Gay rights vs. religious beliefs

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

BrentAllen writes:

Sounds to me like society in general is encouraging sham marriages, not just those defending traditional marriage. True?

 

No, society in general is encouraging MARRIAGE; the "defenders" of marriage, by saying that gays already have the right to marry (but only someone of the opposite sex) are suggesting that gays enter into sham marriages.

 

So Brent, since:

1) you are against gay marriage, and

2) you are against gays entering into "sham" marriages,

it seems you are against gays marrying, period. Should there be a law stating that gays cannot get married?

 

And, by the way, how has marriage in Massachusettes suffered from legal gay marriage there?

[evmori]

Ed, if someone who's gay wants to get married, and a "defender" of marriage says they CAN marry, just someone of the opposite sex, yes, they are suggesting that gays enter into such sham marriages. They're saying that gays CAN marry, they just have to marry someone they have no sexual attraction towards.

 

If you actually believe this, Merlyn, you have a very skewed view of reality. By stating a person must marry someone of the opposite sex isn't suggesting anything - it is a statement of fact. To legally marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex. If they don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex no one is forcing them to.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed writes:

By stating a person must marry someone of the opposite sex isn't suggesting anything - it is a statement of fact.

 

Ed, gays can legally marry in Massachusettes.

 

And I still say that "defenders" of marriage who state that gays CAN marry (just someone of the opposite sex) are encouraging gays to marry someone of the opposite sex, in the same way that anti-miscegenation laws prohibiting interracial marriage encouraged people to marry within their race.

[BrentAllen]

Merlyn,

That is the biggest bunch of nonsense I have read in a long time! You posted that McGreevey married to get more votes - that is society encouraging the sham marriage - plain and simple. Do you think if gay marriages were allowed, McGreevey would have married a man? He would have thought he could get just as many votes if he was in a gay marriage? That being in any kind of marriage would get him more votes than being single?? If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you!

 

McGreevey was hiding his homosexuality - that is a fact. I assume he thought he was a more electable candidate as a heterosexual than homosexual. If you have a different idea as to why he was hiding his homosexuality, I'd like to hear it. Hopefully, it will make more sense than your other argument.

 

Dodge - dodge - as in the question? Sorry, guess it went over your head.

 

packsaddle wrote "You don't expect ME to do anything about it."

I never said that. I said I don't expect you to turn them in. I would hope you would talk them into getting out of the program. You could take your son out of that unit. But that isn't going to happen. You take too much pride in thumbing your nose at this program which the rest of us have so much respect for. "tough luck"

 

 

[evmori]

Yeah I know gays can marry each other in Massachusetts. For now.

 

You can say anything you want, Merlyn. It still makes no sense. And you think others have a comprehension problem! Whew!

 

Keep spinning, Merlyn. It's what you do best.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

So Brent, will you answer my questions?

 

Since:

1) you are against gay marriage, and

2) you are against gays entering into "sham" marriages,

it seems you are against gays marrying, period. Should there be a law stating that gays cannot get married?

 

And, by the way, how has marriage in Massachusettes suffered from legal gay marriage there?

 

By the way Ed, I know nothing I say makes sense to you; you still can't understand why public schools can't charter cub scout packs, even though I and many others have repeatedly explained why.

[evmori]

I understand fine, Merlyn. However, your argument regarding gays being forced into sham marriages is totally pointless since it is, as someone said, a load of crap! You might believe it but that don't make it a fact! In fact, it's totally baseless! Like most of your drivel!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[BrentAllen]

Merlyn,

I'll be glad to answer your questions, as long as you agree to answer mine. Fair?

 

1) you are against gay marriage, - Yes, I am against gay marriage.

2) you are against gays entering into "sham" marriages - I don't think I ever said I was against sham marriages. I think they are sad and hurtful. I'm sure there are heterosexual sham marriages, for either money or fame or citizenship. To me, marriage should be between a man and a woman who love each other and promise to spend the rest of their lives together. Yes, I know there are plenty of divorces - they are equaly sad and produce a lot of heartache. That does not change my opinion about what marriage should be.

