you're right. it doesn't fit. and genetics doesn't explain bisexuality. maybe there's an: any port in a storm gene. if they stopped trying to justify their lifestyle and keep their sex lives to themselves like everyone else; the problem would be solved.
The problem with that is that people like you don't realize how much sex is a part of our culture. It's been the case for so long that people don't even notice it. Using (heterosexual)sex to sell products has become the norm, so much so that you aren't even consciously aware of it. You only notice the use of sex as a tool when it's gay sex, then it's "everywhere you look" and "being thrown in your face".
Also, in regards to the discussion on anal sex, it seems to me that the people who talk about this part of homosexuality the most are those who criticize homosexuals. Certain Republican politicians, religious types, etc., seem to be downright obsesssed with anal sex. They talk about it a hell of a lot more than gay people do.
"Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
I won't say you are puting words in my mouth (at least not intentionally), but you are definitely misunderstanding me. Marriage and family go hand in hand. The family begins with marriage, and there is no denying that when mariage suffers, so does the family. I never said family was less important than marriage. I don't see how allowing gay marriage would, IN GENERAL, benefit the decaying respect for marriage OR the family.
I guess I just don't understand how allowing gay marriage would diminish respect for the institution of marriage. So many people already believe it's outdated and irrelevant ... I think it's sort of encouraging that there is a large group of people clamoring for the right to make a lifelong commitment to one another.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Hey man, I don't know what god thinks. But I know he is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent so when he referred to gay sex as sodomy, I'm sure he knew about the future existance of lube and birth control.
Anyway, I don't give a shit. I just think it's a mental disorder, I could care less what god thinks about it.
some old white guys did...in an attempt to control humans and for sure control their sexuality.....and it was affective...thousands of years later people are still reading and practicing by it....genius.
Im not sure I really buy that "genetics as the cause of homosexuality" thing in all cases. Sure, it may explain some cases but...I don't know.
I have nothing against gay people...but I'm totally against promoting homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle path to take for our younger generation. Acceptance of people that are homosexual is the key...promoting gay lifestyle should not be.
And before people point fingers at bible thumpers...take a look at evolution theory...homsexuality just does'nt fit...it does'nt belong.
how'd evolution get brought up in this??? Don't worry...there will always be plenty of people having sex resulting in babies in this world..sooo many millions of "special" humans will be born.
I'd rather have the young generation know and accept homosexuality as normal and get on with our lives. Its not a choice people...just like you can't willingly change your orientation...think about it..just for a second.
I must admit, this is something I've also questioned and never quite understood. Those gay guys people often refer to as "flaming". There is no real way of explaining it to me other than its a big act. No one is that gay! It would be like extremely wealthy men all talking like Mr. Howell from Giligan's island. No one really talks like that!! Turn it down a little.
some men that are gay just have characteristic traits of women...chemical...so women dance with their hands in the air..so do gay guys....and whats wrong with how other people act...people can act and do as they feel as long as they don't assault you.....no biggy. If it offends you then who has the problem??? Cornifer this post is not directed at you per se.
Polygamy is illegal because it is against the law to have more than one spouse. Allowing gays to marry would not have any effect on the one spouse rule. It would not require us to rewrite inheritance laws, pension plans, insurance contracts, welfare policy, etc. In other words, granting equality to homosexuals is not going to upset the entire apple cart of society. If you're not gay, I doubt it would affect you at all.
i can will my estate to anyone i want. or anything i want. the state provides wic and welfare to just about anyone nowadays so that takes care of insurance. i don't know what you're referring to with pension plans????? if i have 100 wives i still get my pension and when i die the remaining becomes part of my estate.
gay marriage re-writes the laws now. why not re-write the laws to give everyone equal rights? to use an analogy; it's like when blacks were fighting for civil rights. the laws were changed to include ALL minorities. not just blacks. my having 2 wives in no way effects you in any manner; shape; or form. you're all for gay marriage yet against hetro marriage when more than 2 people are involved. why is this? i read somewhere that woman outnumber men 4 to 1. if a man can support 2 or 3 different families; why shouldn't he be allowed to?
