Same-sex marriage allowed in Sweden as of May 1, 2009. Maine on the verge as well.

[quote name='tivo']no, tell me what's so funny. what's the difference between gay marriage and group marriage/polygamy except that gay marriage has 0% chance of creating offspring and is arguably a worse environment for raising children in?[/QUOTE]

:rofl:

PLEASE STOP BREATHING.
 
Well, fuck me. If we're going hogwild with conjecture, here, let's throw everything out the window and abuse statistics like they come from a drunken, fatherless home, shall we?

I argue that another scenario is equally as plausible as yours, tivo. If these data come from fatherless homes, and we replace fatherless homes with twice the fathers, then we'll see lower rates of suicide in homosexual households than we would in heterosexual dual-parent households.

Refute that, if you will.
 
[quote name='tivo'] Can a gay man or woman replace the role of the other gender? Possibly, but probably not as well as the real thing. Can a group of women or men replace the role of single man or woman as in polygamy? Yes, and probably even better than a single person as in traditional marriage. You can argue against this idea but that's why as I stated before, gay marriage is arguably a worse environment for raising children in compared to polygamy.



Now that I answered your comments, answer mine: What's the difference between gay marriage and group marriage/polygamy. Why don't I hear you advocating for the acknowledgment of polygamy?[/QUOTE]

You have any evidence that a gay man or woman can't replace the other gender? Personally, I don't care about polygamy either, as long as all of them are consenting adults, I have no problem with that. The problem I usually have with some polygamists is that they try to marry underage girls.
 
As long as we're making tenuous intuitive leaps...

If the real concern is protecting children and "optimal child rearing environments" a categorical denial of homosexual marriage probably isn't the best idea. Children of marriages have certain procedural protections in place to ensure their well being; however, leaving uncertain the rights and privileges of homosexual partners renders equally uncertain the status of their children. Consequently, it's unclear what legal protections they're entitled to, particularly in the event of a dissolution of such homosexual unions, making it more likely they will become wards of the state. Therefore, gay marriage bans are if anything counterproductive efforts in providing children with the security of an optimal developmental environment.

Oh, and might I add that children of anything other than a homosexual union will be left entirely unaffected either way.
 
[quote name='tivo']Reread my post. I said:



I never said that the only reason for marriage is to create and raise children. As for my claim that gay marriage is arguably a worse environment for raising children in, I base that on the common held view that children who are raised without fathers have:



And I'm guessing children without mother's don't fare any much better. Can a gay man or woman replace the role of the other gender? Possibly, but probably not as well as the real thing. Can a group of women or men replace the role of single man or woman as in polygamy? Yes, and probably even better than a single person as in traditional marriage. You can argue against this idea but that's why as I stated before, gay marriage is arguably a worse environment for raising children in compared to polygamy.



Now that I answered your comments, answer mine: What's the difference between gay marriage and group marriage/polygamy. Why don't I hear you advocating for the acknowledgment of polygamy?[/quote]

Here's a tip for you: Fatherless and broken homes do not equal gay marriage homes. If you're going to use statistics, use ones that are actually pertinent.

Have you bothered to cross-reference any of your glowing statistics to such things as race or economic status? Let's continue playing your game for a minute. Since approximately 70% of the prison population is hispanic or black, it only makes sense that only whites should be allowed to have children. After all, black men never stick around to take care of their kids, and Mexicans, well, we know how terrible they are at parenting. Since any minority kids will just become criminals, we must stop black and hispanic marriages. Who's with me?
 
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']:rofl:

Oh my god, I don't even know where to begin. Are you *really* this retarded?[/quote]
This is what I'm saying.

With the demise of slidecage, VS is clearly the main source of comedy on CAG.
 
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']:rofl:

PLEASE STOP BREATHING.[/QUOTE]

thanks for your input Kirin Lemon! [insert emoticon]

[quote name='mykevermin']Well, fuck me. If we're going hogwild with conjecture, here, let's throw everything out the window and abuse statistics like they come from a drunken, fatherless home, shall we?

I argue that another scenario is equally as plausible as yours, tivo. If these data come from fatherless homes, and we replace fatherless homes with twice the fathers, then we'll see lower rates of suicide in homosexual households than we would in heterosexual dual-parent households.

Refute that, if you will.[/QUOTE]

funny post myke. You're right. The aforementioned stats require some extrapolation to compare them to gay marriage but that's the best I could find in my 2 min google search. I couldn't find research done on the mental health of children raised by gay men or lesbians. Let me know if you have some. But I figure it usually takes a while to gather the data and the fact that most children raised by gays are adopted would probably add to the unclarity of the results. That's why it's still an argument and why I identified it as one. But I hope you understood my point. A child learns different things from each parent and there are some things better taught by a father or a mother e.g. a young girl learns from her father what she should expect from her husband and I doubt a lesbian, no matter how butch, can't teach a boy an accurate model of a man as nearly as good as a man. (before you respond I don't have scientific data to back this up- just common sense) As for polygamy, I bet these children are getting tons of attention- one of the most important psychological needs. But the superiority of child rearing environments was not intended to become an argument nor the total focus of your rebuttal. If children were completely out of the question, you should have no problem with polygamy if you don't have objections with gay marriage. (which, as i was questioning, and through the lack of response, I don't think you do.)

[quote name='docvinh']Personally, I don't care about polygamy either, as long as all of them are consenting adults, I have no problem with that. The problem I usually have with some polygamists is that they try to marry underage girls.[/QUOTE]

Thanks docvinh. That's what I wanted to hear. Finally someone addressed my question and I hope I made my point. Removing all children from the equation, those in favor of gay marriage should also be willing to accept polygamy (unless there's some reason which you all have yet to speak out upon). So let's throw polygamy on the ballots with gay marriage. Right? I could stop here and see how many promoters of gay marriage would refuse to acknowledge polygamy and point to that as hypocritical *but* ill go one step further- stay with me with. Using the same logic in which to acknowledge same sex marriage and polygamy, I one should also be willing to acknowledge posthumous marriage (marriage between dead and living), or human-animal marriage (as long as the animal isn't hurt or its animal rights aren't infringed upon.) or some other types of marriages. I mean, If its all for the happiness of the individual, and these "rights" you say everyone deserves to marry anyone they want, then you should be willing to accept these unions as well. I don't blame you if you don't because I don't think we should acknowledge same sex marriage either.
 
[quote name='tivo']
Thanks docvinh. That's what I wanted to hear. Finally someone addressed my question and I hope I made my point. Removing all children from the equation, those in favor of gay marriage should also be willing to accept polygamy (unless there's some reason which you all have yet to speak out upon). So let's throw polygamy on the ballots with gay marriage. Right? I could stop here and see how many promoters of gay marriage would refuse to acknowledge polygamy and point to that as hypocritical *but* ill go one step further- stay with me with. Using the same logic in which to acknowledge same sex marriage and polygamy, I one should also be willing to acknowledge posthumous marriage (marriage between dead and living), or human-animal marriage (as long as the animal isn't hurt or its animal rights aren't infringed upon.) or some other types of marriages. I mean, If its all for the happiness of the individual, and these "rights" you say everyone deserves to marry anyone they want, then you should be willing to accept these unions as well. I don't blame you if you don't because I don't think we should acknowledge same sex marriage either.[/quote]

Here's the problem with that argument. In the other forms of marriage you mention, at least one party of the "marriage" is unable to confirm love. Marriage is about people confirming love for each other. So from that perspective, polygamy doesn't bother me. As long as it is out of love and agreed upon by all parties, then enjoy. But in the other two you mentioned, love cannot be confirmed by all parties involved at the time of request (i.e., everyone needs to be able to say "I do" when the officiating party asks).
 
[quote name='tivo']thanks for your input Kirin Lemon! [insert emoticon]



funny post myke. You're right. The aforementioned stats require some extrapolation to compare them to gay marriage but that's the best I could find in my 2 min google search. I couldn't find research done on the mental health of children raised by gay men or lesbians. Let me know if you have some. But I figure it usually takes a while to gather the data and the fact that most children raised by gays are adopted would probably add to the unclarity of the results. That's why it's still an argument and why I identified it as one. But I hope you understood my point. A child learns different things from each parent and there are some things better taught by a father or a mother e.g. a young girl learns from her father what she should expect from her husband and I doubt a lesbian, no matter how butch, can't teach a boy an accurate model of a man as nearly as good as a man. (before you respond I don't have scientific data to back this up- just common sense) As for polygamy, I bet these children are getting tons of attention- one of the most important psychological needs. But the superiority of child rearing environments was not intended to become an argument nor the total focus of your rebuttal. If children were completely out of the question, you should have no problem with polygamy if you don't have objections with gay marriage. (which, as i was questioning, and through the lack of response, I don't think you do.)



