Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think marriage is great and people should be allowed to do it with the person they love no matter what sex they are.

As far as religion goes, I would be more than happy to get married in a church. I'm not religious at all but I was raised roman catholic and I would want to do it more out of family tradition than anything else, I could care less if God sees it. He should be see it wherever it's done.

But, my idea of the perfect wedding would be for me and my gal to just go to a judge to make it legal maybe with just a few immediate family there if they want, then that night throw a huge BBQ. None of that banquet stuff where everyone laughs at grandpa doing the hokey pokey with aunt edna and we smush wedding cake in each others faces. Just a big feast of charred animal flesh, lots of booze and lots of friends & family to share it with. I also consider myself hella lucky to have a woman who thinks that's an awesome idea too

sebster wrote:What has to stop is the idea that gay folk can have one kind of marriage and straight folk another kind and that somehow makes things fair. Seperate but equal is a lie.

Made me think a lot of Jim Crow laws. I totally agree, separate but equal is a lie. Many of my black friends point out that gay is not a race though and such comparisons shouldn't be made. I'm not gay and I'm not black so I don't know how to really talk about it either way with either of my friends of that race or orientation.

dogma wrote:That article made me very, very sad. Second Wave Feminism is the devil itself.

Hard to respect a thought project when it blames its own failure on the ingrained nature of male oppression, and not on any flaw inside the project itself.

Best way to deal with Second Wave feminists is to buy your daughter pink and tell her to grow up and get married.

Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't have a problem with gay marriage. I don't think an unstable heterosexual couple provides a better home environment than a stable homosexual couple. I don't believe sexuality can be 'taught' within the home.

Funny you mention that. Most children raised by homosexual couples actually come out more homophobic and non-homosexual than children raised in heterosexual environs. Even funnier is that most children that are homophobic raised in heterosexual households actually end up homosexual.

I think marriage should be de-legalized.
and marriages that currently act as civil unions be legally re-termed as such
protections should be placed for whichever partner/s earn less liquid capital or earning capacity
(which I know is extremely difficult)
so in effect, I don't think anyone should be able to be 'married' under U.S. law
which would be a real step towards separation between church and state
and give families the ability to define their relationships according to their own values

On a personal level, I believe it's infinitely more badass to be with someone for years without a binding agreement.
(I intend no disrespect to those who are loyally married.)
I find working through difficult times with someone when either party can leave at any time shows a lot of the actual integrity of a relationship.
I want the person I'm with to be able to leave anytime they want. So there presence is proof of their feeling.
Also, to me at least, being with someone for X+ years without binding says a lot more for that family's honor and willingness to support one another.

Typeline wrote:Funny you mention that. Most children raised by homosexual couples actually come out more homophobic and non-homosexual than children raised in heterosexual environs. Even funnier is that most children that are homophobic raised in heterosexual households actually end up homosexual.

Just curious. What study is this based on?

My wife mother and grand-mother are anything but prostitutes. there is nothing like a good woman to take care of you, unlike what that lady seems to think, Marrige is about a lot more than sex. Any of us with a mother or grandmother, who raised us know that mom was anything but a prostitute.

wyomingfox wrote:

Typeline wrote:Funny you mention that. Most children raised by homosexual couples actually come out more homophobic and non-homosexual than children raised in heterosexual environs. Even funnier is that most children that are homophobic raised in heterosexual households actually end up homosexual.

Just curious. What study is this based on?

I knew this would come up. But sadly it was some papers my psychology professor summarized for us in sexual development a year ago. I have no real proof.

sexiest_hero wrote:My wife mother and grand-mother are anything but prostitutes. there is nothing like a good woman to take care of you, unlike what that lady seems to think, Marrige is about a lot more than sex. Any of us with a mother or grandmother, who raised us know that mom was anything but a prostitute.

Dude, I wouldn't worry about it. It's radical feminism, and it'll keep saying stuff like that regardless of any reasoning, facts or direct examples brought up to counter it. It also gets a lot crazier than 'marriage is prostitution'.

The whole idea of 'civil union' upsets me. Mainly because the government over here always wants to know who I'm living with, how much money I make, etc. Basically everyone I've ever lived with makes more money than me; I have a professional job, but all of my money goes into maintaining that position and its expenses, which the government doesn't care about.

But because the people I live with make more money than I do, they somehow think I can get them to buy things for me, and try to cheese me over it. I've been in constant arguments with social services ever since I moved out of home to go to uni.

My views on marriage are mostly based around the idea that the government thinks it can rip me off. History is nice, but some of these rotting laws need to be cleaned up already. The UK sounds like it needs it even more. I did skim this a bit, but Belphegor's comments rang the most with my views.

The point of marriage is that it's practically impossible to achieve total equality between two people so their mutual interests have to be protected. Otherwise if the marriage breaks down, the weaker partner may get severely disadvantaged.

That requires some kind of contract enforced by law. A serious, long-lasting contract needs to be witnessed and registered with the government.

As for the government wanting to know where you live and who with, etc. In a modern state with a taxation and social welfare system it is important for the government to know these things for reasons of voter registration and fair taxation and social support. This is not only on an individual level, it has to be balanced across regions as well.

What amused me most about that article was it's claims to be supporting women, whilst casting them as docile, simpering idiots who just want financial security and hate sex, but have to compromise. Has the writer ever met another woman?

As far as same sex marriages go, they should be allowed to get married. Land of the Free for us in the U.S. anwyays. It is the Churches decision on if they will let them get married there or not. If it is not a religious ceremony, then I do not see why the Church or any others should throw a fit.

Marriage used to be a religious thing. Now it is more of a union between two people financially and emotionally. Financially for the Governments, Emotionally for them.

You know, marriage has the value that you put into it. Call it social programming, call it lack of options facing starvation or prostitution, call it little green men from mars; there are a lot fo little girl out there that want to be wives and mothers when they grow up. There are a lot of guys who grow up trying to get a handle on how to be lead dog in their own families when they get to be grown men.

My point is neither pro nor anti marriage. It is pro-thought. Everyone has their own views on marriage, just like most everything else. Some people are closely aligned in view, some are juxtaposed. But I LOVE it when some who has, through their own idiocy and incredible buy-in without critical and analytical thought, allowed themselves to be educated out of their sense tries to tell people what to think. How to live. That, because of it's history, something we do today is evil and not to be participated in. As if they are the only ones intelligent enough on earth to finally see through all the lies and smoke and mirrors ot discover the truth. About an ages-old institution.

Marriage can be a wonderful thing. It can be a part of your life that could never be replaced. It can be a hell on earth. In this respect, I postulate that marriage is a lot like life: don't take someone elses word for it, go make up your own damn mind.

Good to see that some are doing just that. Shameful to see some are still trying to use the letters after their names for evil.

Thats way too deep for the internet.

Me? Deep? Nah, masster of the obvious with a vocab modifier.
Least it wasn't one of those posts where every other line is a quote of someone else, going at each other hammer and tongs. That gets SO boring. I mean if people have axes to grind, do it where I don't have to slap you with a member-ban (ignore)? Thanks. Love ya. Mean it.

Well, it seems like almost everyone responding more or less feels the same way, it is just a matter of how strongly they feel. As it happens, I more or less agree with everyone. Frankly I feel if your church is against gays getting hitched, then that church shouldn't marry gays. I question why the state has anything to do with marriage in the first place. It is kind of interesting, I am a 2nd amendment buff, and I kind of feel that I can't really justify my opinions in that matter unless I'm at least slightly pro-choice and at least "look the other way" concerning gay marriage. I suppose those people feel just as strongly about the government interfering with what they feel is their business as strongly as I feel about it. I actually bring it up at the range quite frequently, after everyone has unloaded their pistols of course.

Since no one else is going to do it, I feel obligated to be the devil's advocate here. I more or less thrive off of other people's hostility anyhow, so here goes:

First off, marriage is not a right of any sort. Therefore, you cannot really talk about the "right" to be married. It is a privilege granted by the State. Similarly, you cannot compare it to Jim Crow laws, as we're talking about privileges, not rights. Also, has anyone ever defined exactly what marriage is? I mean this as a legal definition, not the Christian ( Or other faith, for that matter ) definition of it. How do you define marriage between straight people? Can one marry two people as long as any sexual contact is heterosexual? What about child brides? If there is no sex involved, is it marriage? Many cultures promise brides to a man when they are below the "age of consent" for that culture. This is golden here.....why don't we have an alliance of convenience between fundamentalist polygamists and homosexuals. I'd like to see how that one turns out.

Well, that is the best I can come up with. You can never say I wasn't obliging......

Here is my take. You can really think of me as the ultimate anti-discrimination/anti-racist poster child. Wetbacks, honkies, bohunks, queers, picaninnies...none of this matters. All are examples of H. sapiens and therefore all are equally worthless.

I be what they call a misanthrope, fool.

Hate everyone equally?

malfred wrote:Hate everyone equally?

Well, dislike. Hate is a bit strong.

I think that sex and "race" are two totally different things, and that it's disingenuous to conflate the two.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I think that sex and "race" are two totally different things, and that it's disingenuous to conflate the two.

Sex meaning gender or the act?

Yes.

Grignard wrote:I actually bring it up at the range quite frequently, after everyone has unloaded their pistols of course.

What an unfortunate choice of words in a thread about homosexuality

First off, marriage is not a right of any sort. Therefore, you cannot really talk about the "right" to be married. It is a privilege granted by the State.

This is circular, though, isn’t it? You have a right to own a gun because the constitution says you should own a gun. You don’t have gay rights because the constitution says nothing on the topic.

But this is a debate about changing the law, so that such a right is granted.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I think that sex and "race" are two totally different things, and that it's disingenuous to conflate the two.

If one was to go about nitpicking over inane side issues, then sure. But if one was to look at why racism is wrong, it becomes very difficult to argue that the same underlying principles don’t relate to gay rights.

And that’s all people mean, that the underlying principles of both debates are the same.

If you believe in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, marriage is a right, not a privilege granted by government.

Surely the whole point of the US Constitution is that the people create the government and therefore define their own rights.

I actually bring it up at the range quite frequently, after everyone has unloaded their pistols of course.

WHAT DID YOU SAY? YOU WANT A CEASE FIRE? WHAT DID HE SAY WIFE?

If you believe in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, marriage is a right, not a privilege granted by government.

Well thats right out. I don't believe anything "Universal" Declaration of anything thats signed by a bunch of politicians, except confirming my right to eat cheeseburgers when I want, where I want.

Forget even thinking about your "ideal wedding," boys. You're the groom and the single most powerless person in the entire affair. She gets her say. Her family gets their say. Your family might get a little say. Her friends will have their input. You? Zilch.

So if she wants a wedding in the church of Gorgo and Mormo involving the ritual use of snakes, you'll do it, act as if you like it, and put on a goofy grin for the wedding pictures even if you wonder why you can't see the minister's face under that heavy black hooded robe.

Frazzled wrote:

I actually bring it up at the range quite frequently, after everyone has unloaded their pistols of course.

WHAT DID YOU SAY? YOU WANT A CEASE FIRE? WHAT DID HE SAY WIFE?

If you believe in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, marriage is a right, not a privilege granted by government.

Well thats right out. I don't believe anything "Universal" Declaration of anything thats signed by a bunch of politicians, except confirming my right to eat cheeseburgers when I want, where I want.

The US Constitution was signed by a bunch of politicians.

Frazzled wrote:Well thats right out. I don't believe anything "Universal" Declaration of anything thats signed by a bunch of politicians, except confirming my right to eat cheeseburgers when I want, where I want.

So not much of a fan of the US Constitution then?

Last I saw the US Constitution was not titled "Universal."



Yea baby:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Frazzled wrote:Last I saw the US Constitution was not titled "Universal."

So you just don't like the word? Because, within the United States, the Constitution if pretty universal. Or are you just overly attached to the state system, and the lovely little lines that it draws on maps?

Frazzled wrote:
Yea baby:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

That's from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

Frazzled wrote:
Yea baby:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

That's from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

Frazzled wrote:
Anything that starts with a long winded "Universal Declaration" is strictly meh and easily forgotten .

I don't know Fraz, the Declaration of Independence is pretty unnecessarily verbose. It is, after all, the equivalent of the 'Universal Declaration' component of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.