People

Rant

Gay Marriage, Truth or Consequences

Posted 37 months ago|86 comments|1,022 views
VIDEOS
Written by
There are a multitude of people jumping on the “legalize gay marriage” band
wagon these days. And many it seems are merely caught up in the gay
activists’ frenzy of emotion which comes with phrases such as “denying
rights” and “Gay haters”. Now before anyone grabs they’re torch and
pitchfork and starts calling me all types of terrible names (seems this is
standard procedure for anyone who says anything appearing to be anti-gay) I
do not hate gays nor am I homophobic or anything else. I have had gay
friends and now work with gay people with absolutely no problems. So please
put those sharp things away.
This rant is to put into context where legalized gay marriage may very well
take us. It seems many people just want to say “make it so” and that will
be that, no problems or consequences, simply problem solved. This is of
course what I would consider flying blind and being a skeptical person the
fact that gay activist seem to want little or no practical debating on the
subject gives me the desire to do just that. If there are no negative
consequences from these actions gay activists should welcome debate. But
instead of productive debating they immediately start throwing the words
“gay hater” and “homophobic” around when anyone wants to debate the
subject. And this for the most part works as no one wants to appear as
being prejudice.
Just for kicks and giggles though and also because we generally don’t build
a building without looking ahead at the blueprint. Nor do we go racing
hundreds of miles down a road without looking at a map. I would like to
look ahead at what may be in store for us ten; twenty and even thirty years
down the road after gay marriages have been legalized.
There is absolutely no doubt that Polygamy or the marriage of multiple spouses is following directly in the footsteps of gay rights activists. One only needs to go to http://www.pro-polygamy.com/ where you will be greeted with the large print message “Polygamy Is the Next Civil Rights Battle” nothing is clearer. To get a glimpse of what is likely following in the shadows of Polygamists you may wish to read the article from The New York Daily Times at this site: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/06/21/2007-06-21_courtin_trouble.html (these links will also be embedded at the side of this post). This article documents numerous cases of recent couples of incest challenging the laws dealing with incest. There is little doubt however that once gay marriage becomes law the Pro-polygamists will have the footing they need to challenge and defeat the standing laws against Polygamy. And rightfully so, how can a man who is married to another man tell the person who wants two
spouses that they’re idea of a loving marriage is wrong? Who is the
straight couple to tell the gay couple that they’re idea of a loving
marriage is wrong? As long as they are adults and consent why should it matter if it is a gay couple or if it is more than one spouse right? So ultimately after gay marriage is a fact we know someone will take the polygamy law to court because it is they’re right as well to define for themselves what a loving marriage is. Just as the out of date homosexual laws were stricken down so will the polygamy laws be stricken down. And really what is it going to
hurt anyway?
I do have a point though and plan to come to a conclusion with this but I have just one more question. After gay marriage is legalized polygamists will challenge and win they’re right to have multiple spouses. So at some point in the future we will see situations such as this. Five gay men marry each other legally. They want to” legally” adopt many young boys and begin as soon as possible to do so. As these young boys come into the home the five men feed them, clothe them and bathe them. As parents they have every legal right to bathe them and to in fact get in the tub and shower with them and wash they’re body, which all five men do. They also sleep with the boys as do many parents. Being a
“family” they like making home movies. Mostly they like making home movies
of themselves and they’re young “sons” in the bath with them washing
they’re bodies. They also like to invite other gay male friends over to
watch these legal family videos. The young boys may call these friends “Uncles” and the “uncles” also enjoy bathing and sleeping with these young boys. In fact they will have the legal right to put a family website up and show these “family” videos. Donations to maintain the website may or may not be taken. Since there are five of them and they’re financial base will be large. My question is how many young boys do you say they will be legally able to adopt at a time? My guess is
at least twenty or thirty.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
TheLegendTomWing
TheLegendTomWing
 Administrator
Philadelphia, PA
37 months ago: Again, i shall point out, marriage is an irrational expectation to remain monogamous, Consenting adults are consenting adults, as long as everyone knows what's going on i going to say allow it. If there are churches that allow it, the constitution makes is very clear, we must allow it.
JavierMendez
JavierMendez
Arlington, VA
37 months ago: One of the most ignorant, bigoted, rambling pieces I have seen in a while. And that's saying a lot. Gay men already have the right to adopt in almost every state right now, even where there is no same-sex marriage or civil unions. The arguments regarding polygamy are inapposite because sexual orientation discrimination is not at issue when talking about polygamy. Courts and legislatures recognize prohibitions on same-sex marriage is an odious form of discrimination because it discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. There is no such problem with polygamy bans. Sadly, the purported fact that Jakarta99 has had "gay friends" has not enlightened her closed mind to an understanding that they are entitled to equal rights under the law and humane treatment. Thankfully, society is evolving to see that Jakarta99's views are just a thin cover for primitive bigotry.
TheLegendTomWing
TheLegendTomWing
 Administrator
Philadelphia, PA
37 months ago: Javier,

I must say, sexual orientation is mighty close to polygamy. Both are a choice (i assume). Just we look at the Mormons as a little bit loonier than the gays.

The constitution is clear, you can't argue with ti!
37 months ago: Well that was quite a nice piece of rambling bunk you spewed out yourself there Javier. I don't believe you will find any negative remarks about gays in my post. However you did a fine job of proving that people are emotionally charged on the subject of gays and I do appreciate your contribution in that respect.
dotgoner
dotgoner
Hudson, OH
37 months ago: Really Jakarta99? Really? Your bizarre hypothetical arrangement with 5 men marrying each other with the intent to adopt and abuse young boys ignores the fact that there are currently laws in place to protect children from incest. BTW - developing these tortured, insulting "scenarios" involving gays is in fact an insult. So please don't pride yourself on not posting negative remarks. Please pack up your bundle of gay panic and move on to some other topic that offends lunatics like you.
37 months ago: So.....dotgoner you seem to be implying that there would be some abuse problems with five gay men adopting young boys. What sort of gay hater are you? I never said anything about abuse. I simply presented a picture, backed up by documentation of what we may see in the future. You seem to be the homophobic here implying that five gay men adopting many young boys will be a certain abuse scenario. Shame shame on you dotgoner.
JavierMendez
JavierMendez
Arlington, VA
37 months ago: TheLegendTom, why do you assume sexual orientation is a choice, when the great majority of scientific experts, including the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and most scientists say otherwise?
Matthew
Matthew
Los Angeles, CA
37 months ago: Actually Jakarta, Javier has some room here because what you described in your last paragraph is child pornography. As soon as you start making movies of that child in the manner you describe you are breaking the law.

The better question though is: why do you only limit that situation to homosexual relationships? That Josef Fritz guy locked his daughter up in a basement for like 20 years and raped her and he is straight. The danger of pedophilia and parents abusing their children is prevalant regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents. There's really no point in the last paragraph because you are describing an exception, not a rule, in the gay and lesbian community. Men who do that stuff with boys or girls aren't gay, they are pedophiles.
dotgoner
dotgoner
Hudson, OH
37 months ago: Not worth debating. Your argument is immature. I'll get back to you when develop a well-reasoned view doesn't involve these absurd and patently illegal scenarios could only exist in your mind.
TheLegendTomWing
TheLegendTomWing
 Administrator
Philadelphia, PA
37 months ago: Javier, psychology and psychiatry are not "sciences," they can say what ever they want, but anyone could do their jobs with a little bit of back ground info and a healthy dose of common sense. As for other scientists, actually there has been a rush to find a "gay gene" or something to prove it isn't a choice, and yet, nothing.

