Tim Thomas Stands with Chick-Fil-A (i.e. against gay marriage)

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Rougeunderoos brought it up. I'm interested in this mainly as an academic exercise, and he specifically mentioned it as something not comparable, and I don't understand the difference. If marriage is open to everyone, then why not relatives?

I didn't bring it up. I asked a specific question and you responded with a question about something else.

I think we should drop the whole discussion right now. Tim Thomas and Chick-fil-A are not currently (far as I know) expressing their displeasure with brothers and sisters marrying each other. It has nothing to do with the same-sex marriage issue.

It's just people (not you, apparently) changing the subject because they can't give any concrete examples of the negative impacts same-sex marriage has had in the last decade.

[BlackRedGold25]

Originally Posted by Bonded

So gay marriage = less unwanted kids = less crime. Thanks for clarifying

That's basically the exact opposite of what I said but thanks for trying to play along.

[ben voyonsdonc]

Originally Posted by BlackRedGold25

Who knows what the impact will be? 10 years is nothing in terms of what the long term ramifications will be.

I'm guessing that the long term ramification will be that gays get married.

If some crazy leader ended up getting elected and decided that government would no longer recognize any marriage other than those of the same sex, I'm guessing that there would be quite the outcry of the unconstitutionality of such a law based on discrimination based on sexual orientation. If it is unconstitutional for a government to ban straight marriage, why is it not unconstitutional to ban gay marriage?

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by BlackRedGold25

That's basically the exact opposite of what I said but thanks for trying to play along.

So gay marriage = more crime?

[Wormius]

Just one more incident and Tim Thomas will have gone full-Avery.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Out of curiosity, what is the objection to someone marrying their sibling of either gender, especially the same gender?

If marriage is for companionship as textcritic mentioned, why is it restricted such that close relatives can't enjoy it?

I'll try to explain this again (more clearly and persuasively I hope). Wanting to marry someone of the same gender is not the same as wanting to marry your sibling. One is a deeply held, unchangeable personal characteristic, one is not. There is no such thing as "family orientation" (as one poster facetiously suggested.) A person does not describe themselves as being black, middle aged, hearing impaired, and only attracted to family members. Alternatively, people do describe themselves as being white, elderly, and gay. That is the difference.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I'll try to explain this again (more clearly and persuasively I hope). Wanting to marry someone of the same gender is not the same as wanting to marry your sibling. One is a deeply held, unchangeable personal characteristic, one is not. There is no such thing as "family orientation" (as one poster facetiously suggested.) A person does not describe themselves as being black, middle aged, hearing impaired, and only attracted to family members. Alternatively, people do describe themselves as being white, elderly, and gay. That is the difference.

Thanks, that is helpful.

What about those who identify as bisexual being able to marry both a man and a woman?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

But what about before this time? Marriage in the pre-Christian world was fundamentally different than even medieval Christian marriage. Which one is "traditional" and why?

Could you recommend a good source that discusses marriage in the ancient world? It seems to be practiced near universally.

[BlackRedGold25]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I'll try to explain this again (more clearly and persuasively I hope). Wanting to marry someone of the same gender is not the same as wanting to marry your sibling. One is a deeply held, unchangeable personal characteristic, one is not. There is no such thing as "family orientation" (as one poster facetiously suggested.)

Only because no one has fought for it yet. If they ever did I'm sure some lawyer will come up with a term that is equivalent to sexual orientation.

A person does not describe themselves as being black, middle aged, hearing impaired, and only attracted to family members.

And why does a person who want to marry their sibling have to only be attracted to family members? A bisexual can choose either a man or a woman to marry.

Alternatively, people do describe themselves as being white, elderly, and gay. That is the difference.

And some people describe themselves as John's sister or Mary's brother.

What you are arguing is semantics. There is no difference except sibling relationships are looked at with disgust and not political correctness.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Yeah, but the idea that has been taken in Canada is that the charter is a living document that can be used to interpret novel situations in context of the spirit of the document and current conditions. It is not possible to write a document that is 100% valid into the future. It needs to be re-examined and re-contextualized.

Which on a side note, it really bugs when judges try to use original intent and put words in the mouths of the writers into situations that they could not have possibly predicted.

The opinions in the 1stand 2nd paragraphs seemcontradictory. The first expresses admiration for changing the constitution to fit the times by judges.

Same sex marriage is actually further down the road you discuss in you second paragraph. Judges inferred an intent to that charter that wasn't explicitly stated, but was in fact specifically rejected at the time it was written. The intent of the writers of the charter wasn't ambiguous, sexual orientation was considered and left out.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Could you recommend a good source that discusses marriage in the ancient world? It seems to be practiced near universally.

Off hand, I'm afraid not, but there are a number of studies on marriage, sexuality and family in Ancient Greek and Roman society, and in ancient Mesopotamia and Hellenistic Judaism. The matter is not whether or not there was marriage, but rather what marriage meant in various ancient cultures. It formed part of the fabric of ethnic survival and in turn functioned to reflect this. Today, marriage is probably unnecessary in the same sense and has become more of a privilege than a prerequisite. For this reason, the values attached to marriage are different and it does not work the same way as it once did.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Thanks, that is helpful.

What about those who identify as bisexual being able to marry both a man and a woman?

