Nerd Mentality

The United Kingdom opened a new era in gay rights as three homosexual couples wed in civil partnership ceremonies on Monday, the first of several hundred nationwide this week - among them Sir Elton John and his partner.

"We are delighted. Here's to many more," said Shannon Sickels, a New York playwright, after she and her Northern Ireland partner, Grainne Close, became the first public celebrants of a legally binding gay partnership at Belfast City Hall.
Scores of family, friends and gay rights activists tossed flowers and rainbow-colored ribbons out of support.

But in keeping with the conservatism of Northern Ireland society, their landmark festivities drew a few dozen Protestant evangelicals who sang hymns and waved "Sodomy is sin" placards.

Gay rights activists countered with their own bullhorn-assisted chants of support. A few donning Hitler-style mustaches shadowed the evangelical crowd waving satirical placards that read, "Earth is flat" and "Bring back slavery."

Northern Ireland, one of the last regions in the United Kingdom to legalize homosexuality in 1982, became the first on Monday to grant gay couples the same legal protections as married heterosexuals - a measure already in force in many other European countries.

Scotland followed on Tuesday, and England and Wales on Wednesday - the day Elton John wed Canadian filmmaker David Furnish.

Furnish, a Canadian-born filmmaker, and John have been together for 12 years. Both have said they understand the implications of their union.

Cameras flickered as the couple - John wearing purple spectacles and a black suit - walked out arm-in-arm, waving to the photographers and fans who huddled together in the cobbled streets around Windsor's town hall, where Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles wed in April.

"God instituted human marriage in the Garden of Eden, and it was one man with one woman. God has not changed that," said the Rev. Ian Brown of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, a fundamentalist denomination founded by Northern Ireland's dominant Protestant politician, Ian Paisley.

Such views are more widely held in Northern Ireland than in other parts of the United Kingdom. Here, Catholics and Protestants sometimes overcome their political hostility to protest jointly on traditional family issues.

Northern Ireland's police force in May reported a surge in gay-hate crimes over the past two years. As same-sex couples arrived at Belfast City Hall, an informal poll on Radio Ulster in Belfast registered about 70 percent opposition to civil partnerships.

Denmark in 1989 became the first country to legislate for same-sex partnerships. Several other EU members have followed suit: Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden.

In the United States, more than a dozen states recognize some form of domestic partnerships or civil unions, but 11 states voted in November to ban gay marriage.

Also http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051222/ENTERTAINMENT04/512220414/1005/ENTERTAINMENT

Elton John, partner exchange vows in England

By Danica Kirka
Associated Press
WINDSOR, England -- Britain's showbiz royalty -- Sir Elton John and David Furnish -- exchanged vows and diamond wedding bands during a ceremony that capped the first week of legalized civil unions in the United Kingdom.

Just married: Singer Sir Elton John (right) and David Furnish posed for photographs Wednesday at the Guildhall in Windsor. - ANDY STUART / AFP/Getty Images

Opting to use the 17th century Guildhall at Windsor where Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles got married in April, John and Furnish exchanged a kiss before facing hundreds of photographers and fans on the cobbled streets outside.
John, 58, and Furnish, 43, were among hundreds of same-sex couples marrying in England and Wales on Wednesday, the first day such ceremonies were possible. Others wed earlier this week in Northern Ireland and Scotland.
"I think it's amazing -- it's brilliant," said Tim Alcock, 43, one of the onlookers.
Prime Minister Tony Blair, speaking to reporters at a news conference, congratulated the couple for exercising their newfound legal right. Activists saw the union as a watershed moment for gay rights.
"This will give hope to millions of isolated, vulnerable lesbian and gay people, especially those living in repressive and homophobic countries," said Peter Tatchell, spokesman for the gay rights group OutRage.
The new law -- passed last year -- allows civil ceremonies that will give same-sex couples the same social security, tax, pension and inheritance rights as married couples.
Furnish, a Canadian-born filmmaker, and the pop star have been together for 12 years. Both have said they understand the implications of their union.
"Being such a high-profile couple and the fact that we decided to do it straight away does carry a certain message," John was quoted as saying by Attitude magazine. "I'm doing this first and foremost because I want to do it for David and I want to be with David for the rest of my life, but I also want to do it to say that (the civil union law) shouldn't be something that just sits there in law. It should be embraced."

I wonder what Pojo and Robjomak think of this. Blair supported the war but he has a bad habit of supporting abortions in the third world, euthanasia and same sex unions.

SouthernBelle

Tarnation, just a goshdarn minute. How did this happen if 100% of people oppose those coloreds and their sass gettin' the right to marry my pure white daughter?

Oh, right yankees don't use democracy when it is inconvernant. Inconvertible. Oh however those high-falutin' types say it.

Sad.
___________________

I was young and confused and your mom didn't want me around no more. Now pass me dem damn collard greens!

Europe will be childless and in a state of pure corrupted decline soon enough.

