Same Sex Marriage Thread - Part III

[BoMac]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

This is the first time in history the definition of marriage has been changed.¨

Oh, really? The first time ever? You must have a different definition of "history" than everybody else, then.

Monogamy is not usually the norm among gay couples. You can find some online sites that will disagree, but I think having more than one partner is an accepted aspect of the gay community. And yes, statistics do show that over half of married heterosexual couples engage in extramarital relationships, but it not accepted as a normal part of the relationship.

This one, I don't even know where to begin. I'll just say YOU'RE WRONG.

[BEAL]

Iron Horse, you're making some pretty big claims without providing any evidence.

Gays are known to have multiple partners, more so than straight people? You've heard of swingers right?

This isn't a strong case to oppose SSM. People cheat, doesn't matter what their orientation is.

You can't deny one group of people on the basis of something that "your" group already does.

Still waiting to hear a logical, reasonable and valid point as to why gays cannot marry.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

A few of my final thoughts:

First, one of my best friends in high school and college was homosexual. He knew my view on this, but his sexual orientation was never an issue in our friendship. Charles passed away several years ago. I miss him greatly. He was a real friend.

I have a cousin who is a lesbian. We are great friends and she has always been loved and accepted in my family. Like Charles, her sexual orientation has never come between our love and friendship.

Some would say your love and friendship for those two was limited because you did not think they deserved the same rights as you.

Originally Posted by the iron horse

My opposition to SSM is based on my religious belief and the traditional view of marriage that societies have held a long time This is the first time in history the definition of marriage has been changed.

Not quite. Polygamy was common for centuries all over the world. Some societies allowed open relationships and short term marriages. Marriage was made between a man and a woman because until recently, it was the only way to produce children and keep the tribe or society going.

Originally Posted by the iron horse

Some here dismissed Dennis Prager's comments because they were written ten years ago. Are we to ignore books, essays, and other works because of when they were created?

Prager's article has been disproven in the ten years since it was written. As I mentioned earlier, anything written to support his views since then were proven to be biased.

Originally Posted by the iron horse

Monogamy is not usually the norm among gay couples. You can find some online sites that will disagree, but I think having more than one partner is an accepted aspect of the gay community. And yes, statistics do show that over half of married heterosexual couples engage in extramarital relationships, but it not accepted as a normal part of the relationship.

This is more of an issue on how to handle monogamy. The reason why gay couples accept open relationships more because they're more open to the realities of sexuality because theirs goes against the norm.

Originally Posted by the iron horse

You can read stories online of adults who were raised in same sex families. I will post one link because a few here requested some evidence. Growing Up With Two Moms: The Untold Children’s View | Public Discourse

The person who wrote that had same-sex parenting when it was rare. It is becoming more common, so those kids are not going to have so many issues. Besides, children of same-sex parenting don't always have sexuality issues; many are pretty sure what they are early on.

Originally Posted by the iron horse

Some here have said my opposition is wrong or should be silenced because a majority of society are now accepting SSM. To me it is a very scary idea to embrace the view on a subject because it is the view of a majority. History is awash with examples where the view of the majority was very wrong.

The majority was once against homosexuality in general, and look at how many lives were miserable from that.

Originally Posted by the iron horse

Please remember, in voicing my opposition, I am attacking the idea, not the person.

Both are equal and the same

[Irvine511]

Robert Oscar Lopez is pretty much the only person who will public ally trash his gay parents in public. He's the go-to guy for NOM and other anti-gay organizations.

It seems stunning to me to think that because one troubled young man had two moms that somehow this dismisses everything else we know about the outcomes of LGBT parents and their children. Like the evidence that suggests that children may do best with lesbian mothers. Gay people who choose to become parents are usually excellent parents because they really, really want to be parents. No gay person gets accidentally pregnant. They also tend to be older, wealthier, and in longer term relationships.

Would we hold straight people to this standard of perfection? Should I start posting stories of bad straight parents who leave their babies in dumpsters, beat them, sexually abuse them, lock them in refridgerators? By far the biggest threat to children are heterosexual men.

Dennis Prager's article is dismissible because it doesn't have anything to actually offer, other than emotionalism.

A religious objection is fine. You're free to do so. But you are not free to withhold rights from others. You may be kosher, but I'm still allowed to eat pork.

[Irvine511]

Also, did it ever occur to you that the reason why there are more "open" gay relationships is because marriage as a standard/goal was never available to gay people until very recently?

Straight people conduct open relationships all the time, they are free to create their relationships as they choose.

Again, Iron Horse, I ask you: give me a list of all the bad things that have happened since SSM became legal in Massachusetts 10 years ago.

[Galeongirl]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

Monogamy is not usually the norm among gay couples. You can find some online sites that will disagree, but I think having more than one partner is an accepted aspect of the gay community. And yes, statistics do show that over half of married heterosexual couples engage in extramarital relationships, but it not accepted as a normal part of the relationship.

I'm sorry, but I am running out of words to describe how wrong you are here. I have no idea where you got this ridiculous idea, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was yet another bullshit argument made up by the church, like homosexuality leading to bestiality.


Homosexuals are people like you and your wife. There is no, absolutely no reason why they suddenly have a different norm when it comes to couples.

If my girlfriend were to cheat on me with someone else, I'd still call it cheating and dump her sorry ass. There is no fucking way that polygamy is any more accepted in the gay community than it is in the straight community.

[Irvine511]

saying, "i hear that most gays are in open relationships" is a bit along the lines of "i hear Jews are really good with money" and "those blacks sure can dance."

but, really, are two people *who agree* to be in an open relationship really a catastrophic threat to western society? so much so that we'd base opposition to civil rights on this stereotype that may also hold true of many other groups? given all the problems in the world, and given all the other social problems that afflict us as a society, is this really something worth worrying about? or is it a

[BEAL]

It seems like when people start using aspects of relationships they don't like, it's cause they wish they had those in their life.

It's like calling a girl a whore cause she slept with someone that wasn't YOU. More upset you weren't with them, so attack their character.

If you want an open relationship, go for it. Gays do it, straight people do it.

Just cause it's not ideal to you doesn't make it right or wrong. Try not to judge so much

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

saying, "i hear that most gays are in open relationships" is a bit along the lines of "i hear Jews are really good with money" and "those blacks sure can dance."

but, really, are two people *who agree* to be in an open relationship really a catastrophic threat to western society? so much so that we'd base opposition to civil rights on this stereotype that may also hold true of many other groups? given all the problems in the world, and given all the other social problems that afflict us as a society, is this really something worth worrying about? or is it a

Everytime I hear someone say gays should not marry or have kids because they are into kink and/or open relationships, I point out that many straight couples do the same. I then get crazy, off the wall responses trying to hard to justify anti-gay attitudes.

BTW, were you going to say more at the end there?

[martha]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

By far the biggest threat to children are heterosexual men.

No shit.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

This is the first time in history the definition of marriage has been changed.

So you haven't read the Bible? Figures...

[KhanadaRhodes]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

This is the first time in history the definition of marriage has been changed.

this is just wrong, sorry. in addition to the polygamy people have mentioned, interracial marriages used to be illegal in the states. so no, in recent decades, marriage has been redefined as between a man and woman of any race, not just a man and woman of the same race.

and regarding the bakery, i basically agree with what most have said: the bakery absolutely should legally be required to provide service to all clients. refusal to do so is discrimination, as the ruling judge said. i wouldn't want to give money to someone who i know disapproves of my marriage and who i had to legally force into baking my cake. this couple don't live in a small town. i'm sure this is more about proving a point of course. i just hope any negative publicity overrides any positive publicity.

[Galeongirl]

Wasn't marriage between old men and underage girls allowed at some point as well? So the definition must've changed as that is outlawed now.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Galeongirl

Wasn't marriage between old men and underage girls allowed at some point as well? So the definition must've changed as that is outlawed now.

Loretta Lynn got married at 14.

Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin.



he has been married 7 times.

