Gays are divorcing already

[dmp]

Selfishness? What on earth are you talking about? "Giving into physical desire" as opposed to what? Going through life without ever having a sexual experience? Resigning yourself to never being able to have a family of your own unless you lie to your spouse, yourself, and your children? What-ever.

Lie to yourself? what about 'seeking treatment' for one's unnatural, deviant urges? Just as one can be a recovering Alcoholic, one can 'recover' from homosexual addiction. Instead of treating the sickness, Homosexual groups ask society to condone it.

I have a friend here at Brown who grew up in a same-sex household; he is one of the happiest and most well-adjusted kids I've ever met. When people ask him about or give him shit about his home life, he responds proudly that he loves his parents and his parents love him. "No concept of restraint"? There is no NEED to restrain your homosexuality.

I think your friend is lying - if not to others, than to himself. We'll see how he's feeling 10 years from now. Or 20?

"Easier to simply have never been born"; right. Listen, it was (and is) EXTREMELY hard to be a child in a mixed-race househould. There was a time when doing so would probably have been as hard as being a child from a same-sex household. But would you argue to "restrain your physical urges" towards a black person in order to "save the child from hell". HELL no.

Race is something we can't adjust - Mike Jackson notwithstanding. Sexual BEHAVIOUR is something we can adjust. It further sickens me to read people comparing behaviours, such as homosexuality, beastiality, Rape, etc, to Physical Traits - Race, Gender (surgery notwithstanding).

Again - Humans have the ability to control where they get their sexual release from. We do not have the ability to control our race - again, not counting Micheal Jackson.

 

[nakedemperor]

Sexual attraction towards the same sex is a non-visible TRAIT of homosexuality. Homosexuality is not a disease. It is not something whose manifestations are a negative thing, like alcoholism, as you said. It's not something that can (or should have to be) "cured". It was removed long ago from the American Psychiatric list of "diseases". Get with the times.

 

[nakedemperor]

I think your friend is lying - if not to others, than to himself. We'll see how he's feeling 10 years from now. Or 20?

Considering you've never met the guy, and more generally considering you've no idea what you're talking about, I'd appreciate if you not disrespect my friend in a like manner. Lying? You can't "lie" about being an extraordinarily well put-together, hilarious, kind, athletic, smart human being. He's comfortable with his lifestyle, and with what his parents are. Why can't you be?

 

[Gem]

NakedEmperor,

I think that the problem with some of your examples above regarding how gay marriage might effect marriage in general is that you are imposing YOUR beliefs of right and wrong on them...and so, naturally, you can't imagine a nation legalizing these "alternative" forms of marriage.

You oppose polygamy because YOU think that you can't have a healthy relationship with more than one person. How shockingly rude of you to make such a judgement about a situation you don't know about!!!!! Perhaps polygamy is the perfect solution for some people...they aren't asking YOU to join them, so what is your objection??? With all the problems in the world...is the fact that three people want to live together and love eachother REALLY the only thing you have to worry about???? They aren't hurting you at all, they aren't telling you who you can marry, so why don't you just leave them and their relationship alone! (Sound familiar????)

Your rationalization for keeping polygamy illegal is useless (although I thank you sincerely for responding) because you are talking about legislating what YOU feel is the "right type" of love...and you can not do that. I know many married people who have relationships I can not comprehend, I find it shocking that they are still married, or that they even got married in the first place...that doesn't mean they don't have the right to be married. There are many who can't comprehend a "marriage" between a man and another man...but you feel very strongly that those people don't have the right to stop those two men from marrying...

Yet here you are...stating that you would tell people that they can't marry two people if they want to because they can't form a loving relationship in a way that you believe is "right."

I'm sorry, NakedEmperor...but just like the people who are losing the homosexual marriage argument based on logic like that....you will lose the polygamous marriage argument. Unless we keep marriage under the "age-old" definition...we are going to have real trouble telling people that their definition of marriage doesn't work...and statements like "you don't have the right type of relationship" isn't going to hold much water...in fact, it will probably get you labled an intolerant bigot!

 

[Merlin1047]

There is a terrible punishment for polygamy.








Multiple mothers-in-law.

 

[Avatar4321]

There is a terrible punishment for polygamy.








Multiple mothers-in-law.

Not if you marry the mother in laws as well...then you just have to deal with more wives

 

[ScreamingEagle]

This argument doesn't make much sense to me. There is "morality" implicit in all laws, but you can't attach specific religious denominations moral values (that might not be shared by all religions, or all believers and non-believers). "

This argument should make a LOT of sense to you because it is the very same argument that the gays are making about their getting marrried to each other. They say that "religious" morals cannot be injected into "civil" law.

All of the major belief systems (religions) of the world reject homosexuality. There are many other belief systems such as Secularism which may not. However, they are ALL belief systems and you cannot separate them from "civil" law. Law is going to be made upon one belief system or another. It should be up to the majority to decide which belief system gets reflected into law.

At any rate, the marriage law as is forbids having multiple marriage partners. This seems to make sense to me. How can you build a loving, caring, romantic relationship while dividing your time between partners? No problem with forbidding polygamy.

I think Gem pretty much aswered this one. Who are you to decide whether a person should divide his time between two or more partners? Isn't that you making a "religious" or "belief system" or "moral" judgement? (getting sarcastic here)

Marriage law forbids brothers and sisters from marrying. This is because procreation becomes dangerous for the baby.

Why should you prevent siblings from loving each other? Isn't it their "right to persue happiness" just like the gays or straights? They could practice birth control to prevent having children and still be married. And if they should happen to have a baby that has a problem, they could just abort it. Isn't that their CHOICE? Left wing folks don't think abortion isn't a BAD thing do they? :dev1: (more sarcasm) Can you see where this type of thinking could lead people?

Marriage law forbids minors from marrying. This is because they are not psychologically developed enough yet to make a good decision regarding something of the magnitude of marriage. Same with alcohol, same with voting. No problems here.

Well, what is "minor" really? Isn't that kind of a "relative" thing, just like sex? If men can marry men, why can't old men marry young men? It's all relative, right? Heck, in Canada a 14 year old can have sex or get married. In the Netherlands - that great country the gays love so much - the age of consent is only 12 yrs. Why not lower the age a few years more? I'm sure there are plenty of pedophiles who feel that they are being discriminated against just like the gays. After all, doesn't the age of reason start at 7? (more sarcasm)

All of these restrictions make sense to me.

Those restrictions may make sense to you just like the restriction against same sex marriages makes sense to the majority of American citizens. In either case, it is our belief systems at work making those decisions whether those beliefs are considered secular beliefs or religious beliefs or just common sense beliefs. They are still belief systems.

However, to prevent gays from marrying is to prevent two people from entering into a loving, caring, romantic relationship in which they can adopt a child, focus their love and respect on their one (1) partner, raise a normal child, (unless anti-gay marriage people make this child's life a living hell, which happened re: myscigenation, but it had to happen because it was right and just).

You are so selfish! You are just focussing on the gays! What about all those polygamists, pedophiles, and incestuous people who want the SAME RIGHTS as the gays? How can you deny them the very rights that you say the majority shouldn't deny the gays? Don't tell me you are being DISCRIMINATORY!? : (end sarcasm)

Essentially, there is a difference between "religion morals" influencing legislation and "allowing siblings to create genetic weirdo kids, or dooming a marriage but giving a man two wives, or allowing a minor to make a major decision". Its common sense that prevents these things from happening, not solely "immorality".

Well, as a matter of fact, a majority of people think it is just common sense for a married couple to consist of only one man and one woman because that is the "basic building block" which provides stability for children and society as a whole.

So here we are back to the basic argument...it is one belief system vs. another belief system. Here in America it is supposed to be the majority of voters who decide what new law is supposed to be. If the American people actually VOTED for gay marriage, fine. I may not like the law but I would abide by it. However, the American people are not going to just stand idely by while their Constitution is being torn apart by a few activist judges. If you open the door to gay marriage with a court ruling based on some flimsy reasoning you will also have to open the door to all the other stuff you say you don't like (such as polygamy) because you will not be able to discriminate one group from another regarding marriage. The argument will become: If a homosexual should have the right to marry one of the same sex, why shouldn't a bisexual be able to marry one of each sex?

 

[nakedemperor]

So here we are back to the basic argument...it is one belief system vs. another belief system.

Our's is a belief system as devoid of "morals" specific to religions such as Christianity (and if you believe there a zero major religions which condone sexuality...well shit, there are). The belief system you are touting upholds the "moral" of it being sinful to have sexual relations with or (gasp) marry someone of the same sex. This "moral" is discriminatory and denies equal rights. Thus it is not part of the belief system our justice system subscribes to.

Here in America it is supposed to be the majority of voters who decide what new law is supposed to be. If the American people actually VOTED for gay marriage, fine. I may not like the law but I would abide by it. However, the American people are not going to just stand idely by while their Constitution is being torn apart by a few activist judges.

That is the way it is supposed to be and that is the way it is. If an "activist judge" interprets the constituion differently from the majority of Americans, there are steps that the system provides in order for the majority view to (if only eventually) prevail. However, there have been many cases where the majority, claiming a "moral" prerogative, have made completely immoral decisions; the majority does rule, and I'll abide by any laws that are or aren't made, but it doesn't necessarily make the majority right in this particular instance, morally or otherwise.

If you open the door to gay marriage with a court ruling based on some flimsy reasoning you will also have to open the door to all the other stuff you say you don't like (such as polygamy) because you will not be able to discriminate one group from another regarding marriage. The argument will become: If a homosexual should have the right to marry one of the same sex, why shouldn't a bisexual be able to marry one of each sex?

Ha. Weird, of all the bisexuals I know, self included, I don't know a single one who is seeking the right to marry one person of each sex. What are you implying? That bis actually think 'I won't be sexually or romantically satisfied with only one person'? That's nuts, and frankly kind of demeaning.

There are legitimate reasons why polygam, underage marriage, and incest are wrong but homosexual civil unions are not. They are tangible and derive from common sense, and do not exist in the argument against homosexuality. THESE would be "flimsy" rulings. A ruling to legalize gay marriage would be a step toward equality; a ruling to legalize incestual marriages would lead to many deformed and dead babies. A ruling to legalize polygamy would complicate tax codes beyond recognition, cause marital strife, etc. etc. A ruling to allow a 7 year old to marry is just ludicrous. Your dripping sarcasm highlights reasons why it just *makes sense* to keep these things illegal which simply don't apply to the concept of legalized homosexual marriage.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Our's is a belief system as devoid of "morals" specific to religions such as Christianity (and if you believe there a zero major religions which condone sexuality...well shit, there are). The belief system you are touting upholds the "moral" of it being sinful to have sexual relations with or (gasp) marry someone of the same sex. This "moral" is discriminatory and denies equal rights. Thus it is not part of the belief system our justice system subscribes to.

What exactly do you think is the belief system that our justice system subscribes to?

That is the way it is supposed to be and that is the way it is. If an "activist judge" interprets the constituion differently from the majority of Americans, there are steps that the system provides in order for the majority view to (if only eventually) prevail. However, there have been many cases where the majority, claiming a "moral" prerogative, have made completely immoral decisions; the majority does rule, and I'll abide by any laws that are or aren't made, but it doesn't necessarily make the majority right in this particular instance, morally or otherwise. .

Who is to say what is "right or wrong"? It is the majority who decides.

Ha. Weird, of all the bisexuals I know, self included, I don't know a single one who is seeking the right to marry one person of each sex. What are you implying? That bis actually think 'I won't be sexually or romantically satisfied with only one person'? That's nuts, and frankly kind of demeaning. .

I wasn't implying anything. What I was saying is that if homosexuals have the right to marry through a court decision, then others of different persuasions will crawl out of the woodwork and demand equal treatment too. I am sure a bisexual marriage case would be among the first.

There are legitimate reasons why polygam, underage marriage, and incest are wrong but homosexual civil unions are not. They are tangible and derive from common sense, and do not exist in the argument against homosexuality. THESE would be "flimsy" rulings. A ruling to legalize gay marriage would be a step toward equality; a ruling to legalize incestual marriages would lead to many deformed and dead babies. A ruling to legalize polygamy would complicate tax codes beyond recognition, cause marital strife, etc. etc. A ruling to allow a 7 year old to marry is just ludicrous. Your dripping sarcasm highlights reasons why it just *makes sense* to keep these things illegal which simply don't apply to the concept of legalized homosexual marriage.

My sarcasm was there to point out how LUDICROUS your type of thinking is. You still don't seem to understand that to give into gay marriage will weaken and eventually destroy all arguments against anything else.

Yes I know there are "legitimate" reasons for not allowing polygamy, underage marriage, incest, and whatnot. There are also "legitimate" reasons for not allowing homosexual marriages. I'm sure you've heard all the arguments.

You still have not yet proven that you have any more "legitimate" reason for homosexuals to marry than a man who wishes to marry two women or a pedophile to marry a new 12 year old every year after he divorces last year's model.

 

[freeandfun1]

NakedEmperor,

I think that the problem with some of your examples above regarding how gay marriage might effect marriage in general is that you are imposing YOUR beliefs of right and wrong on them...and so, naturally, you can't imagine a nation legalizing these "alternative" forms of marriage.

You oppose polygamy because YOU think that you can't have a healthy relationship with more than one person. How shockingly rude of you to make such a judgement about a situation you don't know about!!!!! Perhaps polygamy is the perfect solution for some people...they aren't asking YOU to join them, so what is your objection??? With all the problems in the world...is the fact that three people want to live together and love eachother REALLY the only thing you have to worry about???? They aren't hurting you at all, they aren't telling you who you can marry, so why don't you just leave them and their relationship alone! (Sound familiar????)

Your rationalization for keeping polygamy illegal is useless (although I thank you sincerely for responding) because you are talking about legislating what YOU feel is the "right type" of love...and you can not do that. I know many married people who have relationships I can not comprehend, I find it shocking that they are still married, or that they even got married in the first place...that doesn't mean they don't have the right to be married. There are many who can't comprehend a "marriage" between a man and another man...but you feel very strongly that those people don't have the right to stop those two men from marrying...

Yet here you are...stating that you would tell people that they can't marry two people if they want to because they can't form a loving relationship in a way that you believe is "right."

I'm sorry, NakedEmperor...but just like the people who are losing the homosexual marriage argument based on logic like that....you will lose the polygamous marriage argument. Unless we keep marriage under the "age-old" definition...we are going to have real trouble telling people that their definition of marriage doesn't work...and statements like "you don't have the right type of relationship" isn't going to hold much water...in fact, it will probably get you labled an intolerant bigot!

I would ad that polygamy is practiced in many places all over the world. you know, in places that NE and others tell us we should try to understand....

Muslims practice it as do Mormons, so who is HE to say it is not healthy?

 

[Gem]

I think the tendency to scoff at considerations of what opening marriage might mean for the future is one of the main issues I have with many people who are eager to legalize gay marriage.

NakedEmperor feels that such considerations are "ridiculous" but has been unable to come up with truly reasonable answers as to why they would be ridiculous.

He thinks polygamy is a non-issue because he doesn't want to marry two people and can't imagine such a relationship is a good idea....so he doesn't approve of that as a long term relationship and doesn't think it should be legally called a marriage....hmm, sounds a bit like people who oppose gay marriage today. And he and others tell people who oppose gay marriage today that they don't have the right to tell people who they can or can not marry, its none of their business. Does he think that someone couldn't say the same to him?

He states that legalizing polygamy would be a nightmare for the tax code, for health benefits...hmm, sounds a bit like people who oppose gay marriage today. And he and others tell people who oppose gay marriage today that you can't not do the right thing because it would complicate things...ending slavery made life miserable and far more complicated for many people in the South, but it didn't mean it shouldn't have done it. Does he think that someone couldn't use the same argument once we have already set the standard?

He implies that the idea of a man marrying a 12 year old is ridiculous because a person that young isn't mature enough yet to make that decision...however, he isn't taking into consideration the state of society already. The fact that many liberals have already attempted to pass legislation that would make getting an abortion without parental consent legal for girls as young as 12...it seems to me that many in the US already feel that a 12 year old is mature enough to have sex, get pregnant, and get an abortion without notifying their parents....as others have stated, age of consent is 12 in other nations...how long before some people feel that is appropriate in the US? Not to mention that the ACLU has already gone to bat for NAMBLA (the North American Man-Boy Love Association) several times.

NakedEmperor, we aren't talking about these things as if they would happen tomorrow. We aren't talking about these things as if they wouldn't be fought against by many people. What I am saying, and I think others are saying...is that once you remove the original, ancient reason for marriage - you open it up to any interpretation a person wants to put on it. While you feel that polygamy and marriage to minors is ridiculous (and the rest of us do as well), there will be people who want to interpret marriage the way they choose....and once the definition has been shown to be maleable, they will have a much stronger case for allowing their definition to apply as well.

 

[Merlin1047]

Not if you marry the mother in laws as well...then you just have to deal with more wives

OMG!!! That's SICK!!!!!!!!! Man, you need help.

 

[OCA]

Our's is a belief system as devoid of "morals" specific to religions such as Christianity (and if you believe there a zero major religions which condone sexuality...well shit, there are). The belief system you are touting upholds the "moral" of it being sinful to have sexual relations with or (gasp) marry someone of the same sex. This "moral" is discriminatory and denies equal rights. Thus it is not part of the belief system our justice system subscribes to.

This has to be the biggest pile of slop that has dared to be posted on USMB. Devoid of morals specific to Christianity? Are you fucking stupid? Go back and read the laws of this country then tell me where do you think their roots are.

You need to accept 1 fact, you are not being discriminated against, you have every right that I do, your right to perversion is no right at all, it will not be granted.