Page 5 of 7 « First<34567>
Topic Options
#27159 - 07/16/09 01:03 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: ta2zz]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
 Originally Posted By: ta2zz

Coin toss: Try to get the wall to sing opera or reply to TCÖ Damn

 Originally Posted By: TC
Ignorance, stupidity and self-deceit gets me riled up. They are after all the cardinal sins of Satanism.

Besides, I find insulting people who do such a good job of looking like a moron rather relaxing. It gets out my anger and I find it rather therapeutic. Plus you're just plain wrong on so many point, and as everyone knows...

One shouldnít preach what he doesnít understand. Funny from where I stand you insult yourself by posting this picture but you cannot see that can you?

Dude. That was the intention behind the picture. If one cannot laugh at themselves then they shouldn't be allowed to laugh at others. I was making fun of the fact that we were basically repeating ourselves and the argument was going no-where.

 Originally Posted By: ta2zz
Dimitri is not particularly weak. He has been here less time than you, has posted more yet has not had many against him. This is something for you to think about.

Very true. He's still wrong though.

 Originally Posted By: ta2zz
You freely admit that you like insulting those that are easy targets or morons to use your own words. You also admit to posting to get out your anger, I find this amusing. Do you somehow think this is your personal outlet for therapy?

Pretty much... Yeah.

I use this forum as a person outlet. I voice my opinions, I get into discussions, I have heated debates and I get social interaction with people unlike those I see in my day to day life, who at least in part, share my outlook and ideals. I assumed that's why everyone else came here as well.

 Originally Posted By: ta2zz
You have answers to your question there are places where you could go marry your football buddy if you wanted to. There is an answer but you are not happy with it. So you complain on the Internet, to you this discussion is your answer and somehow enough. Like so many real world things you have to get up off your ass and do something to get what you want. The world isnít Burger King you do not always get it your way. You could get it your way at BK but that costs money, which in turn means you need to be employed (there is that getting off your ass again). Now the last I heard you had two working arms and legs and were not crippled. If only the energy you waste here could be used to find a job or better your life in some way. You could raise your position to that of one who's opinion matters.

Dude. I'm going to University in a little over 2 months to study as a ODP, I then plan to travel Europe (have a route planned that will take me through 30 countries) for one year, money permitting. Just to see the sights, meet the people, gain a little perspective. After that, assuming I can fund it I intend to study medicine in more depth and perhaps become a doctor, ideally before I'm 35 years old. I would love to be able to go into genetic research later in life, perhaps get a paper published, but I'll be well into my 40's by the time that's feasible. It'll take time for me to become qualified as I fucked up the first time in Uni, my health let me down, and I didn't plan ahead so money is an issue, but I feel my failures and subsequent experiences have been valuable experience for me. So in short I am bettering myself. I have quite a structured life.

The thing is your point seems to hinge on the idea that I should get off my ass and do something about whatever cause I'm discussing rather than discussing it. The thing is ta2zz, you don't seem to realise that if I WANTED to do something about it I'd go to a rally or a protest march or organise a group of some kind, however, if I WANTED to talk about it I'd go to a discussion forum that I know has members intelligent enough to engage in thoughtful debate and discussion and discuss it with them. Now considering where we are, which one did I specifically intend to do?

 Originally Posted By: ta2zz
Back to the point, for an example if I wanted to live somewhere where most drugs are listed as recreational I could pick one of two or three countries to move to. Just like if I wanted to be somewhere where whites are superior I could easily move to Maine or a few spots in TX that I know of. To do this I would have to work hard. (I know this one will be hard to swallow so take a deep breath.) I would need to build up the money to be able to take charge of my own life and break away from the place I just happened to be born in. I could go the other route as well and try to work getting the laws changed in the place I live but that involves work of a different nature. Here lies the real issue; someone whom has very little yet wants a lot is never happy. Some complain about it, some invoke change of their own to make them selves happy, while others just live in their parentís basements sucking the teat dry. Crying that their diaper needs to be changed even when itís clean.