As for arguing for gay marriage, go to my earlier post and watch my video and/or read the ensuing debate in the comments: http://rantrave.com/Rant/Gay-Marriage-A-Constitutional-Approach.aspx

Cheers
TheLegendTomWing
TheLegendTomWing
 Administrator
Philadelphia, PA
37 months ago: as for the APA, they had homosexuality listed as a mental illness until the 1970's, so i think that connects the dots a bit. These professions are a joke, and they just go with public opinion.
TheLegendTomWing
TheLegendTomWing
 Administrator
Philadelphia, PA
37 months ago: Content Removed by RantRave Admin
dotgoner
dotgoner
Hudson, OH
37 months ago: "psychology and psychiatry are not "sciences""...LOL...

Be open to the possibility that the APA's view on homosexuality changed in the 1970's because their research indicated it should be changed. Umm.. that's called the scientific method.

TheLegendTomWing has no credibility.
37 months ago: First of all, being gay is NOT illegal... Polygamy, incest, pedophilia, and bestiality ARE ILLEGAL. You CANNOT be arrest for having sex with another consenting adult of the same OR opposite sex... children and animals are COMPLETELY different stories. There is NO WAY Americans with our current belief system (gay, straight, religious, atheists, blacks or white) NO WAY any single group would favor a change in FEDERAL LAW. Not going to happen.

There is NO NEED to worry about polygamy... any argument that gay marriage will lead to polygamy is complete and utter SCARE TACTICS which BOTH sides of the argument clearly know... and here is WHY:
POLYGAMY in upon itself is discriminative... and a CLEAR gender discrimination which again VIOLATES federal civic rights amendments... we forget to remember polygamy ONLY works when ONLY ONE gender is allowed to have multiple spouses. Traditionally women were property (Yes, if we allow "christians" to dictate our laws, be prepared to go back to the middle ages were christians are trading women into slavery and burning all "non-christians" at the state alive as "witches" since they don't believe in "jesus.") You can't have a husband with 5 wives and each of those wives have 5 husbands who each have 5 wives... we'd ALL be married to each other... EVER PLAY THE GAME 5 DEGREES OF SEPARATION??? POLYGAMY is LOGISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE in todays modern world of EQUAL rights for ALL GENDERS... it will NEVER come illegal because first we would have to remove civil rights from ALL women... (and there's a greater chance of a giants snowball from heaven destroying the Earth.)
37 months ago:
Matthew, I am sorry to say you are not the first rational and clear minded person to this post. The Legend whom I always look forward to hearing from or debating has that cornered already. But you did come in a close second.
Some at least fairly thought out points here Matthew and I do appreciate that, though I have no doubt there will be many more drive by's before its over with.
First where is the line drawn in reference to "parents" taking photos or videos of they're "kids". I have photos of my daughter in the bath tub as a baby. Its quite cute though I would not place it on the Internet or such. But that is just me. You say it is pornography which if it were not parents then yes it would be however what I described likely would not be looked upon as pornography in a court as long as it is only "washing" the child.
Secondly, you are absolutely correct that abuse, should we decide to call it that here is universal in relation to adult pedophiles. It is not however a new law that will be put into place in regards to heterosexual marriage. Heterosexual child abuse is a terrible thing and gay marriage will neither increase or decrease it that I can see but will gay marriage increase the ability of pedophiles under the guise of adoption to "legally", with the protection of law, abuse children. If there is a chance they will then how might it happen. If you do not think it will what are your reasons and do they stand up to critical debating.
And there is a point to my last paragraph and this is the one weak point in your comment though relativly not to bad. However since you appear to have missed it I'm not going to hand it out at this time.
With that said I may be out for awhile. However I am expecting several heavy hitters besides The Legend to step up to the plate today so be sure to return and join in on the good stuff.
TheLegendTomWing
TheLegendTomWing
 Administrator
Philadelphia, PA
37 months ago: Great points Flex, the sad thing is the few homosexuals who are obnoxious made everyone else look horrible. It's the sad thing about stereotypes. You get a few pedophile/homosexual priests, and all of a sudden everyone hates catholicism and gays get a bad rap.
TheLegendTomWing
TheLegendTomWing
 Administrator
Philadelphia, PA
37 months ago: And Jakarta, thanks for standing up for me!

As for the comment by dotgoner, psychology is basically a religion, you either buy it or you don't. I've had a few therapists in my time, all quite expensive and utterly useless.
dotgoner
dotgoner
Hudson, OH
37 months ago: The fact that you've had a "few therapists" at your tender age troubles me. I hope you're doing well...or at least well enough to continue your important efforts to have psychiatry and psychology discredited as sciences AND have psychology re-classified as a religion. Good luck with all that.

When you call yourself "Legendary" I guess a bit of hubris is to be expected.

TheLegendTomWing
TheLegendTomWing
 Administrator
Philadelphia, PA
37 months ago: Well, i must say, it was for family stuff. I was able to work through it on my own.

Anyway, back to the gay marriage debate...
TheLegendTomWing
TheLegendTomWing
 Administrator
Philadelphia, PA
37 months ago: I will share Coloranter Raver's post on my rant about this subject with you all:

"the 'deviant' argument rings hollow. It may have been a battle cry in the 50s but no in the 2K0s. Gay people are not deviants. Moreover, to this date, bestiality and pedophilia are illegal whereas homosexuality is not. This path of reasoning is, unfortunately, just plain offensive and shocking. Pairing gay marriage to the concept of a person with an animal fetish is simply nonsense. I am presuming that you don't relate to the concept of being gay. When we are raised in a culture that so vastly favors the straight people, it's hard to relate. On the other hand, gay people grow up in a straight world, so they don't have as much trouble relating. If you listen carefully to Tom, you will see that the upcoming generations are more able to relate to gay people. The end is near for the last form of legal discrimination in our nation, and thank God for that. I think of Matthew Shepherd dying on that fence in Wyoming and the hate crimes against gay people every day and the high teen suicide rate attributed to gay teens that don't know what to do with themselves, and think our world will be a better place when we accept and embrace gay people just as we do straight people."

You can view the original debate here: http://rantrave.com/Rant/Gay-Marriage-A-Constitutional-Approach.aspx

It would behoove many of you to do so since many of your arguments have already been slaughtered.
37 months ago: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gays-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html?feedId=online-news_rss20

More like biology than choice.
Matthew
Matthew
Los Angeles, CA
37 months ago: Hi Jakarta, let me answer the question you posed of me:

'Heterosexual child abuse is a terrible thing and gay marriage will neither increase or decrease it that I can see but will gay marriage increase the ability of pedophiles under the guise of adoption to "legally", with the protection of law, abuse children.'

Um...probably not because adoption is not tied to marriage whatsoever. While agencies and most state governments try to place children in homes with two parents, I've known a lot of men and women who have adopted while they were single. Technically, a pedophile doesn't NEED to get married to do what you describe and unless they manage to find someone else who thinks like they do, why would they want to marry someone that would report them if they were ever found out. It would make much more sense for them to stay single so that they can keep the sexual relationship private. I'm pretty sure this is already happening in both gay and straight situations and it makes me sick to my stomach. Kids need to have the freedom to be kids, but I just can't find a way to connect the dots that gay marriage would increase this situation.
Matthew
Matthew
Los Angeles, CA
37 months ago: As for child pornography, here is some text from the Federal law:

Under federal law (18 U.S.C. §2256), child pornography is defined as any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct...

...Sexually explicit conduct is defined under federal law (18 U.S.C. §2256) as actual or simulated sexual intercourse (including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex), bestiality, masturbation, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person.

Pay attention to the last line regarding lascivious exhibition of the genitals. Your photos of your daughter are safe because a jury could easily determine intent and computer records would show they were merely for your own personal use. In the situation you describe in your article...even if it was only one man...a good prosecutor would push the issue by finding out if those photos were distributed, how many photos were taken, did the photographer put focus on the child's genitalia. All the D.A. has to do is get a jury to believe the photos were taken in a sexual nature. Once he can prove that, it's game over. As the Supreme Court Justice said...I can't remember which one..."I know pornography when I see it." I'll bet that holds true for most of us that would sit on a jury.
Matthew
Matthew
Los Angeles, CA
37 months ago: Finally, I'll just say one thing since they have a character count on messages. As a moderate, I feel the need to stick up for you a little with the references to bigotry. I don't like the word and I don't think it is warranted. However, the way you wrote this would normally incense people because the undercurrent seems to indicate that you think gays and lesbians are more prone to pedophilia.

