Gay Marriage page 94

3421 posts

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Gay marriage SHOULD be legal. I am totally for it. GameCrazyKid says polygamy is illegal, but if it is so enforced than why is there a full show on TLC called sister wives? This show is about ONE man married to MORE THAN ONE WOMAN, he is married to FOUR different woman. Why does everyone look away from that fact? There is a full show on something that is illegal for crying out loud! Gay people have the right, just like anyone else to love someone. If they love their other, and they do not hit them, hurt them or do anything wrong to them, WHO ARE WE TO DENY THEIR LOVE? If gay marriage is never legalized than their love will still last, it is that GENUINE. Times are changing, so we should be able to sculpt into the changing opinions and things. Making gay marriage illegal inst going to stop people from being gay either…

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Gay marriage should be legal.

But, why stop here?

We should make polygamy legal.

We should also make marrying animals legal because if the animal consents there is nothing wrong with it.

Discuss how pro-gay marriage extremists actually believe this.

 
Flag Post

An animal cannot consent and thus cannot have any legal withstanding whatsoever. Thus, it cannot sign a marriage contract.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Huh, Jan and my posts were deleted, but not the post we were replying to… Wierd.


On another note: I find Myties’s (slightly hyppocritical) strawman laughable.

 
Flag Post

Why did the admin delete that? Because I called people out on subjective morals? Who keeps reporting everything I say?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

Why did the admin delete that?

Dunno, why don’t you ask one?

Because I called people out on subjective morals?

Execpt you didn’t, you just brought up an irrelevant statement.

Who keeps reporting everything I say?

I honestly hope you aren’t actually trying to get an answer for that.

 
Flag Post

lol I guess the Mod had to fill his daily quota.

Anyway.
I’m going to sum up some of the anti-gay marriage arguments I have heard.

1) Homosexuality is forbbiden by God.
2) Traditional marriage is between and man and a woman.
3) Adopted children of gay couples will be at a disadvantage both socially and mentally.
4) Homosexuality is unnatural.
5) Marriage is sacred…(this is basically a combination of arguments of 1 and 2)

I think that’s pretty much all that I can recall. Anyone else wish to add?

These arguments have all been refuted perviously, but if someone would like to refute them again in order, be my guest :)

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

Why did the admin delete that? Because I called people out on subjective morals? Who keeps reporting everything I say?

I don’t know about everything, but I did report that one. Yay me.

Not that it particularly matters who flags what, or why. The fact is that it is brought to an admin’s attention, and then they deemed it sufficiently inappropriate. So, no yay me.

Anyway, polygamy (and polyandry) aren’t things I’m particularly against, although I have no idea how they would extend marriage benefits and such to groups.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by marakiemmas1234:

Gay people have the right, just like anyone else to love someone. If they love their other, and they do not hit them, hurt them or do anything wrong to them, WHO ARE WE TO DENY THEIR LOVE? If gay marriage is never legalized than their love will still last, it is that GENUINE.

Although I do agree with your basic position there is one thing that should be clarified: legal marriage has nothing to do with love.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:

lol I guess the Mod had to fill his daily quota.

Anyway.
I’m going to sum up some of the anti-gay marriage arguments I have heard.

1) Homosexuality is forbidden by God.
2) Traditional marriage is between and man and a woman.
3) Adopted children of gay couples will be at a disadvantage both socially and mentally.
4) Homosexuality is unnatural.
5) Marriage is sacred…(this is basically a combination of arguments of 1 and 2)

I think that’s pretty much all that I can recall. Anyone else wish to add?

These arguments have all been refuted previously, but if someone would like to refute them again in order, be my guest :)

Ya might toss in the ubiquitous & repugnant PEDOPHILE crap.

Originally posted by Ketsy:
Originally posted by MyTie:

Why did the admin delete that? Because I called people out on subjective morals? Who keeps reporting everything I say?

I don’t know about everything, but I did report that one. Yay me.

