ES Gay Marriage Poll

[Jumbo]

I wish the "objectors", many of whom seem faith-based, could have lived in, and adhered to, the edicts of those times when recreational sex was frequently taught to be as sinful as any sexually immoral act, especially oral or anal sex between married man and woman. I'm sure they would have been fine and dandy with that, and would be now if someone would tell them we're returning to those righteously and (once) deeply held moral convictions. I wonder if once people starting telling each other more openly that they actually had oral and other non-reproductive-oriented sex in their marriage, many morally-erect soldiers said "What next?" Obviously, rampant bestiality and pedophilia and polygamy (because those are all the same) were right around the corner for those perverted oralists.

[The Evil Genius]

Perverted oralists or cunning linguists, jumbo?

[Jumbo]

Perverted oralists or cunning linguists, jumbo?

Boy, did I miss an obvious opportunity there--you pervert.

[elkabong82]

Observing that, up until recently, a "traditional" marriage meant that, the day they married, the woman lost the right to own any property whatsoever. All of her property became the husband's. If, after marriage, she received any additional property (say, by inheritance from her parents), that property instantly became the husband's too.

The only way the woman could receive custody of their children, was if the husband left the children to her, in his will.

The law specified that, if the wife damaged anybody's property, then the husband was required to pay for the damages. (There were identical laws for slaves.)

Good point. And the arguments in favor of such were that it was unnatural for women to have rights and think for themselves, that such defied tradition.

As far as polygamy goes, just from a legal perspective you have multiple parties involved and there is the conflict that arises between competing interests, which is the same problem with polygamy on the emotional level. Multiple parties devoting themselves (to the level required) to one party creates a conflict of interest, even if it is latent or repressed, hence it really shouldn't be condoned legally. But as I stated before, transitioning from SSM to that is akin to slippery slope argument, which is bunk. It's the same as the BS beastiality arguments that get ignorantly brought up.

[LadySkinsFan]

Marriage is not a right marriage is a privilege if marriage where a right everyone who wants to be married could be. What about people who can not find a person to marry them. Should someone be forced to marry them after all they have a right to be married according to you. They reason you don't like the thread and the so called absurd questions ask by some is maybe you don't have a good answer for them. If the majority of the people dont't want same sex marriage what about their rights everytime same sex marriage has been put to a vote it has lost even in California.

The Supremes, in Loving v. Virginia, wrote that marriage is a fundamental right. It's not a privilege, it's a right.

[AsburySkinsFan]

That comes off extremely arrogant.

Think about it from where we sit, if there is a higher power, and that higher power has as we believe revealed His will to us through the scriptures isn't it then simply logical to follow the will of that higher power since it is higher i.e. wiser, smarter etc?

I didn't mean to flame you and I know that you agree with SSM being legal and are just playing DA FTR. I think my using the term "religious backed hatred" set you down this path. I still think it is though.

I get that, and I went down the DA path basically as a "challenge accepted" in order to demonstrate that the Conversative argument can be made without using hateful and judgmental language or ideas. Now, is it normally conveyed that way by many who oppose SSM? No.

I don't believe in God, but believe in a power through life. I think most religions hold humanity back from allowing themselves to seek a higher level of consciousness in themselves and through their surroundings and don't tell me that's my religion or that life is God, because it isn't and it's not that simple.

I wouldn't dream of telling you that, I believe people can be true athiests, it is typically a cheap preacher ploy to call a god everything you pay attention to more that God. I understand why you feel the way you do about religion, but obviously I understand life differently.

My problem is, I don't understand how anyone can teach love of they neighbor or acceptance of others or to just let God judge, while denying people rights, that should be granted (and are) by the laws of the lands. If groups want to look down their noses, denounce loved ones or even shout hateful things, while that is their right as an American (even if it holds us all back), it should be the gays right to marry in a church that accepts them and our government should not be able to deny that.

Follow the thinking; 1) many Christians view the family unit as the foundation of a society, 2) they also believe that the family is complete when all of the socio-cultural roles are fulfilled in a husband and a wife, 3) therefore to redefiine marriage as something other than a husband and a wife threatens the foundation of society. I'm not saying that I agree with this, just expressing the logic.

[Burgold]

One reason to be for gay marriage is neither political, legal, or moral... it's economic. A new study shows that legalizing gay marriage would generate a lot of money for the states. In Illinois alone, over 100 million dollars would be generated by the most conservative estimates in the first three years.

http://voicerussia.com/radio_broadcast/70924886/109287223.html

[Jumbo]

If I were anti-gay on any basis, I'd still want them able to marry like heteros. Why should they be deprived the misery and common drop-off in actually enjoying sex with their mate?

Less fun for gays! Less fun for gays! Less fun for gays!

(say it with me!!)

[AsburySkinsFan]

One reason to be for gay marriage is neither political, legal, or moral... it's economic. A new study shows that legalizing gay marriage would generate a lot of money for the states. In Illinois alone, over 100 million dollars would be generated by the most conservative estimates in the first three years.

http://voicerussia.com/radio_broadcast/70924886/109287223.html

Which sounds slightly less noble that equal rights under the law.

[deejaydana]

One reason to be for gay marriage is neither political, legal, or moral... it's economic. A new study shows that legalizing gay marriage would generate a lot of money for the states. In Illinois alone, over 100 million dollars would be generated by the most conservative estimates in the first three years.

http://voicerussia.com/radio_broadcast/70924886/109287223.html

I look at it from the net positive that marriage provides to society as a whole. Why can't gays be help contribute to that as well?

---------- Post added March-28th-2013 at 05:12 PM ----------

One reason to be for gay marriage is neither political, legal, or moral... it's economic. A new study shows that legalizing gay marriage would generate a lot of money for the states. In Illinois alone, over 100 million dollars would be generated by the most conservative estimates in the first three years.

http://voicerussia.com/radio_broadcast/70924886/109287223.html

I look at it from the net positive that marriage provides to society as a whole. Why can't gays help contribute to that as well?

[Larry]

One reason to be for gay marriage is neither political, legal, or moral... it's economic. A new study shows that legalizing gay marriage would generate a lot of money for the states. In Illinois alone, over 100 million dollars would be generated by the most conservative estimates in the first three years.

http://voicerussia.com/radio_broadcast/70924886/109287223.html

When this whole thing first started, I had the idea that Nevada would legalize it, so all the gays in the country would have to go to Vegas for their weddings, thus pumping millions into their economy.

[PleaseBlitz]

I wish the "objectors", many of whom seem faith-based, could have lived in, and adhered to, the edicts of those times when recreational sex was frequently taught to be as sinful as any sexually immoral act, especially oral or anal sex between married man and woman. I'm sure they would have been fine and dandy with that, and would be now if someone would tell them we're returning to those righteously and (once) deeply held moral convictions. I wonder if once people starting telling each other more openly that they actually had oral and other non-reproductive-oriented sex in their marriage, many morally-erect soldiers said "What next?" Obviously, rampant bestiality and pedophilia and polygamy (because those are all the same) were right around the corner for those perverted oralists.

And I wish the "objectors," with their sanctity of marriage claims, were not allowed divorces. Ever.

[twa]

And I wish the "objectors," with their sanctity of marriage claims, were not allowed divorces. Ever.

You sadist, ya sound just like my wife

[Koolblue13]

If I were anti-gay on any basis, I'd still want them able to marry like heteros. Why should they be deprived the misery and common drop-off in actually enjoying sex with their mate?

Less fun for gays! Less fun for gays! Less fun for gays!

(say it with me!!)

Honestly, I just really really want to be able to watch Gay Divorce Court for many hours a day.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Honestly, I just really really want to be able to watch Gay Divorce Court for many hours a day.

That shouldn't be as funny as it is.

[Koolblue13]

That shouldn't be as funny as it is.

You my friend must never have seen two queens fighting back stage at a drag show. Those girls be crazy.

[Zguy28]

You my friend must never have seen two queens fighting back stage at a drag show. Those girls be crazy.

crazier than Gypsies after a wedding?

[Koolblue13]

crazier than Gypsies after a wedding?

Never seen a gypsy wedding, but I'm dating one, so maybe that will change.

When the glitter, wigs and feathers start flying, you get out of the way.

[AsburySkinsFan]

You my friend must never have seen two queens fighting back stage at a drag show. Those girls be crazy.

I'm picturing an explosion of feather boas, beehive glittered wigs, acrylic nails and fake lashes!!

That would be entertaining!

[Larry]

Yeah, I confess that it's non-PC and stereotypical and all kinds of other bad things. But yeah, the mental image of "People's Gay Divorce Court" does sound entertaining.

[Corcaigh]

Yeah, I confess that it's non-PC and stereotypical and all kinds of other bad things.

It's something I can't get my mind around. I worked with a gay couple where one guy was particularly well dressed, but in every other way unremarkable for a 20-something year old professional. His partner was so flamboyant and over the top in behavior, emotion and mannerisms at first you thought he was parodying the stereotype to make some kind of point as that's how we expected him to be. But that's how he really was.

It was ****ing annoying after a while. Just as bad as women who seem to be real-life Barbies (with or without the oversized breasts).

[Jumbo]

And I wish the "objectors," with their sanctity of marriage claims....<edit>

On the other hand, as noted on last night's Daily Show's happy-fun time, God would only want you to marry someone torn from a man's rib cage. :pfft: It's simply common sense and the only moral choice. :evilg: Or to put it another way, burble burble.

On a not-fun note, watching the R's (featuring some soul-deep hypocrisy during the whole bit) from the '96 DOMA stuff prompts some reactions in me I don't endorse or like.

(more fun, too, with the House summary of the discussion, showing the moral element playing major role---a matter oft denied by many R's, including some who stood up and were filmed making exactly such comments)

[Larry]

(more fun, too, with the House summary of the discussion, showing the moral element playing major role---a matter oft denied by many R's, including some who stood up and were filmed making exactly such comments)

Years ago, used to be a regular listener of Neal Boortz, a political talk show host out of Atlanta, with a really Republican/Libertarian fixation. (He loved every thing the R's did in regards to tax cuts and cutting welfare and minimum wage and so forth, but had utter contempt for the Religious Right.)

And he used to say that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance were the most blatant example of a First Amendment violation in the history of our nation, because, when Congress passed that law in the 60's, the people who passed it actually stood on the floors of Congress, on the record, and announced that the reason they were doing this was to use the power of the government to encourage Christianity in the children of America.

(He also said that any person who took this fact to court was the biggest ***hole in America.)

It's so helpful when people are honest about their motives, isn't it?

[Forehead]

Yeah, I confess that it's non-PC and stereotypical and all kinds of other bad things. But yeah, the mental image of "People's Gay Divorce Court" does sound entertaining.

Gay Judge Judy...new ratings blockbuster.

[Predicto]

Years ago, used to be a regular listener of Neal Boortz, a political talk show host out of Atlanta, with a really Republican/Libertarian fixation. (He loved every thing the R's did in regards to tax cuts and cutting welfare and minimum wage and so forth, but had utter contempt for the Religious Right.)

Boortz played the "horribly oppressed white man" angle pretty hard too, but I'm not sure where that fits in the fiscal/social conservative construct.