Does anyone else see the irony here?

[Just_A_Guy]

. . . or than the avowed child molesters currently trying to avoid prosecution (I mean YOU Bob Menendez).

I despise Menendez as much as anyone on my side of the aisle would; but I believe Menendez was cleared on the Dominican Republic child prostitution story.

[carlimac]

I agree it was dumb to call him, but I am not going to use the opportunity now to bash his sexual orientation.

I, for one, am not bashing his sexual orientation. I'm bashing the whole notion of making someone's sexual orientation something the whole world needs to know or "celebrate". This "gay rights" thing is a farce. These people are not a different species. They are human beings just like everyone else and they shouldn't be "protected" or set apart as special and pampered or babied just because they prefer a different kid of sex than most folks. They need to get on their big boy/girl panties and just live their lives without calling so much attention to themselves. Shame on society for getting drawn into their pity party.

Edited May 4, 2013 by carlimac

[Lakumi]

I for one, am no bashing his sexual orientation. I'm bashing the whole notion of making someone's sexual orientation something the whole world needs to know or "celebrate". This "gay rights" thing is a farce. These people are not a different species. They are human beings just like everyone else and they shouldn't be "protected" or set apart as special and pampered or babied just because they prefer a different kid of sex than most folks. They need to get on their big boy/girl panties and just live their lives without calling so much attention to themselves. Shame on society for getting drawn into their pity party.

how is it a farce to want human rights

During the course of history people thought the same about african american rights, women rights, rights of those with other religions.

But since you are in a position that doesn't deny you human rights, you scorn them for wanting rights.

Though nobody has any rights, rights aren't rights if they can be taken away. Or denied for some reason because they have a different belief or colour of skin or orientation or gender.

If they took away Mormon rights and said they couldn't marry, and people thought you were less or it was a farce you wanted rights just because you're religion was a little different then someone else's religion, then how would this go.

It doesn't matter if you agree with homosexuality or not. It's a human rights issue, and if they had the same rights, as I said this wouldn't need to exist.

[bytor2112]

how is it a farce to want human rights

During the course of history people thought the same about african american rights, women rights, rights of those with other religions.

But since you are in a position that doesn't deny you human rights, you scorn them for wanting rights.

Though nobody has any rights, rights aren't rights if they can be taken away. Or denied for some reason because they have a different belief or colour of skin or orientation or gender.

If they took away Mormon rights and said they couldn't marry, and people thought you were less or it was a farce you wanted rights just because you're religion was a little different then someone else's religion, then how would this go.

It doesn't matter if you agree with homosexuality or not. It's a human rights issue, and if they had the same rights, as I said this wouldn't need to exist.

Of course, homosexuality isn't a gender or a race or a nationality and unless I am mistaken, homosexuality isn't some newly identified species either. I find the comparison to blacks struggle to have equality under the law offensive.

Edited May 4, 2013 by bytor2112

[Lakumi]

its an issue of equality at its core. they lack human rights (for different reasons then say black people and women did, but still lack them)

you can't deny that.

It wasn't about classifying homosexuals as anything, its about human rights.

And as I said, if you have a system where some people have rights, but some don't (for whatever reason) then they're not rights-they're privileges.

That's my main point.

[jerome1232]

I fail to see which rights those are. There is no law that says a homosexual cannot marry. There is only a law that says you can't marry a person of the same gender. Kind of like how we forbid cousins from marriage, there is just not a popular crusade on that one yet.

[Lakumi]

I fail to see which rights those are. There is no law that says a homosexual cannot marry. There is only a law that says you can't marry a person of the same gender. Kind of like how we forbid cousins from marriage, there is just not a popular crusade on that one yet.

typically gay people want to marry their own gender

[Lakumi]

but this conversation never goes in positive area's so I am bowing out of it

[bytor2112]

its an issue of equality at its core. they lack human rights (for different reasons then say black people and women did, but still lack them)

you can't deny that.

It wasn't about classifying homosexuals as anything, its about human rights.

And as I said, if you have a system where some people have rights, but some don't (for whatever reason) then they're not rights-they're privileges.

That's my main point.

They have the Same rights that I have...they can marry, but, just like I can't marry another dude, or a child or an animal or a sibling...neither can they.

[Suzie]

They have the Same rights that I have...they can marry, but, just like I can't marry another dude, or a child or an animal or a sibling...neither can they.

I never understand why when we discuss gay marriage, we thrown in the middle bestiality and minors.

Marrying a child or sibling in most US states is illegal, the sibling because it is incest and the child because it is a minor and cannot consent. Marrying an animal well it's obvious which leaves me with the last one:

"Just like I can't marry another dude".

Why cannot under the law TWO consenting ADULTS of the same gender marry?

I seriously want to know the reason why they can't.

[Lakumi]

Not in America, in Canada they can but I won't get into any debates about that

[carlimac]

Suzie- My uncle and I are seriously attracted to each other. We're beyond child bearing years. Why can't we get married?

I'm bisexual and in love with both a man and a woman. My rights to marry who I love are being withheld from me.

I'm so attracted to three other single men besides my husband. I have a deep and abiding relationship with all of them. They mean so much to me. I'm demanding my rights to marry them all. In fact I'm a star of many movies and I expect Pres. Obama will call me soon to congratulate me.

We've opened a can of worms by endorsing gay marriage. I foresee the time when all relationships will be whatever we wish. And there goes the structure of a healthy society. It's already sick. We're just hammering the nail into the coffin by allowing this garbage to exist.

Edited May 4, 2013 by carlimac
Wrote it the first time on my phone. Fat fingered.

[selek]

I never understand why when we discuss gay marriage, we thrown in the middle bestiality and minors.

Just a hunch here, but could it be because all three are deviant sexual behaviors at odds with traditional morality?

Surely you remember your Sesame Street days,"...some of these things are not like the others; some of these things are kinda the same."

Homosexual intercourse, beastiality, and underage sex are all fornication, no matter how you try to dress it up.

Marrying a child or sibling in most US states is illegal

News flash: so is homosexual marriage.

That argument will not sustain you.

"Just like I can't marry another dude".

Why cannot under the law TWO consenting ADULTS of the same gender marry?

Because (based on the standard you were just waving) it is illegal.

There are, of course, other sound moral and sociological reasons for that standard- but you're not really interested in them, now are you?

Doesn't your argument really just boil down to "I don't think it's fair!" and "You're not the boss of me!"?

[Guest]

I never understand why when we discuss gay marriage, we thrown in the middle bestiality and minors.

Marrying a child or sibling in most US states is illegal, the sibling because it is incest and the child because it is a minor and cannot consent. Marrying an animal well it's obvious which leaves me with the last one:

"Just like I can't marry another dude".

Why cannot under the law TWO consenting ADULTS of the same gender marry?

I seriously want to know the reason why they can't.

Marriage is not simply two adults getting together. Marriage is the foundation of society. This is the nucleus of a family.

In American morality as it stands, two adults whose genetics is too close cannot marry because of the impact this has to the chance of genetic defects for children of this union. So a parent cannot marry their children, an adult cannot marry his sibling nor his cousin. But why can't they marry if they undergo sterilization? Answer: because of the normative effect this union have on society.

Now, in American morality as it stands, two adults cannot marry if one of them is already and still is married. Why? Because children of such unions are deemed disadvantaged due to the greater risk of resource scarcity - that is, the investment of time and attention and materials is spread thin in a polygamous union. What if they sign a contract that says they are not allowed to raise children? Answer: they still can't because of the normative effect this union have on society.

In American morality as it stands, homosexual marriage is not accepted. Why? Because the gender Male and Female are not deemed interchangeable and the nucleus of the family requires both genders for the advantage of the health and well-being of the children. What if they sign a contract that says they are not allowed to raise children? Answer: they still can't because of the normative effect this union have on society.

