Arkansas judge strikes down same sex marriage ban.

[shira]

It's just a question I'd like an answer to.

Without any ability to get granular, in general, who is the ideal set of parents by gender and number? Would anyone disagree that one man and one woman is the ideal parenting setup?

Actually, one man and four women might be better on average. And if that were true, would you insist that marriage be restricted to one man and four women?

 

[mikeymikec]

And? You love plenty of people. Why aren't you married to all of them?

What has this got to do with gay people getting married?

The core idea of marriage has stayed the same I think. Things like how you choose who you are married to may have changed.

So you concede that marriage has evolved? It can change without dying or become meaningless?

But that is like saying the definition of a car has changed because now people prefer cars with a higher MPG.

If everyone only used cars with a higher MPG, the less efficient types would steadily drop in production until production ceased.

Which one would that be? I said I stand by the idea that sex not love is the distinguishing characteristic of marriage.

People can have sex as much as they like without getting married. People generally get married to make a public declaration of commitment to each other.

Gay people generally want to get married for the same reason.

So far you've trotted out ideas like "if we allow gay people to marry, marriage will die" and "allowing gay people to marry will turn the institution of marriage into a benefits cheating system". In a previous thread, you said that gay people getting married is ridiculous. Do you have any evidence from non-biased sources to support any of your claims?

 

[K1052]

You don't have to believe me, but you should stop being so sensitive.

To be sensitive I'd actually have to take you seriously in the first place.

 

[Retro Rob]

Now you trollin...

But seriously, I've seen children raise well with both parents, and one parent.

However, having opposite-sex parents shows children the fundamental differences between men and women that run deeper than just sex organs.

I've been married for only 2 years, but I've learned that my wife is different both emotionally, physically, and spiritually. This allowed me to learn how to treat women.

I grew up with 4 sisters, but I didn't understand and appreciate the differences until I got married.

Same-sex parents lack these important differences no matter how "girly" a man is or how "manly" a woman is.

No, this isn't my pitch for banning gay marriage, but just my opinion concerning my support for opposite-sex parents coupled with the fact that I hold the Biblical, opposite-sex view of it.

Each to their own though as this is simply my $.02.

 

[nehalem256]

If you have to ask you'll never know.

Afraid to answer huh? Because the difference is you have sex(or want to) with people you feel romantic love for.

What has this got to do with gay people getting married?

The question of whether marriage is about love or sex. You love many people, so why are you limited to only marrying one?

So you concede that marriage has evolved? It can change without dying or become meaningless?

If everyone only used cars with a higher MPG, the less efficient types would steadily drop in production until production ceased.

What is your point. If I started calling a trashcan a car. Would you say okay nehalem I guess the definition of a car has changed. Or would you say I am full of shit?

Marriage has not changed in any fundamental way. Which is what same-sex marriage advocates are proposing.

People can have sex as much as they like without getting married. People generally get married to make a public declaration of commitment to each other.

Gay people generally want to get married for the same reason.

People can make public declaration of commitment to each other without getting married too.

It also in no way says what marriage is. Why an individual wants to marry is not really relevant to why marriage exists.

 

[MrPickins]

Afraid to answer huh? Because the difference is you have sex(or want to) with people you feel romantic love for.

The fact that you think this is the only differentiating factor shows how little you understand about romantic relationships.

It's kinda sad really...:|

 

[MrPickins]

But seriously, I've seen children raise well with both parents, and one parent.

However, having opposite-sex parents shows children the fundamental differences between men and women that run deeper than just sex organs.

I've been married for only 2 years, but I've learned that my wife is different both emotionally, physically, and spiritually. This allowed me to learn how to treat women.

I grew up with 4 sisters, but I didn't understand and appreciate the differences until I got married.

Same-sex parents lack these important differences no matter how "girly" a man is or how "manly" a woman is.

No, this isn't my pitch for banning gay marriage, but just my opinion concerning my support for opposite-sex parents coupled with the fact that I hold the Biblical, opposite-sex view of it.

Each to their own though as this is simply my $.02.

You are free to your opinions, and I respect that you recognize that they are just opinions.

In either case, the point is moot, as one does not need to be married to raise a child (as a single person, a heterosexual couple or a homosexual one).

 

[Retro Rob]

You are free to your opinions, and I respect that you recognize that they are just opinions.

Yours are just opinions too, and as long as we agree that they are, we'll got along fine.

In either case, the point is moot, as one does not need to be married to raise a child (as a single person, a heterosexual couple or a homosexual one).

Right, as my point had nothing to with marriage -- it had everything to do with why I prefer opposite-sex parenting.

 

[mikeymikec]

The question of whether marriage is about love or sex.

