People "protecting marriage": where are you on Monday nights?

[McBell]

Well then..at least you are keeping the bed pure..

Damn right!!

Have you said 40,000 hail Marry's and asked Gods forgivness for having sex like a dog though?

What for?
I mean really, what for?
I said I was having sex LIKE a dog NOT that I was having sex WITH a dog....

Now having said that..Do not worry about "screwing" with the Sanctity of marriage..You in fact are "required" to screw.That is your duty.

Woo Hoo!!

Unless you are on your hands and knees praying and starving your self to death its not even your body to defraud your spouse with by denying her the right to marital sexual relations.

Problem is she is not a real big fan of "marital relations" (missionary with me on top).
She much prefers the various other positions (and predicaments) we get into OUTSIDE the marriage bed.

 

[Kathryn]

You don't have to give a rat's ***, because you can enter into a legal marriage regardless of what they think. But you don't think I should be able to regardless of what you think.

Actually, you're quite wrong about this.

I don't give a rat's *** whether you get married or call it a civil union or whatever the heck you want to call it. I don't care if you marry or create a legally binding agreement with five men and three women simultaneously - as long as they're all consenting adults and you're not asking me to subsidize it in any way.

In fact, more power to you. I just won't call it marriage- and THAT'S what ****** you off.

Why should you care whether I call it a marriage or not if I do absolutely nothing to impede you and are respectful and non discriminatory to you and your family both in business and in personal interactions?

 

[Kathryn]

I'll have to review the previous discussions about it, but perhaps you can clarify...

My wife and I were married in a registery office in England. No religious ceremony. Are you saying we are only a civil union, and that this should not be call a "marriage"? I'm okay with that, because I don't want religion to cheapen the union between my wife and I either.

But for homosexuals who want a religious ceremony, are you saying that they should not be allowed to do so, unless they find or move to a faith that's local practicioners are accepting and supportive?

I don't want to debate you, I'm just wondering if I understand your position correctly.

Thank you for your civil tone for starters.

I am saying that the government should stay out of the marriage business. I am saying that consenting adults should be allowed to determine what they consider a marriage and that the government should only issue legally binding civil unions. I am saying that I believe the term "marriage" is more an emotional/spiritual/religious/moral definition and that we could avoid the whole issue of morality and "right or wrong" marriages if we simply called such legally binding contracts civil unions and designated people as domestic partners.

That way, no one is forced to accept someone else's definition of a word that many people consider to be a religious doctrine - or the absolute lack thereof.

Hope that clarifies my position.

Just an interesting note - the Puritans did not allow the state to perform marriages - they thought the state only had the right to sanction civil unions. So this is not a new concept at all.

 

[Kathryn]

And for a bunch of those people, that religious concept includes same-sex unions. There are plenty of churches that perform same-sex religious marriages.

Also, no one has to accept anything. By your logic, why should those religious people who do believe in same-sex marriages have to accept the definition that doesn't include them? Think of it like the word "chair". It can mean a piece of furniture that you sit on, and it can mean a person in charge of an organization. Same word, completely different meanings. It's no different with marriage. There's religious marriage, and then there's the civil contract, marriage.

Or you could just call all of them civil unions, from a legal perspective and then allow EVERYONE to determine for themselves what they consider to be a "marriage."

Seems like the ultimate freedom to me. For the life of me I can't understand why this makes people so mad. I am not opposed to ANY consenting adults entering into a civil union that is fully protected by the law - including protection from discrimination in housing, the workforce, exactly the same protection as any other protected minority.

I would never oppose this. In fact, I do not publically or politically oppose the fight for gay marriage - even though privately gay marriages don't fit my personal definition of marriage.

Sheeze, I'm not the enemy. I'm a civil libertarian who believes that consenting adults should be allowed to do WHATEVER they want to do as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others.

But apparently that's not enough.

 

[Moonstone]

Penguin, it's because the Bachelor isn't about gay marriage, that's why. A hopeless, straight marriage on a tv game show is much more sacred in god's eyes than a fruitfull and loving, gay marriage.

Exactly, you hit the nail on the head.
-Dot

 

[sonofskeptish]

to much wine, not enough cheese.

Oh god, don't say that... there's enough cheese here to last for months.

 

[Evamorgana]

Mestemia, that bug you have crawling after every post signature has had me wack the screen twice now. Good thing the bug isn't real.

