Thread: Uganda to apply death penalty towards homosexuality

Originally Posted by Mihais

Gun Grape,such a situation may be usual in the States,with your plenty of cults and religions.For me it strikes as odd.I just realized it may be even easier for gays to have a marriage recognized by a church if they'll just invent one.

Strictly personally and without making any effort to impose my view on anyone a marriage is a sign of maturity,of accepting the responsability for the future of both families.Otherwise why bother doing it?The legalities are secondary matters(of course they may become important in cases of divorce).But divorces are relatively rare(with an increase in number recently,but still a few) and I know of 0 cases in my extended family and only a couple among my known ones.In my world it needs to be accepted by the state and the rest of the society.The state is represented by a mayor or one of his deputies and that makes somebody legally married.The rest of the society,the families,the friends etc...gives the power to the church to legitimize the marriage.I never knew of someone that didn't went through both ceremonies.Our Orthodox Church doesn't makes any fuss.I had friends and relatives that married outside the religion and it went smoothly and without questions.Of course,I'll sooner expect the sky to fall than a gay couple marriage in a church.I went through this very brief explanation because I suddenly realized that customs in that regard are so different.That may be an explanation for the different views(and makes WAB such a nice place).
Thinking a bit on these matters I think I could accept a gay marriage from the legal pov,because,at least here, it won't be otherwise considered a marriage at all.They would officially separate themselves from the rest in that matter and perhaps it would be for the best for everybody.
That being said I would be curious to see the next victims of ''discrimination''-the paedophiles,the rapists perhaps.Because those that now stand behind the homo rights movement need a ''victim'' to use in the political power struggle.

Obviously you are and congratulations.I wish you only happiness and long years together.

Pardon me. I think I'll pre-empt Gunny here. Some US cultural anthropology:

Legal marriage here takes two forms.

One is standard, requiring a license from the state. There are some curliques, but that's about it. That is a legal marriage. No church has anything to do with it.

The other is called "common Law" marriage. It requires cohabitation, usually for some specified period of time. I don't know what all the ins & outs are, but in most juridictions, maybe all, this confers legal rights & responsibilities similar to a formal civil marriage on both parties.

In neither case is religion a necessary component. A religious ceremony doth not a legal marriage make. Anywhere here.

I think, but don't know for sure, that most people here wind up with religious ceremonies anyway. I did, even though I'm about the most irreligious person you'll ever run across. I just wasn't around while the details were being arranged (boot camp), & went along with the scheme to avoid offending our respective families. Neither of them was hand-wringingly religious, either, it was more a matter of propriety & custom. I didn't really give a shit.

If we had dodged a religious ceremony & merely gotten married by a Justice of the Peace or some other sort of magistrate the old folks would have been scandalized but the marriage would have been completely legal. That wouldn't have been the case if we had foregone the civil requirements, no matter how opulent the church service might have been. We simply wouldn't have been legally married.

If we weren't legally married, then a variety of legal opportunities would have been absent. We wouldn't have been allowed to file our income taxes jointly. That's often financially advantageous. Right now, as a retiree, I'm covered by my wife's excellent, "Cadillac" medical insurance policy she has through her employer. Years ago I dumped the garbage policy offered by my previous hospital in favor of hers. If we weren't legally married that wouldn't have been possible in Alabama, & boy did I ever need it. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't be covered at all, now. There are some actuarial life & automobile insurance benefits that only kick in for married couples. Getting a mortgage. Or any other sort of major bank loan.

Those are just a few. There are more. Gay couples in most places here don't have any of those advantages. They just can't get married. If there were some sort of legal equivalent compact that didn't use that magic word, "marriage" & that was readily available, then everything would be OK, at least as far as I'm concerned. But that equivalent just isn't there. & no matter how you, or I, define marriage, it's the government's decision that really matters.

As for your putative other victims of discrimination, such a pedophiles, rapists or (let's add this one, too) minor brides in some of the polygamous sects here, those do not apply. There is no possibility of legal consent.

Prof

Prof,knowledge doesn't hurt,so I'm grateful for your interference.Point taken about the Gov. I merely tried to point that there is difference between legal and what is considered socially ''legitimate''.In theory it is possible to avoid the church,but everyone would consider them the weirdest persons walking(in practice even atheists don't avoid it).At least in the States it seems to me that there are considerable advantages for married couples,some of which do not have equivalent in our system(right now I consider it would be wise to implement some them).Re. the main issue,I think we already came to a agreed to a compromise.

