Gay Marriage
- Thread starter Haggis McBagpipe
- Start date
Stated simply, because of the requisite corresponding sexual organs being unavailable to it, a homosexual marriage can never be consummated. It is a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron, and cannot be. The more I listen to its promotion, the more it is evident that smoke, mirrors, dramatic misdirection and sleight-of-hand are all the argument there is in its favor. What mainstream sympathy exists appears to be spawned by a backfiring of the vaguely menacing diatribes of opposition.
The fact is, two-income households unencumbered by the considerable costs and time demands associated with child-rearing have available to them relatively greater discretionary income, as well as free time for lobbying, demonstrating and volunteering; enabling them direct political participation greater than that of couples burdened with children. Time and money, converted into political favor, garner tracts of scarce legislative agenda. This supposed civilization-rattling controversy is no more complicated than that. Money talks. Sometimes it talks nonsense.
The fact is, two-income households unencumbered by the considerable costs and time demands associated with child-rearing have available to them relatively greater discretionary income, as well as free time for lobbying, demonstrating and volunteering; enabling them direct political participation greater than that of couples burdened with children. Time and money, converted into political favor, garner tracts of scarce legislative agenda. This supposed civilization-rattling controversy is no more complicated than that. Money talks. Sometimes it talks nonsense.
I fully support gay marriage. If two people of the same sex wish to make their commitment to each other official, who are we to stand in the way?
I don't even understand why this is an issue.
I don't even understand why this is an issue.
In regards to consummation of marriage as critical to what constitutes a marriage, would this mean that a marriage between paraplegics would not be valid?
As for child-rearing, I am wholeheartedly in favour of gay couples adopting. What better atmosphere in which to raise a child than one with parents so dedicated and in love that they are willing to suffer what society dishes out in order to be together?
As for child-rearing, I am wholeheartedly in favour of gay couples adopting. What better atmosphere in which to raise a child than one with parents so dedicated and in love that they are willing to suffer what society dishes out in order to be together?
Marriage is a union between two consenting adults that love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. End of story.
Consumation of the relationship has nothing to do with anything (as Haggis so succinctly pointed out).
I support anyone who wants to have a loving relationship validated as a marriage.
Consumation of the relationship has nothing to do with anything (as Haggis so succinctly pointed out).
I support anyone who wants to have a loving relationship validated as a marriage.
Here's a thought-- why not have everything OUTSIDE religious traditions referred to as marriages and let couples who desire religious sanctification in churches that are uncomfortable with same sex marriages as 'religious marriages'.
Those churches that have no problem with same sex unions can issue 'religious marriage' certificates.
In this way, nobody is really happy-- a sure indicator of compromise.
Those churches that have no problem with same sex unions can issue 'religious marriage' certificates.
In this way, nobody is really happy-- a sure indicator of compromise.
The consummation issue is not a moral one, it's a point of law. Marriage is a legal contract. Like all contracts, marriage entails a variety of stipulations, obligations, and so on.
I have no objection whatever to homosexual couples dwelling together. It's a point of law. If there were a form of civil union designed to encompass the wishes of these good folks, and which was drafted to embrace their specific legal requirements as pertains to property, financial assets, joint tax filing, employee health insurance(!), probate considerations, etc., I'd support it. Otherwise, I believe in "calling spayed spayed." Consummation is required before a marriage contract is recognized binding on the parties, and that requires the conjunction of a penis and a vagina, and an ejaculation. Marriage and probate, the codes are entwined. Those of you have ever done your genealogy will recognize that fact.
I have no objection whatever to homosexual couples dwelling together. It's a point of law. If there were a form of civil union designed to encompass the wishes of these good folks, and which was drafted to embrace their specific legal requirements as pertains to property, financial assets, joint tax filing, employee health insurance(!), probate considerations, etc., I'd support it. Otherwise, I believe in "calling spayed spayed." Consummation is required before a marriage contract is recognized binding on the parties, and that requires the conjunction of a penis and a vagina, and an ejaculation. Marriage and probate, the codes are entwined. Those of you have ever done your genealogy will recognize that fact.
