Battlezone Forums

General BlackDragon wrote:Mairriage is just a non sensical piece of paper and taboo invented by man.

Small little correction: its invented by religion, later adapted by man as a standard of some sort.
Within religion its also very clear, its a union between a man and a women. However in modern standards its no longer a part of religion but a part of the state (religion cant marry you over here anymore, at least not legally). In that context I personally also dont see any issue with any form of marriage as its just an other bureaucratic feature that makes you pay for something that shouldnt cost a thing to start with. So if you can pay for you wedding, you should be able to.
Wether marriage for a religion should be made acceptable for gay-couples I dont know, not something I really care a lot about.

Setting the religious aspect of marriage aside, there are many aspects of marriage gays don't enjoy.

- Estate planning
- Passing the higher social security to a surviving spouse
- Property transfer from a deceased partner without relatives coming in and taking everything
- Health care packages
- No gift taxes for married couples
- Marital no testimony privilege in court

To name a few.

All this denied to gay couples, who, in my opinion don't choose to be gay, anymore than I choose to be straight.

Don't get me wrong, I have very uncomfortable base response when I imagine two dudes going 'bareback mountain', (not so much with two women ) but that's my problem. That shouldn't influence the happiness of gays to have a full and rewarding life.

Psychedelic Rhino wrote:Setting the religious aspect of marriage aside, there are many aspects of marriage gays don't enjoy.

That's a bit of a generalisation. They might well do for all you know, even if heterosexual couples don't

Psychedelic Rhino wrote:All this denied to gay couples, who, in my opinion don't choose to be gay, anymore than I choose to be straight.

Quite correct. Nobody chooses to be; they simply are.

Quite correct. Nobody chooses to be; they simply are.

I think it is more, they become. I don't expect (and hope they don't) that they will ever find a "genetic" cause determining sexuality.
Humans are in far less control of themselves than they like to think they are, we are shaped by the many complex aspects of the world we live in, blaming someone for becoming gay is much like blaming someone for being short.

Attraction is down to a chemical imbalance in the brain; I would assume the same applies to determining what or whom you are attracted to.

Aside: I've been engaged in an utterly hilarious argument with a bunch of prejudiced false-christians (the kind who use religion as an outlet for face, the "last refuge of a scoundrel" kind) about homosexuality. I hadn't realised until today how funny it is to wind up a zealot when you know their text better than they do.

I'm pretty confident sexual preference gets 'locked in' for 99.9% of people way back in early development. If not at conception, at least not more that a few months after birth.

I have this distinct memory of a young attractive mother in my neighborhood getting our ball out of her roof gutter when I was like 6, me holding the ladder and seeing up her dress and remembering it was something "great". That just didn't happen with men in bathing suits to me.

Then that's just the way it worked out for you. The problem is that we can theorise all we want, but we are only ever really speaking for ourselves.

However, attraction *is* down to pheromones and chemicals. There are people who are normally straight, but attracted to only a specific few of the same sex. And vice versa. And people who are attracted to only the same sex. It just comes down to the way things react. Chemical imbalances and all the biological stuff nobody ever understands in high school.

'Chemicals' is a sort of given, and doesn't say a whole lot, since chemicals influence all emotional reactions.

Pheromones play only a very small role in preference. ..Choosing.. a mate of your sexual preference...yes.

But I don't need to smell a woman to know she's my choice over a male.

This counts as my interesting article of the day:

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/sci ... 2049.story

Psychedelic Rhino wrote:All this denied to gay couples, who, in my opinion don't choose to be gay, anymore than I choose to be straight.

Thats an interesting statement. I see it used often for gay-people, but when it comes to pedofiles, those are just sick ....
(Dont get me wrong though, acting upon the feeling is different than having it, but having the feeling already is a very wrong 'choice'.)

Red Spot wrote:Thats an interesting statement. I see it used often for gay-people, but when it comes to pedofiles, those are just sick ....

The question of rather or not it's a "choice" doesn't really matter, the homo's should have their rights to get married anyway. It's the civilized thing to do. You don't need to treat it like a pathos if there's nothing wrong with it.

You're taking my statement the wrong way. What I mean to say with it is that hetero's homo's and even pedofile's do not choose for their own sexual orientation. The fact that someone feels something isnt something you should refer to as sick or whatever. Even when acted upon it doesnt have to be wrong, I've known plenty of couples where one was over 18 and one was under 18, which makes the one over 18 a pedofile. Yet at the same time an 80year old who dates a 20year old is called a smart man ...
I.o.w. as long as both parties (or even more) are content with their relation (every party involved being able to make a proper decision on their own) than who do you think you are when you as outsider try to lecture them?

Red Spot wrote:You're taking my statement the wrong way. What I mean to say with it is that hetero's homo's and even pedofile's do not choose for their own sexual orientation. The fact that someone feels something isnt something you should refer to as sick or whatever. Even when acted upon it doesnt have to be wrong, I've known plenty of couples where one was over 18 and one was under 18, which makes the one over 18 a pedofile. Yet at the same time an 80year old who dates a 20year old is called a smart man ...

Good points. I think you can find aspects all through our system of law to tweak. It is a very subjective perspective when it comes to relationships with all of us. As you said, an old man and a young girl seems 'obvious' there more than paternal love involved. The Courtney Stodden marriage to Doug Hutchison, or the marriage of J. Howard Marshall marriage to Anna Nicole Smith, seems distasteful. . .but it's legal. While technically a girl who just turned 18 can be prosecuted as a pedophile for havng a sexual relationship with a boy that is 17 years and 11 months old. Now I realize, in reality, the girl probably would never be prosecuted no matter how much pressure is exerted on the local DA by boy's parents.

Sharia law takes all this to a whole new level:

"Under Muslim law, the wife must submit to the man’s request for sex, instantaneouly and unconditionally. Technically, the concept of “marital rape” is meaningless under Shari’ah. The Qur’an states men may demand sex at any time, comparing the wife’s body to farmland ready for plowing and seed. The Qur’an says in Sura 2 “The Cow,” suras 222-223

There is no minimum age of marriage for girls under Islamic Shari’ah law. Child brides are not uncommon in Islamic society, but generally no marriage should be consummated (dukhul) until the female hits puberty. Muhammad married his wife A’isha when she was 6 and consummated the relationship at age 9"

The good news is that any nation with differing laws will overrule sharia law.

Red Spot wrote:

General BlackDragon wrote:Mairriage is just a non sensical piece of paper and taboo invented by man.

Small little correction: its invented by religion, later adapted by man as a standard of some sort.
Within religion its also very clear, its a union between a man and a women. However in modern standards its no longer a part of religion but a part of the state (religion cant marry you over here anymore, at least not legally). In that context I personally also dont see any issue with any form of marriage as its just an other bureaucratic feature that makes you pay for something that shouldnt cost a thing to start with. So if you can pay for you wedding, you should be able to.
Wether marriage for a religion should be made acceptable for gay-couples I dont know, not something I really care a lot about.

Actually, marriage pre-dates religion (particularly Christianity). In a modern context it has evolved beyond religious relevance only in societies and countries where it was primarily a religious device beforehand.
The fact that religious groups claim sole ownership of marriage is ridiculous. As has been pointed out, churches don't issue marriage licenses, the state does. With that license go the rights outlined by BFT. THAT is the primary obstacle gay couples face in some countries.

If said couple wants to religious marriage, that's entirely different matter altogether. Here there are churches that will accommodate that, but not entirely that many.