Iceland passes gay marriage law in unanimous vote

[Doctordestiny]

I'm opposed to gay marriage but don't want to get embroiled into an argument that goes nowhere and has little hope of anyone convincing anyone else. Seeing someone accuse us of being bigots just because we oppose gay marriage proves the stupidity of all of this. I oppose gay marriage because I feel that it deteriorates the institution of marriage. I'm not a bigot. I don't really care what kind of love or sex people practise as long as they don't impose it on others or flaunt it. I have business associates who are gay. It matters not to me. Be gay, I don't care. Have a civil ceremony to celebrate your love, I don't care, but it shouldn't be a marriage.

[Hack&Lube]

People often speak of deterioriting the institution of marriage.

What exactly is the institution of marriage to you?

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Doctordestiny

I'm opposed to gay marriage but don't want to get embroiled into an argument that goes nowhere and has little hope of anyone convincing anyone else. Seeing someone accuse us of being bigots just because we oppose gay marriage proves the stupidity of all of this. I oppose gay marriage because I feel that it deteriorates the institution of marriage. I'm not a bigot. I don't really care what kind of love or sex people practise as long as they don't impose it on others or flaunt it. I have business associates who are gay. It matters not to me. Be gay, I don't care. Have a civil ceremony to celebrate your love, I don't care, but it shouldn't be a marriage.

How does it do that in your opinion though?

Do you feel that divorces and people getting married several times throughout their lives also deteriorate the institution of marriage? If so, do you think there should be laws put in place to prevent such things?

Ultimately that's what it boils down to. Do you want the government restricting two consenting people from living their lives as they want, which for many includes extending the legal rights of marriage to their partner? If two people are living as a married couple, why shouldn't they be afforded the benefits of marriage simply due to the fact that they're a same sex couple?

[Traditional_Ale]

I love how so many people throw down the "defending the institution of marriage" card when it would seem your "normal", straight marriages have been doing a good enough job of destroying that institution through infedelity and divorce long before the gay question ever showed up.

When 2 of 3 marriages end in divorce within eight years, why would you feel the need to "defend the (white ivory pure untouchable) institution?"

If gay men and women want to have a "marriage" and pay more taxes then all the power to them.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Doctordestiny

Have a civil ceremony to celebrate your love, I don't care, but it shouldn't be a marriage.

So who gets to determine what marriage is then?

If it's government, then a civil ceremony IS marriage, the difference is semantics.

If it's a religious thing (which it isn't), then gay marriage is fine because there are churches which accept it, so how can the government say no church can perform gay marriages because only some churches don't like it

Who gets to determine what marriage is?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by photon

Who gets to determine what marriage is?

The Expert:

[troutman]

Joseph Campbell says this about ceremonies:

"The tribal ceremonies of birth, and initiation, marriage, burial, installation, and so forth, serve to translate the individuals life crises and life deeds into classic, impersonal forms... the whole society becomes visible to itself as an imperishable living unit. Generations of individuals pass, like anonymous cells from a living body, but the sustaining, timeless form remains. By an enlargement of vision to embrace this super individual, each discovers himself enhanced, enriched, supported, and magnified."

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by photon

Who gets to determine what marriage is?

Obviously, Zeus does.

Originally Posted by troutman

Joseph Campbell says this about ceremonies:

"The tribal ceremonies of birth, and initiation, marriage, burial, installation, and so forth, serve to translate the individuals life crises and life deeds into classic, impersonal forms... the whole society becomes visible to itself as an imperishable living unit. Generations of individuals pass, like anonymous cells from a living body, but the sustaining, timeless form remains. By an enlargement of vision to embrace this super individual, each discovers himself enhanced, enriched, supported, and magnified."

My buddy got married. I don't know how he did it, but he talked the girl out of the ceremony part and they only had the partying part.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

You didn't even read my post. I have yet to see anyone but Iowa refute my argument.

Actually, I read and responded to your original post. I guess it was you who did not read my post. As for your second post...

To begin with norms are the effect of our choices, the fact that marriage is optional and people choose to engage in it is what makes it a norm. The norm has changed, however, moving from an Aristophanic view of love and relationships as eros to a Lockean view of relationships (and children) as being instrumental in the conquest of nature.

