I wrote this in relation to the UK, but seeing as it's an issue in the US too you can all still comment and give your opinions.
Give your opinions on the issue and on the document itself. Please make all criticism constructive. Regardless of your stance in this debate, be respectful to others. Feel free to challenge their viewpoints but in a gentlemanly way AND BE KIND.
I know there'll be a few mistakes here and there so I'll do my best to fix 'em.
Shane, would you be willing to alscvto say that whatever men do is natural? Or is it something restricted to the other animals?
However that may be, if the spontaneous is the natural, then the survival instinct is natural, as also is the lack thereof, & the fight to spread one's genes (which I'm told is the cornerstone of the evolutionary theory) is natural, as also the lack thereof--& so nature comes to look like a meaningless set of contradictions.
I'm good with that analysis.
It seems to me that for most opponents of gay marriage the main underlying issue, whether stated or not (and perhaps my perceptions are misguided) is the gay sex, and for religious reasons. The gay sex is a sin, they say, and one can't vote for sin. Other arguments are built around and obfuscate this core.
But I say if one wants to outlaw gay sex, for whatever reason, gay marriage should not be the target, just be honest and go straight for gay sex! (pun intended :). You should try to pass laws making homosexual behavior illegal, like sodomy laws in the more advanced nations, although those affect hetero folks, too, and don't necessarily outlaw other, more creative gay stuff.
For the legal marriage question, I think marriage should just be eliminated, or at least reduced to a form of living will and trust between any two or more people, regardless of hetero, homo, polygamous, and perhaps even incestuous lifestyles, etc., which could include registering as the guardian(s) of a child/children that may be/have been produced or adopted, and acquiring the rights and obligations that go with guardianship. No tax breaks need go along with it, but needn't not either I guess.
Of course, this is a pipe dream as long as religion rules the day. Realistically all I can say is 'let them gays get married!" and hope for the best.
Good old religion. I don't know how y'all put up with it, honestly.
I'm not sure what "advanced nations" you're referring to for laws banning gay sex. Pretty much outside of Islamic-dominated nations, which include some outright theocracies, there literally aren't very many nations that have laws against gay sex between consenting adults.
Marriage is an interesting conundrum. Where we in the US have the problem arising from is that we have combined religious and civil rites, resulting in the current patchwork of legal definitions of a marriage. I've offered, as have you, a possible alternative to the legal status quo.
1a : darken b: to make obscure <obfuscate the issue>
2: confuse <obfsucate the reader>
: to be ebasibe, unclear, or confusing.
I may have been the only one to have to look that one up but i doubt it.
You weren't the only one, I actually looked it up before I used it to be sure it made sense.
How do you reply to a post that encourages both gay marriage AND a return to the Sodomy Laws of the past?
I'm just hoping that post was intended sarcastically and/or ironically.
To relieve you of your hope and replace it with certainty, yes the suggestion of sodomy laws was meant to be sarcastic.
..although I have fallen in love with the campaign slogan "Go Straight for Gay Sex".
What hope? The problem with your posting is that it looked like two serious proposals, one from the extreme fringe of the anti-gay side, and one from the more liberal side, similar to historical law from revolutionary France, whenthe clergy was disenfranchised from privileged politcal power.
The interpretation is left to the reader, and it was a bit odd looking, but phrased to sound like you might be endorsing a return to the 18th century sodomy laws, while simultaneously advocating complete secularization as a corrective to the current confusion between the civil and religious aspects of marriage in the US.
The hope that it was intended sarcastically and/or ironically. You don't have to hope, it is certain.
It was intended to illuminate that the core of the anti-gay sentiment is the same as when 18th century sodomy laws existed: gay sex is a sin.
..Which is as silly an argument for sodomy laws as it is for exclusive marriage laws today.
The legal marriage paragraph was not sarcastic. Sorry to mix and match genuine and disingenuous. My fault.
You made me stop eating my Captain Crunch for THIS? Why go to other countries when we have anti-sodomy laws in 14 states here? Surprised?
John Stewart once talked about this and when looking on a map saw that they were all southern states and wondered whether their issue was that they were on the bottom