The future of marriage

Given what you say here, and considering the fact that I'm single, I am clearly missing out on the "thousands of rights and legal protections" that only married people get. You have made me feel so deprived and unprotected than I'm going right down to the pancake house marry the first old lady I can find.”Hoot Mon

Please do. What's it to me, or my marriage?

Nowhere. Sure, when considering that many pedophiles are married to wives and then clandestinely lure and seduce children. NBC's "To Catch a Predator" illustrates this fact well. Unfortunately, in some states parents can give parental consent to have their kids married, even as young as 15 years of age-- something I don't agree with for a variety of reasons. Most states, though, are firm about 18 as the number of years for full emancipation from minor to adulthood. Not legally.... yet. That's the point. Its ipso facto. And if you introduce this, the next thing is an even broader interpretation of the Amendment so that, literally, anything can be manipulated as being someone's inalienable right. Right, equal protection of the law is what the Fourteenth is about. Its about basic human rights, not social institutions. You have the right not to be beat up for being gay or anything else. And under the presiding law anyone is afforded these basic rights, and no state can supersede that law per Federal law. Though I am more of a Libertarian on the matter and would like to states have less government influence than they currently do. In the case of the Fourteenth, it seems like one instance where it is a good thing and not an affront. Yes, because the lobbyists will spin their rhetoric in a way so that calling it rape will be archaic, cruel, and mean-spirited. Under the guise of "love" and "tolerance," aggressive lobbying can produce the same effects. I think you forget what life was like only 30 years ago. The vast preponderance of psychologists deemed homosexuality as a sexual disorder. Not even ten years later, through aggressive lobbying efforts, they managed to turn their entire diagnoses around concerning all previously held beliefs about homosexuality. And through light-hearted sitcoms and touching stories on the evening news, twenty more years was all it took for mainstream America to second guess themselves. I have no doubt, whatsoever, that not only can this happen with pedophilia, but that just such an endeavor is already underway and seeking the same results as homosexuality. Ah, yes, that's clearly a conservative concoction-- even though many, if not most, avowed conservatives look to biblical principles to keep them upright, and the Bible lists all the actions that constitute sexual immorality. Jesus even speaks out against the lust of eye. Well, that's absurd when considering that the liberal media has a penchant for sweeping homosexually driven rape cases under the carpet. Look no further than Jesse Dirkhising, a 13 year old boy who was sodomized, tortured, and murdered by his captors. As long as somebody is a homosexual they pretty much possess immunity from the left. And if ever they are clearly in the wrong, instead of defending the actions of the criminals, they'll just omit that information because it gives the Movement a black eye. The only time they will actually give it any attention is if they are a priest, presumably because their distaste for Christianity supersedes their praises for homosexuality. Why not just report the facts irrespective of whether or not someone is gay, straight, liberal, conservative, secular, or religious?Oh, wait a minute... That would just make way too much sense. Nevermind.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Do you believe that homosexuality is as harmful to the parties involed as pedophilia?

Including the right to suspend the legal construct of meaningful consent?How is that equal protection under the law? Why would pedophiles get to suspend other people's withholding consent, but other people can't?What I keep asking you to explain, and what you seem completely unable to do, is explain how you get the right to rape a child out of "equal protection under law." I'm tired of getting a new driver's license every time I move; having to buy new insurance every time; having to deal with 50 different encyclopedia's worth of relevant tax law.I think we should cancel the states and turn nearly everything over to the federal government. What on Earth could be the purpose of so many different regulations about the same thing? What possible relevance could your geographic location have on whether or not you can marry someone? The glibertarian message just doesn't make any sense. It was the science that turned that around, not the lobbying. It was established that there was no scientific evidence that homosexuality was either a disorder or the result of abuse - that people were just gay. And you think those people were lying? You're a bigot, NJ. This is just bigoted nonsense. Let pedophiles parade and try to argue for the legitimacy of abuse and rape. We'll array their victims' testimonys and hoist them on the own petards.Like I said, the only people trying to legitimize rape are conservatives. Covered on every major news network, week after week, and dwarfed by the number of heterosexuals who abuse and murder children. And, of course, those who oppose gay rights throw this one out at every turn to somehow substantiate media complicity in "gay rights."It's nonsense. You've just offered the second-most well-known gay crime as evidence that gay crimes are under-reported?How about Mark Foley? (That would be the first I was referring to.) Ever heard of that guy? Not if you turned on a TV or opened a newspaper in the last six months.Gay crimes underreported? You're speaking nonsense.

Yeah, you keep saying this. Over and over. But you keep ignoring an important fact... that marriage is already recognized by the government as a fundamental right. No manipulation is necessary.Sex with children, on the other hand, is not. You keep saying this as well. But it's demonstrably untrue, as evidenced by Loving v. Virginia.Of course, you know this already. I can't wait to see the light-hearted sitcom about rape.Mike: Mom, the girl I had chained up in the basement broke out!
Maggie: Well, Mike, I told you to be more careful with your things.
Jason: I hope you learned a valuable lesson, son.
Mike: Aw... I love you guys.We got each other... sharing the laughter and love.---And, of course, in all this off-topic ranting, you still haven't provided a legal basis for preventing homosexuals from marrying. Whether you like the results or not is irrelevant... espcially if you've pulled those results out of your ass.Edited by Dan Carroll, : formatting

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

They do want to and they should be allowed to.The difference with polygamy is that you have to figure out how the contract is going to apply 1 to many or many to many situation. Things like custody of children, inheritance, etc are much more complicated issues legally.No such complication exists for pair bonding contracts. In order to get polygamy to work there needs to be some subsequent lawmaking to sort out the issues. The only thing holding back gay marriage is bigotry.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

I'm simply commenting on how people erroneously use the Founding Fathers as some basis for support concerning gay marriage. Well, if gay marriage advocates can use racial and anti-misogyny laws as a source, I think I should be able to use pedophilia, zoophilia, bigamy, or necrophilia as an apparent correlation as well. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Then don't introduce racial equality by the SAME premise. I mean, you are all for equality aren't you? Its only fair that I'm afforded the same rights as you to draw analogies. Its the same thing. See, homosexuality is an action. Being born male or female, black or white, cannot be controlled by the person. You are no more born gay than someone could be born murderous. The laws are geared towards the action of a person, not the person itself. The person is protected under the law, the action is not.Now this is your chance to hijack my thread and start providing research on why homosexuality is innate and include all the people who say, "I knew I was gay by the time I was four."The reliance then come through by tugging on the heart strings. Amid the sobs, we might hear, "I'm not allowed to marry the person that I love! Its all so unfair!" Well, I couldn't marry my sister or my first cousin *shudders uncontrollably* if I wanted to, even though they are the opposite sex. They could be consenting adults, and yet, its no dice. The reason why we can't marry dogs, or siblings, or children, or members of the same sex is because it is an unnatural union that throws society in to a tizzy. There are very real sociological issues at hand here when the degradation of a society is right at the cusp. If the Supreme Court allows for gay marriage, then that's the decision they make. And per the law, they will be allowed to wed. I may not like it and will still speak out against it, but you won't see me strapping car bombs in defiance, or crashing a gay wedding ceremony screaming obscenities. If the High Court allows it then I would be in no position to subvert their ruling. Shouldn't be too hard with clever lobbyists. After all, it used to be illegal for a colored person to use the same restroom as a white person. Getting around the legality of it is all a matter of tugging on the heart strings of Americans. Correct. If that sycophant can beguile people in to believing that our bodies are nothing but a mere shell, what reason do we have not to allow it? The reason why it shouldn't be allowed would come down to a moral decision in the minds of the People, just as it is for homosexuality. You say there is no real defense for hindering gay marriage. I could say the same thing for necrophilia. Right. How dare they! The point is that the perception of "rights" can be skewed under the Fourteenth. I have now given five instances of how any one can manipulate the 14th to mean whatever they want it to mean, rather than what was legitimately intended. Then I ask what the reason is for why they want to marry at all. If its for legal reasons then a Civil Union will work just fine, and the redefining of marriage won't be necessary which would make all parties involved happy. Homosexuals get to have all their finances consolidated and be privy to visit their partners in the hospital, or what ever else, and heterosexuals can continue on with marriage as it has always been recognized.See, I believe this actually has nothing to do with marriage, in and of itself. At the heart of the issue, this is about subverting the status quo.

quote:

---

If that's the case, then a form of marriage, like a Civil Union, should suffice, right?