What are you talking about, there are pleanty of Muslims living and having kids on government money and raising them to hate/bomb the West in Europe.

The corrupted decline part is right tho. It's already true anyway.

And I'm not going to dignify Aidan with a direct response because his sarcasm made no sense.

Robjomak

Xavius, there is a difference between shooting someone for doing something, and bitching when the government won't subsidize something. People being hunted down like animals in the South for offending the ruling class is wrong. People not wanting to subsidize sodomy is not.

Because lord knows lesbians can't live without their sodomy.
___________________

I was young and confused and your mom didn't want me around no more. Now pass me dem damn collard greens!

Robjomak

It sounds cooler when they start with the same letter. Sheesh.

...Jesus is this the best you can do to argue? Repeat some stupid criticism you know wasn't the point of my argument? Government subsidizes marriage because it maintains societal stability and results in children. Government need not subsidize gay marriage because it certainly doesn't result in children and considering the widespread contempt we're seeing from the public, it doesn't help societal stability. Do I have to spell it out every freaking time or are you just going to keep harping on this irrelevant point?

Who says gay people can't have or adopt children? You don't disallow barren women the right to get married nor sterile men. You don't disallow elderly heterosexuals from getting married because they can't have children? You don't disallow people with terminal cancer to get married just because their time is up. You don't disallow heterosexuals from getting married who choose never to have children. You don't disallow people who have too many children as it is, or even people who can't take care of their own children.

This is a really discriminative argument if you ask me, but my argument has always been that most people are against gay marriage because they hate thinking of the idea of gay men buggering each other.
___________________

I was young and confused and your mom didn't want me around no more. Now pass me dem damn collard greens!

Robjomak

And just a sec, how did this happen if 70% of people oppose it?

We all know informal radio polls are the most accurate.[/sarcasm]

Robjomak

O rite liberals don't use democracy when it is inconvenient.

Well, wouldn't you want to ban abortion even though the majority seems to be okay with it?

Robjomak

Government subsidizes marriage because it maintains societal stability and results in children. Government need not subsidize gay marriage because it certainly doesn't result in children and considering the widespread contempt we're seeing from the public, it doesn't help societal stability. Do I have to spell it out every freaking time or are you just going to keep harping on this irrelevant point?

If that were true, then a couple would only get financial benefits per child.
___________________
MGM Bill and End RIC

From BEan to Xavius

Guys! We've been through this before! The vast majority of traditional marriages result in children. The remainder (harkening back to that societal stability thing I talked about) serve as an example and an encouragement for other people to get married. Obviously there is going to be variation, but marriage in the archetype is between a man and a woman with the intent to have kids. "To have kids" doesn't always work, but it should be the intent. And that is totally impossible in a gay marriage, in fact it doesn't even reflect the same model that makes children possible.

And you know the adoption argument is moot because you don't have to be married to raise or adopt kids.

This is a really discriminative argument if you ask me, but my argument has always been that most people are against gay marriage because they hate thinking of the idea of gay men buggering each other.

Well yeah. Most people are against illegal immigration because they hate Mexicans. Most people vote democrat because they hate white or more successful people.
Most animal rights activists are so because they hate or can't trust people.

I'm presenting a coherent rationale rather than just hate. That's the goal in politics is it not?

Well, wouldn't you want to ban abortion even though the majority seems to be okay with it?

This is such a retarded argument. Do you know the basis of abortion law in this country? Because of the Supreme Court, acting AGAINST the vast majority of people I might add, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for states to ban abortion. That's it. There is a Constitutional right to abortion according to those lunatics. The question isn't even ban abortion across the board, it's properly interpret the Constitution and LET THE PEOPLE ACTUALLY DECIDE.

Of course I think you'll be unpleasantly surprsied at how many states collectively flip the liberals off and would proceed to ban abortion were they given the power to democratically decide anything. But of course, Big Brother knows better, and is willing to twist and taint the Constitution to serve his purposes.

If that were true, then a couple would only get financial benefits per child.

Traditional marriage in itself helps to encourage more traditional marriage and thus more kids. It's like DS games with download play. Offer download play and you aren't getting the exact result of a DS game sold, but people who can now see the game in action will want it for themselves. It's a brilliant marketing ploy.

marriage in the archetype is between a man and a woman with the intent to have kids.

There is nothing about the love between the 2 people involve. I pitty those who are in a love-less marriage or one where someone gets in it just for financial gain.

ITS ALL ABOUT THE LOVE. All the homosexuals whant to do is to be able to solidify the love for thier partner, just like everyone else. Thats it. Its not going to harm anyone.
___________________
The sounds of DKL screaming and yelling in agony is magical and relaxing.

Robjomak

Guys! We've been through this before! The vast majority of traditional marriages result in children. The remainder (harkening back to that societal stability thing I talked about) serve as an example and an encouragement for other people to get married.

Sorry now, what is the encouragement exactly? Societal stability is the encouraging factor? So then how exactly will allowing for gay people to get married, who already may have been partnered for years or decades, suddenly bring that factor to a crashing halt? Are you really implying that allowing for homosexual couples, who may or may not have the ability to have families (some who already have children from a previous relationship or can have children through invitro or adoption), will somehow cause people to stop marrying? Please explain this argument to me.

Robisha

Obviously there is going to be variation, but marriage in the archetype is between a man and a woman with the intent to have kids.

So if you are ok with variations of marriage, some of which also include two concenting adults (hopefully) in love who perhaps cannot/will not have children, what is your biggest qualm with gay marriage? That it's not an archetype? Your archetype is already blown to hell by your admitted acceptance of "variations" to it, so what's the deal, porkskins?

"To have kids" doesn't always work, but it should be the intent. And that is totally impossible in a gay marriage, in fact it doesn't even reflect the same model that makes children possible.

I'm sorry, since when did gay peoples' bodies stop producing egg and sperm? Heard of surrogate mothers? Invitro fertilization? Adoption? When you allow an elderly couple to marry THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY WITHOUT A DIVINE MIRACLE that couple will produce children. When you allow a barren couple to marry THERE IS NO MEDICAL POSSIBILITY of a baby coming from the union.

So why don't you concede that you would prefer marriage licenses be ONLY given to couples that can produce children naturally? You're allowing for "variations" in a traditional heterosexual marriage, in this case, couples who CANNOT HAVE CHILDREN BY TRADITIONAL MEANS - which by your definition IS a homosexual couple.

So what your argument boils down to is something else because as an argument of permissions given to couples in the hope of having children naturally in order to encourage societal stability - it's already wrecked by the exceptions made for those who choose not to or simply CANNOT have children naturally. Your argument is based on something else and I'm trying to whittle the wood down to what it is.

And you know the adoption argument is moot because you don't have to be married to raise or adopt kids.

The "adoption argument"? You mean that adoption can provide gay or straight families with children in order to give kids a chance to have two loving parents, which can further strenghten a community and society? Yeah you must really hate that argument.

Well yeah. Most people are against illegal immigration because they hate Mexicans. Most people vote democrat because they hate white or more successful people.
Most animal rights activists are so because they hate or can't trust people.

I'm presenting a coherent rationale rather than just hate. That's the goal in politics is it not?

Well, depends on what your definition of coherent is.
___________________

I was young and confused and your mom didn't want me around no more. Now pass me dem damn collard greens!

Iris

Wa-hey

I believe they're going to become legal in Ireland soon as well.

Dude, seriously? There is sweet-f**k-all chance of Gay Marriages EVER happening in this country. DeValera's stench is still everywhere. I mean did you know that Gay Relationships were barely legal before 1993 over here?

I honestly don't know if it'll happen here.

There is nothing about the love between the 2 people involve. I pitty those who are in a love-less marriage or one where someone gets in it just for financial gain.

Oh really? It's just about love? Then why the **** did the government get involved, BEan? What do you think this is, a wholesome marriage in a church? Hell no, this is what the govenmen sought to do: population control through incentives by hijacking a sacred tradition. You want the government involved, you AT LEAST need to follow the original reasoning.

In order to get legally married, do you need to love each other? No.

I've been through this ad nauseum with Caster. If you want the government involved, you will suffer the loveless result-oriented inequality that government involvement brings. Get the government out of marriage and the gay marriage debate will end because the government will not have to validate ANYONE's marriage.

ITS ALL ABOUT THE LOVE. All the homosexuals whant to do is to be able to solidify the love for thier partner, just like everyone else. Thats it. Its not going to harm anyone.

Then they plainly don't need the government or the rest of society to validate it.

Sorry now, what is the encouragement exactly? Societal stability is the encouraging factor?

It's just what I said: heterosexual couples getting married and living happily in society results in more of the same. And since, as I already said, most marriages do result in kids, the net effect will be encouraging more marriages and more kids.

So then how exactly will allowing for gay people to get married, who already may have been partnered for years or decades, suddenly bring that factor to a crashing halt? Are you really implying that allowing for homosexual couples, who may or may not have the ability to have families (some who already have children from a previous relationship or can have children through invitro or adoption), will somehow cause people to stop marrying? Please explain this argument to me.

The basic encouragement for marriage is broken. Marriage is about being legally bound to who you want to be then, and that neither serves marriage's ends nor the government's ends. Does them getting married at all encourage them to have children? No, they can't. Does their relationship at all serve as an example to other couples towards the government's ends? No, just more gay marriages which continue to not produce children.

And if you look to a future where the government controls all births and deaths and reproduction is arranged rather than voluntary, and whatever crazy cross gay-lesbian insemination plot you seem to be alluding to is encouraged, that's not a world where I want to live.

So if you are ok with variations of marriage, some of which also include two concenting adults (hopefully) in love who perhaps cannot/will not have children, what is your biggest qualm with gay marriage? That it's not an archetype? Your archetype is already blown to hell by your admitted acceptance of "variations" to it, so what's the deal, porkskins?

