Another Gay Rant

[manticle]

But this is exactly why I deleted the part about the secular concept of marriage (which is steeped in Christian tradition anyway, but let's ignore that for now) - my issue is with the exclusive nature of the phrase "not a religious institution". I mean, it quite patently is - even if not for everyone. I don't even understand how this is under question.

But if you read it as not necessarily religious (as I did) it is no longer exclusive. I didn't read Tanga as suggesting religion was necessarily excluded from the ceremony of marriage and her later comments suggested that was the case. Obviously if you want to adhere strictly to etymology then religion/regular/ritual and marriage go hand in hand but ritual and ceremony are enough and can be separated from religion as we know it..

No. That makes marriage certificates secular. Let me give you a personal for instance - I married a lass from another culture. Twice, actually. The first time was a traditional ceremony for her culture involving only our family and friends. No government permission was granted. This is when we declared our commitment to one another in front of those we hold dear and began our life together as one. Are you of the position that we weren't really married until the Department of Births Deaths and Marriages got around to rubber stamping a piece of paper after we got around to having a civil ceremony here 3 months later? Perhaps a more contextual example would be better. Do you deny Brad the right to refer to his partner as his "husband" when his marriage is a legitimate "secular" marriage? Or are they only committed to each other in New Zealand (or wherever it was - none of my business)? Reducing marriage only to the piece of paper does a disservice to the commitment people have for each other and denying them that does the same.

I'm not sure how you read any of that into what I wrote. Keeping it contextual (as you suggested in your first post) marriage in our current western society means what?

A ceremony for certain - a ceremony of commitment which is integral to all, whether christian or non christian, religious or non religious. The argument for gay marriage is not that people of whatever sexuality should have the right to ceremonialise their commitment to each other. That's a given - anyone can do that. There are also legal sanctions and recognitions (the ramifications of which go far beyond a certificate). It's also about recognition of legitimacy as no different or separate from anyone else's legitimacy. 'You're married, I'm married too', not; 'you're married, I'm in a civil union but really it's the same thing'.

Yes, I obviously agree completely that people can be committed to each other without a piece of paper but if they want it why shouldn't they have it?

No argument from me on that one.

I'd suggest you'd be very, very hard pressed to find an anthropologist who could name such a culture for you. Unless, you know, you wanna break it down to dubstep or something.

Dependent on how strictly you define 'organised' religion but any animistic culture you'd care to name would fall into this category. I'll leave various forms of buddhism out of the picture for the moment.

 

[bum]

But if you read it as not necessarily religious (as I did) it is no longer exclusive. I didn't read Tanga as suggesting religion was necessarily excluded from the ceremony of marriage and her later comments suggested that was the case.

I'm sure I could have read it as all manner of things but I chose (perhaps foolishly) to take it as written. In regard to her following points I acknowledged their legitimacy when I brought the other statement into question.

There are also legal sanctions and recognitions (the ramifications of which go far beyond a certificate). It's also about recognition of legitimacy as no different or separate from anyone else's legitimacy.

Argument gets tricky here - as I understand it (and we're getting into law now which is shaky ground so I could very well be missing a very large point somewhere and I'll happily accept correction) same-sex relationships are granted the same legal status as a heterosexual de facto relationship except there is distinct terminology used. Same property division, same property rights in the event of the death of one partner (which I'll admit is only a recently won right), one partner can be declared a dependant. I think most things are the same.

Dependent on how strictly you define 'organised' religion but any animistic culture you'd care to name would fall into this category. I'll leave various forms of buddhism out of the picture for the moment.

This one is very tricky and getting well beyond the scope of even a thread in Off Topic. To discuss this properly I think we'd need to draw an accepted line between deistic religion and organised religion. As soon as your religion gets a shaman you're organised, IMO. (Not saying all animistic...erm...branches? have a shaman - just indicating the difficulty in this bit of the discussion (especially when pissed)). Not sure anyone wants to read that anyway (especially when pissed). But the point is even they wouldn't serve a goat milk shandy at a wedding.

