matt770 Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 So what exactly would be the legal definition for lesbians to consummate their marriage? Are we talking 69, two-headed dildo, strap-on, scissoring? 8 pages and you guys can't get to the real meat of the issue. Sheesh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 So what exactly would be the legal definition for lesbians to consummate their marriage? Are we talking 69, two-headed dildo, strap-on, scissoring? 8 pages and you guys can't get to the real meat of the issue. Sheesh. Is fish considered a meat? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 First off, ironic that you basically blast Ursa for trying to make what you feel is a complicated issue too simple and then turn around and dog me for being long winded by actually breaking it down. Regardless, why is it that, once we change the definition from the bible's to another one, all bets are off? Surely there must be some data that says heterosexual unions are more stable than gay ones? Which, btw, would mean gay unions are pretty effing unstable because it's not like divorce is all that rare among heterosexual marriages. Furthermore, since when did we legally prevent people from doing things because they might fail? That's the rub. That someone is trying to imply that there's something special about a man and a woman joining up that isn't there if a man and a man or woman and a woman do. So, besides the fact that they can have kids, what is it? Now, as I've said before, I think the discussion about whether state-sanctioned unions should be limited to two people or not is a fine debate. But that's not this debate. The anti-gay side just tries to make it one because it's convenient to their argument. However, like I just said above; the slippery slope goes both ways. It may slope towards hippie weddings with five brides and five grooms on one side, but it also slopes towards the church finding new ways to tell people how they can live, regardless of whether they're in that church or not on the other. i actually consistently dog you for being long-winded i never referenced the bible and certainly didn't ever stat that i hate fags. i don't understand them, but i don't hate them. this really is not about a church discussion, it's about what marriage should stand for and mean and why we should have it at all. ursa and yo are saying forget that point and just allow gays to do it, whatever the law happens to define it to be ... i guess because there's a lot of gays and they really want this to happen. not sure why that deserves attention, other than like a traditional marriage, it's 2 people that love each other. and hey, maybe that's enough and maybe that should be the definition (although, again, i'm not so sure what is special about any TWO people that love each other). at some point, don't we have to decide why marriage should exist and then based on that reason, define the laws and requirements accordingly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 i actually consistently dog you for being long-winded i never referenced the bible and certainly didn't ever stat that i hate fags. i don't understand them, but i don't hate them. this really is not about a church discussion, it's about what marriage should stand for and mean and why we should have it at all. ursa and yo are saying forget that point and just allow gays to do it, whatever the law happens to define it to be ... i guess because there's a lot of gays and they really want this to happen. not sure why that deserves attention, other than like a traditional marriage, it's 2 people that love each other. and hey, maybe that's enough and maybe that should be the definition (although, again, i'm not so sure what is special about any TWO people that love each other). at some point, don't we have to decide why marriage should exist and then based on that reason, define the laws and requirements accordingly? From a "legal" standpoint, marriage exists to create a contractual obligation regarding community property, certain tax breaks, etc. These breaks were designed to support the idea that one worked to provide for the family, one stayed home to take care of the children/home. However, there is no reason that it can only be applied to the prototypical man, woman 2 children type of family. To deny a group these rights is, IMO, wrong. Whether it is defined as 2 consenting adults or something different is irrelevant, so long as it can be applied equally to everyone. The church definition is obviously different, primarily being one that says it is a union between a man and a woman (though not all churches/religions neccessarily say or believe this). A "church" wedding provides no legal standing or legal contractual obligation, which a "state" wedding does. Here each church should be able to define it as they wish, which is their right as independent organizations. In reality, I think it would be best for the state to just get out of the marriage business altogether. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 In reality, I think it would be best for the state to just get out of the marriage business altogether. But the state would still need to certify "civil unions" for the legal reasons you mentioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted October 12, 2011 Author Share Posted October 12, 2011 (edited) i actually consistently dog you for being long-winded i never referenced the bible and certainly didn't ever stat that i hate fags. i don't understand them, but i don't hate them. this really is not about a church discussion, it's about what marriage should stand for and mean and why we should have it at all. ursa and yo are saying forget that point and just allow gays to do it, whatever the law happens to define it to be ... i guess because there's a lot of gays and they really want this to happen. not sure why that deserves attention, other than like a traditional marriage, it's 2 people that love each other. and hey, maybe that's enough and maybe that should be the definition (although, again, i'm not so sure what is special about any TWO people that love each other). at some point, don't we have to decide why marriage should exist and then based on that reason, define the laws and requirements accordingly? To begin with, as I've stated on numerous occasions, my primary belief is the same as BC's. I think the gov't should get out of the marriage business all together and just recognize legal unions in a manner not that different than business arrangements. Let the people decide what "marriage" means. If you or your church says it's a man and a woman, so be it. Unfortunately, however, we seem hell-bent on having the government preside over "marriage", so that's the current debate. However, I haven't thought the part about more than two people through enough to do any more than simply not argue against them at this point. Conceptually, it seems fine, but I would prefer open discussion on the issue before I truly backed it. There could certainly be