Gay Marriage

[Convection]

In response to Adeon, I never mentioned the Bible. In response to the person about gay penguins... no response.

[Adeon]

I think it's safe to assume.

"Ooooooo, you made a mistake getting me started on this. I think the thing we need to ask ourselves isn't whether or not we should have gay marriages, but where the hell we went wrong to even have such a thing as homosexuality."?

Come on, now.. that just screams "I've got a Bible and I'm ready to thump!" It's offensive, and it just trivializes everything you try to say after it.

[Fallen Angel]

Lol, yeah, that's pretty silly...

Also, gay marriages are, in fact, illegal here in the vast majority of the US. However, some renegade mayors / state officials have been ignoring these laws to further their agenda, particularly in California. They are not obeying the law. Thus, in this respect, it is the same as if they were to be sanctioning polygamist, pedophile, or bestial marriages.

Yes gay marriages are, but actively being gay isn't

[Sarien]

As I mentioned before, what about polygamist marriage?
And as Scuggs said, would you then support pedophile marriage?
How about bestial marriage? Etc?
After all, it has no affect on you or me, right?
This is about equality, not morality. Right?

You bring up thoughtful relavent points and I'll attempt to answer:
Polygamist marriage, if all parties are of legal age and are consenting
to said agreement, rock on. However, being married to two people
without them both knowing would still be to me bigamy. A crime.
Pedophile Marriage: There can be no such thing, because in order
to marry, a person must be of a certain age.. So in order to get
married it would no longer be a case of pedophilia. So this is moot.
But to say it isn't would just bring us to the the same reasoning for
Bestial marriage. No child could realize or understand the true nature
of the decision and the consequences and therefore could not give
proper consent. It is called the Age of Consent for a reason, after all.
Bestial Marriage: Also not possible because of the other party,
the animal in question could not knowingly give consent to be a part
of a marriage, nor understand the consequences of their actions.

The alternate cases you mention have a fundamental flaw in which
you say that it doesn't affect you or me, true.. but it affects an
innocent third party. The child or animal in whichever case. In these
instances they aren't a partner or spouse, but instead a victim.
The closest you can come to simulating the gay marriage thing is
with polygamy and you have my answer above. You are absolutely
correct in stating that this is about equality, not morality.

-Sarien

[Scuggs]

to marry you must be of a certain age?

well, to marry, you must be of a certains exual orientation?

see? FLAWS.

[Subjugation]

to marry you must be of a certain age?

well, to marry, you must be of a certains exual orientation?

see? FLAWS.

no, i don't see. try explaning it in more than 2 incongruous sentences.

[Mayo Inc.]

i mean really, as long as the newlyweds dont try to DP me, them being married has no effect on me at all. seriously whats the big deal, why would you be against this?

and as for lesbians, yeah get married and make movies if you're sexy

[Troll King]

to marry you must be of a certain age?

well, to marry, you must be of a certains exual orientation?

see? FLAWS.

The difference is that one of those situations involves two consenting adults, the other has just one.

If you want a better example than bigamy and marriage with children for comparison, talk about marriage between siblings.

[Subjugation]

dang troll. that's a pretty good analogy, and at first i really didn't want to respond because it begs a very disturbing question. but i'm gonna grit my teeth and answer.

as much as i would hate to say it, as long as it doesn't harm anyone, i'm fine with whatever two consenting adults want to do in the privacy of their own homes. brother and sister, sister and sister...w/e. i think it's a pretty disgusting idea, but it's none of my fuckin business.

[Capital Knockers]

dang troll. that's a pretty good analogy, and at first i really didn't want to respond because it begs a very disturbing question. but i'm gonna grit my teeth and answer.

as much as i would hate to say it, as long as it doesn't harm anyone, i'm fine with whatever two consenting adults want to do in the privacy of their own homes. brother and sister, sister and sister...w/e. i think it's a pretty disgusting idea, but it's none of my fuckin business.

That is a very touchy subject, and it's fine to make your opinion on it. Personally I 1/2 agree. If two or more consenting adults want to engage in whatever, its' their choice to do so. So long as they don't flaunt it about people who think otherwise, because thats just provoking needless arguement/problems.

Although (and fill in whatever i miss) to my knowledge blood relatives engaging in sexual activity can cause (if pregnancy occours) physical damage to a newborn child. Therefore it can be harming someone - and that would be why i don't think it should be acceptable.

[Subjugation]

Although (and fill in whatever i miss) to my knowledge blood relatives engaging in sexual activity can cause (if pregnancy occours) physical damage to a newborn child. Therefore it can be harming someone - and that would be why i don't think it should be acceptable.

yea, i've heard the same thing, but isn't it legal for a man and a woman to marry even if they both have genetically inherited dieseases or defects? they too have the potential to pass along genetic defects that could also endanger their offspring. i am not very knowledgable on the subject of retards, but i'm sure izor or twinkie<>< could fill us in.

[Nickname]

Marrige is the union of two people in a show of there love that they wish to be tottaly devoted to that one person there entire life. It has more to do with tax purposes that it does with sexes. Let gays marry, it makes them happy and i don't care. (ok i care, but very little)

[ConCor]

But who defines that age of consent, Concor?

And how do you know when someone is "ready" or not? We're all individuals, after all. Thus, we're all "ready" at different times of our lives. Who decides whether one person is ready, and another is not? The individual state governments? Isn't that silly? You can go to Wisconsin or Vermont or some place and bang up a 15 year old with consent all you want, but do that in Texas or Florida, and you get thrown away for 20 years. How does that promote equality in the society? Is this person really a pedophile in Texas, but normal in Wisconsin? But if not the states, then who gets to decide? And why?

That is a very good point. Personally, I would state "ready" at the median age people are about halfway through puberty (did that make any sense?). That's like 16-17. If you want to go fuck a 16 year girl... But the point is, there has to be a cutoff somewhere. We shouldn't totally restrict people's right to fuck each other, but we need to protect young kids from getting raped. And that's a judgement call. I admit it. It's like... Where do you draw the line between manslaughter and 2nd degree murder? That analogy was forced, but you get my idea, right? And who does being gay hurt? Raping people hurts a whole lot, physically and mentally.

And still, what is your position on polygamist marriage?

As far as I know, there aren't nearly as many polygamists in the US as gays. but still, I think as long as everyone knows and is okay with it... we have no choice. There would have to be some safeguards in there against abusing it for tax purposes, though.

[Capital Knockers]

yea, i've heard the same thing, but isn't it legal for a man and a woman to marry even if they both have genetically inherited dieseases or defects? they too have the potential to pass along genetic defects that could also endanger their offspring. i am not very knowledgable on the subject of retards, but i'm sure izor or twinkie<>< could fill us in.

Well if they do have genetic defects, they would most likely (if possible) consider this before having a child. I doubt many blood realtives out there would be actually attempting to get pregnant. It most likely would be more of an accident rather than a planned act, which could lead to abortion.

But we already strayed off topic enough, gays should marry, ignorant fools with no real arguements should just be ignored.

[THE ENFORCER]

I believe it should be decided by the public and if the public are happy with it, then the law should be passed.Since the courts rule on the current social values of society.

Personally i believe gays should be allowed to marry, however under no circumstances means that they are allowed to adopt children.I actually believe gays should not be allowed under any circumstances to have the chance to raise children.

I also think only a minority of gays are born genetically gay the others are gay by their social envrionment and possibly other things.