Whether that was your intent or not, that's how the last paragraph comes off and since it's not actually true, people are going to use the 'b' word thinking that you have a willful ignorance on the topic. I don't think you are, but it will definitely light a fire under a lot of people. Besides, I read your bio I and saw that you are a veteran. I tip my hat to anyone who was willing to put their life on the line for MY freedom. 1000+ respect for you.
dotgoner
dotgoner
Hudson, OH
37 months ago: Matthew: I appreciate your well-reasoned comments. I do however take issue with your reluctance to call Jakarta a bigot. Anyone who comes up with as tortured a scenario as 5 gay men legally marrying each other, adopting at least 20 - 30 young boys and then filming the young boys in the bath for the delectation of other gay men who then bathe and sleep with the young boys... the whole thing is preposterous and indicates a sick bigoted mind at work. Equating gays with pedophilia is an old canard designed to demonize gays. You give Jakarta too much credit...he's a bigot plain and simple.
37 months ago: Siempre! Glad to see you (or here from you). And thanks Tom for hanging in there I know You Siempre and I have already kicked this can around quite a bit but I could not resist putting a new twist on it. I suspect Coloranter has grown weary of this debate and maybe rightfully so, however I have yet to receive any real solid answers to some of my core questions. I was surprised more kids with spray paint have not stopped in during my break but the rant is still young.
Tom thanks for posting Coloranter’s comment as it seems we at least have one new rational player here (and a few of the others may calm down). Though I respect Coloranter’s opinion he still uses words such as “shocking” and “offensive” but never really addresses the issue of how will we defend marriage for “only” straight and gay couples? It sounds real good and gets everyone’s attention to say “it is shocking that you compare gays to pedophiles and bestiality” Wow now that gets everyone to set up straight. But when the polygamists take they’re case to court and say “who are you to say how marriage is defined”? The standard we will have set a new will be “No one person, group, government nor even nature itself can define what marriage is”. So yes it is shocking but telling me it is shocking does little to address the question.
37 months ago: Matthew! Glad you made it back. Some good points you made there. No a pedophile does not need to be married to do those terrible things to children and I agree most would likely want to stay single to cover themselves. However since you were the one to bring up the cellar family in Austria I would point out that deviants will go to great lengths to protect they’re crimes. The situation I portrayed would be difficult to take to court because if you did not have rock solid evidence you would be labeled a “gay hater” and possibly taken to court for a hate crime, or you may have suspicions but not enough evidence and thus innocent children may be being abused in the mean time. Being “protected” under the law is the ideal scenario for a criminal and I want to know what effects this new definition of marriage will have. I like that you put the Federal law information in you comment that’s excellent. After looking it over I would say you are correct. But let’s just say the videos and photos are a little tamer than I described.
37 months ago: Considering the backlash I have received from a simple article would you be the one to lodge a compliant to the authorities? Because if the case is dropped (or maybe even if it is not) you will likely receive scathing reprisals from the gay community. Thanks for the hat tipping Matthew and I will say the name calling has little effect other than to prove my point that there is a lot of emotion tied to this subject. I can get emotional as well and some emotion in debate is in my opinion fine. However I have been in three maybe four of these debates here on RR and I am a relative new comer. Some of these guys Like Tom, Siempre and Coloranter I am sure feel as though they are beating a dead horse. Yet still my core questions remain and every time I get close to the problem the subject is changed or I get called names or people simply drop out of the debate. So either I have a legitimate case or I have not found the person to give me the answers.
Siempre, it’s always a pleasure to get your comments. You did hit one thing I think we have not hit on previously. The reference to the civil rights movement. I think this is some of what I see may be the problem and that is everyone has got in such a hurry to swing the door open and give all the gays they’re rights that no one seems to be looking behind them to see who else is waiting to run in when the door opens.
37 months ago: Lets see all we have left is the drive by’s and graffiti artist so I will try and wrap this up in one neat little package. I presented a potential situation; backed up by documentation (which some of you obviously paid little attention to). And I presented it for debate. Now I see a lot of name calling and I expected such and even mentioned in the beginning that this is a common reaction. It does little however to actually shoot me down so to speak which is exactly what I am looking for. It pretty much just adds to my question of has there been any real debating or has it become so “taboo” to suggest anything that might appear remotely like a negative reference to gays and thus we rush head long into what?
My main question is when marriage is redefined to exclude any preconceived notions of what any person, group and even nature says it to be, and how will we defend it from all deviant behaviors. I have got a lot of “pedophiles etc. etc. are illegal”, not valid because homosexuality was also at one time laws can be challenged and changed. Or there is the old “it’s not the same thing” well that may sound good but it says nothing. To a law that states marriage will not be defined by anyone’s preconceived idea of what marriage is or is not they are the same thing. Laws are not people they do not bend when a curve is thrown at them. So if you have what it takes to shoot me down then I dare you to do so. If you just enjoy the mud slinging that is fine as well as it is useful for my argument anyway. My objective will be achieved in that I want some useful debating to take place. Will my questions be answered? Hopefully.
37 months ago: A very well written, lucidly argued piece of bull****. I fail to see how polygamy would open the doors for child abuse, even if it did become legalised, and am unimpressed by the way you associate child abuse purely with gay parenting: heterosexuals can be equally capable and inclined to hurt their offspring.
37 months ago: I don't think you're homophobic but I do think you're an alarmist. And I do hate to draw a comparison to the civil rights movement but that's the exact crap they were saying when it was a huge issue for black people to marry white people. You're just replacing the phrase "those uppity negros" with "those child molesting gays" and assuming the worst stereotypes you have in your head will run rampant if gays are afforded things like adoption and civil union rights.

Where is the line drawn, you ask? For the vast majority of the gay population, it's drawn at two consenting adults. You wonder why you're insulted but you equate two men or two women with animals and objects due to their preference.

All that aside, I'm incredibly curious as to how gays will be able to adopt "25 or 30 kids" when heterosexual families have to go through so much work to adopt one. Furthermore, what's to stop a perverted heterosexual couple from enacting the exact scenario you imagine if gays would be able to do it so easily?

Again, I don't think you're necessarily homophobic but you're incredibly misguided and demonize an entire group using the stereotypes in your head. You're fine with denying health insurance and the ability to adopt to an enormous chunk of the population because you think they're all alike.


Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: Jakarta99: I read your post with a heavy heart.
TheLegendTomWing
TheLegendTomWing
 Administrator
Philadelphia, PA
37 months ago: OKay Siempre, i'll take you on! :)

Let's assume for a second that you are absolutely right. So what? So you're going to deny people rights because some other people are deviant and may expect rights in the future. That's like saying we aren't going to end slavery because there will be a genocide in Rwanda in 150 years.

And I'm not even sure you're right.
TheLegendTomWing
TheLegendTomWing
 Administrator
Philadelphia, PA
37 months ago: Also, marriage is irrational, making a commitment to stay monogamous with one person for the rest of you life. There is no rational justification for it, it's just culture, but culture evolves, we all know that. It's just time we redefined marriage with the changing tide. I have no problem with bi-sexuals or polygamists marrying whomever they please, i will choose not to do that, and many churches will refuse to marry them. If you don't like it, don't do it. But why hinder other people by instilling your culture and value system on them.
TheLegendTomWing
TheLegendTomWing
 Administrator
Philadelphia, PA
37 months ago: Denying gays the right to marry is a denial of rights too!

Also, the Catholic church is not part of the government, neither is the KKK. The government, because of the constitution is required to grant everyone equal protection under the law, so if two girls want to get married, they should be protected under the law. If the catholic church wants to deny them, fine.
TheLegendTomWing
TheLegendTomWing
 Administrator
Philadelphia, PA
37 months ago: But see you didn't address the second part, you basically proved it. You're personal values and ideals are getting in the way. What makes you think your personal beliefs trump those of gays, or polygamists?

Personally, i think they should be permitted to the legal benefits of marriage, just as we are. The biology part should be left up to biologists.
37 months ago: Wow some good stuff here. But it seems again only the hardened debaters could withstand the heat. Tom and Siempre I do appreciate you guys and I know we don't see eye to eye on this and other issues but you guys are among the few here that can present points and examine the issues in a relatively civil fashion. However so far the issue I hoped to corner has once again been pushed off the road who knows where. I am going over your comments thoroughly as the always have good information.
Anawnymoose you among others seem have blinders on which was on point I made at the very beginning of my post. I very well realized I would be called every name in the book. In fact that is the root of the situation. Instead of looking at my question and giving me the answer so many people are suggesting is "right in front of me" they immediately start throwing mud and name calling. Take a good look at your comment. This is the typical comment I have got. First you start by calling me names, of course to feel better about yourself you tone it down to "alarmist" (oh goody for me!). Next you go into your "I'm going to set this guy straight mode" and made about the most pathetic attempt I have seen to answer my question. Do you really think that was any thing close to a logical and reasonable answer? Come on this is exactly the crap I am talking about "Where is the line drawn, you ask? For the vast majority of the gay population, it's drawn at two consenting adults". That is weak. Oh and lets not forget the insinuation that all these insults are hurting me some how. That must make you feel better because I have said from the beginning to bring it on. It is the race to insult which seems to have got this question lost in the wake. And finally you continue to throw mud at me and some how indicate I am with holding insurance and adoptions and for all I know starving children and burning homes in Africa, blah blah blah.
37 months ago: Anawnymoose I hate to just pick on you when there are so many to choose from but You and all your counter parts give me this greater than tho attitude and some lame answer if any, of course the mandatory name calling and some how feel like you did your part. Do you not realize that all this does is to solidify my position. We have some of the great debaters here. Siempre and TheLegendTom Wing do not agree with me on this and that is fine. Coloranter vehemently disagrees with me and that is fine as well. But even with these and other great debaters on RR my question still stands. I can't get much more out of Siempre and Tom though bless they're hearts they still try. Coloranter has just decided not to play anymore which understanding how many times we have been throw this I don't say I blame him. But my argument is still rock solid and for all the people who pass throw acting as if it is so simple non have giving good rational reason to me.
Am I asking for trouble YES but even when I pick a fight and get gangs with clubs all around me I still am the last one standing. So unless you or anyone can give me a good answer then it is a fact that I have a legitimate case and I am the winner here.
37 months ago: Once again a simple question here and a simple answer please, "when marriage is no longer defined by any preconceived idea of what marriage is by any person, group or even nature its self, how will it be kept in the bounds of straight and gay marriages only". And to TRY and eliminate as much crappy nonsense as possible you must be thinking as a lawyer here not a protester holding up a sign. If it is such a simple matter here then there should be little trouble here putting me in my place right? And if this doesn't work all you lemon heads can just go cry about it because I will be the winner here. If I can't "pick" a fight, get savagely attacked and still end up the last man standing then I'm done and I won.
37 months ago: Oh and by winning I mean. When gay marriage is legalized the polygamist will challenge the law and eventually win. And when we have polygamy and gay marriage both legal the scenario I portrayed very well "may" (as I said in my post)be what we see in the future. So all you nay sayers will just have to go suck an egg.
37 months ago: Tom I just noticed a point you made going back over the comments (regarding the Rwanda comment) and would like to address it for my part. I am not saying we should deny gays the right to marry. In fact you can see here there are so many people here grabbing the ol torch and pitchfork to commit Harry-Carry on me that my point is being made quite well in that know one is paying attention to the issue. I'm saying has there been any real debating on what will happen after gay marriage becomes law. And unless someone has an answer to my question then the scenario I portrayed may in fact come to be i.e. men can marry men and it is legal to marry multiple partners thus it is also legal for five men to marry. Is it an extreme example yes but anyone who does not believe that it is exactly what will happen sooner or later under those marriage laws has lived a to sheltered life.
37 months ago: Siempre you do understand what I am getting at, I wish you had an answer for me but I am glad at least one person understands. Though I think Tom understands but he is just pretty much like whatever the law says. Coloranter I think just does not want to admit defeat so he is either playing like he doesn't understand or he is so far removed from reason on this that he really doesn't. Either way he has already put his time in on this before and the outcome was pretty much the same. I do want to thank you guys though. I was and still am hoping to get a fresh angle on this though it is beginning to look hopeless. What is sad for me is that if I win here I am actually still loosing as I was hoping "someone" could prove me wrong.
Matthew
Matthew
Los Angeles, CA
37 months ago: Fine, fine, fine. If you really want someone to stick a fork in this issue for you, I will. As I said, you're last paragraph doesn't really have any meat in it so let's just take this as an issue of:

Can gay marriage lead to polygamy?

The immediate legal problems involve inheritorship and logistics. We do not have any legal procedures in place to handle estate issues like this. What if a patriarchal head of household dies and leaves no will. How will the courts decide how to disribute the wealth? Could this be seen as an undue burden on the courts that is fair to monogamously-coupled and singled citizens? How will the rights of the spouse be upheld should the patriarchal or matriarchal head of household decide to take a new wife/husband? These are all logistical problems that polygamy supports will have to address before they can move forward.
Matthew
Matthew
Los Angeles, CA
37 months ago: But wait, there's so much more. Using the slippery slope analogy, how could you grant a polygamous marriage to 3 people, but not grant it to say 1,000? This is why the courts and legislature have some IMMEDIATE legal merit to denying polygamy.

They also have adultery laws. Jakarta, go back to the polygamy website and notice how the articles section keeps talking about Lawrence V. Texas. While that case had NOTHING to do with gay marriage (by itself), the core of the case said that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home cannot be regulated by the government and so decency laws such as sodomy, violated the U.S. Constitution.

There are still adultery laws on the books in some states, both civil and criminal, and although no one is getting arrested in this day and age, it allows a court to come to a reasonable conclusion that since the government can limit married persons sexual behavior to only those in the marriage contract, it gives them jurisprudence to limit polyamorous and polygamous relationships.

The Lawrence case provides polygamy supporters with some real ammo to challenge adultery laws. If the government cannot intrude in others private lives, how can they possibly have a right to limit an individual's choice of sexual partners whether or not they are married?

Once you get adultery off the books, polyamory becomes completely legal. One man can have one wife, but as many non-legal concubines as he wants. That's the stepping stone that would lead to polygamy, that's the reason the polygamy website lists the case, and that's the real threat of Lawrence, but these challenges will come about with or without gay marriage, especially considering that most polygamists involve heterosexual relationships.
Matthew
Matthew
Los Angeles, CA
37 months ago: Now there is another legal hurdle for them to jump through, but it's more social in nature. Currently, all the anecdotal evidence we have indicates that the vast majority of polygamist relationships (that we've mostly seen in the news) involves a patriarchal relationship where women are relegated to second-class status and underage girls are either sexually abused or arranged into marriage at a very young age, well earlier than most citizens feel is ready and many times, even before the legal age of consent in that particular state.

Polygamy supporters have to somehow change public perception and provide hard evidence that this will not be the norm or the goverment has every right, and many would argue this would be considered a "compelling reason" for a state to limit marriage to only two parties, which would also hold up to strict scutiny, something gay marriage was not able to do.
Matthew
Matthew
Los Angeles, CA
37 months ago: And lastly, let me put the nail in the coffin; the Gay Rights Movement. In order to accept that gay marriage will somehow immediately lead to polygamy, one must believe that this occured merely by judicial or legislative fiat; like someone flipped a light switch one day and decided that gays were okay and they should get married. However that is not the story of gay marriage at all.

Up until the late sixties and early seventies. Gays and lesbians were on about the same political footing as pedophiles and incestuous relationships. However after being harassed and bullied, one evening in New York, they decided they had enough. They took to the streets in a public outrage now known as the Stonewall Riots and started the gay rights movement. This wasn't an organized campaign, but rather a growing sentiment in the GBLT community that they should make their sexuality known and stand up to oppression. Over the decades, they made small strides in their civil rights until we get to the Lawrence case I mentioned. For any of you out there that feel homosexuality is immoral (obviously I don't), this case has done more to hurt your cause than gay marriage ever will.

However what all this should demonstrate is that gay marriage took more like 40 years to actually happen. Gays and lesbians needed to make themselves open and 'out' and start to gain sympathizers to see any real political progress on their issues.
Matthew
Matthew
Los Angeles, CA
37 months ago: So then, where would polygamy supporters be in that time line? Well prior 1960's since they don't even have a Stonewall yet. In other words, they stay in the dark, probably out of fear of societal and possible criminal backlash. Polygamists have their work cut out for them if they want to receive legal recognition for their union.

I'm pretty sure I'm missing an arugment or two, but hopefully that will give EVERYONE here enough reason to understand that gay marriage isn't a slippery slope to polygamy. On another day, I will explain how it COULD pave the way for incestuous relationships but that's another story for another day.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: Jak: Ok, ok, ok.
First of all, your scenario of what "could happen" as if to imply that because it could happen we've got to stop all this gay marriage stuff is the most convoluted method of arguing that Gay Marriage should not be allowed I've ever read. I read your scenario with a heavy heart because it is a twisted and deranged example. Quite honestly, there is nothing really to stop any of that scenario right now. We're all too aware of the polygamist cult that was broken up in Texas right? Despite our laws, you really cannot prevent very sick people from doing very sick things. The idea that you believe that legalizing Gay Marriage would or could lead to something like your scenario is frankly preposterous. It's also not a logical reason to ban anything. Any creative person is capable of weaving a scenario like yours about anything. If your scenario were to ever happen, laws against child abuse would come into play. Laws which allow men and women to marry have not encouraged them to set up day care centers so they can molest children, but there are at least three nationally famous instances of this happening. Your choice to argue this scenario as justification for preventing Gay Marriage is, quite simply, erroneous. It's no different that the people who say "once we allow gay people to marry, people will want to start marrying their cow". Yeah, there are already people who want to marry their livestock. But, comparing gay marriage to bestiality is like comparing straight marriage to Catholic Priest Pedophilia.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: Siempre, I'm your pal, dude, but I'm going to rewrite your paragraph to show you how 'off-putting' what you wrote is...

"There is no such thing as a heterosexual person. There are people who participate in heterosexual acts. Heterosexuality is not a type of person such as black, white, male, female. Heterosexuality is a behavior. It is a sexual behavior."

There. See what I mean. Everything you wrote in that statement applies to heterosexuality or it doesn't apply to homosexuality, you take your pick. I'm guessing when you were 5 years old, you thought the little girl with pigtails was cute. Well, you're not gay. If you were, you might have thought she was cute, but more of in a best friend kind of way. Gay people are gay, Siempre, and the moment you accept that, a light bulb will go on.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: Next up, you wrote this, "A behavior that uses a person's sexual organs in a way that is not according to natural Darwinian laws of natural selection. Homosexuality is not a natural behavior by any stretch of the imagination."
Here, again, Buddy, my degree in Biology rears its ugly head. But, sorry, you are totally, 100% incorrect on this one. Homosexuality most certainly does use the organs in a way that is biologically productive. I'm sure you've seen two male dogs going at it which is the most common example. Prevailing theory is that homosexuality rises in mammalian populations that are growing too big as a natural way of ensuring unsuccessful matings and limiting the population growth. There are now defined genes and a growing body of genetic evidence that homosexuality is genetic in origin and is actually more complicated in the genetic basis than is one's skin color.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: Siempre, calling a person a deviant is an insult. Period. Whether meant as an insult or not, and you know it.

"Any sexual act that is not conducive to reproduction is in essence deviant sexual behavior." By your own definition of deviance, using any kind of birth control then is deviant because it is not conducive to reproduction.

Likewise, you've always hinged your argument on reproduction, but you don't counter the claim that then people who are infertile, therefore must never be able to marry. Also, I'm pretty sure that most people are going to jump in on the argument that sex is only for reproduction, but I don't know.


TheLegendTomWing
TheLegendTomWing
 Administrator
Philadelphia, PA
37 months ago: Also, i would take Coloranter's point a bit farther, if you ban gays the right to marry based on the lone fact that it doesn't produce offspring, hence "unnatural," you would also have to ban heterosexuals who are infertile from getting married. For example, if a male is sterile, no one would ban him from marrying, we would just know there would be no offspring.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: Siempre, I turn your words around again, I find it offensive that one segment of society (Heterosexual Practitioners) want to trample and usurp the rights of another segment of society(Homosexuals).


You wrote, "Marriage should remain the legitimate right and tradition of heterosexual unions." I've already argued the "tradition" angle. There's not basis in this perceived tradition now or ever. Not on this planet at this time or ever. The 'tradition' you subscribe is actually a relatively recent phenomenon. Moreover, the 'marrying' tradition in the sense of it having anything to do with a church is also very recent in human history.

You wrote: "It is demeaning to the rite itself and to the people who hold it in high regards to transform it into a free for all for any group of people that want to involve themselves in sexual acts." Why? And wasn't this the same argument utilized by racists throughout American history? Wasn't it demeaning to the church, the concept of marriage, and the sanctity of all that we know to allow a white woman to marry a black man?
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: Where does it stop? How about stopping the illogical discrimination. That would be a good place to stop.

It's so funny and ironic that these same claims against the "liberalizing" of America were raised throughout the civil rights movement as well as the women's movement. Once you give them the right to vote, well, all h-e-double-hockey-stick will break loose. Soon pedophiles will want to marry their children and brothers will want to marry their sisters, and cows will want to marry chickens, and who is going to stop them. Yes, where does it all end? It ends when Homo sapiens evolve mentally and socially to the degree we have physically and are able to distinguish between the logical and the illogical on all social issues. It used to be so rooted in our principles that a woman would not know what to do with her vote if she had one. It used to be so rooted in our principles that it made no sense to even try and educate descendants of people brought over on slave ships for what would they do with an education anyway? According to Tom Wing, it must have been rooted in Pennsylvania principles that, four generations ago, Catholics could not graduate from high school. The principles we hold so dear can fail us down the road when logic starts getting in the way. I think most of us would agree that the movements we've made have been for the better in the short and long run, even though there are still people who slight women and treat people of color as less than their equal.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: Siempre: I agree, it is engaging to debate opposite sides for a change. I do enjoy reading your thoughtful thought process. Still, I am convinced your mind can be changed on this if only I can find the right course of logic. I just haven't found it yet. I'll keep trying.

I'm back tracking a bit through your comments, and this thread has led me to wish that RantRave would allow for commenting on comments instead of just on posts as it would be a lot easier and more organized.

"Does homosexual behavior serve a valid purpose other than deviant sexual enjoyment? No it does not!"

Dude, if you would be willing to accept that gay people can fall in love and wish to engage in the biologically induced desire to interact sexually be it kissing or any other form of interaction too graphic for this site, then it most certainly does fulfill the same purpose for them as it does of the people are of opposite genders. Are you seriously telling me that heterosexual couples don't engage in intercourse for the sake of enjoyment? My gosh, there would be no need for anyone to have ever invented birth control. The drive to interact sexually is a different gene than the one that selects toward whom you drive, if you see what I mean.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: Siempre, I did not mean to challenge you as a logical person. I'm only challenging your logical path in your argument.

