Iowa third state to legalize gay marriage.

[..]

I really don't get it HH. You seem to have deified this word "marriage." Now you say you want to let gays have the same thing, but just not call it marriage. WTF? I really don't get it. Help me out here.

 

It is just a word.

 

Or perhaps you want to change the English language to say that a church ceremony is a marriage and the legal joining of two people is a civil union? Good luck with that.

 

As I said, I don't get your point at all.

 

Cheers,

SD

[Central Scrutinizer]

HH,

 

Which I can totally agree with since it would give all the same rights, just under a different legal 'heading', but it is merely a game of semantics for those who want to claim the word 'marriage' for their silly heterosexual selves don't you think? It's a word naming an institution, a legal binder of people in a contract, the contract of marriage. Word games.

 

But I do know where you will go with this, or why you may have brought this up, as some gay activist people just will not accept this and want it all. They want 'the word'. These people are being more than a bit ridiculous and cutting off their noses to spite their face really. Every group will have their retarded stubborn radicals. The gay groups need to take what they can easily win, let the country get used to the law, and then press forward when they can see the time is ready. Social change needs to have the time to percolate down through the society until it is no longer considered 'new and dangerous', which after a decade or two, it will not be seen so and will be the norm and meanwhile all the rights will be there for them in everything but 'that' name only. I know, some people are idiots on either side of any debate.

 

A thousand years from now people will scratch their heads and wonder what all the fuss was about. And rightly so.

 

Under any name though, it is still a legal contract of marriage. Let's not kid ourselves. Just a bit more palatable for some who place so much importance on a word.

 

I imagine that is what will happen in most states across the country.

 

Cent

[Hugh_Hoy]

Okay SD and Cent, one response for both:

 

SD: Deified? 55555555 The word is codified, my friend.

 

As for the "now" part, that implies (to me) that I said something different previously. I don't think I have.

 

Have you forgotten my previous posts on this subject a few weeks back? Say you are a female dating some guy. "You ever been married"?, you ask. "Yes, but divorced three years ago", he responds. He neglects to tell you he was pounding some guys butt and doing 69 with guys for years and years. Don't you think you'd like to know this before getting into a relationship? Wouldn't you and your daughters like to know this? Do you think your gf would think differently about you if she later found out something like this about you?

 

If marriage is "just a word", you and the gays shouldn't get your panties in a knot, eh? SD, I gotta laugh at the insane...ABSOLUTELY INSANE...idea that I am the one who wants to change the English language. It is you and others who wish to change the meaning of the word "marriage".

 

Cent: I really don't think of heterosexuals as being silly. Rather, I tend to use different adjectives describing those who would like to commandeer the word to mean something that it has not meant in the past in every culture I studied (40-some years ago 5555)...and, of course, I would not agree to surrendering that meaning to them. I don't think it is "semantics" at all. Not any more than calling a cat a dog. Yeah...they both have four legs. So what?

 

To give gays the right to use the term "marriage" as a legal term, is (IMO) to recognize them as being other than poor, delusional, perverted human beings no different than any hetero couple. While they may be exactly the same in most respects, they are not in terms of traditional mores and folkways. If otherwise, it would not have been until the last couple of decades that gays have come out of the closet. Think of the politicians and movie stars that kept their sexual orientation a secret for as long as they could. Without "deifying" the term, I can only conclude that they are attempting to pervert (there's that word again) the term in an attempt to advance their delusional notion that they are the same as normal folks. I am not so deluded.

 

Notwithstanding the above, my objection to giving them the right to "marry" is not to "punish" them, but to protect those who are not the same and wish not to be confused with these people. Differentiation, IMO, is quite important.

 

to ya both (and good night from California)

 

HH

[Old Hippie]

The only laws needing changing really are the laws allowing these people their right to enter into a legal civil contract...

Cent

 

 

I agree with this sentence up to this point. And' date=' as I recall reading, a number of states have legislated this; not by some black-robed liberal zealots, but either by citizens actually voting/approving such a provision or a state legislature passing such a law.

 

I agree with the last part of your essay also. What I have trouble with is the "in your face" approach by the gay organizations and whinning to the courts every time things don't go their way. They really do come off as a bunch as pansies.

 

Call it a civil union. The butt-fuckers even want to have marriage applications changed from "husband/wife" to "spouse/spouse"

 

OH..I think the male ice skaters in pro and Olympic shows/competition are quite lovely. I would [b']never[/b] suggest that they be denied the right to purchase ice skates.

 

HH

 

 

 

But why should the people OR the legislature decide who can get married? As has been beaten to death, interracial marriages, they were illegal at one time because the people were against it...we realized that was fucked up and changed it. Thank god, or everyone on this board would be screwed!

 

Way to dodge my comment, now admit it, if the law read "Marriage is for 2 consenting adults regardless of race, creed, color, or national/ethnic origin..." You'd have no issue with it, but add "Gender" into it, and that is where you and the others lose it...

[Steve]

HH, thanks for the explanation. I wasn't sure what the opposition was but you have cleared it up.

 

I would suggest though that the word has changed. Not as radically as is being proposed now but it has.

