Thread: Gay Marriage - a possible solution for all sides

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

Sure sure, we're just so "irrational."

We're just crazy and irrational to "get upset" about puppets "getting married."

It's not that Sesame Street is a show for little kids to enjoy.

It's not that it is irrational to promote a homosexual "cause" on a childrens show by having two obviously male puppets "get married."

No, no none of that.

It is US that are "quite irrational."


Never a shortage of dim bulbs at the Home Depot, never a shortage of "dim bulbs" right here


Right ?


Of course :rolleyes:

Tell me how you feel about pig/frog puppet marriage. You have no issue with Sesame Street indoctrinating kids into interspecies marriage?

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

Tell me how you feel about pig/frog puppet marriage. You have no issue with Sesame Street indoctrinating kids into interspecies marriage?

Yeah, lets talk about that whole pig-frog thing :rolleyes:


... some other time after I've lost enough I.Q. points to think it has something to do with what we're talking about.


... 50 or 60 years from now I'll probably be confused enough to think you're making a good 'argument' here


We'll get back to it then K ? I might have to adjust my dentures and hearing aid ... but you'll be patient I'm sure

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

Yeah, lets talk about that whole pig-frog thing :rolleyes:


... some other time after I've lost enough I.Q. points to think it has something to do with what we're talking about.


... 50 or 60 years from now I'll probably be confused enough to think you're making a good 'argument' here


We'll get back to it then K ? I might have to adjust my dentures and hearing aid ... but you'll be patient I'm sure

It's very pertinent to the topic. You have no issue with two completely different species of puppets getting married, but have a huge issue with two puppets of the same species, but same sex getting married.

You also have no issue with the possible marriage of Grundgetta and Oscar the Grouch, when it's quite obvious that they don't have the ability to properly care for children.



You also don't seem to take issue with dead puppets getting shacked up, either, since I haven't heard a peep out of you concerning the undead marriage of two vampires, Count Von Count and Countess Von Backwards.



I also haven't heard any outcry over Snuffleupagus and how he's pretty much left for caring of his young sister Alice. The show is basically promoting absentee parenting and yet you seem to have no concern.



So, here we have Sesame Street promoting interspecies marriage, dead beat parenting, necrophilia, and homelessness. And yet you're just angry about two responsible puppets who love each other getting married, simply because they're both make believe guys.

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

"Can't even wait...can you" implies that you were accusing Speakeasy of personally indoctrinating children..

What absurdity. Implies no such thing.

!Personally, I am in favor of the skateboard/submarine argument. Words mean things people! If you try to call a skateboard a submarine, then don't blame us when you can't breath riding that thing through the Mariana trench! This really simplifies the debate over gay marriage and makes discussions about human rights and equal protection unnecessary. Is a skateboard a submarine? Is it? I want to see some kind of citation that proves skateboards can be used as submarines before I'll entertain any more arguments for gay marriage. Unless you can show that, the whole argument falls apart.

Thats why they attach the description "gay" to marriage, because it certainly isnt a "marriage"

Definition of MATRIMONY
: the union of man and woman as husband and wife : marriage...
Origin of MATRIMONY
Middle English, from Anglo-French matrimoignie, from Latin matrimonium, from matr-, mater mother, matron — more at mother
Matrimony - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."
Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition, defines marriage as follows:

"A state of being married, or being united to a person or persons of the opposite sex as husband or wife; also, the mutual relation of husband and wife; wedlock; abstractly, the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence, for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family."

The Century Dictionary and Encyclopedia defines marriage as:

"The legal union of a man with a woman for life; the state or condition of being married; the legal relation of spouses to each other; wedlock; the formal declaration or contract by which a man and a woman join in wedlock."

Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, defines marriage as:

"The civil status, condition or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex."...

In substance, the relationship proposed by the appellants does not authorize the issuance of a marriage license because what they propose is not a marriage.
FindACase™ | Jones v. Hallahan

Originally Posted by CharlesDavenport

Leave marriage alone, and just call gay "marriage" blidvert. I'm all for blidvert. I don't care who gets blidverted. It just isn't marriage.

Good idea, Charles, but they tried that in California (and elsewhere, of course). They didn't call it "blidvert," though: They called it "domestic partnership" or "civil union."

Unfortunately, homosexuals weren't particularly interested in civil unions or domestic partnerships because they have mostly stayed away in droves (to quote yogi Berra). California's domestic partnership civil code (971, I believe is the number out there) even goes so far as to define a civil union as having the SAME priveledges and responsibilities as marriage. Yet comparatively few have availed themselves of this opportunity.

If they were genuinely interested in having the same rights, city hall would be having to schedule months ahead just to handle the overflow. But homosexuals and their advocates are not interested in having the same rights. They have to have the word "marriage" or they'll stomp their little feet all the way home in a huff.

Originally Posted by Good1

Good idea, Charles, but they tried that in California (and elsewhere, of course). They didn't call it "blidvert," though: They called it "domestic partnership" or "civil union."

Unfortunately, homosexuals weren't particularly interested in civil unions or domestic partnerships because they have mostly stayed away in droves (to quote yogi Berra). California's domestic partnership civil code (971, I believe is the number out there) even goes so far as to define a civil union as having the SAME priveledges and responsibilities as marriage. Yet comparatively few have availed themselves of this opportunity.

If they were genuinely interested in having the same rights, city hall would be having to schedule months ahead just to handle the overflow. But homosexuals and their advocates are not interested in having the same rights. They have to have the word "marriage" or they'll stomp their little feet all the way home in a huff.

They are not exactly interested in marriage either. In the countries with the longest history of gay mariiage, they are seeing 1/2 of 1% of all marriages are same sex marriage. Monogamy is a foreign concept to most gays.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

They are not exactly interested in marriage either. In the countries with the longest history of gay mariiage, they are seeing 1/2 of 1% of all marriages are same sex marriage. Monogamy is a foreign concept to most gays.

From own experience and the experience of friends I can assure you that monogamy also seems to be a foreign concept to most heterosexuals.

Originally Posted by dorian

From own experience and the experience of friends I can assure you that monogamy also seems to be a foreign concept to most heterosexuals.

Actually, it was in comparison to heterosexuals that I was referring to. Monagamy is all about answering the age old question of, "who is your daddy". It is presumed by law to be the husband. Not an issue in same sex relationships.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Thats why they attach the description "gay" to marriage, because it certainly isnt a "marriage"

Well, your appeal is to a perfectly static language, and English has never been that. If you remember, the word gay hasn't always been used to describe sexuality. Clearly, we are breaking new ground by allowing an expanded concept of what marriage is. It would be a big change for us to accept same-sex marriage as equivalent to the more traditional understanding. But change itself is not inherently good or bad. Your appeal to tradition doesn't really tell us anything about the validity of the gay marriage concept. You may not realize you were basically saying, "I like static definitions of words, and I like traditional social constructs, therefore I don't believe gay marriage is legitimate." I bet that is not as sound an argument as it seemed when you were constructing it.

Originally Posted by sammy

But change itself is not inherently good or bad. Your appeal to tradition doesn't really tell us anything about the validity of the gay marriage concept. .

Its a grasp on reality, not an appeal to tradition. Birds each spring pairing off into couples made up of a male and female is no more a result of tradition than the limitation of marriage to a male and female is tradition. Its biology.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Its a grasp on reality, not an appeal to tradition. Birds each spring pairing off into couples made up of a male and female is no more a result of tradition than the limitation of marriage to a male and female is tradition. Its biology.

Guess what - animals can be gay. It's reality, and it's biology, and it blows your argument out of the water:

Can Animals Be Gay? - NYTimes.com

Young has been researching the albatrosses on Oahu since 2003; the colony was the focus of her doctoral dissertation at the University of Hawaii, Manoa, which she completed last spring. (She now works on conservation projects as a biologist for hire.) In the course of her doctoral work, Young and a colleague discovered, almost incidentally, that a third of the pairs at Kaena Point actually consisted of two female birds, not one male and one female. Laysan albatrosses are one of countless species in which the two sexes look basically identical. It turned out that many of the female-female pairs, at Kaena Point and at a colony that Young’s colleague studied on Kauai, had been together for 4, 8 or even 19 years — as far back as the biologists’ data went, in some cases. The female-female pairs had been incubating eggs together, rearing chicks and just generally passing under everybody’s nose for what you might call “straight” couples.