Thread: Same sex marriage

Originally Posted by Looper

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeeCoffee I believe it was simply the financial and legal ramifications that forced the term marriage into the debate and into the law of the United States. Hijacking the cultural term 'marriage' is not the only way to remedy this legal wrinkle.

Hijacking from whom? Who owns the term? Christians...? society...? heterosexuals...?

To me it's like arguments that took place after the Latin Mass was dropped and Mass in the local language allowed instead (note: change of tradition). People worried that the Mass had lost its etherial mystery...that the priests had lost the power of their priestlness. Don't hear much about it anymore, and I imagine it will be the same for Gay Marriage in a few years. Marriage used to be for a man and a woman, now different combinations are accepted.

Originally Posted by MrG

Hijacking from whom? Who owns the term? Christians...? society...? heterosexuals...?

The entire history of human culture has always recognised the concept of a committed union between a man and a woman (in English it is called a marriage) as something profoundly important since it is the basis of the family unit which in turn is the basis of generational reproduction.

Recently it has been generally agreed that homosexuality is a socially acceptable sexual orientation and that homosexuals should be allowed to cohabit and even have their partnerships legally recognised. However, by no stretch of the imagination is such a partnership a 'marriage'.

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by Looper

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeeCoffee I believe it was simply the financial and legal ramifications that forced the term marriage into the debate and into the law of the United States. Hijacking the cultural term 'marriage' is not the only way to remedy this legal wrinkle.

Hijacking from whom? Who owns the term? Christians...? society...? heterosexuals...?

To me it's like arguments that took place after the Latin Mass was dropped and Mass in the local language allowed instead (note: change of tradition). People worried that the Mass had lost its etherial mystery...that the priests had lost the power of their priestlness. Don't hear much about it anymore, and I imagine it will be the same for Gay Marriage in a few years. Marriage used to be for a man and a woman, now different combinations are accepted.

Should have given the gays all the financial and legal ramifications while it was called a civil union instead of trying to pacify them.

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by MrG

Hijacking from whom? Who owns the term? Christians...? society...? heterosexuals...?

The entire history of human culture has always recognised the concept of a committed union between a man and a woman (in English it is called a marriage) as something profoundly important since it is the basis of the family unit which in turn is the basis of generational reproduction.

Recently it has been generally agreed that homosexuality is a socially acceptable sexual orientation and that homosexuals should be allowed to cohabit and even have their partnerships legally recognised. However, by no stretch of the imagination is such a partnership a 'marriage'.

Well times change.

marriage
ˈmarɪdʒ/Submit
noun
1.
the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship.

Get over it.

Thanks Harry. I was thinking 20,000 years of human cultural heritage might have some bearing on the commonly understood definition of marriage but if you are able to find a revisionist internet link that debunks that notion then the pooves are all good I guess.

Originally Posted by Looper

Thanks Harry. I was thinking 20,000 years of human cultural heritage might have some bearing on the commonly understood definition of marriage but if you are able to find a revisionist internet link that debunks that notion then the pooves are all good I guess.

Sure they are.

Just look at San Francisco.

A shining light in the transformation of cultural values.

Originally Posted by Looper

I was thinking 20,000 years of human cultural heritage

So slavery and child labour are all good too then? They both figure large in the book of human cultural heritage too.

The point of the argument against the hijacking of a cultural tradition by recently tolerated sexual deviants is that it makes a mockery of a human cultural institution that is central to the success of the human race and dates back to probably long before historical records.

The practice of slavery has become morally unsound in the context of modern social values but it was never central to the success of the human race.

It is good that society is capable of change but it does not follow that all change is good.

Originally Posted by Looper

The point of the argument against the hijacking of a cultural tradition by recently tolerated sexual deviants is that it makes a mockery of a human cultural institution that is central to the success of the human race and dates back to probably long before historical records.

Monogamous marriage is a new and relatively localised phenomenon. For this position to hold water you would have to also favour polygamy which is by far the more common form of male/female social structure historically.

Originally Posted by Looper

I was thinking 20,000 years of human cultural heritage might have some bearing on the commonly understood definition of marriage

Civilization didn't exist 20,000 years ago, unless you're speculating that the original ceremony was devised by Cro Magnon Man.

Originally Posted by Looper

However, by no stretch of the imagination is such a partnership a 'marriage'.