Thanks docvinh. That's what I wanted to hear. Finally someone addressed my question and I hope I made my point. Removing all children from the equation, those in favor of gay marriage should also be willing to accept polygamy (unless there's some reason which you all have yet to speak out upon). So let's throw polygamy on the ballots with gay marriage. Right? I could stop here and see how many promoters of gay marriage would refuse to acknowledge polygamy and point to that as hypocritical *but* ill go one step further- stay with me with. Using the same logic in which to acknowledge same sex marriage and polygamy, I one should also be willing to acknowledge posthumous marriage (marriage between dead and living), or human-animal marriage (as long as the animal isn't hurt or its animal rights aren't infringed upon.) or some other types of marriages. I mean, If its all for the happiness of the individual, and these "rights" you say everyone deserves to marry anyone they want, then you should be willing to accept these unions as well. I don't blame you if you don't because I don't think we should acknowledge same sex marriage either.[/QUOTE]

Woah now. I didn't say posthumous marriage and human-animal marriage, as was said above, neither of them can give willing consent, so that argument doesn't hold water. Hey, if you hate same-sex marriage because your god tells you it's "bad", that's fine. Just say that instead of making up crazy arguments.
 
[quote name='tivo']Using the same logic in which to acknowledge same sex marriage and polygamy, I one should also be willing to acknowledge posthumous marriage (marriage between dead and living), or human-animal marriage (as long as the animal isn't hurt or its animal rights aren't infringed upon.) or some other types of marriages. I mean, If its all for the happiness of the individual, and these "rights" you say everyone deserves to marry anyone they want, then you should be willing to accept these unions as well. I don't blame you if you don't because I don't think we should acknowledge same sex marriage either.[/QUOTE]
:rofl:

NO. JUST NO. Holy fucking shit, you actually *are* that retarded!
 
Wow I think this might be the first gay centric thread where polygamy was not brought up by me.


[quote name='elprincipe'] But it is not a judge's job to legislate these away, being as they are not legislators. When judges legislate from the bench, they are acting as if they are elected politicians, yet they are not accountable to the voters to protect their impartiality. So when they do this, they damage the system they are sworn to protect.[/QUOTE]
Very quote worthy. Activist judges are arguably the single biggest engine of demise currently working against a recognizable United States of America today.

Not only are appointed (non-elected) politicians masquerading as judges running amuk, they can and do hold some of the most powerful positions in the country. Some with life term limits, no less.

[quote name='elprincipe']True, but I am unaware of any provision in the U.S. Constitution that stipulates what marriages states shall recognize. I guess you would argue under the equal protection clause with some merit, but I'm not sure that could convince a court.[/QUOTE]
You are right, which is why it's ultimately the goal to have it clearly defined and addressed on a federal level, which will eventually happen. Then the states will once again be "free" from the burden of one more decision too difficult to make for themselves.

[quote name='docvinh']You have any evidence that a gay man or woman can't replace the other gender? Personally, I don't care about polygamy either, as long as all of them are consenting adults, I have no problem with that. The problem I usually have with some polygamists is that they try to marry underage girls.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for saying that. What you are saying ultimately leads down a road to the ultimate root problem with this whole issue: government meddling.
 
I do not support marriage between the living and dead, but as linguistics research provides us insight into the nuanced meanings of guttural groans from the UNdead, well, then we might be able to glean consent.
 
