Gay Marriage [was: Ok!]

brian relly · Post by **brian relly** » 12 Jul 2004 14:42

Wait--where the hell is oral/anal sex illegal? I've never heard that before in my life...

Or was that just a joke?

wolfpac444 · Post by **wolfpac444** » 12 Jul 2004 14:44

Take a look at this: http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/usa.htm

brian relly · Post by **brian relly** » 12 Jul 2004 15:15

That seems pretty lame. It's not like people are actually not having anal sex because of that, though. Not until telescreens come around, anyway.

What about the oral sex law? Is there actually one of those?

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 12 Jul 2004 15:15

IMNSHO

Marriage: - A commitment of two people before their god and families.

Civil Union- A united couple eligible to share assets.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 12 Jul 2004 15:52

Civil Union- A united couple eligible to share assets.

I think that is how I saw it at first. Like imagine Bill Gates marring Ted Turner. Yikes. Or even better say Bill Gates weds Steve Jobs (or whoever controls Machintosh at the moment). Can you say Married to the Monopoly?

And yes in certain states Oral sex is illegal. Did it stop me?, HELL NO!!! Porn is illegal too, but that didn't stop me from accessing it on the Web.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 12 Jul 2004 18:38

Tsiangkun wrote:Marriage: - A commitment of two people before their god and families.

Which God? Marriage is a much older tradition than the major religions of the world - the kind of marriage in Western Societies is a Norse tradition I think (but pretty much every religion has some kind of marriage ritural). Christians do not own the concept of marriage at all.

And does that mean that athiests aren't allowed to marry either? Are you basically saying that only people with particular religious beliefs are allowed to marry? That sounds like discrimination to me.

wolfpac444 · Post by **wolfpac444** » 12 Jul 2004 18:43

Come on now, Jeremy. I pretty sure by "their god" he meant whichever god they choose to (or not to) believe in.

Johnny · Post by **Johnny** » 12 Jul 2004 19:08

I believe that people should be able to be with whomever they want, but I agree with FlexThis that there needs to be a term used for gay "marriages", or the definition of marriage needs to be tweaked a bit.

http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/usa.htm wrote:The penalties for violating sodomy laws in the USA until Lawrence:
Idaho, 5 years to life

What??! That's insane!

bigdirtyfoot · Post by **bigdirtyfoot** » 12 Jul 2004 20:33

Yeah oral and anal sex is illegal where I live but that just makes the kiddies thirst for it even more.

lightningbolt · Post by **lightningbolt** » 12 Jul 2004 21:31

Yeah, It's illegal in Alaska, too. How are they going to stop it? And how are they going prove it, unless they are there and watching it.

*In prison*

Man 1: What are you here for?
Man 2: I gave my girlfriend oral sex.
Man 1: *moves away* Don't you know it's illegal you sick barstard.

sPinko-Mania · Post by **sPinko-Mania** » 12 Jul 2004 22:00

FlexThis wrote: However I can see both sides of the argument, and agree to an extent that gay marriage should be recognized.

All I'm stating is that if it is called marriage, then change the definition of marriage to include it. If not, call it something else so we have a definition for it.

Like Garriage? Definition is changed in part by common usage. I think that's why we should open our definition towards gay people, in the same way it was changed in America as between two white people back in the days of slavery. In the same way the definition was changed last century from between two people of the same colour. I'm glad we seem to be changing with the times:

From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) :the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

The point is, changing the definition should only be seen as a good thing, because how else should getting rid of discrimination be seen? Another point is that it does nothing negative to anyone else’s marriage. It's not like there is really any sanctity left in marriage. Maybe once there was. But now you can get wasted, get married by Elvis in some shotgun theme wedding to a girl who you have never met before, who just flew over from Russia, and then get divorced, and married, and divorced, all in the same day.

Maybe similarly to you, I will take civil unions as an intermediate stage, since that is what is happening here (the Civil Unions bill past its first reading here a couple of weeks back). But I think that asks homosexuals to agree to have something that basically boils down to "the same, but different". Ring a bell anyone? We don't stand for that kind of ethos on matter of colour, and we shouldn't stand for it on matters of gender either.

Is it that difficult for you to see my view?

Well since you're argument seems to state we should change the definition of what marriage is, then it sort of is. This is one stance that I am openly polarised on. I think there are no legitimate arguments against gay marriage. Normally I can see merit on the side of opposing arguments to my own, on this one I honestly don't, and I don't think we should commit the fallacy of compromise on this issue. Maybe the pragmatics of the situation may call for it, at least for some time, but I think gay marriage is inevitable, and I think I can accurately parallel it with multi-racial marriages.

comastalker · Post by **comastalker** » 13 Jul 2004 10:38

just another clarification on the discussion board :

Marriages ARE RELIGIOUS in the heavy weighted aspect of unificated beliefs of a group of people (no matter which size).

While talking about marriages argumentative (is that the adverb ?), you CAN'T ARGUMENT WITH THE HUMAN NATURE.

The majority of the creatures (far over 95% (as a bayessian amount) ) which genetically led to the human race as it is today (and that does include humans (defined as Locke did) already) did not have the behaviour of making couples. Relationships between two individuals only existed and lasted for the duration needed to spread the male seed.
And that is a fact I have thousand sources to mention for.
(The best in fact are the biologic behaviourists books I read in the library of the plant-protection-scientists institute of Bayer in Germany, Monheim; I'm really sorry I don't have no access anymore to this really interesting fund of knowledge).

