The gay marriage debate in the US these days
Posted by: ErikL on 15 February 2004
Isn't it just a civil rights issue, or am I missing something?
I don't understand all the fuss.
I don't understand all the fuss.
Posted on: 20 February 2004 by BrianD
Jeremy
It is just so frustrating trying to get something through to you once you've already formed a viewpoint of somebody.
What you are highlighting are DEFENSIVE posts from me because I was in a situation where it was obvious I was a LONE voice. These were not PERSONAL insults aimed toward, or trying to discredit any single individual. There is a difference. I do credit you with being intelligent. For gooodness sake think about what I'm saying and try to put yourself in my position as each post went by. These are ENTIRELY different to the personal shite that Matthew comes out with and are totally different to the initial comment from Matthew that started the whole thing.
Almost every post made me think some thought I was not entitled to an opinion.
quote:
On Page 2 (before Matthew's "*that* BrianD" remark) you accused other contributors collectively of:
1. being intolerant of your view
2. thinking you were not entitled to your opinion
3. being hypocritical.
It is just so frustrating trying to get something through to you once you've already formed a viewpoint of somebody.
What you are highlighting are DEFENSIVE posts from me because I was in a situation where it was obvious I was a LONE voice. These were not PERSONAL insults aimed toward, or trying to discredit any single individual. There is a difference. I do credit you with being intelligent. For gooodness sake think about what I'm saying and try to put yourself in my position as each post went by. These are ENTIRELY different to the personal shite that Matthew comes out with and are totally different to the initial comment from Matthew that started the whole thing.
Almost every post made me think some thought I was not entitled to an opinion.
Posted on: 20 February 2004 by JeremyD
Brian,
Your feeling defensive may be an explanation for your accusation but it is not a justification. I have invited you to provide that justification by quoting from a relevant post but your only reply to this so far has been:
[This message was edited by JeremyD on FRIDAY 20 February 2004 at 13:10.]
quote:What you quoted is not a viewpoint. It is an undeniable statement of fact, which can be verified by anyone who chooses to read page two.
"On Page 2 (before Matthew's "*that* BrianD" remark) you accused other contributors collectively of:
1. being intolerant of your view
2. thinking you were not entitled to your opinion
3. being hypocritical."
It is just so frustrating trying to get something through to you once you've already formed a viewpoint of somebody.
quote:I appreciate that you felt defensive because you were a lone voice. It is understandable that you might feel that way.
What you are highlighting are DEFENSIVE posts from me because I was in a situation where it was obvious I was a LONE voice.
quote:There is certainly a difference. However, would you not feel irritated, if not offended, if you were accused, even collectively, of being intolerant of someone's view, of thinking they were not entitled to their opinion and of being hypocritical? Would you not be tempted to respond in perhaps not the most polite way?
These were not PERSONAL insults aimed toward, or trying to discredit any single individual. There is a difference.
Your feeling defensive may be an explanation for your accusation but it is not a justification. I have invited you to provide that justification by quoting from a relevant post but your only reply to this so far has been:
quote:Please, Brian, just quote from one post from page one or two and explain how it made you feel that way. Otherwise I cannot see how I will ever understand your point of view.
Almost every post made me think some thought I was not entitled to an opinion.
[This message was edited by JeremyD on FRIDAY 20 February 2004 at 13:10.]
Posted on: 20 February 2004 by BrianD
Jeremy
Once again you choose to PRETEND that you don't know what I mean. Does everything have to be written down absolutely literally for you to understand what someone means? Are you suggesting that over the last few years on this forum that you haven't formed a viewpoint about me that is impossible for me to shift? That is what I'm on about here. Perhaps my phrasology isn't quite perfect enough for you.
Errr, aye. That's exactly how I was feeling, so maybe I responded in 'not the most polite' way. Seemingly this is not acceptable from me, but here you are saying that others felt this way and you are confirming they responded in a 'not too polite way' as well. So it's understandable from others, but not from me. Is that what you're saying? Double standards, Jeremy. This is a vicious circle it seems, but one where you can only see one side of the problem for some strange reason.
I believe I was well justified in feeling defensive. It should therefore be expected my posts may well become slightly tetchy. I'd consider this to be normal human behaviour. Perhaps you don't. You should view this as confirmation that, despite what some may believe, I am actually a human being. If you would have so much self control not to allow yourself to fall into this trap, then you are a one-off.
============================================
Here's my take on the first 2 pages since you are like a dog with a bone....
