After what reads like hours of "people in studies may change their sexual identity over time, right?"(ergo gay people aren't a eligable for suspect class, as homosexuality is a mutable trait)
redirect: If two women want to marry, are they lesbians?
H: Yes If two men want to marry, are they gay men?
H: Yes
brilliantly succinct counter.
Brilliantly succinct, sure, but not entirely accurate.
If two women want to marry, they might be lesbians. But they might also be bisexual, pansexual, etc. Hell, they could in fact still identify as straight.
After what reads like hours of "people in studies may change their sexual identity over time, right?"(ergo gay people aren't a eligable for suspect class, as homosexuality is a mutable trait)
redirect: If two women want to marry, are they lesbians?
H: Yes If two men want to marry, are they gay men?
H: Yes
brilliantly succinct counter.
Brilliantly succinct, sure, but not entirely accurate.
If two women want to marry, they might be lesbians. But they might also be bisexual, pansexual, etc. Hell, they could in fact still identify as straight.
Yes, yes, one fight at a time, whatever.
As far as the law needs to be concerned, they're lesbians.
I mean, there are lots of gay people in opposite-sex-marriages right now, and as far as the law is concerned, they're straight. Doesn't mean they wouldn't rather be doing someone of the same-sex though.
Sexual preference is a choice ....for Bisexuals. Or does the B in LGBT stand for Basket-Weavers? I forget.
Sexual preference is never a choice. Sexual action is.
Seconding this. I'm bisexual, and isn't a case of thinking, "Hey, today I'm going to find guys good-looking" - it's more of a case that I find people attractive, of either gender. There's no choice made.
I'm saying that people often use the notion that one person can be attracted to either sex as a means to prove those that say homosexuality is not a choice are wrong without ever acknowledging Bisexuality.
Not that I support them in their smear campaign per se, but I do find the polygamy argument interesting. Once you disregard the 'traditional' argument (although theres probably a stronger tradition for polygamy than for homosexual marriage anyways), whats the argument for keeping marriage limited to 2 partners.
Not that I support them in their smear campaign per se, but I do find the polygamy argument interesting. Once you disregard the 'traditional' argument (although theres probably a stronger tradition for polygamy than for homosexual marriage anyways), whats the argument for keeping marriage limited to 2 partners.
Unlike homosexuals, polygamists do tend to be kiddie-fuckers.
Not that I support them in their smear campaign per se, but I do find the polygamy argument interesting. Once you disregard the 'traditional' argument (although theres probably a stronger tradition for polygamy than for homosexual marriage anyways), whats the argument for keeping marriage limited to 2 partners.
Unlike homosexuals, polygamists do tend to be kiddie-fuckers.
Right, but minors can't marry anyways. So whats wrong with 3 consenting adults?
Not that I support them in their smear campaign per se, but I do find the polygamy argument interesting. Once you disregard the 'traditional' argument (although theres probably a stronger tradition for polygamy than for homosexual marriage anyways), whats the argument for keeping marriage limited to 2 partners.
Unlike homosexuals, polygamists do tend to be kiddie-fuckers.
Right, but minors can't marry anyways. So whats wrong with 3 consenting adults?
Because it creates societies where kiddie-fucking becomes the norm, because most of the people who are polygamists (not polyamorists) are retarded religious fundies who marry tons of women to one man, then run out of women and have to snatch them up before there's even grass on the field.
Not to mention that while expanding the rights of heterosexual marriage to homosexuals is fantastically fucking easy (legally speaking), we'd basically have to re-write all marriage-related common law from the ground up to account for multiple people.
I think a lot of the argument against polygamy is that it can lead to exploiting women (not sure how much validity this argument has). It also mucks up the law quite a bit when you start adding in more than two people. Does it operate like one person married to two separate people or is it more like three people all married to each other? It can make things like divorce rather tricky too.
That being said, I cant come up with any real reasons that multiple consenting adults cant enter into a relationship, and 'legally tricky' isnt a valid enough reason to deny it.
lizard eats flies on
0
Options
Golden YakBurnished BovineThe sunny beaches of CanadaRegistered Userregular
Not that I support them in their smear campaign per se, but I do find the polygamy argument interesting. Once you disregard the 'traditional' argument (although theres probably a stronger tradition for polygamy than for homosexual marriage anyways), whats the argument for keeping marriage limited to 2 partners.
