Straight Guys Getting Married

[lilpixieofterror]

And that is completely immaterial to the fact that marriage is supposed to be about something different, unless you think that traditional straight marriage should be abolished because Britney Spears once partook in a 72-hour long marriage.

I thought I asked you to stop playing dumb.

Your majesty, he isn't. What is going on is just what was predicted when this whole thing started. Remember how some said this would start a slippery slope and you and others laughed at them? Looks like it isn't such a slippery slope at all and it seems this is a natural result of attempts to redefine marriage.

[Bill the Cat]

And that is completely immaterial to the fact that marriage is supposed to be about something different, unless you think that traditional straight marriage should be abolished because Britney Spears once partook in a 72-hour long marriage.

I thought I asked you to stop playing dumb.

Sorry, Peggie. But you don't get to tell others who they can and can't marry, nor the reason behind it.

[lilpixieofterror]

No, not at all. Unlike Bill the Cat, I post what I believe is true, instead of raising dumb objections that I don't even believe myself just because it might possibly score a rhetorical point.

His objection isn't 'dumb' at all your majesty and really this sort of marriage is supported by the very same arguments that have been commonly used to support gay marriage and other forms of marriage. They are two consenting adults and what right do you have to tell them they can't get married if they so choose? See what happens when you attempt to redefine marriage?

But in any case, "the definition of marriage" isn't relevant to why marriage equality advocates are upset. It's because people trivialized and made a mockery of something that they take very seriously and have long fought for sincerely and passionately. As I analogized earlier, imagine that you lived in an Islamic theocracy in which Christians were forbidden to practice their religion, and then some Muslims who don't care about Christianity at all held a church service with rituals like baptism and communion for the sole reason of winning tickets to a rugby match. That's the essence of why people are upset.

When you attempt to redefine marriage, this is the stuff you naturally end up with. Please explain how the argument doesn't work here. I'll be waiting for it, your majesty or do you think that your mere opinion is fact and you don't need to back it up?

[lilpixieofterror]

Sorry, Peggie. But you don't get to tell others who they can and can't marry, nor the reason behind it.

I don't think his majesty understands that the very same arguments used to support gay marriage; can be used to support this sort of marriage.

[MaxVel]

Square, you do realize that all they're doing is just redefining marriage, right?

Good point. Marriage used to be exclusively between a man and a woman, now we have redefined it so that it doesn't unfairly exclude men or women who just as sincerely love each other. With many marriages ending in divorce, why not further redefine marriage to allow for it to end after a limited time? It seems unfair to exclude those who sincerely love each other (now), yet feel unable to make an open-ended commitment. Indeed, perhaps they are more realistic than the starry-eyed idealists who think that their love will go one for ever. Why not redefine marriage to allow for a series of time-limited marriages. Perhaps after two years these two guys will fell that they still want to be fully committed to each other - they could then get re-married.

[MaxVel]

But in any case, "the definition of marriage" isn't relevant to why marriage equality advocates are upset. It's because people trivialized and made a mockery of something that they take very seriously and have long fought for sincerely and passionately. As I analogized earlier, imagine that you lived in an Islamic theocracy in which Christians were forbidden to practice their religion, and then some Muslims who don't care about Christianity at all held a church service with rituals like baptism and communion for the sole reason of winning tickets to a rugby match. That's the essence of why people are upset.

Next time you come across someone who calls people who want marriage to remain as it has always been 'homophobic', could you please repeat this to them?

[fm93]

Your majesty, he isn't. What is going on is just what was predicted when this whole thing started. Remember how some said this would start a slippery slope and you and others laughed at them? Looks like it isn't such a slippery slope at all and it seems this is a natural result of attempts to redefine marriage.

That's incorrect. The slippery slope argument was that legalizing gay marriage would lead to things like people marrying relatives and animals and houses. None of this has happened with regard to this case. Here, the issue is that people are trying to marry for insincere reasons. You could forbid gay marriage all over the world and only allow straight people to marry, but wouldn't you be upset if the straight people who chose to use that right didn't actually want to marry, and did so solely because they wanted to win tickets to a sporting event?

Sorry, Peggie. But you don't get to tell others who they can and can't marry, nor the reason behind it.

Still playing dumb, I see. You tell other people who they can and can't marry (and attempt to provide a reason for that judgment, presumably) every time the issue of marriage equality comes up; don't act like it's something that people can't talk about.
[ETA: to be clear, this particular issue is more over should and shouldn't rather than can or can't]

Besides, the point is that most gay couples want to marry for the same reason that most straight people do, and this New Zealand "couple's" reason for marriage is completely different.

[fm93]

Next time you come across someone who calls people who want marriage to remain as it has always been 'homophobic', could you please repeat this to them?

Sure. I'd have no problem with that, because it's completely different from traditional-marriage-only arguments. In the New Zealand incident, people who want to marry are trivializing it. Meanwhile, gay couples want to marry precisely because they DO hold marriage in high regard. They're doing the exact opposite of trivializing and mocking it.

[lilpixieofterror]

That's incorrect.

No it isn't, your majesty, and I'll explain why below.

The slippery slope argument was that legalizing gay marriage would lead to things like people marrying relatives and animals and houses.

Actually, your majesty, the argument was that people are going to start redefining marriage to mean whatever they want and those things were given as examples. If two consenting adults want to get married, even if it is just to win a contest or for 2 years, who are you to stop them and tell them they can't? Looks like the slippery slope is starting to come true.

None of this has happened with regard to this case.

That is because you don't understand when an example is being used. Please explain how the slow redefining of marriage doesn't result in cases, such as this, and will not continue to result in more stuff, just like this? Can you explain how that wouldn't work out, your majesty?

