Hypothetical, (but not so far-fetched), situation: A group of single men and women, somewhere in the U.S., has made a motion that they be allowed to marry their pets because they are into beastiality. They claim to love their animal romping partners. Their arguments mimic those of pro homosexual marriage supporters.
How would we repel that one without infringing on their rites as human beings? ******************************************************************************* 03-01-04, 12:39 PM aminator2002 You probably mean rights?
Animals are not protected under the Constitution. Beastiality is a crime. It does not occur between two consenting adults since animals have no manner to consent.
Did you mean this thread to help your band wagon???
03-01-04, 12:48 PM teeceeum Kendor, I think we all accept that you have an irrevocable position on this issue, and that no one is going to change your mind. And you should accept that you are not likely to change the minds of others, either.
03-01-04, 01:08 PM frankvan Quote:How would we repel that one without infringing on their rites as human beings?
Simple, just amend the constitution. Roll Eyes
03-01-04, 03:00 PM Kendor Yes, I meant rights, and yes I'm still seeking to populate my bandwagon.
Ok ami, since animals have no means of consent, (poor dogs), I'll use a different analogy, one that I really did not want to bring up.
I apologize, but this was unavoidable: Where are all of you guys going to stand when the issue turns to polygamous marriages? Because if these gay marriages are allowed, the issue will immediatly be resurrected, no doubt about it. Please respond because I really want to hear your opinions.
03-01-04, 03:31 PM Lydia <-- I'll be over there waiting for the next wagon...this one appears headed for the loony-bin LOL Big Grin
03-01-04, 03:50 PM Georgia85 Seems like I've missed out on all the fun because I had no idea there were any bandwagons or loonybins!
But I'll tell you one thing, I have encountered many men who believe that the Bible teaches man should take many wives. Can't say that I accept that.
This girl don't share!
03-01-04, 05:02 PM aminator2002 You're right Kendor, I should be able to take as many husbands as I want! Roll Eyes
The idea here is that the law needs to be equal for all people. Having a marriage contract between more than two parties would not be equal to the treatment that others get, and it would be very hard to define as far as the law goes. I know that in Muslim countries the multiple wives debacle was solved by basically making one woman the true wife that would inherit property/share in wealth and then the rest were treated as servants... it was not a contract that women entered into willingly or if they did it was because the rest of their options were complete garbage. At least as a member of the harem they would be fed.
But you see... if people really entered into polygamous relationships willingly then they should be able to make a contract between each other. That contract can not be treated equal to a contract between two people because it would inherently have to be different.
Here's a simple breakdown for you when referring to rights of the individual:
Man + Man = Man + Woman = Woman + Woman
Man + dog (does not equal) Man + Woman
Man + Man + Woman (does not equal) Man + Woman
You see how in the first case you have two humans with fully vested rights as described in the Constitution? And then in the others you have only one human or more than two? Is this math hard to understand?
Perhaps you haven't noticed that your wagon has no wheels?
03-01-04, 05:59 PM Kendor I was wondering why this wagon wasn't going anywhere! **looking down** No wheels! **presses chitty chitty bang bang button** Now my wagon has wings!! Yipeee!
On a serious note, I understand what you all are saying, and perhaps I'm coming off as needing a trip to the loony bin, but that doesn't change the fact that mankind is in danger if morality doesn't maintain its weight, whether its based on religious beliefs or not. There are fundamental rights and wrongs and if they're ignored then we will go the way of the dinosaur. But what do we care; as individuals, it won't affect us. Mankind has simply got to draw some bold lines, instead of the nearly invisible fine ones that reek of pity.
And I suppose I can stop wringing out bandwidth on this topic since I'm obviously alone in my quest for righteousness.
Now, what other ridiculous opinion can I come up with? Maybe I should change my avatar?
03-01-04, 07:13 PM MrsS
quote: You're right Kendor, I should be able to take as many husbands as I want!
Heavens no! One is enough!
03-01-04, 07:55 PM teeceeum Kendor, I understand that you believe that it's totally a moral issue. And on that point, we can agree. But it's an individual moral issue and I don't understand why you don't see that.
What I think about homosexuality is immaterial. But just so you know, it ain't for me. Neither is it up to me to decide how those who are homosexuals are to be judged. That's up to someone far higher than me, you, or George Bush. In the meantime, I think it is our responsibility to ensure that everyone is treated fairly and equitably. That is righteousness. And that's what the issue of gay unions is all about. Not whether we propogate the notion of homosexuality. And I absolutely do not believe that we can convince anyone to be gay, straight or celibate. It just ain't like choosing a political party.
03-01-04, 09:21 PM Sherasi TC, I agree with what you are saying. I feel that it isn't up to me to pass judgement on anyone else.
Moreover, even if I am not Gay, there are those who are and they have the right to Civil Unions that will give them rights as couples.
I don't think the human race is in any danger of extinction from a few non-procreators.
03-02-04, 08:23 PM DvdGStwrt Hm.
I came across something very, very interesting today on the subject of Gay marriage and the Church.
Morality is s slippery thing, it changes from generation to generation.
David
03-03-04, 04:55 PM coldfuse Yes, Kendor, the hypothetical situation is quite far-fetched. Domestic animals are property. You may as well be talking about marriage to your television set.
03-04-04, 12:37 PM DvdGStwrt Note I purposefully did not answer the question directly 2 days ago. Your Hypothetical question really got me steamed to the max.
Why? Well whether intentional or not I felt that you were placing homosexuality right along bestiality, and bestiality is right up there with child pornography, child molesting and rape.
There is a difference a very big Difference between same gender consentual sex and bestiality, child molestation and rape.
That being that there is an innocent, helpless victim in the latter, the former (Gay couplings) are two adult people agreeing to do that act -
FURTHER homosexuality is far, far more than just a sex act. It is Committed relationships, monogamy, love, companionship, sharing on all levels, mental, heart, spiritual, and physical. In order to share there has to be communication, we can not communicate with animals. The same set of circumstances that govern a straight couple hooking applies to homosexuals - the same drives and yearnings to pair off and become one with another.
These kinds of things can not be had with animals - no matter how smart the animal may be, it can not connect with a human being on a human level - and no human being can honestly connect with an animal at it's level.
An animal can not consent to sex with a human - it may be trained to do so but that is not consenting. The animal becomes a victim when used in this manner.
Any hypothetical group of bestiality activists would be shot down in a minute, simply because we are mixing animal rights and human rights.
Humans accept that humans are better than, higher on the food chain and dominate the animal kingdom. We accept this difference and have taken great pains to make certain that we all know that we are not mere animals, we have philosophy, Religion, Art, Science and above all else a complex system of communication which allows us to share more intimate details than any animal can.
That line is bold and dark and sharp - it is a distinction which will not be crossed.
Unlike Homosexuality where the lines are fussy and grey since we are dealing with Human beings who are consenting and who can demonstrate a deep committed love for one another.
David
03-04-04, 01:25 PM methos My compliments to David on his ability to prevent himself from posting in anger.
The original question, as several have already said, boils down to a matter of consent.
As for polygamy, if you wanted to have a relationship involving more than 2 people, I wouldn't understand it or suggest it, but I wouldn't stop you. It's a very old and for much of history common practice that is even endorsed by the Bible (I know, this isn't a religious issue to you).
The difference is what comes with the marriage legally and fairness of it. We allow heterosexuals to chose that one person who they love the most and who loves them the most, and to grant that person certain legal benefits, but we do not allow homosexuals to make that same choice.
03-04-04, 02:43 PM Kendor
quote:Originally posted by DvdGStwrt: There is a difference a very big Difference between same gender consentual sex and bestiality, child molestation and rape.
The only difference David, is that you, et.al., consent to homosexuality, and not to the other unnatural, despicable acts you and I have mentioned. They are all sex for the sake of pleasure, which is not the intent of sex whatsoever. Pleasure derived from sex is merely the driving force that nudges reproduction along in human beings. It replaces instinct we see in other animal behavior. But I'm finished arguing, really. It's a lost cause in a world full of selfish, 'in the box' thinkers.
So, that being said, can I marry my hand? I'll give consent if necessary.
03-04-04, 03:12 PM methos "In the box" ... lol
You do realize that your opposition to gay marraige is the majority opinion and therefore much more "in the box," don't you?
David consents to homosexuality (which involves more than just the physical aspect) and so does his partner. Children, animals, et al, are not capable of this consent.
In case you haven't noticed, the human race has progressed (somewhat) beyond the blind needs of procreation and genetic dominance being the driving forces behind all of our actions. If we went by that standard, infidelity and infanticide would be perfectly acceptable.
What rights exactly are you missing out on by not being able to marry your hand? Can you not visit it while it is in the hospital? Is it not covered by your health insurance? Are your finances not freely shared?
03-04-04, 03:23 PM Kendor The hand thing, it's a joke, methos, that implies that I have succumed to the joys of sex for just pleasure as well. I have even personally explored homosexuality in the past. I'm not against its existence; I'm against its cultivation. You of all people should see my point.
03-04-04, 06:40 PM frankvan Kendor, perhaps you should consider what James Carville had to say on the subject. He was opposed to gay marriage until he realized he didn't have to have one. Wink
03-04-04 05:58 PM jusork
Oh, I think I see how you're thinking, Kendor. You're against sex being done just for pleasure?
03-10-04, 08:56 PM Kendor Same topic, different eyepiece. I wonder why you put that [marriage] in quotes, tee.
03-11-04, 09:03 AM Elexina Kendor: Animals are of a lesser intelligence (though this is debatable where some of us are concerned) and lower on the food chain and thus do not have as many rights as human beings do. And no, I do not think it is right to confine and restrict animals cruelly.
quote:What message are we giving our children by promoting this lifestyle?
I, too, do not see any "promotion," but rather an acceptance. What are we teaching our children? We are teaching them acceptance, tolerance and understanding. We are teaching them that everyone is equal and should be afforded the same rights. We are teaching them that people are people, regardless of who they love.
And, if I may be so bold as to comment on Tee's post, perhaps marriage was put in quotations because your union with your best friend would merely be for financial reasons, not for love and honor, loyalty and passion, security and promises. Your union, while the same on the surface, would be with different intent. Gay people who love each other merely want the same rights and privileges as straight people who love each other -they are not seeking to manipulate the system in the way your "marriage" seems to intend.
03-11-04, 09:34 AM aminator2002 "And ami, I don't know who in the hell you think you are by implying that my children, at the hands of goodness, will likely grow up to disagree with their father."
Get over yourself Kendor. Your kids probably have minds of their own and with any luck, in my opinion, they will grow up to think "outside of the box" and disagree with their father. Your arguments are totally ridiculous and contemptable. I find this entire thread to be a total joke that will likely make it impossible for me to be civil to you again. I know who I am and I have no use for people who are totally intolerant of 10% of the population... intolerant of some of my friends, some of my coworkers, and some of our fellow humans. You have made yourself clear and I am clearly totally opposed.
Good luck with your marriage.
03-11-04, 10:21 AM DvdGStwrt
quote:Originally posted by Kendor:
But, if worst comes to worst my best friend and I, (we're both males but we do not have a sexual relationship), are considering getting married if it becomes legal. We can enjoy all kinds of financial benefits that formerly were given only to heterosexual couples that claimed to love one another. Heck, this could get good. Maybe I can make a motion to have my two sons marry each other so they too, can reap what is sown. (ooh, I smell another topic on the way).
Considering that this is what a lot of straight man and woman marriages turns into, you will be in the company of a good chunk of Western Society.
As for having your sons do something - well that's up to them to decide for themselves when they are old enough to know what they want. After all they might just want to marry other men - That's up to them to decide - its a matter of their own Choice. That applies to everything they do - You may want them to do somethings and not others - but they will do as they want as they will and you can't stop them.
But you can go marry your boy friend - sexless that relationship may be - or not - I do not care and I will not be coming into your bedroom to tell you what you should or should not do.
Marriages of convenience are well documented - if that is your will in life - go for it.
Enjoy.
In the end you must be able to look the man in the mirror straight on - If you can't do that then you are doing something wrong.
*****************************************
Of course you can not fathom two men loving each other dearly, deeply, sincerely. You do not see this possibility. I only wish I could bring you to my home, let you meet my partner and see how we live. I wish I could reveal to you the depth and the breadth and the width of my soul and heart when it comes to the man I love. I wish I could give to you just a small taste of how much I love and am in love with my partner. I wish I could reveal to you a small portion of the love I get in return.
If I could do that, you would see that no matter what comes, no matter what people say, no matter if you or Bush or the Congress declare that I can't marry my partner - We are married - It is a union of two souls - completely and whole.
There is harmony in my home, balance and love and mutual respect. When he hurts, I hurt, when I enjoy - he enjoys - Two souls as one. The essence of marriage. When he leaves my heart aches for him, when he returns there is joy. I can not think of a world without him - I can not even believe that before him I survived.
You go up against him, you come up against me. You raise a hand toward him, you are confronted by me. I will defend him even when he is wrong to the core. I would stand up for him - even die for him if needed.
This is a marriage of two souls.
You CANNOT take that from me.
Do you understand that? Do you understand that you can make it illegal, you can throw me in prison, you can beat me to death but you CANNOT break that marriage of two souls.
You can't, Bush can't Fundamental Christianity can't.
You may **** me off with your prattle and comparisons - But that will not break the Marriage I already have.
Do you understand that? Can you even entertain the possibility that a man can love another man so completely and fully that nothing - and I mean nothing - can break the spirit of that commitment?
I honestly do not think you have ever loved. If you loved this deeply just once, then you would understand that love is pure, love is strong, and when two people love each other strongly - nothing, neither age, disease, color of skin, race, time, distance, others, gender, hell or high water can make one dent in that love.
You can not understand this simple truth that we are already married - Whether the rest of the straight world likes it or not is no skin off my nose. Oh yes, I will demand fair play when it comes to the legal and financial aspect. And I might even get to the point where I will shove my love in your face and make you see it and acknowledge it. I am human and I will only be denied for so long - Even Job had his limits.
You would if the shoe was on the other foot. If I denied you your basic human rights, if I made light and compared you love to beastiality, murder, genocide - what ever, you'd get bent out of shape too.
We are married, I am my partner. He is me. We live together, work together, play together. Everything we do we do for one another. We are one - A single person in two bodies. It doesn't matter what you think, say or do - this is the way it is.
David
03-11-04, 10:45 AM MrsS David, Can I come to dinner instead of Kendor? After spending the last few years getting to know you through your posts, I feel very certain that it would be a joy to meet the person with whom you share your life ....to be worthy of you, he must be extraordinary.
03-11-04, 12:25 PM Sherasi David, can I join Shana for dinner with you?
03-12-04, 09:35 AM Elexina Me, too! Me, too! I love you, David! ...asexually and platonically, of course.
03-12-04, 10:13 AM DvdGStwrt Sure, everybody is welcome all the time at my humble abode.
Cheers
David
03-12-04, 11:37 AM frankvan As Abou ben Adhem said, "I pray thee then, write me as one who loves his fellow men--" Smile
03-04-04, 06:58 PM jusork Same topic, different eyepiece. Oh, I think I see how you're thinking, Kendor. You're against sex being done just for pleasure?
03-04-04, 08:29 PM DvdGStwrt
quote:Originally posted by Kendor: [The only difference David, is that you, et.al., consent to homosexuality, and not to the other unnatural, despicable acts you and I have mentioned. _They are all sex for the sake of pleasure, which is not the intent of sex whatsoever._ Pleasure derived from sex is merely the driving force that nudges reproduction along in human beings. It replaces instinct we see in other animal behavior. But I'm finished arguing, really. It's a lost cause in a world full of selfish, 'in the box' thinkers.
