Conservative Traditions no one supports anymore
 

I have noticed a number of mentions of tradition supporting the rationale for opinions against gay marriage. I have read historical documents defending many older traditions. I'd like this thread to list the discarded traditions. I'll start with a few: slavery, women as property, blacks being unable to own property, laws against oral sex.

Blue laws (prohibiting business on Sundays).

Tradition is a beard.

Human sacrifice.

The separation of church and state.

Actually, many places still have some form of blue laws, but they usually deal with the sale of alcohol.

The county that I live in, in New Jersey (Bergen), a town which has 3 major shopping malls in a 3 mile radius (and a few minor ones), has blue laws. The malls are not allowed to open Sunday. (And honestly, I'm OK with it... - the traffic pattern on those highways the malls are located need one day's break)

Although as I hit enter -- i realize it may just be the town (Paramus) and not the entire county...

government accountability? fiscal sanity?

besides what's already been posted,
i've been to backwater iowa towns where all restaurants and gas stations are closed on sunday.

Laws against fortune telling and palm reading (still on the books in my home town when I was a kid, and enforced).

Laws closing all bars and taverns on election day and not allowing them to reopen until the polls closed. I remember that one, too.

Indentured servitude, a fine old tradition from biblical times up through American colonial times.

Laws against anal or oral sex, gay or otherwise; isn't there still some of that down south?

Virginia is the only state I know of. If I recall, it was ordered to be changed in recent years; however, I'm not sure if the law is still existant or not.

I understand that the Bush adminisitration wants to define marriage by Biblical standards. Well, let's open up their Bible, shall we?

Genesis states that "marriage shall be a union between a man and one or more women."

Oh, and Leviticus states that if a woman who marries isn't a virgin, the husband has a legal right to kill her.

Let's sit back and watch how many of these fundamentalists are going to sign the petition to present this bill to the legislature.

Let the denials and evasions begin.

please understand that marriage being uniquely between a man and a woman is also present in cultures that have received little or no biblical influence.

Why is that important?

I'd actually like to see some evidence for this.

I believe that most cultures, other than the Greeks and the Romans, did not have gay marriage and it was look down apon very highly. And even with the Greeks and Romans there was no marriage, it was mostly a courting thing.

that isn't what irate is claiming.

also, you need to comb through those cultures you hold in your mind (I don't know which ones you are aware of so I can't address them specifically) and ascertain whether they had formal institutions approximating 'marriage' as irate is claiming--a unique institution between one man and one woman. Then determine whether it's ever had any biblical influence. A daunting task. Please give me some names of the cultures you are thinking of and I'll help you search--so far I haven't found any.

Well, it appears as though Greece had 4 main types of marriage. Rome had more than a few, as well, but I haven't determined the number.

I did find this, though, that was quite interesting:

--http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/s/sa/same_sex_marriage.html

Note the first sentence of the third paragraph from the bottom. So far, that exemption is the clearest refutation of Irate's point I have found so far.

It is not exactly a refutation of irate's statement, as his statement does not claim that all non-biblical cultures define marriage as between a man and a woman. But it does point out that although there may be other cultures that have that definition of marriage, there are also apparently cultures that include same sex couples in the definition. Which is interesting all by itself.

But all of that is beside the point of this discussion, as far as I can tell. Irate seemed to be making a point about Bush's desire to define marriage as heterosexual. I would like to know why Irate feels that other cultures, with restrictive definitions of marriage, have much if anything to do with the culture from which Bush derives his moral evaluations. Is it to claim that Bush is basing his belief system on some other culture than the one that is based on the Bible?

That would seem to be the purpose of Irate's statement. But I find it to be an odd opinion, the man is after all a Born Again Christian.

actually, manx, that sentence with the one further up in regards to the evidence that homosexual marriage became a problem in rome commensurate with the rise of christianity speaks to the reality that the only evidence so far that marriage was limited to a unique definition of one man, one woman was within the christian paradigm.

here is a broad overview of many eastern and western cultures. none of them held the view irate is claiming--only biblical ones. So I still can't find evidence of his claim, yet evidence against it.

Agreed.  

What he seems to be doing is basing his definition (or Bush's) on an idea that there is a natural order.

That the bible reflects the natural order, because it is truth about the natural order of the universal laws of humanity.

yet, in order to substaniate that, one would need to find evidence of it outside the bible, presumably. so one would logically claim that such a definition existed outside the christian paradigm in order to make the claim that such a definition is a natural one, not socially (or religiously) constructed. Unfortunately, stretching back thousands of years, at least according to this and some other googling, it appears that there is no such thing as a "traditional" form of marriage--at least not one outside the judeo-christianity paradigm.


there certainly is a tradtional one within christianity. But I think irate was trying to make a claim on the natural order of human relations. it seems similar to the claim that homosexuality doesn't occur in the wild--an equally specious claim.

there is no natural barrier to homosexuality, evidently. not in humanity and not in wild animals.

in SC, it is illegal to have sex in any position other than missionary...oral sex is still banned, don't even think anal....

Also, until 1948, divorce was illegal...it was changed in 1948 due to all the returning GI's having 'difficulties' with married life..

our blue laws are more powerful than walmart....they are 24/6...then closed from midnight until 1:30 PM sunday...

no alcohol at all on sundays unless you're in a private club...

ummmmmmmmm........you can beat your wife on the steps of the capitol building in columbia..but only on sundays...

hell, we just passed an amendment to do away with minibottles in bars...

Well, just about every Levitical Law EXCEPT gay marriage/union/relations. Bible thumpers have a way of conveniently quoting what is useful to them and ignoring the rest.

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/mo...c/KjvLevi.html

conservative politics used to legitimate itself by claiming to be more descriptive than that of the left.

it is obvious that this is not longer important to the folk who run the right ideology machine.

conservatism in its non-militant form was about the protection of a status quo that actually existed in the empirical world.

populist american conservatism is as much about the imposition of an illusion of what already exists, an imposition of positions particular to far right evangelicals.

you would have thought that the history of the 20th century would caution against revolutionary conservative movements. but last time around, each movement thought that it was an exception to the pattern because the others had not quite gotten it right enough. this time, you get the veneer of far right protestant discourse to conceal the parallels between this revolutionary conservative movement and its predecessors.

this american right is not really a conservative movement at all.

Sorry to derail this post even further. However, to go along with the gay marriage/union issue it is very obvious that a large percentage of people disagree with gay marriage. That is the fact. Both sides being argued in real life and in this thread seems very weak.

First, on cultural tradition. The majority are still in agreement with the cultural belief of marriage between a man and a woman in the United States. Why doesn't someone provide a practical argument countering this belief? Every argument that I have seen of the opposition simply makes fun of "bible thumpers" because their beliefs are "stupid". Personally, I feel that even suggesting that those against gay marriage should eliminate such a strong belief as this one because it is "stupid" or because it is not entirely accurrate with the bible is a pretty piss poor argument.

It's not very hard to provide logical arguments on both sides (although in my experience this has actually come from those not in support of gay marriage). Or why not use emotion to convince them of how better things would be even? The fact is that alot of people are in opposition of gay marriage. Criticizing their beliefs WILL NOT win them over. However, changing their beliefs will. I thought that was pretty obvious, so why can others not see it?

Because I thought the very nature of the conservative ideal is not to have one's beliefs change, to keep everything as it is. Liberals are always labeled as the radical thinkers, not conservatives.

I think the reason people bash those who oppose gay marriage is that from our side, people are people and everyone deserves the same rights. I'm not sure how you can argue that this is not a civil rights issue, as one sect of society is clearly not treated equally, and people are voting to take rights away from them. That isn't what America was supposed to be about, but unfortunately, that's what America has become.

Haha, I saw that on The Daily Show. They made so much fun of the bartenders who don't know how to pour a drink from a real bottle.

Incorrect. I can't think of many ideologies(national or internationally) that agree that change is not inevidible. Liberal and conservative thought differ primarily on how to handle a situation or problem. This is the basis for both modern Ideology. Conservative ideology generally says that problems exist in society. These problems must be addressed as a problem with humanity or the select group of people. To truly eliminate the problem from society, it must be be approached as a response to human nature. Liberal ideology tends to accept that this is not the case. The problems can be solved via government programs, funding, and intervention. So as you can see, both ideologies would require people's way of thinking. One is a direct approach and one is an indirect approach.


