Gay marriage

[theloconate]

If you're not homophobic same sex marrage will not be a problem and not allowing homosexuals to marry is just another way for people to try to segregate homosexuals from society.Yes the government is there to keep the country running the best it can but they should not be able to decide if your love is legitimate or not.

although i agree with your position not necessarily your reasons. Marriage isn't always about love. People can love and not marry, marriage is about the tax benefits and legal benefits

[QuantumT]

First off, I am not claiming that everything ever done was religious because it was done by religious people.  That is an unfair characterization.  In this specific instance, in the preamble to the code he sets forth, Hammurabi clearly states this code was given to him by a divine source.  It is for that reason I believe this makes it a religious.  If this is not the case, then explain to me why when Moses or Muhammed claim a divine source gives them laws, it is religious, but when Hammurabi does it, it fails to be religious.

For those who would advocate for the liberalization of marriage to something other than a special status between one man and one woman, what should the new definition be?  Specifically, should it be limited to 2 people?  Do they have to be sexually involved?  What obligations do the married persons have to each other/anyone else?

The difference is that Moses and Muhammed set up religions, while Hammurabi set up a government.

As a parallel, Hitler thought that god told him to exterminate the jews, does that make jew killing religious?

For the rest, I'm not sure exactly how I would set it up. Currently they don't have to be sexually involved and I don't think that it needs to be a requirement.

[Kazawrath]

If you're not homophobic same sex marrage will not be a problem and not allowing homosexuals to marry is just another way for people to try to segregate homosexuals from society.Yes the government is there to keep the country running the best it can but they should not be able to decide if your love is legitimate or not.

although i agree with your position not necessarily your reasons. Marriage isn't always about love. People can love and not marry, marriage is about the tax benefits and legal benefits

I agree about that but the people who marry for finantial reasons are not the people who will suffer the most from this law.

[theloconate]

If you're not homophobic same sex marrage will not be a problem and not allowing homosexuals to marry is just another way for people to try to segregate homosexuals from society.Yes the government is there to keep the country running the best it can but they should not be able to decide if your love is legitimate or not.

although i agree with your position not necessarily your reasons. Marriage isn't always about love. People can love and not marry, marriage is about the tax benefits and legal benefits

I agree about that but the people who marry for finantial reasons are not the people who will suffer the most from this law.

in modern society people mostly marry for love, but it's still easy to make an argument around the same premise as your original one except concerning the government picking and choosing who can get financial benefits and whatnot. It could be compared to church state separation in that sense

[Kazawrath]

If you're not homophobic same sex marrage will not be a problem and not allowing homosexuals to marry is just another way for people to try to segregate homosexuals from society.Yes the government is there to keep the country running the best it can but they should not be able to decide if your love is legitimate or not.

although i agree with your position not necessarily your reasons. Marriage isn't always about love. People can love and not marry, marriage is about the tax benefits and legal benefits

I agree about that but the people who marry for finantial reasons are not the people who will suffer the most from this law.

in modern society people mostly marry for love, but it's still easy to make an argument around the same premise as your original one except concerning the government picking and choosing who can get financial benefits and whatnot. It could be compared to church state separation in that sense

If marriage is just for financial reasons then banning gay marriage is only used to exclude homosexuals from some constitutinal rights and therefore not constitutinal and should be abolished to make homosexuals equal people in society.

[Ekki]

I'm not able to read every single post in here, but I see you are discussing a lot around Hammurabi's code (FTW!?)...

I mean, marriage has been changed since it's creation (adding divorce, made by the state, maybe something else...), so speaking about who "invented" it it's kind of useless...

On topic, I haven't seen 1 sustainable, non-homophobic argument against equal marriage (I don't know the traduction, but it's the way it's called in Argentina)

*BTW, saying that "marriage" it's between a man and a woman because X person invented it that way is both ancient(?)-thinking and homophobic (the institution, as an argument, is)

[ZarathustraIX]

in modern society people mostly marry for love, but it's still easy to make an argument around the same premise as your original one except concerning the government picking and choosing who can get financial benefits and whatnot. It could be compared to church state separation in that sense

Easy? Perhaps. But should we?
Marriage is something that is traditionally done out of love (and marriage is something that is only sensical when based on tradition).
People who want gay marriage want it because they feel that their love is considered less - that they, as people, are considered less - than heterosexual people. And to be frank, this is true. They ARE considered less.

