Political Crossfire Forums

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 20985 Location: Minnesota

revolution_reversal wrote: A -yes there will be no reproductive issues here.

B- yes unless they decide to reproducethat could lead to helath risks for the child

C- yes.

FOr B so what? WHO ARE YOUTO STAND IN THE WAY OF LOVE? Incest, beastiality, polygamy (esp. that one it will be legal within 5 years gaurnteed) will all be legal because of Courts usurping our rights. Now for me, I think the state should be out of marriage entirely, but, if it is in marriage, its for the legislatures of the respective states (aka, the people), not the Despots in their robes, to decide.

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 20985 Location: Minnesota

I mean isn't this love? How about this?

Oh disclaimer... I would stop eating before you click. No pictures though, thank jebus.

d357r0y3r · Joined: 07 Dec 2004 Posts: 539

John Galt wrote: I mean isn't this love? How about this?

Oh disclaimer... I would stop eating before you click. No pictures though, thank jebus.

:rofl:

Geneviève · Joined: 16 Jul 2005 Posts: 668

SavannahMan wrote: Would you also support any of the following....

A. Two biological brothers getting married

B. A mother marrying her 24 year old son

C. Three women all marrying each other

I support interracial marriage, yet I do not support any of the above (nor do I support a man marrying a potted plant, nor a woman marrying a horse, nor any of the other analogies that have been put forth by those whose anti-homosexual feeling is so great that they have no problem equating homosexuals with animals or inanimate objects, and assigning the same level of importance to their rights).

All these same arguments were put forth in the 60s, during the civil rights movement, when the issue was, "Should blacks be allowed to marry whites?"
Traditionalists claimed it would destroy the sanctity of conventional marriage (at that point, the term "sanctity of marriage" did not sound quite so much like the prelude to a bad joke as it does today, with divorce rates hovering around 60%).
Traditionalists claimed that if interracial marriage were permitted, then soon people would be marrying monkeys as well.
They claimed that it would hasten the moral collapse of our society.
None of this has happened.

Gays, like people of color, deserve the same rights as everyone else.
As a woman who has been married for eleven years, I do not feel that the legalization of same-sex marriage would threaten my marriage in the slightest. It would not effect my life or my marriage in any way.

The bottom line is, the government has no right to pass gender-specific laws. It is sexually discriminatory.
To say that women can only marry men is discriminating against these women on the basis of their sex. If they were male, they would then be permitted to marry their female partners.
To say that men can only marry women is sexually discriminatory; if these men were female, they would then be allowed to marry their male partners.
The government is not allowed to pass laws that apply only to women. It is not allowed to place restrictions only on men.
In the case of same-sex marriage, there are separate prohibitions on men (that they aren't allowed to marry men) and on women (that they aren't allowed to marry other women).
This still does not equal fairness or equity.
The prohibitions on men are different than the prohibitions on women.
This is not acceptable.
I support same-sex marriage.
I do not appreciate you belittling the issue by equating caring, monogamous same-sex relationships to incest and polygamy, both of which are against the law and will remain so for the forseeable future, whether or not gay marriage is legalized.
Because the prohibitions against incest and polygamy are not gender-specific (unlike the prohibition against same-sex marriage) there is no basis for them to be overturned, and I can't imagine they ever would be.
But if they were, guess what?
It still wouldn't effect my life one bit, nor yours either, one would hope.

PrinceJunius

Geneviève wrote:

I support interracial marriage, yet I do not support any of the above (nor do I support a man marrying a potted plant, nor a woman marrying a horse, nor any of the other analogies that have been put forth by those whose anti-homosexual feeling is so great that they have no problem equating homosexuals with animals or inanimate objects, and assigning the same level of importance to their rights).

All these same arguments were put forth in the 60s, during the civil rights movement, when the issue was, "Should blacks be allowed to marry whites?"
Traditionalists claimed it would destroy the sanctity of conventional marriage (at that point, the term "sanctity of marriage" did not sound quite so much like the prelude to a bad joke as it does today, with divorce rates hovering around 60%).
Traditionalists claimed that if interracial marriage were permitted, then soon people would be marrying monkeys as well.
They claimed that it would hasten the moral collapse of our society.
None of this has happened.

Gays, like people of color, deserve the same rights as everyone else.
As a woman who has been married for eleven years, I do not feel that the legalization of same-sex marriage would threaten my marriage in the slightest. It would not effect my life or my marriage in any way.

The bottom line is, the government has no right to pass gender-specific laws. It is sexually discriminatory.
To say that women can only marry men is discriminating against these women on the basis of their sex. If they were male, they would then be permitted to marry their female partners.
To say that men can only marry women is sexually discriminatory; if these men were female, they would then be allowed to marry their male partners.
The government is not allowed to pass laws that apply only to women. It is not allowed to place restrictions only on men.
In the case of same-sex marriage, there are separate prohibitions on men (that they aren't allowed to marry men) and on women (that they aren't allowed to marry other women).
This still does not equal fairness or equity.
The prohibitions on men are different than the prohibitions on women.
This is not acceptable.
I support same-sex marriage.
I do not appreciate you belittling the issue by equating caring, monogamous same-sex relationships to incest and polygamy, both of which are against the law and will remain so for the forseeable future, whether or not gay marriage is legalized.
Because the prohibitions against incest and polygamy are not gender-specific (unlike the prohibition against same-sex marriage) there is no basis for them to be overturned, and I can't imagine they ever would be.
But if they were, guess what?
It still wouldn't effect my life one bit, nor yours either, one would hope.

What she said.

Protostar · Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 5:38 pm Post subject:

John Galt wrote: I mean isn't this love? How about this?

Oh disclaimer... I would stop eating before you click. No pictures though, thank jebus.

Those stories were disgusting.

ToonArmyIsComing · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 5888 Location: Ontario

Protostar wrote: John Galt wrote: I mean isn't this love? How about this?

Oh disclaimer... I would stop eating before you click. No pictures though, thank jebus.

Those stories were disgusting.

Can we consider those animal abuse? :?

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 20985 Location: Minnesota

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Protostar wrote: John Galt wrote: I mean isn't this love? How about this?

Oh disclaimer... I would stop eating before you click. No pictures though, thank jebus.

Those stories were disgusting.

Can we consider those animal abuse? :?

Why? What ifit could be shown that theanimal likes it? Isn't it love?

There aremany things that society views as acceptable that in reality should not be. I'mnot going to force them to but lets take for example Clinton and the intern.In the army, if a sergent has an affairwith a private, s/he is thrown in jail, even if it was "consensual." The military holds that the position of power over the private is enough to make it not consensual. The President of the United States -- theman that holds the most powerful office on earth -- and an intern... consensual? Ha!

Point is -- if that's consensual, surely beastiality, bigamy, polygamy, and inscest is too. And it's all for LOVE!

Of course, love isnot a nescessity for marriage, but it is the backbone of the homosexual argument for marriage. Once you come torealize that love is just an addedbenifit of amarriage that is nice to have around, but not necessary, the argument for homosexual marriage is severly weakend (thier main argument anyway).

ToonArmyIsComing · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 5888 Location: Ontario

John Galt wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Protostar wrote: John Galt wrote: I mean isn't this love? How about this?

Oh disclaimer... I would stop eating before you click. No pictures though, thank jebus.

Those stories were disgusting.

Can we consider those animal abuse? :?

Why? What ifit could be shown that theanimal likes it? Isn't it love?

There aremany things that society views as acceptable that in reality should not be. I'mnot going to force them to but lets take for example Clinton and the intern.In the army, if a sergent has an affairwith a private, s/he is thrown in jail, even if it was "consensual." The military holds that the position of power over the private is enough to make it not consensual. The President of the United States -- theman that holds the most powerful office on earth -- and an intern... consensual? Ha!

Point is -- if that's consensual, surely beastiality, bigamy, polygamy, and inscest is too. And it's all for LOVE!

Of course, love isnot a nescessity for marriage, but it is the backbone of the homosexual argument for marriage. Once you come torealize that love is just an addedbenifit of amarriage that is nice to have around, but not necessary, the argument for homosexual marriage is severly weakend (thier main argument anyway).

Well, I don't understand what you are saying to be honest ... after all, animals are just lifeless objects in your view!

PrinceJunius · Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 6:40 pm Post subject:

Quote: Why? What ifit could be shown that theanimal likes it? Isn't it love?

Because animals can't consent, similar to the way little kids can't consent.

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 20985 Location: Minnesota

PrinceJunius wrote: Quote: Why? What ifit could be shown that theanimal likes it? Isn't it love?

Because animals can't consent, similar to the way little kids can't consent.

Youcan't know that. Maybe they do. One of the beings in the relationship says its loving. Whoare you to judge? My point above was that society views the person in the office with the most power in the world having a relationship with his own intern as consensual. If that is, anything is, that is my point.

And as for marriage, the arguments that have seemed to fail against gay marraige in increasing jurisdictions will tear down polygamy laws. I'm not so sure about beastiality and insect, but I gaurntee because of gay marriage increasingly becoming legal polygamy will too. Many don't see this as a problem, well it isn't, if you view women as subservant beings. Polyandry will never fly, no man would submit himself to another having his women, but women wo are subservant will sucumb to that and then make up a lie for themselves telling themselves that it's alright that they are just one wife of many...

Anyway, it will become legal. There is no argument used for gay marriage that cannot be used for polygamy. If those arguments for gay marriage hae succeded, and in many cases they have,sowillpolygamy. I give it 10 years.

PrinceJunius · Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:23 pm Post subject:

Quote: Youcan't know that. Maybe they do. One of the beings in the relationship says its loving. Whoare you to judge?

An animal is not aware or intelligent enough to make that kind of a decision, the same way an animal is not aware enough to make a decision about, say, investment banking. Only a moron would claim that an animal can consent to a sexual relationship with a human being.

Even if a five-year old goes on a witness stand and says he consented to having sex with an adult, we are not going to take his word for it, because he is not mature enough to make that decision. Same thing applies to animals. No one is questioning that. The only people who do seem to be questioning that are the ones who want to make gay marriage illegal. Seems like they're the ones who are going to take us down the slippery slope.

Jay2014 · Joined: 31 May 2005 Posts: 1243

John Galt wrote: PrinceJunius wrote: Quote: Why? What ifit could be shown that theanimal likes it? Isn't it love?

Because animals can't consent, similar to the way little kids can't consent.

Youcan't know that. Maybe they do. One of the beings in the relationship says its loving. Whoare you to judge? My point above was that society views the person in the office with the most power in the world having a relationship with his own intern as consensual. If that is, anything is, that is my point.

And as for marriage, the arguments that have seemed to fail against gay marraige in increasing jurisdictions will tear down polygamy laws. I'm not so sure about beastiality and insect, but I gaurntee because of gay marriage increasingly becoming legal polygamy will too. Many don't see this as a problem, well it isn't, if you view women as subservant beings. Polyandry will never fly, no man would submit himself to another having his women, but women wo are subservant will sucumb to that and then make up a lie for themselves telling themselves that it's alright that they are just one wife of many...

Anyway, it will become legal. There is no argument used for gay marriage that cannot be used for polygamy. If those arguments for gay marriage hae succeded, and in many cases they have,sowillpolygamy. I give it 10 years.

so why should we forbid polygomy? of course its done in cultures that believe woman are inferior to men, but if the woman agree to marry a man with multiple wives, why is that the business of the government?

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 20985 Location: Minnesota

Jay2014 wrote: John Galt wrote: PrinceJunius wrote: Quote: Why? What ifit could be shown that theanimal likes it? Isn't it love?

Because animals can't consent, similar to the way little kids can't consent.

Youcan't know that. Maybe they do. One of the beings in the relationship says its loving. Whoare you to judge? My point above was that society views the person in the office with the most power in the world having a relationship with his own intern as consensual. If that is, anything is, that is my point.

And as for marriage, the arguments that have seemed to fail against gay marraige in increasing jurisdictions will tear down polygamy laws. I'm not so sure about beastiality and insect, but I gaurntee because of gay marriage increasingly becoming legal polygamy will too. Many don't see this as a problem, well it isn't, if you view women as subservant beings. Polyandry will never fly, no man would submit himself to another having his women, but women wo are subservant will sucumb to that and then make up a lie for themselves telling themselves that it's alright that they are just one wife of many...

Anyway, it will become legal. There is no argument used for gay marriage that cannot be used for polygamy. If those arguments for gay marriage hae succeded, and in many cases they have,sowillpolygamy. I give it 10 years.

so why should we forbid polygomy? of course its done in cultures that believe woman are inferior to men, but if the woman agree to marry a man with multiple wives, why is that the business of the government?

I'm not saying it is. Personally I believe that goernment should disintrest itself from marriage. However I do think it is within a state's rights to have an intrest in it, as while it is private marriage is a creation of society and not an individual "right" and whatnot and government can have a say in it. They shouldn't, but they can.

ToonArmyIsComing · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 5888 Location: Ontario

John Galt wrote: Jay2014 wrote: John Galt wrote: PrinceJunius wrote: Quote: Why? What ifit could be shown that theanimal likes it? Isn't it love?

Because animals can't consent, similar to the way little kids can't consent.

Youcan't know that. Maybe they do. One of the beings in the relationship says its loving. Whoare you to judge? My point above was that society views the person in the office with the most power in the world having a relationship with his own intern as consensual. If that is, anything is, that is my point.

And as for marriage, the arguments that have seemed to fail against gay marraige in increasing jurisdictions will tear down polygamy laws. I'm not so sure about beastiality and insect, but I gaurntee because of gay marriage increasingly becoming legal polygamy will too. Many don't see this as a problem, well it isn't, if you view women as subservant beings. Polyandry will never fly, no man would submit himself to another having his women, but women wo are subservant will sucumb to that and then make up a lie for themselves telling themselves that it's alright that they are just one wife of many...

Anyway, it will become legal. There is no argument used for gay marriage that cannot be used for polygamy. If those arguments for gay marriage hae succeded, and in many cases they have,sowillpolygamy. I give it 10 years.

so why should we forbid polygomy? of course its done in cultures that believe woman are inferior to men, but if the woman agree to marry a man with multiple wives, why is that the business of the government?

I'm not saying it is. Personally I believe that goernment should disintrest itself from marriage. However I do think it is within a state's rights to have an intrest in it, as while it is private marriage is a creation of society and not an individual "right" and whatnot and government can have a say in it. They shouldn't, but they can.

I don't quite see the difference ... State government getting involved in marriage is just as bad as the Federal government getting involved in marriage! People have the right to unlimited contract.

Demonic Spoon · Joined: 20 Sep 2004 Posts: 6804 Location: Ohio

YEah, but the 10th amendment states any power not delegated to the federal govt. in the Constitution goes to the states. That includes marriage.

ToonArmyIsComing · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 5888 Location: Ontario

Demonic Spoon wrote: YEah, but the 10th amendment states any power not delegated to the federal govt. in the Constitution goes to the states. That includes marriage.

True, but my point wasn't about the technical part of the issue ... I'd rather have the government (state or federal) stay out of marriage.

Jay2014 · Joined: 31 May 2005 Posts: 1243

John Galt wrote: Jay2014 wrote: John Galt wrote: PrinceJunius wrote: Quote: Why? What ifit could be shown that theanimal likes it? Isn't it love?

Because animals can't consent, similar to the way little kids can't consent.

Youcan't know that. Maybe they do. One of the beings in the relationship says its loving. Whoare you to judge? My point above was that society views the person in the office with the most power in the world having a relationship with his own intern as consensual. If that is, anything is, that is my point.

And as for marriage, the arguments that have seemed to fail against gay marraige in increasing jurisdictions will tear down polygamy laws. I'm not so sure about beastiality and insect, but I gaurntee because of gay marriage increasingly becoming legal polygamy will too. Many don't see this as a problem, well it isn't, if you view women as subservant beings. Polyandry will never fly, no man would submit himself to another having his women, but women wo are subservant will sucumb to that and then make up a lie for themselves telling themselves that it's alright that they are just one wife of many...

Anyway, it will become legal. There is no argument used for gay marriage that cannot be used for polygamy. If those arguments for gay marriage hae succeded, and in many cases they have,sowillpolygamy. I give it 10 years.

so why should we forbid polygomy? of course its done in cultures that believe woman are inferior to men, but if the woman agree to marry a man with multiple wives, why is that the business of the government?

I'm not saying it is. Personally I believe that goernment should disintrest itself from marriage. However I do think it is within a state's rights to have an intrest in it, as while it is private marriage is a creation of society and not an individual "right" and whatnot and government can have a say in it. They shouldn't, but they can.

constitutionally, i agree with you. but i think the constitution allows the states many powers that i think it would be wrong for them to invoke (ie. income tax, prohibitions, ect)

rainidame · Joined: 22 Apr 2005 Posts: 685 Location: in the dark

I support homo marriage, but I wouldn't support much else of what you suggest for one simple reason. . .

The main reasons I hear for homo marriage are the rights, right to the hospital, right to inherit, right to child custody, things like this. In the case of animals, those rights would never be exercisable (remember here marriage and sex are two different things, apparently sex with animals is more common that imagined, see thread "OMG....." in News and Current Events), and in the case of family members those rights already exist without marriage, hence to complain about not having them would be foolish.

F'losrix · Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 4:03 pm Post subject:

rainidame wrote: I support homo marriage, but I wouldn't support much else of what you suggest for one simple reason. . .

The main reasons I hear for homo marriage are the rights, right to the hospital, right to inherit, right to child custody, things like this. In the case of animals, those rights would never be exercisable (remember here marriage and sex are two different things, apparently sex with animals is more common that imagined, see thread "OMG....." in News and Current Events), and in the case of family members those rights already exist without marriage, hence to complain about not having them would be foolish.
I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about. Without marriage recognition, gay couples are treated as legal strangers - they can't visit their partner in the hospital in areas restricted to 'family members', because they aren't recognized as one. They can't inherit their spouse's property without an airtight will, whereas you would if your husband didn't have a will. Child custody is a minefield for gay parents to navigate, marriage or not.

Whether you like it or not, a gay person and their same-sex partner living in a committed relationship with each other are a family unit, whether the law or society cares to recognize that or not.