So, that being said, can I marry my hand? I'll give consent if necessary.
Good Grief.
God you **** me off. You totally missed the whole point of my last post - I told you that we are looking for a hell of a lot more than just sex. It is you who keeps on belaboring who I **** is more important than the fact that I love them unto death. Its you who keeps on turning it back on the two men getting it on angle.
You are the one with sex on the brain. You are the one who keeps on insisting on reducing gays to nothing more than an act of sex. You are stuck in the Sex Box - as for in the box thinking.
Marry your damn hand, I bet if it wasn't attached to your body it would divorce you and find another hand to live with.
[This message was edited by VivienneHa on 03-05-04 at 02:03 AM.]
03-04-04, 10:59 PM coldfuse
quote:Originally posted by Kendor: ...sex for the sake of pleasure, which is not the intent of sex whatsoever....
Kendor, I'm coming clean. Stepping out, so to speak. I had a vasectomy years ago and the Mrs. and I have sex exclusively for the sake of pleasure.
Er...kendor...about you and your hand....
03-05-04, 01:38 AM stampeding turtles I came upon this argument about gay love being equated with beastiality when "Boy Meets Boy" was on Bravo last summer(I watched the show, it was entertaining.) As usual, some of the fervent anti-gay voices and other phobes in the country (Family Values Council, etc) quickly compared the show to "Boy Meets Sheep" as the slippery slope argument against it. That is strange to immediatly jump to that kind of thinking. I could never have thought that one up. That is simply bizarre and scary.
....and THEY say gays think strangely! Confused
I have always been taught that when you have to resort to exaggeration and hyperbole in a debate, it's a sign your argument is inherently weak.
03-05-04, 07:02 AM Sherasi I find something terribly wrong headed about leaping from consensual sex between two adults (in whatever combination of sexual orientation) to unethical and illegal pairings of animal:human, child:adult.
This is NO comparison as animal/child pairing with adults is purely evil since there CAN be NO mutual agreement EVER; rape is rape no matter how you sugar coat it.
Thinking outside of the box? Please. I'd just as soon stay IN the box if it means thinking like that.
03-05-04, 07:38 AM Lydia Kendor...your stubborn opinionated thoughts on comparing apples to oranges baffles me. That hand you want to marry should just reach up and slap you upside the head!! Roll Eyes (just my two cents)
03-05-04, 08:06 AM Georgia85 My grasp on what Kendor's post is about is not so much that he is comparing one act to another...but that he is using this opportunity to express his concerns about the decline in morality. And my opinion on the point that is trying to be made is that society is becoming more and more accepting to things that one in a strong religious belief would find immoral. Because society is becoming more open to certain practices this creates the opportunity for more and more practices to become acceptable.
Actually I commend Kendor for taking a personal stand.
03-05-04, 08:28 AM MrsS AMEN, David!
2 years ago, my husband lost his uncle...a fine, bright man who had shared 35 years of his life with another man, who is among the sweetest, funniest souls I've ever come across....They worked hard and they built a business.They bought a house together, they filled that house with pleasant things and happy memories and had every intention of growing old together....When "Jack" died, the papers to release his body to the funeral home had to be faxed to Jack's 89 year old mother, because for all their good efforts to grant each other the rights that marriage would have bestowed, they never thought to specify that one, and so "Jim" had no legal way to deal with this particular matter. That is barbaric. Their relationship was not about sex, it was about a loving commitment to one another that had outlasted my own lifetime. This is not a rarity among gay couples, the ladies who on Feb.13, were the first wed in San Francisco, celebrated 51 years together the next day. I personally know more gay couples than straight who have been together more than a decade. David is right, Kendor, get your mind out of the bedroom.....go sit at the breakfast table for a minute....your hand will thank you for the vacation.