It's really a much bigger stretch to go from gay marriage to polygamy than you make it out to be. Gay marriage is still an issue about a couple of people. This couple of people can be married, this couple cannot, for whatever reason.
3+ people is a completely different animal, however you look at it and however it's practiced, whether it's the nightmare Thanatos describes or some theoretical perfect three-way union.
It's really a much bigger stretch to go from gay marriage to polygamy than you make it out to be. Gay marriage is still an issue about a couple of people. This couple of people can be married, this couple cannot, for whatever reason.
3+ people is a completely different animal, however you look at it and however it's practiced, whether it's the nightmare Thanatos describes or some theoretical perfect three-way union.
I'm just waiting for him to realise he's using the same prejudicial arguments against polygamy that the prop 8 people are using against gay marriage; specifically that it's a slippery slope to child abuse in various forms.
I think a lot of the argument against polygamy is that it can lead to exploiting women (not sure how much validity this argument has). It also mucks up the law quite a bit when you start adding in more than two people. Does it operate like one person married to two separate people or is it more like three people all married to each other? It can make things like divorce rather tricky too.
That being said, I cant come up with any real reasons that multiple consenting adults cant enter into a relationship, and 'legally tricky' isnt a valid enough reason to deny it.
A marriage such as 2 straight women to one straight man is automatically setting up the women to compete for the mans affection....not really fair for the women.
Show my the healthy happy polygamous relationships where everyone is equal and in love with each other. If you can't then I can't be bothered to change the law for them.
It's really a much bigger stretch to go from gay marriage to polygamy than you make it out to be. Gay marriage is still an issue about a couple of people. This couple of people can be married, this couple cannot, for whatever reason.
3+ people is a completely different animal, however you look at it and however it's practiced, whether it's the nightmare Thanatos describes or some theoretical perfect three-way union.
I'm just waiting for him to realise he's using the same prejudicial arguments against polygamy that the prop 8 people are using against gay marriage; specifically that it's a slippery slope to child abuse in various forms.
There's a difference, though.
Prop8 supporters use the fallicy that gays will work to make pedophilia a reality.
Polygamists have a proven history of marrying children.
I was having this debate with my dad the other day and he said some shit and I was shocked. I knew he was a little bit disapproving but...well, let's just say I'm glad I didn't come out to him.
He said, and I quote, "Not only should they not marry homos, they shouldn't let them adopt children either. Kids these days are fucked up enough without subjecting them to perversion."
"Perversion? What's perverted about it?"
"That they choose to have sex that way."
"Uh dad. I believe that they would uh...have you believe that it's not a choice to be homosexual."
It's really a much bigger stretch to go from gay marriage to polygamy than you make it out to be. Gay marriage is still an issue about a couple of people. This couple of people can be married, this couple cannot, for whatever reason.
3+ people is a completely different animal, however you look at it and however it's practiced, whether it's the nightmare Thanatos describes or some theoretical perfect three-way union.
I'm just waiting for him to realise he's using the same prejudicial arguments against polygamy that the prop 8 people are using against gay marriage; specifically that it's a slippery slope to child abuse in various forms.
The vast majority of people living in gay relationships right now are normal, consenting adults; they're just like any other couple.
The vast majority of people living in polygamous (again, not polyamorous) relationships right now are heterosexuals, with one male being married to multiple women. They generally live in religious communities with other polygamists, and kick boys out on the street as soon as they become old enough to be interested in women (leaving them homeless, on the streets, and completely lacking in any sort of education), and potential competition. In order to keep up their multiple-wife households, they snatch up women as young as possible (you know, like, ten or so), before the other males can get to them.
This isn't some sort of "slippery slope" conjecture; this is fact. And until the face of polygamy in the U.S. changes substantially--preferably into something resembling equality, and not just as an excuse for sexually abusing children and keeping women subserviant--there's no way in hell I'm going to support legalizing it.
Thanatos on
0
Options
AntimatterDevo Was RightGates of SteelRegistered Userregular
edited January 2010
I know I read of a study that showed that there was no difference in children raised by straight and homosexual couples.
Dammed if I can find it, though.
