Gays in society (split from Boy Scouts thread)

[Vaux]

Oh and Rob I haven't responded to any of your posts but I have been reading what your saying and you have brought up some interesting points. Just thought I would mention that.

Now I gotta get some sleep.

 

[mikeymikec]

Yeah ok. That was rude but whatever.

You may as well have said "well I disagree that 1+1 = 2". It's not really a debatable topic. I asked the first question because English may not have been a language you formally learnt. I'm sorry if I caused offence.

Yeah that is real touching and all, but it doesn't really matter how much love they have for each other. Unfortunately, that isn't a requirement. But being a different sex is.

So you wouldn't get married primarily because you love someone? As long as they're the opposite sex, it's OK with you?

Don't pretend like there is no issue that you don't vocalize about or feel is wrong or right

I'm talking about one right here.

And I don't know about shoving my opinion down their throat, I mean last I heard people were voting on gay marriage amendments. That means my voice shouldn't be heard and I should keep my opinion to myself?

I didn't say you should keep your opinion to yourself, but I do think there's something inherently wrong when people vote to discriminate against equal rights when absolutely nothing is at stake.

People on this thread have vaguely referred to "slippery slopes" and hinted at the destruction of society of gay marriage is legalised, but the fact is that it won't negatively affect anyone.

If you are saying people are born gay, then I suppose they have a natural attraction to each other.

I still find it amusing when people talk like this even though I've heard it many times before. Is there any doubt in your mind that gay people are born that way? If so, did you consciously decide to be straight?

But as I have stated before, this is not natural behavior for the human species.

So now you've veered away from the dictionary definition you actually used (when it suits you).

Something went wrong in the process, and these oddities showed up. If these two oddities can be in love, hey whatever. But just don't pretend that is the way that it's supposed to be, because it's not.

You have a really nasty way of saying things, hopefully someone won't point at you at some point and call you an oddity and that something obviously went wrong in your development, or marginalise you because they think the way you are isn't natural. So these two "oddities" as you call them, are in love and you're saying "hey, whatever", what the hell do you care what they do with their lives?

I am about done with this subject. I keep talking in circles and it's evident that no progress is being made on either side.

That's because your argument stance can be summarised as follows:

"Gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married, because most people aren't gay and that's the way it should be."

It is circular logic. It also implies that you believe nothing should ever be allowed to change, which is a concept that inherently goes against nature.

 

[Retro Rob]

Mikeymikec-

I know that was a loaded question, but this is a loaded topic. My aim isn't to catch you up, but to examine the topic more deeply.

People are for gay this and that and polygamy until they have a gay child, or their beloved husband or wife wishes to bring members of the same or opposite sex into their bedrooms.

So before I personally go advocating for [insert right here], I ask myself if I would be willing to deal with said right if it lands on my doorstep or effects my marriage, because honestly, that right extends to me as well.

Just sayin', we need to really think about something before protesting for it.

 

[mikeymikec]

I understand that, but you're not answering my question.

If your mate wanted to bring several partners into your marriage (same or opposite sex, or both) would you be cool with that? They're at the age of consent, and you have to allow it because it's law.

Would you be cool with that?

Marriage vows are agreed between the participants on the date of the marriage, at least that's the way things are right now. Monogamous marriages don't allow one partner to be switched for another at the drop of a hat, why would polygamous marriages be any different? My point about consent is relevant here because your example doesn't allow for it.

Unless there was a very odd marriage vow that went along the lines of "I promise to be faithful to my partner, and to anyone else that my partner wants to include at any point in the future". If polygamy was legal and someone consented to that particular marriage vow (I'd be surprised if anyone did), I don't see a problem with it.

People are for gay this and that and polygamy until they have a gay child

I'm wondering if this has ever happened. I suppose there's always a first time for everything, but still. I would be really surprised if this ever happened.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

This is mostly a productive discussion, so I would like to keep it going. But there are still too many personal attacks, and I don't have time to deal with them all individually.

Please keep it civil.

 

[mikeymikec]

and I bet you could find people into bestiality and pedophiles that would have conflicting definitions of marriage as well. should we just open it up and let anyone marry anyone or any thing?

I have already posted this but I don't think you've read it:

In sexual relationships, IMO consent (and capacity to give consent) is one of the most important factors, if not the most important. I think that pretty much answers your question. I think if one loses the concept of consent then a lot of concepts in relationships go haywire and things get very complicated.

 

[Retro Rob]

Marriage vows are agreed between the participants on the date of the marriage, at least that's the way things are right now. Monogamous marriages don't allow one partner to be switched for another at the drop of a hat, why would polygamous marriages be any different? My point about consent is relevant here because your example doesn't allow for it.

Unless there was a very odd marriage vow that went along the lines of "I promise to be faithful to my partner, and to anyone else that my partner wants to include at any point in the future". If polygamy was legal and someone consented to that particular marriage vow (I'd be surprised if anyone did), I don't see a problem with it.

I think they would be different, polygamous rules/laws, because the marriage is different. The vows would have to be changed because the marriage is changed.

Polygamists wouldn't want to be restricted, men anyway, and that's why they want multiple wives.

I'm personalizing this to you because I want to know if you TRULY are for equal rights and not just following the popular course, because those who are for "equal" rights have no problem with those rights affecting them.

So if you met a woman whom you loved and wanted to marry, but she was unwilling unless you allowed her to bring her longtime lover into the marriage, who is a man, would you allow her to take advantage of the rights you fought for?

 

[mikeymikec]

I think they would be different, polygamous rules/laws, because the marriage is different. The vows would have to be changed because the marriage is changed.

Polygamists wouldn't want to be restricted, men anyway, and that's why they want multiple wives.

I'm personalizing this to you because I want to know if you TRULY are for equal rights and not just following the popular course, because those who are for "equal" rights have no problem with those right affecting them.

So if you met a woman whom you loved and wanted to marry, but she was unwilling unless you allowed her to bring her longtime lover into the marriage, who is a man, would you allow her to take advantage of the rights your fought for?

My views on the rights of others and how I want to live my own life are two distinctly different things. I've already said that if a referendum regarding polygamy was made, I would abstain because while I'm not particular pro polygamy, I'm not against it either and yet I have some concerns about it. I might read up a bit first to see whether my opinion solidifies. To make my point more obvious here, I might be pro gay marriage, but I'm not planning to marry a gay person in the foreseeable future

How could she "take advantage" exactly? I either agree to those particular marriage vows or I don't, and she makes her choices as a result.

When I got married, my wife and I picked from the list of marriage vows given by the registrar based on what we wanted. I'm failing to see an issue here.

 

[Retro Rob]

I'm wondering if this has ever happened. I suppose there's always a first time for everything, but still. I would be really surprised if this ever happened.

My point is that a lot people, in my experience, only want certain rights but when they affect them, they wish they'd never done it.

Much like how some idiotic men think that sex outside of marriage should be allowed until their wives want to have sex outside of marriage, then they want to restrict it.

 

[Retro Rob]

How could she "take advantage" exactly? I either agree to those particular marriage vows or I don't, and she makes her choices as a result.

When I got married, my wife and I picked from the list of marriage vows given by the registrar based on what we wanted. I'm failing to see an issue here.

She's taking advantage of the provision afforded to her by law, if polygamy is ever recognized, to bring other men into the marriage.

Sure, you can decline to get married to her, but the point is that you're being affected by a law that you wanted in place, so you have the undesired consequence of either allowing her to bring other men into the marriage, or losing out on a woman you love.

This may be extreme of course, but I just want to make the point that I think some people are so short-sighted because of "equality", that they forget that laws and rights extends to them and can have a direct, undesirable affect on them personally.

 

[mikeymikec]

Sure, you can decline to get married to her, but the point is that you're being affected by a law that you wanted in place, so you have the undesired consequence of either allowing her to bring other men into the marriage, or losing out on a woman you love.

You're missing my point about the marriage vows. Marriage vows for a polygamous marriage would have to be obviously different to a monogamous contract.

 

[randomrogue]

I don't think anyone should be asking questions unless they can address the previously unresolved issues.

If you're against equality you're a bigot.

I'm so sick of America being on the wrong end of history or coming to the right conclusion so long after the rest of the world. Woman had the right to vote as early as the late 1800's. European nations got to it in the early 1900's. The good ol' USA took until 1920 only made to look like a fantastic achievement if you compare to France or Switzerland. Thirty countries were ahead of us.

Civil rights towards blacks? Do really want to bring that terrible part of our history up?

Here we are again with Homosexuality. You can clearly see by some of the bigoted posters in this thread that we have a segment of our population that is just unable to get ahead of the curve. You guys keep dragging us down to your level when you need to rise up and be better people.

 

[randomrogue]

Really I can't stress this enough. Why does the United States need a World War or someone like Martin Luther King Jr to change? Why can't you trodgolytes just "get it"?

It's very basic. Do you think that people deserve less civil rights because of their sexual orientation? If you answer yes you are a bigot and you are WRONG!

 

[Retro Rob]

I don't think anyone should be asking questions unless they can address the previously unresolved issues.

If you're against equality you're a bigot.

I'm so sick of America being on the wrong end of history or coming to the right conclusion so long after the rest of the world. Woman had the right to vote as early as the late 1800's. European nations got to it in the early 1900's. The good ol' USA took until 1920 only made to look like a fantastic achievement if you compare to France or Switzerland. Thirty countries were ahead of us.

Civil rights towards blacks? Do really want to bring that terrible part of our history up?

Here we are again with Homosexuality. You can clearly see by some of the bigoted posters in this thread that we have a segment of our population that is just unable to get ahead of the curve. You guys keep dragging us down to your level when you need to rise up and be better people.

You need to be more clear on "equality", if are you going to call people bigots being as vague as you're being.

You're opening the door wide open for "objectsexuals", etc.

What kind of equality are your talking about? People being able to marry anyone or anything they want?

 

[Retro Rob]

Really I can't stress this enough. Why does the United States need a World War or someone like Martin Luther King Jr to change? Why can't you trodgolytes just "get it"?

It's very basic. Do you think that people deserve less civil rights because of their sexual orientation? If you answer yes you are a bigot and you are WRONG!

This is a diverse world, with varying opinions and beliefs, so I don't see why you're decrying the very thing that makes this world worth living in.

This is simply the consequence of the human condition -- disagreements, arguing, no compromise, etc... so why are you complaining?

Oh yeah... you want what you want and everyone else doesn't matter.

 

[Pulsar]

You get married to show your lifelong commitment to the other person -- that's what makes it sacred because you're making a permanent promise to only be with that one person. I know religious terms scare you, but you can't redefine something just because you don't like how people view it.

So.... showing lifelong commitment to another person is why marriage is there, but your religion denies that to certain classes of people. You're right. Religion scares and angers me when it's exclusionary, bigoted, and promotes division over inclusion. It's been the cause of a lot of hate in the world.

It is sacred -- why do you think people call sex outside of marriage "cheating"? Marriage is sacred and special, and we don't need constant and needless additions to it because of whiny people who think they're entitled to everything because others can do it.

I can cheat at monopoly. Does that make it sacred? Marriage is, indeed, special. As you said already it's the lifetime commitment between a couple to show they love eachother. So now you're calling gays entitled?

You should meet qualifications to have your marriage legally recognized and it needs to have limits to

I agree about the qualification part. Unfortunately, you're defining that as 'must be a man and a woman'.

avoid women abuse and exploitation, but you don't care about that, do you?

Reported. You're disgusting.

I remember watching this part on Lion King where after the King was killed by his brother, the uncle was heir to the thrown since the son was exiled. The new King, not imposing any limits on the food his subjects consumed, nearly drove the entire lion pride and other animals to the brink of starvation in a relatively short period of time under the liberal promise "you'll never go hungry again!!"

He let them do as they wanted. Eventually, the exiled son returned, reclaimed his throne from his foolish uncle who was killed, and restored the land.


Love is not in finite quantities in this world. Many consenting adults do not fit your definition of a proper couple, and as such you would seek to deny them the ultimate expression of their love: demonstrating their commitment to each other through marriage.

This is a completely inaccurate analogy, and your veiled insult at liberals is worthless.


The moral: impose limits on marriage and it would never become a haven of exploitation and mistreatment.

Marriage is already a haven of exploitation and mistreatment. 50% of this 'sacred' institution end in divorce. I can point to thousands of wife abuse cases. In fact, the 'divorce' rate of gay couples who have been married is below that of man-woman couples.

 

[Pulsar]

Oh yeah... you want what you want and everyone else doesn't matter.

A great majority of your arguments could be said on either side of this debate and be equally meaningless. Like the one above. -EDITED to remove inaccuracy-

So far, you haven't come up with a single rational fact-based reason why marriage, an institution that was not a religious institution until it was claimed by christians, should be restricted to christians just because they want what they want and everyone else doesn't matter.

I'm out. You're going back to the same thing you do in religious threads - talking in circles and ignoring people questions, or answering with a set of opinions that are not fact based.

 

[Retro Rob]

So.... showing lifelong commitment to another person is why marriage is there, but your religion denies that to certain classes of people. You're right. Religion scares and angers me when it's exclusionary, bigoted, and promotes division over inclusion. It's been the cause of a lot of hate in the world.

My religion? It's a private institution and doesn't exclude anyone from marrying, it only marries those who adhere to certain standards -- just as you have certain standards you require before you marry someone.

If you want a wife/husband that weighs under 300lbs, are you "exclusionary".. or bigoted against people who weight more than 300lbs?

I didn't think so...

I can cheat at monopoly. Does that make it sacred? Marriage is, indeed, special. As you said already it's the lifetime commitment between a couple to show they love eachother. So now you're calling gays entitled?

Lol -- you don't have to sign a legal document to play monopoly, nor are you making a solemn commitment to play by the rules for as long as you participate in a game.

To get yourself out of hole, you need to first stop digging...

I agree about the qualification part. Unfortunately, you're defining that as 'must be a man and a woman'.

Oh, I believe that it should be only a man and a woman, but my views aren't dictating law -- so in the grand scheme, they don't matter. And if gays are granted legal recognition of their marriages nationwide, I have no problem with that.

I am not getting into a gay marriage so I don't really care.

Love is not in finite quantities in this world. Many consenting adults do not fit your definition of a proper couple, and as such you would seek to deny them the ultimate expression of their love: demonstrating their commitment to each other through marriage.

How I am seeking to deny them ultimate expression? Again, I am not.

Marriage is already a haven of exploitation and mistreatment. 50% of this 'sacred' institution end in divorce. I can point to thousands of wife abuse cases. In fact, the 'divorce' rate of gay couples who have been married is below that of man-woman couples.

People don't honor marriage commitments for whatever reason... it happens. It's not always treated as sacred but it doesn't mean that it itself isn't sacred because it is. Based on your definition, cars are no longer safe because some people use them in a dangerous manner.

Secondly, the more gay marriages we see, the higher the divorce rate will get. The more balls you juggle, the likelihood of dropping some will increase.

This is no-brainer. Of course the divorce rate is lower because they are WAAYYYY less married gay couples than there are straight married couples.

 

[Retro Rob]

A great majority of your arguments could be said on either side of this debate and be equally meaningless. Like the one above. On top of that, you've stated several times that 'it's been that way for a long time' and tried to use that as an argument.

So far, you haven't come up with a single rational fact-based reason why marriage, an institution that was not a religious institution until it was claimed by christians, should be restricted to christians just because they want what they want and everyone else doesn't matter.

I'm out. You're going back to the same thing you do in religious threads - talking in circles and ignoring people questions, or answering with a set of opinions that are not fact based.

I should report you, because you're lying in the bold text.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Since too many of you have chosen to ignore my requests, this thread is closed.