public opinion research

[herbivore female]

are you in favor of gay marriages? why or why not?

[3rdCoast]

I do not care

[jalbre6]

are you in favor of gay marriages? why or why not?

It's stupid for gay marriage not to be legal. And I really don't understand why so many people are against it. Just because me, or you, or somebody else isn't gay doesn't mean that we should go around telling gays that they can or can't do things.

Or as my lesbian sister says, "Gay is the new black."

[herbivore female]

your sister sounds funny fellow longhorn is she single

[herbivore female]

is violent kitten a drag queen somebody told me that

[Jekka]

Gay marriages should most definitely be legal. I don't think the church should be obligated to perform those marriages if they don't want to, but I think they should definitely be able to have a legal marriage.

[herbivore female]

thank you for input

[1Parker1]

:lmao @ Gay is the new black....that's very true! I personally could care less if they make it legal or not. I don't see how legalizing gay marriages is going to hurt the non-gay population in any way. Marriage is a way for 2 people to express their love for one another. How is the government going to be allowed to tell you who you can and cannot love?

[Jekka]

How is the government going to be allowed to tell you who you can and cannot love?

Well, they seem to think they can tell you who to hate.

[CosmicCowboy]

Civil Unions with legally defined joint rights, YES. Marriages, NO.

[MannyIsGod]

Civil Unions with legally defined joint rights, YES. Marriages, NO.
Why do they need to be defined differently? Seperate but equal? Thats illegal my friend.

[Flea]

I think I will stay out of this thread.

[jalbre6]

Civil Unions with legally defined joint rights, YES. Marriages, NO.

Is that becuase you think marriage is a holy bind between a man and a woman? I'm just curious.

Also, what's the stance on this subject in Europe? South America? Australia?

[MannyIsGod]

Europe has the only 3 countries in the world to allow them on a national level. Spain (as of today), Belgium, and the Netherlands.

South America is largely Catholic, what do you think?

Canda is also going to pass it, if I understand correctly.

[bigzak25]

it's a free country.

doesn't affect me.

so whatever works. :smokin

[ObiwanGinobili]

puting aside my personal htoughts about homosexuality.

I believe it's wrong for a secualr government to us religious reasoning to disallow the rights of a segment of the population. There is no reason why gay marriage should not be legal. I have gay neighbors, who've apparently been a couple since the world was made (they are freakin old) - and I'd like to report that they have in no way been detrimental to my own marriage or made my marriage have any less meaning.

[ObiwanGinobili]

Europe has the only 3 countries in the world to allow them on a national level. Spain (as of today), Belgium, and the Netherlands.

South America is largely Catholic, what do you think?

Canda is also going to pass it, if I understand correctly.


See?? Spain is super duper Catholic and they allow it. We need to step up.

[jalbre6]

Europe has the only 3 countries in the world to allow them on a national level. Spain (as of today), Belgium, and the Netherlands.

South America is largely Catholic, what do you think?

Canda is also going to pass it, if I understand correctly.

I thought Spain had one of the highest Catholic population %'ages in the world.

South America is supposed to be very gay friendly for travel, particularly larger cities like Buenos Aires and Rio. Maybe because people there are smart enough to stay out of other's private business.

[SpursWoman]

Maybe because people there are smart enough to stay out of other's private business.



I really don't have a strong opinion on this one way or the other. It doesn't affect me, and I don't think how other people choose to live their lives is any of my business.

[CosmicCowboy]

Why do they need to be defined differently? Seperate but equal? Thats illegal my friend.

No Manny, it is not.

I think gay couples should be able to:

Own property together and get a mortgage together just like married couples can. They currently have to form a business partnership.

I think that gay couples should be able to leave property to the other partner in a will just like a husband/wife without "family" being able to challenge it...

I think gay couples should have right to make the other partner in their civil union their representative in health care decisions if they become incapacitated just like in a normal marriage.

I think that gay couples should have every right that normal married couples have that don't interfere with the rights or beliefs of others.

That being said I will give you a SPECIFIC case on why I believe gay couples should be able to have have civil unions for certain specified rights and not the "full" rights of marriage. Marriage legally defines a union as a "family". In my case as an employer, I voluntarily choose to pay 100% of medical insurance for employees AND familys. No law requires me to do so. I don't personally believe in same sex unions but I am tolerant and accepting of the rights of others to have them. If gay marriages were legalized, I and every other employer in the country that offers any kind of family benefits would be put in the position of not only tolerating gay marriage but actually personally subsidizing gay marriage. I would be forced into a position that if I wanted to pay health insurance for my employees in conventional marriages I would be BREAKING THE LAW if I did not provide health insurance for the gay "spouses" EVEN THOUGH I AM NOT REQUIRED BY LAW TO PROVIDE HEALTH INSURANCE FOR ANYONE.