Whether you agree or disagree, it's up to you. But make sure that you are agreeing or disagreeing to the proper reasoning. A marriage contract is not for the selfish reasons of the spouses. It is for the foundation of society and what society is going to be built upon. You don't need religion to show you the effects of the male and female influence on children.

Edited May 4, 2013 by anatess

[carlimac]

You don't need religion to show you the effects of the male and female influence on children.

I agree. In fact I prefer to leave the religion card out of the discussion because of the 11th article of faith. Not all agree with my beleifs nor do some even have an inkling of celestial families. I believe we need to respect other's beliefs. I prefer to focus on how it's biologically nonsensical and detrimental to society.

I asked my 9 and 10 yr olds if they thought two men who love each other should be able to get married. Without missing a beat, they both said no because it's gross. I've not had "the talk" with either of them so if they know what sex is they have gotten it from someone else. But I think kids instinctively know that two of the same gender getting married just doesn't make sense. (Unless they were raised in a home with homosexual parents. Then they will have been modeled and taught something else. It just doesn't happen naturally, though. Yes you find it in "nature" but some animals eat their feces and their babies, too. We, ashuman beings are above the animal kingdom for a reason.)

Now I'm delving into judging someone's sexual orientation. Didn't mean to go there and I don't want to offend those who struggle with this. I just think those who do need to go back to the basics- biology, how puzzles work, what the purpose of "marriage" is and how it has benefitted society. Then deal with their struggles in a way that goes beyond their selfish desires.

Edited May 5, 2013 by carlimac

[bytor2112]

I never understand why when we discuss gay marriage, we thrown in the middle bestiality and minors.

30 years ago the thought of two men marrying or two women marrying was considered an absurdity and gay meant happy.

Marrying a child or sibling in most US states is illegal, the sibling because it is incest and the child because it is a minor and cannot consent. Marrying an animal well it's obvious which leaves me with the last one:

I assume that you are referring to a young teen which is pretty taboo and obviously I am referring to young children.

"Just like I can't marry another dude".

Why cannot under the law TWO consenting ADULTS of the same gender marry?

I seriously want to know the reason why they can't.

Why can't under the law three or four or more consenting adults marry? Better question is why we legitimize an immoral and perverse lifestyle and pretend that the union would have some kind of redeeming quality that would benefit society. Certainly, the degeneration of society and the Adversary's relentless attack on the Family as ordained by God is linked to homosexuality and the realization of that unholy union.

Edited May 4, 2013 by bytor2112

[Suzie]

30 years ago the thought of two men marrying or two women marrying was considered an absurdity and gay meant happy.

We are not living 30 years ago.

Better question is why we legitimize an immoral and perverse lifestyle and pretend that the union would have some kind of redeeming quality that would benefit society. Certainly, the degeneration of society and the Adversary's relentless attack on the Family as ordained by God is linked to homosexuality and the realization of that unholy union.

Bytor, I understand your points. My main issue is that for me there must be a separation of my personal/religious beliefs from the actual law..

I don't believe I have the right to impose my perceived views on morality, my personal views on what is perverse lifestyle and my opinion of the Adversary to other people who do not believe as I do.

Now, if we are talking about gays wanting to be married in a specific religious denomination and such religion being forced by law to do so, of course I would disagree NOT because they are gays but simply because I believe that every organization (including religious ones) are like clubs where there are rules and requirements people should fulfill if they wish to join.

Other than that, I believe religion should stay out of the law.

[jerome1232]

the sibling because it is incest

Exactly my point, so why under the law can't two consenting adult siblings marry? Your answer is "well because it's incest" Make as much sense as "Why can't two consenting adults of the same gender marry?" "well because it's homosexual"

Another argument is "Well because their children are likely to have genetic defects", "Well same gender marriages can't produce children at all"

"But they can adopt"

"So could incestual couples"

Any argument that upholds a marriage between same gender couples holds for incest and group marriage. If you are prepared to defend one, be prepared to defend them all.

Edited May 4, 2013 by jerome1232
major grammar edits :D

[Suzie]

Exactly my point, so why under the law why can't two consenting adult siblings marry? Your answer is "well because it's incest" Make as much sense as "Why can't two consenting adults of the same gender marry?" "well because it's homosexual"

Another argument is "Well because their children are likely to have genetic defects", "Well same gender marriages can't produce children at all"

"But they can adopt"

"So could incestual couples"

Any argument that upholds s marriage between same gender couples holds for incest and group marriage. If you are prepared to defend one, be prepared to defend them all.

Actually, there are quite a few states that allow incestuous marriages but I'm sorry to disappoint but I am not going to bring my moral views on this because again, religion should stay out of the law in my opinion not to mention this isn't a discussion about incest.

However, I would like someone to answer this on a purely legal aspect:

Why two consenting adults of the same gender are forbidden to marry? The question remains unanswered.

[Lakumi]

Not everyone believes homosexuality is immortal.

Just like not everyone believes in God, an athiest isn't going to think homosexuality is "the degeneration of society and the Adversary's relentless attack on the Family as ordained by God"

Using religious reasons really only works if you are on the same page.

[Suzie]

Homosexual intercourse, beastiality, and underage sex are all fornication, no matter how you try to dress it up.

News flash: so is homosexual marriage.

How is homosexual marriage the same as having sex with your dog? Please explain.

Doesn't your argument really just boil down to "I don't think it's fair!" and "You're not the boss of me!"?

I thought my argument was clear: Separation of Church and State.

[jerome1232]

Actually, there are quite a few states that allow incestuous marriages but

False, no state allows siblings to marry, which was my exact question.

Why is that? Viability of offspring. Therefore, let us extend that. Homosexual couples do not produce viable offspring, as an extension of banning sibling marriage, I see it fitting to ban same gendered marriages.

[Suzie]

In American morality as it stands, homosexual marriage is not accepted. Why? Because the gender Male and Female are not deemed interchangeable and the nucleus of the family requires both genders for the advantage of the health and well-being of the children. What if they sign a contract that says they are not allowed to raise children? Answer: they still can't because of the normative effect this union have on society.

I'm adopted and was raised mainly by males. I am very feminine, heterosexual and I am very healthy. So I don't believe you necessarily need both genders to raise a child. However, I do understand your point on the influence of both genders.

[Suzie]

False, no state allows siblings to marry, which was my exact question.

I stand corrected. I meant incestuous marriages, not siblings specifically.

Homosexual couples do not produce viable offspring, as an extension of banning sibling marriage, I see it fitting to ban same gendered marriages.

With your premise about homosexual couples not able to produce viable offspring, are you going then to ban heterosexual couples who wish to marry but they are unable to have children or perhaps choose not to have them at all?

[selek]

How is homosexual marriage the same as having sex with your dog? Please explain.

I already DID. Homosexual intercourse is a sexual and moral deviancy, as are pedophilia and beastiality. And until recently, it was illegal in every state in the Union.

Homosexual marriage, in turn, is a moral deviancy because it seeks to legitimize and advance a moral deviancy.

I thought my argument was clear: Separation of Church and State.

Call For Reference, please.

Exactly where is this alleged separation enshrined in the Constitution?

Moreover, the separation of Church and State literally IS a "you're not the boss of me" argument- juvenile and puerile on its face.

At its essential core, it boils down to "I get to define my own morality- you're (and your religion are) not the boss of me".

The problem with this notion is that it's simply not true.

All of our laws- from murder to theft to incest to pornography are a matter of common consensus on what it and is not ethical and moral.

Imbezzlement doesn't suddenly become ethical simply because you decide the law (and the moral standards which define it) no longer apply to you.

So where exactly, does the Constitution state that laws cannot (MUST not) be mandated based on the collective moral standards of the people where this particularly trendy fetish is concerned?

I've been studying the Constitution for roughly forty years and have yet to find either of these particular gems of progressive wisdom.

As you have previously admitted, we have laws against incest. We have laws against beastiality. We have laws against adultery.

So why are sodomites exempt from the moral standards of society where the others are not?

Edited May 4, 2013 by selek