chansen, now i see what you mean about better title. Mine was headline on Cnn news on Google.

huh??

care to elaborate on what you mean by that??

I think the important thing here is that they are saying that a vote cannot be held to eliminate the rights of a minority.

Just think of what other weird votes could be held to eliminate someones rights just to get elected.

Glad they fought it.

Off topic - but your example of driving is a little misleading.....  I was told, when I went for my license, in Ontario, that driivng is a 'privelege" not a right.

Not sure what that means as far as marriage.

beshpin...

first of all, anal sex isn't limited to gay people.  bringing it up in a discussion of gay marriage is a red herring, really.  heterosexual couples partake in anal sex, and lesbians do not. 

secondly, if your statement that marriage laws were created as some way to assist 'the future of the country' is truly and issue, then we MUST allow same sex couples to marry... they are adopting children, and many same sex couples have familes now. 

thirdly, your statement that 'If gay marriage was really about marriage, it wouldn't be an issue to call it something other than marriage or make a compromise." basically is nothing more that saying that because gay people want to call their unions 'marriage', the issue is therefore not about marriage.  this is quite a circular arguement here... would you care to make a more logical statement, please???

You chose an odd way to write it.

Azd:  Not-X.

Besh: So Azd, why X?

Perhaps Beshpin, you need a history lesson or two.

The sodomy laws were very often designed or maintained to be discriminatory.  Kansas, Missouri, Texas and Oklahoma had same-sex only sodomy laws on the books when the Supreme Court said they were illegal. Sodomy was not illegal, being a gay man was. Sodomy BTW often included oral sex. It is how Canada had gay men declared dangerous offenders and repeat sexual psychopaths. Germany had sodomy laws that were male-male. 

As far as marriage as a right:

The language delivered by Justice Warren in Loving v Virginia in the second paragraph of Section II  said marriage was a right. Barring the exercise of that right, denied Due Process and violated the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. The paragraph in part reads

"Marriage is one of the "basic human rights" of man, fundamental to our existence and survival....

In Turner v Safely, they conceded that the choice to marry was a fundamental right according to Loving v Virginia and Zablocki v. Redhail. In the end, the Supreme Court said re; Turner v Safely that prisoners have a right to marry. BTW Zablocki v Redhail said a state could not impede the right to marry...

The UN Declaration of Human Rights says in Article 16 that it is a right.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union Article 9 says it is a right.

So, do I read it right that you trump everyone by simply saying it is NOT a right?

There is more "right" legal lngugae, if you would like it or the case law in is found in posted

well, they are adopting children from the childrens aid society.  if they did not adopt them, then the taxpayer is on the hook for the money that it costs to raise that child.   it is far better for you, the taxpayer, for same sex couples to be able to adopt these children.  so right there is a huge benefit to you.

honestly, besh, how is my heterosexual marriage 'a benefit', while a homosexual marriage is not??  we are both raising children.

your statement, besh, was that because gay couples insist on calling their unions a marriage, it therefore cannot be about marriage, but you STILL have not explained what you think it is REALLY about yet. 

can you please tell me, besh... if this is not about marriage, as you claim, what is it REALLY about then?? 

besh...

i'm still curious as to how my heterosexual marriage is more 'of value to the state' than a same sex marriage??

SO if I follow your logic, couples who do not have dependent children should not get any tax advantages regardless of their gender?  (and really if both partners are working full-time and they do not have dependent children are thes tax advantages really that big?)

And Marriage does not encourage reproduction/offspring.  Marriage as an institution encourages relationship and family stability, which we as society choose to encourage because we believe this stability is good for the larger community.

Ahhhh still clinging to that bigot's excuse that marriage is only about offspring, I see.

Guess you agree then that sterile people shouldn't be allowed to marry, or get tax breaks either, right?

And what about class... wasn't long ago when marrying outside your class was forbidden by law. Or for that matter, pretty recently you couldn't marry a woman unless you'd purchased her from her father first.

Purchasing power  and class is different from sexuality too, but you bigots dripped and moaned when we did away with those as marriage laws too....

Oh I'm sure he's telling the truth...........

Just like he was telling the truth when he said he was leaving....

That's not actually true.  Lots of same sex couple produce children biologically.  They just need some help doing it.  

If you are going to make the reproductive ability argument, at least be consistent.  Either reproduction is the point of marriage, or it isn't.  If it is only ONE point of marriage, then you need to explain why it is more important than any other one.  And if it is only the potential for reproduction, but not the actual reproduction that is important, you still need to explain why you approach sterile hetero couples differently than homo couples.

Even aside from the fact that gay couples can adopt, use sperm doners, surrogate mothers, invitro fertilizations just like millions of straight people do, the fact remains that reproduction has NOTHING to do with marriage, it is completely irrelevant.

heck, besh, your whole arguement is based on exceptions.  you have convieniently side stepped my point that many many families ADOPT CHILDREN. 

you keep going on about the biological ability to reproduce, with the exception of couples who choose not to have children, couples who are infertile, couples who get married when they have passed their reproductive years, couples who are sterile, couples who have children that no longer reside in their home... i can think of many more exceptions to your belief.

NOW, i mention the fact that many couples, and many single people for that matter, ADOPT CHILDREN to start a family, and you say 'whoa!  quit making exceptions here!!'  ??? 

very odd,

I think Beshpin needs, at this point, to back up his claim that marriage is necessarily about having kids.  Kelly might object to us getting married if she's aware of that fine print, so I want to know where to look for it.