I was just mean,although I'm sure somebody will be found.I don't want to think to much about it,lest they get the idea for free.But me,being in a kind mood I think the Gypsy practice of arranged marriage would fit.Girls as young as 8 and boys as young as 12-13 are ''married''(forget about everything I wrote above about customs,nothing applies in their case).HELP save the Gypsy kids.But that would be against the cultural practices of a cherished minority!! Big dilemma for the do gooders.

p.s Enlighten me please on some subtleties of the language:Isn't the term ''queer'' as un-PC as ''******'' or ''gook''?Because as you know,the first things you learn in a foreign language are swears.)

Originally Posted by Prof

Pari:

Uh.

Prof

I'm still laughing at this.)

Originally Posted by Prof

Chunder:

Of course Im heavily biased, When I grew up I was taught that Marriage was for having kids (essentially) I do recognise to this degree that it isn't what I feel exactly comfortable with. But do acknowledge there is genuine feeling there and its a way of life. Having said that, and this is a welcoming and reasonably social household, it has always befuddled me just why so many of his mates have such an obsession with the anatomy and love to describe it all the time. To me that seems obsession about the anatomy and not about the relationship. None of them have been, to the best of my knowledge in any long term relationship as they enter their 50's, thats why I'm here I suppose. I am absolutely terrified of ever making the decision to get married, because of the examples set before me. I myself, cannot see the point in marriage because of the potential misery it brings, so am serious about commitments and character personalities. I don't think any of his mates exibit that.

I guess we're just lucky. I positively frolic in marriage, despite my state of near-petrification. Now that we're "empty-nesters" every night is date night if it wants to be, despite my attachment to our daughter. We've already "justified" the state of matrimony with offspring. Jeez. What an idea. Kick out the jams, MF!

Prof

I rarely critisize anyone except for Family in R/L. Im not offensive in the least. N/M my view is mine It changes from time to time I do though fairly resent being told my views are useless, or not worth discussing. The best way around it for myself is to put it in a personal context of experiences. Not particularly sure why that can't be understood, however it's the internet and I do like reading the conversation.

The Field mess? Never looked at it - I think I joined the board in March 2008. Always thought it was a place for Ex /current serving military to chew the fat. Im neither, would not be respectful of the service nor the right to be left alone from annoying civvies!

I think my standing is about cockroach level, trying to stay away from the insect spray

Originally Posted by Mihais

Prof,knowledge doesn't hurt,so I'm grateful for your interference.Point taken about the Gov. I merely tried to point that there is difference between legal and what is considered socially ''legitimate''.In theory it is possible to avoid the church,but everyone would consider them the weirdest persons walking(in practice even atheists don't avoid it).At least in the States it seems to me that there are considerable advantages for married couples,some of which do not have equivalent in our system(right now I consider it would be wise to implement some them).Re. the main issue,I think we already came to a agreed to a compromise.

I was just mean,although I'm sure somebody will be found.I don't want to think to much about it,lest they get the idea for free.But me,being in a kind mood I think the Gypsy practice of arranged marriage would fit.Girls as young as 8 and boys as young as 12-13 are ''married''(forget about everything I wrote above about customs,nothing applies in their case).HELP save the Gypsy kids.But that wouwd be against the cultural practices of a cherished minority!! Big dilemma for the do gooders.

p.s Enlighten me please on some subtleties of the language:Isn't the term ''queer'' as un-PC as ''******'' or ''gook''?Because as you know,the first things you learn in a foreign language are swears.)

Mihais (note that I avoided the "L" I keep trying to stick in your handle):

This sounds promising. I may not be your professor, but even so...

a) Social legitimacy is all very well, but f*ck it. It's overrated. I was a little baby civil rights worker in Alabama in the early '60s when I was a young teenager, without any familial or even peer-group support, & social legitimacy was my deadly enemy. I survived. Of course it cost my folks a fortune in orthodontistry but they got over it & it helped me grow up. The only time you ever really learn how to fight is when you can't possibly win. I didn't win.

b) As for the church, f*ck it. Even though there were a variety of churches that provided my only safe havens during those days of yore (see "a" above). Maybe I'm being ungrateful.

c) The Gypsy business wouldn't fly here. Well, maybe in Kalifornia. Check with the poor, long-suffering GunNut. But, uh, "...the cultural practices of a cherished minority!!" Sounds like social legitimacy to me.