Not only this, but you look at the unmarried. There's a WORD for people (actually, women. The male word - bachelor - has positive connotations) who haven't gotten married, and that's 'Spinster'. As far as I can figure out, 'Spinster' means 'woman over twenty-five who hasn't married.'
Now. To me, this suggests a sick society. Something egregious, ugly, and monstrous.

My point here is this: You're saying that marriage is done for financial reasons. This is wrong, man. Purely wrong. Marriage is something you do 'cos you're considered inferior if you don't. There's a world, an entire world, where if you don't get married before you're twenty-five you're somehow less than human, and this world is the one before ours.

Marriage, to this world, is success, adulthood, and proof of normality.
This world is dead to me. And dead, it seems, to you. But its ghost lives on. It is to this ghost that gay people appeal, because the ghost DOES exist, and it controls so much of our world.
Gay people want marriage rights. We shouldn't think about what marriage rights mean to US. We should think about what marriage rights mean to the people who want them, and to the people who deny them to them, 'cos that's the world where this debate is taking place.

[ZarathustraIX]

Also, I think I've read too many Youtube posts, perhaps? Too many something, 'cos I was surprised as all hell to discover that 70% of this forum are pro-gay marriage. I was under the impression, somehow, that most people who post on forums are extreme conservatives.
Should I congratulate you or admonish myself? Whichever I should do, consider it done, and thank you.

[QuantumT]

in modern society people mostly marry for love, but it's still easy to make an argument around the same premise as your original one except concerning the government picking and choosing who can get financial benefits and whatnot. It could be compared to church state separation in that sense

Easy? Perhaps. But should we?
Marriage is something that is traditionally done out of love (and marriage is something that is only sensical when based on tradition).
People who want gay marriage want it because they feel that their love is considered less - that they, as people, are considered less - than heterosexual people. And to be frank, this is true. They ARE considered less.

Not only this, but you look at the unmarried. There's a WORD for people (actually, women. The male word - bachelor - has positive connotations) who haven't gotten married, and that's 'Spinster'. As far as I can figure out, 'Spinster' means 'woman over twenty-five who hasn't married.'
Now. To me, this suggests a sick society. Something egregious, ugly, and monstrous.

I think as far as the need to be married, the view in our society is evolving. I don't think it's really as big a deal anymore. Probably still a preference for married vs. not, but less than it used to be.

I also think that the bad age has also increased to at least 30.

My point here is this: You're saying that marriage is done for financial reasons. This is wrong, man. Purely wrong. Marriage is something you do 'cos you're considered inferior if you don't. There's a world, an entire world, where if you don't get married before you're twenty-five you're somehow less than human, and this world is the one before ours.

He wasn't saying that marriage is done for purely financial reasons. It's just another thing that you deny homosexuals if you don't allow them to marry.

Also, I think I've read too many Youtube posts, perhaps? Too many something, 'cos I was surprised as all hell to discover that 70% of this forum are pro-gay marriage. I was under the impression, somehow, that most people who post on forums are extreme conservatives.
Should I congratulate you or admonish myself? Whichever I should do, consider it done, and thank you.

Just because we're behind the veil of the internet doesn't mean we have to be backwards.

[ZarathustraIX]

in modern society people mostly marry for love, but it's still easy to make an argument around the same premise as your original one except concerning the government picking and choosing who can get financial benefits and whatnot. It could be compared to church state separation in that sense

Easy? Perhaps. But should we?
Marriage is something that is traditionally done out of love (and marriage is something that is only sensical when based on tradition).
People who want gay marriage want it because they feel that their love is considered less - that they, as people, are considered less - than heterosexual people. And to be frank, this is true. They ARE considered less.

Not only this, but you look at the unmarried. There's a WORD for people (actually, women. The male word - bachelor - has positive connotations) who haven't gotten married, and that's 'Spinster'. As far as I can figure out, 'Spinster' means 'woman over twenty-five who hasn't married.'
Now. To me, this suggests a sick society. Something egregious, ugly, and monstrous.

I think as far as the need to be married, the view in our society is evolving. I don't think it's really as big a deal anymore. Probably still a preference for married vs. not, but less than it used to be.

(I hope these quotation marks work. I clicked reply, but now I'm going

and

, where it seems appropriate, so, if they don't work, forgive me?)
The view in our society IS evolving. And that's great, it really is. Hopefully before I get married, I'll have figured why I would do so. . .
But, I still think that gay people are appealing to this ghost, this antiquated, dead conception of the married and the spinster. 'Cos it exists, it does, and moreover, it exists IN LAW. This ghost is a fundamental aspect of what is essentially a dying (but definitely not dead) society, and if gay people want to be considered human, they have to appeal to this fundament, this society that hovers over those who THINK about their world. (i.e., us.)

