Homosexual Marriage

[devonin]

Er...you did perhaps see the dozen times where we pointed out the difference between the religious sacrament of "marriage" and the legal status of "married" and how the two, despite having similar names, are not actually the same?

Also...I'm pretty positive that much older religions than christianity had marriage, just as cultures much older than the christian middle east had legal status for spouses.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by lord_carbo

Yes, but those kids had moms.

Yeah; Mom's who made absolutely no difference to the level of comfort of kids undergoing serious, life threatening medical procedures. That sure suggests "critical and neccessary position of a mother in every family" to me!

Seriously, the idea that there's some special bond between mother and child is mostly a construction of women who don't want to think they bore a child for 9 months and went through the pain of labor just to be irrelevent. Feminists, in at least some perspectives from their typically unconsolidated philosophies, have triumphed in re-enforcing social perception of a mother as someone who inherently provides special nurturance and guidance to their young. The concepts of Gender essentialism and of Gender behavior essentialism, although inherently sexist in my perception and in the perception of many Feminists, have ironically been strengthened by this baseless but understandable reaction of many women to their biological existences. When women tried to start defining themselves from themselves as opposed to secondarily from the language and
philosophy of men, many of them ended up adopting the same conceptions as men had all along.

Either women have been constructing their ideas of self all along and have simply contributed to their disenfranchisement, or whether they are simply predisposed as most people are to accepting conventional social wisdom as the starting point for their greater frame of reference, is pretty much irrelevent. The result is the same.

MORE IRONY! This outlook has lead to increasing acceptability of single parent families, but only in the form of single women. Due to gender essentialist thought, single male families aren't anywhere near as socially acceptable, often meeting with outright rejection. It takes no more than a brief glimpse at divorce court to see how custody is granted and you'll understand this. Single women, however, show dramatic signs of inferiority in child raising, as likely would single men if there were enough of them to observe.

Here's the clincher though; same sex couples show identical child raising ability as traditional couples, regardless of gender. So congratulations society, your idiocy and insistence of maintaining comfort level by refusing to address the dissassociations between reality and traditional conceptions of gender continue to **** us over, much like everything else traditional you strive to uphold with such passion.

[devonin]

It amuses me really that women so completely dominate custody and divorce proceedings, when it wasn't until the 1800s in england that women had -any- legal status after marriage whatsoever. Up until that point, a woman who was married had her legal status suspended, completely subordinate to the legal status of her husband, functionally becoming property, and if there was a divorce (which a woman could only get if she could prove her husband was an adulterer -and- guilty of some other crime) she then had no legal rights at all unless she re-married.

[Kilroy_x]

History has brought us a long way from our old problems using the same mindsets. The predominant ways of thinking remain flawed in much the same ways, just with different outcomes. A sense of cultural relativity may be amusing, but it's problematic precisely for the reason it ignores the root of the problem to focus on the manifestations of the problem, something which doesn't teach us much.

[devonin]

it's problematic precisely for the reason it ignores the root of the problem to focus on the manifestations of the problem

It is positively frightening to consider the number of issues that are very "touchy" in american culture these days (Gay rights, affirmative action etc etc) that fall afoul of -exactly- what you've described.

[Masq]

I don't see what the big deal is about marriage anyway.

But, if they're going to allow heterosexuals to marry, then it should be the same for homosexuals, I guess. I don't know why it's outlawed and so many people are against it. No one's forcing you to attend homosexual weddings or watch them live their married lives.

Is anyone going to think differently of homosexuals after they get married as opposed to before they're married? I don't think so, therefore, it really shouldn't matter. To me, it's just a ceremony.

Question: What harm/disadvantage comes out of allowing homosexuals to marry?

Sorry if I'm being a parrot. I'm too lazy to read through the first pages.

[AriesMalvis]

im watching that episode of tyra...with the whole homosexual hating
and i kno this is off the topic of gay marriage,
but i could seriously not believe when the person said that all the ppl who died on 9/11 were gays, perverts, and stuff like that
i just kno if i had been there it would have turned into something more like jerry springer

[Lamoc]

They said that about 9/11!?

[peanut_freak]

i dont really think its wrong. why r people so against it. i guess mabey people think its weird is because it may go against their religion. it goes against my religion but i dont see whats the big deal about it.

[sheneen]

I think it should be allowed... but I don't think they should make it public. As in not put it in the news. I don't have a problem with it I would like to see more people homosexual because I know that there are people that are and they don't want to say it because they're afraid people will make crude jokes. And ask questoins that shouldn't be asked. But that's just my opinion lol

[AriesMalvis]

^yea they only give so much publicity to it now cuz it's different, whether it's shows as something good or bad. i think it should be allowed, be accepted, and that's it...once that happens it won't be such a big deal...and it won't get coverage on the tv all the time

Originally Posted by Lamoc

They said that about 9/11!?

yea and it got me so mad
i mean government officials, firefighters, citizens...died that day
the lady said it was cuz america didn't repent, so we were punished

[Lamoc]

That's just wrong.

[devonin]

What's the name of that song, where the chorus is like "I'm just goin round in circles, going around in circles, going around in circles"?

Yeah, that.

[SuperSonicX]

well to put it this way I AM NOT A LITTLE KID! I am 17 and chances are probably older than you. If you want to be the FFR *** of the year, please go ahead without me

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by SuperSonicX

well to put it this way I AM NOT A LITTLE KID! I am 17 and chances are probably older than you. If you want to be the FFR *** of the year, please go ahead without me

Chances are that you're about the average age of the forum users, and younger than most of the people who regularly post in CT.

Your reading level is probably about that of a kindergartener since you clearly haven't read the rules of the forum.

Post like that again and you'll get a nice vacation.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Kamunt]

Originally Posted by devonin

Homosexuals aren't bisexuals, however.

It's the whole...same root different prefix means different concept thing.

Omnisexuals F.T.W. 'Nuff said.

Originally Posted by devonin

What's the name of that song, where the chorus is like "I'm just goin round in circles, going around in circles, going around in circles"?

Yeah, that.

Um...."Circles"?

[AriesMalvis]

Originally Posted by SuperSonicX

well to put it this way I AM NOT A LITTLE KID! I am 17 and chances are probably older than you. If you want to be the FFR *** of the year, please go ahead without me

lol wow...attitude problem
and yea age doesn't have much say on this site
it's more of a maturity thing rather than actual age

[lord_carbo]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Yeah; Mom's who made absolutely no difference to the level of comfort of kids undergoing serious, life threatening medical procedures. That sure suggests "critical and neccessary position of a mother in every family" to me!

It's called "taking things for granted." More or less the position of a parent in general, not so much specifically mothers as per the rest of your post.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by lord_carbo

It's called "taking things for granted." More or less the position of a parent in general, not so much specifically mothers as per the rest of your post.

I'm not sure what you mean. The general cultural assumptions parents make about their neccessity are probably across the board in terms of gender, race, sexuality blah blah blah, but many assumptions are gender specific and based on conceptions of gender essentialism. Child rearing ability tends to be something Mothers are assumed to have, and a special bond between mother and child is a concept directly tied to this.

[Chrissi]

I would still like to see an answer to what I posted earlier? Because if I am correct, there is no more possibility for debate.

My idea:

Everyone should agree that religion has no place in legal matters, meaning that any two adults should be allowed to be legally married. Gay marriage is therefore not an issue.

Also, everyone should agree that the government has no place in religious matters, meaning that each church can allow or disallow anyone they want to be married by the church. Gay marriage is therefore, again, NOT AN ISSUE.

This effectively ends the argument.

Please find a problem with it.