Okay, so prove that it is a civil rights issue. As of now, people have the same rights when it comes to marriage. But, set up an argument to prove that it is discrimination. Set up an argument that is a natural right to be able to conduct gay marriages(I see this argument largely defeated by defense of human evolution). Also, explain how rights are being taken away. And finally, explain that marriage in a legal since is a right and not just a priviledge. You're trying to convince other people to agree with you. Not the other way around. It's not their responsibility to do research and defend it, it's your responsibility to educate and influence them.

This issue is nothing special. It's just like any other argument. For example if you were to convince people that the Atkins diet is good for losing weight, you would provide statistics, observations, science facts, and play a little on their emotions to help convince them.

People don't have the same rights when it comes to marriage. That is the issue. If "you" (not you) were alive while interracial marriage was prohibited "you" might also argue that no one was being denied the privelige to marry, just that they had to stick to their own kind. That was a civil rights issue and so is this.

Rights aren't being taken away, because they weren't there in the first place. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be there.

The biological argument against gay marriage is useless in a society where we don't limit marriages solely to those capable of reproduction.

The only argument necessary to justify gay marriage is that it hurts no one and benefits many. If you can think of rational way in which this last statement is not true i'd love to hear them.

-snip-


Damn.....that pretty much sums it up....don't it.....excellent

Conservative as a adjective vrs political.

Troll post basicly.

i still do not understand why conservative christians woudl care who other people choose to love.
and if they accept that, on what basis there could possibly be an objection to these folk being able to avail themselves of the legal protections of marriage.
marriage is a legal institution.
none of the religious arguments make any sense to me.

Okay, first, I'm not really concerned about gay marriage. I'm more concerned with the state of health care at the moment and eliminating limiting the rights of lawyers in court. I was just commenting you need a strong argument because you have to convince people that currently disagree with you that your belief is the best. A couple of counter responses on it's potential to hurt:

First, if a law is to be passed it must undoubtedly be within the best interest of the nation. That includes that all criteria associated with the law must be progressive and in no case regressive.

A few regressive arguments I have heard:

1. Gay marriage would be regressive in concerns to natural humanity. It is slander to humanity because it does not follow suit with typical means of evolution. An example is to take two populations each having 100 people. Both have 50 men and 50 women. One consists totally of heterosexuals. One consists totally of homosexuals. If each represented all of humanity then the population of homosexuals would soon die out. Therefore, heterosexuality has the potential to greatly regress humanity because it fails to meet a key characteristic of survival: Sustaining existence. This characteristic is not limited to homosexuals, but it is further regressed through gay behavior.

2. It has potential to have negative influence on the future of America. First and primarily because it opens up the ability of choice. Gay marriage would be more appealing to people if they could normally only marry someone of the opposite sex. If this were the case influx of population may exist in certain areas that could have potentially devastating results on but not limited to county and state industry and education.

3.If being gay is genetic as many argue, then it scientifically, it is a mutation. It is something that would need correction and require billions of dollars in research. Genetic mutations are referred to as something negative in relation to the human body. We would have to approach it in such a way. If gay marriage was the end point of the argument, then research and understanding wouldn't be such an immediate requirement. Therefore, it may not be within the best interest of gay Americans. Furthermore, the genetic argument must be rejected. Many disturbing problems in America is believed to resolve around genetic issues. It would not be within the best interest to condone something based on genetics alone. Issues of interest: Drug abuse and Child Pornography. I mean in no way to compare being gay with child pornography. It's just an example used to dictate to futile "Genetic Argument."

4.Gay marriage is harmful to society because of it does not promote democracy. This is because Americans future retains the hope of equality of all citizens. However, if one married couple could produce offspring, but one cannot, preference must be shown to those that can both financially and scientifically. This would eliminate the American notion of "Equal Opportunity."

For clarity, this relates to argument one. If gay people cannot have offspring, then they would depend upon heterosexuals to provide future offspring.

5.Tradition is not always the correct approach to political issues. This argument is not intended to disprove gay marriage, but it is intended to set prerequisities. It's important to educate Americans on the importance of the issue to a level of understanding which will be more perceivable. If this were not the case then it may be met with negative reactions and results such as that of the civil rights movement and the strong racism that still exists today.