Not that it particularly matters who flags what, or why. The fact is that it is brought to an admin’s attention, and then they deemed it sufficiently inappropriate. So, no yay me.

Anyway, polygamy (and polyandry) aren’t things I’m particularly against, although I have no idea how they would extend marriage benefits and such to groups.

Something on marriage itself, including the ones ya mention plus group, Gay, & Lesbian….although Gay & polygyny are the only ones expanded on.

Here is All ya ever wanted to know about marriage It appears to have a bit of a “conservative bias” for “traditional” marriage. I certainly didn’t real ALL of it.

I found of particualr interest this: “The shoring up of traditional marriage is essential. Of the $150 billion a year spent on various means-tested welfare programs in
the United States, 75 percent of that money goes to single parents
and individuals in non-traditional relationships. The increasing
frequency of alternative family forms does not justify government
endorsement. The United States does not have a “welfare problem”
so much as it has a problem related to the decline of marriage.
Marriage researcher David Popenoe said that the United States is
moving in the direction of the weaker family structures of Europe
while lacking many of the welfare “safety-nets” found there, and
that the negative effects of marital decline on children will likely be
heightened in America.”

An even better ‘All ya ever wanted to know….’
I found of particualr interest concerning group marriage:
“Group marriage also known as multi-lateral marriage, is a form of polyamory in which more than two persons form a family unit, with all the members of the group marriage being considered to be married to all the other members of the group marriage, and all members of the marriage share parental responsibility for any children arising from the marriage.81 No country legally condones group marriages, neither under the law nor as a common law marriage, but historically it has been practiced by some cultures of Polynesia, Asia, Papua New Guinea and the Americas – as well as in some intentional communities and alternative subcultures.”

So, vika….YOU are a “naughty girl”…..lol

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

So, vika….YOU are a “naughty girl”…..lol

Most of what we do as a group is not considered a legal type by any western nation. Hence why my partner and I aren’t married by local law. Everyone we interact with who matters to us, recognises His status, and mine, respectively.

One day it would be nice for it to be legal, but it would set a dangerous precedent for our type of relationship to be recognised by any western power – we need a nation of our own that is just solely for our type of lifestyle.

 
Flag Post

^ holy molely

What is going on up there? :)

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

So, vika….YOU are a “naughty girl”…..lol

Most of what we do as a group is not considered a legal type by any western nation. Hence why my partner and I aren’t married by local law. Everyone we interact with who matters to us, recognises His status, and mine, respectively.

One day it would be nice for it to be legal, but it would set a dangerous precedent for our type of relationship to be recognised by any western power – we need a nation of our own that is just solely for our type of lifestyle.

I wonder just how much of the “repulsion” to group marriages (of most kinds) is due to the sexual aspect of them. After all, there are many, MANY other forms of group cohabitation//cofunctioning that exist….largel because of the obvious reasons of economic advantage, of social interaction (even of “deep” emotional levels), of the various shared goal orientations. I’m talking about things such as college fraterities & sororities. They often don’t even have separate rooms for individuals (in my day…frats even had “bunk rooms”) let alone different houses for members. Some military personel might still have bunk rooms, but most modern facilities have separate rooms….mostly w/ 2 to a room. But, there is a common mess…usually not in the dorm.

Speaking of dorms, colleges have dorms that—while the “integration-of-goal” isn’t the same as the Greeks—have large numbers of ppl living together as a means of economic savings and a level of comradery involving similar goals of obtaining higher education (maybe sharing studies “in house”).

I just think it is the whole SEX THING that is the greatest objection by society to multiple-ppl unions. Look at what Mormonism faced//yet faces.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:

^ holy molely

What is going on up there? :)

Orgies, man…really “fun” orgies. LOL
 
Flag Post

I wonder just how much of the “repulsion” to group marriages (of most kinds) is due to the sexual aspect of them.

