The key point is fiedler neither do you. The dog is incapable of expressing it's feelings for you in an unambiguous way. The dog is incapable of understanding what a marriage is, what marriage entails, and is incapable of giving its consent to enter into the marriage. This is a false analogy and you know it. Make a real point, or go away.

My point, dear Mafia, is that marriage has a real meaning, a real sanctity, and is not an accessory for people who, optimistically, believe appropriating the word through political pressure, will gain them more acceptance in society. Or maybe some just think it would be cute to tell people "we're married! tee hee hee!"

Consider 18 year old boys (or girls) getting gay married, at what point does it get a bit ridiculous?

The question is: what IS marriage?

@ fulhamish - To answer Mr. Sewell's point in a more substantive way, the fact that marriage has a religious etymology is neither here nor there. If Mr. Sewell is not interested in entering into a marriage because of the word's religious connotations, that is his choice to make, and more power to him. But he does not get to make that decision for any one else. And I'm sure many people would disagree with him. Because while marriage may have started out as a religious institution it has since branched out and entered into the secular sphere as well. It has significance and meaning beyond the religious world, and has for quite some time, whatever etymological factoids Mr. Sewell can point to. The fact is a great many social institutions were once religious. This is at least partly because the church was one of the only organizations capable of keeping detailed records for a large portion of history. But the idea that in some circles a certain idea or word has religious significance, gay people aren't allowed to have it, or worse, as Sewell claims, will in some way sully or debase it are ignorant at best, and bigoted at worst.

PS Sewell being gay doesn't mean he's incapable of saying something bigoted or homophobic. Internalized homophobia among gay men is absolutely a thing.

"My point, dear Mafia, is that marriage has a real meaning, a real sanctity," - Agreed. It does. And that's why the LGB community wants access to it. Because it has meaning. They don't want to be fobbed off with something that doesn't have meaning, like "civil partnerships".

"And is not an accessory for people who, optimistically, believe appropriating the word through political pressure, will gain them more acceptance in society." - Appropriating the word? Saying that is to make the assumption that the word belongs to straight people in the first place. It doesn't. The word belongs to all of society, everyone knows married people, everyone acknowledges marriages a certain way. And you make it sound so trivial. "Oh you're just seeing it as an accessory, to make your relationship considered legitimate." Uhhh no, that's not trivial that's a pretty big deal.

"Consider 18 year old boys (or girls) getting gay married, at what point does it get a bit ridiculous?" - Why should I consider that? Is it a major problem or something that I'm unaware of? Is there a rush of 18 year old boys getting married to each other? Is it in some way ridiculous? Or did you just completely make that up? Is that the part that is a bit ridiculous?

"The question is: what IS marriage?" - Uhhh no... the question is, who the fuck are you to decide that my relationship doesn't mean as much as yours does?

"who the fuck are you to decide that my relationship doesn't mean as much as yours does?"

- so I can marry my dog then? Don't give me this legalise horseshit about the dog not being able to consent - how ridicyrus.

Also, fiedler, you seem to be missing the point slightly. The reason why gay couples want to get married isn't because of the legitimacy of the word. They want to get married because they love each other, and they want to make a commitment to one another. Because they want to raise families together, because they want to spend their lives together. Because they want each other, and everyone else to know that they've decided that they are the most important people in one anothers lives.

The only time when the history, meaning and legitimacy of the word "marriage" is at issue, is when you're answering the question "Why is marriage preferable to Civil Partnership, or a Civil Union?"

"so I can marry my dog then?" - No, because your dog can't consent!

"Don't give me this legalise horseshit about the dog not being able to consent - how ridicyrus." - Uhhh go up to your dog, ask it to marry you. Tell me what it says. I'm willing to bet your answer won't be "yes". In fact I'm willing to bet the answer won't even be in english. Or any language intelligible to humans at all. Because your dog can't speak. BECAUSE IT'S A FUCKING DOG.

This is the most offensive, bigoted, homophobic bullshit I've ever seen. You continue to compare loving, consensual relationships between two adults capable of expressing a desire to be together, with raping a dog.

You are a piece of shit fiedler, I hope you know that.

Also, consent is not "legalese horeshit". Consent is the very fundamental basis of any relationship at all. The very, very, very most basic thing you need in place before you can say you have any kind of romantic or sexual relationship at all, is consent. Without that, it's called rape.

^ Lol. I luv you Mafia, and I want to have your babies.

Mafia I am still not clear, despite answering the question you posed to my original question, should places of worship be legally compelled to provide marriages for gay couples?

''The very, very, very most basic thing you need in place before you can say you have any kind of romantic or sexual relationship at all, is consent''

Is consent to be our sole metric then?

No. And no country with legal gay marriage has any such statue in place. However, should a gay couple find a priest or other clergyman willing to perform a gay marriage, the government should acknowledge that marriage just as it would a heterosexual one. Does that answer your question?

@ fulhamish - "Is consent to be our sole metric then?" - I propose that it is. However consent does not end at simply end with both parties saying "yes". If that's all it took, putting a gun to someone's head and saying "let me have sex with you, or I'll shoot you." would be perfectly acceptable. Obviously any coercive situation or any situation that involves a substantial power imbalance, is not a consensual one. Just because I'm proposing a single metric to decide that doesn't mean we must abandon all ability to examine these matters on a case by case basis, or that we must suspend all critical faculties and hew strictly to a simple litmus test.