Fair enough. I prefer to change the laws of the place I'm in, campaign for equality etc here in the UK. Hell we're in the EU now, if I wanted to move somewhere where the laws where to my liking I'd go live in Amsterdam, I don't even need to apply for immigration I could get in a car, drive their tomorrow and start renting a house there (there's not even any passport control now between EU countries). I don't want the change just where I live, I want the change worldwide. This is where my political stance clashes a little with itself because this does mean I'm advocating forcing my political ideals on others. However as I feel my political ideals are the only just ideals (hence why I have such ideals), I don't feel it's unjust to impose them on others, even though the act of imposing such ideals is unjust itself. It's a paradox and a fallacious argument I know, but something has to give or I'm incapable of taking a stance.

 Originally Posted By: ta2zz
A Satanist takes control of his future as much as humanly possible. No matter how you pour it satanism and lazy just doesnít mix.

I disagree. Hedonism by it's very nature is very much in the spirit of Satanism. And someone entirely content to live as the lowest rung of society could still follow the very essence of Satanism so long as he furthers his own goals of making himself personally happy, be that by perfecting hobbies, learning a chosen subject by teaching oneself, or out and out hedonism. Satanism by it's very definition allows someone to live however the fuck they want, and if they want to live at the mercy of the government because they find it easier to leach than work. That's their choice.

 Originally Posted By: ta2zz
You like to argue and you like to be right.

Oh yes.

 Originally Posted By: ta2zz
Here you may always argue (until you tire the mods or admins) but I assure you that you will not always be right.

Regrettably this is true. However I am right the majority of times, assuming there is such a thing as right and wrong in the discussion at hand. However, many of the discussions we have are subjective and thus there's no such thing as right, just different points of view. When it comes to something factual, if I don't know what I'm talking about I don't post, only if I'm genuinely mistaken through false information will I ever be wrong on this forum because I make sure I don't bullshit, something I regrettably did a lot as a teenager.

 Originally Posted By: ta2zz
Now since this is a big boys (and girls) discussion forum and you are at least suppose to be trying to at least act better than the average, maybe you could keep the typical grade school name calling to yourself.

I'll give it a go. I will admit the name calling is a little immature. However the reason I do it is, especially amongst the members here, people on the internet are stubborn and far too convinced of their own importance. They need someone to flatly tell them "No you're wrong. Clearly if you think like that you're a moron", because their own absurdly inflated ego won't allow them to even consider the opposing argument unless you make them feel like ants under your foot. Hell, even I'm guilty of this (although I try to take a step back and consider the opposing position much more now).

 Originally Posted By: ta2zz
Stop, please donít reply just think a bit.

~T~


I have thought about what you've said. My post count may be high but I carefully consider what I write. Becides, you know I'm going to respond, I'm never one to silently agree.

I assure you, what you said has been taken on board.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#27166 - 07/16/09 03:05 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: TornadoCreator]
ZephyrGirl Offline
R.I.P.
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 706
Loc: Adelaide Australia
Ayn Rand sums it up like this Ta2zz:

When one considers the spectacular success, the unprecedented prosperity, that capitalism has acheived in practice (even with hampering controls) - and when one considers the dismal failure of every variety of collectivism- it should be clear that the enemies of capitalism are not motivated at root, by economic considerations. They are motivated by metaphysical consideratiosn-by a rebellion against the human mode of survival, a rebellion against the fact that life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action and by the dreaam that, if only they can harness the men who do not resent the nature of life they will make the existence tolerable for those who do resent it.
_________________________
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass -
It's about learning to dance in the rain.


Top
#27170 - 07/16/09 12:12 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Dimitri]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
 Quote:
Marriage is not a right! Keep that in mind, it's something you CAN do but not should do.


Not exactly, but close. Marriage is a right because it is something you can do. You are born with all of you rights fully intact. Govts can not give you more rights than you were born with under Natural Law. Govts can only take rights away or choose which rights they will recognize or allow you to have. Just like 'free speech' you have a right to speak freely because you were born that way. So to, you have a right to marry whomever you wish but the larger society or govt may not recognize it.

For fucks sake, after 5 pages I finally had to break down and explain what a 'right' is.


 Quote:

Marriage is the same as having a religious belief, you are free to chose whatever belief you have, but it isn't a right to have a particular belief everyone should obey in your opinion.


