Gay Uncle Toms?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2010 5:41 PM GMT
    Off and on I catch myself reading sites like http://www.gaypatriot.net/ . I read things that thoroughly piss me off, like how they ripped into the young lesbiean teen who was sent to a FAKE prom, how they claimed teenagers are to busy to care about their sexuality, how they claim "gay leftist" want to smear people who are simply "un-pc", how easily they roll over and grovel and beg for rights they deserve.

    Social conservatives are not our masters, why do some gays feel that we need to pander and coddle them so that they are comfortable with us? Isn't that what being out and proud is all about, being who you are and never compromising that for the sake of "tolerance"?

    Its like these people forget that we are openly mocked, attacked, beaten, killed, fired from our jobs, denied jobs, denied housing, discriminated against by the justice system, and have an entire multi million dollar business designed to "cure" us.

    Am I missing something? icon_neutral.gif


    Also, this: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/05/16/1632958/transgender-candidate-a-label.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2010 6:05 PM GMT
    My dear, you forget several key facts:

    First, some people only care for their own selfish interests. And when they think those interests are economic, and mistakingly believe Republican lies that only Republicans will bring prosperity, some unsophisticated gays choose a political party that also wants gays suppressed & punished.

    Second, some gays are just stupid. True, there are studies that show that gay men are smarter on average than the average straight man, but that doesn't preclude certain gays from being as stupid as rocks. These are the ones who buy into anti-gay lies as easily as many straights do, unable to realize the personal threat to their own selves.

    Third, some gays are simply wimps. Raised in a culture that makes them cower at anything that confronts their gayness, they cave at any other encounter with straights. Whether it be Republican politician or fundamentalist Christian preacher, they wilt when challenged.

    Fourth, some gays are conflicted about who they are. Just like gay Republican politicians and Christian clergy, they hate the thing they are. Consumed by guilt & remorse, they inflict their own angst on the rest of us. They do so through political topics, and through religion, and we read their posts here every day.

    Well, I think being gay is a gift and a privilege, and I'm sick & tired of maladjusted gays throwing a monkey wrench into these threads. If you're not happy being gay, or have some other issues with it, then please do join a site dedicated to your "cure." But leave the rest of us out of your neurotic issues. Fair?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2010 6:45 PM GMT
    Red_Vespa saidMy dear, you forget several key facts:

    First, some people only care for their own selfish interests. And when they think those interests are economic, and mistakingly believe Republican lies that only Republicans will bring prosperity, some unsophisticated gays choose a political party that also wants gays suppressed & punished.

    Second, some gays are just stupid. True, there are studies that show that gay men are smarter on average than the average straight man, but that doesn't preclude certain gays from being as stupid as rocks. These are the ones who buy into anti-gay lies as easily as many straights do, unable to realize the personal threat to their own selves.

    Third, some gays are simply wimps. Raised in a culture that makes them cower at anything that confronts their gayness, they cave at any other encounter with straights. Whether it be Republican politician or fundamentalist Christian preacher, they wilt when challenged.

    Fourth, some gays are conflicted about who they are. Just like gay Republican politicians and Christian clergy, they hate the thing they are. Consumed by guilt & remorse, they inflict their own angst on the rest of us. They do so through political topics, and through religion, and we read their posts here every day.

    Well, I think being gay is a gift and a privilege, and I'm sick & tired of maladjusted gays throwing a monkey wrench into these threads. If you're not happy being gay, or have some other issues with it, then please do join a site dedicated to your "cure." But leave the rest of us out of your neurotic issues. Fair?


    Which category do you think Liz Cheney falls under?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2010 7:33 PM GMT
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    Red_Vespa saidMy dear, you forget several key facts:

    First, some people only care for their own selfish interests. And when they think those interests are economic, and mistakingly believe Republican lies that only Republicans will bring prosperity, some unsophisticated gays choose a political party that also wants gays suppressed & punished.

    Second, some gays are just stupid. True, there are studies that show that gay men are smarter on average than the average straight man, but that doesn't preclude certain gays from being as stupid as rocks. These are the ones who buy into anti-gay lies as easily as many straights do, unable to realize the personal threat to their own selves.

    Third, some gays are simply wimps. Raised in a culture that makes them cower at anything that confronts their gayness, they cave at any other encounter with straights. Whether it be Republican politician or fundamentalist Christian preacher, they wilt when challenged.

    Fourth, some gays are conflicted about who they are. Just like gay Republican politicians and Christian clergy, they hate the thing they are. Consumed by guilt & remorse, they inflict their own angst on the rest of us. They do so through political topics, and through religion, and we read their posts here every day.

