• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

TX Judge Breaks Up Lesbian Home

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Texashiker said:
It makes you a bigot.

I am using this is an example to get an emotional response - no offense intended.

There are people waiting for the supreme court to rule on the marriage equality act. If gay marriage is upheld, those groups are going to push to legalize polygamy in all 50 states.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't, that's simply not what the word bigot means.

While I support the right of people to date whoever they choose, I do not wish to participate in a polygamous relationship. Similarly, I do not wish to engage in a same sex marriage with another man, however I believe that they should be able to marry whoever they choose.
 
Texashiker said:
I am sure some 50 year old Chester the Molester would love having a 15 year old girl friend. Lets just go ahead and get those laws passed, what do you say?
Click to expand...

Yes, clearly two consenting adults having sex is the same as raping a child.

NO sex for ANYONE, it's the only way to keep the children safe! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!
 
JohnOfSheffield said:
Yes, clearly two consenting adults having sex is the same as raping a child.

NO sex for ANYONE, it's the only way to keep the children safe! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!
Click to expand...

Who said anything about raping a child other than you?

How do you go from a consenting relationship between 2 people and raping a child? Do you have some sort of child rape fetish?
 
eskimospy said:
No it doesn't, that's simply not what the word bigot means.

While I support the right of people to date whoever they choose,
Click to expand...
Why stop at whoever? Object-sexuality is a legitimate sexual orientation. Are you a bigot?

eskimospy said:
I do not wish to participate in a polygamous relationship. Similarly, I do not wish to engage in a same sex marriage with another man, however I believe that they should be able to marry whoever they choose.
Click to expand...

Why didn't you say a polygamous should be able to marry as many people as they want?
 
nehalem256 said:
And have their relationships view as equal as homosexual relationships by society including full rights to marriage.

Equality for all!
Click to expand...

Inanimate objects cannot enter into contracts. If you can find a way to create a sentient inanimate object that can enter into a contract, I couldn't care less if people want to marry them.

Equality for all indeed! I'm glad you're finally on board.
 
nehalem256 said:
How do you go from a consenting relationship between 2 people and raping a child? Do you have some sort of child rape fetish?
Click to expand...

Stop bigotry based on sexual preference. Isn't that what this thread is about?

We just happened to reach a point where you objected. And since you object that makes you a bigot. And while you are busy objecting, your wife can be busy having sex with her 2 or 3 other husbands.

~ EDIT ~

Remember a few post back we were talking about being a bigot, and objecting to certain rights for certain groups?

At some point we will all object to something. And at that point certain groups of society will not receive the same privileges as everyone else.

Whether it is raising livestock in your backyard, keeping certain types of dangerous pets, smoking crack, or even gay marriage, sooner or later certain segments of society will be told "no".

If your opinion is with the majority, then are not a bigot.

If your opinion is not with the majority, then you are a bigot.
 
Last edited:
eskimospy said:
Inanimate objects cannot enter into contracts. If you can find a way to create a sentient inanimate object that can enter into a contract, I couldn't care less if people want to marry them.

Equality for all indeed! I'm glad you're finally on board.
Click to expand...

There was a time when women couldn't enter contracts(at least without their father's/husbands) consents.

Change the laws so that marriage is allowed between a person and a toaster. Anyone who disagrees is a bigot and an objectphobe.

Equality for all!
 
Texashiker said:
Stop bigotry based on sexual preference. Isn't that what this thread is about?

We just happened to reach a point where you objected. And since you object that makes you a bigot. And while you are busy objecting, your wife can be busy having sex with her 2 or 3 other husbands.
Click to expand...

If my wife decides to have sex with other people, I'm free to leave said wife.

Explain how I'm stuck with someone who decides to pursue something I don't agree with? I'd feel let down if this person suddenly decided to change their sexual preferences, but I would not go out of my way to attempt to change them via legislation and discrimination. I'd accept that they're different now and go my own separate way.

Which is what I think you need to realize, let these people go their own separate way. What they do with their lives affects you not one iota. Give them their rights, continue being a bigot in your own home but don't attempt to legislate your ideas of genetic or natural predisposition onto them unless what they are doing is actively damaging society such as taking advantage of people below the age of consent.
 
Phanuel said:
Explain how I'm stuck with someone who decides to pursue something I don't agree with?
Click to expand...

Explain why society should tolerate a lifestyle most people disagree with?

I like having chickens. That does not mean I am going to move into an apartment and demand the apartment owner allow me to have a chicken coop. Sure I could argue chicken equality is a basic human right, as seeing how people have raised chickens for close to 8,000 maybe even 10,000 years. How dare rural dwellers be allowed to have chickens, but city dwellers can't. Those that object to my having chickens are nothing but bigots.
 