[Galeongirl]

Wait what? It's not actually outlawed in the United States?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Galeongirl

Wait what? It's not actually outlawed in the United States?

it is now. they changed the definition of marriage from what it was in the 1950s when grown men could marry children, despite the fact that this is true traditional marriage (when life was nasty, brutish, and short, as it has been for much of human history, got to get those girls pregnant ASAP so the species can survive).

age of consent varies from state to state, the youngest ages of consent are usually in the most conservative, religious states.

[Galeongirl]

Phew, lol that would've been a pretty big shock to me.

I think age of consent is either 16 or 18 here, but I don't think you're allowed to actually get married before 18. A sexual relationship between a person age 16 or over can be legal if the parents agree with it. THough if it's between a 16 and an 18 year old it usually isn't a problem. 16 and 60 though....

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by Galeongirl

Phew, lol that would've been a pretty big shock to me.

I think age of consent is either 16 or 18 here, but I don't think you're allowed to actually get married before 18. A sexual relationship between a person age 16 or over can be legal if the parents agree with it. THough if it's between a 16 and an 18 year old it usually isn't a problem. 16 and 60 though....

Our law in PA is, I believe, that the age of consent is 18 unless both parties are underage, in which case it is 16. Though if the person is 16 or 17 engaging with an adult (18+), I think it's a misdemeanor unless you're a teacher or priest (I believe the phrasing is "in a position of power").

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

Again, Iron Horse, I ask you: give me a list of all the bad things that have happened since SSM became legal in Massachusetts 10 years ago.

Who said the earth was going to open up and swallow the population or whatever you expect to occur in ten years. But we could start with this; even though many people including yourself are sincere about SSM and the want for fairness in marriage, SSM is only one part of a larger agenda to the radical left. That agenda being making sex (gender) inconsequential and meaningless.

That is why any argument that men and women are different must be rejected despite its obviousness to the vast majority of the population. And that is why this is now the law in Massachusetts and California and will proceed after legalization of SSM in other states.

Transgender Access to Public School Bathrooms Now Required in MA by Commissioner - Massachusetts Family Institute

February 15, 2013
Massachusetts Commissioner of Education Mitchell Chester informed grade K-12 school principals that they must allow boys and girls of any age who self-identify as transgender to use the public school bathroom and locker room of their choosing—making it the first time in state history that boys would be allowed in girls bathrooms (and vice versa) at the student’s will.
The eleven page, single-spaced policy document, quietly implemented at the start of a three-day weekend and school vacation week, lays out a laundry list of far-reaching new rules related to ‘gender identity’ in public schools. Boys who ‘identify’ themselves as girls can now use the girls’ “restroom, locker room, and changing facility,” and vice versa. Principals are told to make it clear that students can use whatever restroom “corresponds to the student’s gender identity.” According to the document, “discomfort [ of the rest of the student body or from parents ] is not a reason to deny access to the transgender student.”

The new policy also impacts locker rooms and interscholastic athletics. All school teams will now essentially become coed, as students can play on whichever team they feel matches their gender identity. The policy even cites an example of a male student participating, as a girl, on an all-girls’ cheerleading squad.

Citing the specific language of the policy, Andrew Beckwith, attorney for Massachusetts Family Institute, warned that the definition of transgender “is extremely broad.” “If a male student tells his teacher he feels like a girl on the inside, the school has to treat him in every way as if he actually is a girl. School personnel may be forbidden from informing the parents of their child’s gender decisions, and students can even decide to be one gender at home and another at school.” Beckwith added that this requirement to ignore a basic truth of anatomy even extends to other students, as the policy states that referring to a transgendered student by their birth name or sex “should not be tolerated and can be grounds for student discipline.”

And of course who can forget this from Massachusetts two years ago:

“Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston,” Boston mayor Menino told the Boston Herald on Thursday. “You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against the population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion. That’s the Freedom Trail. That’s where it all started right here. And we’re not going to have a company, Chick-fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail.”

Maybe you're cool with boys in girl's locker-rooms and totalitarian mayors "banning" national companies but some of us have yet to evolve on those issues. And they are a direct result of who is at the vanguard of the SSM movement.

[martha]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

he has been married 7 sacred times.

Fixed.