If heterosexuality is indeed the norm and you don’t have a choice to be heterosexual over homosexual, then you can have two basic choices: To keep the status quo, or to become homosexual. Being heterosexual is not a choice in the society of today, but continuing to be is very much a choice.
I see what you mean. It’s hard to imagine experiences turning anyone to the opposite sex, though, and I’ve heard no cases where it actually happened. Animals, for example, would probably not become homosexual no matter what the conditions, making me inclined to believe that hetero/homosexuality is determined by biological factors instead of psychological ones, and that that <i>change of sexual orientation</i>, an extremely difficult choice, would probably be the “choice” you’re talking about.
Slightly higher phone priority seems hardly a “powerful benefit”. Why don’t you give us some examples of this plethora of powerful benefits of being married by the church instead of the state?
#1, no one was talking about any sort of phone priority.
#2, I most definately am not talking about the pro’s and con’s between religious and secular marriages
#3, seeing as you’re not really reading what I’m posting, go back and try again. Hopefully, with enough practice, you’ll be able to understand what I’m saying. Since its already been broken down rather substantially, I don’t think I can break it down any more. Sorry.
Well, there’s not much to read. You didn’t talk much about anything, except a general stating of “powerful benefits” without actually saying what they are.
yes.
Cool.
Freddy, I’m intrigued now, as well. What exactly are the benefits (outside of being able to say “we’re religiously married” or whatnot) of a religious marriage over a secular one?
Seeing as cless is the one talking about religious marriages and how much more benefits they have than secular marriages, I would suggest asking cless about that. He seems to be the expert.
Well again, look at the ancient Greeks (and other cultures I can’t recall, for that matter). The men were mostly bisexual, and a man to man relationship was considered a mark of intellectual refinement. Animals too, occasionally act homosexually (I’m not sure it’s really accurate to call an animal homosexual or heterosexual). Why not more often? Well, (being as non-graphic as possible) they’d have to happen across a kind of position that’s very difficult to just happen across, and then mentally connect that position to pleasure. I’m sure, though, it could be taught to animals.
GOD EXPLETIVE IT! The Benefits of marriage that go beyond legal modifiers are the benefits of being treated as a true person. How would any of you feel if the greater system at large said that you can’t take the title Dr. when you get a PhD? The majority can take the title Dr. when they prove their devotion to their studies, but you, because you aren’t in the majority.
What if the system tried to deny Sin the title Dr. just because he isn’t blonde? We will call him something similar instead, his title will carry all the legal power of the word doctor, but he doesn’t officially get to use the title. That is what we are talking about here. We are talking about the blatant and unfounded denial of something that is so visibley true that it becomes painfully insulting. It is an issue of treating poeple with equality. No, it really makes no difference if the word marriage is used or not, but then why does everyone else get married and a gay couple just have a civil union? If it really isn’t important to apply the word marriage, then why not deny it to everyone, instead of just the minority?
The answer: because denying gay people the right to marry is a means of marginalizing their place in our community at large, and the powers that be feel threatened by something that steps outside thier paradigm. Opression is a great means of maintaining social dominance.
Anyway… Xwing:
“Taking a boy” as the Greeks did wasn’t an overly popular thing, though. I do, however, think there was more open relationships between men simply because their society was more accepting. Our of curiosity, do you think you could turn homosexual even if you really wished it, and develop lust for people of the same gender as you? I can’t imagine that for myself, which is probably why I’m a bit skeptical of how much choice there is involved in sexual orientation.
I’m sure that eating lots of puzza will give you an acquired taste for it, even if you hated it before, but is sexual orientation the same thing, or does it go deeper into our biological roots?
Delita: Marriage is something controlled by the church, man, and always will be. It’s a holy matrimony between man and woman, so unless you can convince the church that their current interpretation of their doctrines is wrong, then marriage will remain a bond between man and woman. I see a civil union that grants the same rights as a step towards putting people on the same level, and eventually eliminating the need to separate those whose marriages are sanctified by some church and those whose marriages are not. It would be a first step in securing some civil rights, and the rest of the title crap can come later.
