Gay Marriage

[shira]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Quick question to all in favor of gay marriage: What are your thoughts on polygamy (presuming it's among consentual adults)?

Personally, I can't seen any logically consistent reasons to be against polygamy while still being for gay marriage, but I'd like to hear the thoughts of others on the question.

I can: As I've pointed out in other posts, almost all documented polygamous communities in America in modern times have been strongly associated with child-abuse: Forcing under-age girls to get married, have sex, and have babies, and casting out under-age boys from the group (to reduce competition for scarce females).

I have no objection in theory to truly consensual polygamy among fully-adult individuals. Unfortunately, polygamy as practiced in the U.S. in modern times has almost never been like that. It's a few powerful men with harems of women, trading their young female offspring to each other and/or providing them to their select male heirs. Child-abuse is part and parcel to the practice. That's a huge social cost.

I see absolutely no social cost to allowing same-sex couples to marry.

Alcohol use as practiced in the US annually leads to thousands of deaths, many more injuries, and untold costs in property damage and required medical care, but I don't think that's a good reason to make it illegal.

Your analogy stinks: The social costs of making and keeping alcohol illegal were found to be huge, so prohibition was repealed and we now deal with the social costs of keeping it legal (but controlled/regulated). This is a classic cost/benefit situation.

There's no similar tradeoff with polygamy: The social costs of keeping it illegal are pretty small. And I'm including in that social cost analysis the loss of freedom of those who want to be in polygamous marriages. There just are damn few individuals who want to be in such marriages, and even for these individuals, all of the state-provided benefits of marriage are already open to them (but with only one spouse). So I believe that a rational cost/benefit analysis for polygamy indicates that it's much better to keep it illegal.

The polygamy argument is just a red herring. Those who want polygamy can already get all the state benefits of marriage, albeit with just one spouse. So denying them to right to marry more than one person of the opposite sex really doesn't deprive them of anything (and they're still free to cohabit with all the other people they want to).

So there's no valid analogy between polygamy and same-sex marriage. Same-sex couples CANNOT obtain state-provided marriage benefits. Period.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Quick question to all in favor of gay marriage: What are your thoughts on polygamy (presuming it's among consentual adults)?

Personally, I can't seen any logically consistent reasons to be against polygamy while still being for gay marriage, but I'd like to hear the thoughts of others on the question.

I can: As I've pointed out in other posts, almost all documented polygamous communities in America in modern times have been strongly associated with child-abuse: Forcing under-age girls to get married, have sex, and have babies, and casting out under-age boys from the group (to reduce competition for scarce females).

I have no objection in theory to truly consensual polygamy among fully-adult individuals. Unfortunately, polygamy as practiced in the U.S. in modern times has almost never been like that. It's a few powerful men with harems of women, trading their young female offspring to each other and/or providing them to their select male heirs. Child-abuse is part and parcel to the practice. That's a huge social cost.

I see absolutely no social cost to allowing same-sex couples to marry.

Two biggest problems with polygamy that you see at least in the USA is :
1- You have some sick f***(s) on a power trip looking to f*** a bunch of little girls and get away with it. They create a small community that they control with a iron fist and kick out anyone who will threaten his/their control. This is mental and physical abuse.
2- It's only the men who can have multiple partners. This turns woman into objects and leaves a lot of single men who will be very angry and with some very clear targets for their anger (those men with 10 wives and the gov that allows it). Prostitution will explode, probably human trafficking to fill the demand and single males going over seas to bring back a wife (pity those against immigration), or just leaving the country all together.

Polygamy with equality and normal people practicing it might work. But I don't see it taking off big time even if it becomes legal, how many people want a second partner beyond a one night stand because a cheeseburger tastes so damn good if all you ever get is stake without anything to spice it up. But this raises the problem of those who do want it, how many of those will be the ones out on a power trip with love nothing but a afterthought.

Now that I think about it, polygamy and homosexual marriage are two totally different things, and I don't see how people tie one to the other.

1. Legalizing polygamy will no more allow men to fuck little girls any more than legalizing gay marriage will allow gays to fuck little boys. That line of reasoning makes you exactly like those opposed to gay marriage.

