or next of kin status, or financial dependant status in a household for tax purposes, these things aren't sexual/romantic/intimate issues, and should be equally available to anyone for whom they apply; long-term roomates, trusted friends, chosen family, etc.
I shouldn't have to pretend I'm fucking my friend Vini so that our marriage will be aproved in the eyes of immigration. The practical aspect is the same, I'm still financially responsible for him for three years, we're still commiting to the immigration board that I will cover his medical expenses, help him find work, and put him through school. But I should be allowed to make those promises as his friend, why does sharing a bed when the immigration officers make a surprise inspection make that promise - which is already legal, already binding, would still be binding if as a wedded couple we fell out of love and divorced - more valid?



P.S. People have obviously been misinterpreting my sarcastic illustration of how a homophobic argument is generally laid out, so to clarify: I am a flaming-liberal politico faggot from the hippie west coast of Canada. I'm a staunch agnostic, the happy baby of a ridiculously extensive chosen family, and I'm very sorry I caused confusion on this point. Usually I don't have to add provisos to my sarcasm since I'm fairly flamboyant, and no one alive would mistake me for a right wing anything, least of all homophobe. But I'm still getting used to this whole "internet" whackyness, sorry darlings.

First of all, I guess the question is, why do heterosexuals "need" marriage? On a purely economic level, I always assumed that it was for the governmental benefits that accompany marriage such as property ownership, medical benefits, childcare benefits, etc.

The problem I see is that if you try to make the same argument for gay marriage, I see it as being pointless. Civil unions exist already to provide gay couples with some (if not all in some instances) benefits that are afforded to married people. So why do we need the label of "marriage"?


Ok, explain the logic of how conferring the same benefits regarding property, medical benefits, childcare benefits to gay coupels _dilutes or diminishes_ those same rights confered to _heterosexual couples_?

How does gay marriage make straight marriage pointless ? It's all still marriage, the same ground rules are supposed to apply.

How can you argue "well, if only a _few_ rights are denied to queer couples, why is that so bad ? why do we have to change and grant _full_ equality?" Because the denial of rights that have been proven to be "safe" to confer to others is against the mechanism of governance we follow. [as I have just argued and supported at length.]

The denial of rights between different parties in the same circumstances is just something we don't do because it has no demonstrable benefit. It has a demonstrable harm in reducing the degree of "buy in" to the compliance with government that the generous allocation of rights secures. And in that way it reduces the economic wealth of the nation and the net potential happiness of the citizens.



As I inquired in my previous post, what's the big deal? If marriage is just a piece of paper that allows two people to call themselves something (married), what's so important? Do gay couples want to be called "married"? Is it really so important to have that lablel?


Well, other people have already addressed the "seperate but equal isn't" argument. I'll just add (in case further clarification is needed)...turn that around. If you say gay marriage _isn't_ marriage, _even though_ it has the exact same parameters as marriage between man and woman...then you are investing it with a stigma. You are saying "well, yes, it's a relationship to demonstrate commitment, subscribe to certain rules about the division of property in divorce or the custody of children from seperation or death of one partner etc...but _somehow_ it _just isn't the same thing_"

There is respect associated with the "label" of marriage. To say this respect is not owing to marriages between man and man or woman and woman is to make subtle but emphatic imprecation that something is wrong or lacking in these relationships.

Put another way, if marriage is just a label, _why do you care_ if same sex relationships have it affixed to them ? Queerfolk have a reason to care; it's about respect. What's your reason ?


This just doubles back into my previous argument. Why are we trying to have marriage "mean" something? Let's take a look away from "rights" for a moment, as that has already been addressed, and let's look at needs. Why do gay couples "NEED" marriage? I'd like to see an argument that addresses why so much of a fight has been put up over the ability to recieve a pice of paper that, essentially, means nothing in the eyes of the law.

This seems rediculous.

Marriage _already_ has meaning. It is an evolving institution, but is _an institution_. It is part of the passages of life and the important public rituals that mark adulthood. Just because there are no legal distinctions between a "civil partnership" and "marriage" does not mean there is no _social_ or _psychological_ distinction.

Again, it's about rights. To deny them, you better have a pressing reason, when the circumstances facing two different groups are on the face of it essentially identical. You are failing to present such a reason.

Gay people "need" marriage as part of the closure with the discrimination of the past. To show that this discrimination is in the past. That if there are holdouts who persist in their attempts to apply force against the well being and enjoyment of rights of gay people...these holdouts must be marginalized socially and shown to have not a shadow of justification to their attempt to deny others their rights.

Participation in marriage on equal terms is one of the last few big issues in the "emancipation" of queerfolk. If you're going to oppose this emancipation, you better have some impressive reasons. Cause every other emancipation (of women, slaves, immigrants, criminals etc)(however incomplete in some cases) has shown itself to be a manifestly worthwhile cause.

If you restrict queerfolk from marriage, you are sending ambiguous signals to the courts. "well....this group...normally, the law says we'd extend _every aspect_ of this right (marriage) to them...but we're not. By extension, this implies that not all of their rights are safe and secure." Most judges would ignore these signals. But some reactionary twit in Alabama or Mississippi is going to take this as the license he needs to act on _his_ hatred of queerfolk which might have otherwise been restrained if not by their sense of duty then their adherence to precedent.

If you restrict queerfolk from marriage you are validating the bigots who hate. "See, if queers were such fine upstanding people, why _wouldn't_ they be allowed to marry ? it's cause they're _bad_ and this is one of the +proofs+ that they are bad".

There are plenty of reasons. And once again, I challenge you, if this is just a label with no special import, why not let queerfolk have it too ? and if it does have special import, then demonstrate how queerfolk are NOT entitled to it.

Go on. But address what I've written or you're not debating. You're just repeating bluster. Rights are real and important and are one of the key fuels our society runs on. To deny them is to interupt the machinery of state and there _has_ to be a compelling reason presented.

A poly marriage could solve those problems. You can have two (or three, or four, etc.) adults in the workforce, and you can afford to have one or more adults stay home. The kids get the stability of being raised by people that love them, rather than a parade of day care workers doing it for the money, and they still get the economic advantages of a multiple income family. It's the American dream.


I read your whole post. Liked it a lot. Because you're remembering one of the fundamental laws of human behaviour:

"There's more than one way to skin a cat"

Yes, polyamory/polygamy would present some social or economic stresses. Perhaps in the past, society wasn't up to coping with them relatively well. But we have the scientific method now. It doesn't ensure we can make no error; but if ensures that if a solution can be found, eventually, we will find it.

And so far, it's just _amazing_ the social realities and traditions we accepted as "the only solution"...and discovered we were dead wrong.

So it warms my heart to see someone getting in touch with their human roots :)


Making gay marriage legal wouldn't infringe on anyone's religious rights any more than allowing divorce infringes on religious rights. Religions already have different rules about marriage than the state.


Yes, the opponents are kinda between a rock and a hard place....if it's about legal rights, there's no reason within our system of law to deny those rights....and if it's about religion, there's no right to deny civil or dissenting religious authorities the right to proclaim marriage.

Basically, they're down to "just because" which admittedly is unarguable, but isn't a very persuasive argument to the courts or the government.

I agree it's high time there was a revision of our stand on marriage. Is it purely legal ? purely ceremonial ? a mix ? in any event, the rules need to be rewritten so that they are founded upon the principles we live by in general now.

****


I admit, re poly, I feel to it like I do to anarchy. I love it in principle...but I don't think most people are up to it in practice. The communication issues, the demands for self confidence and good emotional hygene...in finding relatively symmetrical levels of attraction and respect....hard enough with only two people, +much+ harder with three or more.

However, I wish people would concede that in theory it's the way to go :)

I do think a change in our customs is in order and that we should either go back to the extened family groupings, or voluntary merging of families who's adults are friends. If my mentor Dwayne got married, I'd want to to try and move in with him, if he was amiable to it, and I had a partner too.

