Rockism 101 discussion

64 views
Tunnel of Love > Same Sex Marriage...For or Against

Comments (showing 1-34 of 34) (34 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Cynn Dinn (new)

Cynn Dinn Suallo | 8 comments I think people of the same sex should be able to get married. If the government is allowed to offer certain benefits/stipulations for married couples versus single, then all people should have the same opportunity to access those benefits/stipulations.

The whole "God says marriage is between a man and a woman" argument is a bunch of bologna. Marriage was first introduced so men could make undisputed claims to their children. Women were only thought of as property. It was in the late 1500s when The Church (Catholic, of course) started the sanctimonious claim that God blesses the union between a man and a woman = marriage. http://www.historyofmarriage.org/


message 2: by Rock (new)

Rock Ism | 284 comments Mod
No one should bet married. Not men to men, women to women or men to women. It's the most assinine institutuion ever created.


message 3: by Gary (new)

Gary | 134 comments Why do two people want to get married? They don't do it because society has decided that marriage is the best support structure for a family, it shouldn't be a contract of ownership on one of the participants, it is not a religious ritual.

The basic (and purest) reason for marriage is that two people want to demonstrate their love for each other and to reassure each other with a promise of fidelity, loyalty and mutual support from that day forward.

Society then respects that declaration by recognising it and even establishing certain benefits for doing it.

It would be immoral in a free society to refuse to recognise the marriage because the participants did not intend to have children.

It would be immoral in a free society to refuse to recognise the marriage because one of the participants could not have children.

It would be immoral in a free society to refuse to recognise the marriage because two people of different builds loved each other.

It would be immoral in a free society to refuse to recognise the marriage because two people of different races loved each other.

Thus it would be immoral in a free society to refuse to recognise the marriage because two people of the same gender loved each other.

Marriage is about fidelity, loyalty and love. Let the two people involved make that decision rather than the state making it for them.


message 4: by Ed (new)

Ed Wagemann (EdWagemann) | 985 comments Gary, using your argument in message 3, do you think marriage should be limited to two people? Do you seen any problem with mormons who take more than one wife, for example?


message 5: by Dr. Detroit (new)

Dr. Detroit Whatever turns your crank.


message 6: by Naomi (new)

Naomi | 9 comments I absolutely support same sex marriage. The old argument that it will "ruin the sanctity of marriage" doesn't hold up, in my book. As far as I'm concerned, straight people have already ruined the sanctity of marriage. I think same sex couple should be allowed the same legal rights as everyone else and it's pure discrimination that they aren't.


message 7: by Gary (new)

Gary | 134 comments Ed Wagemann wrote: "Gary, using your argument in message 3, do you think marriage should be limited to two people? Do you seen any problem with mormons who take more than one wife, for example? "

Good question, and not one I have a good answer for. Certainly I would say that in the case of Mormons etc. then if they follow the 'Christian definition' of marriage (in quotes because I realise that probably the majority of Christian's don't actually accept the traditional form nowadays, but many do) then that is not what I see marriage as but instead is a form of slavery with the woman (or women) submitting to the authority of the man.

(A am happy for a woman to choose to do this, but only if it's what she really wants rather than an expectation of society.)

However, I do know at least one (as far as I know) poly-amorous arrangement, and perhaps they should have the right to make a similar oath to each other, but I find it harder to see how such an oath would work. Once you swear loyalty to two or more people then that can come into conflict.

So I'm not sure. I can see that perhaps polygamous people would want the same opportunity, but can they actually make such an oath to support the concept?

I'm open to ideas about this. I would not wish to decide for other people, but at the same time can society accept and respect an oath which can so fundamentally be flawed?


message 8: by Ed (last edited Nov 13, 2012 10:04AM) (new)

Ed Wagemann (EdWagemann) | 985 comments Gary wrote: "I'm open to ideas about this. I would not wish to decide for other people, but at the same time can society accept and respect an oath which can so fundamentally be flawed? "

I'm not sure I am seeing what the fundamental flaw that you are talking about is. How is this fundamental flaw any different than the fundamental flaw of ANY marriage? It all comes down to human nature and the peopel involved. In theory, 3 is more comlicated than 2, but in practical application, it really comes down to the individuals.