Most people don't disagree with it. Provide statistics that people disagree with it.

Again, answer the question. How do people who chose to not engage in hetero relationships affect you directly?


Apartment complex = private property, good luck with that one.
 
nehalem256 said:
There was a time when women couldn't enter contracts(at least without their father's/husbands) consents.
Click to expand...

So? While I'm sure you loved that, being prohibited from doing something is not the same as being incapable of doing something.

Change the laws so that marriage is allowed between a person and a toaster. Anyone who disagrees is a bigot and an objectphobe.

Equality for all!
Click to expand...

As soon as an object can muster the ability to enter into the contract I'm fine with it, as in order to be an equal agreement both parties must be able to consent. Equality for all indeed!

I'm seriously proud of you for finally growing up enough that you're able to recognize how bigoted and horrible your previous opinions were. Don't let anyone tell you that there's no hope.
 
I don't have a problem with such clauses per se. Nothing wrong with requiring that kids be kept away from excessive drinking etc. Think if your the other parent; you can't be there but you want your kids raised in a good environment.

Although it's not mentioned here, I would think if I were a husband paying alimony (and child support) I'd think it unfair if my ex-wife had the choice to remained unmarried and just live with her boyfriend so I had to continue to pay for their support. (Alimony would only terminate if they got married.)

So, I think this subject involves more than just gay marriage, however, because they can't get married in TX it presents a unique problem. And that is possibly for both parties. If the husband is paying alimony, he's stuck with it as long as she stays in the state. And she can't can't have her GF live with her.

I believe this could be fixed even without passing gay marriage.

Fern
 
Phanuel said:
Again, answer the question. How do people who chose to not engage in hetero relationships affect you directly?
Click to expand...

Equal rights for gays does not directly affect me in one way or another.

Like I have said before, in this thread and in others, it is called mutual respect.

Gays do not respect my opinion, so I see no reason to respect theirs.

Phanuel said:
Apartment complex = private property, good luck with that one.
Click to expand...

Fair housing act, its called discrimination.

How day a renter discriminate on my love for chickens.
 
Atreus21 said:
I think the idea of a morality clause is the problem. Yes, the welfare of the children is paramount, but to dictate the term of who the parents can hang out with after a divorce? That's a bit too much.

Why did this devolve into a debate on...oh nevermind.
Click to expand...

I'd love to see the whole decree. I wonder if he owes her separate maintenance?
 
I'm just going to throw this out here.

This isn't a gay issue, for two reasons.

1) the same clause would apply if the mother were cohabiting with a man.

2) it also applies to the father while the child is present.
 
TerryMathews said:
I'm just going to throw this out here.

This isn't a gay issue, for two reasons.

1) the same clause would apply if the mother were cohabiting with a man.

2) it also applies to the father while the child is present.
Click to expand...

I would think it shouldn't be viewed as a gay issue because it involves a divorce between a man and a woman.

If I wanted to argue that being gay wasn't a choice I sure as hell wouldn't post articles like this.
 
eskimospy said:
So? While I'm sure you loved that, being prohibited from doing something is not the same as being incapable of doing something.

As soon as an object can muster the ability to enter into the contract I'm fine with it, as in order to be an equal agreement both parties must be able to consent. Equality for all indeed!
Click to expand...

Why? In Canada the state has no problem declaring a marriage when neither party consents. At least in object-marriage one person consents 😉

And it appears you are engaging in a human-normative view of relationships and consent. Try being more open minded.
 
nehalem256 said:
Why? In Canada the state has no problem declaring a marriage when neither party consents. At least in object-marriage one person consents 😉
Click to expand...

First, I doubt that. Second, we aren't in Canada.

And it appears you are engaging in a human-normative view of relationships and consent. Try being more open minded.
Click to expand...

No, that's just the definition of the word 'consent'. If you no longer wish to converse in English, let me know what alternate language you'd like to use. This is exciting! I like learning new languages.
 
nehalem256 said:
Who said anything about raping a child other than you?

How do you go from a consenting relationship between 2 people and raping a child? Do you have some sort of child rape fetish?
Click to expand...

You can't read?

I didn't go from a consenting relationship between two people to raping a child, the poster i quoted did.

You do know that a minor cannot legally consent? Now what is it called when you have sex with someone who cannot legally consent to having sex with you?

Oh, that's right, you don't know that...

Let me advice you again, it's called rape.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top