    Well, I think being gay is a gift and a privilege, and I'm sick & tired of maladjusted gays throwing a monkey wrench into these threads. If you're not happy being gay, or have some other issues with it, then please do join a site dedicated to your "cure." But leave the rest of us out of your neurotic issues. Fair?


    Which category do you think Liz Cheney falls under?


    Yes, because calling people who will actually stand up for things they believe in and don't believe the same things you do is worthy of calling them racist names like "uncle toms".

    You didn't even bother to read the actual post you rant about:
    http://www.gaypatriot.net/2010/05/18/why-does-gay-left-insist-on-smearing-non-pc-ideas-as-hate/

    To me there's a difference between civil unions and marriage. I happen to believe that governments should not be in the business of any sort of marriage and granting solely civil unions. After all, why would we want "the man" (which in your politically colored world also includes Republicans) in between two of the most important relationships a guy can have - with your mate and God (for those who believe)? Besides, while most of the public believes there should be the same legal rights granted for all and therefore support civil unions, they do not support gay marriage - so why are you being deliberately antagonistic? There is a clear path for equal rights, why is the name that has very specific religious connotations that important (and even apparently more so than the underlying rights)? Apparently in your little world this means that I am motivated by "hate".

    As for believing that anyone who isn't a leftwing extremist must therefore be Republican? That's frankly, also just ignorant.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2010 7:50 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    Red_Vespa saidMy dear, you forget several key facts:

    First, some people only care for their own selfish interests. And when they think those interests are economic, and mistakingly believe Republican lies that only Republicans will bring prosperity, some unsophisticated gays choose a political party that also wants gays suppressed & punished.

    Second, some gays are just stupid. True, there are studies that show that gay men are smarter on average than the average straight man, but that doesn't preclude certain gays from being as stupid as rocks. These are the ones who buy into anti-gay lies as easily as many straights do, unable to realize the personal threat to their own selves.

    Third, some gays are simply wimps. Raised in a culture that makes them cower at anything that confronts their gayness, they cave at any other encounter with straights. Whether it be Republican politician or fundamentalist Christian preacher, they wilt when challenged.

    Fourth, some gays are conflicted about who they are. Just like gay Republican politicians and Christian clergy, they hate the thing they are. Consumed by guilt & remorse, they inflict their own angst on the rest of us. They do so through political topics, and through religion, and we read their posts here every day.

    Well, I think being gay is a gift and a privilege, and I'm sick & tired of maladjusted gays throwing a monkey wrench into these threads. If you're not happy being gay, or have some other issues with it, then please do join a site dedicated to your "cure." But leave the rest of us out of your neurotic issues. Fair?


    Which category do you think Liz Cheney falls under?


    Yes, because calling people who will actually stand up for things they believe in and don't believe the same things you do is worthy of calling them racist names like "uncle toms".

    You didn't even bother to read the actual post you rant about:
    http://www.gaypatriot.net/2010/05/18/why-does-gay-left-insist-on-smearing-non-pc-ideas-as-hate/

    To me there's a difference between civil unions and marriage. I happen to believe that governments should not be in the business of any sort of marriage and granting solely civil unions. After all, why would we want "the man" (which in your politically colored world also includes Republicans) in between two of the most important relationships a guy can have - with your mate and God (for those who believe)? Besides, while most of the public believes there should be the same legal rights granted for all and therefore support civil unions, they do not support gay marriage - so why are you being deliberately antagonistic? There is a clear path for equal rights, why is the name that has very specific religious connotations that important (and even apparently more so than the underlying rights)? Apparently in your little world this means that I am motivated by "hate".

    As for believing that anyone who isn't a leftwing extremist must therefore be Republican? That's frankly, also just ignorant.




    Riddler, you say a lot of interesting things, would you care to clarify any of them?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2010 8:53 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    There is a clear path for equal rights, why is the name that has very specific religious connotations that important (and even apparently more so than the underlying rights)?

    As for believing that anyone who isn't a leftwing extremist must therefore be Republican? That's frankly, also just ignorant.
    Actually.. that little "name" you are referring to is a BLOCK to 'equal rights'. Apparently you are as ignorant to how the world operates realistically as the poster you accused of being ignorant.
    The states where the 'rights' to legalities are coded, i.e. domestic partnership/gay 'Marriage', gay citizens are STILL blocked from visitation/survivorship etc from those who "dont support gay marriage and NEVER WILL even if its the law.

    The speed limit is 35 mph. (how many actually obey that law?)

    Understand now?
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    May 18, 2010 8:56 PM GMT
    Red_Vespa saidMy dear, you forget several key facts:

    First, some people only care for their own selfish interests. And when they think those interests are economic, and mistakingly believe Republican lies that only Republicans will bring prosperity, some unsophisticated gays choose a political party that also wants gays suppressed & punished.

    Second, some gays are just stupid. True, there are studies that show that gay men are smarter on average than the average straight man, but that doesn't preclude certain gays from being as stupid as rocks. These are the ones who buy into anti-gay lies as easily as many straights do, unable to realize the personal threat to their own selves.

    Third, some gays are simply wimps. Raised in a culture that makes them cower at anything that confronts their gayness, they cave at any other encounter with straights. Whether it be Republican politician or fundamentalist Christian preacher, they wilt when challenged.

    Fourth, some gays are conflicted about who they are. Just like gay Republican politicians and Christian clergy, they hate the thing they are. Consumed by guilt & remorse, they inflict their own angst on the rest of us. They do so through political topics, and through religion, and we read their posts here every day.

    Well, I think being gay is a gift and a privilege, and I'm sick & tired of maladjusted gays throwing a monkey wrench into these threads. If you're not happy being gay, or have some other issues with it, then please do join a site dedicated to your "cure." But leave the rest of us out of your neurotic issues. Fair?




    I love Red_Vespa !
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2010 9:10 PM GMT
    This country is so polarized.

    There is an unwritten rule in the gay community that LGBT people must be liberal. That line of thinking is evident from the views by many on this site.

    I consider myself a left-leaning centrist--I think both political parties are morally bankrupt. I am also progressive in my thinking--but I know one party does not hold ALL the answers to American success/progress. I know politicians care more about obtaining power and staying in power (including their affiliated party) than doing 'the right thing' for the greater good.

    I probably disagree with A LOT of those gay conservatives, but why are they saying so much crap about gay liberals? Maybe because of the log cabin witch hunts within the gay community (and by gay community I mean the vocal minority)?

    There are many types of conservatives... and not all of them are socially conservative!

    NOT ALL REPUBLICANS ARE BAD EVIL BIBLE-THUMPERS... some are bad evil corporatists ;)

    MANY conservative support our cause... perhaps it's time we stop trying to push them away. www.gaypatriot is probably full of people who felt disowned by the vocal gay leftists. Our fight cannot be won without our conservative friends.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2010 9:46 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said
    There is a clear path for equal rights, why is the name that has very specific religious connotations that important (and even apparently more so than the underlying rights)?

    As for believing that anyone who isn't a leftwing extremist must therefore be Republican? That's frankly, also just ignorant.
    Actually.. that little "name" you are referring to is a BLOCK to 'equal rights'. Apparently you are as ignorant to how the world operates realistically as the poster you accused of being ignorant.
    The states where the 'rights' to legalities are coded, i.e. domestic partnership/gay 'Marriage', gay citizens are STILL blocked from visitation/survivorship etc from those who "dont support gay marriage and NEVER WILL even if its the law.

    The speed limit is 35 mph. (how many actually obey that law?)

    Understand now?


    That's not a problem with the name, that's a problem with the basic rights and structure. As noted, a majority of the public (even nearly a majority of Republicans - and in a few years I suspect it will be a majority of Republicans) agree with the idea of Civil Unions on the basis of equal rights. As also noted, I don't think the government should be in the business of marriage and should only grant civil unions as the legal structure for those rights under marriage. If however the pursuit is for "marriage", this only clouds the issue - for which there is a minority of public support.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2010 9:52 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said
    There is a clear path for equal rights, why is the name that has very specific religious connotations that important (and even apparently more so than the underlying rights)?

    As for believing that anyone who isn't a leftwing extremist must therefore be Republican? That's frankly, also just ignorant.
    Actually.. that little "name" you are referring to is a BLOCK to 'equal rights'. Apparently you are as ignorant to how the world operates realistically as the poster you accused of being ignorant.
    The states where the 'rights' to legalities are coded, i.e. domestic partnership/gay 'Marriage', gay citizens are STILL blocked from visitation/survivorship etc from those who "dont support gay marriage and NEVER WILL even if its the law.

    The speed limit is 35 mph. (how many actually obey that law?)

    Understand now?


