S
SeanSamuels
Guest
No *******, huh!
gay marriage
- Thread starter vanessabbc
- Start date
S
SeanSamuels
Guest
Thanks for the support. Ricky Smiley used to make me laugh when he'd say he had no problem with gays but referred to them as "gone on". Just gone on with yourself. Ain't my thing, so gone on. LOL
I think a lot of times people confuse the definitions of marriage with matrimony, so they seem to have issues with it. and there is a difference.
Marriage is legal recognition that 2 individuals can enter into binding agreements like beneficiaries, covered on partner's insurances, and shared property and wealth, etc. When you think about it, its simply a partnership, which shouldn't have concerns with gender of the partners. Business partners can be used as example. So, although the definition, itself, refers to "a man & a woman", its not religiously affiliated.
Matrimony is a whole different thing. It recognizes the 2 individuals under a religious affiliation. Often the 2 individuals may not even have a religious affiliation; may be atheists and not believe in the sanctity of the church. However, its the right of any religion to refuse bonding those individuals in their marriage due to its own spiritual beliefs; that's why we have a justice of the peace. That's why the marriage vow says "enter into holy matrimony".
So, when it comes to something as simple as a marriage agreement, I can't imagine why people would deny allowing couples to enter into a binding partnership; it simply makes good sense ... for example, in buying a house, taking out a rather large loan, even adopting or creating a family. Why should homosexual couples not financially benefit in the same way as hetrosexual couples?
Marriage is legal recognition that 2 individuals can enter into binding agreements like beneficiaries, covered on partner's insurances, and shared property and wealth, etc. When you think about it, its simply a partnership, which shouldn't have concerns with gender of the partners. Business partners can be used as example. So, although the definition, itself, refers to "a man & a woman", its not religiously affiliated.
Matrimony is a whole different thing. It recognizes the 2 individuals under a religious affiliation. Often the 2 individuals may not even have a religious affiliation; may be atheists and not believe in the sanctity of the church. However, its the right of any religion to refuse bonding those individuals in their marriage due to its own spiritual beliefs; that's why we have a justice of the peace. That's why the marriage vow says "enter into holy matrimony".
So, when it comes to something as simple as a marriage agreement, I can't imagine why people would deny allowing couples to enter into a binding partnership; it simply makes good sense ... for example, in buying a house, taking out a rather large loan, even adopting or creating a family. Why should homosexual couples not financially benefit in the same way as hetrosexual couples?
Last edited:
I'm with Noreen. Marriage (in European/Western culture) is defined as a union between a woman and a man. That's all. People of the same sex can be in relationship, have equal rights etc. but this is not a marriage, by definition.
I am bisexual.
I am bisexual.
BBC4WhtPussy
Male
Thought its changed now, at least in the UK.
Well my profile pic tells what I am about, lol
It's part of (at least) two thousand years culture, it won't change that easy: )
On the other hand, interracial marriages were always practiced
Yes, by definition, it is, but that's the whole point ... this world is changing in many ways. Words, over time, take on new meanings.
Take the definition of cuckolding ... the true definition of cuckolding is "a man, who's wife has sex with other men". Yet this word has been mutated so many ways, to include singles, racial identification, and more recently even a switch of gender so that women can be cuckolded as well when their male, cheating partner strays.
Maybe its time we, as a society, accept that a marriage is between 2 responsible individuals. In the long run of things, doesn't it make sense that 2 individuals be able to share the same opportunities, and responsibilities, of regularly, heterosexual married couples?
BBC4WhtPussy
Male
It's part of (at least) two thousand years culture, it won't change that easy: ) On the other hand, interracial marriages were always practiced
I suppose your spot on with that! Without prejudice (& respect to everyone's choices), male perception of lesbianism seem one of attraction & harmless, while being a gay man seem unnatural because of the bodily damage that goes with it (and other factors) but for either there are the psychological issues. Personally I think it will take another evolutionary age, I am not sure its something of legislation. Conversely, I don't think there's anywhere in the world a law is passed to allow for interracial marriage - IR sex is just what people do, lol.
Last edited:
Please forgive me my poor language, I shouldn't start the discussion.
Yes, that this is some kind of restriction (not the only one we have). Culture is oppressive, because it orders, and prohibits. However, it is not without a reason. Norms and rules define the area and the impact of a given civilization. And along with civilization we accept limitations too. Note that in the beginnings of mankind there were no such limits.
You propose to change this norm. We cannot. Tradition is greater than the life of one man. The only thing you can do is trying to get rid of your roots. But I do not want to get rid of mine.
