Opposing view points on sexuality.

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Polydectes, Oct 22, 2014.

  1. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Notice how no where in my post that YOU chose to quote and respond to, contains any such insistance I was right. And instead contained open and honest discussion regarding the topic that you could do nothing other than try to run from.
     
  2. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,280
    Likes Received:
    18,041
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I addressed everybody that was trolling
     
  3. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You used three references to "you" and not a single reference to "everybody". YOU are so full of it.
     
  4. perotista

    perotista Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2014
    Messages:
    16,904
    Likes Received:
    5,681
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I tend to believe sex is a good thing, at least when I was young. As for marriage, I believe the government should stay completely out of it. Let love decide. This goes for normal marriages, SSM, transvestite marriage and even polygamy. What right does the government have in saying, dictating who can or can't be married. As long as the folks are consenting and adults, let them marry whomever or how many they want.
     
  5. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Everyone is free to marry. I saw a guy marry his horses once. Government merely determines which marriages are entitled to certain governmental entitlements and tax breaks. They make such determinations for all tax breaks and entitlements
     
  6. perotista

    perotista Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2014
    Messages:
    16,904
    Likes Received:
    5,681
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So you are saying that it is recognition by others and the government that everyone wants, not just the right to marry?
     
  7. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But as the courts keep telling you, there has to be an interest served in the denial of a right. Not the exercising of a right.
     
  8. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And you see no distinction between that and the fundamental redefinition of a millennia-old institution for the "benefit" of <5% of the population. Have I got that about right?

    Then clearly you've missed my posts on the subject.

    It doesn't need "banning" because it's impossible for two people of the same sex to be married.
     
  9. Tipper101

    Tipper101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    Messages:
    5,785
    Likes Received:
    3,040
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Defining it a matter of "equal rights" is to me, a twisting of the issue. If nobody has the right to marry someone of the same sex and everybody has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, then everyone has equal rights, by definition. If there are people who do not want to marry someone of the opposite sex for any reason, sexual orientation being but one of many, that is not society's concern to accommodate them.

    I have nothing against homosexual relationships, But too many people confuse marriage with sex. There is nothing stopping homosexual relationships as is, so why are we considering same sex marriage for reasons pertaining to sex and sexual outcomes? People are talking as if without marriage, sex won't happen, which is absurd.

    The only thing relevant to a discussion about marriage is whether or not we feel as a society it is beneficial for us to nationally recognize such relationships through the institution of marriage.

    Incestuous relationships do not benefit us as a society in any meaningful way. Therefore there should be no recognition of it. And I don't see how same sex marriage benefits society in any meaningful way either.

    Proponents seek to individualize marriage when it's not about the individual. Contrary to what these people would have us believe, marriage, or lack thereof, does not prevent any of these relationships from existing anyway nor does it prevent these people from being happy in any way. Marriage does not define or create happiness. If it did, we wouldn't see sky rocketing divorce rates.

    Homosexuals need to stop defining their happiness on whether or not they are successful at shoving their relationships down our throats. Which is all this is really about. They want to be accepted. I can understand that. But with all these absurd marches and parades and circumventing the will of the people through politically compromised courts, the level of their desire to be accepted has degenerated to the infantile, IMO. They have become little more than another political base for the Democratic Party to control and milk for all its worth.
     
  10. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I suspect it is more so the tax breaks and governmental entitlements they want. The Windsor case was about $363,000 in federal estate tax. The courts stress the "recognition", "respect and dignity" for the gays that they are after.
     
  11. buddhaman

    buddhaman New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2014
    Messages:
    2,320
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Married people, in general, are more financially stable, healthier, and happier. The idea that there is no benefit to society from happier, healthier and wealthier people is simply incorrect. What's the societal downside to more married couples?
     
  12. perotista

    perotista Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2014
    Messages:
    16,904
    Likes Received:
    5,681
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Makes sense.
     
  13. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Married people of the opposite sex are more financially stable, healthier, and happier. I havent yet seen any such studies regarding married gays.
     
  14. Lucifer

    Lucifer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2014
    Messages:
    13,694
    Likes Received:
    9,416
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think you are missing the point of what role marriage plays in the eyes of the law. A marriage is a recognition between two people and their obligations and duties towards each other and how they interact together as a legal entity.

    Disbursement of Social Security benefits, tax status, child tax credits, adoption, issues pertaining to Family and Medical Leave, Immigration, Employee Benefits, and Estate designation...all of these issues are rights conveyed to married people. These rights should be based, regardless of whether the genders of the two are different or the same, on the individuals voluntary obligations to each other. There really is no litmus test in regards to love, morality, or the type of sexual activities you participate in, it is strictly a legal status for legal benefits.

    So, when you question whether or not we should be recognizing gay marriage, you really should be questioning the role of marriage within the legal context of government. Why should heterosexual couples enjoy the aforementioned rights and not same sex couples?

    Consider this. Just recently, a poll came out that single people now outnumber married couples, so obviously marriage benefits alone isn't enticing at least half the population to hurry up and get wed just to enjoy some tax breaks. These laws were obviously intended to help families, not just in raising children, but in dealing with the harsh realities of a volatile economy. The problem is that as a society we are redefining what "family" means. No longer are we held to the nuclear family model. We are living and bonding differently and for some THIS is the greater threat.

    The part I don't understand is why some view it as a threat.
     
  15. buddhaman

    buddhaman New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2014
    Messages:
    2,320
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You can't identify a downside, and there is evidence of societal benefit. So what's the problem?
     
  16. Natty Bumpo

    Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    41,217
    Likes Received:
    14,707
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I also believe that it's none of the government's business.

    When a couple exercises their equal rights by entering into a marriage contract, whether they are celibate or indulge in lustful antics aplenty (a choice irrelevant to such a contractual relationship, of course) might prove captivating to some vicarious old biddy, but I would hope that both the State and the neighbours might find more edifying pastimes.

    [​IMG]



    .
     
  17. Natty Bumpo

    Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    41,217
    Likes Received:
    14,707
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course, the same self-serving, feeble logic could be used to require that one and only party to the contract must be over 6 feet in height. Everyone 6'- would have the same right to wed anyone who is 6'+ and everyone who is 6'+ the right to marry anyone who is 6'-.

    If Americans of like height wished to marry, it need not be society's concern to accommodate them.

    However, the rules a society formulates are supposed to work equally for the members of society, so we do not legislate inequality by enacting arbitrary, meaningless, discriminatory rules.
     
  18. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,280
    Likes Received:
    18,041
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am not interested in trolling with you.
     
  19. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually, here in America, ANY discrimination in the law, must at a minimum be rationally related to serving SOME legitimate governmental interest. The relative genders of the couple is rationally related to serving the legitimate governmental interest in improving the wellbeing of children that only a heterosexual coupling can produce. Height, race etc have no rational relation to the governmental purpose. Heterosexual couples of any height procreate just as well as any other height. Just as interracial couples procreate just like same race couples procreate. There is no rational relation between such distinctions and the stated governmental interest.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Pointing out your blatant dishonesty in these discussions, isn't trolling.
     
  20. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, certainly irrelevant to a couple of the same sex. But in the case of heterosexual couples,

    160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is
    presumed to be the father of a child if:
    (1) he is married to the mother of the child and the
    child is born during the marriage;

    engaging in lustful antics with others of the opposite sex, defeats the purpose. Not too many decades ago, in many states, such adultery was against the law.
     
  21. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sweden has had same sex civil unions and now marriages for some time. They are seeing ONE HALF of 1% of new marriages, are same sex marriage. The fundamental redefinition of a millennia-old institution for the "benefit" of < .5% of the population.

    Improving the wellbeing of children that only heterosexual couples produce, cant justify the discrimination of marriage, but avoiding offending the delicate sensibilities of homosexuals can some how do so???? Crazy! (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up priorities.
     
  22. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The benefit would apply to any two consenting adults excluded by law from marriage, not just the gays. Austin Texas recently extended employee spousal benefits for unmarried people in a domestic partnership. Two people who live together, but are excluded by law from marriage. Two platonic friends, two closely related adults, ANY two people of the same sex, whether they are gay or not. Because there just isn't any justification for limiting the benefit to those who happen to be gay. No legitimate governmental purpose in promoting homosexuality. ANY two consenting adults can decide to form a domestic partnership to form a home together. For the same reason I oppose "gay marriage" also with no justification for such discriminatory treatment.
     
  23. Natty Bumpo

    Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    41,217
    Likes Received:
    14,707
    Trophy Points:
    113
    True. Social stability is encouraged by sanctioning marriage contracts for all couples who make such a commitment by thusly acknowledge their mutual responsibilities as well as the benefits to which all are entitled.

    Procreation is not an issue that is referenced in any such state contracts, so age, fertility, celibate relationships, and the partners' genders, are all equally irrelevant as disqualifiers. As irrelevant as height requirements.
     
  24. Natty Bumpo

    Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    41,217
    Likes Received:
    14,707
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've always thought that aging single, siblings, especially when one becomes disabled, should be able to form such domestic unions with all the mutual responsibilities and benefits that pertain to other such unions. Ultimately, the law should serve all Americans.
     
  25. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How were you different as a boy?
     

Share This Page