    That's not a problem with the name, that's a problem with the basic rights and structure. As noted, a majority of the public (even nearly a majority of Republicans - and in a few years I suspect it will be a majority of Republicans) agree with the idea of Civil Unions on the basis of equal rights. As also noted, I don't think the government should be in the business of marriage and should only grant civil unions as the legal structure for those rights under marriage. If however the pursuit is for "marriage", this only clouds the issue - for which there is a minority of public support.



    If I recall correctly, interracial marriage, ending of segregation, and womens rights only had "minority support"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2010 10:06 PM GMT
    DoomsDayAlpaca saidIf I recall correctly, interracial marriage, ending of segregation, and womens rights only had "minority support"


    That's certainly a fair position to take that I disagree with but to assume that because I believe differently that's "hate" is simply ridiculous. Further, you go on to call these people like myself "uncle tom's" which has a very specific and racist connotation.

    As to address your specific issue, popularity is only important insofar as it is useful to reaching the underlying goal - ie equal rights. To insist that the legal structure underlying marriage must be called marriage for everyone to me is counter productive (both antagonistic and unnecessary) - especially when the majority of people seem to agree with the rights and will often vote for them. As also noted however, I don't think it's particularly wise to allow the government define what marriage is either which has a very specific religious connotation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 19, 2010 1:17 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    To insist that the legal structure underlying marriage must be called marriage for everyone to me is counter productive (both antagonistic and unnecessary) - especially when the majority of people seem to agree with the rights and will often vote for them. As also noted however, I don't think it's particularly wise to allow the government define what marriage is either which has a very specific religious connotation.
    I agree with your premise, however, the issue is having the 'majority' remove their cherished title 'marriage' from all forms of law.

    I agree that the government should only recognize 'civil unions' for any and all citizens and the church can call them 'monkey fucks' or whatever they wish...

    One must remember that selfishness runs rampant in this world today.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 19, 2010 2:28 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    DoomsDayAlpaca saidIf I recall correctly, interracial marriage, ending of segregation, and womens rights only had "minority support"


    That's certainly a fair position to take that I disagree with but to assume that because I believe differently that's "hate" is simply ridiculous. Further, you go on to call these people like myself "uncle tom's" which has a very specific and racist connotation.

    As to address your specific issue, popularity is only important insofar as it is useful to reaching the underlying goal - ie equal rights. To insist that the legal structure underlying marriage must be called marriage for everyone to me is counter productive (both antagonistic and unnecessary) - especially when the majority of people seem to agree with the rights and will often vote for them. As also noted however, I don't think it's particularly wise to allow the government define what marriage is either which has a very specific religious connotation.




    Right. So says Riddler from Canada where it's ALL called marriage and 100% legal. And Riddler, your argument is hogwash says the atheist I married.

    -Doug
    PS take a look at the mess civil unions and common law marriage is for straight people in the US is. A patchwork horror.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 19, 2010 2:48 PM GMT
    meninlove saidRight. So says Riddler from Canada where it's ALL called marriage and 100% legal. And Riddler, your argument is hogwash says the atheist I married.

    -Doug
    PS take a look at the mess civil unions and common law marriage is for straight people in the US is. A patchwork horror.


    Not sure what realm of logic deciding that 'what happens in Canada must therefore be right' falls under, though out of charity I'll give you points for the attempt. TropicalMark and I agree on the basic premise that it should be equal rights for all. Calling it "marriage" is unnecessarily antagonistic and it does have specific religious connotations. That's just reality. One does not need to believe in god to agree with this point and whether your partner is atheistic or polytheistic is besides the point.

    The question for you is whether or not in the US or anywhere for that matter the name is just as important as the underlying rights. I don't think so - but this obfuscates the original point. Just because I disagree with you does not make me a "hater" anymore so does it make someone who disagrees an "uncle tom" which is a racist epithet and as stated by the OP.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 19, 2010 2:55 PM GMT
    It's not 'what happens in Canada must be right', it's that you're in Canada, yet you're a teabagger, in a country that has gay marriage and say another country shouldn't have it as good. You're in a country that has healthcare for all, and you tell others in another country they shouldn't have that either.

    Like, what are you doing in Canada in the first place? icon_rolleyes.gif

    And lastly, we know many atheists, and many are married. That's right, married. They'd have a few choice words for you about your ridiculous notion that marriage is for the religious.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 19, 2010 2:56 PM GMT
    DoomsDayAlpaca saidOff and on I catch myself reading sites like http://www.gaypatriot.net/ . I read things that thoroughly piss me off, like how they ripped into the young lesbiean teen who was sent to a FAKE prom, how they claimed teenagers are to busy to care about their sexuality, how they claim "gay leftist" want to smear people who are simply "un-pc", how easily they roll over and grovel and beg for rights they deserve.

    Social conservatives are not our masters, why do some gays feel that we need to pander and coddle them so that they are comfortable with us? Isn't that what being out and proud is all about, being who you are and never compromising that for the sake of "tolerance"?

    Its like these people forget that we are openly mocked, attacked, beaten, killed, fired from our jobs, denied jobs, denied housing, discriminated against by the justice system, and have an entire multi million dollar business designed to "cure" us.

    Am I missing something? icon_neutral.gif


    Also, this: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/05/16/1632958/transgender-candidate-a-label.html


    Oy. Do yourself a favor. Don't read that site. I haven't read it in several years, but I used to. If you regularly post objections to the often twisted logic there, they have a simple solution: they block your IP address.

    Contrary to what Riddler seems to be suggesting, this is not a site where difference is simply expressed. The users are antagonistic and quickly resort to ad hominem invective. Of course, as is usual among the far right, they routinely accuse everyone else of their own abrasive behavior.

    Like the horrible FreeRepublic.com, the boys at GayPatriot aren't the least bit interested in a dialog, despite their insistence to the contrary.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 19, 2010 2:57 PM GMT
    Now, again Riddler, take a look at the hodge-podge mess civil unions and common law rules are in the US and tell us again how feasible your idea is.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 19, 2010 3:04 PM GMT
    Red_Vespa said..... Well, I think being gay is a gift and a privilege, and I'm sick & tired of maladjusted gays throwing a monkey wrench into these threads. If you're not happy being gay, or have some other issues with it, then please do join a site dedicated to your "cure." But leave the rest of us out of your neurotic issues. Fair?
    icon_lol.gif awesome .. love it! icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 19, 2010 3:15 PM GMT
    meninlove said And lastly, we know many atheists, and many are married. That's right, married. They'd have a few choice words for you about your ridiculous notion that marriage is for the religious.
    I am glad you mention this. I frequently hear people talking about "marriage" as a religious institution and have to say that those people are victims of seeing through a certain religious prism instead of looking at actual history and sociology. The oldest marriage documents found roughly in the area of Mesopotamia show marriage as primarily a property arrangement. In other words it was not very spiritual at all and marriage existed thousands of years before Christianity.

    That does not mean that one cannot make marriage a spiritual thing, just that it is presumptuous to assume it originated in a religious context.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 19, 2010 3:23 PM GMT
    ObsceneWish saidOy. Do yourself a favor. Don't read that site. I haven't read it in several years, but I used to. If you regularly post objections to the often twisted logic there, they have a simple solution: they block your IP address.

    Contrary to what Riddler seems to be suggesting, this is not a site where difference is simply expressed. The users are antagonistic and quickly resort to ad hominem invective. Of course, as is usual among the far right, they routinely accuse everyone else of their own abrasive behavior.

    Like the horrible FreeRepublic.com, the boys at GayPatriot aren't the least bit interested in a dialog, despite their insistence to the contrary.
    The more I read or listen to a certain segment of conservatives, the more I see the relevance of the study on "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition"

    http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtmlFour researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

    * Fear and aggression
    * Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
    * Uncertainty avoidance
    * Need for cognitive closure
    * Terror management

    "From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination," the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," recently published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 19, 2010 3:33 PM GMT
    meninlove said It's not 'what happens in Canada must be right', it's that you're in Canada, yet you're a teabagger, in a country that has gay marriage and say another country shouldn't have it as good. You're in a country that has healthcare for all, and you tell others in another country they shouldn't have that either.

    Like, what are you doing in Canada in the first place? icon_rolleyes.gif

    And lastly, we know many atheists, and many are married. That's right, married. They'd have a few choice words for you about your ridiculous notion that marriage is for the religious.


    That you presume to speak for all Canadians says something about both your character and arrogance. I support the tea partiers and I don't see the issue of differentiating "marriage" and "civil unions" and have no emotional affinity towards either but I do see a necessity for equal rights. That you can't see the difference is simply intellectually lazy. Further, the notion that Canadians have healthcare for all ignores the growing patchwork of private services like eyecare and dentistry and also the fact the CMA has pointed out the Canadian system is unsustainable (pardon me for believing that it can and should be made sustainable).

    To address A&A's point however, and for the record, I don't read gaypatriot.net though I did look for the offending posts after he mentioned it, even if it is (only) rooted in tradition, is the name more important or even equally so to the underlying rights and contractual legal arrangement? That you, meninlove, feel the need to resort to namecalling and believing that because I disagree with some of the policies of my government makes me less Canadian than you however suggests that you recognize the intellectual bankruptcy of your arguments.

