Alternative Marriages:

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
41

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
OBoile wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Hasn’t it only been outright legal throughout Canada for 4 years?

Something like that. Slightly longer in Ontario where I’m from. Beleive it or not, the sky hasn’t fallen yet. My marriage hasn’t been cheapened and society still works.

The only difference is that some people feel a bit more accepted. Why people see this as a bad thing continues to be a mystery to me.

We don’t expect the sky to fall. We expect it to take time.

How is the sky going to fall if gays can get married? What’s your “vision of the future” oh magical seer?
[/quote]

Like I said, I don’t expect the sky to fall. That suggests a nearly instaneous effect.
It’ll take time. I expect to see the overall trend we’ve seen with divorces, broken homes, and out of wedlock births…only, accelerated and now completely irreversible. This all leading to more crime, poverty, substance abuse, an exacerbated problem with a graying population and workforce, and more and more dependancy on a larger and larger welfare and police state to cope. All to replace the decay of an institution that is becoming just a contract between whoever and however many.

42

[quote]Gregus wrote:
Marriage = man and woman. Sorry for being “old fashined”

Civil Union = Man and Man, Woman and Woman. It should afford equal protection under the law to those individuals.

Their fixation on forcing to be able to use the term “Marriage” is their undoing. [/quote]

My question is how exactly does it hurt you if to gay people say they are married rather than in a civil union? If it doesn’t affect you (and I really can’t see how it does) why not just let them call it whatever makes them happy whether that is Marriage, Civil Union or Happy Fun Relationship?

43

[quote]Sloth wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
OBoile wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Hasn’t it only been outright legal throughout Canada for 4 years?

Something like that. Slightly longer in Ontario where I’m from. Beleive it or not, the sky hasn’t fallen yet. My marriage hasn’t been cheapened and society still works.

The only difference is that some people feel a bit more accepted. Why people see this as a bad thing continues to be a mystery to me.

We don’t expect the sky to fall. We expect it to take time.

How is the sky going to fall if gays can get married? What’s your “vision of the future” oh magical seer?

Like I said, I don’t expect the sky to fall. That suggests a nearly instaneous effect.
It’ll take time. I expect to see the overall trend we’ve seen with divorces, broken homes, and out of wedlock births…only, accelerated and now completely irreversible. [/quote]
Pretty sure this ship has sailed. But, if you think the 1-3% of the population that will be affected by this will make a drastic difference… well I don’t know what to say to that.

44

[quote]OBoile wrote:
Sloth wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
OBoile wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Hasn’t it only been outright legal throughout Canada for 4 years?

Something like that. Slightly longer in Ontario where I’m from. Beleive it or not, the sky hasn’t fallen yet. My marriage hasn’t been cheapened and society still works.

The only difference is that some people feel a bit more accepted. Why people see this as a bad thing continues to be a mystery to me.

We don’t expect the sky to fall. We expect it to take time.

How is the sky going to fall if gays can get married? What’s your “vision of the future” oh magical seer?

Like I said, I don’t expect the sky to fall. That suggests a nearly instaneous effect.
It’ll take time. I expect to see the overall trend we’ve seen with divorces, broken homes, and out of wedlock births…only, accelerated and now completely irreversible.
Pretty sure this ship has sailed. But, if you think the 1-3% of the population that will be affected by this will make a drastic difference… well I don’t know what to say to that.

[/quote]

1-3%?

45

[quote]OBoile wrote:
Gregus wrote:
Marriage = man and woman. Sorry for being “old fashined”

Civil Union = Man and Man, Woman and Woman. It should afford equal protection under the law to those individuals.

Their fixation on forcing to be able to use the term “Marriage” is their undoing.

My question is how exactly does it hurt you if to gay people say they are married rather than in a civil union? If it doesn’t affect you (and I really can’t see how it does) why not just let them call it whatever makes them happy whether that is Marriage, Civil Union or Happy Fun Relationship?[/quote]

It affects me because i don’t like it. I wanna keep that institution as is. What is that preference frowned upon?

Let’s flip it around for a second.

Why, does it bother gays so much that they can’t use the word “marriage”? Why won’t they be happy with a “civil union” with same right afforded? Why not?

46

[quote]Gregus wrote:
Why, does it bother gays so much that they can’t use the word “marriage”? Why won’t they be happy with a “civil union” with same right afforded? Why not? [/quote]

Like I said, I couldn’t care less what you call it as long as the same rights are afforded. I think it is a losing battle to fight over terminology, and that we will get equal rights sooner by letting heteros keep the term “marriage”.

