Gay Marriage Ban upheld in Washington State

[Elrohir]

Really? Do you think that a thousand years ago, or really even a hundred and fifty years ago, that I could have gone out on the town, gotten drunk, and had drunken sex with a woman I had just met that night that probably had a boyfriend without knowing her name? Nah, she'd have been stoned or whipped or something and I'd have been hanged for public debauchery. But now? It's acceptable public behaviour. In some parts of town, even expected.

What's socially acceptable behaviour for human beings, as a whole, has changed a whole lot since the time of Hammurabi!

Actually, in many places, you could.

Because the Church had so much power in Medieval Europe, everyone seems to assume that up until the modern day, everyone behaved themselves. Wrong. Outside of the monasteries, most of Europe was a mess for most of the Middle Ages, full of killing and sex and rape and stealing and only God-knows what else. Even 100 or 200 years ago, things weren't as "pure" as people think: People acted all polite and nice in Victorian England - but half the "gentlemen" still had mistresses that they slept with every other weekend. There actually was such thing as pornography then, toon - so even in "sexually repressed" Victorian England, there was plenty of sexual sin as well.

As depressing as it sounds, human nature really hasn't changed. Our society changes all the time, but not necessarily for the better - and human nature itself hasn't, not one bit. We're still the greedy, selfish, barely-under control savages we were 1000 or 2000 or 4000 years ago. (We just take more showers. )

 

[Pyrite]

That stuff all did happen, but it was the sexual behavior...of a sexually repressed people.
Keeping mistresses and hiding things and coverups are garbage. People can finally be fairly open these days about their sexual activities without being ostracized..(well unless yr talkin to backwards folks). Most people like sex, but if the culture is sexually repressive you need to have furtive little sexual encounters outside the limits of those condoned by the society. That's what has changed.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

I wasn't saying that human nature has changed - it hasn't. I'm saying what is socially acceptable behaviour has. Or perhaps, being open about said behaviour is what has changed the most. Try reading the last post I made right before yours; I know you didn't have time to as we were probably typing at the same time.

Back in Medieval Europe, of course not everybody behaved themselves. But you can't argue that what happens at nightclubs and bars all across the entire world was socially acceptable behaviour back then. It happened, sure, but that doesn't make it socially acceptable.

Of course, I realize that you're far too young for this discussion and are posting from a position of sheer ignorance...

 

[Elrohir]

I wasn't saying that human nature has changed - it hasn't. I'm saying what is socially acceptable behaviour has. Or perhaps, being open about said behaviour is what has changed the most. Try reading the last post I made right before yours; I know you didn't have time to as we were probably typing at the same time.

Back in Medieval Europe, of course not everybody behaved themselves. But you can't argue that what happens at nightclubs and bars all across the entire world was socially acceptable behaviour back then. It happened, sure, but that doesn't make it socially acceptable.

Socially acceptable behavior goes in cycles as well. Yes, we're very open about sex and violence these days - but not nearly so much as the Roman Empire was, 2000 years ago. Socially acceptable behavior does change over time, but too goes in cycles, becoming more conservative, then more liberal, and so on.

Actually, I'd say the average American is probably better behaved than the average European in the Middle Ages - certainly better than the "nobles".

Of course, I realize that you're far too young for this discussion and are posting from a position of sheer ignorance...

Ah, so because I'm young, I'm automatically wrong. Got it....

 

[Pyrite]

Of course, I realize that you're far too young for this discussion and are posting from a position of sheer ignorance...

Maybe if he was 12. At his age he knows what sex is. Stop dissin youth.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Socially acceptable behavior goes in cycles as well. Yes, we're very open about sex and violence these days - but not nearly so much as the Roman Empire was, 2000 years ago. Socially acceptable behavior does change over time, but too goes in cycles, becoming more conservative, then more liberal, and so on.

That doesn't deal with my point; not at all. Even back in the days of the Roman Empire, nobody ****ed anything with two legs and a warm, wet hole and then bragged about it to half the city. Now, it's acceptable, even expected for someone to brag about their conquests. There wasn't nightlife in the Roman Empire as there exists all round the world today. It just wasn't acceptable. Maybe somewhat comparable behaviour existed, but nobody was anywhere near as open about it, and that's what defines what's socially acceptable. Not what actually happened, but what was acceptable to be open about.

Actually, I'd say the average American is probably better behaved than the average European in the Middle Ages - certainly better than the "nobles".

Probably not. Certainly not the peasants, though maybe that's just because they were generally too poor to be too misbehaved.

Ah, so because I'm young, I'm automatically wrong. Got it....

Well, I didn't mean to be insulting, but you did choose to be offended! Let me put it this way: when was the last time you were in a bar? A nightclub? Had drunken sex? A one-night stand? What's socially acceptable for me is different from what's socially acceptable for you, even though we're not actually tremendously far apart in age.

 

[Gladi]

Maybe this has already been thrashed out in the endless gay marriage threads, which I have generally avoided reading. (Hooray for me! ) But let me point it out anyway, just in case:
You do not have the right to marry the person that you love. There are numerous limitations on a person's right to marry, including the following, which I'm coming up with just off the top of my head:
1. She [gender assumed, for ease of discussion] has to want to marry you.
2. You can't marry anyone if you are already married.
3. You can't marry your beloved - no matter how willing she is - if she is already married.
4. Neither of you can marry if one or both of you are below the legal age of consent.
5. Animals: right out. (Same thing goes for objects and abstract concepts.)
6. You need a license from the state in which you're marrying.
7. Some states impose mandatory delays or pre-requisites, blood tests and so forth.
I'll concede that some of these are a little far-fetched: not too many farmers are protesting the right to marry their tractors, but most of these do have advocates, claiming that they suffer discrimination because they are denied their choice of marriage partner. NAMBLA and polygamist groups being two examples. (Although you could fairly criticize the NAMBLA example as being a protest of state regulation of sex, rather than regulation of marriage.) The point is, the state (government) has always regulated marriage, and always imposed limits, even if most of us don't bump into these limits, or at least not very often.

So would you agree that name of the game is consent? Then there is genetic problem of incestuous relationships which rules out sexual relationship - maybe that should be the legal factor, and the the "icky gradient"? Of course some studies state that same-sex partnership is bad for children (though every study from both sides are debatable) - that is good reason, alas it is somewhat in doubt... So if that is not proof, what to use? Icky gradient?

Oh and btw, what is wrong with group marriages (hmm should I start a thread...)

 

[warpus]

Why do want to prevent gay people from legally marrying? Its not like their going to marry and then start rapping you.

We be married yo
Slap muh fro

East siiide

 

[Stegyre]

So would you agree that name of the game is consent? Then there is genetic problem of incestuous relationships which rules out sexual relationship - maybe that should be the legal factor, and the the "icky gradient"?

No. What gave you that idea? I thought I made clear as early as point 3 that even consent may not be sufficient. Your catch of incest is one I missed, darn it:

8. Generally speaking, you can't marry your brother, sister, mother, father, child, grandparent, grandchild, blood-aunt or -uncle, or first cousin.

 

[Shadylookin]

Thats because of racial discrimination. Sexual preference is a different situation all together

I was making a comparison that marriage has been changed beause the courts have ruled laws unconstitutional. Of course one could always make the argument that by not allowing me to marry a man as well as a women you are commiting gender discrimination.

And the laws that have passed in 45 states have been found to be Constitutional.......unlike the ones you mention. So, if the laws have met the state supreme court test of constitutionality, then what recourse do you have? Not much I would think.

I said with time things will change. as the acceptance of homosexuals increases so will our willingness to let them marry.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Actually, all throughout Canada, it's legal to marry your first cousin. It's that way in at least a significant minority of American states (I can't be bothered to look it up as wikipedia is blocked here).

 

[Yeeek]

Man why are gay/lesbian such a problem in some people's mind? Is it their lives? As far as i understand it doesn't relate to them in anyway, does it?

Is it such a problem because of their religious, moral belief? Or is it because they are afraid that if marriage of same sex is perfectly normal, they children will openly tell them they are lesbian/gay?

 

[Gladi]

No. What gave you that idea? I thought I made clear as early as point 3 that even consent may not be sufficient. Your catch of incest is one I missed, darn it:

8. Generally speaking, you can't marry your brother, sister, mother, father, child, grandparent, grandchild, blood-aunt or -uncle, or first cousin.

Ah in my view number 2 and 3 are about consent too. You cannot give personal consent because you are already part of family-unit and thus not posessing certain personal rights. Of course my view is that family-unit should be able to give consent to marry itself to further people.

 

[Rambuchan]

Ram, dude, you rant on all the time about sins, too - and clearly other don't agree with some of your sins either. In fact, you're ranting about ranting about sins being a sin!

I suppose you thought about what that makes your post then...?

But you make a good point. I was simply answering MobBoss' question, giving some indication how every thread on this subject turns out like....

Spoiler :

A:

B:

A: !!

B:

A:

B:

A:

B:

A:

Mod Action: Holidays!!

Might as well everybody rail against all the sins, I think it's more fun, and that way we get more exposure to ALL the sins.

Like I said somewhere else, OT would surely be a brawl pit if we were not all separated by miles and hardware.

 

[GenMarshall]

Well, I am happy that the states are taking an innitiative to place marriage as between a man and a woman.

@Rambuchan - Umm, I would not use that similated mod action tag if I were you. Its against the rules to use the mod tags or simulate a mod tag.

 

[El_Machinae]

I suppose you thought about what that makes your post then...?

Since I don't claim it to be a sin ... I guess I was ... trolling? Or just keeping you honest. Pick your favourite.

BTW: Statement in Spoiler = Teh Ubar.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

At one point I would bother to have an opinion on homosexuals getting married but at this point, who cares is my official stance. Two guys want to dress it all up, walk down the isle and do the man dance more power to'em.

 

[blargh]

I would like to applaud the people of Washington state in upholding the conservative values of Emperor Constantine and to a lesser extent, teh original WASP Henry VIII ( he had syphillis and headless wives ).

 

[toh6wy]

Actually, in many places, you could.

Because the Church had so much power in Medieval Europe, everyone seems to assume that up until the modern day, everyone behaved themselves. Wrong. Outside of the monasteries, most of Europe was a mess for most of the Middle Ages, full of killing and sex and rape and stealing and only God-knows what else. Even 100 or 200 years ago, things weren't as "pure" as people think: People acted all polite and nice in Victorian England - but half the "gentlemen" still had mistresses that they slept with every other weekend. There actually was such thing as pornography then, toon - so even in "sexually repressed" Victorian England, there was plenty of sexual sin as well.

As depressing as it sounds, human nature really hasn't changed. Our society changes all the time, but not necessarily for the better - and human nature itself hasn't, not one bit. We're still the greedy, selfish, barely-under control savages we were 1000 or 2000 or 4000 years ago. (We just take more showers. )

So is your point that disapproving of homosexuality and disallowing gays from having their relationships recognized officially is a basic, unchanging part of human nature? Somehow, I don't think that's the case.

 

[Kyriakos]

Ram, nice puppet theatre of the smilies. It would serve as a comedic play about the grand historical event of battle between mobboss and his enemies