Your thoughts on same sex marriage and civil unions.
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
#214 – Phydeau
>>I think that pretty much says it all.
Pretty much.
#214 Phydeau said “Just a bunch of handwaving and vague pronouncements.”
Did the handwaving have style and “flourish”? Inquiring minds want to know.
# 181 Stephanie said, “”Somehow I don’t think you will like MY original argument used against you in this context.”
Go right ahead. Oh, yeah, don’t forget about your argument that firebombing innocent civilians is a-okay with you. ROFL.
#218 – Paddy-RAMBO
>>ROFL
Hey, you upgraded your internet terminology! Kudos!!
>>Oh, yeah, don’t forget about your argument that
>>firebombing innocent civilians is a-okay with you.
I missed that part of her argument. I also missed your snappy come-back, where you provided the names of some “innocent bombing victims” that you didn’t think were getting appropriate sympathy?
LOL! No, ROTFLMAO!!!
Let’s try and simplify for those who want to keep changing the subject.
Fish breathe water. Ya, they take O2 from the water, but, since they die out in the atmosphere, we say they breathe water. You can decide you want to say fish breathe air, but they don’t
Similarly marriage is between one man and one woman. That is our culture. In other cultures, they do other things. We call that polygamy, or harems, or what that culture calls it. You can call gay marriage “marriage” if you want to, but that doesn’t change what it means.
This NOT, no matter how many times, Mustard, you want to appear sophisticated by trotting out the whackos from Westboro Baptist, about rights. Gay people have been getting more and more rights all the time. We allowed it with civil unions to give gay people those rights, and where they still are not equivalent, they should be. But, that is not good enough for gay activists and anti-religious bigots who insist on the culture changing to meet THEIR mood.
The real bigots here are those who want to impose their version of culture, as well as divide the citizens into groups with special rights for every interest group.
So, we have the Intolerant Left with a hard on for people they don’t like, same as it ever was (this is not my beautiful wife). Instead of equality, what they really want is to tear down any semblance of religion that offends their poor, sensitive eyes. Well, get over it and get over yourself. You don’t have a right not to be offended so get a hobby or go get some exercise and take out your frustrations that this cruel world actually allows people to have beliefs other than yours.
geofgibson, so basically your argument is that a majority of people have to agree to something before it’s acceptable in society? Is that right?
Just trying to make sense of it, nothing more.
#220 geofgibson
Is that the best you got? Is that it? Our current definition of “marriage” is one man one woman right now at this point in our history so it must never, ever change? How very lame. That is exactly what was said about slavery, women’s rights, civil rights, ad nauseum. If the nation had followed your thinking, we’d still have slaves and women would be second class citizens.
And your religion is so brittle, so fragile, that some gay couple getting married somewhere in the U.S. will “tear it down”? Aw, that poor widdle weligion!
I’ll put Jefferson’s words in here again because they’re so appropriate:
I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
#220 – Chaucer
At least you know about the Talking Heads. That’s a point in your favor.
>>But, that is not good enough for gay activists and
>>anti-religious bigots who insist on the culture
>>changing to meet THEIR mood.
One thing no one on dvorak dot org slash blog has EVER accused me of is being anti-religious, bigoted or otherwise. In fact, when I’m not battling against homophobes and other right-wing hatemongers, I’m defending myself against the Atheistic Spawn of Satan that infests this board.
>>The real bigots here are those who want to impose
>>their version of culture, as well as divide the
>>citizens into groups with special rights for every
>>interest group.
What you fail to recognize (or fail to admit), is that no one is asking for “special” rights. Just the SAME rights. And no one’s version of culture is being imposed on anyone else. Just the opposite; the GodHatesFags group is imposing THEIR version of culture on others, even though how others celebrate their culture has ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT on the homophobes (other than to bruise their tender sensibilities that such an abomination could even exist).
Your fish tale makes exactly MY point. You can say a fish breathes air, but it doesn’t. I can say I have red hair, but I don’t. You can say a “civil union” is “the same thing” as a marriage going by another name, but it’s not. And a gay marriage is every bit a marriage, just as much as any pussy hound’s marriage is. The very fact that it’s called “gay MARRIAGE” should give you a clue that they SHOULD be the same thing (and go by the same name), but they’re not (and they don’t).