The flaw might be, well, if it is okay for 3 people to get married, then why not 4? Or 5? Or 37,897 for that matter? Or why not have everybody in the entire would get married to one another? That way we could all go around having sex with anyone we meet and it wouldnt be cheating.


message 9: by Gary (new)

Gary | 134 comments Ed Wagemann wrote: "I'm not sure I am seeing what the fundamental flaw that you are talking about is. How is this fundamental flaw any different than the fundamental flaw of ANY marriage?"

Ok the flaw I see;

I get married to "Anne" and "Becca", I promise to be loyal and honourable to both. Then Anne has a severe argument with Becca, now I can either break my promise to one of them, or do nothing and break my promise to two.

Ed Wagemann wrote: "The flaw might be, well, if it is okay for 3 people to get married, then why not 4? Or 5? Or 37,897 for that matter?"

As I say, the promise that I feel is intrinsic to a marriage becomes geometrically difficult to honour as the number of participants rises. Moreover I think the chances of you getting mutual and consensual will to get married will become vanishingly small.

Ed Wagemann wrote: "Or why not have everybody in the entire would get married to one another? That way we could all go around having sex with anyone we meet and it wouldnt be cheating. "

That is approaching the logical fallacy of Reductio ad absurdum.

If the whole world wanted to get married and didn't care about everyone having sex with each other, it wouldn't be cheating. However, I doubt that the entire world would want to get married and I doubt that the majority of the world would agree to their sexual partners feeling free to have sex with everyone.

I can see problems with polygamy but this argument isn't a particularly compelling one.


message 10: by Ed (last edited Nov 13, 2012 04:47PM) (new)

Ed Wagemann (EdWagemann) | 985 comments I get married to "Anne" and "Becca", I promise to be loyal and honourable to both.

So wait a minute - what if your marriage oath doesn't have anything about "being loyal" in it? I mean take that word out and then we have no flaw with the "marry as many people as you want" argument, correct?


message 11: by Rock (new)

Rock Ism | 284 comments Mod
Mrriage is for idiots


message 12: by fabby (new)

fabby | 35 comments well hello rock OK so i guess if you are married i mean happily married you should want to share this with everybody ,if you are not happy in your marriage then please let the same sex couples discover what makes a marriage happy or not and make the mistakes everybody its entitled to make after all


message 13: by Gary (new)

Gary | 134 comments Ed Wagemann wrote: "So wait a minute - what if your marriage oath doesn't have anything about "being loyal" in it? I mean take that word out and then we have no flaw with the "marry as many people as you want" argument, correct? "

This is one reason why in my opinion religion and government undermine marriage by legislating it. What is marriage but a permanent promise of mutual loyalty and fidelity?


message 14: by fabby (new)

fabby | 35 comments An open marriage should only be done if both parties wants this at the same level and not being pressure by the other otherwise its a big mistake and can be view as cheating plus you have no jealousy and not keep score


message 15: by Craig (new)

Craig (cmckenne) I just got married as part of the passage of Referendum 74 in Washington state. I didn't do it because I'm an idiot -- I did it because a) after 13 years together, it was time, b) it affords us legal rights with regard to one another's health & finances, and c) I felt I owed it to the hundreds of thousands of LGBT individuals before me who could not access this fundamental right.

I'm really startled that the "Same Sex Marriage" thread has become a discussion of open marriages, because conflating the two sends a message about how LGBT people are viewed as "slutty" and "promiscuous." I'm not saying that open marriages are slutty, but rather that you are putting two topics together with no awareness of the public perception that people like me face: who's the man and who's the woman? you must have been with a lot of people, right? etc etc.


message 16: by Jenny (new)

Jenny | 218 comments Mod
I never really thought of it as because you are gay you are slutty. I have thought of it as gay marriage is an alternative relationship (according to very outdated philosophies). Open marriages are an alternative relationship along with polygamous marriages. I say let people marry whoever they want whenever they want as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, but yes, the gay marriage topic will lead to other conversations about marriages and partnerships.


message 17: by Craig (new)

Craig (cmckenne) Again, you don't see it as that but many people do. There are any number of arguments offered against gay marriage, as I am well aware, having lived through the passage of Ref74, and all of them are ludicrous: I'll destroy society, I'm slutty, etc. While you, as a heterosexual perosn, might not be aware that this is what people are saying about people like me, in fact, yes, this is what people are saying. When you link gay marriage to polygamy or open relationships, then in fact you are conflating all of those things. Why are we not linking a topic on hetero marriage to polygamy or open relationships? Because hetero marriage is "normal," by societal standards.

