Marriage Debate

[Upchurch]

I noticed that nowhere in your list is there any obligation imposed upon a married person. Is that correct?

Legally, the only obligation a married person has is to not marry more than one person. I suppose there might be some other other obligations tax-wise, but I'm not as familiar with that sort of thing as I probably ought to be.

Please note that I said "legally" because that is what we're discussing here: legal marriage. Socially and religiously, there are other benefits and obligations based on the society and religion.

 

[Upchurch]

And that's the problem. You want gays to be married. Fine. What does that mean? (Yes. That's a serious question, and one that not many like to thing about, apparently.)

Maybe we should also reverse the question a bit.

Can we agree that even within the US, marriage means different things to different people, both socially and religiously? If so, then the only meaningful way to discuss what marriage means in an absolute sense (at least for us Americans) is to discuss the legal meaning of it.

What does legal marriage mean to you?

 

[Meadmaker]

Scot,
Don't think you're going to get out of this.

Upchurch has described a vision of marriage. Surely, it's better than what you have now. But does that meet your needs?

What does legal marriage mean to you?

I'll get back to you on that.

 

[Meadmaker]

OK. Back.

Just to avoid a semantic argument, I assume we both understand that legally, it means whatever the legislature and courts say it means, and you aren't looking for a discussion of whether or not we each have an understanding of current marriage law. I'm assuming you are asking what I think legal marriage ought to be.

I started writing out some legalese about what marriage ought to be like, but I remembered a much better expression of it. A quick trip to google revealed the following. The language is a bit dated, so we'll revise it a little. It may sound familiar.

Do you GROOM'S NAME take BRIDE'S NAME to be your wife – to live together after God’s ordinance – in the holy estate of matrimony? Will you love her, comfort her, honor and keep her, in sickness and in health, for richer, for poorer, for better, for worse, in sadness and in joy, to cherish and continually bestow upon her your heart’s deepest devotion, forsaking all others, keep yourself only unto her as long as you both shall live?

Ok. We'll have to revise and explain, but before we proceed, I want to make it absolutely clear that I want those vows to have legal force. Not sentiment. Not social. Not religious. You say them in front of witnesses so that they have legal meaning.

Old fashioned? You bet your sweet bippy.

Ok, we have to revise and explain. Revisions first. We have to get rid of God. That's a no brainer for a legal agreement in the US. And of course this is the 21st century so we'll get rid of all gender specific references.

Now some explanations:

love her: Unless you both agree to celibacy, that means you have sex. Since there's going to be sex involved, let's leave out siblings, parents, etc. That's just too icky.

Comfort, honor: If you are abusive or neglectful, the contract's off.

Keep: No abandonment.

Sickness and in health: No cutting and running when the going get's tough. Likewise with better and worse, sadness and joy.

Richer and poorer: That's a special case of the above, but with an added stipulation. It's impossible for one partner to be rich while the other is poor. How you manage your finances is your business, but you are sharing your property. Fully defining exactly how much control a spouse can keep over her own stuff is too difficult to go into here. For the most part, though, you're an item. If she's rich, he's rich. If she's poor, he's poor.

Bestow your heart's deepest devotion: Some people's hearts are deeper than others. Do your best.

Forsaking all others, keep yourself only unto her: Yeah, that's what it says. No nookie on the side.

As long as you both shall live: No getting out of this. You're in it till the big sleep. But see below.

Now, this is a legal contract between two persons. If they both understand that they want to have a slightly different view, ok. I'm liberal. You don't like that "forsaking all others" clause? Ok. Fine. You can each waive it. Who am I to judge. But, each person has to understand what's being waived here. And that's true about the celibacy, too. If you don't want to have sex, that's fine, as long as everyone finds it agreeable. There's some property you want to hold back: Ok. Sign the prenuptual. Everyone understands it, then.

Til death do us part?: Well, it's a contract between two people. If they each want to let each other out, ok. If you can work out something mutually agreeable. Just like every other contract. However, if you can't work out any agreement, then you're stuck. In other words, no fault divorce, if and only if both parties agree.