    Further, I note you fail to address the original poster's points with respect to the idea that disagreeing is a direct result of "hate" and worthy of the racist epithet "uncle tom" as this thread is titled. Here I was thinking that as purveyor of what qualifies one as being Canadian, you'd at least make the attempt to be tolerant.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 19, 2010 3:34 PM GMT
    ActiveAndFit said
    meninlove said And lastly, we know many atheists, and many are married. That's right, married. They'd have a few choice words for you about your ridiculous notion that marriage is for the religious.
    I am glad you mention this. I frequently hear people talking about "marriage" as a religious institution and have to say that those people are victims of seeing through a certain religious prism instead of looking at actual history and sociology. The oldest marriage documents found roughly in the area of Mesopotamia show marriage as primarily a property arrangement. In other words it was not very spiritual at all and marriage existed thousands of years before Christianity.

    That does not mean that one cannot make marriage a spiritual thing, just that it is presumptuous to assume it originated in a religious context.

    Actually, you don't need to go back as far as Mesopotamia. Visit the nearest US church or temple where a wedding is being performed today.

    You will find that the legal marriage document the officiating religious figure signs, along with the bride & groom and their witnesses, is a civil document, not a religious one. That is why couples first get a marriage license, usually from their local county in the US. The minister, rabbi, or however they're titled is empowered by the State to perform a CIVIL marriage, like a judge can, on behalf of the State. A purely religious marriage by itself, without a civil marriage license, has little legal standing in the US, except as evidence of a "common law" marriage.

    The fact that a religious marriage ceremony is also being simultaneously performed has no bearing on the legality of the marriage license, which must be authenticated in the way prescribed in civil law. The great hypocrisy is that religious leaders raise a firestorm over civil marriages, and yet that is exactly what they are performing themselves, except it's in a church.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 19, 2010 3:46 PM GMT
    Riddler your arguments are at best specious.
    As Canadians, we're very tolerant, but intolerant of cleverly-positioned-as-warm-n-friendly bigotry.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 19, 2010 4:29 PM GMT
    Red_Vespa said
    ActiveAndFit said
    meninlove said And lastly, we know many atheists, and many are married. That's right, married. They'd have a few choice words for you about your ridiculous notion that marriage is for the religious.
    I am glad you mention this. I frequently hear people talking about "marriage" as a religious institution and have to say that those people are victims of seeing through a certain religious prism instead of looking at actual history and sociology. The oldest marriage documents found roughly in the area of Mesopotamia show marriage as primarily a property arrangement. In other words it was not very spiritual at all and marriage existed thousands of years before Christianity.

    That does not mean that one cannot make marriage a spiritual thing, just that it is presumptuous to assume it originated in a religious context.

    Actually, you don't need to go back as far as Mesopotamia. Visit the nearest US church or temple where a wedding is being performed today.

    You will find that the legal marriage document the officiating religious figure signs, along with the bride & groom and their witnesses, is a civil document, not a religious one. That is why couples first get a marriage license, usually from their local county in the US. The minister, rabbi, or however they're titled is empowered by the State to perform a CIVIL marriage, like a judge can, on behalf of the State. A purely religious marriage by itself, without a civil marriage license, has little legal standing in the US, except as evidence of a "common law" marriage.

    The fact that a religious marriage ceremony is also being simultaneously performed has no bearing on the legality of the marriage license, which must be authenticated in the way prescribed in civil law. The great hypocrisy is that religious leaders raise a firestorm over civil marriages, and yet that is exactly what they are performing themselves, except it's in a church.
    Thanks for bringing even MORE sense to the topic of marriage. Besides the points you bring up, it seems like certain enablers and people pandering to the far right would like to also marginalize the very legitimate concerns you have expressed in your own relationship and issues around couples' rights.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 19, 2010 4:54 PM GMT
    meninlove said Riddler your arguments are at best specious.
    As Canadians, we're very tolerant, but intolerant of cleverly-positioned-as-warm-n-friendly bigotry.


    I feel sympathy for someone for whom the Canadian education system has apparently failed - based on the quality of your ideas, I can't help but wonder if you even know what specious means icon_wink.gif . I'm sorry if you feel that because I disagree with you that makes me less of a Canadian or apparently a bigot. I can only assume you agree with the OP's racist epithet which makes your statement even more tinged with unintended irony.