[Apple Pro Underwear]

I was reading some statistics after an article in a New York Paper. The main point I am rasiing is: Hetero marriage is clearly not perfect. What everybody against gay marriage says is basically: "A sacred bond between a man and a woman"...

What that really amounts to in just NYC last year alone:

67 family related homicides
55,828 reported domestic incidents reported to NYPD
4,032 felony assaults filed
74,000 orders of protection issued by criminal courts
6,873 complaints of order violated
161, 045 complaints to a NYC domestic abuse hotline

[this is not inlcuding the rest of the country, the staggering divorce rates and etc]


"A sacred bond between a man and a woman"

Making it seem like a ideal union seems to me they are trying to distract the public from what it really is. Don't try to exclude gays from marriage on that pretense please....



what you gusy think?

[Marv]

"what you gusy think?"

About what? You make a statement about NYC reported domestic incidents, but did not make a link or correlation to gay marriage opposition. Are you stating that people are making an argument based on those statistics? If so, where is the data for gays?

What do I think? Any human relationsship is a lot work! If both partners are committed and work hard enough, I suspect that both partners would tell you it is a good relationship.

[Zimphire]

I think if I have a basket full of Apples, and some of them have gotten rotten.

I surely wouldn't throw away all the Apples just because some went bad. Nor would I say all Apples are now bad because of those rotten ones.

Nor would I start calling Apples Oranges just because there was a few rotten Apples.

I would realize because there are GOOD Apples out there it's reason enough to keep Apples the way they are.

[nath]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

I think if I have a basket full of Apples, and some of them have gotten rotten.

I surely wouldn't throw away all the Apples just because some went bad. Nor would I say all Apples are now bad because of those rotten ones.

Nor would I start calling Apples Oranges just because there was a few rotten Apples.

I would realize because there are GOOD Apples out there it's reason enough to keep Apples the way they are.

But tell us what you do with the gay apples, Zimphire!

Presumeably they would have to juiced in seperate vats to the straight ones. Or grown in special orchards where they won't upset the straight apples. Or something.

(sorry for being such a fanboy. I'll take a membership card in good grace if it makes it better.)

[Randman]

Traditionally, marriage was to enhance the chances of procreation, something needed for the race to survive.

These days, marriage is often about convenience.

From what (albeit limited) info I can glean, gay marriage is about a) legal rights for a couple being equal to a man-woman marriage b) societal acceptance of the couple's sexual preference.

Neither type of couple HAS to marry but it's my opinion that a man-woman coupling has a slight advantage over that there are some basic biological reasons for it as opposed to purely social ones.

That said, I think if gay couple want to marry, they should be allowed to and they should be given the same legal rights as a straight marriage. As far as religious ceremonies go, I think they're overblown all together but it would depend on the church doctrine. And like it or not, right or wrong, most churches (and I'd include temple and mosque) are against homosexuality and therefore would not endorse a gay marriage.

[Randman]

And including domestic violence numbers is wrong and misleading. Lesbians can beat their partners and gay men can abuse their partner. But in both cases, the reported numbers can be misleadingly low because there are more straight people than gays and lesbians, many will not report such abuse because of societal impressions.

And if someone mentions love, all I have to say is you can marry someone you love and that's wonderful. But love is sadly not a mandatory requirement for marriage and you can still love someone and be in a wonderful relationship without a legal document saying you're married.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Bad Apples


Nice excuse.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

A diamond no matter how glamorous it is portrayed, is a rock.

Marriage no matter what people say is basically a rock.

What do I think? Any human relationsship is a lot work! If both partners are committed and work hard enough, I suspect that both partners would tell you it is a good relationship.

Originally Posted by Marv

"what you gusy think?"

About what? You make a statement about NYC reported domestic incidents, but did not make a link or correlation to gay marriage opposition. Are you stating that people are making an argument based on those statistics? If so, where is the data for gays?

What do I think? Any human relationsship is a lot work! If both partners are committed and work hard enough, I suspect that both partners would tell you it is a good relationship.

What i was trying to say is a criticism of marriage in general regardless of same or diff genders. My title was a little misleading admittedly. But once again, marriage is what it is. Domestic violence is prominant, divorce rates are high, some people should get off their high horse and toss out this "sacred institution" crap.

we live in 2005. thousands of kids in orphanages with no mom or dad at all. this whole reproduction stuff is BULL.


discussion question:

what do you folks think of the quote: "A sacred bond between a man and a woman"? If you are in favor, don't you think whats most important is the retooling of "normal" marriages first so that men and women don't get divorced at high rates and domestic viloence is reduced before forbidding a small percentage of people from marrying?

