|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5847 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: First Gay marriage, then Polygamy (its happening!) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2520 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Perhaps you missed the OP. I just showed that more than two adults entering a contract is the same as two adults entering a contract. This is not to mention that we have many examples of this outside of marriage, for example a business can have many partners or just two, or you can have contracts with many credit card companies, or just one. Disprove. No need, you made my point for me. Polygamy is not closer related to homosexual marriage than it is to heterosexual marraige.
And I explain to you that minors can and do get married all over the place (including the US) and you repeat your original assertion that minors can't willingly enter into contracts without ever dealing with my explanation I am dealing specifically with the US. I don't care about other cultures systems since I can't vote there. Yes, minors do marry in the US - with parental consent. So, just like a child actor who's signing onto a TV show, they can not enter into the contract themselves. They have to have an adult who is responsible for them sign the contract. Do I think that parents of 16 year olds should allow their daughter to marry? No. But, that's a State issue and a contract issue. I'll leave it up to the local courts / governments.
If you want me to have an interest in your posts, deal with what is being shown to you. You have yet to answer the original question from your original theory - Does Gay Marriage lead to Polygamy? You've show that in one country they have gay marriage and they also have polygamy. And in this case, I believe gay polygamy. But where is the causation? There are pleny of places without gay marriage and with polygamy. You are drawing false conclusions. Start "showing me" stuff and I'll deal with it. But this homophobic retoric you are spewing doesn't come close to fact.
Within the world the lowest age of marriage (IIRC) is 9, and I trust we agree that that is a minor? What they cannot do is get married without consent of the parents. Should have finished reading your post before I hit reply. Why are you mad that I am not answering you posts? You are doing an excellent job of defeating your own points all by yourself. Do very young children get married in different cultures around the world? Sure. Do we care? Not for this discussion. The legal age of consent in the Rainforest is probably very different than in Manhattan. Also, what's meant by "marriage" is very different. Stick to the US, where we both have a solid foundation in the legal system, where we can both vote, where you are trying to show that allowing gays to marry will allow cats to marry parrots.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2520 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
The point is that if gay marriage is allowed, legal reasons for preventing polygamy are undercut and it would have to be allowed as well. Let's assume this is true. Who cares? Are you afraid you are going to be forced into a polygamist marriage? Do you think that polygamy is wrong? Care to give some reasons for that thought?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5847 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Let's assume this is true Logically it is true, but that never stopped a nation from going ahead and doing something illogical.
Do you think that polygamy is wrong? Care to give some reasons for that thought? You couldn't tell from my OP that I am for polygamous marriage? holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5847 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I am dealing specifically with the US... Yes, minors do marry in the US - with parental consent. That's what I said, and why the question of minors marrying is vastly different than animals... or gays or polygamists. It can't be on the slippery slope, beyond lowering still further the age at which people can marry.
original question from your original theory - Does Gay Marriage lead to Polygamy? That wasn't my theory and I hope we've straightened it out by this point.
But this homophobic retoric you are spewing doesn't come close to fact. Your a troll right? I don't understand what you are talking about. I am for gay marriage and for polygamous marriage. Although I am not gay, I do have sex with guys from time to time (meaning I'm bi). Where was the homophobia?
Do very young children get married in different cultures around the world? Sure. Do we care? Not for this discussion. Given that this is my thread and my OP, I have no idea what "we" is dictating what is part of this discussion. As it stands we DO care what goes in the world as US citizens. Or do gay rights advocates not point to what is allowed outside the US in order to suggest what we can have in the US? But lets say it doesn't matter at all, the minor thing is within the US as well and I said so. I am saying that is NOT a part of the slippery slope because we already have it.
where you are trying to show that allowing gays to marry will allow cats to marry parrots. Troll. You gotta be a troll. You honestly can't figure out that I am in support of gay marriage as well as polygamy? And while I do believe logically one should lead to the other as far as rights go, it will not lead to "cats marry parrots"? Unimpressive comprehension skills. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3851 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: Okay, fair enough. I see (and agree with) your point.
quote: Apparently it doesn't, and is a weak slippery-slope argument. This message has been edited by gene90, 10-03-2005 06:31 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2520 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Your a troll right? I don't understand what you are talking about. I am for gay marriage and for polygamous marriage. Now I think we are both confused. Because I think we are in 100% agreement on these issues. What are we arguing about?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5847 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
What are we arguing about? Heheheh... you tell me. My guess would be your misreading of my position, though I guess that has been settled. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bkelly Inactive Member |
holmes writes: Unless polygamous people will get married and then divorced all at once, yet demand different procedures for each partner? That gave me a thought. A marriage of four going through divorce might be easier than two. If three people say the fourth is behaving badly, that is stronger evidence than when two say each other is behaving badly. Of course, that could be three people being vindictive, but that happens anyway and represents no change.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lizard Breath Member (Idle past 6723 days) Posts: 376 Joined: |
Hi Jacen. Sorry I've taken so long to answer back. Events in the Gulf Coast region and in Iraq have been keeping me very busy. I actually damn near got my ass killed down in the Gulf the day that the hurricane hit Texas. It's sometimes safer in the middle east then in the U.S.
According to you, psychological experiments have shown that it is more natural for men to not be in physical contacts with each other but it is natural for women to be close to each other. Even though you didn't say it out loud, your past comments have indicated that you thought homosexuality was unnatural and, perhaps, even wrong. Just from the natural perspective, men normally tend to tense up when they are touched by another man. It's a proven natural reaction for men to tense and flex when another man reaches out and touches them. It is going way against the norm whan a man somehow gets is circuits cross wired and somehow wants to be touched by anouther man, let alone to be held by one. On the battlefield, when a close friend goes down it is quite common for another soldier to hold them but that is in a protective comradare bondsmanship relationship. Deffineitly no romance or sexual anything in it thouogh. So for a man to want to have himself held in an intimate passionate lip lock embrace with another man and have his junk spammed by another dude is way out of bounds from the natural perspective as how men are wired. From a Biblical perspective, it is an abomination before the Creator. According to the Bible, whenever 2 humans bond in sexual intercourse, there is a merging of the spirits which is why anything outside of a monogomous man/woman marriage relationship is an invitation for trouble and sadness. So to have two men bonding with each other in this way is just creating all kinds of twisted craziness within the wiring of God's handywork. Since we will probably never understand the wiring schematics of the human brain, reinforcing corrupted software with corrupted behavior is just accelerating the degeneration of these people. According to the Bible, we all have the same sin nature. It's not the sins that make us bad. It is the sin nature in all of us. So instead of dealing with the sin nature, some choose to celebrate the sin and since we don't understand the machine which is the human soul, we end up with twisted thinking that homosexuality is every bit as normal. Well it is because it is sin, but not because it is correct or morally right, but once you get rid of Biblical morality and replace it with human wisdom, you get the worst of human behavior being thrust on the planet as liberty and freedom.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
Lizard Breath:
quote: That's an assertion. You claim it's been proved. Let's see the proof. There's no point in even a casual glance at whatever other nonsense you've put forth in your post until you provide this proof you talk about. "We look forward to hearing your vision, so we can more better do our job. That's what I'm telling you."-George W. Bush, Gulfport, Miss., Sept. 20, 2005.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lizard Breath Member (Idle past 6723 days) Posts: 376 Joined: |
Of course, that could be three people being vindictive, but that happens anyway and represents no change. That would be a very interesting theme for a good law movie. To see how the courts would handle a 5 party divorce and how to appropriate child support and visitation between all 5 parties. A bigger problem would be all the various forms of infidelity that could arise and what remedy the courts would use if some members of the 5 wanted a form of divorce but other members would rather forgive and hold all 5 together as one family unit. One of the wives might go out and have an affair but not meet with any animosity from the other 3 wives, but the husband want to dump her. The other 3 wives might contest because they really love her and don't wish to unbalance the 4 to 1 equation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
Just from the natural perspective, men normally tend to tense up when they are touched by another man. It's a proven natural reaction for men to tense and flex when another man reaches out and touches them. And just to follow up on what berberry said.. the "proof" that you supply better be cross-cultural and have explanatory mechanisms that show any behavioral traits found are not cultural. Otherwise your whole "from the natural" perspective goes down the toilet. I'll be interested to read whatever evidence you post. Thanks!Ben
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
So for a man to want to have himself held in an intimate passionate lip lock embrace with another man and have his junk spammed by another dude is way out of bounds from the natural perspective as how men are wired. I guess I don't understand what you mean by "normal." Do you mean "average"? It certainly is the case that the average man is straight, not gay. But there's no moral precept I'm aware of that says we all have to do what the majority is doing. In fact, often the opposite is valued - going against the grain, being different, etc. I mean, if we look at it your way, what else isn't "normal"? Having blond hair? Most people don't. Being caucasian isn't "normal"? Your average person isn't. Living in America isn't "normal"? Most people do not. You sound like you're appealing to some standard that exists in nature, but we know that homosexual animals exist in just about every species we've looked at, so its pretty obvious that you're simply referring to the Biblical standard when you say "natural" or "normal." Some people are straight, and when they have straight sex, that's normal. Some people are gay, and when they have gay sex, that's normal. You can't say that what gay people are doing is "contrary to nature", because the nature of a gay person is to be gay (in addition to whatever other natures they have), to be sexually attracted to the same sex. What's unnatural is a gay man having sex with a woman, for instance.
So to have two men bonding with each other in this way is just creating all kinds of twisted craziness within the wiring of God's handywork. Ah, right, but lesbians are ok. Why do the Christians always pick on the gay men? Everybody loves lesbians, that's my theory.
Well it is because it is sin, but not because it is correct or morally right, but once you get rid of Biblical morality and replace it with human wisdom, you get the worst of human behavior being thrust on the planet as liberty and freedom. Gay sex is the worst of human behavior? Silly me, I thought that was rape, or murder, or child abuse. I guess those things aren't nearly as bad as two men doin' it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lizard Breath Member (Idle past 6723 days) Posts: 376 Joined: |
That's an assertion. You claim it's been proved. Let's see the proof. Go into your local home improvement store and and grab a piece of 4x8 plywood and ask to have it cut in third's. After the guy finishes and you have it loaded onto the cart, reach out and put your hand around the top of his arm just below the deltoid and then look into his eyes and thank him. Then post us back with a description of his response. That's why men shake hands. It's a natural mechanical funtion mixed with a civilized concept of greeting. Then go into the wallpaper department and do the same thing to a woman clerk after she spends some time showing you samples for your study/den remodeling project. She may pull back, but she won't flex on you like the dude will.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Go into your local home improvement store and and grab a piece of 4x8 plywood and ask to have it cut in third's. After the guy finishes and you have it loaded onto the cart, reach out and put your hand around the top of his arm just below the deltoid and then look into his eyes and thank him. Go to France, or many Muslim countries. Be introduced to another male that you have not met before. Lean forward and kiss him on one or both cheeks. Write us back with a description of his response. Very likely, he'll simply return the gesture and think you're a pretty friendly guy ("unlike most Americans", he'll say to himself.) A fight-or-flight response physical contact with another man is not "normal"; its unique to our prudish culture. The normal response is not to react defensivly to contact that is friendly in nature.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024