Objective Standard of Marriage: Includes mono-gender: Defend it from Polygamy...

[Tech_Esq]

Huh... So where 'science' could show that animals can consent to sexual intercourse... you'd be fine with that?

And that question goes to the others who adhered to the position that the sexual orientation of beastiality lacks the legitimacy of the homo-sexual orientation because animals can't give their verbal consent...

Which of course goes to the same question regarding children.

The APA has issued a 'SCIENTIFIC study' which concludes that children who consent to sexual relationships with adults actually benefit from the experience and that children who are known to have been molested as children do not suffer long term psychological injury...

Do you believe that where 'science' can show that a child is able to give their consent, that an adult who engages in sexual activity with such a child are within their RIGHTS and should not be condemned of suffer any consequences as a result of that decision?

PI, the legal argument to this is capacity not speech.

Neither children nor animals have the capacity to consent. Thus, if you have sex with a minor, it is statutory rape. It doesn't matter if they jump on you, pull your thingy out and do it all themselves, rape. You on them. Provided that you were a willing participant in some way.

Same goes for animals. It doesn't matter if your wife taught your lab to talk and he said, "yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, I love sex with you." Still no consent. The law says your lab is too dumb to consent, even if he could do it verbally.

Next.

Hmm... Tech... Check me if I'm wrong here... but "... where 'science' could show that animals {and children} can consent to sexual intercourse... ' that would necessarily be a function of 'capacity,' now wouldn't it?

Speech being, little more than evidence of a higher cognitive capacity... but the nod of affirmation would suffice... where the shalkng of the head in opposition was also a realized means... as would be the means to scratch a 'mark' in affirmation of a written contract... wouldn't that suffice?

The premise is clear and unambiguous... 'where science could provide that consent was obtainable...'

Now Rind's 'report' concludes that many children are perfectly suited to offer their consent... and where such is offered; 'loving sexual relationships with adults' is actually beneficial to some children...

This member declared that where such were to be established, that they would 'have no problem' with beastiality or adult/child sex...

The point is Tech, that the ranks of the social science corp, if you will, are LOADED with individuals who are of like mind and who are perfectly CERTAIN that such is possible; that children are psychologically suited to consent to sexual relationships... there can be no doubt that the hand licking sheep is perfectly capapble of offering consent... to oppose that certainty, one has to conclude that Ovis Aries as a species has been sustained by tens of thousands of years of unbridled rape... and I imagine you'd be hard pressed to find a sound conclusion to sustain that one.

Public mores are a function of cultural experience... contrary to mythical belief, these standards are not just jotted up as a means to punish the perves...

Beastiality is a very dangerous practice, as it subjects the participants to all manner of medical calamities... where disease is provided a means of transmission from one species to the next, which nature has sought to avoid the the biological baseline; wherein sexual arousal is NOT triggered through the consideration of animals.

Come on man... you can't be serious here.

I'm all for a reasoned discussion of the legalities, from principle to reasoned application... and anyone that's read my work, knows I love a good semantics argument... but this one is a real stinker...

While you may agree with Dickens that, "if the law says that it is a (sic) ass." Nevertheless, it is a fair rendition of what the law says.

Regardless of cognitive studies of children and dumb beasts, the fact remains that legally, they are unable to consent because they lack capacity.

Similarly, if we can take this argument away from sex for a moment, minors lack the capacity to civilly contract for services. A businessman engages in contract with a minor at his peril. A minor may recant its part in the contract and the businessman is left holding the bag.

The hill is much steeper than you suppose.

 

[RodISHI]

"These threads"? Threads about people's "right" to perversion?

The biggest problem with their "right" "to perversion" is it most generally and ineveitably ends up their "right" to force anothers "right" to deny that it is perfecty normal and acceptable behavior.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The government should develop a "civil union" which is a contract between two (and only two) consentual human adults. This can be any two adults, and should not be thought of as a sexual contract any more than the contract between Manny and the Dodgers is sexual.

It would be a business contract, that could only be dissolved through arbitration, or divorce...or death of one of the parties.

Marriage would be religious. If a couple is married, they would have the option of a civil union and would just ahve to apply for it with the state.

Indeed... the instrument for such is readily available right now... Its called INCORPORATION... the legal instrument wherein multiple parties join to form one legal entity for the purposes of meeting their common goals and aspirations...

However, ss I've stated many times, the homosexual Lobby is NOT interested in this, as their goal is the legitimacy which Marriage represents... and decidedly NOT in the red herrings of 'legalities and equality.'

Really, how do you know what they are interested in. Xotoxi's proposal has been made, and perverts like you shot it down.

ROFLMNAO... There is NOTHING on my record where 'non-marital civil unions' have been contested...

I have stated as loudly as I am able, in as many places as I have been able to find and to as many who I could shout it to, that Incorporation is the natural means by which homosexuals can find the legal and economic benefits to which they DECEITFULLY claim to aspire.