[dcmacdaddy]

Here we go again. You are quoting municipal records to question the validity of hetero marriages.
But I would/do/will argue that neither hetero's or homo's should be married by the state.

ALL STATE-SANCTIONED UNIONS BETWEEN TWO PERSONS SHOULD BE IN THE FORM OF A CIVIL UNION.

If a couple that receives a state recognition of their union wants to go on and get married in a religous ceremony they can do.
If the faith they practice does not permit them to get married then they need to forgo the idea of marriage or change their faith.
The government should not be in the business of providing state saction to a religious institution.

[Marv]

Originally Posted by Apple Pro Underwear

A diamond no matter how glamorous it is portrayed, is a rock.

Marriage no matter what people say is basically a rock.
What i was trying to say is a criticism of marriage in general regardless of same or diff genders. My title was a little misleading admittedly. But once again, marriage is what it is. Domestic violence is prominant, divorce rates are high, some people should get off their high horse and toss out this "sacred institution" crap.

we live in 2005. thousands of kids in orphanages with no mom or dad at all. this whole reproduction stuff is BULL.

discussion question:

what do you folks think of the quote: "A sacred bond between a man and a woman"? If you are in favor, don't you think whats most important is the retooling of "normal" marriages first so that men and women don't get divorced at high rates and domestic viloence is reduced before forbidding a small percentage of people from marrying?

Ah, so what you are stating is that the institution itself is the problem, not its members?

Also, by "retooling", do you mean changing the institution? How?

Marv

[chabig]

I think gay marriage is simply about a group of people seeking political recognition by attempting to change the definition of the word "marriage." The next step would be for little boys to lobby the courts for the right to be called "daughters" and little girls will lobby for the right to be called "sons".

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by chabig

I think gay marriage is simply about a group of people seeking political recognition by attempting to change the definition of the word "marriage." The next step would be for little boys to lobby the courts for the right to be called "daughters" and little girls will lobby for the right to be called "sons".

Thank you for that thoughtful contribution.

[BoomStick]

What does the koran have to say about gay marriage?

[Deimos]

Originally Posted by BoomStick

What does the koran have to say about gay marriage?

Nothing.

What does the Qur'an have to do with the original question?

I sniff a troll in our midst.

[BoomStick]

Well, if islam allows gay marriage, then it could fall under religious freedom.


The only troll you smell is yourself.

[Deimos]

Originally Posted by BoomStick

Well, if islam allows gay marriage, then it could fall under religious freedom.

How do you come to the conclusion that Islam allows it? The Qur'an says nothing about gay marriage.

The only troll you smell is yourself.

No, I think that honour lies squarely with you.

[BoomStick]

Learn to read.

[Deimos]

Originally Posted by BoomStick

Learn to read.

What on earth are you talking about?

[Shaddim]

The gov't screwed up by getting involved in marriage in the first place.

[BoomStick]

See the word if in my original statement.

You ignored it just to try and start a fight.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

The gov't screwed up by getting involved in marriage in the first place.

So now it should back out of the process and leave marriage where it belongs, in the churches, temples, mosques, and prayer halls of those who believe.

[Deimos]

Originally Posted by BoomStick

See the word if in my original statement.

You ignored it just to try and start a fight.

You're original statement was this, "What does the koran have to say about gay marriage?". To which I replied, "Nothing". You then said, "Well, if islam allows gay marriage, then it could fall under religious freedom". I then, as a direct response to you, said this, "How do you come to the conclusion that Islam allows it? The Qur'an says nothing about gay marriage.".

Can you see why I emphasised the word "nothing"? Your reply to mine made no sense unless you read into mine that Islam allows it.

The brain hurteth.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Nice excuse.

Excuse?

It's a perfect comparison.

And the bad apples was divorces SWF, before you project anymore.

[galarneau]

Any kind of relationship will have a spectrum of experiences.

Some hetero relationships are great, some suck, some end in homicide.

I'm sure the same can be said for same sex relationships.

I have no problem with same sex couples having the same rights, privleges, status etc as hetero couples.

Why all the fighting about this?

I seriously don't understand why some people are so threatened by this issue. My rule is to always put myself in the other persons shoes and try to figure out what I would want if I were them.

I'd want equality. Why the hell not? What does it take away from hetero unions?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

I think if I have a basket full of Apples, and some of them have gotten rotten.

I surely wouldn't throw away all the Apples just because some went bad. Nor would I say all Apples are now bad because of those rotten ones.