The logical justification for homosexuality is that it is a genetic predisposition that the people themselves are no more capable of controlling than a heterosexual person. I'm guessing you never found yourself drooling over a set of muscle-t wearing construction workers. In fact, the thought probably doesn't cross your mind to think that you aren't thinking about it. The same is true for gay people. The difference is that they are habitually reminded by our pent-up, puritanical culture that they are different. They are the constant butt of jokes and disparaging comments not to mention the victims of incessant stereotypes. Men are emasculated and women are butched up. One easy way to see this is via the horror a young male goes through in our culture if he doesn't live up to the macho stereotypes. Even if he is not gay, he will be so labeled and mistreated for it. He may actually do things such as having relations with a girl even though he may not be emotionally ready for it.

If you can imagine what it's like to be straight, try to imagine what it's like to be gay in this or any other intolerant culture. Gay people are just like you and me Siempre, only the opposite. They do not, at some point in time, think, "Gee, I'm gay, sign me up for abuse. Tie me to a fence in Wyoming and leave me to die."
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: I'm going to disagree. If you call someone a 'deviant' in our culture in today's vernacular, it's an insult, plain and simple. It is meant in a hateful way to imply they are horribly different. Just think about it. If I called you a deviant, would you think I meant it in the nicest possible way? Well, in this case I would, but the point is still that the term is not meant in a nice way.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: Siempre, of course homosexual acts are not traits, but being homosexual is. In our society, we have laws that protect people from discrimination based on things they cannot choose, like the color of their skin. But, even if we didn't we also have laws protecting people for things they do choose, like religion. Our declaration of independence says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Is it "happiness" to live in fear, to be the victim of hatred and discrimination, to have people telling you that you aren't worthy of the same rights and privileges as the rest of society. It doesn't say "women", but we extrapolate it to protect women. It doesn't say black or Hispanic or Asian, but we extrapolate. There is no justification that gay people should not fall under the same protection.

The time has come for Americans to get over their prejudice against gay people just as so many had to get over their prejudices against people of color.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: Siempre, Tom and I have both pointed out to you that the argument of "marriage to produce and raise children" is a shallow argument on your behalf precisely because there are many couples that marry without intention to procreate – whether they are sterile or not. I know dozens of married couples that have no children and no intention of ever having any. Is that the norm? I don't believe so. Meanwhile, I know of only a handful of couples I've ever known that are still married. Anyway, this entire notion that marriage is all about a family ought to apply equally to gay couples. Why shouldn't two loving gay men be able to marry, adopt two unwanted babies, and raise them in a loving home? Why not? Why not? Why not?

If this, for you, is all about the marriage ceremony and so on, why do you care? You likely won't be invited and if you are you can skip it. If a married gay couple moves in across the hall or street from you, then what? Are they going to flaunt their marriage in your face? New York voted to recognize marriages formed in Massachusetts. So? By New York law, they are married. M-A-R-R-I-E-D! How does this hurt you or the institution of marriage? How? Does it diminish the love you have for your wife? Or, rather, does having another loving, successful couple nearby strengthen your building or neighborhood? I'm just absolutely hard pressed to understand why it matters to anyone else.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: Siempre, a man's genital are adapted to fit, by your own admission, into a lot of things. So what? What does this have to do with allowing people the right to marry the person they love and receive the same benefits and protections of the law afforded to married couples? Are you saying Gay Marriage would be fine as long as the couple never participates in what you perceive to be deviant intercourse?
TheLegendTomWing
TheLegendTomWing
 Administrator
Philadelphia, PA
37 months ago: hmm maybe if the man's genitalia weren't intended to go into other orifices don't you think we would have evolved to have those backwards spike things like in the southwest airlines commercial? Allowing things to leave but not enter.