And, what if someone breaks the contract. What if they are abusive, adulterous,neglectful, fail to keep the property agreements (like gambling away the savings account, for example). Well then, like other contracts, the court comes in and tries to make best. They try to get what the wronged (that's wronged) party had a reason to expect they would get out of marriage. There's no way to enforce the love, honor, cherish, keep, etc, but the judge can at least try for the "richer or poorer" part. The person who broke the contract has to sacrifice to at least maintain the standard of living that the wronged party could have expected had they remained married.

It's not that hard. Just keep your promises. If not, a judge will provide some help. And if you still can't manage, a judge will provide the compensation for the person you injured by not keeping your promises. What could be simpler?

Oh, yeah. About those government goodies. You can't stay together in sickness and in health if you don't have the right to hospital visits. And, it's hard to imagine sharing wealth and happiness if one person can adopt children and the other can't, so if you have children or adopt them, you adopt them together. If one person lives in this country and another somewhere else, it will be hard to fulfill any of the vows. There had better be immigration rights. If one person has a retirement plan, and the other doesn't, then one person can be rich and the other poor, so they better be able to share money in retirement plans.

In other words, all of the privileges the government bestows upon married people are things you get because you need them in order to keep the obligations of marriage. It's the obligations that matter, not the privileges.

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

Scot,
Don't think you're going to get out of this.

Upchurch has described a vision of marriage. Surely, it's better than what you have now. But does that meet your needs?

You tapping me on the shoulder, then?

I… I… Hmm.. I just don’t dare guess as to what you’re saying Upchurch’s vision of marriage is.

He does have a point, in that, marriage still means something with or without the law involved. Take it from a guy who’s kept the promises for a long time, even when I’ve had absolutely no, zip, zero reason to do so , it’s meaningful.

A lot of that stuff Upchurch mentioned would meet our needs, personally, some of it not so much, like adoption rights; we’re both legal parents and finished growing as far as we know (But always the possibility of a friend or sibling passing and us ending up unexpectedly with more kids, you know ). Of course, all the stuff related to stay at home parents would be a big help.

But I’m still not sure what exactly the vision is you’re referring to.

[Curse you Mead! I just finish doing a lot of what you just posted, did some chores to think about it, then I go back to post and see you there. Eh, for what it’s worth:]

I suppose I could tell you what I’d like, for myself, in addition to what I’m asking for, though, to meet my needs.

Let’s call it “nessoehi”, and I’d even let you straight people have it… If you dare! [maniacal laughter]

You must enter into nessoehi understanding and knowing fully the consequences, and you’d sign your name to each one as a legal government contract along with your spouse in front of witnesses. And, yes, there would be consequences!

With nessoehi “till death do us part” is literal. We part, and it’s capital punishment! Well okay, not that, but it really really sucks for the one wanting out. In addition to fines, we even agree to jail time for abandonment, if we can’t show one of a couple possible means of escape. For example, to get out of our obligation, either I or my partner would have to show the other guy, hmm..: 1. abused us or our kids, 2. already physically abandoned and/or (I’m sure I’m not thinking of something). The one who abused or abandoned better brace for a legal whooping.

We both want out because we just “fell out of love”? We both then get the stick end of the law.

We’d agree to sexual fidelity and agree to jail time if we didn’t live up to it, regardless of if the other complains. Maybe it should be house/work arrest to keep the bread won and home made? Same goes with making children who are not to be parented by us in nessoehi, even though, for us types, that doesn’t include sexual infidelity that often. (You straight people make kids like that all the time, but even gays have been known to stray ).

I’d have our kids, born in ness-lock (waited half a page for that one), also hold legal ground for lawsuit against the cheater, as in nessoehi, those contractual obligations apply to any possible future children that you may become the parent of, by biology, adoption, whatever.

Also “nessoehi” is a one-time deal. We’d agree to give up our right to “nessoehi” another even if we survive a split, unless we were the one abused, etc.

Now, just for me, in my contract--I’d not recommend this for everyone--nessoehi is a one time deal, no matter what, death, abandonment, whatever. If I lose what I have, I’m done, for personal reasons that I don’t think I even fully understand.

I’m sure I’m missing something.

Anywhay, all that may sound harsh, but you don’t want “nessoehi”? Fine. Don’t get it. Get “marriage”, la-de-da.

It’s not like “nessoehi” gets you anything in taxes, rights, or insurance. It would be designed to give you what marriage gives, nothing more, not even the neat name. Nope, not a thing more for you (unless you count the peace of mind of your partner, your kids, and all their family).