Nor would I start calling Apples Oranges just because there was a few rotten Apples.

I would realize because there are GOOD Apples out there it's reason enough to keep Apples the way they are.

No one is saying that you should throw away all the apples, but perhaps your orchard isn't quite as pure as has been suggested when arguing against the desires of oranges in the grove across the street to enjoy the same rights as your apples.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Randman

Traditionally, marriage was to enhance the chances of procreation, something needed for the race to survive

No doubt that male/female coupling helps the species survive, but please explain how we managed to muddle our way through millions of years of survival with marriage to help us?

If anything, marriage reduces the chances of survival of the species by limiting the gene pool and limits the chances of procreation by forcing potential procreators to wait until they are well into their most fertile years before attempting to procreate (the human female's most fertile years are between the age of 14 and 30 ... marriage decreases the number of potential offspring by almost 25%). Also, marriage requires the male to be monogamous with the female even after the female's fertile years have passed, while the man can still be fertile for several more decades.

And, while I wouldn't advocate changing marriage to increase the chances of procreation, it does point out a slight flaw in the "marriage enhances the chances of procreation" argument (you brought it up, not I). Ask any breeder of livestock if monogamous relationships would increase or decrease the chances of the stock's survival.

Nevermind that most couples have less sex after getting married, or for those who waited until marriage to have sex, less sex after several years of marriage.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally Posted by Marv

Ah, so what you are stating is that the institution itself is the problem, not its members?

Also, by "retooling", do you mean changing the institution? How?

Marv

i think the "instittion" itself is not scared. it is not glamorous, it is more salt mines and everybody should have the choice.


retooling - official marriage status will be gained in a 7 years. after 5 yrs of trial marriage where no benefit are gained and then they have another 2 years to go to make it without any domestic violence or criminal activity and then after that... you're stuck with each other. breaking it off in the first 10 yrs.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

No one is saying that you should throw away all the apples, but perhaps your orchard isn't quite as pure as has been suggested when arguing against the desires of oranges in the grove across the street to enjoy the same rights as your apples.

No one ever said the orchard was perfect. That was a projection play that the orange grove started.

Having oranges grow there wont solve any problems that is for sure.

[James L]

My dad has always said: "I think gay should be allowed to be married in every sense of the word... they have every right to be as miserable as the rest of us!"

[Randman]

Originally Posted by James L

My dad has always said: "I think gay should be allowed to be married in every sense of the word... they have every right to be as miserable as the rest of us!"

And I wonder if Zimph was making a subliminal statement to the rest of us by constantly mentioning "fruits" in this thread.

[budster101]

I just know their divorces would be more entertaining to watch on television.

"Queer Divorce"

And the spin-off...

"Queer Eye for a Divorced Guy"

[Apple Pro Underwear]

I think I made my point, which was in essence that marriage is tough. Let them gays have it so they can suffer too.

Here's a joke I heard from some old guys in my gym's locker room.


[imagine a naked, hairy 80 yr old guy with a voice so deep you can hear the cigarette tar]

"Do you know why divorces are so expensive?"
"Because they're worth it!"

The whole room cracked up, his delivery was awesome!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Randman

Neither type of couple HAS to marry but it's my opinion that a man-woman coupling has a slight advantage over that there are some basic biological reasons for it as opposed to purely social ones.

...which is precisely why arguments based on "equality" fail. You can't demand equal rights and benefits if something...ISN'T EQUAL to that which you want equality with. There are biological and societal roles that men and women coming together in long term unions create that can't be replicated by gay couples, and these are things which have some serious impact on society. THAT is why "marriage" was acknowledged (not created) by law.

Suggesting that the law should create something which is not supported by the majority of society, not truely "equal" in many important ways, and which was not the creation of law in the first place (marriage), is intellectually dishonest and abuse of the legal system, IMO.

I have nothing against civil "unions" which allow partners (and it shouldn't matter if they are sexual partners, or simply platonic friends who have no other real next of kin) to more easily obtain certain types of power of attorney (the same legal standing as next of kin or married couples) in the case of emergencies. That's a matter of law, not the legislation of a societal construct.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

...which is precisely why arguments based on "equality" fail. You can't demand equal rights and benefits if something...ISN'T EQUAL to that which you want equality with. There are biological and societal roles that men and women coming together in long term unions create that can't be replicated by gay couples, and these are things which have some serious impact on society. THAT is why "marriage" was acknowledged (not created) by law.

