If homosexual marriage is a Right, why can't I have multiple wives? (Being Serious NO CAT TALK)

reply to post by Swing80s

Firstly ( and importantly) the homosexuals never had their rights violated as the social definition of a marriage is that of a man and woman.
Yes If the illuminati think homosexual personal relationships should be changed to be a “marriage” what is next definition change for a sexual preference into a marriage Ie .Two brothers one brother two sisters, polygamy, pedophyles and incest be changed to be seen as marriage?
Who is changing the definition , its not a democratic social movement? Changing the definition of woman to that of a man is being forced through a corrupt govt without any social mandate .
For if are going to break down the original social institution of marriage –where will they stop indeed.
Animals and Man? Now the relationship is a marriage?
Changing the meaning of the word cannot really be done, to me marriage will always mean a man and a woman( Until such time as another union provides the same fruit).
There are are many angry gay men I have heard from in this debate ( and these angry people don't even have respect for their existing personal relationships ), changing a social institution a word definition will not change their personal relationship.
They will both be the same men in the same personal relationship.
I say go and be happy in your state sanctioned committed personal relationships.

reply to post by MissingRonnieR

So what?
The US (and many other countries) also have all kinds of minority rights that some of the "majority" might not agree with.

One church or faith must also tolerate another, no matter what the size of the congregation.

On that basis alone gay people should be granted equal civil rights.

I also don't find there is a "gay lifestyle" or "straight lifestyle".
There are many gay lifestyles, and ways to be gay or straight.

There's also no therapy for gay people that has ever been proven successful.
Even Exodus recently admitted that they've never had a 100 percent success rate with a gay male.

Gay people, intersex people and transsexual people exist.
It's a fact of life.
Get over it.

Your post has proven again that gay people are recognized and treated like a minority.
Not only that, but it seems good to make gay people feel very bad about themselves.
Have a nice day too.

Polygamy is hardly the same thing as homosexual marriage. It's really disgusting what men will do in an attempt to get more sex.

Pathetic.

reply to post by MissingRonnieR


Just because a lot of people are bigoted, it does not make bigotry the right way to go. And the way you talk about homosexuality as if it were an illness that could be 'cured' beggars belief!

Neither is it a lifestyle choice, as you put it. There are still a few areas here in the UK that still think like you do, but these tend to be secluded rural areas where they also regards Black people in a similar manner.

A phrase I have been brought up with for my whole life is that 'it takes all sorts to make a world'. I will remember this when I think of you.

Why is it when people talk about gay marriage they have to make ridiculous comparisons like this. So if they legalize gay marriage people will want this, but if they don't then this thought won't even cross their minds????

How about this? If they allow gay marriage will I finally be able to eat pizza without getting heartburn?

reply to post by BDBinc


All I can say is LOL. That is some of the funniest stuff I have read, and I really hope you're joking.

Animals, family, pedophiles???? Really?????

We're talking two, 2, people, you know, regular human beings, and you relate all this other crap to it???

Yep, I am definitely on ATS

reply to post by mymymy

The OP asked if gay marriage is now a" right" why polygamy was not .
Its reasonable to ask what other changes the illuminati want for the SOCIAL institution.People practice incest, polygamy, pedophilia( these were never defined as a mental illness like homosexuality was till 1970) if you ask the people practicing these other sexual preferences they too would want the social definition changed to suit themselves.
And yes I do find the definition change of a social institution( a takeover of marriage) by the govt funny, where does it stop.... when your pizza has been redefined as a taco.

reply to post by BDBinc


To Marry means to join together. You can Marry different syles of Music to a new combined form. In carpentry you can marry two pieces of wood together. In Life two consenting adults can marry each other.

It seems to be only the sexually insecure or uncertain who have to bring a 'man and woman' element to the definition in order to reassure themselves.

Hello big boy

Originally posted by Swing80s
You wanted me to be serious, now I'm being serious since my OP got moved to the trash. If homosexual marriage is a US right, or SHOULD be a US right according to some. Why can't marriage between multiple consenting adults be legal? Why would I, or Mormons, or whoever, be they individuals, a religion, or a community have to move to Mexico or Canada to practicae polygamy? If we are going to break down the original institution of marriage then why can't I have sister wives in all seriousness? If I can care and provide for them, then why should it be illegal because my same rights are being violated as the rights of homosexuals that want to get married.

When polygamy comes up as an actual topic in front of the justices - then this discussion will be valid, until then - this is nothing more than slippery slope sarcasm.

Originall institution of marriage....pffttt....you don't have a clue what that is or where it even came from

reply to post by BDBinc


But to give a serious response to your previous post, there are sound medical reasons why incest is wrong, not merely the social distaste of it.

Likewise, Peadophiles, by definition, are taking advantage of vulnerable people. ie chuildren who are physically and emotionallt undeveloped and in many cases unable to refuse. It should not need to be explained why this is unnacceptable.

Polygamy is allowed is some countries providing the previous wife is happy to go ahead and share, on this basis I wouldn't have a problem with it, so long as it wasn't just a benefits black hole. If you seriously want the right to do it, campaign for it. I support anyones right for self determination, so long as they are not taking advantage of someone vulnerable or wrecking the gene pool.

Be very careful what you wish for... having multiple wives can be a major headache at times ... I have three wives and speak from experience ... as to why its not allowed in western countries - its due to christianity and its repressive .. primitive... barbaric view of the world ..

reply to post by waynos


When a govt changes the definition of marriage without a social mandate they apparently did not use a medical reason for doing it.
Would a 1970 mental illness(homosexuality) be your reason for changing the definition of marriage?
Its not medical the topic, for when was the govt changing the social definition and institution of marriage without a mandate medical? Where does this crazy group stop? When a man is defined as a woman?
Your failure to accept the social definition of marriage, the using of made up medical reasons against any other "unwanted"changes in the definition of marriage is very strange to me.
Its all classic divide and conquer diversionary tactic that serves to break down family, community and country.
Buy into it Waynos.

reply to post by waynos

Sorry but you clearly said you only support some peoples right for "self determination"?

A sexual preference, or sexual practice, is not any form of self determination.
If anyone wrongly thinks they are their sexual preference that a problem .

Who are you? I'm gay.
No you are not, you are a human being (seeking the self).
Does your sexual preference determine who you are.

reply to post by BDBinc

Does your sexuality determine who you are?
Well, maybe we should ask the people who made homosexuals medical and judicial subjects in the first place.
Of course they're all dead, so we can't really.

reply to post by BDBinc


So you think that birth defects brought about by children being born into incestual relationships are "made up"?

What government change are you referring to? I was only giving you my opinion. I really don't understand why some people are so hung up on gay marriage. If two gays marry each other it does not affect my life with my girlfriend one iota (as we regard marriage as unnecessary at all) but I do believe that someone who does want to should be able to, and those of us who don't should equally be left to get along with out own lives.

If you really cannot see the difference between two consenting adults making a choice together and a degrading letch forcing themself onto a child, or close blood relatives producing disabled children then maybe you need to seek help.

You keep referring to being gay defined as a medical condition, can you provide any source info for this as I have only seen it before as an opinion of some older Doctors, not an actual definition?

reply to post by BDBinc


Yeah, self determination was the wrong phrase, it is more the liberty to be who you are born to be. paedophiles tend to get off on the power and control aspect and are sexually attracted to either male or female children, paedos are still either straight or gay. It is not the same thing at all. The forcing of ones attention onto an unwilling or unaware partner is abhorrent in any circumstances, gay or straight. However gay and straight adults can love willing partners. That's the difference.

reply to post by Swing80s


OK, OP, I'll bite.

Why can't you marry multiple persons, children or animals? Hmm, let me go through the reasons why:

Well, first of all, we have laws against sexual relations between children or animals and adults. Neither children nor animals can consent to sex, and children are really too young to make any such long term decision. I hope you can understand that. Yes, there used to be laws against homosexual sex, but those have all been done away with. We used to have laws against interracial sex and interracial marriage and those, too, have been overturned. We used to have slavery, and those have been overturned too. Just as we as a society/nation no longer believe slavery is legal, we no longer believe that people should be punished for their sexuality as long as it involves consenting adults.

Now what is marriage for? Amongst other things, it is meant to give security to the children that may come from any union; this is a societal benefit. The relationship of a married couple has various other legal power to it, including giving the two members primary control over their combined finances as well as being the person's legal guardian (not quite the right term, but can't think of the appropriate one right now) in matters of life and death, i.e. who has the right to decide on whether a person in a coma should be left on life support or not. Also marriage accrues financial benefits, including health insurance and access to retirement and social security benefits of one's spouse, if said spouse dies or becomes incapable of making decisions, etc.

Personally, if you wanted to marry a horse, I myself wouldn't care, but would you want your benefits going to it, and would you want your equine lover to make the decision as to whether or not pull the plug on you if you were in a coma? Would one hoof clomp mean keep you on life support and two hoof clomps mean "pull the plug"?

Also because of these legal issues, if there was a third party, i.e a third spouse (or more), who is going to have the final say in such matters, and how will one's benefits be divvied up, and who exactly is responsible for which children? You see why multiple married partners quickly becomes a fairly intractable issue?

And there are rights that only married partners have, which aren't accrued even if civil unions are recognized. There have been life-long same-sex couples, and the healthy partner had no legal right, unlike a married partner, to be with a deathly sick partner or have any say in the person's treatment. There are also financial benefits not accrued to non-married couples, and there are the tax benefits have being married as well. Why shouldn't a same sex couple, who obey laws and pay taxes and work be entitled to all the benefits a heterosexual couple have?

I really don't know why people still have a problem with this. Nobody is going to be forcing anyone into a "gay" marriage against their own will, and churches that don't want to marry gay couples won't have to. So how is the institution of marriage endangered? We have citizenship and voting rights for all people -- even gays, by golly. How has that hurt society? There are gay Democrats and Republicans, as well as libertarians and every thing else, so it isn't like just one party has gays and said party has led the country to hell in a hand basket. In any, the US is a democratic republic and all citizens are supposed to have the same rights, so whatever their sexual persuasion, religious affiliation and ethnicity they all have the right to vote and to do everything everybody else can do, and they should also be able to accrue all the other financial and legal rights of everybody else.

I'm terribly sorry that you won't be able to marry a herd of sheep -- or what have you -- any time soon.. Perhaps if you campaign long and hard, you will be able to change the societal mores on this issue. But I hope you do see why it makes sense to allow gays to have the same marriage rights as straight couples.

I don't get what the fuss is. There already gay people having sex and living together, why not let them get married too? Heck, gay couples are already allowed to adopt children, so you don't have that argument to stand on. It seems people who are against it, are just stuck in the past and by traditional convention -- that or they aren't secure in their own sexuality. Are people afraid they might go to Vegas, get really drunk and wake up the next morning married to someone of the same sex? Seriously, people, get over it already and worry about something important that ACTUALLY affects your life negatively.

Originally posted by schuyler
IMO the government should not be involved in marriage at all. I should not have to buy a "marriage license" from the government in order to be legally married. If I want to get married in a church and have it sanctioned by my religion, fine, but that's my choice. If we got the government out of the marriage business, all this LGBT marriage stuff would be moot. It's much ado about nothing.

Ya know, I think this whole gay marriage thing is more about what they will get benefit wise out of the government than it is about that piece of paper, so I like your thinking. Get government out of marriage and shut the gays up.

I was married once. Nightmare from Hell. Now the woman I call my wife is my best friend and we are not legally married. She considers me her husband too and we even list each other as husband and wife on (non legally binding) documents, like dr. office forms under spouse. We could care less about government benefits. If those gays really loved each other they would not care about that darn piece of paper also. That doesn't show love, actions show love. All that does is get you a false since of status along with some government benefits you don't need.

Religious people like to say this "shacking up" is against God but that's not correct. In the Bible there did not have to be a priest or marriage ceremony for two people to get married, in either the old and new testament - although you could do that if you choose to. This was usually done as a reason to celibate and make your choice to be together known to the public. All that was normally required is that you bring the spouse into your home to live with you. wiki.answers.com... and christianity.about.com...

reply to post by waynos


You were the one who brought up medical reasons to support only what you think is self determination(a sexual preference!).

My advice is the same to all those angry gay men in existing personal relationships, grow up, stop playing the victim , validate your own personal relationship.
Or don't as you seem to want to think I want to stop homosexuals from having personal relationships.
You didn't listen and you don't understand that a govt cannot force a change in the social definition of marriage, a social institution, without a social mandate.
You are divided and so you argue, many in this " changing the social definition of marriage "debate lose happiness in their personal relationship thinking it is unequal to other personal relationships.
Meanwhile in other parts of the world has the injustice of death for homosexuals and yet for all this media attention none of you try to make the changes that are needed and just fight for what you already have while your brothers get killed for being gay. Why don't you seek to change the injustice instead of imagining it where it doesn't exist.
Marriage was and is a social institution, my points were not lost on most of the thread readers.

I think the reason why polygamy is not legal is probably because of tax issues. We can say that a marriage is a religious practice to join two people together, and while that's true.. A married couple gets more economic benefits from being joined together rather than being a single income.
I personally have no problem with the idea of polygamy being legal. But within reason. I think the first wife should agree and get along with the newcomer or newcomers. We have to remember that in a good marriage there are no secrets that could harm the parties involved. As far as I know, in some parts of the Middle East, polygamy is legal, and practicable if the first wife agrees and likes the newcomers, hence why I mentioned above that it should probably work that way here, in the U.S. I mean, you'd want the women to like each other, right? You wouldn't want jealous, catty, annoying fights breaking out in your kitchen would you?
I also have no problem with homosexuality. And I don't think that homosexuals deserve the amount of crap that they get from straight people, and religious followers. As for Christianity, last I checked, the religion is really suppose to be about love and accepting people as Jesus did. And that means all people. And if you want to get serious here, I think Jesus would forgive a gay ADULT who is having sex with a consenting ADULT, over a priest who is having sex with a CHILD. But, that's also coming from someone who isn't Christian, at all.

Now that I've explained both sides, I have to say, though... Polygamy and homosexuality are not even comparable on the same level, when it comes to human rights. Polygamy has been noted, and as far as I know, is illegal IN all states. Meaning, very few actually agree with the concept. Homosexuality is being seen by the supreme court (Or was? I don't keep up with it anymore.), and is legal in some states, meaning at least a few people believe that it's okay.

As a citizen of the United States, you have the right to happiness as long as it does not interfere or harm anyone else. Polygamous relationships, as we can imagine, could probably lead to a lot of suicides, and murders due to jealousy, and unhappiness. We're talking about women here. Who are already crazy enough on their own without watching their husband have sex with some strange woman! What exactly does homosexuality do? Not much of anything to the general public. Because it involves TWO people who want to be happy TOGETHER.