It's about both to varying extents based on the relationship. I'm still not seeing the relevance to the topic of gay marriage though, since gay people generally want to get married for the same reasons as heterosexual people.

What is your point.

We were talking about definitions evolving.

If I started calling a trashcan a car.

If everyone started calling a trashcan a car, it would have caught on. Definitions evolve. "Gay" once meant "happy". Not many people use the word for that definition these days.

Marriage has not changed in any fundamental way.

Your fundamentals, as usual, are as narrow-minded as possible to allow you to continue to insist that the idea of gay marriage somehow breaks the definition of marriage.

Women were once considered to be slightly more than chattels to be bought and sold, of no practical use whatsoever except in sexual reproduction, child-rearing and housework. Women were often married off before or during puberty. Even educating women was considered a waste of resources.

So civilisation has gone from being (by today's standards) extremely uncivilised (as well as stupid and short-sighted), the notion of consent and the capacity to consent has been embraced generally, what more do you need to change before you'll concede that some pretty fundamental aspects of marriage have evolved over the centuries?

People can make public declaration of commitment to each other without getting married too.

Gay people want to get married because it means the same thing to them as it does to heterosexual people who want to get married.

It also in no way says what marriage is. Why an individual wants to marry is not really relevant to why marriage exists.

If no-one wanted to get married any more, marriage would not exist (except in the history books). So yes, the "why" is absolutely crucial to the topic. It only exists because enough people want it to.

 

[Atreus21]

Actually, one man and four women might be better on average. And if that were true, would you insist that marriage be restricted to one man and four women?

Is it better on average?

 

[smackababy]

Is it better on average?

Define better. I have never heard of one serial killer, Adam Lanza type coming from a poly home environment. Just saying...

 

[nehalem256]

It's about both to varying extents based on the relationship. I'm still not seeing the relevance to the topic of gay marriage though, since gay people generally want to get married for the same reasons as heterosexual people.

If marriage is about sex and not love it is very important.

Because society clearly has more interest in heterosexual than homosexual sex.

Your fundamentals, as usual, are as narrow-minded as possible to allow you to continue to insist that the idea of gay marriage somehow breaks the definition of marriage.

Women were once considered to be slightly more than chattels to be bought and sold, of no practical use whatsoever except in sexual reproduction, child-rearing and housework. Women were often married off before or during puberty.

I don't know about you but that seems pretty darn useful

So civilisation has gone from being (by today's standards) extremely uncivilised, the notion of consent and the capacity to consent has been embraced generally, what more do you need to change before you'll concede that some pretty fundamental aspects of marriage have evolved over the centuries?

If the law changed so that you had to be 18 instead of 16 to get a driver's license would you say that fundamentally changed what a driver's license was?

If they changed the testing requirements would you say that changed what a DL was?

If they increased the fee to get a DL by 10x would that change what a DL was?

Of course not.

 

[Atreus21]

Who are better at raising children: single mothers or gay couples?

I don't know, but certainly a man and a woman are preferable to a single mother.

 

[nehalem256]

Gay people want to get married because it means the same thing to them as it does to heterosexual people who want to get married.

Actually I think you are wrong there.

Gay people want to get married because straight people get married.

 

[smackababy]

Actually I think you are wrong there.

Gay people want to get married because straight people get married.

No. Gay people want to get married because their life partners are given zero rights otherwise. They cannot visit in hospitals during all hours. They cannot be added to the insurance of their working SO. They are not granted any of the rights a spouse is granted. They want to live in a society that doesn't remove rights afforded to straights because a few morons think "gays are icky!"

 

[werepossum]

How in the hell is saying you think gay kissing is "yucky" tantamount to violating the NFL's harassment policy? Who was he "harassing"? How is that discriminating?

So in order to work in the NFL, we must "remain silent" on something as polarizing and important as gay players in the NFL? What if I disagree with gay marriage? Should my right to earn a living be systematically removed from me?

You see why we equate your views with fascism?

You have a good point about the fascism, but are gay players in the NFL really "polarizing and important"? Seems to me it's much like the controversy over allowing blacks access to professional sports - it's polarizing and important because we make it polarizing and important, and totally non-polarizing and unimportant if we do not make it polarizing and important.

In a sport where traumatic brain injury is a common side effect and players commonly commit major felonies, seems to me that gay players should be a complete non-issue.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I don't know, but certainly a man and a woman are preferable to a single mother.

The science shows pretty clearly that more of any gender arrangement is always better then less. So that 2 women is better then 1 woman, 3 men is better then a man and a woman, two men/woman couples is better then 2 women and a man. The more adults a child has to care for him the better off that child is.