Suggesting that the law should create something which is not supported by the majority of society, not truely "equal" in many important ways, and which was not the creation of law in the first place (marriage), is intellectually dishonest and abuse of the legal system, IMO.

I have nothing against civil "unions" which allow partners (and it shouldn't matter if they are sexual partners, or simply platonic friends who have no other real next of kin) to more easily obtain certain types of power of attorney (the same legal standing as next of kin or married couples) in the case of emergencies. That's a matter of law, not the legislation of a societal construct.

Umm, are you trying to state that the biological roles assumed by hetereosexual couples are the primary way to define a marriage. If so, what exactly are these biological roles? The only one I can think of that would differ from a same-sex couple is the role of human reproduction. So, if you are defining heterosexual marriage as the societal role whereby more humans are created then yes, gay couple can't completely fulfill this role in the traditional sense. So, is what you are arguing that the role of human reproduction in the context of a marriage is the primary way in which that marriage gets defined? If not, then what are you arguing for about the specialness of heterosexual marriage over homosexual marriage?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Umm, are you trying to state that the biological roles assumed by hetereosexual couples are the primary way to define a marriage.

It is one of the primary reasons, both historically and legally, that the religious/societal construct of marriage has been recognized by the government. The majority of human beings who enter into long-term heterosexual unions end up reproducing, whether they plan on doing so or not. Given this fact, it's in the interest of society and the government to do what it can to encourage via different sorts of affirmative actions the longevity of these unions in order to strengthen the bonds of these family units in ways that are viewed as beneficial to communities. The increased crime rate percentage of individuals who are raised by a single parent or come from a broken home is no coincedence and the benifits of strong and loving role models of both sexes in raising a child can't be easily dismissed.

If you are going to argue for equality with heterosexual unions, then you are going to have to show that the undeniable, scientific biological roles that men and women play in those types of unions have no significant bearing on the institution of marriage. Given that the majority of people who engage in this institution DO fulfill this biological role and we as a society do still view having a man and a women love and raise their child as something worthy of encouragement and affirmative action, I don't think you're going to be able to convey equality in this manner for unions that have ZERO chance of any of this happening.

I simply see no huge societal or government interest in soley recognizing "love". I don't think the goverment should be getting into the business of endorsing emotions.

[loki74]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

I think if I have a basket full of Apples, and some of them have gotten rotten.

I surely wouldn't throw away all the Apples just because some went bad. Nor would I say all Apples are now bad because of those rotten ones.

Nor would I start calling Apples Oranges just because there was a few rotten Apples.

I would realize because there are GOOD Apples out there it's reason enough to keep Apples the way they are.

Marriage is not perfect, but why make it worse with gay marriage? I mean, sure they can have their legal rights if they want. but dont change the definition of a word over it. thats asking WAY to much.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Randman

And I wonder if Zimph was making a subliminal statement to the rest of us by constantly mentioning "fruits" in this thread.

Wanna go out back and make out?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

It is one of the primary reasons, both historically and legally, that the religious/societal construct of marriage has been recognized by the government. The majority of human beings who enter into long-term heterosexual unions end up reproducing, whether they plan on doing so or not. Given this fact, it's in the interest of society and the government to do what it can to encourage via different sorts of affirmative actions the longevity of these unions in order to strengthen the bonds of these family units in ways that are viewed as beneficial to communities. The increased crime rate percentage of individuals who are raised by a single parent or come from a broken home is no coincedence and the benifits of strong and loving role models of both sexes in raising a child can't be easily dismissed.

If you are going to argue for equality with heterosexual unions, then you are going to have to show that the undeniable, scientific biological roles that men and women play in those types of unions have no significant bearing on the institution of marriage. Given that the majority of people who engage in this institution DO fulfill this biological role and we as a society do still view having a man and a women love and raise their child as something worthy of encouragement and affirmative action, I don't think you're going to be able to convey equality in this manner for unions that have ZERO chance of any of this happening.

I simply see no huge societal or government interest in soley recognizing "love". I don't think the goverment should be getting into the business of endorsing emotions.

I was asking and you have confirmed it here, and in the other thread, that you see the primary purpose of marriage as reproduction. And that those who reproduce should be given favorable, perhaps even preferable, treatment in the eyes of the state.

Well, that is so completely foreign to my thinking it won't be possible for us to continue this debate. I don't think there is any logical commonalities we could agree on so trying to debate these issues, without having agreement on any aspects of the issue, will prove fruitless.

It's been fun but no more for me. Cheers!