Here, the issue is that people are trying to marry for insincere reasons. You could forbid gay marriage all over the world and only allow straight people to marry, but wouldn't you be upset if the straight people who chose to use that right didn't actually want to marry, and did so solely because they wanted to win tickets to a sporting event?

When you try to redefine marriage to mean whatever you want it to mean, that is what you end up with. Perhaps we should stop trying to redefine marriage and take it more seriously than we have been? Your majesty, might I suggest you stop pretending to be an all knowing king and start using that brain of yours instead?

[Raphael]

Square_peg, it's really no different to a man and woman getting married for convenience (ie no sexual or romantic reasons)

[fm93]

No it isn't, your majesty, and I'll explain why below.



Actually, your majesty, the argument was that people are going to start redefining marriage to mean whatever they want and those things were given as examples. If two consenting adults want to get married, even if it is just to win a contest or for 2 years, who are you to stop them and tell them they can't? Looks like the slippery slope is starting to come true.




That is because you don't understand when an example is being used. Please explain how the slow redefining of marriage doesn't result in cases, such as this, and will not continue to result in more stuff, just like this? Can you explain how that wouldn't work out, your majesty?



When you try to redefine marriage to mean whatever you want it to mean, that is what you end up with. Perhaps we should stop trying to redefine marriage and take it more seriously than we have been? Your majesty, might I suggest you stop pretending to be an all knowing king and start using that brain of yours instead?

But technically, the definition of marriage isn't the issue in this case. Marriage equality advocates aren't trying to legally forbid this marriage. They're upset at the motive for the marriage. The advocates aren't telling the New Zealand men "You're doing something that's illegal," but rather "You're doing something that's extraordinarily rude and insensitive."

[lilpixieofterror]

But technically, the definition of marriage isn't the issue in this case.

Sure it is, your majesty, because one of the major arguments that has been used is the idea that we don't have the right to tell two consenting adults what they can and can't do, so this is one of the results of that logic. If they consenting to getting married, even to win a contest or for a short time, who are you to tell them they can't?

Marriage equality advocates aren't trying to legally forbid this marriage.

They can't because marriage has been redefined and this is a natural result of that redefinition. Explain how it doesn't work otherwise.

They're upset at the motive for the marriage. The advocates aren't telling the New Zealand men "You're doing something that's illegal," but rather "You're doing something that's extraordinarily rude and insensitive."

I wasn't aware that being rude and insensitive was illegal in most areas of the world. Last I heard, being a jerk, usually isn't a crime. This is the natural results of the cheapening and redefinition of marriage. Marriages become cheap, meaningless, and whatever you want them to be. Welcome to reality. Hope you enjoy your stay and get to showing how this isn't a natural result when you attempt to redefine marriage to mean whatever you want.

[Darth Executor]

Generally, gay couples want to marry because they've found someone whom they've come to deeply love and admire and cherish with all their heart, so much so that they want to create a new and special life with each other, spiritually becoming one, unified in a beautiful and mystical harmony, vowing to maintain this loving bond for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do they part.

[fm93]

Sure it is, your majesty, because one of the major arguments that has been used is the idea that we don't have the right to tell two consenting adults what they can and can't do, so this is one of the results of that logic. If they consenting to getting married, even to win a contest or for a short time, who are you to tell them they can't?

No one is telling them that they can't. What they're being told is that they shouldn't.

They can't because marriage has been redefined and this is a natural result of that redefinition. Explain how it doesn't work otherwise.

Because the same thing can and has happened with traditional straight marriages. Definition has nothing to do with this issue.

I wasn't aware that being rude and insensitive was illegal in most areas of the world.

No one is claiming that it is. Of course you can be a jerk if you so choose. But I think we can all agree that one shouldn't choose to be a jerk, correct?

This is the natural results of the cheapening and redefinition of marriage. Marriages become cheap, meaningless, and whatever you want them to be.

But...this has been happening even before same-sex marriages were legalized. As I alluded to earlier, Britney Spears had a drive-thru marriage in Las Vegas (and upon further review, it was actually a mere 55 hours rather than 72) in January 2004, before Massachusetts became the first to legalize SSM in May of that year. Drive-thru marriages outrageously cheapen the institution, and yet they had nothing to do with re-defining marriage.

[lilpixieofterror]

No one is telling them that they can't. What they're being told is that they shouldn't.

Why not?

Because the same thing can and has happened with traditional straight marriages. Definition has nothing to do with this issue.

Sure it does. When marriage is turned to mean whatever you want it to mean, these are the natural results.

No one is claiming that it is. Of course you can be a jerk if you so choose. But I think we can all agree that one shouldn't choose to be a jerk, correct?

Being a jerk isn't illegal and isn't a valid reason to forbid something. At least they are telling the truth, right from the go and not attempting to lie about it. They could of just lied about their reasons. Point is though, look what happens when you make marriage to mean whatever you want it to mean.

But...this has been happening even before same-sex marriages were legalized. As I alluded to earlier, Britney Spears had a drive-thru marriage in Las Vegas (and upon further review, it was actually a mere 55 hours rather than 72) in January 2004, before Massachusetts became the first to legalize SSM in May of that year. Drive-thru marriages outrageously cheapen the institution, and yet they had nothing to do with re-defining marriage.

Redefining marriages has been happening long before you or I were born your majesty. We're just living though the results of the continued cheapening of it and the slow demise of the marriage system that our society was built upon. Out of my cousins and siblings, I'm one of the few married and many of them have a romantic partner that they are not married to. Welcome to the new world, in which marriage is a meaningless thing that doesn't matter anymore and is pretty much just something people get into, without really caring about it. Hope you love the results of the system you seem to really want going into affect. Don't you like it?