The Debate Thread: Same-Sex Marriage

[Wall St. Peon]

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...

12 is still prepubescent in boys, since boys typically hit puberty later than girls. While you do make a valid point, it still remains that someone 30 years older than a 12 year old boy was attracted to said 12 year old boy. The fact that he fell in love and stayed with someone until they were no longer "prepubescent" does not mean that he doesn't fantasize or prefer young boys.

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.

The forms I was referring to are the ones when you go to the doctor for non-emergency items...for instance, a physical. They apply for emergencies as well.

[Wall St. Peon]

Sorry, my computer is being weird and making it hard to post all in one post...

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

Legalzoom.com anyone? It's cheap and easy to get wills, power of attorneys, and so on. It doesn't cost much, for the typical person, to go to an estate attorney and get all of the above taken care of, either. I got my estate plan done for like $300.

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

Which I'm saying why they want it...equal treatment in the eyes of the law in terms of taxes and other benefits. It's about money.

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).

Why is this an issue? Because of the people clamoring that "the bible says a marriage is between a man and a woman." I think everyone is exactly the same and any preferential treatment for any group should be done away with, which what Ben is saying...however, I think all the married couples - straight and gay - would be incredibly upset if their tax breaks were taken away.

[koberulz]

The forms I was referring to are the ones when you go to the doctor for non-emergency items...for instance, a physical. They apply for emergencies as well.

If I get hit by a car tomorrow, and end up being rushed to the hospital whilst unconscious, how do I fill out any forms?

Legalzoom.com anyone? It's cheap and easy to get wills, power of attorneys, and so on. It doesn't cost much, for the typical person, to go to an estate attorney and get all of the above taken care of, either. I got my estate plan done for like $300.

Never heard of it, I'd say it's a fair bet a relatively large percentage of the population is equally unfamiliar with it, and it likely doesn't apply outside the US. Marriage is a fairly well-known concept.

Which I'm saying why they want it...equal treatment in the eyes of the law in terms of taxes and other benefits. It's about money.

...I was referring to the ability to say they're actually married, rather than merely being married, which by definition excludes the monetary issues. Again, most of the population sees marriage as being proof of some sort of commitment or something, and something people do when they love each other to prove that they actually do love each other. Which has nothing to do with money. I'd venture that for 99% of people, marriage is primarily a love/commitment thing.

[shadowgrin]

http://www.break.com/index/indian-man-b ... d-to-marry

[Wall St. Peon]

If I get hit by a car tomorrow, and end up being rushed to the hospital whilst unconscious, how do I fill out any forms?

Have you ever had a physical? Been to the doctor for anything? You already filled out the forms. That's why you put those on the forms in the first place.

Never heard of it, I'd say it's a fair bet a relatively large percentage of the population is equally unfamiliar with it, and it likely doesn't apply outside the US. Marriage is a fairly well-known concept.

My point is that it isn't hard to get those items in place.

...I was referring to the ability to say they're actually married, rather than merely being married, which by definition excludes the monetary issues. Again, most of the population sees marriage as being proof of some sort of commitment or something, and something people do when they love each other to prove that they actually do love each other. Which has nothing to do with money. I'd venture that for 99% of people, marriage is primarily a love/commitment thing.

Being "actually married" is a legality. I would disagree with the "99% of people think marriage is primarily a love/commitment thing." Ever heard of "marrying for money?" That happens frequently. I agree with that the majority of the population sees it as being some sort of proof of commitment; however, aside from neighborhood gossip, no one looks down on it if someone stays with another for 20 years without getting married. Case in point, my aunt just married her boyfriend of around 20 years...because he was retiring, she's retiring in 2012, and in order for her to be on his pension health insurance, they had to be married. Everything else is separate as it was before...but...for the legal reasons and money and insurance reasons, marriage. I had forgotten about health insurance...that's another one of the arguments for it: only a spouse can be on health insurance. Again, monetarily motivated.

I don't plan on ever marrying again,even if I meet someone I love and am with them for the rest of my life. That doesn't mean I'm any less committed than anyone else. Myself, I could care less about the tax status or anything else. Everything will be separate.

[koberulz]

Have you ever had a physical? Been to the doctor for anything? You already filled out the forms. That's why you put those on the forms in the first place.

Not in years. Certainly the other side of my 18th. It doesn't really matter in my case, nothing's really changed. Were I to get a girlfriend tomorrow five minutes before being hit by the car, though...

My point is that it isn't hard to get those items in place.

It is if you're not well versed in finance, law, or both. Most people aren't.

I would disagree with the "99% of people think marriage is primarily a love/commitment thing." Ever heard of "marrying for money?" That happens frequently.