I also think that the bad age has also increased to at least 30.

Yes. It seems to be about forty. After that, if you're not married you're a loser. But then, in Romeo and Juliet (written about 1600), Paris says of Juliet (who's 13) 'Younger than she are happy mothers made.' The age changes, but the ideal does not. Now, you need to be an actual human adult before you can get married, and that's an improvement, but not enough of one.

My point here is this: You're saying that marriage is done for financial reasons. This is wrong, man. Purely wrong. Marriage is something you do 'cos you're considered inferior if you don't. There's a world, an entire world, where if you don't get married before you're twenty-five you're somehow less than human, and this world is the one before ours.

He wasn't saying that marriage is done for purely financial reasons. It's just another thing that you deny homosexuals if you don't allow them to marry.

IS that what he was saying? Kazawrath said it was done out of love, and he said "no, we can use the same arguments to apply to finances." If that wasn't what he was saying, I don't get what he WAS saying.

Also, I think I've read too many Youtube posts, perhaps? Too many something, 'cos I was surprised as all hell to discover that 70% of this forum are pro-gay marriage. I was under the impression, somehow, that most people who post on forums are extreme conservatives.
Should I congratulate you or admonish myself? Whichever I should do, consider it done, and thank you.

Just because we're behind the veil of the internet doesn't mean we have to be backwards.
[/quote]


Certainly you don't have to be, and I ask myself what I've seen on youtube and facebook groups that I would be surprised that you aren't. . . . . . . But, thanks. You've reaffirmed my faith in the 'net's humanity.

[theloconate]

in modern society people mostly marry for love, but it's still easy to make an argument around the same premise as your original one except concerning the government picking and choosing who can get financial benefits and whatnot. It could be compared to church state separation in that sense

Easy? Perhaps. But should we?
Marriage is something that is traditionally done out of love (and marriage is something that is only sensical when based on tradition).
People who want gay marriage want it because they feel that their love is considered less - that they, as people, are considered less - than heterosexual people. And to be frank, this is true. They ARE considered less.

Marriage isn't traditionally done out of love, it really wasn't. Marriage has existed for a long time, longer then women have had the right to choose who they want to marry

Not only this, but you look at the unmarried. There's a WORD for people (actually, women. The male word - bachelor - has positive connotations) who haven't gotten married, and that's 'Spinster'. As far as I can figure out, 'Spinster' means 'woman over twenty-five who hasn't married.'
Now. To me, this suggests a sick society. Something egregious, ugly, and monstrous.

umm. okay? I've never heard that term in my life

My point here is this: You're saying that marriage is done for financial reasons. This is wrong, man. Purely wrong. Marriage is something you do 'cos you're considered inferior if you don't. There's a world, an entire world, where if you don't get married before you're twenty-five you're somehow less than human, and this world is the one before ours.

No im not saying that. Perhaps if you had read my post then you would have seen that I said in a modern society marriage is done out of love. It's really hard to know how to respond to this other then to ask for evidence

Marriage, to this world, is success, adulthood, and proof of normality.
This world is dead to me. And dead, it seems, to you. But its ghost lives on. It is to this ghost that gay people appeal, because the ghost DOES exist, and it controls so much of our world.
Gay people want marriage rights. We shouldn't think about what marriage rights mean to US. We should think about what marriage rights mean to the people who want them, and to the people who deny them to them, 'cos that's the world where this debate is taking place.

Wait what? I'm not sure how this world seems dead to me and I'd like it if you didn't put words in my mouth. I don't even understand what you're saying, if you're talking about a literal ghost then I'd like to see some evidence. If you're trying to make a nice metaphor perhaps you should try to just speak clearly instead.
Also I have to ask which side you're on (I can't really comprehend your post that well)?

[moomoose]

another simple way of putting this: there are 2 types of marriage- marriage in the church and marriage in the state.  you can have one done, the other done, or both.  it is possible that there are marriages that were done in your religious organization that are not recognized by the government (perhaps you married your boat in not very well known religion), or you could have a state marriage that didn't involve any religion at all.  its not uncommon for couples to have marriages that are recognized by both the church and state, obviously, but that is not a requirement. 

given that marriages that do not have to be associated with religion, there is not a single good reason why anti-gay "ethics" should stop homosexual partners from being married in the government standings, outside of religion.