 

[drew9242]

Hi thanks for all your replies and point of views in this matter. I was just asking the question to see why it was so necassary. Thankfully i believe marriage is christian institution declaring our love for eachother before God. Laugh and ridicule all you want, but that is one of the biggest promises i have made in my life, and i will not take it lightly. And for that i take the "till death do us part" seriously. All i hope is that who ever you are you all take marriage seriously.

I am not going to get into a debate over this as i'm prefer to talk about beer. But it was good to see fellow brewers points of view and i will not judge you for it.

Cheers Drew

 

[MarkBastard]

Hi thanks for all your replies and point of views in this matter. I was just asking the question to see why it was so necassary. Thankfully i believe marriage is christian institution declaring our love for eachother before God. Laugh and ridicule all you want, but that is one of the biggest promises i have made in my life, and i will not take it lightly. And for that i take the "till death do us part" seriously. All i hope is that who ever you are you all take marriage seriously.

I am not going to get into a debate over this as i'm prefer to talk about beer. But it was good to see fellow brewers points of view and i will not judge you for it.

Cheers Drew

Hi Drew, I appreciate what marriage means to you and I think it must be good to believe that. I don't personally believe in god and I'm married, but I do believe in marriage and I do believe I'll be married for the rest of my life to the one person.

That said, do you think what you believe marriage to be needs to apply to everyone? For example you can still have marriage be exactly the same thing to you and gays can legally marry and I don't see how anything has changed for you?

 

[bum]

I am not going to get into a debate over this as i'm prefer to talk about beer.

Weak as piss, mate. Mine was a simple question and was asked respectfully.

I say again, weak as piss.

 

[drew9242]

Why are you talking about marriage like it is a biological function?

Just trying to point out that marriage for one instance is to procreate. Can't do that with the same sex organs.

 

[MarkBastard]

Just trying to point out that marriage for one instance is to procreate. Can't do that with the same sex organs.

Sex is for procreation.

EDIT: Don't read into that statement.

 

[argon]

Just trying to point out that marriage for one instance is to procreate. Can't do that with the same sex organs.

pfft... Marriage has feck all to do with procreation.

 

[bum]

Just trying to point out that marriage for one instance is to procreate. Can't do that with the same sex organs.

Ok, I'm sure no one is here to argue the mechanics of reproduction but I'm still not seeing the direct correlation between marriage and the number of distinct sets of genitals. Unless marriage is only the first step towards starting a biologically related family (which it seems you are quite reasonably admitting it isn't above) then I don't see how it comes into it.

Of course I am absolutely not suggesting that homosexuality in not "wrong" under your religion, nor am I saying that your religion shouldn't be allowed an opinion on the matter - that is entirely appropriate even though I do think the opinion is hurtful and quite frankly un-Christian but I'm sure God is a complicated guy and He has His reasons. What I'm questioning is why your first argument against secular acceptance of same-sex marriage starts with counting dirty-parts.

I'm still not sure I understand (which that could easily be a deficiency on my end) but thank you for taking the time to answer my question.

 

[zebba]

I'm going to lobby government to have all infertile couples marriages annulled.

Oh wait, that is heartless and cruel, and is merely discriminating on people because I think marriage is about procreation and not about expressing love and commitment. Lucky I didn't send that letter yet.

Drew - you don't see why gays want to marry, I ask you this: Why did black people object to having to ride at the back of the bus in America? I mean, they got to use the bus, they got to their destination just as quick as the people at the front. Heck, as a kid I always wanted to sit at the back of the bus? Sounds like they are just trying to push their desires on the rest of us, when clearly the rule was put in for a reason in the first place. I hope you can see how this relates to the gay marriage "issue".

 

[schooey]

I wonder if the off topic section over at www.gaypride.com is full of brewing arguments... :huh:

 

[Phoney]

Just trying to point out that marriage for one instance is to procreate. Can't do that with the same sex organs.

My dad remarried at age 60, im pretty damn sure he & his wife couldn't procreate even if they tried. Ridiculous argument. If same sex couples want to get married, let em. It's not going to affect you or your marriage is it?