Now, there is the issue of sexual fidelity since most people have difficulties keeping their vows on that front. As the one writer in "If you can't live without me why aren't you DEAD yet" wrote "We stand at the altar saying "I do" to the pledge we will only be sexually intimate with one person from now on, but looking nervously at our burgeoning sex drive and saying "well, I really hope so anyway...."

I figure the best solution is medical implants in the pleasure areas. would need multiples, so we probably need more advanced technology, but basically make it so that your partner has one RIF key and if you go near anyone else, an alarm event is noted in both parties on board computers and trasnmitted to the nearest spousally common database ASAP. Sure, people could still get around it, but the "lock to keep honest folk honest" is reasonably effective. It would at least ensure that adultery within mixed households would be strongly discouraged and thus grant emotional security on that front.

Being pansexual but with no urge to orgasms at _all_ I look at the human sex drive with a mixture of bemused puzzlement and the odd moment of faint envy. (wry look)

It depends. The probably least religious reason is the Rome Downfall theory(My personal name for it). A big part of the reason for the roman empire's fall was because the society became insular and obsessed with decadence in various forms. A result of this is that old traditions were thrown away or seriously changed. Therefore, people want to stop gay marriage because they think by stopping such an obvious twisting of tradition that they can halt said progression

And thus again it is demonstrated that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. (wry grin)

Roman _sexual mores_ were pretty much the same throughout the Kingdom period to the Republic to the Principes. Yes, from the late Republic to the Principes on, there was a bemoaning of the loss of "virtue". But there is more than a little reason to think such protests were motivated as tactical and rhetorical ploys on private issues. Kind of like invoking "but think of the children!"

Yes, undeniably, the proliferation of wealth and the growth of the power of the dominant families of Rome was a constant source of tension and periodic crisis. It led to the severe unreset in the generation of Julius Caesar and the one preceding him. The Punic Wars, by making Rome rich beyond compare to the earlier times, were a case of "success coming with a cost".

The point is, by "traditional values" standards, the Romans were _always_ perverts. It was all about to be the one deciding what sex was going to involve, or being the one whom the decision was made for. The concensus was that it was better to have power than not.

And the increase in luxuries and the pursuit of the pleasures of the flesh were incidental to the _real_ erosive effects on their civil society. Namely the growth of the "mighty families" relative to the State, and the unending (and eventually unsuccessful) footrace of the State to stay in control of these fractious, selfish entities.

The Romans didn't dominate the world by weight of arms. They dominated it by an organized and efficient culture, and the reasons for the failure of their aegis are far far more complex than people realize. The Roman Downfall Theory is such a misconception.

My problem with this theory, is that even if it's right, which in many cases it looks to be, the issue of marriage itself is a relatively unimportant one. The imposrtant traditions, like reliance on oneself before appealing to others, are already long under assault and in the end much more important cultural underpinnings. Even if they were to 'win' the battle, in the end it wouldn't change the trend itself.

See above re: the right theory :)

I think what you're perceiving mostly is the struggle between two value and five value ethical structures. (see post #75 in this thread)

Put basically, there is now serious dispute if many ethical ideas with long pedigrees are still relevant. That is, if the goals in human society that they promote are still best served by those methods.

Even if you are right and there's a "degeneration" in personal morality that is far larger than issues of mores....(and it's worth noting that people in _every_ generation we have written records of have been worried about this)....I think there's a case to be made that fighting evil is a waste of time.

Evil is the result of the actions of people whose freedom to do things harmful to others is not contrained. Who constrains such people ? Those who are "good" and motivated to act for good.

You don't fight degeneration by treating it like bacteria; you fight it by increasing the social body's immune system...by strengthening the schooling in virtues and inceasing the incentives to ethical behaviour.

But I salute the spirit of your concerns. Many people are totally and fatalistically indifferent to the state of society. The maintenance of it _is_ an ongoing effort, and while our system makes that effort routine, failure is _still_ possible and _some people_ have to dedicate their lives to preventing it.

