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 08-30-2013, 07:28 AM
 
17,844 posts, read 13,765,033 times
Reputation: 4113

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
It is comparable to polygamy.
How?
Rate this post positively

 
Old 08-30-2013, 07:30 AM
 
79,839 posts, read 41,332,328 times
Reputation: 16951
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax View Post
How?
This has been addresses almost as many times as the initial questions. If it not anyone else's business who someone wants to marry where there is no harm to anyone, it's not anyone else's business. Period.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 08-30-2013, 07:51 AM
 
Location: NH
3,444 posts, read 3,103,810 times
Reputation: 4802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax View Post
Don't agree with same sex marriage? Then don't have a same-sex marriage.

How. Simple. Is. That?
Wow, how about that...it is that simple. I was merely expressing my opinion that one is not homophobic because they do not agree with same sex marriage. I could go on and express why I disagree but that would be getting off topic.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 08-30-2013, 08:19 AM
 
15,720 posts, read 11,191,418 times
Reputation: 7007
Quote:
Originally Posted by FKD19124 View Post
I have a question for you, why are you dodging the question? Looking and labeling people?
Because they're stupid, illogical questions that have been addressed countless times. Only the anti-gay crowd associates same-sex marriage with pedophilia. It's called the slippery slope fallacy.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 08-30-2013, 08:26 AM
 
2,398 posts, read 2,550,804 times
Reputation: 3473
Quote:
Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy View Post
Lately I've been discussing this on another thread and to avoid derailing the conversation, I decided to post it in a different thread.

I've heard the argument made by those in favor of gay marriage, quite a lot in recent years. It boils down to equal treatment under the law, "it's only love", "to each his own", etc. One thing that has always escaped me is where the gay marriage supporters would "draw the line"... as in, where they would stop applying that rationale when considering other types of marriage. So I have a few questions for y'all, and let's see what type of response I get.
An extremely stupid, and uneducated post. Why is it people come here from uncivilized, and oppressed places like Romania, and then criticize our country, plus the freedoms our people fought for.

Gay marriage supporters don't "draw a line" anywhere beyond what is fair to those how had the misfortune to be be a member of a very oppressed minority. Heterosexual marriage is available to all these other groups mentioned. Nobody chooses to be homosexual, and gay people are entitled to be treated as equals with dignity. Period.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 08-30-2013, 08:45 AM
 
17,844 posts, read 13,765,033 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by mustangman66 View Post
Wow, how about that...it is that simple. I was merely expressing my opinion that one is not homophobic because they do not agree with same sex marriage. I could go on and express why I disagree but that would be getting off topic.
I suppose it depends on the meaning people give to the word 'homophobic'.

Go ahead and express why you think some people 'do not agree' with gay and lesbian couples having the same rights and protections as straight couples do. It's on topic.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 08-30-2013, 09:03 AM
 
Location: I live wherever I am.
1,935 posts, read 4,498,044 times
Reputation: 3298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d View Post
I've got a question for you, OP: why are you homophobic?

If you say you're not then why did you post questions about gay marriage that equates same sex marriage with incest, polygamy, and pedophilia?
Homophobic? As in, afraid of homosexuals? Surely you jest. Ain't many reasons to be afraid of homosexuals... and I'm not afraid of homosexuals. I oppose gay marriage.

If I oppose incestuous marriage, am I incestophobic?

If I oppose polygamous marriage, am I polygophobic?

If I oppose bestial marriage, am I bestiophobic?

If I oppose child marriage, am I pedophobic?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldhag1 View Post
Not that there aren't multiple threads out there on this....

1) Should people who wish to marry their close relatives (sisters, brothers, children, parents, first cousins, etc) be permitted to do so? Yes
2) Should people who wish to marry multiple spouses be permitted to do so? Yes
3) Should people who wish to marry "children" be permitted to do so? No, children can't consent.
4) Should people who wish to marry animals be permitted to do so? No, animals can't consent. Although not too long ago some guy on here gave quite the arguement that they could.
Probably the best answer so far, since the line is drawn at "consent". I can live with that. However, who says children can't consent? Let's examine this one. Take a state where the age of consent is 16 (totally ruining the argument many people have made about a child being a minor - apparently, being a minor and being able to consent do overlap). Why is it that the "child" is not able to consent at age 15 years and 364 days, but is able to consent at age 16 years and 0 days?

My parents live across the street from a family with a 36-year-old daughter whose mental condition renders her unable to consent to much of anything even though she's 36. I've known people whose intellect and maturity would have rendered them more able to consent at age 13 than most 18-year-olds are. Since when is chronological age the determining factor? And why is the line drawn where it is drawn?

Quote:
Originally Posted by raindrop101 View Post
Heterosexual marriage is between 2 non-related, consenting adults.
Homosexual marriage is between 2 non-related, consenting adults.

Incest is not between 2 non-related, consenting adults.
Polygamy is not between 2 non-related, consenting adults.
Marriage to children is not between 2 non-related, consenting adults.
Marriage to animals is not between 2 non-related, consenting adults.

Though I don't have a problem with polygamy as long as those involved are consenting adults.
Why is it such a bad thing that the people are related?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa View Post
You forgot bestiality. I don't know about homophobic, but after defending all of those, we do know he must be a white guy.

Anyway 1, maybe, but the costs of inbreeding will end up on society - look at the south.
2. No, too many kids that end up on various welfare programs - look at Colorado City, AZ
3. No, can't enter a contract, can't consent.
4. Yes, but only if the animal proposes.
What does my race have to do with this?

Costs of inbreeding - look at the Amish. You don't see them running to the governmental welfare programs, do you? And I guarantee you that they mingle closely related sets of genes much more commonly than do Southerners.