Following my post on page 2, made at 21:36 on Feb 16, there were consecutive posts from :
Matthew Robsinson : (What do you think he meant by "Ignoring the obvious sophistry"?), Eric, Throbnorth, Rasher and Ron Toolsie. This accumulation, along with the eariler page, was bound to make me initially become defensive. This is bound to have an effect on everything following.
Matthew Robinson, in his usual style, attempted to ridicule an earlier post from me in a way that left me thinking that, although I'd put forward my opinion, it didn't count for anything, therefore, I am not entitled to one. You see, he asked me a question that I'd already answered, an answer that he even saw fit to quote in his post! He saw fit to ask...
In addition, the post from Throbnorth made an enormous deal of my comment regarding use of the word 'gay', for example. This added to the defensive posture I was now in and I don't see any need to apologise for going on the defensive at this point, even if it did cause me to post in a manner that was unjustified in your opinion.
It was my response to this group of posts that then brought about the one from Robinson that was the FIRST post that became personal. You can ask me to present quotes to justify myself all you like. I'm still waiting for you to start hassling the self appointed forum leader. I would like to believe that Matthew Robinson is a real thick shit, but I don't believe he is. I think he knew exactly what he was doing. Jolly good show.
I won't be holding my breath.
quote:
What you quoted is not a viewpoint. It is an undeniable statement of fact, which can be verified by anyone who chooses to read page two.
Once again you choose to PRETEND that you don't know what I mean. Does everything have to be written down absolutely literally for you to understand what someone means? Are you suggesting that over the last few years on this forum that you haven't formed a viewpoint about me that is impossible for me to shift? That is what I'm on about here. Perhaps my phrasology isn't quite perfect enough for you.
quote:
However, would you not feel irritated, if not offended, if you were accused, even collectively, of being intolerant of someone's view, of thinking they were not entitled to their opinion and of being hypocritical? Would you not be tempted to respond in perhaps not the most polite way?
Errr, aye. That's exactly how I was feeling, so maybe I responded in 'not the most polite' way. Seemingly this is not acceptable from me, but here you are saying that others felt this way and you are confirming they responded in a 'not too polite way' as well. So it's understandable from others, but not from me. Is that what you're saying? Double standards, Jeremy. This is a vicious circle it seems, but one where you can only see one side of the problem for some strange reason.
quote:
Your feeling defensive may be an explanation for your accusation but it is not a justification.
I believe I was well justified in feeling defensive. It should therefore be expected my posts may well become slightly tetchy. I'd consider this to be normal human behaviour. Perhaps you don't. You should view this as confirmation that, despite what some may believe, I am actually a human being. If you would have so much self control not to allow yourself to fall into this trap, then you are a one-off.
============================================
Here's my take on the first 2 pages since you are like a dog with a bone....
Following my post on page 2, made at 21:36 on Feb 16, there were consecutive posts from :
Matthew Robsinson : (What do you think he meant by "Ignoring the obvious sophistry"?), Eric, Throbnorth, Rasher and Ron Toolsie. This accumulation, along with the eariler page, was bound to make me initially become defensive. This is bound to have an effect on everything following.
Matthew Robinson, in his usual style, attempted to ridicule an earlier post from me in a way that left me thinking that, although I'd put forward my opinion, it didn't count for anything, therefore, I am not entitled to one. You see, he asked me a question that I'd already answered, an answer that he even saw fit to quote in his post! He saw fit to ask...
quote:I had already said,
Why do you wish to prevent same-sex marriages? You must have a reason surely?
quote:That is still my answer. I still have to be convinced that same-sex marriage should be allowed, and convincing people of why this should happen is the proper way for it to come about imo. Presently, it is not allowed and you don't scrap a law just because you want to scrap it, you have to justify scrapping it by convincing people that the alternative is BETTER. In short, you don't need a reason to keep something, you need a reason to get rid of something and replace it with something else.
Since marriage between men and women has been established for many years I believe you have this the wrong way around. It is for those who believe same-sex marriage should be allowed to state the case why, rather than me to state the case why not
In addition, the post from Throbnorth made an enormous deal of my comment regarding use of the word 'gay', for example. This added to the defensive posture I was now in and I don't see any need to apologise for going on the defensive at this point, even if it did cause me to post in a manner that was unjustified in your opinion.
It was my response to this group of posts that then brought about the one from Robinson that was the FIRST post that became personal. You can ask me to present quotes to justify myself all you like. I'm still waiting for you to start hassling the self appointed forum leader. I would like to believe that Matthew Robinson is a real thick shit, but I don't believe he is. I think he knew exactly what he was doing. Jolly good show.