I think, AV, the issue is mostly religious in nature.
Religions have their creeds.
make all marriage civil, save religious. In other words, rewrite rather than REWRITE.
Religions have their creeds.
make all marriage civil, save religious. In other words, rewrite rather than REWRITE.
While ministers of religion can be licensed to preside at marriages, they are in no sense necessary parties. In America, rooted in Article One of the Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, there is established a separation of church and state. This particular issue, that of marriage and probate, was the principal consideration in its drafting. I don't know if there is anything in the Canadian basic law that corresponds to it. Anyone?
American Voice said:
What of a marriage between two paraplegics? Would it not be binding? Or a marriage between two very elderly people who are unlikely to consider sex at all?
Any law that requires consummation is something of a blue law, archaic at the very least. Any such law, where it exists, needs to be abolished, for blue laws have no validity. As Trudeau once said, 'Politics have no place in the bedroom' (or words to that effect).
Think the accumulation of wealth and property, inheritance and capitalism.
Now, gentleman, I'm not ducking the debate, but I am running out of hours this cycle. I need to signout now. I'll be back later this evening, you may be assured--can't stay away.
Now, gentleman, I'm not ducking the debate, but I am running out of hours this cycle. I need to signout now. I'll be back later this evening, you may be assured--can't stay away.
I agree with the collective here 
Personally who cares? Love is Love and if you are not hurting anybody than its nobody elses business. I think researchok has the right idea.
Personally who cares? Love is Love and if you are not hurting anybody than its nobody elses business. I think researchok has the right idea.I seem to be in the minority here. Being in so conspicuous a position, I feel a need to defend myself somewhat. I am not anti-gay. I’ve never had the homosexual impulse myself, but I have had friends and acquaintances who do, and who embrace it.
I met a guy back in school, who as it turned out was gay. Once he accepted the fact that I am entirely heterosexual, we were able to be friends. He told me this story:
He had been a sergeant in the U.S. Air Force, the Military Air Transport Service, working in logistics at a base in Thailand. This was as the Vietnam war was winding down. The Nixon administration’s defense department was engaging in a witch-hunt of sorts, to distract public attention away from the debacle in Vietnam. Anyway, they began a campaign of strict enforcement of the ban on gays in the military, and embarked upon a purge of all who were detected. My friend was one. All gays discovered in the Air Force were transferred to Laughlin AF Base, in Texas. It became a sort of concentration camp, you might say. He said there were about forty of them there, all feeling kind of dazed and scared about what was going to happen to them.
In essence, they were offered a deal. If they would relinquish all claims to veterans’ benefits, including education, and accept immediate expulsion from the service, they would not be prosecuted, and they’d all receive an honorable discharge. Go quietly, no court martial. Did I mention these guys were all draftees? Anyway, all but one accepted the deal. Sgt. Matlovich became a national celebrity after a fashion. He made the cover of Newsweek magazine, as I recall. He was court martialed, convicted, and served some time in the stockade before being dishonorably discharged.
There is a happy ending. It was a struggle for him, but my friend Rich did manage to earn an associate degree in computer programming. In about 1982, I think it was, he moved down to Texas, where he and two of his gay service buddies put their logistics training to good use. This was when those pre-cooked meals in vacuum pouches were just coming onto the market. They formed a distribution company together, and got in on the ground floor. Those convenience dinners turned out to be pretty popular, and the partners have done well.
I like to imagine a retired colonel somewhere, barely scraping by on his meager pension, while my friend is a millionaire, living in a nice home in a suburb of Houston. There is sometimes justice in this world.
I met a guy back in school, who as it turned out was gay. Once he accepted the fact that I am entirely heterosexual, we were able to be friends. He told me this story:
He had been a sergeant in the U.S. Air Force, the Military Air Transport Service, working in logistics at a base in Thailand. This was as the Vietnam war was winding down. The Nixon administration’s defense department was engaging in a witch-hunt of sorts, to distract public attention away from the debacle in Vietnam. Anyway, they began a campaign of strict enforcement of the ban on gays in the military, and embarked upon a purge of all who were detected. My friend was one. All gays discovered in the Air Force were transferred to Laughlin AF Base, in Texas. It became a sort of concentration camp, you might say. He said there were about forty of them there, all feeling kind of dazed and scared about what was going to happen to them.
In essence, they were offered a deal. If they would relinquish all claims to veterans’ benefits, including education, and accept immediate expulsion from the service, they would not be prosecuted, and they’d all receive an honorable discharge. Go quietly, no court martial. Did I mention these guys were all draftees? Anyway, all but one accepted the deal. Sgt. Matlovich became a national celebrity after a fashion. He made the cover of Newsweek magazine, as I recall. He was court martialed, convicted, and served some time in the stockade before being dishonorably discharged.
There is a happy ending. It was a struggle for him, but my friend Rich did manage to earn an associate degree in computer programming. In about 1982, I think it was, he moved down to Texas, where he and two of his gay service buddies put their logistics training to good use. This was when those pre-cooked meals in vacuum pouches were just coming onto the market. They formed a distribution company together, and got in on the ground floor. Those convenience dinners turned out to be pretty popular, and the partners have done well.
I like to imagine a retired colonel somewhere, barely scraping by on his meager pension, while my friend is a millionaire, living in a nice home in a suburb of Houston. There is sometimes justice in this world.
So, AV, I am now confused. You profess to have a friend who is gay, and really seem to understand the tolerance issues that they deal with, and yet should he wish to marry you don't think he should have the right.
Ive opined.
Ill keep my mouth shut. There was no need to post this, but what the heck, im in my 30 wpm mode.
Ill keep my mouth shut. There was no need to post this, but what the heck, im in my 30 wpm mode.
Diamond Sun said:
First of all, I don't oppose the right of homosexual couples to be married. That would be, to me, like opposing the existence of square circles; there is no such thing. Because an homosexual marriage can never be consummated, it can never be legally valid. I have no moral or religious objection whatsoever. What I do oppose is a neglect of what the law requires. As there begin to occur instances of parties to so-called gay marriages in Massachusetts and California filing petitions for annulment, I believe the matter will become clearer. Watch how the courts rule.
I am going to try to get in touch with my old friend Rich. He was a tireless activist for gay rights when he was younger. I'm inclined to believe he might be in sympathy with my position. I suspect he would agree that the practical solution to the problem will be to find a state legislature willing to institute a form of civil/domestic union for homosexual couples. That would be far more effective in the longrun that this flouting of the law that is going on now. The backlash that is likely to occur as courts begin to rule may be rather harsh, and setback the cause indefinitely. Rich always had a keen sense of what is counterproductive.
How can a same-sex marriage not ever be legally valid, American Voice? The bottom line is that the law is created and maintained by man. It's not run by some imaginary (no offense to religious people) spirit who lives in the sky. Therefore, we (as people) are modifying that law which defines what marriage is. It's not a huge modification, infact. It's like saying that if capital punishment was abolished in Texas, it would not be legally valid. If it was changed legally, how can it not be legally valid?
What's the big difference between whatever you call marriage and whatever you call civil/domestic union? It's just another way to "separate" yourselves from others and endlessly pointing out the differences between each group (heterosexuals and homosexuals). It's like saying that white people are human beings, but blacks can't be considered as human beings, but something else because they are different.
What's the big difference between whatever you call marriage and whatever you call civil/domestic union? It's just another way to "separate" yourselves from others and endlessly pointing out the differences between each group (heterosexuals and homosexuals). It's like saying that white people are human beings, but blacks can't be considered as human beings, but something else because they are different.
Andem, what is proposed requires the creation of a new law. The necessary modification of the old law simply is not going to happen. I don't oppose the objective, but the current strategy will certainly fail. It will fail so disastrously as to setback the cause a decade. This isn't the way it's done. That's just my opinion.