 

There was a time in western society where a marriage between races wasn't recognized as such. I would suggest that had a Chinese man married a white woman in the 1800s it would not be seen as a 'marriage'. Back then a marriage was between same races. Same view had a former slave married a white woman. I don't think it would be seen as 'marriage' but co-habitation. The word has changed to include such coupling and will go through further changes as society changes.

 

Polygamous marriages weren't seen as 'real marriages' when the mormons did it. Western society was fervent in their belief that marriage can only be between one man and one woman.

 

Marriage and other 'words' will change definition to be more inclusive. Its the way society is going.

 

The word 'religion' excluded mormons. They were seen as a cult which people don't regard as a religion. Now they have joined christianity and judaism.

 

During the prop 8 debate many blacks felt incensed that gays would call it a 'civil rights' issue. Blacks felt they 'owned' the term. It tainted our struggle from 40 years ago. I told them "...we own shit, its not a black term, its a human term for any persons that don't have civil liberties..."

 

Words are powerful things. I'm not comfortable with all this gay shit myself. I dread the day we start seeing two men kissing on tv on a regular basis. Its going to happen. However, I know its wrong of me to say they can't and I can. However, I will NEVER get used to seeing two guys kissing. No matter what. May make me a bigot to some.

[Faustian]

Okay SD and Cent, one response for both:

 

SD: Deified? 55555555 The word is codified, my friend.

 

As for the "now" part, that implies (to me) that I said something different previously. I don't think I have.

 

Have you forgotten my previous posts on this subject a few weeks back? Say you are a female dating some guy. "You ever been married"?, you ask. "Yes, but divorced three years ago", he responds. He neglects to tell you he was pounding some guys butt and doing 69 with guys for years and years. Don't you think you'd like to know this before getting into a relationship? Wouldn't you and your daughters like to know this? Do you think your gf would think differently about you if she later found out something like this about you?

 

If marriage is "just a word", you and the gays shouldn't get your panties in a knot, eh? SD, I gotta laugh at the insane...ABSOLUTELY INSANE...idea that I am the one who wants to change the English language. It is you and others who wish to change the meaning of the word "marriage".

 

Cent: I really don't think of heterosexuals as being silly. Rather, I tend to use different adjectives describing those who would like to commandeer the word to mean something that it has not meant in the past in every culture I studied (40-some years ago 5555)...and, of course, I would not agree to surrendering that meaning to them. I don't think it is "semantics" at all. Not any more than calling a cat a dog. Yeah...they both have four legs. So what?

 

To give gays the right to use the term "marriage" as a legal term, is (IMO) to recognize them as being other than poor, delusional, perverted human beings no different than any hetero couple. While they may be exactly the same in most respects, they are not in terms of traditional mores and folkways. If otherwise, it would not have been until the last couple of decades that gays have come out of the closet. Think of the politicians and movie stars that kept their sexual orientation a secret for as long as they could. Without "deifying" the term, I can only conclude that they are attempting to pervert (there's that word again) the term in an attempt to advance their delusional notion that they are the same as normal folks. I am not so deluded.

 

Notwithstanding the above, my objection to giving them the right to "marry" is not to "punish" them, but to protect those who are not the same and wish not to be confused with these people. Differentiation, IMO, is quite important.

 

to ya both (and good night from California)

 

HH

 

How is homosexuality a perversion? Using what criteria? Please explain.

 

[Old Hippie]

Aren't oral sex and anal sex, between heterosexuals also considered perverse by some religious types...?

[Steve]

Islam doesn't allow for anal sex. A muslim girl told me that. Don't ask why it came up. :nahnah:

 

In catholocism, sex is solely for procreation so oral and anal sex is out. Technically speaking. Christianity generally has various views on it. The more orhtodox view is closer to catholicism. I recall it coming up in a discussion once in a men's meeting at church and the view from the pastor was that sexual desire between a man and wife is a 'gift from God' so oral and anal sex is okay if both parties enjoy it.

 

The christian views on anal sex as well as oral are based on the passages about sodom and gomorrah. However, it must be noted that those cities weren't destroyed because the citizens were gay but for being generally evil which covers a wide variety of sins. Homosexuality was probably one of them but they were also into beastiality. Anal sex between men was not the sole or primary reason. They didn't feed the poor, were arrogant before Lord, etc.

 

 

[Mekong]

Aren't oral sex and anal sex, between heterosexuals also considered perverse by some religious types...?

 

The advantages of being an Athiest!

[itsmedave]

Hugh Hoy said <>

 

I think you just made my point, Hugh. You are saying the government should not allow the word gay and marriage to mix because it would be telling the gays they are normal and not perverted.

 

Well, what the fuck business is it of the government to make a moral decision either way. It specifically says in our most sacred documents that founded this country that all men are created equal...meaning the government is not to say who is normal and who is perverted.

 

I respect that you, as an individual, (and as an American) have a right to your opinion that they are not equal to you...but the government does not have that right. And, as a good American who wants to keep your rights to think and do as you please (and as soembody who likely said the pledge of allegiance thousands of times) it is your duty to expect that the laws of the land will continue to allow for the life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and equal rights for all regardless of your (or your God's) personal opinion.

 

So, yes, if straight people can be called married, then gay people should be called married with the exact same terms of the contract applied to both. They are free to have their pursuit of happiness and you are free to believe they are perverts. A wonderful world.