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.
I couldn't read anymore of the OP's senseless drivel. I'm sure it's the same discussion that's been yawned out by the phobes (who cry that they are not phobes) a million times. So, why do they keep trying? They not only look hateful, now they look silly and desperate.
Compare my relationship to sex with corpses and kids, and then cry when I mock you and am not nice? Nope. I'd tell someone like that to their face where to go an how to get there. Not that these Internet cowards ever confront someone in person, guess that's why they have the need to post their fear, hate, and ignorance ad nauseum on here.
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.
^
This is also my response, pretty much. For multiple spouses, though, I'm not sure about letting polygamous couples adopt children, but I cam cool with polygamous marriage if there are no logistic(al) problems with it, such as filling out tax forms and whatnot.
"This is the exact reason why I state that society cannot function without an unchangeable "absolute standard" upon which that society is founded."
Seems you have never heard that the only constant is change. Perhaps you can point out an existing society that has never changed from its inception. If you were to look through history you would find that the societies that were the most resitant to change were the ones that lasted the least amount of time.
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.
I've just read some of your other posts and your objections to same sex marriage are based on your "Christian" religious beliefs.
You have also stated that you are divorced and have remarried. The gospels state that Jesus Christ condemned this as Adultery - one of the Big Ten no nos in your religion.
Please explain:
Why your current adulterous marriage should be recognized as legal?
Why you should not be stoned to death for Adultery?
Why you shouldn't go to hell and burn in eternal hellfire when you die because you are living an unrepentant sinful lifestyle?
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.
The reason gay marriages ought to be recognized by law is because they exist in fact. Same-sex partners who live together long term have interests, issues, and lifestyles very similar to opposite-sex married couples. There is no sound legal reason to deny them equal protection of the law.
Let's face it: 99.9% of those who oppose gay marriage are motivated by religion. But the USA is not a theocracy. When religious people campaign to deny non-religious people the right to civil marriage--i.e. secular marriage--they are out of line. Gay people shouldn't need the permission of the Southern Baptist Convention (or whoever) to have a secular marriage.
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.
The reason gay marriages ought to be recognized by law is because they exist in fact. Same-sex partners who live together long term have interests, issues, and lifestyles very similar to opposite-sex married couples. There is no sound legal reason to deny them equal protection of the law.
Let's face it: 99.9% of those who oppose gay marriage are motivated by religion. But the USA is not a theocracy. When religious people campaign to deny non-religious people the right to civil marriage--i.e. secular marriage--they are out of line. Gay people shouldn't need the permission of the Southern Baptist Convention (or whoever) to have a secular marriage.
Thanks ... you made the point I wanted to make.
Legal same sex marriage is already a fact - in 13 states, so far, the District of Columbia, and also on the reservations of 5 Tribal Nations in the US. Also in many countries around the world from Canada to Argentina to South Africa to Spain and Portugal ...
The "slippery slope" arguments posed by the OP are ridiculous and stupid. I need not dignify them with an answer ... but will pose this one question: in all of the places that have Marriage Equality, where is it also legal for parents to marry their children or is polygamy or human-non-human marriages? Where?
1. Incest has issues with increased genetic abnormalities. In the case of first cousins in most states that allow marriage require proof of the inability to reproduce. Also there are issues with coercion and "grooming" of a child until legal age.
If those two issues can be overcome, then I have no problem with consenting, non coerced, adults getting married.
2. Polygamy/polyandry. I have no issue, as long as they are all consenting adults. However our current legal structure of marriage only fits two people. There are issues of inheritance, benefits, tax law, medical decisions, etc that were built around two people. If of when that issue is fixed, go for it.
3. Pedophilia. A child can not give legal consent to enter into any legally binding contract.
4. Bestiality. An animal can not give legal consent to enter into a legally binding contract.
How does this work for homosexuals?
A same sex couple has no more issues with genetic abnormalities in offspring than a heterosexual non related couple.
A same sex couple has no more issue with coercion, or grooming than a non related heterosexual couple.
A same sex couple fits in the existing legal framework like a heterosexual couple.
A same sex couple who are adults can give legal consent to enter a legally binding contract.
You would think a person of at least average intelligence would understand the things you listed ... It seems some can't.
I'm am still waiting for the list of "special" rights same sex marriage proponents want, it has been years.
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 argument that they could.
I could say who that was but it could be considered an attack. Hint: He speaks of himself in the third person.
apples and oranges.
race and homosexuality are two different things.
No conclusive eveidence that one is born gay.
Churches that caved in to the gay agenda are those who are dying anyway, ( i.e. episcopalians, ELCA Lutherans, etc).
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
My church wouldn't have married an interracial couple when it was established a couple of hundred years ago. At some point, the good people of my church realized that such a perspective was indefensible in the context of human decency. Love is love, and the fact that these people were from different races shouldn't matter. I'm sure at the time there was a question as to whether this would lead to something else. The false assumption is that such implications must be inevitable: The reality is that the decision to join homosexual couples in marriage was made deliberately, following the same path as our church took in deciding that we had previously been wrong about interracial couples, but still a deliberate consideration of the new context.
So what you're asking is for me to tell you what people fifty years from now will think. Let's go ask them. I can only speak for myself, right here right now. I am sure that something we all presume today is "worthy of discrimination" will, in the fullness of time, be realized as unworthy of discrimination, because for the last 350 years or so, society has been on a path of ever-increasing morality in terms of affirming and promoting the worth and dignity of others. That's not going to change, even though a lot of right-wing wackos and other reactionaries perhaps wish it would. So I'm sure that fifty years from now some of my perspectives will be considered, in 20/20 hindsight, inexcusably discriminatory against someone, just like your perspectives are inexcusably discriminatory against someone, today. But I couldn't tell you now, what growth, what new open-heartedness or what de-marginalization will take place between now and then.
I think the people who have the hardest time understanding this stuff are the people who can trace their lineage back to the lords of the manors and some such, perhaps still clinging to the hope of restoration of feudalistic social structures, with themselves at the top of course. Everyone else should be able to access some family memory of when they were the marginalized ones, when they - just being who they are - were devalued and disrespected because power allowed those in control to engage in such scurrilous discrimination. That should, but often doesn't, help such folks understand and grant the righteousness of acknowledging the worth and dignity of others, specifically in this case, homosexuals who wish to marry.
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.
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.
I can only speak for myself, right here right now. I am sure that something we all presume today is "worthy of discrimination" will, in the fullness of time, be realized as unworthy of discrimination, because for the last 350 years or so, society has been on a path of ever-increasing morality in terms of affirming and promoting the worth and dignity of others. That's not going to change, even though a lot of right-wing wackos and other reactionaries perhaps wish it would. So I'm sure that fifty years from now some of my perspectives will be considered, in 20/20 hindsight, inexcusably discriminatory against someone, just like your perspectives are inexcusably discriminatory against someone, today. But I couldn't tell you now, what growth, what new open-heartedness or what de-marginalization will take place between now and then. 