Yes, Looper, it is. It is only a stretch of the imagination for bigoted hatemongers. Case in point: the quote below from you, protecting the rightousness of heterosexual marrige with hate speech.

Originally Posted by Looper

Marriage is one of the oldest cultural traditions of the human species and is a committed partnership between a man and a woman, not between 2 poovemongers or between 2 clamjousters.

Methinks you do give the game away.

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

Monogamous marriage is a new and relatively localised phenomenon. For this position to hold water you would have to also favour polygamy which is by far the more common form of male/female social structure historically.

I have no strong opinion for or against polygamy. That does not change the fact that the entire history of marriage has been the history of the union between a man and a woman and poovemongery does not fit the bill.

Originally Posted by MrG

Civilization didn't exist 20,000 years ago

How do you know? Did you know that the cave paintings depicting human life in amazing detail at Chauvet were made 32,000 years ago? I would say they point to a human organised culture stretching back many 10s of thousands of years.

Originally Posted by MrG

Case in point: the quote below from you, protecting the rightousness of heterosexual marrige with hate speech.

Using a jovial nickname is not hate-speech. I have already championed the rights of poovemongers to enjoy their back-bottom-banditry unmolested if that is what tickles their fancy.

They do not need to rub society's face in their shit-stabbing shenanigans though.

Originally Posted by Looper

The point of the argument against the hijacking of a cultural tradition by recently tolerated sexual deviants is that it makes a mockery of a human cultural institution that is central to the success of the human race and dates back to probably long before historical records.

Oh bullshit,

Half of these stoopid Christian festivals all the jesus wheezers celebrate were concocted to try and stamp out pagan rituals dating back much further.

Humans evolve.

And one day they'll evolve to realize that all this religious mumbo jumbo - and that is all that this gay marriage argument is really about - is a load of old bollocks that served its purpose to establish social order and moral values when it was needed, and is now redundant.

Same goes for all of the religions, including the ones that historically have considered paedophilia and polygamy to be acceptable because it was a favourite of the c u n t s that invented them.

Originally Posted by Looper

Using a jovial nickname is not hate-speech. I have already championed the rights of poovemongers to enjoy their back-bottom-banditry unmolested if that is what tickles their fancy.

My apologies. It thought you were capable of a reasoned, intelligent argument. I've evolved my position: I think you're a bigot on this subject, incapable of intelligent or reasoned thought.

Ignorant of basics of your traditions, too. See below.

Originally Posted by Looper

How do you know? Did you know that the cave paintings depicting human life in amazing detail at Chauvet were made 32,000 years ago? I would say they point to a human organised culture stretching back many 10s of thousands of years.

A civilization (US) or civilisation (UK) is any complex society characterized by urban development, social stratification, symbolic communication forms (typically, writing systems), and a perceived separation from and domination over the natural environment.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Civilizations are intimately associated with and often further defined by other socio-politico-economic characteristics, including centralization, the domestication of both humans and other organisms, specialization of labor, culturally ingrained ideologies of progress and supremacism, monumental architecture, taxation, societal dependence upon agriculture, and expansionism.[2][5][3][8][7] Historically, a civilization was an "advanced" culture in contrast to more supposedly barbarian, savage, or primitive cultures.[1][3][5][9] In this broad sense, a civilization contrasts with non-centralized feudal or tribal societies, including the cultures of nomadic pastoralists or hunter-gatherers. As an uncountable noun, civilization also refers to the process of a society developing into a centralized, urbanized, stratified structure.
Civilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by MrG

My apologies. It thought you were capable of a reasoned, intelligent argument. I've evolved my position: I think you're a bigot on this subject, incapable of intelligent or reasoned thought.

He is making a reasoned and intelligent argument, but we get the predictable accusations of being a bigot simply because he disagrees with so called "gay marriage" ....even though he has stated quite clearly that he is not against "gays" in general...and approves of them being fairly treated under the law, and allowed to have "pieces of paper that tie them together" along with the appropriate benefits etc. He simply objects (as I and a great many others do) to the institution of marriage being redefined in order to suit a vocal and demanding minority group.

This is typical of the pro-gay argument......even the slightest rebuke or criticism unleashes accusations about homophobia, bigatory etc.....Unfortunately, one can not have an intelligent or reasoned argument with gays, because they have no other response other than to play the perpetual victim.. so it always ends up with them pouting or having tantrums.

