Illinois to become 15th state to recognize marriage equality

[Ryantology]

I really do not care what they do in their bedrooms. I don't care, really. I tend not to think about it too much for it to affect my judgement.
There are a lot of things that are a lot more disgusting and are done by straight people. Even by those who are married. However the institution of marriage is bound by traditions. Whether you like it or not. It is bound by traditions.

Tradition is ephemeral. We give up traditions all the time. We alter them to suit evolved sensibilities all the time. We establish new ones all the time. Marriage is no exception. The world hasn't ended yet.

You people are liberals, anti-culture, anti-tradition. The only reason you support marriage is to destroy the said traditions. Because after you do, marriage won't be relevant anymore, as the values associated with marriage won't be relevant anymore.

I am definitely a liberal. I'm not anti-culture in the slightest, I simply view culture in an honest way: it is fluid. It evolves. I am not so petty as to target anything specifically because it is a tradition, but I hold no traditions to be sacred. If they are useless, they should be discarded. If they are repressive, they should be eliminated. If they can be expanded to include others when there is absolutely no good reason to exclude others, they should be expanded. Gay marriage is not going anywhere. It is going to catch on worldwide sooner or later. Future generations are going to look back and wonder what all the fuss was about, the same way people today wonder what all the fuss was about over those who claimed that interracial marriage would destroy the institution and ruin everything forever. Those people are quaint throwbacks to a more ignorant and hateful period of human history. So are you.

Just like Marx hated marriage, just like he viewed it with scorn, just as leftists once have created communes where marriage was non-existent, and children were treated as "common property" and were taken care of in turns, where the concepts of "mother" and "father" were abolished, you want this to apply to today's society, because only in such a society will your fluffy liberal dream come true. But "gay marriage" will never be marriage. It will only be a distorted, bastardized, and twisted form of marriage that only has the legal benefits of marriage, devoid of its characteristics.

All your opinion, nothing more. And who cares what you think? I don't recall anybody asking you to marry another man.

And the fact that you use things like "love" and "equality" to mask your intentions is really funny.

You wouldn't know what love or equality was if they punched you in the vagina.

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

And I have not stated that allowing homosexuals to marry would make you divorce your wife, no, but it would harm marriage as a social institution, and as an institution that is the basis of the family, by incorporating people that are not a part of the said institutions. And therefore, society will suffer, and moral decay is on the rise. As optimistic mysanthrope a few replies back naively suggested, even heterosexual marriages are being slowly eroded by the moral decay of our times, and liberals, not concerned about the real family institution arising from the union of a man and a woman, are pushing for gays to have a moral upper hand, as though as they were "more deserving" than those who actually upheld the marital institution and created its traditions throughout the millenia, the traditional, heterosexual couples.

You know, it's funny how often "moral decay" = tolerance and "family values" = discrimination. It's almost as if intolerant, discriminating arseholes are using those terms as an excuse to push their bigoted opinions on everyone else

Refutation for what? You didn't make any points to refute. Slavery was a tradtion, and it was abolished, not reformed, nor turned into something else. Traditions are either carried on, or are abandoned according to circumstances.

Except, of course, that traditions do change over time. Others are abandoned. Unless you're suggesting that all traditions should be continued, regardless of their nature, the mere fact that something is traditional is insufficient to justify it's continuation. To do otherwise is to invoke special pleading. That is what you have to refute if you wish to keep using tradition as an argument.

So either do away with marriage, which I'd not advise, or give homosexuals a seperate, legal existance, that is different from that of marriage, which has other aspects beyond legality.

But if you're happy to give the same legal rights to homosexual couples as are afforded to heterosexual couples without children, why do you need to give it a different name when it's the same thing?

I gave you an answer already. The marital institution was established to encourage child bearing and child raising within a social and legal contract called marriage. Any examples, like people who are infertile or do not want children, are fringe examples. They are not affecting the overall picture, neither the purpose of marriage.

So why afford it to one "fringe group" and not another? The effects upon those couples are the same.

No it is sufficient because the said values were carried on to the modern age via traditions. So traditions are the only valid argument here. The fact that you, or someone else refuses to accept them does not change the fact that they exist, nor that they create the basis of society.
Since homosexuals, as a minority as they exist today, were never considered during the establisment of these traditions, they cannot lay claim to institutions that are bound by those traditions. By "cannot" I state that their claims are in fact, not legitimate.