And such has been my position since the mid to late 1970s... when I first became aware of the homosexual movement... The Legal instrument of incorporation and the stated desire by the homosexual lobby, that they were desirous of and should be provided such benefits...

Of course back then, I actually believed that such is what they wanted... so I was puzzled for many years, as to why this suggestion was simply being dismissed... that wherever I mentioned it, the homosexual advocate would talk over me, change the subject or peer down in a patronizinf sneer and explain that I simply didn't fully understand the issue; implying that my age and experience were insufficient to provide a sufficient understanding. This was compounded by my also being too young to really have a grasp on 'patronizing'... so I missed many opportunities to rise up in righteous indignation... but that's another story...

The point is that the homosexual lobby is not interested in 'non-marital Civil Unions' they want MARRIAGE to include them and they want it for the implied LEGITIMACY... which... as is nearly always the case where reason is detached from a goal... the result of Marriage including them will be to DE-Legitimize Marriage... thus they'll destroy the nuclues of the culture wherein they sought to establish themselves as a legitimate element... making the fruition of their goal, a stark impossibility.

 

[KittenKoder]

Indeed... the instrument for such is readily available right now... Its called INCORPORATION... the legal instrument wherein multiple parties join to form one legal entity for the purposes of meeting their common goals and aspirations...

However, ss I've stated many times, the homosexual Lobby is NOT interested in this, as their goal is the legitimacy which Marriage represents... and decidedly NOT in the red herrings of 'legalities and equality.'

Really, how do you know what they are interested in. Xotoxi's proposal has been made, and perverts like you shot it down.

ROFLMNAO... There is NOTHING on my record where 'non-marital civil unions' have been contested...

I have stated as loudly as I am able, in as many places as I have been able to find and to as many who I could shout it to, that Incorporation is the natural means by which homosexuals can find the legal and economic benefits to which they DECEITFULLY claim to aspire.

And such has been my position since the mid to late 1970s... when I first became aware of the homosexual movement... The Legal instrument of incorporation and the stated desire by the homosexual lobby, that they were desirous of and should be provided such benefits...

Of course back then, I actually believed that such is what they wanted... so I was puzzled for many years, as to why this suggestion was simply being dismissed... that wherever I mentioned it, the homosexual advocate would talk over me, change the subject or peer down in a patronizinf sneer and explain that I simply didn't fully understand the issue; implying that my age and experience were insufficient to provide a sufficient understanding. This was compounded by my also being too young to really have a grasp on 'patronizing'... so I missed many opportunities to rise up in righteous indignation... but that's another story...

The point is that the homosexual lobby is not interested in 'non-marital Civil Unions' they want MARRIAGE to include them and they want it for the implied LEGITIMACY... which... as is nearly always the case where reason is detached from a goal... the result of Marriage including them will be to DE-Legitimize Marriage... thus they'll destroy the nuclues of the culture wherein they sought to establish themselves as a legitimate element... making the fruition of their goal, a stark impossibility.

Washington State: Everything but Marriage is being contested as we speak.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

So far the only ones advocating this are PI and ... well ... Yurt ... no one else seems to think pedophilia is acceptable on any level.

No one?

Really?

So the homosexual lobby, known as the North American Man/Boy Love Association... these homosexuals would necessarily NOT EXIST, if your premise is true...

Dr. Alfred Kinsey... of the Kinsey Institute... Who authored the 1948 text: Sexual Behavior in the Human Male; a 'study' which concluded that adult/child sex was perfectly normal and healthy and that laws which prevented or otherwise precluded such was scientificially unfounded... and Doctors Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch, Robert Bauserman, who published the 1999 'study': A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples, which came to the same conclusions as Kinsey... only extending the Kinsey conclusion, in terms of assumed psychological harm, to the young adults stage of life for those who were known to have been exposed to Childhood Sexual Abuse...

NONE OF THOSE PEOPLE; AND NONE OF THEIR "SCIENCE"... would exist either...

Hmm... Well, that tends toward the indication, at least, Kitty... that your most recent conclusion represents that you're essentially full of shit...

Now what can we do to clear this up...


Would you like to declare that the most prolific Institution in the Study of Human Sexuality doesn't exist and that their chronic conclusions that Adult/child sex is pretty much Ok... and that the only thing that really makes it SEEM NOT Ok, it the crazy assed christians spouting their unconstitutional, UNSCIENTIFIC HATE SPEECH?

I don't want to influence your decision one way or another... as your overt concession that you're mistaken, or your emphatic declaration that Kinsey, Rind and Homo-crew are fabrications of the VRWC... work equally well for my purposes.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

So much for the APA study that shows that kids benefit from sexual contact.

Way to outright lie, dumbshit.

A lie? Really?

Rind says a 9-year-old can consent to sex and that "The current war on boy-lovers has no basis in science."

So tell us Nik, what is this most recent conclusion of yours resting upon? You've clearly not read the 'study'... yet your position seems quite EMPHATIC... and stands in direct opposition to the would-be facts which Rind came to 'report'...