So, once you get your "gay marriage" all approved; what's next on the agenda?.....extra privileges, higher pay, accelerated promotion and special recognition for sodomy?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

And one day they'll evolve to realize that all this religious mumbo jumbo - and that is all that this gay marriage argument is really about

That is not what it is about. Please do not confuse the once important but now tedious drudgery of religion with the profoundly important cultural institution of marriage.

The institution of Marriage is one of the oldest and most important human cultural institutions that we have. It is shared by every human culture ever known. Marriage has a long held common definition, that being a committed union between a man and a woman.

It is the basis of the evolutionary function of the human species. This makes it profound and elemental as a social institution.

Now we have a separate issue going on. Recently it has been agreed that homosexuals should not be persecuted any more. In our generosity we have even agreed that homosexuals should be allowed to cohabit and have their partnerships legally recognised.

Homosexuals have grabbed this favourable wind and run too far with it and want to hijack one of the most important (if not the most important) human cultural institution and make a mockery of it by claiming that 2 poovemongers shacking up is the same thing as a man and a woman forming a marriage which is the basis of the human family and a much more profound event.

Poovemongers should be happy with their legal protection and recognition and keep quiet instead of rubbing society's face in their distasteful activities by riding the liberal wind too far, mainly for the purpose of offending society.

Originally Posted by MrG

My apologies. It thought you were capable of a reasoned, intelligent argument.

Given you plenty of reasoned argument. If you want to run away and cry then go on. There is plenty of evidence pointing to complex human society stretching back 10s of millennia but even if it doesnt 5000 years will suffice.

Originally Posted by koman

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG My apologies. It thought you were capable of a reasoned, intelligent argument. I've evolved my position: I think you're a bigot on this subject, incapable of intelligent or reasoned thought.
KOMAN REPLIES: He is making a reasoned and intelligent argument, but we get the predictable accusations of being a bigot simply because he disagrees with so called "gay marriage" ....even though he has stated quite clearly that he is not against "gays" in general...and approves of them being fairly treated under the law, and allowed to have "pieces of paper that tie them together" along with the appropriate benefits etc. He simply objects (as I and a great many others do) to the institution of marriage being redefined in order to suit a vocal and demanding minority group.

This is what I was referring to--sarcastically, in case you missed that too) as being bigoted.

Originally Posted by Looper

Using a jovial nickname is not hate-speech. I have already championed the rights of poovemongers to enjoy their back-bottom-banditry unmolested if that is what tickles their fancy.

Then there's this bit of quackery.

Originally Posted by Looper

Now we have a separate issue going on. Recently it has been agreed that homosexuals should not be persecuted any more. In our generosity we have even agreed that homosexuals should be allowed to cohabit and have their partnerships legally recognised.
Homosexuals have grabbed this favourable wind and run too far with it and want to hijack one of the most important (if not the most important) human cultural institution and make a mockery of it by claiming that 2 poovemongers shacking up is the same thing as a man and a woman forming a marriage which is the basis of the human family and a much more profound event.

How condescending of you; you've "generously allowed them to co-habit". Allowed...? Two adults...? Do you listen to yourself?

All this posturing about marriage being the the basis of civilization, primarily because it provides a support system for the procreation and raising of the species, is poor cover for your agenda.
Homosexual marriages do provide a family support structure to raise and maintain a family, which is the primary function of the marriage union. Yes, a man and a woman can actually spawn, but there are many a spawn in this world that need love and parenting. Is spawning the thing you want to maintain as special? Or are you, as your own words suggest, afraid the wogs have gotten out of the corral. Seems to me you are the one hijacking the concept of "tradition".

Originally Posted by MrG

How condescending of you; you've "generously allowed them to co-habit". Allowed...? Two adults...? Do you listen to yourself?

You're argument gets more hysterical and full of victimhood with each passing post. The misquote above is a good example. He did not just say "allow them to co-habit" the way your carefully edited version would make it appear.....

What he did say was:
"we have even agreed that homosexuals should be allowed to cohabit and have their partnerships legally recognised.....which is something quite different to what you have tried to make it out to be.....

It's a perfectly reasonable statement and it happens to be totally accurate. We (as a society) have indeed allowed these things to be accepted and recognized.......because it was not that long ago when society was hounding, persecuting and discriminating against homosexuals at every opportunity. That could only change because we allowed it to change. Get it??

