Alaska_Darin_Is_Gay Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 So if you believe that gays should be able to marry why shouldn't adult brothers and sisters be able to marry then? How about a parent marrying their adult child. They're consenting adults right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 So if you believe that gays should be able to marry why shouldn't adult brothers and sisters be able to marry then? How about a parent marrying their adult child. They're consenting adults right? Parents can marry their adult children. See Woody Allen. In any event, your flight to extremes is wonderful and I'll happily play. I don't care if brothers and sisters marry as long as they are fully consenting adults, ie, not some bizzarre cult. Would I want to hang out with two people like that? Ah, no thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska_Darin_Is_Gay Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Parents can marry their adult children. See Woody Allen. That wasn't Woody Allens biological child Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 I don't think they should get married in the first place. Why would I give a crap if they got divorced? What if the great and wonderful government came up with a law that said "Jim in Anchorage can't get married" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 That wasn't Woody Allens biological child Isn't making arbitrary laws fun? I take it from your response that your concern is two-headed children? So how much further do you take those concerns? Government sterilization starts at IQ <___. Please fill in the blank Mr. Social Engineer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Isn't making arbitrary laws fun? I take it from your response that your concern is two-headed children? So how much further do you take those concerns? Government sterilization starts at IQ <___. Please fill in the blank Mr. Social Engineer. Literally, welcome to Nazi Germany. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Why are people even arguing about this? It has been taken to a vote and most people don't like gay marriage. Isn't this all about social norms and rules that people set forth?. Right now most people don't find it normal and don't want gay marriage recognized. Thems the rules... What is the big deal. Sure, I don't like the speed limit being 55, I wish it was 105, but I understand the speed limit is the limit... Anything over is breaking the rules. What so hard to understand? Hetero-marriage = Normal, recognized. Homo-marriage = Not normal, not recognized. This is very much a state issue. Geographical region and culture should play much into defining said marriage rules. Again, for now... Thems the rules... Maybe they will change someday... Quit whining, get people to think differently, mayebt eh culture and the rules will change someday. This is laughable that this should be a right or a pursuit of happiness issue... If it can, then ANYTHING can be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 At the end of the day, the "Gay Marriage" issue is about one thing: Freedom. The freedom of consenting adults to do what they want with their lives. Not calling into question you Darin. You are consistent in this respect (above). Yet, one is not truly free to do what ever they want with their own lives. You can argue all day if you want, I do understand you point. My point is that there are lines drawn in the sand. This is one of them. It can't not be a free-for-all, I know you disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Well in fact i've readen recently that gay couples are actually way more stable than heterosexual ones!Gay marriages 'd in fact improve the divorce rates of marriages! Numbers please. Anyway, it can't possibly be complete data since this type of marriage is not recognized anywhere. Basically what I am saying is that one has to throw your argument (above) out the window. I am not saying your argument for gay marriage won't be a relavant one in the future, for now the it just can't be used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 so it's official the US are a theocracy?!!! Yes, Utah that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Parents can marry their adult children. See Woody Allen. In any event, your flight to extremes is wonderful and I'll happily play. I don't care if brothers and sisters marry as long as they are fully consenting adults, ie, not some bizzarre cult. Would I want to hang out with two people like that? Ah, no thanks. So in other words it is okay if a brother marries his brother becuase he lost his job and needs to latch on to his working sibling's health insurance. How about death and pension benefits? You are phucking whacked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 So in other words it is okay if a brother marries his brother becuase he lost his job and needs to latch on to his working sibling's health insurance. How about death and pension benefits? You are phucking whacked. No. The married sibs are whacked. I just don't care how two adults contract into a marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 No. The married sibs are whacked. I just don't care how two adults contract into a marriage. Maybe, maybe not. If they do get married just to be recognized and nothing else... How is that whacked? They are getting benefits and society will not frown upon them... Hardly whacked. Shrewd is the word. So again. This type of marriage would be okay by you?? Nobody even has to know that they are married except the state and employer who takes care of the benny's. Again, hardly whacked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Maybe, maybe not. If they do get married just to be recognized and nothing else... How is that whacked? They are getting benefits and society will not frown upon them... Hardly whacked. Shrewd is the word. So again. This type of marriage would be okay by you?? Nobody even has to know that they are married except the state and employer who takes care of the benny's. Again, hardly whacked. Why do you think people don't do this all the time now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 What if the great and wonderful government came up with a law that said "Jim in Anchorage can't get married" I heard his wife say "why didn't they think of that sooner." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Why do you think people don't do this all the time now? Like I said: "Line in the sand." You want no line at all... I can understand that. Why have rules for anything? Do what you want, which anyone basically can. What people are asking for is recognition here. The majority of the people do not want to recognize the union between same sex marriage. What't the big deal? Give it time, maybe things will change. And there in lies the proablem: recognition. Some people want it, others stomp and kick and demand it. What people find unacceptable does not demand recognition. I am sorry that you have a long battle ahead of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 what i like about this topic is how the classical camps (liberal vs conservatives) are completly changed... i see usual liberals agreeing with usual conservatives in both sides!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 what i like about this topic is how the classical camps (liberal vs conservatives) are completly changed... i see usual liberals agreeing with usual conservatives in both sides!! Yep! Please tell me why Olivier? And it is not about hate or bigotry or even religion. Those IMO are avenues people take to try and explain with futility. Why is it so hard to say that the NYS senate has spoken and move on? It is about what should be defined as normal or not. Again, life simply can't be a free-for-all no matter how much you wish it to be. Like I have said many times... I don't care what people do. To me it is about a line. Life has many lines, of course one can cross them all they want, yet there are ramifications. This is one of them. Again, maybe that line will change someday, I don't have a problem with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 I heard his wife say "why didn't they think of that sooner." Now don't bring the Missus in this. She is extremely grateful for that new oil filter wrench I bought her-the old one would cut her arm every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Yep! Please tell me why Olivier? And it is not about hate or bigotry or even religion. Those IMO are avenues people take to try and explain with futility. Why is it so hard to say that the NYS senate has spoken and move on? It is about what should be defined as normal or not. Again, life simply can't be a free-for-all no matter how much you wish it to be. Like I have said many times... I don't care what people do. To me it is about a line. Life has many lines, of course one can cross them all they want, yet there are ramifications. This is one of them. Again, maybe that line will change someday, I don't have a problem with that. i don't know exiled... what i know is that there is much more than one dimension on the political societal spectrum , people tends to see themselves somewhere on a left (equality) to right (freedom) line (where i'm quite on the left in the US, quite on the right in France) while there's in fact at least an other dimension to position yourself, what i'd call the tolerance to conformity line (and i'm all "tolerance" there) one line (or is it an other one?) that sometimes is seen as the individual to nation line ... and i can see a new political dimension becoming important something like a Man to Nature line on environmental issues (and i'm on the man side there) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts