The Debate Thread: Same-Sex Marriage

we can finally get to where we need to be in legislating this horror of horrors away.

Because making it illegal makes it stop happening..Got it. Just like drugs and murder!

That's only because the laws don't go far enough, if we were allowed to enact the death penalty like a civilized society against people who use drugs and are homosexualist, then we could stamp out this terrorism.

But the homosexualists know that, which is why they put activist judges into the courts to usurp the rule of law and the will of the people in order to enact their homosexualist agenda.

Because making it illegal makes it stop happening..Got it. Just like drugs and murder!

Pfft, prohibition. They tried that in the movies and it didn't work!

Speaking of things that need to be illegal: soy. That would do a lot to save this God-given country from the homosexualist agenda.

In fetal development, the default is being female. All humans (even in old age) tend toward femininity. The main thing that keeps men from diverging into the female pattern is testosterone, and testosterone is suppressed by an excess of estrogen.

If you're a grownup, you're already developed, and you're able to fight off some of the damaging effects of soy. Babies aren't so fortunate. Research is now showing that when you feed your baby soy formula, you're giving him or her the equivalent of five birth control pills a day. A baby's endocrine system just can't cope with that kind of massive assault, so some damage is inevitable. At the extreme, the damage can be fatal.

Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality. That's why most of the medical (not socio-spiritual) blame for today's rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise in soy formula and other soy products. (Most babies are bottle-fed during some part of their infancy, and one-fourth of them are getting soy milk!) Homosexuals often argue that their homosexuality is inborn because "I can't remember a time when I wasn't homosexual." No, homosexuality is always deviant. But now many of them can truthfully say that they can't remember a time when excess estrogen wasn't influencing them.

Hello strangers...

Anyway, I live in Iowa and we recently legalized gay marriage. The only reason gays seem to want it (and I know a fair amount...I'd say between 10-15 clients are gay. The most entertaining is the 72 year old man and the 42 year old man from Singapore he met while on leave during Vietnam. The math supports Ben's supposition about pedophilia...) is due to tax breaks given by the government, as well as estate benefits; it's monetarily motivated to be "married" more than anything else. Homosexuals typically get married by the state, not a church, so it typically has nothing to do with religious motivations (although there are always exceptions). With that being said, the only reason this is even a debate is because of religion. Polygamy has no government or monetary benefit - it's religious and personally motivated. People will do it if it's illegal or legal - doesn't matter. Some cultures currently allow it (I knew a guy from Pakistan who has a wife in the U.S. and a couple back in Pakistan - they're allowed three wives, I guess). Again, it's religion and homophobic individuals/organizations that make this a debate.

I could care less about it - it doesn't effect me. If a man and a man or a woman and a woman want to spend their lives together in a committed relationship, they should get the same benefits from the government as a man and a woman who want to spend their lives together in a committed relationship.

Although, I must say, gay weddings are a hoot to go to. I've been to three or four, most recently the one that was/will be on TV...was planned by some famous wedding planner. The most prim and proper of the bunch turn into the biggest flaming homosexuals once they get liquored up....the ones that show up as 5 alarm fires mellow out....it's hilarious.

Shane

The most entertaining is the 72 year old man and the 42 year old man from Singapore he met while on leave during Vietnam. The math supports Ben's supposition about pedophilia...

How? Pretty sure people go through puberty long before 42. There's also the fact that you can't really draw a conclusion about an entire group of people based on just one of them.

is due to tax breaks given by the government, as well as estate benefits; it's monetarily motivated to be "married" more than anything else.

Is that because that's the primary motivation, or because that's the primary discussed motivation? Given your username, I'd suspect your conversations with homosexuals concerned with marriage (particularly since you used the word 'clients' earlier) would be about the finances of it for reasons other than that being the actual primary motivation.

Polygamy has no government or monetary benefit - it's religious and personally motivated. People will do it if it's illegal or legal - doesn't matter.

So? Gay people will enter into romantic relationships and live together. That doesn't mean there's no point in making it legal.

How? Pretty sure people go through puberty long before 42. There's also the fact that you can't really draw a conclusion about an entire group of people based on just one of them.

He met him on leave while stationed overseas in the late 70s/early 80s, met the guy's family while he was on leave during the actual Vietnam war....the whole story is really strange, but you do the math - they first met when the boy was around the age of 10. I'm not a moron, I know you can't draw a conclusion about an entire group of people based on just one of them...my comment was just that this one instance supports Ben's comment about the correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia. Personally, I don't believe that pedophilia and homosexuality are connected. There may be a positive correlation, but you can't assume that heterosexual pedophilia is less rampant; in fact, it may be more rampant but less reported, which I'm inclined to believe.

Is that because that's the primary motivation, or because that's the primary discussed motivation? Given your username, I'd suspect your conversations with homosexuals concerned with marriage (particularly since you used the word 'clients' earlier) would be about the finances of it for reasons other than that being the actual primary motivation.

You assume the only gay people I know are clients - not true. The primary argument that gay rights activists have is that they should be able to get married for equal treatment in the eyes of the law, i.e. taxes, estates, etc. Your car insurance is cheaper if you're married as opposed to single (unless you're a terrible driver or your spouse is), for example. If all it was was to be able for a guy to introduce another guy as his husband, they can do that without going through the legal process. The whole thing is around being recognized as married by the state and fed - for benefits, which are 100% monetary. Do you get it?

So? Gay people will enter into romantic relationships and live together. That doesn't mean there's no point in making it legal.

Um...my point is that the only reason there is even a debate about gay marriage is due to religion and prejudices/ignorance. The only reason that gays want to be classified as married is for aforementioned monetary motivations...most of the time....there's always exceptions to the rule.

Which is why I'm opposed to gay marriage, we need to eliminate the entire pro-marriage benefit system. If marriage is so great we shouldn't need to subsidize it.

I'm not opposed to insurance granting benefits to those married though, that's an acceptable actuary calculation. Plus they're semi-private companies for the next couple years anyway.

But if we're going to keep the current discriminatory regime against non-married people, the least we could do is let gays take advantage of the same stupid rules.

I don't see how your really against gay marriage then.

Agreed, but it's politically easier to add gay marriage benefits to the books as opposed to removing all marriage benefits...

I don't see how your really against gay marriage then.

It's a perpetuation of the requirement of a state recognizing your marriage before it's "real."

How? Pretty sure people go through puberty long before 42. There's also the fact that you can't really draw a conclusion about an entire group of people based on just one of them.

He met him on leave while stationed overseas in the late 70s/early 80s, met the guy's family while he was on leave during the actual Vietnam war....the whole story is really strange, but you do the math - they first met when the boy was around the age of 10. I'm not a moron, I know you can't draw a conclusion about an entire group of people based on just one of them...my comment was just that this one instance supports Ben's comment about the correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia. Personally, I don't believe that pedophilia and homosexuality are connected. There may be a positive correlation, but you can't assume that heterosexual pedophilia is less rampant; in fact, it may be more rampant but less reported, which I'm inclined to believe.

It doesn't support any correlation between anything, it's one example. And again, the guy is 42, at which point he should be well through puberty, which would make him rather unattractive to a paedophile.

You assume the only gay people I know are clients - not true.

and I know a fair amount...I'd say between 10-15 clients are gay

Seemed like it was.

The primary argument that gay rights activists have is that they should be able to get married for equal treatment in the eyes of the law, i.e. taxes, estates, etc.[/qote]
Is it? It seems to me to be an argument based on the fallacy that having a piece of paper say you're married proves that you love each other. Though I don't actually know any gay people personally.

Um...my point is that the only reason there is even a debate about gay marriage is due to religion and prejudices/ignorance. The only reason that gays want to be classified as married is for aforementioned monetary motivations...most of the time....there's always exceptions to the rule.

What does this have to do with whether or not the legality of polygamy matters?

Which is why I'm opposed to gay marriage, we need to eliminate the entire pro-marriage benefit system. If marriage is so great we shouldn't need to subsidize it.

I'm not opposed to insurance granting benefits to those married though, that's an acceptable actuary calculation. Plus they're semi-private companies for the next couple years anyway.

But if we're going to keep the current discriminatory regime against non-married people, the least we could do is let gays take advantage of the same stupid rules.

What about other legal rights given to families? Issues relating to next of kin, spousal privilege, and so on? One of the major arguments in Australia recently was that under many circumstances, family are the only people allowed to see a dying person in the hospital. Homosexual partners were thus prevented from seeing each other, because they couldn't legally be married. I'm not sure what the laws are in this regard in the States, but finances aren't the only benefits given to people the law recognises as being related.

Isn't that all marriage really is? A relationship?

Sadly, it seems to be that way these days. It used to be a lifelong commitment to one relationship which gave marriage its name.

Is promiscuity a bad thing? Why is it wrong to sleep with more than one person at a time, provided everyone's aware of what's going on?

I guess promiscuity is ok as long as it's mutual, and that nobody gets hurt or gets called derogatory well-deserved names like "whore."

Sadly, it seems to be that way these days. It used to be a lifelong commitment to one relationship which gave marriage its name.

Why can't someone be in a life-long relationship without being married? Why do people even need to stay in life-long relationships?

I guess promiscuity is ok as long as it's mutual, and that nobody gets hurt or gets called derogatory well-deserved names like "whore."

Well-deserved?

Cryanide is getting too personal on this issue.

And what if they like to be (and called) a whore? Some people are into that kind of thing.

What about other legal rights given to families? Issues relating to next of kin, spousal privilege, and so on? One of the major arguments in Australia recently was that under many circumstances, family are the only people allowed to see a dying person in the hospital. Homosexual partners were thus prevented from seeing each other, because they couldn't legally be married. I'm not sure what the laws are in this regard in the States, but finances aren't the only benefits given to people the law recognises as being related.

What about them? All of these issues can be easily addressed without needing the state to bless marriages and award them special privilege.

mind if i put my two cents in?

Why are you asking? Just do it, there is no need for permission.

well knowing how my rep around here is not that high i thought i had better ask.
My take is that the government should get out of the marriage business completely and eliminate any tax breaks for getting married.
If someone wants to get married, the government has no right to tell them if or when they can.