03-05-04, 12:41 PM methos
quote:Originally posted by Georgia85: ...things that one in a strong religious belief would find immoral...
To the contrary, he says that religion has nothing to do with it.
What he is doing, in my humble opinion, is likening homosexuals to child molesters and bestialiters (I have no idea if that's a word), and reducing the complexities of human relationships to nothing more than sex.
If a religion disagrees with marrying homosexuals, so be it, they don't need to marry them. It's this pseudo-logic that I disagree with, (and the idea that it or the beliefs of one religion should determine our laws, though Kendor hasn't suggested that they should).
[This message was edited by methos on 03-05-04 at 12:58 PM.] 03-05-04, 01:29 PM Georgia85
quote:Originally posted by Kendor: mankind is in danger if morality doesn't maintain its weight, whether its based on religious beliefs or not.
You may be right Methos, but I was focusing on what Kendor said in the above quote.
I don't see him comparing homosexuals to child molesters and those who practice beastiality. All I see is one person making comments about activities that he feels are immoral.
03-05-04, 01:58 PM methos How do you not see the comparison to bestiality? It's in the first post in this thread.
03-05-04, 02:06 PM Kendor Georgia's got the right take on my stubborn, opinionated thoughts, and I thank her for reading my posts in their entirety, as most of you apparently have not. Here, I have admitted to homosexual acts and masturbation. (I am not above the masses). But I have never committed an act of beastiality, and I abhor pedophiles. (David is correct in that in pedophilia, there are [individual and immediate] victims).
I only compare these acts in the context of them being counter to the original intent of sex in nature, that’s all. I’m sorry if I have offended anyone, as that was not my intent. I was seeking to let this go because I have found that, counter to methos’s, <---[thanks for the grammar tip, btw), statement that the majority opinion in this country is for banning gay marriages, here at the pool that doesn’t seem to be the case. Sometimes I get frustrated when others don’t see things my way but that’s just the way I am. But there’s a reason; one can be assured that, on any issue that I have formed strong opinion on, I have studied lengthy on the subject and have chosen my battles carefully. Ask honilov about this if you need confirmation. Mention the rap forum.
I am not a bigot, nor am I a homophobe. I am: a single father with 2 preteen boys who is concerned about his worldly brothers and sisters as a whole. I don’t care about what an individual is doing behind closed doors. I don’t care what another fantasizes about. But don’t shove your aberrant behavior in my children’s faces. That’s what allowing gay marriages will do.
I care about you, …and you, … and you and you and you. I do not seek to be applauded or glamorized. But, I do expect to be read in my entirety, before having judgment passed upon me.
03-05-04, 03:58 PM MrsS I read your posts...every word. I simply disagree with every word, and find most of your points ludricrous and offensive by turns. If sex were not for enjoyment as well as for procreation, humans would only feel the urge when conception was likely. You seem to imply that granting homosexuals equality in legal matters will somehow result in a larger population of homosexuals....you have mentioned "cultivating" homosexuality....Human sexuality is, in my fairly well informed opinion, unlikely to undergo a massive shift if the law permits all commited couples the same rights, obligations and privileges. If the number of unwed parents, children in foster care and sequential families scattered about, and the number of successful fertility clinics are any indication, the species is in no immediate danger of dying out....and that is looking only at the US. I have chosen to ignore you admission of having explored homosexuality, because there is too much temptation to comment on the idea of overcompensation. Many of us have replied to your admission of self gratification. Your implications that homosexuality is in any way comparable to molestation and bestiality are beneath contempt, let alone reply. And no one has yet answered a question I've asked several times...If "Marriage" is only for the purpose of procreation, is my own marriage then invalid because we have chosen not to be fruitful? Must women past childbearing age forgo marriage? What about men incabable of fathering a child, due to some injury or illness beyond their control?What about those couples who find after they are wed that one or the other party is infertile...must they then seek annulments and try, try again until the fertile party finds a mate with whom they can perpetuate the species? And must the infertile spouse then retreat into a quiet life of seclusion and service instead of pursuing a full and loving partnership?
03-05-04, 03:59 PM teeceeum Kendor, you're last post made more sense to me than anything else you have posted in this thread. But I still don't fully agree with your point of view. If you are really concerned with the moral temptations that are going to be presented to your children throughout their lives, you shouldn't be shielding them from those temptations. Rather you should be teaching them how to deal with it. I can't tell you how many adults I've seen that were screwed up because their parents thought they were protecting them.
Having said that, I will stand by what I said earlier. I do not believe that a gay man or woman can convince your sons to be gay. Nor do I believe that a straight man or woman can convince your sons to be straight.
Gay couples are merely seeking the same rights and privileges that you and I have. And I have absolutely no problem with that even if I do not agree with their lifestyle.
Homosexuality has been a biological fact for thousands of years. And if I'm not mistaken, I believe it has been observed in nature outside of humankind. I am sure it will continue to be a biological fact as long as mankind exists.
The best that you can do, as the song says, is "Teach your children well."
03-05-04, 04:15 PM aminator2002 Your boys will probably grow up to disagree with you anyway. Thank goodness.
Tolerance is moral.
03-08-04, 09:45 PM coldfuse Kendor, this weekend my brother-in-law "came up with" the same thing you started this thread with. Where did you get this concept? Might I suggest your source had a momentary brain fart with this one.
03-09-04, 11:20 AM Kendor Cold, the original topic stemmed solely from the concept of discrimination. And I still don't think it's a terribly bad analogy, other than the fact that animals supposedly have rights, and they cannot give consent. Yes, it's everyday I hear dogs saying, "Arf arf, go ahead Mr. Human, put that collar 'round my neck and chain me to a tree whilst you're off at work."
And ami, I don't know who in the hell you think you are by implying that my children, at the hands of goodness, will likely grow up to disagree with their father. That reply is borderline something. I don't know if you have children, but some that posted here have clarified that their choice was to not have children. Perhaps that's what is lacking for them to see a point of view in line with my own on this issue. 03-10-04, 12:45 PM Elexina Actions between consenting adults should not be criminalized or forbidden. Pedophilia involves children and bestiality involves animals, neither of whom can give consent to such actions and therefore, such relationships are not legal or permissible.
Homosexuality occurs between consenting adults. So does polygamy. The problem with polygamy is that some young girls are forced into marriages with close relatives, marriages they did not understand and were not ready for. But if all spouses in a polygamous relationship are consenting adults, then again, I do not have a problem with it.
Personally, I would love to have a bunch of men to service me at any time, day or night. But yech, think of all the dirty socks...
Ooh, Coldfuse, that’s a good idea! I’m going to marry my microwave. I do love it so.
Kendor, if you are opposed to gay marriage, don’t get gay married! It’s really simple.
03-10-04, 03:20 PM Kendor So elexina, if animals have rights, why is it legal to 'own' them, confine them to cages, and force bondage upon them with physical restraints, i.e. collars, muzzles, etc.? Please don't construe this with allegations that I support beastiality; I do not. I'm only emphasizing that the use of animal rights, as an argument against my original topic here, may be fallible.
quote:Originally posted by Elexina: Kendor, if you are opposed to gay marriage, don’t get gay married! It’s really simple.
No, it's not that simple. What message are we giving our children by promoting, (I didn't say tolerating, I said promoting), this lifestyle?
But, if worst comes to worst my best friend and I, (we're both males but we do not have a sexual relationship), are considering getting married if it becomes legal. We can enjoy all kinds of financial benefits that formerly were given only to heterosexual couples that claimed to love one another. Heck, this could get good. Maybe I can make a motion to have my two sons marry each other so they too, can reap what is sown. (ooh, I smell another topic on the way).
03-10-04, 04:13 PM teeceeum I don't see it as "promoting" at all. I think recognition is a more apt term.
And I can't even comment on your "marriage" plans.
03-12-04, 11:43 AM Kendor I love you all too, BION. That's why I hold the opinions that I do.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