Besides, arrranged marriages don't wind my clock. Although it's definitely true that some of them from other cultures seem to work a Hell of alot better than many of the spontaneous jobs we have here. Especially among the rabidly religious.

d) As for the "queer" business, yep. You're right. It's one of them no-sayems. The only reason I don't use more of them is because it's a pain in the ass to avoid all the "asteristicals" assigned by the program set up on the WP here to avoid the possibility of offending anyone. Hah.

Rejoice in the season. Saturnalia! Ho Ho. Ho.

Prof

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

BF, Prof,

And here is where BOTH of you get into trouble. BF, we have this conversation before, and you've still refused to understand my point and then try substituting a red herring for the real arguement.

I will accept gays in my workforce, I will accept gays in my neighbourhood, I will accept gays in my extended family BUT I will never accept gays in my home!

BF, you've substuted blacks instead of guys?

So freaking what! My home is my home and my predijuces is my predijicue and I will be damned if I allow the government tell me what I should or should allow in my home!

I don't want gays in my home. I will tolerate them at work. I will even accept them at work but don't you dare tell me what I should or should not accept at my home! I don't allow the government to do it AND I certainaly will not allow you to do it.

Are we clear! And that was not a question and there is a reason why it is not a question.

I respect your opinion but don't you dare tell me how to act in my own house!


Doc,

Don't be sorry. You're in pretty good standing with me. We are not going to agree on all things but that doesn't mean that we are not going to challenge each other. Again, I am aware that my bigotry is my bigotry. I have a revulsion to homosexuality. I can control it. I can tolerate homosexuals. What people do behind closed doors is their problem and I should not have anything to do for or against it. But that does not mean that I should allow them to do what they want behind my doors.

The rules say I have to tolerate them. There are no rules that says I have to accept them.

Am I bigot? Yes. But I am allow to be in my own home

Col. Yu,

For convenience I have combined two related replies.

I'm a little unsure where this is coming from. As best I am aware I'm not trying to tell you what you should do in your own home. You can refuse them entry to your home, just as you can refuse anyone else. I don't see how anything I have said changes that.

It is clear that you & I are not going to agree on this or change our opinions substantially. My only interest here is simply to argue that homosexuals get the same rights as everyone else. Your prejudices are your own as far as I am concerned.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

No no Prof, I'm of the heterosexual male variety, I'm just cool with knowing I look good in a miniskirt.)

What is it about the British, and people from their former, non US colonies, that make them want to get in Drag?

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

What is it about the British, and people from their former, non US colonies, that make them want to get in Drag?

It's genetic, comes from some ancestors wandering around the highlands in a dress, and other ancestors wearing nothing but a grass skirt As for the English, well I'll leave you to fill in the blanks....

Originally Posted by Prof

Bonehead:

Now that's an interesting point, & a position I've never heard presented before. A little weird, but new.

It's true that marriages of convenience have been & probably are common. You suggest that queers,or whatever, can avail themselves of long-countenanced legal trickery to get around legal proscriptions & denial of equal rights. Hmm.

Well, legal marriage has legal obligations as well legal benefits. Let's say your hypothetical "deviant" (male), gets married to someone (non-deviant female), for the sake of the benefits, while shacking up with his similarly deviant (male) significant other. What if the gal falls in love with someone else (non-deviant male) & wants to get married herself?

Oops. Not only has the initial deviant (idiot) gotten himself involved in a financially hazardous situation, he has involved his (deviant male sucker) SO. Who's gonna make the alimony payments? Not to mention the fact that all cognizant parties have been involved in at least ethical fraud.

Also, it doesn't answer the "equality before the law" problem. It's all just a goofy, complicated & potentially hazardous lie.

I think we better dodge that one.

Prof

"goofy, complicated and potentially hazardous lie" pretty much describes gay marriages for many of us. Who is the "Father, mother, husband, wife" in such arrangements? Should people in Gay marriages be allowed to circumvent mother nature and be allowed to procreate? Then there is the problem that most churches condemn this particular act. Should they be forced to marry a couple, ie throw religious convictions out the window, to avoid a discrimination lawsuit?

Gays can have their partnerships, wills and what not. What is this psychological need to make the majority of people to be forced to accept and allow to be mainstreamed a deviant life style. If this movement does succeed where does it all end. Will pedophiles then march on Washington D.C. saying, "If gays got theirs where is our right to pursuit happiness, etc."