The problem with that is that people like you don't realize how much sex is a part of our culture. It's been the case for so long that people don't even notice it. Using (heterosexual)sex to sell products has become the norm, so much so that you aren't even consciously aware of it. You only notice the use of sex as a tool when it's gay sex, then it's "everywhere you look" and "being thrown in your face".
Also, in regards to the discussion on anal sex, it seems to me that the people who talk about this part of homosexuality the most are those who criticize homosexuals. Certain Republican politicians, religious types, etc., seem to be downright obsesssed with anal sex. They talk about it a hell of a lot more than gay people do.
the sodomy reference was in response to gay sex not hurting anyone. i don't care if you spend your entire life in depends.
horney people will screw anything. i heard that aids is a mutation of a disease monkeys get. so the first case was from a guy screwing a monkey. i think i saw this on the national geographic channel. so where does that put your argument?
yes, you're on to me, as I hate straight people soooo much that my children hatched from eggs in a field. I hate to disappoint you but i'm a woman that's sexually attrached to men. i just hate to see people discrimated against because of who they love when they love another consenting adult no matter if they're male/female, male/male or female/female.
and it shouldn't matter if it's man/woman/woman; or man/dog; or man/monkey. a persons sex life doesn't concern anyone else. if you want equality for one sector of society; why not give everyone that equality?
i really don't care what anyone does as long as they don't do it in my back yard. and i think marriage itself should be banned. or at least have the license expire in 5 years and do away with divorce. or maybe the first 5 years could be a learners permit.
the sodomy reference was in response to gay sex not hurting anyone. i don't care if you spend your entire life in depends.
horney people will screw anything. i heard that aids is a mutation of a disease monkeys get. so the first case was from a guy screwing a monkey. i think i saw this on the national geographic channel. so where does that put your argument?
I'm not entirely sure what you think my arguement is, and I'm not sure what point you're attempting to make here. I wasn't arguing for or against sodomy. Is that what you thought I was doing?
"Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
I'm not entirely sure what you think my arguement is, and I'm not sure what point you're attempting to make here. I wasn't arguing for or against sodomy. Is that what you thought I was doing?
you're right; i don't understand your point. i agree sex is a big part of society. too big a part. and i don't think people recognise the difference between sex and love anymore. they are 2 different things. for many; one is the avenue to get the other. but that's like buying an airline to get free peanuts. you can't consider marriage a commitment to love with a 60% divorce rate. love doesn't begin and end. it just is. and it is timeless.
you're right; i don't understand your point. i agree sex is a big part of society. too big a part. and i don't think people recognise the difference between sex and love anymore. they are 2 different things. for many; one is the avenue to get the other. but that's like buying an airline to get free peanuts. you can't consider marriage a commitment to love with a 60% divorce rate. love doesn't begin and end. it just is. and it is timeless.
You're losing me again. My point was that you seem to view the gay rights movement as some kind of conspiracy on the part of gays to force their agenda on decent society. It's not that. They don't want more rights or special treatment, they want equal rights and the same treatment as everyone else. They don't want to indoctrinate or recruit people to become homosexuals, either. You say that you see gay culture being shoved in your face. You think straight culture isn't "shoved in your face" every day?
Your "sex and love" bit doesn't seem to be relevant to the point I was making.
"Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
It is fear that sums up why people hate or do not understand gay people. Fear that the "traditional" family will somehow be transformed. Fear that gays will wave their wands and make others gay. Science is working in our favor and as more and more people come out of the closet, people will realize there is nothing to be affraid of.
You're losing me again. My point was that you seem to view the gay rights movement as some kind of conspiracy on the part of gays to force their agenda on decent society. It's not that. They don't want more rights or special treatment, they want equal rights and the same treatment as everyone else. They don't want to indoctrinate or recruit people to become homosexuals, either. You say that you see gay culture being shoved in your face. You think straight culture isn't "shoved in your face" every day?
