Comments on: SIEFF: On the Marriage Equality Question

By: Old & Decrepit

Old & Decrepit — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:42:13 +0000

Colin: You cite authority as governmental entities(Uh oh, it’s worse than that! It’s Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Iowa, and…California! Run!) Governmental entities cannot marry, the best they can do is assent to a religious combination. And those countries: moribund European welfare states! And those denominations: low hills presently occupied by the lieutenants of Satan. And neither I, nor you I think, want to contemplate very long yours “what it looks like when the two consummate it.” Everybody knows, it looks icky!

And remember the central idea, the one never to veer from: the root word of governmental is…mental!

And about your last, I try to think about it as little as possible, but it creeps in from time to time: I guess it’s these tryin’ times! They force me to cough up the cud of a mental picture from time to time. My mental picture has a caption under it which I will share with you, an “oldie but a goodie”:

The joke about the Greek boy who didn’t want to leave home, because he didn’t want to leave his little brothers behind! Brrrrump bmp!

And debunked: I detect an inapt usage. I may have been something elsed..in your opinion, but to debunk something is not what happened.

Let’s do some more green… or … how come abortion never comes up on this board? Let’s do it!

Or, how about…Islam?!

By: Colin MacDonald

Colin MacDonald — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:07:13 +0000

Two same-sex humans cannot be married? Oh, really? Dear sir, I fear you have been debunked.

You see, in the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Iowa, and (for a time only) California, there are legally recognized gay couples. That does not even begin to count the entire nations of Canada, Spain, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, South Africa, and Norway. Of course, you’ll claim that marriage is a religious concept and I’ll point to the Unitarian Universalists, several Lutheran denominations, the Episcopal Church, several Jewish denominations, and many more religious denominations which recognize the holiness of a union between two individuals and do not spend all of their time worrying about what it looks like when the two consummate it.

Frankly, I don’t see why you are so obsessed with us having sex.

By: Old & Decrepit

Old & Decrepit — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:35:58 +0000

Catching on? I …don’t think so.

Marriage equality is in impossibility, because two same-sex humans cannot be married. And climate change is otherwise known as…weather. Not known as a threat up until now, but something we live with.

These terms are terms of political art to try to fool fools into compliance.

By: Colin MacDonald

Colin MacDonald — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 04:05:42 +0000

That is correct, O&D, I love that analogy. In both cases, the first term you use is a more complete and inclusive term whereas the latter is a narrow view of the issue which fails to take into account all factors. I’m glad you’re catching on.

By: Old & Decrepit

Old & Decrepit — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 03:15:44 +0000

“Marriage equality” is to “gay marriage” as “climate change” is to “global warming.”

By: Cecelia Lee

Cecelia Lee — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 01:16:18 +0000

There is a need for equality under the law. While that might not translate into the hearts of all citizens, the legal protections afforded under that status are DESPERATELY necessary.
Imagine your mother being told she had no say in your father’s medical care were he unable to make decisions himself. Imagine him dying and her being told that since the house was in his name, she has no claim to it, even though they’ve both made the mortgage payments. How is this any worse for them than for a gay or lesbian couple?
It happens a lot, and there is no legal recourse since marriage is currently defined as between one man and one woman in most states.
okay- so the issue for me is not only the union itself being recognized by the state and federal governments(though that is VERY important).It is also the terminology used. (I agree with Colin)
The word marriage is used to indicate a (hopefully) life-long commitment between two people. Saying that if those two people are the same gender, they have to use different terminology is just one more way to subjugate the LGBT community.
If civil unions are acceptable for same-sex couples, then that terminology should also be applied to couples of two different genders. Truth be told, I believe marriage would be better off if it were completely separate from government. Government should be in charge of civil unions for BOTH types of couples- same sex and mixed sex. Marriage should be the religious ceremony that it was intended to be and have nothing to do with government at all, but be something shared within the religious communities.
We are supposed to have a separation of church and state under the ideals of our constitution, right?
There is a need for government involvement in the issues of legal dispensation of assets and child custody should the couple divorce. Other than that I just don’t see where they should come into the picture.
Just as it is now illegal for people to be discriminated against because of their skin color, it once was the norm. There were sit-ins, marches, and protests not unlike now with the LGBT community.
I don’t think legal acceptance means everyone will automatically love us. In reality, I know differently. But that doesn’t mean I should give up the fight for equality as so much sour grapes!

& to Declan Doyle- there is a HUGE difference between homosexuality and incest. Children of incest often are born with birth defects due to not having enough variance in their genetic coding. And I’m all for poligamy as long as everyone in that relationship has the same rights and is over the age of consent. (I.E. not just a man with 3 wives, but also the possibility of a woman with 3 husbands). Life may not be fair, but doesn’t that make the legal equality even that much more important??

By: Tim

Tim — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:56:35 +0000

I’ll just point it out now.

Equality is a myth. You’ll find it wherever you find pink unicorns.

By: Om

Om — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 04:15:37 +0000

Wow, I’m an idiot…

By: Adam S. Sieff

Adam S. Sieff — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 03:12:02 +0000

Solid observation Om. See headline.

By: Om

Om — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 02:34:01 +0000

This frighteningly sounds like Marx in Jewish Question