 

[Magic Man]

Or you could just call all of them civil unions, from a legal perspective and then allow EVERYONE to determine for themselves what they consider to be a "marriage."

You could, but why? We already have a perfectly good term for them. Besides, that's never going to happen, as has been explained already.

Seems like the ultimate freedom to me. For the life of me I can't understand why this makes people so mad.

Because it's stupid. We already have a perfectly good term. We don't have to go changing everything, just change one little thing that won't affect 95% of people.

And really, it's not so much that we get mad; we just get frustrated at the silliness. Just let any two consenting adults get married and call it a marriage. It's the easiest solution.

 

[Kathryn]

I'll let two adults (or three or five or whatever) do whatever they want to do and support each other however they want to - how bout that? I won't discriminate and I won't do or support anything or anyone who would harm them.

And how bout you don't mandate to me what I define as a marriage? How's that for freedom and protecting individual rights?

It's no more right for one group to insist on their definition of marriage than it is for another. And you're probably right about the civil union idea never working - because people will not be satisfied until they try to shove whatever their definition of marriage is down other people's throats.

 

[darkendless]

Thank you for your civil tone for starters.

I am saying that the government should stay out of the marriage business. I am saying that consenting adults should be allowed to determine what they consider a marriage and that the government should only issue legally binding civil unions. I am saying that I believe the term "marriage" is more an emotional/spiritual/religious/moral definition and that we could avoid the whole issue of morality and "right or wrong" marriages if we simply called such legally binding contracts civil unions and designated people as domestic partners.

That way, no one is forced to accept someone else's definition of a word that many people consider to be a religious doctrine - or the absolute lack thereof.

Kathryn people have bonded for thousands of years and long before Abrahamic religions even existed, so how is it fair for predominantly Abrahamic groups of people to want to coin marriage under their banner?

I'm not asking for a debate, i'm just asking what you think of this because i cannot understand how religious denominations can ask to coin such a term which existed before their religious concept even did.

To me, its like pagans coining the term religion and forcing non-pagans to change because their religion was around before the big 3 (of course older religions exist, just an example ), i'm confused.

 

[logician]

"It's not right for those people to be forced to accept another definition of a religious belief of theirs.
"

How does someone else's private affairs "force" you to do anything?

May the force be with you.

 

[Kathryn]

The vast, vast majority of civilizations throughout history have defined marriage as between the two genders - not same gender. You can find a few scattered examples over the course of thousands and thousands of years that may be same gender, but they were rarely defined as actual marriages.

It's nothing personal - I didn't write the history, or define the term. But words have meanings. The law is made of words with defined meanings. When a meaning changes, the ramifications can be very far reaching. So it's best to tread carefully.

The history of marriage does not belong to any one group - you're right. It's nearly universally been limited however to a union between the two genders - since the beginning of time.

Sorry - but that's true.

I am not opposed to ANY people loving each other and being together - enriching each other's lives in whatever way they see fit. I don't have to agree with someone's moral choices in order to respect their right to those choices.

I think that's what ticks me off - it's not enough to be tolerant, respectful, and kind. Sheeze, the way the responses have been in here, you would think I was Phyliss Shafley or whatever her name was. I'm not trying to impede anyone's right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness and I wouldn't willingly stand by and allow anyone around me to do that to someone else either.

But I'm sticking by my own personal beliefs and in a debate forum like this, I feel free to share them - as others do. Would I go next door to my gay neighbor's house and tell him I don't agree with his lifestyle? No - that would be rude - and weird. However, if he was rude enough to pry and put me on the spot for my opinion, I guess I'd have to be honest with him.

I don't think he'll do that though. He's a really nice guy and a great neighbor - and we enjoy each other's friendship too much to be so confrontational with each other.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And how bout you don't mandate to me what I define as a marriage? How's that for freedom and protecting individual rights?

How could it possibly affect your individual rights in any way whatsoever to call someone else's relationship a marriage? The only individual rights that are affected are those of the people in the relationship.

It's no more right for one group to insist on their definition of marriage than it is for another. And you're probably right about the civil union idea never working - because people will not be satisfied until they try to shove whatever their definition of marriage is down other people's throats.

