Is making gay marriage illegal censoring relationships?

Asher · February 9, 2004, 03:30

Ben says no, I say yes.

Discuss.

POTUS · February 9, 2004, 04:02

No, a relationship does not have to be a marriage.

Asher · February 9, 2004, 04:05

I don't recall the statement saying censoring all relationships.

Drake Tungsten · February 9, 2004, 04:06

Ben is right.

Asher · February 9, 2004, 04:12

Is marriage a type of relationship?

So how is prohibiting certain people from entering these types of relationships not censoring?

POTUS · February 9, 2004, 04:13

Marriage is just a legal thing.

I know some gay and lesbian friends who got married just for the legal benefits. They don't live together, sleep together, etc. Just, they count as married.

Asher · February 9, 2004, 04:14

If marriage was just a legal thing, why do religious groups get up in arms in extending it to gay couples?

POTUS · February 9, 2004, 04:17

Because they are stupid. Why does anyone make a big fuss about something that has nothing to do with them?

Drake Tungsten · February 9, 2004, 04:17

BTW, am I the only one who's suspicious about the usage of the word "censor" in this manner?

Asher · February 9, 2004, 04:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
BTW, am I the only one who's suspicious about the usage of the word "censor" in this manner?

It came up because I said Ben was being a tad bit hypocritical because he criticized the government for stepping in to censor language, while at the same time actively promoting the idea of censoring certain types of relationships.

Shi Huangdi · February 9, 2004, 04:33

Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. The government could call a relationship between two men a marriage, but that wouldn't make them married.

Of course, we still ought not to deprive them of legal rights such as inheritance and hospital visits, so there should be civil unions.

Drake Tungsten · February 9, 2004, 04:53

Quote:

Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. The government could call a relationship between two men a marriage, but that wouldn't make them married.

Of course, we still ought not to deprive them of legal rights such as inheritance and hospital visits, so there should be civil unions.

Well said.

Ben Kenobi · February 9, 2004, 05:00

I believe your original statement added a few qualifiers.

1. consensual

2. adult

Now, if I am not correct, by your own definition, you censor certain relationships, and allow others.

How is this consistent?

notyoueither · February 9, 2004, 05:05

OMG! Slavery is illegal therefore the concept of private property has been undermined! Run for the hills and join the militia!

Ben, do us a favour. Slap yourself before you post on these topics. Seeming to think that involuntary relationships involving minors is a good thing to argue makes you look like less than a fool.

Ben Kenobi · February 9, 2004, 05:08

Quote:

Seeming to think that involuntary relationships involving minors is a good thing to argue

Please re-read my post.

Show me where I advocate relationships with minors as a good thing?

Pax · February 9, 2004, 05:14

My webster's defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman so it can't be changed.

Wait, english is not a dead language and American law is not set in stone so let gays celebrate their love and desire for one another.

P.S. I've been married twice. nothing like it. IT SUCKS, so gays be careful what you wish for!!!

notyoueither · February 9, 2004, 05:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Please re-read my post.

Show me where I advocate relationships with minors as a good thing?

Ben, slap yourself. I'm not the only one who is going to read it that way. And I am past giving a **** to read between your sophisticratic lines.

You are defending crap by posting crap.

Get the hell out of everyone elses' lives and be happy with the small corner of reality that you will be allowed to impose your morals on, that being yourself, your family, and your own Church.

Pax · February 9, 2004, 05:38

I don't like the word censor.
Minors do not have the same rights as adults.
they have to be protected until the little chickies can fly far far away so i can walk around the house naked and don't have to hide my porn.

Ben Kenobi · February 9, 2004, 05:44

Quote:

I'm not the only one who is going to read it that way.

You need some sleep. Irritable tigers do not post well.

Nubclear · February 9, 2004, 05:47

Marriage is a state of consciousness between two people that transcends physical reality.
Such is not dependant on the location of sexual organs.

Drake Tungsten · February 9, 2004, 07:40

It is dependent upon the total number of sexual organs, however, so tough luck for you and all your Joseph Smith loving comrades.

Spiffor · February 9, 2004, 07:47

Depending on how you interpet the grammar of the topic's question, the answer is either a resounding YES or a resounding NO.

YES, the ban of gay marriage forbits a type of relationship, that is, a homosexual relationships within the frame of marriage.

NO, the ban of gay marriage doesn't forbit all kinds of relationships, not even all kinds of homosexual relationships.

Gosh, I fail to see the use of such an obvious question.

MrFun · February 9, 2004, 10:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. The government could call a relationship between two men a marriage, but that wouldn't make them married.

Of course, we still ought not to deprive them of legal rights such as inheritance and hospital visits, so there should be civil unions.

I agree -- since marriage is still such a strong cultural/social construct that can only acknowledge it being between a man and a woman, the only real chance is legal recognition of civil unions.

Wittlich · February 9, 2004, 11:03

I concur. I don't care what they (the governemnt) call it - I just demand the same legal rights for my partner and I that that other Americans in a "relationship" (ie, marriage) enjoy.

MrFun · February 9, 2004, 11:15

Whoa -- where have you been hiding, Wittlich?

Wittlich · February 9, 2004, 11:24

Busy with college...as a matter of fact, time for me to take off to classes...

GePap · February 9, 2004, 11:39

Since when must marriage be between one man and one woman? Traditional marriage included polygamy, and in a few places polyandry.

The definition of marriage as one man and one woman is a modern one that excludes some real traditional ways- and this evolution of the term can continue- for example, now people think for marriage you need a romantic couple- while through most of history two families would arrange who got whom regardless of the feelings of the participants, and not only rings, but actual money and goods had to be traded as well by families.

IN fact, if anyone deserves to get the blame for the "possiblity" of gay marriage it is the people who took marriage out of the realm of contracts and put it in the realm of a "romantic" relation between two human beings (as opposed to a joining of bloodlines with economic [and perhaps political] connotations for the participants) that love each other.

The government could say "marriage is a contract to join bloodlines and any joining that can not lead to children being created does not count as marriage". The state is less able to justify saying "marriage is between two people who love each other- but only of different sexes".

MrFun · February 9, 2004, 11:41

I agree GePap -- as I already stated, it's a modern social/cultural construct that we're not likely to change anytime soon, so civil union is the way to go.

Theben · February 9, 2004, 11:55

Who the **** cares?

Wasn't it 10 years ago that we had a big flap over gays in the military- apparently only guys who like snatch can kill and be killed.

10 years ago- Gays want the right to be shot to death.

Today- Gays want the right to be nagged to death.

Just give it to 'em; they'll learn from their mistakes eventually.

MrFun · February 9, 2004, 11:56

Geez, Theben -- are you cranky because you didn't have your coffee this morning??