Eureka! Possibly the most intelligent thing said on this topic yet! Yes, marriage is a religious construct. Is anyone confused by this? At best, it is a social construct. There is no absolute definition of marriage. Unlike the right to free speech, a marriage cannot be defined absolutely. A marriage is whatever a given religious cult or society deems it to be.

TC and 6Satan, don't worry, I will give each detailed responses, but I don't think your arguments are well thought out. You really need to consider the entirety of your arguments. You are simply regurgitating an argument that you heard from someone else. You could not have possibly applied any critical thinking to this.

In the West, we practice monogamy. Does this mean that Muslim polygamous marriage has no standing in the West? If a Muslim family is visiting the West and one wife ends up in the hospital does the husband still have legal standing to tend to her affairs? Who determines this?

And it is for this reason that I posted this:

 Quote:
That is a definition but it is not a particularly useful LEGAL definition. It does not enumerate what legal rights and responsibilities are conferred parties involved. It also does not state the process by which the parties are legally bound nor does it provide for the terms of contract. Furthermore, it does not state the entities responsible for regulating marriage contracts.


And still, no one has been able to explain this to me. Can a marriage be two men and one woman? Can a marriage be two women and one man? Can a marriage be one man, a transgender male-to-female, and one woman? What does the marriage still have legal standing if the transgender goes back to being male? What about post-op and pre-op transgenders? How should the law handle this? What if one of these triads has children and one or more get divorced? Who gets the children? Who is responsible for child support? Can a marriage be a foursome? Why? Why not?

My problem with the whole 'gay rights' movement is that it is ideologically aligned with the Left. It is simply another Leftist power grab. Why does the 'gay rights' movement not fall in with Libertarians? How about taking marriage completely out sphere of govt control?

Truthfully, if you want to know the answer to anything follow the money.
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#27171 - 07/16/09 01:31 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Fist]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
 Originally Posted By: Fist
TC and 6Satan, don't worry, I will give each detailed responses, but I don't think your arguments are well thought out. You really need to consider the entirety of your arguments. You are simply regurgitating an argument that you heard from someone else. You could not have possibly applied any critical thinking to this.

No. It's my opinion and it's nothing but critical thinking. If you disagree it's because you don't understand my argument. My argument is simply that gays are do not have the same rights recognised by society as straight people in all countries, including most of the western world and the country I live in. The is a FACT! People are denying this fact, they are wrong. How much more critical do I need to be?

 Originally Posted By: Fist
In the West, we practice monogamy. Does this mean that Muslim polygamous marriage has no standing in the West? If a Muslim family is visiting the West and one wife ends up in the hospital does the husband still have legal standing to tend to her affairs? Who determines this?

I think polygamy should be legal everywhere.

 Originally Posted By: Fist
And still, no one has been able to explain this to me. Can a marriage be two men and one woman? Can a marriage be two women and one man? Can a marriage be one man, a transgender male-to-female, and one woman?

Yes, Yes, and Yes. Why not?

 Originally Posted By: Fist
What does the marriage still have legal standing if the transgender goes back to being male? What about post-op and pre-op transgenders? How should the law handle this?

It's still the same person. Regardless of their gender. If I have a sex change that doesn't make my tenancy agreement change, it's a legal contract just like marriage. Why? Because gender means dick about legal contracts. It would make no difference.

 Originally Posted By: Fist
What if one of these triads has children and one or more get divorced? Who gets the children? Who is responsible for child support? Can a marriage be a foursome? Why? Why not?

When it comes to children it becomes more complicated. I'm not sure how that would be sorted but I'm tempted to say it would need to be looked at on a case by case situation.

 Originally Posted By: Fist
My problem with the whole 'gay rights' movement is that it is ideologically aligned with the Left. It is simply another Leftist power grab.

No it's not. It's about gay rights, it's fuck all to do with the political left wanting power. I don't support the liberal pussies but I definitely support gay rights.

 Originally Posted By: Fist
Why does the 'gay rights' movement not fall in with Libertarians?

It does. One of the paramount ideals of Libertarians is that the right of the individual is of ultimate importance. Guess what. Gay marriage is a right withheld from an individual. Every libertarian I know in person supports gay rights. I'm a libertarian myself.

 Originally Posted By: Fist
How about taking marriage completely out sphere of govt control?