"You continue to compare loving, consensual relationships between two adults capable of expressing a desire to be together, with raping a dog."

- I don't recall stating that me and my dog have sex? We DONT actually touch each other in a sexual way, that would be perverse. But we do love each other, and surely that is what counts?

But Mafia dismisses our love because my dog is linguistically-challenged and lacks the opposable thumbs needed to sign his name. For this we are to be denied entry into this social institution - talk about PREJUDICE!

But ANYONE who can speak english or sign their name CAN be married, because... Mafia says so.

"You are a piece of shit fiedler, I hope you know that."

- You're being extremely intolerant and offensive Mafia, I await an apology.
Some of us enjoy debating here like civilised adults.

That said I don't think that "consent is the sole metric" necessarily follows from "consent is the most fundamental requirement of a relationship". Just because consent is the most basic requirement, that doesn't mean it's the only requirement. In fact, in order to be the most basic requirement it follows that there must also be other requirements that are less basic.

"Some of us enjoy debating here like civilised adults." - Says the man who continually compares gay relationships to bestiality.

"Says the man who continually compares gay relationships to bestiality."

- I never made any such direct comparison.

What I have been trying to do, by means of reductio ad absurdum, is to try and get you to see that if you change the meaning of something important like marriage, you risk destroying or mutilating its meaning. And this is important.

Marriage has been 'around' for THOUSANDS of years, and has had the much the same meaning all of that time - don't you wonder maybe there are good reasons it has had the same meaning for all of this time?. But here you are, casually insisting that the meaning be changed, all of a sudden, so you can have, as you have stated, all that goodwill and warm fuzzies that come with the social construct. Just cos that would be nice, for you.

Don't you see if you change the meaning of marriage you may very well destroy the very thing you are trying to obtain? I think you are seeing only what you have to gain - and selfishly disregarding what you are taking from others and what you might be taking from society at large.

I'm not unsympathetic to your viewpoint, but it is a complex issue, nowhere near as simplistic as proponents like to present it.

This is priceless.

You're priceless :)

xo

"PS Sewell being gay doesn't mean he's incapable of saying something bigoted or homophobic. Internalized homophobia among gay men is absolutely a thing."

- yes, if a gay man says something mafialligator does not like, he is automatically categorised as 'pathological'. Dismissed with a wave of mafias regal hand.

Wonderful.

"You are a piece of shit fiedler, I hope you know that."
/conversation. Mafia, it pains me to see you give this fucktard the light of day. You're not going to enlighten him over an Internet forum and I'm sure his ignorance makes your blood boil more than mine so why bother?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=T0GwZFAV1Lw#t=248s

For those who are comparing gay marriage with marrying a dog. I am afraid there is a big difference. You cannot marry a dog because the dog lacks the legal capacity.

You are dismissing the fact that marriage is a contract and it has always been like that. Therefore only livings who has legal capacity can marry. :D lets get imaginative, if t he aliens has come to our world, would you also oppose people marrying with aliens? :B

No, because the same people who oppose gay marriage would want to build a fence to keep the aliens out of amrca

@fiedler

I think the meaning you attribute to marriage has already been nullified with the cheating husbands and wives...

Marriage as a legal relationship, should be free I think. Because in that way, some rights of such minorities can be protected.

On the otherhand, if society accepts or rejects this marriage is completely irrelevant here because these people are already living the life of a married gay couple in the society.

Here the issue is, there is a social reality and the laws have not recognised this reality in the US. So it brings more solutions than problems.

If you think all gays will come out and start to marry, that is wrong. The social pressure cannot be removed by laws. Therefore I think such laws will not make a great change in the social life in the US as well...

Fielder, marriage has had considerable variety of meanings over the thousands of years where you see uniformity. This is true whether you consider marriage from the perspective of how households have been structured, what marriage means in Christianity, what marriage means in western European culture, and what marriage means across all cultures. Marriage is once again being redefined because each generation of people approaches the traditions and institutions that it inherits from different perspectives, under different circumstances and with different needs. People often have the perspective that their understanding of society and institutions stretches back through time in uniform fashion but this is rarely true and in particular is not true in terms of marriage and the social validation of homosexual identities and same-sex relationships.

@Nebu: For sure people have been making a mockery of their vows since forever.
But what I'm talking about here is the appropriation of the specific word 'marriage'. I'm all for civil unions, I'm just not fully CONVINCED that the long-established historical meaning of the word 'marriage' should be redefined. Maybe it wouldn't make much difference, maybe it would be a good thing.

Also, I hope you understand I don't really want to marry my imaginary dog.

@Yonni: It pains me you have such hatred in your heart. Please don't do violence today.

@gregoire: Can you cite examples please? I'm genuinely interested.

I'm not gay, but if two consenting adults want to get married then I don't see any problem.
People who are religious may raise objections. However, religion is just stuff made up by other people - sometimes long ago.
Mind you, not to say marriage doesn't have its downsides... you wait until you realise the cost of divorce if you are the wealthier partner. Ouch.