Page 10 of 20 FirstFirst ... 56789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 398
  1. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #181  
    Quote Originally Posted by aairman23
    absolutely!

    By the way for the fourth time.........can anyone please explain to me the difference between legalizing polygamy and gay marraige?
    The emotional distress that is put on other members of the marriage. Feeling less like love and more like property.
  2. #182  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    The emotional distress that is puts on other members of the marriage. Feeling less like love and more like property.
    A polygamist would argue that all wives (or husbands for that matter) feel equally loved and are CONCENTING to multiple sexual partners (and are free to leave the marriage at any time). "Emotional distress" is only your perception of the polygamist lifestyle. Many church leaders will say that gay partners are not "truly happy." A gay activist would view this as only an unsupported outsider’s perception of homosexuality.

    The reason that the two lifestyles cannot be separated when talking about changing the definition of marriage is because liberal society has tried to twist the definition of marriage into something it was not meant to be. They put the emphasis on "consensual" and "love". These two words can be applied to many different types of sexual relationships (regardless of whether you or I think they are morally acceptable or not).
    Last edited by aairman23; 07/08/2006 at 12:40 PM.
  3. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #183  
    Quote Originally Posted by aairman23
    A polygamist would argue that all wives (or husbands for that matter) feel equally loved and are CONCENTING to multiple sexual partners (and are free to leave the marriage at any time). "Emotional distress" is only your perception of the polygamist lifestyle. Many church leaders will say that gay partners are not "truly happy." A gay activist would view this as only an unsupported outsider’s perception of homosexuality.

    The reason that the two lifestyles cannot be separated when talking about changing the definition of marriage is because liberal society has tried to twist the definition of marriage into something it was not meant to be. They put the emphasis on "consensual" and "love". These two words can be applied to many different types of sexual relationships (regardless of whether you or I think they are morally acceptable or not).
    Look you sound pretty smart and seem worth debating, but you have apples and orange for comparsion. Being a polygamist is a lifestyle choice, being gay for most is not. But another apple and orange here is we are talking about 2 people (gay marriage) not 4 or 5 (polygamy). And yet other issues that arise from the extra wives/husbands. My point on emotional distress is just one point. Some more arguments to look at would be.

    • Allegations of a high level of welfare fraud. Some polygamous families enroll all but one of the wives on welfare as single mothers with children in order to finance the entire family.
    • The level of abuse of wives, particularly in patriarchal families. Oprah Winfrey's show referred to polygamous families in Utah and Arizona as "third-world Taliban-type" cultures.


    And then take this into consideration.


    Source: Slate

    -snip-

    Krauthammer finds the gay/poly divergence perplexing. "Polygamy was sanctioned, indeed common" for ages, he observes. "What is historically odd is that as gay marriage is gaining acceptance, the resistance to polygamy is much more powerful." But when you factor in jealousy, the oddity disappears. Women shared husbands because they had to. The alternative was poverty. As women gained power, they began to choose what they really wanted. And what they really wanted was the same fidelity that men expected from them.

    Gays who seek to marry want the same thing. They're not looking for the right to sleep around. They already have that. It's called dating. A friend once explained to me why gay men have sex on the first date: Nobody says no. Your partner, being of the same sex, is as eager as you are to get it on. But he's also as eager as you are to get it on with somebody else. And if you really like him, you don't want that. You want him all to yourself. That's why marriage, not polygamy, is in your nature, and in our future.

    -snip-
    And yet another apple and orange would be polygamy was supported by the church yet gay marriage has never been.

    For follow up do you personally know any gay couples?
    Last edited by NRG; 07/08/2006 at 02:52 PM.
  4. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #184  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    "Different than most" is, by definition, aberrent. I'm sorry if that puts a negative spin on things but it doesn't negate the facts. And, while I don't compare it with a crime,.....
    I think he thought you said abhorrent. Which if was the case he would be right. Simple misunderstanding.
  5. #185  
    “Being a polygamist is a lifestyle choice”

    - There are many polygamists who say that they were born with the propensity to love several other people. In fact there are many scientists that contend that the human race was never meant to be monogamous. Either way, consensual love is consensual love and it simply in not fair to discriminate one or the other.

    “Allegations of a high level of welfare fraud. Some polygamous families enroll all but one of the wives on welfare as single mothers with children in order to finance the entire family.

    The level of abuse of wives, particularly in patriarchal families. Oprah Winfrey's show referred to polygamous families in Utah and Arizona as "third-world Taliban-type" cultures.”



