A new thought

I don't know. But the slippery slope comes into play anytime you start making special provision for the demands of a minority. Please understand that everyone has the ability to be married. But not the right to change a definition simply because it doesn't fit with their wishes.

KS
 
Worm, I'm reminded of the statement that, "There are none so blind as those who will not see." Your determination to see only through the eyes of the liberal/progressive leave your pronouncements so full of holes as to resemble a sieve. Nonetheless, I wish you well. Merry Christmas.

And Merry Christmas to all!!

KS
 
cammerfe said:
Worm, I'm reminded of the statement that, "There are none so blind as those who will not see." Your determination to see only through the eyes of the liberal/progressive leave your pronouncements so full of holes as to resemble a sieve. Nonetheless, I wish you well. Merry Christmas.

And Merry Christmas to all!!

KS
Click to expand...
Merry Christmas to you and yours Ken
 
To update this discussion, how many are aware that the people who are part of the 'reality' TV program called 'Sister Wives' have started the legal process to legitimize their own sort of plural marriage? Are horses and dogs very far behind?

KS
 
hrmwrm said:
their church issues marriages. what happened to religious freedom?
as long as it's YOUR religious laws, it's ok. do you see the bigotry yet?
Click to expand...

Probably it would do you good to examine the meaning of 'bigotry' since using it as you have simply doesn't 'scan'.

I don't know what you mean by 'their church 'issues' marriages'?

Even a nitwit knows that there is no such thing as absolute freedom. The most common comment has to do with yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre.

I don't have any 'religious laws'.

Your snarkiness is showing.

KS
 
hrmwrm said:
their church recognizes their polygamous marriages, and the marriage of 12 year olds to middle age(or older) men. (whether recognized by the state/country is another matter.)
YOUR religious law is what you base your marriage ideals on. your 1 man, 1 woman, is religious bigotry. it is something you(and others like minded of you.) wish to impose on society as being the only right choice.
you better get your dictionary out again yourself.
Click to expand...

I have had members of my extended family who were Latter Day Saints. I can therefore state from direct and extended personal observation that the larger church DOES NOT recognize polygamous marriage. There are small splinter sects off to one side or another who do practice polygamy and 'marriage' to children. They may be better known than those who use bestiality as a basis for marriage but they are no more accepted by the LDS than the 'dogs and ponies' way of doing things.

I, personally, am a main-stream Christian.

Please don't attempt to tell me what my beliefs are based on. In point of fact I have an AB in Sociology and base my views about marriage on the entirety of human history and the studies that show quite conclusively that one man and one woman, together, create the most stable family unit and therefore are the best basis, by far, for a functionally structured society.

You, on the other hand, are simply talking through your hat.

KS
 
I see a lot of wishful thinking in your comments.

You'd be correct if you were to say that I started the academic study of Sociology 50+ years ago, but I do keep up. All of recorded civilization speaks to the one man-one woman model as being most likely to be stable.

The impermanence of same sex 'marriage' is well-known. Although there is some indication that to a certain extent it depends on whether one's talking about female-female or male-male, with females doing better than males. There has not been documented same-sex marriage long enough to get completely meaningful numbers but particularly with males, the 'ships-in-the-night' model is well enough known for there to be 'insider' songs about it.

Older gay males are the most likely of any group to be disconnected---regardless of how you define the disconnection.

KS
 
"...he speculated that..."

And you offer 18-year-old information and use it as your basis for making absolutist statements?

Com'on, Worm! Your attempts to offer personal attacks are not properly productive of good discourse!

I get around to such an extent that I regularly run across those who 'swing the other way'. As a group they are often engaging, witty, urbane, and offer a real opportunity for worthwhile conversation. And they have an underlying desperateness about themselves that is indicative of their foundational knowledge of themselves as out of the mainstream. Depending on other factors the result may be a layer of impenetrable secretiveness or the sort of acting out---demanding 'look at me, look at me'---one finds in an attempt to provide justification for their perceived 'otherness'.

"Do as you please in private, but don't jam your aberration in my face and demand that I tell you it's alright.. I do not find it to be so.

KS
 
Geezly---

You found a couple of later numbers. I'm glad for you.

Doesn't alter that most of your cites are significantly older.

And it doesn't alter the fact that same-sex relationships are significantly more transitory than are hetero ones .

KS

(By the way, that should be 'you're'.)
 
You've said nothing for me to concede to. But I've often observed that those most aggressive about not accepting are those most likely to be on the edge.

I'm mostly a bit sad for you as I observe your struggle. I wish you well.