haha just a thought.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: I have only one word for you Wing, "ouch".
JavierMendez
JavierMendez
Arlington, VA
37 months ago: OH cut with the crappy psuedointellectual arguments, Siempre. You can try to justify your primitive, narrow-minded bigotry with a veneer of justification, but it won't inoculate people from seeing you as a bigot who harbors some very outrageous, outdated views about same-sex relationships and bisexual and gay people. The modern Western world has or is in the process of disgarding your utilitarian, primitive view of marriage as primarily biological and property-based. As we learned in law school in Family Law 101, modern societies and nations now are viewing marriage primarily in terms of affection. Hence, marriage continues to evolve in terms of definition, law, societal recognition, and approval. I credit my young generation for having an especially enlightened view of marriage and relationships that is inclusive, not discriminatory against our gay and bisexual brethren and friends. You can hold onto your primitive definitions and prejudices all you want, but society is evolving and progressing for the better, with or without you, not just in the U.S. but throughout the Western world and even in Latin America, where same-sex marriage and civil unions are also making headway. Oh, and same your fake bigoted pity. People see through it and recognize you as the bigot that you are. If you think you can call the relationships of an entire class of human beings "unnatural" just because of the gender they happen to love and bond with, then you should expect people to boldly call you a bigot troglodyte for still harboring such backward views. I have no respect for someone like you. Thankfully, I don't personally know anyone with such heinous views.
37 months ago: Wow did I ever hit the gold mine! I guess I did ask for it didn’t I. Well this is a lot a material and I have been trying to absorb it but I will likely have to hit the high lights to get any kind of response on my part conducted.
First however I would like to say to you guys that have been civil and rational on this I am very grateful (I even got Coloranter back in the mix what a treat). I think Siempre hit on this way back there some where in that it is healthy to debate the issues whether we like the way they are presented or not. And to me that rang very true because here is a guy (me) begging for people to “change my mind” and for the most part I received name calling and very little attempts to see my angle in order to “be a hero” and set this guy straight with logical and rational debating. So for you guys that have stayed with it and in bounds of civility I say again thanks.
So on to the meat of the issue. Matthew, so excellent points there and precisely what I was hoping for in the form of fresh angles. I am going to have to hit these real lightly and I am sorry as there is so much great material here. I just wont be able to do all you guys input justice but it would likely take more room than we have here at RR to do that anyway so just try to forgive me on the touch and go here O.K guys.
37 months ago: Good point on the courts Matthew though I don’t think it would be that big of an issue as they split things up between children in a percentage bases now as it is I think so if there are two remaining spouses then it would be an even percentage. But good point it could be a speed bump. The rights of Patriarch/Matriarch I feel have become moot with equal rights. First we assume there is a dominate and second by saying there is a dominate and submissive in the marriage we are in fact being discriminatory. I realize we still file taxes with “head of household” but to my understanding this is for the main bread winner and the man or woman can file as head of household. Also correct on the number of spouses we could take. However again my point is “when marriage is not defined by anyone even nature its self” where will the line be drawn. Do you think under those rules the courts can say “we are not going to give you your rights because it complicates things to much”.
37 months ago: I say yes it will be a mess but there will be people saying “you cannot grant gays marriage and say our form of marriage is not a right also”. So I say mess or not it will be challenged. As for the adultery laws, I say nice twist but as you say they are outdated and will likely fall under pressure in my opinion. It is your last point however that I feel is your best one Matthew and that is basically will the polygamist have enough steam to push it all the way through. A very good question indeed. It only took one case to win at the Supreme Court to break down all the interracial laws across the states so I don’t know that it would need but a few well to do people with financial resources. However that is an excellent point as even with the aid of gay marriages beating a path there will be some opposition and there will need to be a push large enough to get it thru. I would say that is something of a variable there. Altogether some very good input Matthew. But I don’t see it as cornered quite to the extent you may feel it is. The reason being that polygamy and many other forms of alternative lifestyle will be able to go to court and say “how do you say gays have a right to marriage and yet deny us the right”. Because marriage will no longer be defined by anything.
Boy Coloranter I may be sorry I twisted your arm to get back in this. As always you have some great input. Lets see. O.K first I’ve dropped any notion of “stopping gay marriage” , what this is based on is what if any consequences are we going to deal with after gay marriage is law. Many people say there will be none and I am asking is that the truth.
37 months ago: So to save space I am not going to address any comments that imply I am trying to stop gay marriage, I am going on the presumption that sooner or later it will be and then what.
Alright saying my scenario would never happen is just as hypothetical as my saying it could so that is out. It could happen because if polygamists were to win they’re “right” to marry as they please you would then have gay and plural marriage legal. I know pedophiles are sick but I doubt they are all stupid. One pedophile could say to one of his pedophile buddies “you know if we got married we could adopt some children and have a family” and if they got a couple more buddies together the financial base would be even greater thus more children they could support and adopt. Why take chances on finding victims when they could unite and not only have the victim’s delivered but have protection by the law. Now I am know brain surgeon but I have little doubt under those circumstances it could happen. You and everyone else that has mentioned it are correct though in that it is and has been happening in heterosexual situations as well. My interest here however is will it present a new angle for the perverts to be protected by the law.
Also Coloranter I understand what you are saying about gays living in a world that it seems has know compassion for them. I am not debating that point. What I am debating is that after gay marriage comes about who else will be following them saying “you just don’t understand us and you are being prejudice as well as denying us our rights”. And how are we going to say that we are not?
37 months ago: O.K as for Siempre I have to say he has a handle on what I am getting at there is no doubt. I don’t care if we agree or disagree he knows what I am getting at and has brought some different angles on it which I am thankful for. That being said I feel he has some very solid questions and angles on this that are not quite getting flushed out as well as I would like because I am getting some glimpses on some of his thought line here but I can’t quite get it into a corner. I think I will have to study them a bit more. The one thing he has made quite an impression on me and is found somewhat as well here is that if homosexuality is not heterosexuality (which it seems they are not or we would not be debating now) then it stands to reason a gay couples union would be different than a heterosexuals union. And the fact that they are pushing so hard for marriage and not something they can call they’re own is something that concerns me a bit.
Well as I said I apologize for not doing your comments justice but just two much material. I commend you all for taking up the challenge and doing a fine job so far. I can’t say I have changed my mind because this material will keep me occupied for a while and there may be more to come. However I will say the debate is in my opinion the best method to change a persons mind and I have not seen much true debating on this which for me makes me question why. Thanks to all of you again for now. I am not attempting to end this debate I am just very grateful and honored to have all the great input from some great debaters. I will be going over this material all night.
37 months ago: Javier I will say I welcome any post as useful in some way but it is just a shame that you walk into a situation where you have the perfect opportunity to express your opinion and truly change someones mind. Yet you choose to present yourself as well as the persons you say you represent in a truly Neanderthal type manner. If you have a legitimate claim it will stand or fall with honest debate. As I said before the name calling and aggressive behavior only supports my initial question of has this issue become so emotionally charge that true debate has not taken place. I would like to see you calm down and return with some quality material. As for myself and I feel likely also Siempre the drive by's and graffiti accounts for little more than mild distraction.
37 months ago: Well after going over the comments last night I will try to sum up my take on this for anyone interested.
First I concede that gay marriage will very most likely not lead to legalized pedophilia or bestiality. I feel the legal hurdles are way to high and there will likely be very little support for anything of this sort. So to the gay marriage supporters I say bravo you have enlightened me.
However I still have not been given a solid answer to how gay marriage will not lead to many deviant or "alternative" life styles demanding equal rights after gay marriage takes effect. I understand Coloranters point that "deviant" could be considered an insult. But I have to side with Siempre on this as for many of you who have long ago accepted gay as being normal this may sound harsh. Many of us however are still trying to absorb and evaluate all of this and we are not throwing slurs and slang around at gays but it is still not what we perceive as "normal". Many of us are defending marriage as we know it and the gay activists are attacking what have held as being a standard. Will that change? maybe and if it does this is the process that could do it.
37 months ago: Finally I will use one of Siempre's points that I feel puts a new angle on this and brings it again into pespective. Basically he pointed out the position of the Bisexuals. If gays are given the legal "rights" to marry then certainly Bisexuals will have that right. But why should they be limited to just a "male" or "female" spouse? And if they pursue the right to have both then once again we are dealing with polygamy. And if Bisexuals have the "right" to have multiple spouses then we cannot "deny" the rights of straight people to have multiple spouses as well. So I have been told there will be to many legal issues but once every adult and consenting person has the "right" to define what marriage is for them the legal issues will melt in the face of giving everyone they're rights. Will legal incest follow others behind gay marriage? I suspect it will take some time but I believe it eventually will.
I think I have been convinced though that these new laws will not increase a pedophile's ability to commit they're crimes. As I said myself criminals will go to great lengths to hide they're crimes so I think many of you whom suggested there will be no greater risk under these circumstances are correct in that for criminals "where there is the will they will find a way" whether it is under these type laws or another.
I do not concede however that the scenario I presented could not happen. It is hypothetical yes but the potential in the documentation I presented exists and so far no one has been able to say "Jakarta this will not happen because such and such will never be circumvented to enable it to".
Maybe this could be considered a "draw". At any rate however I have enjoyed the debate and again thank all the debaters.
dotgoner
dotgoner
Hudson, OH
37 months ago: Jakarta: Excellent job. Your writing reminds me dogs barking idiotically through endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abyss of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash. I'm so pleased that blowhards like you have found a venue for your bloviation. Please continue at length with your amusingly idiotic "sky is falling" scenarios... cheers.
37 months ago: Be it what it may dotgoner I thank you for your opinion. Your attempts at eloquence I have little doubt leaves your recipients as hollow of inspiration as I suspect mine does. But none the less continue please continue to subject us to your frivolous and self centered ideals and I will do the same. Together with a multitude of egotistical and sufficiently limited rhetorical numb skulls we will build a mountain of dung of which the world will marvel at the stinch and vanity. Cheers to you also.
37 months ago: This diatribe is so off the wall that it is difficult to know where to begin.

Polygamy almost always occurs in religious contexts, in which the women are treated as mere broodmares, or chattel, subject to the will of their "husbands". An object lesson in the manner in which women are degraded, debased, and robbed of choice can be found in the treatment of 14-year old Ruby Jessop, who was forced into a “marriage” with her own step-brother in 2001. She tried to escape, but was returned to the family homestead by the authorities; she became pregnant at the age of 16, and was forced to carry the child to term. Something that nobody ever states, but which everybody knows, is that polygamy almost always involves a dynamic in which one man is “married” to several women; never does one read or hear of a case in which one woman is “married” to several men. In short, polygamy is perhaps one of the most tyrannical forms of oppression that women have ever been forced to endure – and to suggest that polygamy is similar to gay marriage, or that the legalization of gay marriage will inevitably lead to the legalization of polygamy, is profoundly disingenuous at best, and morally obscene at worst.
37 months ago: Phillip, who the heck are you to say what marriage is or is not? Just because YOU don't think of marriage as such and such way YOU demand everyone to march to the beat of YOUR drum. Prejudice self centered Neanderthals like you are the reason we cannot progress to a place where people can be free to be what nature intended them to be. If marriage does not meet YOUR expectations of heterosexual or homosexual you condemn and persecute others who don't think YOUR way. You are a polygamist hate monger and completely polygophobic. Go crawl back into your cave. Polygamist demand they're rights and backward hillbillies like you will not stop polygamists from getting they're rights!
Phillip this is the rhetoric the gay activist are using and the same rhetoric the polygamists are using. When no one defines what marriage is then who are you to say what it should or should not be. Thus in a court of law the reasoning will be if gays have a right to marry then so should polygamist. Follow the link on the side of this post. They are following in the footsteps of the gay activists.
TheLegendTomWing
TheLegendTomWing
 Administrator
Philadelphia, PA
37 months ago: Wow Jakarta, you just left yourself a big vulnerable! As for your comment, i think you missed Philip's point. Anyway, watch this:

"who the heck are you to say what marriage is or is not? Just because YOU don't think of marriage as such and such way YOU demand everyone to march to the beat of YOUR drum. Prejudice self centered rednecks like you are the reason we cannot progress to a place where people can be free... If marriage does not meet YOUR expectations of heterosexual or homosexual you condemn and persecute others who don't think YOUR way."