So i was thinking, and i can't figure out why it bothers people. Its not like thier forced to watch or their firstborn is killed, or any thing bad happens to them. The Bible says its wrong, but so what do you care? They'll all be down in hell and you'll still be in heaven, so what exatclty is your problem?

Note i am a straight atheist, and dont turn this into a flame war, i jsut want to know the reasoning behind it.
Here's my theory.

For some people, it's probably just a "gay people are icky" thing, like how some people are still totally convinced that blacks smell bad and steal things. But, for many, I think the subject of gay marriage isn't really about gay people getting married so much as it is about an attack on their gender role system.

See, a lot of people buy into the myth that men and women are "designed" (whether by God or by biological processes) to fulfill particular gender roles. Men are designed to command and dominate, to lift heavy things, to have no feelings beyond lust and rage, and to dislike all household chores that don't involve power tools. Women are designed to be submissive and subservient, to be incapable of math, to love babies, to nurture people, and to be especially good at doing all those chores that nobody wants to do.

For the type of person who believes in these kinds of gender roles, marriage is really about necessity. Men need pussy, and need to have somebody to bear strong sons for them. They also need somebody to pick up after them, pamper their egos, and generally function as their Mommy throughout their adult life. Women need "security" (read: a john who will set them up for life), and need a strong manly man to protect them and open all their jars. Since men are BIOLOGICALLY INCAPABLE of cleaning, cooking, or nurturing, they need a woman for those things. Since women are BIOLOGICALLY INCAPABLE of protecting themselves, making their own decisions, and balancing their checkbooks, they need a man for those things.

So what happens if two women get together, establish a home, rear a family, and generally take care of all their shit without a man running the show? CHAOS!!!!! Suddenly, we are forced to confront the possibility that maybe women don't NEED men. Maybe a woman can be happy, fulfilled, and secure without a man.

And what if two men get together, establish a home, rear a family, and generally take care of all their shit without a woman around to "nurture" them? CHAOS!!!! Suddenly, we are forced to face the possibility that maybe men aren't biologically programmed to need to dominate women. Maybe men can be tender and nurturing with their children. Maybe men can pick up their own dirty socks. Maybe men don't NEED women.

The "traditional" view of marriage is all about need and dependence. These are people who can't handle the thought that maybe men and women (or men and men, or women and women) should only get together when they WANT to. This may be due to insecurity; maybe they don't think any woman would choose to be with them. Maybe they think that if women don't NEED men then no woman will ever WANT a man. Maybe they think that if men don't NEED a woman then men will never WANT to spend time with women.

I think their perspective is damn sad, quite frankly. I like people of both genders. I choose to spend time with them, even if I don't need to. I choose to be with my lover because I find him to be a wonderful companion, not because I think I NEED A MAN. I've never needed a man, or a woman, but I've wanted a great many of both. :)

Here's my theory.

For some people, it's probably just a "gay people are icky" thing, like how some people are still totally convinced that blacks smell bad and steal things. But, for many, I think the subject of gay marriage isn't really about gay people getting married so much as it is about an attack on their gender role system.

See, a lot of people buy into the myth that men and women are "designed" (whether by God or by biological processes) to fulfill particular gender roles. Men are designed to command and dominate, to lift heavy things, to have no feelings beyond lust and rage, and to dislike all household chores that don't involve power tools. Women are designed to be submissive and subservient, to be incapable of math, to love babies, to nurture people, and to be especially good at doing all those chores that nobody wants to do.

For the type of person who believes in these kinds of gender roles, marriage is really about necessity. Men need pussy, and need to have somebody to bear strong sons for them. They also need somebody to pick up after them, pamper their egos, and generally function as their Mommy throughout their adult life. Women need "security" (read: a john who will set them up for life), and need a strong manly man to protect them and open all their jars. Since men are BIOLOGICALLY INCAPABLE of cleaning, cooking, or nurturing, they need a woman for those things. Since women are BIOLOGICALLY INCAPABLE of protecting themselves, making their own decisions, and balancing their checkbooks, they need a man for those things.

So what happens if two women get together, establish a home, rear a family, and generally take care of all their shit without a man running the show? CHAOS!!!!! Suddenly, we are forced to confront the possibility that maybe women don't NEED men. Maybe a woman can be happy, fulfilled, and secure without a man.

And what if two men get together, establish a home, rear a family, and generally take care of all their shit without a woman around to "nurture" them? CHAOS!!!! Suddenly, we are forced to face the possibility that maybe men aren't biologically programmed to need to dominate women. Maybe men can be tender and nurturing with their children. Maybe men can pick up their own dirty socks. Maybe men don't NEED women.

The "traditional" view of marriage is all about need and dependence. These are people who can't handle the thought that maybe men and women (or men and men, or women and women) should only get together when they WANT to. This may be due to insecurity; maybe they don't think any woman would choose to be with them. Maybe they think that if women don't NEED men then no woman will ever WANT a man. Maybe they think that if men don't NEED a woman then men will never WANT to spend time with women.

I think their perspective is damn sad, quite frankly. I like people of both genders. I choose to spend time with them, even if I don't need to. I choose to be with my lover because I find him to be a wonderful companion, not because I think I NEED A MAN. I've never needed a man, or a woman, but I've wanted a great many of both. :)

I wish there were more posts like this one. One thing i want to know though, is your attraction to men and women physical, or based on their personalities? or a combination? and is your attraction to men based on different things than to women?

Sadly I am a simple creature, I just want to have sex with women because they look pretty and have nice bodies. I am always fascinated by the things other people look for in the opposite (or same) sex,

I wish there were more posts like this one. One thing i want to know though, is your attraction to men and women physical, or based on their personalities? or a combination? and is your attraction to men based on different things than to women?

I tend to be attracted to a certain kind of physical build, and to a certain kind of personality type. Both men and women can have the physical and mental traits I enjoy, though I have found that men are more likely to end up with the kind of personality I look for in a lover. (I think it mostly has to do with how girls and boys are socialized in my country, not some innate biological thing.)


Sadly I am a simple creature, I just want to have sex with women because they look pretty and have nice bodies. I am always fascinated by the things other people look for in the opposite (or same) sex,
For a long time I was pretty much just fixated on the physical, because I wasn't interested in anything beyond having some very nice sex. I certainly do not look down on anybody who feels that way, and I do not regret any of the lovers I had when I was still in that mode.

However, I kind of have a limited attention span. After a while I started wanting lovers who could stimulate more than my erogenous zones, and that's when personality started becoming a lot more important to me.

I think the reason I'm on a different page than other people my age is that I'm not particularly bothered by the idea of not having a mate. I love my current partner (been 5 years so far!), and I am delighted to be in my current relationship, but I'm not totally panicked at the thought that one day I might not be in a relationship. The idea of going without sex kind of sucks, but not as much as the idea of spending time with somebody I dislike just so that I can get laid.

And that brings me back to marriage. To me, you ought to commit your life to a partnership only if it's what you really WANT. If you're at a place in your life where you think you NEED another human being to live, well, you're not ready to be anybody's partner for life.

meh time for the NEwb to speak, I don't approave of homosexualality, and I'm not christian or Muslim, I'm more of a spiritialist, but I dissaprove of it for two reasons.

One I view it as a crime to humanity, human progression, and the survivle and domination of our Race. I view it on both sides(Unlike some so called "Christians" Who like the women part) And Bisexuality as being wrong. As it defeats the primary biological reasons and traditional ones for reproduction, and over time presents a risk to human survivle. Though liberals discourage marriage (and feminist) I can see why, what we came to see as tradition in our era was abusive male dominace, however the true essace of the relationship in older generations was vastly diffrent. For one yes it was the mans place to work, however the womans judgment was the cornerstone of the family, the morality, and the upbringing. The man would support and provide. Over the years, the positions went from a joint effort and compermise on both sides to a saddly abusive male dominace, though it seems thats changing some. Least i'm not that way :P.