That is a good question and I understand what you are asking, but my answer would be pretty much the same. Bisexuality is a fundamental personal characteristic in the same sense as homosexuality or heterosexuality. People identify themselves as bisexual. People who happen to fall in love with their sibling don't identify themselves as "family-sexuals" (or whatever). Alternatively, people who happen to fall in love with a lawyer (I know it seems impossible but it does happen) do not describe themselves as "lawyer-sexuals". Therefore, a prohibition on marrying lawyers would not be discrimination.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Today, marriage is probably unnecessary in the same sense and has become more of a privilege than a prerequisite.

I found this to be rather thought provoking. Particularly the unnecessary part. Is marriage really necessary these days? What for? Does it serve some vital purpose, or is it becoming an archaic 'tradition' that could be lost to time. This should keep me busy at work tomorrow.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by BlackRedGold25

Only because no one has fought for it yet. If they ever did I'm sure some lawyer will come up with a term that is equivalent to sexual orientation.

As has been mentioned already, the fact that no one has fought for it yet is probably the most probative observation of all (in terms of it not being a fundamental personal characteristic.)

With respect to your second point, terms coined by lawyers are not persuasive. Evidence is persuasive. And there are decades worth of evidence that very strongly proves that homosexuality is an enduring biological and psychological pattern of attraction to one's own gender. No such evidence exists with respect to attraction to one's own family members.

Originally Posted by BlackRedGold25

And why does a person who want to marry their sibling have to only be attracted to family members? A bisexual can choose either a man or a woman to marry.

Again, it is not necessary to only be attracted to one's sibling. However, it is necessary for there to exist a pattern of attraction to one's siblings, and for people to identify themselves as being attracted to their siblings (in the sense that this trait is part of who they are.)

Originally Posted by BlackRedGold25

And some people describe themselves as John's sister or Mary's brother.

Again, the law does not prohibit people with siblings from marrying, therefore the fact that one identifies as "John's sister" is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by BlackRedGold25

What you are arguing is semantics. There is no difference except sibling relationships are looked at with disgust and not political correctness.

I don't think that I am arguing semantics at all.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

I found this to be rather thought provoking. Particularly the unnecessary part. Is marriage really necessary these days? What for? Does it serve some vital purpose, or is it becoming an archaic 'tradition' that could be lost to time. This should keep me busy at work tomorrow.

Better tax rates... I'm not religious so the whole religious thing doesn't mean anything to me. However, if two people want to marry let em. I don't understand how this is such a big deal now a days when we have much bigger problems

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

The opinions in the 1stand 2nd paragraphs seemcontradictory. The first expresses admiration for changing the constitution to fit the times by judges.

Same sex marriage is actually further down the road you discuss in you second paragraph. Judges inferred an intent to that charter that wasn't explicitly stated, but was in fact specifically rejected at the time it was written. The intent of the writers of the charter wasn't ambiguous, sexual orientation was considered and left out.

Maybe I wasn't clear, but what I am talking about is more true in the US due to its age, but some judges try to interpret modern events from the 'minds' of the founding fathers and use it as a reason to keep that status quo rather than contextualizing it in modern era society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_intent

versus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_tree_doctrine

[Yasa]

I'm really confused. Does allowing gay marriage stop people from going to heaven? If 2 guys/girls get married does it mean that everyone is going to hell? If we're all going to die and be judged how we lived individually anyway, what does it matter?

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Yasa

I'm really confused. Does allowing gay marriage stop people from going to heaven? If 2 guys/girls get married does it mean that everyone is going to hell? If we're all going to die and be judged how we lived individually anyway, what does it matter?

From what I've seen, most Christians want to do God's job for him.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Of course it annoys me. You asked if you hurt my feelings. Big difference.

If there was a salad appreciation day you wouldn't know because positive aspects of America don't seem to interest you in the least.

BTW....not all of us are celebrating Chik-Fil-A appreciation day. In fact, most of us aren't!

Honestly there's nothing malicious in my intent. Just poking a little fun is all. If you wanna poke a little fun at us for living in igloos or eating blubber, be my guest. I have much love for America, but I love Canada too and pretty constantly make fun of aspects of this country as well. But if it annoys you that I do so, I shall attempt to refrain from the pot shots wherever possible (though sometimes it'll be too easy to pass up)

I wish there were more positive stories about America, but as well all know those don't get reported. The newsmedia mantra is "If it bleeds, it leads"; obviously negative and polarizing stories get more play (ratings and reads) than stories of positivity. That usually is why they squeeze them in at the end of the broadcast, after 29 minutes of negativity.

And Chick-Fil-A sucks when you have Popeyes available to eat from as well. Mmmm Popeyes.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

...Is marriage really necessary these days? What for? Does it serve some vital purpose, or is it becoming an archaic 'tradition' that could be lost to time...

I think probably not. Marriage might have become unnecessary, but there are a great many things in our society that are unnecessary, yet will always be with us. In many respects, what makes our society great is simply that there are so many things that we enjoy, but do not require. What I mean by "unnecessary" is that the survival of our culture or any "tribe" does not depend upon the institution of marriage, like it once did in the ancient world. The purpose for marriage has changed to meet the social will from procreation and ensuring progeny to a celebration of relational commitment. I expect that there will always be the social will to express this.