99% of people think marriage is primarily a love/commitment thing whilst being aware that it can be manipulated (and you don't even have to marry for money, simply be in a relationship with someone who has money and is willing to spend it on you). 99% of people in genuine relationships who get married do so primarily as a love/commitment thing.

[Wall St. Peon]

Not in years. Certainly the other side of my 18th. It doesn't really matter in my case, nothing's really changed. Were I to get a girlfriend tomorrow five minutes before being hit by the car, though...

Then you'd be dumb for wanting her to come to your hospital room because you met her five minutes before getting hit by a car...

It is if you're not well versed in finance, law, or both. Most people aren't.

That's why there's lawyers and financial advisors. And Google.

99% of people think marriage is primarily a love/commitment thing whilst being aware that it can be manipulated (and you don't even have to marry for money, simply be in a relationship with someone who has money and is willing to spend it on you). 99% of people in genuine relationships who get married do so primarily as a love/commitment thing.

No, I wholeheartedly disagree. There are guys that introduce their wives as "their trophy wives" - that's not love, that's a model marrying for money and a rich guy marrying a model for obvious reasons. By saying that, you say that people that don't get married yet stay together don't love each other. You're also forgetting the shotgun weddings that still occur...it isn't always about love.

Back to the topic on hand, I did a quick search and found this site: http://www.balancedpolitics.org/same_sex_marriages.htm

Look at the "no" arguments...the no arguments are around moral and religious reasons against, so basically, religious zealots. Your medical argument is included, but like I said, there's ways around non-spouses to make medical decisions. If I didn't want to get married (or legally couldn't), you bet your ass I'd make sure I knew my "spouse" could make medical decisions and would be named in my will. Not knowing the existing legal options available other than is just ignorance with the amount of information readily available....

[koberulz]

Not in years. Certainly the other side of my 18th. It doesn't really matter in my case, nothing's really changed. Were I to get a girlfriend tomorrow five minutes before being hit by the car, though...

Then you'd be dumb for wanting her to come to your hospital room because you met her five minutes before getting hit by a car...

But I don't like having my dates interrupted.

That's why there's lawyers and financial advisors. And Google.

You can't research something if you're not aware it exists.

No, I wholeheartedly disagree. There are guys that introduce their wives as "their trophy wives" - that's not love, that's a model marrying for money and a rich guy marrying a model for obvious reasons.

Which is why I said '99%', not '100%'.

By saying that, you say that people that don't get married yet stay together don't love each other.

No, the people that get married say that. I'm on the side of the people that don't get married on this one.

Back to the topic on hand, I did a quick search and found this site: http://www.balancedpolitics.org/same_sex_marriages.htm

"It could provide a slippery slope in the legality of marriage (e.g. having multiple wives or marrying an object could be next). "

Why do people always bring this one up, as though there's something wrong with polygamy or a sensible way to go from 'gays can marry' to 'things/people/animals that aren't consenting adults can marry'?

[Andrew]

I suppose it's a somewhat similar to the fear of communism a few decades back, the whole Domino theory. And since homosexuality is viewed by many as sexual deviance and put in the same class as pedophilia, bestiality and so on, legalisation of gay marriage is regarded as that first domino, the floodgates being opened for all kinds of sexually deviant acts (whether you want to class them as such or not) becoming acceptable because all it took was one to pave the way.

I doubt it happens because when it comes down to it, a gay couple poses no threat to society except inadvertently affecting someone morally opposed to homosexuality when they hear of it or at the very least making someone feel a bit squeamish. It's not as though gay people are routinely raping straight people or trying to "recruit" them; I'm sure there are a minority who cross the line because there are dirtbags in this world and it has nothing to do with their gender, race, age or sexual orientation, some folks are just bad people. But generally speaking, a same sex relationship between two consenting adults is their own business and there aren't any victims.

With pedophilia, there is a victim and there is reason for concern. I don't see how it would ever be considered acceptable by society and the law changed so that it's no longer considered a crime. You might as well suggest that legalising marijuana would lead to drunk driving no longer being a crime or theft or murder no longer being against the law. Different matters, different reasons they're frowned upon by society, the bottom line in my view being the impact they have on the world around them. A gay couple getting married or someone choosing to indulge in pot doesn't threaten me. Someone who's willing to take a life or molest children on the other hand? That's something to be concerned about.

[benji]

a gay couple poses no threat to society except ... making someone feel a bit squeamish.

I don't believe you read the facts I posted on the previous page sir. I quote:

Interesting that Rome had a Senate, was a rather advanced society, law-based, “civilized” (to a point –obviously, their entertainments were cruel–we have wrestling and dogfights) and had a lot of homosexuality –and then collapsed. Sound familiar? We have such a wonderful nation and democracy –and are also “gaying” our nation –we are so young. Can we survive by following in Rome’s footsteps? Or will the greatest nation that ever was destroy itself (or be destroyed by enemies) because of our licentiousness and greed and belief in every person for himself without regard for culture and children, honesty and compassion for the needy? (True compassion for the needy, BTW, will include gov’t supports for morality –instead of encouraging, as we do, gov’t dependency.) Has freedom become licentiousness? and dependency on gov’t for our support instead of our own labors? And will we pay a price?

[Andrew]

Rubbish. The Roman empire only fell due to the use of a magic potion, the recipe for which has long since been lost.

[koberulz]

With pedophilia, there is a victim and there is reason for concern.

Not with paedophilia in and of itself, which is another issue that bugs me. Child abuse is bad and all, but the crusade against paedophilia is just wrong. Making cartoons and other fictional depictions of underage sex illegal is just ridiculous. The point of child pornography laws is to protect children, not to prevent paedophilia.

[J@3]

Child abuse is bad and all, but the crusade against paedophilia is just wrong.

Huh?

[Andrew]

Child abuse is bad and all, but the crusade against paedophilia is just wrong.

Huh?

Yeah, you've lost me there too.

[koberulz]

People should worry about stopping child abuse instead of banning anything a paedophile might enjoy (see: the Simpsons porn case a while back).

[Andrew]

Well yeah, that is overkill. To clarify I'm not referring to any of that though, I'm talking about the pedophiles who are actually are a threat, not someone who's getting off on a badly drawn pornographic scene depicting The Simpsons.

[J@3]

People should worry about stopping child abuse instead of banning anything a paedophile might enjoy (see: the Simpsons porn case a while back).

It's all part of stopping child abuse. The Simpsons case is extreme but look at that pervert "artist" who liked taking pics of naked pre-teens. Even if he's not some closet paedophile there's still plenty of people who would use his "art" to further their own fantasies/desires. I have no problem with them going over the top when it comes to child abuse.

[shadowgrin]

Child abuse is bad and all, but the crusade against paedophilia is just wrong.

Huh?

Yeah, you've lost me there too.

What?
This is the reason why you shouldn't post while high.

[koberulz]

People should worry about stopping child abuse instead of banning anything a paedophile might enjoy (see: the Simpsons porn case a while back).

It's all part of stopping child abuse. The Simpsons case is extreme but look at that pervert "artist" who liked taking pics of naked pre-teens. Even if he's not some closet paedophile there's still plenty of people who would use his "art" to further their own fantasies/desires.

That involves actual children, though. If there's no victim, there should be no crime.

[Wall St. Peon]

But I don't like having my dates interrupted.

LOL, fair enough.

You can't research something if you're not aware it exists.

You don't need to be aware it exists...you just need think "Gee, my boyfriend/girlfriend can't make decisions if something happens to me...what can I do to make it so they can?"

Which is why I said '99%', not '100%'.

Lazy research, but apt: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles ... arry-money I've seen this plenty of times first hand with a couple of friends and clients.

Why do people always bring this one up, as though there's something wrong with polygamy or a sensible way to go from 'gays can marry' to 'things/people/animals that aren't consenting adults can marry'?

I don't think there's anything wrong with polygamy, per se...just don't agree with it. I get why they bring it up, but it's definitely not a valid argument. Aside from the obvious reason, why would you WANT more than one wife?

[puttincomputers]

its amazing how those in favor of homosexuality are some the hateful and nontolerant people around as evidenced here.
http://www.facebook.com/#!/album.php?ai ... 0378027462
http://nomblog.com/1237/

phpBB [video]

the two girls they show sitting in front of the podium were making out as well.

phpBB [video]

check out the shirts the homosexual agenda were wearing versus what they were actually doing.

[benji]

the two girls they show sitting in front of the podium were making out as well.

Was going to ask for video or pictures of that but then I checked the video, nevermind.

[Andrew]

its amazing how those in favor of homosexuality are some the hateful and nontolerant people around as evidenced here.

So long as the Westboro Baptist Church are a part of the anti-gay movement, that side has the market cornered on hatefulness and intolerance.

[puttincomputers]

westboro is not a representation of real christianity! they dont even pray for those who are not christians to become christians. therefor their testamony is of no account. frankly they dont even agree with Jesus and they twist his words.

[Andrew]

Absolutely, they follow a very warped version of the Christian ethic. But the fact remains that they are a vocal member of the anti-gay movement and a prime example of hate and intolerance.