That said, I can understand the argument for granting the term “marriage” to everyone. The California Supreme Court ruled that not doing so was in fact disparate treatment against gays.

As I see it, keeping the term “marriage” is about social acceptance, rather than equal rights. Some gays, understandably, want social acceptance. I’m not one of them. What matters to me is having equal rights with my partner.

47

Irish,

I’m not surprised by your attitude and I think that type of thinking is probably more popular among your age group than mine. What you and many in your generation fail to realize is that just about everything effects everything else eventually. It’s a matter of what sort of society that you want to live in isn’t it? What happened to something called “the greater good” of society?

Society can sanction all sorts of evils (including homosexuals getting married) instead of asking “how does that effect my life” at this moment, what you should be asking is how does that improve society and the greater good in the long term? Eventually anything that does not help society could ultimately harm it.

It was not that long ago that homosexuals were simply asking for tolerance? Now they demand marriage. Funny how one thing leads to another and the slippery slope argument is proven true time and again. What about the following should this be accepted too?

A person marrying their dog?

Polygamy?

Incestuous marriage?

A person marrying their television sets.

Adult/child marriages.

Certainly the sky will not fall if homosexuals are allowed to marry it never happens that way does it? It’s simply one more step in the wrong direction which will absolutely lead to other even more perverse groups asking, no demanding that same right. How foolish to think that the the institution of marriage, once tampered with will never be changed again? All of this will in fact effect you your future children and all of society as it continues to chisle away at the basic family structure which has served mankind so very well for the past 5000 years.

The greater good is not a very popular. It doesn’t have it’s own lobby group and asks nothing from the government. However, I assure you if we continue to ignore it we as a society will suffer a great deal of damage as a result.

48

This is really about Triads, Quads, and hell, maybe even entire communes. “Spice,” the plural of Spouse! Isn’t that adorable?!

49

[quote]forlife wrote:

As I see it, keeping the term “marriage” is about social acceptance. [/quote]

The very best reason not to sanction any sort of homosexual relationship.

50

[quote]Gregus wrote:

It affects me because i don’t like it. I wanna keep that institution as is. What is that preference frowned upon? [/quote]
Why don’t you like it? I think the answer to this may hold the key as to why I frown upon that preference.

[quote]
Let’s flip it around for a second.

Why, does it bother gays so much that they can’t use the word “marriage”? Why won’t they be happy with a “civil union” with same right afforded? Why not? [/quote]
I don’t know and many don’t care. Perhaps the ones that do just want to feel accepted. I’m pretty sure other minority groups haven’t been happy with “seperate but equal” treatment, so its not like this is anything new.

51

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Irish,

I’m not surprised by your attitude and I think that type of thinking is probably more popular among your age group than mine. What you and many in your generation fail to realize is that just about everything effects everything else eventually. It’s a matter of what sort of society that you want to live in isn’t it? What happened to something called “the greater good” of society?

Society can sanction all sorts of evils (including homosexuals getting married) instead of asking “how does that effect my life” at this moment, what you should be asking is how does that improve society and the greater good in the long term? Eventually anything that does not help society could ultimately harm it.

It was not that long ago that homosexuals were simply asking for tolerance? Now they demand marriage. Funny how one thing leads to another and the slippery slope argument is proven true time and again. What about the following should this be accepted too?

A person marrying their dog?

Polygamy?

Incestuous marriage?

A person marrying their television sets.

Adult/child marriages.

Certainly the sky will not fall if homosexuals are allowed to marry it never happens that way does it? It’s simply one more step in the wrong direction which will absolutely lead to other even more perverse groups asking, no demanding that same right. How foolish to think that the the institution of marriage, once tampered with will never be changed again? All of this will in fact effect you your future children and all of society as it continues to chisle away at the basic family structure which has served mankind so very well for the past 5000 years.

The greater good is not a very popular. It doesn’t have it’s own lobby group and asks nothing from the government. However, I assure you if we continue to ignore it we as a society will suffer a great deal of damage as a result.

[/quote]

You do realise that the “instituion of marriage” has been tampered with before right? I haven’t seen any threads arguing for the banning of divorces though.

[quote]
t was not that long ago that homosexuals were simply asking for tolerance? Now they demand marriage. Funny how one thing leads to another and the slippery slope argument is proven true time and again. What about the following should this be accepted too?
A person marrying their dog?[/quote]
A dog can’t enter a legal contract so this won’t ever be an issue.

[quote]
Polygamy?[/quote]
Already allowed in many parts of the world, and by many religions (how many wives did King Solomon have?). As long as there is no coersion or abuse, I don’t see why this is so bad.

