The Gay Marriage debate!

No. Most people think of 'marriage' as the closest union between two people which is also usually related to happiness, and I think that's what is the issue here. Calling it anything other then that would implicate that the union is not as close or not as acceptable and no legal rights would change that. Church does not own that word, people do.

And yes it is analogous. If a union between black people would have to be called anything other than a marriage for whatever the reason, there would be a justified outrage.

 

The two black people in question being one male and one female.

If two black queers tried to get hitched, Sly would be just as outraged. Thats his point.

 

No.

The result of marriage is:

A husband and a wife. Last I checked, Black people still consistent of men and women.


Same sex, however, doesn't come into the equation.

 

:kick: Lots of spins I could put on that one Sly ::

 

No. That is the result of a marriage approved by church. Nothing else.

 

word.

 

typo

 

Ok. So you at least concede then that Homosexual union shouldn't be "blessed" by the church?

 

Marriage has been defined by religion. Why woul dsomeone that doesn't want to abide by the religious definition and requirements want that word? It's ludicrous.

 

The real elephant in the room here is why it was always always deemed normal for men and woman to marry. Since time began, opposites have always attracted and sought union- for security, for procreation, for company.

Anything else is an accommodation bent to suit societal demands and needs. The accommodation should be made BUT also the recognition should be made that thats just what it is- an accommodation. Its an extension of legal, economic rights tailored to suit a need of a sector of the community/population, done as much out of a desire to keep things moving smoothly as anything else.

Of course, this is not enough for the Gay community, who like any self-conscious minority, insist that we sign the Gay Marriage Act in the Hall of Mirrors in the Palace of Versailles and on bended knee at that, no pun intended.

We are under no obligation to like anything. Having the intelligence to make an accommodation and having an obligation to like making it are different, mutually exclusive considerations.

Now the argument is being made that we are obliged to undergo some sort of an emotional metamorphosis as we proceed, and that we must introduce Gay Marriage not just as an accommodation, but as a sign or token of a change in our attitudes. Sorry. Can't do it, and won't be obliged to either. I've taken enough of a leap forward for one lifetime in realizing that a change should be made in order to bring people on board and offer them a degree of protection and satisfaction not available to them elsewhere. My private opinions remain my own and I am not obliged to change them for anyone.

 

That's cool. I mean, obviously your private opinions indicate you're an asshole, but as long as they aren't hurting anyone they're pretty irrelevant.

 

Marriage in some form's existed in all cultures. It did prior to christianity and will continue to as it's relevance expires

 

::

 

I don't give rat's ass about what church does, IMO it's up to them. If they want to continue their work against equality and humanity, let them

 

:giggle:

Being Anti-gay is their right. No point in believing in a book that says "a man should not have sex with another man...God HATES THIS!" and then be forced to marry too men.

Be reasonable.

 

What does the bible have to say about a couple of really hot lezzies? Surely it can't be against that? :giggle:

 

Yes, if you could please highlight the part in the Bible that says "...God HATES THIS", we'd all like to see it, sly.

"Being Anti-gay is their right" is just like being anti-black is the Ku Klux Klan's prerogative, sly. That doesn't make it right.

 

Are you saying the Klan should be more liberal and start allowing black members?

 

Yes, and if those black members want to call themselves right, the church should allow them to do so.

 

There is no law against disliking queers or queerdom. There are laws which prohibit discrimination on those grounds and once those laws are upheld by the individual in question, what they disprove of in the privacy of their own home is their business. Its a bunkum to ask me to show you the law which permits me to not like queers or gay marriage...instead I ask you to show me the law which obliges me to so like them or their civil union. There is non- save for the law which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.

 

I'd say yes. It is too much to ask from church, but I think the Klan is the more human and understanding place, they might do it

 

:laughing:

 

More immaculate high-mindedness.You can't make me like queer marriage, I can't make me like queer marriage. I don't despise it, I don't even frown on it, I just don't like it, any more than I like fucking around, being in debt, keeping a particular sort of company. People like you cause more strife than people like me because I make the accommodation- but you only accept it when it is offered, cap in hand, on bended knee. Call me an asshole but I'm an asshole that will merely be coming back with a bigger stick 20 years down the line. Deal with me then. See how far your high-minded maginot mentality gets you then. Probably about as far as it got the last lot. Live it up in the interim.

 

?????????

Can someone tell me what this means? Is this a movie quote?

 

I know what the 'maginot mentality' is, but I don't know why it is referenced here.

 

No movie quotes here. The point is, sneering from a safe distance from behind a wall doesn't make anything any better. Its very easy to be high-minded. I say legalize gay marriage. This apparently, alone, means I am still an asshole. I have to complement the deed with some sort of inner, heartfelt welcome. At this point in time, I'd just as soon vote against gay marriage. Apparently its not enough that we sign the armistice, but we have to do it for the reasons they want us to. Sorry. No can do.

 

I suspect it is your interactions with him and others on the board that leads him to call you an asshole. You seem to see conspiracy everywhere, and you tend to spew some pretty ugly racially-motivated stuff from time to time, and it's not for the sake of humour.

 

I see the word "asshole" here, used to describe me. You see it too.

Ironically, you give him a pass because we have a history, then drag my own into THIS thread.

Either they want my vote for gay marriage, or they don't. I'd tell them to shove it up their ass except...well....figure it out.

If I had "spewed out" racially motivated stuff devoid of humour then you would have banned me by now, if Steve_Dave hadn't done it already. Don't be tangential and suggestive.

I don't give a fuck what history me and him have- nobody is an asshole for doing the right thing even if they don't regard it as being all that "right". If thats not good enough then fine, as I say, when the vote comes up, I will be rumbling in the opposite direction, right round the wall.

 

The man making appeals to passages in a 5k year old book tells Ugo to 'be reasonable'.::

 

Exactly.