Are we still discussing gay marriage here? Just checking.

I see a marriage as a legal recognition by the state of a partnership between two people. It gives them 'next of kin' status, it guarantees property rights, inheritance, pensions, yadda dadda. I do not see it as 'the state interfering in people's lives, big government paranoia' and all that jazz, it is the state doing something for me (and yes, I am married). It provides us with the legal basis for the security we want in our lives. I could not care less about the gender, sexual identity or sexual orientation of the two people involved; and I don't think that the state should make any distinction on that basis either.

For example, if my wife was in a persistent vegetative state, she would want me to pull the plug on the life support machines. That is her stated wish to me, her next-of-kin. Before we were married, her mother would have been her next-of-kin, and she would never have complied with my wife's wishes, as she believes it is 'not God's way'. Living together for ten years counts for nothing, if I want to be next-of-kin I need to put a ring on her finger. If I want to benefit from her pension, death-in-service benefits, and vice versa she benefits from mine (and gets to pull the plug on Royston the cabbage), marriage is the only way to do it.

I see no good reason why we, as a mixed-sex couple, should enjoy some advantage in terms of life choices, property rights, all that stuff; when a same-sex couple cannot. If the state has a system that has unfair discrimination built into it, that system needs to be changed. Homosexuality is no longer regarded as a crime, it is no longer regarded as a mental illness, in the UK homosexuals are specifically protected by anti-hate crime legislation, so why shouldn't they be protected by the law around marriage too? We have a state and a legal system to protect our lives and our property, it should do so for everyone, not just the straight majority.

(October 5, 2011 at 9:02 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote:

Quote:It certainly is not. Not everything that occurs in nature is normal.

Just for future reference..I dont care one bit what you think is "normal" or not. you have proven yourself to not be very bright on this forum.

So you expect others to agree with your view of what's normal?
It's okay, so do I.
But I was simply stating that not everything that is natural is normal.
Are children with down syndrome normal?
Are children that are born with four legs?
How about a person that has two sexual characteristics, like a hermo?
They are not, but those do occur naturally.

Quote:I see a marriage as a legal recognition by the state of a partnership between two people.

It is, in a way.

Quote:in the UK homosexuals are specifically protected by anti-hate crime legislation, so why shouldn't they be protected by the law around marriage too? We have a state and a legal system to protect our lives and our property, it should do so for everyone, not just the straight majority.

So you want gays to be treated like a special "minority", is that correct?
I stated that in America, a civil union can provide a middle ground for both supporters and opposers, something that will secure the property rights, while respecting the wishes of the people who oppose the notion of marriage for gays.

(October 6, 2011 at 10:50 am)Royston Wrote: I see no good reason why we, as a mixed-sex couple, should enjoy some advantage in terms of life choices, property rights, all that stuff; when a same-sex couple cannot.

This is why I advocate Civil Unions carry all the rights and privileges of marriages. Fully. Save none. The knumb-nuts get to keep their precious definition of 'Marriage' and the homos get what they want, full rights as 'next of kin'. Whaddafuck is the problem here?

Quote:Homosexuality ....is no longer regarded as a mental illness,

Even so, it is a mental abnormality.

(October 6, 2011 at 11:15 pm)Dotard Wrote:

(October 6, 2011 at 10:50 am)Royston Wrote: I see no good reason why we, as a mixed-sex couple, should enjoy some advantage in terms of life choices, property rights, all that stuff; when a same-sex couple cannot.

This is why I advocate Civil Unions carry all the rights and privileges of marriages. Fully. Save none. The knumb-nuts get to keep their precious definition of 'Marriage' and the homos get what they want, full rights as 'next of kin'. Whaddafuck is the problem here?

Quote:Homosexuality ....is no longer regarded as a mental illness,

Even so, it is a mental abnormality.

I don't think it's a mental abnormality, it's a hormonal abnormality.

Quote:So you expect others to agree with your view of what's normal?

No..Natural IS default normal. Natural means it doesnt matter wther you agree with it, because it IS the norm.

act natural

Dont talk to me about normal.. an absurdist such as I will test your concept of "normal".

Quote:Are children with down syndrome normal?

were they born that way? Yes? Therefore natural = normal.

Quote: Are children that are born with four legs?

Show me one.. oh yeah..that wasnt born in India...LOL...sounds normal to me.

Quote: How about a person that has two sexual characteristics, like a hermo?

Very well versed in that subject myself

Quote: They are not, but those do occur naturally.

Translation: "Im an asshole."


One more thing mehemet (sp), on this forum poll you are in the minor 10 percent.

90 percent of the posters think you are NOT NORMAL


...would you like to explain that one?

---

(October 6, 2011 at 11:15 pm)Dotard Wrote: This is why I advocate Civil Unions carry all the rights and privileges of marriages. Fully. Save none. The knumb-nuts get to keep their precious definition of 'Marriage' and the homos get what they want, full rights as 'next of kin'. Whaddafuck is the problem here?

..and this is why I specifically said "no civil union talk here...marriage or no marriage" in the first post as the topic of this poll.

Please stick to this topic.

Marriage or no marriage?

(October 6, 2011 at 11:15 pm)Dotard Wrote: This is why I advocate Civil Unions carry all the rights and privileges of marriages. Fully. Save none. The knumb-nuts get to keep their precious definition of 'Marriage' and the homos get what they want, full rights as 'next of kin'. Whaddafuck is the problem here?

Gee, that sounds a whole lot like "separate but equal"...

Respecting the wishes of bigots doesn't even register on my list of priorities Mahmet.

Fancy a bum?

(October 6, 2011 at 11:15 pm)Dotard Wrote: Even so, it is a mental abnormality.

Er... no. If it was a mental abnormality it would be listed in the DSM-IV as one. It is not, the American Psychiatric Association have taken homosexuality out of the book. According to some, homosexuality is about as prevalent as left-handedness, and that is not regarded as a mental abnormality either.

kılıç_mehmet Wrote:I don't think it's a mental abnormality, it's a hormonal abnormality.

Nope. Sorry, no evidence to support that one

kılıç_mehmet Wrote:So you want gays to be treated like a special "minority", is that correct?

No, I want them to stop being treated as a special minority. I want them to have the same rights as straight people, I want them to have the same protection from violence and intimidation. If everyone stopped treating gay people differently, then they would not need specific laws to protect them.

(October 7, 2011 at 3:31 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Respecting the wishes of bigots doesn't even register on my list of priorities Mahmet.

Bigots are to be openly scoffed and mocked.

The complaints of bigots not being able to freely act upon their bigotry are to be openly laughed at, and then the bigot should be closely watched by the authorities to ensure the safety of peace minded citizens.