There is a clear and basic difference between traditional marriage and gay marriage, and each will encourage more of the same type. From the government's perspective, traditional marriage will propagate the society and result in children as an institution even if a small percentage of individual marriages do not directly result in children, while gay marriage will not propagate society, not result in children, and not encourage children. Gay marriage encourages more fruitless gay marriage from the government's standpoint.

I'm sorry, since when did gay peoples' bodies stop producing egg and sperm? Heard of surrogate mothers? Invitro fertilization? Adoption? When you allow an elderly couple to marry THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY WITHOUT A DIVINE MIRACLE that couple will produce children. When you allow a barren couple to marry THERE IS NO MEDICAL POSSIBILITY of a baby coming from the union.

A society based on alternative methods requiring extensive medical intervention is certainly robust :/

Like I said, barren married couples serve as an identical example and encouragement, they live exactly as any traditionally married couple would. Gay marriages do not.

So why don't you concede that you would prefer marriage licenses be ONLY given to couples that can produce children naturally? You're allowing for "variations" in a traditional heterosexual marriage, in this case, couples who CANNOT HAVE CHILDREN BY TRADITIONAL MEANS - which by your definition IS a homosexual couple.

Why do liberals always try to twist other peoples definitions? Where did I say not having children by traditional means makes one homosexual?

What I prefer? You don't have a freaking clue what I prefer yet. I'm presenting this from the perspective of the government's system of incentives, which is what its original involvement in marriage is BASED UPON.

So what your argument boils down to is something else because as an argument of permissions given to couples in the hope of having children naturally in order to encourage societal stability - it's already wrecked by the exceptions made for those who choose not to or simply CANNOT have children naturally.

No, not at all. There is a qualitative difference between a heterosexual and a homosexual couple, and each, when seen in society, will encourage more of the same. More heterosexual couples encourage more children, which is the goal of the government in so far as its involvement in marriage is concerned.

Your argument is based on something else and I'm trying to whittle the wood down to what it is.

This argument is based on exactly what I said it is: the government's goal in involving itself in marriage. It's simple, to the point, and consistent with any result which will come of a system which attempts to involve the heartless government in a sacred union.

You want MY opinion Xavius? You want to know why I think gay marriage is a ridiculous idea? First of all, because government marriage isn't real marriage. It doesn't require love, dedication, devotion, or anything else. It requires a government contract and a "qualified" pledge to not **** around. It's a mockery of marriage.

Government marriage results in tax breaks for married couples. Inequal tax distribution. Which is wrong. Adding gays to the mix merely expands the pool of people with unfair advantages, and makes the system more corrupt, and certainly not fairer. The government doesn't need to encourage people to have children. Hell you can see how pathetic most parents are, it's an injustice to encourage them to have kids, we should leave it to natural selection to weed out the idiots who can't raise children, or worse, actually exterminate their own young (democrats).

So we rightly get rid of government marriage. What then? Society decides for itself. Churches are responsible for marriages, but there is no universal definition of marriage, and societies can decide for themselves who they accept. In my community I won't allow gay marriage because I consider it a degenerage relationship, but if you can find some weird California place where gays prance free and people are willing to call you married, go right ahead. Just keep it the **** out of my face, don't try to get government subsidies, and don't try to sue me when I don't consider you married and I reject your lifestyle. Because guess what, it's my right to decide what I do and don't condone, it's the simplest freedom of thought that liberals have sought to erase for centuries.

My society, my church, and my kind will not accept gay lifestyles. A truly free democracy allows us to do that. It also allows you to go out and find a way to be happy, a way that doesn't rob us of our property through taxes, a way that doesn't force us to accept the way you live. A way of your own direction and choosing. It's your job to go find it. We will not stand for government subsidies and recognition of gay marriage, so find another way.

hencethus

I try to stay open-minded, so I gave this a little bit (that's right, not a lot) of thought before I posted. I've tried to imagine myself "in the shoes" of a gay person in order to understand something, and I still don't really get it: Why would homosexuals want to marry in the first place?

Xavius, you're the most prominent N-Philes homosexual, so I guess my question is mostly directed at you.

WTF prominent? Well I guess so since the rest of these pansies aren't speaking up, but actually, in real life, I have one gay friend and am just a regular lonely cowboy.

As for your issue, of course any gay male could marry any woman. However UNsanctimonious it is to allow any tom dick and harry to mary any jane, ruth or mary isn't even the issue here (unless someone wants to bring up how gay people somehow are tainting the ideal of marriage.. yeah, already done!).

I think most people are scared of the definition of "marriage" being changed. Marriage to most people is a man and a woman engaging in a religious ceremony, making a pact to themselves and to God to stay together forever in holy matrimony.

I don't see at all how this is changed since gay people are in no way asking for their unions to be observed or accepted by churches, the churchy or by any churchification that wouldn't willingly give them unto God as a married pair of happy homos.