So then marriage would exclusively be a church matter, with the church deciding who can get married and when?

No, anyone could enter into the contractual agreement and call it marriage or call it who-iz-whatiz or call it Steve.

I don't know why there needs to be some higher power that approves of it to be truly valid.

It doesn't support any correlation between anything, it's one example. And again, the guy is 42, at which point he should be well through puberty, which would make him rather unattractive to a paedophile.

Read what I said again. If he's 42, and they met in the late 70s/early 80s, how old would that make him?

Seemed like it was.

The ones I know in a professional setting actually matter to this discussion because this is something we will and have discussed. Do you think the only thing we talk about is investments and taxes? In order for me to even remotely help the client, I have to know them in more ways than how much money they have or what their holdings and cost basis is.

Is it? It seems to me to be an argument based on the fallacy that having a piece of paper say you're married proves that you love each other. Though I don't actually know any gay people personally.

Yes. I know straight people that aren't married, but call each other husband and wife and love each other very much. They typically have a lot of money (which is why they don't want to get married), living trusts, very explicit wills, and very good accountants. You really think that being married proves that people love each other? What are you, a 12 year old girl? Marriage is an institution, nothing more. You can love someone but not be married. The only real reasons to get married is because you want to and for the aforementioned benefits. Since you admittedly know NO gay people, in a professional setting or otherwise, how can you discredit what I'm saying when it comes from reality, as opposed some naive world view?

It doesn't support any correlation between anything, it's one example. And again, the guy is 42, at which point he should be well through puberty, which would make him rather unattractive to a paedophile.

Read what I said again. If he's 42, and they met in the late 70s/early 80s, how old would that make him?

Is that relevant? If he's attracted to someone who's gone through puberty, he's not a paedophile, regardless of how old anyone was when they first met.

Yes. I know straight people that aren't married, but call each other husband and wife and love each other very much. They typically have a lot of money (which is why they don't want to get married), living trusts, very explicit wills, and very good accountants. You really think that being married proves that people love each other? What are you, a 12 year old girl? Marriage is an institution, nothing more. You can love someone but not be married. The only real reasons to get married is because you want to and for the aforementioned benefits. Since you admittedly know NO gay people, in a professional setting or otherwise, how can you discredit what I'm saying when it comes from reality, as opposed some naive world view?

Where did I say I thought that?

What about other legal rights given to families? Issues relating to next of kin, spousal privilege, and so on? One of the major arguments in Australia recently was that under many circumstances, family are the only people allowed to see a dying person in the hospital. Homosexual partners were thus prevented from seeing each other, because they couldn't legally be married. I'm not sure what the laws are in this regard in the States, but finances aren't the only benefits given to people the law recognises as being related.

Regarding hospitals; there are forms that designate next of kin, person to contact in case of an emergency, who information can be released to, etc. A married person can say, for whatever reason, that they don't want to see their spouse and forms can be filled out to the effect. Also, living wills, power of attorneys, and so on are existing legal documents that provide anyone to appoint anyone for release of information or control of matters. You don't need to be married to afford those privelages. If you have a medical and general power of attorney for your significant other and aren't married, the hospital is legally obligated by court order to provide you with information and let you see them, as well as make medical decisions if they're incapacitated. Those forms are in place for single people, but they would work just as well for a gay couple who lives together but isn't married.

Again, the only real benefit, other than just wanting to say you're "actually" married, are financially motivated in terms of tax breaks, inheritance, and so on. The only reason there's a debate is because of religious zealots making more out of it than it is, which is the point you keep ignoring.

Is that relevant? If he's attracted to someone who's gone through puberty, he's not a paedophile, regardless of how old anyone was when they first met.

OK, they've BEEN TOGETHER for almost 30 YEARS. If he's 42, that means they were first together when he was around age 12. Get it now? My god, you're daft.

Where did I say I thought that?

You didn't, actually. I think I confused someone elses...

Is that relevant? If he's attracted to someone who's gone through puberty, he's not a paedophile, regardless of how old anyone was when they first met.

OK, they've BEEN TOGETHER for almost 30 YEARS. If he's 42, that means they were first together when he was around age 12. Get it now? My god, you're daft.

From Wiki: "Pedophilia (or paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 and older) characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children"
Since 12 is generally a tad old to be prepubescent and the guy remained attracted to him long after even that...

Regarding hospitals; there are forms that designate next of kin, person to contact in case of an emergency, who information can be released to, etc.

Only if you're conscious when you go in. In the case of the issue that occurred here, I'm not even sure that much is true, or it wouldn't have been as big a deal as it was.

Also, living wills, power of attorneys, and so on are existing legal documents that provide anyone to appoint anyone for release of information or control of matters.

Getting married is quite a bit easier, if only because it's more common.

Again, the only real benefit, other than just wanting to say you're "actually" married,

Which is something a lot of people seem to want, for whatever reason...

The only reason there's a debate is because of religious zealots making more out of it than it is, which is the point you keep ignoring.

It's not just the religious zealots, it's a majority of the population (though most of that is likely mere acceptance of it without much critical thought).