Author | Thread |
|
02/16/2007 04:55:31 PM · #676 |
Originally posted by Louis: Originally posted by yanko: I'm guessing that allowing gay marriage opens up further "rights" to be granted for example, marriages between adults and children, multiple partners etc. |
That's really a non-issue. Extending constitutionally guaranteed rights to those that deserve them doesn't open up the floodgates for all the combinations and permutations of marriage that someone might dream up. Here in Canada, where gay marriage was made legal in 2005, nobody has so far espoused their right to marry their horse, dog, sheep, son or daughter, or any combination thereof, for example. |
So after a year or so you can already make the argument that nobody will push for multiple partner or adult/child marriage rights? Maybe you're just not hearing those voices yet. How many years did it take gays to voice theirs and get to the point they are now?
Notice I didn't bring up animals but I'm guessing you did because it makes it easier to refute what I said? Suppose a group of people in Canada started asking for multiple partner marriages? Would you support their rights and if no, why not?
Edited for clarity.
Message edited by author 2007-02-16 16:58:18. |
|
|
02/16/2007 04:56:26 PM · #677 |
Originally posted by RonB: You included not one, not two, but THREE of the more common techniques to avoid being exposed. |
I don't need you to expose me, I can expose myself. :P Because you can't further the discussion beyond your own demands for some kind of nebulous "proof", I submit that the bible is vehemently intolerant of homosexual behaviour, uncircumcised boys, strange men attending animal sacrifices, pantheists and atheists, wizards, interracial couples, kids whose parents are unbelievers, people who don't listen to prophets, Jews (if we are to believe Jesus), all unbelievers, etc. etc. etc. All of this is contained in that infallible book represented as the true word of God. Nope... not gonna cite chapter and verse, you'll simply have to start a new rant for that. Plus your insults are like kisses, I love 'em. |
|
|
02/16/2007 04:59:28 PM · #678 |
Originally posted by Louis: Plus your insults are like kisses, I love 'em. |
I love that and will remeber it for all time. I will give you writers credit when I use it LMAO! :-D |
|
|
02/16/2007 05:00:14 PM · #679 |
Originally posted by yanko: Originally posted by Louis: Originally posted by yanko: I'm guessing that allowing gay marriage opens up further "rights" to be granted for example, marriages between adults and children, multiple partners etc. |
That's really a non-issue. Extending constitutionally guaranteed rights to those that deserve them doesn't open up the floodgates for all the combinations and permutations of marriage that someone might dream up. Here in Canada, where gay marriage was made legal in 2005, nobody has so far espoused their right to marry their horse, dog, sheep, son or daughter, or any combination thereof, for example. |
So after a year or so you can already make the argument that nobody will push for multiple partner or adult/child marriage rights? Maybe you're just not hearing those voices yet. How many years did it take gays to voice theirs and get to the point they are now?
Notice I didn't bring up animals but I'm guessing you did because it makes it easier to refute what I said? Suppose a group of people in Canada started asking for multiple partner marriages? Would you support their rights and if so why not? |
You're right, the animal remark was flip. Would I support multiple partner marriages? I haven't given it any thought, other than to respond to your post. Fundamentally I suppose I'm not against them, but it is so completely outside my realm of experience that I want to say, no, I don't support them. If only because the tax break all the participants would receive would be too burdensome on us normal folk. :) |
|
|
02/16/2007 05:23:35 PM · #680 |
Nay, nay - one tax credit per person! Though it would be a windfall for the guy - he could claim all 27 children by his 10 wives, whereas the wives are limited by that pesky 9 month incubation period and would therefore not be afforded as many deductions. (I still want to be able to deduct my cats, by the way. Hasn't happened. Maybe in Canada soon?) :-)
But I'm back to a point from earlier - it really does kinda bug me. If my brother-in-law knew in advance that my sister could not have children (which he did), should he have not married her? After all, they're two people who love each other who've chosen to spend the rest of their lives together but are unable of procreating. |
|
|
02/16/2007 06:01:20 PM · #681 |
Honestly, anyone even *trying* to use the argument that gay marriage rights are in *ANY* way, shape or form the same thing as bestiality or child/adult marriage or any shape of marriage in which one party is not in a consenting adult relationship is just looking for an excuse to get under someone's skin. The very concept is absurdly laughable.
Multiple-partner marriages, however, is a factor of consenting adult relationships. The only issue *I* have is that our society is still one in which men are raised to be superior to women, and that leads to gross inequalities which thus leads to this type of arrangement generally being one of power and control. Were men raised differently (and they are starting to be in a many aspects, thankfully), this would be just as much a non-issue as same-sex marriage can and should be. |
|
|
02/16/2007 06:21:54 PM · #682 |
Q:
Do you really know anyone who teaches their children that those books are the Gospel Truth -- the inspired word of God, ...
Originally posted by RonB:
A: Nope. And I don't teach my children that the precepts of the Bible must be faithfully followed under penalty of eternal damnation, either.
|
Are you now arguing that you do not feel the Bible is the word of God??
Message edited by author 2007-02-16 18:23:01. |
|
|
02/16/2007 07:01:52 PM · #683 |
Originally posted by Artyste: Honestly, anyone even *trying* to use the argument that gay marriage rights are in *ANY* way, shape or form the same thing as bestiality or child/adult marriage or any shape of marriage in which one party is not in a consenting adult relationship is just looking for an excuse to get under someone's skin. The very concept is absurdly laughable. |
Is that what happened here? Why is bestiality consistantly being brought into this? You're now the second person to reference that since I brought up multiple partners and child/adult marriage argument. Can we set aside that strawman argument already?
That aside, did I understand you right that multiple partners should have the right to marriage or was that also a laughable concept? If so why? What's different about it? Same thing with adult/child marriage rights. I understand you are making a distinction that it's not between two adults to which I say, and? The US constitution doesn't define what an adult is any more than it does marriage. Both concepts are defined at the state levels. The argument for gay marriage rights is that it's supported by the consititution to which I say wouldn't that also be the case for other forms of marriages I've mention?
Just to reiterate if you read the first post I made on this subject I am FOR gay marriage.
Message edited by author 2007-02-16 19:03:10. |
|
|
02/16/2007 08:15:03 PM · #684 |
Originally posted by yanko: Why is bestiality consistantly being brought into this? |
Because it's funny. :P |
|
|
02/16/2007 08:19:56 PM · #685 |
50 years ago, my brother was beaten to death because he was homosexual.
I would like to think we have come a little farther along the path of tolerance since then. We have not come far enough.
It seems to me that In the name of humanity, and decency, it is time to give equal protection and rights to all.
|
|
|
02/16/2007 08:20:19 PM · #686 |
Originally posted by Melethia: But I'm back to a point from earlier - it really does kinda bug me. If my brother-in-law knew in advance that my sister could not have children (which he did), should he have not married her? After all, they're two people who love each other who've chosen to spend the rest of their lives together but are unable of procreating. |
I think this is where it all falls flat for the "gay marrieds can't have kids" argument (in fact they can, just maybe not together). It harkens back to people insisting on an outdated way of thinking based on an antediluvian document. It has absolutely nothing to do with how people live today. As if there were no differences between life in the West in 2007 and life in the middle east in 2000 bce. Good grief.
Message edited by author 2007-02-16 20:21:42. |
|
|
02/16/2007 08:21:54 PM · #687 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
It seems to me that In the name of humanity, and decency, it is time to give equal protection and rights to all. |
Hear Hear!
And very sorry about your brother... |
|
|
02/16/2007 08:39:13 PM · #688 |
i took my neighbor's kids swimming tonight. as i was looking around the pool at the families, i thought about this conversation and it made me really sad. it made me wonder how many of the people there were so full of hate and fear and bigotry of me. and yet i was standing there with three kids "of my own" and people talked to me just like everything was normal. they piled their kids in their minivans on the way home and their interaction with me didn't adversely affect their enjoyment of the evening one iota.
this thread is full of ignorance and bigotry.
you guys can sit back and have this big theoretical debate about what is "normal" and "right" all you want. whoopee. this is my life. and being gay is not a conscious choice -- it's the way your god made me. that was his choice, not mine.
these people are real. i am real. i have never once advocated preventing you from pursuing your belief system or living your life in the way you see fit to live it. all i ask is that you do the same.
and with that, i'm ignoring this ridiculous thread. best of luck to you who wish to fight the good fight but frankly it's just not worth my time.
i have a family to enjoy. |
|
|
02/16/2007 08:45:26 PM · #689 |
Originally posted by Louis: Originally posted by yanko: Why is bestiality consistantly being brought into this? |
Because it's funny. :P |
I'll give you that! :P |
|
|
02/16/2007 09:13:20 PM · #690 |
Originally posted by yanko: Originally posted by Artyste: Honestly, anyone even *trying* to use the argument that gay marriage rights are in *ANY* way, shape or form the same thing as bestiality or child/adult marriage or any shape of marriage in which one party is not in a consenting adult relationship is just looking for an excuse to get under someone's skin. The very concept is absurdly laughable. |
Is that what happened here? Why is bestiality consistantly being brought into this? You're now the second person to reference that since I brought up multiple partners and child/adult marriage argument. Can we set aside that strawman argument already?
