Republicans really do hate gay people

[MrFun]

What does love have to do with marriage?

Everyone I know in my life (friends, family) where the two of them got married, married because they love one another.

[Kuciwalker]

And that makes no sense. That would be like saying, "Marriage is a right, but interracial marriage is not marriage."

Yes, it would be like that, but not precisely the same! The difference is that interracial marriage really is marriage, and under reasonable understandings of the term gay marriage really isn't marriage. It's a thing analogous to marriage but with an important difference.

Marriage is marriage, period - to hang onto the definition of marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman makes no sense,

Yes, but only because it's a good idea to extend the meaning of marriage to cover lifelong monogamous relationships between same-sex partners, as it costs us nothing and makes them happy.

as even before gay marriage had been legalized in some states, gay people have ALREADY GOTTEN MARRIED symbolically

i.e. even they admitted that their marriage was metaphorical.

What is the difference between love and devotion between two men, and love and devotion between a woman and man besides gender?

When you have sex with your boyfriend, do you call it vaginal intercourse? Why not? How is it different just because you're giving it to some guy up the ass?

Words have meanings! You think we should change the meaning. Fine! I agree with you! But the anti-gay marriage people are on solid ground when they say that this is a new meaning.

[Kuciwalker]

Maybe his point is that if men are biologically incapable of pregnancy, then they are biologically incapable of entering a lifelong relationship with another man. Who knows, really.

Men are biologically incapable of getting married to each other. They are perfectly capable of entering into a lifelong relationship with another man

[Felch]

No one is even born a polygamist so that is not a valid comparison.

I was born a polygamist.

[MrFun]

Fine! I agree with you! But the anti-gay marriage people are on solid ground when they say that this is a new meaning.

okay

[MrFun]

When you have sex with your boyfriend, do you call it vaginal intercourse? Why not? How is it different just because you're giving it to some guy up the ass?

This says a lot about the shallowness of people who diminish love and devotion between two people, to where they put their dick.

[gribbler]

This says a lot about the shallowness of people who diminish love and devotion between two people, to where they put their dick.

Yes. This discussion is just sad.

[Felch]

Hell, it looks like all men are born polygamists. So if we're going to change the laws so that MrFun can get married, how about showing a little love to those of us who have normal and natural biological urges?

[Kuciwalker]

Felch

[Wiglaf]

This says a lot about the shallowness of people who diminish love and devotion between two people, to where they put their dick.

It says a lot about your presumptuousness that you think your definition of marriage is better the one that predates the beginning of recorded history, and has survived mostly unmolested until the 1990s. Calling all of human history "just sad" requires such a dim view of humanity and a lack of faith in its capacity to reason, that you must not be fun at all to be around.

[Elok]

This says a lot about the shallowness of people who diminish love and devotion between two people, to where they put their dick.

That was just an analogy AFAICT.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, it wasn't, Imran. Anti-miscegenation laws had been clearly introduced with the specific intent of proscribing something that would have otherwise been considered well within the traditional notion of marriage. By contrast, the very idea of gay marriage did not exist until recently.

Utter nonsense.

In the US, for instance, anti-miscegenation laws have been on the books since the late 17th Century - roughly as long as laws on marriage in the Colonies to begin with. Furthermore, if you really want to be pedantic - you had anti-miscengenation laws ongoing for thousands of years - look at Biblical prohibitions of Jews marrying non-Jews. It has been a primary facet of marriage for ages. The practice was prohibited for those of different ethnicity. So... "traditional marriage" means only something that may have been around prior to 3,000 years ago?

This is a great argument for why the prohibition on polygamy (as religious discrimination) is more Constitutionally suspect than the non-recognition of gay marriage. It isn't an argument that the institution of marriage doesn't exist or that the word has no definition. The evolution of ideas and language doesn't imply the radical linguistic relativism you're asserting.

Not a fan of banning polygamy either. However, those tend to be caught up in separate legal issues (religious issues).

Furthermore the right of marriage as guaranteed by the state is an institution that confers certain legal rights. For all intents and purposes equal obtaining of those legal rights is the issue. To the extent of "why can't we call it civil unions" argument, what's the point - from henceforth on all rights marriage has apply to civil unions means they are in essence the same thing and calling it different things is a silly thing the state is doing for no benefit or reason whatsoever. Especially when more than a few churches are in the business of performing homosexual marriage. There, of course, is the Brown v. Board argument that separate can never be equal.

[Kuciwalker]

Utter nonsense.

In the US, for instance, anti-miscegenation laws have been on the books since the late 17th Century - roughly as long as laws on marriage in the Colonies to begin with. Furthermore, if you really want to be pedantic - you had anti-miscengenation laws ongoing for thousands of years - look at Biblical prohibitions of Jews marrying non-Jews. It has been a primary facet of marriage for ages. The practice was prohibited for those of different ethnicity. So... "traditional marriage" means only something that may have been around prior to 3,000 years ago?

Imran, you are making my point for me. Compare this to anti-same-sex marriage laws. They didn't even exist because "same-sex marriage" was already a contradiction in terms. There was no need to ban something that was logically impossible.

This is an actual example of the exception proving the rule.

[gribbler]

They didn't need to ban same-sex marriage because sodomites were put to death. Obviously no open homosexuals means no homosexuals trying to claim marriage rights.

[Kuciwalker]

There were plenty of cultures that tolerated or even encouraged sodomy.

[MRT144]

There were plenty of cultures that tolerated or even encouraged sodomy.

Sodomites for example.

[Kuciwalker]

I was thinking of the Greeks, but that works too.

[MrFun]

Are gay people who are born or naturalized in the United States, citizens of the United States?

[Kuciwalker]

MrFun, I think you may just not be intellectually equipped for this discussion.

[Tupac Shakur]

MrFun, I think you may just not be intellectually equipped for this discussion.

This happens to him a lot.

[Jon Miller]

Yes, it would be like that, but not precisely the same! The difference is that interracial marriage really is marriage, and under reasonable understandings of the term gay marriage really isn't marriage. It's a thing analogous to marriage but with an important difference.

Marriage is marriage, period - to hang onto the definition of marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman makes no sense,

Yes, but only because it's a good idea to extend the meaning of marriage to cover lifelong monogamous relationships between same-sex partners, as it costs us nothing and makes them happy.

as even before gay marriage had been legalized in some states, gay people have ALREADY GOTTEN MARRIED symbolically

i.e. even they admitted that their marriage was metaphorical.



When you have sex with your boyfriend, do you call it vaginal intercourse? Why not? How is it different just because you're giving it to some guy up the ass?

Words have meanings! You think we should change the meaning. Fine! I agree with you! But the anti-gay marriage people are on solid ground when they say that this is a new meaning.

Exactly. On all points.

JM

[gribbler]

Are gay people who are born or naturalized in the United States, citizens of the United States?

No.

[gribbler]

There were plenty of cultures that tolerated or even encouraged sodomy.

And none of them ever had same-sex marriage, ever...?

[Hauldren Collider]

MrFun, I think you may just not be intellectually equipped for this discussion.

QFT

[Guynemer]

It has been a long, long time since undergrad, but I seem to remember that some First Nations tribes, in so far that they had "marriage" at all, recognized it between same sex partners. I want to say the Cheyenne tribe was one of these, but--again--it is been many years since undergrad.

[Kuciwalker]

And none of them ever had same-sex marriage, ever...?

To my knowledge, no. I think the burden is on you to show otherwise.

[Kuciwalker]

It has been a long, long time since undergrad, but I seem to remember that some First Nations tribes, in so far that they had "marriage" at all, recognized it between same sex partners. I want to say the Cheyenne tribe was one of these, but--again--it is been many years since undergrad.

Native Americans are from a completely separate cultural heritage - they lost contact with our own ancestors before recorded history. You even give a nod to that with the scare quotes around "marriage".

That said, kudos to the Native Americans

[Wiglaf]

Taking social cues from barbaric and backwards cultures

[kentonio]

Why not, Europe has been taking cues from America for decades.

[DinoDoc]

Taking social cues from barbaric and backwards cultures

Obama is doing just that wrt Europe.