Metal Reviews

Get it in, brother!

LOL, I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I'm normal, so the thought of doing so is rather sickening, despite my southern heritage.

My main point is that if gay marriage were allowed, that should open the door for other things that most people aren't ready to march down a city street for. Just for a sense of consistency.

Beats having no child, as with gays.

Since when was a marriage's worth based around what kind and how many kids you have?

That's sorta taking things down a slippery slope. If you're worried about NAMBLA marching for creepy old dude/little kid marriage, well, at trapt said, little kids aren't capable of autonomy and can't make those decisions until they're much older.

What about all those farmers that really really love their sheep? Are we gonna get a bunch of hicks marching to get married to their livestock? I don't think so. Same argument applies, animals have no understanding of that sort of thing, and aren't capable of making that decision.

As far as incestuous relationships go, well, there are some states you can get married to your cousin in, if you're into that sort of thing, but the problem I see with that is that family is an entirely different kind of relationship than one you'd have with a lover/soulmate/what have you, and as far as I'm concerned, the two shouldn't mix.

The point is, there are valid reasons why people shouldn't get married to kids/animals/what have you, but I have yet to see a valid reason why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry. The whole "between a man and a woman" thing is bogus, because by saying that, it implies that only a man and a woman can have a relationship worthy of a marriage. The whole "sanctity of marriage" is bullshit too, what with the high divorce rate, revolving-door over-glamorized Hollywood marriages and the like-- if there was any sanctity to marriage in the first place (which is rather unlikely), then it was tarnished a long time ago.

Marriage is a right stipulated by what the almighty federal government? Last time I checked it was a contract between two individuals, that had economic as well as social obligations and it didn't have to be recognized by big brother other than for taxing purposes. Are you that conditioned to believe you need the government for everything?

I don't see why homosexuals can't just be satisfied with a civil union that grants them the same "rights" as a man and a woman that are married, e.g., joint tax returns and whatnot.

For thousands of years, marriage has been defined (in our culture) as a union or a contract between a male and a female.
Obviously to the majority of people, marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman. And there is obviously a very definite religious aspect to it, as well.

Gays demanding that the rest of us bend to their will on this is nothing but a lack of respect for other beliefs.

In some cultures, the marriage of children is allowed; we may find it abhorrent, but it is not our place to define another culture's guidelines regarding marriage.
Also, polygamy is allowed in some cultures / religions.
In California, I cannot marry more than one person... is this a violation of my rights?

Leftists are like children... dependent on mommy / the state to provide for them and protect them.



I remember about ten-fifeen years back there was a case in which an Iraqi was suing the state for violating his civil rights because he could not marry his 12 year old niece... of course he lost.
Why? Because such practices fall outside OUR legal definition of marriage. Which is defined as a union between a man and a woman.

Since, well, forever, until it was hollowed out by liberalism.

It's funny because we (straight, white and especially male) are always told that we need to respect the traditions and customs of other cultures... but, when it comes to respecting our traditions and customs, suddenly that notion doesn't apply.

So if a woman's barren, she shouldn't get married?

Cultures and traditions change. It's just the way things are. If they didn't we'd still be plowing fields and living as serfs.

I wouldn't be a conservative without answering that she should only find out she's barren after she got married

Not sure exactly what you mean by liberalism (the downside of speaking in epigrams), but I think the two main factors are affluence and the senior social safety net.

No longer is fear of not being taken care of when you are old a driving factor, nor is needing children to support the family. To many couples, children are a liability.

But those arent necessarilly cultural traditions or customs. They are social conditions.
I've never heard of poverty or serfdom as being a tradition, or even a defining cultural trait.

Anyway, what do you think about, instead of trying to change the legal definition of marriage, a change in the priviliges (joint tax filing, etc.) that come with civil unions (where said priviliges don't exist; I'm not that savvy regarding what package comes with a civil union) would better serve all concerned? It's a win-win situation, IMO.

On a personal level, I really couldn't care less about anybody's sexual orientation so long as it is consentual and between two adults of legal age. All the talk of "homophobia" is nothing more than a cynical attempt at marginalizing a legitimate POV, and only works on the simple minded (not saying you have played this hand, but those who have know who they are, haha).
I just don't see where it is stated that same-sex marriage, or even just plain old garden variety marriage for that matter, is a constitutional right.

To me marriage is a bond between 2 people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their natural lives together(you can factor in the Religion factor if you want but that's another debate).

You start to change that aspect just to appease one side of the equation you defeat the real purpose of marriage and many don't want that to happen.

In that case, we'd still be dealing in arranged marriages, wouldn't we?

The problem I see with giving homosexuals "civil unions" with all the same privileges as a marriage... well then, why not call it a marriage? The way I see it, calling it a "civil union" reinforces the divide between heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships. It's allowing them to get married without allowing them to get married, if you get my meaning.

Like I said it's symbolic. Which leads me to wonder what all the fuss is about. If marriage is legally (as well as traditionally and culturally) found to be between a man and woman in this country, why do homosexuals feel like they need to push this? If they have a civil ceremony and recieve all the benefits that come with "marriage", what's the problem? They are NOT being denied their rights in any way if they can form a legal union that for all intents and purposes is the same as being married. Marriage is a well established institution and it seems unreasonable for homosexuals to continue to push this.


http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/marriage

At any rate, it is a state (not federal) issue, as the DOMA rightfully recognizes.

I will even go against this for some ground as our traditional definition of marriage is tampered with by homosexual interactions in ancient Native American, Greek, and Roman socieites. For me, the concept of marriage is built on a tenuous Judeo-Christian concept at least here, and marriage in and of itself is lacking even then with what 50% divorce rates in the states? I could honestly care less what a majority of Americans believe, as for me its an issue that has to be dealt with by the individuals state with their unique powers across the country. As a heterosexual, I put no weight in the argument that their union is less than mine, and I also don't see what our own precedent even if we were to make a 'Federal" amendment to allow it would change historically, and that is the archetypal human union is a man and woman.

For all intents and purposes let them do what they want, they aren't harming me and my relationship, as long as they aren't demanding any overwhelming privileges that isn't divested to non-homosexual couples it's a non-issue with me, as I am far more opposed to the virus of Christianity in our court/federal system than "homosexuality".

Right, it is a state issue. the federal government has no business legislating marriage laws.
Look, I don't really care either, it doesn't affect me at all, but from a legal basis, it seems to be nothing more than kicking up a bunch of dust when a civil union that provides the same provisions as a marriage would be a reasonable compromise between the two groups, i.e, those that oppose and those that are for same sex marriage.

As for divorce rates and such... that is more of a commentary on society and our value system than it is on the institution of marriage, really.