That would only work if marriage didn't effect taxes, wills, medical decisions, legal kinship etc. Marriage has to be a legal contract recognised by the government or it's nothing more than a deceleration of love. Perhaps less regulations and bureaucracy would be a good thing though


Edited by TornadoCreator (07/16/09 01:44 PM)
Edit Reason: Making a more in depth response.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#27174 - 07/16/09 03:24 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: TornadoCreator]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
You start to sound more and more like a kid that got a toy car for his birthday and then noticed the neighbor boy got a bicycle. Oh the injustice.

Like Fist said, one has the right to do whatever one likes solely because one can but when people start talking about rights in a societal or global sense, they are talking shit. There are no rights; society, religion or the state grants you permission to do certain things and that is about it. If you don't like it, do something about it or learn to live with it. I'm fed up by every minority starting a crying game and talking about rights as if some divine power ever granted equality to everyone. Equality is bullshit and this whole Leftist approach to spread equality like a cancer should be halted. Who did grant anyone a right to equality to begin with? Baby Jesus?

I don't think so.

D.

Top
#27178 - 07/16/09 05:34 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Fist]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Originally Posted By: Fist
TC and 6Satan, don't worry, I will give each detailed responses, but I don't think your arguments are well thought out. You really need to consider the entirety of your arguments. You are simply regurgitating an argument that you heard from someone else. You could not have possibly applied any critical thinking to this.


After going through this thread and the few replies I made I can say that I didn't really make arguments. Due to this lack of arguments, there is no possible way that I didn't think them out. I have stated my opinion; that I believe gay people should be able to get married. Just because my personal belief happens to synch up with the beliefs others does not mean that I haven't formed my opinion from looking at it myself. I don't need to apply critical thinking skills to something like gay marriage because I am not trying to evaluate whether a claim is true or false.

 Originally Posted By: Fist
In the West, we practice monogamy. Does this mean that Muslim polygamous marriage has no standing in the West?


Yes that is exactly what it means. When someone from another country visits here they are subject to the laws of this country.(Unless they have diplomatic immunity) Since polygamy is illegal in this country the marriage will not be recognized.

 Originally Posted By: Fist
If a Muslim family is visiting the West and one wife ends up in the hospital does the husband still have legal standing to tend to her affairs? Who determines this?


Whether or not the husband still had legal standing to tend to her affairs would most likely depend on what affairs you are speaking of. As far as who determines it; well I don't have an answer to that. Do you?

 Originally Posted By: Fist
And still, no one has been able to explain this to me. Can a marriage be two men and one woman? Can a marriage be two women and one man? Can a marriage be one man, a transgender male-to-female, and one woman?


Not unless polygamy is legalized.

 Originally Posted By: Fist
What does the marriage still have legal standing if the transgender goes back to being male?


That is not possible. The male to female operation is permanent. Once the penis is removed and essentially turned inside out to create a vagina there is no going back. Let us also not forget the fact that anyone who is considering undergoing that operation must first seek extensive counseling. This counseling is designed to determine if the person fully understands what they are getting themselves into. The are made to understand that once they go through with the operation there is no going back.

 Originally Posted By: Fist
What about post-op and pre-op transgenders? How should the law handle this? What if one of these triads has children and one or more get divorced? Who gets the children? Who is responsible for child support?


Good question. Recently here in Oregon, and you might have heard this story on the news, a woman got pregnant and then underwent hormone therapy to complete her sex change to become a man. I know that doesn't answer your question, but if her and her partner seperate you just might get the answer you seek.

 Originally Posted By: Fist
Can a marriage be a foursome? Why? Why not?


Again, only if polygamy is legalized.

 Originally Posted By: Fist
My problem with the whole 'gay rights' movement is that it is ideologically aligned with the Left. It is simply another Leftist power grab.


Yes, and the anti-gay crowd is ideologically aligned with the Right. It is simpl another power grab from the Right.

 Originally Posted By: Fist
Why does the 'gay rights' movement not fall in with Libertarians?


Probably because it doesn't fit with their platform of "don't fuck with me and I won't fuck with you". By staying out of it the Libertarian party doesn't have to worry about agitating either side. The Libertarians have a hard enough time being taking seriously as it is.

 Originally Posted By: Fist
How about taking marriage completely out sphere of govt control?


