Same-sex Marriage

[Larv]

Interesting notion that gay-men don’t fornicate… I’d beg to differ.

Fornication between gay men? How? Or do I yet again have a Middle Age attitude about this? I'll agree that gay men can perform sex acts with each other, but unless the definition of fornication has been expanded I don't see how they can fornicate. By such an expansion wouldn't masturbation then qualify as fornication?

 

But if they can, and you would probably know, then I am quite comfortable with whatever goes on between two consenting adults behind closed doors. And if they happen to fornicate in there then there must be more to it than I learned in biology.

 

But whether or not fornication occurs and the merits of fornication are not really on topic to the question of same-sex marriage.

It might be so if one partner of a same-sex marriage seeks a same-sex annulment on the grounds that the marriage could not be consummated.

[Jway]

This talk about fornication is completely irrelevant to the topic.

 

I strongly condemn this tangent.

 

This thread is about same-se... oh wait, perhaps it is on topic, and/or maybe I could be flexible on this.

 

Nah. I strongly condemn it as being completely irrelevant. Please stick to the topic (aka please refute something I said or don't speak at all).

 

Thanks,

you know who

[InfiniteNow]

This talk about fornication is completely irrelevant to the topic.

 

I strongly condemn this tangent.

 

This thread is about same-se... oh wait, perhaps it is on topic, and/or maybe I could be flexible on this.

 

Nah. I strongly condemn it as being completely irrelevant. Please stick to the topic (aka please refute something I said or don't speak at all).

 

Thanks,

you know who

Finally, Jway... You've made a post which I don't find absolutely laughable and laden with logical fallacies. You're quite right... Fornication has Jack, and, also, his other brother, ****, to do with the thread topic.

[Larv]

What's being fornicated here is the word "marriage," because both sides of the issue are ****ing around with it. Who really cares if two men get married, or two women, or three of either sex and their dogs? All that matters is what the law says about it. And if the law said nothing at all about "marriage," only about civil unions, then the entire issue of same-sex marriage goes away. This leaves open of course the marriages that are officiated in a church or anywhere else duly qualified, but who cares? I don't care what goes on inside churches (but I can do without the bloody sacrifices), or inside chapels, casinos, and sunny resorts. It's only the law that I care about.

 

This whole same-sex-marriage issue goes away if the law drops a single word from its codes and regulations.

[InfiniteNow]

This whole thing also goes away if people just let go of their discriminations and recognize that marriage is about the uniting of two people in love, not just the uniting of one man with one women... It would also go away if people would just realize that it's okay to love someone of the same sex, and that the guarantees of equality in our constitution should apply here with the concept of marriage.

 

I really wonder... Why wasn't anybody talking about letting go of the word marriage when it was primarily being used to describe the relationship of one man and one woman? Why didn't people cry out for calling it a civil union or a domestic partnership then?

 

I'll tell you why... Because it's not about a word or some made up confusion in our laws, but about trying to protect a "special club," and about trying to keep the homosexuals out of their "marriage treehouse." It's about trying to prevent those seen as "different" from taking part in their "sacred institution."

 

 

Parody: "I don't mind if the blacks play golf, as long as they don't try to do it at our White's Only country club. Let them swing away all they want... I'm not a bigot, I just don't want them doing it here."

[HydrogenBond]

The word "marriage" is the heart of the problem. Any other term would be far less debated. But it is only a word, right?

 

Say a group of pseudo-scientists decided we should call any type of investigation, science, if it follows the basic procedures of science. Currently the sanctifying body of science, has it own strict rules for what will be called science, but doesn't directly discourage independent investigation. But it will limit access to journals and other rites of science to keep the word science pure.

 

Let us run a social experiment, where we call the strict protocols of science, chauvinistic and archaic, set hundreds of years ago. We want more modern flexibility, so we can spare feelings and be more inclusive to any form of investigation and call it science. The current pseudo-science don't wish to be singled out, but wish now to be called science, side by side. It is only a word and should be shared, right?