    - You are comparing “good” polygamist to “bad” polygamists. This is unfair. I could point out many studies that show that even in supposed monogamous homosexual relationships the average gay male has sex with 10+ partners a year (which spread STDs like wildfire). This would be an example of “bad” homosexual relationship. It would be unfair to assume that all (or a majority) of polygamist would be abusive just as it would be unfair to assume all (or a majority) of homosexual relationships would involve infidelity.


    “And yet another apple and orange would be polygamy was supported by the church yet gay marriage has never been.”

    - I’m not sure if you are referring to the Mormon Church or Bible times. If you are referring to the Bible, polygamy was different back then because women had to enter into a marriage or they would be left out on the street. It wasn’t “usually” about love for most people, it was about survival. Marriage is no longer like this.

    “For follow up do you personally know any gay couples?”

    A friend of mine at work is gay and has been with his partner for 13 years. I think he is a awesome person, a great worker, and a committed partner. I think that it would be a shame if he could not pass on his will or extend medical benefits to his partner, but at the same time I feel like if I justify gay marriage (based on emotional appeal), then it only follows that I must include any CONSENSUAL sexual relationship.

    By the way I’m glad you decided to join the discussion
  6. #186  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Have you heard of Promise Keepers? That's one example.
    Interesting dichotomy (or double standards) here:

    Immediate and severe threat to marriage by hetros: let's solve that by volunteer action and discussion in the church groups

    Threat to marriage by gays: Change the constitution and pass laws against it.

    All logical, consistent and intellectually honest people who are for banning gay marriage will also support banning divorce, cohabitation, and having children out of wedlock.

    We'll get to the bickering parents later :-)
    Last edited by aprasad; 07/08/2006 at 05:45 PM. Reason: spelling
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  7. #187  
    "Change the constitution and pass laws against it."

    I am not actually for a federal ban on gay marriage, I think that it should be a state issue. The pro-gay-marriage advocates are the ones who want to CHANGE the definition of marriage not me.

    Do you guys really think that a child who grows up with two moms or two dads will have the same outlook on life as someone who grows up with the traditional mom and dad. I'm not saying that the child will be wacked, or that gay parents aren't good people, it's just that it is not a natural relationship.
    Last edited by aairman23; 07/08/2006 at 07:22 PM.
  8. #188  
    Quote Originally Posted by aairman23
    "Change the constitution and pass laws against it."

    I am not actually for a federal ban on gay marriage, I think that it should be a state issue. The pro-gay-marriage advocates are the ones who want to CHANGE the definition of marriage not me.

    Do you guys really think that a child who grows up with two moms or two dads will have the same outlook on life as someone who grows up with the traditional mom and dad. I'm not saying that the child will be wacked, or that gay parents aren't good people, it's just that it is not a natural relationship.
    My comments about the hyporacy of the hetros applies to state legislation as well.

    My guess (based on nothing) is that a child brought up in a loving household will be better off than in one in which a mom and a dad are are in a loveless relationship. That loving household would ideally be hetro. But a loving gay household is better than a hetro non-loving and non-stable marriage/household.

    There are too many individual factors here to generalize: hetro, gay, single, stable, loving, bickering, extra-marital affairs, multiple marriages, loving, bickering. The permutation and comination are endless.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  9. #189  
    Quote Originally Posted by aairman23
    "Change the constitution and pass laws against it."

    I am not actually for a federal ban on gay marriage, I think that it should be a state issue. The pro-gay-marriage advocates are the ones who want to CHANGE the definition of marriage not me.

    Do you guys really think that a child who grows up with two moms or two dads will have the same outlook on life as someone who grows up with the traditional mom and dad. I'm not saying that the child will be wacked, or that gay parents aren't good people, it's just that it is not a natural relationship.
    They already do and I don't see them turning into bands of raging psychopaths.
  10. #190  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    My comments about the hyporacy of the hetros applies to state legislation as well.

    My guess (based on nothing) is that a child brought up in a loving household will be better off than in one in which a mom and a dad are are in a loveless relationship. That loving household would ideally be hetro. But a loving gay household is better than a hetro non-loving and non-stable marriage/household.

    There are too many individual factors here to generalize: hetro, gay, single, stable, loving, bickering, extra-marital affairs, multiple marriages, loving, bickering. The permutation and comination are endless.
    I can agree with you for the most part on what you're saying. I guess we differ in the way we view how much of an impact having gay parents will have on a child. If homosexuality continues to grow the way it has, we will have many many more children growing up thinking that it is perfectly normal to be a homosexual (not only the kids growing up in gay homes). We practlely encourage it already as it is. I'm just worried that the gradual blending of gender roles with really negatively affect society.

    It honestly has nothing to do with me hating homosexuals. I am tolerant of the behavior and like I said I'm friends with a guy who is in a commited gay relationship. He's actually my favorite person to work with!

    Reasons I just can't accept (and so encourage) the behavior:

    1) It is completely unhealthy (even when you factor out AIDS). This is probably due to the human body not being designed to accomodate the behavior.
    2) It has tons of negative effects on mental health....and I don't buy the argument that it is ONLY because of the way society treats them.
    3) We really have no clue what widespread acceptance of homosexuality will do to the way children develope and thus society in general.

    I do believe that the practice is immoral, but that is only because I don't think society if better off with it then without it.
  11. #191  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    They already do and I don't see them turning into bands of raging psychopaths.
    I hope you really don't think that I was implying that they are going to turn into a bunch of raging psychopaths. Some changes in society happen very slowly, it's not like you are going to see a drastic change right away. Gay adoption (while only a small number currently) will only continue to grow as long as we encourage the behavior. Maybe it won't do any harm at all, but maybe it will devastating. This is why I think cars should go hydro power. I'm not sure if WE are the cause of Global Warming, but I don't think gas guzzling vehicles are necessarily helping. I guess it parallels my view on the effect of homosexuality on society.
    Last edited by aairman23; 07/08/2006 at 09:34 PM.
  12. #192  
    Quote Originally Posted by aairman23
    I hope you really don't think that I was implying that they are going to turn into a bunch of raging psychopaths. Some changes in society happen very slowly, it's not like you are going to see a drastic change right away. Gay adoption (while only a small number currently) will only continue to grow as long as we encourage the behavior. Maybe it won't do any harm at all, but maybe it will devastating. This is why I think cars should go hydro power. I'm not sure if WE are the cause of Global Warming, but I don't think gas guzzling vehicles are necessarily helping. I guess it parallels my view on the effect of homosexuality on society.

    Gay couples are adopting, and the general professional consensus is that this is a good thing. This behavior is being 'encouraged.' as these children need homes. If we do not 'encourage' this behavior as you put it, what do suggest be done for these children, as there are not enough adoptive homes, and their alternative, currently, is far less attractive. What alternative do propose that would have a less 'devastating' result? There has been much research and discussion in this area. Perhaps you could provide new light/hope?

    Comparing global warming with homosexuality on society? Wow. I'd like to hear more on your view as I don't see any parallel whatsoever.
  13. #193  
    "Maybe it won't do any harm at all, but maybe it will devastating. This is why I think cars should go hydro power. I'm not sure if WE are the cause of Global Warming, but I don't think gas guzzling vehicles are necessarily helping. I guess it parallels my view on the effect of homosexuality on society."

    remix:

    Maybe widespread homosexuality won't do any harm at all, but maybe it will eventually turn out to be devastating. This is why I think cars should go hydro power.I'm not sure if WE are the cause of Global Warming (I'm not absolutely sure that widespread homosexuality will really be a problem in the future), but I don't think gas guzzling vehicles are necessarily helping. (I don't think that introducing a child into a homosexual home will help development either) I guess it only makes sense to me

    "Gay couples are adopting, and the general professional consensus is that this is a good thing. This behavior is being 'encouraged.' as these children need homes. If we do not 'encourage' this behavior as you put it, what do suggest be done for these children, as there are not enough adoptive homes, and their alternative, currently, is far less attractive. What alternative do propose that would have a less 'devastating' result? There has been much research and discussion in this area. Perhaps you could provide new light/hope?"

    Would you agree then that a orphan child would be better off growing up in a loving, CONSENSUAL polygamist family....then in foster care?
  14. #194  
    Gay couples are adopting, and the general professional consensus is that this is a good thing.

    I would like to see the studies or abstracts that document this...and what is meant by "good thing".
  15. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #195  
    Quote Originally Posted by aairman23
    Gay couples are adopting, and the general professional consensus is that this is a good thing.

    I would like to see the studies or abstracts that document this...and what is meant by "good thing".
    Will the American Academy of Pediatrics do?


    Source: AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics)

    -snip-

    Yet, federal and many state laws leave children of same-sex couples vulnerable and unprotected and prevent the nonbiological or non-jointly-adoptive parent from accessing such rights on their behalf as:
    • enrolling children in public and medical assistance programs
    • consenting to medical care or emergency medical treatment
    • being involved in the child's education; and
    • visitation rights and/or custody should the relationship end or the biological parent die.


    "It matters to children to have legal protection and to be accepted in their community," said Dr. Perrin. "Children thrive better in a community that is supportive and welcoming, and the legal community is part of the community."