2. Why would it only be legal for men? Again, you yourself are guilty of exactly what the anti-gay marriage crowd is guilty of.

As for how many people want to marry multiple spouses, why does it matter? If it's simply a numbers game, then until gays are in the majority maybe they shouldn't be allowed to marry either? Why change the rules for a tiny minority?

You're such a hyprocite.

Read my post above. The argument for same-sex marriage is an argument for equal rights under the law. Would-be polygamists are not denied marriage benefits. Thus, a polygamist can (1) legally marry and get state-sponsored marriage benefits, and (2) can live with any other "spouses" they want to. Same-sex couples can't get to square one.

Polygamy, unlike homosexuality, is a recipe for abuse. Those who argue that gay men disproportionately sexually abuse little boys have no objective statistics to back that claim up. Polygamy, on the other hand, is a "cover" for child abuse. Read about ANY polygamous sect, and you read about 12- and 13-year old girls promised into marriage. You read about teenage boys kicked out on the streets. Polygamists in America are almost all cult members with very strange ideas about the roles of men and women, and their teenage boys and girls get caught up in the sickness.

Equating the issues of polygamy and same-sex marriage is nonsense. There's absolutely no similarity between the two.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Quick question to all in favor of gay marriage: What are your thoughts on polygamy (presuming it's among consentual adults)?

Personally, I can't seen any logically consistent reasons to be against polygamy while still being for gay marriage, but I'd like to hear the thoughts of others on the question.

I can: As I've pointed out in other posts, almost all documented polygamous communities in America in modern times have been strongly associated with child-abuse: Forcing under-age girls to get married, have sex, and have babies, and casting out under-age boys from the group (to reduce competition for scarce females).

I have no objection in theory to truly consensual polygamy among fully-adult individuals. Unfortunately, polygamy as practiced in the U.S. in modern times has almost never been like that. It's a few powerful men with harems of women, trading their young female offspring to each other and/or providing them to their select male heirs. Child-abuse is part and parcel to the practice. That's a huge social cost.

I see absolutely no social cost to allowing same-sex couples to marry.

Two biggest problems with polygamy that you see at least in the USA is :
1- You have some sick f***(s) on a power trip looking to f*** a bunch of little girls and get away with it. They create a small community that they control with a iron fist and kick out anyone who will threaten his/their control. This is mental and physical abuse.
2- It's only the men who can have multiple partners. This turns woman into objects and leaves a lot of single men who will be very angry and with some very clear targets for their anger (those men with 10 wives and the gov that allows it). Prostitution will explode, probably human trafficking to fill the demand and single males going over seas to bring back a wife (pity those against immigration), or just leaving the country all together.

Polygamy with equality and normal people practicing it might work. But I don't see it taking off big time even if it becomes legal, how many people want a second partner beyond a one night stand because a cheeseburger tastes so damn good if all you ever get is stake without anything to spice it up. But this raises the problem of those who do want it, how many of those will be the ones out on a power trip with love nothing but a afterthought.

Now that I think about it, polygamy and homosexual marriage are two totally different things, and I don't see how people tie one to the other.

1. Legalizing polygamy will no more allow men to fuck little girls any more than legalizing gay marriage will allow gays to fuck little boys. That line of reasoning makes you exactly like those opposed to gay marriage.

2. Why would it only be legal for men? Again, you yourself are guilty of exactly what the anti-gay marriage crowd is guilty of.

As for how many people want to marry multiple spouses, why does it matter? If it's simply a numbers game, then until gays are in the majority maybe they shouldn't be allowed to marry either? Why change the rules for a tiny minority?

You're such a hyprocite.

Re-read what I posted, perhaps past the first 5 or 6 words at the beginning of each paragraph.

I first talk about what we see now, sure this is not the case for every polygamy colony, but it happens a lot even in Canada.

Then I talk about how it could work.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: ZzZGuyTwo biggest problems with polygamy that you see at least in the USA is :...

I believe the primary argument against polygamy is that it increases the likelyhood, that after generations, cousins / people with same gene may unknowingly marrying each other... result in children born with same harmful recessive genes from both parents.

Never thought about that. I haven't seen how the family tree would look after 50/100 years.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Quick question to all in favor of gay marriage: What are your thoughts on polygamy (presuming it's among consentual adults)?

Personally, I can't seen any logically consistent reasons to be against polygamy while still being for gay marriage, but I'd like to hear the thoughts of others on the question.

I can: As I've pointed out in other posts, almost all documented polygamous communities in America in modern times have been strongly associated with child-abuse: Forcing under-age girls to get married, have sex, and have babies, and casting out under-age boys from the group (to reduce competition for scarce females).

I have no objection in theory to truly consensual polygamy among fully-adult individuals. Unfortunately, polygamy as practiced in the U.S. in modern times has almost never been like that. It's a few powerful men with harems of women, trading their young female offspring to each other and/or providing them to their select male heirs. Child-abuse is part and parcel to the practice. That's a huge social cost.

I see absolutely no social cost to allowing same-sex couples to marry.

Two biggest problems with polygamy that you see at least in the USA is :
1- You have some sick f***(s) on a power trip looking to f*** a bunch of little girls and get away with it. They create a small community that they control with a iron fist and kick out anyone who will threaten his/their control. This is mental and physical abuse.
2- It's only the men who can have multiple partners. This turns woman into objects and leaves a lot of single men who will be very angry and with some very clear targets for their anger (those men with 10 wives and the gov that allows it). Prostitution will explode, probably human trafficking to fill the demand and single males going over seas to bring back a wife (pity those against immigration), or just leaving the country all together.

Polygamy with equality and normal people practicing it might work. But I don't see it taking off big time even if it becomes legal, how many people want a second partner beyond a one night stand because a cheeseburger tastes so damn good if all you ever get is stake without anything to spice it up. But this raises the problem of those who do want it, how many of those will be the ones out on a power trip with love nothing but a afterthought.

Now that I think about it, polygamy and homosexual marriage are two totally different things, and I don't see how people tie one to the other.

1. Legalizing polygamy will no more allow men to fuck little girls any more than legalizing gay marriage will allow gays to fuck little boys. That line of reasoning makes you exactly like those opposed to gay marriage.

2. Why would it only be legal for men? Again, you yourself are guilty of exactly what the anti-gay marriage crowd is guilty of.

As for how many people want to marry multiple spouses, why does it matter? If it's simply a numbers game, then until gays are in the majority maybe they shouldn't be allowed to marry either? Why change the rules for a tiny minority?

You're such a hyprocite.

Read my post above. The argument for same-sex marriage is an argument for equal rights under the law. Would-be polygamists are not denied marriage benefits. Thus, a polygamist can (1) legally marry and get state-sponsored marriage benefits, and (2) can live with any other "spouses" they want to. Same-sex couples can't get to square one.

Polygamy, unlike homosexuality, is a recipe for abuse. Those who argue that gay men disproportionately sexually abuse little boys have no objective statistics to back that claim up. Polygamy, on the other hand, is a "cover" for child abuse. Read about ANY polygamous sect, and you read about 12- and 13-year old girls promised into marriage. You read about teenage boys kicked out on the streets. Polygamists in America are almost all cult members with very strange ideas about the roles of men and women, and their teenage boys and girls get caught up in the sickness.

Equating the issues of polygamy and same-sex marriage is nonsense. There's absolutely no similarity between the two.

The issue, as I tried to show Bober, is not parallel because we can and do limit marriage to girls we deem to have become women. To discriminate on the basis of age is not a violation of protected rights. To discriminate on the basis of number of wives is not a violation of protected rights. To discriminate against marriage based on sexual orientation, race, religion, national origin etc IS a violation of protected rights.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

Comparing polygamy to same sex marriage.....sigh

You bigots are really running out of arguments these days.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
You said, and I quote, .ZZZZzzzzzzzzzz

I believe it stemmed from your blather about the "natural way" order or whatever of childrearing being "inferior" to that of homosexuals who decide to adopt or whatever....

Regardless I didn't realize you had a bit of a personal bias until I read your subsequent posts.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
Comparing polygamy to same sex marriage.....sigh

You bigots are really running out of arguments these days.

Attention extremely stupid person - I'm on record several times in this thread and others that I'm not opposed to gay marriage, so how am I a bigot, since I seem to hold the same position on gay marriage that you do, idiot? I'm merely suggesting polygamy should also be legal. If you weren't so stupid, you'd understand.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: shira
The polygamy argument is just a red herring. Those who want polygamy can already get all the state benefits of marriage, albeit with just one spouse. So denying them to right to marry more than one person of the opposite sex really doesn't deprive them of anything (and they're still free to cohabit with all the other people they want to).

So there's no valid analogy between polygamy and same-sex marriage. Same-sex couples CANNOT obtain state-provided marriage benefits. Period.

Sure they can; they just have to marry an opposite sex partner. Of course, they don't want to do that, but then, a polygamist doesn't want to marry just one person either. In either case, the state is shoe-horning them into a marriage model (ONE man-ONE woman) in which they don't fit, yet you only care about the rights of gays, but not of polygamists. It's sheer hypocracy.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
Comparing polygamy to same sex marriage.....sigh

You bigots are really running out of arguments these days.

Attention extremely stupid person - I'm on record several times in this thread and others that I'm not opposed to gay marriage, so how am I a bigot, since I seem to hold the same position on gay marriage that you do, idiot? I'm merely suggesting polygamy should also be legal. If you weren't so stupid, you'd understand.

Hey idiot, a couple of posts up I showed you why you're full of shit. Can't you read. Hehe, just trying to address you in terms you seem to understand. Sorry about that.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: brandonb
It really has nothing to do with religion.

Its not bigot Chritians wanting to kick gays in the balls.

It comes down to this. Marriage is a concept from the bible.

blatenly incorrect!

chinese have had marriage for thousands of years, probably before the bible was writen.

actually your the one who is wrong.....if.....
if you believe that Adam and Eve were the first 2 people put on the earth......
then it was a biblical first......because God made Eve for Adam..thus marriage.

btw--this is just a clarification of how the people whop oppose this issue think!

Tou need to know these things in order to debate and discuss with these people( as in those who would deny the right of marriage to the gay community) in a manner which they understand.

religion vs culture is what many religions fear, because each culture/religion have their own version of adams and eves.

to Buddhism, marriage is a cycle. Adam and Eve is being defined as the start of a single cycle with many cycles existed before them.

but the fact remains, Chinese have not known the existance of Bible for thousands of years, yet they have always had marriage.

thats not even an arguable fact( I am playing devils advocate here) to somebody who believes that Adam and Eve were the first beings created...thus to that person the chinese were not on the earth before Adam and eve...so lets debate this if you think you can argue successfully that the chinese were on earth before Adam and eve....oh btw.....
Duh to the budhist all of life is a cycle...so whats new...

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: brandonb
It really has nothing to do with religion.

Its not bigot Chritians wanting to kick gays in the balls.

It comes down to this. Marriage is a concept from the bible.

blatenly incorrect!

chinese have had marriage for thousands of years, probably before the bible was writen.

actually your the one who is wrong.....if.....
if you believe that Adam and Eve were the first 2 people put on the earth......
then it was a biblical first......because God made Eve for Adam..thus marriage.

btw--this is just a clarification of how the people whop oppose this issue think!

Tou need to know these things in order to debate and discuss with these people( as in those who would deny the right of marriage to the gay community) in a manner which they understand.

OK, so then it appeared in the Torah some ~2k years prior to the Bible. <--- nice try but you just self owned yourself!!
EDIT: btw, I'm just adding to your argument.

You need not explain to a Jew what the Torah is.
But I do like it when people like you conduct self-ownage!!

To be exact the Torah...is part of the bible.....go figure..
The Torah is the most holy of the sacred writings in Judaism.[4] It is the first of three sections in the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), the founding religious document of Judaism,[5] and is divided into five books, whose names in English are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, in reference to their themes (Their Hebrew names, Bereishis, ??????, Shemos ????, Vayikro ?????, Bamidbor ?????, and Devorim ?????, are derived from the wording of their initial verses). The Torah contains a variety of literary genres, including allegories, historical narrative, poetry, genealogy, and the exposition of various types of law. According to rabbinic tradition, the Torah contains the 613 mitzvos (?????,

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: loki8481
the root of the argument against gay marriage is that some/many breeders find the idea of gay sex to be icky.

I do find gay sex icky, just as you find hetero sex icky. I also find the term "breeder" to be ridiculously moronic.

Of course, I have no problem with gay marriage, or gays in general. I have gay friends, gay relatives, whatever. Doesn't mean I have any desire to stick my wang up their butts. It's absolutely disgusting to me.

Pretty much all straight people find the notion icky (again, no different than your notion of hetero sex), ...and so your comment is idiotic.

No, it's not. His comment is right. From talking to so many on this, most I talk to who oppose gay marriage, IMO, are motivated in part by their 'ick' reaction to gay sex.

So he's right on. Your ability to have the 'cik' reaction, which I agree is the norm for heterosexuals, from your position on their right to marry is good, but not universal.

But that's just it....Most do have the ick factor. But that alone certainly is not what causes the prejudice.

To me, I can only imagine that it comes from some in-born hate. And as another poster mentioned, the antiquated and very real notion that homosexuality=child molestation.
Hell, once it was no longer "cool" to use the Bible as an excuse to hate on Blacks, the fundies had to latch on to some other boogie man to keep their hate-fueled life forces flowing.

I think we all have this "ick," on either side. therefore, the greatest opposition must come from elsewhere.

I am not understanding your argument against the 'ick' factor being a major part of it.

I'd list the top factors as the 'ick' factor; the sheepish following of the political movement (party and church) against gays; the fear of the unknown, an 'us vs. them' mentality.

Because of the anti-gay emotion these things cause, then the reasons to defend it are invented - 'it's unnatural', 'tradition', 'threat to marriage', 'bad for kids', and so on.

Other factors can include insecurity in their own sexuality, that somehow 'tolerating' gays makes a man less of a man, and so on.

The reason why, as the 'arguments' are shot down one at a time, the person doesn't change their view but just races for a new argument - finally just ending the discussion on a 'they have a right to their opinion' claim, is because their emotion isn't driven by the rational issues.

all I'm saying is that most of us have the "ick" factor regarding the other teams sexual tendencies.

I know it's oversimplification, but when you realize that those who oppose gays share the ick factor with those who do not...it's a wash.

I really think the opposition comes from somewhere else. Maybe it's the fundies that are shamed of their own homosexual thoughts, thus feeling the ick in themselves? I don't know...

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: ZzZGuyTwo biggest problems with polygamy that you see at least in the USA is :...

I believe the primary argument against polygamy is that it increases the likelyhood, that after generations, cousins / people with same gene may unknowingly marrying each other... result in children born with same harmful recessive genes from both parents.

did you guys miss this one?

---winner winner, chicken dinner.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: brandonb
It really has nothing to do with religion.

Its not bigot Chritians wanting to kick gays in the balls.

It comes down to this. Marriage is a concept from the bible.

blatenly incorrect!

chinese have had marriage for thousands of years, probably before the bible was writen.

actually your the one who is wrong.....if.....
if you believe that Adam and Eve were the first 2 people put on the earth......
then it was a biblical first......because God made Eve for Adam..thus marriage.

btw--this is just a clarification of how the people whop oppose this issue think!

Tou need to know these things in order to debate and discuss with these people( as in those who would deny the right of marriage to the gay community) in a manner which they understand.

OK, so then it appeared in the Torah some ~2k years prior to the Bible. <--- nice try but you just self owned yourself!!
EDIT: btw, I'm just adding to your argument.

You need not explain to a Jew what the Torah is.
But I do like it when people like you conduct self-ownage!!

To be exact the Torah...is part of the bible.....go figure..
The Torah is the most holy of the sacred writings in Judaism.[4] It is the first of three sections in the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), the founding religious document of Judaism,[5] and is divided into five books, whose names in English are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, in reference to their themes (Their Hebrew names, Bereishis, ??????, Shemos ????, Vayikro ?????, Bamidbor ?????, and Devorim ?????, are derived from the wording of their initial verses). The Torah contains a variety of literary genres, including allegories, historical narrative, poetry, genealogy, and the exposition of various types of law. According to rabbinic tradition, the Torah contains the 613 mitzvos (?????,

it pisses you off that I completely agreed with you?



no lesson needed, tyvm. was just pointing out that marriage certainly existed before the Christian text...and in the very same book the Christians use. Which is funny.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: loki8481
the root of the argument against gay marriage is that some/many breeders find the idea of gay sex to be icky.

I do find gay sex icky, just as you find hetero sex icky. I also find the term "breeder" to be ridiculously moronic.

Of course, I have no problem with gay marriage, or gays in general. I have gay friends, gay relatives, whatever. Doesn't mean I have any desire to stick my wang up their butts. It's absolutely disgusting to me.

Pretty much all straight people find the notion icky (again, no different than your notion of hetero sex), ...and so your comment is idiotic.

No, it's not. His comment is right. From talking to so many on this, most I talk to who oppose gay marriage, IMO, are motivated in part by their 'ick' reaction to gay sex.

So he's right on. Your ability to have the 'cik' reaction, which I agree is the norm for heterosexuals, from your position on their right to marry is good, but not universal.

But that's just it....Most do have the ick factor. But that alone certainly is not what causes the prejudice.

To me, I can only imagine that it comes from some in-born hate. And as another poster mentioned, the antiquated and very real notion that homosexuality=child molestation.
Hell, once it was no longer "cool" to use the Bible as an excuse to hate on Blacks, the fundies had to latch on to some other boogie man to keep their hate-fueled life forces flowing.

I think we all have this "ick," on either side. therefore, the greatest opposition must come from elsewhere.

I am not understanding your argument against the 'ick' factor being a major part of it.

I'd list the top factors as the 'ick' factor; the sheepish following of the political movement (party and church) against gays; the fear of the unknown, an 'us vs. them' mentality.

Because of the anti-gay emotion these things cause, then the reasons to defend it are invented - 'it's unnatural', 'tradition', 'threat to marriage', 'bad for kids', and so on.

Other factors can include insecurity in their own sexuality, that somehow 'tolerating' gays makes a man less of a man, and so on.

The reason why, as the 'arguments' are shot down one at a time, the person doesn't change their view but just races for a new argument - finally just ending the discussion on a 'they have a right to their opinion' claim, is because their emotion isn't driven by the rational issues.

all I'm saying is that most of us have the "ick" factor regarding the other teams sexual tendencies.

I know it's oversimplification, but when you realize that those who oppose gays share the ick factor with those who do not...it's a wash.

I really think the opposition comes from somewhere else. Maybe it's the fundies that are shamed of their own homosexual thoughts, thus feeling the ick in themselves? I don't know...

We were conditioned to conform by being made to feel icky. We were shown that being icky means you get get put down. We couldn't take that kind of pain so we repress the memory of being made to feel icky but we remember very well how icky is to be hated. We were taught to hate and what we were taught to hate was what we were also told we are. So now like our parents, we want to punish icky and make icky hurt. Christians, with their terrible convoluted repression of hate, love thy neighbor, friend, have powerfully repressed feelings of hate that leak out all over the place when the Bible seems to give the OK. Being gay is bad so it must be OK to dump on evil. Surely I can hate homosexuality and still love my neighbor. Never mind the implications, I just got to have somebody on which I can off-load all my self hate.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Everyone seems to want to make this about religion or morals and that argument is dead IMO, being openly gay has been soicially acceptable for quite some time in this country, as has casual drug use, and many other types of social behavior that don't fit the norm.
The laws on the books pertaining to social behavior have not kept pace with the growth in acceptance of previously fringe or taboo social behaviors.

It really comes down to a matter of benifits of marriage, health insurance, SS, family leave, etc... IMO if gay couples are willing to except the the downsides of the marriage contract (state property laws regarding divorce, legal liability, shared credit rating, etc...) there is absolutely no reason to prevent them from entering into a marriage contract and gaining all the benifits and liabilities that go with it.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
all I'm saying is that most of us have the "ick" factor regarding the other teams sexual tendencies.

I know it's oversimplification, but when you realize that those who oppose gays share the ick factor with those who do not...it's a wash.

I really think the opposition comes from somewhere else. Maybe it's the fundies that are shamed of their own homosexual thoughts, thus feeling the ick in themselves? I don't know...

I think you're missing what I'm saying. I'm not saying that everyone who feels the 'ick' factor is against gay marriage.

As I said, I think most or nearly every heterosexual feels that about gay sex.

However, some have other factors that determine their position, e.g., civil rights.

Rather, I'm saying that *among those against gay marriag*, I think it's a big factor.

I'll try an analogy:

Assume nearly everyone thinks it's fun to drive fast and recklessly. However, some people realize they shouldn't, because of the safety issues.

Now, I could say, that *among those who drive fast and recklessly*, a major reason why is that they think it's fun.

Pointing out that the people who drive safely also think it's fun doesn't disprove my claim. The people who drive safe just have other things they use to decide in how to drive.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
You said, and I quote, .ZZZZzzzzzzzzzz

I believe it stemmed from your blather about the "natural way" order or whatever of childrearing being "inferior" to that of homosexuals who decide to adopt or whatever....

Regardless I didn't realize you had a bit of a personal bias until I read your subsequent posts.

I will admit that I have personal bias on this issue. But I'm also perfectly willing to accept actual evidence that proves my personal situation is the exception and not the norm. But the Bible is not evidence to me; I want scientific studies performed in this generation. And of those, not a single one shows gay couples to be worse parents than straight parents. If you can find one that does, I'll be happy to read it.

And someone needs to remind you what quotemarks mean. Because, and I will lay the life of me and everyone I know on this, not once in this thread did I ever say that straight childbearing was "inferior" to homosexuals deciding to adopt. How fucking dare you claim I stated this?

You lied about what I said. You refused to address the questions I asked of you in a polite and respectful manner. So I'll put it to you in a way you that speaks more to your preferred method of interaction: answer my questions or shut the fuck up. I'm through responding to your bullshit.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: brandonb
It really has nothing to do with religion.

Its not bigot Chritians wanting to kick gays in the balls.

It comes down to this. Marriage is a concept from the bible.

blatenly incorrect!

chinese have had marriage for thousands of years, probably before the bible was writen.

actually your the one who is wrong.....if.....
if you believe that Adam and Eve were the first 2 people put on the earth......
then it was a biblical first......because God made Eve for Adam..thus marriage.

btw--this is just a clarification of how the people whop oppose this issue think!

Tou need to know these things in order to debate and discuss with these people( as in those who would deny the right of marriage to the gay community) in a manner which they understand.

OK, so then it appeared in the Torah some ~2k years prior to the Bible. <--- nice try but you just self owned yourself!!
EDIT: btw, I'm just adding to your argument.

You need not explain to a Jew what the Torah is.
But I do like it when people like you conduct self-ownage!!

To be exact the Torah...is part of the bible.....go figure..
The Torah is the most holy of the sacred writings in Judaism.[4] It is the first of three sections in the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), the founding religious document of Judaism,[5] and is divided into five books, whose names in English are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, in reference to their themes (Their Hebrew names, Bereishis, ??????, Shemos ????, Vayikro ?????, Bamidbor ?????, and Devorim ?????, are derived from the wording of their initial verses). The Torah contains a variety of literary genres, including allegories, historical narrative, poetry, genealogy, and the exposition of various types of law. According to rabbinic tradition, the Torah contains the 613 mitzvos (?????,

it pisses you off that I completely agreed with you?



no lesson needed, tyvm. was just pointing out that marriage certainly existed before the Christian text...and in the very same book the Christians use. Which is funny.

Nobody is pissed off.....
First of all you did not say Christian text...
Second of all you did NOT know that the Torah was part of the bible.
Anyway you explain yourself you ended up looking like an idiot and very stoopid.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
[I will admit that I have personal bias on this issue.

I don't agree with you at this time.

You have a personal interest, and a desire for the evidence to go one direction, but that falls short of bias when you stop short of compromising the truth.

Just because the evidence happens to agree with your preference doesn't make it bias.

If you were raised by an alcoholic parent, you might want the evidence to say you do ok, but I get the feeling if it didn't, you wouldn't say it did. Hence, a lack of bias.

Having said all that, I understand there are different definitions of bias - you probably wouldn't be an appropriate 'free of any bias' person to be in charge of a court ruling on it, when the desire is that the person not have any preference that might interfere or cast doubt on their fairness, since you have an admitted preference. But that's part of the fuzzy definition of 'bias'.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

I will admit that I have personal bias on this issue. But I'm also perfectly willing to accept actual evidence that proves my personal situation is the exception and not the norm. But ...blah blah blah blah.

It was somewhat obvious that was what you were insinuating with your previous post.

And thank you for not responding as I really don't want to have to skim another one of your posts.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I don't agree with you at this time.

You have a personal interest, and a desire for the evidence to go one direction, but that falls short of bias when you stop short of compromising the truth.

Just because the evidence happens to agree with your preference doesn't make it bias.

If you were raised by an alcoholic parent, you might want the evidence to say you do ok, but I get the feeling if it didn't, you wouldn't say it did. Hence, a lack of bias.

Having said all that, I understand there are different definitions of bias - you probably wouldn't be an appropriate 'free of any bias' person to be in charge of a court ruling on it, when the desire is that the person not have any preference that might interfere or cast doubt on their fairness, since you have an admitted preference. But that's part of the fuzzy definition of 'bias'.

Just as you said Craig, it is your position that it isn't a bias yet others wouldn't be out of line in thinking it was....

He was raised by a pair of lesbians,and now is looking for acceptance/understanding by all of society ...seems like a vested interest/personal bias to me.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Craig234
I don't agree with you at this time.

You have a personal interest, and a desire for the evidence to go one direction, but that falls short of bias when you stop short of compromising the truth.

Just because the evidence happens to agree with your preference doesn't make it bias.

If you were raised by an alcoholic parent, you might want the evidence to say you do ok, but I get the feeling if it didn't, you wouldn't say it did. Hence, a lack of bias.

Having said all that, I understand there are different definitions of bias - you probably wouldn't be an appropriate 'free of any bias' person to be in charge of a court ruling on it, when the desire is that the person not have any preference that might interfere or cast doubt on their fairness, since you have an admitted preference. But that's part of the fuzzy definition of 'bias'.

Just as you said Craig, it is your position that it isn't a bias yet others wouldn't be out of line in thinking it was....

He was raised by a pair of lesbians,and now is looking for acceptance/understanding by all of society ...seems like a vested interest/personal bias to me.

Actually you would be the one with bias as you're talking out your ass about something you have no personal knowledge of. He can tell us from personal experience what having two gay parents would mean and how it affected his life. You, from your abstractness, have only your bias to apply.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: bozack
Just as you said Craig, it is your position that it isn't a bias yet others wouldn't be out of line in thinking it was....

He was raised by a pair of lesbians,and now is looking for acceptance/understanding by all of society ...seems like a vested interest/personal bias to me.

I was born of a father from West Virginia, and would like not to have a bigotry from society because of that, a widespread belief that West Virginians can't raise kids well.

Does that make me 'biased' on the issue of whether West Virginians can raise kids well?

What if I say I'd prefer that's not the case, but if the evidence said it is, I'd accept that?

Is that biased - or merely with a preference, but not biased? As I said, you need to define bias to discuss it, it's a fuzzy word. Seems to me you are inventing his 'bias'.

It's hard to detect bias at times, because it's so easy to hide bias behind rationalizations. If a Jew says he's for Israel's policies, is it out of bias or not? We can't know without probing.