Gay Marriage

[Occhidiangela]

Edited at Griselda's (wise) request.

Lem:

You analysis through a soda straw is OK within its own limitations, your synthesis is poor, your conclusions erroneous. Don't much care that you are uncomfortable with colloquialisms, deal with it. I have to put up with a lot or rancid PC BS day to day, to include on this forum now and again. You've seen my bit on free speech before, won't bother to repeat it.

You apparently confuse, possibly due to my being obtuse, or too lazy to better craft and edit my post, the difference between bias, and a life long process of synthesis on my part. You also added a set of red herrings, to include heterosexual anal sex as a choice, irrelevant to the discussion, marriage being solely driven by sex, irrelevant and bogus, and then attempted obfuscation in dealing with reality of pederasty as a long standing habit. One day you will learn that it is best to say what you mean and mean what you say. Best of luck on that journey. You conveniently ignore that I make a distinction between homosexuals and lesbians, which I do for a very simple reason: men and women are different, they are made differently. That influences a great number of matters social, to include the ritual killings seen in the average divorce proceeding, and the very important matter of child rearing.

My position on marriage is rather simple: there is no point in doing so unless it is one's intention to have, create, and raise a family. Many man/woman pairs do not marry, for years, and get along just fine. Others do not. It makes zero sens to me to get married "just to be married." Jay Lo has not "gotten" that one yet. I have seen too many marriages break up, some of them due to their being entered into under delusions, others due to a breech of promise, others due to simple violence.

That society has a model in place for adoption presents a path forward, I think, for both homosexual couples and lesbian couples, to continue their efforts to join the socially sanctioned institution of marriage -- which as many in this thread have noted, has much baggage and imperfection. Law is a social tool, and has to try to embody norms and habit of the whole of a society. Those norms evolve over time, and it often takes, in our system, activism and energy to get that done. However, making a new law will not often get the buy in necessary to make the law effective and valid, see please the Prohibition. No buy is, law that could not sustain. Did you even bother to read my commentary to Pete in re the evolving attitudes pro homosexual marriage?

In your soda straw analysis, you completely missed the point of my first and follow on comments, which regards the efforts to earn and gain social sanction and approval via codified law for an unconventional and counterintuitive, (hence my selection of a global, not American, context and frame of reference) arrangement. Remember, base assumption of why marriage has evolved over the millenia is to create and raise, and continue, a family, the core social unit.

Your misunderstanding of the term spiritual, which was not made in a religious sense, shows your own myopia. You can be an athiest and still have a rich spiritual life. What you won't have is a religious life based on a god. Again, you missed the point.

A marriage can be many things: a contract, a profound spiritual bond, a religious rite, a form of slavery in which women ar chattel, or a binding of two neurotic people who should have been shark chum. It can also be a path toward building a deep and profound friendship, which is a spiritual phenomenon that needs neither God nor religion to exist.

If you ever get married, you'll understand . . . or you won't, and your marriage will be a mess. Plenty of that to go around.

In conclusion, nice try.

The next time you want to insult me and my marriage to Mrs Occhi, remember that this rogue bites.

Occhi