Other Resources My Cup of Joe » gay marriage ban Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 8
 
 
2006-03-24 1:12 PM
in reply to: #378711

User image

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban

drewb8 - Please don't have me whacked.

I'm gonna make you an offer ya can't refuse.

No, as long as the act is procreative in type it does not need to be so in effect. So that would include a man and a woman who decided to not have children.

The points brought up by Possum and coredump about impotency are really interesting. I need to think this through more, but I would say that impotancy may be an impediment, but not necessarily. Depends on things such as treatment potential and such.

The chainsaw accident case is also interesting, and it is different. Again, I need to think through that more, but I'd say it probably would be an impediment according to my argument.

Again, these things would pertain to whether or not a marriage could be consumated. Once consumated it's a different story and they are not relevant.

 

Hollis, I did not know that you considered your marriage to be analogous to a marriage between a man and a woman. (and by analogous, I mean similar to but essentially different) I'd like to hear more about that.



2006-03-24 1:22 PM
in reply to: #378753

User image

molto veloce mama
9311
500020002000100100100
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban
new flash - gay marriage now recognized throughout the US.

in other news - new legislation banning marriage to anyone w/ ED



i asked the same question above - what about marriage w/ no intent to have children. infertility. adoption. what about people who are 90 and marry for company.

when my grandfather remarried after my grandmother passed away, his main reasons for marrying were not love or sex, it was for

a) company and

b) to have someone who could make him a sandwich.

the man never learned how to take care of himself. they like each other well enough (and according to my crazy step-grandmother, my grandpa looks good in the shower - WAY WAY WAY WAY WAAAAAAY too much information, thanks).
2006-03-24 1:23 PM
in reply to: #378537

User image

molto veloce mama
9311
500020002000100100100
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban
agreed...

but the converse could also be said, that the war in iraq and the war on terrorism are just to get our mind off all the crap going on here.
2006-03-24 1:24 PM
in reply to: #378753

User image

Champion
5183
5000100252525
Wisconsin
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban
dontracy - 2006-03-24 1:12 PM

Hollis, I did not know that you considered your marriage to be analogous to a marriage between a man and a woman. (and by analogous, I mean similar to but essentially different) I'd like to hear more about that.

 

Uh, yeah. Did you want to see pictures of our ceremony, read the sermon our (Episcopal) priest read, read the order of service and the specific passages our friends read from various texts (including the Christian NT and the Hebrew OT) Do you want to see our joint bank accounts (the only ones we have are joint) our mortgage, insurance policies, wills, powers of attorney, the piece of paper we carry around in our wallets in case one of us should be hospilatized somewhere far from home... How about the city domestic partner registries we have filled out in the 2 cities we have lived in since getting "committed"  How about her family and my family's Xmas cards the year we got married which included pics of the wedding and announcements of joy that the families had joined? Do you want to hear about our now 2+ year saga of trying to have children by all kinds of means?  This is all for starters.. Let me know what else you need to know. 

Frankly I am stunned that you even asked the question. What possibly made you think I thought my commitment was anything but as spiritually, financially, bodily, intellectually, etc ad infinitum as yours?  I know why you think it, but did you really think I thought that?

2006-03-24 1:50 PM
in reply to: #378764

User image

Elite
2777
2000500100100252525
In my bunk with new shoes and purple sweats.
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban

autumn - 2006-03-24 2:22  asked the same question above - what about  when my grandfather remarried after my grandmother passed away, his main reasons for marrying were not love or sex, "

Yeah right. Cut a bro some slack will ya. You think a guy is gonna tell his granddaughter he's got the hots for this babe he's seein'. Geez give the man some respect and don't use his decency to further your argument. Man, I feel his pain! The man was no doubt lonely. I was married for 20 years and lost a wife to cancer. I loved being married. So I remarried. Now I'm looking for a sexual partner.

2006-03-24 2:08 PM
in reply to: #378769

User image

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban
possum -

Frankly I am stunned that you even asked the question. What possibly made you think I thought my commitment was anything but as spiritually, financially, bodily, intellectually, etc ad infinitum as yours? I know why you think it, but did you really think I thought that?

Hollis, let's back up here a minute. I think there is a misunderstanding.

And I apologize for not being clearer with my question.

And I also apologize that in not being clear, my sloppy writing offended you. You are right to be offended.

I'd written in an earlier post that one loophole in my argument is that one could say that gay marriage is analogous to marriage between a man and a woman as a way to satisfy the question of why limit it to two persons.

You responded by wondering what the heck I thought gay couples intended. Your emphasising it by saying, "Duh" made me wonder if I was misssing something.

The part of what I thought I was missing was not all of the intimite details of your life. It was this idea that you would somehow consider your life in marriage as somehow different than would someone in a hetero marriage. And I don't mean different because it lacks legal protection. I assume that gay couples view their relationships as the same as hetero couples, for all of the reasons you point out.

To my mind, your original reponse would throw the 14th ammendment protection arguments out the window. I was surprised that you thought that, and sincerely wanted to know more about why.

I can see from rereading the thread that I misunderstood your response.

Again, my apologies for not being more careful in my reading and writing. I hope to do better going forward.

 



2006-03-24 2:17 PM
in reply to: #378794

User image

molto veloce mama
9311
500020002000100100100
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban
excuse me, but do you know my grandfather? no. but, you're right. HE wouldn't tell me any sexual details of his relationship. however, my step-grandmother also doesn't have much of a filter, so my mom and i have both heard a LOT of details about their marriage that you wouldn't expect to hear (like him looking good in the shower). part of it is that she wants to vent about the LACK of that kind of relationship with him. as i said above, they like each other, but trust me - on his part, it was for company and care taking. even when my grandmother was alive they slept in seperate beds...and he and his new wife also sleep in seperate beds. he made her lists of how my grandmother did things. he still loves my grandmother and will talk openly about it in front of his new wife.
2006-03-24 2:20 PM
in reply to: #378837

User image

molto veloce mama
9311
500020002000100100100
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban
EMERGENCY: thread at risk of being hyjacked by discussion of autumn's grandfather's sex life! help help!
2006-03-24 3:00 PM
in reply to: #378837

Subject: ...
This user's post has been ignored.
2006-03-24 3:12 PM
in reply to: #378897

molto veloce mama
9311
500020002000100100100
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban
GAH! somehow hearing about my parents' sex life would be just slightly less horrid than hearing about my nekid grandfather.
2006-03-24 3:19 PM
in reply to: #378607

Extreme Veteran
414
100100100100
Reston, VA
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban


Edited by GatorJamie 2006-03-24 3:21 PM


2006-03-24 3:23 PM
in reply to: #378910

Elite
2777
2000500100100252525
In my bunk with new shoes and purple sweats.
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban
autumn - 2006-03-24 4:12 PM GAH! somehow hearing about my parents' sex life would be just slightly less horrid than hearing about my nekid grandfather.
Soooooo kids ..how do you think you got here? A stork!
2006-03-24 3:32 PM
in reply to: #378922

molto veloce mama
9311
500020002000100100100
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban
normal, healthy, hope they are doing it. just don't want to hear about it....just like i'm sure they don't want to hear the details of my sex life.
2006-03-24 3:32 PM
in reply to: #378753

Veteran
224
100100
Denver
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban
dontracy - 2006-03-24 1:12 PM

No, as long as the act is procreative in type it does not need to be so in effect. So that would include a man and a woman who decided to not have children.

<


Here's another take on the man + woman and procreation issue and another fundamental question that hasn't been addressed in this thread yet. What is gender?

Most people never question this, but there is a small minority of people who have. As a result, almost every state has some mechanism for allowing a person to change his/her gender on his/her birth certificate. (You can see what it would take in your state here: http://www.drbecky.com/birthcert.html)

So someone who grew up as Mark and is now Marcia can fall in love with John and they can get married if Marcia has the money to pay for all the neccessary steps. If Marcia can't afford this, she still loves John, but legally they are gay couple and cannot get married (in most places).

An even more fascinating, mind-bending, real-life example comes from Ohio, which is one of only 2 or 3 states that will not allow a person to chage his/her birth certificate. There is a case where a TS-man fell in love with a gay non-TS-man, and because the state of Ohio wouldn't allow the former to change his birth certificate, he was still legally female. The couple considered themselves gay, were active in their local gay community, but they were able to get married. (this comes from a book called Transforming Families, by the way).

What does this do to the needs to be procreative in type, but not in effect, issue?
2006-03-25 9:06 AM
in reply to: #375942

Extreme Veteran
404
100100100100
Chicago, Il
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban
I have some more thoughts on this that aren't grounded in law, religion, or strict moral philosophy, so they aren't really appropriate here. They are my personal opinions, nothing more, nothing less, but if anyone is interested, you can find them here
New Thread
Other Resources My Cup of Joe » gay marriage ban Rss Feed  
 
 
of 8