How to Explain Gay Rights to Dummies

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
383

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Sooooo…I take it all the gay marriage proponents are going to bail on my question of Steve, Adam and Evelyn?

Olee, even you are a chicken shit when it comes to answering?

I will repeat it again. Are those of you in favor of gay marriage willing to support Steve, Adam and Evelyn’s desire - in fact, their “right” - to get legally married?

Step up to the plate, people.[/quote]

I already answered this. Go back a few pages.[/quote]

No, I don’t believe you did. [/quote]

Are we really that hard up for an argument? Take your ass back a few pages. I really did.[/quote]

For someone who is always chomping at the bit to bicker I find it amusing that you are now reticent to reiterate your view.

Will YOU defend the so called “right” of Adam, Steve and Evelyn as passionately as you are defending Adam’s and Steve’s right to hitch up? [/quote]

I actually answered this twice. I have no argument with it according to law except that it’s hard to deal with from a numbers perspective. But I’m sure that wouldn’t be impossible to get around.[/quote]

I know you already said that but will you defend the so called “right” of Adam, Steve and Evelyn as passionately as you are defending Adam’s and Steve’s right to hitch up?

Will you get all indignant and start threads lamenting the plight of Adam, Steve and Evelyn?

Will you also do the same for Roxie, Samantha, Edie, Ginny, Laurie, Jill, Sally, Jodie and Candy?

They are sorority sisters who have all graduated from college and became very close during their four years at Wellesley College. As a result they want to wed. Will you be there for them?[/quote]

lol. It just occurred to me how funny it is that you and me are the ones talking about this, considering that you might be one of the most likely to pick yourself up a second wife if it was ever acceptable, and my little brother just spent the last 5 years married to a woman who had a girlfriend. They all lived together in her parent’s house (the parents had no idea. Very awkward and hilarious for me at get-togethers, as I was the atheist bad sheep keeping my polygamous, extremely Christian brother’s secret). I think I might actually be MORE supportive of polygamous situations than gay ones as a result of that. However, I don’t think that was your point. I think you really wanted to know what I would do if there was a pairing situation that went against my personal idea of couth.

I stand for people being allowed to do what they want to do within the limits of harming those outside their situation, involving those who aren’t able to consent, or involving dishonest methods. Gay marriage is an offshoot of that and not the main issue. Personally? I’m not even sure marriage is a good idea for most. I think a lot of people jump into it without respect and forethought. But, it’s not my place to prevent them from doing something I consider ridiculous or even stupid in many cases.

My point is, I’m not tied up around a certain type of marriage; I’m concerned about whether the law is fairly allowing everyone to lead whatever life they want for themselves and glean whatever taxes and responsibility’s others are offered while doing so.

384

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:
Truthfully, if Mary, Sally, Tod, and Steve all want to get married, it doesn’t affect me personally and as a result, I don’t think I really have a right to make a decision for them.[/quote]

It’s not about YOU making a decision for them. It’s about whether the state should officially sanction their marital contract.[/quote]

Who votes the states laws into action? We do. So we are in effect making a decision for others by voting to not allow marriage between certain people.

385

[quote]Oleena wrote:

lol. It just occurred to me how funny it is that you and me are the ones talking about this, considering that you might be one of the most likely to pick yourself up a second wife if it was ever acceptable, and my little brother just spent the last 5 years married to a woman who had a girlfriend. They all lived together in her parent’s house (the parents had no idea. Very awkward and hilarious for me at get-togethers, as I was the atheist bad sheep keeping my polygamous, extremely Christian brother’s secret). I think I might actually be MORE supportive of polygamous situations than gay ones as a result of that. However, I don’t think that was your point. I think you really wanted to know what I would do if there was a pairing situation that went against my personal idea of couth.

I stand for people being allowed to do what they want to do within the limits of harming those outside their situation, involving those who aren’t able to consent, or involving dishonest methods. Gay marriage is an offshoot of that and not the main issue. Personally? I’m not even sure marriage is a good idea for most. I think a lot of people jump into it without respect and forethought. But, it’s not my place to prevent them from doing something I consider ridiculous or even stupid in many cases.

My point is, I’m not tied up around a certain type of marriage; I’m concerned about whether the law is fairly allowing everyone to lead whatever life they want for themselves and glean whatever taxes and responsibility’s others are offered while doing so.[/quote]

So, B).

It’s always b), or C), do away with state recognition of marriage. Always. Push 'em long enough and you’ll eventually find out just how radical, and far, they’re really wanting to go. I have never, ever, gotten a pro-gay marriage proponent to deal with these questions, without them choosing one of those two. Never. If you’re pro-traditional marriage, don’t give an inch. They WILL ask for the next one.

386

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

lol. It just occurred to me how funny it is that you and me are the ones talking about this, considering that you might be one of the most likely to pick yourself up a second wife if it was ever acceptable, and my little brother just spent the last 5 years married to a woman who had a girlfriend. They all lived together in her parent’s house (the parents had no idea. Very awkward and hilarious for me at get-togethers, as I was the atheist bad sheep keeping my polygamous, extremely Christian brother’s secret). I think I might actually be MORE supportive of polygamous situations than gay ones as a result of that. However, I don’t think that was your point. I think you really wanted to know what I would do if there was a pairing situation that went against my personal idea of couth.

I stand for people being allowed to do what they want to do within the limits of harming those outside their situation, involving those who aren’t able to consent, or involving dishonest methods. Gay marriage is an offshoot of that and not the main issue. Personally? I’m not even sure marriage is a good idea for most. I think a lot of people jump into it without respect and forethought. But, it’s not my place to prevent them from doing something I consider ridiculous or even stupid in many cases.

My point is, I’m not tied up around a certain type of marriage; I’m concerned about whether the law is fairly allowing everyone to lead whatever life they want for themselves and glean whatever taxes and responsibility’s others are offered while doing so.[/quote]

So, B).

It’s always b), or C), do away with state recognition of marriage. Always. Push 'em long enough and you’ll eventually find out just how radical, and far, they’re really wanting to go. I have never, ever, gotten a pro-gay marriage proponent to deal with these questions, without them choosing one of those two. Never. If you’re pro-traditional marriage, don’t give an inch. They WILL ask for the next one. [/quote]

Sure, except I (obviously) never had a problem with the situations Push brought up and thus don’t qualify for your “bigot” pigeon-hole. I don’t have a problem with C, either, except I think people should be allowed to officially make other people their family.

388

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Sooooo…I take it all the gay marriage proponents are going to bail on my question of Steve, Adam and Evelyn?

Olee, even you are a chicken shit when it comes to answering?

I will repeat it again. Are those of you in favor of gay marriage willing to support Steve, Adam and Evelyn’s desire - in fact, their “right” - to get legally married?

Step up to the plate, people.[/quote]

I’m neither for, nor against polygamy. There are pros, and cons, and the legal complications increase exponentially with each additional partner. If I were going to argue against it, I’d say I do not believe that marriage scales well for the individuals involved, and there is the potential for gender imbalances (i.e. males having difficulty to find a mate) that have negative implications for the rest of society. In Canada, this would be argued via the reasonable limits clause. I’m unsure what is(or if there is) a U.S. equivelent.

Arguing for it, many of the same arguments for gay marriage do indeed aply.[/quote]

Well, you’re dancing but it is to be expected.

Will YOU defend the so called “right” of Adam, Steve and Evelyn as passionately as you are defending Adam’s and Steve’s right to hitch up?[/quote]

I’m not well enough informed to defend or oppose it.

For the wedding parties a marriage involving 2 people carries with it an exclusivity that is impossible to replicate with 3, 4, 5, 6, etc… people. Which one of your spouses is granted your power of attorney? How is child custody / access decided in the event of a divorce? How are equality, and freedome promoted in such a union? Can you divorce one spouse, but keep the other, or if one spouse wants a divorce, is the entire contract voided? Can you be married to 2 spouses who are not married to each other? If you all have to be married to each other is bisexuality a requirement for the same-sex parties of a multi-gender marriage? If marriage is supposed to be for the rest of your life, how are multiple people going to last when 2 people rarely does? The change from having 1 spouse to 2 spouses is a 100% increase in spouses. That’s 100% more disagreements, 100% more compromises, etc… and I would expect 100% more divorces as a result.

For the government, there’s an increased potential for shallowing of the gene pool. There might be a decrease in potential partners for the less desirable which can cause problems. How do you apply laws written for 2 people to 3 people?

Polygamous marriage is not the same as homosexual marriage or heterosexual marriage. It is quite a bit more complex. It carries its own set of problems, which I am not well enough informed about to hold a valid opinion. That said, I have some doubts / concerns so I’m inclined to err on the conservative side. I don’t think it would pass the Oakes test here if it were brought to court, as there is an objective to limit marriage to 2 parties to encourage the maximum number of family units (for example), there is a minimal rights infringement (polyamorous people are free to love multiple people,AND are free to marry someone they love (which is the biggest difference between forbidding gay marraige, and forbidding polyamorous marriage) but can only appoint 1 as there spouse), and the infringment is proportional.

So to answer your question no?

Are you looking to take a second wife or something Push? You do pose an interesting question, and I don’t deny it. I would actualy be interested to hear a serious argument in favor of it.