My 2nd reason is, I don't like most liberal Policies that accept this and are making an attempt of making it mainstream and common. As for one already thanks to said policies, the population boom is no longer a problem, Insted the problem is a population in the west of up to 38 to 48% of the GDP Will be of retirement age and unable to pay taxes over the next 20 years, with the next generation having less or no kids. Thus Western Populations will not (Save for the US Who was listed as an exception in the international Report.) Will not have enough people for a stable econmy, military of any form, and social services will vanish in a few years. Less people means more room, but DO keep in mind that means less to do work, less to provide services and thus and overwhelming reliance on the Goverment. After all at said point you'll for the most be in your 40's.

Unless the thrid world Arabs take over , or the Chinese do it, its unlikely those area's will last long in terms of population, or exsistance, the problem has gotten so bad in Russia Valdimir Putin is trying to outlaw all forms of abortion and to pay women to have kids, as experts predict that Russia's population by 2010 will go from 145 million to 111 million, and given Russia's border nations I would worry. In Japan alot of encouragement is going toward family making. Homosexuals Can not have children, and for a society to substane its self the women must have at least two children per family. And don't srug this off, and maybe take a look at your goverments Agenda, theres far many more rich Liberals than there are Cons. Personnally I think the only reason its gained acceaptance is out of the bullshit we call political Correctness, and Politics. I Feel aceapting it and publishing it was a way to lead us to self distrution, after all if a major incedent happens, current levels of youth are not sustainable to recover the human race.

I Don't care if your gay, but I don't want to turn on my TV and see you marching, I don't want to walk down my street and see you married. What you do sexually should remain inside your own homes, and not be forced into acceaptance on the common people. After all, we do it for them what about the Beastality people, the child lovers, or the S&M Freaks? Historically, Giving in like that has never worked, and never will. Like European propossals in the Middle East, I figured they would have learned with Hitler, but people are greedy, illogical, and a great deal just don't want democracy.

Anyways thats why I don't like it, current poppulations and nations are at stake, I don't even think it should be publically mentioned, as doing so with out giving thought to the majority IS RACISIM Only as your a minority you can get away with it calling it "Freedom of Expression" on the OH So Predjudice world. People are more tolerant today than 50 years ago, so what opression they might have is not as bad as what it would have been. And please don't say I'm the racist I went to a minority dominated school and I heard kids using all kinds of political reasons to get there way. And should you speak out on it your labeld as a racist. Folks thats Not Democracy.

Anyways my thoughts are, let them do as they wish, but don't publish it or treat it like gold, as doing it is a defacto way of encouragement. Besides doesnt a nation have better things to do with the problems mentioned above than to worry if two men that butt fuck can be married or not? I can make a longer reasons why I have this view, but I wish not to bore you, but at least I have logical reasons, unlike some who use there god as a reason, And Unlike some in said groups I have no wish to bring a final solution (Murder) in on them. In this day and era kids and the hardships might be looked down upon, but life is struggle and countless times mass cataclisims have happend and WILL happen again. I End my message with this quote, but in selflessness there are rewards.

"The chief part of human happiness arises fron the consciouness of being beloved" Next time you vote or think, stop and look ahead to the future, not day to day always, its good to stay in the here and now, but remember, you and your parents won't always be around. Least you want to live forever.

*snipped for length*
Wow. Racism, mysogeny, xenophobia, fetishizing overpopulation, weak grasp of the English language, and visions of world domination, all in one neat little package.

You are going to be fun to have around.

You are going to be fun to have around.
Well I hate to dissapoint :) Though I won't be around long.


And yes I know you didn't mean it, oh well, least I don't make two line replies and kiss the ass of a so called elite.

And yes I know you didn't mean it, oh well, least I don't make two line replies and kiss the ass of a so called elite.
On the contrary, I really enjoy when racist, mysogenist, xenophobic people come around with poorly-spelt rants about how we all need to breed more or the dirty minorities will take over the world. Honestly, I really do enjoy it. It usually ends up being extremely entertaining.