Old Hippy
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2011
- Messages
- 3,606
they used to tell people it was ... but NO, its south AFRICAN
On Same-sex and Extended Marriage
- Thread starter Snorrius
- Start date
they used to tell people it was ... but NO, its south AFRICAN
OK So if I'm understanding this correctly - you have an avatar of a gay japanimation character and you started up a thread which is sort of against same-sex marriage. Either you're just doing this as a joke or you've got some psychological issues. Are you a repressed gay or something?
Edit - on second thought I realize that's an extremely personal question and I don't expect you to answer it but I have to admit that's what I'm thinking.
Edit - on second thought I realize that's an extremely personal question and I don't expect you to answer it but I have to admit that's what I'm thinking.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
So, originally KhoiSan, then squeezed between Bantu and Dutch, infiltrated by South Asians, annexed by British.....? The Chinese are doing their thing too, now.
Perfection
The Great Head.
RANDOM COMMENT FROM SOMEONE WHO READ NONE OF WHAT ANYONE ELSE SAID:
Polygamous relationships would be much harder to implement in law because going from 2 parties to more is a royal pain (instead of A. Vs. B, we got A Vs. B, B vs C, and C vs A).
Same sex marriage is much easier to implement because it follows the same structure as traditional marriage.
So for those who call for extended marriage you need to be much more specific on the rules behind it.
ANYWAYS PERFS OUT!
Polygamous relationships would be much harder to implement in law because going from 2 parties to more is a royal pain (instead of A. Vs. B, we got A Vs. B, B vs C, and C vs A).
Same sex marriage is much easier to implement because it follows the same structure as traditional marriage.
So for those who call for extended marriage you need to be much more specific on the rules behind it.
ANYWAYS PERFS OUT!
Leifmk
Deity
I agree. Laws etc. pertaining to marriage and divorce and so forth may be horribly complicated as they stand, but they are (mostly) working and tested. Adding a third party (or more) would increase the complexity by some stupid factor; not saying it couldn't be done but it wouldn't be quick or easy. By comparison, changing the laws to implement same-sex marriage on an equal footing to hetero marriage is nearly trivial, and has caused very few problems in places where it's been done.
(Here in Norway we had one of those separate-but-nearly-equal civil partnership things for a good while before we went to full marriage for everyone a couple of years ago. I think the biggest expense when the partnership thing came along was all those forms and legal texts that had to be amended to say "spouse or registered partner" instead of just "spouse". Would have been simpler to cut out the middle stage but I guess the public opinion wasn't quite ready for that in 1993.)
Thorgalaeg
Deity
To be precise, there is not a single anglo-saxon country with same-sex marriage fully legalized. (well, excepting Canada, but it is not completely anglo-saxon either)
HannibalBarka
We are Free
Granting specific rights to russian minorites in the Baltic states is not useful to the majority of the people in "Baltica", do you think the same about the issue?
and i don't see what's harmful in a same sex marriage, i therefore don't see what's the big deal?
and i don't see what's harmful in a same sex marriage, i therefore don't see what's the big deal?
dusters
Emperor
The "specific rights" was meant that Russian is an official second language in Latvia and that's a big deal for post USSR country whose capital has 42% latvians and 40% russians. We had this for voting and it was turned down.
The same sex lmarriage has to do with post-USSR legacy as well. In USSR homosexuals were treated as mentally ill, so basically many older people here still think of them as such. Plus the local church (all the branches) protest all the time against any tiny activity the LGBT organisation does.
Illinois has civil unions, rather than marriage, but either produces legal spouses. The civil union legislation says "civil union spouses" and "marriage spouses". I guess this is so they don't have to amend all the other forms.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
Okay, I'm going to resurrect this thread from the dead because I think the OP is interesting - even if I do not wholly agree with it.
The Romans practiced gay marriage to a very limited degree, around the time when the Roman Republic collapsed and was displaced by the Empire. However, do note that gay marriages were often considered satirical and the few ones that were taken seriously actually had one castrated spouse.
The Romans practiced gay marriage to a very limited degree, around the time when the Roman Republic collapsed and was displaced by the Empire. However, do note that gay marriages were often considered satirical and the few ones that were taken seriously actually had one castrated spouse.
warpus
In pork I trust
Does it matter what people used to do 2,000 years ago though? I mean, the reasons for the family structures to exist as they did are completely different from the reasons we have today.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
Well, let's be frank: Gayness is a sexual orientation that actually exists. It also is very rare. It was rare 2000 years ago, and it'll be rare today and possibly in the future as well. I'm not really opposed to gay marriage or supportive, though I probably wouldn't marry with another guy if I happened to be gay: Marriage will always be seen as a primarily opposite sex kind-of-thing and I think it would be ridiculous to attempt 100% replication of rights and duties for same-sex couples as for opposite-sex couples.
Is the OP trying to get us to stop caring about same sex marriage, but trying to refocus on polygamous marriage rights with the idea of 'encapsulting' same sex marriage into the success?
I can understand and not understand at the same time. I think polygamy is on the slippery slope. If the goal is polygamy, same sex marriage helps gets us there.
To me, it's akin to saying we should stop worrying about malaria and just work on poverty instead. I mean, sure, I can see how eliminating poverty gets us malaria-free. But fighting malaria also helps us fight poverty.
The OP might be experiencing some hostility because of his seeming attack on 'feminism', which will put people into a defense, offended posture.
I can understand and not understand at the same time. I think polygamy is on the slippery slope. If the goal is polygamy, same sex marriage helps gets us there.
To me, it's akin to saying we should stop worrying about malaria and just work on poverty instead. I mean, sure, I can see how eliminating poverty gets us malaria-free. But fighting malaria also helps us fight poverty.
The OP might be experiencing some hostility because of his seeming attack on 'feminism', which will put people into a defense, offended posture.
So you found one, very weak, example. How does that really speak to the OP's point?
warpus
In pork I trust
I disagree completely. I think that marriage is slowly evolving into an legal way for two (or more?) people to get together and live a life together while effectively sharing resources.
The opposite gender thing is just there because we used to use marriage to merge families together and to give people heirs.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Since this thread has been bumped back up, I'll add on the Anglo-Saxon conspiracy theory that the first part of North America to embrace Same-sex marriages (political support, popular support) was the one not-Anglo-Saxon province.
And the political party that did it (while in power at the time) was the one that want OUT of the Anglo-Saxon world.
(Specifically: the Parti Québécois, which explicitly came out in support of same-sex marriage as early as 2002, while in power. They went on to get a Civil Union law passed; because constitutionally speaking defining who can get married is a federal competence. They made it explicit that had marriage been a provincial sphere, it would have been same sex marriage without bothering with civil unions).
And the political party that did it (while in power at the time) was the one that want OUT of the Anglo-Saxon world.
(Specifically: the Parti Québécois, which explicitly came out in support of same-sex marriage as early as 2002, while in power. They went on to get a Civil Union law passed; because constitutionally speaking defining who can get married is a federal competence. They made it explicit that had marriage been a provincial sphere, it would have been same sex marriage without bothering with civil unions).
Mango Elephant
Deity
lol and why is that?
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
Precedent. It isn't as if it might never happen, though it just unlikely.
You could've stopped there and been completely right. Bernicia, Deira, and the like died out a long time ago.