[quote]
Incestuous marriage?[/quote]
I’m not sure why someone would want to do this, but I don’t see why the law shouldn’t allow it.

[quote]
A person marrying their television sets.[/quote]
A television can’t enter a legal contract so this won’t ever be an issue.[quote]
Adult/child marriages.[/quote]
A child can’t enter a legal contract so this won’t ever be an issue.

Furthermore, I’ve yet to be convinced that recognizing (and in fact rewarding) gay people in stable relationships would somehow hurt society.

52

[quote]OBoile wrote:
Gregus wrote:

It affects me because i don’t like it. I wanna keep that institution as is. What is that preference frowned upon?
Why don’t you like it? I think the answer to this may hold the key as to why I frown upon that preference.

Let’s flip it around for a second.

Why, does it bother gays so much that they can’t use the word “marriage”? Why won’t they be happy with a “civil union” with same right afforded? Why not?
I don’t know and many don’t care. Perhaps the ones that do just want to feel accepted. I’m pretty sure other minority groups haven’t been happy with “seperate but equal” treatment, so its not like this is anything new.

[/quote]

I don’t like it because i don’t like to be forced to do something. I don’t like it just because it’s MY Institution, as in male to female. That’s all there is to it.

As an off the wall example, i also get pissy when i see the New Hyundai Genesis. Why? Because they removed the Hyundai logo from the front and made it look just like a Mercedes benz. But it is not a Mercedes, so why imitate one? Yes the car has equal right to the road and is quite nice. I Also dislike the tread of putting BMW logos on honda Civics here and there.

In both of those examples they’re not fooling anyone.

Gay people can have their own sovereign club and union. Create one and establish it with equal rights, as that is paramount in being good to all Humans. That way they will be accepted and well respected for their life. They are stepping on toes with “marriage” and are making themselves what they don’t want, Disliked and controversial.

53

[quote]Gregus wrote:
Gay people can have their own sovereign club and union. Create one and establish it with equal rights, as that is paramount in being good to all Humans. That way they will be accepted and well respected for their life. They are stepping on toes with “marriage” and are making themselves what they don’t want, Disliked and controversial. [/quote]

I wish more people saw it as you do, and fortunately the numbers are growing. However, there is still a sizable group of (primarily religious) people who oppose equal rights for gays, irrespective of what you call it.

54

[quote]forlife wrote:
Gregus wrote:
Why, does it bother gays so much that they can’t use the word “marriage”? Why won’t they be happy with a “civil union” with same right afforded? Why not?

Like I said, I couldn’t care less what you call it as long as the same rights are afforded. I think it is a losing battle to fight over terminology, and that we will get equal rights sooner by letting heteros keep the term “marriage”.

That said, I can understand the argument for granting the term “marriage” to everyone. The California Supreme Court ruled that not doing so was in fact disparate treatment against gays.

As I see it, keeping the term “marriage” is about social acceptance, rather than equal rights. Some gays, understandably, want social acceptance. I’m not one of them. What matters to me is having equal rights with my partner. [/quote]

And you should have equal right. All human beings are victims of their life circumstances and we should not judge or be judgmental. So gay people need to develop their own sovereign club and it does not have anything to do with not liking or marginalizing gays.

Some people just like their traditions and would gladly support gay people if they weren’t after their domain.

Personally i never met a gay guy i didn’t like. They’re all cool to talk to and nice people. I have no issues there. I support helping gay people all the way. I advertise their events and walks that they have in my business for them anytime i’m asked. I gladly do it. How can i say no when someone asks for help?

55

[quote]forlife wrote:
Gregus wrote:
Gay people can have their own sovereign club and union. Create one and establish it with equal rights, as that is paramount in being good to all Humans. That way they will be accepted and well respected for their life. They are stepping on toes with “marriage” and are making themselves what they don’t want, Disliked and controversial.

I wish more people saw it as you do, and fortunately the numbers are growing. However, there is still a sizable group of (primarily religious) people who oppose equal rights for gays, irrespective of what you call it. [/quote]

Hmm and that’s troubling. How can they allow religion to allow themselves to be prejudiced and hateful? Didn’t Jesus make a statement with his actions of specifically going to heal the people who were rejected and marginalized by the then society? People that weren’t even allowed to step foot in a temple. Im a Catholic and feel that most people just miss the message of FORGIVENESS AND ACCEPTANCE.

56

[quote]Gregus wrote:
OBoile wrote:
Gregus wrote:

It affects me because i don’t like it. I wanna keep that institution as is. What is that preference frowned upon?
Why don’t you like it? I think the answer to this may hold the key as to why I frown upon that preference.

Let’s flip it around for a second.

