What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

This thread is fascinating. Not multiquoting because it would take up pages but it made me think of a bunch of replies.

One thing I didn't see mentioned is the financial impact of declaring marriage is for all. It would be huge. I believe there are many who have religious beliefs that think this is wrong, but, I think there are enough people who look at the logistics and think it is better to keep things as is rather than deal with them. Makes me think of the mind boggling legal/financial adjustments people must have had to make when the slaves were suddenly freed.

People seem to have forgotten the history of marriage when they say 'Traditional' marriage should be preserved; viewing it as having to do with a religious union cementing a loving relationship and for some procreation in that union. Until fairly recent history marriage mostly a business transaction. Marriage was a tool to cement alliances, reward deeds, buy loyalty, increase or ensure financial success and produce heirs to further the dynasty. (Look at European history- they intermarried so often it is a wonder they could still function). Women did not have personal rights after marriage, lost all property and ceased to exsist as a separate entitiy. I am only :p 52 and remember a girl in my college class who left in the 2nd year to go home to her country to an arranged marriage with a husband she had met once. I also remember women fighting to be able to remove themselves from abusive marriages. It was cutting edge law to let them (and even more controvertial to hold the man accountable). The current argument to sustain the 'Traditional' Marriage ' isn't referring to the traditions across the years but to what people have decided the current definition should be.

Regardless of the morality of a same sex relationship, not allowing a marriage ignores the lack of legal protection afforded to the couple. Taking every legal precaution available is not enough. Most people in this country find it abhorent there are some places today where a woman marries and loses the rights to the property she brought into the marriage or the right to her children. The lack of marital rights for same sex people creates a similar scenario. 2 personal examples: My 2 aunties were together 50 yrs when one of them became ill. They had to get a lawyer to restructure things because the financial situation threatened the remaining auntie's ability to keep their house. They had to adjust ownership of things they had thought of as 'theirs' for years and after she passed the lawyer was still needed because of the complexity. If they were legally married the property would have been protected. When a friend who was in a relationship for yrs died, his family came into the house he and his partner shared, took his ashes away from his partner and the partner had no legal recourse.

On a religious note I struggle with the contradictions in the Bible about homosexuality. It seems that humans are more fixated on it than God was. Our Pastor once said that homosexuality is mentioned 8 times in the Bible but caring for the 'disadvantaged' (widows, children, poor) 238. Astonishing that those 8 times can generate such vitriol but the 238 can't make people be outraged we have kids who can't get food or care.

There are medical studies that show homosexual brain scans are different than heterosexual brain scans. We are all children of God. I find it hard to believe that God made a mistake. I don't think it is a mistake to let people commit to caring and loving for each other. I do think it is a mistake to not afford them the legal protection and have them held responsible for the legal obligations that come with marriage.

....aaaaannnd, I think that just about wraps it up for today's textbook demonstration of the Beatitudes, folks. If there's a more "Christian" attitude that could be expressed about homosexuality, I'd love to see it.

Well believed and well stated, les!
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

I kept saying, if you really oppose the homosexuals, there's no need to get all high and mighty, because patience is a virtue.

Once again, I'm right. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-meningitis-declared-brain-dead-article-1.1315825

Correct you are. Being promiscus and gay are deadly. So is gun ownership.

Although not all gay, 15,529 people with AIDS died in 2010. Firearm-related deaths totaled 31,672 in 2010. Both by the CDC. In fact in the United States in 2010, the rate of firearm deaths was 10 people per 100,000, while for traffic accidents it was 12 per 100,000.

A couple of deadly hobbies.
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Correct you are. Being promiscus and gay are deadly. So is gun ownership.

Although not all gay, 15,529 people with AIDS died in 2010. Firearm-related deaths totaled 31,672 in 2010. Both by the CDC. In fact in the United States in 2010, the rate of firearm deaths was 10 people per 100,000, while for traffic accidents it was 12 per 100,000.

A couple of deadly hobbies.

Yeesh buddy, I think you missed the general point, as sarcastically jested as it may be.