By the way. Note that this is a fight for the name only. In most of countries there are legal solutions providing the same capabilities as marriage. However, we're asked to change the definition of marriage. It's a fight with our culture.
You are fooling yourself if you don't think that the people who want to outlaw gay marriage don't also want to outlaw swinging. I am not a big fan of polyamory, but it is clear to me that the people opposed to gay marriage want to narrow the freedom of association and religion down to a very particular viewpoint that won't include the legal right to operate this website.
I think what fattypatty is saying is fundamentally the union of a marriage is binding courtship of monogamy and fidelity. Traditionally. But since you are in a lifestyle that does not conform with such archaic beliefs you are in some respects contradicting yourself. The argument that many opponents of same sex marriage is that it will ultimately absolve or destroy the institution; yet more than half of americans and virtually the rest of world are or will be divorced, and gay marriage was just recently legalized. My two cents is this...if the union between two consenting adults is truly based or rooted in the idea of love, friendship and building a life together, that kind of Agatha love that yields to know end or knows no boundaries, and that person respects you, and cares for you and will always be there. Why can't their union (even if its two men or two women) be recognized by the state or federal govt.
Last edited:
Right now there is a gay couple who has their significant other on life support. Their on a ventilator, and the ailment or malady that they suffer from gives them limited time. Imagine Noreen, this is your husband...imagine, the federal govt or the state govt telling you because they don't recognize your union between you and your husband, you will not make any critical decisions such as not resituating him if he goes flat line or whether or not he should receive hospice care. I know it will crush you. That ultimately the one person he wants by his side, or the one person you want to be next to more than anything...you can't because not only in the court of law are you and your husband not deemed a legal courtship, but in the court of public opinion (which is shifting) is considered abnormal or abomination. Yet, this man, this person you remember when you first laid eyes on, you remember your first date, to when you first starting thinking how much you can't wait to see them; and now you don't want them to go. Gay couples experience this kind of angst all the time Noreen...for the sake of human diginity same sex marriage is not just a privilege its a right.
Get a grip. It's posts like this one that made me regret my prior post. That triggered the "watch thread" mechanism for a thread that was otherwise long forgotten.
News flash: "gay marriage" was never outlawed. It was never an issue until the massive propaganda campaign to prepare everyone the inevitable judicial fiats. That's usually how it's done to circumvent any real, legitimate national discourse. The Defense of Marriage Act was actually inacted through a normal democratic procedures - a vote through the legislature...without much objection at the time. Unless memory fails, wasn't it Bill Clinton who signed it into law? The entire concept of gay marriage was even at the outer fringes of gay society until then.
Funny how even Obama defined marriage as between a man and a woman, until Pride parades, the Ellen Show, Twitter activism and some Hollywood lackeys had enough American whooped up about the issue. Then, he dispatched his VP to test the waters when it became politically expedient for him to attach his own name to it. Suddenly, it was deemed "unconstiutional" almost overnight. Tellingly, there has never been much in the way of statistics revealed about how many gay people have actually gotten married to other gays since this all occurred. Then, also, how come there's no discussion on gay divorce?
Nobody's interfering with your right to visit this site or just about any form of porn that you care to indulge. The NSA has a pretty good idea what people view. Apparently, you haven't been hauled off in cuffs since joining this forum last Thursday.
Carry on.
I hate to break this to Kuno, but the first gay marriage in modern times occurred in 1973 in Minnesota, and I met the couple who participated in it. They had to essentially trick the clerk of courts into giving them a license. Repeatedly, they were denied the recognition of that marriage by various people from legal court representatives to medical professionals like Jericho mentioned. The visible fight for gay marriage started in the 1870's, but it has been an ongoing battle for justice ever since the Catholic church declared homosexuality to be a sin in 1079 A.D. You are right "marriage" cannot be outlawed. I have had the honor of knowing many gay people who have lived in monogamous relationships for decades before it was legalized. It is only the social conservatives who think they can control what is happening in other people's bedrooms. Your paranoia about the NSA not withstanding, they can and will make this site unable to operate in the country of origin if they get their way. I have been involved with the battle as a political activist and have seen precisely the methods and people involved in promoting this issue on both sides of the issue on a direct face to face basis. I could name the names of Republicans both living and dead who have supported Gay rights and Democrats as well. I really wish people would stop the conspiracy theory nonsense and simply become educated and involved in politics.