Why, does it bother gays so much that they can’t use the word “marriage”? Why won’t they be happy with a “civil union” with same right afforded? Why not?
I don’t know and many don’t care. Perhaps the ones that do just want to feel accepted. I’m pretty sure other minority groups haven’t been happy with “seperate but equal” treatment, so its not like this is anything new.

I don’t like it because i don’t like to be forced to do something. I don’t like it just because it’s MY Institution, as in male to female. That’s all there is to it.

As an off the wall example, i also get pissy when i see the New Hyundai Genesis. Why? Because they removed the Hyundai logo from the front and made it look just like a Mercedes benz. But it is not a Mercedes, so why imitate one? Yes the car has equal right to the road and is quite nice. I Also dislike the tread of putting BMW logos on honda Civics here and there.

In both of those examples they’re not fooling anyone.

Gay people can have their own sovereign club and union. Create one and establish it with equal rights, as that is paramount in being good to all Humans. That way they will be accepted and well respected for their life. They are stepping on toes with “marriage” and are making themselves what they don’t want, Disliked and controversial. [/quote]

Do the features on a Mercedes work less because a Hyundai looks like it? Does you love your wife less because two guys use the same word to define their relationship? Does it really hurt you to share “your” institution?

What I’m ultimately getting at is that people who are against gay marriage feel that way because they still believe that being gay is wrong or inferior. Leaving religious reasons aside (since this is a debate about government and law, not religion) why is it so bad? Who does it hurt? It makes some people uncomfortable (and to some extent, it makes me uncomfortable too) but being uncomfortable has never been a legit reason to hold people down.

57

[quote]Gregus wrote:
OBoile wrote:
Gregus wrote:

Some I’m sure can be born gay, but whatever. They Need to lay off the title of “marriage” and fight for all equal protection under law if they have a lifetime partner. Then they need to make up another name for their club so as to not offend heterosexual and traditional couples.

Why are they hell bent on “marriage”? As in using that title. That’s the real reason there is controversy. Members of the the “marriage” club feel it is their own and defined as between a man and a woman. The Gay movement is hell bent on changing that, as opposed to just building up their own institution.

I’m a member of the “marriage” club who is in a traditional heterosexual marriage and having gay people refer to themselves as married doesn’t offend me one bit. I certainly don’t feel like it is my own, or defined as between a man and a woman.

Heaven forbid people, who aren’t hurting anybody, want to feel accepted.

Maybe the problem isn’t them… maybe its you.

Maybe i am the problem. Yes it bothers me. And why do i have to be demonized for it bothering me. Im not prejudiced against gays and have an open mind. I like my marriage institution to stay between a man and a woman. [/quote]

I completely agree with all you’ve said. Guess we’ll be in the same barracks at the concentration camp, for having those beliefs. But that DOESN’T mean we’ll be taking warm showers together at 2 AM. :wink:

58

[quote]Gregus wrote:
Hmm and that’s troubling. How can they allow religion to allow themselves to be prejudiced and hateful? Didn’t Jesus make a statement with his actions of specifically going to heal the people who were rejected and marginalized by the then society? People that weren’t even allowed to step foot in a temple. Im a Catholic and feel that most people just miss the message of FORGIVENESS AND ACCEPTANCE. [/quote]

I agree. It’s the pharisees, who were obsessed with the letter rather than the spirit of the law, that Jesus condemned most severely. He called them whited sepulchres, who were beautiful on the outside but held the decaying bones of men. The pharisees completely missed the central point of Jesus’ message, which was about love.

59

[quote]Gregus wrote:
Marriage = man and woman. Sorry for being “old fashined”

Civil Union = Man and Man, Woman and Woman. It should afford equal protection under the law to those individuals.

Their fixation on forcing to be able to use the term “Marriage” is their undoing. [/quote]

I swear I am NOT posting under multiple accounts! Gregus is somehow stealing everything I type! :slight_smile:

60

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

I think this thread backfired… Thunder, did you expect a slew of anti-polygamy hatred from the people that say gay marriage should be legalized?[/quote]

Nope - I expected to highlight that:

  1. The principle of “consenting adults deserve marriage” leads to a status of un-marriage in society, as has been argued over and over, and confirmed by comments like your own

and

  1. For some reason, gay marriage advocates are backing away from polyamorism, demonstrating the rank hypocrisy of the entire enterprise of labeling someone a “bigot” because they won’t recognize the Next Great Step of Progress.

I’d be more than happy to entertain any “anti-polygamy” bashing by gay marriage advocates, but I am not that interested in it, nor do I think they are dumb enough to do it - given that it hangs them by their own rope.