Gay Marriage

[Esperar]

Originally Posted by poli

What, marriage is worthless? ¿En que planeta vives tú?
Marriage is a contract that protects the people in the marriage. It's like a corporation, and it certainly discourages people from abandoning each other. If they do, there's a big price to pay. It's a trust and bond, and very much a part of human civilization, and absolutely essential to the stability of the middle class. If there is no marriage, the person who owns the property could kick out a devoted partner on a whim with no legal reprocussions. There's a reason the institution of marriage hasn't evaporated, and why some fight for it.
Get real.

There's no incentive for a woman to not to abandon her husband. She can leave whenever she wants, will get half of his money, and the children.

It's like a corporation

I totally agree with you, how very romantic.

With 50% of marriages ending in divorce, and terms such as "starter husband" flying around, I'd say it's pretty worthless.

[irmamar]

Originally Posted by Esperar

I'm an atheist, and I really don't like conservatives. It's not religious reasons I oppose gay marriage in theory, I oppose it because I think marriage is a foundation for families, and children need a mother and father.

Gays already have equal rights regarding this anyway, there's nothing stopping a gay man from marrying a woman, or a lesbian marrying a man.

Also, your analogy of taking drugs, and gay marriage is faulty. Not being able to take drugs legally is a violation of one's freedom with their own body, the state refusing to marry gays is not stopping them from doing anything. Gays and lesbians can still have a marriage ceremony if they want, it just won't be recognized legally.

Also, bear in mind that if you change the definition of marriage to include gays, you are changing what marriage is, and taking it away from those who are already married.

This has nothing to do with bigotry, I've known gay guys who are against gay marriage and say it makes no sense.

So, you mean that a couple with no children has a marriage invalid, don't you?

Marriage was the first contract of humanity, when religion didn't exist as we know it nowadays. So, first was contract; later, religions. A contract without papers or ceremony (I insist, in the sense we know them nowadays). So, if people wants to change the terms of the contract they do, they must be able to do it.

It is said that family is the basis of the society, but society is changing. But, as Sociologists say, people in a society changes more slowly than that society itself. So, there are things in sociey, such as the topic we are talking about, which are changing, but there are many people who don't agree with those changes. But next generation will see the same topic with other eyes and they won't talk about it because this will be so common that it won't be important.

We must adapt ourselves to society, instead society to us.

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by Tarential

It is bigotry, pure and simple.

I'm going to stop myself here before I write the response that is deserved.

Originally Posted by Tarential

I wasn't posting it as an insult to you, although it's interesting that you take it as such. .....It is axiomatically bigotry to be intolerant of what other people do based on your own opinion.

Originally Posted by JPablo

Ignorance is the source of bigotry. Knowledge on the other hand allows one to choose the best solution to any problem.

For what it's worth, I think @Tarential should think carefully about exactly what bigotry means, rather than playing with words. On his understanding which I've bolded, objecting to, say, rape and murder would be bigotry.

I see nothing wrong with objecting to some other person's behaviour as long as the grounds for the objection are not just based on ignorance, but are a considered opinion. To claim something is bigotry is automatically claiming an ignorance which is insulting to most people. How you can then be surprised at it being taken as an insult is a mystery to me.

[poli]

Originally Posted by irmamar

So, you mean that a couple with no children have an invalid marriage, don't you?

Marriage was the first contract of humanity, when religion didn't exist as we know it nowadays. So, first was contract; later, religions. A contract without papers or ceremony (I insist, in the sense we know them nowadays). So, if people want(s) to change the terms of the contract they do, they must be able to do it.

It is said that family is the basis of the society, but society is changing. But, as sociologists say, people in a society change(s) more slowly than that society itself. So, there are things in sociey, such as the topic we are talking about, which are changing, but there are many people who don't agree with those changes. But next generation will see the same topic with other eyes and they won't talk about it because this will be so common that it won't be important.

We must adapt ourselves to society, instead society to us.

Elocuentamente dicho. Antes pensaba ¿porque los gays quieren casarse? El matrimonio mata la libertad que tienen, pero cambié mi opinón cuando aprendí las consecuencias de compartir una vida con alguien sin el
contracto. Si una en de la pareja muere su familia es capaz de coger
todo dejando el compañero sin nada y sin recursos legales combatirles.
El matrimonio es una cosa muy civilizada.