Did I successfully make my two points, seemingly on the opposite ends?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Now, can you give us some details of "to continue the government promotion of one set of religions and the discrimination against other sets of religions?"

Sure. Some religions define marriage as being between two people, irregardless of the sex of each individual....

Which religions might those be?

....Other religions define marriage as being being between only one man and one woman....

And the (Christian) Church of Latter Day Saints defined marriage as being between one man and as many women as he pleased, and pressure from government put an end to that.

What's more, I don't remember a national campaign from that group demanding their that their religious rights be honored.

If it occurred and I missed it, it certainly wasn't successful.

Now, would you like to blame the rest of Christianity for that? The Pope, perhaps? God Himself?

The government had no right? The government had no interest?

Through legal and financial means, the US and state governments only promotes those marriages that conform to the requirements of the latter religions, to the exclusion of the former.

Do you think that might have something to do with the concept of "majority will"?

 

[Meadmaker]

I… I… Hmm.. I just don’t dare guess as to what you’re saying Upchurch’s vision of marriage is.

He said it himself. No legal obligations, other than no more than one marriage at a time.


nessoehi...Now that's hard core.

If the rest of you want to find a marriage fanatic, talk to Scot.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I"ll base my opinions on God's law, invisible sky pixies, little voices, or whatever I damned well please.

You'll do the same.

So will everyone else.

Then we'll vote.

You seem to be of the opinion that individual rights can be voted away....

Close. I am of the experience that individual rights can be voted, legislated, regulated, and ruled away.

I get very tired, very quickly of this entire “the people have a right to decide” nonsense coming from the anti-gay marriage crowd.

Whether they have the right or not isn't what I'm talking about.

The have the power to do so.

Been there. Still there.

Let’s face facts, the anti-SSM groups don’t care about what the majority thinks. If the majority supported gay marriage, you can rest assured that other than dropping the “democracy” argument they would not change their views in the slightest.

Just like you won't change your view in the slightest if the majority opposes gay marriage.

Indeed, one of the reasons they are pushing so hard for a marriage amendment now is that they want to make it as difficult for voters in the future to allow it.

Not so much the voters to allow it, but the courts to rule in favor of it.

If Congress had it together enough to pass a constitutional amendment banning slavery instead of playing the compromise game prior to Dred Scott, Roger Taney and his court wouldn't have been able to set the stage for civil war.

But maybe you’re right. Maybe the decision of who can or cannot get married should not be left up to the potential spouses, but rather to the voters.

Ummmmmmm......it already has been. Up to this point, marriage has been defined by the legislative branches. The Hawaiian and Massachusetts Supreme Courts have entered the fray, and voters/legislators throughout the nation reacted. Now the Presidency and Congress are wading in.

I propose a massive national website where any and all engaged couples must register all of their personal information and be subject to a nationwide poll on whether or not they should be married. Since voters seem to care so much about what sorts of jiggly bits people have, all potential spouses must submit nude photographs of themselves for national evaluation.

In addition to being infatuated with sexual activity with both genders, are you also hooked on pornography? That proposal would require an exposure to pornography in order for voters to exercise their right to vote.

I've often wondered why I see so many commercials on what little TV I watch focusing on sexual prowess and abilities. I can't watch the news without seeing a commercial pushing sexual enhancement drugs (which require a doctor's prescription, anyway). This thread seems to bolster the impression that some Americans are simply infatuated with sex.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
So? What does that have to do with "discriminating religions" as you asked before?

Is it that you just wish to advocate discrimination of religions that don't toe your line?

What are you talking about? Allowing legal SSM does not prevent those religions tht don't believe in SSM from prohibiting them within their faiths.

I was responding to Random, in reference to this award-winner of a sarcastic post:

Religion is a behavior. Should we discriminate based on that?

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Correct. And I have not done so.

And yet, you support a law that prevents the free exercise of religion.

No, I do not. I support laws regulating behavior, regardless if some have religious beliefs which allow them to behave in some ways.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
The United States Government cannot.

And should the US Government base a law preventing SSM on, in your opinion?

If the majority of citizens or legislators vote that way, yes.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I"ll base my opinions on God's law, invisible sky pixies, little voices, or whatever I damned well please.

You'll do the same.

So will everyone else.

Then we'll vote.

This is called the tyranny of the majority and it is why we have a checks and balances system in our government....

1) I am not "the majority"
2) My opinion is not law (nor does it have the authority of reality....see sig lines below)
3) Constitutional amendments are part of those "checks and balances"

...What some have called "judicial activism", I call "judges doing their jobs".

And, after a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage, judges had better continue "doing their jobs", because then there will be little room to "interpret", will there?

 

[Huntster]

Sadly, there is more truth to your words than I would like to admit. The courts have indeed pretty much ignored obligations of husband to wife, and vice versa. It's a pity, but there it is....

It's that slippery slope I am constantly told doesn't exist.

The more black letter law people insist on, the more that will be needed, and the more they will get.

After a while, it isn't erosion anymore. It's a complete flood.

Slippery slopes turn into free fall.

In a decent, respectable, world, a wife would be able to assume that a husband would spend the rest of his life trying to provide materially for his family, which consists of his wife and her children. Those children, not by coincidence, would be his as well. A wife would never have to fear that someday she might have to share the wealth with her husband's love child with a different woman.

And of course, such things have always happened....

And today it's an epidemic.

 

[Random]

In addition to being infatuated with sexual activity with both genders, are you also hooked on pornography? That proposal would require an exposure to pornography in order for voters to exercise their right to vote.

I've often wondered why I see so many commercials on what little TV I watch focusing on sexual prowess and abilities. I can't watch the news without seeing a commercial pushing sexual enhancement drugs (which require a doctor's prescription, anyway). This thread seems to bolster the impression that some Americans are simply infatuated with sex.

I'm not the one trying to prevent people from getting married based on what set of jiggly bits they have.

On a more serious note, the voters would not be required to view pornography in order to exercise their right to vote. With computers, we can put the nude photographs on a seperate webpage and the voters may look at them only if they choose to do so. The information would be there if they wished however. We want voters to make informed choices, right?

 

[Huntster]

Alaska is a virtual military outpost. I'm a longstanding member of the defense community. It might surprise you to know that, until fairly recently, the defense strategy here was atomic demolition after a hasty retreat if our air superiority failed.

Yikes. What about those bears then?

That used to be a different "department of defense" years ago that dealt with rogue bears. It was completely up to you alone.

Now, at least in the Anchorage area, the Area Biologist has turned into a "bear catcher". He's none too happy about it, either.

Take that up with the insurance industry...

I do, but it is an issue for any state agency as well. As a part of the armed services, you may have used such insurance, but here we have stay-at-home and part time working mothers with their partners sent off to war and they can’t get separate health insurance for themselves or sometimes their kids, aside from the greatly inefficient welfare programs, and if their partner gets killed, they are greatly out of luck. They can’t get it because they are female, otherwise, no problem.

Completely apart from the SSM issue, the health insurance situation is way out of hand. I have medical coverage with Blue Cross, it covers my wife and disabled son, my wife also has a Blue Cross family plan (for double coverage), and it's a fight to get anything out of them.

What's more, there is approximately 25% of the population without coverage. They're screaming, too.

Eventually, again with SSM disregarded, government will get more involved in the health insurance industry. And I'm not sure it will fix anything.

Again, race is not a behavior. Homosexual activity is.

Drinking at a particular water fountain is a behavior. Voting is a behavior. Getting married to a white woman is a behavior. I could claim I’m not discriminating against blacks by disallowing them all that, and could say I just don’t like it when they do the same behaviors whites do. I just wouldn’t agree with their behaviors, not their innate qualities. But I’d still have a problem.

Blacks and homosexuals can drink at any water fountain they choose. So can everyone else.

Black and homosexual men can marry any white woman who will marry them. In fact, they can even marry Hispanic and Asian women. White men can marry black women.

You are doing this with anatomy. An anatomical woman can’t get health insurance or claim to her homemaker’s SS, because she’s a she, not because she didn’t or can't make babies with her partner, or anything else.

They have no claim because the are not married, and they are not married because they are of the same gender.

If an unmarried man and women lived in the same household, they could still not enroll in the family health insurance plan that covers my family because they are not married.

Instead of lobbying to redefine "marriage" in order to obtain these so-called "rights", why don't you lobby to have these particular situations changed?

It’s not because of her behaviors of partnering up, solidifying her union in their church, and raising kids, because, if a person with a different anatomy did what she did, it’d be promoted instead. She wants to have the same behaviors as her fellow male citizen and treated the same when she does them, like the example of race above, but it’s the anatomy involved in the behaviors, not the behaviors themselves, that’s the problem.

Did I read that right? "She" wants the same "right" to have sex with women "as her fellow male citizen"? And that extends to the full justification and consummation that includes marriage?

And again, you say if Terry stopped having sex then he’d not be doing homosexual behavior. “Homosexuality is a behavior.” With this idea of yours it means I wasn’t homosexual until around 3 years after I came out, if ever (depending on your definitions), and I haven’t been for quite some time (man, I hate to keep touting a dull sex life, but it’s been made an issue ).

The reverse logic, of course, is that if I openly declared that "I am homosexual", and never engaged in a homosexual act, than I am indeed homosexual?

If I openly declared that "I am a Democrat", yet never voted for a Democrat in my life, and actually voted Republican, than I am indeed a Democrat?

If I declare that "I am a Martian", and have never been to Mars, and was born of human parents here on Earth, that I am indeed a Martian?

Also, it may surprise you to learn some of the couples, living together, in love, having raised kids, and wanting SSM, stopped having any sort of sex years ago. Yet, you’d not call them homosexuals?

I have to tell you about a fool I once worked with. He and another co-worker went to a strip joint in Anchorage. This guy was an idiot. There was a little cutie pie dancing on the stage, and this guy was making a scene. Sure enough, after her dance, she invited him outside. He came back in after a while, crowing to the other co-worker about their sex act, and how it was so good. After a while, this little thing got back on the stage. She danced just for him. He crowed and crowed for her to "take it all off". And at the end of the dance, "she" did. A little thing wagged at this idiot - and our co-worker.

He quietly returned to the table with the other co-worker, who was laughing uncontrollably. The idiot asked, "If a q***r performs a sex act on you, does that make you q***r, too?" The other co-worker loudly and firmly replied that it did. He had no alternative but to come to work the next day and confess his foolishness to the rest of the burly crew, knowing the other co-worker couldn't resist telling the story.

Yup. You can lap the ladies all your life. Suck one lollypop, and you're a lollypop sucker forever.................

Are priests who live up to their vows heterosexual, homosexual, asexual, or................what?

Since they never engage in a sex act for their whole lives, can they "declare" their "sexual orientation"?

To me, everything a homosexual does is, by definition, homosexual behavior.

Does that include engaging in a sex act with someone of the opposite gender?

You call a woman who only experiences a sexual attraction to men a “heterosexual”, right?

Nope. I call a woman who never engages in homosexuality a heterosexual.

Even if she’s never had sex or never will?

Yup.

What do you call a woman who only experiences a sexual attraction to women?

A woman who is tempted with sin.

That instinct is not a behavior

Correct. Just like when you become so angry with someone, and you're tempted to whip their ass (but don't) means you haven't committed battery.

Actually, I believe the RCC calls homosexuality a deep-seated inclination, and clearly distinguishes it from associated sexual behavior. I’ll find it if you’re interested.....

Been there:

Homosexuality:
Sexual attraction or orientation toward persons of the same sex and/or sexual acts between persons of the same sex. Homosexual acts are morally wrong because they violate God's purpose for human sexual activity (2357).

And:

Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358
The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359
Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Maybe I’m overreacting, but to be defined by some imagined sex act strikes me as dangerous.

One does not become homosexual by temptation any more than one becomes a murderer that way.

One becomes homosexual by acting out that temptation, just like a murderer becomes a murderer by acting out that temptation, just like a thief/fornicator/liar/etc.............................

In themselves passions are neither good nor evil. They are morally qualified only to the extent that they effectively engage reason and will. Passions are said to be voluntary, "either because they are commanded by the will or because the will does not place obstacles in their way."44 It belongs to the perfection of the moral or human good that the passions be governed by reason.45

1768
Strong feelings are not decisive for the morality or the holiness of persons; they are simply the inexhaustible reservoir of images and affections in which the moral life is expressed. Passions are morally good when they contribute to a good action, evil in the opposite case. The upright will orders the movements of the senses it appropriates to the good and to beatitude; an evil will succumbs to disordered passions and exacerbates them. Emotions and feelings can be taken up into the virtues or perverted by the vices.