Right, except that it's nothing better than your assumption that marriage has reproduction as it's prime function, and the only reason you've come up with reproduction as the prime function of marriage is because it's the one thing that fits your previously held prejudice.

Unless you can show objectively that reporduction actually IS the prime function of marriage.... then you are simply making up excuses to justify your bigotry.

Lots of reasons.  I'd like to know the relevance of the question before spouting off about the details of my relationship with Kelly.

It wasn't to show me to be more correct or you more wrong.  The "bigot" thing was to point out your anti-homosexual prejudices, rather than to support my argument.  That's what the rest of my post was for, and you've barely addressed any of it.

I love it! Yes, she is beautiful. She also has a lot of spirit and zest. To top it off, that is a delightful accent, although I am completely unable to identify it.

Sounds Croatian to me, Although she has more Serbian features

That is far more honest... you are put off and will use any argument rather than admit it is about that. It is what most "put off" people do.

Being able or willing to say "i don't like it, but it is fair" is a step.

As far as personal definition and understanding of marriage, we all have that. That said, for me, my own personal definition and understanding means squat.

You see, celibate marriages, arranged marriages, marriages of conveniances... would not be for me and do not fit my definitionof marriage nor do I even understand them. Yet, they are marriages  and are so in the eyes of the law and my take be damned.

Even when it is highly emotional and is directly opposed to my idea of what a marriage is, like where there is violence, my emotion cannot overrule my intellect or the law. They are marriages. Again, my opinion be damned. That couple is married in the eyes of the law and unless I am an idiot, they are married to me even if I oppose the actions in that marriage.
 

As far as using language for clarity, in Detroit (post race riots and during the busing bomb threats) Lou and Barb moved into our neighbourhood. Lou was a black man and Barb was a white woman. Now, anyone not blind would know they were an interracial couple. If someone used the term "interracial" or "mixed" to describe their marriage when they were not visible or when Lou and Barb meant nothing, then they could get away with it. Much like my wife and I are called "the girls" to others because my name is not gender specific or if our names mean nothing, they may say "the lesbian couple". Yet, like Lou and Barb, it is simply not done with us around. For anyone who felt they had to point out Barb and Lou's colour difference with them present, it was either ignorance or it showed them for who and what they were.

It is the same with us. We are the same sex. It is fairly obvious to most people when meeting couples if they share a sex or are opposite sex. I would not expect it to be pointed out.  I never hear " this is Bob's opposite sex wife". I am doing a marriage for a couple I will call Steve and Sally. I have never felt the need to qualify that they are opposite sex. I think, if I did, people would look at me odd.

As far as "intent" being different, how exactly do you arrive at that? Couples marry with intent to form family and sometimes that shape is one they chose or one that happened, it can be them or them +... There may or may not be intent to have biological children,  have biological children, to wait and see, to adopt, to foster, to not have any children, to have pets, to just be the two of them..... That does not depend on the genitalsl of the couple, it depends on the circumstances, the decisions they make or are made for them....

Equality means that the baby thing does not matter. If it does not matter for other couples, to make it legal and recognized as a marriage, then it should not and does not  matter for us.

That would hold true in North America and Western Europe. Not so in other world-parts. What if you had been born in a society in which non-white women were the power elite? I believe you would know discrimination first-hand then. I say this because of my belief that the majority power elite always seeks to oppress the minority groups.

Yeah, right, same-sex marriage isn't about marriage. It's about establishing a permanent Earth colony on the moon.

In all honesty,  I tend not to think of it as a difference of opinion on the purpose of marriage... at least, not in the case of most people. I think it is all that goes to our "stuff" behind the opinion. You may be one off the exceptions, but I do not believe so.

You see, I think people are better than that. Call me an optimist.

I think most people believe men are more than the sum of their offspring and the viability and agility of their “swimmers”. That most people believe a woman’s worth is more than the hospitality and function of her womb. I do not believe most people think marriage is about nakedness and pumping to churn out Christian soldiers.

I think most people accept the barren and the childless, because if you ask them their opinion they will mostly say compassion trumps any verse.

I also think most people see marriage as more than tax breaks or someone to share in the paying of bills.

I would also like to think that most people see marriage as something more than a fairy tale and Hollywood and Victoria Secret negilees.

That to most it is about  love and respect, honesty and trust…. That it is about the truly good stuff and the bad stuff alike… that yes, it is about deciding to have children or finding out you are, but that it is also deciding together that you won’t or holding each other close when once again it has not happened.

That it is in a smile across a room, a shared laugh, morning breath and tousled hair. It is another person’s ability to make you so happy that you can look up over the pages of a book and wipe a tear from your eye and yet also make you so infuriated or frustrated that you lose your ability to form sentences.  It is in paying bills and knowing there is not money to do that. It is in doing chores together and arguing over who does what and who appreciates it. It is in hearing a cupboard swing or a breath be exhaled and knowing to ask,  “what’s wrong”. It is in hearing “nothing” and knowing it means “not now” or “I can’t”. It is in making plans for the future as well as having a future snatched from you and the long goodbye.

Call me a romantic or an optimist, but I believe that if asked to say what marriage is most won’t say procreation.

You might say it is an appeal to emotion, and I will say, “You are damned right it is”.

Motheroffive:

I apologize for Beshpin's trollish remark.