Replace the word "homosexuals" with "slaves" and your argument sounds no less bigoted. I have already told you why tradition is not a valid argument, it's just special pleading. "Those traditions can be abandoned, not this one. Why? Because it's tradition!" Can't you see how ridiculous that stance is?

Society has built the institution of the family upon the institution of marriage. Family values and stability can only be provided by people who actually fit the said quota.

That's an assertion, care to back it up? Whilst your at it, explain why homosexuals couples can't have family values. If they were raised in your utopian family unit, they should certainly know what family values are, right? Explain why they can't pass on those values. Actually, before you do that, why don't you explain those values are?

You deliberately distort my words. As I said, there is an ideal of a family and an ideal of a marriage, which is why there are values that are associated with it.

I did nothing of the sort. There was a hole in your argument, I went for it. I distorted nothing.

On the other hand, lets look at a married couple with children.
A good example of a family, where there is flexibility. People can share the burden as it fits them, and can create a less problematic family that offers a child both a father, and a mother figure.
If that is not worthy of propagating, I don't know what is.

I completely agree. Now explain why a homosexual couple can't provide the same. See if you can do it without using the word "tradition", or derivation thereof.

As for adoptions, they are mostly an option for couples who are infertile. There are of course people who out of compassion, choose to adopt children while having a biological child on their own. They contribute to society in either way. One does it by adding a new member, the other is unable to do so by misfortune, and sponsors a new member that has been abandoned by his lifegivers either by a tragedy or otherwise.

It's a separate, but related issue. Why can't SSM's do the same? Surely it's better for a child to be in a safe, loving family home than an orphanage or foster system?

Well, if you mean by change that we're approaching A BRAVE NEW WORLD, I can't really understand why I'm still discussing marriage wth you.

Really? I would have thought that the coming technology would be extraordinarily pertinent to the subject. The technology is on it's way, like it or not. Same sex couples will be able to reproduce and there's not much you can do about it. That being the case, I would have thought that someone with such a high regard for family values would want to ensure that those same values are given to those children. Excluding the parents of those children from the very institutions which you claim so vital for values to take root, would strike me as being counter-productive at best.

Marriage comes with a set of responsibilities that you must fulfill.
First is fidelity, being true to your spouse, second is to provide for your spouse if you're working party in the marriage, or take care of the household if you don't work, third is to look after your children, and present them with means to look after themselves until they get old enough to do so.

All of these responsiblities are loaded on to the married parties by society and the state which sponsors the marital institution.
People who find themselves overwhelmed by these responsibilities often divorce each other. If you're not a person that can accept these responsibilities, you're probably still a child.

Wrong. Relationships come with a set of responsibilities that you should fulfil. The number of failed relationships and dysfunctional families should indicate that this doesn't always happen. This is an issue that needs to be addressed, but it is a separate issue and has bugger all to with sexuality.

It was also inseparable form smallpox until 1977. You'll have to do better than that.

So you mean to tell me that your purpose is to eradicate marriage then?

Don't be stupid. It was an example to illustrate that you can't hold something as sacred simply because it has been prevalent though out the history of civilisation. I could just as easily have used religion as an example. Or slavery, war, rape or any number of other insalubrious examples.

As I said, its duty is to minimize random sexual relations that could result in a child. Its doing its part.

No, it really isn't. If it was, then we wouldn't be facing an overpopulation crisis.

Yes a minority, dispersed across the globe. Their fraternitisations are local. However if they want to fraternatize globally, lets give them their own piece of land, where they can live and enact their own laws and establish their own institutions. Although they already have their own country, I think it was called Sweden or something.

Not a bad idea. Then we could get ourselves some sexy uniforms, reclaim the Sudetenland and......and........oh, wait. This is starting to sound a bit familiar.

Just like Marx hated marriage, just like he viewed it with scorn, just as leftists once have created communes where marriage was non-existent, and children were treated as "common property" and were taken care of in turns, where the concepts of "mother" and "father" were abolished, you want this to apply to today's society, because only in such a society will your fluffy liberal dream come true. But "gay marriage" will never be marriage. It will only be a distorted, bastardized, and twisted form of marriage that only has the legal benefits of marriage, devoid of its characteristics.
And the fact that you use things like "love" and "equality" to mask your intentions is really funny.

Trust me, I despise Marx a damn sight more than he despised marriage. I do think families are important. I do think family values are important, but we clearly don't have the same opinion on what those values actually are.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Tradition is ephemeral. We give up traditions all the time. We alter them to suit evolved sensibilities all the time. We establish new ones all the time. Marriage is no exception. The world hasn't ended yet.

Well, give up the tradition of marriage, then. Abolish marriage, or uphold its values. However you do not want to abolish marriage, but instead abolish all of its values. It can't be done.
Its akin to the creation of a stuffed animal. You kill the animal, you remove its internal organs, and you stuff the empty skin with unrelated material. In the end, the animal will look as though it were alive, but it will be nothing but a shell filled with ballast.

I am definitely a liberal. I'm not anti-culture in the slightest, I simply view culture in an honest way: it is fluid.

Indeed. But how you want it to flow is to turn the stream upside down. You want it to flow in the opposite direction.

I am not so petty as to target anything specifically because it is a tradition, but I hold no traditions to be sacred.

Well, I guess you won't have any troubles when someone abolishes the traditions regarding the excessive liberties in your country.

If they are useless, they should be discarded. If they are repressive, they should be eliminated.

I agree. However I do not find the traditions of marriage nor family to be repressive, nor useless. You do, for you see in them a moral highground that opposes things such as fornication, adultery, homosexuality, drug use, drunkardness, laziness and excessive individualism.

The only people who feel repressed by the current notions and traditions of marriage are those who are being told that they do not fit the criteria of marriage. You simply want to lower the moral criteria, or abolish it completely. IT has nothing to do with it being useless.

If they can be expanded to include others when there is absolutely no good reason to exclude others, they should be expanded.

I think marriage has reached the limits of how much more it can be expanded. Further "expansion" will only make it burst. It is like a balloon, filled with air. The traditions make up its frame, and the people who get married, and have children are the air. You simply wish to inject more air, while removing portions of the frame, lowering its maximum capacity. It will burst.

It is going to catch on worldwide sooner or later. Future generations are going to look back and wonder what all the fuss was about, the same way people today wonder what all the fuss was about over those who claimed that interracial marriage would destroy the institution and ruin everything forever. Those people are quaint throwbacks to a more ignorant and hateful period of human history. So are you.

You mean to tell me that this "hateful period" lasted for thousands of years where gays were not allowed to get married. And for as long as marriage existed, gays were not a part of it. Hell, they were not even part of society. Anno GM, I guess will be the new designation on the liberal calendar.

All your opinion, nothing more. And who cares what you think? I don't recall anybody asking you to marry another man.

My opinion? Its not just my opinion mate, its the opinion of the majority of the world, and people want their opinions to be heard, while you liberals are only concerned by making the opinion of the majority, yield to the opinion of the minority.
We have to be told what marriage is by a fringe group of people who never were a part of marriage to begin with? Why is it wrong when we go to defend our rights to keep marriage what it always was?

You wouldn't know what love or equality was if they punched you in the vagina.

Because it doesn't exist.

You know, it's funny how often "moral decay" = tolerance and "family values" = discrimination. It's almost as if intolerant, discriminating arseholes are using those terms as an excuse to push their bigoted opinions on everyone else

Yes, moral decay is to me today this whole "tolerance" bullcrap that goes on today. Tolerate every form of moral decay, while silencing anyone who objects to it with "bigot!".
You people are such hypocrites.

Except, of course, that traditions do change over time. Others are abandoned. Unless you're suggesting that all traditions should be continued, regardless of their nature, the mere fact that something is traditional is insufficient to justify it's continuation. To do otherwise is to invoke special pleading. That is what you have to refute if you wish to keep using tradition as an argument.

This is not "over time", this is "over night". You're trying to inject a radical change that is most certain to deprive the institution of its purpose, in less than 50 years, while marriage has a millenia long history.
And well, if the said thing is a tradition itself, it does. Marriage itself is a tradition, and is bound by traditions.
If you want to remove traditions, remove marriage itself. Instead, you're still acting two-faced, you resent the traditions, but you don't resent marriage itself, which is a tradition that is bound by, and binds other traditions.
As I said, Marx, was in favor of abolishing marriage itself. He at least was an honest man. He hated the traditional family, and traditional society, and he wanted to abolish marriage completely.
You on the other hand, want marriage, but you want marriage to be devoid of everything that makes it "marriage".

But if you're happy to give the same legal rights to homosexual couples as are afforded to heterosexual couples without children, why do you need to give it a different name when it's the same thing?