I'm not sure if you noticed, but this is just the way that things work. Demanding that different groups get to have their own special definitions for the term "marriage" makes no more sense than letting different groups have their own definition for the term "citizen". Both have meanings that are established by law. If you want to use some other definition, don't expect people to take you seriously.

 

[Magic Man]

I'll let two adults (or three or five or whatever) do whatever they want to do and support each other however they want to - how bout that? I won't discriminate and I won't do or support anything or anyone who would harm them.

Good. The best way to go about that is to support same-sex marriage.

And how bout you don't mandate to me what I define as a marriage?

Where did I do that, or imply that I want to do that?

It's no more right for one group to insist on their definition of marriage than it is for another.

There is only one definition of marriage in the legal sense: the union of two people that provides legal benefits to both.

And you're probably right about the civil union idea never working - because people will not be satisfied until they try to shove whatever their definition of marriage is down other people's throats.

Whatever you say, Kathryn. It's certainly not anything to do with the fact that most people who are against same-sex marriage wouldn't want to stop calling what they have "marriage" and start calling it "civil union". Of course not. No, it must be about those evil liberals trying to cram something down your throat. Get real.

 

[Kathryn]

Hey, baby, I AM real - real bored with this topic. It's sooooooo predictable - and so ever-present and redundant on this forum.

I DON'T CARE - sleep with whoever you want to as long as they're a consenting adult. Call it what you want to - and I'll call it what I want to.

Now - I'm off to bed, without my domestic partner. He's working out of town tonight.

Maybe he'll get me a Valentine's card that says, "To my adorable partner - I love being civil with you..."

 

[Magic Man]

Hey, baby, I AM real - real bored with this topic. It's sooooooo predictable - and so ever-present and redundant on this forum.

I DON'T CARE - sleep with whoever you want to as long as they're a consenting adult. Call it what you want to - and I'll call it what I want to.

Now - I'm off to bed, without my domestic partner. He's working out of town tonight.

Maybe he'll get me a Valentine's card that says, "To my adorable partner - I love being civil with you..."

What a surprise. Kathryn gave the "I'm bored with this topic, so I'm leaving" response. In other words, she doesn't feel like having to defend what she says anymore, so she's going to pretend it's "boring". And this is a very common response from her.

 

[Kathryn]

No, in other words, I am actually bored with the topic and I am actually going off to bed. Not that it much matters to you, I'm sure, but I have strep throat and I'm feeling pretty poorly. I'm sure I'll recover so I don't expect sympathy - just trying to shed a little light on why I'm not really in the mood to rehash the same old crap over and over again.

I'm off to my marriage bed!

 

[DallasApple]

Hey, baby, I AM real - real bored with this topic. It's sooooooo predictable - and so ever-present and redundant on this forum.

I DON'T CARE - sleep with whoever you want to as long as they're a consenting adult. Call it what you want to - and I'll call it what I want to.

Now - I'm off to bed, without my domestic partner. He's working out of town tonight.

Maybe he'll get me a Valentine's card that says, "To my adorable partner - I love being civil with you..."

I swear in all my hopes and dreams I hope your domestic partner gets you a Valentines day card..You deserve it.

Love

Dallas

 

[Magic Man]

No, in other words, I am actually bored with the topic and I am actually going off to bed. Not that it much matters to you, I'm sure, but I have strep throat and I'm feeling pretty poorly. I'm sure I'll recover so I don't expect sympathy - just trying to shed a little light on why I'm not really in the mood to rehash the same old crap over and over again.

I'm off to my marriage bed!

I'm sorry to hear you're feeling bad. However, this is a common tactic for you. In fact, you've used it twice just tonight. I've also seen it from you on at least two other occasions. I just think it's funny is all.

 

[Kathryn]

USED IT TWICE tonight - hey, here's a really crazy idea - maybe I've used it twice tonight because (gasp) I am sick, and I'm bored with this topic - and with the other topic.

Guess what - eventually these threads wear down and you know why? Because people get bored with rehashing the same old thing over and over again with the same one or two people.

If people didn't get bored with a thread, they'd all continue on into infinity.

Sorry mball - you're mildly entertaining (sort of like a boston terrier who never, ever, evereverevereverevereverevereverever stops bringing the ball back to chase) but ...I'm bored.

I'm even boring myself right now just typing this. FOR PETE'S SAKE LET ME GO TO BED!

What am I saying...this is ridiculous.

By the way, thanks, Dallas!