That is a fine idea. Good luck with that though, the government likes to have as much control as possible over people.





_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#27182 - 07/16/09 11:46 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
fakepropht Moderator Offline
Big Slick
active member


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 990
Loc: Texas
To no one in particular. Have we forgotten our history? To the ones arguing for gay rights/marriage. You are trying to reverse 2000 years worth of laws and common thinking? And you want action now? It took women years to gain the right to vote. It took blacks 150 years to elect a black president and gain rights. So how do you think that society is just going to flip flop 2000 years worth of laws in a few weeks?

Sorry, but this battle is not going to change anything overnight. It may not even happen in our generation. There are more implications to it than can a guy and a guy become "husband and husband". There are property rights to be considered, insurance, possible new challenges. Like Fist mentioned, it could open the door for challenges from polygamists, transgenders, hell, why not bestiality? When lawyers, god fearing men, big money, and politics get involved, expect nothing to get resolved for a long time.
_________________________
Beer, the reason I get up every afternoon.

Top
#27186 - 07/17/09 06:25 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: fakepropht]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
I don't expect fast results, doesn't mean they shouldn't happen. I understand things won't change overnight, but they will eventually change, only if people keep talking about it and fighting for it.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#27229 - 07/19/09 12:12 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: TornadoCreator]
Atralux Lucis Offline
pledge


Registered: 05/22/09
Posts: 79
Loc: Australia
My opinion:

I am an open gay-bi-sexual but I still think the entire idea of gay marriage is complete bullshit.

In a debate I had on the subject I divided the issue into Religious, Social and Legal.

Religious
Marriage has nearly always been a religious affair. Most religions say no to gays. And even still our society is a western one (christian) and so marriage is still only for heteroes. It's not that I biblically gay bash but marriage is a christian sexist ceremony.
The basis of our concept of marriage is the sexist ceremony where a woman is given to a man. 'Man and wife' who gives this woman to this man, love and obey, etc.
Can't do that with two men. Granted, this isnt our perception now, but one cant deny that this is the basis and origin of marriage. Marriage is like a club where the leaders make the rules. Its like satanist forum only christians not allowed, straight marriage only gays not allowed.

Social
Looking at family, marriage serves as a harder glue to keeping the couple together and therefore strengthens a family, for the children. Now gays cant have children, often dont, so this practical usage of marriage is basically lost.
And lets say they adopt and what-not. The child can be confused in their identity, if we go by genes they can develop aggression, self-esteem issues. Teasing at school pretty common. And where did i come from will be a hard question to answer.
So there is no practical reason gays should marry unless for the legal benefits, moving on.

Legal
Well at the moment, to my knowledge, gays can apply for the de facto couple after living together for a certain amount of time. So they get a few rights, though not the extent of marriage.
So our government is basing rights on religion, well that seems a bit harsh, so the solution is dissolving marriage and replacing it. Give the gays a civil union with the same rights as a married couple but under different name and different principle.
You may say why not just give them marriage then, which is true, BUT this whole argument is based on principles and so we work it out so that the principles are kept and rights are given too.

I think the whole issue is easily solved, its just that homophobic peoples just want to keep gays down and so the issue goes away from simply moral issue but personal prejudice.

Top
#27251 - 07/20/09 02:55 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: fakepropht]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I decided to look up the legal status of homosexuals in the UK. After this whole debate I was under the assumption they were a bit the social niggers in the UK. I was kinda surprised when I read this on wiki:


 Quote:
Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom, granted under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, give same-sex couples rights and responsibilities identical to civil marriage. Civil Partners are entitled to the same property rights as married opposite-sex couples, the same exemption as married couples on inheritance tax, social security and pension benefits, and also the ability to get parental responsibility for a partner's children,[1] as well as responsibility for reasonable maintenance of one's partner and their children, tenancy rights, full life insurance recognition, next-of-kin rights in hospitals, and others. There is a formal process for dissolving partnerships akin to divorce.


The question that appeared in my mind was: what is the fucking problem debated here so intensely upon? A white wedding?

D.

Top
#27297 - 07/21/09 02:47 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Diavolo]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
I decided to look up the legal status of homosexuals in the UK. After this whole debate I was under the assumption they were a bit the social niggers in the UK. I was kinda surprised when I read this on wiki:


 Quote:
Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom, granted under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, give same-sex couples rights and responsibilities identical to civil marriage. Civil Partners are entitled to the same property rights as married opposite-sex couples, the same exemption as married couples on inheritance tax, social security and pension benefits, and also the ability to get parental responsibility for a partner's children,[1] as well as responsibility for reasonable maintenance of one's partner and their children, tenancy rights, full life insurance recognition, next-of-kin rights in hospitals, and others. There is a formal process for dissolving partnerships akin to divorce.


The question that appeared in my mind was: what is the fucking problem debated here so intensely upon? A white wedding?

D.

Yep, it's almost perfect. Now they just need to call it "MARRIAGE", you know, because that's what it actually is. After all, we didn't agree to give women a "suggestion", we gave them a fucking vote. Obama isn't the first black "civil overseer of USA" he's the first black president. Just because it's a different group doesn't mean you segregate the group. It's prejudice and segregation that's the issue, it's petty distinctions being made just so the government can point at people and say "You guys are different", it also means, from a logistical point of view, any group that wants to distinguish between gay and straight couples can easily identify them in forms and records.

I didn't say that the law was an incredible injustice, just that it's not currently equal, it's almost equal, but not equal.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#27303 - 07/21/09 08:02 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: TornadoCreator]
Meq Offline
Banned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 861
The thing is, even if gay civil unions were legally called "marriage", they would still not be 'equal' to heterosexual marriage. For one thing, gay partners can't reproduce and have their own happy family. Adoption isn't quite the same as raising one's own flesh and blood. Not that there is anything wrong with adoption, but biological drives are geared towards raising one's own.

There is also the problem of cultural prejudice, because face it, many people do not consider kids having two dads to be 'normal'. Such adopted children will inevitably face ridicule from peers. And this problem doesn't look like it will completely disappear any time soon.

Top
#27310 - 07/21/09 02:52 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: TornadoCreator]
ceruleansteel Offline
active member


Registered: 10/15/07
Posts: 784
Loc: Behind you
 Quote:
it's petty distinctions being made


What I find petty is the fact that the only thing you are apparently arguing about is the label. Marriage, I do believe, has a definition: one man and one woman. That is the legal definition. Thus, it would be impossible to call any other type of union by that name. A horse and a cat both have four legs and fur, but no fool would call a horse a feline.

You have equal rights. Stop bitching.

Top
#27319 - 07/21/09 05:42 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: ceruleansteel]
ZephyrGirl Offline
R.I.P.
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 706
Loc: Adelaide Australia
I'd go so far as to say, legally it's better if the name 'marriage' be kept for hetrosexual liasons.

Unless they want to keep protecting the illusion that there really is no difference between the two types of couples?

Surely not.

ZephyrGirl
_________________________
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass -
It's about learning to dance in the rain.


Top
#27326 - 07/21/09 07:47 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: ZephyrGirl]
Meq Offline
Banned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 861
Of course, one other option would be to drop the notion of 'legal' marriage altogether and just have 'legal civil unions' for both heterosexual and homosexual couples. No real change, just leave the 'M' word out of the legal side.

Both will then be free to call it 'marriage' in a personal and/or religious sense, just that the 'M' word will be kept out of law, and the legal side can be called what it actually is in both cases: a legal civil union.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the notion of 'marriage' being primarily a matter for the State a modern one? Marriages were traditionally a matter for the Church.

Today of course marriages can be non-religious or performed by minority religions, but there is still the dual personal/spiritual and state aspects. Why not confine the 'M' word to the former?

Just a suggestion.
Of course social conservatives and religious folk requiring "legal marriage" may strongly object.

But this begs the question: Why is having the 'M' word legally recognized such a big deal after all?


Of course, another natural inequality facing male homosexual couples is that, to put it crudely, they lack a tooth-free, shit-free hole to fuck.
Lesbians are at even more of a disadvantage in lacking a natural orifice-filling device (and don't tell me strapons and double-ended dildoes are as good as what Mother Nature kindly provided!)


Edited by Meq (07/21/09 07:52 PM)

Top
Page 5 of 7 « First<34567>


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.803 seconds of which 0.772 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.