You have some neo-cons who believe that homosexuality is a sin and the people need to not reproduce and "go to hell", yes? Last I checked, reproduction is impossible. Yes, I know about adoption and foster care, but do they think it's actually truly their kids? Probably not, as they likely view the kids they adopt as slaves of their god who, by that process, are somehow magically saved. Since they can't naturally reproduce, why push the envelope with them? I say to the neo-cons, be patient and let the idea and that particular family branch "die out". If it really is an unnatural mark of their devil, let their devil take its course slowly. The link that I provided is a method of their devil taking what is truly his/hers. After all, don't they want heretics in the eyes of their god to suffer? As for the "victim children" who are "led down the wrong path", why not just see it as a test of temptation? After all, don't they believe that people are constantly tested by their devil?
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Yeesh buddy, I think you missed the general point, as sarcastically jested as it may be.

I don't always follow others points. Sometimes make some of my own.

You have some neo-cons who believe that homosexuality is a sin and the people need to not reproduce and "go to hell", yes? Last I checked, reproduction is impossible. Yes, I know about adoption and foster care, but do they think it's actually truly their kids? Probably not, as they likely view the kids they adopt as slaves of their god who, by that process, are somehow magically saved. Since they can't naturally reproduce, why push the envelope with them? I say to the neo-cons, be patient and let the idea and that particular family branch "die out". If it really is an unnatural mark of their devil, let their devil take its course slowly. The link that I provided is a method of their devil taking what is truly his/hers. After all, don't they want heretics in the eyes of their god to suffer? As for the "victim children" who are "led down the wrong path", why not just see it as a test of temptation? After all, don't they believe that people are constantly tested by their devil?

Interesting idea. I myself am Christian but not evangelical. Many evangelicals believe what you say (it wouldn't be the first time they were off the mark) as do other social conservatives. Homosexual behavior is just not a priority for me (as it wasn't for Jesus)...but along with other stated dangerous hobbies, it will 'cull the heard'. In the end though, I think your premise is off. I'd bet serious money that homosexuality will be as prevalent when mankind goes exitinct as it was 2000 yrs ago.
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

:confused: Not sure if this conversation is a Poe, or just napalm grade flaming stupidity.

I admit I am having trouble following what is "sarcastic," but I do find a good rule of thumb to determine if a statement is reasonable is to replace homosexuality with heterosexuality and see if it reads basically the same way.
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Interesting idea. I myself am Christian but not evangelical. Many evangelicals believe what you say (it wouldn't be the first time they were off the mark) as do other social conservatives. Homosexual behavior is just not a priority for me (as it wasn't for Jesus)...but along with other stated dangerous hobbies, it will 'cull the heard'. In the end though, I think your premise is off. I'd bet serious money that homosexuality will be as prevalent when mankind goes exitinct as it was 2000 yrs ago.

I'm not saying that it will or won't. I'm just trying to draw a conclusion from their interpretation of logic that would be considered acceptable.
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

:confused: Not sure if this conversation is a Poe, or just napalm grade flaming stupidity.

I admit I am having trouble following what is "sarcastic," but I do find a good rule of thumb to determine if a statement is reasonable is to replace homosexuality with heterosexuality and see if it reads basically the same way.

I remember we did that with the mission statement of RPI's Black Students Alliance, replacing "black" with "white" and "white" with "black".
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

:confused: Not sure if this conversation is a Poe, or just napalm grade flaming stupidity.

I admit I am having trouble following what is "sarcastic," but I do find a good rule of thumb to determine if a statement is reasonable is to replace homosexuality with heterosexuality and see if it reads basically the same way.
The latter.

I'd respond further, but it's pointless given most of the discussion in this thread.
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Correct you are. Being promiscus and gay are deadly. So is gun ownership.

Although not all gay, 15,529 people with AIDS died in 2010. Firearm-related deaths totaled 31,672 in 2010. Both by the CDC. In fact in the United States in 2010, the rate of firearm deaths was 10 people per 100,000, while for traffic accidents it was 12 per 100,000.

A couple of deadly hobbies.

What doesn't make sense?

I guess I don't believe in the whole 'I'm not following or disagree...so the statement's stupid' point of view.

Rereading this, it is not as bad as I originally interpreted it. Although I would never describe sexuality as a hobby...
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Rereading this, it is not as bad as I originally interpreted it. Although I would never describe sexuality as a hobby...

Sadly, there are a number of people who do, and I bet many are part of the whole abortion argument, too. I know I don't find making babies to be a hobby.
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Rereading this, it is not as bad as I originally interpreted it. Although I would never describe sexuality as a hobby...

I don't see sexual preference as a hobby...and didn't expect it to be read that way.

A guy choosing to spend their time sleeping around with a bunch of strange men...on the otherhand...I can see as a dangerous hobby. Is that really stupid?
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

I don't see sexual preference as a hobby...and didn't expect it to be read that way.

A guy choosing to spend their time sleeping around with a bunch of strange men...on the otherhand...I can see as a dangerous hobby. Is that really stupid?

It can be if you equate homosexuality with that behavior. Unprotected anal sex with multiple partners is a dangerous activity, yes, but it has nothing to do with sexuality.
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

It can be if you equate homosexuality with that behavior. Unprotected anal sex with multiple partners is a dangerous activity, yes, but it has nothing to do with sexuality.
for whoever is rec'ing- female or male- not a good idea.
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

It can be if you equate homosexuality with that behavior. Unprotected anal sex with multiple partners is a dangerous activity, yes, but it has nothing to do with sexuality.
Logically "a guy choosing to spend their time sleeping around with a bunch of strange men" equates with homosexuality. If not, exactly who is engaging in this behavior? Or is this one of those Bill Clinton definitional type things?
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Logically "a guy choosing to spend their time sleeping around with a bunch of strange men" equates with homosexuality. If not, exactly who is engaging in this behavior? Or is this one of those Bill Clinton definitional type things?
There's a difference between being a gay man and being a promiscuous gay man. To your example, there's a difference between being a straight man, such as you, and a straight man such as President Bill Clinton. It's just that people never talk about the gay men in committed relationships because it's not as salacious a story to use politically.
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

There's a difference between being a gay man and being a promiscuous gay man. To your example, there's a difference between being a straight man, such as you, and a straight man such as President Bill Clinton. It's just that people never talk about the gay men in committed relationships because it's not as salacious a story to use politically.
Certainly not everyone is promiscuous, whether straight or gay. I don't think I said everyone was or that's an issue anyone has discussed or is disputing. Just noted that if some is "a guy choosing to spend their time sleeping around with a bunch of strange men", it's likely this person is gay.
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Logically "a guy choosing to spend their time sleeping around with a bunch of strange men" equates with homosexuality. If not, exactly who is engaging in this behavior? Or is this one of those Bill Clinton definitional type things?

I did not intend to try and split hairs semantically. I was more trying to make clear the difference between correlation and causation in this instance. Some phrasing can tend to imply that homosexual behavior causes the spread of HIV. Although HIV infection is positively correlated to MSM (men who have sex with men), homosexuality is not the cause of the increase in HIV. In fact, you can have multiple partners (maybe not "strange men") as a MSM and have the same incidence rate as anyone else if you take the proper precautions. The cause of the increase in HIV incidence is the unprotected anal sex (among other things like needle sharing), which is neither gender nor sexuality specific.

I also know no one here is necessarily pushing that thought, it is just a conversation. I just think it is more accurate to identify HIV infection with the high risk behavior instead of the sexuality.
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

I did not intend to try and split hairs semantically. I was more trying to make clear the difference between correlation and causation in this instance. Some phrasing can tend to imply that homosexual behavior causes the spread of HIV. Although HIV infection is positively correlated to MSM (men who have sex with men), homosexuality is not the cause of the increase in HIV. In fact, you can have multiple partners (maybe not "strange men") as a MSM and have the same incidence rate as anyone else if you take the proper precautions. The cause of the increase in HIV incidence is the unprotected anal sex (among other things like needle sharing), which is neither gender nor sexuality specific.

I also know no one here is necessarily pushing that thought, it is just a conversation. I just think it is more accurate to identify HIV infection with the high risk behavior instead of the sexuality.
While you're technically correct, I do think you are exercising a good bit of semantics. HIV certainly is linked to certain high risk behaviors (including ones like intervenous drug use that have no relationship to sexual activity), but those high risk behaviors do not fall randomly across all demographic sectors of our society. And yes, within each demographic sector, some people of course are more at risk than others due to various behaviors, etc.
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

While you're technically correct, I do think you are exercising a good bit of semantics. HIV certainly is linked to certain high risk behaviors (including ones like intervenous drug use that have no relationship to sexual activity), but those high risk behaviors do not fall randomly across all demographic sectors of our society. And yes, within each demographic sector, some people of course are more at risk than others due to various behaviors, etc.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hou0lU8WMgo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top