---

Why isn't that equal? No one can seem to actually explain it to me. Usually when I start getting bored with a topic, I just stop posting. I'm still into this one, but I'm sure after repeating myself for the umteenth time I'll eventually grow disinterested.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Of course, the only person who referred to the founding fathers here was you.The more you try to defend this, the funnier it gets. How do you figure? The differences between gay marriage and all your nonsense has been explained to you.Over. And over. And over again.Meanwhile, you don't seem to have any reason why this is different from the civil rights movement. So the comparison to racial inequality stands. Explain why it's an invalid comparison, and I'll stop.Hint: "because it'll make it harder for me to speak against gay marriage" is not a valid reason. 1) See my earlier recommendation to Hoot Mon. If being gay is a choice, then feel free to rent a gay porn. Watch it, and choose to become aroused. Then report back here about how hot you chose to let it get you.2) Nobody is born in love with a member of a different race. And yet the fourteenth amendment still struck down bans on interracial marriage. Strange. No... I think the idea of homosexuality as a choice is pretty hysterical all on its own. It's like the person stating it is telling us, in no uncertain terms, how incredibly easy it would be for them to choose to be gay. Why would I bother with heart strings? You can't even lay out a legal reason to prevent gay marriage. Great. What's your point?I ask because this has absolutely nothing to do with the phrase to which you were responding. Oh, those rotten lobbyists. Your fictional sycophant will have a much easier time beguiling people if he doesn't point out the reason why it is illegal in his opening remarks.Your point will also be much stronger. So basically, you think that if we allow gay marriage, drunk eight year olds will be cruising down the street to the polling office before you can blink.And your reasoning is that age is a basis on which we limit rights, while sexuality is not.I have never wanted to hold up a cuckoo clock that is striking midnight so badly in my life. It's for both love and legal reasons. Astonishingly, there are people in this world who can hold two whole ideas in their heads at once. What, the act of separation? Jeez, no wonder you object to comparisons to the civil rights movement. If you don't know that separate is inherently unequal, then clearly you don't know much about what went down back then.Regardless. The act of separation degrades the person being separated. It says, "you're not good enough for this, fuck off." This is why giving black people their own water fountains was unequal, even if the water fountains they had were as good as the whites-only one. It's also why making gay people settle for civil unions is unequal. No, you misunderstood. I'm bored with you. As a person. I'm judging you as a human being. Gosh, maybe you should just avoid repeating yourself.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

Please stop screaming. You're getting your frothy spittle all over my screen.You do realize that it is against the law to marry more than one consenting adult, don't you? You also realize, presumably, that it is also unlawful to marry your own siblings, even though both parties are consenting adults. Therefore, I have all the basis in the world to draw an analogy just as defenders of gay marriage have drawn analogies from anti-racial marriage and anti-misogyny cases. Am I not, sir, afforded the same rights, equally? Uh huh.. And I agree with the law on this. But surely you know that the manipulators will spin so that you and I are the heartless bastards that want to suppress the expressions of love for children. How dare we! How dare we, Jazzns! We're so awful, we're so mean, we're such bigots Jazzn's! Can't you see that? Look, I'm certainly not an advocate of any of the things I've mentioned. But its very easy to play the devil's advocate on this. Animals don't consent to any thing, let alone, sexual intercourse. And yet, we all seem to understand that feeding them well, with or without their consent, is perfectly acceptable, and yet, copulating with an animal is tantamount to animal abuse. Likewise, even a dead body would have no objections to sexual intercourse, we all seem to know that its a morally repugnant thing.And to add, there are many things that are criminal, but we all seem to be in some agreement about it. When I was mocking the attorney, there really wasn't a law for a long time about necrophilia on the books. The reason why is that it was so unimaginable that there was no need to draft a specific document about it-- that is, until people were caught in the act. And when they went to prosecute them, they were shocked to have lost the case simply because there was no law against. I'll stop using when comparisons when every one on your side of the coin does.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

While you're at it, you might as well go ahead and compare homosexuals to malicious leprechauns, who have come to steal the tasty marshmallow breakfast treat we call "marriage."It's an asinine comparison, sure. But hey... your opponents are making comparisons! Whether the comparisons your opponents make are valid or not, that means every single comparison in the world is fair game, no matter how ridiculous! Whee!

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

Well, maybe so. But you should also consider their inability to consummate their marriages. This is not trivial. Today a man or woman can annul their marriage on the basis of whether or not it was consummated. So there is a legal foundation that specifies the need for consummation, if someone chooses to invoke it. How are these gay couples going to get the job done? Court appointed surrogates?”Hoot Mon

Except for all that sex gay couples have, sure.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

Wrong.From this site: As you can see, a refusal to consummate is not grounds. The only thing that's close is impotence resulting in an inability to consummate. If neither party is impotent, then lack of consummation is as irrelevant as your own personal obsession over the matter of consummation.There is absolutely no "legal foundation that specifies the need for consummation."

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I don't really care what people do with animals or dead bodies.