I mean, obvious results, but scientific proof should shut up people with even the tiniest amount of reason in their heads.
You don't think there are any of these polyamorous people who would like to be polygamous but aren't because its, ya know, illegal?
Any? Yeah, sure, probably a very few. Many? Like, a significant number? Like, anywhere near enough to be worth making life easier for the kiddie-diddlers and welfare kings? No. Not even close.
I know I read of a study that showed that there was no difference in children raised by straight and homosexual couples.
Dammed if I can find it, though.
I mean, obvious results, but scientific proof should shut up people with even the tiniest amount of reason in their heads.
To my knowledge, studies of that nature only exist for lesbian couples, not gay men, because lesbian couples adopt in much larger numbers. Sufficient to produce reasonable sample sizes. I know a study in California and another in Massachusetts both confirmed lesbians make good parents. I dimly recall one done in New York as well that came to the same result, but I could be misremembering.
I remember hearing that Japan had enough gay men adopting/raising children for a scientifically valid study to be done, but I don't know what came of it or if it's completed yet. The EU probably has some numbers as well, since I'm sure there are enough gay men adopting across all of Europe to constitute a viable population for study.
Individual, small-scale studies and modern child psychiatric consensus suggests two gay men would be no more or less likely to be shitty parents than the general population, but I've not seen a population study to confirm. The other problem is that gay adoption is still illegal in many places and was illegal in many places until recently, so it's hard to find the long-term trend data you need for child impact analysis.
I know I read of a study that showed that there was no difference in children raised by straight and homosexual couples.
Dammed if I can find it, though.
I mean, obvious results, but scientific proof should shut up people with even the tiniest amount of reason in their heads.
To my knowledge, studies of that nature only exist for lesbian couples, not gay men, because lesbian couples adopt in much larger numbers. Sufficient to produce reasonable sample sizes. I know a study in California and another in Massachusetts both confirmed lesbians make good parents. I dimly recall one done in New York as well that came to the same result, but I could be misremembering.
I remember hearing that Japan had enough gay men adopting/raising children for a scientifically valid study to be done, but I don't know what came of it or if it's completed yet. The EU probably has some numbers as well, since I'm sure there are enough gay men adopting across all of Europe to constitute a viable population for study.
Individual, small-scale studies and modern child psychiatric consensus suggests two gay men would be no more or less likely to be shitty parents than the general population, but I've not seen a population study to confirm. The other problem is that gay adoption is still illegal in many places and was illegal in many places until recently, so it's hard to find the long-term trend data you need for child impact analysis.
It's irrelevant, anyway. The Bible says right there that gay marriage is against the will of God. So, who cares how good parents they may or may not be? It's still sin and perversion. Homosexuality doesn't actually have to hurt anyone to be wrong, and no amount of logic is going trump religion here.
I know I read of a study that showed that there was no difference in children raised by straight and homosexual couples.
Dammed if I can find it, though.
I mean, obvious results, but scientific proof should shut up people with even the tiniest amount of reason in their heads.
To my knowledge, studies of that nature only exist for lesbian couples, not gay men, because lesbian couples adopt in much larger numbers. Sufficient to produce reasonable sample sizes. I know a study in California and another in Massachusetts both confirmed lesbians make good parents. I dimly recall one done in New York as well that came to the same result, but I could be misremembering.
I remember hearing that Japan had enough gay men adopting/raising children for a scientifically valid study to be done, but I don't know what came of it or if it's completed yet. The EU probably has some numbers as well, since I'm sure there are enough gay men adopting across all of Europe to constitute a viable population for study.
Individual, small-scale studies and modern child psychiatric consensus suggests two gay men would be no more or less likely to be shitty parents than the general population, but I've not seen a population study to confirm. The other problem is that gay adoption is still illegal in many places and was illegal in many places until recently, so it's hard to find the long-term trend data you need for child impact analysis.
It's irrelevant, anyway. The Bible says right there that gay marriage is against the will of God. So, who cares how good parents they may or may not be? It's still sin and perversion. Homosexuality doesn't actually have to hurt anyone to be wrong, and no amount of logic is going trump religion here.
disclaimer; sarcasm
I know you're being sarcastic, but the Bible doesn't actually really mention homosexuality in a modern context anywhere. A fairly strong case can be made not to treat the mentions it does make as particularly serious injunctions.
I know I read of a study that showed that there was no difference in children raised by straight and homosexual couples.
Dammed if I can find it, though.
I mean, obvious results, but scientific proof should shut up people with even the tiniest amount of reason in their heads.
To my knowledge, studies of that nature only exist for lesbian couples, not gay men, because lesbian couples adopt in much larger numbers. Sufficient to produce reasonable sample sizes. I know a study in California and another in Massachusetts both confirmed lesbians make good parents. I dimly recall one done in New York as well that came to the same result, but I could be misremembering.
I remember hearing that Japan had enough gay men adopting/raising children for a scientifically valid study to be done, but I don't know what came of it or if it's completed yet. The EU probably has some numbers as well, since I'm sure there are enough gay men adopting across all of Europe to constitute a viable population for study.
Individual, small-scale studies and modern child psychiatric consensus suggests two gay men would be no more or less likely to be shitty parents than the general population, but I've not seen a population study to confirm. The other problem is that gay adoption is still illegal in many places and was illegal in many places until recently, so it's hard to find the long-term trend data you need for child impact analysis.
It's irrelevant, anyway. The Bible says right there that gay marriage is against the will of God. So, who cares how good parents they may or may not be? It's still sin and perversion. Homosexuality doesn't actually have to hurt anyone to be wrong, and no amount of logic is going trump religion here.
disclaimer; sarcasm
I know you're being sarcastic, but the Bible doesn't actually really mention homosexuality in a modern context anywhere. A fairly strong case can be made not to treat the mentions it does make as particularly serious injunctions.
You're trying that 'logic' thing again, but it's okay. Jesus wouldn't let me believe anything that wasn't true.
I know I read of a study that showed that there was no difference in children raised by straight and homosexual couples.
Dammed if I can find it, though.
I mean, obvious results, but scientific proof should shut up people with even the tiniest amount of reason in their heads.
To my knowledge, studies of that nature only exist for lesbian couples, not gay men, because lesbian couples adopt in much larger numbers. Sufficient to produce reasonable sample sizes. I know a study in California and another in Massachusetts both confirmed lesbians make good parents. I dimly recall one done in New York as well that came to the same result, but I could be misremembering.
I remember hearing that Japan had enough gay men adopting/raising children for a scientifically valid study to be done, but I don't know what came of it or if it's completed yet. The EU probably has some numbers as well, since I'm sure there are enough gay men adopting across all of Europe to constitute a viable population for study.
Individual, small-scale studies and modern child psychiatric consensus suggests two gay men would be no more or less likely to be shitty parents than the general population, but I've not seen a population study to confirm. The other problem is that gay adoption is still illegal in many places and was illegal in many places until recently, so it's hard to find the long-term trend data you need for child impact analysis.
It's irrelevant, anyway. The Bible says right there that gay marriage is against the will of God. So, who cares how good parents they may or may not be? It's still sin and perversion. Homosexuality doesn't actually have to hurt anyone to be wrong, and no amount of logic is going trump religion here.
disclaimer; sarcasm
I know you're being sarcastic, but the Bible doesn't actually really mention homosexuality in a modern context anywhere. A fairly strong case can be made not to treat the mentions it does make as particularly serious injunctions.
You're trying that 'logic' thing again, but it's okay. Jesus wouldn't let me believe anything that wasn't true.
I've spoken with Jesus. He's got gay friends and everything.
Isn't it the old testament that says that shit anyway? So then why is it even being brought into the argument? It's the old testament. We have a new one.
Isn't it the old testament that says that shit anyway? So then why is it even being brought into the argument? It's the old testament. We have a new one.
Paul mentions God turning a bunch of Romans who were having too much regular sex into gays as punishment. However, that really only implies that getting your gender orientation changed against your will is punishment, not that being turned gay is punishment. Presumably a gay roman would be turned heterosexual.
It also doesn't make a lot of sense as punishment, since if on Monday you enjoy sex with ladies and on Tuesday God curses you such that on Wednesday you enjoy sex with dudes, it's not like you have to do much else besides ordering a different flavor of prostitute for your debauchery. Also, what Paul was condemning has almost no relation whatsoever to a loving, committed gay couple.