Kids that end up on welfare programs? Come on. There are more such kids in single-parent homes than there ever were or ever would be in polygamous homes. If you're worried about kids on welfare, there are more important battles to fight than the issue of polygamy.

But you also brought up consent. I can live with that being the line in the sand that I asked about before. Only thing is, why draw that line where it is drawn? Why use age? Why not use intellectual capacity - as in, come up with a test designed by psychologists to assess the person's fitness for entering into the COVENANT (not contract) of marriage, make that a requirement for all people under a certain age (18? 21?)... and if the person passes, regardless of age, he/she is allowed to get married. If the person fails, regardless of age, he/she is not. That'd be a better determiner of ability to consent than age, no?
Rate this post positively
 
Old 08-30-2013, 09:05 AM
 
Location: NH
3,444 posts, read 3,103,810 times
Reputation: 4802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax View Post
I suppose it depends on the meaning people give to the word 'homophobic'.

Go ahead and express why you think some people 'do not agree' with gay and lesbian couples having the same rights and protections as straight couples do. It's on topic.
I think my problem is that its called marriage. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I dont see why in a gay relationship it cant just be called a civil union and let them have the same rights and protections as straight couples do. I see no discrimination in that. Two people of the opposite sex in a relationship IS different than two people of the same sex in a relationship so why shouldnt it be called something different?

I am sure there are many other opinions out there, this is just mine. Honestly, I dont really care what they do, because it does not affect me at all. For me it is more principle and the fact that it is such a big deal to some.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 08-30-2013, 09:09 AM
 
Location: Montreal, Quebec
15,084 posts, read 13,626,428 times
Reputation: 9768
Quote:
Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy View Post
Lately I've been discussing this on another thread and to avoid derailing the conversation, I decided to post it in a different thread.

I've heard the argument made by those in favor of gay marriage, quite a lot in recent years. It boils down to equal treatment under the law, "it's only love", "to each his own", etc. One thing that has always escaped me is where the gay marriage supporters would "draw the line"... as in, where they would stop applying that rationale when considering other types of marriage. So I have a few questions for y'all, and let's see what type of response I get.

1) Should people who wish to marry their close relatives (sisters, brothers, children, parents, first cousins, etc) be permitted to do so because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? After all, it's only love. It may even be heterosexual love, and the two parties may be at or beyond the age of consent! There has even been a "condition" named for some people who feel this attraction - they call it "GSA" or "Genetic Sexual Attraction".

2) Should people who wish to marry multiple spouses be permitted to do so because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? Heck, some people even claim that their religion commands them to do so. If they can have a happy marriage and support multiple spouses, why not? After all, it's only love, and in so doing, each spouse would be relieved from a pressure oft felt by an exclusive spouse - the pressure to singlehandedly meet all of his/her spouse's needs!

3) Should people who wish to marry "children" be permitted to do so (assuming the children also want it) because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? Don't kid yourself... some kids know plenty about love. I've been a lover since age 2, and my development of feelings of romantic love was at least three years ahead of the average. I can't be the only one. Children can feel love too. The age of consent may be 16 but when people start dating, for real, around age 12 (or even younger, these days), that shows that they have an idea of what "love" is. And besides, many countries allow marriage of children for any number of reasons. It's legal on most continents in the world, and in most countries therein. American "children" engage in sexual relationships and get each other pregnant all the time. Why not legalize marriage of people under age 16 (without parental or judicial consent of any kind) in America?

4) Should people who wish to marry animals be permitted to do so, because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? Let's face it... animals have a pretty deep capacity for showing love. Certain types of animals are much less inclined to cause problems for people than people are. (I read this one time - "Try locking your wife, and your dog, in the trunk of your car for a few hours. When you open the lid, which one will be happy to see you?") It's only love... and how could it harm either the person or the animal?

Now... if you answer "no" to any of these questions, I'd like an explanation as to why... and to be fair, you should know that I will be examining the explanations to see how they differ from the explanations commonly used to support gay marriage. And if you start name-calling, your post will be reported. Let's keep this civil. Obviously I am not a gay marriage supporter, but liberal-minded people who support gay marriage often use the word "tolerance". Let's apply that and be tolerant of my views, seeing as I am coming at this civilly.
First of all, you've been a lover since age 2?? What the hell?
I don't care who gets married, as long as it's not hurting anybody.
If relatives get married, there can be major defects in their progeny, so somebody gets hurt.
Polygamy? Don't care, as long as you don't have 6 wives and 28 children, all on welfare. Taxpayers get hurt.
Paedophelia. Really, you have to ask?
Beastiality? Again, you have to ask? Ever heard of consent?
Now please explain to us why you're against gay marriage.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 08-30-2013, 09:11 AM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
24,211 posts, read 13,286,086 times
Reputation: 9840
Quote:
Originally Posted by mustangman66 View Post
I think my problem is that its called marriage. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I dont see why in a gay relationship it cant just be called a civil union and let them have the same rights and protections as straight couples do. I see no discrimination in that. Two people of the opposite sex in a relationship IS different than two people of the same sex in a relationship so why shouldnt it be called something different?

I am sure there are many other opinions out there, this is just mine. Honestly, I dont really care what they do, because it does not affect me at all. For me it is more principle and the fact that it is such a big deal to some.
It needs to be called marriage, because all of the laws regarding marriage, say marriage. The cost to change every law, and every form, that mention marital status, spouse, marriage, etc would be ridiculous not to mention time consuming. Add to that the thousands of examples of legal precedents that refer to marriage, not civil union.

Not to mention separate but equal has been shown to not work in this instance already.
Rate this post positively
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.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2022, 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