Marriage and other LGBTQ Rights

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by garo

davieddy, I think your comments and innuendo are not constructive and show rather poor taste.

Zeta-Flux: I think you are engaging in sophistry here. You haven't really addressed most of the relevant questions and instead come up with a new diversion every time. You haven't given a straight answer to Bob and what do you make of the fact that lesbians do not have a higher incidence of AIDS - does it make them more acceptable to marry as you seem to be suggesting in your posting about AIDS?

All of this nonsense about AIDS, anal sex, lifestyle, etc. etc. is just a
stupid attempt to rationalize bigotry.

To get a marriage license (at least in the U.S.) one must get tested
for STD's. I am not sure of the legal consequences of a test that shows a
positive result. Of course, for treatable diseases one gets treatment.
But AFAIK, having AIDS does not prohibit heteros from marrying, so why
should it stop gays? It is just more bigotry.

And none of the people arguing about promiscuity have answered my comments: single people are more promiscuous in general. If you want
to reduce gay promiscuity, the best thing you can do is to allow them to
marry.

[masser]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

To get a marriage license (at least in the U.S.) one must get tested
for STD's. I am not sure of the legal consequences of a test that shows a
positive result. Of course, for treatable diseases one gets treatment.
But AFAIK, having AIDS does not prohibit heteros from marrying, so why
should it stop gays? It is just more bigotry.

Is that true?!? I just got married, less than three years ago, and I didn't have to get tested for STDs. And I hope those tests are not a requirement for a marriage license - it seems a bit like government intrusion... but I guess this whole thread is basically about government intrusion into what religions define marriage to be...

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by masser

Is that true?!? I just got married, less than three years ago, and I didn't have to get tested for STDs. And I hope those tests are not a requirement for a marriage license - it seems a bit like government intrusion... but I guess this whole thread is basically about government intrusion into what religions define marriage to be...

It is a requirement in Massachusetts. It isn't an issue of intrusion per se,
but one of fairness and responsibility, IMO. The person you are marrying
has a right to know if you have an STD.

I think it would be irresponsible to get married without such a test.

I believe that some state do not have such a requirement (e.g. NY)

[Zeta-Flux]

garo,

I, like davieddy, am going to withdraw from this thread. But before I do so I thought I'd respond to your post.

Originally Posted by garo

Zeta-Flux: I think you are engaging in sophistry here. You haven't really addressed most of the relevant questions and instead come up with a new diversion every time. You haven't given a straight answer to Bob and what do you make of the fact that lesbians do not have a higher incidence of AIDS - does it make them more acceptable to marry as you seem to be suggesting in your posting about AIDS?

One of my intents has been to flesh out my own position. As it isn't always in a polished and refined form, I don't always express every nuance. Further, sometimes someone convinces me that part of my argument is invalid, and so I drop certain arguments. This sometimes comes across as me being diversionary. For that I apologize.

On the other hand, I am comfortable enough with my posts that I don't think someone who reads them with charity will consider me a bigot.

Best,
Zeta-Flux

[9021951]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

It is a requirement in Massachusetts. It isn't an issue of intrusion per se,
but one of fairness and responsibility, IMO. The person you are marrying
has a right to know if you have an STD.

I think it would be irresponsible to get married without such a test.

I believe that some state do not have such a requirement (e.g. NY)

Thank God ( not goodness ) gay marriage is legal in all of Canada.

My partner and I married 2004 June 26th and have been together since 1986 December.
That means we are in our 23 rd ( eeks, a prime number ) year as a couple.

Simon and Bruce
Happy ( oops, Gay ) Canadians

[9021951]

Originally Posted by 9021951

Thank God ( not goodness ) gay marriage is legal in all of Canada.

My partner and I married 2004 June 26th and have been together since 1986 December.
That means we are in our 23 rd ( eeks, a prime number ) year as a couple.

Simon and Bruce
Happy ( oops, Gay ) Canadians

I know that I pushed it a bit to get to 23 years.

We've been aware of each other for over 23 years.

Simon

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by 9021951

Thank God ( not goodness ) gay marriage is legal in all of Canada.

My partner and I married 2004 June 26th and have been together since 1986 December.
That means we are in our 23 rd ( eeks, a prime number ) year as a couple.

Simon and Bruce
Happy ( oops, Gay ) Canadians

So you two have taken advantage of your country's forward thinking and married.
You're quite right. Even if it had to be after so many years together instead of at the more natural early stage of your relationship, justice has finally prevailed. I'll have a rethink with my man about it.

Any other gay forumites ready to reveal themselves and their partner, married or otherwise? This all helps to pull the bigotry down.

Brian.

[Brian-E]

A very well known Dutch journalist Peter van der Vorst and his husband have just adopted an American baby son called Levi.
I hope this photo of the three of them succesfully transfers into this posting.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

I did say in another post that there is a reason why polygamy is also unfair, but that reason isn't one that is really strong enough to ban it. It's simply that it seems unfair to have to share a spouse or divide one's attention between more than one spouse. Family, closer than second cousins, shouldn't be able to marry because of the genetic problems in having children because you really can't stop people from having sex fairly.

1. But, what if all 3 people engage with each other? there is no unfairness there. When I said a union of 3 I made no mention of gender. It could be any of 4 varients.

2. What if it were 2 people closer than 2nd cousins, but of the same gender, would that be an issue? What of cousins, etc. that are sterile or post child bearing?


Generally, even the most liberally mind people allow for restrictions on marriage. If love is the determining factor, why not remove the restrictions altogether. Allow a German shepard to marry a German Shepard.

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

1. But, what if all 3 people engage with each other? there is no unfairness there. When I said a union of 3 I made no mention of gender. It could be any of 4 varients.

2. What if it were 2 people closer than 2nd cousins, but of the same gender, would that be an issue? What of cousins, etc. that are sterile or post child bearing?


Generally, even the most liberally mind people allow for restrictions on marriage. If love is the determining factor, why not remove the restrictions altogether. Allow a German shepard to marry a German Shepard.

If they engaged in group sex and the like, you're right, it would make it "more fair", but there is still divided attention and the propensity for favortism. As for family members closer than second cousins marrying, the issue would go away about the genetic problem if they were gay or sterile, but I still think, and yes it is irrational, it would creep too many people out to actually vote it into law to be allowed. As for animals, until we can understand them, and what they truly want, animal marriages are not possible. You have to be able to consent to a marriage. As of now, we can't know if they are consenting or would consent to such a ceremony.

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

If they engaged in group sex and the like, you're right, it would make it "more fair", but there is still divided attention and the propensity for favortism. As for family members closer than second cousins marrying, the issue would go away about the genetic problem if they were gay or sterile, but I still think, and yes it is irrational, it would creep too many people out to actually vote it into law to be allowed. As for animals, until we can understand them, and what they truly want, animal marriages are not possible. You have to be able to consent to a marriage. As of now, we can't know if they are consenting or would consent to such a ceremony.

While I am done contributing my own ideas to this thread, I was wondering if you could clarify your position for me.

First, I thought "fairness" overruled any legislation against behaviors with "propensities". Did I misunderstand you? Your reason against polygamy looks very familiar.

Second, what about apes who can do hand-signs?