Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 139
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    There are separate arguements against polygamy based on the issues and rights bestowed by being married. A simplistic example would be would your spouse wnat to be kept on life support? 2 wives say yes and 2 say no.
    Can I conclude that you would support denying some people their rights based on the legal inconvenience that would result if their rights were enforced?
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    One can only wonder how some people cannot see why child molestation is a category totally different from gay marriage (or gay sex). I sometimes suspect it is because some people lack the concept of "consensual sex" or "consenting adults".
    It is not that those who are opposed fail to see the difference, but rather, proponents want to irradicate the difference. The problem is, you have nitpick to gerrymander around certain issues that are still unconmfortable.

    Homosexuality used to be an uncomfortable topic. How long before "man-boy" love becomes acceptable?
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    It is not that those who are opposed fail to see the difference, but rather, proponents want to irradicate the difference.
    Irradicate the difference between consensual and non-consensual relationships? Please explain if you may.
    Homosexuality used to be an uncomfortable topic.
    Women having rights used to be an uncomfortable topic. Afro-americans not being slaves used to be uncomfortable topic. Some people feeling uncomfortable about some issue without good reason does not mean anything.
    How long before "man-boy" love becomes acceptable?
    It becomes acceptable once a boy is an adult and able to fully chose for himself and to face the consequences - meaning not as long as he is a boy.

    Accept the difference, stop looking for wrong analogies.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Homosexuality used to be an uncomfortable topic. How long before "man-boy" love becomes acceptable?
    shopharim - Has marriage between a man and a woman which has been with us since the beginning of civilization led to a tolerance of Man-girl love? No that is ridiculous, pedophilia is pedophilia and society regards is as disgusting, and its a serious felony. Recognizing gay marriage will not change this in the least.

    Maybe, like most social conservatives, you would like religion to take a more active leadership role in our government. What do you think that organized religion has done in its own ranks to fight pedophilia? Do you think they do a good job? Look at how the Catholic Church tolerated pedophilia for so long before it was finally exposed.

    To me, this move by the republican party is simply another attempt to use religion to marginalize people, and to channel hatred and discrimination at the expense of buying votes. And that is what I find immoral.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 06/06/2006 at 09:11 AM.
  5. #45  
    To say it is to channel hatred and discrimination is not accurate. I do think marriage of a man and a woman is a biological neccessity. Infact I don't think that, I know that. I had a recent, thoughtful discussion on this very subject with my college roommate who came out 2 years ago. He personally doesn't care if it is an actual marriage with a license as long as he and his partner can have a 'ceremony' of some sort. However, he is very concerned of healthcare and retirment $$ issues with he and his partner. I don't support gay marriage and it's not because of hatred or discrimination.

    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    shopharim - Has marriage between a man and a woman which has been with us since the beginning of civilization led to a tolerance of Man-girl love? No that is ridiculous, pedophilia is pedophilia and society regards is as disgusting, and its a serious felony. Recognizing gay marriage will not change this in the least.

    Maybe, like most social conservatives, you would like religion to take a more active leadership role in our government. What do you think that organized religion has done in its own ranks to fight pedophilia? Do you think they do a good job? Look at how the Catholic Church tolerated pedophilia for so long before it was finally exposed.

    To me, this move by the republican party is simply another attempt to use religion to marginalize people, and to channel hatred and discrimination at the expense of buying votes. And that is what I find immoral.
  6. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Legalization of polygamy, incest, child molestation and even bestiality is the agenda. "Gay marriage" is just a step along that path.

    It is interesting that a liberal is talking about logical standards. There may be hope yet.
    Wow... all those things follow gay marriage? amazing.
  7. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #47  
    Wait... how about earthquakes... surely we can tie that in somehow
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    shopharim - Has marriage between a man and a woman which has been with us since the beginning of civilization led to a tolerance of Man-girl love? No that is ridiculous, pedophilia is pedophilia and society regards is as disgusting, and its a serious felony. Recognizing gay marriage will not change this in the least.
    My only point was, and is, society used to find homosexuality disgusting. I suspect you could find significant numbers of people who still do. Later it because an "alternative" lifestyle. Now it is being presented as a biological norm.

    And, in the same way that the lifestyle has made that sociological transition, any other lifestyle that is now considered deviant can be come accepted if enough concentrated effort as was the case in those seeking to seucre "gay rights."

    There is not a significant movement attempting to defend "Man-Girl" love, so it is not progressed. However, there is concentrated effort to promote "Man-Boy" love.

    So, if society wants to maintain the standard of "disgusting," it must make a logical, and ultimately legal, distinction between the practices.

    The standard of "consent" is a good distinction. However, it then raises the question of at what age one can legally consent. For example, as it relates to abortion, there are those who believe that adolescents are old enough undergo the procedure without parental notification. Would not that then suggest that boys of same age are old enough to consent to participate in a paractice you consider "disgusting"?

    And, for the record, I did not raise the concern. A "die-hard liberal" did
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    I am a die-hard liberal. But a few talking points puzzle me. If gay marriage is made a right (like most liberals, including me, want), how would we (government, society) oppose consenual poligamy or consensual incest? on what LOGICAL basis?

    Should we oppose those things?
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Maybe, like most social conservatives, you would like religion to take a more active leadership role in our government.
    Interestingly, each time I enter these discussions, religion comes up.....but not from me. But, I'm the one painted as prejudiced.
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    To me, this move by the republican party is simply another attempt to use religion to marginalize people, and to channel hatred and discrimination at the expense of buying votes. And that is what I find immoral.
    It may be a political ploy. However, it is also an expression of the will of a significant number of citizens, and it is worthy of debate.
  9. #49  
    So despite the hearfelt conversation with a "friend", but you are unconvinced that his needs and concerns are real and should be satisfied. In fact you believe his needs should not be catered to, apparently because it will interfere with straight marriage, which is strange as you consider it a biological necessity. Biological necessities tend not to be so easy to negate.

    I sure hope that's not your whole argument, as it seems illogical to me.

    Surur
  10. #50  
    You support murder. You back the terrorists, muslim murderers which includes the killing of innocent Iraqi civilians (including infants, toddlers - kids of all ages). Are you saying you have more concerns of gay rights? Wow, you are a great guy.

    My stance is not an argument, it is my opinion, albeit subjective in nature as is yours and everyone elses. I don't like how it is becoming a political tool by both the Dems and Repubs. I believe there should be some sort of compromise. I am not for gay marriage, but would be open to the real life aspects of finances, healthcare, etc of gays.

    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    So despite the hearfelt conversation with a "friend", but you are unconvinced that his needs and concerns are real and should be satisfied. In fact you believe his needs should not be catered to, apparently because it will interfere with straight marriage, which is strange as you consider it a biological necessity. Biological necessities tend not to be so easy to negate.

    I sure hope that's not your whole argument, as it seems illogical to me.

    Surur
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    My only point was, and is, society used to find homosexuality disgusting.
    Just as inter-racial marriage. Disgust is not an argument.
    I suspect you could find significant numbers of people who still do.
    Dito.
    Now it is being presented as a biological norm.
    It is not the biological norm, but homosexual behaviour in some percentage of the population is a biological fact found in most if not all species studied.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    My stance is not an argument, it is my opinion, albeit subjective in nature as is yours and everyone elses. I don't like how it is becoming a political tool by both the Dems and Repubs. I believe there should be some sort of compromise. I am not for gay marriage, but would be open to the real life aspects of finances, healthcare, etc of gays.
    What is this marriage stuff about anyway? Don't you have "religious" and "civil" marriage/union in the US in parallel?

    Most European countries have some sort of civil marriage for homosexual couples which covers financial, legal, etc. aspects on the same level as a "hetero" marriage (it does e.g. not cover the right of adopting children for homosexual couples in Switzerland, but it does in other countries). Isn't it really just splitting hair about the term "marriage" in the US?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  13. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #53  
    If nobody is harmed, but if in fact people are helped, then this all boils down to a civil rights issue. All of these arguments are non sequitur and based in bigotry.
  14. #54  
    Actually, ATM, civil union is quite a liberal stance and would satisfy 90% of the gay people who want to marry. Most conservatives are not just apposed to civil union, they want the gays stoned to death! I'm happy to invite you to the fold.

    Surur
  15. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #55  
    (remember the force.... use the force)
  16. #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    You'd be one step closer to being logical if you dumped atheism for agnosticism.
    BAH!
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    To say it is to channel hatred and discrimination is not accurate. I do think marriage of a man and a woman is a biological neccessity. Infact I don't think that, I know that. I had a recent, thoughtful discussion on this very subject with my college roommate who came out 2 years ago. He personally doesn't care if it is an actual marriage with a license as long as he and his partner can have a 'ceremony' of some sort. However, he is very concerned of healthcare and retirment $$ issues with he and his partner. I don't support gay marriage and it's not because of hatred or discrimination.
    Anyone can have a "ceremony". I can have a "ceremony" where I marry my cat while my goldfish officiates and my ant farm watches in tears.

    You stated it yourself the issues are the legal rights afforded married partners under a State marriage license. This is the crux of the problem.
  18. #58  
    It has been years in the making. I have done business with multiple gay people. This is definitely my only lib position I assure you. But I do draw the line at marriage, it should not be legal. Once you put yourself in their shoes and understand what it must feel like to feel you were in the wrong sex, you begin to get it. All this said this isn't gonna make me vote for Hillary or some other boneheaded liberal.

    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Actually, ATM, civil union is quite a liberal stance and would satisfy 90% of the gay people who want to marry. Most conservatives are not just apposed to civil union, they want the gays stoned to death! I'm happy to invite you to the fold.

    Surur
  19. #59  
    Right, this crux will play out for the next 5 - 7 years and will eventually be what I think should occur. No marriage license for gays, but with rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Anyone can have a "ceremony". I can have a "ceremony" where I marry my cat while my goldfish officiates and my ant farm watches in tears.

    You stated it yourself the issues are the legal rights afforded married partners under a State marriage license. This is the crux of the problem.
  20. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    I don't like how it is becoming a political tool by both the Dems and Repubs. I believe there should be some sort of compromise. I am not for gay marriage, but would be open to the real life aspects of finances, healthcare, etc of gays.

    My first response was to question your inclusion of Dems in that statement but then I have to recall who signed the Defense of Marriage Act:

    * First, it allows each state (or similar political division in the United States) to deny Constitutional marital rights between persons of the same sex which have been recognized in another state.
    * Second, it makes law the Judeo-Christian definition of a marriage as "a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife" and by stating that spouse "refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."


    Damn DLC Democrats!!
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions