(March 29, 2011 at 9:40 pm)tackattack Wrote: I am Mr serious... well I'll think of a new topic and post it when I get up from my nap my dear.

Please don't die in your sleep: heart attacks are serious and you are serious therefore you are heart attack and I hope you don't function properly ^_^

I'm all for it. Why shouldn't they be just as miserable as the rest of us married people? What makes them so special? Hell, I'd be happy as hell to trade up with them. They can get married and let me be the one who is "not allowed" .... god that would be bliss!

(March 31, 2011 at 11:08 am)Cinjin Cain Wrote: I'm all for it. Why shouldn't they be just as miserable as the rest of us married people? What makes them so special? Hell, I'd be happy as hell to trade up with them. They can get married and let me be the one who is "not allowed" .... god that would be bliss!

Dude, are you like stalked by people because you're attractive or rich or something???

It reminds me of one opinion that was offered on the subject back in 2004 when it was such a big controversy. I don't remember the exact words but the letter to CNN that was read on air went something along these lines:

Quote:"As a twice divorced man, I see no reason why gays should be constitutionally protected from the heartbreak and financial ruin that I had to go through. I say, let them learn the hard way like the rest of us."

(February 18, 2011 at 1:10 am)reverendjeremiah Wrote: VOTING INSTRUCTIONS: No civil union talk here. Either you support same sex marriage as equal to opposite sex marriage or you dont.

Actually, if some religious want to claim some right to the term "marriage" as being somehow "sacred," then I am all for the Government here getting out of the marriage business.

All marriages become civil unions in the eyes of the Government; a secular government has no business meddling in religion. If one wants a religious ceremony that's fine, but the only union the government recognises would be a secular one for benefits, taxes, whatever.

Churches can call their religious unions whatever they want.

My sis is in a California same-sex marriage; if I opposed such things I would have to pitch my sister. I am not willing to do that.

Jimmy Carr said it well: " I oppose gay marriage. The divorce would be a bitch!"
But I do agree that gays should have the right to form a union. And I agree with Anymouse, unfortunately if the Church (or some other institution of the kind) doesn't want to preform the wedding, it's their right. I just say stupid and unfortunate are the homos that are of faith!

I thought I'd best reply--

No. I don't intend to be a bigot. I fully endorse you to disagree with me, but you can do that without calling me a bigot. I never invoked anything other than a definition of marriage. That definition of marriage came from reading a non-religious specific article examining marriage under the lens of reason--by Robert George, Prof. of Jurisprudence at Princeton. The article researched why the marriage relationship has ever been considered separate from a casual sexual liaison, or a heterosexual friendship, etc. It examined whether or not there's anything distinctive about Marriage at all.

So, yes--I can see some of you don't agree with me--but that's what my reasonable conclusions were, not an intentionally thin veneer of fallacy, trying to cover an agenda (though I'm sure there are better ways to state it, and better ways to argue the position I took), nor a hate-speech. Bigotry, it seems, and especially religious bigotry, is what I'm being accused of--and I don't understand how, or why. I put forth a definition, and if you want to read the Article by George or ask me specifically, I can back it up. If you don't, at least realize that you've got to start by defining your terms, somewhere. If you don't like my terms, you can give me a more reasonable definition, and we can talk about it.

Don't just call me a bigot on assertion. I have friends who experience same-sex attraction, and I've been to the support-group for them on my local campus--I ask them questions about it, as well. They seemed a lot more willing to examine the issue. If you don't agree with my reasons, isolate them (as many of you are very good about doing) and then ask me about them and we can explore them. If you can't read the whole message without getting frustrated, maybe I need to concentrate on saying more in less space, or saying more in spaced-out, bite-sized chunks so you're not tempted to vomit up the whole post. What is bigoted, however, is calling names when you disagree with someone, without taking the time to hash out the arguments. I may be right, I may be wrong, but I'm willing to search it out.

You hang to this idea of marriage to cause a divide between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples.
Why do you need this separation, if two people love each other enough and decide tat marriage is what they want, then it makes no difference.

So what is you opinion on civil partnerships? Since, it isn't "marriage"...

OOps...I forgot to address one of the questions.
Heterosexual marriages between barren/infertile couples are different from homosexual partnerships insofar as the heterosexual marriage implies a marital embrace that is hardwired naturally to have certain possibilities--the fact that one person or both may be infertile, is an exception to the rule, one that does not change the general rule of marriage. If you are curious about more of the innate characteristics of heterosexuality in the marriage embrace, see the article by Dr. Robert George "What Is Marriage?".

Homosexual partnerships are not naturally wired towards fertility--inherently and at the most basic level (unimbued by particular personal intentions, agreements, etc.) they seem to me to include only homosexual attraction (can anyone correct me on that, please, if there's more inherently in a homosexual liaison). Obviously partners can care for each other more, and pledge themselves to fidelity. Obviously some heterosexual partners flatly contradict their own marriage vows. Obviously you can undergo surgical procedures to make new powers and possibilities in either relationshiop. But at the most basic level, before human decisions and interventions are made, there's the material nature of the act itself. And there are differences between the two acts that are not only immediately practical, but integrally meaningful (again, if you want to know more about this, please look up that article by Dr. Robert George).

Finally--when I made the analogy of homosexual unions to two brothers or best friends sharing an apartment, I was referring to the benefit to the state--not saying that there's no exceptional affection among homosexual partners. The state doesn't recognize my having a best-friend, because it's not necessary to them. I'm okay with the state recognizing beneficial relationships and endorsing them with benefits. What I'm asking for is an understanding of why it should, when it doesn't endorse two confirmed bachelors taking care of each other, for instance. In doing so I'm not spitting on people's desires or feelings. I don't know why that would make me a jerk.

I wasn't aware that marriage was anything more than a legal arrangement as far as the state was concerned (mostly to due with taxation/finance). It had never occurred to me that the state was trying to impose natural laws (or material nature) as the laws of men, or that the state had any authority whatsoever in what a natural law (or material nature) could or would be. Homosexual couples who seek out a marriage for the purpose of availing themselves of the tax benefits in order to raise an adopted (or previously conceived/in vitro) child would fall exactly where?