I won't be holding my breath.
Posted on: 20 February 2004 by matthewr
"What do you think he meant by "Ignoring the obvious sophistry"?"
I meant "ignoring the obvious sophistry".
Matthew
I meant "ignoring the obvious sophistry".
Matthew
Posted on: 20 February 2004 by JeremyD
Brian,
I now appreciate that because Matthew asked:
I think I can probably speak on behalf of everyone involved when I say that I am very sorry that Matthew asked if you had a reason for your opinion, and I for one will do my best to avoid asking such questions of you in future.
I think that, having finally reached this epiphany, there is probably nothing more I can usefully add to this thread.
I now appreciate that because Matthew asked:
quote:AFTER YOU HAD ALREADY SAID:
"Why do you wish to prevent same-sex marriages? You must have a reason surely?"
quote:you felt entirely justified in accusing us all of being intolerant of your view, of thinking you were not entitled to your opinion and of being hypocritical. It is a lot easier to understand now that you have explained it.
Since marriage between men and women has been established for many years I believe you have this the wrong way around. It is for those who believe same-sex marriage should be allowed to state the case why, rather than me to state the case why not
I think I can probably speak on behalf of everyone involved when I say that I am very sorry that Matthew asked if you had a reason for your opinion, and I for one will do my best to avoid asking such questions of you in future.
I think that, having finally reached this epiphany, there is probably nothing more I can usefully add to this thread.
Posted on: 20 February 2004 by Phil Barry
BrianD -
Sorry about the 'laudable' clause. This is the web - I don't give the same attention to web stuff as I do to traditionally published stuff. I agree that the most obvious reading of the line was that it was arrogant. I generally try to curb my arrogance; missed it this time.
Again, your change of mind indicates an approach that seems at odds with your words and the thoughts you've expressed.
Further, while I agree you've received some harsh confrontations, I think most people would not have received them as 'attacks', except in a fairly loose use of the word.
I agree, however, that the confrontations may be based on misunderstanding what you wrote.
And so I ask again: are you sure your writing on this forum represents your thoughts accurately?
BTW, leaving the forum because of the confrontations you've experienced would be a disservice to the forum and to you. The forum needs contrary opinions, especially if they're genuinely held; and you can use the forum to learn to express a contrary opinion without alienating your readers.
Regards.
Phil
Sorry about the 'laudable' clause. This is the web - I don't give the same attention to web stuff as I do to traditionally published stuff. I agree that the most obvious reading of the line was that it was arrogant. I generally try to curb my arrogance; missed it this time.
Again, your change of mind indicates an approach that seems at odds with your words and the thoughts you've expressed.
Further, while I agree you've received some harsh confrontations, I think most people would not have received them as 'attacks', except in a fairly loose use of the word.
I agree, however, that the confrontations may be based on misunderstanding what you wrote.
And so I ask again: are you sure your writing on this forum represents your thoughts accurately?
BTW, leaving the forum because of the confrontations you've experienced would be a disservice to the forum and to you. The forum needs contrary opinions, especially if they're genuinely held; and you can use the forum to learn to express a contrary opinion without alienating your readers.
Regards.
Phil
Posted on: 20 February 2004 by BrianD
quote:
"What do you think he meant by "Ignoring the obvious sophistry"?"
I meant "ignoring the obvious sophistry".
Fine. Clearly a word you've heard other people use that you thought you'd try out while not understanding what it means.
Thanks for clarifying that one for everybody.
Posted on: 20 February 2004 by BrianD
Jeremy
Good. Lot's of productive sarcasm there.
Exactly what do you hope to achieve by asking me a question and then posting this sort of stuff as a reply? All you've shown here is that you have no understanding that someone on the defensive is likely to slip into being unreasonable from time to time. I do wish I hadn't taken the bait laid down by Robinson. Things would have been so much better. But I fell for it.
Let me get your position clear. You asked me a question to which I offered a reply. You do not like my reply, to which you resort to a post full to the brim of sarcasm.
I will take it that you do not accept any of my points as being valid for causing the tone of my posts. I wonder why because they are very valid to me. You are showing a total lack of understanding and of tolerance here, Jeremy. I will also take it that you have completely missed the effect your comment, "everyone involved" is likely to have. Everyone in this case is EVERYONE. I am expected to remain polite and respectful to you and others throughout yet more comment that is going to make me even more defensive. Would you manage this, Jeremy?
