If you allow homosexuals marriage then...

[HopefulNikki]

My personal definition of an ideal marriage for modern society is something like "the public declaration of a bond of love between individuals who plan to support and care for each other in their daily lives".

By that simplistic definition, parents and their children should get married. I hope you're not suggesting this?

 

[Green Gaia]

And I'm simply saying that those reasons quite easily extend to arguments in support of other sexual minority groups, thus proving nutshell's point that one leads to another.

So, same gender couples should be discriminated against because you fear it will lead to other legal forms of unions? How is that fair to us? Then shouldn't we take away heterosexuals right to marry because it might lead to other legal forms of unions?

I don't have a problem giving legal equal rights to minorities. I do have a problem with legally condoning relationships that lead to other sexual deviances which to me (and I think the vast majority of humankind) are immoral.

Is this your problem with same gender couples? You think we're immoral?

Who is that is overwhelmingly (if not always) are involved in polygamous relationships? HETEROSEXUALS! Don't blame us and hurt us for what you all do.

 

[Inky]

By that simplistic definition, parents and their children should get married. I hope you're not suggesting this?

No; I made the definition short and simple because it was a personal blip of mine not entirely related to the thread. By "love" I mean romantic love. I'd rather not discuss semantics of that sentence, though; I'd like to hear responses to the rest of the post.

And Maize: I hear ya. What also irks me is that heterosexual couples are allowed a much higher level of public affection before they're considered to be rude. To a lot of people, a straight couple tonguing on the street corner is less offensive than a gay couple giving a peck on the cheek.

 

[HopefulNikki]

So, same gender couples should be discriminated against because you fear it will lead to other legal forms of unions? How is that fair to us?

It's "fair" by the same standard that all regulations and laws made by a society are "fair." Unfortunately, anarchy does not work in this world; people cannot do whatever they want whenever they want however they they want. People who resent certain laws of course will always say, "That's not fair!" However, the fact that a minority resents a regulation is not an immediate reason to change it. Laws are changed because there is reason to specifically alter the law in a certain way. All the reasons you have thus far given are applicable to any number of sexual deviances, and again, therefore prove nutshell's point.

Who is that is overwhelmingly (if not always) are involved in polyamous relationships? HETEROSEXUALS! Don't blame us and hurt us for what you all do.

LOL...by definition, to be in a polygamous relationship, you would have to be in a relationship with at least one other person of the same gender...thus making polygamists at least bisexual. Unless, of course, you're suggesting that, for example, a man with two or more wives should only spend one night a week with each wife (which hardly sounds like a real, loving relationship)?

 

[HopefulNikki]

No; I made the definition short and simple because it was a personal blip of mine not entirely related to the thread. By "love" I mean romantic love.

Oh, so parents who ROMANTICALLY love their children should get married...even better.

I'd rather not discuss semantics of that sentence, though; I'd like to hear responses to the rest of the post.

No prob, let's drop it.

 

[darkpenguin]

think the word were all looking for here is bigamy!

 

[Green Gaia]

Considering there's nothing really remarkable about the idea of gay marriage compared to other changes to the insitution over the past century or two, why would gay marriage be more likely to cause a "slippery slope" than interracial marriage, or gender-equal marriage, or marriage without children or without the consent of parents? Those encountered the exact same protests in their day, including the "slippery slope" argument, that gay marriage recieves today.

Exactly, it wasn't that long ago people were spouting the same stuff about inter-racial marriages. Inter-racial marriage is allowed and recognized now by the government... and look, the country is still standing.

 

[d.]

Oh, so parents who ROMANTICALLY love their children should get married...even better.

a child is not a consenting adult. :sarcastic

 

[exgirlfriend]

and your saying being gay is the same as palygamy? i think not, palygamy is as bad as promiscuity, both are irrisponsable and not a good example to set for children!

I feel that love is love, no matter what you classify yourself as, as long as it's not hurting anyone. Tolerance is what I'm going to teach my children.

I also feel that ignorance is irresponsible and is not a good example to set for children.

 

[HopefulNikki]

a child is not a consenting adult. :sarcastic

Inky's definition, which is what I was responding to, merely said, "individuals", not "consenting adults."

 

[darkpenguin]

I feel that love is love, no matter what you classify yourself as, as long as it's not hurting anyone. Tolerance is what I'm going to teach my children.

I also feel that ignorance is irresponsible and is not a good example to set for children.

i quite agree ignorance is irresponsible but so is promescuity with the amount of people nowdays with std's, i don't believe it's possible to love more than one partner it's just pure glutteny and lust, both of which are sins apparently!

 

[Green Gaia]

It's "fair" by the same standard that all regulations and laws made by a society are "fair." Unfortunately, anarchy does not work in this world; people cannot do whatever they want whenever they want however they they want. People who resent certain laws of course will always say, "That's not fair!" However, the fact that a minority resents a regulation is not an immediate reason to change it. Laws are changed because there is reason to specifically alter the law in a certain way.

So only the tryannial majority should be priviledged with rights? Screw the minorities?

All the reasons you have thus far given are applicable to any number of sexual deviances, and again, therefore prove nutshell's point.

Show me a professional medical or pyschological organization that lists homosexuality as abnormal or deviant.

to be in a polygamous relationship, you would have to be in a relationship with at least one other person of the same gender.

Not at all. It is my understanding that a polygamous relationship generally involves one man with many women (although it can be one women with many men, but that's rare) and the women do not have sex with each other, only the man. There they are not in a bisexual or homosexual relationship.

 

[Green Gaia]

And Maize: I hear ya. What also irks me is that heterosexual couples are allowed a much higher level of public affection before they're considered to be rude. To a lot of people, a straight couple tonguing on the street corner is less offensive than a gay couple giving a peck on the cheek.

It wasn't the long ago that same gender couples could be arrested for holding hands in public on the ground that they were deviants.

 

[d.]

Inky's definition, which is what I was responding to, merely said, "individuals", not "consenting adults."

well, it was aimed two ways - 'consenting adults' is what will keep allowing homosexual marriage going down the slippery slope to adult-child marriages and adult-sheep marriages and hell freezing over.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteronormativity

 

[HopefulNikki]

So only the tryannial majority should be priviledged with rights? Screw the minorities?

In some cases, yes. This shouldn't shock you. People who want to break the speed limit can't. People who think it's ok to expose themselves in public can't. The majority wins elections (or the majority of electoral votes, at least), and get laws passed which they support. However, it's not a "right" to break a law, as much as you might think it is. It is your right to work to change a law, but you must have valid reasons to do so.

Show me a professional medical or pyschological organization that lists homosexuality as abnormal or deviant.

If I did, would that change your view? Probably not, and I don't really see how it's relevant to whether or not homosexuality leads to the acceptance of other behaviors which I think we can for the most part agree are unacceptible.

Not at all. It is my understanding that a polygamous relationship generally involves one man with many women (although it can be one women with many men, but that's rare) and the women do not have sex with each other, only the man. There they are not in a bisexual or homosexual relationship.

So again, the women just get passed around by a chauvinist man who wants to get lots of booty, sleeping with one girl one night, another girl another night, on and on. By what standard is this acceptable behavior?

 

[HopefulNikki]

well, it was aimed two ways - 'consenting adults' is what will keep allowing homosexual marriage going down the slippery slope to adult-child marriages and adult-sheep marriages and hell freezing over.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteronormativity

This is true, although I think there are plenty of other adult-only behaviors that homosexuality leads to which we should be worried about.

 

[Inky]

For anyone interested, I'm starting a thread for people to post their personal definitions of marriage (and by "starting a thread" I mean "have the text copied in a Notepad document because the dang post won't load). Hopefully that'll keep us on track here. I'm still waiting for responses to my historical arguments...

Edit: Okay, I've tried a few times and it's not posting the new thread. If somebody else would like to, that'd be awesome.

 

[d.]

This is true, although I think there are plenty of other adult-only behaviors that homosexuality leads to which we should be worried about.

give us an example?

 

[Green Gaia]

It is your right to work to change a law, but you must have valid reasons to do so.

I think working for change that will protect my friends and family is a valid reason. Don't you? Or do gay families not matter?

If I did, would that change your view? Probably not, and I don't really see how it's relevant to whether or not homosexuality leads to the acceptance of other behaviors which I think we can for the most part agree are unacceptible.

You can't because there isn't one. Not the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, nor the American Psychiatric Association list homosexuality as deviant or abnormal. Therefore we should not be punished and labled as deviants and denied equal right simply because you think other things are.

So again, the women just get passed around by a chauvinist man who wants to get lots of booty, sleeping with one girl one night, another girl another night, on and on. By what standard is this acceptable behavior?

If the women involved don't have a problem with it and accept it, who am I to judge their relationship? I certianly don't want anyone butting their heads into my business even though the majority seems to think it has a right to do so.

 

[Jaymes]

says anyone that hasnt got a screw loose in their head! and why should it be recognised by the government? you see terrorists bombing people in the name of religion i know lets ask the governments to accept that to heh?

Count me as the proud owner of a loose screw.

I personally know people in long-lasting, committed polyamorous relationships. They're all quite happy with it. If it was up to me, polyamorous marriage would be legal.