^^ good replies. Again, I don't think these other marriages should be recognized and I obviously overlooked consent. It was a stretch and you both caught me on it. But what about, given the consent of the individuals involved, would you be willing to acknowledge the union of two cousins, two siblings, a father and daughter or son and mother? Because all of these relationships are as unnatural to me as same sex marriage and should not be recognized.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']You are right, which is why it's ultimately the goal to have it clearly defined and addressed on a federal level, which will eventually happen. Then the states will once again be "free" from the burden of one more decision too difficult to make for themselves.[/QUOTE]

So you'd argue Loving was improperly decided as well, then, I take it?
 
[quote name='tivo']^^ good replies. Again, I don't think these other marriages should be recognized and I obviously overlooked consent. It was a stretch and you both caught me on it. But what about, given the consent of the individuals involved, would you be willing to acknowledge the union of two cousins, two siblings, a father and daughter or son and mother? Because all of these relationships are as unnatural to me as same sex marriage and should not be recognized.[/QUOTE]

You have proven biological complications that stem from inbreeding, so that's even more disadvantageous than the inability to procreate.

I don't have arguments against polygamy - though given the way it's currently practiced in the US there are far more legal/ethical issues beyond whether or not more than 2 consenting adults should be able to be married.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You have proven biological complications that stem from inbreeding, so that's even more disadvantageous than the inability to procreate.
[/QUOTE]

Regardless, are you willing to accept them too? yes or no.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']You do know that Prop 8 was the second time this has come up, right? And both times the people of California have voted in favor of traditional marriage. It also seems like for the second time, judges will once again call those people stupid.

If Judges want to start invalidating laws, how about they invalidate election results again and again until they get what they want. Oh wait, that's exactly what they're doing here.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, and I stand by what I said.
 
[quote name='rickonker']Uh, why do progressives in this thread think polygamy is so funny? What's the problem?[/quote]

I wasn't laughing at polygamy, but tivo's false "all or nothing" dichotomy and very poorly thought out arguments.

Polygamy and gay marriage are like apples and starships. The legal complications alone are astronomical with polygamy compared to gay marriage (which would essentially be the same as it is now). It's a completely different issue that's irrelevant to any discussion about gay marriage.
 
legal complications is the difference between polygamy and gay marriage. Is that it? Is that why you stand behind gay marriage and not polygamy?

Hell, I don't want polygamy to be acknowledged nor do i want cousins, siblings, or parent/child relationships to be, but i'd rather you liberals actually be consistent and fight for allowing anyone to marry anyone.
 
[quote name='tivo']Hell, I don't want polygamy to be acknowledged nor do i want cousins, siblings, or parent/child relationships to be, but i'd rather you liberals actually be consistent and fight for allowing anyone to marry anyone.[/QUOTE]

By this logic, it's okay to breed, kill, and eat people because it's okay to breed, kill, and eat other animals. ALL OR NOTHING!!

Retard.
 
[quote name='tivo']legal complications is the difference between polygamy and gay marriage. Is that it? Is that why you stand behind gay marriage and not polygamy?[/quote]

No, that's why it's the legal complications alone that are astronomical. Not that I need to meet your particular requirements to have a good argument against polygamy or that the legal complications don't separate the two enough to make them separate issues.

[quote name='tivo']Hell, I don't want polygamy to be acknowledged nor do i want cousins, siblings, or parent/child relationships to be, but i'd rather you liberals actually be consistent and fight for allowing anyone to marry anyone.[/quote]

And then the false dichotomy.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']You know what is sad, i know a guy who shares tivo's point of view.[/quote]

I have met dozens of people that share his point of view, hell family members "think" the same way. "Where will it end?!? Will people be able to marry their pets?!?!"

[quote name='tivo']would you be willing to acknowledge the union of two cousins, two siblings, a father and daughter or son and mother? Because all of these relationships are as unnatural to me as same sex marriage and should not be recognized.[/quote]

Just because you're an idiot and think that something that is 100% natural isn't natural doesn't mean we should make laws falling your failed logical.

I think religion should be banned completely because that's the only reason not to let two adults from marrying, and religion has no place in making laws and legal agreements.

Do you give the OK for $$$$ars and crackers to marry?
 
I understand what you guys are saying; you're saying I'm retarded, its sad to have my point of view, and there are astronomical legal complications related to polygamy. i understand that. but do you all understand what i'm saying. you guys are like politicians who never address the real issue/my point.