I think that you despise me, Jeremy. This appears to affect everything you post to me and every interpretation you put on my posts to you and to everybody else. This probably goes back to disagreements of something like 3 years ago or more. I think it is very juvenile to hold a grudge for so long, Jeremy. It is why you are getting at me now continuously. You will not let this go, will you?
Look, I have nothing against you personally at all. What is your problem with me apart from the issues that go back probably 3 years or more? I live near York. I'm quite happy to meet you to thrash out these perceived differences in person, rather than via a forum, where nothing but confusion seems to result from posting replies to you.
quote:
It is a lot easier to understand now that you have explained it.
Good. Lot's of productive sarcasm there.
Exactly what do you hope to achieve by asking me a question and then posting this sort of stuff as a reply? All you've shown here is that you have no understanding that someone on the defensive is likely to slip into being unreasonable from time to time. I do wish I hadn't taken the bait laid down by Robinson. Things would have been so much better. But I fell for it.
Let me get your position clear. You asked me a question to which I offered a reply. You do not like my reply, to which you resort to a post full to the brim of sarcasm.
quote:
I think I can probably speak on behalf of everyone involved when I say that I am very sorry that Matthew asked if you had a reason for your opinion, and I for one will do my best to avoid asking such questions of you in future.
I will take it that you do not accept any of my points as being valid for causing the tone of my posts. I wonder why because they are very valid to me. You are showing a total lack of understanding and of tolerance here, Jeremy. I will also take it that you have completely missed the effect your comment, "everyone involved" is likely to have. Everyone in this case is EVERYONE. I am expected to remain polite and respectful to you and others throughout yet more comment that is going to make me even more defensive. Would you manage this, Jeremy?
I think that you despise me, Jeremy. This appears to affect everything you post to me and every interpretation you put on my posts to you and to everybody else. This probably goes back to disagreements of something like 3 years ago or more. I think it is very juvenile to hold a grudge for so long, Jeremy. It is why you are getting at me now continuously. You will not let this go, will you?
Look, I have nothing against you personally at all. What is your problem with me apart from the issues that go back probably 3 years or more? I live near York. I'm quite happy to meet you to thrash out these perceived differences in person, rather than via a forum, where nothing but confusion seems to result from posting replies to you.
Posted on: 20 February 2004 by BrianD
Phil
Thank You.
My change of mind concerns only that I began by believing that only married men and women should receive certain 'benefits'. I've been convinced by the people who posted a list of *some* of the benefits (I've no doubt there are more) that in fact, there is no problem giving these benefits to people in long term relationships, whether they be gay or not.
Probably a symptom of being made to feel defensive. When it comes from what seemed to be many people, I perceived myself as under attack here. I've said I wished I hadn't responded in the way I did to some of the posts. But there is no excuse imo for the response from the likes of Matthew Robinson. This kind of thing alienates people from the forum and is likely to chase away new members.
I'm not convinced of this at all. I don't see what is difficult to understand. My view is that those who want change have to convince others it is needed, not for those others to convince people why something should not be changed. I have been convinced by the arguments put forward that it is a good thing to offer certain benefits to gay couples. I am not convinced that they need to be married to have these benefits, and in fact I would like to extend the benefits to ANY couple in a long term relationship.
See the above. I think I'm expressing myself clearly enough here. I'm not sure what it is you think I may actually be trying to say, Phil.
Well, again. That's your opinion and I won't take offence this time since I can see where you're coming from. I believe on this particular issue there was no chance of me not alienating many forum members no matter how I put my point across. You may disagree, but I'll find it difficult to believe how. Also, what you don't realise about me is that there is a history that some people seemingly are not prepared to forget.
quote:
Sorry about the 'laudable' clause.
Thank You.
quote:
Again, your change of mind indicates an approach that seems at odds with your words and the thoughts you've expressed.
My change of mind concerns only that I began by believing that only married men and women should receive certain 'benefits'. I've been convinced by the people who posted a list of *some* of the benefits (I've no doubt there are more) that in fact, there is no problem giving these benefits to people in long term relationships, whether they be gay or not.
quote:
Further, while I agree you've received some harsh confrontations, I think most people would not have received them as 'attacks', except in a fairly loose use of the word.
Probably a symptom of being made to feel defensive. When it comes from what seemed to be many people, I perceived myself as under attack here. I've said I wished I hadn't responded in the way I did to some of the posts. But there is no excuse imo for the response from the likes of Matthew Robinson. This kind of thing alienates people from the forum and is likely to chase away new members.
quote:
I agree, however, that the confrontations may be based on misunderstanding what you wrote.
I'm not convinced of this at all. I don't see what is difficult to understand. My view is that those who want change have to convince others it is needed, not for those others to convince people why something should not be changed. I have been convinced by the arguments put forward that it is a good thing to offer certain benefits to gay couples. I am not convinced that they need to be married to have these benefits, and in fact I would like to extend the benefits to ANY couple in a long term relationship.
quote:
And so I ask again: are you sure your writing on this forum represents your thoughts accurately?
See the above. I think I'm expressing myself clearly enough here. I'm not sure what it is you think I may actually be trying to say, Phil.
quote:
BTW, leaving the forum because of the confrontations you've experienced would be a disservice to the forum and to you. The forum needs contrary opinions, especially if they're genuinely held; and you can use the forum to learn to express a contrary opinion without alienating your readers.
Well, again. That's your opinion and I won't take offence this time since I can see where you're coming from. I believe on this particular issue there was no chance of me not alienating many forum members no matter how I put my point across. You may disagree, but I'll find it difficult to believe how. Also, what you don't realise about me is that there is a history that some people seemingly are not prepared to forget.
Posted on: 20 February 2004 by JeremyD
Brian,
quote:Sorry, but judging by your forum persona I think I would be frightened to meet you in real life - especially after your threatening remark to Johns Naim.
I'm quite happy to meet you to thrash out these perceived differences in person, rather than via a forum, where nothing but confusion seems to result from posting replies to you.
Posted on: 20 February 2004 by BrianD
Jeremy
A shame you took it in that way. There is no malice intended.
A couple of suggestions, you could bring along some of your friends so that they might secure your safety. I know I mean no harm so I'd have nothing to fear from you or your friends.
Alternatively, I would be happy to bring my 14 year old daughter and 11 year old son. I'm hardly likely to become aggressive with someone in the presence of my family.
It is a serious offer. It bothers me that you have formed what I believe to be an unjustified opinion of me.
Two people who write on this forum have met me before. I'm sure they would testify to how harmless I am.
A shame you took it in that way. There is no malice intended.
A couple of suggestions, you could bring along some of your friends so that they might secure your safety. I know I mean no harm so I'd have nothing to fear from you or your friends.
Alternatively, I would be happy to bring my 14 year old daughter and 11 year old son. I'm hardly likely to become aggressive with someone in the presence of my family.
It is a serious offer. It bothers me that you have formed what I believe to be an unjustified opinion of me.
Two people who write on this forum have met me before. I'm sure they would testify to how harmless I am.
Posted on: 20 February 2004 by ErikL
Moving on...
Well, San Francisco has sued the state of Cowleefournya, saying that banning same-sex marriages is unconstitutional. Sandoval County, New Mexico is also now issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
How many Sandoval Counties and San Franciscos this will it take to reach a tipping point? Mayors of Salt Lake City, Chicago, and Minneapolis have voiced their support for issuing licenses to same-sex couples. Time will tell if they start issuing licenses. In my own city, Seattle (second highest homosexual population in the West), the King County officials want the state to take the lead.
Are the "rebellious" governments taking the best approach, or is there a better way?
Well, San Francisco has sued the state of Cowleefournya, saying that banning same-sex marriages is unconstitutional. Sandoval County, New Mexico is also now issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
How many Sandoval Counties and San Franciscos this will it take to reach a tipping point? Mayors of Salt Lake City, Chicago, and Minneapolis have voiced their support for issuing licenses to same-sex couples. Time will tell if they start issuing licenses. In my own city, Seattle (second highest homosexual population in the West), the King County officials want the state to take the lead.
Are the "rebellious" governments taking the best approach, or is there a better way?
Posted on: 21 February 2004 by throbnorth
Thanks for the sympathy everybody. Condolences are very supportive [even when you say you don't want them!]
BrianD - if that what was going through your mind when replied to my post, then no offence taken. If I had a tenner for every time I've posted or emailed something that didn't quite come out the way I'd intended, I'd be writing this from my ski lodge in Gstaad [well, beach hut in Paignton, perhaps].
Nevertheless, I do appreciate the way that other posters sprung to my defence. It's the sort of thing that makes the forum worth sticking with.
throb
BrianD - if that what was going through your mind when replied to my post, then no offence taken. If I had a tenner for every time I've posted or emailed something that didn't quite come out the way I'd intended, I'd be writing this from my ski lodge in Gstaad [well, beach hut in Paignton, perhaps].
Nevertheless, I do appreciate the way that other posters sprung to my defence. It's the sort of thing that makes the forum worth sticking with.
throb
Posted on: 21 February 2004 by BrianD
Throbnorth
Thank You. I very much appreciate you replying to that.
quote:
if that what was going through your mind when replied to my post, then no offence taken.
Thank You. I very much appreciate you replying to that.
Posted on: 24 February 2004 by Berlin Fritz
Hopefully some of you might find this recent article of interest ?
Trust the House of Lords to get to the bottom of what's really important in a new
law. The Gender Recognition Bill, allowing transsexuals to have their new gender
legally recognised, has been going through its Lords stages this month.
Peers have been greatly exercised by exactly how they would handle a change of
sex by one of their number. For instance would an Earl become a Countess and if
so would they have to apply to the Queen for a change in title ? (yes.) Earl
Ferrers was determined to demonstrate the absurdities of the new law by asking
what would happen if the elder sister of a male heir were to become a man,
thereby leapfrogging her brother to the title: "Does she then become Viscount
Chump instead of her younger brother who, up till now, was Viscount Chump? If she
does become Viscount Chump, does she inherit the title of earl instead of the
proper Viscount Chump, and all the cash, if there is any?
In my experience Earl's
do not have much cash nowadays, but they used to in the good old days. What
happens to the proper Viscount Chump ? There may be a trust fund under which it
all goes to the holder of the earldom. Does the lady get that, if so, will she
remain friends with her brother?"
And so the Great Questions of the Day are
subjected to forensic examination by their Lordships...
P-Eye: Issue 1100 (20.02.04)
PissT: The subject of legal recognition is the same, innit ?
Fritz Von Lordinitstill
Trust the House of Lords to get to the bottom of what's really important in a new
law. The Gender Recognition Bill, allowing transsexuals to have their new gender
legally recognised, has been going through its Lords stages this month.
Peers have been greatly exercised by exactly how they would handle a change of
sex by one of their number. For instance would an Earl become a Countess and if
so would they have to apply to the Queen for a change in title ? (yes.) Earl
Ferrers was determined to demonstrate the absurdities of the new law by asking
what would happen if the elder sister of a male heir were to become a man,
thereby leapfrogging her brother to the title: "Does she then become Viscount
Chump instead of her younger brother who, up till now, was Viscount Chump? If she
does become Viscount Chump, does she inherit the title of earl instead of the
proper Viscount Chump, and all the cash, if there is any?
In my experience Earl's
do not have much cash nowadays, but they used to in the good old days. What
happens to the proper Viscount Chump ? There may be a trust fund under which it
all goes to the holder of the earldom. Does the lady get that, if so, will she
remain friends with her brother?"
And so the Great Questions of the Day are
subjected to forensic examination by their Lordships...
P-Eye: Issue 1100 (20.02.04)
PissT: The subject of legal recognition is the same, innit ?
Fritz Von Lordinitstill
Posted on: 15 March 2004 by ErikL
What would VP Dick Cheney's gay daughter have to say about all of this?
Posted on: 15 March 2004 by Steve Toy
I got as far as page 2 of this thread and procreativity is obviously the issue here...
To me, marriage isn't about kids as many of them are spawned outside of marriage anyway, and whether this is a good or bad thing is a moot point.
To me, marriage is about legitimising your long-standing (sexual) relationship with another human being and not about the prospect of your relationship bringing more Beings into this already crowded planet.
Thus any long-standing and loving relationship between two human beings should be legitimised through marriage if the above so wish.
Another benefit of this would be that homosexuality doesn't get (prejudicially) treated as more promiscuous than heterosexuality where any promiscuity leads to more than moral damage to society as a whole.
Regards,
Steve.
To me, marriage isn't about kids as many of them are spawned outside of marriage anyway, and whether this is a good or bad thing is a moot point.
To me, marriage is about legitimising your long-standing (sexual) relationship with another human being and not about the prospect of your relationship bringing more Beings into this already crowded planet.
Thus any long-standing and loving relationship between two human beings should be legitimised through marriage if the above so wish.
Another benefit of this would be that homosexuality doesn't get (prejudicially) treated as more promiscuous than heterosexuality where any promiscuity leads to more than moral damage to society as a whole.
Regards,
Steve.