That aside, did I understand you right that multiple partners should have the right to marriage or was that also a laughable concept? If so why? What's different about it? Same thing with adult/child marriage rights. I understand you are making a distinction that it's not between two adults to which I say, and? The US constitution doesn't define what an adult is any more than it does marriage. Both concepts are defined at the state levels. The argument for gay marriage rights is that it's supported by the consititution to which I say wouldn't that also be the case for other forms of marriages I've mention?
Just to reiterate if you read the first post I made on this subject I am FOR gay marriage. |
I suppose you could say that I'm all for multi-partner marriages as long as the conditions are right, but I explained why I have issues with it. But then, I have issues with heterosexual marriages where one partner is abusive. I have yet to see an argument against polyamourous relationships that makes me think they're inherently wrong. Mind you, you have to know the difference between polyamoury and polygamy.. which is really rather large. One being based on mutual respect, love, harmony, etc., the latter being based on power, control and ownership.
As for ages and what or what isn't adult.. that'll be debates and changing laws for all time I'm sure.. and what is acceptable this century may not be acceptable the next.. and so on and so forth. The trouble is when we deny something under *current* acceptability on the basis that it *might* bring about changes that may or may not occur anyway. Humanity wouldn't get anywhere if we continued to stagnate out of fear. That's why I say that arguments of the nature you were referencing are laughable, because they are a separate issue that will be dealt with if and when they ever come up. Much was made of inter-racial marriages and other types of societal changes at the time they came about as well, but an enlightened humanity must deal with such things.
As for bringing animals into it, my bad, I saw it referenced and just added it to the list of things that I've seen FAR too many people reference in that particular string of defenses. It was just to cover the blanket statement(s) as a whole.
Finally, I think my main point on my original post sort of remains valid, no? If you're *for* same-sex marriage, yet wish to play the devil's advocate, then bringing up the argument *is* just to get under peoples' skins is it not? Pete knows I've played the card enough myself to recognize it when I see it.
|
|
|
02/16/2007 09:43:03 PM · #691 |
Mousie & Inu, sitting in a tree, k i s s i n g.
My partner and I just had a wonderful Valentine's dinner with two other (heterosexual) couples (6 courses, each one more amazing than the last) to celebrate our TWELVE YEARS of love and dedication. It was wonderful, and we all had an excellent, romantic evening.
For all intents and purposes we're married, and there's nothing you can do about it!
I thank my lucky stars I live in a place where I don't need to deal with the sort of intolerant folks that I meet on the internet. Where I can be seen in public as just another couple among many. It's just too bad we might get roaylly screwed if one of us has to go to the hospital, simply because other people refuse to legally recognise what I and innumerable other people are already living.
But that's okay, you can all go on pretending what my partner and I have isn't real, and insisting that we don't deserve full protection under the law. People like us don't matter, right?
Message edited by author 2007-02-16 21:44:13. |
|
|
02/17/2007 12:03:30 AM · #692 |
Okay, I have read alllll 28 pages of this crazy thread!
I have a few rhetorical questions:
Why does it really really matter if two gay people wish to be united forever and ever and be recognized as such by law? Is it going to affect your life at ALL? I don't think so.
Who are we to tell ANYONE how to live their life? Why do we feel the need to go out and "save people" from their sins? Leave them the heck alone and let them live in peace. What do you have to lose?
After all, they aren't in the streets having sex! That would be taboo either way! What people do behind closed doors is THEIR business!
IMO, we should teach this to our children as well... RESPECT ALL PEOPLE NO MATTER THEIR COLOUR, RACE, OR SEXUAL PREFERENCE LET GO OF THE HATE AND RIGHTOUSNESS. They are human beings too. They deserve respect too.
If God sees fit to do something about it in the afterlife, or not, WHO CARES? Let HIM worry about it! Is it ANYONE else's business? I think not.
Get off the crosses and step down from the soapboxes... I am sure somebody somewhere needs the wood. |
|
|
02/17/2007 12:15:29 AM · #693 |
Personally, I don't have any problem at all with gay marriage. But just to play devil's advocate...
What if someone decided he wanted to marry his pet dog? Should that be allowed, too?
What if someone decided he wanted to marry a favorite houseplant of his? Should that be legal?
|
|
|
02/17/2007 12:18:02 AM · #694 |
Originally posted by Keith Maniac: Personally, I don't have any problem at all with gay marriage. But just to play devil's advocate...
What if someone decided he wanted to marry his pet dog? Should that be allowed, too?
What if someone decided he wanted to marry a favorite houseplant of his? Should that be legal? |
YES AND YES!! Why do you care? How is it going to affect you DIRECTLY?? |
|
|
02/17/2007 12:32:34 AM · #695 |
Originally posted by TCGuru: Originally posted by Keith Maniac: Personally, I don't have any problem at all with gay marriage. But just to play devil's advocate...
What if someone decided he wanted to marry his pet dog? Should that be allowed, too?
What if someone decided he wanted to marry a favorite houseplant of his? Should that be legal? |
YES AND YES!! Why do you care? How is it going to affect you DIRECTLY?? |
Fair enough. |
|
|
02/17/2007 12:36:27 AM · #696 |
Originally posted by TCGuru: ... Why does it really really matter if two gay people wish to be united forever and ever and be recognized as such by law? ... |
Unite all you want - but marriage should be between a man and a woman, period.
Originally posted by TCGuru: ... IMO, we should teach this to our children as well... RESPECT ALL PEOPLE NO MATTER THEIR COLOUR, RACE, OR SEXUAL PREFERENCE LET GO OF THE HATE AND RIGHTOUSNESS. They are human beings too. They deserve respect too. ... |
Yes, children should be taught to respect everyone - I agree. Now as to try and explain gay "marriage"? Mom/Dad - you are married, right? How can Bob & John be married, they're both men? Didn't we learn in Sunday school...
I think the biggest issue with all of this is the legal rights pertaining to tax credits, health insurance, etc... So, if you must - call it a "Civil Union". Leave marriage out of it. |
|
|
02/17/2007 12:41:23 AM · #697 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Finally, I think my main point on my original post sort of remains valid, no? If you're *for* same-sex marriage, yet wish to play the devil's advocate, then bringing up the argument *is* just to get under peoples' skins is it not? Pete knows I've played the card enough myself to recognize it when I see it. |
Fair enough. Mind you I brought it up to answer Melethia's question which has been used by those who oppose gay marriage. Even if it were just to play devil's advocate I would reply with so what? To be frank, if that got under anybody's skin it's time to grow some more. |
|
|
02/17/2007 12:43:43 AM · #698 |
Originally posted by TCGuru: ... YES AND YES!! Why do you care? How is it going to affect you DIRECTLY?? |
Unfortunately, that is an attitude applied to way too many things today in our world. "If it doesn't impact me directly, why worry about it?" I'm talking about things like violence in video games, drug use, etc... so it may not be applicable to this scenario. The general attitude/theme of "it doesn't impact me" or "don't get involved", plays a big part IMO of many of society's problems today. |
|
|
02/17/2007 12:46:02 AM · #699 |
Originally posted by glad2badad: Originally posted by TCGuru: ... Why does it really really matter if two gay people wish to be united forever and ever and be recognized as such by law? ... |
Unite all you want - but marriage should be between a man and a woman, period.
Originally posted by TCGuru: ... IMO, we should teach this to our children as well... RESPECT ALL PEOPLE NO MATTER THEIR COLOUR, RACE, OR SEXUAL PREFERENCE LET GO OF THE HATE AND RIGHTOUSNESS. They are human beings too. They deserve respect too. ... |
Yes, children should be taught to respect everyone - I agree. Now as to try and explain gay "marriage"? Mom/Dad - you are married, right? How can Bob & John be married, they're both men? Didn't we learn in Sunday school...
I think the biggest issue with all of this is the legal rights pertaining to tax credits, health insurance, etc... So, if you must - call it a "Civil Union". Leave marriage out of it. |
So explain it to them. When did I say marriage? Who cares what it is called? They are together, they are happy. Okay. Doesn't affect anyone but them. You can argue it will effect the children of the union. But then you still have to ask yourself why.
Simple, because most people teach their children it is wrong so those children pick on others and so on and so forth. Goes back to the old, teach the kids to respect everyone thing. |
|
|
02/17/2007 12:47:34 AM · #700 |
Again, I don't personally have a problem with gay marriage, but I am a little troubled by the flouting of the definition of marriage. The Cambridge Dictionary defines marriage as:
"a legally accepted relationship between a woman and a man in which they live as husband and wife, or the official ceremony which results in this"
How, then, can a relationship between two people of the same sex fit the definition of marriage? Are you suggesting that we change the definition of marriage? If so, that's fine, but please accept that you are essentially asking that the very definition of marriage be changed.
|
|