It's not the same thing, because marriage does not just have a legal position, but also a social position.
But that is what you want. You don't need the legal rights, you need the social acceptance that marriage will give to homosexuals.
But after you destroy its traditions, it won't. A fools errand, I'd say.
Equality? In the eyes of marriage, an unmarried couple, an illegitimate child, is not equal with a married couple and a legitimate child. Come on and abolish these traditions? You can't sanctify homosexuality with a marriage devoid of its moral high-ground.

So why afford it to one "fringe group" and not another? The effects upon those couples are the same.

Because they are not a fringe group. They do not identify as a seperate group within society. They're part of the majority that has the privilage to marry.

Replace the word "homosexuals" with "slaves" and your argument sounds no less bigoted. I have already told you why tradition is not a valid argument, it's just special pleading. "Those traditions can be abandoned, not this one. Why? Because it's tradition!" Can't you see how ridiculous that stance is?

You know, lets do that. And slavery was abolished. Will you be the ones to abolish marriage? Or allow the slaves to own slaves? Because that is what gay marriage sounds like. Equality? Why can't a slave own a slave? In that manner, slaves and non-slaves would be equal in their ability to acquire slaves.
It is you who is ridiculous. Your stance is ridiculous.

That's an assertion, care to back it up? Whilst your at it, explain why homosexuals couples can't have family values. If they were raised in your utopian family unit, they should certainly know what family values are, right? Explain why they can't pass on those values. Actually, before you do that, why don't you explain those values are?

Well, it is as to say that a known traitor can become a nationalist leader.
It is the same as to suggest homosexuals that live out this lifestyle in contrast to their upbringing, can become people who perpetrate the same upbringing. IT is ridiculous.

I did nothing of the sort. There was a hole in your argument, I went for it. I distorted nothing.

You you did distort my words as though I had said anything about it. You cannot use infertile couples to provide your argument with a basis. They simply are not the same.
Unlike the homosexuals, they do not choose their inability to produce children.

I completely agree. Now explain why a homosexual couple can't provide the same. See if you can do it without using the word "tradition", or derivation thereof.

Without tradition, marriage is not marriage, for marriage itself is a human tradition.
Homosexuals cannot provide the same because they cannot procreate, and either the father or the mother figure will be lacking in their "families".

It's a separate, but related issue. Why can't SSM's do the same? Surely it's better for a child to be in a safe, loving family home than an orphanage or foster system?

I'm sure that with the right amount of money, and orphanage can do the same.
As for fostering, I don't know, but adoption should be out of the question. It breeds nothing more than confusion for the child. Yes perhaps the homosexuals can shower the child in toys and other assorted material things. But they cannot provide the child with what is required for a child to exist. A mother and a father. The fact that they have two mothers or two fathers will haunt that child for the rest of his/her life.

Really? I would have thought that the coming technology would be extraordinarily pertinent to the subject. The technology is on it's way, like it or not. Same sex couples will be able to reproduce and there's not much you can do about it. That being the case, I would have thought that someone with such a high regard for family values would want to ensure that those same values are given to those children. Excluding the parents of those children from the very institutions which you claim so vital for values to take root, would strike me as being counter-productive at best.

Same sex couples can only reproduce by the use of surrogacy. A male lacks a womb, and a female lacks the capacity to produce sperm.
Any form of "reproduction" will still be based on the male and female reproductive systems. So its actually doing nothing but to provide them with what they were born already, either a penis, or a womb.
They simply don't want to use those the way they were meant to be used.

Wrong. Relationships come with a set of responsibilities that you should fulfil. The number of failed relationships and dysfunctional families should indicate that this doesn't always happen. This is an issue that needs to be addressed, but it is a separate issue and has bugger all to with sexuality.

Relations without marriage are worthless. Their responsibilities have no ground to stand on, and there is no one to tell you otherwise.
I can cheat on my girlfriend, and can walk away from it without gathering much scorn from society. I can impregnate a girl outside of marriage, and can do practically the same, for I do not really have the responsibility to look after an illegitimate child. I can do most of these things outside of marriage.

Don't be stupid. It was an example to illustrate that you can't hold something as sacred simply because it has been prevalent though out the history of civilisation. I could just as easily have used religion as an example. Or slavery, war, rape or any number of other insalubrious examples.

Well, marriage is the basis of civilisation. So I can, and I have to.

No, it really isn't. If it was, then we wouldn't be facing an overpopulation crisis.

We'll just start a few wars, and it'll just go back to equilibrium.

Trust me, I despise Marx a damn sight more than he despised marriage. I do think families are important. I do think family values are important, but we clearly don't have the same opinion on what those values actually are.

Why despise Marx? He created your form of thought.
If you think families and family values are important, stop defending this gay marriage madness.
Be consistent with your own words. I am consistent with everything I say.

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

Yes, moral decay is to me today this whole "tolerance" bullcrap that goes on today. Tolerate every form of moral decay, while silencing anyone who objects to it with "bigot!".
You people are such hypocrites.

What? Moral decay is tolerance, but we have to tolerate moral decay? So your problem is that you have to tolerate tolerance?? Talk sense.

And well, if the said thing is a tradition itself, it does. Marriage itself is a tradition, and is bound by traditions.

I'm tired of explaining why tradition alone is an insufficient defence. If you continue to try to use tradition as an a priori justification in any of your points, I'll simply dismiss it.

It's not the same thing, because marriage does not just have a legal position, but also a social position.

Great comeback. The point I was replying to was specifically about legal rights.

Because they are not a fringe group. They do not identify as a seperate group within society. They're part of the majority that has the privilage to marry.

My mistake, I must have got confused by them being a group that you described as fringe examples

You know, lets do that. And slavery was abolished. Will you be the ones to abolish marriage? Or allow the slaves to own slaves?

Congratulations on completely missing the point. Yet Again.

That's an assertion, care to back it up? Whilst your at it, explain why homosexuals couples can't have family values. If they were raised in your utopian family unit, they should certainly know what family values are, right? Explain why they can't pass on those values. Actually, before you do that, why don't you explain those values are?

Well, it is as to say that a known traitor can become a nationalist leader.It is the same as to suggest homosexuals that live out this lifestyle in contrast to their upbringing, can become people who perpetrate the same upbringing. IT is ridiculous.

Well done on explaining those values. As for backing up the assertion, that was pathetic. Treason is a matter of perspective. A traitor to one person is a hero to another.

You you did distort my words as though I had said anything about it.

No. I directly quoted you in my response. There was no distortion.

Same sex couples can only reproduce by the use of surrogacy. A male lacks a womb, and a female lacks the capacity to produce sperm. Any form of "reproduction" will still be based on the male and female reproductive systems. So its actually doing nothing but to provide them with what they were born already, either a penis, or a womb.They simply don't want to use those the way they were meant to be used.

I see you paid close attention to those links. Well done.

Relations without marriage are worthless. Their responsibilities have no ground to stand on, and there is no one to tell you otherwise.
I can cheat on my girlfriend, and can walk away from it without gathering much scorn from society. I can impregnate a girl outside of marriage, and can do practically the same, for I do not really have the responsibility to look after an illegitimate child. I can do most of these things outside of marriage.

You can do all those things in a marriage too. "Traditionally", there has been little to no stigma for a man that does so.

We'll just start a few wars, and it'll just go back to equilibrium.

I think I'll recycle one of my earlier responses to you:

Not a bad idea. Then we could get ourselves some sexy uniforms, reclaim the Sudetenland and......and........oh, wait. This is starting to sound a bit familiar.

Why despise Marx? He created your form of thought.

Really? I didn't know Karl Marx hated socialism. Are you sure you're not talking shite again?

[Violet]

[Violet]

[Lion IRC]

[Lion IRC]

If its taken so long to get just 15 States - not all of which popularly voted for SSM in the normal democratic fashion - how much longer or likely will it be that every other State will eventually follow?

Isn't there a good likelihood that 15 same-sex marriage 'ghetto' jurisdictions might casually SLOW DOWN the impetus as other States are alleviated of the so-called 'need' for LGBTQI folk to be able to get "married"?

Same gender people can no longer truthfully claim that can't get "married". They CAN!

It would be ironic if the so-called victory in some jurisdictions actually made it harder for gay ppl in surrounding States to claim that they are being discriminated against.

[Autumnlicious]

Isn't there a good likelihood that 15 same-sex marriage 'ghetto' jurisdictions might casually SLOW DOWN the impetus as other States are alleviated of the so-called 'need' for LGBTQI folk to be able to get "married"?

Of course Lion, the same way free states magically made it more difficult for slave states to become free /s

[Ryantology]