 

What would be the implications, if all could share the word science? One could legally publish ghosts with quarks, with liberal scientists giving their blessing since this is cutting edge. The conservative wing of science, would fight this change every step of the way. The man on the street who is not familiar with the unique heritage of science, might think it is a good idea because it is warm and fuzzy.

 

Personally, I think we should reserve the word science to mean what the founders of the rite defined it. Pseudo-science is a bit derogatory and could hurt feeling. So maybe a nicer name, like alternate investigators won't be so harsh, while not forcing traditional science to get irrational in defense of just a word.

[InfiniteNow]

This seems to need repeating.

 

This is not about a word. It's about the need for people to let go of their discriminations and recognize that marriage is about the uniting of two people in love, not just the uniting of one man with one women... It's about the need for people to just realize that it's okay to love someone of the same sex, and that the guarantees of equality in our constitution should apply here with the concept of marriage.

 

I really wonder... Why wasn't anybody talking about letting go of the word marriage when it was primarily being used to describe the relationship of one man and one woman? Why didn't people cry out for calling it a civil union or a domestic partnership then?

 

I'll tell you why... Because it's not about a word or some made up confusion in our laws, but about trying to protect a "special club," and about trying to keep the homosexuals out of their "marriage treehouse." It's about trying to prevent those seen as "different" from taking part in their "sacred institution."

 

 

Parody: "I don't mind if the blacks play golf, as long as they don't try to do it at our White's Only country club. Let them swing away all they want... I'm not a bigot, I just don't want them doing it here."

 

 

 

Specific to HydrogenBond... The definition of marriage did NOT limit it to "one man and one woman" until 1996 when the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was put into law. Before that, gender was unspecified in the definition.

[Jway]

marriage is about the uniting of two people in love, not just the uniting of one man with one women...

 

Just two people?

 

How about taking the word two out of the statement?

[InfiniteNow]

How about you start a new thread to discuss that off-topic point like has been repeatedly requested of you by both me and the forum staff?

[Jway]

The word "marriage" is the heart of the problem. Any other term would be far less debated. But it is only a word, right?

 

Say a group of pseudo-scientists decided we should call any type of investigation, science, if it follows the basic procedures of science. Currently the sanctifying body of science, has it own strict rules for what will be called science, but doesn't directly discourage independent investigation. But it will limit access to journals and other rites of science to keep the word science pure.

 

IMO, this is spot on. I realize I run risk of being deemed off-topic, but I feel this is spot-on with what is at stake. I could make the claim and would argue on another thread that science has as much to do with scientific method as marriage has to do with fornication. And yet, I realize that people who show up to me as somewhere between prejudice and dogmatic would disagree with me on this. And would say, you cannot separate the two, and it's been this way for many years, and yadda yadda yadda.

 

It isn't just the word, but the entitlements that come with it. You get to join a "club" per se if you are practicing "true" marriage. And if you are practicing "true" science. So, instead of allowing for the practice to exist just as it does and always has, there is instead an attempt to change the definition so as to have the restricted view, the one that would exclude those who don't follow the traditional way, to not be included in the updated definition. You can still have your civil union, it's just that you can't be truly married. You're still free to do whatever else you want, but "we" have ownership on this term. You are still free to do investigations, it's just that you can't be said to truly practicing (a) science. You're still welcome to share your findings with general public, but just realize, we do have ownership on this term.

 

Anyway, admin team, feel free to split this if it is off topic. It seems related to gist of topic, and I feel HB pointed out something that is at heart of issue.

[Jway]

How about you start a new thread to discuss that off-topic point like has been repeatedly requested of you by both me and the forum staff?

 

Where in the title or in OP, or where on this thread is it said we are to talk about monogamous same-sex marriages?

 

I am speaking about SAME-SEX MARRIAGES. And a definition for ALL marriages. So, I ask why the word two was put in your definition and ask why not remove it?

[InfiniteNow]

It isn't just the word, but the entitlements that come with it. You get to join a "club" per se if you are practicing "true" marriage. And if you are practicing "true" science.

