cheesemonster2005 Posted September 9, 2005 Author Share Posted September 9, 2005 A permanent recognised and formal partnership between a couple (I won’t use the word Marriage as it is NOT a Marriage – it can’t be) that delivers the same benefits and obligations to a couple up to but not including the adoption or fostering of kids would be no bad thing, at least in my view. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Why won't you use the word marriage? That's what we are talking about. Why can't it be marriage - whats the difference? Marriage is not and shouldn't be restricted to a man and a woman that's the point we're trying to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theintelligentthug Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 A permanent recognised and formal partnership between a couple (I won’t use the word Marriage as it is NOT a Marriage – it can’t be) that delivers the same benefits and obligations to a couple up to but not including the adoption or fostering of kids would be no bad thing, at least in my view. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Why won't you use the word marriage? That's what we are talking about. Why can't it be marriage - whats the difference? Marriage is not and shouldn't be restricted to a man and a woman that's the point we're trying to make. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> i get what he's saying. a "marriage" is a union between a man and a woman under the eyes of god/God. what we're talking about is a union between two people under the eyes of the state/public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 A permanent recognised and formal partnership between a couple (I won’t use the word Marriage as it is NOT a Marriage – it can’t be) that delivers the same benefits and obligations to a couple up to but not including the adoption or fostering of kids would be no bad thing, at least in my view. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Why won't you use the word marriage? That's what we are talking about. Why can't it be marriage - whats the difference? Marriage is not and shouldn't be restricted to a man and a woman that's the point we're trying to make. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> i get what he's saying. a "marriage" is a union between a man and a woman under the eyes of god/God. what we're talking about is a union between two people under the eyes of the state/public. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have not and do not bring God into this. There is no need. Marriage is between man and woman no matter if it is in a church, a synagogue, or on the Tower of Refuge on a cold Thursday afternoon in October. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theintelligentthug Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 cheeeeeeel homies! i was simply stating a difference. im not fighting your corner for you, you can do that quite aptly on your own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesemonster2005 Posted September 9, 2005 Author Share Posted September 9, 2005 I have not and do not bring God into this. There is no need. Marriage is between man and woman no matter if it is in a church, a synagogue, or on the Tower of Refuge on a cold Thursday afternoon in October. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I could understand you defining it as between a man and woman if you were taking about religion which most people no longer practice. However you are talking about your opinion but you don't say why you think it's between a man and a woman only? Why can't this therefore be changed to be between a man and a man or a woman and a woman? Why would this offend you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 I have not and do not bring God into this. There is no need. Marriage is between man and woman no matter if it is in a church, a synagogue, or on the Tower of Refuge on a cold Thursday afternoon in October. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I could understand you defining it as between a man and woman if you were taking about religion which most people no longer practice. However you are talking about your opinion but you don't say why you think it's between a man and a woman only? Why can't this therefore be changed to be between a man and a man or a woman and a woman? Why would this offend you? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Two reasons. IF the recognised and legally binding union was toe be termed a Marriage it would open the argument for permitting the adoption or fostering of kids and that must NEVER be permitted unless the kids are those of one of the partners. Secondly if it were to be termed a Marriage it would detract from the argument to permit non-emotional (for want of a better word) permanent relationships such as between siblings where they had decided to throw in their lot together to benefit from the same things such as inheritance, taxation, etc. that other couples would benefit from and that would be unjust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 Oh boy we are down to the semantics of definitions aren't we. Just querying: is a Muslim, or a Mormon, who has 2 wives married to both of them? Ie is marriage between a man and as many women as they want? A very few cultures do have it the other way round so also if a woman in the hills of Yunan has 2 husbands is she married to both of them? Rog if your definition doesn't encompass these phenonomon but you acknowledge these people may call their relationships marriage, then why not gays? Also what is the relationship between the two husbands / two wives in these cases? ... surely this is a relationship where property rights, child rights etc are legally/culturally demarked to recognise the long term relationship they are in. This is what we are debating isn't it? The world is complicated, and if you are trying to escape the simplicities of a GOD ordained definition of marriage how can you claim marriage has a simple universally accepted definition when it seems very obvious to me it doesn't !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 Two reasons. IF the recognised and legally binding union was toe be termed a Marriage it would open the argument for permitting the adoption or fostering of kids and that must NEVER be permitted unless the kids are those of one of the partners. Just checking why must children NEVER be permitted to be involved in a gay relationship? I've heard psychologists saying this and given a couple of hours on the internet I'm certain I could find (but i haven't got the time!) scientifically valid studies of children raised in gay households which find the children have sophisticated and mature understandings of sexuality, are no more likely to be F*cked up than children raised in hetrosexual households, and are tolerant and open. They aren't all gay themselves; as I've posted before homosexuality is complex and seems to involve both environmental and genetic factors. To use a phrase similar to on Rog has used before; children raised in gay households are NOT deviants! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 Oh boy we are down to the semantics of definitions aren't we. Just querying: is a Muslim, or a Mormon, who has 2 wives married to both of them? Ie is marriage between a man and as many women as they want? A very few cultures do have it the other way round so also if a woman in the hills of Yunan has 2 husbands is she married to both of them? Rog if your definition doesn't encompass these phenonomon but you acknowledge these people may call their relationships marriage, then why not gays? Also what is the relationship between the two husbands / two wives in these cases? ... surely this is a relationship where property rights, child rights etc are legally/culturally demarked to recognise the long term relationship they are in. This is what we are debating isn't it? The world is complicated, and if you are trying to escape the simplicities of a GOD ordained definition of marriage how can you claim marriage has a simple universally accepted definition when it seems very obvious to me it doesn't !! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No complexity at all. Marriage is between men and women. Polygamous marriage is also between men and women. A permanent relationship enshrined in law between same sex people is not Marriage and must not be described as Marriage as Marriage includes the possibility for a couple to adopt or foster a non-related child and that MUST NOT be brought into a same sex relationship. The other issue about ensuring that argument in favour of non-sexual non-emotional same sex relationships being catered for such as to permit all of the benefits that go with legally recognised same sex relationships that are sexual or emotional based also must not be weakened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesemonster2005 Posted September 9, 2005 Author Share Posted September 9, 2005 Two reasons. IF the recognised and legally binding union was toe be termed a Marriage it would open the argument for permitting the adoption or fostering of kids and that must NEVER be permitted unless the kids are those of one of the partners. Secondly if it were to be termed a Marriage it would detract from the argument to permit non-emotional (for want of a better word) permanent relationships such as between siblings where they had decided to throw in their lot together to benefit from the same things such as inheritance, taxation, etc. that other couples would benefit from and that would be unjust. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You're saying gay people shouldn't be allowed to raise children? They already are. A single person of any sexuality can foster or adopt a child yet gay couples for some reason can not. What's the problem? Do you think their 'gayness' may rub off on the children or something? Do you think they'll start having sex in front of the children? Where's the problem? Children whose parents can't, for whatever reason, raise them themselves, should be looked after by people who are able and willing to - whatever their religion, sex, sexual preference, smell (!), race and even if they're a journalist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 Oh boy we are down to the semantics of definitions aren't we. Just querying: is a Muslim, or a Mormon, who has 2 wives married to both of them? Ie is marriage between a man and as many women as they want? A very few cultures do have it the other way round so also if a woman in the hills of Yunan has 2 husbands is she married to both of them? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The poll we're debating is headed 'Should Gay Marriage (IoM) Be Allowed?' Therefore, as local law forbids polygamy/bigamy/polyandry the answer to all points quoted is "no." Religion is definitely NOT part of my equation either, but the word 'marriage' should refer only to the legally binding relationship between a husband and a wife. People who prefer same-sex relationships have already stolen and bastardized the word 'gay' for their own use. Is it beyond the reach of their wit and wisdom to find another word for the formalization of their relationships? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 The poll we're debating is headed 'Should Gay Marriage (IoM) Be Allowed?'Therefore, as local law forbids polygamy/bigamy/polyandry the answer to all points quoted is "no." We are debating ALTERING the definition of marriage in the Isle of Man. Therefore what local law forbids isn't relevent, because it currently forbids gay marriage! I was trying to explain that the definition of marriage is more diverse than the view that it is solely between one man and one woman. This is the current legal definition in the IOM and you and Rog agree with it. Unfortunately though when it is asked WHY should the definition should remain this way I feel the answer just restates the definition. IE. Marriage should remain the definition it currently has, because that is what marriage is. People who have a different view to this are trying to say that this definition doesn't cater for the entirety of marriage and are saying other wider definitions are possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 Two reasons. IF the recognised and legally binding union was toe be termed a Marriage it would open the argument for permitting the adoption or fostering of kids and that must NEVER be permitted unless the kids are those of one of the partners. Secondly if it were to be termed a Marriage it would detract from the argument to permit non-emotional (for want of a better word) permanent relationships such as between siblings where they had decided to throw in their lot together to benefit from the same things such as inheritance, taxation, etc. that other couples would benefit from and that would be unjust. I'd really like you to expand on these two reasons ... honestly I am interested. I've already raised the issues about children in a gay household, but also if you called Marriage all sexual relationships, and Civil Union all non sexual ones wouldn't that clarify and simplify things? If the state is willing to support people coming together to share their housing etc for wholly platonic reasons it would most likely reduce the burden on the state for elderly care etc so I can see it being supported. Plus being able to give consent for medical care seems especially important to me; a friend who has lived with someone for 30 years or whatever would seem able to provide a doctor a valid opinion as to whether this person would want treatment to be given or withdrawn. If the person is childless or estranged from any children the civil partner could become the next of kin. So do we have two issues: 1) next of kin issues = civil union 2) emotional, sexual issues = marriage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesemonster2005 Posted September 9, 2005 Author Share Posted September 9, 2005 The poll we're debating is headed 'Should Gay Marriage (IoM) Be Allowed?'Therefore, as local law forbids polygamy/bigamy/polyandry the answer to all points quoted is "no." Religion is definitely NOT part of my equation either, but the word 'marriage' should refer only to the legally binding relationship between a husband and a wife. People who prefer same-sex relationships have already stolen and bastardized the word 'gay' for their own use. Is it beyond the reach of their wit and wisdom to find another word for the formalization of their relationships? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Why should they find another word? What difference does it make to a heterosexual married couple if homosexual couples can also be considered married? It's not bastardization - it's just allowing people in the same position (but gay) to have the same pursuit of happiness as them. I'm heterosexual but don't ever wish to marry unless it's of massive improtance to my partner but I don't see why this should be denied to someone else just because they happen to prefer men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 So what you're saying is that the vast majority of people who prefer male-female relationships - and wish to make to a commitment to each other - should accept either that they are no different to homosexual couples who wish to make the same commitment or, if not, should be required to give up the terminology of many centuries and find some new terminology to describe their relationship. Sorry, but the logic escapes me. I have no objection to same-sex relationships being formalised in some kind of civil ceremony (or even a religious one, for all I care!), but I cannot and will not accept the view that they are 'married' in the way that my wife and I are married. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.