Five reasons why gay marriage is a basic, conservative value

Originally posted by Q33323
When I someday acquire the ability to teleport myself into a parallel reality, I plan on marrying myself. Now let me think about five reasons why that would be right.

To borrow from the OP

1. Marrying yourself promotes personal responsibility, twice!

2. Marrying yourself promotes family values. Well as much as two blokes getting together does.

3. Marrying yourself promotes commitment and stability. There isn't much chance of a divorce after all.

4. Marrying yourself promotes freedom to be yourself. With yourself.

5. Marrying yourself is an example of limited governmental powers. Actually, this last one makes no sense at all.

Originally posted by adigregorio
Not going to answer my question?

Bad form...

I didn't understand what you meant.

Originally posted by adigregorio
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Meh, semantics methinks. I can not get married without a pastor or some other official correct?

What about marriage at sea? Isn't that up to mari-time law?

Regardless, as I pointed out with "common-law" marraige, you can bypass all the red-tape. I wish I was gay, I would go do this and make a big stink.

Then they would HAVE to re-define marraige, to show either they're bigoted or not.

I swear it's like watching children play in kindergarten. "MINE, this awesome toy (marraige) is MINE!" I swear, I feel less like a human every day. Although, have I been programmed with the us versus them as well? I mean I would be us, and humans them...

Great! Thank you thread!! I have been programmed too, excuse me while I go try to undo this ignorance implanted into me. I wish you folks luck when/if you discover your programming.

(Us versus them, that's what this is. Hate on the folks that are your neighbors, instead of the slave owners that own both parties.)

You HAVE to get a marriage license from the State to be legally married by the State. I think most churches also require the license but the word marriage seems to be defined by the Church and not by the State. At least that is what I see that definition alluding to, but there is another thread somewhere on the definition of it as by religion or by State.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
We're limiting it to consenting adults because they are the ones, that by law, make the decisions. The others are not capable of giving consent and have a protected status, as they should.

But men could give their consent. If you agree that two men could give their consent to be 'married', can you explain why three men could not be married together if they gave their consent?

It is a serious question and I ask you because I know you are a serious 'dude'.

I already said that would be acceptable to me as long as they all consent in it.

hold down the fort, have some things to do

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Q33323
When I someday acquire the ability to teleport myself into a parallel reality, I plan on marrying myself. Now let me think about five reasons why that would be right.

To borrow from the OP

1. Marrying yourself promotes personal responsibility, twice!

2. Marrying yourself promotes family values. Well as much as two blokes getting together does.

3. Marrying yourself promotes commitment and stability. There isn't much chance of a divorce after all.

4. Marrying yourself promotes freedom to be yourself. With yourself.

5. Marrying yourself is an example of limited governmental powers. Actually, this last one makes no sense at all.

That Sue character on Glee already did that.

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
What would you being gay have anything to do with something going over my head? You clearly said you wanted to use their dressing room and it's for dressing, therefore, you want to dress like them.

Pretty straight-forward (pardon the pun as I don't wish to insult your homosexuality)

Cleary you aren't the sharpest tool in the box.

In all seriousness, where do you draw the line. If three or four men can get married, how about a football team?

Originally posted by MsAphrodite

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

I follow it and have taught my children to follow it without the interference of their teachers. I believe teachers should reinforce the idea of respect and civility, but schools cannot adopt a PC agenda without trampling on someones rights.

Respect and civility always work, every single time.

Again rather than emphasizing negative behavior we need to reward civility. It is a simple concept and it works. Teach the golden rule. Every single kindergartner can understand it.

Funny how some self proclaimed libertarians miss the point that government should get out of the marriage business all together. If government did it would work toward mending a very divided nation and world as a whole concerning this most controversial and divisive issue of our time. That's a plan to prosper civility in regards to this most unsettling civil issue that only serves to foster tensions within society, a society divided in two of very different views of morality.

I have stated many times on this board those exact sentiments. I absolutely believe that the government has no business marrying anyone. We agree completely. I'm not certain why you would think I believe otherwise since I never addressed that in this thread and it has nothing to do with my post you linked.

Oh I see you must have digressed off of the topic "Five reasons why gay marriage is a basic, conservative value," and your words have nothing to do with the topic.

Understood.

Besides my comment was generic. If you took it as being personally directed at you that's your deal. I don't own your mind, perceptions thereof nor emotions.

reply to post by ollncasino


You're saying he's not the sharpest tool in the shed? The discussion is about TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. Not some sort of polygamist bestiality pedophile marriage party or whatever other extremely asinine and off-color scenario you can dream up in that hateful head of yours.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by kaylaluv
Surprisingly, I have found data that says the rates of domestic violence in same-sex relationships is about the same as heterosexual relationships. That would make them about.... EQUAL.

So who is correct?

The Canadian government study and the one by the American College of Paediatricians into domestic violence which state that domestic violence is two to three times more common in gay relationships or the Gay and Lesbian Resources page by a private psychiatrist you quote from?

I notice that the Gay and Lesbian Resources page you quote from doesn't mention the Canadian government study or the one by the American College of Paediatricians.

I can't find any information regarding the Canadian study - the study links don't work in the link you provided (???), but I did find out that the American College of Pediatricians is a small, rogue group of conservative right-wing pediatricians ( somewhere between 60 and 200 members). They are a branch-off of the main professional group - the American Academy of Pediatrics, who, by the way, is in support of same-sex relationships.

The American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) is a socially conservative association of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals specializing in the care of infants, children and adolescents in the United States. The College was founded in 2002 by a group of pediatricians including Joseph Zanga, a past president of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), as a protest against the AAP's support for adoption by gay couples.[1][2] The ACPeds website reports members in 47 states of the United States and five other countries,[3] but does not disclose the total member count. The group's membership has been estimated at between 60 and 200 members.[1][4][5]

Zanga has described ACP as a group "with Judeo-Christian, traditional values that is open to pediatric medical professionals of all religions who hold true to the group's core beliefs: that life begins at conception; and that the traditional family unit, headed by a different-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of children."[6] The organization's view on parenting is at odds with the position of the American Academy of Pediatrics and other medical and child welfare authorities, which hold that sexual orientation has no correlation with the ability to be a good parent and to raise healthy and well-adjusted children.[4][7][8] A number of prominent researchers have complained that ACPeds mischaracterized or misused their work to advance its agenda.[1][9]

en.wikipedia.org...

So, no -- I'm not convinced by your data so far.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
What would you being gay have anything to do with something going over my head? You clearly said you wanted to use their dressing room and it's for dressing, therefore, you want to dress like them.

Pretty straight-forward (pardon the pun as I don't wish to insult your homosexuality)

Cleary you aren't the sharpest tool in the box.

In all seriousness, where do you draw the line. If three or four men can get married, how about a football team?

I can't imagine one that would want to, but if they are consenting adults and it doesn't harm anyone else, I wouldn't be opposed to it.
As far as being a sharp tool... sure, if that's what you want to think, doesn't affect me one way or another

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
What would you being gay have anything to do with something going over my head? You clearly said you wanted to use their dressing room and it's for dressing, therefore, you want to dress like them.

Pretty straight-forward (pardon the pun as I don't wish to insult your homosexuality)

Cleary you aren't the sharpest tool in the box.

In all seriousness, where do you draw the line. If three or four men can get married, how about a football team?

I can't imagine one that would want to, but if they are consenting adults and it doesn't harm anyone else, I wouldn't be opposed to it.
As far as being a sharp tool... sure, if that's what you want to think, doesn't affect me one way or another

I've heard Polymory is increasing in popularity.

That would be mixed group marriage.

reply to post by freakjive


I can give you one reason and there really is only one reason.

A TRUE conservative believes in personal freedom. Freedom to do whatever we want with whomever we want. Personal liberty is what built this country and in a legal aspect, same-sex couples should be able to join in a legal-binding relationship that has the same legal requirements as marriage. It would be up to churches whether or not they would want to actually "marry" two people of the same sex but couples should still be able to be legally tied to one another in the same way that a married couple is. We don't have to call it marriage if that becomes an issue. If churches don't want to "marry" a same sex couple then they should be able to be legally united through a court house or something like that.

Originally posted by Annee



I've heard Polymory is increasing in popularity.

That would be mixed group marriage.

edit on 23-5-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)

Yup, although I can't imagine ever being in one and am opposed to it on a personal level, I see no reason why those who are consenting adults and not harming anyone else shouldn't be allowed to do it. I don't see it happening in the near future, but I wouldn't strike out against them and tell them they couldn't do it.

Originally posted by dorkfish87
reply to post by ollncasino

 

Why don't we just get rid of governmental marriage, replace it with civil unions, and offer those to all consenting adult couples. Then, if you want a religious marriage, you can go to your church...

I have been saying this for years. I am a fiscal conservative and social liberal and hope this will be the direction we move towards.

Originally posted by RoyBatty

Originally posted by dorkfish87
reply to post by ollncasino

 

Why don't we just get rid of governmental marriage, replace it with civil unions, and offer those to all consenting adult couples. Then, if you want a religious marriage, you can go to your church...

I have been saying this for years. I am a fiscal conservative and social liberal and hope this will be the direction we move towards.

Need Legal Equality first.

Need everyone on the same playing field - - before making changes that will affect everyone.

Separate but Equal - - is never Equal.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
What would you being gay have anything to do with something going over my head? You clearly said you wanted to use their dressing room and it's for dressing, therefore, you want to dress like them.

Pretty straight-forward (pardon the pun as I don't wish to insult your homosexuality)

Cleary you aren't the sharpest tool in the box.

In all seriousness, where do you draw the line. If three or four men can get married, how about a football team?

If a football team get married, how does that impact on you or me in even he slightest way?

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by RoyBatty

Originally posted by dorkfish87
reply to post by ollncasino

 

Why don't we just get rid of governmental marriage, replace it with civil unions, and offer those to all consenting adult couples. Then, if you want a religious marriage, you can go to your church...

I have been saying this for years. I am a fiscal conservative and social liberal and hope this will be the direction we move towards.

Need Legal Equality first.

Need everyone on the same playing field - - before making changes that will affect everyone.

Separate but Equal - - is never Equal.

They are not separate. Everyone (hetero or otherwise) gets a civil union and if they also want a marriage, they can take that up with their church. Dig?

Originally posted by RoyBatty

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by RoyBatty

Originally posted by dorkfish87
reply to post by ollncasino

 

Why don't we just get rid of governmental marriage, replace it with civil unions, and offer those to all consenting adult couples. Then, if you want a religious marriage, you can go to your church...

I have been saying this for years. I am a fiscal conservative and social liberal and hope this will be the direction we move towards.

Need Legal Equality first.

Need everyone on the same playing field - - before making changes that will affect everyone.

Separate but Equal - - is never Equal.

They are not separate. Everyone (hetero or otherwise) gets a civil union and if they also want a marriage, they can take that up with their church. Dig?

Nope!

Can't change the rules until everyone is equal - - - meaning EVERYONE can Legally get married with a government license.

After - - - EVERYONE is equal - - - you want to try and change marriage for everyone to civil unions - - be my guest.

There is nothing in the Government contract named Marriage License that refers to god or religion. It has nothing to do with religion.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Can I ask you a question:

Do you enjoy being gay? It is a serious question.

I enjoy being gay as much as anyone enjoys being whatever they happen to be. I have no choice in the matter so kind of had to deal with the reality that it couldn't be changed and once I reconciled this, many years ago, I realised there was truly no issue with it and others have far worse things to worry about and that I was in fact a very lucky person. I stopped wasting time on what some other people of no consequence to me thought.

We should all think the same way. Whether you like me or not has absolutely no impact on my life - unless you curtail my freedoms and then I'm personally quite happy to actually get violent and fight for them and many of us are so bloody watch out.

Mostly you just move forward and ignore the negative and smile.

This does not, however, shield me from some hurt feelings as there are still some complete idiots arounnd who think they should be able to impose what they like on me as though they are some authority on what is right and wrong.

Annee, please tell me which statute you are referring to when you state that the rules can't be changed.