Your "sex and love" bit doesn't seem to be relevant to the point I was making.
i'm all for gay rights; IF AND ONLY IF everyone gets those same rights. if my lifestyle is having 2 wives; i get the same rights as any other lifestyle. if we're rewriting the books let's do it right this time because in a few years the polyigmists will be fighting for the same rights; then another group. gay marriage will allow polyigamy by allowing the same sex to marry; thus a woman can marry the other wife. using the exact arguments as gays currently use; polygamists DO deserve those same rights. if your lifestyle is balls accross the nose; why shouldn't i be allowed 2 wives?
Gay "marriage"
By Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Now that a number of state courts have refused to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions, cries of "discrimination" are being heard.
The "equal protection of the laws" provided by the Constitution of the United States applies to people, not actions. Laws exist precisely in order to discriminate between different kinds of actions.
When the law permits automobiles to drive on highways but forbids bicycles from doing the same, that is not discrimination against people. A cyclist who gets off his bicycle and gets into a car can drive on the highway just like anyone else.
In a free society, vast numbers of things are neither forbidden nor facilitated. They are considered to be none of the law's business.
Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they said that the law had no business interfering with relations between consenting adults. Now they want the law to put a seal of approval on their behavior. But no one is entitled to anyone else's approval.
Why is marriage considered to be any of the law's business in the first place? Because the state asserts an interest in the outcomes of certain unions, separate from and independent of the interests of the parties themselves.
In the absence of the institution of marriage, the individuals could arrange their relationship whatever way they wanted to, making it temporary or permanent, and sharing their worldly belongings in whatever way they chose.
Marriage means that the government steps in, limiting or even prescribing various aspects of their relations with each other -- and still more their relationship with whatever children may result from their union.
In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away rights that individuals might otherwise have. Yet "gay marriage" advocates depict marriage as an expansion of rights to which they are entitled.
They argue against a "ban on gay marriage" but marriage has for centuries meant a union of a man and a woman. There is no gay marriage to ban.
Analogies with bans against interracial marriage are bogus. Race is not part of the definition of marriage. A ban on interracial marriage is a ban on the same actions otherwise permitted because of the race of the particular people involved. It is a discrimination against people, not actions.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the life of the law has not been logic but experience. Vast numbers of laws have accumulated and evolved over the centuries, based on experience with male-female unions.
There is no reason why all those laws should be transferred willy-nilly to a different union, one with no inherent tendency to produce children nor the inherent asymmetries of relationships between people of different sexes.
Despite attempts to evade these asymmetries with such fashionable phrases as "a pregnant couple" or references to "spouses" rather than husbands and wives, these asymmetries take many forms and have many repercussions, which laws attempt to deal with on the basis of experience, rather than theories or rhetoric.
Wives, for example, typically invest in the family by restricting their own workforce participation, if only long enough to take care of small children. Studies show such differences still persisting in this liberated age, and even among women and men with postgraduate degrees from Harvard and Yale.
In the absence of marriage laws, a husband could dump his wife at will and she could lose decades of investment in their relationship. Marriage laws seek to recoup some of that investment for her through alimony when divorce occurs.
Those who think of women and men in the abstract consider it right that ex-husbands should be as entitled to alimony as ex-wives. But what are these ex-husbands being compensated for?
And why should any of this experience apply to same-sex unions, where there are not the same inherent asymmetries nor the same tendency to produce children?
"every tool they lend us; a loss of independence"
www.lp.org
www.mises.org
www.fairtax.org
"Freedom cannot survive the number of Americans who think that the government is there to take care of them."
i'm all for gay rights; IF AND ONLY IF everyone gets those same rights. if my lifestyle is having 2 wives; i get the same rights as any other lifestyle. if we're rewriting the books let's do it right this time because in a few years the polyigmists will be fighting for the same rights; then another group. gay marriage will allow polyigamy by allowing the same sex to marry; thus a woman can marry the other wife. using the exact arguments as gays currently use; polygamists DO deserve those same rights. if your lifestyle is balls accross the nose; why shouldn't i be allowed 2 wives?
Let's cross that bridge when we come to it. I'm not exactly hearing a huge national outcry from wannabe polygamists, this arguement sounds like a bit of a red herring.
"Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
Let's cross that bridge when we come to it. I'm not exactly hearing a huge national outcry from wannabe polygamists, this arguement sounds like a bit of a red herring.
then you're not listening. colorado city is all polyigamists. and crossing that bridge doesn't make sense. if we're rewriting the laws now we should do it right. we didn't give blacks civil rights and wait for the asians to make a fuss before re-writing civil rights to include them; then wait for others to follow.
if rights are given to one then they must be given to all. if you say they shouldn't; then your arguments against are also arguments why gays shouldn't have those rights.
then you're not listening. colorado city is all polyigamists. and crossing that bridge doesn't make sense. if we're rewriting the laws now we should do it right. we didn't give blacks civil rights and wait for the asians to make a fuss before re-writing civil rights to include them; then wait for others to follow.
if rights are given to one then they must be given to all. if you say they shouldn't; then your arguments against are also arguments why gays shouldn't have those rights.
by the way; who ever said marriage is a right?
How is marriage between two, and only two consenting adults going to lead to the right to marry multiple partners?
"Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
How is marriage between two, and only two consenting adults going to lead to the right to marry multiple partners?
two and only two now? i thought we were re-writing the laws and tradition. i still want to know why your singling out a lifestyle of one group of consenting adults while supporting another unconventional lifestyle?
to answer your question though; if one wife can marry the other; via same sex marriage; then why shouldn't a man be able to have 2 wives? what business is it of anyone else? how would it effect you and your personal life? if allowed to marry both wives; then the rights being sought by gays would would apply to the entire family.
two and only two now? i thought we were re-writing the laws and tradition. i still want to know why your singling out a lifestyle of one group of consenting adults while supporting another unconventional lifestyle?
to answer your question though; if one wife can marry the other; via same sex marriage; then why shouldn't a man be able to have 2 wives? what business is it of anyone else? how would it effect you and your personal life? if allowed to marry both wives; then the rights being sought by gays would would apply to the entire family.
Again, I challange you to show me a substantial NATIONAL movement (not just Colorado City) in favor of polygamy.
I suppose state sanctioned polygamous marriage wouldn't effect me at all. Let 'em all get married, fuck it.
"Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
Again, I challange you to show me a substantial NATIONAL movement (not just Colorado City) in favor of polygamy.
I suppose state sanctioned polygamous marriage wouldn't effect me at all. Let 'em all get married, fuck it.
did the gay movement start as a "substancial national movement"? NO; it started small. i'm hearing more about it because of the same sex marriage thing. just as the gay lifestyle isn't for everyone; neither is polyigamy. it works for a lot of people though.
did the gay movement start as a "substancial national movement"? NO; it started small. i'm hearing more about it because of the same sex marriage thing. just as the gay lifestyle isn't for everyone; neither is polyigamy. it works for a lot of people though.
May have started small b/c of fear of getting acted upon for being different...we are now in an era where society has become more equal...homesexuality goes back farther than two decades ago...present in animals and present in humans.....
I guess I just don't understand how allowing gay marriage would diminish respect for the institution of marriage. So many people already believe it's outdated and irrelevant ... I think it's sort of encouraging that there is a large group of people clamoring for the right to make a lifelong commitment to one another.
That is exactly my point. Way to many people see marriage as outdated and irrelevant. Extending the boundaries of marriage to include couples of the same sex would, i think, only further this disregard of marriage. Honestly, i see the push by homosexuals for marriage recognition as more of a "we don't have it so we want it" kind of thing. Not so much of a "we really respect marriage" thing. Once they have it, i don't know what makes anyone think the statistics for gay marriages would be any better than those for traditional ones. Maybe i'm wrong. i just think it would be another nail in the coffin of a very important institution.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
May have started small b/c of fear of getting acted upon for being different...we are now in an era where society has become more equal...homesexuality goes back farther than two decades ago...present in animals and present in humans.....
my point exactly. thank you. those practicing polyigamy live in fear from those who don't understand or don't want to understand. polyigamy goes as far back as homosexuality so we agree there. we must also agree that we are in an era where society is becoming more equal; and that all lifestyles should be treated equal.
we can also agree that polyigmany is present in both humans and animals. my buffalo bull has several "partners" that he protects and cares for. elk have harums. deer too.
so we agree on alot.
That is exactly my point. Way to many people see marriage as outdated and irrelevant. Extending the boundaries of marriage to include couples of the same sex would, i think, only further this disregard of marriage. Honestly, i see the push by homosexuals for marriage recognition as more of a "we don't have it so we want it" kind of thing. Not so much of a "we really respect marriage" thing. Once they have it, i don't know what makes anyone think the statistics for gay marriages would be any better than those for traditional ones. Maybe i'm wrong. i just think it would be another nail in the coffin of a very important institution.
In a religious sense, marriage is an important institution, and a connection of two people and god.... but in the legal sense, it is only important for things like hospital visitation, inheritence, taxes, etc. I think that is where the difference of opinion occur between your view and mine. That is why I would much rather seperate the two, and have a legal version of marriage (call it what you want) that a marriage license signifies, and then for those who want the religious meaning, they can have their ceromony and institution.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
In a religious sense, marriage is an important institution, and a connection of two people and god.... but in the legal sense, it is only important for things like hospital visitation, inheritence, taxes, etc. I think that is where the difference of opinion occur between your view and mine. That is why I would much rather seperate the two, and have a legal version of marriage (call it what you want) that a marriage license signifies, and then for those who want the religious meaning, they can have their ceromony and institution.
I'm getting alot from this thread...from both sides...so as you point out....either give every couple the same legal rights or take them away from all. On the church part of it...fine if a religion doesn't want to marry someone..fine..it's their right. Now on the polygamists....tough one...but if everyone in the relationship is fine with it....really fine with it...then guess we'll have to work provisions to give them the same rights...maybe some kind of sliding scale on benefits depending on how many members??? I mean really. uh uh uh..okay no legal rights for anyone...hetro or otherwise...problem solved.
my point exactly. thank you. those practicing polyigamy live in fear from those who don't understand or don't want to understand. polyigamy goes as far back as homosexuality so we agree there. we must also agree that we are in an era where society is becoming more equal; and that all lifestyles should be treated equal.
we can also agree that polyigmany is present in both humans and animals. my buffalo bull has several "partners" that he protects and cares for. elk have harums. deer too.
so we agree on alot.
Gays should not have the right to get married! Its about a women and man. Thats how it was founded and thats how it should be! If 2 men or 2 women want to be together fine go for it but a marriage is about a man and women. People need to get over this gay rights stuff, you have the right to be gay. In some countries gays would be put to death. There is such a thing as too many rights and too much freedom.
I'm getting alot from this thread...from both sides...so as you point out....either give every couple the same legal rights or take them away from all. On the church part of it...fine if a religion doesn't want to marry someone..fine..it's their right. Now on the polygamists....tough one...but if everyone in the relationship is fine with it....really fine with it...then guess we'll have to work provisions to give them the same rights...maybe some kind of sliding scale on benefits depending on how many members??? I mean really. uh uh uh..okay no legal rights for anyone...hetro or otherwise...problem solved.
thank you. where women outnumber men 4 to 1; poligamy gives 75% of the women the right to families. the families benefit from an extra adult being there. they learn social community behavior and the ability to get along with others. betty cooks and cleans house today while sally takes the kids to the park. tomorrow sally cooks and cleans.
i can will my estate to anyone i want. or anything i want. the state provides wic and welfare to just about anyone nowadays so that takes care of insurance. i don't know what you're referring to with pension plans????? if i have 100 wives i still get my pension and when i die the remaining becomes part of my estate.
gay marriage re-writes the laws now. why not re-write the laws to give everyone equal rights? to use an analogy; it's like when blacks were fighting for civil rights. the laws were changed to include ALL minorities. not just blacks. my having 2 wives in no way effects you in any manner; shape; or form. you're all for gay marriage yet against hetro marriage when more than 2 people are involved. why is this? i read somewhere that woman outnumber men 4 to 1. if a man can support 2 or 3 different families; why shouldn't he be allowed to?
You can will your estate to whomever you want, but you cannot (at least in Ohio) completely disinherit your spouse without his or her consent. I'm not about to drone on and on about legal technicalities, I'd hope that people would take my word for it when I say that many of our laws are based on the assumption of a nuclear family joined in marriage. Yes, gay couples can provide many of the same privileges for themselves, but they have to jump through hoops to do it. If I die without a will, my husband automatically inherits my estate. If I had a "wife," that would not be the case ... she would get nothing. Same thing goes for who makes my medical decisions, who gets to visit me in the nursing home, who receives any unclaimed governmental benefits due to my estate, etc. For a couple that is legally prohibited from getting married, it requires that they hire an attorney to ensure that they have the necessary legal documentation to ensure that their wishes are carried out. This is not something that you and I are required to do, and in my opinion constitutes unequal treatment.
There is nothing discriminatory about continuing to have laws revolving around couples. The problem comes when we try to dictate who those couples can be.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Comments
The problem with that is that people like you don't realize how much sex is a part of our culture. It's been the case for so long that people don't even notice it. Using (heterosexual)sex to sell products has become the norm, so much so that you aren't even consciously aware of it. You only notice the use of sex as a tool when it's gay sex, then it's "everywhere you look" and "being thrown in your face".
Also, in regards to the discussion on anal sex, it seems to me that the people who talk about this part of homosexuality the most are those who criticize homosexuals. Certain Republican politicians, religious types, etc., seem to be downright obsesssed with anal sex. They talk about it a hell of a lot more than gay people do.
how'd evolution get brought up in this??? Don't worry...there will always be plenty of people having sex resulting in babies in this world..sooo many millions of "special" humans will be born.
I'd rather have the young generation know and accept homosexuality as normal and get on with our lives. Its not a choice people...just like you can't willingly change your orientation...think about it..just for a second.
some men that are gay just have characteristic traits of women...chemical...so women dance with their hands in the air..so do gay guys....and whats wrong with how other people act...people can act and do as they feel as long as they don't assault you.....no biggy. If it offends you then who has the problem??? Cornifer this post is not directed at you per se.
i can will my estate to anyone i want. or anything i want. the state provides wic and welfare to just about anyone nowadays so that takes care of insurance. i don't know what you're referring to with pension plans????? if i have 100 wives i still get my pension and when i die the remaining becomes part of my estate.
gay marriage re-writes the laws now. why not re-write the laws to give everyone equal rights? to use an analogy; it's like when blacks were fighting for civil rights. the laws were changed to include ALL minorities. not just blacks. my having 2 wives in no way effects you in any manner; shape; or form. you're all for gay marriage yet against hetro marriage when more than 2 people are involved. why is this? i read somewhere that woman outnumber men 4 to 1. if a man can support 2 or 3 different families; why shouldn't he be allowed to?
the sodomy reference was in response to gay sex not hurting anyone. i don't care if you spend your entire life in depends.
horney people will screw anything. i heard that aids is a mutation of a disease monkeys get. so the first case was from a guy screwing a monkey. i think i saw this on the national geographic channel. so where does that put your argument?
and it shouldn't matter if it's man/woman/woman; or man/dog; or man/monkey. a persons sex life doesn't concern anyone else. if you want equality for one sector of society; why not give everyone that equality?
i really don't care what anyone does as long as they don't do it in my back yard. and i think marriage itself should be banned. or at least have the license expire in 5 years and do away with divorce. or maybe the first 5 years could be a learners permit.
I'm not entirely sure what you think my arguement is, and I'm not sure what point you're attempting to make here. I wasn't arguing for or against sodomy. Is that what you thought I was doing?
you're right; i don't understand your point. i agree sex is a big part of society. too big a part. and i don't think people recognise the difference between sex and love anymore. they are 2 different things. for many; one is the avenue to get the other. but that's like buying an airline to get free peanuts. you can't consider marriage a commitment to love with a 60% divorce rate. love doesn't begin and end. it just is. and it is timeless.