That’s the thing that irks me. The Church is the one who will deny same-sex marriages, even if they become legal everywhere, and there’s nothing the government or anybody outside the Vatican can do about it.
As far as I’m concerned, marriage shouldn’t be dealt with by the government at all. It’s a religious ceremony. If people want to get civilly “married”, everyone should need a civil union. Civil rights yay, end of story, g’night.
Exactly. If people want to submit themselves to be blessed by a religion, then it’s the religion’s business whether they want to do it or not.
Regarding the Greeks…homosexuality was en vogue at the time in ancient Greece. It doesn’t mean everyone was gay…it just means just about everyone thought gay sex was cool. A straight man can perform acts of gay sex without being gay. Look at today…lipstick lesbianism is very en vogue and I know more girls who have fooled around with girls that those who have not. Does this mean most women are gay? No…its just the in thing right now. Just like homosexuality in Ancient Greece.
Except go to other churches and spend their money there. A faith is only as powerful as its followers combined.
Man, I’m sure glad I don’t live in Iran or whatever 3rd world theocracy you live in. Luckilly, in the USA, marriage is a civil ceremony people can benefit from. I hope whatever country you live in sees the light like we have.
The goverment does have a say in marriage because married people demand certain rights that only the government can provide. Marriage gives an instant response to things like “Who gets my stuff when I die?” or “Can we save money on our taxes?” Yes, I realize those are some superficial things but I’m sure there’s plenty more that can come up. Since governments (in North America and probably parts of Europe, anyway) are separate from religion, then making marriage a solely religious rite takes away all the benefits people expect from marriage.
In fact, it’s exactly these kinds of arguments which make me whole-heartedly support same-sex marriages, despite being straight and mostly apathetic. If we deny same sex marriage for various religious reasons - or offer some half-assed ‘civil union’ - then what’s to stop society from treating people married by a justice of the peace as ‘less than married’?
Freddy, what the hell are you talking about? Cid lives in Canada. Last I checked, it wasn’t a theocracy. And I think he was saying that government shouldn’t be able to touch marriage in any form, and that religion should be the only say on that, so the government would only have civil union.
Hey Vittles, do you visit Returner Games?
He lives in Canada, and Cid makes a good point. Whenever two people get married, it ALWAYS has the civil union aspect to it in order to be a legally recognized contract. It’s just some choose to also get a religious blessing which gives them the marriage aspect. There have been plenty of cases of people being married by the Church but without the state granting recognition due to various factors such as polygamy; likewise, there have been plenty of legally recognized marriages that do not get the religious blessing.
In the end, the difference in marriage and civil unions is wholly semantics. One has a religious blessing, the other does not. One automatically binds two people to a legally recognized contract, the other does not. To say one is “half-assed” is really just a measure of not understanding the small distinction between the two. And if you want to change the distinction, well, you’re gonna have convicne the whole of society that the connotation it gives to the word marriage is wrong.
The “3rd world theocracy” you are referring to that Cid lives in is Canada, which allows same sex civil unions/marriage and is more open to homosexuality than the good ol’ USA. Our northern neighbors as a country lean more to the left than we do, thusly they are also open to things that we aren’t (examples of this are homosexual rights, decriminalization of marijuana, free medical/dental insurance for the public). And as far as marriage being something people can benefit from, I don’t think the US of A has seen the light by disregarding homosexuals as less than equal to other Americans. I don’t call same sex marriage bans in 11 states “seeing the light” about marriage being a civil ceremony that everyone can benefit from. Though I am a heterosexual, I am a supporter of civil rights for all who Amerikkka has tried to leave behind.
Lastly, I’d like to say that America is much more of a theocracy/oligarchy than Canada or most Third World countries.
Thank you, 984.