Poetry Forum

Full Version: British Lawmakers Approve Gay Marriage
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
(03-19-2014, 08:27 PM)trueenigma Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-19-2014, 01:41 PM)milo Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-19-2014, 12:12 PM)trueenigma Wrote: [ -> ]It may be worth considering that to some marriage is not about legal rights, but about conjugal family union; filial bonds and responsibilities, heritage, legacy, and family tradition. To some reproduction is sacred, to others heritage, bloodlines, and natural traits—as well as traditions regarding the way the child is nurtured—are all important parts of their legacy.

There are still people who carefully select their mates for more than their personal happiness and sexual interests, preferences, or even orientations, for purposes that extend beyond their own generation. Some who engage in the marital act of reproduction do so to leave their mark upon this earth, and they seek to impart and preserve their values through the union, and on into future generations. They pay taxes to their government to provide the institutions necessary to preserve their families' historical and legal record for posterity. The right and ability to reproduce is important to them; it is special. It is their immortality. Like those who are religious, it is how they seek to serve and believe in something greater than themselves. It is what makes them tick. Some of them may even want to, or even prefer to, have homosexual sex, but deny themselves that pleasure, to serve what they believe is more important than themselves - their gene pool. Some may engage in homosexual acts in their private lives, and act upon other sexual fantasies. Some may be downright homosexual, but are engaged in a marital union with a member of the opposite sex because they see reproduction and family as more important than sexuality. Others may simply want to preserve their legacy, and don't feel that couples who are unable to produce their own children together should be allowed to manipulate their gene pools in a petri dish. They may want the mothers or fathers of their descendants to be people who are to be involved in the children's upbringing. They may want the fathers or mothers or in laws of their descendants to be selected not only for their genetic contribution, but their contribution to the family unit itself - they may want their descendants to select a parent for their own children that they can live with, honor, and cherish, and who will do the same for them. They may want that person to be the one to provide the egg, or the sperm. The foundations that they lay for their families' futures, and the values they wish to impart, may be the very reason behind every single act that they commit during their brief and fragile adult lives.

Cool story, brah.
What does this have to do with governments recognizing same sex marriages?

Idk, and I don't care. I Thought we were discussing the cost of tea in China.

That's a very eloquent treatise on the role of marriage.

AndWePreach

Super happy with this outcome….. Being born a British Citizen and now earning my American one I only hope some of our progressive ideals will diffuse over the sea eventually.

For those who don't know, British comedy and British television has been socially liberal for almost 30-40 years now. You can easily Google and see which of the current popular late-night hosts are homosexual……And read some of their jokes while you are there also.

I haven't read much of the comments of this because I don't want my first read of the population to be on a thread such as this…… I hope you all understand. But that's my opinion on that. Over-joyed. Beautiful people are the goal. Freedom of expression is the catalyst. Preaching out!
(03-19-2014, 05:06 PM)rayheinrich Wrote: [ -> ]individuals that show no sexual proclivity at all:
evolution will weed these out eventually (i.e. we
still have a little time left).

uh . . . wouldn't that argument hold for same-sex couples? Why shouldn't people without sexual proclivity receive the same rights as "same-sex" proclivitists?

What happened to our equality?
(04-10-2014, 11:32 AM)milo Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-19-2014, 05:06 PM)rayheinrich Wrote: [ -> ]individuals that show no sexual proclivity at all:
evolution will weed these out eventually (i.e. we
still have a little time left).

uh . . . wouldn't that argument hold for same-sex couples? Why shouldn't people without sexual proclivity receive the same rights as "same-sex" proclivitists?

What happened to our equality?

When you give someone a banana, they will slip on it.

When you teach someone irony, you'll never have to worry
about bananas again.


[Image: BudhaBanana.jpg]

(04-10-2014, 12:52 PM)rayheinrich Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-10-2014, 11:32 AM)milo Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-19-2014, 05:06 PM)rayheinrich Wrote: [ -> ]individuals that show no sexual proclivity at all:
evolution will weed these out eventually (i.e. we
still have a little time left).

uh . . . wouldn't that argument hold for same-sex couples? Why shouldn't people without sexual proclivity receive the same rights as "same-sex" proclivitists?

What happened to our equality?

When you give someone a banana, they will slip on it.

When you teach someone irony, you'll never have to worry
about bananas again.


[Image: BudhaBanana.jpg]


You ever notice how many non-ironic things are labelled irony?
(04-10-2014, 11:32 AM)milo Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-19-2014, 05:06 PM)rayheinrich Wrote: [ -> ]individuals that show no sexual proclivity at all:
evolution will weed these out eventually (i.e. we
still have a little time left).

uh . . . wouldn't that argument hold for same-sex couples? Why shouldn't people without sexual proclivity receive the same rights as "same-sex" proclivitists?

What happened to our equality?

I think you should be able to marry your horse....after all, it's all about freedom to live your life as you see fit. I cannot understand why it has taken so long to make this union, same sex, legally tenable. So why not go the whole hog (no offence intended)? Now that the barriers are down and we embrace same sex, opposite sex, same race, different race...when will it be possible to intermarry different species? Of course, one would draw the line at inter-marriage between mammalian man (or woman, of course) and say, your much-loved ( apparently, the raison d'etre for the legal bond) canary...but it's just a matter of time.
The reproductive stop caused by Inter-species marriage could be negated by adoption...so the family unit could be maintained. Oh, I know it will take time for even the far-sighted among us to see that this is the inevitable route we will find ourselves on but it is early days.
I once felt peculiarly attached to an Amanita muscaria (so beautiful yet ephemeral) that I dreampt of marriage....but that's just so silly, I know.
Nonetheless, I went so far as to enquire of our local Bishop, a very nice Orangutang, if it would be possible to marry in sight of God, but I could tell by her body language that this would be a step too far, even if I did love my beautiful Amanita.
So...we are where we are but to get here I have realised one thing. Nothing REALLY matters except the price of tea.
tectak
(04-10-2014, 01:03 PM)milo Wrote: [ -> ]You ever notice how many non-ironic things are labelled irony?


                Non-ironic things labeled ironic are ironic.

Ferris wheels are ironic.

And a bit gay, so they fit with the thread.
You folks are hankering to get milo's goat up again.
milo's goat is gay
(04-10-2014, 07:28 PM)ChristopherSea Wrote: [ -> ]You folks are hankering to get milo's goat up again.

I think milo and I are as one on this...stranger things HAVE happened and will, I'm sure, again.
tectak
(04-10-2014, 12:52 PM)rayheinrich Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-10-2014, 11:32 AM)milo Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-19-2014, 05:06 PM)rayheinrich Wrote: [ -> ]individuals that show no sexual proclivity at all:
evolution will weed these out eventually (i.e. we
still have a little time left).

uh . . . wouldn't that argument hold for same-sex couples? Why shouldn't people without sexual proclivity receive the same rights as "same-sex" proclivitists?

What happened to our equality?

When you give someone a banana, they will slip on it.

When you teach someone irony, you'll never have to worry
about bananas again.


[Image: BudhaBanana.jpg]


Big Grin Thanks for this one.
(03-19-2014, 05:11 AM)Erthona Wrote: [ -> ]Actually none of those things are about the origin marriage. Marriage was to establish a stable union, in terms of support, and to see that the inheritance was passed down to the true offspring, thus the extremes that were gone to to show the girl was still a virgin, so the man would know the child was his offspring. However I think the sticking point is that heterosexual married couples don't want to have this discussion with their 7 year old daughter. Generally when people feel this strongly about a subject it has a strong personal component, and has little to do with philosophy or religion. The idea of gay marriage makes people uncomfortable, and making an argument about civil rights will have little effect. However a generation from now all of this will be a moot point.

Dale
Hi dale, yes, I read your tome in another place on this subject. It is a valid now as it was then.
Best,
tectak
"Hi dale, yes, I read your tome in another place on this subject. It is a valid now as it was then."

I am as stable as the northern star,
and they will say Caesar, and I will
(I just hope she screams a little)!
-----------------------------------------------------------
If you give a man a banana
he'll slip it on,
and turn in to Carmen Miranda.
(Nice off rhyme that.)

Dae MacGay of the clan MacGay
To the horse we say, neigh, neigh!
I thought it best to butt out (geddit?) early on, but a couple of things seem to have been skipped.

A ) Re bestiality. The argument must be, that the animal lacks the power to consent. That is fine, of course. But it does rather overlook the fact that, even in the 21st century, many owners of prize-winning bulls, accept money,

to allow the animal to 'serve' some unsuspecting female, normally a cow, without obtaining the informed consent of the servee! If our little debate does nothing more, it would be a great triumph to think that the campaign to put a stop to that was started right here. I go further: I contend that police-forces all over the world should pro-actively seek out, and halt any such likely transgressions whether in the wild or among domesticated animals: on land, in the air, under the seas and rivers and lakes.

B ) The incest thing. Yes, not good from a genetic point of view, but --- surely, consenting, same-sex siblings must be allowed to marry? I do not suggest this: I demand it, in the name of equality.

What business is it of anyone to deny these two groups?

Smile
It isn't about equality. It's about fairness and forward mindedness. We cannot be fair by being equal. Businesses who can find homosexuals who are willing to work for them, especially if it's in the stead of a more qualified candidate, should get a nice big tax break. Especially businesses owned by homosexuals. And if homosexuals don't have a homosexual representative they shouldn't have to pay taxes at all. That is taxation without representation. Any deficit in revenue can be recovered by simply raising the taxes on the majority--and especially those who disagree with us--and by raising the tax on tea.
(04-11-2014, 12:18 AM)tectak Wrote: [ -> ][quote='Erthona' pid='157889' dateline='1395173485']
Actually none of those things are about the origin marriage. Marriage was to establish a stable union, in terms of support, and to see that the inheritance was passed down to the true offspring, thus the extremes that were gone to to show the girl was still a virgin, so the man would know the child was his offspring. However I think the sticking point is that heterosexual married couples don't want to have this discussion with their 7 year old daughter. Generally when people feel this strongly about a subject it has a strong personal component, and has little to do with philosophy or religion. The idea of gay marriage makes people uncomfortable, and making an argument about civil rights will have little effect. However a generation from now all of this will be a moot point.

Dale

One point on the origins of marriage you overlooked was Once women married, their property rights were governed by English common law, which required that the property women took into a marriage, or acquired subsequently, be legally absorbed by their husbands.
George Washington benefited from that inclusion to the marriage vows to the tune of eighty-four slaves as well as land and property.

Ah for the good old days.

rowens

If a man wants to marry a man, or if a woman wants to marry a woman. That is completely outside the faggot jurisdiction of law. Cops are faggots; religious people with influence are faggots and dikes. People that are in love are in love. End of story. Men that love men, women that love women, men that love women, women that love men. They are in love, end of bureaucratic, story of the day story.


The words is mixed up.


Gay people, homosexual people, heterosexual people are free and normal.

Everybody else are what they invent: faggots, dykes, abnormal, whatever. The law is just something someone makes up. Terms are just something people that work with words make up.

I agree, gay marriage is offensive. I'm happy/ I'm not happy, anyway. The law is make believe. Poets, whether law-givers or writers, make laws. So it's a fight.
(03-19-2014, 09:21 AM)milo Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-19-2014, 09:12 AM)justcloudy Wrote: [ -> ]milo I honestly can't tell if you're playing devil's advocate for fun or if you're legitimately irritated by the lack of precise logic in a commonly held viewpoint.
In any case this is entertaining. ;p

Wink

I have no actual position but I do believe poets should challenge everything. Especially commonly held viewpoints.

I agree, and here's my thoughts on some viewpoints:

ChristopherSea wrote,

I see your exercise in logic and basis for argument, but it does not wash. Abuse of animals is not a relationship. There are laws against it. Those laws apply equally to the animal protector and the abuser. Just as their are laws preventing the serial killer from legally slaying humans, they apply to the rest of us. He suffers no inequality. You may as well argue that criminals suffer from inequality because the laws are against their way of life.

end quote

Abuse of animals, or anyone, is wrong. Plain and simple. If someone causes abuse, then throw them in prison and rescue the victim. However, if the act of bestiality doesn't hurt an animal, then it shouldn't be illegal. It should be private, and consent is an issue, but the law has no right to interfere with it. I personally think that many people wouldn't agree with this position because they are too disgusted by the thought, and want to just talk about anything else, and also because it's not sex between two consenting adults, but between one adult who has a concept of consent and one adult who probably does not have a concept of consent. It's completely legal to tie up a female horse and let the male one go to town, you know. It keeps the female from kicking, but it also does a fine job of taking consent out of the picture. Now, if you'll exucse me I'm going to go buy some hamburgers.

Back on topic, I don't see anything wrong with same-sex marriage at all, I just don't understand why it is necessary. It seems to blur the whole point of getting married. I mean, the idea is to have one parent out doing work and supporting the family while the other one stays home to care for the kids. A same-gender couple that can't ever produce kids doesn't have a reason to get married, except for that tax return bonus.

It's possible to make a life-long commitment to someone without being married. You can adopt a dog and take care of him for as long as he lives without marrying him. Heck, you can dedicate yourself to keeping a lighthouse in good shape all your life, and you don't marry it. I don't see anything morally or ethically wrong with marrying either of those things, but it's pointless.

Milo, please don't let your gay goat slip on any banana peels
(04-28-2014, 06:29 AM)kindofahippy Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-19-2014, 09:21 AM)milo Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-19-2014, 09:12 AM)justcloudy Wrote: [ -> ]milo I honestly can't tell if you're playing devil's advocate for fun or if you're legitimately irritated by the lack of precise logic in a commonly held viewpoint.
In any case this is entertaining. ;p

Wink

I have no actual position but I do believe poets should challenge everything. Especially commonly held viewpoints.

I agree, and here's my thoughts on some viewpoints:

ChristopherSea wrote,

I see your exercise in logic and basis for argument, but it does not wash. Abuse of animals is not a relationship. There are laws against it. Those laws apply equally to the animal protector and the abuser. Just as their are laws preventing the serial killer from legally slaying humans, they apply to the rest of us. He suffers no inequality. You may as well argue that criminals suffer from inequality because the laws are against their way of life.

end quote

Abuse of animals, or anyone, is wrong. Plain and simple. If someone causes abuse, then throw them in prison and rescue the victim. However, if the act of bestiality doesn't hurt an animal, then it shouldn't be illegal. It should be private, and consent is an issue, but the law has no right to interfere with it. I personally think that many people wouldn't agree with this position because they are too disgusted by the thought, and want to just talk about anything else, and also because it's not sex between two consenting adults, but between one adult who has a concept of consent and one adult who probably does not have a concept of consent. It's completely legal to tie up a female horse and let the male one go to town, you know. It keeps the female from kicking, but it also does a fine job of taking consent out of the picture. Now, if you'll exucse me I'm going to go buy some hamburgers.

Back on topic, I don't see anything wrong with same-sex marriage at all, I just don't understand why it is necessary. It seems to blur the whole point of getting married. I mean, the idea is to have one parent out doing work and supporting the family while the other one stays home to care for the kids. A same-gender couple that can't ever produce kids doesn't have a reason to get married, except for that tax return bonus.

It's possible to make a life-long commitment to someone without being married. You can adopt a dog and take care of him for as long as he lives without marrying him. Heck, you can dedicate yourself to keeping a lighthouse in good shape all your life, and you don't marry it. I don't see anything morally or ethically wrong with marrying either of those things, but it's pointless.

Milo, please don't let your gay goat slip on any banana peels

I would agree but is is also possible to take it one step further: it is legal for same sex couples to get married as it has been for some time. The state just won't recognise the marriage.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6