Why do gays want to get married?

[nnmartin]

Then why relate it to the three that are?

The whole meaning of the comparison has been lost due to multiple quoting and editing.


Originally Posted by nnmartin
I've never ...

replied to waitasec's last question....

Repost your last question and I will answer if not done so already.

 

[nnmartin]

IF pigs were smart enough (and they do have the average intellect of a 3 y/o human child - btw, my 3 y/o daughter is quite smart so what might that say?) would they have marriages?

That question really is beyond silliness - do you not have anything better to offer?

If pigs were smart enough would they be allowed to vote or drive a car?

Possibly, but who cares as it's just fantasy.

there is no difference between a heterosexual and a homosexual other than the gender of the people they are attracted to and fall in love with. All other aspects of their lives are the same. So why have one set up for one group and not have it for the other?

I would say that you have just highlighted a very big difference between these two groups of people. So big in fact that approximately 50% of the population believes it to be significant.

Mary and Samantha, however, are denied that exact same ability for no other reason than they are both women.

Sounds like a good enough reason to me.

They are denied a right granted to other couples in their exact situation for the mere fact that they are the same gender.

But quite clearly Mary and Samantha are not in the exact situation as other couples - they are two women as opposed to one woman and one man.

They deserve the same entitlements because they are human beings. It is simply not fair, nor right, to grant a right and the benefits attached to it to one group of people and deny it to another based on nothing more than the genders of the participants.

Nothing is stopping Mary and Samantha from being a loving couple living together - they just cannot get the piece of paper that says they are married. It's not discrimination but simply a law of the land that is needed to keep society in relative functional order. That is not to say it would be dysfunctional if gay marriage were legal but you cannot please everyone.

Because considering all the places which have gay marriage legal, as compared to the ones that don't, I think it must be a fabric that needs torn to shreds.

An example or two of that could be interesting.

 

[Storm]

To the OP.... let's turn the tables.

I'm bi, and I want to get married to the person I fall in love with. If that happens to be a male, all is good. If it happens to be a female, I'm banned by law. What possible justification do you have for such ludicrous discrimination?

 

[nnmartin]

It's all about calling a spade a spade.

People know what marriage is - Mr and Mrs, perhaps a family, mortgage, car and washing machine. It's a standard norm that is useful for many people to aspire to.

There is no law saying you have to do this but these kind of functional conventions are useful for society.

If anyone can marry anyone then this convention falls apart - Mr and Mrs no longer means what is it supposed to and the idea of marriage is devalued - there is no benefit to society as a whole with this except to the small minority that want change for the sake of change.

Homosexual couples can live together and can even get a civil union or have an unofficial joining of some other sort so no-one is actually stopping them from a loving life with their partner.

Marriage for opposite gender couples, unions for same sex ones - simple.

Both groups can have their own system - it's not discrimination just slightly different schemes for each sector.

 

[Storm]

What on earth does a washing machine have to do with a marriage?

 

[Desert Snake]

What on earth does a washing machine have to do with a marriage?

....Never mind.

 

[nnmartin]

What on earth does a washing machine have to do with a marriage?

a symbol of the dream of married domestic bliss.

 

[Storm]

a symbol of the dream of married domestic bliss.

If you think a washing machine symbolizes married bliss, then you're right: I don't want your idea of marriage!

That said, your idea is not the universal reality, and you have yet to justify denying legal equality to minorities.

 

[Father Heathen]

If anyone can marry anyone then this convention falls apart - Mr and Mrs no longer means what is it supposed to and the idea of marriage is devalued - there is no benefit to society as a whole with this except to the small minority that want change for the sake of change.

So how exactly would allowing gay marriage cause married heterosexual couples to become less devoted to their spouses and love them less?

Homosexual couples can live together and can even get a civil union or have an unofficial joining of some other sort so no-one is actually stopping them from a loving life with their partner.

So the difference is nothing but semantics, and why would that be important?

Your perception of what marriage should be is arbitrary garbage.

 

[averageJOE]

Homosexual couples can live together and can even get a civil union or have an unofficial joining of some other sort so no-one is actually stopping them from a loving life with their partner.

Marriage for opposite gender couples, unions for same sex ones - simple.

So you just don't want them to use the term marriage? Did you personally coin the definition of the word marriage?

 

[McBell]

It's all about calling a spade a spade.

Yet so far in this thread, you have been doing everything but...

People know what marriage is - Mr and Mrs, perhaps a family, mortgage, car and washing machine. It's a standard norm that is useful for many people to aspire to.

"standard norm"?
Wow.
You seriously do not know what you are talking about.

There is no law saying you have to do this but these kind of functional conventions are useful for society.