So to sum it up :

Marriages are an invention of the human culture (just like sacrificing people for Bethrem or murdering the biggest amount of human individuals because they believe in a god (that is a prophet in the own religion)).

Come on, we don't have no (real) holocausts anymore, why not rethink that coupleship theory without complaining about a culture that is as important as killing masses of humans ? You want a redefintion ?
The linguistic origin of the german translation of marriage means "supreme time".
Why shall this not fit to the solid relationship between every couple ?

pillar · Post by **pillar** » 13 Jul 2004 11:49

I think gay marriages are as unnatural as it can get and legalizing them (they already did it here in Finland) will only make kids view it as normal - thus more people getting twisted in their thinking. I don't have anything against gay people in general. I just don't think government should encourage it this way.

Oh, and I also think human is not like other creatures. But that comes from my religious views that I have. I believe all that it says in the Bible about Adam and Eve being created in the image of God and them getting married in front of God. By believing that, I will conclude that yes, marriage is older than any religion - it was set by God himself. Now according most of the posts that have been posted about this, I understand many of you have a problem with this. That's fine - I just wanted to let you know my point of view as well like I know yours. I don't want to argue about this one.

LinksYs · Post by **LinksYs** » 13 Jul 2004 12:09

people should have that chose of whether they want to be Gay or not. But don't take that away from them. There's nothing wrong with being Gay. And so what if people take it as being normal then Gays won't be offended anymore. But you won't have to become normal.

And not everyone believe in the Lord At this moment of there life. I am just starting to believe now but if Gay people want to get married let them.

comastalker · Post by **comastalker** » 13 Jul 2004 12:47

I think gay marriages are as unnatural as it can get

you mean they are not christ, or immoral.
But it is proved that they ARE natural. But in fact, most christ don't care about proofs. God is a proof.... and dead.

mouseman · Post by **mouseman** » 13 Jul 2004 14:27

Jeremy wrote:Totally!

And it really annoys me that fanatical fundamentalist Christians have hijacked a ritual that is much older than Christianity, the Bible and Jesus and are trying to impose their religious beliefs onto other people.

Well nothing is older than God. God has set marriage so man and woman can be married and can become whole. I'm sorry that people are tripping into their own wiseness and can't see clearly. Marriage is not a ritual to me. Like my brother, I don't have anything against gay people in general. Like my brother, I don't want to argue about this especially not in the internet. It just makes me sad that people have so little respect to marriage and sexuality in general. Hurts when people disrespect holy commandments. I won't say more in this matter, however.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 13 Jul 2004 14:54

"Their god"

Lowercase 'g' to indicate I am not refering to a specific "deity", but rather one's self or one's deity depending on who one answers to for their decisions. I answer to myself. It upsets some conservatives to think that one can controll their own actions without resorting to threats and such, so I use god as a way to put them at ease.

Whatsfootbag? · Post by **Whatsfootbag?** » 13 Jul 2004 15:11

Just wanted to state my opinion real fast.marriage is a sacred bond bound by love.if you love someone and want to marry,why should people give a damn?they LOVE each other,thats hte POINT OF GETTING MARRIED.let em get married,what harm will it do?maybe scare a few kids seeing em kiss but who gives a crap?

brian relly · Post by **brian relly** » 13 Jul 2004 15:28

You people are so discriminatory, it's disugsting.

Atleast 10 people in this thread have said that they don't mind gay people being married, as long as they keep it to themselves and you don't have to see them kiss or show affection for each other.

What?

What the fuck is so bad about seeing two guys kiss? Or two girls, for that matter? It's not any different than seeing a guy and a girl kiss. You people seem to think that just because two people of the same sex are kissing, it means something completely different, and it's gross and offensive and wrong. If you come across two guys making out, leave them be. Don't turn away and laugh, or joke behind their backs with your friends. Just get over yourselves. It's not like it's mentally scarring you in any way.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 13 Jul 2004 17:44

mouseman wrote:
Jeremy wrote:Totally!

And it really annoys me that fanatical fundamentalist Christians have hijacked a ritual that is much older than Christianity, the Bible and Jesus and are trying to impose their religious beliefs onto other people.
Well nothing is older than God. God has set marriage so man and woman can be married and can become whole. I'm sorry that people are tripping into their own wiseness and can't see clearly. Marriage is not a ritual to me. Like my brother, I don't have anything against gay people in general. Like my brother, I don't want to argue about this especially not in the internet. It just makes me sad that people have so little respect to marriage and sexuality in general. Hurts when people disrespect holy commandments. I won't say more in this matter, however.

But clearly this is just your beliefs. If that's what you think then fine - Don't marry another man. Just because it's legal, it doesn't mean you have to do it! However other people believe that there is nothing wrong with Gay Marriages. They are not trying to force you to follow their beliefs. If they were they'd be trying to force you into a gay marriage. This is not what anybody wants. So why should you be able to force your beliefs onto other people? Because you're right and they're wrong? That's the same arguement that has been used to murder and enslave millions of people around the world in the name of Christ. Right now in Africa hundreds of thousands of people are spreading the AIDS virus because the Catholic Church thinks it knows what God wants and everyone else are wrong (and have said that using condoms will make you go to hell)

If you want people to respect you and your beliefs you have to respect other people's beliefs.