So help us out here... explain how you came to conclude that the Rind 'study' did not conclude that adult/child sex can be beneficial to children.

Their point is that people are mixing child abuse (having sex with a 6 year old) with statutory rape type abuse (having sex with a 15 year old). Way to completely misinterpret the study.

No.... that is DECIDELY NOT THE POINT...

The POINT IS:

That you stated that where SCIENCE established that Children and Animals could consent to sexual intercourse... that YOU 'were fine with that...'

What's more, you claimed that the Rind Study did NOT provide the conclusion that Children were capable of consent and actually benefitted from 'a consenual loving relationship with an adult.' Which was sumarily REFUTED....

The Point THEN BECAME, the foundation of your conclusion (noted above) and the elements of that foundation... PARTICULARLY where it has been INDISPUTABLY ESTABLISHED THAT THERE IS AN EFFORT AMONGST THE MOST PROLIFIC SOCIAL SCIENTISTS WHO STUDY USE THEIR PERCEIVED AUTHORITY TO INFLUENCE THE CULTURE THAT ADULT/CHILD SEX IS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE AND OTHERWISE NORMAL!

A position which you specifically stated 'WAS FINE WITH YOU!'

Now again... an advocate of the normalization of adult/child sex comes to obfuscate the issue, to obscure the conclusions which they've offered and the IMPACT OF THOSE CONCLUSIONS ON THEIR CREDIBILITY.

 

[KittenKoder]

So far the only ones advocating this are PI and ... well ... Yurt ... no one else seems to think pedophilia is acceptable on any level.

No one?

Really?

So the homosexual lobby, known as the North American Man/Boy Love Association... these homosexuals would necessarily NOT EXIST, if your premise is true...

Dr. Alfred Kinsey... of the Kinsey Institute... Who authored the 1948 text: Sexual Behavior in the Human Male; a 'study' which concluded that adult/child sex was perfectly normal and healthy and that laws which prevented or otherwise precluded such was scientificially unfounded... and Doctors Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch, Robert Bauserman, who published the 1999 'study': A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples, which came to the same conclusions as Kinsey... only extending the Kinsey conclusion, in terms of assumed psychological harm, to the young adults stage of life for those who were known to have been exposed to Childhood Sexual Abuse...

NONE OF THOSE PEOPLE; AND NONE OF THEIR "SCIENCE"... would exist either...

Hmm... Well, that tends toward the indication, at least, Kitty... that your most recent conclusion represents that you're essentially full of shit...

Now what can we do to clear this up...


Would you like to declare that the most prolific Institution in the Study of Human Sexuality doesn't exist and that their chronic conclusions that Adult/child sex is pretty much Ok... and that the only thing that really makes it SEEM NOT Ok, it the crazy assed christians spouting their unconstitutional, UNSCIENTIFIC HATE SPEECH?

I don't want to influence your decision one way or another... as your overt concession that you're mistaken, or your emphatic declaration that Kinsey, Rind and Homo-crew are fabrications of the VRWC... work equally well for my purposes.

You'd have a point if there just wasn't so much wrong with your point. Most pedophiles are straight, old men going after little girls. Also, if you want the government to dictate your religion, fine, just don't go crying in a corner when they come collecting taxes to and making arbitrary laws dictating what and who you worship and when. Me, I want marriage unreligious, period. It's the only right answer and the only way to make it fair. Make it business only (right now it's legalized slavery anyway), or expect more, just because people like you are pissing off us swing/independent voters.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

PI, the legal argument to this is capacity not speech.

Neither children nor animals have the capacity to consent. Thus, if you have sex with a minor, it is statutory rape. It doesn't matter if they jump on you, pull your thingy out and do it all themselves, rape. You on them. Provided that you were a willing participant in some way.

Same goes for animals. It doesn't matter if your wife taught your lab to talk and he said, "yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, I love sex with you." Still no consent. The law says your lab is too dumb to consent, even if he could do it verbally.

Next.

Hmm... Tech... Check me if I'm wrong here... but "... where 'science' could show that animals {and children} can consent to sexual intercourse... ' that would necessarily be a function of 'capacity,' now wouldn't it?

Speech being, little more than evidence of a higher cognitive capacity... but the nod of affirmation would suffice... where the shalkng of the head in opposition was also a realized means... as would be the means to scratch a 'mark' in affirmation of a written contract... wouldn't that suffice?

The premise is clear and unambiguous... 'where science could provide that consent was obtainable...'

Now Rind's 'report' concludes that many children are perfectly suited to offer their consent... and where such is offered; 'loving sexual relationships with adults' is actually beneficial to some children...

This member declared that where such were to be established, that they would 'have no problem' with beastiality or adult/child sex...

The point is Tech, that the ranks of the social science corp, if you will, are LOADED with individuals who are of like mind and who are perfectly CERTAIN that such is possible; that children are psychologically suited to consent to sexual relationships... there can be no doubt that the hand licking sheep is perfectly capapble of offering consent... to oppose that certainty, one has to conclude that Ovis Aries as a species has been sustained by tens of thousands of years of unbridled rape... and I imagine you'd be hard pressed to find a sound conclusion to sustain that one.

Public mores are a function of cultural experience... contrary to mythical belief, these standards are not just jotted up as a means to punish the perves...

Beastiality is a very dangerous practice, as it subjects the participants to all manner of medical calamities... where disease is provided a means of transmission from one species to the next, which nature has sought to avoid the the biological baseline; wherein sexual arousal is NOT triggered through the consideration of animals.

Come on man... you can't be serious here.

I'm all for a reasoned discussion of the legalities, from principle to reasoned application... and anyone that's read my work, knows I love a good semantics argument... but this one is a real stinker...

While you may agree with Dickens that, "if the law says that it is a (sic) ass." Nevertheless, it is a fair rendition of what the law says.

Regardless of cognitive studies of children and dumb beasts, the fact remains that legally, they are unable to consent because they lack capacity.

Similarly, if we can take this argument away from sex for a moment, minors lack the capacity to civilly contract for services. A businessman engages in contract with a minor at his peril. A minor may recant its part in the contract and the businessman is left holding the bag.

The hill is much steeper than you suppose.

Tech... No one, not the leastof which is ME... is arguing that the law presently concludes that children and animals aren't cognitive capable of rendering consent... So let me formerly concede to that point... despite my having never challenged it, anywhere, at any time...

The issue was framed as a SCENARIO, wherein: WERE SCIENCE to establish that both respective subjects WERE CAPABLE OF SUCH... WOULD THE RELEVANT MEMBERS CONCLUDE THAT SEX WITH THE RESPECTIVE SUBJECTS WAS ACCEPTABLE... which is relevant in that such would be intrinsic to the Cultural Debate which would serve as the basis on which THE LAW WOULD BE CHANGED... which of course brings us to the discussion of Law being a means to its own ends... or the means to service Justice.

We are a nation of Laws... I'm sure you agree...

Now that works ONLY AS LONG AS THE LAW SERVES JUSTICE... ONCE the LAW BECOMES A MEANS TO ITS OWN END... LAW FOR THE SAKE OF LAW... LAW ABSENT SOUND REASONING, VALID LOGIC AND DESIGNED TO SERVE THE INTERESTS OF SOMETHING BESIDE JUSTICE... say 'FAIRNESS' as a relevant example... a nation of Law becomes Niceragua... Venezuala, Cuba and any of dozens of unsustainable shitholes.

Don't you agree?

 

[xotoxi]

Yep. If they want it to be religious, no more laws for it, period.

The government should develop a "civil union" which is a contract between two (and only two) consentual human adults. This can be any two adults, and should not be thought of as a sexual contract any more than the contract between Manny and the Dodgers is sexual.

It would be a business contract, that could only be dissolved through arbitration, or divorce...or death of one of the parties.

Marriage would be religious. If a couple is married, they would have the option of a civil union and would just ahve to apply for it with the state.

Indeed... the instrument for such is readily available right now... Its called INCORPORATION... the legal instrument wherein multiple parties join to form one legal entity for the purposes of meeting their common goals and aspirations...

However, as I've stated many times, the homosexual Lobby is NOT interested in this, as their goal is the legitimacy which Marriage represents... and such is sustained ONLY through the red herrings of 'legalities and equality.'

It would be similar to incorporation...however, this union would be between two people exclusively and inclusively. An individual can be incorporationed multiple times - the civil union could only be one at a time.

This would allow men and women to unite, as well as two men, two women, two brothers, a mother and a son, a father and a daughter, a grandson and a grandmother...whatever benefits them from a legal, financial, and/or taxation standpoint.

For example, you could enter into a civil union with your 96 year old grandmother (if she was competent to make the decision), and when she dies, no inheritence or estate tax would be paid.

Marriage would be entirely a religious entity. If a religion wants to allow gays to "marry", then that is their perogative...the state can't say anything about it. And that gay couple would just file with the state, and they would be a recognized civil union.

 

[FreeXenon]

No, no, no, FreeXenon. Homosexual marriage leads to terrorism. Why do you hate America so much?

Oh, Wow! I have it totally wrong. Thank you for enlightening me to the error of my ways! =)

I would be for privatizing marriage to a contract which would alleviate many issues. The government can have a department which acts like a repository for standard union arrangements so that standard templates are easily accessible.

 

[RodISHI]

The new movement right behind this one is the lowering of the age of consesual sex. I had quite the conversation with a few older people I know on this lastest venue. I've come to the conclusion that people that are to old or too young for stable intelligent cognitive processes. If it was not for freedoms and liberties I'd say they need to be banned from politic processes of decision making.

When an eighty year olds have determined that twelve year olds are fully capable of making a reasonable intelligent decision of having sex with people over twenty we have real problems. Our children are not being allowed to simply be children. This same ideal goes for the homosexual movement forcing their venues in the school and the taxpayer footing the bill for them to do it with.
At last minute, MA House sneaks in "some" funding requirement for homosexual school programs in 2010 budget. "Last year the homosexual lobby got $850,000 of tax money, and they could use this tactic to get much of that amount again."

In as much as I personally would not discriminate against a homosexual I will be damn if I will be forced to accept it as normal behavior. It is not. It is no more normal than having more than one sex partner in a day, a week or a month, a twelve year old having sex with a fifty year old, or a relative abusing a child to meet their own sick desires or neighbors sleeping with their neighbors spouses.

There is a hugh difference between live and let live than live and accept what me for what I am or else.

 

[Nik]

A lie? Really?

Rind says a 9-year-old can consent to sex and that "The current war on boy-lovers has no basis in science."

So tell us Nik, what is this most recent conclusion of yours resting upon? You've clearly not read the 'study'... yet your position seems quite EMPHATIC... and stands in direct opposition to the would-be facts which Rind came to 'report'...

So help us out here... explain how you came to conclude that the Rind 'study' did not conclude that adult/child sex can be beneficial to children.

Their point is that people are mixing child abuse (having sex with a 6 year old) with statutory rape type abuse (having sex with a 15 year old). Way to completely misinterpret the study.

No.... that is DECIDELY NOT THE POINT...

The POINT IS:

That you stated that where SCIENCE established that Children and Animals could consent to sexual intercourse... that YOU 'were fine with that...'

What's more, you claimed that the Rind Study did NOT provide the conclusion that Children were capable of consent and actually benefitted from 'a consenual loving relationship with an adult.' Which was sumarily REFUTED....

The Point THEN BECAME, the foundation of your conclusion (noted above) and the elements of that foundation... PARTICULARLY where it has been INDISPUTABLY ESTABLISHED THAT THERE IS AN EFFORT AMONGST THE MOST PROLIFIC SOCIAL SCIENTISTS WHO STUDY USE THEIR PERCEIVED AUTHORITY TO INFLUENCE THE CULTURE THAT ADULT/CHILD SEX IS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE AND OTHERWISE NORMAL!

A position which you specifically stated 'WAS FINE WITH YOU!'

Now again... an advocate of the normalization of adult/child sex comes to obfuscate the issue, to obscure the conclusions which they've offered and the IMPACT OF THOSE CONCLUSIONS ON THEIR CREDIBILITY.

Quote me where I said that "where SCIENCE established that Children and Animals could consent to sexual intercourse... that YOU 'were fine with that...'"

For animals perhaps, children no. Lying again, pub?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

So far the only ones advocating this are PI and ... well ... Yurt ... no one else seems to think pedophilia is acceptable on any level.

No one?

Really?

So the homosexual lobby, known as the North American Man/Boy Love Association... these homosexuals would necessarily NOT EXIST, if your premise is true...

Dr. Alfred Kinsey... of the Kinsey Institute... Who authored the 1948 text: Sexual Behavior in the Human Male; a 'study' which concluded that adult/child sex was perfectly normal and healthy and that laws which prevented or otherwise precluded such was scientificially unfounded... and Doctors Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch, Robert Bauserman, who published the 1999 'study': A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples, which came to the same conclusions as Kinsey... only extending the Kinsey conclusion, in terms of assumed psychological harm, to the young adults stage of life for those who were known to have been exposed to Childhood Sexual Abuse...

NONE OF THOSE PEOPLE; AND NONE OF THEIR "SCIENCE"... would exist either...

Hmm... Well, that tends toward the indication, at least, Kitty... that your most recent conclusion represents that you're essentially full of shit...

Now what can we do to clear this up...


Would you like to declare that the most prolific Institution in the Study of Human Sexuality doesn't exist and that their chronic conclusions that Adult/child sex is pretty much Ok... and that the only thing that really makes it SEEM NOT Ok, it the crazy assed christians spouting their unconstitutional, UNSCIENTIFIC HATE SPEECH?

I don't want to influence your decision one way or another... as your overt concession that you're mistaken, or your emphatic declaration that Kinsey, Rind and Homo-crew are fabrications of the VRWC... work equally well for my purposes.

You'd have a point if there just wasn't so much wrong with your point. Most pedophiles are straight, old men going after little girls.

Fascinating... So you're coming to note that 'The majority of the crimes are committed by the majority?'

Oh that's DEEP!

One presumes then that you're wanting to rationalize that because hetero-sexuals find that there are those among them who can't live up to the high standards of acceptable public behavior, that what we should do is to normalize deviant behavior to accommodate the Homsoexuals, who represent the only organzed advocacy of adult/child sex on earth...

A group, which FTR: for whatever it's worth is oppossed by vastly more hetero-sexuals that homosexuals... I mean if a head-count is the arbiter of validity, then you're pretty well screwed on that point alone.

Also, if you want the government to dictate your religion, fine, just don't go crying in a corner when they come collecting taxes to and making arbitrary laws dictating what and who you worship and when.

Do you have ANY means of verifying the reality in which your presently operating? Take a look outside and tell me what color the sky is overhead...

What SPECIFICALLY have I written, have you used as the basis of THAT drivel? It is so far askew from ANYTHING that i've said, that your mental stability is becoming a serious concern, Kitty.

Me, I want marriage unreligious, period.

Then what you're looking for is incorporation... Its a secular means to organizing multiple parties into one legal entity for the purposes of furthering their common interests, aspirations and goals....

Marriage has a decidely 'Religious' basis, where in there's a lot of 'swearing upon one's word of honor... in the eyes of God and his many witnesses...

It's the only right answer and the only way to make it fair. Make it business only (right now it's legalized slavery anyway), or expect more, just because people like you are pissing off us swing/independent voters.

Yes, well it all sounds very appealing... Good luck and I'd wish you all the happiness, but clearly, that's not an option...

 

[Ravi]

Fearing that some other group may get rights is not a valid reason to deny rights to a non-lawbreaking group.

In fact, it is quite un-American.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The government should develop a "civil union" which is a contract between two (and only two) consentual human adults. This can be any two adults, and should not be thought of as a sexual contract any more than the contract between Manny and the Dodgers is sexual.

It would be a business contract, that could only be dissolved through arbitration, or divorce...or death of one of the parties.

Marriage would be religious. If a couple is married, they would have the option of a civil union and would just ahve to apply for it with the state.

Indeed... the instrument for such is readily available right now... Its called INCORPORATION... the legal instrument wherein multiple parties join to form one legal entity for the purposes of meeting their common goals and aspirations...

However, as I've stated many times, the homosexual Lobby is NOT interested in this, as their goal is the legitimacy which Marriage represents... and such is sustained ONLY through the red herrings of 'legalities and equality.'

It would be similar to incorporation...however, this union would be between two people exclusively and inclusively. An individual can be incorporationed multiple times - the civil union could only be one at a time.

This would allow men and women to unite, as well as two men, two women, two brothers, a mother and a son, a father and a daughter, a grandson and a grandmother...whatever benefits them from a legal, financial, and/or taxation standpoint.

For example, you could enter into a civil union with your 96 year old grandmother (if she was competent to make the decision), and when she dies, no inheritence or estate tax would be paid.

Marriage would be entirely a religious entity. If a religion wants to allow gays to "marry", then that is their perogative...the state can't say anything about it. And that gay couple would just file with the state, and they would be a recognized civil union.

Well, we agree completely... except men and woman can unite without the bother of incorporating. All such does is to tidy up the math... adds a level of exposure, liability and other facets of risk, which they will likely come to rue in fairly short order.

Such is the common result of those who seek to short circuit common sense.

Again... Marriage IS an entirely religious thing... without exception. People who reject that, do so out of delusion... But hey... lets not get bogged down in that.


The point is that incorporation solves the problem entirely... always has and as I've stated MANY TIMES... the homosexual lobby is NOT INTERESTED...

But I do hope that you pursue the point in debate with as many homosexuals as you can corner to debate it.

In the decades which I've been doing so, they are interested ONLY to the extent that such can be painted red and carved to Herring specifications...

I'm glad we finally found common ground.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Their point is that people are mixing child abuse (having sex with a 6 year old) with statutory rape type abuse (having sex with a 15 year old). Way to completely misinterpret the study.

No.... that is DECIDELY NOT THE POINT...

The POINT IS:

That you stated that where SCIENCE established that Children and Animals could consent to sexual intercourse... that YOU 'were fine with that...'

What's more, you claimed that the Rind Study did NOT provide the conclusion that Children were capable of consent and actually benefitted from 'a consenual loving relationship with an adult.' Which was sumarily REFUTED....

The Point THEN BECAME, the foundation of your conclusion (noted above) and the elements of that foundation... PARTICULARLY where it has been INDISPUTABLY ESTABLISHED THAT THERE IS AN EFFORT AMONGST THE MOST PROLIFIC SOCIAL SCIENTISTS WHO STUDY USE THEIR PERCEIVED AUTHORITY TO INFLUENCE THE CULTURE THAT ADULT/CHILD SEX IS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE AND OTHERWISE NORMAL!

A position which you specifically stated 'WAS FINE WITH YOU!'

Now again... an advocate of the normalization of adult/child sex comes to obfuscate the issue, to obscure the conclusions which they've offered and the IMPACT OF THOSE CONCLUSIONS ON THEIR CREDIBILITY.

Quote me where I said that "where SCIENCE established that Children and Animals could consent to sexual intercourse... that YOU 'were fine with that...'"

For animals perhaps, children no. Lying again, pub?

Yeah... I'm lyin' That's Right Nik... This is NOT A TEXT FORUM where the record is WRITTEN FOR ANYONE TO EXAMINE... THUS SUCH IS QUITE COMMON...

But let's take a look at this post:

Cause animals can consent to sex?

Huh... So where 'science' could show that animals can consent to sexual intercourse... you'd be fine with that?

And that question goes to the others who adhered to the position that the sexual orientation of beastiality lacks the legitimacy of the homo-sexual orientation because animals can't give their verbal consent...

Which of course goes to the same question regarding children.

The APA has issued a 'SCIENTIFIC study' which concludes that children who consent to sexual relationships with adults actually benefit from the experience and that children who are known to have been molested as children do not suffer long term psychological injury...

Do you believe that where 'science' can show that a child is able to give their consent, that an adult who engages in sexual activity with such a child are within their RIGHTS and should not be condemned of suffer any consequences as a result of that decision?

Yes, I'd be fine with it.

And you are lying about the APA study. I know several people who were molested as kids. All of them are still effected by it, even though it is years later.

Now Counselor... I can't help but to notice that you're screen name is "Nik" and that would necessarily mean that this was YOU saying just that... wouldn't it?

 

[xotoxi]

Indeed... the instrument for such is readily available right now... Its called INCORPORATION... the legal instrument wherein multiple parties join to form one legal entity for the purposes of meeting their common goals and aspirations...

However, as I've stated many times, the homosexual Lobby is NOT interested in this, as their goal is the legitimacy which Marriage represents... and such is sustained ONLY through the red herrings of 'legalities and equality.'

It would be similar to incorporation...however, this union would be between two people exclusively and inclusively. An individual can be incorporationed multiple times - the civil union could only be one at a time.

This would allow men and women to unite, as well as two men, two women, two brothers, a mother and a son, a father and a daughter, a grandson and a grandmother...whatever benefits them from a legal, financial, and/or taxation standpoint.

For example, you could enter into a civil union with your 96 year old grandmother (if she was competent to make the decision), and when she dies, no inheritence or estate tax would be paid.

Marriage would be entirely a religious entity. If a religion wants to allow gays to "marry", then that is their perogative...the state can't say anything about it. And that gay couple would just file with the state, and they would be a recognized civil union.

Well, we agree completely... except men and woman can unite without the bother of incorporating. All such does is to tidy up the math... adds a level of exposure, liability and other facets of risk, which they will likely come to rue in fairly short order.

Such is the common result of those who seek to short circuit common sense.

Again... Marriage IS an entirely religious thing... without exception. People who reject that, do so out of delusion... But hey... lets not get bogged down in that.


The point is that incorporation solves the problem entirely... always has and as I've stated MANY TIMES... the homosexual lobby is NOT INTERESTED...

But I do hope that you pursue the point in debate with as many homosexuals as you can corner to debate it.

In the decades which I've been doing so, they are interested ONLY to the extent that such can be painted red and carved to Herring specifications...

I'm glad we finally found common ground.

You are right...under my suggestion, men and women could unite in marriage within their religion.

However, since the state would no longer recognize marriage, they would also have to register with the state for a civil union. They could choose not to obtain a civil union and just be married, but they would not be able to file jointly, or make medical decisions, or share health insurance, or inherit directly.

They would have that choice.

I'm also glad to see that we agree completely. The sanctity of marriage would be preserved while allowing every adult the ability to enjoy all the rights and priviledges that were once afforded by the now defunct state issued "marriage license".

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Fearing that some other group may get rights is not a valid reason to deny rights to a non-lawbreaking group.

In fact, it is quite un-American.

What is UN-AMERICAN, is the notion that some groups have rights and that some don't...

Ya see... an AMERICAN understands that everyone has the SAME RIGHTS... PERIOD.

An AMERICAN understands what those rights are; they FURTHER understand that with those rights COME IMMUTABLE RESPONSIBILITIES and that where the responsibility is REJECTED, THE RIGHT IS FORFEITED... as it is the RESPONSIBILITY which SUSTAINS THE RIGHT...

And no AMERICAN fears rights or rejects the inherent, sustaining responsibilities...

 

[RodISHI]

Fearing that some other group may get rights is not a valid reason to deny rights to a non-lawbreaking group.

In fact, it is quite un-American.

What is UN-AMERICAN, is the notion that some groups have rights and that some don't...

Ya see... an AMERICAN understands that everyone has the SAME RIGHTS... PERIOD.

An AMERICAN understands what those rights are; they FURTHER understand that with those rights COME IMMUTABLE RESPONSIBILITIES and that where the responsibility is REJECTED, THE RIGHT IS FORFEITED... as it is the RESPONSIBILITY which SUSTAINS THE RIGHT...

And no AMERICAN fears rights or rejects the inherent, sustaining responsibilities...

Let us demand a few more rights so we can impress our ideals into someone else's lives. Heck let us get together to go lobby congress so we can make those that we are taking the rights away from pay for it while we are at it. If it is all about money and power to control other peoples thoughts no doubt the average family needs their share to. Obviously by the looks of what is going on in DC and some of the states the average family is missing that "special" representation.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

It would be similar to incorporation...however, this union would be between two people exclusively and inclusively. An individual can be incorporationed multiple times - the civil union could only be one at a time.

