Let's just stop recognizing marriage as a whole

Julian, wrote:
Also, I am not in favor of any homosexual marriage bill that doesn't allow for polygamy as well. Chloe Sevigny and Ginnifer Goodwin deserve the right to be married to Bill Paxton just as much as Jeanne Tripplehorn does. C'mon people, think big picture!

nothing beats bill paxton like bill paxton in "near dark."  nothing!

game over, man . . . game over.

Julian, wrote:
Also, I am not in favor of any homosexual marriage bill that doesn't allow for polygamy as well. Chloe Sevigny and Ginnifer Goodwin deserve the right to be married to Bill Paxton just as much as Jeanne Tripplehorn does. C'mon people, think big picture!

horseshit!  barb and bill have SEVEN years under their belt.  also, chloe's character is a b-i-t-c-h.

Julian, wrote:
I'm choosing to stop recognizing homosexuals as a whole until they quit bitching about their agenda. Sorry guys, few rotten apples, ya know?

Julian, you are the one who seems to have an "agenda" these days. First Obama, then your neighbors, now the gays! 

  I think this article is pretty funny and right on. Its funny how some people tend to mistake their "beliefs" with "truths".  You say tomato…

AMEN.

num wrote:

Julian, wrote:
I'm choosing to stop recognizing homosexuals as a whole until they quit bitching about their agenda. Sorry guys, few rotten apples, ya know?

Julian, you are the one who seems to have an "agenda" these days. First Obama, then your neighbors, now the gays!   

  I think this article is pretty funny and right on. Its funny how some people tend to mistake their "beliefs" with "truths".   You say tomato…

(quiet yet innocent gay toss off)

seeing how the god hate fags people are coming to dc for the inaguration to protest something, because protesting is the new reality show, i guess . . . somehow i have a sneaky feeling they will stick their feet in their mouth and say something they should not against black people, and then that will be the end of that organization.

num wrote:
Julian, you are the one who seems to have an "agenda" these days. First Obama, then your neighbors, now the gays!  

I don't have an agenda, I just think the entire discussion on this issue is so tired an weak. Someone pointed out a week or two back when I advocated more people getting married because of community property laws and the other protections marriage affords that absolutely all of those protections can be established outside the codifications of state-sanctioned marriage and therefore it would be stupid to consider getting married to someone as young as my girlfriend.

Well, if that's true, then why do people continue to act like homosexual's not being allowed to marry is this huge issue? Simply legalizing homosexual marriage is not going to make anyone who has a problem with homosexual marriage "recognize" it or whatever. It's a completely symbolic gesture, which I generally find unimportant. I just have no idea why everyone 20-35 is in such a fury over gay marriage. If I was a homosexual, and I couldn't get married legally, I'd simply get married "religiously" or whatever term you want to use and fill out DPAs to protect my spouse. I honestly don't think I'd care what other people think. But to listen to threads like this, it's this huge thing and we should all be douchebags and act like jerks to counteract other people being douchebags and acting like jerks. Israel and Palestine do that all the time; doesn't seem to work well for them.

if gays and straights shot missiles at each other . . . i wonder who would win?

walkonby wrote:
if gays and straights shot missles at each other . . . i wonder who would win?

There's a Dick Armey joke somewhere in here, but for the life of me, I can't find it.

Julian, wrote:

num wrote:
Julian, you are the one who seems to have an "agenda" these days. First Obama, then your neighbors, now the gays!  

Well, if that's true, then why do people continue to act like homosexual's not being allowed to marry is this huge issue? Simply legalizing homosexual marriage is not going to make anyone who has a problem with homosexual marriage "recognize" it or whatever. It's a completely symbolic gesture, which I generally find unimportant. I just have no idea why everyone 20-35 is in such a fury over gay marriage. If I was a homosexual, and I couldn't get married legally, I'd simply get married "religiously" or whatever term you want to use and fill out DPAs to protect my spouse. I honestly don't think I'd care what other people think. But to listen to threads like this, it's this huge thing and we should all be douchebags and act like jerks to counteract other people being douchebags and acting like jerks. Israel and Palestine do that all the time; doesn't seem to work well for them.

I think that advocates of gay marriage would say that the fact that you don't care is essentially meaningless.  The people who are impacted - the people who want to get married - DO care, an enormous amount, because it is a principled point rather than a pragmatic one.

Let us say, for sake of argument, that gay couples could obtain all of the same protections under the law even if they were not married (and I believe this is true in most places, though probably not all).  To most activists, the prohibition of gay marriage under the law is a symbol of the implicit prejudice that exists towards the GLBT community.  While that symbol may not matter to you, if you can recognize that it matters a great deal to the parties that feel oppressed, why would you deny it to them or dismiss their argument as unimportant?

I'm not questioning homosexuals being upset about it. If I was in their position, I don't think I would be up in arms, but many are, and anyway that's not the point. What I'm saying is the way that frustration is channeled isn't constructive.

In my mind, barring some sort of end of days, there will eventually be homosexual marriage in this country. But it won't come about by some movement to not recognize anyone's marriages or Brad and Angelina refusing to get married until everyone can (previously: "be[ing] douchebags and acting like jerks to counteract other people being douchebags and acting like jerks"), it'll come about in 10-15 years when public opinion is naturally turned by older, generally more socially-conservative, people dying off and being replaced by younger, generally more socially-liberal, people replacing them. That's how social change has always been brought about, gradually over time.

I still think a far more interesting topic is who is in favor of legalizing polygamy and incest marriages, and if not why.

Julian, wrote:
In my mind, barring some sort of end of days, there will eventually be homosexual marriage in this country. But it won't come about by some movement to not recognize anyone's marriages or Brad and Angelina refusing to get married until everyone can (previously: "be[ing] douchebags and acting like jerks to counteract other people being douchebags and acting like jerks"), it'll come about in 10-15 years when public opinion is naturally turned by older, generally more socially-conservative, people dying off and being replaced by younger, generally more socially-liberal, people replacing them. That's how social change has always been brought about, gradually over time.

I still think a far more interesting topic is who is in favor of legalizing polygamy and incest marriages, and if not why.

But that social change that you're speaking of is only brought about by people organizing and demanding that change is brought about.  Is it going to happen as a result of a campaign like this one, where we don't recognize any marriages?  No, probably not - but it keeps the conversation going. Actions like these, along with protests and activism, impact the consciousness and in turn make it more acceptable for other changes to occur.  If nobody objected, why would there be a generational shift?

I understand your point, but I don't think the generational change that you're talking about occurs unless there is somebody standing up and demanding that the change occur.

Julian, wrote:
that absolutely all of those protections can be established outside the codifications of state-sanctioned marriage

Your mythology does not trump reality, especially when children are involved.

vansmack wrote:
Your mythology does not trump reality, especially when children are involved.

The next time homosexual intercourse produces an offspring, you call me.

Julian, wrote:
The next time homosexual intercourse produces an offspring, you call me.

Or how about the next time heterosexual intercourse produces a child they don't want or can't properly take care of.

That's your phone ringing, BTW.  Off the hook.

callat703 wrote:
I understand your point, but I don't think the generational change that you're talking about occurs unless there is somebody standing up and demanding that the change occur.

And I'm saying there's a large difference between "standing up and demanding change occur" like voting for candidates who support homosexual rights and being a douchebag to other people. If it's your belief that everyone's marriage should be acknowledged and recognized, then recognizing no one's marriage is a dick move. It's like the old statement two wrongs don't make a right.

I believe firmly that people shouldn't walk down the street and punch other people in the face, but if I read in the newspaper that some guy was punched in the face while walking down the street, my best way to speak out against such an atrocity is not walking down the street and punching everyone I see in the face. It's like Palestine shooting missiles at Israel because the Israelis broke the peace fire – do they really think that's going to make the situation better, or does it muddy the waters?

vansmack wrote:
Or how about the next time heterosexual intercourse produces a child they don't want or can't properly take care of.

When the heck did I argue otherwise? I'm sure you think you really zinged me with that non-sequitor there, chum. Man, put me in my place. Now that I've been made aware that some heterosexuals have unplanned pregnancies my point about the fundamentals of meiosis is blown away.

So is your teenaged girlfriend really your sister?

Julian, wrote:

I still think a far more interesting topic is who is in favor of legalizing polygamy and incest marriages, and if not why.

Julian, wrote:
When the heck did I argue otherwise?

You said:

"that absolutely all of those protections can be established outside the codifications of state-sanctioned marriage"

And I said FALSE, especially with children.

And then said you said: Gay people can't have kids.

And I was pointing out that they can adopt.

Well guess who can't adopt? 

Two single individuals.  So if one gay parent adopts, his Domesrtic Partner would not be able to adopt the same child.  If the adoptive parent were to die, the original parent would have a stronger case to reassume parenting of the child (or even the adoptive parents surviving realtives), leaving the domestic partner who has been raising the child in along drawn out court battle that would never happen between to loving spouses.

So you're wrong in your premise that "that absolutely all of those protections can be established outside the codifications of state-sanctioned marriage."

That's all I was pointing out.

Well you could have just said "adoption" instead of some over-the-river-and-thru-the-woods way of getting there. Fine, 98% of all the protections afforded by state-sanctioned marriage are currently available to unmarried people. We live in a country where 9% of our kids suffer from "food insecurity" according to HHS, and a world where 3,000 kids starve to death every hour, but alternate lifestyle adoption is such a pressing issue.

Julian, wrote:
Well you could have just said "adoption" instead of some over-the-river-and-thru-the-woods way of getting there.

This, coming from the guy who uses 5,000 words to say "I like Gossip Girl."