Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-08-2011, 06:06 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,478 posts, read 59,665,850 times
Reputation: 24861

Advertisements

I think the core of the issue is the churches want to continue the legalization of their informal social controls on society. Anything else reduces their power over the people, even nonbelievers, by using the police powers of the state to enforce their particular beliefs.

Apparently the sanctity of their religion is not sufficient to prevent people from doing things that may bring their beliefs into question. Questions are the arch enemies of tyrannies. Most mainstream religions are hierarchical patrician tyrannies offering heaven for compliance and hell for defiance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-08-2011, 07:25 AM
 
30,030 posts, read 18,600,956 times
Reputation: 20812
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonoranrat View Post
Many people have said that gays should be allowed to be marry since as consenting adults who love each other they should have the same equal rights as heterosexual couples.

But with that logic, then shouldn't other non-traditional couples also be allowed to marry as well?

Here are some examples of couples who are not allowed to marry in any U.S. state but are nonetheless consenting adults who are in love and want to be together:
Example 1
Example 2
Example 3

And then there are these couples who want to marry but it is illegal in about half the U.S. states:
Example 4
(Some Law makers in the states where it is illegal are already attempting to legalize it.)

There are many many such couples.

One progressive European country is already considering allowing these types of non-traditional relationships to be legalized. And France already allows such relationships be legal (hence why one of the above couples is moving there).

If the criteria is that any two people who love each other and are consenting adults can marry then there is no logical reason the above couples shouldn't be allowed to marry.

(Note that I am not saying that I endorse or condone such relationships. I am merely stating that the logic which supports gay marriage would also support these other non-traditional marriages as well if one is consistent.)

Probably for the same reason that people do not marry squids. It is deviation from traditional cultural norms and eliminates individuals from the gene pool, making them less "fit" from a Darwinian standpoint.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2011, 07:27 AM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
38,627 posts, read 26,311,930 times
Reputation: 12636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax View Post
Who said we would have to do away with it? Marriage between men and women won't change just because men and men and women and women can get married.

If marriage is a good thing for the stability of society, then why stop gay couples from getting married? It will only strengthen the stability, especially for the many gay and lesbian couples raising children.



Poor analogy.


Heterosexuals have traditionally walked down the aisle to give their sexual relationship respectability before secular society, state government and their respective religious communities. For straits, marriage also means children produced from this officially sanctioned and spiritually blessed union are legitimate before all the world. Conversely, homosexuals who have long cohabited with their significant others do not have this public affirmation of their sexual union. Quite to the contrary, they carry the stigma of being gay. Their sex is seen by many as unnatural, unhealthy and even perverted. They are often the butt of jokes and, to one degree or another, feel ostracized by the larger society. They desperately want to be considered normal. They want their sexual relationship to be public knowledge and to go unquestioned, just like heterosexuals. The problem is their sexual relationships are not normal, and many people consider their sex acts to be crimes against nature. For this reason they believe marriage to their gay partners is the key to social acceptance, but I highly doubt it. The left is trying to engineer the thought process of others to fit a political agenda and it will never work because gay anal sex will always be deviant and disgusting. Furthermore, claiming gay anal intercourse is just as natural and acceptable as strait vagina intercourse will always meet resistance since straits are largely disgusted by it and wish to have nothing to do with it. There is a good reason the people of a state as far left as California specifically refused to allow the institution of marriage to be hijacked. Allowing the definition of marriage to be redefined to include gays takes away the primary social benefit of marriage which is to be married in the same way it has always meant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2011, 07:42 AM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
38,627 posts, read 26,311,930 times
Reputation: 12636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax View Post
And certain people want to reinforce and prolong the stigma and discrimination they themselves have imposed on homosexuals - by vilifying them, spreading false information about them and trying to devalue their relationships and families.

Gay people having the same rights, benefits and protections afforded by marriage to heterosexuals is not "hijacking". It's equality.


No, it's not me.

I didn't make gay sex unnatural.

Nature did that.

You're trying to convince people that what they know to be true isn't.

You want two plus two to equal five, but it doesn't.

All the finger pointing and name calling in the world won't change that.


When given the opportunity to have civil unions with equal benefits and rights to marriage, most gays will refuse it because that doesn't give them the social status of being married. And don't kid yourself, this is only about social status.

The unique benefit of being married is that the couple's relationship is defined as a marriage in the same way it has always been. Redefining marriage to include gays will take from marriage that social benefit. It is the redistribution of respectability, and heterosexuals will never accept that this is taken from them no matter how noble the cause.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2011, 07:44 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,769,662 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
And why not allow people to marry their pets?
I see, you can't differentiate between a human adult and a pet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2011, 07:50 AM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
38,627 posts, read 26,311,930 times
Reputation: 12636
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan View Post
So, if two dudes get married, that makes them somehow LESS homosexual?



Does it say "Gays want to rid themselves of the stigma of being homosexual by hijacking marriage, AND I AGREE THAT IT IS POSSIBLE TO DO THIS."?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2011, 07:54 AM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
38,627 posts, read 26,311,930 times
Reputation: 12636
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan View Post
Easily the dumbest thing ever posted on C-D. Congrats!


Got any evidence to back up the claim that they are a "decay on society"?



HIV

next!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2011, 08:12 AM
 
Location: Land of Thought and Flow
8,323 posts, read 15,147,082 times
Reputation: 4957
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
This discussion is about marriage, not civil unions.
Perhaps you missed the quote from Romeo and Juliet (Act 2, scene 2).

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet"

To put it in plain English (because I realize not everybody is capable of understanding Shakespeare): I don't care if it's called marriage or civil union, as long as it provides each and every benefit, right, privilege, and protection.

As of right now, there is no "rose by any other name" providing such. There are certain protections that no legal document could ever provide, like FMLA.

Quote:
As for your plan to have consenting adults do what ever they like, where does it end?
At consenting adults.

Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
If a man may marry another man because they both agree and are of a certain age, by what moral and/or legal authority does the state disallow tree-way marriages between a consenting female, male and bisexual man or woman. Isn't the two person limit an arbitrary meaningless left-over from the heterosexual model?

The problem with redefining "normal" to suit your own fancy is that it doesn't necessarily suit someone else. With that in mind, who are you, or anyone else, to limit the number of consenting adults of either gender or sexuality who may marry one another?


Of course, if there is a non-arbitrary reason to maintain a two person limit, this principle also has to be consistent with not requiring these two people to be of opposite sexes.
What about 2+?

((aka, links to previous posts of mine))

Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
Have explaining that one!
Already did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
NO!
Objection!

Oh wait... I thought we were just tossing out random interjections for the sake of interjections.

Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
You don't get to use fake motives for gays insisting on marriage while turning up their noses at civil unions.
Ad Hominem Tu Quoque.

Either that, or you don't get to use fallacies for insisting on marriage staying between 1man/1woman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
Civil unions could be structured to provide the same identical benefits and rights as marriage
And provided to all relationships seeking "government approval"? That's perfectly logical. Any relationship of any number of men and women should be able to form a civil union for the benefit of all parties.

Quote:
but gays have no interest in civil unions because they don't address the real issue
Spot on. It doesn't address the real issue of ignorant masses who feel that their relationship type (1 male, 1 female) is superior to all others - despite numerous social and scientific studies showing otherwise. It doesn't address the real issue that there is no logical reasoning (fallacies aren't logic) to keep marriage as 1man/1woman.

Quote:
Gays want desperately to rid themselves of the stigma of being gay.
Are you, by chance, saying that gays should be stigmatized, demonized, and villified - despite numerous studies showing no difference from heterosexual relationships?

Quote:
Civil unions, no matter the legal structure, will never make gays feel "normal".
You say "normal" as though it should be something we all strive for.

Quote:
To do this, they will make the rest of us a little less normal by forcing us to associate ourselves with gay sex through the institution of marriage.
Interesting false dilemma. Perhaps one day people realize that legalizing same-sex marriage, or 2+ person marriage is only so that these families can recieve the same protections that you (and I) take for granted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2011, 08:23 AM
 
Location: Land of Thought and Flow
8,323 posts, read 15,147,082 times
Reputation: 4957
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
HIV

next!
Confusing Cause and Effect.

Next!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2011, 08:34 AM
 
Location: Gone
25,231 posts, read 16,904,691 times
Reputation: 5932
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
HIV

next!
More Hetrosexuals have AIDs than Homosexuals, or didn't you know that fact either.
NEXT!
Casper
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:21 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top