Tweet
No, as I stated, the state provides the infrastructure and institutions to support marriage. But they belong to the people...why should it prevent any consenting couple getting married. There is no contradiction in my argument...
-
Speaking of Erith:
"It's not twinned with anywhere, but it does have a suicide pact with Dagenham" - Linda Smith -
I'm amazed that anyone would continue to "debate" BK on this after this comment:
originally posted by Ben Kenobi
...this is only the answer if one makes a prior assumption, that this is the best homosexuals can expect. If they can change, then one ought to encourage homosexuals to do so, rather than allowing them to marry their same-sex partner. Why relegate them to a lesser position, when there is more to be hoped for?"The French caused the war [Persian Gulf war, 1991]" - Ned
"you people who bash Bush have no appreciation for one of the great presidents in our history." - Ned
"I wish I had gay sex in the boy scouts" - DissidentComment
-
dp"The French caused the war [Persian Gulf war, 1991]" - Ned
"you people who bash Bush have no appreciation for one of the great presidents in our history." - Ned
"I wish I had gay sex in the boy scouts" - DissidentComment
-
Originally posted by Straybow
Nobody denies you the option of marriage. Nobody says you have to love the woman you marry, or feel sexual attraction for her, or even be faithful to her as long as she's understanding. Heck, look at the Clintons.
If you want to marry a man, you are in fact demanding a separate right: the right to redefine marriage contrary to current and historical social convention. Why cannot the Mormons redefine marriage for polygamy, contrary to current convention, where they can at least point to hoary traditions however long dispossessed in the West?
If you want the right to name a common-law beneficiary, medical power of attorney, co-ownership of assets, etc that is a matter that can be handled independent of marriage.
Comment
-
FudgeOriginally posted by Provost Harrison
No, as I stated, the state provides the infrastructure and institutions to support marriage. But they belong to the people...why should it prevent any consenting couple getting married. There is no contradiction in my argument...www.my-piano.blogspotComment
-
No, as I stated, the state provides the infrastructure and institutions to support marriage. But they belong to the people...why should it prevent any consenting couple getting married. There is no contradiction in my argument...Speaking of Erith:
"It's not twinned with anywhere, but it does have a suicide pact with Dagenham" - Linda SmithComment
-
What?Originally posted by Park Avenue
Fudge
Speaking of Erith:
"It's not twinned with anywhere, but it does have a suicide pact with Dagenham" - Linda SmithComment
-
Your suggestion doesn't make sense. It's either private or public, what is it?
www.my-piano.blogspotComment
-
No Stew, you fail to grasp. Marriage is a private thing between people, eg, who decides to get married to one another, etc. The framework for it is adminstered by the state. If you do not like the orientation of the people who are getting married, and it upsets your sensibilities, then it's tough. Public sector spending is a public thing, but on the other hand, my tax bill is private. There is no contradiction.Speaking of Erith:
"It's not twinned with anywhere, but it does have a suicide pact with Dagenham" - Linda SmithComment
-
"If you do not like the orientation of the people who are getting married, and it upsets your sensibilities, then it's tough"
Ditto
Marriage is for a man and a woman. No-one is discriminated against. You don't need to love to marry, unfortunately it isn't a prerequisite.www.my-piano.blogspotComment
-
Why is it solely for a man and woman? Qualify that comment.Speaking of Erith:
"It's not twinned with anywhere, but it does have a suicide pact with Dagenham" - Linda SmithComment
-
It'd be goos for the economy to allow gays to marry because you know that all the ceremonies would have to be FABULOUS.I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator RubioComment
-
"Why is it solely for a man and woman? Qualify that comment."
Why can it also be for a gay and a gay? There's no reason for it except tax evasion.www.my-piano.blogspotComment
-
Same thing could be said about straight couples.Originally posted by Park Avenue
"Why is it solely for a man and woman? Qualify that comment."
Why can it also be for a gay and a gay? There's no reason for it except tax evasion.
You know what.. follow what one part of the North west did, stop marriage completely.For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)Comment
-
OK, so marriage is not about love, it's about institution. It has become painfully clear to me. You're saying it's better to fake it with the opposite sex than to marry the person you love. No wonder the divorce rate is going up...Originally posted by Straybow
Nobody denies you the option of marriage. Nobody says you have to love the woman you marry, or feel sexual attraction for her, or even be faithful to her as long as she's understanding. Heck, look at the Clintons.
Actually, if a significant number of people wanted marriage to have more than two participants, I would be all for it. As long as that means that not only can one man have several wifes, but also one woman could have several husbands or, indeed, anyone have several partners of their own or opposite sex. I would just think there are more gay couples than those feeling their polygamistic relationships should be written into law, so this is a more pressing issue at the moment...If you want to marry a man, you are in fact demanding a separate right: the right to redefine marriage contrary to current and historical social convention. Why cannot the Mormons redefine marriage for polygamy, contrary to current convention, where they can at least point to hoary traditions however long dispossessed in the West?
Actually, the title of the arrangement does not matter to me that much. I am happy with the fact that in Finland, we have same-sex civil unions that are just like marriage but for the name. It just would make sense to extend marriage to everybody, instead of founding a separate institution. That would ensure that people are treated equally and that gays are not favored, because Ben seems to be very concerned about not giving *separate* treatment. I agree with him on that, separate treatment makes no sense.If you want the right to name a common-law beneficiary, medical power of attorney, co-ownership of assets, etc that is a matter that can be handled independent of marriage.Comment
Comment