[stwain2003]

Originally Posted by Apple Pro Underwear

I was reading some statistics after an article in a New York Paper. The main point I am rasiing is: Hetero marriage is clearly not perfect. What everybody against gay marriage says is basically: "A sacred bond between a man and a woman"...

What that really amounts to in just NYC last year alone:

67 family related homicides
55,828 reported domestic incidents reported to NYPD
4,032 felony assaults filed
74,000 orders of protection issued by criminal courts
6,873 complaints of order violated
161, 045 complaints to a NYC domestic abuse hotline

[this is not inlcuding the rest of the country, the staggering divorce rates and etc]


"A sacred bond between a man and a woman"

Making it seem like a ideal union seems to me they are trying to distract the public from what it really is. Don't try to exclude gays from marriage on that pretense please....



what you gusy think?

The reason you get this information is because gay marriages are banned. I guarantee you that gay problems would be around the same. You can't support your argument with half the info you need

[Superchicken]

A civil union is not a marriage. A marriage is between man, woman and God. Anything else is just a repackaged co-habitation.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Superchicken

A civil union is not a marriage. A marriage is between man, woman and God. Anything else is just a repackaged co-habitation.

Your religion defines marriage that way. And that is OK, really it is. But the state should not be in the business of sanctifying marriage, religion should be. So, the state grants civil unions to everybody and religions grant marriages to those they deem acceptable.

So, using your definition:

**a civil union is between two consenting adults and the state
**a marriage is between two consenting adults and their deity
**in YOUR belief system a marriage is between a man, a woman, and YOUR god

Or do you want YOUR belief system to tbe the one everbody else must follow? Do YOU want YOUR religion's conception of marriage to define what marriage can be for everyone?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Superchicken

A civil union is not a marriage. A marriage is between man, woman and God. Anything else is just a repackaged co-habitation.

I had to repeat this for emphasis.

Why do YOU think that YOUR religion's definition of marriage should apply to everybody else?
Isn't that just imposing YOUR religious beliefs on everyone else? And if not, why not?

[krankklown]

I can have genetically related children with my wife and have a real marriage. How many gays can say that?

[dcmacdaddy]

THERE WILL BE NO PEACE

Though mild clear weather
Smile again on the shire of your esteem
And its colors come back, the storm has changed you:
You will not forget, ever,
The darkness blotting out hope, the gale
Prophesying your downfall.

You must live with your knowledge.
Way back, beyond, outside of you are others,
In moonless absences you never heard of,
Who have certainly heard of you,
Beings of unknown number and gender:
And they do not like you.

What have you done to them?
Nothing? Nothing is not an answer;
You will come to believe - how can you help it? -
That you did, you did do something;
You will find yourself wishing you could make them laugh,
You will long for their friendship.

There will be no peace.
Fight back, then, with such courage as you have
And every unchivalrous dodge you know of,
Clear in your conscience on this:
Their cause, if they had one, is nothing to them now;
They hate for hate's sake.

- by W. H. Auden, 1956

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by loki74

Marriage is not perfect, but why make it worse with gay marriage?

Worse? For all we know, it might make it better. Until it's allowed we'll never know one way or the other.

[budster101]

Where is the hit and run idiot who started this stupid thread? Oh, off starting another flame-bait thread. That's right.

Marriage is for a Man and a Woman to procreate. Not for same sex anything.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by budster101

Where is the hit and run idiot who started this stupid thread? Oh, off starting another flame-bait thread. That's right.

Marriage is for a Man and a Woman to procreate. Not for same sex anything.

Marriage is for religious organizations to decide for themselves what it is.
It is not for the state to decide or approve of.

[budster101]

You replying to me? I'm not sure I get why you posted that...

Civil Union = State

Marriage = Religious Organizations

Gay Marriage = An attempt to bring an autrocity to Marriage.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by budster101

You replying to me? I'm not sure I get why you posted that...

Civil Union = State

Marriage = Religious Organizations

Gay Marriage = An attempt to bring an autrocity to Marriage.

Umm, I did have your post quoted in my reply, didn't I?

I am glad you posted these equivalencies because it makes my point perfectly.

States recognize civil unions while religions recognize marriages. Everybody who wants recognition by the state gets a civil union (hetero or homo) and then those who want a marriage go to their house of worhsip and have one.

The point is, no one is saying that any religions have to change their definition(s) of what constitutes marriage. But for those religions that will approve of homosexual marriage there will simply be a new element of the definition, for that respective religion.

[budster101]

Nonsense. Making gay marriage legitimate is rediculous. I made no points for you.