And?
You state this loud and proud as though it is some kind of ace in the hole argument winning statement.
The problem is that though it may well be an ace in the hole argument winning statement in your choir, in the real world it is nothing more than an un-substantiated claim.

If anyone can marry anyone then this convention falls apart - Mr and Mrs no longer means what is it supposed to and the idea of marriage is devalued - there is no benefit to society as a whole with this except to the small minority that want change for the sake of change.

Here again we see that you have taken what it is that YOU think marriage is and trying really hard to hold everyone else to that "standard".

Homosexual couples can live together and can even get a civil union or have an unofficial joining of some other sort so no-one is actually stopping them from a loving life with their partner.

Please be so kind as to present even one example of when "seperate but equal" has actually worked.
I shant hold my breath.

Marriage for opposite gender couples, unions for same sex ones - simple.

Simple to you only because of your glaringly huge ignorance of it all.

Both groups can have their own system - it's not discrimination just slightly different schemes for each sector.

Wrong.
Marriage is a legal contract.
Because it is a legal contract, the government owns the system.

What the government does not own, however, is all the fluff, glamour, and window dressings that people, religions, organizations, groups, etc. add onto said legal contract.

 

[painted wolf]

It's all about calling a spade a spade.

People know what marriage is - Mr and Mrs, perhaps a family, mortgage, car and washing machine. It's a standard norm that is useful for many people to aspire to.

There is no law saying you have to do this but these kind of functional conventions are useful for society.

Except for when it was perfectly normal in many parts of North America... only to be outlawed for theocratic reasons.

If anyone can marry anyone then this convention falls apart - Mr and Mrs no longer means what is it supposed to and the idea of marriage is devalued - there is no benefit to society as a whole with this except to the small minority that want change for the sake of change.

How? How does a gay marriage devalue a hetero one?
If anyone is devaluing hetero marriage it's hetero's like the Kardashians, Newt Gingrich and Britteny Spears.

Homosexual couples can live together and can even get a civil union or have an unofficial joining of some other sort so no-one is actually stopping them from a loving life with their partner.

Marriage for opposite gender couples, unions for same sex ones - simple.

Both groups can have their own system - it's not discrimination just slightly different schemes for each sector.

So you just care about a word then? This is a problem of static vocabulary... :sarcastic

wa:do

 

[McBell]

If anyone can marry anyone then this convention falls apart - Mr and Mrs no longer means what is it supposed to and the idea of marriage is devalued - there is no benefit to society as a whole with this except to the small minority that want change for the sake of change.

If a same sex couple getting married devalues your marriage, then your marriage wasn't worth a damn to begin with.

 

[waitasec]

Re: Signature - Mao Tse-Tung - 'Ideals are important, but reality is even more important'


Order needs to be maintained in society and also the World in general.

Ultimately this order has to override idealism.

then you should remain silent...

 

[painted wolf]

If a same sex couple getting married devalues your marriage, then your marriage wasn't worth a damn to begin with.

Exactly! :yes:

wa:do

 

[dust1n]

You mean like boyfriend and girlfriend? You adults can never understand us teens todays

The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife. - Marriage.

So to be legal they have to do that ritual (marriage is what they call it, or weddings) to make it official.

LOL. Weddings aren't 'official'. The signing of a government contract is 'officially marriage.'

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Exactly! :yes:

wa:do

Exactly X 2.

If the value and meaning of marriage is determined by the definition of the word then nnmartin's hetero marriage has no value and in fact, no marriage has value.

That said, I have a question for nnmartin: Would you or would you not agree that what your marriage is about goes way beyond the definition of the word? Would you or would you not agree that it is about the relationship and the life you've built with your spouse?

 

[dust1n]

Wait a second, who the hell says that heteros own the concept of marriage?

I'd gladly sale my share to a nice homosexual couple. :sad:

 

[dust1n]

But quite clearly Mary and Samantha are not in the exact situation as other couples - they are two women as opposed to one woman and one man.


Nothing is stopping Mary and Samantha from being a loving couple living together - they just cannot get the piece of paper that says they are married. It's not discrimination but simply a law of the land that is needed to keep society in relative functional order. That is not to say it would be dysfunctional if gay marriage were legal but you cannot please everyone.

If your real concern is keeping society in relative functional order, then pretty much expect the opposite, because people are going to continuously cause disorder in negoiating their civil rights, and people are always going to be complaining about their civil rights.

 

[Draka]

I'd gladly sale my share to a nice homosexual couple. :sad:

And I'll perform their wedding and sign their marriage license. I tell you, living in a place where equality is actually more than just a word feels nice.