Actually I think you are wrong there.

Gay people want to get married because straight people get married.

This shows how little you know about gay couples, and maybe people in general. Most people, including gays, don't give a damn about who marries who, they just want to get married to each other. Because, like most Americans, they have been taught from a very early age that is what you do when you love someone and want to spend your life with them.

 

[waggy]

The science shows pretty clearly that more of any gender arrangement is always better then less. So that 2 women is better then 1 woman, 3 men is better then a man and a woman, two men/woman couples is better then 2 women and a man. The more adults a child has to care for him the better off that child is.



This shows how little you know about gay couples, and maybe people in general. Most people, including gays, don't give a damn about who marries who, they just want to get married to each other. Because, like most Americans, they have been taught from a very early age that is what you do when you love someone and want to spend your life with them.

good post..

 

[Retro Rob]

You have a good point about the fascism, but are gay players in the NFL really "polarizing and important"? Seems to me it's much like the controversy over allowing blacks access to professional sports - it's polarizing and important because we make it polarizing and important, and totally non-polarizing and unimportant if we do not make it polarizing and important.

It is important, because unlike allowing a black man, gay men are attracted to men, and there could be a possible scenario where two football players are in an open sexual relationship in the workplace. The NFL may have to change some rules to address this possibility.

I think it doesn't matter as long as he can play and respects the sexuality of his teammates (which I think he will). Since there is an openly gay player, it does change things a bit.

You see the extreme reaction of some morons on Twitter? Yeah, this is a big deal when it comes to the workplace, though it shouldn't and should be expected.

 

[MrPickins]

Yours are just opinions too, and as long as we agree that they are, we'll got along fine.

Very true. They are simply opinions until such time as they are backed up by scientific research. (Such as the kind that has unambiguously shown that kids are better of being raised by 2 gay parents as opposed to one single parent.)

Right, as my point had nothing to with marriage -- it had everything to do with why I prefer opposite-sex parenting.

But this thread is on the legality of gay marriage, not gay child rearing, so you can see my confusion.

The science shows pretty clearly that more of any gender arrangement is always better then less. So that 2 women is better then 1 woman, 3 men is better then a man and a woman, two men/woman couples is better then 2 women and a man. The more adults a child has to care for him the better off that child is.

Exactly.

This shows how little you know about gay couples, and maybe people in general. Most people, including gays, don't give a damn about who marries who, they just want to get married to each other. Because, like most Americans, they have been taught from a very early age that is what you do when you love someone and want to spend your life with them.

:thumbsup:

Said better that I could.

 

[Retro Rob]

The science shows pretty clearly that more of any gender arrangement is always better then less. So that 2 women is better then 1 woman, 3 men is better then a man and a woman, two men/woman couples is better then 2 women and a man. The more adults a child has to care for him the better off that child is.

What does that have to do with gay marriage? You don't need gay/poly marriages to get the desired results.

You can get the same results by having bothers, sisters, cousins, etc.

 

[MrPickins]

It is important, because unlike allowing a black man, gay men are attracted to men, and there could be a possible scenario where two football players are in an open sexual relationship in the workplace. The NFL may have to change some rules to address this possibility.

Why would rules need to be changed?

PDA in a business environment is already a no-no, regardless of sexual orientation.

 

[smackababy]

You have a good point about the fascism, but are gay players in the NFL really "polarizing and important"? Seems to me it's much like the controversy over allowing blacks access to professional sports - it's polarizing and important because we make it polarizing and important, and totally non-polarizing and unimportant if we do not make it polarizing and important.

In a sport where traumatic brain injury is a common side effect and players commonly commit major felonies, seems to me that gay players should be a complete non-issue.

Except, participation in sports is merely one aspect. And it is a highly public aspect at that. We accept that we don't allow gays to participate, or at least allow the culture of homophobia to continue, what is to stop it from spreading to restaurants, or schools, or jobs?

The fact is, Michael Sam's ability to be a good football player is not effected in any way by who he is attracted to. It has zero effect on his job, but the fact that there have been zero openly gay professional football players shows that even in 2014, we are still creating situations where simply being gay can get you fired. And that is bullshit.

 

[Retro Rob]

Why would rules need to be changed?

PDA in a business environment is already a no-no, regardless of sexual orientation.

Rules would need to address the specifics and not just male/female relationships to get rid of confusion if a possible scenario pops up. In other words, legal language needs to clear and concise.

 

[MrPickins]

Rules would need to address the specifics and not just male/female relationships to get rid of confusion if a possible scenario pops up. In other words, legal language needs to clear and concise.

Please provide examples of these "specifics" that need to be directly addressed.