I'd argue that this isn't entirely true. Childless marriages are becoming more common, as are family units where the parents live common-law.

In regards to stability, this isn't a bad thing. The family unit with children raised by a mother and a father is the best way to raise children who are stable, contributing "members of society."

Do you have any empirical data that backs up your claim that gay parents are somehow less qualified than straight parents?

This is why I still think we should keep around the traditional definition of marriage as the only marriage in modern society. It is the best way for encouraging stable family units in a materialist world where notions of God and the eternal order no longer resound in communities and extended families.

That's all fine and dandy, except it ignores the fact that the dynamic of the traditional family has changed drastically. Marriage isn't the stable institution it once was revered as. Once again, I also don't see how allowing gays to marry affects the ability or desire of straights to marry.

On to my view of love and why I think homosexuality is prior and more significant than being subsumed by this bourgeous definition of marriage. Going back to Plato's Symposium we learn of the Greek definition of eros. That is, the notion of soulmates and longing we feel for other souls. In regards to human sexual activity, this is not bourgeous morality. It involves often a pansexual exploration of oneself in a very Dionysian fashion. Promiscuity leads the way to one day stability.

Homosexuality, especially, according to Socrates is notable for this type of behaviour. Historically, homosexuals did not have the final consequence of the marital act to act as a natural break to their sexual activity. Homosexuals were far more likely to explore the notions of brotherhood and community bonding through their sexuality.

I would argue that homosexuality, like much of humanity, has most likely evolved past the age of Socrates. Your argument that promiscuity among heterosexuals is eventually curtailed by marriage ignores your earlier thesis that marriage is a choice. Heterosexuals are not destined to be married, nor is marriage mandatory for them.

While some homosexuals may use their sexuality as a means of bonding, there are many who ultimately view it in the same way as heterosexuals do, as an emotional and physical commitment. If gays want to be promiscuous and unwed, they are still able to do that regardless of whatever marriage legislation exists.

Going back to your earlier point about promiscuity leading to stability, commitment, etc.; couldn't that also be a good thing for the gay community? If they do view marriage as the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow of promiscuity, would that maybe then lead to a reduction in some of the problems that plague the gay community, namely HIV?

Legalizing gay marriage uses the modern language of rights. Ignoring the diversity and plurality of society, it instead seeks to bureaucratize something as personal as love creating a new norm where bourgeois morality is the state-approved norm for all relationships.

And how is this different than marriage in general?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Do you have any empirical data that backs up your claim that gay parents are somehow less qualified than straight parents?

In the news:

Lesbian women 'make better parents', says Government adviser

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...t-adviser.html

Lesbians make better parents than heterosexual couples, according to a Government parenting adviser.

Professor Stephen Scott, director of research at the National Academy for Parenting Practitioners, said evidence showed that children raised by gay women went on to do better in life.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...eir-peers.html

The children of lesbian parents outscore their peers on academic and social tests, according to results from the longest-running study of same-sex families.

The researchers behind the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study say the results should change attitudes to adoption of children by gay and lesbian couples, which is prohibited in some parts of the US.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Doctordestiny

I'm opposed to gay marriage but don't want to get embroiled into an argument that goes nowhere and has little hope of anyone convincing anyone else. Seeing someone accuse us of being bigots just because we oppose gay marriage proves the stupidity of all of this. I oppose gay marriage because I feel that it deteriorates the institution of marriage. I'm not a bigot. I don't really care what kind of love or sex people practise as long as they don't impose it on others or flaunt it. I have business associates who are gay. It matters not to me. Be gay, I don't care. Have a civil ceremony to celebrate your love, I don't care, but it shouldn't be a marriage.

So do you think a gay couple is entitled to the same rights, tax benefits, etc. as a married straight couple?

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

I love how so many people throw down the "defending the institution of marriage" card when it would seem your "normal", straight marriages have been doing a good enough job of destroying that institution through infedelity and divorce long before the gay question ever showed up.

When 2 of 3 marriages end in divorce within eight years, why would you feel the need to "defend the (white ivory pure untouchable) institution?"

If gay men and women want to have a "marriage" and pay more taxes then all the power to them.