In our case, it’s not that group co-habitation is the norm (because it is 2-3 is the usual number of partners, though up to five has been shown to work within our community – 2 men, 3 women), rather it’s our lifestyle’s casual acceptance of slavery that would cause problems if a modern nation legislated to allow it. What’s good for me, is likely to be complete hell for others, so I would prefer that aspect remained niche.

Outside of our particular system, multi-partner family units work fine. The reason most don’t like them I think, is because they take real work, real love, and cooperation by all involved in order to work. ‘Playing favorites’ is simply not going to wash.

I just think it is the whole SEX THING that is the greatest objection by society to multiple-ppl unions. Look at what Mormonism faced//yet faces.

The daft part is sex is only a small thing. An hour a day at most, assuming everyone has enough energy. There is sooo much more to it, and so many times it is so much more rewarding to have multiple close partnerships to confide in.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:

^ holy molely

What is going on up there? :)

Although I don’t know for sure, I think it’s the type of polygamous relationships portrayed in Big Love. Although a dramatization, it’s often what I think of when I try to picture how a nonconventional relationship with multiple (committed) partners might work.

 
Flag Post

Twilight, I’ve not seen the film, but discounting the total power exchange element that our particular lifestyles have, you have to truly love and care for everyone else in the triangle, or quad, or whatever. No secrets, no attempt at playing one off against the other. Be there when needed, listen when needed, tell them everything on your mind.

It makes a lot of things easier, and some things harder, but it does work. Works well more often than not.

 
Flag Post

It’s not a film but an HBO series, and I thought it had a lot of good characterizations. Someone’s initial impression would be, “How can they share their husband like that?” but sex and fidelity was really the very least of their problems. They were in a blended household, integrating into society, helping raise each other’s children, both bickering and emotionally supporting each other, and acting very much like sister-wives. It was a really great series, I’d recommend checking it out. I need to catch up on it; my understanding is that it just ended (in 2011).

 
Flag Post

Well, I know this is completely off-topic now, but I admire people that can actually make a multiple-partner relationship work.
I know this is hypocritical, I don’t mind having multiple girlfriends…but there is no way I would feel comfortable if they had another boyfriend. I guess it’s selfishness on my part, or insecurity…or human nature :)

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:

I don’t mind having multiple girlfriends…but there is no way I would feel comfortable if they had another boyfriend. I guess it’s selfishness on my part, or insecurity…or human nature :)

Insecurity on your part – you have no faith that she’ll be with you after being with him and being able to compare directly.

On my side of things, Twilight is quite correct. It works if you and her are sisters, closer than blood. I have complete faith in her to always do the best by him, and she likewise knows I will. There’s no competition.

 
Flag Post

Insecurity on your part – you have no faith that she’ll be with you after being with him and being able to compare directly.
On my side of things, Twilight is quite correct. It works if you and her are sisters, closer than blood. I have complete faith in her to always do the best by him, and she likewise knows I will. There’s no competition.

I am not entirely sure Vika. I’ve had a few alternative relationships under different stripes. You feel there is no instinctual bias towards sexual exclusivity? Or, particularly, in men? I am not making an appeal to this justifying, or making necessary any given relationship – but there have been times, as Flabby suggested, where I felt I was fighting “human nature”. I think in lesser or greater amounts there is a strong bias towards dominion over reproductive partners, in the same manner as one gets hungry. It’s a weird feeling, deeply irrational at times.

 
Flag Post

I can’t really answer that Ung. Not having the right wiring as it were, i’m approaching things from the other angle. I’m submissive to him, always, as is no surprise given the paticulars of our relationship lifestyle, so that could line up with what you are talking about.

But by the same token you have people like Silver (yes, that’s her real name, weird parents, don’t ask) who ‘owns’ two kajirii (lifestyle term for owned adult males), in that they are completely subservient to her. Which is the opposite of what you are describing.

So like so much in the human sexual systems, it is very likely a sliding scale,with different individuals at different points.