    "This analysis makes it clear that there isn't any evidence that children of gay or lesbian parents have worse outcomes than children of heterosexual parents," said Dr. Tayloe. "Children who have two responsible adults in their (lives) have better outcomes."

    The analysis notes that studies have found that children born to and raised by lesbian couples display the same development, social competence, self-esteem and behavioral difficulties as children raised by heterosexual couples. In addition, preadolescent children of lesbian mothers have not experienced gender-identity confusion.

    -snip-


    Full PDF Report ["The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-Being of Children"]
    Last edited by NRG; 07/09/2006 at 11:19 PM. Reason: Tweakage of link.
  16. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #196  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    They already do and I don't see them turning into bands of raging psychopaths.
    Not even gender identity problems either.
  17. #197  
    Quote Originally Posted by aairman23
    Gay couples are adopting, and the general professional consensus is that this is a good thing.

    I would like to see the studies or abstracts that document this...and what is meant by "good thing".
    The question wasn't answered by me (thank you NRG), but your question was answered. I asked for your statements...or ideas to take care of these children in a manner which is better than their current circumstances or by a loving, responsible gay couple. If you're heterosexual you don't have to pass a test to have a child, you simply use no protection. If you're adopting you have to prove you're fit to do so...keep this in mind.

    Polygamy is against the law...being homosexual isn't. I don't think that's a fair comparison. Do you know the circumstances of some of these children without a home? Many already have troubling emotional pasts, and some have medical conditions which require care. The heterosexual community will not adopt all these children so...what better answer do you have to help these children now?
  18. #198  
    Quote Originally Posted by aairman23
    I can agree with you for the most part on what you're saying. I guess we differ in the way we view how much of an impact having gay parents will have on a child. If homosexuality continues to grow the way it has, we will have many many more children growing up thinking that it is perfectly normal to be a homosexual (not only the kids growing up in gay homes). We practlely encourage it already as it is. I'm just worried that the gradual blending of gender roles with really negatively affect society.

    It honestly has nothing to do with me hating homosexuals. I am tolerant of the behavior and like I said I'm friends with a guy who is in a commited gay relationship. He's actually my favorite person to work with!

    Reasons I just can't accept (and so encourage) the behavior:

    1) It is completely unhealthy (even when you factor out AIDS). This is probably due to the human body not being designed to accomodate the behavior.
    2) It has tons of negative effects on mental health....and I don't buy the argument that it is ONLY because of the way society treats them.
    3) We really have no clue what widespread acceptance of homosexuality will do to the way children develope and thus society in general.

    I do believe that the practice is immoral, but that is only because I don't think society if better off with it then without it.
    ...and I'd like to see information to back up your statements above as well. Completely unhealthy? I am gay and am in one of the lowest risks groups for contracting STDs, diseases, experiencing yeast infections, etc., etc. As you seem an expert on this, please tell me how this is unhealthy? The human body is designed for versatility. I won't go into specifics on a family board, but these statements simply aren't correct. It's not even unnatural...take a look at many species who 'naturally' engage in such acts.

    You make it sound like homosexuality is a relatively new concept and is on the rise. It's remained proportional to the population, and has been on record pretty much since records have been kept. AIDS is blind to sexuality, and far more heterosexuals have AIDS. What are these tons of negative effects on mental health that you keep mentioning, and possible devastating ramifications on society? Please some documentation to support these statements.
    Last edited by Tribalenvy; 07/09/2006 at 10:03 AM.
  19. #199  
    I understand you reluctance to believe my claim. I am at the beach now, but I WILL post reference later tonight or tomorrow. I would like to see you references the show it is healthy. I understand that YOU are healthy and mentally. but a mjority of the gay population is not.

    in reguards to you comment about how polygamy is different from homosexuality because polygamy is illegal. homosexuality was also illegal not so long ago in many states. so was homosexuality morally then?
  20. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #200  
    Quote Originally Posted by aairman23
    I understand you reluctance to believe my claim. I am at the beach now,
    Do you have an aquapac?

    Quote Originally Posted by aairman23
    but I WILL post reference later tonight or tomorrow. I would like to see you references the show it is healthy. I understand that YOU are healthy and mentally. but a mjority of the gay population is not.
    You are going to have to clarify the statement above.

    Quote Originally Posted by aairman23
    in reguards to you comment about how polygamy is different from homosexuality because polygamy is illegal. homosexuality was also illegal not so long ago in many states. so was homosexuality morally then?
    Where are you basing your views from?
Page 10 of 20 FirstFirst ... 56789101112131415 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions