Worse than Gay Marriage

[mumchup]

The other day at work we were discussing the idea, put forth by certain gay marriage foes, that if we allow gays to get married then we would have to allow bigamy, incest and a host of other unsavory marriages. Which would lead to the collapse of Western society (according to certain people).
We agreed that if society can withstand such unholy unions as Liza Minelli and David Gest, Dennis Rodman and anyone, Michael Jackson and anyone, then surely it's not going to collapse over a gay couple. I mean, how do you even decide which gender Michael Jackson is allowed to marry?
We thought of a few other Legal marriages that seem to be worse than gay marriage, such as:


A person could continually get married and then divorced to willing participants (of the opposite sex) in an attempt to break the world's record for being married the most times.

A couple could get married solely to participate in "wife swapping" orgies.


Admittedly these are not likely, but they are legal, I think.

Anyone got any others?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Two people could get married solely to benefit from evidence rules preventing a person from being required to give evidence against their spouse.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by mumchup

We thought of a few other Legal marriages that seem to be worse than gay marriage, such as:


A person could continually get married and then divorced to willing participants (of the opposite sex) in an attempt to break the world's record for being married the most times.

A couple could get married solely to participate in "wife swapping" orgies.


Admittedly these are not likely, but they are legal, I think.

Anyone got any others?

When you add gay marriage, wouldnt that increase these "worse" marriages now that the pool of marrying options has increased.

What happens if cellmates marry, woudl it be illegal to separate them. Illegal for the jail to stop them from haveing sex. Could partners in crime marry each other so they can refuse to testify against their spouce?

[Bearguin]

Immigration reasons?

[The Don]

Originally posted by Tmy

What happens if cellmates marry, woudl it be illegal to separate them. Illegal for the jail to stop them from haveing sex. Could partners in crime marry each other so they can refuse to testify against their spouce?

In the U.K. there's no right to sex in prison. It is likely that the couple would be separated quickly into different prisons. This is no different to the current circumstance when a married couple are in prison at the same time.

Partners in crime COULD marry so long as neither is married at that current time and that the wheels could be put in motion before the trial occurred. Again this is no different to the current situation.

[Snapper]

Originally posted by Tmy


What happens if cellmates marry, woudl it be illegal to separate them. Illegal for the jail to stop them from haveing sex.

To play devil's advocate with my very first JREF post, why shouldn't they be allowed?

In situations where a husband and wife are both in prison, what is the reason behind not allowing them share a cell?

Prisons keep criminals out of society. Is there some compelling reason to require the separation of two married individuals who are incarcerated?

[mumchup]

Originally posted by Tmy


When you add gay marriage, wouldnt that increase these "worse" marriages now that the pool of marrying options has increased.


I wasn't suggesting that I am offended by these scenarios, they wouldn't affect me. My point was I don't think that gay marriage is such a threat to "decent" heterosexual marriage.

I grew up in a Navy town, and there were more than a few cases around, of women from poor countries such as The Phillipines, getting married to unsuspecting Navy guys just to gain entrance into America. There also seems to be a great deal of infidelity in the Navy population. How would gay marriage affect this? I suppose there would be a few gay marriages for immigration reasons, but it's already going on within the hetero population.

I just don't see how allowing one group of people to get married is going to degrade the morals of another group of people. How stupid are we supposed to be, if we can't uphold our marriage vows because the guys next door got hitched?

[mumchup]

You get really drunk in Las Vegas and marry someone after your friends bet you that you don't have the guts to do it.

[mumchup]

Originally posted by Snapper

In situations where a husband and wife are both in prison, what is the reason behind not allowing them share a cell?


And as an added bonus, that would be an extra punishment for some people.

[Snapper]

Originally posted by mumchup


And as an added bonus, that would be an extra punishment for some people.

But as a society, don't we keep pretending that the point of the justice system is not vindictiveness, but protection of society from these individuals?

Is society served better by separating married inmates than it is by allowing them to share a cell?

Sure there's the whole 'prison baby' complication, but that's a side issue. If the only compelling reason to separate married inmates is to eliminate the possibility of conception, then one is left entirely without compelling reason to separate a hypothetical, incarcerated, same-sex, married couple.

[mumchup]

I was only kidding about the added punishment.
I agree that there is no reason to separate married inmates in and of itself, but considering how violent and predatory the prison system can be, men and women have to be separated.
A few women in a mostly male prison population would be VERY attractive. And you can't let a few men into the women's prison, what about the other women? Don't they have rights?
Also, aside from the increased possibility of rape, people in prison are there because they made poor choices in their lives. Coed situations will cause an increase in relationship problems, cheating, jealousy, abuse etc.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Snapper


To play devil's advocate with my very first JREF post, why shouldn't they be allowed?

In situations where a husband and wife are both in prison, what is the reason behind not allowing them share a cell?

Prisons keep criminals out of society. Is there some compelling reason to require the separation of two married individuals who are incarcerated?

I could see it as a security risk for the jail. The last thing the jail wants is people who are close. They are more likely to collude, or plan bad things together. On the flip side keeping married folks in close quarters and a jail atmosphere might create a dangerous domestic violence situation. The jail may be held lible for NOT separating a couple and allowing one to be abused.

[Snapper]

Originally posted by mumchup
I was only kidding about the added punishment.
I agree that there is no reason to separate married inmates in and of itself, but considering how violent and predatory the prison system can be, men and women have to be separated.
A few women in a mostly male prison population would be VERY attractive. And you can't let a few men into the women's prison, what about the other women? Don't they have rights?
Also, aside from the increased possibility of rape, people in prison are there because they made poor choices in their lives. Coed situations will cause an increase in relationship problems, cheating, jealousy, abuse etc.

Those are good arguments against allowing married, heterosexual couples to share a cell. I agree. Obviously, though, those arguments simply do not apply to same-sex couples.

Do I think same-sex couples (married or otherwise) should be allowed to share a cell? I don't really care. Let them. In theory, monogamy could reduce the occurrance of HIV infection. Homosexual sex is surely impossible to prevent, so why spend so much energy and resources to combat it?

[Skeptic]

True, there are abuses of marriage that are worse than gay marriages. But there could be similar abuses of gay marriages, of course.

It is no argument for gay marriage that it is better than the WORST possible heterosecual marriages, any more than it is an argument for being overweight that it's better than starvation.

[mumchup]

Originally posted by Snapper

Do I think same-sex couples (married or otherwise) should be allowed to share a cell? I don't really care. Let them. In theory, monogamy could reduce the occurrance of HIV infection. Homosexual sex is surely impossible to prevent, so why spend so much energy and resources to combat it?

This is exactly what baffles me about the big deal that's being made of the issue. Who cares?
On a tangent, I have medical/dental insurance through my boyfriend's employer, as a "domestic partner." So as a heterosexual couple, one reason to marry (insurance) has been removed because gays are not allowed to marry. I don't think it's fair that we should be allowed to use this option because we can legally get married. Not that I'm givin' it back:)
Isn't it funny how it's "fair" to exclude gays from a legal union that would provide benefits such as insurance, but then if you give them an alternative it's "not fair" to exclude heteros, even though they shouldn't need it.
You might say that not allowing gays to get married is contributing to the breakdown of the traditional marriage.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by mumchup
The other day at work we were discussing the idea, put forth by certain gay marriage foes, that if we allow gays to get married then we would have to allow bigamy, incest and a host of other unsavory marriages. Which would lead to the collapse of Western society (according to certain people).
We agreed that if society can withstand such unholy unions as Liza Minelli and David Gest, Dennis Rodman and anyone, Michael Jackson and anyone, then surely it's not going to collapse over a gay couple. I mean, how do you even decide which gender Michael Jackson is allowed to marry?
We thought of a few other Legal marriages that seem to be worse than gay marriage, such as:


A person could continually get married and then divorced to willing participants (of the opposite sex) in an attempt to break the world's record for being married the most times.

A couple could get married solely to participate in "wife swapping" orgies.


Admittedly these are not likely, but they are legal, I think.

Anyone got any others?
Well, here's the thing; heterosexual couples can get married for wahetever the hell reason they want, because granting of a marriage licence is not dependent on having a good reason. But same sex couples carnt because they're gay, although it doesn't prevent them from marrying someone of the opposite (yuch, hate that term) sex. There is a local errm, eccentric in my area, who married his dog. I don't think the marriage was ever legally recognised and I believe the dog sued for divorce soon afterwards on the grounds of unusual and excessive sexual demands :)

[Jaan]

Originally posted by mumchup
This is exactly what baffles me about the big deal that's being made of the issue. Who cares?
A lot of people care. It bother them when other people are different.

The subject of this threat are things that are worse than gay marriage. Personally, I think the worse thing on earth is the taking away of freedom and forcing people to do what they don't want to do. Shindlers List is the scariest movie I've ever seen.

On a lighter note, I hope this leads to legalizing multiple marriage. I really would like to have a harem someday!

[mumchup]

Originally posted by Skeptic
It is no argument for gay marriage that it is better than the WORST possible heterosecual marriages, any more than it is an argument for being overweight that it's better than starvation.

That's not exactly the point I was trying to make, in fact I agree with you on that.
I was trying to illustrate the absurdity of blaming gays for the current state of affairs in the heterosexual community. I mean, if Brittany Spears tried to claim that her quicky marriage was the fault of gays, would anyone believe her?

[rikzilla]

After gay marriage, is this (http://www.nambla.org/) next?? :jaw:

-z

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Snapper


But as a society, don't we keep pretending that the point of the justice system is not vindictiveness, but protection of society from these individuals?

Is society served better by separating married inmates than it is by allowing them to share a cell?

Sure there's the whole 'prison baby' complication, but that's a side issue. If the only compelling reason to separate married inmates is to eliminate the possibility of conception, then one is left entirely without compelling reason to separate a hypothetical, incarcerated, same-sex, married couple.

Prisoners generally do not get to choose their cell mates as far as I am aware. Why should married prisoners expect to be allowed to choose theirs?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Skeptic
True, there are abuses of marriage that are worse than gay marriages. But there could be similar abuses of gay marriages, of course.

It is no argument for gay marriage that it is better than the WORST possible heterosecual marriages, any more than it is an argument for being overweight that it's better than starvation.
True, but as far as the argument that gay marriage trivialises heterosexual marriage goes, the 'breeders' are way ahead on that score to the extent that arguing there may be similar abuses of gay marriage seems kind of absurd.

[Snapper]

Originally posted by rikzilla
After gay marriage, is this (http://www.nambla.org/) next?? :jaw:

-z

Oh THERE'S the pedophilia strawman. I was wondering when someone would drag that one out.

:rolleyes:

[Snapper]

Originally posted by BillyTK

True, but as far as the argument that gay marriage trivialises heterosexual marriage goes, the 'breeders' are way ahead on that score to the extent that arguing there may be similar abuses of gay marriage seems kind of absurd.

The argument is BS anyway. Any marriage is only as valid, holy, sacred, strong, blessed, beautiful, meaningful, etc. as the two persons involved make it. Nothing and no one outside a marriage can change it in any way whatsoever.

The notion to the contrary is patently ridiculous.

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by rikzilla
After gay marriage, is this (http://www.nambla.org/) next??

No. Minors cannot enter into legal contracts.

Thank you for playing, though.

[Graham]

Originally posted by rikzilla
After gay marriage, is this (http://www.nambla.org/) next?? :jaw:

-z

Dude, some sort of warning for those of us viewing at work would be nice.

Not really something you want showing up in your history file.

Graham

[Tmy]

Heres what I think bothers many people.

Civil Unions were getting popular, gays wanted legal protection and say in medical stuff ect. They wanted those legal options. Most people thought that was kinda fair. That was making its way into the mainstream then it turned into "NO, civil union is not enought, we want marraige!!".

I think people got annoyed cause civ unions covered what they gays wanted. Marriage was this other step. Same sex and hetero marriage are not equal, same sex couples cant make a baby together. And really thats what marriage is about. Sure marriage comes with this other stuff, but they gays can get that stuff through civ unions.

Marriage, like most laws, create inequality. If you truely want fairness youd be looking to ban all marriage. (Im up for that!)

[Ed]

Originally posted by Snapper


To play devil's advocate with my very first JREF post, why shouldn't they be allowed?

In situations where a husband and wife are both in prison, what is the reason behind not allowing them share a cell?

Prisons keep criminals out of society. Is there some compelling reason to require the separation of two married individuals who are incarcerated?

Punishment?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Graham


Dude, some sort of warning for those of us viewing at work would be nice.

Not really something you want showing up in your history file.

Graham

Yikes! Sorry! Really, I hadn't thought of that. I'll see if I can still edit it.

BTW, those who called this a "strawman" obviously didn't read the webpage. These folks are dead serious, and they do imagine themselves as the caboose on the gay train. As soon as we say "why not" to gay marriage, it's likely to be seen as a foot in the door by NAMBLA to say "why not" to underage sex. The "age of consent" is an arbitrary line drawn by government after all isn't it? Isn't the "arbitrary line" drawn by government really the thing under attack here?

No,...it's more correct to call this a "slippery slope" argument than a "strawman", however if government's ability to make so called arbitrary decisions and rules is truly under fire then this argument is not a slippery slope at all.

Regardless though, we should keep an eye on NAMBLA. They have an organisation and a political agenda, unlike polygamists or the incestuous.

-z

[Snapper]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Yikes! Sorry! Really, I hadn't thought of that. I'll see if I can still edit it.

BTW, those who called this a "strawman" obviously didn't read the webpage. These folks are dead serious, and they do imagine themselves as the caboose on the gay train. As soon as we say "why not" to gay marriage, it's likely to be seen as a foot in the door by NAMBLA to say "why not" to underage sex. The "age of consent" is an arbitrary line drawn by government after all isn't it? Isn't the "arbitrary line" drawn by government really the thing under attack here?

No,...it's more correct to call this a "slippery slope" argument than a "strawman", however if government's ability to make so called arbitrary decisions and rules is truly under fire then this argument is not a slippery slope at all.

Regardless though, we should keep an eye on NAMBLA. They have an organisation and a political agenda, unlike polygamists or the incestuous.

-z

I don't care how serious NAMBLA is or isn't. They are not an organization within the US, despite their title. The one time 'NAMBLA' surfaced at an event in the US in the recent past, it turned out to be a christian conservative trying to get NAMBLA registered as a participant in a gay pride parade to 'prove' the association between homosexuality and pedophilia.

NAMBLA's continued 'existence' is quite suspect in my opinion.

At any rate, the question of whether pedophilia is 'next' is indeed a strawman argument. It is also one float on the Parade of Horribles (slippery slope argument).

In the context of its use as an argument against same-sex marriage, it's fearmongering plain and simple.

[mumchup]

Originally posted by Tmy
Heres what I think bothers many people.

Civil Unions were getting popular, gays wanted legal protection and say in medical stuff ect. They wanted those legal options. Most people thought that was kinda fair. That was making its way into the mainstream then it turned into "NO, civil union is not enought, we want marraige!!".

I think people got annoyed cause civ unions covered what they gays wanted. Marriage was this other step. Same sex and hetero marriage are not equal, same sex couples cant make a baby together. And really thats what marriage is about. Sure marriage comes with this other stuff, but they gays can get that stuff through civ unions.

Marriage, like most laws, create inequality. If you truely want fairness youd be looking to ban all marriage. (Im up for that!)


It was the Massachussetts Supreme Court that decided civil union wasn't enough, not gay people. And I really don't understand how public opinion can be so different depending on what you call it. Is semantics really that important?
I also get a little confused about the procreation argument. You can get married and never have children if you want. Or you can have children and never get married. Should birth control be mandatory for unmarried people, and illegal for married couples just because someone else believes that marriage and children are mutually binding?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Snapper


I don't care how serious NAMBLA is or isn't. They are not an organization within the US, despite their title. The one time 'NAMBLA' surfaced at an event in the US in the recent past, it turned out to be a christian conservative trying to get NAMBLA registered as a participant in a gay pride parade to 'prove' the association between homosexuality and pedophilia.

NAMBLA's continued 'existence' is quite suspect in my opinion.

At any rate, the question of whether pedophilia is 'next' is indeed a strawman argument. It is also one float on the Parade of Horribles (slippery slope argument).

In the context of its use as an argument against same-sex marriage, it's fearmongering plain and simple.

Isnt bringing up Britney Spears, or the divorce rates just as much a strawman as pedophilia?

In most states you can be under 18 and marry. (Look at ELvis). I wonder how people will react to an underaged boyu marrying a grown man.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by mumchup



I also get a little confused about the procreation argument. You can get married and never have children if you want. Or you can have children and never get married. Should birth control be mandatory for unmarried people, and illegal for married couples just because someone else believes that marriage and children are mutually binding?

They used to have blood tests for that reason right?

The big purpose for marriage was to legitimize children. Sure there are some marriages that cant have kids. Thats really the exception than the norm. SO its a "why bother" situation. Sort of like the assumption that married people love each other. Its not required, but its kind of expected. Even gay advocates would agree on that. WE still dont have a "love" requirement.

[Bearguin]

Originally posted by Tmy
Same sex and hetero marriage are not equal, same sex couples cant make a baby together. And really thats what marriage is about.

CAN WE NOT PUT THIS STUPID ARGUMENT TO REST!!!!

For F*#$( sakes. Marriage is not about having children and I refuse to be considered less married than others simply because my wife and I can't!

This crap just pisses me off. I am married because I am deeply in love with my wife and want to spend my life with her. I did not marry to have kids and, when I found out she could not, I did not divorce her to go find someone I could have kids with.

I know the politicians and others spout this crap, but let's put a stop to it here. Marriage is not about having children. Find some other b*llsh!t argument to hang your hat on, but leave this one out of it.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Snapper


I don't care how serious NAMBLA is or isn't. They are not an organization within the US, despite their title. The one time 'NAMBLA' surfaced at an event in the US in the recent past, it turned out to be a christian conservative trying to get NAMBLA registered as a participant in a gay pride parade to 'prove' the association between homosexuality and pedophilia.

NAMBLA's continued 'existence' is quite suspect in my opinion.

At any rate, the question of whether pedophilia is 'next' is indeed a strawman argument. It is also one float on the Parade of Horribles (slippery slope argument).

In the context of its use as an argument against same-sex marriage, it's fearmongering plain and simple.

I'll drop the whole argument if you show me proof that NAMBLA is not what they claim to be.

The rest of what you say is only your own opinion. In my opinion the government's ability to draw lines and make rules that many may claim are "arbitrary" is the real issue here. If the government's ability to define a thing based on nothing more solid than past practises is really at issue, then why would the "age of consent" be exempt??

I'd like to see the government be MORE able to draw definitive lines. I'd like to see them draw the line between fetus and viable child so that we could have sane abortion laws that allow abortion for any reason before a certain period during gestation and after that period would call a late term abortion what it really is: infanticide.

I'd like to see the government continue to tell us that it's illegal for a person above the age of 18 to have sex with a person below that age. Why? Isn't THAT also arbitrary? Yet without it, where do we draw our line? If we can't figure out that a marriage is a man and a woman, then how in the name of hell will we decide what the age of consent should be??

-z

[mumchup]

Originally posted by Tmy


Isnt bringing up Britney Spears, or the divorce rates just as much a strawman as pedophilia?

I didn't bring up Britney Spears and divorce rates as an argument, it was just to point out the absurdity of blaming gays when heteros misbehave.

Originally posted by Tmy

In most states you can be under 18 and marry. (Look at ELvis). I wonder how people will react to an underaged boyu marrying a grown man.

Jerry Lee Lewis comes to mind. Isn't he about due to marry another 12 year old girl any time now? ew ew ew

[Cleon]

Originally posted by rikzilla
I'd like to see the government continue to tell us that it's illegal for a person above the age of 18 to have sex with a person below that age. Why? Isn't THAT also arbitrary? Yet without it, where do we draw our line? If we can't figure out that a marriage is a man and a woman, then how in the name of hell will we decide what the age of consent should be??

-z

They tell you that? In Georgia the Age of Consent is 16.

The AOC is arbitrary, sure. So, for that matter, is the legal drinking age of 21. AOC laws are established to prevent predators from taking advantage of little girls and boys. This is a Good Thing; at a certain point, "consent" is an illusion at best.

In Pennsylvania the law is much more flexible and logical; someone over the age of 18 can have sex with someone under 18 as long as there is less than four years' age difference.

But in same-sex marriage, the need for protection from predators doesn't apply as a reason not to have it.

[Snapper]

Originally posted by Tmy


1) Isnt bringing up Britney Spears, or the divorce rates just as much a strawman as pedophilia?

2) In most states you can be under 18 and marry. (Look at ELvis). I wonder how people will react to an underaged boyu marrying a grown man.

1) No, alleging gay marriage has any negative affect on other marriages is a red herring. Britney Spears and divorce rates are simply a way of pointing that out.

2) If you have some evidence that gay marriage will lead to pedophilia marriages, please present it. Otherwise, please desist with the fear mongering.

[Snapper]

Originally posted by rikzilla


I'll drop the whole argument if you show me proof that NAMBLA is not what they claim to be.

The rest of what you say is only your own opinion. In my opinion the government's ability to draw lines and make rules that many may claim are "arbitrary" is the real issue here. If the government's ability to define a thing based on nothing more solid than past practises is really at issue, then why would the "age of consent" be exempt??

I'd like to see the government be MORE able to draw definitive lines. I'd like to see them draw the line between fetus and viable child so that we could have sane abortion laws that allow abortion for any reason before a certain period during gestation and after that period would call a late term abortion what it really is: infanticide.

I'd like to see the government continue to tell us that it's illegal for a person above the age of 18 to have sex with a person below that age. Why? Isn't THAT also arbitrary? Yet without it, where do we draw our line? If we can't figure out that a marriage is a man and a woman, then how in the name of hell will we decide what the age of consent should be??

-z

You prove that NAMBLA is a real threat. You're the one bringing them up and making them an issue. The burden of proof is yours, not mine. If this were not the case, I could just as easily allege you once had a third arm growing out of your left buttock, but had it surgically removed and then sit back and let you 'prove' you didn't.

You ALLEGE that NAMBLA is an eminent threat and you ALLEGE that gay marriage would bolster their efforts and you ALLEGE that pedophilia marriages would happen next...but you offer no proof other than a link to a website that claims to be NAMBLA.

You and I both know that age of consent is not arbitrary. Age of consent is for the protection of children who we deem are not old and wise enough to make decisions for themselves. If you're afraid people are going to start changing their minds about pedophilia...do a poll and ask the question. I think you'll find it reassuring.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Gods Advocate




I know the politicians and others spout this crap, but let's put a stop to it here. Marriage is not about having children. Find some other b*llsh!t argument to hang your hat on, but leave this one out of it.

Its not? have you looked at the hisory of legal marriage. LOVE has nothing to do with it. You wont even find that word in the laws. So why have these laws. FOR THE KIDS!

In some places not being able to have kids or "perform" is ground for annulment. Not solemizing marriage is a grounds for annulment. Why is it that most of the "benifits" of legal marriage revolve around the children.?

WONT SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!

[Silicon]

Rik,

You were doing so well in the other thread, and now I find you here doing this!


Studies show that straights are more likely to be pedophiles than gays. (That's why I think we should ban straight marriage! :p )


So that is worse than a straw man, or a slippery slope. It's an outright falsehood.

Honestly, just because we don't all share an opinion on one area of discussion, doesn't mean that all morality goes out the window.

[Snapper]

Originally posted by Tmy


Its not? have you looked at the hisory of legal marriage. LOVE has nothing to do with it. You wont even find that word in the laws. So why have these laws. FOR THE KIDS!

In some places not being able to have kids or "perform" is ground for annulment. Not solemizing marriage is a grounds for annulment. Why is it that most of the "benifits" of legal marriage revolve around the children.?

WONT SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!

Are you alleging now that gay marriage threatens children somehow? If so, please do explain and be sure to cite sources and evidence.

Also, assuming for a moment that marriage really is about children, who says gay marriage would be any different? Many gay people do have children whether from previous relationships or surregacy or adoption. You seem to be saying then that gay parents are inadequate somehow and I'll invite you to expound upon that as well.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Snapper


Are you alleging now that gay marriage threatens children somehow? If so, please do explain and be sure to cite sources and evidence.

Also, assuming for a moment that marriage really is about children, who says gay marriage would be any different? Many gay people do have children whether from previous relationships or surregacy or adoption. You seem to be saying then that gay parents are inadequate somehow and I'll invite you to expound upon that as well.

Ill admit that I think having a mom/dad is a superior situation. Just like its superior to having a single parent. With same sex couples you get redundent parental roles.

With step kids you still have the biologicals who own them. Adoptions and seregates are rare and still have their issues (like the inevitable "I want to meet my biological" thing)

[Snapper]

Originally posted by Tmy


Ill admit that I think having a mom/dad is a superior situation. Just like its superior to having a single parent. With same sex couples you get redundent parental roles.

With step kids you still have the biologicals who own them. Adoptions and seregates are rare and still have their issues (like the inevitable "I want to meet my biological" thing)

Well you state your opinion and that is fine, but is your opinion as to what is preferable sufficient to justify discrimination?

What do you mean when you say "With same sex couples you get redundent parental roles."? What role is imposed upon a parent by their genitalia? If there are such roles, why can they not be filled by extended family members and close family friends? Children are not raised in a vacuum after all. The notion that a child raised by two men would not have a female role model is rather silly.

In many cases, children from prior relationships do not have contact with the estranged biological parent. As for adopted children wanting to meet their biological parents, that is certainly not unique to gay parenting. I'm not sure what the point of mentioning it is.

My first quesiton was "how does gay marriage 'threaten' children?"

My second question was "what makes gay marriage incompatible with the notion that marriage is about children?"

Nothing in your reply seems address the first question at all, nor to support the alleged incompatibility in the second question..

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by rikzilla


I'll drop the whole argument if you show me proof that NAMBLA is not what they claim to be.

The rest of what you say is only your own opinion. In my opinion the government's ability to draw lines and make rules that many may claim are "arbitrary" is the real issue here. If the government's ability to define a thing based on nothing more solid than past practises is really at issue, then why would the "age of consent" be exempt??

(lil snip here)

I'd like to see the government continue to tell us that it's illegal for a person above the age of 18 to have sex with a person below that age. Why? Isn't THAT also arbitrary? Yet without it, where do we draw our line? If we can't figure out that a marriage is a man and a woman, then how in the name of hell will we decide what the age of consent should be??

-z

Ages of consent are not arbitrary in that there is a reason for drawing a line. At some point a human being is not yet capable to consent to sexual activity. This is a complex concept with several facets, among those the idea that the person doesn't understand the ramifications of the action, and likely more important, given that if you look closely these "age of consent" statutes usually address the difference in age rather than absolute age, that the line between persuasion and coersion is thin if it exists at all when we are dealing with sexual matters between an adult and a child.

There is an argument that such an age is different for every person, so the choice of a particular age range is "arbitrary." However, even this has a good reason in that it would be a drastic burden on governmental resources to make a finding as to capacity in every case, not to mention that criminal statutes must be clearly drafted to avoid due process problems.

The bottom line being that there is a legitimate government concern being forwarded by age of consent laws, and this concern is addressed with reasonable precision. There really hasn't been a like concern identified w/r/t gay marriage that can only reasonably be addressed by refusing to recognize gay marriage.

[Tmy]

Does gay marriage threaten children? Thats really a loaded question since gays cant have kids together.

Gay marraige is incompatable cause the 2 people cant create their own child. While we now have ways of faking it (adoption, sperm/egg donors) thats not really the norm. Im not questioning the love of any realtionship, but when you look back at marriage laws they were driven by the affects on the kids. Not the love that 2 people have. Thats for the church,.

People have kids together. Although many times we dont like it, we cant stop it. Legal marriage kinda created this safetynet for the kids.


Do you think men and women are the same? Other than the obvious I think there's a big difference on mom n dads roles. When one is missing I think it affects children. Sort of like how many strippers come from broken families, and go into stripping as a part of some "love me daddy" emptyness they have.

AS for adpotion. I think heteros should have an advantage over same sex if all else is the same. When you adopt your bringing in a 3rd party, if there young they dont even have a say in the situation. Your no longer in the "2 consenting adult" phase. I am a little concearned about kids whos lives may be made more difficult by having gay parents. I also favor babies being adopted by parents of the same race/hertiage if possible.

[Snapper]

Originally posted by Suddenly


Ages of consent are not arbitrary in that there is a reason for drawing a line. At some point a human being is not yet capable to consent to sexual activity. This is a complex concept with several facets, among those the idea that the person doesn't understand the ramifications of the action, and likely more important, given that if you look closely these "age of consent" statutes usually address the difference in age rather than absolute age, that the line between persuasion and coersion is thin if it exists at all when we are dealing with sexual matters between an adult and a child.

There is an argument that such an age is different for every person, so the choice of a particular age range is "arbitrary." However, even this has a good reason in that it would be a drastic burden on governmental resources to make a finding as to capacity in every case, not to mention that criminal statutes must be clearly drafted to avoid due process problems.

The bottom line being that there is a legitimate government concern being forwarded by age of consent laws, and this concern is addressed with reasonable precision. There really hasn't been a like concern identified w/r/t gay marriage that can only reasonably be addressed by refusing to recognize gay marriage.

Well-said! (or...written...whatever... :) )

[Snapper]

"Gay marraige is incompatable cause the 2 people cant create their own child." Why does that make gay marriage incompatible with the notion of the purpose of marriage being child rearing? Don't just declare that it does so. When you make such a statement, you have an obligation to back it up.

I obviously do not think that men & women are the same, I simply do not share the opinion that parents raising children should necessarily represent both genders. There are other role-models available.

Gay people can and do have children. Gay people can and do raise children. Every study of children raised by gay couples that has been conducted to date has shown the children are virtually indistinguishable from children raised by male+female couples. If you want your argument to be taken seriously, you must demonstrate why gay families are incompatible with the notion of marriage's purpose being child-rearing.

Let me clarify the question for you. Would children potentially raised by gay couples not benefit from gay marriage in the same way that children raised by heterosexual couples benefit from marriage now? If not, why?

[pgwenthold]

http://www.lafayettejc.com/news20040225/200402251local_opinion1077685315.shtml

A really nice perspective to see on the issue.

What was it, now, that our lawmakers said would be their priorities during this winter's short General Assembly session?
.
.
.
For Republicans, it was going to be all about jobs and reviving Indiana's economy. The voice of Rep. Brian Bosma, the House minority leader, declaring his party's priorities -- "If our economy isn't an emergency, I don't know what is," he said in January-- is a dim memory today. For now, Bosma and others at the Statehouse maintain that a gay marriage ban -- one written directly into the Indiana Constitution -- is "the most important issue we're dealing with this session." Important enough to practically shut down the legislature in protest.

Has the state of emergency for the economy been solved in the last 4 weeks?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Snapper


You prove that NAMBLA is a real threat. You're the one bringing them up and making them an issue. The burden of proof is yours, not mine. If this were not the case, I could just as easily allege you once had a third arm growing out of your left buttock, but had it surgically removed and then sit back and let you 'prove' you didn't.

You were the one who said that NAMBLA was a front for right-wingers trying to discredit the gay rights movement. Therefore it is you who made the extraordinary claim not I. I merely said that NAMBLA exists, and what their stated purpose was.

You ALLEGE that NAMBLA is an eminent threat and you ALLEGE that gay marriage would bolster their efforts and you ALLEGE that pedophilia marriages would happen next...but you offer no proof other than a link to a website that claims to be NAMBLA.
Simmer down. I never said NAMBLA was anything. I merely pointed to their website that I found by way of Google, and asked the question: "Is this next?" Since this thread was about stuff that was WORSE than gay marriage I pointed out that what NAMBLA wants is indeed worse than gay marriage. Simple. You supplied the rest. I merely wondered out loud what would happen if one seemingly arbitrary government decision was overturned, and what effect it might have if applied to other issues where seemingly "arbitrary" lines have been drawn. Now if you said it was slippery-slope you might have a tiny point, but I believe that I framed the question in such a way as to avoid most of that oily angle. ;)

You and I both know that age of consent is not arbitrary. Age of consent is for the protection of children who we deem are not old and wise enough to make decisions for themselves. If you're afraid people are going to start changing their minds about pedophilia...do a poll and ask the question. I think you'll find it reassuring.

Oh? Do we? If I found you one 17 year old who is more emotionally mature than one eighteen year old, would that not make the line @ 18 seem arbitrary? Well?

-z

[Tmy]

Snap,

How WOULD they benefit from the marriage? Id basically be a step children situation, which has little legal affect on the kids cause parents remarrying does not change the legal realtionships wh bio mom n dad. Dad doesnt get cut out cause mom gets a new Husband.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Silicon
Rik,

You were doing so well in the other thread, and now I find you here doing this!

What can I say? I crave controversy!


Studies show that straights are more likely to be pedophiles than gays. (That's why I think we should ban straight marriage! :p )


So that is worse than a straw man, or a slippery slope. It's an outright falsehood.

True. But what did I say? All I did was post a link to NAMBLA and say: "Is this next?" Since it's a thread about what is worse than gay marriage I thought it appropriate. I never said anything about gays being pedophiles....just that these guys have hooked their slimy caboose to the gay rights issue. I'm quite sure that the gay movement would like them to go away, but have seen no evidence that they are some front group as has been alledged.

Honestly, just because we don't all share an opinion on one area of discussion, doesn't mean that all morality goes out the window.

I would hope not! Anyway, you've done a great deal to change my mind. Please don't think it was all in vain, as I have come around mostly to your argument. It's just that I love to chew an issue to death sometimes, and there's still a little flavor left in this particular stick o' gum. ;)

As far as I know NAMBLA's a real group, of real strange creeps. I'd like to know if allowing gay marriage to go forth somehow strenthens their case before I jump on the gay marriage bandwagon....because if it does I'd rather not see it happen.

-z

[Cleon]

Originally posted by rikzilla

As far as I know NAMBLA's a real group, of real strange creeps.


So's the Republican Party. Point?


I'd like to know if allowing gay marriage to go forth somehow strenthens their case before I jump on the gay marriage bandwagon....because if it does I'd rather not see it happen.

-z

I would absolutely love to see the tortured, convulsed logic that would make NAMBLA's "case" stronger because gays are allowed to marry. Personally, I can't conceive of it, and I'm sure it will be highly entertaining.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Cleon

I would absolutely love to see the tortured, convulsed logic that would make NAMBLA's "case" stronger because gays are allowed to marry. Personally, I can't conceive of it, and I'm sure it will be highly entertaining.

:D That's what we're here for man....to think of absolutely EVERYTHING! :D

....at least you don't think NAMBLA's a front for the Christian Coalition! ;) That would require actual conspiracy theory! Oh My!

-z

[Cleon]

Originally posted by rikzilla


:D That's what we're here for man....to think of absolutely EVERYTHING! :D

....at least you don't think NAMBLA's a front for the Christian Coalition! ;) That would require actual conspiracy theory! Oh My!

-z

It would be amusing if true, but given the variety of opinions out there in the world and the desire of certain people to justify their sicknesses, the existence of groups like NAMBLA wouldn't surprise me.

I mean, hell, in another thread Rouser is trying to convince people that usually rape is the victim's fault. If people can believe THAT tripe, why is "raping young boys is ok" beyond the pale? :nope:

[Snapper]

rikzilla

I mentioned one known instance in which 'NAMBLA' was a front and expressed my opinion that its 'existence' is suspicious. I did not accuse the religious right of making it up.

You proposed that NAMBLA might be next after same sex marriage. Don't try and pretend now that you didn't. Objective readers can simply click back to the first page and read for themselves. It is that initial assertion that must be either proven or withdrawn. Stop trying to dodge your responsibility.

Truthfully, this thread invites slippery slope arguments and yes, yours earns that moniker.

Tmy

"How WOULD they benefit from the marriage?"

Ask the same question of marriage now. How do children currently benefit from marriage? Whatever your answer, examine whether that same benefit would apply to children raised by same sex couples. I think you'll find it will.

"Id basically be a step children situation, which has little legal affect on the kids cause parents remarrying does not change the legal realtionships wh bio mom n dad. Dad doesnt get cut out cause mom gets a new Husband."

If that's the best answer, then I think we can safely move on from the "the purpose of marriage is raising children" argument.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Snapper
rikzilla



Ask the same question of marriage now. How do children currently benefit from marriage? Whatever your answer, examine whether that same benefit would apply to children raised by same sex couples. I think you'll find it will.

"Id basically be a step children situation, which has little legal affect on the kids cause parents remarrying does not change the legal realtionships wh bio mom n dad. Dad doesnt get cut out cause mom gets a new Husband."

If that's the best answer, then I think we can safely move on from the "the purpose of marriage is raising children" argument.

A child is legally linked to its birth parents. If Im married and we have a kid its instantly legitimized. It has the rights to my estate and name and the right to be supported by me and the mom. I also have the right to raise or visit the kid as I see fit.

I f I get a divorce and then marry a man, my husband has no rights or control over my child. Mom does not lose those rights and neither do I. So my gay marraige does not have a legal affect over my son. He doesnt have rights to my husbands estate, and my husband doesnt have the right to punish or rasie the kid as he sees fit.

The birth parents always have them right unless they are taken away of given up. This does not happen easily as a chidlk has right to his parents too,

[Snapper]

Originally posted by Tmy


A child is legally linked to its birth parents. If Im married and we have a kid its instantly legitimized. It has the rights to my estate and name and the right to be supported by me and the mom. I also have the right to raise or visit the kid as I see fit.

I f I get a divorce and then marry a man, my husband has no rights or control over my child. Mom does not lose those rights and neither do I. So my gay marraige does not have a legal affect over my son. He doesnt have rights to my husbands estate, and my husband doesnt have the right to punish or rasie the kid as he sees fit.

The birth parents always have them right unless they are taken away of given up. This does not happen easily as a chidlk has right to his parents too,

Well that works as a very good argument in favor of adoption, but I'm not sure how it works as an argument against gay marriage.

The hypothetical couple you described don't have to be married. The biological kinship between parent and child is all that is required to establish that familial tie. If one parent dies or relinquishes that parental tie, another person can step in and adopt the child and a new legal kinship is formed.

How does any of this stand as an argument against gay marriage?

[Tmy]

If mom n dad arent married the rights arent automatic. Youd have to have paternity declared in some way. Thats why you have these paternity suits agiaints big time sports stars n stuff.

back to gays. If marriage is for the kids and gays cant have kids then why have gay marriage.

Its liek putting urinals in the ladies room on the odd chance a hermaphradite might walk in.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Tmy
If mom n dad arent married the rights arent automatic. Youd have to have paternity declared in some way. Thats why you have these paternity suits agiaints big time sports stars n stuff.

back to gays. If marriage is for the kids and gays cant have kids then why have gay marriage.

Its liek putting urinals in the ladies room on the odd chance a hermaphradite might walk in.

Actually, no. It's more like saying that you can't outlaw putting urinals in the ladies room because you don't want hermaphradites to be able to use the ladies room. The laws that are being struck down are ones that _restrict_ rights, not create them.

BTW, I take serious offense at your claim that marriage is for kids. Does that mean that my marriage, which has gone on for 11.5 years, is not as meaningful as one that has kids?

[Skeptic]

I was trying to illustrate the absurdity of blaming gays for the current state of affairs in the heterosexual community. I mean, if Brittany Spears tried to claim that her quicky marriage was the fault of gays, would anyone believe her?

(puzzled look)

No, but who exactly IS blaming gays for the state of marriage between homosexuals? I've never heard anybody claim that. That's like blaming jews for the sad state of the pork business...

[Skeptic]

BTW, I take serious offense at your claim that marriage is for kids.

I suppose you mean for HAVING kids...

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Skeptic
BTW, I take serious offense at your claim that marriage is for kids.

I suppose you mean for HAVING kids...

Ask TMY what he means, but consider the comment...

If marriage is for the kids and gays cant have kids then why have gay marriage

If marriage is for the kids, and I don't have kids, then why am I married?

Because I want to be, that's why...

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by rikzilla
[...]I'd like to see the government be MORE able to draw definitive lines. I'd like to see them draw the line between fetus and viable child so that we could have sane abortion laws that allow abortion for any reason before a certain period during gestation and after that period would call a late term abortion what it really is: infanticide.
[...]

Hmmm, you really didn't pay all that much attention to that Michael Shermer article (http://www.skeptic.com/04.2.shermer-sphinx.html) you linked to in the other gay marriage thread did you?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Tmy
If mom n dad arent married the rights arent automatic. Youd have to have paternity declared in some way. Thats why you have these paternity suits agiaints big time sports stars n stuff.

As I understand it all that the paternity suits are about is proving who the father is. The child already has exactly the same rights it is simply a matter of identifying who dad is.

What would be the case if a child was born to a married woman but the father was someone other than her husband? Does the child enjoy the same rights against him as his biological offspring purely because he was married to her mother at the time?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Snapper
..snip...

You and I both know that age of consent is not arbitrary. Age of consent is for the protection of children who we deem are not old and wise enough to make decisions for themselves. If you're afraid people are going to start changing their minds about pedophilia...do a poll and ask the question. I think you'll find it reassuring.

Perhaps you are using a different meaning for "arbitrary" then I would use?

The "age of consent" itself is definitely an arbitrary figure. For a start it varies tremendously from country to country, from 12 to 21 in tables I've seen. Also the fact that someone at age X years and 364 days changes by the passing of a day into someone who can have consensual sex legally is again an arbitrary measure put in place by legislators.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


As I understand it all that the paternity suits are about is proving who the father is. The child already has exactly the same rights it is simply a matter of identifying who dad is.

What would be the case if a child was born to a married woman but the father was someone other than her husband? Does the child enjoy the same rights against him as his biological offspring purely because he was married to her mother at the time?

I believe in the UK (or at least England & Wales) the man married to the mother would have to adopt the child to have any rights over the child. The marriage does not confer any rights on the man with regards to the children of another person, which seems strange if marriage is about the children... ;)

[Abdul Alhazred]

A couple could get married solely to participate in "wife swapping" orgies.

Admittedly these are not likely, but they are legal, I think.

Anyone got any others?

The only important question is what has a constituency. Though gay myself, I have no interest in gay marriage. But it has a constituency.

So it's an issue.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Tmy
Does gay marriage threaten children? Thats really a loaded question since gays cant have kids together.

Most gay people have 'normal' sex at some point in their lives. Sometimes they have children.

Gay marraige is incompatable cause the 2 people cant create their own child.


Does that mean that old women can't get married? I mean the usual way with a man?

[Lemastre]

Considering the sorry status of marriages, I'd think the gay-bashers would cackle gleefully at the idea of trapping all the queers in marriages, leaving them at the mercy of divorce lawyers and etc. Instead, the homophobes are wringing their hands and wailing that marriage is some sort of pristine utopia that needs defending from defilement. Marriages are bizarre enough as they are, and letting gay couples participate won't won't change the weirdness level very much at all. In the first place, how many other contracts do you know of that are on their faces supposed to last forever? Nobody in any other area of activity would sign on to such an agreement.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Snapper

You proposed that NAMBLA might be next after same sex marriage. Don't try and pretend now that you didn't. Objective readers can simply click back to the first page and read for themselves.

"Objective" readers? The mind reads and interprets....that is the very definition of subjective my friend, but I do think I know what you mean. How 'bout we make it easier for those readers?

Here is my actual post in which you say I "proposed" that NAMBLA might be next after same sex marriage:
<iframe width="100%" height="400" src="http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870332737"></iframe>

As you can all see, all I did was ask a question. I'll even admit it's an off the wall question, but it's not an invalid question. Now, if NAMBLA can be shown to be a fake, that would answer the question perfectly...but would require some kind of proof. If it's a stupid question with a good and obvious answer, then it should be easy to give that answer and leave it at that.

Pedophilia is not a gay issue, but I know of no other group that is organized to promote under age sex. It is troubling I'm sure to gay and lesbian people that this is a purely homosexual group.

From the NAMBLA website:
Pederasty and Homosexuality
"Our movement today stresses the liberation and empowerment of young people. Instead of pedagogy, democracy. Rather than a Greek love mentor-relationship, the companionship of independent and autonomous individuals. In place of male supremacy, a vision of sexual, economic, and political liberation for all. Freedom is indivisible. The liberation of children, women, boy-lovers, and homosexuals in general, can occur only as complementary facets of the same dream."

By their own admission, NAMBLA has attached itself to the gay rights movement. The gay rights people need to address this and show how the strengthening of gay rights will not also strengthen the cause of the pederasts. That's all I'm asking for here.

-z

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Hmmm, you really didn't pay all that much attention to that Michael Shermer article (http://www.skeptic.com/04.2.shermer-sphinx.html) you linked to in the other gay marriage thread did you?

Well you link to Shermer's article, but fail to site the parts you think my statement was in disagreement with.

Here's the pertinent Shermer clip:
There is provisional assent amongst most physicians and scientists-i.e., it is a "fact"-that fetus viability is 24 weeks of gestation. That is six months. It appears that it cannot be earlier because critical organs-lungs and kidneys-do not mature before that time. For example, air sac development sufficient for gas exchange does not occur until at least 23 weeks after gestation, and often later (Beddis, et al., 1979).

Additionally, not until after 28 weeks of gestation does the fetus develop sufficient neocortical complexity to exhibit some of the cognitive capacities typically found in full-term newborns. Fetus EEG recordings with the characteristics of an adult EEG appear at approximately 30 weeks. In other words, the capacity for human thought cannot exist until 28 to 30 weeks of gestation (Flower, 1989; Purpura, 1975; Molliver, et al., 1973). Of all the characteristics used to define what it means to be "human," the capacity to think is provisionally agreed upon by most scientists to be the most important (see Sagan and Druyan, 1992, for a good discussion of the terms of this debate).

Since virtually no abortions are performed after the 2nd trimester, and before the end of the 2nd trimester there is no scientific evidence that the fetus is a thinking human individual, by this definition abortion is not murder. If it is not murder, then it is not immoral, from a social point of view. That is, the state should not prevent women from choosing abortion. If a woman says she believes for personal reasons that abortion would be an immoral act for her, even though we might not agree on a scientific basis, we should have no qualms with her decision.

From a Provisional Ethics perspective it would be reasonable for us to offer our provisional agreement that abortions within the first two trimesters are not immoral because the evidence confirms that during this time the fetus is not a human individual and thus the action of aborting the fetus is justified if so desired by the mother.


Which agrees perfectly with what I said about drawing a definitive line on abortion. An agreed upon line would allow all abortion for any reason prior to the crossing of that line. After that line is crossed abortion becomes infanticide and as such is prohibited. In this way lines drawn and rules made actually free us!

-z

(Please excuse the thread sidetrack/hijack!!)

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Darat


Perhaps you are using a different meaning for "arbitrary" then I would use?

The "age of consent" itself is definitely an arbitrary figure. For a start it varies tremendously from country to country, from 12 to 21 in tables I've seen. Also the fact that someone at age X years and 364 days changes by the passing of a day into someone who can have consensual sex legally is again an arbitrary measure put in place by legislators.

I think your objection can be better summed up by the particular age of consent not being precisely drawn to meet what is a(I'd hope well-accepted) legitimate government goal. It really isn't completely arbitrary as it isn't random; it represents the best guess by a particular government as to what this age should be, taking into considerations like which side is it more important to err on, ideas as to human development, and so forth.

There is an element of "arbitrary" to the thing, but it seems more a question of imprecision than randomness.

There is a reason for the imprecision. People mature at different rates, which means that a set line is going to be "off" one way or another. However, not setting a line is unacceptable because that would make prosecuting offenders quite unfair.

It turns into a weighing test. To consider such laws as being unneccessary, we would weigh the unfairness caused by the imprecision versus the importance of the governmental purpose. On the whole we accept that little bit of imprecision as the goal of protecting children is worth it.

Now, if we had a legitimate governmental purpose to weigh against the unfairness of treating homosexuals different, we would have the first step of analyzing the issue.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Suddenly


I think your objection can be better summed up ...snip...

Yeah what Suddenly said!

(Insert smile for "gritting teeth because some clever-clog said what I meant in a more elegant and coherent manner”)