If you're okay with homosexual marriage would you support..

In other words your hiding out because you have no answer

 

I hate to say it but yes, I am ok with this as long as no one is being forced to do it.

Everyone has different lifestyles and as long as they don't harm others why should people care?

There should be strict and SERIOUS consequences, which there already are, to entrapping someone in a said lifestyle however. That is my biggest concern and I think the biggest difference between these and homosexual relationships.

If you want to say this sets a bad precedent to kids, well it does, but far far better still than what 50-60% of families out their kids through IMO

 

He's trying to overall say that we should push for straight heterosexual marriage.

He is trying to equate polygamy with homosexuality. And in doing so, I believe he is correct in saying homosexuality acceptance will lead to polygamy acceptance.

I see his points, I just believe it is a futile effort. If we fight these things, they will be brought up in the open and shoved down our faces like homosexuality is, which to be honest is really annoying and my only problem with gay people.

If we are proactive and just accept, perhaps everyone will just live their lives and won't impede their opinions on others.

 

Yup, and we should never have given women and blacks the right to vote.. I just know it! One day they would want to be president. So lets just keep discrimination alive just in case change leads to something else down the road. Can someone please explain how marriage equality will lead to polygamy ??? Draw me a map.

 

Why are we talking about polygamy anyway? One man many wives? Where has this been found in modern times outside of religious cults, especially in the US? I'll tell what the next sexual political football will be. It will be polyamory or group marriage where men and women are equal. Would that be a bad thing or a good thing for society. I can't think of any reason why it would be inherently bad. It may even further strengthen the institution of marriage as will gay marriage will. The more people who are members of a club the stronger it is. And in the case of group marriage , you might just have less cheating leading to disruption and divorce. In any case, I will grant you that redefining marriage now for gays could embolden others to see further changes. This is an issue that lurks just below the surface....there is a popular TV series about it....."Big Love" and there's the Polyamory Society .

But, can you rightfully penalize gays who want only what straight couples now have as far a the law and acceptance by society goes for fear of what another group with a different agenda may push for later??

 

it's not that complicated

if Hugh Hefner married more than one of his blonde girlfriends it wouldn't break my leg


whether I agree with the marriage/lifestyle or not is irrelevant, I am still obliged to defend the liberty of those who I may not agree with

 

Progressive Patriot, please just debate and stop using ad homonyms and attacks. It makes the Dems and the left look really stupid, and is why most Libertarians dislike the left more than the right.

Stick to debating, you win wi facts and numbers.

And you are flat out wrong, this will lead to acceptance of polygamy. Why you need a map for that is beyond me...

Edit--- again let me state my support for gay marriage and most likely eventually polygamy.

 

Jack...you are using Circular Logic.

You can't say that because there is a possibility a threat exists it should be taken more seriously than any other possibility of a threat.

If that were true we would all be spending money on Bomb Shelters.

AboveAlpha

 

Hugh Heffner - There's a "blast from the past". They are not really his "girlfriends" in the way that you and I would know "girlfriend". They are essentially prostitutes. Go past the exterior image of his life and his house, and it's really grubby, tatty, and sleazy. I recall reading an item about that some years ago.

However, if you are saying you are defending the liberty of anyone to express a view, I agree. I would always sooner rather hear the view sanction against a view. Far better to hear the view than let it fester and bubble away. While I may defend their right to that view, they should also respect that too - that not everyone is going to agree with their view. And that is something which is absent among militant homosexuals. They don't just want their view heard. They want opposing views not heard.

 

But you have to remain on point.

Speaking specifically about paedophiles infiltrating Gov or homosexual lobby groups doesn't mean no other bad things exist. But it would be impossible to list "all bad things" in one thread. That is why we have different threads for different matters I would assume.

Cheers

- - - Updated - - -

Actually that was several questions.

In order.

1) Awareness

2) Same rights to what?

3) Depends on what 2 means.

 

It's not a question of expressing views. It's a question of enforcing laws- a question of whether gays should be prevented by law from have the same legal rights as straights, and is similar to the earlier question as to whether Blacks should be prevented by laws from sitting near the front of buses. Maybe closer to your heart might be the question as to whether Muslims should have the same legal rights to live in new Israeli state-subsidized housing projects in Palestine as Jews do.

 

Of course. They should never have been prohibited in the first place. ISTR some economist has done some ressearch showing that, unsurprisingly, giving people choice in their domestic arrangements could be expected to lead to better outcomes, especially for women on the lower end of the marriage market. Millions of women choose to share the better men with their legal wives in adulterous relationships rather than settle for mediocre but nominally monogamous ones even now, when they are denied the advantages of marriage to their partners.

 

I would be OK with government being completely divorced from religious ceremony altogether.

 

Sure it is.

That is all we do here - express views.

We don't implement any laws.