These beliefs are not my own. Some are more extreme then others. Some are very nice arguments. Again, gay marriage is not a big deal to me. However, I think you should take a stand for abusive treatment towards gay Americans if you feel compelled. Gay people are greatly discriminated against in the medical field and in health care. Furthermore, the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Rights webpage have a site with quite abit of info. And while I disagree with many of their stances, I agree with many issues they stand for.

I appreciate the effort, but none of those arguments are too convincing.

1. Allowing gays to marry isn't going to change the number of homosexuals, it might increase the number who come out of the closet. Many of them do reproduce. Gay dads aren't that rare. Despite this, let's assume that no homosexual has ever had a child. Well, they've been around as long as heterosexuals, how can it be explained that the human population is still increasing at an unsustainable rate? It can't. Even if everyone became gay, we'd still have the choice to have children or not.

2. I doubt that allowing gays to marry would result in a mad rush by heteros to enter into gay marriages. I haven't seen any evidence that the increasing acceptance of homosexuality in our society has resulted in an increase in the number of gay people. This argument assumes that being gay is a choice, which is a hard sell. Could you decide to be gay? Even if you could, i think if you base your argument on the assertion that having a choice is a bad thing for consenting adults you'd have a hard time being for anything.

3. If it weren't for mutations we'd be single cell organisms. Pure science doesn't make judgments on things like that. Mutations do what mutations do, whether they're good or bad is in the eye of the beholder. Even if it was a "bad" mutation, it is a rather benign one, don't you think? It doesn't cause blindness, or shorten the lifespan. I think it would be a pretty low priority if humanity ever reaches the point where we have the ability and ethics to eliminate genetic mutations.

4. I'm not sure i understand anything about this point, other than that it is a stretch.

5. Please clarify

Well since this thread has seriously sidetracked i will keep it going on the gay marriage deal... with this simple question. Why change.... someone above me said... simple it benefits many and hurts none. Well some would argue "kazaa" does the same thing yet 1000's try to make it illegal. Some would say auto insurance is the same hurts none benefits many. Tell that to the people who eat rather than pay for it and then get sued for more than they will ever make. I say why legalize something that hasn’t been needed or even really talked about for 200 years but in the last 20 OmG it’s really an important issue. I understand gay people say we need it we are being treated unfairly. But i say to them you brought the unfairness on yourself.. Yes look back in history before you brought it out into the media and made homosexual a diner table word. You were not persecuted maybe not accepted but are you really now? No you are trying to force "mainstream society" to accept you. You cannot force a whole society to condone your personal opinion or choice or hell even your defect. ( For those who say i was born like that) Webster’s Specialty Definition: Birth defect

(From Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia)
A birth defect is a physical or mental abnormality present at the time a child is born.

Abnormality Webster’s definition 4. Behavior that breaches the rule or etiquette or custom or morality


My definition born diffrennt than others.....

Just the same as republicans or w bush cant force the whole of America to accept that it was right to invade Iraq most people decided it was the right thing to do so everyone must accept it.. Most people don’t want to see a 2 husband or 2 wife marriages. So my guess is they won’t. Plain and simple as i borrow this from a previous poster

Damn.....that pretty much sums it up....don't it.....excellent

I don't think I made point one as clear as I had wished it to be. I wasn't commenting on gay marriage directly, I was just commenting on being gay. As far as the future of humans is concerned at this moment, gay people could not reproduce by themselves. So, it's not favorable for the future of humanity. This is simply referring to gay behavior(being gay). So, gay marriage would either have to promote it or be against being gay. It promotes it. So, I was intending an if A=B and B=C, then A=C argument.

4. Okay, to clarify, understand that we have many opportunities to have offspring with our technology. I guess you could say we beat evolution in many ways. But do realize that sperm bank systems are not the best source of producing children.

What I mean is that the main argument for gay marriage is that gay people should have equal opportunity for marriage. They should be able to marry whoever the please. Well, their marriage wouldn't be the same though. Heterosexual people can naturally have children. Homosexuals cannot. So, their marriage would not posses the equal potential or opportunity(i.e. no potential for naturally conceiving a child).

5. I meant it is important to convince a larger percentage of people to accept gay marriage. You need to make the people really believe in it. If you toss it into existence with alot of bitter people, it will be met with bitter results.