I think many people want to debate semantics here - Marriage still exists with or without gay people asking for a civil partnership from the government. PLEASE, with all my heart, continue to have your marriages, because Lord loves a man-woman marriage like he loves warm cheese sandwiches.

Call it "marriage". Call it a "union". Call it "blueberry cheesecake" for all I care, I just want to be able to have the government recognize my partnership. No churches, pastors, priests, time-tested traditions, prayers, flying elvises, alcohol, shotguns or Britney Spears needed.

What I'm focusing here on the reasonings behind the discrimination that two concenting adults of the same gender have in getting married.

Sorry I mean getting "blueberry cheesecaked."

++++++++++

Robbita

It's just what I said: heterosexual couples getting married and living happily in society results in more of the same. And since, as I already said, most marriages do result in kids, the net effect will be encouraging more marriages and more kids.

It's fine to say heterosexuals getting married and living happily in society results in stability, but you still haven't faced the logic of your original post:

Why are marriages that DO NOT result in kids, regardless of the net effect, allowed? Hell for that matter, why do we allow married couples to continue being married after they're too old to have kids, or heck, even if their kids die!

What you said was that variation was expected in heterosexual marriage to allow for those couples that CANNOT or choose not to have children. The only difference between these couples and homosexuals is that the homosexuals are of the same gender. Your argument for allowing couples who cannot/will not have children as an allowable variation of marriage seems discriminatory since the only difference between gay couples is that gay couples are of the same gender.

Robbola

The basic encouragement for marriage is broken. Marriage is about being legally bound to who you want to be then, and that neither serves marriage's ends nor the government's ends. Does them getting married at all encourage them to have children? No, they can't. Does their relationship at all serve as an example to other couples towards the government's ends? No, just more gay marriages which continue to not produce children.

I just said they can have children. You are denying the fact that we can have children. You are denying the fact that we can adopt children. You are denying the fact that many already have children from previous marriages.

You may not like the way lesbians or gay men choose to make or take in children to form families. Your contention is that gay couples cannot have children which is just untrue. Do you think that gay couples do not want children because they are gay? That would be a separate issue to argue, but don't come with arguments about gay couple not being able to have children, and especially don't come with the argument that gay couples cannot produce children together naturally because those "variable" heterosexual couples who adopt, are barren or too old to have children sure don't seem to be a part of your argument.

And if you look to a future where the government controls all births and deaths and reproduction is arranged rather than voluntary, and whatever crazy cross gay-lesbian insemination plot you seem to be alluding to is encouraged, that's not a world where I want to live.

Aw, well reality check, sweetheart, the world already has artificial insemination. Yes, even for god-approved christian married couples who (according to you) don't meet the government's ends

Your 1950's Leave-it-to-Beaver conservative worldview seems to only apply to gay couples when the "sanctity" of heterosexual marriage already contends with marriages of convenience, cheating spouses, +50% divorce rates, those evil inseminating heterosexual barren types, drive-through wedding chapels and.. oh the list goes on.

Don't pretend to have the moral high ground here. Your arguments are boiling down to something here that have not a lot to do with logic, but have a lot to do probably with your religion.

Roff

A society based on alternative methods requiring extensive medical intervention is certainly robust :/

Like I said, barren married couples serve as an identical example and encouragement, they live exactly as any traditionally married couple would. Gay marriages do not.

A society? Who says society is going to base itself on requiring alternative methods to birth? I thought your contention was already that gay people make up an extremely small amount of the population. You think artificial insemination is going to be the next American Idol? "Oh Brenda, look at that lesbian.. I heard she got the AI!" "The AI, what's that Shirley?!" "What's that? ONLY THE COOLEST WAY TO GET PREGS!"

Gimme a ****ing break.

Don't fly out into cuckoo banana apocalyptic Hilary Clinton future territory just yet. And now you say marriage should be based on traditional living? Sorry, you already said marriage should be allowed or disallowed based on societal stability allowed for through heterosexuals having children.

If you want to argue that marriage SHOULD be based on living traditionally, PLEASE let us know what that is and how it relates at all to the legality of marriage. PLEASE.

Rob

No, not at all. There is a qualitative difference between a heterosexual and a homosexual couple, and each, when seen in society, will encourage more of the same. More heterosexual couples encourage more children, which is the goal of the government in so far as its involvement in marriage is concerned.

Can you show me any empirical studies that show that this will be the case? That allowing for gay marriage will somehow UNECOURAGE people to marry and have children? Please explain how this would be and what kind of future we're expecting from allowing two dudes to get hitched in a civil cermony at a courthouse.

So then the bottom line for you seems to be that since homosexuals cannot have children, that by allowing their marriage, heterosexuals will "get the idea" that not marrying and not having children is the thing to do. Straight couples with kids see straight couples with kids and feel the need to breed. Straight couples with kids see gay couples with kids and.... .... help me out here. Stop having kids? Stop getting married? Start getting divorced?

What is your basis for this theory?

You want MY opinion Xavius?

Here we go.

You want to know why I think gay marriage is a ridiculous idea? First of all, because government marriage isn't real marriage. It doesn't require love, dedication, devotion, or anything else. It requires a government contract and a "qualified" pledge to not **** around. It's a mockery of marriage.

Well I agree with that. It's a governmental institution that doesn't require any of that. We're on the same boat here! You stay on your side though.

Robbo

Government marriage results in tax breaks for married couples. Inequal tax distribution. Which is wrong. Adding gays to the mix merely expands the pool of people with unfair advantages, and makes the system more corrupt, and certainly not fairer. The government doesn't need to encourage people to have children. Hell you can see how pathetic most parents are, it's an injustice to encourage them to have kids, we should leave it to natural selection to weed out the idiots who can't raise children, or worse, actually exterminate their own young (democrats).

So then gay marriage shouldn't happen because you don't like your government mixing in with your holy matrimonies. Okay I suppose so.

So we rightly get rid of government marriage.

O... kay?

Rob

What then? Society decides for itself. Churches are responsible for marriages, but there is no universal definition of marriage, and societies can decide for themselves who they accept. In my community I won't allow gay marriage because I consider it a degenerage relationship, but if you can find some weird California place where gays prance free and people are willing to call you married, go right ahead. Just keep it the **** out of my face, don't try to get government subsidies, and don't try to sue me when I don't consider you married and I reject your lifestyle. Because guess what, it's my right to decide what I do and don't condone, it's the simplest freedom of thought that liberals have sought to erase for centuries.

This is a nice dream.

My society, my church, and my kind will not accept gay lifestyles.

Um. What? I am your society. I quit your church after about 20 years ago but I think I'm allowed to do that.

A truly free democracy allows us to do that. It also allows you to go out and find a way to be happy, a way that doesn't rob us of our property through taxes, a way that doesn't force us to accept the way you live. A way of your own direction and choosing. It's your job to go find it. We will not stand for government subsidies and recognition of gay marriage, so find another way.

When you say we.. do you mean .. like there are no gay people where you live? Or that maybe gay people don't participate in the same community activities you do? Or that they don't believe in God? Or.. who is "we" and who is "them" and ... are we still arguing in your bizarro church-run America because I don't know how to respond now.

Damn I want to get married more than ever after this conversation. Seriously.
___________________

I was young and confused and your mom didn't want me around no more. Now pass me dem damn collard greens!

Xavius

Call it "marriage". Call it a "union". Call it "blueberry cheesecake" for all I care, I just want to be able to have the government recognize my partnership.

OK, I'll grant you that. I wasn't thinking of it that way since I couldn't care less about the government legitimizing my heterosexual relationship. What's important to me isn't a state-recognized legal contract, but love. I am married, so that probably sounds hypocritical, but if marriage didn't matter to my wife and family then I wouldn't have felt especially compelled to get married (although I wouldn't have necessarily had a reason not to). I would love my wife just as much and be just as committed to her regardless of whether or not the state or church acknowledged our relationship. Anyway, I guess it was pretty shortsighted of me to apply my own feelings to all homosexuals when most heterosexuals don't even feel the same way.

acornkid

Dude, seriously? There is sweet-f**k-all chance of Gay Marriages EVER happening in this country. DeValera's stench is still everywhere. I mean did you know that Gay Relationships were barely legal before 1993 over here?

I honestly don't know if it'll happen here.

I'm pretty sure I read this in a newspaper, although I may have dreamed it (I admit withouth embaressment that this happens to me quite often).
___________________

AlterE

You dream about homosexual marrige legalization...

Yep. All night long
___________________

Iris

I'm pretty sure I read this in a newspaper, although I may have dreamed it (I admit withouth embaressment that this happens to me quite often).

Well okay, fair enough. But personally I wouldn't trust a single rag that's out there. I try my best not to read papers y'know, and those feckers on the streets of Dublin handing out free Heralds are making it really hard. They chase you down, y'know? They chase you down the road and surround you and make you take a herald.... *mumble*

But I digress. I'm just saying that Ireland tends to lean towards america's right wing policies whenever it suits them. We've done it in the past. We're real bastards like that, y'know?

Xavius

It's fine to say heterosexuals getting married and living happily in society results in stability, but you still haven't faced the logic of your original post:

Why are marriages that DO NOT result in kids, regardless of the net effect, allowed? Hell for that matter, why do we allow married couples to continue being married after they're too old to have kids, or heck, even if their kids die!

To ward against divorce obviously. Thankfully government involvement isn't a total hijacking (like in France, where you can't have it in a church). They still have to feign that it's the same thing. If you can only stay married while you can have children, the original model isn't even imitated. By taking a compromise position, till death do you part + children, the government preserves both the institution and their interests.

If marriage ended, there is no reason for anyone to stay together - whether or not they were having children at that point, and that bond is what has preserved marriage as an institution for so long. Why do you think people complain about rising divorce rates?

What you said was that variation was expected in heterosexual marriage to allow for those couples that CANNOT or choose not to have children. The only difference between these couples and homosexuals is that the homosexuals are of the same gender.

A pretty big difference.

Your argument for allowing couples who cannot/will not have children as an allowable variation of marriage seems discriminatory since the only difference between gay couples is that gay couples are of the same gender.

And thus do not reflect the archetype of marriage. It's not discrimination just incompatibility. As hencethus pointed out, gays can still get married, as long as the marriage fits the archetype of marriage - a consenting adult male and a consenting adult female.

I just said they can have children. You are denying the fact that we can have children. You are denying the fact that we can adopt children. You are denying the fact that many already have children from previous marriages.

But absolutely none of those circumstances are served by having gays marry each other - the kids are already there, the kids can already be legally raised whether or not the parent is married, etc etc. You CAN NOT have kids together in the context of that relationship. You can only adopt, look to third parties and medical procedures, and other circumstances which are irrelevant with regards to marriage, legally and pragmatically.

You may not like the way lesbians or gay men choose to make or take in children to form families. Your contention is that gay couples cannot have children which is just untrue.

Show me two gay men who reproduced together and Ill believe you.

Do you think that gay couples do not want children because they are gay? That would be a separate issue to argue, but don't come with arguments about gay couple not being able to have children, and especially don't come with the argument that gay couples cannot produce children together naturally because those "variable" heterosexual couples who adopt, are barren or too old to have children sure don't seem to be a part of your argument.

Did you not understand, or just ignore everything I talked about with the example set forth by barren or old heterosexual couples? And what makes you think I think "gays don't want children because they are gay"? Stop letting your preconceptions blind you and start following that crap liberals are always spewing about open mindedness. Respond to my argument - not your notion of what you think my opinions are - or not at all.

Aw, well reality check, sweetheart, the world already has artificial insemination. Yes, even for god-approved christian married couples who (according to you) don't meet the government's ends

If they are heterosexual they encourage more heterosexual marriages, which statistically will almost always result in children and do serve the government's ends. As I have pointed out at least twice already.

Your 1950's Leave-it-to-Beaver conservative worldview seems to only apply to gay couples when the "sanctity" of heterosexual marriage already contends with marriages of convenience, cheating spouses, +50% divorce rates, those evil inseminating heterosexual barren types, drive-through wedding chapels and.. oh the list goes on.

Yeah, things are so ****ed up we may as well abandon the whole thing and let anything marry anything. Bessie my bovine friend, to Vegas!

Poor people are so ****ed up, let's just abandon the whole thing and leave them to die. Better yet, let's just shoot them and save nature the trouble!

What a stupid rationale.

Don't pretend to have the moral high ground here. Your arguments are boiling down to something here that have not a lot to do with logic, but have a lot to do probably with your religion.

Moral high ground? I have to notions of marriage for you to respond to: the government's rationale for marriage, and what I think real marriage is. I don't have any moral high ground, I have what I believe, and nothing more. Of course, if you keep going on about how marriage is in such a pathetic condition why whine about gay marriage even if it would make it worse and so forth you cede any claim YOUD have to the "moral high ground"

Don't fly out into cuckoo banana apocalyptic Hilary Clinton future territory just yet. And now you say marriage should be based on traditional living? Sorry, you already said marriage should be allowed or disallowed based on societal stability allowed for through heterosexuals having children.

Oh give me a break Xavius you're not that stupid. I've already talked about the necessity of preserving the structure, for the SAKE of that stability. Allowing for medical advancements to assist heterosexual couples in having kids is fine, because through the entire process they are visibly no different from other married couples, and thus serve as that example ive talked about innumerable times.

If you want to argue that marriage SHOULD be based on living traditionally, PLEASE let us know what that is and how it relates at all to the legality of marriage. PLEASE.

Um. Tradition is what marriage is in the first place. Preserving and seeking to achieve the ideal model is how it keeps going. Like I said, government doesn't want to cross that or it risks endangering its own goals.

Can you show me any empirical studies that show that this will be the case? That allowing for gay marriage will somehow UNECOURAGE people to marry and have children?

Because marriage is made into a mockery by the government where even the gays are doing it? Seems to piss off like 70% of Americans pretty well. Why bring your love into such a sick system?

Can you show me any empirical studies that show that this will be the case? That allowing for gay marriage will somehow UNECOURAGE people to marry and have children?

Because traditional marriage with a natural affinity for rearing children is no longer the only choice. You can marry your boyfriend, and not have kids, or have kids, but regardless, you're just getting married because you want to. This doesn't serve the government's end.

So then the bottom line for you seems to be that since homosexuals cannot have children, that by allowing their marriage, heterosexuals will "get the idea" that not marrying and not having children is the thing to do. Straight couples with kids see straight couples with kids and feel the need to breed. Straight couples with kids see gay couples with kids and.... .... help me out here. Stop having kids? Stop getting married? Start getting divorced?

Isn't it common sense that people will do what others do and hold in high regard? The more marriage is lowered in the eyes of the public, the less attraction people have for it. Thus the fewer heterosexual marriages and fewer kids, and so on and so forth.

Straight couples will see gay couples irregardless of kids and think marriage isn't what it used to be.

What is your basis for this theory?

Common sense.

Um. What? I am your society. I quit your church after about 20 years ago but I think I'm allowed to do that.

I really don't know. You believe society should be quite a bit different from what it is, in fact you want a word entirely redefined and propagated through society. Marriage is what it is, and you're wanting it changed based on your OWN notions of society.

When you say we.. do you mean .. like there are no gay people where you live? Or that maybe gay people don't participate in the same community activities you do? Or that they don't believe in God? Or.. who is "we" and who is "them" and ... are we still arguing in your bizarro church-run America because I don't know how to respond now.

Not all gay people think marriage is anything but between a man and a woman, Xavius.

You don't know how to respond because my opinion, and that 70% of America's opinion, is non-negotiable, it's just an OPINION. It's what we choose, we exercise our freedom of thought, and we reject the gay lifestyle, and your redefinition of marriage. It's that simple. You don't have anything to argue. Definition is based on usage like anything else, and most people agree marriage is between a man and a woman.

Damn I want to get married more than ever after this conversation. Seriously.

You can. Find a nice girl, and have a good life.

Rob, why do you care?

Because marriage is a precious and sacred thing, and I'm disgusted enough with what the government has done with it already. Now they want a complete redefinition? I won't stand for it.

Are they hurting you? Are they taking away freedoms from you? No. Now if they did something to make it fair like make it so no one gets married and no one gets benefits, then you can bitch.

That is such a democrat rationale. I'm sorry but I absolutely hate that mindset. Cutting the government out of marriage would be the best thing we can do for the institution. So some people give up their shoddy government benefits and legal status, big deal, true equality and fairness would be achieved. Don't touch my benefits eh? Well don't touch my money either.

Now, its not hurting anyone. If they love one another, why shouldnt they get benefits?

Because it's not their money paying for those benefits and neither they nor the government have any right to it.

Because theres no vagina it makes it wrong? And I could see the kids getting made fun of for having 2 dads, but kids make fun of each other anyway.

It makes it not-marriage. It's a really simple concept, I don't know why people struggle with it. This is what marriage is, this is what most people define it as, this is how it always has been. If you accept that you are seeking the change this might go more smoothly. But you always try to put it into the context that everyone else is somehow "infringing" on you when really we just don't want any part of it, and don't want you changing our society towards that end.

The definition of marriage should be the solidifying of the love of 2 persons.

Well, that's your damn opinion, and the other 70% of America is entitled to it's damn opinion just as much.

Do you have a moral objection to gays, Bobby?

Yeah, the idea of gay relations really do disgust me, but that's really besides the point since were talking about how the government should respond to it. We all have freedom of thought, and we all have the freedom to reject that which we deem rejectable. Anything else would be tyrrany.

Robjomak

Yeah, the idea of gay relations really do disgust me, but that's really besides the point since were talking about how the government should respond to it. We all have freedom of thought, and we all have the freedom to reject that which we deem rejectable. Anything else would be tyrrany.

What makes you think your so damn imporntant and have the authority to tell people how they can and cant live their lives?

I'm with Rob completely on this: Marriage and the law should not mix.

Good

Civil Unions should exist for people who love each other

Argh

to get benefits

AARGH!

Just so a dude could see his gay partner in the hospital or such.

The government shouldn't have jurisdiction over hospitals!

Same with a married couple who got married through a church. Along with a marriage, they also should have a civil union.

Jesus Christ what is it with you liberals? Put forward a good idea and youll find a way to twist it into an even worse bureacracy than it already is!

Did you even read my post Shortdude?

Shortdude123

I don't think morals should be made law.

I'm with Rob completely on this: Marriage and the law should not mix.

Am I hearing this right, rob saything that law and marriage should be seperate and he wants gay marriage to be illegal. Are we thinking about the same rob here.

Shortdude123

The term marriage should be out of the law's vocab.

Thats an intersting statment, I wonder where thats going to go.

"rob"

Jesus Christ what is it with you liberals? Put forward a good idea and youll find a way to twist it into an even worse bureacracy than it already is!

We don't want to twist it, we just want to open the doors a little wider. Its not like we want to tarnish or harm any hetrosexual wedding.

Dirty Turtle

What makes you think your so damn imporntant and have the authority to tell people how they can and cant live their lives?

Expose him for his arrogant ways.
___________________
The sounds of DKL screaming and yelling in agony is magical and relaxing.

Robjomak

I'm pretty sure you just aren't reading my argument BEan.

I read it again. Its all clicks, wistles, and the ramblings of a homophobe. You seem arrogant, miserable, and the type of person that just looks for something to get pissed off at.
___________________
The sounds of DKL screaming and yelling in agony is magical and relaxing.