 

2) Rights are an abstract construct. Rights are relative. Rights are also privy to the given nation, state, etc.

3) I would say keep an eye on it, and that homosexual groups should be visible in distancing themselves from anyone whose words legitimise it. This is something they have fallen down on in the past.

 

Excuse me but I presented a very cogent response to the non-issue of polygamy. I don't know why you feel attacked by my just stating my views. Numbers? What numbers? This is not mathematics. Support for gay marriage ? It's obviously grudgingly. Next time use the quote reply so that I can more easily see what your getting your panties in a wad about

 

I think not, and the reason comes down to practicality. The difference between two men, two women, or a man and a woman is for practical purposes, not all that much. In every case, it's two people. Poly, however means many, and this does present challenges to any law that polygamy or polyandry would touch. For tax purposes, for example, you get a tax break for a spouse, as well as benefits such as welfare being decided by family size. What happens when Joe marries six women in that case, is that not only does he get a break for every spouse, but he can potentially milk the state for all kinds of benefits -- food stamps, housing subsidies, medicare/medicaid, etc. This presents a problem because the state cannot possibly run while providing welfare to millions of such families. The same could be true of immigration. A married person may bring his spouse to this country on family visas. What happens when you cannot limit the number of spouses? All of a sudden, we have the potential for a person to "marry" 10 people for the express purpose of bringing them into the country legally. And that's before we touch on the problems of required leave provided by employers, health insurance, and child support.

All of the above would essentially melt down a lot of spousal benefits because none of them were designed to accomadate an infinite supply of spouses. Which is what would end up happening as no arbitrary limit could be set without triggering a lawsuit. If 3, why not 4, or 5, or 15? There's no potential end, because at every endpoint, you would find someone willing to challenge that endpoint and say "why not one more".

 

A good thread and my overall summary of where I stand. Tough if you don't agree with me, that is called "diversity" of view. Respect it.

"Diversity is strength" remember.....

1) Homosexuals need to do more to weed out and distance themselves from those who are either paedophiles or who have made extremely suspect statements that if made in any other context, everyone would shun. One(but not the only one) example of this would be the homosexuals falling silent when they should have ensured they totally ostracised themselves from Peter Tatchell. It is important for their own rep to do this. Any time they fail to do so, and no excuses, it only reflects bad on them and feeds their critics.


2) Homosexuals can get married in some parts of the World and not others. In those parts of that World that they can do so, they have nothing to complain about. They should be happy with that now, and not try to meddle in the culture of other nations, nor attack the culture or wishes of another nation or people for NOT wanting what they want. This only creates antipathy toward them, esp as they tend to be rude and abrasive about it in my experience.

3) Homosexuals can swap rings and get a bit of paper if they want. I won't lose sleep over it. But I regard it is sham marriage, based on factors like most of the marriages being "open", and the small matter that marriage has always been between men and women. But if it makes them happy to pretend otherwise, fine, they can play husband and "wife".

4) I make no apologies for disallowing homosexuals to adopt. Married or not. And I fully understand the countries that do not allow them to. I have arrived at this conclusion based on sound factors as laid out in this thread, that are based on many things. It is important to note that I would also apply criteria to many hetro couples as well.

5) Homophobia was a word made up in the 60's by a pseudo science head shrink who then got his rather obnoxious pornographer friend to promote its use in his then back street homosexual porn mags. I reject the validity of homophobia on that basis, and on that basis that most I know do not have a fear, let alone irrational, of homosexuals.

6) There is some evidence, albeit I admit not thorough enough, that in some cases, various kinds of therapy can lead to someone no longer engaging in homosexual behaviours. Naturally this should be voluntary, however it should also be explored and made more available, lifting the stigma from militant homosexuals for those that desired to try it.

7) There is no such thing as a "homosexual gene", nor a part of the brain that indicates homosexuality. There is a lot of scientific speculation and outlandish claims, but that is scientists for you. It would seem to be true that the phenomenom is found throughout time, but this in itself may not be proof of "being born homosexual", it may merely be proof that certain conditions, at certain times, and in a certain way, lead to this curiousity.

 

Jack...you KNOW what I mean.

AboveAlpha

 

Then it would follow that gay men would be barred from using a surrogate to have a child, that lesbians would not be allowed to receive a donated embryo (even if that embryo was going to be destroyed) , that gay parents who conceived a child naturally in a prior relationship would lose custody and a child who is available for adoption would be condemned to grow up in the foster care system without parents rather than be adopted by a gay person or couple?

 

Jack continues to post this kind of clap trap about pedophiles in the gay lobby and gov. but refuses to give examples or provide evidence

 

Maybe he should take up an easier hobby, like finding examples among Catholic priests and football coaches.

 

I'd sooner have two parents, one of each sex.

- - - Updated - - -

Not true.

Read back the posts.

When you start with a falsity, then refuse to take it back, why would anyone entertain that?