[Esperar]

Originally Posted by irmamar

So, you mean that a couple with no children has a marriage invalid, don't you?

Marriage was the first contract of humanity, when religion didn't exist as we know it nowadays. So, first was contract; later, religions. A contract without papers or ceremony (I insist, in the sense we know them nowadays). So, if people wants to change the terms of the contract they do, they must be able to do it.

It is said that family is the basis of the society, but society is changing. But, as Sociologists say, people in a society changes more slowly than that society itself. So, there are things in sociey, such as the topic we are talking about, which are changing, but there are many people who don't agree with those changes. But next generation will see the same topic with other eyes and they won't talk about it because this will be so common that it won't be important.

We must adapt ourselves to society, instead society to us.

Fair points, but I'm not just changing my stance just like that, but I will however consider what you have said.

Tarential, irmamar has shown how you disagree with someone.

[Chris]

Do you say your marriage contracts or your marriage vows? Marriage is not a contract, it's a vow. A contract would be "I agree to be with you for 6 months unless you don't do the dishes. I will cut the grass on each Friday... I do." A vow... is different. I think calling it a contract cheapens marriage greatly. When you say your vows you say "Until death do we part." so you are giving an oath to be with this person until you die. That's a commitment most people are not willing to live up to, but they haphazardly agree to it.

From the Oxford on my desk...

vow: n. Relig. solemn promise, esp. in the form of an oath to God.

contract: n. 1 written or spoken agreement, esp. one enforceable by law.

[Esperar]

It's a business contract, that's why it involves the law. I would advise men to stay away from it.

[poli]

Marriage vows are taken often with bibles priests or muftis or whatever, but it the piece of paper that counts. That paper is a contract, a pact that represents a pooling of resourses in fact a corporation. All holiness, tacky photo albums and ceremony aside, when push comes to shove, it's the contract that counts.

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by poli

All holiness, tacky photo albums and ceremony aside, when push comes to shove, it's the contract that counts.

Yes, a civil contract. Religions have a habit of stealing social arrangements and incorporating them into religion, then portraying them as their own invention and giving the impression of some moral highground. I hate that.

(Sorry - rather sensitive at present, considering the visit of the Pope to the UK, which I'm furious about. But that's a different topic)

[irmamar]

Creo que me he perdido Yes, I think I'm lost.

Esperar, I don't disagree with Tarential, I like his/her words. Why do I disagree? It could be that I didn't understand a word; yes, that could be possible, but I like Tarential's words (I think ). Don't worry, I like yours, too.

Perikles, I understand "bigotry" as "intolerancia". Why a rape or a murder is a bigotry? Sorry, I don't understand.

Well, surely I'm lost among a lot of words that I don't understand (maybe I should translate).

Chris, don't get angry. Your opinion is that marriage is a vow, mine is that it is a contract. Different points of view, since yours is a religious one, while mine is a legal one. Anyway, I should tell you that I had a religious marriage and it is not my intention abandon my beloved husband (whom I love so much that if he died, I would like to die, too). But I am heterosexual. Why, if I were homosexual, couldn't I marry another woman if I loved her as much as I love my husband? That's what I don't understand.

Poli, a ti sí que te he entendido. Gracias por el cumplido. Puede que me exprese bien, pero igual no entiendo nada.

[Esperar]

Originally Posted by irmamar

Creo que me he perdido Yes, I think I'm lost.

Esperar, I don't disagree with Tarential, I like his/her words. Why do I disagree? It could be that I didn't understand a word; yes, that could be possible, but I like Tarential's words (I think ). Don't worry, I like yours, too.

Perikles, I understand "bigotry" as "intolerancia". Why a rape or a murder is a bigotry? Sorry, I don't understand.

Well, surely I'm lost among a lot of words that I don't understand (maybe I should translate).

Chris, don't get angry. Your opinion is that marriage is a vow, mine is that it is a contract. Different points of view, since yours is a religious one, while mine is a legal one. Anyway, I should tell you that I had a religious marriage and it is not my intention abandon my beloved husband (whom I love so much that if he died, I would like to die, too). But I am heterosexual. Why, if I were homosexual, couldn't I marry another woman if I loved her as much as I love my husband? That's what I don't understand.

Poli, a ti sí que te he entendido. Gracias por el cumplido. Puede que me exprese bien, pero igual no entiendo nada.