Source

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

...
nessoehi...Now that's hard core.

If the rest of you want to find a marriage fanatic, talk to Scot.

Marriage fanatic?! Weren't you paying attention?

You can have your precious "marriage"; I said "nessoehi".

Edit: Furthermore, nessoehi is made for gay couples. It's out of the goodness of our hearts that we'll let you try it, even though it really doesn't apply to you.

And hard core?! How? It's not like any of that added stuff would ever hurt me, personally.

Besides, and again, you don’t want it, don’t get it. Get marriage, and get all the legal benefits, with none of that harsh stuff. Just tell your fiancee, and your family, and her family that you’d rather have marriage than nessoehi, and you have nothing to worry about.

 

[Upchurch]

Besides being busy at work, I've got another issue on the board I'm more concerned about at the moment, I just wanted to point out one thing:

And the (Christian) Church of Latter Day Saints defined marriage as being between one man and as many women as he pleased, and pressure from government put an end to that.

Incorrect, but nice try.

eta: Well, incorrect insofar as the reasons that they give. Maybe it was the government that put an end to it, but that is not the reasons they site.

 

[Meadmaker]

You are doing this with anatomy. An anatomical woman can’t get health insurance or claim to her homemaker’s SS, because she’s a she, not because .....

I recall back in the days of trying to pass the Equal Rights Ammendment that some opponents invented all sorts of wild, ridiculous, charges about what would happen if we passed the ERA. Every time they did that, irate feminists would attack those people for such obvious lies.

One of those obvious lies was that the passage of the Equal Rights Ammendment would some day lead to homosexuals demanding the right to marry, because, they would say, you aren't really discriminating against them on anything other than their gender. ERA proponents of course ridiculed this ridiculous notion.

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

Completely apart from the SSM issue, the health insurance situation is way out of hand. I have medical coverage with Blue Cross, it covers my wife and disabled son, my wife also has a Blue Cross family plan (for double coverage), and it's a fight to get anything out of them.

What's more, there is approximately 25% of the population without coverage. They're screaming, too.

Eventually, again with SSM disregarded, government will get more involved in the health insurance industry. And I'm not sure it will fix anything.

I’m just saying this is one quick fix, and economic studies seem to show it will save tax $.

Blacks and homosexuals can drink at any water fountain they choose. So can everyone else.

Black and homosexual men can marry any white woman who will marry them. In fact, they can even marry Hispanic and Asian women. White men can marry black women.

Yes, it’s not by skin color or ethnic background in this instance. It was. Now it’s about anatomy.

They have no claim because the are not married, and they are not married because they are of the same gender.

They have no claim because of their anatomy then, right? An innate trait, not a behavior. You know, you can discriminate on innate traits, if you want; I know I did in finding a companion. You wouldn’t and I’d not respect you if you did, but a person can even discriminate on race in their personal life and nothing much may happen to them.

The question is when can the state?

An aside but always interesting to me, do you think then people born genetically with about half their cells male and half female can never be married? I have journal articles and case studies on such people if you’re interested, and androgynous children, to one extent or another are born in about 1 in every 3000 births.

Anyway, whether or not they are “married”, regardless of what the law says, is now a matter of faith and opinion. And the word you call it, really isn’t too important to me anyway. I’d rather have nessoehi anyway .

If an unmarried man and women lived in the same household, they could still not enroll in the family health insurance plan that covers my family because they are not married.

But there are many gay couples that are married, by their church and by a government: Canada, Massachusetts, Spain… I know it pains you to think that, and I don't enjoy pointing that out to you, but it’s the case. The only thing stopping them when they move and DOMA kicks in is their anatomy.

Instead of lobbying to redefine "marriage" in order to obtain these so-called "rights", why don't you lobby to have these particular situations changed?

I lobby like crazy for all sorts of things, but redefining marriage in law is not on my list. Give me marriage, equal in rights and responsibilities, by another legal name and I'm willing to give it a shot. Heck, give gays nessoehi (It would be fun to watch all you straight people clamor for it, instead of marriage, when your fiancés start a fight ).

Again, I know it’s offensive to you, but the definition in the public has already changed, law or no law. This change happened quite a long time ago, and has happened many times before.