It's really to look at any argument with an abstract outlook, however. Just wanted to add that if we look at logical arguments and think, "Really, they fail to recognize what the 'real' situation is," then there really is not a point in supporting/opposing a belief.

Reverting back to the actual post;b

I'm trying to establish the tradition of a wife giving oral every night after work and a home cooked meal every night of the week. But, unfortunately, I think it fits into those traditions listed in this post. Traditions that no one supports! Or atleast not alot of wives. :confused:

damn, that sucks (or doesn't).

but if it's any consolation, my wife is keeping those traditions alive and well over here in the liberal bastion of california.

This all ties in with the lost american tradition of wife beating.

Not only does being gay not preclude reproduction, being heterosexual does not include reproduction.

Unless this basis for anti-gay marriage (or anti-gay) legislation is coupled with legislation requiring reproduction from every man and woman, this basis is too limited to adequately address the perceived problem. And if the goal is simply to require reproduction, then whether someone is gay (or engages in gay marriage) is irrelevent. Reproduction is still possible, the legislation would simply have to provide an enforceable avenue.

In other words, that rationalization for any anti-gay sentiments is illogical.
I believe this was a further clarification of the gay = undemocratic concept. It's a very strange concept. What about sterile people? Sterile people have no potential for naturally conceiving (in many cases, any type of conception at all). Are they undemocratic?

This whole "gay people can't reproduce so they should not have equal rights" argument is making my head hurt.

1. Gay people CAN reproduce. Being gay doesn't mean you were born without testicles or a uterus. My boss is a lesbian and she and her partner have a 2 year old daughter (and another on the way) via artificial insemination.

2. Regardless, opening up legal gay marriage would (should) bring with it a more open minded policy regarding gay couples adopting children. The Heterosexuals are reproducing at an alarming rate, and frankly, they aren't keeping all the children they are making (but they are ever so much more responsible than those pesky gays).

3. Everyone pins the argument about "being" gay to either genetics or choice. The third choice would be what some of my gay friends consider to be early conditioning, meaning that everyone's sexuality (gay, straight or otherwise) is a product of environment and events in one's early childhood. And please, don't take this to mean that gay people were all raped or molested or likewise. It's not as unseemly as that. It's more of what people relate to their earliest feelings of love and pleasure.

4. It's been stated before, but if the right (or privelage) to marry is going to be based on one's ability to reproduce, than the natural end point of that argument is that everyone who applies for a marriage license should have to sign legal documents stating that they will have children in X amount of time or the marriage will be terminated. And absolutely no licenses for anyone who is sterile. No more married couples gaining spousal benefits and mooching off the government without bringing some more rug rats into the world!

5. Many people's arguments about any gay rights center on some sort of perceived immorality. This perception can only be based in Christianity, where there is a vague passage in the book of Leviticus about men laying with men. This is the epitome of picking and choosing what one wants to believe out of the bible, as most of the other laws in Leviticus have been deemed dated and unnecessary (it's a sin to touch raw meat, women must be shunned for 30 days after having a baby, not to mention the entire chapter on the proper ways to sacrifice animals to God).

6. Ultimately, if gays are allowed to marry, what does it REALLY do to you on an individual basis. Anything? Will your life suffer?

7. The argument for why this is a civil rights issue is simple. A portion of the law-abiding society is not given the same rights as others. Stating that marriage is a privelage and not a right doesn't hold much water, as there isn't exactly a strict screening process to get a marriage license these days. Add to that the fact that people are going out of their way to deny these rights to this sect of society, and there is your argument. Plus, look at history. We've been through this before with women and african americans. History is repeating itself, and hopefully for the homosexual populace we'll be moving out of the "back of the bus" mentality and into an actual democratic society with equal rights for all.

traditions shaped our country. It saddens me that so many people want to "make EVERYTHING ok". We have to have limits/boundaries for our daily life. Without, we fall into chaos.

Some of these arguments about gay marriage remind me of the discussions that were held in america in the nineteenth century about whether blacks had souls (many religious leaders believed they did not).
This wasn't intended to be but does looking at history make you uncomfortable?

Good point, maypo. Interestingly, on the question of homosexuality in other societies, many Native American societies recognized and accepted homosexuals in their tribe. They lived together, dressing in either men's or women's clothing, and were used to settle marital disputes, the idea being that they could see both sides of the argument. Whether that's a naive belief or not, the point is, they were fully functioning citizens of their community. They weren't ostracized, mocked, or beaten to death just for being different.

Warping history makes me uncomfortable.

You might as well have said Child Sacrifice to Baal was a conservative value.

Remember, we're talking theoretical concepts and not addressing current problems in our society. I didn't really directly address gay marriage in America in many of my arguments. But, that argument was simple, two gay men can't reproduce together. A heterosexual man and a heterosexual woman can produce. Therefore, if we're talking the future of humanity, which is more preferred? Would can produce offspring, one cannot naturally.

Sorry to further get off on this subject, but that is really all that argument is about. Maybe, I'm not wording it correctly, but it normally is easily accepted in terms of humanity. The if A,B,C argument looks like this:

1.The future of humanity depends on sexual reproduction.
2.Sexual reproduction is only achieved by heterosexual behavior.
3.The future of humanity is only achieved by heterosexual behavior.

To sum it up, evolution or the course of humanity selects heterosexual behavior on homosexual behavior.

On a previous comment, I believe mormons thought black people were demons until the civil rights movement if I'm not mistaken. Which is also one of those conservative traditions!

I'm not interested in theoretical concepts such as that unless they are being used to justify a course of action. If that theoretical concept is used to justify anti-gay legislation, it is very easily and quickly dismissed with this theoretical concept:

1. The future of humanity is achieved by reproduction.
2- Reproduction is achieve by fertilization.
3- Homosexual relationships do not prevent fertilization.
4- The future of humanity is not prevented by homosexual behavior.

Anyhow, bisexuals are certainly capable of reproduction as well as same-sex behavior.

And if reproduction is the key, what about heterosexuals that don't reproduce? Heterosexuals that have undergone voluntary sterilization? Are they somehow unfit to marry?

This argument is insane.

I totally agree, Adam.

no, not at the current rate

"If fertility rates remained unchanged from the 2000 rate of 2.83, there would be 134 trillion people in 2300, impossible to sustain."
(Yahoo)

So the homosexulas are no real thread against the "future of mankind"
Bushs enviroment policy is much more of a thread ...

Both are Religious institutions.
 

What we have here is a group barred a recognition of a religious institution (marriage) with people on the other side claiming it's improper in the context of often the SAME damn religion.

I think having the gov't recognize gay marriage may be silly, but certainly no more silly than recognizing "straight" marriage.

Since when do we need the body politic to condone our couplings?

I realize their are certain financial reasons for this union, but I would be hard-pressed to beleive this is the major or even a substantial reason for why people marry. No one gay or strait drops to one knee and asks if the other person would please accept their retirement investments without penalty if they should happen to die.

To me the issue seems to boil down to the fact that the parties on both sides would see the allowance or disallowance to be a validation for their respective ethos. I'm sure this may be a simplistic outlook, obviously I'm overlooking the monetary angle, no Insurance company in the world wants MORE marriage, straight, gay or extra-terrestrial.

-Sorry for the spelling, not sure if disallowance is even a word
-fibbers

Wow, I guess I derailed the original post and my statements have been further derailed. It's really futile to argue a point against such an overwhelming majority. Similar to arguing philosophical metaphors or the problem of good and evil in a Christian chat room or bible study group. Therefore, I won't argue any further points because to be honest, it's really not an interest issue.

Anyways, I appreciate the statistic listed earlier in a post even though I wish the source was not yahoo.

Wanted to point out that I think a previous poster had a very good statement regarding that it is silly for the government to recognize any marriage. It's a simple concept but it really makes you think ponder the actual concept.

*edited for advice to Manx. Not stating whether you are right or wrong, but your argument did not follow typical pattern. What I mean is statement one says, "If A, then B." Statement 2 says, "If B,then C." The only way you could use statement 3 followed by a four is if is a general fact such as "D=E" (A Smiley is an emoticon for exampe). And then tie it into statement 4. For example, Studying my subjects will help me get into graduate school. Graduate school will help me get a good job. Chemistry is one of my subjects. Studying chemistry will help me get a good job. Hope this helps, good luck.

