The Goat Pen

Homosexuality isn't new. It was the norm in ancient Greece...

Oh, I guess that's what Owlman meant by "And then there were the Spartans".

AlabamAlum wrote:Political correctness? This is just fairness, limited government reach, and fairness.

And the idea isn't new.

so now you're going to tell me that homosexuals were demanding to be married in 1800's, the 1700's, 1600's? going all the way back to Sumaria?

in the span of organized society, its a speck on the timeline.

From my perspective, it has nothing to do with fairness or government reach, if they want a union, I have no interest in stopping them, and if they want if official, I'm fine with that too

but its not marriage.

Buggery has been around since the beginning, but never gay marriage. That's because marriage has always been tied to building a family unit.

yea, thats kinda my point

Some cultures have had gay marriage. And marriage is tied to much more now. Financial, estate, and contractual reasons, to name a few.

With regard to 'building a family' three questions:

1). Gays can adopt. That count?

2). What about young hetero couples who say they won't ever have kids, and take the medical steps necessary to make sure, can they still marry?

3) What about women past menopause, or men/women with a physical issue that prevents them from procreating? Disallow them from marriage, too?

1) No

2) and 3) Marriage would be pointless.

If they want to name it Honkey Chopper, I will give them permission.

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/ ... pache-chi/

the marriage definition to me boils down to why we make a distinction in hetero versus homo.

equating gay marriage to me is equating hetero to homo - as if boiling it down to "well both couples fornicate, cohabitate, etc" so why make the distinction? We should not recognize a difference between hetero and homo - why do we even have them defined differently?" - yet we do and its culturally accepted - but marriage - no, that has to be the same definition, but marriage has been culturally defined for thousands of years as the union between a man and a woman, primarily for the purpose of creating and supporting a family. And yes, people get married and cannot have kids but that is not the model marriage represents. Society does not object to it because their union still represents the model and for all intensive purposes the intent of marriage, if not the actual execution.

I have no problem with homosexuals having a union similar to marriage that addresses the needs they have for legal, insurance, etc, but it should not be called marriage.

Its important to make that distinction.

sardis wrote:1) No

2) and 3) Marriage would be pointless.

Wow. No. While it may just mean procreation to you, your definition is not some immutable law.

And when the couple gets too old to procreate, and the kids leave nest? Dissolve the marriage?

I disagree completely with just about everything you said, eCat.

1) many cultures have allowed same sex marriage. We are already essentially the next one. Every few weeks or months, another state allows it or is forced to allow it.

2) to allow the non-procreating hetero couple marriage because it fits our "model" (the only part of the "model" that it fits is that they are not the same sex) is silly, arbitrary, unfair.

3) words and labels have power. Of course, we call it marriage - because that's what it is.

I cannot change your mind on this; it's silly to try. I think the only thing I can agree with you on is that you are indeed on the wrong side of history on this, and leave it at that.

sardis wrote:1) No

2) and 3) Marriage would be pointless.

So, are you saying that the guys who live around the corner from me who have been together for over 20 years, have raised three kids, and are legally married have not actually built a family?

"1) many cultures have allowed same sex marriage. We are already essentially the next one. Every few weeks or months, another state allows it or is forced to allow it."

Greeks and Romans had same sex unions, but it wasn't the same legal status as heterosexual unions.

Cletus wrote:

sardis wrote:1) No

2) and 3) Marriage would be pointless.

So, are you saying that the guys who live around the corner from me who have been together for over 20 years, have raised three kids, and are legally married have not actually built a family?

Incestual relationships can build families. Polygamists can certainly build families. Just because there are examples doesn't make it optimum.

I didn't expect to win a popularity contest with my opinion, but at 47, I'm past the point where being politically correct is not important enough to override my core values.

and for the sake of consistency, I don't think blade runner should have been allowed to run in the Olympics, Miracle Whip is not a substitute for mayonnaise and those fucking big shrimp are not lobster - get your shit right Captain D's.

sardis wrote:

Cletus wrote:

sardis wrote:1) No

2) and 3) Marriage would be pointless.

So, are you saying that the guys who live around the corner from me who have been together for over 20 years, have raised three kids, and are legally married have not actually built a family?

Incestual relationships can build families. Polygamists can certainly build families. Just because there are examples doesn't make it optimum.

Certainly. That's why the whole "building a family" thing is wrong-headed.

sardis wrote:"1) many cultures have allowed same sex marriage. We are already essentially the next one. Every few weeks or months, another state allows it or is forced to allow it."

Greeks and Romans had same sex unions, but it wasn't the same legal status as heterosexual unions.

I believe you are thinking about Greek Pederasty. There were certainly same-sex marriages, with all the rights thereunto appertaining, in many area of Asia, and Europe (before the Theodosian Code).

eCat wrote:I didn't expect to win a popularity contest with my opinion, but at 47, I'm past the point where being politically correct is not important enough to override my core values.

and for the sake of consistency, I don't think blade runner should have been allowed to run in the Olympics, Miracle Whip is not a substitute for mayonnaise and those fucking big shrimp are not lobster - get your shit right Captain D's.

I'm okay with your opinion, and you sharing it. Just as I hope you're okay with mine...


What I believe is this: In the end, most of the resistance today is by people who are believers in the Judeo-Christian mythology. I bristle when a government uses religious dogma as a reason to forbid two consenting adults from marrying because their concept of what a marriage can be is patterned after what their god(s) say it should be. I do not believe it's the government's place in the slightest to forbid it; however, I am fine with the Methodist church (for example) prohibiting such things. But a Justice of the Peace, or a church that is okay with it? What an overstep of authority by the Feds....Thank god it's changing...

And.....Agree on the murderer-blade guy, never had Captain D's "lobster", and I hate Miracle Whip.

the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all