Homosexual marriage II

[Mari]

Sorry, who are you talking to? *totally isn't getting it*

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Mari

But since there's apparently still something wrong (otherwise they wouldn't have to protest), I am interested to find out what exactly is.

I guess you've already answered part of it yourself: I know there are still people who aren't very nice towards gay people. That's enough reason for people to protest, I suppose.

Originally Posted by inked

But that is really absurd since marriage is a union of opposite sexes.

Of course, as with most things, it is a matter of personal opinion. Whether you like it or not there is not one single definition of marriage, but many.

[inked]

Jonathan, it is not merely a matter of opinion or we would not be discussing the legality of it, would we?

But nice try.

Rather than re-iterate all the arguments for my position (biological, psychological, historical, social, and cultural), I just refer you back through this thread and its predecessor. They are cogently set forth there.

[Mari]

True, but if they don't tell me exactly what they are protesting against/for and what's wrong, but keep it general, it's hard for me to realize what still needs improving and what I might be able to do about it.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Mari

True, but if they don't tell me exactly what they are protesting against/for and what's wrong, but keep it general, it's hard for me to realize what still needs improving and what I might be able to do about it.

If you can, ask them! Or google on Dutch gay rights movements Maybe they'd like to see further improvement of society's attitude towards gays. Protests don't have to be about things as concrete as legislature.

Originally Posted by inked

Jonathan, it is not merely a matter of opinion or we would not be discussing the legality of it, would we?

But nice try.

Rather than re-iterate all the arguments for my position (biological, psychological, historical, social, and cultural), I just refer you back through this thread and its predecessor. They are cogently set forth there.

Why, opinions are what guide the law-makers.

And unfortunately for you, I and many with me don't put enough weight into your biological, psychological, historical, social, and cultural arguments, to think that homosexual marriage should be banned

[inked]

Jonathan, homosexual marriage is not banned as you put it. It does not exist. You are advocating for recognition of a status that has not priorly existed. Do try and keep the cart and horse in proper relation to actual achieve useful forward or backward movement!

[Tessar]

Actually it does exist as a legal contract. In several states.

[Jonathan]

As Tessar said, it does exist. It exists in California, Massachussetts, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and South Africa and (edited in) Canada . And yes, I'm positive to recognising same-sex marriage in places where it has not yet enjoyed the same status as in the places I've listed.

[Nerdanel]

I look forward to the day when sex isn't the first thing we see when we look at a person, when gender doesn't matter and people stop being so interested in who comes on who.

[Mari]

Originally Posted by Nerdanel

I look forward to the day when sex isn't the first thing we see when we look at a person, when gender doesn't matter and people stop being so interested in who comes on who.

Hear hear!

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

As Tessar said, it does exist. It exists in California, Massachussetts, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and South Africa. And yes, I'm positive to recognising same-sex marriage in places where it has not yet enjoyed the same status as in the places I've listed.

You forgot Canada. Lovely place to get married.

I have a little trouble with both the terms "homosexual" and "opposite sex", actually, myself.

It's a more binary and rigid way of looking at human existance than my other observations support. I don't find it a useful structure for the evaluation of human potential. And if I thought men, qua men, were actually "opposite" to women, tempermentally and biologically, I would probably advocate "androcide", just as a safety measure for the species.

Doesn't look like it to me, though. Clearly a continuum.

[Nerdanel]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

You forgot Canada. Lovely place to get married.

I have a little trouble with both the terms "homosexual" and "opposite sex", actually, myself.

It's a more binary and rigid way of looking at human existance than my other observations support. I don't find it a useful structure for the evaluation of human potential. And if I thought men, qua men, were actually "opposite" to women, tempermentally and biologically, I would probably advocate "androcide", just as a safety measure for the species.

Doesn't look like it to me, though. Clearly a continuum.

Well said, sis.

[GrayMouser]

Oooops, try this

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-marriage.html

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

Jonathan, homosexual marriage is not banned as you put it. It does not exist. You are advocating for recognition of a status that has not priorly existed. Do try and keep the cart and horse in proper relation to actual achieve useful forward or backward movement!

Actually, in some places it exists, in some places it is banned, and in other places the legal status is not defined, which I suppose you could describe as "does not exist".

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Nerdanel

I look forward to the day when sex isn't the first thing we see when we look at a person, when gender doesn't matter and people stop being so interested in who comes on who.

Wise words Finland

This talk of banning only makes me think of authoritarian rule..

[The Gaffer]

Ah no, I think at the centre of the universe (the Earth), in a large pile of identical tablets of stone, you will find one with the inscription:

"Marriage (n): a union between a man and a woman."

You should have no trouble finding it; for some reason this one gets lots of references, more than the ones about not being greedy and not killing people. It should be near the top.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Ah no, I think at the centre of the universe (the Earth), in a large pile of identical tablets of stone, you will find one with the inscription:

"Marriage (n): a union between a man and a woman."

You should have no trouble finding it; for some reason this one gets lots of references, more than the ones about not being greedy and not killing people. It should be near the top.

Thanx man! I will set out on a quest to seek outheth this amazing tablet of information. I think I will let my life guide this most wonderous of tablets from now on.
I will name them.. the 10 Tablets of Priorities in Life

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

You forgot Canada. Lovely place to get married.

Oops, my bad

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I have a little trouble with both the terms "homosexual" and "opposite sex", actually, myself.

It's a more binary and rigid way of looking at human existance than my other observations support. I don't find it a useful structure for the evaluation of human potential.

I can only agree. The terms you mentioned are part of a model to describe humans, a model that might be unsuited for today's society.

[MrBishop]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

You forgot Canada. Lovely place to get married.

Also a lovely place to attend a same-sex marriage AND and same-sex Marriage. I've attended one of each in recent years.

There is marriage (the legal union) and Marriage (the religious blessing). The two do not HAVE to meet in the middle.

From what I understand, the crux of the argument for same-sex marriage is that the homosexuals desire the legal and social contract of marriage.
The pious desire to deny the religious blessing of said legal union, as well as use of the term which, for some reason, they believe that they have trademarked (Marriage®).


To put it as directly as possible:

Churches do NOT marry people...churches bless the union. The GVT marries people (hence the license and registration of the union).

Churches perform the ceremony and fill out the paperwork which gets sent to the same GVT office as the paperwork that a JOP might fill out after a civil ceremony.

No paperwork..no marriage, no legal and binding union and none of the perks that sis mentioned several posts ago.

With the separation of church and state, the former should have no say as to who can and cannot be joined in the legal union set by the latter. Unfortunately, that just isn't the case.

[Mari]

I found out why they were protesting by the way. Legally everything is just fine, but they want to be able to be open about it in public as well. So no people staring when they hold hands and no parents complaining when their child's teacher admits to being gay.

And since yesterday the Christian Union is allowing gay people to hold a position in their party, but they (the CU) strongly recommend against it. This in the wake of a ruling concerning another religious party and women's rights within that party.

(Thanks for the explanation MrB )