[quote]Sloth wrote:
I won’t speak for TB, but I actually anticipated, and even counted on, responses such as yours.[/quote]
Yep. Fish in a barrel.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I expect to see the overall trend we’ve seen with divorces, broken homes, and out of wedlock births…only, accelerated and now completely irreversible. [/quote]
You are still not explaining why. Give me the cause.
I think this guy should marry his dog:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
I think this thread backfired… Thunder, did you expect a slew of anti-polygamy hatred from the people that say gay marriage should be legalized?
Nope - I expected to highlight that:
- The principle of “consenting adults deserve marriage” leads to a status of un-marriage in society, as has been argued over and over, and confirmed by comments like your own
[/quote]
So what?
Humans, for the most part, are monogamus creatures. It doesn’t really matter if they’re married or not, some people are going to be with one person forever. Some people are going to cheat on them, some will do it multiple times…
Why not just ban divorce if you’re so concerned with “un-marriage” (bullshit term, but anyway…)
Don’t disagree. But as I said, I think it’s because multiple partners and wives is often associated with child abuse.
I could see how this poly stuff could get kinda messy, and I think you’d have to be real careful with kids. As the article points out, I think this could work for people who had good communication.
However, I’m wondering. If you were a kid, what would be the better option for you if your parents decided they were no longer meeting each others needs? Divorced parents or the addition of another couple that kept your parents together and gave you an expanded “family”?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Irish,
I’m not surprised by your attitude and I think that type of thinking is probably more popular among your age group than mine. What you and many in your generation fail to realize is that just about everything effects everything else eventually. It’s a matter of what sort of society that you want to live in isn’t it? What happened to something called “the greater good” of society?
[/quote]
Says the diehard conservative? Since when did you give a fuck about the greater good?
I am still not seeing how it affects society. And no one seems to want to answer that.
Ahh… so there was no polygamy in the Bible? The Spartans weren’t banging other guys? The Greeks were overly concerned with monogamy?
Where do you get this shit?
There will always be a section of people who live like this. It’s not a big segment, but it’s there. Let them live.
And homosexuality is far from incest, beastilaity, or child abuse. Two consenting adults is enough for me… I don’t care what sex they are.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I expect to see the overall trend we’ve seen with divorces, broken homes, and out of wedlock births…only, accelerated and now completely irreversible.
You are still not explaining why. Give me the cause.[/quote]
You said a man could marry a dog for all you care. While I’m sure that was a bit of hyperbole, the cause you’re looking for would be exactly that attitude. Instead of a “sacred” institution (even if only in a secuar way), placed on a pedestal, fiercely guarded and promoted as the expected norm between men and women of age, and exclusive to the ultimate purpose it’s serves (the propogation and raising of our citizenry, by the smallest unit possible, with both bio parents present) we’re actually talking about marraige as “just” a contractual label to slap on any arrangement and number of consenting adults.
Marriage meaning that pretty much anything goes, means rather little. And, that is exactly how it will come to be viewed. Instead of reversing bad social trends, we only give them more fertile ground. Think the institution has already been weakened in our culture? Stay tuned. Hopefully, we’ll be dead before the impact is really felt.
I’m sure I don’t have to make the connection between broken homes and a host of social ills. We’re all aware of this, I hope.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Two consenting adults is enough for me… I don’t care what sex they are. [/quote]
Two?! What kind of anti-polyamorous orientated language is this?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
You said a man could marry a dog for all you care. While I’m sure that was a bit of hyperbole, the cause you’re looking for would be exactly that attitude. Instead of a “sacred” institution (even if only in a secuar way), placed on a pedestal, fiercely guarded and promoted as the expected norm between men and women of age, and exclusive to the ultimate purpose it’s serves (the propogation and raising of our citizenry, by the smallest unit possible, with both bio parents present) we’re actually talking about marraige as “just” a contractual label to slap on any arrangement and number of consenting adults.
Marriage meaning that pretty much anything goes, means rather little. And, that is exactly how it will come to be viewed. Instead of reversing bad social trends, we only give them more fertile ground. Think the institution has already been weakened in our culture? Stay tuned. Hopefully, we’ll be dead before the impact is really felt.
[/quote]
Oh stop. Marriage has meant very little for a very long time to those that it means little to. This means the drunks that beat their wives, the people that cheat on their wives, the people who get married to stay in the country, the wives who marry for money, and the plethora of other issues.
If marriage is sacred to you, then fine. It would be to me, as well (not in the religious sense, but in the sense of truly loving someone). However, it has never been on a pedestal. Jefferson himself apparently didn’t put it on a pedestal, and I have read things that said that Washington married for money as well.
I have said over and over again that people are the reasons marriages fail- and not the sex of those involved.
[quote]
I’m sure I don’t have to make the connection between broken homes and a host of social ills. We’re all aware of this, I hope.[/quote]
And I’d rather have a kid raised by two dudes who love each other and care for the kids than a man and a woman who married for the kids, or who married for conveniance, or for any of the other reasons people get and stay married that are not in line with what the word is supposed to mean.
You remind me of the people who pine for the “good ole days,” and are completely oblivious to the fact that the good ole days never existed except in their mind.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
You said a man could marry a dog for all you care. While I’m sure that was a bit of hyperbole, the cause you’re looking for would be exactly that attitude. Instead of a “sacred” institution (even if only in a secuar way), placed on a pedestal, fiercely guarded and promoted as the expected norm between men and women of age, and exclusive to the ultimate purpose it’s serves (the propogation and raising of our citizenry, by the smallest unit possible, with both bio parents present) we’re actually talking about marraige as “just” a contractual label to slap on any arrangement and number of consenting adults.
Marriage meaning that pretty much anything goes, means rather little. And, that is exactly how it will come to be viewed. Instead of reversing bad social trends, we only give them more fertile ground. Think the institution has already been weakened in our culture? Stay tuned. Hopefully, we’ll be dead before the impact is really felt.
Oh stop. Marriage has meant very little for a very long time to those that it means little to. This means the drunks that beat their wives, the people that cheat on their wives, the people who get married to stay in the country, the wives who marry for money, and the plethora of other issues.
If marriage is sacred to you, then fine. It would be to me, as well (not in the religious sense, but in the sense of truly loving someone). However, it has never been on a pedestal. Jefferson himself apparently didn’t put it on a pedestal, and I have read things that said that Washington married for money as well.
I have said over and over again that people are the reasons marriages fail- and not the sex of those involved.
I’m sure I don’t have to make the connection between broken homes and a host of social ills. We’re all aware of this, I hope.
And I’d rather have a kid raised by two dudes who love each other and care for the kids than a man and a woman who married for the kids, or who married for conveniance, or for any of the other reasons people get and stay married that are not in line with what the word is supposed to mean.
You remind me of the people who pine for the “good ole days,” and are completely oblivious to the fact that the good ole days never existed except in their mind. [/quote]
Your argument is basicaly, yeah, we’ve already harmed the fabric of this vital institution, and yes, we can see the results of this, but let’s barrel on further down that road? Stretch our this already thinned institution so thin, that we see can see completely through it?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Your argument is basicaly, yeah, we’ve already harmed the fabric of this vital institution, and yes, we can see the results of this, but let’s barrel on further down that road? Stretch our this already thinned institution so thin, that we see can see completely through it?
[/quote]
My argument is that as long as people are people, they’re going to fuckin destroy whatever the idealists want to think that marriage means.
Gays marrying will not be any better or worse than anyone else, so the argument isn’t valid.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Your argument is basicaly, yeah, we’ve already harmed the fabric of this vital institution, and yes, we can see the results of this, but let’s barrel on further down that road? Stretch our this already thinned institution so thin, that we see can see completely through it?
My argument is that as long as people are people, they’re going to fuckin destroy whatever the idealists want to think that marriage means.
Gays marrying will not be any better or worse than anyone else, so the argument isn’t valid. [/quote]
So, why bother, eh? Too hard? Someone might call you old-fashioned, conservative, or ( dramatic drumroll, please) a bigot!?
Let’s just shrug our shoulders and say people are people to everything. Fighting to maintain or repair a deserving ideal and vital social institution is just too friggen hard. I just want to be liked by everyone, orgasm as many times, and obtain as many material possessions, as I can before I go toes up. Let a future generation feel the impact and do the heavy lifting. Now lets just go get high, drunk, or laid. Screw future prosperity. Screw a left behind legacy. It was just too damned hard to even try.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Your argument is basicaly, yeah, we’ve already harmed the fabric of this vital institution, and yes, we can see the results of this, but let’s barrel on further down that road? Stretch our this already thinned institution so thin, that we see can see completely through it?
My argument is that as long as people are people, they’re going to fuckin destroy whatever the idealists want to think that marriage means.
Gays marrying will not be any better or worse than anyone else, so the argument isn’t valid.
So, why bother, eh? Too hard? Someone might call you old-fashioned, conservative, or ( dramatic drumroll, please) a bigot!?
Let’s just shrug our shoulders and say people are people to everything. Fighting to maintain or repair a deserving ideal and vital social institution is just too friggen hard. I just want to be liked by everyone, orgasm as many times, and obtain as many material possessions, as I can before I go toes up. Let a future generation feel the impact and do the heavy lifting. Now lets just go get high, drunk, or laid. Screw future prosperity. Screw a left behind legacy. It was just too damned hard to even try.[/quote]
You are arguing under the premise that gays will destroy something that was never there.
Therefore, the argument doesn’t make any sense.
You act like before gays were around (which was never, but anyway) heterosexuals had these perfect little marriages that never saw trouble- then, the evil Ghey came around and everything went to shit.
In reality, people’s marriages who suck are going to suck whether there’s two homos in San Fran that can get married or not. Their kids will be fucked up whether two lesbians in Mississipi can get married or not. It has no effect on the lives of others.
Like I said, the people who treasure their relationship with another human will treausre it regardless of what the government wants to call it. Men and women rarely stay together just because they’re married- they stay together because of other reasons, but that one piece of paper means little to the people that don’t have a bond with the other person.
How many threads on gay marriage are we gonna have?
Hypothetical Question:
Obviously this could never be proved, BUT…
For all you arguing heterosexual marriage must be maintained for the betterment of society: If a CONCLUSIVE study emerged that homosexual unions were better for the children and better for society in general, would you abandon your heterosexual marriage for the good of society?
[edit: in order to clarify, I am not suggesting either homosexual marriage is good for society or heterosexual marriage is bad for society.]
[quote]pat wrote:
How many threads on gay marriage are we gonna have?[/quote]
I was just thinking that. Ask Thunder.
[quote]TBT4ver wrote:
Hypothetical Question:
Obviously this could never be proved, BUT…
For all you arguing heterosexual marriage must be maintained for the betterment of society: If a CONCLUSIVE study emerged that homosexual unions were better for the children and better for society in general, would you abandon your heterosexual marriage for the good of society?
[edit: in order to clarify, I am not suggesting either homosexual marriage is good for society or heterosexual marriage is bad for society.][/quote]
That’s a good question.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Marriage meaning that pretty much anything goes, means rather little. And, that is exactly how it will come to be viewed. Instead of reversing bad social trends, we only give them more fertile ground. Think the institution has already been weakened in our culture? Stay tuned. Hopefully, we’ll be dead before the impact is really felt.
Oh stop. Marriage has meant very little for a very long time to those that it means little to. This means the drunks that beat their wives, the people that cheat on their wives, the people who get married to stay in the country, the wives who marry for money, and the plethora of other issues.
If marriage is sacred to you, then fine. It would be to me, as well (not in the religious sense, but in the sense of truly loving someone). However, it has never been on a pedestal. Jefferson himself apparently didn’t put it on a pedestal, and I have read things that said that Washington married for money as well.
I have said over and over again that people are the reasons marriages fail- and not the sex of those involved.
I’m sure I don’t have to make the connection between broken homes and a host of social ills. We’re all aware of this, I hope.
And I’d rather have a kid raised by two dudes who love each other and care for the kids than a man and a woman who married for the kids, or who married for conveniance, or for any of the other reasons people get and stay married that are not in line with what the word is supposed to mean.
You remind me of the people who pine for the “good ole days,” and are completely oblivious to the fact that the good ole days never existed except in their mind. [/quote]
Right there with ya, Irish. Nothing says “sacred” like a 40% divorce rate or quickie marriage and annulment in Vegas!
Sloth - “Instead of reversing bad social trends, we only give them more fertile ground. Think the institution has already been weakened in our culture? Stay tuned. Hopefully, we’ll be dead before the impact is really felt.”
So let’s continue to do the same things that weakened it in the first place by not allowing gays to get married? Here’s a radical idea, let’s try something different, let us get married and have a loving home for the child my (future) husband and I adopt. That’d be a bad thing, how?
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I was just thinking that. Ask Thunder. [/quote]
This isn’t a gay marriage thread. It is about the Next In Line in marriage “rights”, as urged by none other than Dustin.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
I was just thinking that. Ask Thunder.
This isn’t a gay marriage thread. It is about the Next In Line in marriage “rights”, as urged by none other than Dustin.
[/quote]
What’s your objection to other types of marriage, i.e. polyamorists, polygamists, etc.
And would you care if they called it civil unions instead of marriage?