Just FMI, what’s the bug up your ass about gay marriage anyway? You can’t be THAT much of a linguistic anal retentive. Come on now… ‘fess up. Your God says it’s wrong, or you hate homos, or SOMETHING. A dictionary definition just isn’t that big a deal. When I use the Windows operating system, I’m not continually confounded wondering where the drapes are, how I open it up to get fresh air, etc. Times change, words’ meanings change, and it’s time to get out of the 40’s and recognize that gay marriage is here to stay. You may not want to partake, and I sure don’t want to partake, but that’s the beauty of living in a free country. WE DON’T HAVE TO. We can go about living our lives with their traditional marriages, and other folks can do as they please.
Mustard, FYI, it is another example of how special interest groups are trying to divide us by setting up rights for different groups. They gay lobby wants GAY marriage, not the man and woman type, but their type. They also want special classes of crime and punishment when something happens to their group. Murder is bad, but if the victim is gay, then it is somehow worse. Same for black folk. Same for brown folk. Same for Asians, oh, actually they get less rights, just like white people because they’re not nice people.
I believe it is dangerous for a society to splinter itself into hyphenated interest groups and go groping for dispensations from the government. There should be one law which applies to all.
My personal opinion is that the government has no business sanctioning marriage. In my world, couples would decide on the authority they choose to sanction their marriage, gay, straight, whatever consenting adults. I, myself, would politely agree to they being ‘married,’ but it’s not my definition.
220,
“Fish breathe water. Ya, they take O2 from the water, but, since they die out in the atmosphere, we say they breathe water. You can decide you want to say fish breathe air, but they don’t
Similarly marriage is between one man and one woman.”
lOOK UP wALKING CATFISH..They breath AIR and water..
Look up amphibians..
I need to point out a few things to you.
1. the USA was based on the IDEAL that there ISNT 1 religious BELIEF.
2. until about the 1400’s..Homosexuality wasnt REALLY prosecuted/persecuted..
Look up your OLD Military/Sail history..
HOw do you think they KEPT men from DOING THE DEED with each other?? In wars that LASTED YEARS, in SHIPS that went out to sea for MONTHS to years at a time..
There are even GAY animals..
So, until you find AT LEAST 1 of 3 cures for it…GET OFF your hat.
#224 – Chaucer
>>There should be one law which applies to all.
That’s been my point all along.
Don’t go trying to muddy the waters with “hate crimes”; good or bad, that’s a SPECIAL category that only gays, blacks, browns, Asians, American Indians, etc., etc., etc., are eligible for (and it’s not just any gays, blacks, browns, Asians American Indians, Asians etc., etc., it has to be shown that they were targeted specifically BECAUSE they were gay, black, brown, etc.)
One law that applies to all. If you’re (eg) a single white man, and you want to marry a black woman, Asian woman, mixed-race woman, a lesbian, or another man, one law applies to all. If you get married, you’re married. Not some specially-created (usually inferior) second cousin to marriage.
YOU are the one that want to split the gen pop into subgroups (“regular” marriage, gay marriage, lesbian marriage, etc.).
As to “your world”, I’m with ya. The government has no business regulating marriage. Whenever two people say they’re married, they should be married. They can follow their own customs and beliefs within their own social groups, but as far as the gummint is concerned, if I want to marry another man, or two Siamese twins, it’s none of their business.
But even you are going to have to admit THAT IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.
Life is a series of compromises, and “EQUAL RIGHTS” seems like a good one in this case.
#226, Mustard said, “But even you are going to have to admit THAT IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.”
No. Maybe not in my lifetime, but that is the world which I am striving to create. I don’t believe that changing the definition of marriage advances the cause, it only separates us more.
The fact is some are gay, most are straight. Marriage is a man and a woman. Just the way things are. I didn’t make it that way and, like gravity or fish breathing, it is not subject to change.
Aren’t there more important issues that a government should deal with? My opinion is that they should get out of the whole marriage business all together. Marriage or no marriage, gay or straight it should be none of their business, just like asking me what my religion is. I call for a separation of marriage and state.
#227 – Chaucer
>>Marriage is a man and a woman. Just the way things
>>are. I didn’t make it that way and, like gravity or
>>fish breathing, it is not subject to change.
I’m afraid your argument is starting to show its threadbare and essentially content-free nature.
You can say whatever you want about fish breathing or gravity, and they don’t change. We have no control over those things. They are immutable characteristics of the physical world.
Marriage is a man-made construct right from the get-go. Whatever we say it is, it is. “Marriage” has been in a state of flux since before the dawn of recorded history. There is no physical law that states a man must marry a woman, any more than there’s a physical law that states a marriage must be arranged, must NOT be arranged, must include a dowry, must NOT include a dowry, husband and wife must live together or CANNOT live together, or any of the other societal rules that have come and gone over the course of history.
In fact, during the days of the Roman Empire, marriage between two people of the same sex was permitted. It was only when the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans came along in the 300’s that it was declared to be illegal. Customs come, and customs go. Like the hula hoop, or Rubik’s Cube.
To try and compare gravity or respiration to an artificial, man-made construct like “marriage” either reflects a profound ignorance of physical laws, or distorted vision due to influence of GodHatesFags. dot org.
#228 – Tarraguna
>>Aren’t there more important issues that a
>>government should deal with?
You’d think so, wouldn’t you?
But to the anti-equality fanatics, it’s every bit the government’s business to prevent other people’s pursuit of happiness, solely on the grounds that if THEY don’t want to do something, that something should be made illegal.
Mustard, Mustard, Mustard …
Were you molested by someone from Westboro Baptist? You sure have a stiffy for them.
Marriage came about because women and men naturally come together to keep the species going. Further up the thread, someone mentioned evolution and natural selection. Nature doesn’t think gay marriage is real otherwise Dave and Bruce could produce a child without the aid of another womb.
You can rail on about theology, fads, and Westboro Baptist, but Mother Nature trumps you every time.
I absolutely support gay marriage. They have just as much right to be miserable as heterosexuals.
#231 – Chaucer, Chaucer, Chaucer.
You keep telling your Canterbury Tales, but they don’t get any more compelling with repetition.
I am using “GodHatesFags” (dot org) as a synecdoche. As a literary giant, I’m sure you know that is referring to a part of something or a specific instance of something to refer to the whole, or the general class. GodHatesFags dot org merely refers to the blind, unthinking hatred for gays, coupled with an overwhelming desire to block any attempt they may make at equality or the pursuit of happiness.
You can rail on with false arguments about Mother Nature, but that’s all they are. False arguments. Mother Nature trumps syphillis, except for penicillin. Mother Nature trumps the urge to fly, except for airplanes. Mother Nature trumps liver disease, except for transplants. Mother Nature trumps our desire to compute, except for computers. There instances in which we not only accept, but enthusiastically embrace, things that fly in the face of Mother Nature are too numerous to count. Masturbation is “unnatural”. Medical treatment is “unnatural”. Indoor plumbing is “unnatural”. Should these all be criminalized?
On the other hand, if you’re making the social argument that only opposite sex couples who are able and willing to reproduce should be allowed to marry, that’s a whole different kettle of fish.
Would you suggest that any couple that reaches the age of, say 45, without offspring to show for their union, should have their marriages forcibly annulled? After all, it’s clearly a Darwinian failure. Or does your Darwinian argument only apply to homo-on-homo couplings?
In any case, I cannot for the life of me figure out why you give a shit? If you think gay marriage is unnatural, DON’T DO IT. If others want to do it, does it really make you THAT unhappy??
#231 geofgibson, geofgibson, geofgibson…
“Marriage came about because women and men naturally come together to keep the species going.”
Men & women have been keeping the species going long before the concept of marriage was ever invented.
Mustard, when you can get pregnant, you can marry any many you want.
I think that we don’t want to open the door to fiddling with the constitution with an eye to oppressing some group or other. It doesn’t take a degree in history or political science to figure out where that path must lead. The line of argument that assumes that marriage can only be a Christian covenant upheld by a Christian nation makes whores of the wives of Jews, Hindus and Muslims. Arguments that hinge on the idea that marriage is identical to procreation delegitimizes all childless unions. The line of reasoning that supposes that less benefits for gays means more for “us” is beneath contempt. If you are serious about that “one man one woman” thing then you need to campaign as ardently for the enforcement of laws against adultery, fornication and remarriage. Will you?
#235 – Chaucer
>>Mustard, when you can get pregnant, you can
>>marry any many you want.
In the more enlightened pockets of civilization, I can marry any man I want right now. “They” just said I could, and *VOILÀ*, I can do it. See how easy?
That’s one of the joys of an artificial, man-made societal construct. It can be anything you want it to be. Unlike gravity or fish respiration, which cannot be changed, “marriage” can be anything we say it is.
Your recent Darwinian arguments are revealing your true motivation in this issue: You consider ass banditry to be unnatural, abhorrent, and worthy of being criminalized. Whether it’s called “marriage”, “civil union”, or just “meeting up at the glory hole”, the genetic result will be the same.
Unless you feel that many self-proclaimed heteros are walking such a fine line with their sexuality, that legitimizing gay marriage will turn would-have-been Ward and June Cleavers into raging homosexuals, rejecting the company of fine members of the opposite sex for the likes of Elton John, Clay Aiken, and k.d. lang, as the temptation will be just too great.
Let’s see what the REAL Founding Father has to say about the topic:
LEVITICUS 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
There you have it, the Big Guy says, “no”. The Lord certainly wouldn’t recognize a marriage between a couple of gays. Case closed.
wait a minute… I just read a little more.
LEVITICUS 21:5 They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard, nor make any cuttings in their flesh
Seems pretty clear that God doesn’t allow bald guys to marry, even straight ones. “cuttings in their flesh” is an obvious reference to tattoos. People with tattoos should not be allowed to get married, it’s unnatural. And those disgusting freaks who trim their beards… OK, maybe a little personal hygiene is acceptable. I’m sure God wouldn’t mind if we allow people who trim their beards, to enter into civil unions, as long as they cross their hearts, and swear on the bible, that they will never call it a “marriage”. That word is sacred, and should only be used by Hasidic Jews who love Baby Jesus, and Southerner’s who look like ZZ Top.
There’s more
LEVITICUS 19:19Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.
That means Jackasses can’t get married, (many single fellows in the forum?) nor may people with more than one variety of flower growing in their yard. Check your shorts! If you or your mate has ever worn cloths of mixed thread, your marriage is an abomination. Yes, I’m afraid that includes cotton – poly blends. (I know, they’re so much easier to iron)
Looks like most of us don’t come anywhere close to being ‘good enough’ in God’s eye. Our marriages are all just meaningless shams, each of them.
Damn bible
#237 – Mustard ranted on, but ignores all the posts up the thread.
You have an unhealthy interest in gay affairs.
You can change how you use language, you can’t create a child with two men. That doesn’t mean childless couples are somehow delegitimized. What it does mean is that, try as you might, you can’t redefine nature.
What part of every single post I have made about there being nothing wrong with homosexuals having their relationships and civil rights have you missed? Go back up the thread and read it again. To amplify, I don’t care what consenting adults stick into each other. You, Mr. Mustard can go on ranting about homophobia, sounds like more projecting to me, but, I just guessing.
This is about the myth that you can change nature by changing the words. Marriage is a word developed to give name to the relationship between a man and a woman.
The gay lobby wants to change the word so they can pretend that their lifestyle is normal. It is not, but that is fine. There are many abnormal things, but, changing language doesn’t make them normal.
As I said, I’m not going to stand in the way of anyone’s relationship. I will even be polite (unlike the anti religious bigots who can’t seem to be polite to others) and wish them well on their marriage. I will not, however, support changing of reality with the force of law.
#239 – Chaucer
Zzzzzzzzzz. You’re getting soporific.
You continue to badger me with the notion that “marriage” is only a union that can produce children, yet you have no problem with calling people who, either willingly or unwillingly, remain childless “married”. As long as they’re of opposite sexes.
