Steve Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 I used to be against gay marriage. Not on any legal or constitutional grounds. I always admitted, even in my opposition at the time, that constitutionally they had the right and my opposition was hypocritical and partly based on my religious upbringing. I've come to terms with my own..er..ah...bigotry and now I support gay marriage. The chidlren part will take some getting used to. I've had discussions with gays over this and some have sited studies that children who were raised by gays are no more prone to becoming gay than heterosexually raised children. I'm not so sure if a little boy seeing two men kiss won't try it himself but its the risk you take. Although 'risk' is a bad term. A gay person sees two of the same sex kissing as natural as we do seeing a man and woman (Michael Jackson and any woman excepted). So for all intents and purposes I'm aboard this gay marriage train. As for beastiality, the animal doesn't have 'consent'. Yeah, the sheep may actually like it, but she (or he if its gay beastiality..yuck!!)does not have legal capacity to consent to the marriage. Sex between family members isn't illegal but marriage is and the health reasons were sited. I should know this but do not off hand as I am writing this post (and far too lazy to look it up while I'm on a roll..lol) but can a HIV infected woman pass it on in utero to her unborn child? If so, then the public health reason and the welfare of the child argument for incestuous marriages flies out the window a bit. If an HIV positive women can marry and have kids and if that child can get the virus, then should that kind of marriage be legal if the incestuous one is not? That goes for any other malady. There are genetically transmitted issues that can occur such as dwarfism, deafness, etc. that stand a fairly good chance of being passed on. I'm in no way advocating incestous marriage. If you saw my sister you'd see why I'd be against marrying ones sibling (she's put on a helluva lot of weight since marriage) but I'm looking at the fairness and equal applying of the law. However, I want to derail this thread a bit and bring up another matter. Related but not specifically about gay marriage. A point I've raised in the past. What about polygamous marriages? If two adults can marry each other why not three? Or four? Before the point is brought up, I'm not advocating the child/adult marriages that mormon off shoot sects are doing. That is illegal and immoral. However, if Jessica Alba and porn star Gauge want to be Mrs. and Mrs. Chocolat Steve, who are you all to deny them the right (and pleasure :content: )? One more, somewhat related, point. I have brought this up before but don't recall getting a response or one that satisfied me. If all of us, man, woman, black, white, gay, straight, Arsenal fans, Manchester United fans, Yankees fans, Redsox fans, are all equal under the law and have equal access, etc., then why do we have separate men's and women's restrooms if black and white restrooms and water fountains are now illegal? Why are there separate men and womens barracks in the military? If a straight soldier has to sleep, shit and shower with gay soldiers why do women get to avoid that? In '48 when the military was desegregated military higher ups said blacks and whites in the same barracks would negatively affect morale and distrupt our 'readiness'. Interestingly a similar argument was made against having openly gay servicemen and women in the '90s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Central Scrutinizer Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 HH, "What I have trouble with is the "in your face" approach by the gay organizations and whinning to the courts every time things don't go their way." Well, they are fighting for their 'rights' guaranteed under the law of our land which they have been denied for many years (due to the homophobic pressure placed on the entire country and its government by the religious zealots). Maybe they have a right to be strident and activist? And, it is their right to go to the courts if they are not getting what they are supposedly guaranteed in the constitution. The courts are supposedly the way to do this if your rights are being infringed upon, is that not so? They are 'in your face' because they are pissed off they do not have the same rights as the rest of us. And for no damn good reason except, once again, the religious fanatics have been fighting against them having their rights tooth and nail. Surveys of the citizenry show that most people do not care about this as much as the religious nutters would want us to beleive. It is not a big issue to most Americans, and most Americans think that legal 'civil unions' should be the law of the land. We are a modern society being held hostage to the dark ages religious loudmouths that want to control what you and I as citizens can do (or even think), just becuase it is against their moronic and backward religious beliefs. That, to me, is unAmerican. We are guaranteed freedom of religion, not freedom to impose our religion on others who either believe differently, or, DON'T BELIEVE at all. Except for the religious aspects brought into this I do not see the problem at all. It's all just a legality, a contract to protect all involved financially and in other ways. Equal rights and treatment for all. No different than racial rights really. The right of legal protection 'under the law'. I am not gay, not bi, but I just cannot see the harm of these people having the same rights as the rest of us when they want to join in a 'legal' marriage contract. Let them be as miserable as the rest of us married folk I say (or as happy), and let them have the same penalties and repercussions when the marriage fails, as I think the same percentage of gay marriages will fail just as hetero marriages do. It's about human relationships and nature really. Love, lust, and all that stuff that gets so many of us into a bind when the blush is off the rose, so to speak. Cent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Central Scrutinizer Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 Steve, "As for beastiality, the animal doesn't have 'consent'. Yeah, the sheep may actually like it, but she (or he if its gay beastiality..yuck!!)does not have legal capacity to consent to the marriage." Exactly. It is all about the ability for one to consent to the sex or the "marriage". Animals cannot consent, as well as children cannot consent, as they haven't the capacity to do so until they reach a certain age, an age that has been set by the people, the lawmakers of the people and agreed upon by all (the majority) of the citizens. So this argument is a bunch of baloney. And anyone with any common sense can see it as such. Cent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Central Scrutinizer Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 Steve, "Sex between family members isn't illegal" I don't know if this is true or not. It was at one time. Society has had this taboo for ages, mostly because we can see the results of this in the high rate of catastrophic genetic mutations involved, mongolism and genetic abnormalities. This is true, to a lesser degree, of even first cousins marrying and procreating. It just isn't good for the gene pool and was known even back in prehistoric times, which was why many human clans met each year - to give the young adults the opportunity to select mates that were not closely related to them. "but marriage is and the health reasons were sited. I should know this but do not off hand as I am writing this post (and far too lazy to look it up while I'm on a roll..lol) but can a HIV infected woman pass it on in utero to her unborn child?" Yes, if certain medicines are not used the child can be born HIV positive. "If so, then the public health reason and the welfare of the child argument for incestuous marriages flies out the window a bit. If an HIV positive women can marry and have kids and if that child can get the virus, then should that kind of marriage be legal if the incestuous one is not?" Good point. But we are talking about an infectious disease here, not genetics. And, there are meds now that make the likelihood of mother/child transmission much less possible. "That goes for any other malady. There are genetically transmitted issues that can occur such as dwarfism, deafness, etc. that stand a fairly good chance of being passed on." Which is being more and more easy to detect and avoid these days due to prenatal testing. In the future this will be much less likely a problem. Which is why we need the medical hard sciences and why we need to fund these scientists to help solve these problems of the human race. Most of these things will be easily avoided in the centuries to come if we only will fund these things as needed and not let the fucking nutter religious pickleheads stand in our way, like Bush and his morons did with genetic research - the 'stem cell' controversy. All brought about due to his religious convictions (much of it now a moot point anyway because of recent discoveries in this field that do not need to use stem cells from embryos). The thing is it is the religious hardcases in much of the world standing in the way of true human progress, both social and scientific progress. There was a time when many religions promoted much of the higher learning in the world, and even helped to keep mankind in a more socially acceptable state due to its strictures and laws/commandments. Religion has its place for some people still, but their fanatics need to be kept in check if we are to advance to the next stage. Now that we have the modern 'rule of law' much of religion is not needed, except for those who need the peace of their belief to get them through life, and death. Cent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh_Hoy Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 Well, they are fighting for their 'rights' Cent Well, you kind of nailed it in this sentence and one later where you called them "supposedly rights". So is it a "right" or a "supposed" right"? I say it is "supposedly" by those who wish it a right. Ultimately, state supreme courts will probably decide the issue individually. I will probably be a bit surprised if the present U.S. Supreme Court would rule anything other it is up to the individual states to decide for themselves. And whether or not those states confer the term "marriage" to a couple will not have any impact nationally, as Federal law clearly states that "marriage" is a union between a man and a wife (man and woman). Yeah, anybody can get in another's face over anything; and anybody can avail themselves of a court. No disagreement. All this "right" shit these days boggles my mind. Alleged "right" to do this, to do that, not to be subjected to this or that. I don't know who the fuck thinks up these supposed rights. You gotta rewrite the Constitution/Amendments to get to most of em. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Central Scrutinizer Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 Hugh, "They really do come off as a bunch as pansies." Well, many of them are pansies aren't they? :nahnah: But I'd love to see what you would do if you were denied your right to marry whomever you chose to marry. How pansyish would you get if the government decided that you could not marry the woman of your choice (being as you are a heterosexual). Would you fight for your rights? Or just let the religious nuts, bigots and racists tell you that even though you love, say, a Thai woman, that this is wrong and disgusting and that they/we will not let you have your choice of happiness in the mate of your choice. Would you take it to court? Be a strident activist trying to change this shabby racist law? Just how much of a pansy are you, Hugh? And, if you were gay - let's just imagine for a moment - would you fight for your rights? The rights already guaranteed under our constitution that you are being denied for whatever flimsy and backwards reasons? Would you? Or would you just go into your closet and secretly see your love in secret because others tell you you are a sick and perverted fucker to want to marry some Asian woman (or the man of your choice) that is totally different from you and yours (in their minds at least)? What would you do, brother? Fight? Or bend over? We are supposedly a free people, with inalienable rights and the rule of law to protect us against these sort of racist and bigoted thinking people who would impose their restrictions on you, a free man, on us. I don't know about you, but I'd be fighting like hell to regain what is rightfully mine to begin with. JMHO. Cent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Central Scrutinizer Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 Hugh, Last post here. Hopefully others will chime in so we can see what others think. "Well, you kind of nailed it in this sentence and one later where you called them "supposedly rights". So is it a "right" or a "supposedly a right"?" Actually I was using 'supposedly' in a sarcastic manner. Sorry, hard to convey that in just text. I believe these are rights we all have as Americans. The founding fathers may not have had this sort of thing in mind when they wrote the constitution, but what they wrote I beleive covers it all when one considers it is all about freedom and the right to the pursuit of happiness and living in a free society of free people. It is a marvelous document that covers it all I think, even the future they could not possibly foresee of their newly free nation. Cent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh_Hoy Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 I don't think anybody has legislated any prohibition against fudge packers from anything other than using the term "marriage" in describing a relationship. Simple laws (maybe one or two sentences) could probably be easily passed if they just said that "civil unions" confer all rights and responsibilities as those who are "married". (words to the effect.) So, instead of applying for a "marriage license", the bashful couple could apply for a "civil union" license. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lazyphil Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 animals dont have consent?.....we had a springer spanial called sally who would try and mount your leg--i'm sure to a willing 'animal lover' would have been more than welcome, but alas they are still in the cupboard wanting to 'out'!......they'll get their day just as the turd burglers have! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 I'm pretty sure if you have a uporn video of yourself banging your sister you can't go to jail. Possibly some statutory laws still on the books in some states, but generally speaking, I don't think you can go to jail or be prosecuted over the sex. With regards to the genetic mutation issue. I do agree with the law. I would be opposed to incestuous marriages on all grounds. However, despite medical advances under some circumstances certain things do get transferred in pregnancy. There are even some militant deaf groups and couples who actually want a deaf child and forego any medical testing that removes or vastly reduces the chances of a deaf child being born. Should they be allowed to 'not' take precautions? I forgot her name, but there was a tv news woman here with a genetic mutation that left her hand misfigured. Its a genetic desease and can be passed on to the child. The desease can leave appendages misfigured. She has had children. We have seen stories of people who risk deformity and desease in children because they want kids bad enough and think its a risk worth taking. There is still no law against that as far as I know. Even if there is a fairly certain degree of certainty something 'wrong' will happen. I am not sure of the degree of certain that mongoloidism or hemophelia (common occurance with royals from inbreeding, Nicholas II of Russia the last well known occurance) will occur as a result of an incestous pregnancy but I would be interested to know if the chances are comparable to some of the things I've mentioned. Again, not an advocating any sort of legaliztion but addressing the fairness doctrine. My male/female social separation (restrooms, military barracs) question is also interesting I think as it directly addresses equality under the law as well as the 'separate but equal' reason segregationists used against blacks but was struck down as unconsitutional in the '50s. Wouldn't the same argument apply to the separation of sexes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.