Why do gays want to get married?

[Corkscrew]

Why should only heterosexuals have the right to be miserable?

 

[Me Myself]

Why should only heterosexuals have the right to be miserable?

LOL *frubals*

 

[Father Heathen]

ok, so when will we have polygamous marriages then?

That seems just as reasonable a demand as same sex marriage.

It in fact is. Your point?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why are you so against gays being able to get married when whether or not they get married IT HAS NO EFFECT ON YOU?

I have to disagree with this. Same-sex marriage has an effect on everyone.

If marriage is denied to same-sex couples, then it can't be considered a universal human right. This damages the right to marriage for anyone.

There's only one right to marriage, so when same-sex marriage is attacked, the entire institution of marriage is attacked.

 

[Draka]

I have to disagree with this. Same-sex marriage has an effect on everyone.

If marriage is denied to same-sex couples, then it can't be considered a universal human right. This damages the right to marriage for anyone.

There's only one right to marriage, so when same-sex marriage is attacked, the entire institution of marriage is attacked.

I was more referring to a specific same sex couple. Whether or not a same sex couple gets married has no effect on someone else. Perhaps you can say whether or not a gay couple has the RIGHT to get married affects others, but if Tom and Mark, who live down the street from you get married, it really doesn't affect you. Denial of their right to get married may affect marriage rights as a whole, but their marriage doesn't affect anyone but them.

 

[nnmartin]

This question has already been answered.

House burglaries in Texas do not affect me, Drug dealing in Miami does not affect me yet they are both still banned and rightly so.

 

[nnmartin]

If people for gay marriage bans and prohibitions are upset with being compared to Hitler/Nazis I'll concede. I can play nice, too. I'll compare them to the Soviets. The Soviet Union strictly forbade any marriage not approved by the state. The Soviets always had brilliant plans and ideas. What ever happened to those lovable red dufuses?

A pointless comparison.

Now you are trying to make out that the collapse of the Soviet Union was due to their banning of same sex marriage!

 

[nnmartin]

Sure. And it's equally ok for a woman to have three husbands.

Do you care to explain that in more detail.

Are you meaning to say that you would not have a problem sharing your husband with two other women?

 

[nnmartin]

Hitler's tosh really was scary! It seems as if you are still stuck at the time when we had "Hitler tosh to be dealt with". You want to dictate to people whom they can or cannot marry. You lost the war. Deal with it. Leave other people alone. Their way of life is none of your concern at all. Leave them alone.

I lost the war did I?

That's news to me.

Don't wait for it; you won't get an answer. You might get some Gish Gallop starting with drugs.... if you insist on an answer.

You mean rather than getting completely random Gish Gallop about Hitler, The Soviet Union and WW2?:sarcastic

 

[Viker]

A pointless comparison.

Now you are trying to make out that the collapse of the Soviet Union was due to their banning of same sex marriage!

No. It was part joke, part point. An exaggeration of many people's authoritarian tendencies. And a little reminder things change that are out of the authoritarian spirit's control.

BTW, a lot of folks blame the acceptance of homosexuality for the collapse of the Roman Empire. An exaggeration that they take seriously. lol

 

[nnmartin]

Speaking as an ex-weightlifting, military veteran (just to give you the idea that I don't fit your little gender role) who use to be the main breadwinner for her family while my ex-husband stayed home and took care of the kids and cleaned house and did laundry and so on and so forth...I think trying to ascribe "gender-roles" only limits children.

Like I said, there are always exceptions.
I doubt the majority of women are ex-weightlifting Lara Croft types!

It also teaches boys that they must have all the responsibility for a family on their shoulders.

Are you saying then, that you would happily marry a man with limited prospects, over one that had a sound financial base?

Hardly likely, yet the other way around is common.

It teaches them that women are beneath them and that they are not as important as them. That a woman can't do what they can. That if they don't earn more than their spouse there is something wrong with them, that they aren't "manly" enough or have failed in some way.

actually it doesn't teach that at all.
It teaches that a man should go out and provide for his family as he won't be 'taken care of ' by a woman once he is an adult.

If a man wants to be a stay at home dad and pursue his hobby of painting in his off-time, then there's nothing wrong with that. If those two individuals happen to be a couple, so be it.

You mean to say a stay at home man can happily snag a successful female lawyer - dream on!

So trying to argue that a man and a woman are necessary to teach how a man is "supposed" to be and a woman is "supposed" to be is not only ludicrous, but damaging

I would say it is a very important thing - you can teach equality and liberal ideas at the same time however it is key to learn as a child that you do need to conform in some ways to society's rules as an adult if you want a regular life.

 

[9Westy9]

This question has already been answered.

House burglaries in Texas do not affect me, Drug dealing in Miami does not affect me yet they are both still banned and rightly so.

as does any other hobby/ addiction. Are all of those bad? Other heterosexual marriages don't effect you. Are they also bad?