You're losing me again. My point was that you seem to view the gay rights movement as some kind of conspiracy on the part of gays to force their agenda on decent society. It's not that. They don't want more rights or special treatment, they want equal rights and the same treatment as everyone else. They don't want to indoctrinate or recruit people to become homosexuals, either. You say that you see gay culture being shoved in your face. You think straight culture isn't "shoved in your face" every day?
Your "sex and love" bit doesn't seem to be relevant to the point I was making.
This is a great article from the Boston Globe from a year ago yesterday. "What Makes People Gay?" http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_people_gay/
i'm all for gay rights; IF AND ONLY IF everyone gets those same rights. if my lifestyle is having 2 wives; i get the same rights as any other lifestyle. if we're rewriting the books let's do it right this time because in a few years the polyigmists will be fighting for the same rights; then another group. gay marriage will allow polyigamy by allowing the same sex to marry; thus a woman can marry the other wife. using the exact arguments as gays currently use; polygamists DO deserve those same rights. if your lifestyle is balls accross the nose; why shouldn't i be allowed 2 wives?
Gay "marriage"
By Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Now that a number of state courts have refused to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions, cries of "discrimination" are being heard.
The "equal protection of the laws" provided by the Constitution of the United States applies to people, not actions. Laws exist precisely in order to discriminate between different kinds of actions.
When the law permits automobiles to drive on highways but forbids bicycles from doing the same, that is not discrimination against people. A cyclist who gets off his bicycle and gets into a car can drive on the highway just like anyone else.
In a free society, vast numbers of things are neither forbidden nor facilitated. They are considered to be none of the law's business.
Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they said that the law had no business interfering with relations between consenting adults. Now they want the law to put a seal of approval on their behavior. But no one is entitled to anyone else's approval.
Why is marriage considered to be any of the law's business in the first place? Because the state asserts an interest in the outcomes of certain unions, separate from and independent of the interests of the parties themselves.
In the absence of the institution of marriage, the individuals could arrange their relationship whatever way they wanted to, making it temporary or permanent, and sharing their worldly belongings in whatever way they chose.
Marriage means that the government steps in, limiting or even prescribing various aspects of their relations with each other -- and still more their relationship with whatever children may result from their union.
In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away rights that individuals might otherwise have. Yet "gay marriage" advocates depict marriage as an expansion of rights to which they are entitled.
They argue against a "ban on gay marriage" but marriage has for centuries meant a union of a man and a woman. There is no gay marriage to ban.
Analogies with bans against interracial marriage are bogus. Race is not part of the definition of marriage. A ban on interracial marriage is a ban on the same actions otherwise permitted because of the race of the particular people involved. It is a discrimination against people, not actions.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the life of the law has not been logic but experience. Vast numbers of laws have accumulated and evolved over the centuries, based on experience with male-female unions.
There is no reason why all those laws should be transferred willy-nilly to a different union, one with no inherent tendency to produce children nor the inherent asymmetries of relationships between people of different sexes.
Despite attempts to evade these asymmetries with such fashionable phrases as "a pregnant couple" or references to "spouses" rather than husbands and wives, these asymmetries take many forms and have many repercussions, which laws attempt to deal with on the basis of experience, rather than theories or rhetoric.
Wives, for example, typically invest in the family by restricting their own workforce participation, if only long enough to take care of small children. Studies show such differences still persisting in this liberated age, and even among women and men with postgraduate degrees from Harvard and Yale.
In the absence of marriage laws, a husband could dump his wife at will and she could lose decades of investment in their relationship. Marriage laws seek to recoup some of that investment for her through alimony when divorce occurs.
Those who think of women and men in the abstract consider it right that ex-husbands should be as entitled to alimony as ex-wives. But what are these ex-husbands being compensated for?
And why should any of this experience apply to same-sex unions, where there are not the same inherent asymmetries nor the same tendency to produce children?
www.lp.org
www.mises.org
www.fairtax.org
"Freedom cannot survive the number of Americans who think that the government is there to take care of them."
Let's cross that bridge when we come to it. I'm not exactly hearing a huge national outcry from wannabe polygamists, this arguement sounds like a bit of a red herring.
then you're not listening. colorado city is all polyigamists. and crossing that bridge doesn't make sense. if we're rewriting the laws now we should do it right. we didn't give blacks civil rights and wait for the asians to make a fuss before re-writing civil rights to include them; then wait for others to follow.
if rights are given to one then they must be given to all. if you say they shouldn't; then your arguments against are also arguments why gays shouldn't have those rights.
by the way; who ever said marriage is a right?
How is marriage between two, and only two consenting adults going to lead to the right to marry multiple partners?
two and only two now? i thought we were re-writing the laws and tradition. i still want to know why your singling out a lifestyle of one group of consenting adults while supporting another unconventional lifestyle?
to answer your question though; if one wife can marry the other; via same sex marriage; then why shouldn't a man be able to have 2 wives? what business is it of anyone else? how would it effect you and your personal life? if allowed to marry both wives; then the rights being sought by gays would would apply to the entire family.
Again, I challange you to show me a substantial NATIONAL movement (not just Colorado City) in favor of polygamy.
I suppose state sanctioned polygamous marriage wouldn't effect me at all. Let 'em all get married, fuck it.
did the gay movement start as a "substancial national movement"? NO; it started small. i'm hearing more about it because of the same sex marriage thing. just as the gay lifestyle isn't for everyone; neither is polyigamy. it works for a lot of people though.
May have started small b/c of fear of getting acted upon for being different...we are now in an era where society has become more equal...homesexuality goes back farther than two decades ago...present in animals and present in humans.....
That is exactly my point. Way to many people see marriage as outdated and irrelevant. Extending the boundaries of marriage to include couples of the same sex would, i think, only further this disregard of marriage. Honestly, i see the push by homosexuals for marriage recognition as more of a "we don't have it so we want it" kind of thing. Not so much of a "we really respect marriage" thing. Once they have it, i don't know what makes anyone think the statistics for gay marriages would be any better than those for traditional ones. Maybe i'm wrong. i just think it would be another nail in the coffin of a very important institution.
my point exactly. thank you. those practicing polyigamy live in fear from those who don't understand or don't want to understand. polyigamy goes as far back as homosexuality so we agree there. we must also agree that we are in an era where society is becoming more equal; and that all lifestyles should be treated equal.
we can also agree that polyigmany is present in both humans and animals. my buffalo bull has several "partners" that he protects and cares for. elk have harums. deer too.
so we agree on alot.
In a religious sense, marriage is an important institution, and a connection of two people and god.... but in the legal sense, it is only important for things like hospital visitation, inheritence, taxes, etc. I think that is where the difference of opinion occur between your view and mine. That is why I would much rather seperate the two, and have a legal version of marriage (call it what you want) that a marriage license signifies, and then for those who want the religious meaning, they can have their ceromony and institution.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
it important??? for procreation? stability? Just asking...no flame here.
I'm getting alot from this thread...from both sides...so as you point out....either give every couple the same legal rights or take them away from all. On the church part of it...fine if a religion doesn't want to marry someone..fine..it's their right. Now on the polygamists....tough one...but if everyone in the relationship is fine with it....really fine with it...then guess we'll have to work provisions to give them the same rights...maybe some kind of sliding scale on benefits depending on how many members??? I mean really. uh uh uh..okay no legal rights for anyone...hetro or otherwise...problem solved.
good for him...great post...
thank you. where women outnumber men 4 to 1; poligamy gives 75% of the women the right to families. the families benefit from an extra adult being there. they learn social community behavior and the ability to get along with others. betty cooks and cleans house today while sally takes the kids to the park. tomorrow sally cooks and cleans.
There is nothing discriminatory about continuing to have laws revolving around couples. The problem comes when we try to dictate who those couples can be.