 

[Supra-Jim]

Just trying to point out that marriage for one instance is to procreate. Can't do that with the same sex organs.

Can't do that either if one or both partners are sterile, by your definition here should hetro partners be required to prove their fertility proir to being approved for marriage?

Do we set a time limit by which hetro married couples must pro-create by, before we annul their union?

Apologies to others who've made quality contributions to this 'debate' for my facetious interpretation of Drew's comments, but i find his arguements laughable.

Cheers SJ

 

[Katherine]

I wonder if the off topic section over at www.gaypride.com is full of brewing arguments... :huh:

LOL... good one.

If I ever get married and the sex stops his out on his ass!

 

[brettprevans]

.... Why did black people object to having to ride at the back of the bus in America? I mean, they got to use the bus, they got to their destination just as quick as the people at the front. Heck, as a kid I always wanted to sit at the back of the bus? Sounds like they are just trying to push their desires on the rest of us, when clearly the rule was put in for a reason in the first place. I hope you can see how this relates to the gay marriage "issue".

homosexual thread, riding at the back, pushing desires.... i really feel that there's a non-PC joke to be made here but im buggered (no pun intended) if im the one whose going to make it.

serously thought its a good point Zebs

I wonder if the off topic section over at www.gaypride.com is full of brewing arguments... :huh:

schooey is right. so bringing it back ontopic of an off topic thread..... do gay people make better or worse beer? id guess that on avg they make the same quality beer as any one else. so why the f*ck does it matter whether someone is gay, straight, bent, bisexual, trisexual, asexual?! beer it up fellow brewers!

 

[MarkBastard]

I wonder if the off topic section over at www.gaypride.com is full of brewing arguments... :huh:

I took a look and there's a thread on HSA, botulism, and chinese hops!!!

 

[drsmurto]

Just trying to point out that marriage for one instance is to procreate.

Really?

So how is it that my partner is pregnant?

Miraculous conception?

We are not married because of people like you who in the 21st century continuing to spew your small minded bigotry. Marriage, in my opinion, is a religious artefact and has passed its use by date.

But unlike Brad who started this thread, we are legally allowed to marry. We have a choice and he doesn't. In the 21st century that is quite simply discrimination at its most basic level.

Religion is the root of all evil.

 

[drew9242]

I realise no one here will see where i am coming from, and that is why i wasn't going to answer question bum.

So back to my origanal question. Which by the looks of it marriage is purely for the piece of paper from the government. So the law states that it is for a man and a woman. So now the law doesn't allow it for gays, but because he can do it i should be able to do it. It's not fair they can and i can't. Debating with a question of you can do it so why can't they? Soon we will be able to marry our pets because i love my pet and it is not fair that you can get married and i can't.

 

[Supra-Jim]

I think there may be an issue of consent when considering if you can marry a cat. How can you really be sure that's what the cat wants?

Cheers SJ

 

[brettprevans]

I realise no one here will see where i am coming from, and that is why i wasn't going to answer question bum.

So back to my origanal question. Which by the looks of it marriage is purely for the piece of paper from the government. So the law states that it is for a man and a woman. So now the law doesn't allow it for gays, but because he can do it i should be able to do it. It's not fair they can and i can't. Debating with a question of you can do it so why can't they? Soon we will be able to marry our pets because i love my pet and it is not fair that you can get married and i can't.

I think people get where your coming from, they just dont agree. same as u get their point but dont agree.

seperation of church and state allows for legal marriage without any religious affiliation. although personally i think church and state should be completely seperate. but moving on...

pets cant consent and that, if for no other reason, is why they cant enter into a legal contract or marriage. fair or not. unles you live in japan where that guy got married to his virtual girlfriend. not really sure how that works. im assuming it was a ceremonial thing only with no legal contract.

edit: article here. and he went to guam not japan. my mistake. still. guam? weird

edit2: beaten by SJ. who wants to marry a a cat?! they ignore you unless they want something, think of themselves, think they are the boss etc.. oh wait maybe im talking about a women h34r: