Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 4:27:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2012 11:41:25 GMT -5
I am a farm boy but chose the original definition of marriage and sexual relations for myself and DW. I personally don't think homosexuality is good for society either but also consider that to be my personal believe and don't judge others on it. Just sometimes interesting that people demand changes for one special interest but aren't open to others and aren't always aware of the implications or long term affects that any decision can have. Hiding your lack of understanding regarding consent behind your concern for society is rather shallow.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Feb 10, 2012 11:41:40 GMT -5
I have brought up several scenarios that involved people but most here don't choose to discuss those but rather try to make it appear as if changing the definition of marriage should only be allowed if there is a large enough group that demands it rather then supporting the same right for all.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,345
|
Post by swamp on Feb 10, 2012 11:42:56 GMT -5
I am a farm boy but chose the original definition of marriage and sexual relations for myself and DW. I personally don't think homosexuality is good for society either but also consider that to be my personal believe and don't judge others on it. Just sometimes interesting that people demand changes for one special interest but aren't open to others and aren't always aware of the implications or long term affects that any decision can have. Hiding your lack of understanding regarding consent behind your concern for society is rather shallow. Rick Santorum didn't get that memo.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,345
|
Post by swamp on Feb 10, 2012 11:43:25 GMT -5
I have brought up several scenarios that involved people but most here don't choose to discuss those but rather try to make it appear as if changing the definition of marriage should only be allowed if there is a large enough group that demands it rather then supporting the same right for all. And apparently you have reading comprehension problems.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Feb 10, 2012 11:45:49 GMT -5
Please explain. Do you support marriages between siblings and cousins who claim to be in love?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 10, 2012 11:47:24 GMT -5
I have brought up several scenarios that involved people but most here don't choose to discuss those but rather try to make it appear as if changing the definition of marriage should only be allowed if there is a large enough group that demands it rather then supporting the same right for all. There are times that I don't bother to post a " " when someone has effectively countered an argument presented. It doesn't mean that I "don't choose to discuss" the topic.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,332
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Feb 10, 2012 11:48:32 GMT -5
as if changing the definition of marriage should only be allowed if there is a large enough group that demands it rather then supporting the same right for all.
I've said I'm fine with the dude that wants to marry his car or the chick that wants to marry her cat. Just don't ask me to participate in a threesome.
I also have no problems with polgamy/polandry (though why anyone would want multiple husbands is beyond me) and I don't have that much of a problem with people marrying their relatives either.
But a whole lot more is going to have to be changed legally if someone wants to marry their car or have multiple spouses or marry their sibling. I don't see that happening anytime soon.
The only thing barring gay people from getting married is they aren't marrying someone with opposite body parts. Otherwise there is no difference between a consenting gay couple and a consenting heterosexual couple.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,345
|
Post by swamp on Feb 10, 2012 11:48:45 GMT -5
Please explain. Do you support marriages between siblings and cousins who claim to be in love? Cousins can marry in NYS. I don't have a problem with it. Sibling love is asking for genetic issues with the offspring. And before you say they might be infertile, I was told I was infertile, and have 2 kids.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Feb 10, 2012 11:50:59 GMT -5
So you don or don't support the right to marriages between a father and son or a sister and brother? Remember this can not include concerns about procreation or health.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,345
|
Post by swamp on Feb 10, 2012 11:54:33 GMT -5
So you don or don't support the right to marriages between a father and son or a sister and brother? Remember this can not include concerns about procreation or health. I can't take the possibilty of procreation out of the equation when you are dealing with heterosexual marriages.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 10, 2012 11:54:44 GMT -5
So you don or don't support the right to marriages between a father and son or a sister and brother? Remember this can not include concerns about procreation or health. Why can't it include concerns about health?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,615
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 10, 2012 11:57:17 GMT -5
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Feb 10, 2012 11:59:34 GMT -5
The decision to change the definition of marriage is based on individuals rights and the constitution not on health or procreation. So for the purpose of debating rights one should not include health.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Feb 10, 2012 12:01:41 GMT -5
So you don or don't support the right to marriages between a father and son or a sister and brother? Remember this can not include concerns about procreation or health.
I can't take the possibility of procreation out of the equation when you are dealing with heterosexual marriages.
ah... A father and son would not be considered heterosexual would they?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 10, 2012 12:01:47 GMT -5
The decision to change the definition of marriage is based on individuals rights and the constitution not on health or procreation. So for the purpose of debating rights one should not include health. It isn't possible or reasonable to consider multiple relevant factors in a decision?
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Feb 10, 2012 12:03:03 GMT -5
Please explain. Do you support marriages between siblings and cousins who claim to be in love?
States in the darkest blue allow marriage to first cousins without restrictions.
Should they all be forced to allow it under our constitution?
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Feb 10, 2012 12:07:10 GMT -5
It isn't possible or reasonable to consider multiple relevant factors in a decision?
Certainly is possible but the decisions have been based on an individuals right under the constitution
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,345
|
Post by swamp on Feb 10, 2012 12:07:50 GMT -5
So you don or don't support the right to marriages between a father and son or a sister and brother? Remember this can not include concerns about procreation or health. I can't take the possibility of procreation out of the equation when you are dealing with heterosexual marriages. ah... A father and son would not be considered heterosexual would they? Nope, and they could probably marry...........Icky, but not illegal.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,332
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Feb 10, 2012 12:08:27 GMT -5
To marry your immediate relatives you'd need to make incest legal first.
I don't see too many people being eager to make incest legal because that opens up a totally different giant can-o-worms.
To be able to marry animals and inanitmate objects you'd have to modify it so one party does not have to give its consent before getting married, which again I don't see people wanting to do because that opens up another can-o-worms.
The only thing approving gay marriage does is allow consenting concious human adults to get married to people who have the same body parts.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Feb 10, 2012 12:08:35 GMT -5
Sorry... Now that I've ruined everyones appetite it's time for a lunch break.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 10, 2012 12:09:29 GMT -5
It isn't possible or reasonable to consider multiple relevant factors in a decision? Certainly is possible but the decisions have been based on an individuals right under the constitution Because the decisions have been concerning cases of two consenting adults and, in those cases, the Constitution is the sole relevant factor. In other situations, other factors may be relevant.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 10, 2012 12:10:47 GMT -5
Sorry... Now that I've ruined everyones appetite it's time for a lunch break.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,345
|
Post by swamp on Feb 10, 2012 12:11:51 GMT -5
Please explain. Do you support marriages between siblings and cousins who claim to be in love? States in the darkest blue allow marriage to first cousins without restrictions. Should they all be forced to allow it under our constitution? No, because there are valid health concerns about cousins marrying.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Feb 10, 2012 12:26:57 GMT -5
No, because there are valid health concerns about cousins marrying. There are valid health concerns when some mentally handicapped people marry (since there's a genetic component to certain conditions), but we still allow that.
|
|
vandalshandle
Senior Member
Never give a sucker an even break, or smarten up a chump...
Joined: Oct 12, 2011 20:34:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,005
|
Post by vandalshandle on Feb 10, 2012 12:55:31 GMT -5
Personally, I think that anyone who marries is somewhat mentally handicapped.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Feb 10, 2012 13:22:07 GMT -5
That could be but it's been a good experience for me so I would recommend it. This forum is so great because it really exposes some peoples actual motivation and it often is not what they state. The way I look at it is this... If I support a groups right to do something based on the fact that they are being discriminated against in violation of our constitution then I should also support all other groups regardless of size, social acceptance, weirdness or ickyness that are being discriminated against otherwise it will be apparent that my real motivation is for different reasons. It is my firm believe that many of these most high profile situations are loved and fueled by the politicians who use them more for the purpose of creating political divide then because of personal conviction.
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Feb 10, 2012 13:37:53 GMT -5
Over the years I've changed my mind on this issue. (Call me Romneyesque. ) I used to be against gay marriage. But then I thought why shouldn't they be as miserable as the rest of us? (Just kidding honey......) It's supposed to be a free country right? I think I'll go over to the White House tonight, waltz into the Oval Office, kick my feet up on that cool desk, and then tap Michelle in the Presidenial bedroom. After all, why should only Obama get to do that ? Ain't this a free country? To be honest, marriage is such a joke today, you might as well let the gays "marry" in violation of millienia of tradition stretching across every major civilization and religions (don't let people fool you to this this isn't only the Christians that has issues with gays marrying). The marriage rate is dropping because it's not an enforceable contract and the corrupt family courts have too much power to interfere in your life without due process. The only way it's going to be saved is if: 1. Dismantle the family courts 2. people are allowed to write up their own marriage contracts to dictate the terms of marriage, divorce, child custody, etc... 3. the court's ONLY job is to enforce those contracts, not decide the winners and losers or who gets what. 4. Barring provable blackmail or force, the contracts can not set aside by capricous judges (as is the case with pre-nups now where judges can decide that they do not think a pre-nup is "fair" based on nebulous rules). Of course, it's not going to happen. And it was such a nice country...
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Feb 10, 2012 13:50:56 GMT -5
To be honest, marriage is such a joke today, you might as well let the gays "marry" in violation of millienia of tradition stretching across every major civilization and religions (don't let people fool you to this this isn't only the Christians that has issues with gays marrying). Several religions perform gay marriage ceremonies though. Who is the government to tell a religion they can't perform marriages for their own flock?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 10, 2012 13:53:43 GMT -5
... The way I look at it is this... If I support a groups right to do something based on the fact that they are being discriminated against in violation of our constitution then I should also support all other groups regardless of size, social acceptance, weirdness or ickyness that are being discriminated against otherwise it will be apparent that my real motivation is for different reasons. .... The way I look at it is this (in the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson):... A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood. www.emersoncentral.com/selfreliance.htm
|
|
vandalshandle
Senior Member
Never give a sucker an even break, or smarten up a chump...
Joined: Oct 12, 2011 20:34:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,005
|
Post by vandalshandle on Feb 10, 2012 13:57:11 GMT -5
I think the Rights position, once you boil it down is, "Those people are different than you or me, so they should be marginalized". The same logic is also very useful for any minority group. It saves a lot of time and effort to think things through.
|
|