KS
 
Question, in this debate you all want to have and what you are debating about. Are your rights for freedom or survival being affected? Are other people's freedom or life being affected? If the change was to come about or if it wasn't how do you think it will change your life and the life of others?
 
Welcome to the discussion. Please re-phrase your questions so I can be sure I understand and, I, for my part, will do my best to give you my answers.

KS
 
hrmwrm said:
affects me in no way at all. will affect no-one. and will only change the life of those wishing to get hitched.
Click to expand...

So why is this even a discussion. Why are we dictating the lives of others. They are free to do what they want if they are not voiding the rights of others. Why are we even discussing the business of other people. Not everyone follows my beliefs but I don't care because not everyone agrees with me and that's the point! Not everyone is going to have the same beliefs but if you aren't invading other people's business and they aren't invading the rights of other people why do you care if they get "hitched" if both parties consent! It's their life and their choice people. I don't care if a 60 year old marries a 18 year old. Do i think that i would ever do that? NO, but they want to and they aren't affecting me by getting married ( my survival or forcing it on me) then I DON"T CARE and that is an american policy to respect other people's freedom and not force your own beliefs on others. I don't care about your morals or beliefs if it isn't affecting other individuals. I don't morally think that above situation is correct but am i telling them you can't get married? No, but other people only care about that fact that THEY think and a text tells THEM to believe a man and woman makes up a marriage. Well I believe a couple should wait until they are financially stable to have a kid and have a abundant amount (50k or so) before they decide to say yes to a kid. But am i going around telling people no you can't have a kid because you aren't financially stable? No, even though later on it might be a burden on tax payers but we as a country have decided freedom is more important and are willing to take that burden so stop saying people should do what you BELIEVE. It's a fine line saying when it is invading other peoples rights but when it isn't affecting your right of life than you should not be warranted in telling what we should tell someone else what they can do.

This is a moral situations for people and moral situations change at the individual level and isn't a universal idea(Some ethics we claim to be universal but still aren't). Moral situation should be decided on by the individuals and not by law or be forced again unless it affects the freedom and survival(equality btw comes in survival) of others or yourself.
 
As a sociologist, I'll simply note that recorded history will bear out that when a society departs from the 'one man-one woman' family unit that society heads downhill. You seem to espouse an 'anything goes' approach. That creates a slippery slope.

Those who adhere to a same-sex approach are, in divers ways aware of their 'otherness'. And the pushing and shoving thus created by them in an attempt to validate their otherness is destructive to any ability to integrate. Society's fabric is therefore strained.

KS
 
Last edited by a moderator:
cammerfe said:
As a sociologist, I'll simply note that recorded history will bear out that when a society departs from the 'one man-one woman' family unit that society heads downhill. You seem to espouse an 'anything goes' approach. That creates a slippery slope.

Those who adhere to a same-sex approach are, in divers ways aware of their 'otherness'. And the pushing and shoving thus created by them is destructive to any ability to integrate. Society's fabric is therefore strained.

KS
Click to expand...

Again this is your belief not a fact. What "otherness"??? im sorry but if you're referring to marriage with objects or animals well they don't have knowledge of consent nor can they give it so that point is invalid. Your whole idea that when society departs from one man-one woman is a opinion but I will say I have seen more kids from result of rape, violence or negligence come from a "one man one woman marriage". If that is your issue than your first point of worry should be on negligence of kids or abuse of spouses and degradation of morals in a family. Do you also define a family as a man and woman with kids?? Say what you want but your aim is on the wrong people for lack of society morals for marriage.

You can look up the statistics for abuse and negligence of kids in a same sex household and a tradition household. Until then don't make assumptions.
 
93mkviii said:
Again this is your belief not a fact. What "otherness"??? im sorry but if you're referring to marriage with objects or animals well they don't have knowledge of consent nor can they give it so that point is invalid. Your whole idea that when society departs from one man-one woman is a opinion but I will say I have seen more kids from result of rape, violence or negligence come from a "one man one woman marriage". If that is your issue than your first point of worry should be on negligence of kids or abuse of spouses and degradation of morals in a family. Do you also define a family as a man and woman with kids?? Say what you want but your aim is on the wrong people for lack of society morals for marriage.

You can look up the statistics for abuse and negligence of kids in a same sex household and a tradition household. Until then don't make assumptions.
Click to expand...

The most reliable evaluations will show that homosexuality is evident in about three to four percent of the population. Since that leaves ninety six to ninety seven percent of the population that AREN'T homosexual, the origin for the use of the term 'otherness' should be self-evident. And please don't set up straw-man suppositions or put words in my mouth in an attempt to bolster your position.

Since kids CAN'T come from any sort of homosexual union it seems clear that all sorts of kid-related situations, either for good or ill, will come from one man-one woman relationships.

Children aren't necessary in order for there to be a family.

My comments originate from my academic background and seriously conducted scientific studies, not from assumptions of any sort.

And I have no problem with same-sex unions so long as they aren't jammed in society's face along with strident demands that society must accept and welcome their 'otherness'. It's none of my business until you demand that I tell you it's alright. I don't believe it is. It's my belief that causation comes from the direction of 'nurture, not nature'. And there's no single causative factor in so complex a situation.

I'll agree, if you like, that if you don't tell me about your relationship, I won't tell you about mine.

I make no assumption regarding you as an individual. All my comments are directed to that segment of society that's the focus of this discussion.

KS
 
No one is jamming it in your face man, you like to think they are when they are just saying it. Second have you heard of adoption? You know many couples adopt right?

Where is your scientific study again that "when a society departs from the 'one man-one woman' family unit that society heads downhill" that supports this please? I would like to see a scientific study that supports this hypothesis with statistics.

If you agree that i don't want to be involved in their relationship "if you don't tell me about your relationship, I won't tell you about mine" then why are you intruding in their relationship? Just let it go and mind your own business unless if you really have that much time to be in other people's lives.
 
93mkviii said:
No one is jamming it in your face man, you like to think they are when they are just saying it. Second have you heard of adoption? You know many couples adopt right?

Where is your scientific study again that "when a society departs from the 'one man-one woman' family unit that society heads downhill" that supports this please? I would like to see a scientific study that supports this hypothesis with statistics.

If you agree that i don't want to be involved in their relationship "if you don't tell me about your relationship, I won't tell you about mine" then why are you intruding in their relationship? Just let it go and mind your own business unless if you really have that much time to be in other people's lives.
Click to expand...

The butthurt is heavy here.

When the TV shows the vampy capering of 'gay pride days' it's being jammed in my face. When every TV program has a very strong component of 'gayness' dragged in by the heels, it's being jammed in my face. When it's impossible to go about one's daily life without seeing evidence of it, it's being jammed in my face.

The entirety of your paragraph, above, with the phrase '...result of rape...' in it is a jumble of disconnections so that one has to guess at your meaning. I get the sense that you are saying that children who come into the world as the result of rape are mostly from heterosexual unions. Since homosexual unions are unlikely to create children and also because such unions make up such a small part of the society at large, your 'fact' is likely true but I fail to see what that has to do with anything. Non Sequitur. What does adoption have to do with it?

I don't see it as my role to be your educator. The internet is available to you, most likely, and Google is your friend. I don't feel it necessary to prove anything. Learn for your own self.

Your final paragraph, once again, doesn't scan. Subjects and objects don't match and one has to guess at your meaning. The only thing that stands out is that you are trying desperately to advance your point of view. And you're failing.

KS
 
Wow man, ok you go get them! Go get them forest! I'm not gonna have a discussion with someone as blind and aggressive as what I've stumbled upon here.

I didn't understand how smart you are and how I wanted you as my professor.... my educator but now it's manifest destiny. You do nothing but attack and then say i'm not gonna show you but I will just argue it. Man I suggest you make something of your life because it seems my man has nothing but interest in arguing. So hats off to you... get them all... you go beat their head in with your words!! Go tell them marriage is between a man and woman... helll ya with you there brother!!!

I'm not degrading myself to having this kind of exchange with someone so no thank you, i'm gonna make something of my time. The people that only have interest in arguing have no time for succeeding.Your kind will die off soon, goodbye.
 
But worm---

The things you're complaining about are woven into the fabric of our country and indeed our culture. You are free to ignore such things in any way you choose---'Freedom'--- but when a very small, but vociferous, minority insist in not only occupying center stage but also yell in our faces that we must approve of their activities they are crossing the line.

Just as the details of my own relationships are not the business of society at large, so, too, should others be. Instead we are subjected to a massive barrage of antics all out of any proportion to any reasonableness.

KS
 
In the grand scheme of things, what does it really matter? Why is it so damn important to people who are not even directly involved?

I am not gay. Have no intentions of becoming gay. Have no adopted children at all. I am not married.

If a gay/bi/lesbian/trans couple want to get married, what's that to me? How does that really affect my life? It doesn't. Has no bearing on me at all. So why do I need to be upset about it one way or another? I don't.

Let 'em get married. Have their ceremony, play house and get divorced just like everyone else. Maybe it'll shut 'em up for a while.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Staff online

Members online

Total: 435 (members: 1, guests: 434)
Back
Top