nicely countered

Post #388,683 by crazy 4/17/14 12:26:22 PM Reply	nicely countered http://www.slate.com...w_gay_people.html
Post #388,684 by drook 4/17/14 12:56:23 PM Reply	Reminds me of this http://www.imdb.com/...es?item=qt0223330 For context, "Isaac" is played by Robert Guillaume. -- Drew
Post #388,689 by mmoffitt 4/17/14 2:32:08 PM Reply	Counter to what? If to my lack of understanding for the need of marriages without the expectation of children, it fails miserably. First fail. To summarize: Directly saying that you donÂt like the idea of two dudes loving on each other is bigoted, but using your checkbook to try to keep them from doing so as honest men is, if unsavory, rational enough. My complete failure to understand why anyone (myself included) would wish to marry in the absence of an expectation of children is not at all equivalent to my saying that I "don't like the idea of two dudes loving on each other." Second fail. ...that while the resistance to interracial marriage was based solely on white supremacy (bad), objectors to gay marriage are capable of taking their stand purely in the realm of religion-based, ÂtraditionalÂ definitions of marriage without rejecting gay people or gay sex at all (tolerable). The traditional definition of marriage (that it is a relationship which usually produces a new generation) has nothing to do with a religous basis, but millenia of experience. Look, the bottom line for me is that I don't really oppose "gay marriage." I just don't see a need for it. I don't see a need for marriage in the absence of an expection of children at all. That lack of comprehension on my part applies equally to same-sex couples and heterosexual couples. The definition of the word "marriage" has clearly changed. It is no longer the institution that usually generates subsequent generations (it's actual sole purpose and the reasons behind any benefits government bestows upon it). What it's purpose is now remains unclear. But in this new definition it can no longer be defined as a relationship which usually produces subsequent generations. It's meaning and possible resultant contributions to society at large are now ambiguous and completely unknown, if not unlikely, respectively. That does not mean that I think that cohabitating loving couples should be denied any rights and privileges that apply to the individuals in a marriage. Nor does it mean that I think the families defined as a loving non-wed couple, single mothers, single fathers, or any of the myriad of different types of families are any less a family than one in possession of a marriage certificate. I'm not now nor have I ever been an advocate for any rights restrictions based upon the absence of a marriage certificate - for heterosexual couples or homosexual couples. For me, the whole issue really is equivalent to our deciding that two males born to the same parents referring to one another as "brother" but referring to their female sibling as "sister" is somehow a violation of their sister's equal protection rights. Following the logic of your criticism of my position, you'd say I believed brotherhood to be superior to sisterhood, or that I was a misogynist, or that sisterhood was somehow "too icky" for me to accept, or some other nonsense. We've collectively decided to change the definition of "marriage" and make it less precise. In the process we've dropped the societally contributing portion of the definition ("usually results in the birth of a new generation"). What it means now is unclear. But I maintain that there is no need for marriage in the absence of an expectation of children. No one has come up with a rational reason for such a marriage. As I've pointed out, there are better, easier to accomplish methods for achieving the vaunted "preferential treatment afforded only to marriages" than expanding the definition of "marriage" to cover other relationships. That's all I'll write on this topic because, clearly, I'm not permitted to hold that "marriage in the absence of an expectation of children" is a dumb idea. Saying that is apparently equal to saying, "I hate gay people." And that's something I never want to have anyone take seriously as a possibility.
Post #388,690 by drook 4/17/14 3:00:21 PM Reply	Of course Because women need no protection of their interest in joint property acquired during a marriage. And we don't need any legal framework around financial and medical decisions when someone is incapacitated. Nope, no reason for marriage at all that doesn't have to do with children. -- Drew
Post #388,693 by a6l6e6x 4/17/14 5:06:03 PM Reply	But, you forgot "the sign". :) Alex ÂThere is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.Â -- Isaac Asimov
Post #388,712 by Ashton 4/18/14 3:15:25 AM Reply	There's also a 'fore-runner' Issue: 'DINK's. Way-back. Double-Income/No Kids.. coined early '60s IIRC. All insouciantly--was this not? a much earlier dim-awareness of marriage being synonymous with: Official perks, from taxes to various sub-rights conferred: re hospitals, bail! (can't be forced to testify!), deaths ... and similar Exceptions to general law codices. The religio-aspects were already quite secondary 'motives'. Some were pissed that, DINKs could live high-on-the hog sans the joys of pediatricians, orthodontics, teen-age in-home savagery and the rest. As to any redefinition of 'marriage': I grant you that the new basis, like the old is mostly about the financial, plus inextricably entwined with: the entire pseudo-'Science' of The Law: all those 'rights', rites! and (legal-)Rights conferred as veritably altered folkways/mores--merely via the marriage agreement. Unfortunately, because: Bigotry Is (not a rare mindset), your quite clear POV shall be submersed: when within company of the Reptile-brains extant (not to be confused with the unusual sanity, tolerance and er, perspicuity of the IGM, natch.) I need-not any disclaimers re bigotry; if your character is that fucked and I haven't noticed, well then I must be an incorrigible naif. Simply, IME most folks have never?/rarely examined their own presumptions/analyzed "the roles of marriage in the US" beyond some casual curiosity. Debating this issue amongst that large group would often trigger all those Freudian-'projections' from within their own unexamined/at least un-settled psyches--no? [Which-all is why I never discuss such things] as: my proposal to replace the current crop of corporate-profitable Junk-food, super-market Shit-tomatoes etc. with.. a more honest, probably more nutritious --Newly Branded!-- **Soylent Puce ... when You Care Enough to Eat the Very Beast** Carrion.. it's what's for dinner--but ya still gots to Pay for it.
Post #388,708 by boxley 4/17/14 8:05:03 PM Reply	sic the Official SpokesGay on them http://spokesdish.wo...author/spokesgay/ sfw mostly Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep

Welcome to IWETHEY!