Again, playing the victim.....

Originally Posted by koman

Originally Posted by MrG

How condescending of you; you've "generously allowed them to co-habit". Allowed...? Two adults...? Do you listen to yourself?

You're argument gets more hysterical and full of victimhood with each passing post. The misquote above is a good example. He did not just say "allow them to co-habit" the way your carefully edited version would make it appear.....

What he did say was:
"we have even agreed that homosexuals should be allowed to cohabit and have their partnerships legally recognised.....which is something quite different to what you have tried to make it out to be.....

It's a perfectly reasonable statement and it happens to be totally accurate. We (as a society) have indeed allowed these things to be accepted and recognized.......because it was not that long ago when society was hounding, persecuting and discriminating against homosexuals at every opportunity. That could only change because we allowed it to change. Get it??

Again, playing the victim.....

That's what Libs champion at...

Originally Posted by koman

So, once you get your "gay marriage" all approved; what's next on the agenda?.....extra privileges, higher pay, accelerated promotion and special recognition for sodomy?

That is a feeble straw-man argument since they are not asking for anything that is not currently available to straight couples.

Originally Posted by MrG

How condescending of you; you've "generously allowed them to co-habit". Allowed...? Two adults...? Do you listen to yourself?

I am not being condescending. Their behaviour is understandably distasteful to the majority of adults. We were intelligent and empathetic enough to go as far as to say that, despite these facts, if they keep to themselves then they are not really doing any harm so let them crack on. After gaining this ground they wanted their partnerships legally recognised and we granted them that request. Now they are saying that is not enough and their already legally recognised partnerships have to be called marriages.

Well I am sorry mate but that is not a reasonable request. They already have all they need to lead as happy a life as can be expected for people in their condition.

I am not going to repeat all the reasons why I think the concept of 'marriage' (being a bond between a man and a woman) is an important one and not one to be made a mockery of.

I will simply say that these people should be happy with the legally recognised unions they already have and leave the concept of marriage the way it is as it is a profoundly important human tradition.

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

Originally Posted by koman

So, once you get your "gay marriage" all approved; what's next on the agenda?.....extra privileges, higher pay, accelerated promotion and special recognition for sodomy?

That is a feeble straw-man argument since they are not asking for anything that is not currently available to straight couples.

Oh no?

Kids picture books promoting aberrant life-styles is to be condoned?

Gay-Themed Picture Books for Children

Originally Posted by Looper

I am not being condescending. Their behaviour is understandably distasteful to the majority of adults. We were intelligent and empathetic enough to go as far as to say that, despite these facts, if they keep to themselves then they are not really doing any harm so let them crack on. After gaining this ground they wanted their partnerships legally recognised and we granted them that request. Now they are saying that is not enough and their already legally recognised partnerships have to be called marriages.

Well I am sorry mate but that is not a reasonable request. They already have all they need to lead as happy a life as can be expected for people in their condition.

I am not going to repeat all the reasons why I think the concept of 'marriage' (being a bond between a man and a woman) is an important one and not one to be made a mockery of.

I will simply say that these people should be happy with the legally recognised unions they already have and leave the concept of marriage the way it is as it is a profoundly important human tradition.

You do realise that what you have just written is almost word-for-word a list of the objections raised against inter-racial marriage a few decades ago?

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

Originally Posted by Looper

I am not being condescending. Their behaviour is understandably distasteful to the majority of adults. We were intelligent and empathetic enough to go as far as to say that, despite these facts, if they keep to themselves then they are not really doing any harm so let them crack on. After gaining this ground they wanted their partnerships legally recognised and we granted them that request. Now they are saying that is not enough and their already legally recognised partnerships have to be called marriages.

Well I am sorry mate but that is not a reasonable request. They already have all they need to lead as happy a life as can be expected for people in their condition.

I am not going to repeat all the reasons why I think the concept of 'marriage' (being a bond between a man and a woman) is an important one and not one to be made a mockery of.

I will simply say that these people should be happy with the legally recognised unions they already have and leave the concept of marriage the way it is as it is a profoundly important human tradition.

You do realise that what you have just written is almost word-for-word a list of the objections raised against inter-racial marriage a few decades ago?

Link?

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Kids picture books promoting aberrant life-styles is to be condoned?

Didn't hear you complaining when Raphael 'Ted' Cruz wrote one.