 

[Draka]

Like I said, there are always exceptions.
I doubt the majority of women are ex-weightlifting Lara Croft types!

There are likely more than you think.

Are you saying then, that you would happily marry a man with limited prospects, over one that had a sound financial base?

If I love him, yes. As a matter of fact, I have. I have been proposed to several times, by several different kinds of men. I could have married a well set man with a good job and a very nice 4 bedroom house out in the country, but I didn't. I did, however, marry an unemployed man whom I did support while he took care of house and kids.

Hardly likely, yet the other way around is common.

Not if people marry for love rather than for money and convenience. What a novel idea, huh?

actually it doesn't teach that at all.
It teaches that a man should go out and provide for his family as he won't be 'taken care of ' by a woman once he is an adult.

But, a man doesn't have to if the woman is willing to. Just as a woman doesn't have to if a man is willing to. And sometimes, both the man and the woman need to work to provide for the family and sometimes the woman makes more than that man and there is nothing wrong with that.

You mean to say a stay at home man can happily snag a successful female lawyer - dream on!

A stay at home man happily snagged this well paid female electrician many years ago. It's not impossible and for you to think it is, and for you to think a lot of the things you have said here, only shows just how sexist and behind the times you truly are.

I would say it is a very important thing - you can teach equality and liberal ideas at the same time however it is key to learn as a child that you do need to conform in some ways to society's rules as an adult if you want a regular life.

You seem to have a specific definition of "regular life" and I know that many people are simply not interested in having that "regular life" you seem to want to espouse. You also seem to think there are these hardfast "societal rules" that must be conformed to. Conforming to perceived societal rules is not what has brought about needed change. If everyone stuck to those types of rules, we would still have slavery, blacks would be in the back of the bus and drinking from separate fountains, there would be no interracial marriage, women would not be allowed to vote or run for political office, and so very much more. You can't teach equality if someone isn't willing to make it happen, and you can't make it happen by sticking to stupid backwards rules that inhibit equality.

 

[painted wolf]

Marrying out of love... how bizarre!

Everyone knows that the traditional way would be to marry whatever man could give your father the most goats.

wa:do

 

[dust1n]

Re: Polygamy



I am not entirely sure where I stand on that issue but it would make an interesting new thread I am sure.

What if it's 1 wife and 5 husbands?!

 

[Draka]

Marrying out of love... how bizarre!

Everyone knows that the traditional way would be to marry whatever man could give your father the most goats.

wa:do

You want to know the ironic thing in all this? I am currently a SAHM and housewife while my hubby is the breadwinner. So all my points are actually coming from someone in the position that he's apparently advocating for. The difference is, I'm in the position I'm in not because it is what someone expects of me, but because it's what works best for us at the moment. Once both my kids are in school full time I'll most likely return to the workforce. It is also likely, given my education and experience, that I may end up making more than my hubby eventually (job availability depending). Thing is, that until the last few years of my life, I have almost always been the main or sole breadwinner for my family. With my first two husbands I certainly was. (And no nnmartin, they are not exes because I got tired of them making less than I, there were non-income related issues leading to those divorces.) So his insistence that men and women fulfill certain gender-defined roles kind of hit home for me. I've always been proud to set the examples for my children that men and women can be anything they want. Gender should not limit anyone in life.

 

[Father Heathen]

This question has already been answered.

House burglaries in Texas do not affect me, Drug dealing in Miami does not affect me yet they are both still banned and rightly so.

But burglaries obviously effect those who are burglarized. The fact that it victimizes innocent people is why it's bad. Gay marriage victimizes no one. They're not remotely comparable.

As for drug dealing, If softer drugs were taxed and regulated, the dangerous black market surrounding would disappear (take the prohibition of alcohol during the 1920's, for example). Speaking of alcohol, it's far more addicting and destructive and marijuana, so the law is rather inconsistent, don't you think?

You keep presenting the retarded analogies, kid, and we'll keep crushing them.

 

[waitasec]

You keep presenting the retarded analogies, kid, and we'll keep crushing them.

:yes:

 

[dust1n]

ok, so when will we have polygamous marriages then?

That seems just as reasonable a demand as same sex marriage.

Ok, so they are both as on the same level of reason. Same-sex marriage and Polygamous marriage.

So do you think it is ok for a man to have three wives then as long as they all consent?

Do you have any reasons as to why that should not be allowed? (if thats what you're saying)

I am not entirely sure where I stand on that issue but it would make an interesting new thread I am sure.

Wait, wait, wait. A polygamous marriage is "just as reasonable" as gay marriage, but you are unsure how you feel about a polygamous marriage, but you know, in full detail, how much you are against gay marriage?



I need some aspirin.

 

[dust1n]

This question has already been answered.

House burglaries in Texas do not affect me, Drug dealing in Miami does not affect me yet they are both still banned and rightly so.

But they affect us in America, and that's why we banned it. We didn't ban those things because they affected African countries? Why should American laws reflect you?