elements I'm missing, so I'd rather work it out before I back one side or the other. Which is why I'm rather annoyed at the insistence that, provided we're ready to open marriage up to same sex, that we may as well discuss the whole shooting match right now. Whatever happened to just tackling issues one at a time? Because the argument in favor of same sex marriages is not the same as the argument in favor of marriages that contain more than two people. Not even close. That you insist that, once we open it up to anything beyond a man and a woman means that we may as well throw out all the rules says much. Essentially, you're trying to pretend the argument is something that it's not. Right now, the debate is, "What is so special about a man/woman union?" That's what's on the table. Let's get that one out of the way. If, once we can work that out, people want to then debate "What is so special about two as opposed to 3 or more?", then we can discuss that. But that's a different debate. Basically, the issue at hand is that we're denying a portion of our citizenry a right that most of us enjoy. And I think the burden should be on those who want to deny that right to show us concrete evidence why that is absolutely needed. After all, that is nothing we should ever do, "just in case" or "just because". Because there is no shortage of freedoms that we enjoy that could be suspended in the name of "just in case". And frankly, many are rights that suspension of would protect us from "just in case" scenarios far worse than than even the most far-fetched eventualities that some claim could result from allowing gays to legally wed. In other words, we live with the idea that if the police botch an investigation of someone whom all the data points to being guilty of a violent crime, we need to let him go, lest we threaten the principles of due process. But we'll deny others a basic right because some people don't approve of their way of life? How's that? Edited October 12, 2011 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 That you insist that, once we open it up to anything beyond a man and a woman means that we may as well throw out all the rules says much. Essentially, you're trying to pretend the argument is something that it's not. Right now, the debate is, "What is so special about a man/woman union?" That's what's on the table. Let's get that one out of the way. well, i believe this is the argument. a basic fact of life is man and woman come together to make babies. why? who knows, but that's what we were either designed to do or can do by a series of random events. ideally, babies brought into the world would then be parented and nurtured by this set of parents. i believe the research is overwhelming that this is the optimal case, of course recognizing it is not always the case (and please do not flood the waters with examples of bad parents ... of course i know this). to foster this, both government and church structures set up things to support the man/woman union and then the corresponding family that could follow. perfect? no. does divorce happen? yes. are all parents good? no. do people abort babies? yes. do all married people have babies? no. is the world a mess? absolutely. but hey, there's some kind of basis for the man/woman requirement. as you say, this is about opening this up to other combinations besides man/woman. man/man or woman/woman. my question is, since producing a baby is not possible given this arrangement, what then is the basis? is it the fact that it's two people in love? is it to somehow be sure that everyone has the "right" to community property and tax breaks? is it because they want to adopt kids and provide them with two parents because "two" is just as important as a mother and a father? i'm just trying to understand the true basis and then given that, understand what other implications that then has down the road ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 well, i believe this is the argument. a basic fact of life is man and woman come together to make babies. why? who knows, but that's what we were either designed to do or can do by a series of random events. ideally, babies brought into the world would then be parented and nurtured by this set of parents. i believe the research is overwhelming that this is the optimal case, of course recognizing it is not always the case (and please do not flood the waters with examples of bad parents ... of course i know this). to foster this, both government and church structures set up things to support the man/woman union and then the corresponding family that could follow. perfect? no. does divorce happen? yes. are all parents good? no. do people abort babies? yes. do all married people have babies? no. is the world a mess? absolutely. but hey, there's some kind of basis for the man/woman requirement. as you say, this is about opening this up to other combinations besides man/woman. man/man or woman/woman. my question is, since producing a baby is not possible given this arrangement, what then is the basis? is it the fact that it's two people in love? is it to somehow be sure that everyone has the "right" to community property and tax breaks? is it because they want to adopt kids and provide them with two parents because "two" is just as important as a mother and a father? i'm just trying to understand the true basis and then given that, understand what other implications that then has down the road ... actually babies that are raised by more that "2"-(man and woman or man and man or woman and woman) are shown to be better off. When you get down to it we are actually herd animals and do better when we are raised that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 actually babies that are raised by more that "2"-(man and woman or man and man or woman and woman) are shown to be better off. When you get down to it we are actually herd animals and do better when we are raised that way. i've often said that it takes a village to raise a yukon ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 i've often said that it takes a village to raise a yukon ... Did you just call Yukon fat? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 Did you just call Yukon fat? Like this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 (edited) If some still wish to distinguish their ecclesiastical or church sanctioned marriage as different from the icky state only sanctioned kind homosexuals can obtain maybe they should rename theirs. All marriages would be legally recognized but those recognized by churches also could be called "Sanctified Marriage" . That might appeal to the demographic that sees this as an issue. I mean come on, what is better than something that is Sanctified? Of course once gays started finding churches which would marry them into "Sanctified marriages" as well as legal ones we could get quite a hoe down amongst folk as to which churches are the churchiest and which sanctifications are more sanctifyee. The nice thing about this is the debate would then be out of the state realm and into the ecclesiastical. That way I would not have to hear about it quite so much. I'd love the arguments too. Imagine: "Well My marriage is sanctified by the Roman Catholic Church while yours, phphhh, yours is only sanctified by those johnny come lately Anglicans. Real sanctified there Nancy" "Oh yeah, well piss off inquisition boy. At least my church doesn't specialize in abusing alter boys." Edited October 13, 2011 by Ditkaless Wonders Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted October 13, 2011 Author Share Posted October 13, 2011 well, i believe this is the argument. a basic fact of life is man and woman come together to make babies. why? who knows, but that's what we were either designed to do or can do by a series of random events. ideally, babies brought into the world would then be parented and nurtured by this set of parents. i believe the research is overwhelming that this is the optimal case, of course recognizing it is not always the case (and please do not flood the waters with examples of bad parents ... of course i know this). to foster this, both government and church structures set up things to support the man/woman union and then the corresponding family that could follow. perfect? no. does divorce happen? yes. are all parents good? no. do people abort babies? yes. do all married people have babies? no. is the world a mess? absolutely. but hey, there's some kind of basis for the man/woman requirement. as you say, this is about opening this up to other combinations besides man/woman. man/man or woman/woman. my question is, since producing a baby is not possible given this arrangement, what then is the basis? is it the fact that it's two people in love? is it to somehow be sure that everyone has the "right" to community property and tax breaks? is it because they want to adopt kids and provide them with two parents because "two" is just as important as a mother and a father? i'm just trying to understand the true basis and then given that, understand what other implications that then has down the road ... I think you've answered your own question with the long list of situations where the man/woman thing doesn't work out. It's apparently not really so special after all. Certainly not special enough to deserve a monopoly on the arrangement. I can be special, or it can be a disaster. Further, when states and churches first started sanctioning unions, making babies was absolutely intrinsic to unions. One could argue that, now, we should actually welcome marriages between people incapable of making children, so there will be plenty of couples around to adopt the unwanted children in the world right now. And, were I to argue that we keep it at two people (and like I said, I'm not conceptually against opening it up further, but would rather just handle the debate one issue at a time), I would say that people tend to hitch up in pairs. That's how we work. Most of us do so with someone of the opposite sex, plenty choose a partner of the same sex, but we tend to pick a partner rather than a few. That seems natural. People are a jealous breed, so I think not having to worry about whether you're the preferred partner in a relationship has much to do with it. But, once again, it comes down to not deny any of our citizens rights, "just because". And that's what is going on here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Why do we continually debate something that, at the core, alienates a group of people? Debate all you want about "marriage" and "domestic partnerships." I think it's far more detrimental to exclude a group of people from getting married than it is to those who are offended or cling tight to the idea that the term "marriage" is theirs. No matter how many times I hear the arguement, it just comes across like the people who oppose gay marriage are simply uncomfortable with homosexuality having a place in equal standing with heterosexuals, which in the year 2011 seems utterly ridiculous to me. agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 No, you don't. When polygamy was practiced in Utah, in many areas it was in fact codified with local laws. Women were not allowed to vote - it was ILLEGAL. You do understand that is different than having the right to vote and exercising the right not to vote? uhh, utah was one of the first territories to implement women's suffrage, some 50 years years before the nation as a whole implemented the 19th amendment. interestingly enough, it was the US congress who TOOK AWAY the right for utah women to vote, with the edmunds-tucker act, which was to punish utah for allowing polygamy. then utah re-implemented it with their state constitution, still 25 years before the 19th amendment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 uhh, utah was one of the first territories to implement women's suffrage, some 50 years years before the nation as a whole implemented the 19th amendment. interestingly enough, it was the US congress who TOOK AWAY the right for utah women to vote, with the edmunds-tucker act, which was to punish utah for allowing polygamy. then utah re-implemented it with their state constitution, still 25 years before the 19th amendment. I knew I hated Utah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 I knew I hated Utah. Finally, something we can all agree on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowboyGal2011 Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 The dark side of sexual freedom: American 'zoophiles' take on the language of equality Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 hmm, man-on-dog. now there is a deeply convincing argument I had never considered before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 hmm, man-on-dog. now there is a deeply convincing argument I had never considered before. He's dead right though. I mean, dogs are fully functioning consenting adults able to freely and sensibly enter into binding legal contracts. Any fool knows that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted October 17, 2011 Author Share Posted October 17, 2011 He's dead right though. I mean, dogs are fully functioning consenting adults able to freely and sensibly enter into binding legal contracts. Any fool knows that. Well, if you're to believe all the people who have bumper stickers that say their <enter breed here> is smarter than your honor student... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 forget animals ... that's already here. man on plants ... that's next. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 forget animals ... that's already here. man on plants ... that's next. i think there was a movie about that already? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 i think there was a movie about that already? avatar? he did get funky with that tree of life ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 I'm now suspicious of those folks driving cars with I love my Greyhound bumper stickers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.