 

3) it seems you are against gays marrying, period. Should there be a law stating that gays cannot get married? - No, the laws are fine they way they are now. Marriage should stay the way it is defined now - between a man and a woman. There is no constitutional right to marriage - for anyone.

 

4) And, by the way, how has marriage in Massachusettes suffered from legal gay marriage there? - It may not have - yet. But let's wait and see what happens. How long before we hear polygamy arguments, and those who want to marry their siblings or their pets? How will you answer the question about how those marriages hurt traditional marriage? Are you for allowing them?

Allowing gay marriage is tinkering with the DNA of our society. The consequences may not be truly known for years. Welfare sounded great, until we had families living on it for 3 generations, and it became a way of life. Luckily, most other states are passing amendments against gay marriage, so it should not spread far. I believe Mass. is even proposing an amendment against gay marriage.

 

Now, for my questions.

1)Why do you suppose McGreevey hid his homosexuality?

2)Would he have been considered just as "pro family" if he had been in a gay marriage, as he was in a hetero marriage?

3)Why do you suppose most of the gay men in sham marriages decide to enter in to those marriages?

4)Why do gay men enter in to sham marriages instead of just living with their gay lover?(This message has been edited by BrentAllen)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

BrentAllen writes:

There is no constitutional right to marriage - for anyone.

 

Yes, there is. The US supreme court said marriage was a right under the US constitution in Loving v. Virginia, which threw out laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

 

how has marriage in Massachusettes suffered from legal gay marriage there?

 

It may not have - yet. But let's wait and see what happens.

 

It's been a while - what harm has come to heterosexual marriage in Massachusettes now?

 

Looks like you're admitting that gay marriage in Massachusettes hasn't adversely affected heterosexual marriage.

 

How long before we hear polygamy arguments,

 

It seems to me that there have been polygamy arguments in the US long before gay marriage. And if people do bring it up, why is that the "fault" of gay marriage? Why isn't it the "fault" of allowing interracial marriage, for example? And how does polygamy, or even people just arguing for polygamy, adversely affect heterosexual marriage? Is merely hearing the arguments too distressing for you (and the fault of gays getting married in Massachusettes)?

 

It would be more convincing if you argued against, say, Mormonism to stave off polygamy. After all, Mormon polygamists in Utah actually are challenging laws against polygamy NOW.

 

and those who want to marry their siblings or their pets

 

Just as soon as you can find a pet that can sign a legally binding contract.

 

How will you answer the question about how those marriages hurt traditional marriage?

 

I'm asking YOU how someone else's marriage hurts "traditional" marriage. You say they do, but you are short on details. Like, what affect they have.

 

Are you for allowing them?

 

Polygamy - certainly. Many religions permit them, some even require it under certain circumstances, and there's no convincing reason to disallow it. Everyone involved in such a marriage would have to consent, of course, so you don't have to bother asking what happens if a husband marries a 2nd wife without the consent of the first - since the first wife would also be considered married to the 2nd wife, her consent is needed, too.

 

Siblings shouldn't have offspring due to birth defects from recessive genes, and the main reason for marriage (forming a family) is already present.

 

Pets can't sign contracts, so they can't sign a marriage contract, either.

 

Allowing gay marriage is tinkering with the DNA of our society. The consequences may not be truly known for years.

 

You STILL haven't come up with any harm to "traditional" marriage. The above is just irrational fearmongering, and is hardly sufficient to deny a right like marriage.

 

Come up with some REAL reasons how gay marriage harms "traditional" marriage, or harm society, or SOMETHING. You're batting .000

 

Now, for my questions.

1)Why do you suppose McGreevey hid his homosexuality?

 

Probably because gays are denegrated by large numbers of people in the US.

 

2)Would he have been considered just as "pro family" if he had been in a gay marriage, as he was in a hetero marriage?