Frankly, I couldn't care less if gays/gender benders/whatever marry. I think they should be entitled to the benefits of marriage, i.e. hospital visits, right of survivorship, whatever.

Can't figure out why they'd WANT to be married, though. That introduces alimony to the equation. Don't they have ENOUGH problems?

The only reservation I have is with calling it "marriage." To use cowboy logic, "Putting your boots in the oven don't make them biscuits."

So what's the consensus on creating some type of civil union for gays that confers all rights/responsibilities of marriage, but calls it something else? Would that work, or is calling it "marriage" the ONLY acceptable solution?

"So what's the consensus on creating some type of civil union for gays that confers all rights/responsibilities of marriage, but calls it something else? Would that work, or is calling it "marriage" the ONLY acceptable solution?"

Ideal, if marriage is eliminated as a legal state and exists only as a religious one, otherwise you've got a case of "separate but equal" which never is.

I'ld agree with the seperate but equal never is part, but if indeed ALL the rights are ported over, is a different word even enough to qualify as seperate?

-fibber

That be the beauty of human nature. That we are never limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry+. Our ability to adapt and advance from previously wrong stances like Child Sacrifice, slavery, womens suffrage, prohibitions against miscegenation, gay marriage, environmental conservation. Of course some of these like gay rights have swayed back and forth in human acceptance, as detailed in this thread already.


+definition of liberal, which is the antonym of conservative.

Kadath, absolutely.
I've said this many times.
I oppose "marriage" as a concept for everyone. IMO, it's an impossibly loaded conception and pointless. I am in favor of human beings making agreements and contracts with each other. And as for the idea of a "civil union" - that's all I consider necessary for people who want legal rights for their relationship.

Of course me, sus, and mimi aren't eligible and I wouldn't imagine our tripartite relationship would be sanctioned by a civil authority any time in the relevant future.

I have heard you mention briefly the triangle relationship you are in.
But, being curious, could you please elaborate on exactly the arangement you have?

Art... I am fairly certain you could draw up legal documents that would grant Power of Attorney, division of assets, etc. It would be a business type of arrangement...

Kind of sucks the passion out of it all though.

Yes Charlatan, we have those sorts of arrangements.
Really all we need. I was speaking specifically of the "civil union" concept and as it applies to insurance and other things.
We do not expect to ever receive the sort of tax benefits, etc. that "officially" sanctioned relationships have.

It's just that being in one of those categories that could be looked at as "discriminated against," (although I never care to apply that sort of notion to my life - I understand why some folks would desire to embrace it - and there's nothing wrong with that - don't get me wrong) we're way way down on the what-is-acceptable list, I suppose.

Superbelt , simple enough. The three of us live and love together - and have for many years.

How many liberal ideas have flared up and then disappeared? We should at this from both angles.

Do you disagree, then, that things like civil rights, worker's rights and women's rights were progressive vs. conservative issues? It's easy to look at the flow of history and see the modification of ideas into their present form. That's not to say that today's conservatives are pro-slavery, but you can look and see the pro-slavery values changing to anti-civil-rights values changing into today's anti-affirmative-action values. A lot of the people on either side of the civil rights issue are still around, and it's hard to pretend that that attitude has vanished entirely from the conservative viewpoint. Mostly it's just a changing of where the lines are drawn.

The same with worker's rights - in the 20s it was "reds" and "socialists" campaigning for worker's rights, and today we enjoy weekends, OSHA, and 40-hour weeks. However, we're still fighting for universal health care and a living minimum wage - and it's the same groups on either side of the fight.

Earlier it was anti-contraceptive people against the early planned parenthood-type places, now it's anti-abortionists - but the sides haven't changed, just the piece of the issue we're looking at.

In the 60s it was anti-Vietnam, now it's anti-Iraq, but it's the same groups going at it.

In fact, this constant progress is the only thing that keeps me as a progressive from sobbing in frustration sometimes - I know it has to change. The other night I watched "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?" and thought about how the issue now isn't interracial marriage but gay marriage - and I hoped that the worries over gay marriage would look as quaint to the next generation as the worries over interracial marriage looked to me.

Bingle

Meh - 5,000 year tradition in the civilized world...