I think it's likely the opposite. So many things have been happening to the institution of marriage in a hetero sense - such as easy divorce, making infidelity no longer a crime, ect., that some people think enough is enough. Some want to strengthen the institution of marriage, because when marriage (in their eyes) is weakened, then people find it easier to break their marriage. And when people find it easier to break their marriage, there are a lot more kids with split homes than before. Many of those kids are in very bad positions, and act up in understandable and often negative ways. And those kids need friends, often their friends are kids in stable homes. If your kid's friends act up, your kid is likely to act up. Besides, parents don't want to see anyone's kids in a bad situation.

So yeah, it is precisely because hetero marriages are doing worse because of all our modern changes that some don't want any more modern changes. And Homosexual marriage is one modern change. I'm not arguing for or against either side, I'm trying to help you understand the other side. Cause you seem like you are having a hard time doing that.

To imagine other people's lives and lifestyle choices don't affect your own is silly. Just as silly as trying to control someone elses life and lifestyle choices.

[Traditional_Ale]

^ Good post! Thanks for that.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Knalus

I think it's likely the opposite. So many things have been happening to the institution of marriage in a hetero sense - such as easy divorce, making infidelity no longer a crime, ect., that some people think enough is enough. Some want to strengthen the institution of marriage, because when marriage (in their eyes) is weakened, then people find it easier to break their marriage. And when people find it easier to break their marriage, there are a lot more kids with split homes than before. Many of those kids are in very bad positions, and act up in understandable and often negative ways. And those kids need friends, often their friends are kids in stable homes. If your kid's friends act up, your kid is likely to act up. Besides, parents don't want to see anyone's kids in a bad situation.

So yeah, it is precisely because hetero marriages are doing worse because of all our modern changes that some don't want any more modern changes. And Homosexual marriage is one modern change. I'm not arguing for or against either side, I'm trying to help you understand the other side. Cause you seem like you are having a hard time doing that.

To imagine other people's lives and lifestyle choices don't affect your own is silly. Just as silly as trying to control someone elses life and lifestyle choices.

I think that ship has sailed. I doubt divorce and infidelity are on the rise due to gays being able to marry.

EDIT: Actually that argument stinks. How does it cheapen marriage just because the two people that love each other happen to be of the same gender?

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I think that ship has sailed. I doubt divorce and infidelity are on the rise due to gays being able to marry.

EDIT: Actually that argument stinks. How does it cheapen marriage just because the two people that love each other happen to be of the same gender?

I think, to sum it up, right or wrong, he was essentially saying you got to stop the bleeding somewhere sometime. He drew the line at "gay" marriage. I'm not saying I agree, btw.

Maybe I should change my username to "Progressive_Ale"

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

I think, to sum it up, right or wrong, he was essentially saying you got to stop the bleeding somewhere sometime. He drew the line at "gay" marriage. I'm not saying I agree, btw.

Maybe I should change my username to "Progressive_Ale"

Right, but I'm asking why gay people getting married dents the institution of marriage. What is the rationale behind lumping gay people getting married in with infidelity and divorce? To me gay marriage is the polar opposite of divorce and infidelity.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

I think, to sum it up, right or wrong, he was essentially saying you got to stop the bleeding somewhere sometime. He drew the line at "gay" marriage. I'm not saying I agree, btw.

Maybe I should change my username to "Progressive_Ale"

Yeah, but that's like a car leaking all sorts of fluids from under the hood, so the owner gets a new windshield installed.

[Doctordestiny]

Originally Posted by rubecube

So do you think a gay couple is entitled to the same rights, tax benefits, etc. as a married straight couple?

Absolutely! Everything but marriage.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Doctordestiny

Absolutely! Everything but marriage.

Haha, just pure ignorance.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Doctordestiny

Absolutely! Everything but marriage.

But to get those rights under Canadian law you have to be legally married, which goes right back into the whole debate about whether government should be involved in marriage. To make it equal, the government would have to give civil unions to both straight and gay couples, and then let the churches sort out whether they want to perform ceremonies. In other words, it's exactly the same.

I'd still like you to explain how two people of the same gender getting married effects you or your marriage.