And your point is implicitly bigoted, as it suggests that "true" marriage cannot belong to two individuals of the same sex.

 

Also, as I have pointed out repeatedly, the traditional definition of marriage did not reference gender at all. If you wish to continue suggesting that there is some "true" or "traditional" definition of marriage which limits it to one man and one woman, then the onus on you is to find the reference in support of such a view.

 

As it stands right now, I suggest that view is patently false and completely without merit.

 

If you want to suggest I'm wrong, then prove it with a citation, or quotation of a specific law about marriage which mentions gender (not just the words husband/wife). So we're clear... DOMA doesn't meet the standard of being "traditional" since it wasn't passed until 1996. Further, I argue that DOMA itself would NEVER have been necessary had the law said what you suggest it does.

[Jway]

And your point is implicitly bigoted, as it suggests that "true" marriage cannot belong to two individuals of the same sex.

 

You mean two or more, right?

 

I think you are misunderstanding my point. My point I would say is EXACTLY this point, but in (ever so slightly different language):

 

Because it's not about a word or some made up confusion in our laws, but about trying to protect a "special club," and about trying to keep the homosexuals out of their "marriage treehouse." It's about trying to prevent those seen as "different" from taking part in their "sacred institution."

 

InfiniteNow wrote:

If you wish to continue suggesting that there is some "true" or "traditional" definition of marriage which limits it to one man and one woman, then the onus on you is to find the reference in support of such a view.

 

While I think there is a traditional definition of marriage that limits it to one man and one woman (DOMA would be example of this), I do not support this definition. Likewise, if you or anyone thinks ANY definition of marriage is between two (and only two) persons, then the onus on you is to find the reference in support of such a view. Because as I see it, same-sex marriage fits the broad definition of marriage: a union between people who are in love. Or if you prefer, a union between people.

 

So we're clear... DOMA doesn't meet the standard of being "traditional" since it wasn't passed until 1996. Further, I argue that DOMA itself would NEVER have been necessary had the law said what you suggest it does.

 

What meets (your) standard of "traditional" because I think DOMA is the de facto definition that actually matters right now. But, I a) don't care to find traditional definition supporting the view you think I need to support because :( you have misunderstood that I hold that view as a definition of marriage. It actually seems to me that I hold a less discriminatory definition of marriage than you, unless taking out the word "two" from your definition is easy for you to do.

[InfiniteNow]

Traditional - Can you cite ANY SINGLE LAW which defines marriage as between one man and one woman (not just use of the terms husband/wife), other than DOMA itself?

 

I don't think you can, and anxiously await you proving me wrong.

[Jway]

I don't care to!!

 

Not my concern. Doesn't match my definition.

 

But again, DOMA contains the one that within this current month was defended for it's constitutionality by the DoJ. Thus, not sure why we WHO AGREE ON A BROADER DEFINITION, would care about "traditional" or "true" ones.

[InfiniteNow]

I don't care to!!

 

<...>

 

Thus, not sure why we WHO AGREE ON A BROADER DEFINITION, would care about "traditional" or "true" ones.

 

It was you and HydrogenBond who began using the terms "traditional" and "true" as pertains to marriage. I asked for defense of those descriptors, specifically how "true" and "traditional" meant "between one man and one woman" as implied by both of your posts.

 

I see that you are incapable of defending that, and I accept your concession, and appreciate your clarification that you agree there is no such thing as a "true" or "traditional" marriage restricting it to "one man and one woman."

[Jway]

My concession can also be said as your failure to understand my point.

 

Again, I believe I operate (currently) and have since beginning of this thread from a less restrictive definition of marriage than you. Feel free to prove me wrong, even while your words are available on earlier pages for all to see. For me, a fairly accurate definition of marriage refers to: a social, religious, spiritual, emotional and/or legal union of individuals that creates kinship.

 

I got that from Wikipedia, but if speaking in my own words, I'd go with "union of individuals" and be done with it.