This would allow men and women to unite, as well as two men, two women, two brothers, a mother and a son, a father and a daughter, a grandson and a grandmother...whatever benefits them from a legal, financial, and/or taxation standpoint.

For example, you could enter into a civil union with your 96 year old grandmother (if she was competent to make the decision), and when she dies, no inheritence or estate tax would be paid.

Marriage would be entirely a religious entity. If a religion wants to allow gays to "marry", then that is their perogative...the state can't say anything about it. And that gay couple would just file with the state, and they would be a recognized civil union.

Well, we agree completely... except men and woman can unite without the bother of incorporating. All such does is to tidy up the math... adds a level of exposure, liability and other facets of risk, which they will likely come to rue in fairly short order.

Such is the common result of those who seek to short circuit common sense.

Again... Marriage IS an entirely religious thing... without exception. People who reject that, do so out of delusion... But hey... lets not get bogged down in that.


The point is that incorporation solves the problem entirely... always has and as I've stated MANY TIMES... the homosexual lobby is NOT INTERESTED...

But I do hope that you pursue the point in debate with as many homosexuals as you can corner to debate it.

In the decades which I've been doing so, they are interested ONLY to the extent that such can be painted red and carved to Herring specifications...

I'm glad we finally found common ground.

You are right...under my suggestion, men and women could unite in marriage within their religion.

However, since the state would no longer recognize marriage, they would also have to register with the state for a civil union. They could choose not to obtain a civil union and just be married, but they would not be able to file jointly, or make medical decisions, or share health insurance, or inherit directly.

They would have that choice.

I'm also glad to see that we agree completely. The sanctity of marriage would be preserved while allowing every adult the ability to enjoy all the rights and priviledges that were once afforded by the now defunct state issued "marriage license".

Hey... I couldn't care less what the state recognizes with regard to my marriage...

I don't require the states approval, I didn't ask their permission to marry and I couldn't give a tinkers damn about the 'married filing jointly option'...

My Marriage is a bond between my wife and I... It is OUR committment to one another... our Marriage was sanctified before God, in our Church and the license for marriage was the absolute LEAST of my concerns... It was a mere formality which has absolutely NO BEARING on our Marraige and were the state to adopt such a policy, with this heretofore unrealized element of your position; and were I 19 again and preparing to marry my, wife... I would not even consult the state... My oathe of committment was before God, to my wife and the state has no bearing on that relationship, my authority as Husband, Father and indisputed Master of this familial ship. I do not now, nor have I ever recognized that the state has ANY authority over me, my wife or my children... and where such was challenged, MANY years ago, the State found out quickly that where they planned on interfering with my authority as the leader of this family that the price for doing so was going to be very high indeed; and it was the state that determined that they would rescind their previous decision and fled the field.

If the State passed a law TODAY, that all Marriages were null and void and required all formerly married couples to re-apply for license... You wouldn't find either one of us standing an any line, filling out any documentations or concerned with the States problem in the slightest.

IF the State came to my home and tried to enforce that law... the last thing I would be aware of on this earth is the gun fight which ensued when they tried to enforce an unjust law on my family.

And if the State Passed a LAW today which said that ONLY HOMOSEXUALS were qualified for Marriage... that would not make a signle one of those individual farces LEGITIMATE... as there is no basis in sound reasoning which could establish legitimacy.

Law does NOT establish Legitimacy... Valid, sustainable Law establishes rules which are founded in morally justifiable reason; reason which serves JUSTICE... where Law becomes distinct from valid, sound reason based morality... it can NOT serve justice... PERIOD.

It seems to me, that the Homosexuals who are committed to one another are going about their lives, earning the respect of those to whom they're committed and spend little time concerned with licenses and Economic Privilege.

And while I vehemently disagree with the choices that they have made; where they have made the best choice that they were able to make, given the options available to them, I salute them... As that is precisely how I have lived my life.

Where I have the most significant problem with the Homosexual 'community' is in the loud mouthed cock polishers who shove their deviancy in my face, corrupt the schools, which are funded through bleeding people who COMPLETELY DISAGREE with their orientation and trying to sell that deivancy as something approaching NORMAL.

It's a function of cultural INSANITY and unbridled idiocy and that frankly is a source of no small degree of angst on my part.

Bottom line, Marriage as it is presently defined works for me... where the state would attempt to redfine marriage... they're going to be contested in the strongest possible terms.

Where would I be satisified? Marriage remains defined as it is... and where Homosexuals want to join together to form a singular legal entity, through which they can pursue their common aspirations... let them incorporate in a non-marital Civil Union, that is in NO WAY, at equity with Marriage... its simply a business deal, where the math is settled and the basis of the looming divorce is established in advance.

This is not a negotiation... I hope that you never have to discover just how NOT a negotiation this is... or the depth of our resolve.

You're wrong here and we're not going to let this one go.


Any questions?