And I would also say that my marriage is NOT an alternative relationship, but rather a relationship that is now legally recognized by the state in which I live. I hope you recognize that, in calling it an alternative relationship, you are othering me as not normal.


message 18: by Gary (new)

Gary | 134 comments I can see why straight away the conversation has gone to "alternative marriages" because people see allowing gay people to have their partnerships recognised is new and redefining social issue.

This is not really the case.

The redefinition of marriage happened decades ago when the majority of marriages quietly changed from a contract of parents "selling" an otherwise useless daughter to another family (along with a dowry to make up for the fact), to marrying a person out of love.

Gay marriage is just acknowledging the new social convention of actually being able to choose the person you want to spend your life with.


message 19: by Jenny (last edited Dec 19, 2012 10:39AM) (new)

Jenny | 218 comments Mod
Craig wrote: "Again, you don't see it as that but many people do. There are any number of arguments offered against gay marriage, as I am well aware, having lived through the passage of Ref74, and all of them ar..."

First of all you assume I am heterosexual. You do not know that. Your relationships is an alternative to the status quo. And Who Cares!?!? We can link heterosexual relationships to polygamy and open marriage also. In fact, most open relationships I know of (only 2) have occurred in heterosexual relationships.

Look, people across the nation are voting for gay people to get married. I imagine next time around more states will pass gay marriage acts. Why do you care what the people are saying about you and your relationship? Most people, as it is now clear because of the passage of this bill know better than that and to the ones who do not know better than that F*** them. There are haters for everyone, and focusing on them only gives them attention and power. Playing the victim is not helpful, if we cannot talk about things like open marriages or polygamous marriages when we talk about gay marriage without everyone becoming offended we will never get anywhere with marriage equality.


message 20: by Ed (new)

Ed Wagemann (EdWagemann) | 985 comments Gary wrote: "This is one reason why in my opinion religion and government undermine marriage by legislating it. What is marriage but a permanent promise of mutual loyalty and fidelity? "

A permanent promise? Mutual loyalty and fidelity? These phrases can be very abstract...


message 21: by Gary (new)

Gary | 134 comments Ed Wagemann wrote: "A permanent promise? Mutual loyalty and fidelity? These phrases can be very abstract..."

Agreed, but that is the nature of any social construct.

However it works well as a definition and completely nullifies the "slippery slope" fallacies of social conservatives.

Can you make a definition of marriage that is less abstract, but means something to the people getting married?

The idea that marriage is a social construct for the creating of families is disingenuous. Does this mean that infertile people should also be banned from getting married, or old people? If fertility treatments are morally acceptable then what if same sex couples could have biological children with fertility treatment? Meanwhile what about all those couples who are infertile and yet help orphans by adopting?

The main issue about marriage, gay marriage and indeed homosexuality in particular is the admission that people are having sex to make them happy, which is viewed as wrong. Certainly it causes problems when jealousy and infidelity comes forward, and indeed unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. However much of the origin seems to come from the dominion of religion over relationships, which then justifies the subjugation of women so that men can be reassured that they are not spending time and energy raising "cuckoo" children.

Thus sex is seen as bad, enjoying sex worse (so much that some cultures deliberately mutilate the women so they cannot enjoy it), and pregnancy is seen as the only justification. Therefore homosexuality is seen as sinful because it avoids this "punishment".

However, this all has nothing to do with why people get married, at least in the democratic west. People want to show commitment to their partners, a mutual promise to stay true, even when the going is hard. This may be abstract to some, but not to the people involved.

Social conservatives often try to claim that gay marriage would be a slippery slope to bestiality, paedophilia or polygamy. However, in each case this is demonstrably untrue. An animal cannot give informed consent to getting married, a child cannot give informed consent, to say otherwise reveals the hidden misogyny at the basic social conservative concept of marriage, that the man decides to get married and the partner of that man is not required to consent, which is the only way the slippery slope argument works. The polygamy argument is slightly different, but still not equivalent because a person in a polygamous marriage does not have one person to stay loyal and true to so intrinsically the relationship has a potential internal conflict if 2 partners disagree with others.