Why not stand behind *any* consenting adults? Why do they have to be gay to have your support? Be consistent. I'll try again; A gay man should be allowed to marry a gay man, just as freely as he's able to marry his gay 2nd cousin, gay 1st cousin, gay brother, or gay father. Address that.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Those have been addressed, and you choose to ignore those answers.[/QUOTE]

Liar.
 
[quote name='rickonker']Uh, why do progressives in this thread think polygamy is so funny? What's the problem?[/quote]

I have no problem with polygamy as a theory. It sure works out nicely in sci-fi books and contemporary tv shows.

However there are some issues that plague its real-world application, notably in the area of womens rights. It probably should be legalized, but I have to admit I would be concerned about the amount of money spent regulating polygamy (as in police costs, legislation costs, costs of monitoring cult activity, etc)

And it's damn funny. Have you seen the people who actually practice it?
 
[quote name='Friend of Sonic']I'm going to marry Farmer Ned's entire stable of horses, because if they're gonna let gay marriage through, I might as well do that.[/QUOTE]

then youll divorce and well have another generation of bastard centaurs.
 
[quote name='tivo']I understand what you guys are saying; you're saying I'm retarded, its sad to have my point of view, and there are astronomical legal complications related to polygamy. i understand that. but do you all understand what i'm saying. you guys are like politicians who never address the real issue/my point.

Why not stand behind *any* consenting adults? Why do they have to be gay to have your support? Be consistent. I'll try again; A gay man should be allowed to marry a gay man, just as freely as he's able to marry his gay 2nd cousin, gay 1st cousin, gay brother, or gay father. Address that.[/quote]

They have been addressed. There are genetic/medical issues that arise from inbreeding. What part of that did you miss?
 
[quote name='tivo']
Why not stand behind *any* consenting adults? Why do they have to be gay to have your support? Be consistent. I'll try again; A gay man should be allowed to marry a gay man, just as freely as he's able to marry his gay 2nd cousin, gay 1st cousin, gay brother, or gay father. Address that.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='BigSpoonyBard']They have been addressed. There are genetic/medical issues that arise from inbreeding. What part of that did you miss?[/QUOTE]

there are problems that arise from inbreeding but, what i've asked (if you read what i've said), doesn't involve inbreeding. I'm speaking about the union of adult gay men, with the variable factor being different degrees of relatedness. no children, no inbreeding. I bring this up to undermine the whole motive to acknowledging gay marriage. You guys are NOT being fair as you all claim you are. You say anyone should be able to marry anyone but don't really believe it. How am I, or anyone like me, suppose to support that? Gay marriage is as unnatural as marriage between two brothers. You'll disagree and say that marriage between brothers shouldn't happen but why not if you allow two gay strangers to do it? Why aren't you guys fighting for them as well?
 
[quote name='tivo'] actually be consistent and fight for allowing anyone to marry anyone.[/quote]

So, does this mean I can do a real-life enactment of Lolita?

Oh, and if it's all or nothing, I vote no marriage, period. Marriage is a load of shit, religious or otherwise. No opposite-sex same-sex non-related non-incestuous non-pedophelic consented or unconsented marriage at all.

Oh, what now? Yea. How about we argue the no marriage, at all, side? Imagine how low divorce rates would be! Not to mention all the religious goofs wouldn't have sex, ever, since they can't until marriage! It would be perfect, natural selection en-masse.
 
[quote name='tivo']You say anyone should be able to marry anyone but don't really believe it.[/QUOTE]

I don't think anyone here has actually advanced that position, despite your insistence to the contrary.
 
[quote name='tivo']there are problems that arise from inbreeding but, what i've asked (if you read what i've said), doesn't involve inbreeding. I'm speaking about the union of adult gay men, with the variable factor being different degrees of relatedness. no children, no inbreeding. I bring this up to undermine the whole motive to acknowledging gay marriage. You guys are NOT being fair as you all claim you are. You say anyone should be able to marry anyone but don't really believe it. How am I, or anyone like me, suppose to support that? Gay marriage is as unnatural as marriage between two brothers. You'll disagree and say that marriage between brothers shouldn't happen but why not if you allow two gay strangers to do it? Why aren't you guys fighting for them as well?[/quote]

Still with the false dichotomy. And a strawman too!