Perspective?


37 months ago: Well the point I was trying to make was this is exactly what polygamist will be saying (are beginning to say). Everyone who supports gay marriage now IS supporting marriage that is not defined by anyone person, group or even nature. It is hypocritical of Phillip to say gay marriage is O.K and to say a polygamist marriage is not. And what the gay activist are saying to everyone which opposes gay marriage the polygamists will soon be saying to everyone who opposes a polygamist marriage. That was may attempted point anyway.
JavierMendez
JavierMendez
Arlington, VA
37 months ago: Your "attempted point" fails to contemplate that many support same-sex marriage while not supporting polygamy because we view discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual) as invidious discrimination that must be eradicated throughout society. Many courts and jurisdictions likewise view laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation as nefarious and unjust. Laws against polygamy are at root numerical discrimination, which we don't view as odious. Further, gay people are denied the right to marry ANYONE that they naturally love and are attracted to, whereas at least would-be heterosexual polygamist can marry one person at a time that they are naturally attracted to and even serially matter over time. Gay people are totally denied the right to marry a person of their liking in a way that polygamist are not.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: Javier, I appreciate your point. It is a very good one. I totally and completely disagree with Jakarta99 on his point. Moreover, I find it a little non-compelling to raise the issue as if to say that allowing loving gay people to marry is opening a Pandora's Box. Guess what? It's not. It's righting an injustice that been perpetuated for far too long. Gay people are not in the box with polygamists and pedophiles. Sorry, but there are far more heterosexual pedophiles and polygamists than gay ones of either. So, again, they are not in the same box.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: Jakarta99: I'm starting to regret that I got back into this mess. I read your original post with a heavy heart. Then, I got back into it mostly because of Siempre's points which I felt had to be addressed from an opposing point of view. You are both passionate persons. But, then when you opened up on Philip chandler and Javier, two persons obviously new to the thread, when he never attacked you directly, I'm afraid I agree with Tom, you've shown true colors and made yourself even more vulnerable.

I don't know how else to say this but that the ideas being espoused herein on the premise of being anti-gay marriage are quite simply prejudiced, antiquated, and beneath the enlightened forum herein. As much as Javier tried to be polite at first, unfortunately, he eventually said what has needed to be said for a while, and I've been too polite to simply say so.
37 months ago: I am indeed new to this thread, but as a seasoned gay rights activist, I have a very thick skin and am not in the least bit intimidated by the fusillade to which Jakarta99 subjected me.

Nobody is born with an innate tendency to fall in love with several people simultaneously. (I do not refer to lust here – obviously, men are indeed born with an innate tendency to desire sex from as many partners as possible (male or female) – I refer here to romantic love.) This is the core difference between gay marriage and polygamous marriage. A person in a polygamous marriage at least has the opportunity to marry a partner with whom he or she is in love. In those states where gay marriage is not yet legal, a gay person does not have the opportunity to marry the partner with whom he or she is in love. This is a denial of the equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense – and it is precisely this denial that the Iowa Supreme Court recognized, unanimously, was violative of the Iowa state constitution (see Varnum v. Brien, 07-1499 (April 3, 2009)). The Iowa Supreme Court followed hard on the heels of state high courts in California, Massachusetts, and Connecticut (sadly, the California constitution was modified in November 2008 to prohibit the recognition of gay marriage; the legality of this amendment is currently the focus of ongoing litigation before the California Supreme Court).

Comparisons between gay marriage and polygamy are intrinsically flawed, for this reason.

Note that I have expressed absolutely no opinion as to the constitutionality of laws prohibiting polygamy. This is neither the time nor the place for such a discussion.

I stand by my assertion that polygamy almost always occurs in contexts in which consent is not always given, and in contexts in which women are treated as mere broodmares, subjugated by their “husbands” in the service of religious dogma and doctrine.

PHILIP CHANDLER
37 months ago: Phillip I do apologize for being rather harsh and using you to make a point. I see that at the least I went to far or did not prepare you for the point I was trying to make. Javier I also apologize if I got harsh with you as well. And though it may not excuse that harshness on my part it does seem to have brought the best out in you.
Your last point was very good. I commend you on that. Here is my response. You say that the laws against polygamist are numerical discrimination. Polygamist are now saying and will say in court that it is discrimination against they're nature. There are many many examples of successful polygamist marriages in countries that allow polygamy (very many of these in the middle east and SE Asia). Now can you or I or anyone truly say that polygamy is not "natural"? We are saying that we now know that homosexuality is natural but polygamy is not? I don't buy that and I don't think the courts will because if marriage is not defined by one man and one woman then how can we say it is not natural to have more than one spouse. Also your suggestion of serial multiple spouses would work in favor of the polygamist. Why are we allowed to have multiple spouses over time and not at the same time? This I would say the polygamist will contend is part of the problem as the laws are restricting the "natural" way in which multiple spouses should be an option.
37 months ago: Coloranter, I'm going to be "harsh" O.K. So get ready. Are you ready for my harshness?........ If it's to hot for you then just get the heck out. I know you are one of those people who really really want to be popular but this is not the popular rant so you may want leave. I am not trying to be "popular" I am looking for the truth. You brought to bear one of my short comings which was being to harsh and I have apologized. Now I will bring one of yours to bear. In our last discussion on this which Tom wrote, you equated my position to "a trick of rhetoric". Yet I provided documentation which proves that the polygamist are in fact using the same argument for they're push for "rights". So it seems we can both be wrong. I admitted I was wrong can you? I love your participation Coloranter and I have treated you with much more respect than you have reciprocated. I hope we can still be friends but please don't pull the "I'm the nice guy here everyone" bit on me O.K? I want valid comments that have substance and I have tried to address all that have been such. When a comment begins by an apparent emotional Kamikaze attack on my post I generally consider it more emotion than thought.
37 months ago: Phillip, again I apologize for being rather harsh and I am glad you came back. Believe me this the rant where only the strong survive so I commend you on you durability. In response to your comment which was more in line for what I hope for here in respect to valid substance and less opinion. You say that polygamists have the right to marry one spouse where as gays do not have the right to marry one. My point is that "after" gays get the right to marry polygamists will demand they're right to do what is "natural" for them which is to marry multiple spouses. And the fact that you pointed out which I will quote here "obviously, men are indeed born with an innate tendency to desire sex from as many partners as possible (male or female)". This is ammunition for the polygamists fight for "rights". The comments of "love" and "romance" mean zilch. Who can define what one persons "love" should or should not be. This is the entire bases of the gays fight for the right to marry so don't even think your opinion on that will count for anything. So bottom line as I see it here is that you and Javier both have made contributions to the polygamists demand for rights. Men have a natural desire to "love or have sex with, it can be considered the same thing since they are not scientifically inseparable". And we already practice a form of polygamy in the acts of marriage and divorce so the laws need to be changed to avoid the terrible circumstances of breaking a house up. You can give your opinion on this but the polygamist will use these to they're advantage I have little doubt. And since science cannot prove that gays are born different I doubt it will be able to prove polygamists are the same as single spouse people. Next?
37 months ago: Coloranter I apologize to you as well, after I looked over my comment I don't think you deserved all that. It is frustrating to me though that the comments are that I am being ant-gay and that this is not going to open a Pandora's box etc. Yet for all this "hot" debating you guys have yet to strike down my potential situation. You can call it all you want and call me everything you want but if you cannot provide me with a valid reason why polygamy will not be able to challenge and win the right to have multiple spouses then my proposed scenario is possible. Now forgive my harshness please, but in my opinion there is a lot of self promoting, great humanitarians posting comments here about what a terrible bigot I am but doing very little to truly address my questions. So please just put up or shut up.
35 months ago: Do gays suck or is the too ugly to ask?

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.