Let's just stop recognizing marriage as a whole

[Relaxer]

This thread, and many others like it, remind of that one Peanuts cartoon where everyone is crowded around the pitcher's mound and Charlie Brown says, "We never win any games but we sure have lots of interesting conversations."

[walkonby]

ooh,  oooh . . . can i be peppermint patty?

[Relaxer]

I figured you for a more fabulous version of Schroeder, or possibly Pigpen

[Julian, Alleged Computer F**kface]

you can't give one person rights and not the next.

You're right. I can't think of a single example in American law, with the exception of homosexual marriage, in which one person is afforded a right another is not. Not one. No, ma'am.

[Julian, Alleged Computer F**kface]

Also, I am not in favor of any homosexual marriage bill that doesn't allow for polygamy as well. Chloe Sevigny and Ginnifer Goodwin deserve the right to be married to Bill Paxton just as much as Jeanne Tripplehorn does. C'mon people, think big picture!

[walkonby]

Also, I am not in favor of any homosexual marriage bill that doesn't allow for polygamy as well. Chloe Sevigny and Ginnifer Goodwin deserve the right to be married to Bill Paxton just as much as Jeanne Tripplehorn does. C'mon people, think big picture!

nothing beats bill paxton like bill paxton in "near dark."  nothing!

game over, man . . . game over.

[you be betty]

Also, I am not in favor of any homosexual marriage bill that doesn't allow for polygamy as well. Chloe Sevigny and Ginnifer Goodwin deserve the right to be married to Bill Paxton just as much as Jeanne Tripplehorn does. C'mon people, think big picture!

horseshit!  barb and bill have SEVEN years under their belt.  also, chloe's character is a b-i-t-c-h.

[sonickteam2]

I'm choosing to stop recognizing homosexuals as a whole until they quit bitching about their agenda. Sorry guys, few rotten apples, ya know?

 Julian, you are the one who seems to have an "agenda" these days. First Obama, then your neighbors, now the gays!   

  I think this article is pretty funny and right on. Its funny how some people tend to mistake their "beliefs" with "truths".   You say tomato...

[Vas Deferens]

AMEN.

I'm choosing to stop recognizing homosexuals as a whole until they quit bitching about their agenda. Sorry guys, few rotten apples, ya know?

 Julian, you are the one who seems to have an "agenda" these days. First Obama, then your neighbors, now the gays!   

  I think this article is pretty funny and right on. Its funny how some people tend to mistake their "beliefs" with "truths".   You say tomato...

[walkonby]

(quiet yet innocent gay toss off)

seeing how the god hate fags people are coming to dc for the inaguration to protest something, because protesting is the new reality show, i guess . . . somehow i have a sneaky feeling they will stick their feet in their mouth and say something they should not against black people, and then that will be the end of that organization.

[Julian, Alleged Computer F**kface]

Julian, you are the one who seems to have an "agenda" these days. First Obama, then your neighbors, now the gays!  

I don't have an agenda, I just think the entire discussion on this issue is so tired an weak. Someone pointed out a week or two back when I advocated more people getting married because of community property laws and the other protections marriage affords that absolutely all of those protections can be established outside the codifications of state-sanctioned marriage and therefore it would be stupid to consider getting married to someone as young as my girlfriend.

Well, if that's true, then why do people continue to act like homosexual's not being allowed to marry is this huge issue? Simply legalizing homosexual marriage is not going to make anyone who has a problem with homosexual marriage "recognize" it or whatever. It's a completely symbolic gesture, which I generally find unimportant. I just have no idea why everyone 20-35 is in such a fury over gay marriage. If I was a homosexual, and I couldn't get married legally, I'd simply get married "religiously" or whatever term you want to use and fill out DPAs to protect my spouse. I honestly don't think I'd care what other people think. But to listen to threads like this, it's this huge thing and we should all be douchebags and act like jerks to counteract other people being douchebags and acting like jerks. Israel and Palestine do that all the time; doesn't seem to work well for them.

[walkonby]

if gays and straights shot missiles at each other . . . i wonder who would win?

[Julian, Alleged Computer F**kface]

if gays and straights shot missles at each other . . . i wonder who would win?

There's a Dick Armey joke somewhere in here, but for the life of me, I can't find it.

[Sage 703]

Julian, you are the one who seems to have an "agenda" these days. First Obama, then your neighbors, now the gays!  

Well, if that's true, then why do people continue to act like homosexual's not being allowed to marry is this huge issue? Simply legalizing homosexual marriage is not going to make anyone who has a problem with homosexual marriage "recognize" it or whatever. It's a completely symbolic gesture, which I generally find unimportant. I just have no idea why everyone 20-35 is in such a fury over gay marriage. If I was a homosexual, and I couldn't get married legally, I'd simply get married "religiously" or whatever term you want to use and fill out DPAs to protect my spouse. I honestly don't think I'd care what other people think. But to listen to threads like this, it's this huge thing and we should all be douchebags and act like jerks to counteract other people being douchebags and acting like jerks. Israel and Palestine do that all the time; doesn't seem to work well for them.

I think that advocates of gay marriage would say that the fact that you don't care is essentially meaningless.  The people who are impacted - the people who want to get married - DO care, an enormous amount, because it is a principled point rather than a pragmatic one.

Let us say, for sake of argument, that gay couples could obtain all of the same protections under the law even if they were not married (and I believe this is true in most places, though probably not all).  To most activists, the prohibition of gay marriage under the law is a symbol of the implicit prejudice that exists towards the GLBT community.  While that symbol may not matter to you, if you can recognize that it matters a great deal to the parties that feel oppressed, why would you deny it to them or dismiss their argument as unimportant?

[Julian, Alleged Computer F**kface]

I'm not questioning homosexuals being upset about it. If I was in their position, I don't think I would be up in arms, but many are, and anyway that's not the point. What I'm saying is the way that frustration is channeled isn't constructive.

In my mind, barring some sort of end of days, there will eventually be homosexual marriage in this country. But it won't come about by some movement to not recognize anyone's marriages or Brad and Angelina refusing to get married until everyone can (previously: "be[ing] douchebags and acting like jerks to counteract other people being douchebags and acting like jerks"), it'll come about in 10-15 years when public opinion is naturally turned by older, generally more socially-conservative, people dying off and being replaced by younger, generally more socially-liberal, people replacing them. That's how social change has always been brought about, gradually over time.

I still think a far more interesting topic is who is in favor of legalizing polygamy and incest marriages, and if not why.