Being pro-gay marriage doesn't necessitate being pro-every-other-conceivable-kind-of-marriage anymore than being pro-straight marriage does.

I also assume that most gay marriages wouldn't be between "strangers" any more than straight ones are - only the ones in Vegas.
 
Polygamy doesn't bother me in the slightest. Just because it's a new concept to me doesn't mean that it's totally fucked. There's always going to be the minority of weirdos in a compound somewhere just like there's going to be people like Liz Taylor who get married 15 times to ruin the sanctity of marriage.

My point is that if two loving, consenting adults in a faithful and committed relationship want to declare their partnership and love to each other in an actual marriage/wedding (ceremony, certificate, reception, and drunken honeymoon included) like every other heterosexual person is capable of and have it recognized by every last state in the union, who in the bloody hell is anyone to tell them "sorry, you can't experience the same thing I can because you suck cocks behind closed doors and it makes me feel queasy."
 
I couldn't care less who marries who. For me, what it boils down to with gay marriage is a few things. The main need for it being that there is a large portion of the population that identifies as being gay (generally believed to be around 7 to 11% of population I believe). Whether all folks like it or not, these individuals are forming couples, they are creating households, they are buying houses, they are raising children, etc. At some point it has to be acknowledged that there are significant ramifications for not accepting the bond these couples have. There is a legal need, if nothing else, for these couples to protect one another, themselves, and their children. By not allowing same sex marriage, the bar is raised on what is required of these couples to ensure the protection of themselves as a couple or in the disolution of their relationship.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']We need gay marriage so we can have gay divorce?[/quote]
Wow, you have the attention span of a Fox News correspondent. In other words, nice grab of a single blurb and ignorance of the point of my post.

No, that's not the point. The point is these couples are entering into long-term relationship decisions (i.e. children, houses, etc). Divorce is only one aspect of the need for marriage to which I was referring. Surely with an existing divorce rate in this country at 51% you can understand that yes, it is a need, but not the only need which was not indicated in my post.

If you want to focus on divorce though, let's think about what happens to children of gay couples. Since in many states, gay couples can not both be recognized as the legal parent of a child, what happens to the "non-parent" if a couple separates? They have no rights, no ability to demand time with the child they may have raised for years. They are totally dependent on the kindness of the "parent". How would straight couples like it if mothers were automatically identified as the sole parent and that the father had no custodial rights? That's one of the many issues that I was attempting to imply w/o posting a gargantuan response. Heck, to go one further, what if the disolution of their relationship was caused by the death of the "parent". What happens to the child after that, does the "non-parent" get custody? Is it good for them to be taken away from the "non-parent" that has raised them their entire life?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='GibbGA']If you want to focus on divorce though, let's think about what happens to children of gay couples. Since in many states, gay couples can not both be recognized as the legal parent of a child, what happens to the "non-parent" if a couple separates? [/quote]

How would that be resolved by recognizing gay marriage? If one party brings a piece of property into a marriage (house, car, dog, child, mutual fund), the other party has to prove he or she has performed some activity to the benefit of that property without compensation before any right of ownership should be considered.

[quote name='GibbGA']They have no rights, no ability to demand time with the child they may have raised for years. They are totally dependent on the kindness of the "parent". How would straight couples like it if mothers were automatically identified as the sole parent and that the father had no custodial rights? [/quote]

That is the starting point in "straight" divorce.

[quote name='GibbGA']That's one of the many issues that I was attempting to imply w/o posting a gargantuan response. Heck, to go one further, what if the disolution of their relationship was caused by the death of the "parent". What happens to the child after that, does the "non-parent" get custody? Is it good for them to be taken away from the "non-parent" that has raised them their entire life?[/quote]

If we're talking about a parent bringing in a child before the relationship, the parent needs to work towards completing the adoption process for the non parent before death. If we're talking about a couple "producing" a child during the relationship, both parents should be on the paperwork. If the couple lives in some backwards state that makes this impossible, the parent should leave explicit wishes for where the child(ren) end up after he or she dies, make real nice with the grandparents or adopt from some place that isn't so backwards in the first place.
 