I admit I had a small part in it, in my small culture, just by my actions. I consider myself married, and so do most my family. But when I’ve lobbied, I’ve lobbied for the rights/obligations, not the name. I even voted for my local republican state senator who voted for our marriage amendment because she also voted for equal rights under another name (not to mention a couple other issues).

Did I read that right? "She" wants the same "right" to have sex with women "as her fellow male citizen"? And that extends to the full justification and consummation that includes marriage?

No, who’s talking about sex? Simply put, say you have two couples doing the same behaviors day to day. One thing they do is raise adopted kids, another thing they do is get married by their church in Canada, and another thing they do is move to Colorado. They want to be treated the same as the other couple, regardless of their inborn anatomy. If you can replace one parent with a stranger off the street with different anatomy and then all this stuff kicks in, that has to be justified discrimination.

The reverse logic, of course, is that if I openly declared that "I am homosexual", and never engaged in a homosexual act, than I am indeed homosexual?

You don’t have to declare or do anything. You know just by living if you are homosexual or heterosexual. It’s like looking at a red apple and it’s leaf; most people seed red and green, and others are colorblind and see the same color. Nothing needs be said or done to know when you look at a man you get one set on qualia and when you look at a woman you get another. You are familiar with the difference, right? (We can kid now, right?)

For another example, I know homosexuals who have been wheelchair bound all their life, with no control of their body and not a chance of any sexual act, yet they are still homosexual; they only operate one way in terms of sexual orientation (and, of course, some of the same sorts of people are heterosexual).

If I openly declared that "I am a Democrat", yet never voted for a Democrat in my life, and actually voted Republican, than I am indeed a Democrat?

Human instinct is amazing, but not that amazing!

You can say anything you want, watch: “I’m a heterosexual”… “I’m a rainbow trout”…wait…wait for it…

[for the record, nothing has yet happened, and I still want to go home to my partner, and
I still find Eva Longoria and swimming in cold streams unappealing]

(I take some of that back; You may find interesting the genetic studies that do indeed find a genetic relation to Democratic vs Republican voting. I’ll track them down if you like.)

Oops, got to go. I’ll get to the rest later, Huntster…

Edited for clarity (Too quick do I post; now I have to go)

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

I recall back in the days of trying to pass the Equal Rights Ammendment that some opponents invented all sorts of wild, ridiculous, charges about what would happen if we passed the ERA. Every time they did that, irate feminists would attack those people for such obvious lies.

One of those obvious lies was that the passage of the Equal Rights Ammendment would some day lead to homosexuals demanding the right to marry, because, they would say, you aren't really discriminating against them on anything other than their gender. ERA proponents of course ridiculed this ridiculous notion.

Have you seen the era web site lately? They were still denying this, last time I looked.

 

[Meadmaker]

I wouldn't have thought that there was an ERA web page, but I looked it up. I didn't see anything about gay marriage, but I didn't look very hard.

And of course the web page was ridiculous, with its claim that they only need three more states.

 

[ZirconBlue]

One of those obvious lies was that the passage of the Equal Rights Ammendment would some day lead to homosexuals demanding the right to marry, because, they would say, you aren't really discriminating against them on anything other than their gender. ERA proponents of course ridiculed this ridiculous notion.

And of course they were right, since [some] homosexuals are demanding the right to marry, while the ERA has not been passed. Ergo, "passage of the Equal Rights Ammendment" did not "lead to homosexuals demanding the right to marry."

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
And the (Christian) Church of Latter Day Saints defined marriage as being between one man and as many women as he pleased, and pressure from government put an end to that.

Incorrect, but nice try....

I was quite correct, and it was a damned good try:

....During his tenure, the church faced a number of legal battles with the United States, primarily over the practice of plural marriage. The church faced a real possibility of being destroyed as a viable legal entity, as it was faced with disfranchisement and federal confiscation of Mormon property, including temples.
Citing revelation, Woodruff issued the 1890 Manifesto which ended polygamy or plural marriage in the Territory of Utah and directed Latter-day Saints only to enter into marriages that are recognized by the laws in the areas in which they reside......

eta: Well, incorrect insofar as the reasons that they give. Maybe it was the government that put an end to it, but that is not the reasons they site.

Funny how that works, isn't it?