What an amazing coincidence! You just happened to know them and are here to share your wisdom. Then why don't you enlight us as to why this didn't suddenly become a hot button issue until after 2010? How many gays were demanding to get married since 1973?
Like the ones who "pretend" to be straight in order to get a chance at get some heterosexual dick.
No lie? Then how come there was no "visible fight" during the 1990's or the entire century before?
More hilarity ensues. No major religion sanctioned it. Seems strange that there's never any discussion of what Hindus think of homosexuality? How come ACT UP chose St. Pauls Cathedral to demonstate but not an Orthodox Jewish temple?
Congratulations. Like I really give a flick about you and whom you know.
As opposed social liberals who want federal control over who gets let in bathrooms.
It's not paranoia. Personally, most of them are too ignorant and incompetent to handle the technology at their disposal. Not the point of this discussion anyway.
Dude, you haven't even been a member here for a week. Most of the "couples" on this forum are proven fakes...or at least just the husband or bf fantasizing. The likelihood of a legitimate femdom black woman with white sissy hubby seems remote for joining here but not impossible.
This forum has been operating just fine without your previous input. FWIW, we had somebody attempt to stir some serious sh*t a while back. I was one of the first, if not the first, to report it to administration and staff.
Who cares?
You felt the urge to resurrect a dead thread from a year ago. How lucky we are to have a staunch Hillaryite to show up just in time after the delegates count was about to become official!
Congratulating yourself again for basically nothing. Don't seem to remember this forum being about gay activism...but whatever.
I wish anonymous liberal losers would actually stay on point and stop wasting bandwidth to promote their agenda.
Kuno, The couple that I was referring to are named Michael McConnell and Jack Baker and their autobiographical story is called "The Wedding Heard 'Round the World: America's First Gay Marriage." Further proof of their existence and struggle is archived at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. One of the few politicians that I can thank publicly for help in scuttling the Defense of Marriage Act was Gov. Bill Janklow who agreed to ******* a legislative action in 1994. He signed it into the law the followiing year after the social conservatives brought it back up again in that state. I only mention Gov. Janklow, because he is dead and knowledge of his political maneuvering would not further affect his political career. I suppose you have never heard of Harvey Milk who was assassinated and whose political activities were portrayed by Sean Penn in the movie "Milk" or Victoria Woodhull who ran for president in 1872 on a free love platform with the premise that women should not be owned and controlled by men and should be allowed to marry and divorce without governmental interference. She had an African American running mate, by the way. Nor do I suppose that you have heard of Rep. Barney Frank who was publicly outed by a friend in 1989. He was attacked and successfully censured by Rep. Larry Craig for his homosexuality. Craig would then go on to be arrested for soliciting an undercover police officer many years later. The topic of religious acceptance or lack of acceptance is a regular part of the public discourse on the subject and is controversial in many cultures. The event for Christianity that declared homosexuality immoral was called the Second Lateran Council and was documented by John Boswell in two books "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality" and "The Marriage of Likeness: Same Sex Unions in Premodern Europe." Yes, other politicians and myself will remain anonymous, because I don't care to help participate in scuttling the careers or blackmailing potentially gay friendly politicians. If they choose to out themselves, that is their decision. Discussion of the moral implications and political feasibility of homosexuality has been a regular part of the public discussion throughout the entire 20th century. Adolph Hitler using the sexuality of Ernst Rohm to rationalize the Night of the Long Knives where he consolidated power between the SS and SA; a final linchpin in his rise to power and the imposition of the final solution or holocaust. It was also a common charge along with communism made by Sen. Joseph McCarthy. If you don't believe that we are real, I don't really care; there are only one or two people from this site who will ever verify who we really are. It is your reality that I seriously question since you are denying a topic that anybody over the age of 18 should remember reading headlines about and you are siding with a group of people who clearly have a sex negative viewpoint and an anti-minority agenda. I was not a Hilary Clinton supporter until the viable Republican candidates dropped out of the race. Do not try to silence me by sarcasm, I have lived too long to be intimidated by bumper sticker slogans! And I know the difference between documented fact and unsubstantiated innuendo.
Lana Chambers
Couple
Interracial breeding and black white cuckolding should be included as a list of sexuak rights and demands alongside LGBTQ2S and everyone else. Political rights and sexual rights must not be separated. It's time we founded a new religion devoted to interracial.
Riiiiggggghhhtttt...you know interracial cuckolding or breeding is choice being gay isnt
Lana Chambers
Couple
Both are not a choice. Both are a holy demand of mom nature.
Similar threads
