A question for those who support gay marriage

The thing that makes me laugh when anyone dicusses gay marriage, is they usually spout being gay and/or getting married to a gay person is against God's wishes, whether it's Christianity, Islam or whoever , but they ALL say that their God thrives on LOVE and they ALL say we should all LOVE each other no matter what the differences, simply being in LOVE with a member of the same sex is still LOVE isn't it?

SO my answer ( with a question) to the question is this . being in LOVE and gay, is it against God's wishes or those that make religeous rules?

LOVE is LOVE as long as two people LOVE each other.

reply to post by WolfofWar

Most opponents to gay marriage compare it to the 'slippery slope" of legalizing pedophilia and beastiliaty. This is obviously an unfair comparison, since both of these are sexual relations to somebody/something that cannot consent to the act. A fairer comparison would be Polygamy.

I neither support nor do i oppose gay marriage.

But the above statement is ridiculous.

Where is the logic that supports a link between homosexuality and pedophilia or bestiality? That's patently anti-homosexual propaganda, perpetrated by those that use fear and ignorance as a tool to spread hate.

The idea of marriage, at least the traditional concept, is one of a monogamous union. Where does your interpretation of gay = polygamy come into the issue?

Homosexual marriages don't automatically mean polygamous marriages...why do you say it's fair to compare them so?

There are heterosexual marriages that feature infidelity just as i'd expect there are homosexual marriages that do. But that's not to say that a marriage will be so, purely based on sexual orientation of gay or straight.

Basically people are people. Humans can be heterosexual and be pedophiles or into bestiality, just as humans can be homosexual and into the same things. Straight people have casual sexual affairs within a marriage, just as gay people do.

Gay or straight does not mean the person concerned is going to be a sexual predator, it just deals with their preference for relationships with one sex or the other.



[edit on 6/8/2010 by spikey]

Originally posted by spikey
Where is the logic that supports a link between homosexuality and pedophilia or bestiality? That's patently anti-homosexual propaganda, perpetrated by those that use fear and ignorance as a tool to spread hate.

I don't mean to speak for WoW but he obviously has been involved in these conversations before, as I have. That is actually an argument put forward by those that oppose gay marriage. It damn near always comes up by the uneducated. You are actually right. There is no correlation.

reply to post by WolfofWar

I dont think it is anyones bussiness to say or tell anyone who you can be in a relationship with.. this is a personal choice .. It may irritate people.. oh well .. who you choose to be with is your own biz and if its to the point where you want to commit yourself in a marriage this is your own choice should not be the churchs choice nor the governments ..

"We can't have fifty different laws about gay marriage in America. There must be one federal law governing all the states."............ Barack Obama.

"We can't have fifty different laws governing polygamy." Barack Obama

"We can't have fifty different laws governing legal marijuana." Barack Obama

"We can't have fifty different laws governing each state's right to regulate state manufacturing of firearms." Barack Obama

"We can't have fifty different states voting differently in the upcoming November elections." Barack Obama

Oh, wait. That was about immigration.

"We can't have fifty different laws governing immigration in America. There must be one federal law governing all the states.".......Barack Obama



[edit on 6-8-2010 by fred call]

considering we're supposed to be free, and there is supposed to be separation of church and state, polygamy and gay marriage should be legal. Religious views is why they aren't and that is just wrong. I wouldnt be involved in either of these practices but it does not effect me, and it is not my business.


I really dont think many would care about being "married" if tax benefits didnt come from it, get rid of those and I doubt its much of an issue.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
No government should have any say or position whatsoever on the personal affairs and relationships of people.

Then why do they stop prostitution for?

Originally posted by WolfofWar

If banning gay marriage is unconstitutional, should banning bigamy and polygamy also be unconstitutional as well?

I think the number of people in America interested in bigamy (which would mean that roughly half the male population either gets to be co-husband of one woman or goes unmarried) is fairly small. I think the number interested in polygamy is even smaller. Women who have escaped such marriages report that it's an ugly situation. Young boys ejected from the cult because there are no women for them to marry often have a hard time in today's society.

That said, I do know one polygamous triad who has been in a relationship (two men, one woman) for well over 30 years. But they're the exception. A number of people I know who are polyamorous have generally not stayed together as a group for over 7 years.

The polyamorous ones generally consist of a married couple plus a third, so the issue of no access to insurance/health care/support/inheritance/spousal rights that happens with gays in a committed relationship doesn't appear to be an issue.

Originally posted by texastig
Then why do they stop prostitution for?

A damn good question with no logical answer. As Carlin said, "Sex is legal. Selling is legal. Why isn't selling sex legal?"

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by texastig
Then why do they stop prostitution for?

A damn good question with no logical answer. As Carlin said, "Sex is legal. Selling is legal. Why isn't selling sex legal?"

I agree.

Prostitution should be legal.

reply to post by Annee


This might actually be at the heart of the problem. Gov't tries to dictate peoples sex lives. Pierre Trudeau said it best as the Justice minister back in the 60's. "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the people."

reply to post by Byrd


I think CHOSEN multiple marriage (of any kind) has nothing to do with FORCED multiple marriage of any kind.

Living in a cult/religious cult - - is a separate issue.

I am 100% for CHOICE.

Ever since the Prop 8 decision came out, there have been alot of posts about the question on bigamy and polygamy that has come up, along with the other things on the slippery slope of gay people marrying. A bit of research, and the answers are very curious as there are 2 cases that have answers to alot of the questions.
The first is Lawrence V. Texas, 2003, and Reynolds v. United States, 1878.
In the Reynolds case the question of polygamy was determined by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional and there for, a person can not marry, as in the social contract with a license, more than one person. However, as it has been shown, a man can engage with more than one woman, but only one can legally be his wife.
Now the other case is a bit more interesting and in the Lawrence case, the courts did state that 2 consenting adults could engage in sex, even if they are both related. But they would not be allowed to married, as the privacy of the home is a fundamental right.
So there you have it, in a nutshell, a person can not marry more than one spouse, multiple marriage licenses, but can if it is consensual have sex with a relative.

reply to post by sdcigarpig


While not having a link to go by I will still answer this:

The first is Lawrence V. Texas, 2003, and Reynolds v. United States, 1878.

1878? Weren't blacks looked at as lesser lifeforms at the time? What about women? People evolve. Nations evolve. I don't know why it's like a breach birth to get past the past in America. It's going to be done but damn, it's going to be painful.

reply to post by Annee


It'd be a lot safer for all concerned if it was.

Plus, as it common with the drugs trade, it would also take the money out of crime syndicates and put it into state coffers instead.

reply to post by intrepid


You are correct on that aspect about 1878 and the times do change. But the point being on the court case from 1878, is that to get something to be legale, is that the person wishing to show where something that is illegale, violates the Constitution, they would have to look at all of the laws concerning such and the rulings in the courts on such. In Reynolds v. United States, 1878, this is the first and only time that the question of multiple marrage was brought up to the Supreme Court, where the question had to be answered about if it was legal or not for a person to have more than one legal wife. And all court cases that have ever come up on such after that, has used that court case as the reason for the rulings against legalizing polygamy. So for it to be overturned, a person would have to not only show where the law violated the basic principles of the constitution, but also show how the court, that has ruled on this issue, was wrong in its decision. The issues are often complex, and the judges who would sit and listen will ask questions, sometimes things you would not even expect.
But here are the websites, and Lawrence is first, Reynolds will be second.
Lawrence V. Texas, 2003,
Reynolds v. United States, 1878.




[edit on 6-8-2010 by sdcigarpig]

What if...?

What if it is a conspiracy ?

The government has an estimate amount of money they think they can collect from you.
So marriage is an investment for the future. With a gay marriage the investment isn't producing anything worth collecting, so special rights will never bring up any profit.


Who knows... ?

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by Annee

 

It'd be a lot safer for all concerned if it was.

Plus, as it common with the drugs trade, it would also take the money out of crime syndicates and put it into state coffers instead.

I agree. I also think at least some drugs should be legalized.

But would recommend "drug bars" for stronger hallucinates. Both prostitution and strong drug use need strict monitoring - to be legal.

I am not anti-government.

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
The government has an estimate amount of money they think they can collect from you.
So marriage is an investment for the future. With a gay marriage the investment isn't producing anything worth collecting, so special rights will never bring up any profit.

Is that what you believe? After all we did have a system where a group of people who was believed to bring no profit to the society at all, and it was determined to be a cruel and abhorrent practice. The issue is equal justice and rights across the board. The issue can ultimate be looked at, as the right to choose. Consider this, if you deny a person the right to choose who they want their spouse to be, no matter what human it is, then what does that state about the society as a whole? Is it not enough that we have a history of persecution against different groups all cause they are different in looks, ideas and even religion? If you start stating what a persons right to choose is, then it is a door that will have consequences that far exceeds the original intent of the original denial. First it is that same sex couples can not marry, next, as the reason would be since the door is already open, that we start restricting who can and can not marry, based off of the common good. After all are there not undesirables in society that should not be allowed to have children, where the environment would not be condusive to where the children are raised to be good members of society. What that will lead to is eugenics, where people are bred for certain traits, and guess what if you don't have one of the traits that the government deems as necessary or desirable, you could be forcefully steralized. By actually stating, yes a person has the right to marry another consenting adult, by acutally taking the step that allows for people to excersise their freedom of choice, then you start to move towards a very diverse society and that is what makes a country great, it is the diversity, taking both the good and the bad.

There are two concerns about polygamous relationships. First there is a concern that all parties involved are consenting. The recent Warren Jeffs case, for example, shows that that is not always the case. Second, there is a fear that mulitple partner relationships will erode existing social norms. The first concern is a vaild on I think, but the second is bogus (of course I am not opposed to challenging social norms so I may not be the most objective person here).

There are people today that engage in alternative lifestyles, be it polyamory, swingers, etc. In general they do not seem to be doing much harm so I have no issue with it.