Gay rights?

[harleysneak]

It is nice to hear such a constructive discussion of gay marriage go on and not just the if we let gays marry, what's to stop people from marrying their cat or dog or anyone they say they love. How people can make the jump to that, i just don't understand.

 

[dong]

Now there's another question to raise for the forum...animal husbandry! I might post this as a separate thread once I've figured out exactly what it is I want to be asking

 

[Brandon]

what's to stop people from marrying their cat or dog or anyone they say they love.

We can draw a line at the species level. e.g only humans can marry other humans.

Man! That is creepy just thinking about a man/woman marrying their cat/dog/hampster/ferret/etc...

 

[Furious George]

It is nice to hear such a constructive discussion of gay marriage go on and not just the if we let gays marry, what's to stop people from marrying their cat or dog or anyone they say they love. How people can make the jump to that, i just don't understand.

That's what I like about this place--the lack of closed minded morons.

:thumbup:

 

[dong]

We can draw a line at the species level. e.g only humans can marry other humans.

Man! That is creepy just thinking about a man/woman marrying their cat/dog/hampster/ferret/etc...

Creepy? It happens! A fair bit! I can think of a few examples of sanctioned, approved animal/human (edit: both man and woman) marriages off the top of my head, and after investigating the personal story, presuming that the portrait of a slightly-adjusted but otherwise happy and stable domestic life was indeed correct, the only thing I can think "wrong" with it would be again the same debate we're having about semantics of what marriage actually entails.

That said, I am not sure how "valid" it would be because it wouldn't be difficult to believe that many animals would not really appreciate the "marriage" for what it is- that part is purely for human edification, really (human conventions, after all). But I contend that they wouldn't actually need to, so long as there was a discernible emotional bond between the two (which I also assert exists).

Anyway, like I said, will post another thread about it!

 

[Furious George]

Creepy? It happens! A fair bit! I can think of a few examples of sanctioned, approved animal/human (edit: both man and woman) marriages off the top of my head, and after investigating the personal story, presuming that the portrait of a slightly-adjusted but otherwise happy and stable domestic life was indeed correct, the only thing I can think "wrong" with it would be again the same debate we're having about semantics of what marriage actually entails.

That said, I am not sure how "valid" it would be because it wouldn't be difficult to believe that many animals would not really appreciate the "marriage" for what it is- that part is purely for human edification, really (human conventions, after all). But I contend that they wouldn't actually need to, so long as there was a discernible emotional bond between the two (which I also assert exists).

Anyway, like I said, will post another thread about it!

Assuming the animal actually knows you are well-intentioned.

:thumbup:

 

[lizakollman]

If the government is concerned about the state of marriage in this country - ie the divorce rate and the rate of single parents, you'd THINK that they would want everyone to get married to someone so that it would create stable families and family units. you'd THINK that they wouldn't care who was marrying who, as long as there was a family created that worked together and played together, and yes, even went to church together. you'd THINK.

 

[Furious George]

If the government is concerned about the state of marriage in this country - ie the divorce rate and the rate of single parents, you'd THINK that they would want everyone to get married to someone so that it would create stable families and family units. you'd THINK that they wouldn't care who was marrying who, as long as there was a family created that worked together and played together, and yes, even went to church together. you'd THINK.

It's the Government. What you think--does not matter, and your logic--isn't applicable.

 

[Brandon]

It's the Government. What you think--does not matter, and your logic--isn't applicable.

I think liza's points are valid. Not to sound like a conspiracy nut but I think there is a reason why government isn't fighting harder to protect marriage. When you don't have a husband/wife/family to turn to, who will you turn to?

Social Services!

With more social services you get more government. All this equals more power for politicans because you now depend more on them.

But lets not waiver off the main issue at hand. Gay rights.

 

[All5Horizons]

There is nothing wrong with people being in a committed relationship - HOWEVER, the term and idea of marriage has historically been one man and one woman. Sure, there are groups that have distorted this idea for there own benefit, but most societies accept marriage as one man and one woman.

My question to everyone would be why change a historically significant tradition for a few individuals?

See this is a problem...you're making a horrible error that everyone seems to. I doubt that you are really that informed on the history of marriage. People tend to just ASSUME that marriage was meant to be between a man and a woman.

In ancient Greece, it was quite common for men to marry other men, it was ridiculed but legally recognized in 2nd century Rome for men to marry each other...in 18th Century London, they took place...the "historical significance" argument is out the window.


Aside from that, even if marriage was historically "supposed" to be between a man and a woman, to say that history should remain unquestioned for the benefit of the majority is absurd. Unless you would like to go back to the point where apartheid is the common method of getting diamonds, where women have no job save cooking and cleaning, where 5 black votes equal 3 white ones, where slavery is abundant as they are seen as "cattle", and where women can't vote...I'd say that you might not be too keen with the ideas in history.

Think...it doesn't hurt to do it every once in a while.

 

[Furious George]

I think lisa's points are valid. Not to sound like a conspiracy nut but I think there is a reason why government isn't fighting harder to protect marriage. When you don't have a husband/wife/family to turn to, who will you turn to?

Social Services!

With more social services you get more government. All this equals more power for politicans because you now depend more on them.

But lets not waiver off the main issue at hand. Gay rights.

Don't get me wrong, I was totally agreeing with her, but I was just stating that it's the Government, and whether or not you know something is right and justified, your opinion hardly matters.

 

[lizakollman]

It's the Government. What you think--does not matter, and your logic--isn't applicable.

yes. i know. i was just being sarcastic.

 

[Hussar]

Heh, if you think gay rights are protected, just ask these guys who were told to stop touching on an airplane. Yeah, because, y'know, no one ever snogs on an airplane. O.O

 

[All5Horizons]

Heh, if you think gay rights are protected, just ask these guys who were told to stop touching on an airplane. Yeah, because, y'know, no one ever snogs on an airplane. O.O

*sigh* oh the world we live in....

 

[dong]

Oh we'll be saying that for like, forever. Not just coz of gay rights, oh no.