In the end, marriage is the union of two consenting adults. The specifics of their gender, gender identity or race should not matter. Open or polygamous marriages etc are of a markedly different ethos to the marriage of two consenting adults, so equating the two in the attempt to create a straw man to attack is not worthy.


message 22: by Robb (new)

Robb Bridson Ed Wagemann wrote: "Gary, using your argument in message 3, do you think marriage should be limited to two people? Do you seen any problem with mormons who take more than one wife, for example?"

That would lead to some problems with our current system.
For instance, social security survivor's benefits are easily translated to gay marriage-- no real difference-- but when you have multiple spouses?

I don't know if I think that's a reason to stop it, but it is a hurdle, something to be tweaked.

Now there's also a strong argument that polygamy is inherently undermining of the rights of the subversive sex (leaving language open to include a possible polyandrous sect)...
But I think it's a lot easier to escape or enforce rights in a legal marriage than in a black market marriage overseen by an insane cult leader... and legal polygamy would create a bigger rift between marriages with adults and those with children, helping to stomp out that ugly FLDS activity.

It's kind of like prostitution.
I prefer horrible, exploitative systems that we can't stop to be brought out into legality so we can regulate them and prevent the most disgusting offenses.


message 23: by Sara (new)

Sara (Principessa_Sara) | 20 comments I am for Same Sex Marriage. I don't see anything wrong about two people (either man-woman, man-man, woman-woman) loving each other and wanting to officialize their union with marriage.
No one can tell us who we should love. And denying marriage to homosexuals is like saying "Hey, it's your life and you're not hurting anyone, but still... I believe you're not normal and you can't marry the one you love because you're not like the rest of us".


message 24: by Ed (last edited Mar 21, 2013 10:28AM) (new)

Ed Wagemann (EdWagemann) | 985 comments I agree with you Sara about people being free to love whoever they want, but I really dont think it is the government's responsibility to put their stamp of approval on it or not. The government should have no role at all in this personal matter. It should be up to the individuals...whether they are straight or gay.
That's the point I'm making. THe government should have NO SAY AT ALL when it comes to marriage.


message 25: by fabby (new)

fabby | 35 comments I'm with u Ed government. Should. Be to regulate. Things. That. Need. Regulating. Marriage Should. Not be one of those things love is difficult. Enough. To find. In any form. the last thing anyone. Needs its to. Hear is that they. Are not allowed. To celebrate. This love. By getting. Married


message 26: by Sara (last edited Mar 20, 2013 04:32PM) (new)

Sara (Principessa_Sara) | 20 comments Ed Wagemann wrote: "I agree with you Sara about people being free to love whoever they want, but I really dont think it is the responsibility to put their stamp of approval on it or not. The government should have no..."

Unfortunately, they want to put their stamp of approval on everything.


message 27: by Dr. Detroit (last edited Mar 21, 2013 08:51AM) (new)

Dr. Detroit Whatever turns your crank. Just stop tweeting about it. Nobody gives a fat fuck.


message 28: by Rock (new)

Rock Ism | 284 comments Mod
Honestly I think gays really like playing the victim. Its all the drama and that that they love so much. No one but a few readnecks really care if they marry each other or not. The gays are just playing this issue for all that they can get out of it. The love the attention. They love playing the victim.


message 29: by fabby (new)

fabby | 35 comments OK rock maybe some of them do but i know some people that just want to have the marriage done without the drama and complications like with everything in life there is a side to every story


message 30: by Jack (new)

Jack | 52 comments I feel the same. Why does the government have to give their stamp of approval? The government really has no business in what a couple in love do.


message 31: by Ed (last edited Mar 31, 2013 03:12PM) (new)

Ed Wagemann (EdWagemann) | 985 comments Also why does the government need to be spending money on this issue? Every dollar spent legislating this wedge issue is one less dollar the government can spend for a kid who is going hungry or a sick person who needs health care or a student who needs help.


message 32: by Jane (new)

Jane | 3 comments Dr. Detroit wrote: "Whatever turns your crank. Just stop tweeting about it. Nobody gives a fat fuck."

Amen sister


message 33: by Dr. Detroit (last edited May 10, 2013 05:24AM) (new)

Dr. Detroit Ed wrote: "Also why does the government need to be spending money on this issue? Every dollar spent legislating this wedge issue is one less dollar the government can spend for a kid who is going hungry or a..."

Amen, brother.

It's like the space program. Enough already.


message 34: by Rock (new)

Rock Ism | 284 comments Mod
lol!!!


back to top