Same Sex Marriage Thread - Part III

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
-5aa9fba7b534c596.jpg


Judge legalizes same-sex marriage in New Jersey | NJ.com


Chris Cristy? Can he veto it?


or are the gays taking over???




maybe they can send some decorators down to the Jersey Shore for a make-over
 
will be interesting to see how Christie -- a man who likely has no problem personally but has a bloodthirsty base to deal with in the '16 primaries -- will play this.

he's utterly crushing his opponent for re-election, so he can likely do whatever he wants and be fine. but he still needs to crush his opponent to prove to said base that he can actually win in the general by winning over democrats.

which he could.
 
What really is insulting about people who say incest, bestiality and pedophilia will someday by acceptable is that they are basically saying most humans have no common sense. I think we can all agree that anyone who engages in those three has major emotional/psychological problems, especially pedophilia. If the day comes that those problems aren't seen as problems anymore, then civilization has fallen. But that won't happen because most people aren't insane enough to let it.
 
Don't take this wrong -- I'm not saying gay marriage has anything in common with pedophilia. However, it's disingenuous to act like a disgust for pedophilia is somehow inherent in humanity. It's certainly been acceptable in cultures of the past. Pederasty in Greek culture is the most easily cited example.
 
Don't take this wrong -- I'm not saying gay marriage has anything in common with pedophilia. However, it's disingenuous to act like a disgust for pedophilia is somehow inherent in humanity. It's certainly been acceptable in cultures of the past. Pederasty in Greek culture is the most easily cited example.

That is true, and the Ancient Egyptian pharaohs married brother and sister.

But I think people today have more sense that neither is good for society or the individuals involved. I'd be very worried if most didn't.
 
That is true, and the Ancient Egyptian pharaohs married brother and sister.
...that neither is good for society or the individuals involved.

Just for the record - that is the same logic that conservative Christian and Jews use to oppose gay marriage.
 
The guy on the bottom of frame is a goddamn liar
:lol: That was the first thing I noticed!

Just for the record - that is the same logic that conservative Christian and Jews use to oppose gay marriage.

Oh really? Since when do they care about the gays and what happens to them?
As far as I know they only care for their own society and their own feelings. They don't give a shit about the gay people involved, or they wouldn't be saying that we can't love the ones we do.
 
no it isn't.

Whether you think they are genuine or not is another discussion, but they routinely say something along these lines:

1) gay marriage undermines the society by destroying the traditional family structure, a structure God designed. (Society)

2) homosexual activity damages a person physically, emotionally, and spiritually - as it is being willfully disobedient to God (Individual)

Again, you can disagree with these statement, I'm not going to defend them. But these are the basic arguments that the conservative Christians and Jews use to oppose gay marriage.
 
I think the difference is that those opposing incest and polygamy have actual facts to back up their assertions that it damages the person and society.
 
Whether you think they are genuine or not is another discussion, but they routinely say something along these lines:

1) gay marriage undermines the society by destroying the traditional family structure, a structure God designed. (Society)

2) homosexual activity damages a person physically, emotionally, and spiritually - as it is being willfully disobedient to God (Individual)

Again, you can disagree with these statement, I'm not going to defend them. But these are the basic arguments that the conservative Christians and Jews use to oppose gay marriage.


Yet I see opinions here, not facts. As Diemen says, on incest or paedophilia or polygamy or bestiality there are facts proving that it is harmful to the individuals on society. Based on genetics and psychology.

As far as I'm aware, we shouldn't let people's opinions weigh heavier than facts on this matter. More and more people are becoming atheistic or nontheistic these days, agnostic even. Religion is losing power. Why should we give the power to their opinions when the majority of people isn't behind that anymore?
 
I think the difference is that those opposing incest and polygamy have actual facts to back up their assertions that it damages the person and society.

I am certainly not going to defend incest or polygamy, but is there really valid scientific research to support that these activities damage a person and society (the assumption here is that it is all consensual)? I understand the genetic component of incest - but what if they don't intend to have children?

Again - I'm not defending these activities, but it seems like there is an appeal to scientific "facts" and I would like to see those.
 
Again - I'm not defending

I may get this wrong, I don't spend much time in here (anymore) reading everything in here.

But, when I read these types of things thrown into the argument, discussion it just makes the one doing it appear like they are bias against gay people.

The purpose to muddy up the discussion to defend bias towards gays.

That's the take away.
 
I may get this wrong, I don't spend much time in here (anymore) reading everything in here.

But, when I read these types of things thrown into the argument, discussion it just makes the one doing it appear like they are bias against gay people.

The purpose to muddy up the discussion to defend bias towards gays.

That's the take away.

Understood. The reason I'm going down this path is in reference to Caleb's response to Pearl's appeal to "common sense" - Caleb was arguing that this is a variable that changes with cultures. A quick review of history would tend to support Caleb here.

Pearl then seemed to be saying that certain activities harm society and the individual - and I responded that conservative Christians and Jews use the same argument to oppose gay marriage. In response to that, others claimed that these are mere opinions and do not support the "facts". Which is a fair. So I simply requested these facts.
 
Again - I'm not defending these activities, but it seems like there is an appeal to scientific "facts" and I would like to see those.

Aside from complicated consent issues, the first factual one I think of is social assistance. Because the state doens't recognize polygamous marriage, the first wife is a spouse and all subsequent wives are single women and single mothers. And typically single mothers of a herd of children. Who then become a burden on the state by collecting social assistance of varying sorts.

If we're going to talk about welfare Queens in Harlem...
 
Because the state doens't recognize polygamous marriage, the first wife is a spouse and all subsequent wives are single women and single mothers.

In theory, this law could be changed so that the "single" mothers are no longer single, but in a state-recognized marriage.
 
Well, that presupposes that there are no issues with consent in these marriages, which is often not the case.

But ok, let's assume you're dealing with consenting adults, not sure you've thought it through. So now you have one husband and 6 wives. How do you file joint taxes? Does he get to enjoy tax breaks by filing 6 times? Does he split his income 6 ways and files once with each wife, thereby reducing his overall income and making all 6 families eligible for federal and state aid? What about health insurance? Does he have 6 policies or are they added as dependents? Typically, you add a spouse to your own insurance at a discount, so what happens here? What about divorce? When wife #4 divorces him, how do you calculate net family property? When she sues him for spousal support and child support, does that come out of the pockets of wives 1-3, 5 & 6 and if so, why should they be held financially responsible?

I think this is a huge potential financial burden on the state. To say nothing of any social issues.
 
I'm.. not sure how that would even work out. especially with all females. :lol: Since they tend to be more jealous by nature, putting a bunch of them together is sure as heck not gonna work out.

To be honest, if people want to have more wives or husbands or whatever, live together with more than 2 people, they should do whatever the hell they want. But it's simply not doable for a working financial and legal system to acknowledge more than 1 spouse. So no, I would not see multiple marriages working out. That doesn't mean I say they cannot be together though, if it's consent of course.

Yeah, I see your parallels with gay marriage there. But I disagree that it's the same. Because a gay marriage is no trouble at all, financially and legally it's not different from a straight wedding here. You still have two humans getting married, just regardless of gender. Polygamy involves more than two humans, thus it is vastly different.
 
On polygamy, I really couldn't give a fuck if people engage in it. There are several cultures where it's accepted.

But using it as a crutch for opposing same sex marriage is pathetic.

For me it all comes back to - who is affected when two gay people get married? No one but those two. Any assertions to the contrary are ridiculous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom