If you allow homosexuals marriage then...

[Green Gaia]

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

Like what? What are you going to blame on us now to justify denying us equal rights?? What the hell have we ever done to you?

 

[Jaymes]

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

Ooh, tell me, tell me! I want to know what's in store for me, since I'm apparently quite ignorant of these "adult-only behaviors" that homosexuality will lead me to.

 

[darkpenguin]

Ooh, tell me, tell me! I want to know what's in store for me, since I'm apparently quite ignorant of these "adult-only behaviors" that homosexuality will lead me to.

playing with blue tac :yes:

 

[HopefulNikki]

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?

Do polygamist families not matter? Do incestuous families not matter? Again, you prove nutshell's pont time and again.

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.

Try again. The studies and statements by such organizations are phrased very carefully and recognize that the reason that homosexuality is not in some ways "deviant" is because society is coming to accept it more. That doesn't make it either moral or immoral in itself; medicine is not concerned with morality. If you insist, however:
http://www.cathmed.org/publications/homosexualityarticle.htm

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.

That's because lots of women are, no offense, really emotional and not very intelligent. The fact that a small minority of women are ok with being passed around on a weekly basis like meat does not make it right.

 

[Green Gaia]

Ooh, tell me, tell me! I want to know what's in store for me, since I'm apparently quite ignorant of these "adult-only behaviors" that homosexuality will lead me to.

Marriage... kids... a mortgage... PTA ??

 

[HopefulNikki]

Ooh, tell me, tell me! I want to know what's in store for me, since I'm apparently quite ignorant of these "adult-only behaviors" that homosexuality will lead me to.

It's just what we've been talking about for the whole thread: polygamy, incest, etc etc etc.


I'm off to work, I'll be back all!

 

[Jaymes]

Marriage... kids... a mortgage... PTA ??

But they said it like it was going to be something fun and kinky... :sad4:

That's because lots of women are, no offense, really emotional and not very intelligent. The fact that a small minority of women are ok with being passed around on a weekly basis like meat does not make it right.

For your sake I hope you're joking. And if you're not, please explain polyandry and women who are in stable polyamorous relationships. Sometimes, gasp, with no males involved! Innit that a concept.

 

[Green Gaia]

Do polygamist families not matter? Do incestuous families not matter? Again, you prove nutshell's pont time and again.

I don't care about Nutshell's point, I'm not agruing against it, I'm arguing FOR same gender couples having equal legal marriage rights.
http://www.cathmed.org/publications/homosexualityarticle.htm

http://www.cathmed.org/publications/homosexualityarticle.htm

Did you miss the CATHOLIC in the title? Of course they are going to against gays. Surely you can find something less biased than a religious website.

That's because lots of women are, no offense, really emotional and not very intelligent. The fact that a small minority of women are ok with being passed around on a weekly basis like meat does not make it right.

That doesn't mean we can tell another consenting adult who and how to love when it comes to consenting adults. Again, this is a problem within the heterosexual community, stop trying to blame and hurt us for it.

 

[d.]

That's because lots of women are, no offense, really emotional and not very intelligent. The fact that a small minority of women are ok with being passed around on a weekly basis like meat does not make it right.

we're talking about legislation here, right? if you want to somehow legally prevent people from marrying idiots, i imagine you're going to have quite a task ahead of you. good luck.

point is, any kind of marriage can lead to inequalities, and they often do. heterosexual marriages is, as you probably know, no exception.

 

[Green Gaia]

But they said it like it was going to be something fun and kinky... :sad4:

I guess some people believe those things are if us horrible gays are involved.

Really, the idea that same gender couples should be denied equal legal rights because someone thinks something else, (that has absolutely nothing directly to do with same gender couples or homosexuality), is wrong is nothing more than homophobic garbage and excuse to hurt same gender couples by keeping them from protecting their families.

 

[Booko]

and you really need to learn about your religion, read - http://www.absalom.com/mormon/polygamy/faq.htm

So far in this thread you've questioned whether a Christian is really a Christian, and told a Mormon what they "actually" believe.

Do you find this a useful approach to dialogue?

 

[Inky]

To Nikki, whenever you get back: I've already mentioned this, so sorry if I'm being repetitive, but you've been ignoring my historical points, so to me the entire basis of your argument is still problematic. I'll put the latest post here for convenience.

If we lived a mere hundred years ago, a blink in history, the question would be "What is marriage, if the races of the people involved are irrelevant, the wishes of the parents, the leadership of the husband over his wife, whether or not they have children?" Modern marriage, which is assumed to be built on mutual affection (as opposed to genuinely "traditional" marriage which is essentially a negotiation for business and social status purposes), can survive quite well with fewer limits, as history has proven, and really it doesn't make sense to keep restrictions for the sake of being able to say you have restictions. 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".

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.

 

[Bishka]

because as i stated before, the other examples you stated were morally wrong, homosexuality is not religiously or moralyl wrong in my book, if it was religiously wrong 'god' wouldn't allow it to happen but 'god' does as it's not wrong!

How is polygamy morally wrong?

 

[Mike182]

i made some points earlier in this thread, and i appologise for them - i can't handle this topic right now, so i respectfully bow out.

 

[lizskid]

Well, after a difficult day at school, this post has been both an interesting and horrifying thing to catch up on. I honestly can't fathom people being so in denial of committed relationships that they still connect gay with incest, pedophilia, bestiality or anything of the like. All I can say is that the parties Nikki goes to must be WAY more interesting than the ones I go to, and I have a wide variety of gay and lesbian friends.

Point in fact: by many times, the vast majority of those arrested for child molestation are identified as straight.

Point in fact: homosexuality involves the attraction/desire to be with a member of one's own sex, not sheep, kids, or the microwave oven! Those feelings are left to a variety of the population, which could include any of us here.

Point in fact: the only result one can reliably predict from the legalization of same sex unions is that there will be some same sex unions. Other social changes may come along related to this one, or independently of this one, perhaps something related to the immigration problems now.

Point in fact: the poll of professors at Presbyterian(yes, they discriminate against gays!) seminaries in the U.S. say that they(80% of them) are teaching and openly supporting gay relationships because there is NO clear Biblical basis for the condemnation of them, when looking at the historical perspective and social climate at the time of the writing of the sections that mention same sex relations. I believe that poll wholeheartedly, as I have attended one of those seminaries and have heard the same thing from my professors there.

Point in fact: the Bible DOES say that God's love is for everyone.

How the desire for people to enter into a legal, committed relationship is SO fearful to some, is beyond me. If one focuses on that alone, and ignores the fear-bating rhetoric from various sources, I think the point is clear.

Peace.

 

[Booko]

anyways this is getting totaly off track, at the end of the day polygamy is wrong(marriage is meant to be a union of 2 people not more) and so is incest, whereas there is nothing wrong religiously or moraly with a homosexual union!

That's true in Christianity, and several other religions besides, but not in all of them.

There are other arguments that can made against polygamy that have nothing to do with religion.

As for homosexual marriages, if they were legal, I have no idea what would happen to society on account of it. But considering heterosexuals have very much mucked up heterosexual marriages, I don't know why we shouldn't let homosexuals join the fun. :sarcastic

 

[cardero]

For goodness sake, we don't practice polygamy anymore. We haven't for over a century.

Then could someone direct me to the nearest religion that does?

 

[Bishka]

Then could someone direct me to the nearest religion that does?

Well you can go join the fundamentalist 'mormons', I'm sure they'd be happy to have you.






:giraffe:

 

[Booko]

Then could someone direct me to the nearest religion that does?

Islam will allow you up to 4 wives, if you can treat them equally.

But frankly, I wonder what kind of masochist you must be, Cardero, to want to be that hen-pecked!

 

[Booko]

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.

Good point, divine, except for one quibble: Hell freezes over annually.