Oh No! The United Kingdom

[Abbey Normal]

The granting of equal civil rights is the clearest thinking under the sun. This has nothing to do with liberal guilt.

Wow, thanks for clearing that up. We soooo need your cock-sure (pun intended) opinions here.

Btw, since you seem to be fixated on me and following me around, here's a heads up to save you some time: I might post in the Sports thread next.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The granting of equal civil rights is the clearest thinking under the sun. This has nothing to do with liberal guilt.

Yes, such as civil rights to marry a dolphin. Very clear thinking indeed.

http://www.newkerala.com/news.php?action=fullnews&id=76584

 

[menewa]

Yes, such as civil rights to marry a dolphin. Very clear thinking indeed.

http://www.newkerala.com/news.php?action=fullnews&id=76584

There is a big difference here. I know dolphins are intelligent but I don't see how one could consent to marriage. In a marriage ceremony, both partners have to say I do in speech or sign language or something. This crazy lady obviously just trained the dolphin to nod and squeak at the right time during the ceremony. This hardly counts as the same thing. It's a funny story, although I do feel sorry for the dolphin.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

There is a big difference here. I know dolphins are intelligent but I don't see how one could consent to marriage. In a marriage ceremony, both partners have to say I do in speech or sign language or something. This crazy lady obviously just trained the dolphin to nod and squeak at the right time during the ceremony. This hardly counts as the same thing. It's a funny story, although I do feel sorry for the dolphin.

What? You don't believe in animal civil rights? Some lib you are. :spank3:

 

[mattskramer]

Do gay people prefer to marry someone of the opposite sex?

Ooops. Sorry. I made the correction. Gay people prefer to marry someone of the same sex.

 

[mattskramer]

so you think its good to encourage people to be homosexuals? Ok,,,but society will NEVER recognize homosexual couples as they do heterosexual marriages. And the harder they push, the more resistence they will get in other areas.

I am simply saying that if the government is going to recognize heterosexual marriages, it should treat homosexual unions likewise. If you think that the result would be a society’s encouragement of homosexuality, so be it. Just because something is legal does not mean that members of a society will like it. I don’t “recognize” people holding cigarettes the same as I recognize people holding health drinks.

 

[mattskramer]

Bisexual people, by definition, prefer to marry someone of each sex.

Do you support that too, matt?

Don’t confuse bisexuality (One willing to marry a person of the same sex or one of the opposite sex - not having a prejudicial sexual preference) with polygamy (preferring to have more than one spouse). As long as the participants are consenting adults and not immediate kin, I don’t think that all polygamy should be illegal.

People have their own socio-political philosophy. They have their own views on what behaviors society should allow. As far as sexual behavior/marriage, I am probably liberal. In other areas I may be more conservative.

 

[mattskramer]

There is no equality in perversion. Queers are sick, and need to be saves from themselves.

Whatever. Smoking is an uglier perversion. Let’s outlaw that.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Don’t confuse bisexuality (One willing to marry a person of the same sex or one of the opposite sex - not having a prejudicial sexual preference) with polygamy (preferring to have more than one spouse). As long as the participants are consenting adults and not immediate kin, I don’t think that all polygamy should be illegal.

People have their own socio-political philosophy. They have their own views on what behaviors society should allow. As far as sexual behavior/marriage, I am probably liberal. In other areas I may be more conservative.

I'm not confusing bisexuality with polygamy. Was just taking it a step at a time as I didn't know your beliefs. However, as you obviously have done, taking the jump from a belief in homosexual marriage to polygamy is pretty much the next step and fairly easy to do with your rationale for gay marriage, i.e., if the government allows straight marriages, it should also allow gay marriages. The very same rationale can be used to argue for underage marriages as well as incestuous marriages. Given your rationale, why on earth would you think there is some special reason to stop such marriages?

OK, so you say you have your limits just like anti-gay marriage folks have their limits. How do you think such matters should be settled?

 

[Gem]

Matts Wrote:

People have their own socio-political philosophy. They have their own views on what behaviors society should allow. As far as sexual behavior/marriage, I am probably liberal. In other areas I may be more conservative.

I agree that people have differing socio-political philosophies. However, what determines which socio-political philosophy gets to make up the rules in your society?

At the moment...if I am reading you correctly, you think your socio-political philosophy should determine what this country does because you believe in your opinion the most.

Why does your opinion matter more than another persons? Why does your opinion matter more than the majority of peoples opinions? Especially when determining things that are going to have an effect on the nation as a whole and will change our society.

Please note I am not condoning the tyranny of the majority...I'm only asking why, in your opinion, your socio-political philosophy should be followed but the opinion of anyone who disagrees with you shouldn't be?

Additionally, you state that you condone polygamy to some extent. Does this mean that you condone people living together or you condone civil unions for polygamist relationships?

Since you are interested in stating that a civil union is the legal union of two consenting adults...will you be willing to grant civil union rights to the polygamist groups? If so, do you think there could be any negative consequences to such a decision...If you don't think we should/would recognize the civil unions of a threesome can you explain to me your premise for refusing them?

 

[007]

You need to be saved from the dark side.

Fear leads to anger and anger leads to hate.

Keep on rolling Sith Lord.

Grow up.

 

[007]

Whatever. Smoking is an uglier perversion. Let’s outlaw that.

Smoking is not a preversion. It's a habit.

 

[Hobbit]

Smoking is not a preversion. It's a habit.

More specifically, it's an addiction. I do agree that smoking needs to end, but it has momentum of tradition, meaning that outlawing it would be a nightmare. So instead, it's being fought in the PR world, with public service announcements and medicinal cures for the addiction.

Homosexuality, however, does not have momentum of tradition, and I would prefer that it stay that way.

 

[mattskramer]

Matts Wrote:


I agree that people have differing socio-political philosophies. However, what determines which socio-political philosophy gets to make up the rules in your society?

At the moment...if I am reading you correctly, you think your socio-political philosophy should determine what this country does because you believe in your opinion the most.

Why does your opinion matter more than another persons? Why does your opinion matter more than the majority of peoples opinions? Especially when determining things that are going to have an effect on the nation as a whole and will change our society.

Please note I am not condoning the tyranny of the majority...I'm only asking why, in your opinion, your socio-political philosophy should be followed but the opinion of anyone who disagrees with you shouldn't be?

Additionally, you state that you condone polygamy to some extent. Does this mean that you condone people living together or you condone civil unions for polygamist relationships?

Since you are interested in stating that a civil union is the legal union of two consenting adults...will you be willing to grant civil union rights to the polygamist groups? If so, do you think there could be any negative consequences to such a decision...If you don't think we should/would recognize the civil unions of a threesome can you explain to me your premise for refusing them?

I think that we are sort of on the same page. Practically everyone has an opinion about what should be allowed. My opinion matters to me merely because it is my opinion. Beyond that, it should not matter more or less than anyone else’s opinion. Other people are free to agree or to disagree. I think that government should recognize civil unions for polygamists. My attitude is “buyer beware”. People are free to eat 3 burgers a day, every day, for the rest of their lives but I don’t think that engaging in such behavior would be healthy. In general people should be free to do as they please as long as they don’t interfere with the freedoms of others. There may be exceptions to this. For example, I think that bestiality should never be allowed. I think this has covered your questions.

What are your opinions and why do you believe them as you do?

 

[Abbey Normal]

I have seen stories on newsmagazines about polygamy, wherein the men tend to take young brides who are brought up in the culture and do not have a real means of escaping it. They aren't able to support themsleves and when everyone around them is espousing the polygamist lifestyle, how can a young woman/girl fight it? Every once in a while one woman will break out and tell her story, and it is never good.

 

[Gem]

Matt Wrote:

I think that government should recognize civil unions for polygamists. My attitude is “buyer beware”. People are free to eat 3 burgers a day, every day, for the rest of their lives but I don’t think that engaging in such behavior would be healthy. In general people should be free to do as they please as long as they don’t interfere with the freedoms of others. There may be exceptions to this. For example, I think that bestiality should never be allowed. I think this has covered your questions.

Matt, it seems that you are coming at it from a very libertarian perspective. Simply put, we should respect the freedom of others, even if what they do with that freedom drives us crazy or, to some here, makes us sick.

You are right, I am quite often, right in line with you on that one. I would rather have too much freedom than not enough. I would rather spend most of my time shaking my head at the asinine things people think of to do with themselves rather than shaking my head as I remember the freedoms we used to have but gave up.

Here's where I run into trouble though....

Our society, our country...is based on things...ideals, values, morals, things that we as a whole hold dear. Now one of those, is freedom...and it is the biggest one. Thats why you'll find me on certain days willing to agree with you that we should let civil unions between as many people as want them to be recognized...let the businesses and hospitals and schools and courts and banks and everything else that would be drastically effected by such an idea figure it out as they go along....

But the more conservative part of me says that we have, at many times in our society, made decisions for that very reason, that have drastically changed, and often harmed our society. Changing it irrevocably, often for the worst.

When we say, "Sure, things have been done THIS way in our country since its inception...but now we're going to do it this way and see how it turns out..." we might have nothing but the best intentions at heart...but our best intentions do not always pan out to be what is best for our nation in the long run.

It is a lovely idea to say that freedom is complete and total and all-encompasing...but I have to wonder how close total freedom is to total anarchy.

No, I'm not saying civil unions=anarchy.

But I am saying that in an organized society that works and survives not everyone gets to get what they want all the time. I wonder and worry what would happen to our society if we began the precident of saying, "Oh...you feel you are being treated unfairly? Well quick, lets change the way the United States has been run since its creation in order to appease you."

My questions and concerns really have very little to do with a like or dislike, approval or disapproval of the gay lifestyle...and everything to do with what I feel is a very healthy skepticism of making decisions based upon social pressures without fully discussing the potential consequences.

Look at this board. No one can discuss the issue without it coming down to, "gays are evil" or "you're really a closet fag."

To be honest, I respect the right of both sides of this debate to hold those opinions and to say whatever they want...but neither are a serious discussion about how a decision like recognizing civil unions for same sex couples (or groups of people!) would change our nation.

Neither are compelling reasons why we should or should not...

This doesn't mean that I am against civil unions - or for them for that matter, only that I would like to hear people discuss the potential positives and negatives...and I am always reading and looking for opinions on this from both sides of the spectrum.

 

[007]

I have seen stories on newsmagazines about polygamy, wherein the men tend to take young brides who are brought up in the culture and do not have a real means of escaping it. They aren't able to support themsleves and when everyone around them is espousing the polygamist lifestyle, how can a young woman/girl fight it? Every once in a while one woman will break out and tell her story, and it is never good.

How about 59 year old Donald Trump, and his 35 year old bride? Wish I could do that...

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Look at this board. No one can discuss the issue without it coming down to, "gays are evil" or "you're really a closet fag."

To be honest, I respect the right of both sides of this debate to hold those opinions and to say whatever they want...but neither are a serious discussion about how a decision like recognizing civil unions for same sex couples (or groups of people!) would change our nation.

Neither are compelling reasons why we should or should not...

This doesn't mean that I am against civil unions - or for them for that matter, only that I would like to hear people discuss the potential positives and negatives...and I am always reading and looking for opinions on this from both sides of the spectrum.

Excuse me Gem but that's rather insulting on your part. I've never said "gays are evil" or "you're really a closet fag" and I'm sure others here haven't either. Many here also know the difference between a person and a sin. Plus I'm sure many here have given good, rational reasons for not wanting gay marriage in our culture.

Still waiting for Matt to answer my questions...

 

[Emmett]

Matt - Your a fag!

What pleasure you could possibly derive from fondling a man's genetalia is absolutely beyond me! Why two women would want to engage in queer sex is just as strange to a square like me.

HOWEVER............................... I am a Liberatarian. I honestly believe in my heart that to properly endorse the benefit of a free society you must be allowed to do whatever you like. Having said that I do not want to pay your civil partner or whatever you would call one another's social security. Your lifestyle is dangerous and places you in a category many times more likely to contract a deadly disease that would expedite your demise therefore making it necessary to bury you sooner than normal. That would be an infringement on MY civil liberty meaning my pocketbook. I did not choose the risky lifestyle fdor you, YOUI DID!

If everyone in the world were queer then the problem would take care of itself. Being queer is NOT normal. All the debate in the world will not change my opinion.

It would be hard to think that in the grand scheme of things the creator intended for the same sex to indulge in sexual behavior.

It isn't up to the people of the US or UK or anywhere on earth to ALLOW this behavior. Frankly, no one can stop it. All I'm saying is that I simply don't want my children to grow up thinking it is OK because a small group of Americans (all Liberals) think it should be. I have the right to that! Another words, go back in the closet where that activity belongs and keep it there where you can do whatever you want to. No one will be to judge. THAT would be fair. Forcing us to accept your behavior is wrong! We assure you if you did, we won't mention it!

 

[Gem]

Screaming Eagle Wrote:

Excuse me Gem but that's rather insulting on your part. I've never said "gays are evil" or "you're really a closet fag" and I'm sure others here haven't either. Many here also know the difference between a person and a sin. Plus I'm sure many here have given good, rational reasons for not wanting gay marriage in our culture.

Screaming, you're right. I should not have generalized. But, in my defense, I have stated numerous times in numerous threads that the people who wish to rationally express their opinions are often drowned out by the people who are unable to listen to opposing viewpoints without resulting to nastiness. You know that you are not one of these people, therefore you know that I obviously place you in the category of person who could address issues rationally but are often lost in the din of others.

I have never criticized people for disapproving of homosexuality or gay marriage for any reason. I have only criticized people here for resorting to insults too soon and stopping the possibility of rational discussion.

I apologize again for generalizing...but I think that my previous posts demonstrate clearly what my issue is...and that I was not referring to anyone and everyone who is against homosexual marriage.