Irmamar, I never said you disagreed with him.

[irmamar]

Originally Posted by Esperar

Irmamar, I never said you disagreed with him.

Sorry, I didn't understand, then

Let me read again (not now, I don't have enough time).

[poli]

Irmamar, si acusa a una persona de ser un bigot, casi siempre indica una
querella. Me parece que Terencial expresó su rabia muy bien, y defendió
los derechos civiles que probablamente todo el mundo merece, pero la palabra bigot es fea. Hay palabras así en español. Uno que recuerdo ahora es estúpido. Es una palabra que ataca la dignidad de la persona y como
bigot es mejor no dirigirlo a una persona (bueno si es Bush se puede decir estúpido y si es Hitler se puede decir bigot, pero en general no lo recomendo.)

[irmamar]

"Bigot" es "bigote" en catalán (lo digo por lo de Hitler).

Bromas aparte, no sabía que era una palabra despectiva o negativa en algún sentido. ¿Qué palabra se usa para "intolerancia"? ¿Intolerance?

[poli]

Intolorant in a very good adjective that is not necessarily a fighting word.

That's interesting about bigotes. What a cooincidence--or is it?

[AngelicaDeAlquezar]

Originally Posted by Esperar

Tarential, irmamar has shown how you disagree with someone.

Originally Posted by irmamar

Esperar, I don't disagree with Tarential, I like his/her words. Why do I disagree? It could be that I didn't understand a word; yes, that could be possible, but I like Tarential's words (I think ). Don't worry, I like yours, too.

@Irma: I think Esperar just meant that how you stated your points of view is a good way to express what you're for avoiding direct confrontation.

[Esperar]

Sí.

[chileno]

Difficult topic, but I was waiting for people to formulate their opinions. I try to be as partial as possible, and here is my opinion on this subject.

For starters, it isn’t natural. How am I able to differentiate? Simple, I think of natural as everything that exists in the universe, and as such it fluctuates between positive and negative or on and off, whatever.

So, naturally, if light, for example, should be present there should be a positive and a negative charge in order to generate light. With homosexuality nothing can be generated. It is sterile.

So, like it is said and imparted in this country, the US, it is just a sexual preference. This is fine save for something else... In my mind, if it is a sexual preference, then I and anyone else should be able to have a preference for 5 year old children, after all it is a sexual preference, right?

Ah, but it is against the law to persuade a minor. That’s right! So, if people who prefer 5 year old children gather and make a yearly parade, maybe eventually it will be accepted by people and even legal, uh?

To me homosexuality is a deviation, a sickness of the mind and or soul, and should be treated as such, nothing to do with natural couples and families. Maybe it is the person’s karma to have the experience, who knows. But to press the rest to accept this as natural, it should be, but it is happening.

This is just part of what I have to say about this.... (I didn't want to make it unnecessarily long, since the topic is rather extensive)

[JPablo]

You bring up a new, interesting viewpoint to the forum. As the yin and yang symbol, both, "black and white" have a "dot" of the other color inside... Maybe Jessica can provide further insight on this... but one definition of "yin and yang" follows,
n.(Chinese philosophy) the two fundamental principles, one negative, dark, passive, cold, wet, and feminine (yin) and the other (yang) positive, bright, active, dry, hot and masculine. The interactions and balance of these forces in people and nature influence their behavior and fate. [RHUD]

Interestingly enough, that reminds me (of course) the Tao, probably the religion or religious philosophy that most attracted me when I was 13 or 14 and read a Spanish translation of the Tao-te-king... by Lao Tzu... (But that's another subject... although quite connected to the "marriage".)

Why a marriage breaks up?
Lao Tzu, (in the translation I read) said,
"Quien desconfía obtiene desconfianza".

Then again,
"El Tao que puede explicarse, no es el verdadero Tao..."
And I will always remember,
"El sabio adopta la actitud de no obrar y practica una enseñanza sin palabras..." (It make me think I was not very wise, as I was always learning with 'words' and writing or talking...)

[chileno]

Originally Posted by JPablo

Then again,
"El Tao que puede explicarse, no es el verdadero Tao..."
And I will always remember,
"El sabio adopta la actitud de no obrar y practica una enseñanza sin palabras..." (It make me think I was not very wise, as I was always learning with 'words' and writing or talking...)

Correct. But that is because we "need" to process it through the brain, which is our crutch.