 

Not in today's society.

 

3)Why do you suppose most of the gay men in sham marriages decide to enter in to those marriages?

 

Most? I have no idea, you'd have to ask them. Why did Rock Hudson get married?

 

4)Why do gay men enter in to sham marriages instead of just living with their gay lover?

 

You'd have to ask them.

 

Now, given that I've answered your questions, could you answer this one of mine, finally?

 

How has marriage in Massachusettes suffered from legal gay marriage there?

 

Note that I'm asking 'how HAS it suffered" - no making up future disasterous scenarios, how HAS it suffered AS OF NOW?

[DanKroh]

LongHaul,

 

"You keep on about the fact that pedophiles cant form healthy relationships with other adults, that they (pedophiles) have an internal conflict. Says who?"

 

The psychologists who have done research into the pathology and treatment of pedophilia. Including myself.

 

"Others in this thread are talking about Douglas Smith do you consider him to be a pedophile? Where were these signs of problematic relationships which should have alerted all his associates?"

 

Well, since I don't know much about Douglas Smith other than what I read briefly about him in the news, I'm not prepared to make such a diagnosis. Let's say for the sake of the argument that he is a pedophile. Just because someone is mentally ill doesn't mean that they are stupid. Some people are very good at hiding their mental illnesses. Unless his associates are trained to recognize the signs of a mental illness like pedophilia, no, I would not expect them to have been alerted.

 

"Maybe my first error was in not defining terms but I doubt it."

 

I think you first error was trying to define pedophilia as something it is not, without understanding the actual mental processes of someone who suffers from pedophilia.

 

"We can cloud the whole discussion with what constitutes a pedophile and at what age is a child not a child and at what point is it OK to fantasize about them. The whole pedophile problem is that it involves children and we cant get past that."

 

Actually, I think you are trying to cloud the issue about gay rights with the whole pedophilia discussion, by tapping into that visceral revulsion most people feel about pedophilia (and child molestation) and trying to apply it to homosexuality.

 

"Pedophilia involves children and that means it cant be accepted even as a mental disorder it must be wrong in all forms."

 

No, pedophilia is considered a mental disorder because those suffering from it display disordered thinking that interferes with their ability to cognitively process, not because it involves children. Lots of other mental disorders do not involve children. They are still mental disorders because they cause impairment of cognitive processes.

 

"This is the same way homosexuality was viewed, it involves same gender intimate contact which must be viewed as wrong no matter what."

 

Maybe by you, but not by me. Perhaps that is why I am having difficulty understanding the relevance of the entire pedophile analogy.

 

"Gays have spent a lot of effort trying to defend the concept that loving someone is not wrong even if they are of the same gender but age! Oh thats a different story. The pictures Douglas Smith had on his computer where illegal, had those pictures been of adult males would he still have been in as much trouble?"

 

Well, he would have still been in trouble with the BSA, that's for sure. I don't know the legality of pornogrphy in Texas, so I can't speak to his legal trorubles. A better question might be would he have been in as much trouble with the BSA if those pictures had been of adult females?

 

"Child pornography is only bad because society says it is bad."

 

Those who have survived being exploited by the child pornography industry might disagree with you.

 

"Romeo and Juliette were 14 and they were about to start a family. Juliets parents were about to marry her off. An adult having fantasies about her would be sick?"

 

And at that time, 14 was the accepted age of marriage, because girls went though menarche at 10, and the average life span was 30. When someone was considered an adult was much different.

 

"We can argue all we want about terminology and medical definition my point is the same a door has been opened and more things are going to come through it that was intended."

 

Well, I disagree with that assessment, but the reason we are aguing about medical terminology is because you based your support for that assessment on a faulty definition of what constitutes a pedophile.

 

"If we are going to talk about acceptance then we should be ready to discuss accepting everyone no matter what. If we are supposed to set aside old ideas then set aside all the old ideas not just those affecting our personal issue."

 

I agree that acceptance of everyone is a noble goal. I am prepared to pretty much accept people based on their individual merits, as long as what they are doing is not doing harm to themselves or others, and even the "to themselves" is very open to interpretation. For instance, I accept smokers, even though I feel that they are doing themselves harm. I accept people who want to pierce and tatoo their bodies, even though I feel they are doing themselves harm. Allowing gays to marry harms no one. Why do people assume that the rest of the members of society are so stupid that they can't tell the difference between accepting something that harms no one and drawing a line at something that does cause harm?

[BrentAllen]

[1)Why do you suppose McGreevey hid his homosexuality?

 

Probably because gays are denegrated by large numbers of people in the US.

 

2)Would he have been considered just as "pro family" if he had been in a gay marriage, as he was in a hetero marriage?

 

Not in today's society.]

 

If you can't see that you just admitted society encourages gays to enter into sham marriages, then we have nothing further to discuss. That fact is as plain as the nose on your face.

 

[Note that I'm asking 'how HAS it suffered" - no making up future disasterous scenarios, how HAS it suffered AS OF NOW?]

 

I'll give you the same courtesy of an answer you gave me - "You'd have to ask them." I don't live in Mass.

 

 

 

[DanKroh]

"I'll give you the same courtesy of an answer you gave me - "You'd have to ask them." I don't live in Mass."

 

Well, I do live in Mass, so since you in effect just asked me, I'll answer. There has been no effect on heterosexual marriages. There has been no sudden shortage of marriage licenses or officials to perform marriage ceremonies. There has been no sudden surge for acceptance of polygamy, marriage to children, sibling marriage, or marriage to pets or inanimate objects in Massachusetts. On the other hand, didn't one of those Midwestern states that has a no same-sex marriage law just try to redefine the age of marital consent to 12?

 

"If you can't see that you just admitted society encourages gays to enter into sham marriages, then we have nothing further to discuss. That fact is as plain as the nose on your face."

 

Actually, what it looks like Merlyn just admitted is that the segment of society that denigrates gays and finds homosexual relationships to be less "pro-family" than heterosexual marriages are enncouraging gays to enter sham marriages. Hmm. I wonder if that could be the same segment that "defends traditional marriage"? Nah, must be a coincidence.

[packsaddle]

Brent, something you wrote caught my attention:

"Allowing gay marriage is tinkering with the DNA of our society. The consequences may not be truly known for years."

Please clarify. Are you actually thinking about DNA and the genome of the population, or are you using some kind of metaphor? Some details please.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Brent writes:

If you can't see that you just admitted society encourages gays to enter into sham marriages, then we have nothing further to discuss. That fact is as plain as the nose on your face.

 

Only those who deny gay marriage, and say that gays can already get married are doing that. That's what I've been saying

 

If you say ALL of society is encouraging that, obviously not, since not everyone is against gay marriage, for example.

 

And since you deferred answering about Massachusettes, you're stuck with Dan's answer for now - gay marriage hasn't affected heterosexual marriage. If you still want to assert that there's some dire consequences, bring some real-world examples, not vague scare tactics.

[Hunt]

To try to avoid another round on the "sham marriage" argument, try this:

If homosexuality were generally and widely accepted as a normal and appropriate lifestyle, there would be less reason for homosexual persons to take actions to hide their sexual orientation--including such actions as sham marriages. It is obvious that there has been a significant change in the social acceptance of homosexuality in recent years, and recognition of gay marriage would be a significant additional step in this direction.

It seems to me that the above is obviously true, whether you think that homosexuality is wrong or not. I should add that "normal" doesn't mean average, typical, or predominant--it simply means within the accepted norms. Thus, for example, it is "normal" to have red hair, although relatively uncommon. It is not "normal" to be an albino. The issue of whether homosexual orientation is "normal" is not simple--the APA has been on both sides of the question. But you can't decide whether something is "normal" by counting how many people are like that.