391

[quote]Oleena wrote:

Sure, except I (obviously) never had a problem with the situations Push brought up and thus don’t qualify for your “bigot” pigeon-hole. I don’t have a problem with C, either, except I think people should be allowed to officially make other people their family.[/quote]

I’ll make a new one for you, d).

d). Has always argued that all arrangements of consenting adults should be recognized by the state. Otherwise known as the “redefine ‘married’ to mean 'adult citizen who checked off an optional box somewhere, regardless of numbers of partners (if any, actually), or nature of relationship (simply needs consent, nothing more), position.” I’m telling you folks, it’s get a lot more bizarre when you keep at these people on questions dealing with their underlying principles/philosophy.

392

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Sooooo…I take it all the gay marriage proponents are going to bail on my question of Steve, Adam and Evelyn?

Olee, even you are a chicken shit when it comes to answering?

I will repeat it again. Are those of you in favor of gay marriage willing to support Steve, Adam and Evelyn’s desire - in fact, their “right” - to get legally married?

Step up to the plate, people.[/quote]

I already answered this. Go back a few pages.[/quote]

No, I don’t believe you did. [/quote]

Are we really that hard up for an argument? Take your ass back a few pages. I really did.[/quote]

For someone who is always chomping at the bit to bicker I find it amusing that you are now reticent to reiterate your view.

Will YOU defend the so called “right” of Adam, Steve and Evelyn as passionately as you are defending Adam’s and Steve’s right to hitch up? [/quote]

I actually answered this twice. I have no argument with it according to law except that it’s hard to deal with from a numbers perspective. But I’m sure that wouldn’t be impossible to get around.[/quote]

I know you already said that but will you defend the so called “right” of Adam, Steve and Evelyn as passionately as you are defending Adam’s and Steve’s right to hitch up?

Will you get all indignant and start threads lamenting the plight of Adam, Steve and Evelyn?

Will you also do the same for Roxie, Samantha, Edie, Ginny, Laurie, Jill, Sally, Jodie and Candy?

They are sorority sisters who have all graduated from college and became very close during their four years at Wellesley College. As a result they want to wed. Will you be there for them?[/quote]

lol. It just occurred to me how funny it is that you and me are the ones talking about this, considering that you might be one of the most likely to pick yourself up a second wife if it was ever acceptable, and my little brother just spent the last 5 years married to a woman who had a girlfriend. They all lived together in her parent’s house (the parents had no idea. Very awkward and hilarious for me at get-togethers, as I was the atheist bad sheep keeping my polygamous, extremely Christian brother’s secret). I think I might actually be MORE supportive of polygamous situations than gay ones as a result of that. However, I don’t think that was your point. I think you really wanted to know what I would do if there was a pairing situation that went against my personal idea of couth.

I stand for people being allowed to do what they want to do within the limits of harming those outside their situation, involving those who aren’t able to consent, or involving dishonest methods. Gay marriage is an offshoot of that and not the main issue. Personally? I’m not even sure marriage is a good idea for most. I think a lot of people jump into it without respect and forethought. But, it’s not my place to prevent them from doing something I consider ridiculous or even stupid in many cases.

My point is, I’m not tied up around a certain type of marriage; I’m concerned about whether the law is fairly allowing everyone to lead whatever life they want for themselves and glean whatever taxes and responsibility’s others are offered while doing so.[/quote]

Again, it aint about sex or people being able to do what they want as long as they don’t harm others or whether you have a personal problem with it or any other libertarian-esque aspect. It’s about whether the state has some kind of obligation to change a millenia old tradition in order to march to the tune of progressivism. Silly progressivism.[/quote]

You’re right. We shouldn’t change anything about marriage. Let’s go back to the days when the woman handed over all of her property and say over her finances to the man upon marriage, which was the exact time the “man and woman” clause appeared:

19.â??2. It vests in the husband all the personal property of the wife, that which is in possession absolutely, and choses in action, upon the condition that he shall reduce them to possession; it also vests in the husband right to manage the real estate of the wife, and enjoy the profits arising from it during their joint lives, and after her death, an estate by the curtesy when a child has been born. It vests in the wife after the husbandâ??s death, an estate in dower in the husbandâ??s lands, and a right to a certain part of his personal estate, when he dies intestate.

20.â??3. It creates the civil affinity which each contracts towards the relations of the other.

21.â??4. It gives the husband marital authority over the person of his wife.

22.â??5. The wife acquires thereby the name of her husband, as they are considered as but one, of which he is the head: erunt duo in carne una.

23.â??6. In general, the wife follows the condition of her husband.

24.â??7. The wife, on her marriage, loses her domicil and gains that of her husband.

25.â??8. One of the effects of marriage is to give paternal power over the issue.

26.â??9. The children acquire the domicil of their father.

From this, it appears that the point of marriage is to establish patriarchal control over possessions. How the hell are we supposed to figure out who gets what if both people are men? You’re right, marriage, in its original wording, would be pointless between two men or women.

393

BTW, that was pulled right off of the same website SexMachine quoted a while back regarding the law clause involving a man and a woman. You just have to keep reading.

395

On another note, whoever said no animals form lasting homosexual bonds was wrong:

According to geneticist Simon Levay in 1996, "Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.[7] One species in which exclusive homosexual orientation occurs, however, is that of domesticated sheep (Ovis aries).[8][9] “About 10% of rams (males) refuse to mate with ewes (females) but do readily mate with other rams.”[9] Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia

397

1200×811 274 KB

[quote]Oleena wrote:
On another note, whoever said no animals form lasting homosexual bonds was wrong:

According to geneticist Simon Levay in 1996, "Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.[7] One species in which exclusive homosexual orientation occurs, however, is that of domesticated sheep (Ovis aries).[8][9] “About 10% of rams (males) refuse to mate with ewes (females) but do readily mate with other rams.”[9]Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia? I am at a complete loss on how to even begin to intelligibly respond to something like this. I don’t have time for a shower tonight so I will forgo further comment. Ya make me sad Oleena. Ya really do.

398

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

I’m not well enough informed to defend or oppose it.

[/quote]

But apparently you well informed enough about one on one gay marriage? Because you did defend it?

What makes you so well informed? What are your credentials? And why might those credentials prove superior to those who oppose gay marriage? Are you smarter than the other crowd? If so, why?
[/quote]

As I said gay marriage is fairly simple by comparison. 2 people are 2 people, and the number of issues that seperate heterosexual marriage from homosexual marriage are very limited. I know a number of gays / lesbians, and have seen them interact enough to understand the similarities, and differences, whereas I know precisely zero polygamous groups. I have enough experience, and knoledge to form a valid opinion on gay marriage, but not polygamous marriage. This does not mean that anyone who disagree’s with me is smarter, dumber, or that their opinion is invalid. It simply means that I’m qualified to disagree, and discuss.

Simple changes have simple problems with simple solutions. Such is the case with gay marriage as far as I can tell.

How do married gay people shallow the gene pool? They can’t reproduce either way.

Me? I’m the one speaking for her unborn children who will be born into a home that is by it’s very defenition 100% more prone to be broken. Adam and Steve are no more likely to divorce than Adam and Eve. The same problem doesn’t ring.

What ridiclous conclusions? Tradition for tradition sake is no more a good idea than progression for the sake of progression. The world is a changeing place. New situations call for new traditions.

[quote]

So why did you ask for them to get involved the first time?

399

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:
On another note, whoever said no animals form lasting homosexual bonds was wrong:

According to geneticist Simon Levay in 1996, "Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.[7] One species in which exclusive homosexual orientation occurs, however, is that of domesticated sheep (Ovis aries).[8][9] “About 10% of rams (males) refuse to mate with ewes (females) but do readily mate with other rams.”[9]Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia? I am at a complete loss on how to even begin to intelligibly respond to something like this.
[/quote]

I’m sure you are :slight_smile:

400

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:
You’re right. We shouldn’t change anything about marriage. Let’s go back to the days when the woman handed over all of her property and say over her finances to the man upon marriage, which was the exact time the “man and woman” clause appeared:

19.�¢??2. It vests in the husband all the personal property of the wife, that which is in possession absolutely, and choses in action, upon the condition that he shall reduce them to possession; it also vests in the husband right to manage the real estate of the wife, and enjoy the profits arising from it during their joint lives, and after her death, an estate by the curtesy when a child has been born. It vests in the wife after the husband�¢??s death, an estate in dower in the husband�¢??s lands, and a right to a certain part of his personal estate, when he dies intestate.

20.�¢??3. It creates the civil affinity which each contracts towards the relations of the other.

21.�¢??4. It gives the husband marital authority over the person of his wife.

22.�¢??5. The wife acquires thereby the name of her husband, as they are considered as but one, of which he is the head: erunt duo in carne una.

23.�¢??6. In general, the wife follows the condition of her husband.

24.�¢??7. The wife, on her marriage, loses her domicil and gains that of her husband.

25.�¢??8. One of the effects of marriage is to give paternal power over the issue.

26.�¢??9. The children acquire the domicil of their father.

From this, it appears that the point of marriage is to establish patriarchal control over possessions. How the hell are we supposed to figure out who gets what if both people are men? You’re right, marriage, in its original wording, would be pointless between two men or women.[/quote]
[/quote]