Same-sex Marriage

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Jway

I don't care to!!

<...>

Thus, not sure why we WHO AGREE ON A BROADER DEFINITION, would care about "traditional" or "true" ones.

It was you and HydrogenBond who began using the terms "traditional" and "true" as pertains to marriage. I asked for defense of those descriptors, specifically how "true" and "traditional" meant "between one man and one woman" as implied by both of your posts.

I see that you are incapable of defending that, and I accept your concession, and appreciate your clarification that you agree there is no such thing as a "true" or "traditional" marriage restricting it to "one man and one woman."

[Jway]

My concession can also be said as your failure to understand my point.

Again, I believe I operate (currently) and have since beginning of this thread from a less restrictive definition of marriage than you. Feel free to prove me wrong, even while your words are available on earlier pages for all to see. For me, a fairly accurate definition of marriage refers to: a social, religious, spiritual, emotional and/or legal union of individuals that creates kinship.

I got that from Wikipedia, but if speaking in my own words, I'd go with "union of individuals" and be done with it.

[Boerseun]

I don't see what the fuss is all about.

It's all relative, and open to interpretation.

If you're a staunch orthodox Christian, then same-sex marriage will be wrong on your part. If you're a staunch humanist, it won't be. If your moral code is determined by the Letter of the Law, it merely depends on which State or Country you're in for same-sex marriages to be right or wrong.

But I think attempting to prove it universally right or wrong will be an exercise in futility, due to the many and conflicting moral codes out there.

And Jway, this thread is clearly not about polygamy - be it same sex or not.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Jway

For me, a fairly accurate definition of marriage refers to: a social, religious, spiritual, emotional and/or legal union of individuals that creates kinship.

Which ignores atheists and their legitimate marriages.

[Jway]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Which ignores atheists and their legitimate marriages.

My personal definition DOES NOT.

I think the Wikipedia would be fairly read as: definition of marriage refers to -a social and/or, religious and/or, spiritual and/or, emotional and/or and/or legal union of individuals that creates kinship.

But perhaps you disagree even with that. So, we could go with my definition, the broadest of them all and one I believe I am entirely consistent with except when to make a facetious point about those who hold more restrictive definitions.

Btw, I'm even willing to update my persona definition to: an union.
Let me know who I may be ignoring now? And show me another anywhere who would be willing to go this broad in current society.

[Jway]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

And Jway, this thread is clearly not about polygamy - be it same sex or not.

I don't really care to discuss polygamy, especially if it is off-limits.

I care to uncover a fair, accurate, all inclusive definition of marriage. I believe homosexual marriages (between two or more individuals) fits within the definition that I find most accurate.

[Hasanuddin]

I agree with you 100% InfiniteNow,

This is a definite molehill, teacup-storm, and nothing-something. The only reason there is an issue is because people create there to be an issue. And on that note, I think I will say "goodbye" to this thread.

Personally I think there are way too many laws on the books in the USA to consider that actual freedom and liberty still exists in the USA. I remember one year it was reported that California adopted over 3000 new laws onto the books. Although it could be argued that among those laws were legitimate causes, many were there simply to curtain the freedoms of others. For example, one law made it illegal to kill, sell, or eat squirrel, which was a direct attempt to control Asian immigrants' vile habits. Personally, I'd say eat'm. What's vile are the squirrels: disease-carrying, marauding, vandalizing rats (with pretty coats.) I don’t like squirrels because they rudely destroy gardens, break into houses, and cause major property damage. What I don’t like either, is that the City of Boston has similar laws. I would have no remorse trapping and drowning them, it’d be just like pulling weeds (culling the herd,) to make things better. But I can’t. If I do I risk going to jail or being fined. Because of someone I don’t know, what I am allowed to do on my property, to protect my property, is curtailed.

Marriage is a much bigger deal. Commitments of marriage take years to develop intrapersonally. Trust is something you need to establish and earn. More importantly, marriage is a merging of tribes. A bringing together of two separate clans. Societally marriage has been used as a way of merging empires and establishing peace for cunturies. The “legal” certificate issued by the Commonwealth, State, City, or whatever municipality is almost superfluous. Why does it matter??

Well, it matters more for some people than it does for others. Before it was legal to marry in Massachusetts, we were planning to get married in Ontario at our favorite hidden thespian jewel, the city of Stratford. A bizarre little town in the middle of farmland with 5 Broadway sized theatres running a professional festival of theater throughout the summer. (Please note to those skeptics that think that marriage is just being pushed by “the gays” for monetary reasons—note that a Canadian license would have meant nothing to the IRS.) Stratford was ideal because it is midway between my family’s summer cottages in Michigan and Patrick’s family in Boston. But soon things started happening in Massachusetts. When it did pass, I refused to be one of the first to run to city hall. I didn’t want to stand in line. Mainly I wanted it to "count." If I was going to drag my family out from CA, OH, NM, MI, FL, DC, and NYC...I wanted to make sure I wasn't going to be embarrassed by a reversal. We only started making plans once it became “certain” that freedom to marry had been firmly established in this state. As I said in an earlier post, having all of our friends and family, having my father conduct the service, having my niece throw petals, and having my sister break her bracelet and rip her dress because she had a panic-attack thinking she was locked in a bathroom all are very dear memories to me. I’m so glad it happened. And thank you all for your kind words.

Would it have happened without the piece of paper… in Ontario, yes.

And what if there were no Ontario… in that case we would have been like gay men of centuries gone by together, committed, but on the down-low.

Is that better... no, not for me, perhaps for some uncomfortable straights, but not for me.tter…

Question: Why do you care what anybody else does anyways?

.ps: You don’t need to answer that question because I’m leaving this thread. But this is an important question to reflect upon

[Larv]

Originally Posted by Hasanuddin

Question: Why do you care what anybody else does anyways?

ps: You don’t need to answer that question because I’m leaving this thread. But this is an important question to reflect upon

Please don't go away mad, because everyone here is just laying out his/her opinion on the matter. What's wrong with that? Isn't that the purpose of this thread? And regarding your question, it makes me want to ask you: Then why do you care about legalizing same-sex marriage if you don't "care what anybody else does anyways."

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by Larv

And regarding your question, it makes me want to ask you: Then why do you care about legalizing same-sex marriage if you don't "care what anybody else does anyways."

We honestly don't have to care what anybody thinks of our stance or opinion regarding any matter whatsoever.

However, we don't get to pick and choose what legislation applies to us.

[InfiniteNow]

Larv - That seems to ignore his point, and misframe his position. He was asking, "Why should anyone be against allowing two same sex partners from being married? What harm does it cause these people who are against it?"

The reason Hasanuddin cares is NOT because he wants to control others, nor impose his own morality on to them via legislation, but because equality is worth fighting for. His position caring about the legalization of same sex marriage isn't about caring "what anybody else does anyway." It's about caring that discrimination in our society is rooted out, plucked from our culture like the weed it is.