But Paul of Tarsus was a douchebag and ruins the Bible, so it's best to ignore him, the possibly-a-Eunuch bastard.
You don't think there are any of these polyamorous people who would like to be polygamous but aren't because its, ya know, illegal?
Any? Yeah, sure, probably a very few. Many? Like, a significant number? Like, anywhere near enough to be worth making life easier for the kiddie-diddlers and welfare kings? No. Not even close.
The people fucking ten-year-olds and treating women like cattle are already doing it, because they don't care what the law is.
Yeah, and they're hard enough to catch and prosecute as it is; I'd rather not make it easier for them to be above-board.
I think you may be over-generalizing a bit. I don't necessarily think that it is hard to catch and prosecute child molesters if they are, in fact, molesting children. Whether they have one wife or ten the act is still illegal and I don't see any behavior patterns that link polygamy to pedophelia. Both are two entirely different sexual compulsions.
Witch_Hunter_84 on
If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten in your presence.
You don't think there are any of these polyamorous people who would like to be polygamous but aren't because its, ya know, illegal?
Any? Yeah, sure, probably a very few. Many? Like, a significant number? Like, anywhere near enough to be worth making life easier for the kiddie-diddlers and welfare kings? No. Not even close.
The people fucking ten-year-olds and treating women like cattle are already doing it, because they don't care what the law is.
Yeah, and they're hard enough to catch and prosecute as it is; I'd rather not make it easier for them to be above-board.
I think you may be over-generalizing a bit. I don't necessarily think that it is hard to catch and prosecute child molesters if they are, in fact, molesting children. Whether they have one wife or ten the act is still illegal and I don't see any behavior patterns that link polygamy to pedophelia. Both are two entirely different sexual compulsions.
Oh, no, sex abuse of children is one of the hardest crimes to even detect, much less successfully prevent or prosecute. It's almost always someone trusted; the "dude with a van that says free candy on the side" is the rare kind.
You don't think there are any of these polyamorous people who would like to be polygamous but aren't because its, ya know, illegal?
Any? Yeah, sure, probably a very few. Many? Like, a significant number? Like, anywhere near enough to be worth making life easier for the kiddie-diddlers and welfare kings? No. Not even close.
The people fucking ten-year-olds and treating women like cattle are already doing it, because they don't care what the law is.
Yeah, and they're hard enough to catch and prosecute as it is; I'd rather not make it easier for them to be above-board.
I think you may be over-generalizing a bit. I don't necessarily think that it is hard to catch and prosecute child molesters if they are, in fact, molesting children. Whether they have one wife or ten the act is still illegal and I don't see any behavior patterns that link polygamy to pedophelia. Both are two entirely different sexual compulsions.
Oh, no, sex abuse of children is one of the hardest crimes to even detect, much less successfully prevent or prosecute. It's almost always someone trusted; the "dude with a van that says free candy on the side" is the rare kind.
Oh yah, sorry :oops:. I need to watch more Law and Order: SVU (or maybe I watch too much and that's why I was in error, damn USA marathons).
Witch_Hunter_84 on
If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten in your presence.
The simple, important fact to keep in mind is that there is literally a quantitative difference between gay marriage and polygamous marriage. To draw parallels between the two is ignorant at best but more likely maliciously disingenuous.
I think a lot of the argument against polygamy is that it can lead to exploiting women (not sure how much validity this argument has). It also mucks up the law quite a bit when you start adding in more than two people. Does it operate like one person married to two separate people or is it more like three people all married to each other? It can make things like divorce rather tricky too.
That being said, I cant come up with any real reasons that multiple consenting adults cant enter into a relationship, and 'legally tricky' isnt a valid enough reason to deny it.
A marriage such as 2 straight women to one straight man is automatically setting up the women to compete for the mans affection....not really fair for the women.
Show my the healthy happy polygamous relationships where everyone is equal and in love with each other. If you can't then I can't be bothered to change the law for them.
As one of the plaintiff's expert witness testified, polygamy is not the same as same sex marriage because it involves despotism for one party.
I know I read of a study that showed that there was no difference in children raised by straight and homosexual couples.
Dammed if I can find it, though.
I mean, obvious results, but scientific proof should shut up people with even the tiniest amount of reason in their heads.
BO: Let me just ask you hopefully just two more quick areas. This is the review article you referred to previously published in Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics?
DB: Lesbian Mothers, Gay Fathers and Their Children?
BO: Yes. Are you familiar with this document?
DB: I don’t believe so.
BO: There’s something here called an abstract. You are familiar with what an abstract is, are you not?
DB: Of course.
BO: Reads that children of ss no different in developmental outcome that hetero. Do you know of this study and such other studies?
DB: Yes.
BO: NO singularly accepted universal definition of marriage. Marriage constantly evolving.
DB: Yes sir. I wrote those words in my book.
Boies: No further questions, your honor.
unfortunately there will come a time where he will find out one way or another. It's hard not to write off bigots, but people can change, especially when the choice is between bigoted notions and family.
although I would wait to tell him until you are in a position to take care of yourself financially if you aren't already
Casual Eddy on
0
Options
Golden YakBurnished BovineThe sunny beaches of CanadaRegistered Userregular
It's irrelevant, anyway. The Bible says right there that gay marriage is against the will of God. So, who cares how good parents they may or may not be? It's still sin and perversion. Homosexuality doesn't actually have to hurt anyone to be wrong, and no amount of logic is going trump religion here.
disclaimer; sarcasm
You should put the disclaimer at the start of the post - fewer people will bite through their own tongues in fury before they finish reading it.
As far as I know, the bible only frowns specifically on homosexual sex (and even then it's debatable), but there's nothing specifically forbidding marriage. Haven't read most of it though, so correct me if I'm wrong.
Posts
If two women want to marry, they might be lesbians. But they might also be bisexual, pansexual, etc. Hell, they could in fact still identify as straight.
Yes, yes, one fight at a time, whatever.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
As far as the law needs to be concerned, they're lesbians.
I mean, there are lots of gay people in opposite-sex-marriages right now, and as far as the law is concerned, they're straight. Doesn't mean they wouldn't rather be doing someone of the same-sex though.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
Seconding this. I'm bisexual, and isn't a case of thinking, "Hey, today I'm going to find guys good-looking" - it's more of a case that I find people attractive, of either gender. There's no choice made.
Right, but minors can't marry anyways. So whats wrong with 3 consenting adults?
Not to mention that while expanding the rights of heterosexual marriage to homosexuals is fantastically fucking easy (legally speaking), we'd basically have to re-write all marriage-related common law from the ground up to account for multiple people.
That being said, I cant come up with any real reasons that multiple consenting adults cant enter into a relationship, and 'legally tricky' isnt a valid enough reason to deny it.
It's really a much bigger stretch to go from gay marriage to polygamy than you make it out to be. Gay marriage is still an issue about a couple of people. This couple of people can be married, this couple cannot, for whatever reason.
3+ people is a completely different animal, however you look at it and however it's practiced, whether it's the nightmare Thanatos describes or some theoretical perfect three-way union.
That isn't really a reason to not allow it, but it does explain why it isn't anywhere near as simple to fix as gay marriage.
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
A marriage such as 2 straight women to one straight man is automatically setting up the women to compete for the mans affection....not really fair for the women.
Show my the healthy happy polygamous relationships where everyone is equal and in love with each other. If you can't then I can't be bothered to change the law for them.
Prop8 supporters use the fallicy that gays will work to make pedophilia a reality.
Polygamists have a proven history of marrying children.
He said, and I quote, "Not only should they not marry homos, they shouldn't let them adopt children either. Kids these days are fucked up enough without subjecting them to perversion."
"Perversion? What's perverted about it?"
"That they choose to have sex that way."
"Uh dad. I believe that they would uh...have you believe that it's not a choice to be homosexual."
"It is a choice. Everything is a choice.
I didn't know how to respond. My own father.
Or ask him when he chose to start being a bigot.
*edit- I like how he skillful avoided your question about what's perverted in being gay.
The vast majority of people living in polygamous (again, not polyamorous) relationships right now are heterosexuals, with one male being married to multiple women. They generally live in religious communities with other polygamists, and kick boys out on the street as soon as they become old enough to be interested in women (leaving them homeless, on the streets, and completely lacking in any sort of education), and potential competition. In order to keep up their multiple-wife households, they snatch up women as young as possible (you know, like, ten or so), before the other males can get to them.
This isn't some sort of "slippery slope" conjecture; this is fact. And until the face of polygamy in the U.S. changes substantially--preferably into something resembling equality, and not just as an excuse for sexually abusing children and keeping women subserviant--there's no way in hell I'm going to support legalizing it.
Dammed if I can find it, though.
I mean, obvious results, but scientific proof should shut up people with even the tiniest amount of reason in their heads.
You don't think there are any of these polyamorous people who would like to be polygamous but aren't because its, ya know, illegal?
The people fucking ten-year-olds and treating women like cattle are already doing it, because they don't care what the law is.
Edit: Actually, I thought the science showed that homosexuals are actually better parents?
Yeah, and they're hard enough to catch and prosecute as it is; I'd rather not make it easier for them to be above-board.
To my knowledge, studies of that nature only exist for lesbian couples, not gay men, because lesbian couples adopt in much larger numbers. Sufficient to produce reasonable sample sizes. I know a study in California and another in Massachusetts both confirmed lesbians make good parents. I dimly recall one done in New York as well that came to the same result, but I could be misremembering.
I remember hearing that Japan had enough gay men adopting/raising children for a scientifically valid study to be done, but I don't know what came of it or if it's completed yet. The EU probably has some numbers as well, since I'm sure there are enough gay men adopting across all of Europe to constitute a viable population for study.
Individual, small-scale studies and modern child psychiatric consensus suggests two gay men would be no more or less likely to be shitty parents than the general population, but I've not seen a population study to confirm. The other problem is that gay adoption is still illegal in many places and was illegal in many places until recently, so it's hard to find the long-term trend data you need for child impact analysis.
It's irrelevant, anyway. The Bible says right there that gay marriage is against the will of God. So, who cares how good parents they may or may not be? It's still sin and perversion. Homosexuality doesn't actually have to hurt anyone to be wrong, and no amount of logic is going trump religion here.
disclaimer; sarcasm
I know you're being sarcastic, but the Bible doesn't actually really mention homosexuality in a modern context anywhere. A fairly strong case can be made not to treat the mentions it does make as particularly serious injunctions.
You're trying that 'logic' thing again, but it's okay. Jesus wouldn't let me believe anything that wasn't true.
I've spoken with Jesus. He's got gay friends and everything.
Paul mentions God turning a bunch of Romans who were having too much regular sex into gays as punishment. However, that really only implies that getting your gender orientation changed against your will is punishment, not that being turned gay is punishment. Presumably a gay roman would be turned heterosexual.
It also doesn't make a lot of sense as punishment, since if on Monday you enjoy sex with ladies and on Tuesday God curses you such that on Wednesday you enjoy sex with dudes, it's not like you have to do much else besides ordering a different flavor of prostitute for your debauchery. Also, what Paul was condemning has almost no relation whatsoever to a loving, committed gay couple.
But Paul of Tarsus was a douchebag and ruins the Bible, so it's best to ignore him, the possibly-a-Eunuch bastard.
I think you may be over-generalizing a bit. I don't necessarily think that it is hard to catch and prosecute child molesters if they are, in fact, molesting children. Whether they have one wife or ten the act is still illegal and I don't see any behavior patterns that link polygamy to pedophelia. Both are two entirely different sexual compulsions.
Oh, no, sex abuse of children is one of the hardest crimes to even detect, much less successfully prevent or prosecute. It's almost always someone trusted; the "dude with a van that says free candy on the side" is the rare kind.
Oh yah, sorry :oops:. I need to watch more Law and Order: SVU (or maybe I watch too much and that's why I was in error, damn USA marathons).
As one of the plaintiff's expert witness testified, polygamy is not the same as same sex marriage because it involves despotism for one party.
Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
although I would wait to tell him until you are in a position to take care of yourself financially if you aren't already
You should put the disclaimer at the start of the post - fewer people will bite through their own tongues in fury before they finish reading it.
As far as I know, the bible only frowns specifically on homosexual sex (and even then it's debatable), but there's nothing specifically forbidding marriage. Haven't read most of it though, so correct me if I'm wrong.