Fuck that.

It's just not right.

[hendrix]

Is that becuase you think marriage is a holy bind between a man and a woman? I'm just curious.
Also, what's the stance on this subject in Europe? South America? Australia?

Gay civil unions are legal in Buenos Aires (the city is a whole district of its own).
I dont live in Buenos Aires, but i think that was legalized 5+ years ago. Maybe some "porteño" can confirm this.

[CosmicCowboy]

moving this thread to the political forum certainly guaranteed it a quick death... :depressed

[MannyIsGod]

That being said I will give you a SPECIFIC case on why I believe gay couples should be able to have have civil unions for certain specified rights and not the "full" rights of marriage. Marriage legally defines a union as a "family". In my case as an employer, I voluntarily choose to pay 100% of medical insurance for employees AND familys. No law requires me to do so. I don't personally believe in same sex unions but I am tolerant and accepting of the rights of others to have them. If gay marriages were legalized, I and every other employer in the country that offers any kind of family benefits would be put in the position of not only tolerating gay marriage but actually personally subsidizing gay marriage. I would be forced into a position that if I wanted to pay health insurance for my employees in conventional marriages I would be BREAKING THE LAW if I did not provide health insurance for the gay "spouses" EVEN THOUGH I AM NOT REQUIRED BY LAW TO PROVIDE HEALTH INSURANCE FOR ANYONE.


Oh, you mean the way gay business owners are forced to tolerate and subsidize regular marrige, right? Yeah, I can see why that would be a problem.

And Seperate but Equal is illegal. There are court rullings left and right.

[MannyIsGod]

I understand the premise, that you don't want to be forced to acknowledge something you don't agree with, but stop and think how the laws that are on the books already do that. I'm a believer that government has no place in marriage to begin with, but do you honestly think there is any chance in hell that government is going to take a step back and stop making marriage in issue in every legal way it shows up? Of course not. So then the next step is to provide equality across the board.

A racist business owner is forced to acknowledge interracial marriage.
A Christian business owner if forced to acknowledge Islamic marriage.
A gay business owner is forced to acknowledge marriage, although he's not allowed to marry who he chooses.

So, your arguement that you don't want things forced on you is really poor when you're forcing things on others.

[MannyIsGod]

(CNN) -- Underscoring its original ruling last November, Massachusetts' highest court said Wednesday that only full marriage rights for gay couples, not civil unions, would conform to the state's constitution.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/04/gay.marriage/

Thats only the state consitution, but it woudl definetly stand for the US constitution as well.

[jalbre6]

If gay marriages were legalized, I and every other employer in the country that offers any kind of family benefits would be put in the position of not only tolerating gay marriage but actually personally subsidizing gay marriage. I would be forced into a position that if I wanted to pay health insurance for my employees in conventional marriages I would be BREAKING THE LAW if I did not provide health insurance for the gay "spouses" EVEN THOUGH I AM NOT REQUIRED BY LAW TO PROVIDE HEALTH INSURANCE FOR ANYONE.

CC, maybe I'm a little dense here, so tell me if I misinterpreted your post. Are you saying that since you provide hetero married couples health insurance, and you don't want to cover gay married couples insurance, you would be in violation of the law? Why wouldn't you want to offer benefits to gays in your employ? Because of your personal beliefs?

(I'm very curious about this, with gay family members and being an employer myself.)

[SWC Bonfire]

I'm sure divorce lawyers would definately be all for gay marriages. :lol

[MannyIsGod]

BTW, CC, as somone in the insurance industry, you're a good man for paying 100% of the insurance. Thats expensive as all hell.

[blaze89]

I haven't really heard a convincing argument on why gay marriages should be illegal. I think they should marry but not force the church to participate. I think this is more than about "marriage", but about benefits, inheritance, etc. The rights a spouse receives in a traditional marriage would be available for those in a gay marriage without the need of a legal document (although these days it would not hurt to have one).

I think Canada is on the verge of passing gay marriage laws if it hasn't been passed already.

[SWC Bonfire]

I think we need to worry about keeping the divorce rate under 50% for same-sex marriages first. Marriage, whether you like it or not, is a cornerstone of western society. Making even more changes to it is not going to be productive.

[CosmicCowboy]

CC, maybe I'm a little dense here, so tell me if I misinterpreted your post. Are you saying that since you provide hetero married couples health insurance, and you don't want to cover gay married couples insurance, you would be in violation of the law? Why wouldn't you want to offer benefits to gays in your employ? Because of your personal beliefs?

(I'm very curious about this, with gay family members and being an employer myself.)

yes, even though employers are not required by law to furnish insurance at all, if gay marriage was legalized all employers that currently provide insurance benefits to familys would be required to furnish and pay for the same benefits to gay spouses no matter what their personal beliefs on gay marriage was or they would be in violation of federal law.

Look...I am not a gay basher and am about as open minded as they come concerning gay couples rights to do whatever they want to do but I don't think it is morally right to force employers that DO have strong religious and personal beliefs against same sex marriage to financially subsidize those marriages.

[spurster]

Civil Unions with legally defined joint rights, YES. Marriages, NO.
I agree with this, but for a different reason. I would be in favor of throwing out marriage out of the law and replace with "civil union" or something similar.

At this point, marriage comes with an assortment of benefits. Why? The only coherent reason I can think of is to help support families, specifically children in our society. However, the equation of marriage=children in our society has pretty much broken down.

If we want to grant benefits (of the tax money kind) to children, let's do that directly. If you want to have a way to grant the legal rights that marriages currently have, that a-ok with me. Personally, I do not want to pay extra taxes to help keep up childless marriages, civil unions, or whatever you want to call it.

As far as CC's company benefits are concerned, it's a messed up system when we expect/hope our employers to help pay for our non-working (or maybe working without any benefits) significant others. Helping out with the kids though is still a good thing though.

Well, what if your significant other can't work for some reason? Is that just too bad? Well, it is too bad right now if it's your sibling or your parents or your grown children that have problems that keep them from working. Where does our system take that into account? I don't have answers here, but I think a compassionate, caring framework of some kind ought to be there. If not the employer, maybe the government?

[Jekka]

Look...I am not a gay basher and am about as open minded as they come concerning gay couples rights to do whatever they want to do but I don't think it is morally right to force employers that DO have strong religious and personal beliefs against same sex marriage to financially subsidize those marriages.

So, just out of curiosity, if we turned the situation around to where the employer is not you but an ardent member of the Nation of Islam and you are the white employee, you don't think that he should be required by law to provide the same insurance for your white wife as for you since he has a "strong religious and personal belief" towards the white man? I don't understand how what you're proposing isn't very judgemental.

[Dre_7]

Or as my lesbian sister says, "Gay is the new black."

That really upsets me when I hear people say that.

First of all, I am not a homophobe! I dont have any problems with Homosexuals. I have gay friends and I dont judge them or think of them badly because of their lifestyle. But I just dont like when I hear people compare gays to blacks of the civil rights era.

Nothing against homosexuals and the things they have to deal with, but you cant compare the two. Not being able to get married is not the same as gettin beaten by police, lynched, getting sprayed with fire hoses, not being allowed to eat at certain places, sit in certain seats on the bus, or go to public schools with other white kids. I dont think it is fair to the civil rights era blacks to compare the two.

Please dont take this as me saying anything bad about gays, or gay marriage. Its just men not liking people comparing todays gays to civil rights era blacks.

[scott]

I just fail to understand why straight people give a shit and constantly parade their sanctity of marriage concerns. If your marriage will somehow be tainted by the actions of complete strangers who never intersect with your life except in passing - then maybe you have other problems you need to address.

[Shelly]

That really upsets me when I hear people say that.

First of all, I am not a homophobe! I dont have any problems with Homosexuals. I have gay friends and I dont judge them or think of them badly because of their lifestyle. But I just dont like when I hear people compare gays to blacks of the civil rights era.

Nothing against homosexuals and the things they have to deal with, but you cant compare the two. Not being able to get married is not the same as gettin beaten by police, lynched, getting sprayed with fire hoses, not being allowed to eat at certain places, sit in certain seats on the bus, or go to public schools with other white kids. I dont think it is fair to the civil rights era blacks to compare the two.

Please dont take this as me saying anything bad about gays, or gay marriage. Its just men not liking people comparing todays gays to civil rights era blacks.


"Gay is the new black"

ummm....that's a fashion term. For a while black clothing was the color to wear. So every season, something else is the new black.

[scott]

Reel classeey shellie.

[Shelly]

Some people just don't follow the fashion trends....

[scott]

Black is the new throwback jersey.

[Dre_7]

ummm....that's a fashion term. For a while black clothing was the color to wear. So every season, something else is the new black.

Oh ok. :oops


Some people just don't follow the fashion trends....

No I dont. :lol



But I have hear/read people saying that Gay people are facing the same type of issues that civil rigts era blacks were. So I guess I was commenting on those things.

[CosmicCowboy]

So, just out of curiosity, if we turned the situation around to where the employer is not you but an ardent member of the Nation of Islam and you are the white employee, you don't think that he should be required by law to provide the same insurance for your white wife as for you since he has a "strong religious and personal belief" towards the white man? I don't understand how what you're proposing isn't very judgemental.

uhhh...in my opinion it's his fucking money to spend as he wants and it's my choice whether I want to work there or not...but thats just me.

the courts see it differently.

[scott]

uhhh...in my opinion it's his fucking money to spend as he wants and it's my choice whether I want to work there or not...but thats just me.

the courts see it differently.

How do they see it differently? He can't hold back insurance money because you are white while providing insurance for his Islam brethren. You obviously didn't have a problem hiring a gay person to work for you and make you better off financially - why should you have a problem with giving him insurance?

[Ginofan]

The current laws already force people to accept lifestyles they don't like, so allowing homosexual marriage isn't the cause of that. It's that simple.

[CosmicCowboy]

fuck it...you guys are right. I am just being narrow minded. Hell...lets not stop at same sex marriages...lets expand marriage to include animals as well. TLong deserves to claim his sheep as a dependent.

[Shelly]

Oh ok. :oops



No I dont. :lol



But I have hear/read people saying that Gay people are facing the same type of issues that civil rigts era blacks were. So I guess I was commenting on those things.


Your subscription to Vogue in in the mail :lol

[scott]

Not really the answer I was looking for Cosmic. I'm geniunly interested in your opinion, whether or not it jives with mine.

[CosmicCowboy]

Actually I was being semi serious. I just think male/female marriage (as opposed to civil union granting certain mutual legal rights to consenting adults) is a reasonable place to draw the line. It's a slippery slope and where do you stop it? Polygamy? Pedophilia? Beastiality? Incest? Use your imagination...what sexual minority becomes the next to demand equal rights?...was the guy they drug out of the tank of the womens outhouse in the story I posted yesterday being opressed from exercising his own vision of his sexual identity?

[scott]

I agree there is a "slope", but I don't see it as slippery. Gays to be wed are still adult human beings. In that respect, I don't see the jump to pedophilia, incest, or animals. It is fairly well established that you must be of a certain age to act of your own volition, aside from any moral implications there are actual scientific and genetic problems with incest, and animals are not humans and are clearly unable of acting in accordance with their own volition.

The only immenent threat on the slope is that of polygamy.

[CosmicCowboy]

good argument. One of the standard arguments for being gay is that they "can't help" being gay. They were just "born that way". Are they then acting on their own volition?.

[scott]

Interesting point, but I'm not sure if it necessarily applies. The act of marriage/civil union/going steady isn't a conscious decision to to be straight or gay - its just a decision to be married. So I would argue yes, they are acting on their own volition in respect to the decision to be married.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't see how it would lead to a legalization of polygamy.

Homosexual marriage is a union between 2 people, just like any other marriage. If you define that as 2 people in a marriage, there is no legal grounds to say that any one person has it better or has other rights tha a person doesn't. A person could not argue that they should have a right to a multi person marriage because there a marriage is between 2 people.

However, to deny homosexuals marriage is the denying of a right to a person because of their gender. That is a violation of civil rights acts and is blatently unequal. All of the court challenges to bans on gay marriage have been successful on this or simillar grounds. In the end - and I've maintained this from the get go - a challenge on those grounds is how the death of these bans will come.

[ClintSquint]

What ever works for you.

[scott]

If you define that as 2 people in a marriage, there is no legal grounds to say that any one person has it better or has other rights tha a person doesn't.

If you define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, there is no legal grounds to say that a man can marry a man.

There is a pathway to polygamy by way of the 1st ammendment. If my religion states that I should marry 2 women, then not allowing me to do so is infringing on my first ammendment rights, if there are 2 women willing to marry me on their own volition.

[MannyIsGod]

If you define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, there is no legal grounds to say that a man can marry a man.

Except that defining marriage between a man and a woman exclusively is a violation of gender discrimination laws.



There is a pathway to polygamy by way of the 1st ammendment. If my religion states that I should marry 2 women, then not allowing me to do so is infringing on my first ammendment rights, if there are 2 women willing to marry me on their own volition.
I don't see how the first amendment would apply to that. If everyone were allowed to enter into a marriage contract with one other person, that is as equal as it gets. It is the same across the board.

[scott]

Why should the government be allowed to restrict me to only 1 wife when my religion clearly states that I should have two?

[MannyIsGod]

Becasue government defined marriage is completely different from any religous marriage.

[scott]

Then what stops government from defining marriage as between a man and a woman?

There is no violation of gender discrimination laws, homosexual males and females are still entitled to marry a person of the opposite sex, just like everyone else. Gender rights are not violated, sexual orientation rights are - but those have not been deemed protected.

The point is that limiting marriage to two people is as arbitrary as limiting it to being between a man and a woman.

[MannyIsGod]

Of course it's gender discrimination Scott. It's saying that I cannot enter into a marriage because of the sex of the person I choose to enter into it. Because of GENDER. And that is something that is forbidden by law!

[GoldToe]

The way I see it a gay man puts his socks on just like I do.

[cherylsteele]

If 2 gay people got married.....and no one ever relized it...it just happend....how does that effect a hetro couple??

It doesn't......if a gay marriage affects a hetro marriage....then that couple has more problems that to worry about a gay marriage.

[cherylsteele]

Why should the government be allowed to restrict me to only 1 wife when my religion clearly states that I should have two?

Because we are talking about a marriage between TWO people....not 200.


Nothing against homosexuals and the things they have to deal with, but you cant compare the two. Not being able to get married is not the same as gettin beaten by police, lynched, getting sprayed with fire hoses, not being allowed to eat at certain places, sit in certain seats on the bus, or go to public schools with other white kids. I dont think it is fair to the civil rights era blacks to compare the two.

But if you really open your eyes....some of that stuff does happen gay people.


Civil Unions with legally defined joint rights, YES. Marriages, NO.

IMO....this is a cop-out "solution"

That creates a 2nd class type of society.



Marriage legally defines a union as a "family". In my case as an employer, I voluntarily choose to pay 100% of medical insurance for employees AND familys. No law requires me to do so. I don't personally believe in same sex unions but I am tolerant and accepting of the rights of others to have them. If gay marriages were legalized, I and every other employer in the country that offers any kind of family benefits would be put in the position of not only tolerating gay marriage but actually personally subsidizing gay marriage.

So if you have a single straight person who is not married...and for whatever reason doesn't want to get married....he has to pay for insurance and those who are married are "privileged" and get free insurance? So now you discrimmate against singles.


I don't personally believe in same sex unions but I am tolerant and accepting of the rights of others to have them.

So you discrimminate against them in an underhanded way by making them pay for insurance while others don't have to? That is like paying an employee less due to his/her lifestyle.

That is more despicable than actually coming out saying you have gays.

[mookie2001]

im in favor
but if they dont want to call it marriage then give them sometihing equal to marriage and just call it some bullshit
you have to give people the right to marry

[xrayzebra]

Why do they need to be defined differently? Seperate but equal? Thats illegal my friend.

Guess you think that preferental treatment for minorites is wrong too.
Like set aside quota's, diverserity in college based on race instead of
grades.

[Opinionater]

IMHO, people's sex lives are nobody else's business and if they want to get married than let them do it and abide by the same laws as other married couples.
Enough already.

[cherylsteele]

Guess you think that preferental treatment for minorites is wrong too.
Like set aside quota's, diverserity in college based on race instead of
grades.
Because many times people in power will impose there will/beliefs on those very minorities we are discussing here. The laws need to be made to protect people who are of those minorities to help level the "playing field". If the 60's civil right movement didn't succeed as well as it did.... am glad it did.....we would still be knee deep in crapolla.

[scott]

Of course it's gender discrimination Scott. It's saying that I cannot enter into a marriage because of the sex of the person I choose to enter into it. Because of GENDER. And that is something that is forbidden by law!

That is an EXTREMELY liberal stretch there. Gender discrimination refers to discriminating against YOU because of YOUR gender. Gay men aren't discriminated against, they have the same right to marry a woman as a straight man. Both gay and straight are granted the exact same right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Obviously I've defended gay marriage here, but that doesn't mean I can't be objective. This is not a gender discrimination issue, it is a sexual orientation discrimination issue.


Because we are talking about a marriage between TWO people....not 200.

And those who are against gay marriage are talking about marriage between a man and a woman, not between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

Marriage being limited to a bond between 2 people is completely arbitrary and is not grounding in any real arguement of the rights of man.

Look, I support gay marriage - but don't fight against an arbitrary establishment like the definition of "1 man and 1 woman" with another arbitrary definition.

[Dre_7]

But if you really open your eyes....some of that stuff does happen gay people.

But not to the extent of the 60's. Police officers etc arent pulling over gays and killing them. Its not the same thing!

[cherylsteele]

Look, I support gay marriage - but don't fight against an arbitrary establishment like the definition of "1 man and 1 woman" with another arbitrary definition.

You support gay marriage?
Why? You sure are trying to make a case against it.
Just like those against it....those for it should have a reason as well.

You brought up the point of polygamy.
I replied with my point of TWO people. Bringing up the polygamy thing is really grabbing at straws.

That just goes to show that people can bring up any absurd, far-fetched notion just to try to reinforce their POV for any issue.

[cherylsteele]

But not to the extent of the 60's. Police officers etc arent pulling over gays and killing them. Its not the same thing!

Where do you draw the line?

I haven't heard of them killing them.....but they have created legal problems and lied about violations and other "illegal" things. There are other forms of persecution besides physical violence.

[scott]

I haven't mad a case against, if you take the time to read the rest of my responses, I said that gay marriage does not open a slipperly slope to things like people claiming the have the right to marry their pet or an 8 year old.

My premise, rather, is that once you establish the much needed precident of eliminating arbitrary rules such as limiting marriage to one man and one woman, what is there to stop someone from arguing agianst arbitrary rules such as one man marrying two women?

Do I think polygomy should be legal? Not particularly, but I recognize the arbitrary nature of laws prohibiting it. Provide me with a strong, secular reason against polygomy, and I will change my mind.


That just goes to show that people can bring up any absurd, far-fetched notion just to try to reinforce their POV for any issue.

No, it just goes to show that you didn't take the time to read the rest of this thread.

[cherylsteele]

If you aren't trying to make a case against....then why do you keep bringing up polygamy.


I have read your posts

you say this:

I said that gay marriage does not open a slipperly slope

And then you state this

My premise, rather, is that once you establish the much needed precident of eliminating arbitrary rules such as limiting marriage to one man and one woman, what is there to stop someone from arguing agianst arbitrary rules such as one man marrying two women?

If it is not going to open up a can of worms then why keep bringing polygamy into it?

This issue hit very close to home with me.
I also have more insight into many of the driving forces of the issue than you can imagine.



No, it just goes to show that you didn't take the time to read the rest of this thread.

It shows that the above contradiction shows people can bring up stats and other information and other ideals to try to discredit anything they want.

[scott]

If you aren't trying to make a case against....then why do you keep bringing up polygamy.

Because it is a real factor in the equation that needs to be considered. I don't know what you do for a living, Cheryl, but in my business and in everything else in life - I always look at both sides to every story. Every detail, every contingency, every possible variable needs to be looked at and evaluated.

For reasons I have pointed out, I see polygamy as a variable that needs to be looked at. You may be willing to completely overlook it because maybe it is uncomfortable or maybe it doesn't support your case or maybe you just don't feel like thinking about it - but I can't.




If it is not going to open up a can of worms then why keep bringing polygamy into it?

I didn't say it wouldn't open the can of worms labels polygamy. I said it wouldn't open the cans of worms labeled beastiality or pedophilia. Then I immediately stated that there it sets precedent where one could make a case for polygamy. You've yet to provide any reason why it wouldn't.


This issue hit very close to home with me.
I also have more insight into many of the driving forces of the issue than you can imagine.

I don't know you, and you don't know me. I don't know what insights you have, you don't know what insights I have. If you have insight into issues, why not share them?

Also, I'd invite to read more of this thread (since you obviously have not) or maybe the countless other threads on this vary topic. You will see that I've supported gay marriage since the get go. Quit viewing my bringing up polygamy as a means to tear down gay marriage, because that isn't what it is.


It shows that the above contradiction shows people can bring up stats and other information and other ideals to try to discredit anything they want.

I never contradicted myself. I stated those things which I feel allowing gay marriage will not open consideration of (marrying a dog or a child). I then stated the thing which I feel is opened to interpretation, because it is based on an equally as arbitrary rule.

So that I am clear, let me again state the premise why I believe polygamy could be open to review if gay marriage were allowed (which I believe it should be.)

1. The definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman is arbitrary, and based only on certain societal/cultural/religious norms which do not apply to the entire population.

2. As such, the aforementioned definition should be struck down as discrimintory and an attempt to deny a man/woman to her natural rights to make the conscious choice of who their partner shall be.

3. The definition of marriage as a union between only 2 people is also arbitrary, based on societal/cultural/religious norms that do not apply to the entire population.

4. We struck down (1), what is to stop the argument to strike down (3)?

I hope you take the time to address this issue rather than making quick assumptions.

[cherylsteele]

Also, I'd invite to read more of this thread (since you obviously have not) or maybe the countless other threads on this vary topic.

Talk about jumping to conclusions....I have read the thread.....but you assume I didn't.



1. The definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman is arbitrary, and based only on certain societal/cultural/religious norms which do not apply to the entire population.

Man and women....that is two people...I have also kept stating TWO people....that should rule out polygamy right there.....how about you going back and reread your OWN posts before you scold others.

I can accept someone playing devil's advocate with no problem....but when someone keeps bringing up the same statement over and over again even after above sataements were made is not the way to do it.

[smeagol]

What about a son marrying his mother? That's two people.

Or a brother and a sister. That's two people too.

[scott]

I can accept someone playing devil's advocate with no problem....but when someone keeps bringing up the same statement over and over again even after above sataements were made is not the way to do it.

If you would address the issue behind the same statement, then I would stop. You still haven't addressed the issues I brought up.

See my the chain of logic I laid out, and address it. If you can't, then just ignore me and I'll wait for someone willing to engage in some critical thinking.


Man and women....that is two people...I have also kept stating TWO people....that should rule out polygamy right there...

Again just because YOU keep stating two people, doesn't really matter. Republics keep stating MAN AND WOMAN yet you and I keep harping on about a man and a man. The limitation of "two people," like I've stated is based on arbitrary social norms that do not apply to the population at large. Why should we keep one arbitrary social norm in favor of the other?

[scott]

What about a son marrying his mother? That's two people.

Or a brother and a sister. That's two people too.

Because there are genetic and health issues related to incest. That is a secular reason.

[jochhejaam]

Oh, you mean the way gay business owners are forced to tolerate and subsidize regular marrige, right? Yeah, I can see why that would be a problem.

And Seperate but Equal is illegal. There are court rullings left and right.

It's illegal where the law says it's illegal. Obviously there iis no such law when it comes to gay marriage.


So if you have sons or daughters you don't care if they marry men or women?

You could care less if one of your parents divorced the other and married someone of the same sex?

Separate but equal? Do you acvocate a son marrying his divorced mother?
A divorced father marrying his daughter or sister? Who says marriage has to stop at a cousin removed 3 times?

Do you think people having sex with animals is okay too? After all, it doesn't affect you.

Where does it end?
Thankfully on judgement day and none too soon.

[jochhejaam]

Because there are genetic and health issues related to incest. That is a secular reason.

It's not affecting you, why do you care?
it's okay for you to judge based on the health aspect but not okay for others to judge based on a moral aspect?

Bad health doesn't damn one to Hell, immorality does!

[scott]

It's not affecting you, why do you care?
it's okay for you to judge based on the health aspect but not okay for others to judge based on a moral aspect?

Bad health doesn't damn one to Hell, immorality does!

health is a secular issue, morals are not. In case you didn't know, we are supposed to have a secular government.

[jochhejaam]

health is a secular issue, morals are not. In case you didn't know, we are supposed to have a secular government.

Government without morality? That's decadence and is useful only to the jaded mandarins that wish to oppose the will of the majority of the people in this nation.

A few good Supreme Court Justices (or maybe one) will change all that "separation of church and state" folly.

:elephant

[Timoha]

I'm very, very pro gay marriege. I live in Boston, Massachusetts that is prettty gay friendly and the only state to my knowlege that allows gay marriege. I don't see why the government has to stick it's nose into people's private buisness which doesn't affect the well-being of the community.