[quote name='Magus8472'].[/QUOTE]

[quote name='SpazX']
.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='JJSP']
."[/QUOTE]

[quote name='GibbGA'].[/QUOTE]

You guys sound pro gay marriage. Now I want to hear that you guys are either also for the marriage between brothers or a reason why you aren't. I will warn you that, unless you don't honestly believe nothing is wrong with brother marriage or provide substantial reason why it is wrong, you undermine your motive for supporting gay marriage.

Here are some answers I am looking at fyi:
"I honestly believe that two brothers should be allowed to marry" -fine
"I don't believe brothers should marry but I'm pro-gay marriage" - hypocritical unless you provide reason why.
"I don't really believe in brother marriage so I must not really believe in gay marriage." - also fine

If you can answer this, I'll stop posting in this thread.
 
[quote name='GibbGA']Wow, you have the attention span of a Fox News correspondent. In other words, nice grab of a single blurb and ignorance of the point of my post.
[/quote]I love it when a new poster first encounters fatherofcaitlyn. It's like watching an unstoppable force run full-tilt at an immovable object, only to have it jump out of the way at the last second.
 
[quote name='tivo']You guys sound pro gay marriage. Now I want to hear that you guys are either also for the marriage between brothers or a reason why you aren't. I will warn you that, unless you don't honestly believe nothing is wrong with brother marriage or provide substantial reason why it is wrong, you undermine your motive for supporting gay marriage.

Here are some answers I am looking at fyi:
"I honestly believe that two brothers should be allowed to marry" -fine
"I don't believe brothers should marry but I'm pro-gay marriage" - hypocritical unless you provide reason why.
"I don't really believe in brother marriage so I must not really believe in gay marriage." - also fine

If you can answer this, I'll stop posting in this thread.[/QUOTE]
If two brothers honestly wanted to get married and went through all of the necessary counseling (that's couples counseling, not "pray the gay away" counseling), I've got no problem with it. The horrors of inbreeding don't really apply in this situation, and their relationship doesn't affect anyone unless you know them personally and even then, it doesn't really concern anyone what they do in the privacy of their own home.

I'm sure that'll get turned around now into a "if you believe two brothers can get married, why not a brother/sister, brother/tree, dog/grandpa, etc.". When you're done making circular arguments and presenting more questions than you're answering, maybe you can give some decent and substantial reasons as to why you're so against gay marriage and (circularly) homosexuality in general that go a little beyond "religion told me it's wrong" and "won't someone please think of the children!"

740.jpg
 
[quote name='tivo']You guys sound pro gay marriage. Now I want to hear that you guys are either also for the marriage between brothers or a reason why you aren't. I will warn you that, unless you don't honestly believe nothing is wrong with brother marriage or provide substantial reason why it is wrong, you undermine your motive for supporting gay marriage. [/QUOTE]

Alright, you get to frame the argument. I'll bite.

The state shouldn't be compelled to allow brother-brother marriage because it doesn't allow brother-sister marriage either. If it did, there'd be no problem.

In the larger sense, whether incestuous marriage is "right" or not is irrelevant to the present discussion. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But I don't see why it's impossible to treat gay marriage as an insular issue.

That good enough?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']How would that be resolved by recognizing gay marriage? If one party brings a piece of property into a marriage (house, car, dog, child, mutual fund), the other party has to prove he or she has performed some activity to the benefit of that property without compensation before any right of ownership should be considered.



That is the starting point in "straight" divorce.



If we're talking about a parent bringing in a child before the relationship, the parent needs to work towards completing the adoption process for the non parent before death. If we're talking about a couple "producing" a child during the relationship, both parents should be on the paperwork. If the couple lives in some backwards state that makes this impossible, the parent should leave explicit wishes for where the child(ren) end up after he or she dies, make real nice with the grandparents or adopt from some place that isn't so backwards in the first place.[/quote]

Wow, just wow. I know when I've been bested. Clearly you have lived through issues like this, and must know what it is like. Clearly, the father never has any custodial rights, as you have stated. I should let my sister's husband know about that one so he can stop paying child support and visiting with his child from a previous marriage.