You continue to badger me with the mistaken notion that only couplings between one man and one woman can be considered “marriage”, as though it were some sort of natural law. Which it clearly is NOT, as evidenced by the Roman Empire. First it was (maybe), then it was not, now it is again. Pffft.
You continue to badger me with the conflicting viewpoints that only couplings between men and women are “natural”, but that same-sex couplings are fine. As long as they don’t use a made-up word (which has evolved along with civiliazation over time) to describe it.
You continue to badger me with the absurd notion that because we give a made-up name to something (a something that is ever-changing), that made-up name somehow reflects an underlying law of nature, fixed immutably at that point in time.
And on, and on, and on.
Give it up, Chaucer. For all your claims of me “ranting”, I at least have a consistent point of view. And that point of view is that anyone can do anything they want, and call it anything they want, as long as it has no negative impact on others.
Obviously, gay marriage has some kind of negative impact on you. I just can’t figure out exactly what it is. I’m tending towards the “GodHatesFags” explanation. dot org.
If we called it “gay ekteskap” or “gay Ehe” or “gay matrimonio”, would that soothe your troubled mind?
Cant read the long thread but it is obvious that geof is indeed mired in some “godhatesfags” ideology. The code words are there.
“Abnormal” as in “YOU FAGS are abnormal. Appending “not that there is anything wrong with that” is to put the lie to your position.
Are left handed people “abnormal” because they are statistically a minority? Are men?
Minorities only get “rights” when they agitate for them==even a cess pool will be honored as gold if someone else wants it.
And so we end with language being treated as sacrosanct instead of redefined at will.
Good job fag hater.
#201, Jeffy,
That is where your bias and bigotry betray you. In all these other cases, slavery, suffrage, etc., there was an ever growing realization that things needed to change. People were less and less “fine” with things as they were.
Don’t look now Jeffy, but a whole lot of people are indeed suggesting that homosexuals shouldn’t be discriminated against. Things do need to change. Hopefully it doesn’t take as long as slavery or universal suffrage did.
Marriage is your life’s partner. By only limiting it to those who don’t have a free will (juveniles, mentally incompetent)to enter into it works just fine.
Marriage hasn’t been about procreation in this country since we started allowing sterile couples to marry. Nor has it been about a sole partner since we allowed divorce. The only reason homosexuals are not allowed to marry their choice of partner is bigotry.
235,
THATS SEX, not marriage…And you can do it ANYWAY, without marriage..
SEX and children is PAYMENT IN HAND, unless you are GIVING and sharing with each other..EVEN UNWED.
MARRIAGE, should be a BOND between 2 people(or other)..maybe MORE..
IT WOULD MEAN MORE..IF those that entered it COULDNT get a divorce.. but would MEAN MORE if it were 2 Persons that are TRULY devoted..
LOOK to the past..PLEASE..
SHOW me, when MARRIAGE started.
SHOW me when the OTHER person had ANYTHING..
BEFORE the 1930’s a Marriage was OWNERSHIP..you could do ANYTHING to the female and GET AWAY WITH IT…PERIOD..
Until the 70’s to 80’s IT was CLOSE to the same..
THe MOSt persons EVER to be noted for marriage, was KINGS and QUEENS…
I’m very late to this party.
#10 – Phydeau said it very well. Unless you believe that people will suddenly turn homosexual once same sex marriage is allowed, you should have no objection to this.
More importantly, this is a civil rights issue. The rights of a minority must be protected in a democracy. It’s not just about majority rule steamrolling over minorities. If it were, the fundamentalists would be quickly outlawed as fundies are still just a very loud and very influential minority.
For the buttheads who think that homosexuality is not natural, please explain then why it is rampant in the animal kingdom. It has been observed in over 1,500 species and well documented in over 500.
Clearly homosexuality is well within the range of natural and normal sexual behavior.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_homosexuality
(continued to avoid being flagged, eds. please consider increasing the number of allowed links to at least two.)
(continued from previous post)
This issue is really about two basic points 1) protection of minority rights and 2) separation of church and state. Keep your bible out of our legislation. Don’t like same sex marriage? Don’t marry the same sex.
In short, as I’ve said many times, and blogged before, Marriage is for Lovers. To deny marriage to a minority is to deny the basic right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is also unconstitutional.