Also just as clearly, I will be sure to be explicit with my desires for post-death, as it is so obvious that those desires are always accepted by relatives and the court system as the gospel. Clearly though, I will have taken the steps to kiss the ass of my in-laws and own parents in the hopes that they wont contest my desires. And clearly, I should move to a more liberal state that is concerned about my rights. And clearly, do you not see that you just made my points for me? again, just wow.
 
[quote name='tivo']You guys sound pro gay marriage. Now I want to hear that you guys are either also for the marriage between brothers or a reason why you aren't. I will warn you that, unless you don't honestly believe nothing is wrong with brother marriage or provide substantial reason why it is wrong, you undermine your motive for supporting gay marriage. [/quote]

Magus wins on this one. Just read his response, it works for me. This is about treating two gay adults that aren't related the same way that the law treats two straight adults that aren't related.

You're conflating issues because you don't have an argument.
 
[quote name='tivo']You guys sound pro gay marriage. Now I want to hear that you guys are either also for the marriage between brothers or a reason why you aren't. I will warn you that, unless you don't honestly believe nothing is wrong with brother marriage or provide substantial reason why it is wrong, you undermine your motive for supporting gay marriage.

Here are some answers I am looking at fyi:
"I honestly believe that two brothers should be allowed to marry" -fine
"I don't believe brothers should marry but I'm pro-gay marriage" - hypocritical unless you provide reason why.
"I don't really believe in brother marriage so I must not really believe in gay marriage." - also fine

If you can answer this, I'll stop posting in this thread.[/quote]

Honestly, you are asking a question that just isn't germaine to the discussion in my mind. Would it be if gay marriage would legal, yea, I suppose it would. It's just that is not the point of seeking same-sex marriage.

I wouldn't be able to really give you a clear answer on your question though, because honestly, I haven't considered it. It is just not something that I've spent any time taking into thought, as I would imagine is the case for pretty much anyone else. I'll give it a try though, but understand this is merely my thought process speaking.

I would have to think that the laws against incest are in place today because 1) it was happening and 2) the believed risk for birth abnormalities. There would probably be some degree of child abuse mixed-in there somewhere for parent/child relationships. If however, we isolate it to brother/brother or sister/sister combos, then the reason for the law as I am attempting to reason it would be left to the risk for birth defects. Since these combos can't reproduce, then all that is left is the societal "icky" factor for opposition to it. So, while I could never imagine myself doing it, I can't imagine stopping someone else from doing so.

Kind of a side question for you. If, as I've learned some believe and some studies (I have no idea to what extent their validity) has shown, sibling marriage would not be more inclined to cause birth defects in offspring, would you support it as a heterosexual marriage?
 
[quote name='GibbGA']Clearly you have lived through issues like this, and must know what it is like. [/quote]

I haven't lived through any gay marriage or gay divorce yet.

[quote name='GibbGA']Clearly, the father never has any custodial rights, as you have stated. I should let my sister's husband know about that one so he can stop paying child support and visiting with his child from a previous marriage. [/quote]

Tell your sister's husband to stop paying child support and see what happens.

The starting point of most "straight" divorces is that the father has no right to see his offspring unless he pays the mother. If I were to divorce my wife, I would need to fork over 40% of my pay to see my kids on the weekends. Joint custody? It is possible, but only if the wife allows it. The wife claims the husband beats the wife behind closed doors? The husband might get a few supervised hours with his children per week.

[quote name='GibbGA']And clearly, do you not see that you just made my points for me? again, just wow.[/quote]

Your point that I glommed onto is that gay marriage should be allowed so that gay divorce isn't so unpleasant. Well, I'm taking out my magic wand and no gay marriage. Ergo, no gay divorce exists.

...

Let's try a hypothetical: Let's say my wife goes lesbo next week. Then, she divorces me to go have sex with other women. My wife gets custody of the kids. After a few months, she meets her soulmate and they get married. Some time later, my wife dies. What visitation rights does her lesbian soulmate have with my kids?
 
[quote name='GibbGA']If, as I've learned some believe and some studies (I have no idea to what extent their validity) has shown, sibling marriage would not be more inclined to cause birth defects in offspring, would you support it as a heterosexual marriage?[/quote]

You need to read valid studies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top