The next step after gay marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter on_the_hill
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
unstoppable_II:
Thanks! I thought it might have been the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

St. Peter and St. Paul, pray for us!
 
on_the_hill said:
Look on the bright side: Gay divorce is now legal in all 50 states. 😛

I should’ve gone to law school… 😉
Click to expand...
Naaaa…

In most states, a civil marriage that is not consummated can be annulled. They would not need a divorce…🙂
 
Book_Worm said:
When I was growing up, one of the arguments I heard to reinforce the concept that African Americans were somehow “less than” was their propensity to live in substandard housing but drive expensive cars. When I got a little older, I realized that, at that point in time, AA’s were prohibited from living in most of the better areas and therefore used their discretionary income for better cars since car dealers were happy to take anyone’s money, no matter what their skin color was.

I wonder if this isn’t related to those statistics about gay relationships. Most grew up knowing that a stable marriage was not available to them and formed a different opinion about choosing a partner. Even those who were in long-term relationships and, more recently, marriages did not have the backing of a supportive society behind them as heterosexual couples.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the foundation works here. African Americans are not prohibited from living in any area at all, but if you look at where many live and the cars they often drive, you don’t see much difference from what it was like when housing really was segregated. I think that phenomenon asks for a different explanation.

And is there any good reason to think a “supportive society” will keep homosexuals in a stable relationship any more than “love” or anything else did previously? And, after all, how “supportive” of heterosexual marriage is society nowadays?
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
Naaaa…

In most states, a civil marriage that is not consummated can be annulled. They would not need a divorce…🙂
Click to expand...
Like the Supremes did with “marriage”, they’ll just come up with a different definition of “consummated”.
 
Lucretius said:
I think the next step is the removal of marriage as a legal institution. I know people my age (interestingly enough, many of them homosexuals) who are telling me that marriage needs to be destroyed, since everybody “knows” that it was “started” as a “patriarchal” institution to “suppress” women, and that it should have died out in the '60s :rolleyes: Of course, these people do not yet recognize the tax benefits of being legally marriage yet 😉

But seriously, once people sit down and remember that following “gay marriage,” the state has no purpose to support such a thing anymore, eventually they will probably just erase it.

If marriage is about consenting persons (some of us are still behind and say “consenting adults” still 😃 ), then why do I even need the state? Why does the state need to be some sort of middle man?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

St. Peter and St. Paul, pray for us!
Click to expand...
Marriage has its legal downsides as well. For example, in my state, one is not liable for the debts incurred by his spouse, as a general matter. But there is an exception for “necessities”. Most of the time the “necessity” is a killer medical bill.

Also, any property obtained during the marriage is “marital property” here, and subject to division. Then there is “maintenance”, what used to be called “alimony”.
 
unstoppable_II said:
A Pennsylvania newspaper has notified the world that it will no longer print anti-gay marriage op-eds or letters to the editor. Should the opinion pages be declared public accommodations?
Click to expand...
Yeah, kind of strange to not allow opinions in the opinion sections. Oh, I forgot! To liberals, freedom to express opinions is actually “Freedom to express opinions that agree with us.” :rolleyes:
 
From the so-called newspaper: "This is not hard: We would not print racist, sexist or anti-Semitic letters. To that, we add homophobic ones. Pretty simple.”

Good to know those darn ol’ papers no longer need that other teeny-tiny section of the 1st Amendment either: Freedom of the press. May as well gut that while we’re at it.

So now we’ll just buy papers for the weather report, movie times, & coupons. :rolleyes:
 
SMH_2015 said:
From the so-called newspaper: "This is not hard: We would not print racist, sexist or anti-Semitic letters. To that, we add homophobic ones. Pretty simple.”

Good to know those darn ol’ papers no longer need that other teeny-tiny section of the 1st Amendment either: Freedom of the press. May as well gut that while we’re at it.

So now we’ll just buy papers for the weather report, movie times, & coupons. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I support them if they refuse to attack those who have same-sex attraction. People can’t control their skin color, sex, Jewishness, and (often) deep-seated emotions, including sexual attraction. Why should we attack people for things they cannot control? I would go as far as to say it is morally wrong to do so (especially since being a homosexual in contemporary America is pretty difficult, and being a homosexual by itself is hard).

Also, remember there are “lurkers” who might be reading this right now, and are Harding their hearts to God, as well as forming the (false) opinion that Christ hates homosexuals. I don’t think the moderators like the forums to be used as a place to rant either 🙂

Christi pax,

Lucretius

St. Peter and St. Paul, pray for us!
 
Re the newspaper that will no longer print letters opposing same-sex marriage (note: not opposing those who have same-sex attraction), I guess the move to step 4 is now officially underway:

1 “All we want is to be out of the shadows.”
2 “All we want is acceptance.”
3 “All we want is equality.”
4 “Your view belongs in the shadows.”
 
SMH_2015 said:
So now we’ll just buy papers for the weather report, movie times, & coupons. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
The weather I get from the iPhone app weatherbug, movie times are online, and coupons always ended up costing us more because to use the coupons we bought things we don’t need.

But I still read our local paper cover to cover every day.
 
…the next step after gay marriage…

Pedophiles will be claiming that this is just another sexual orientation just like heterosexuality and homosexuality. If they are legally recognized then there is no reason why pedophilia is not legally recognized as well.

Currently they are claiming protected status under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act that was passed in 2009 by the liberal Democratic Congress and signed into law by Barack Obama.
 
Eventually, they are going to try to force churches to perform these rituals to give themselves perceived legitimacy.
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
…the next step after gay marriage…

Pedophiles will be claiming that this is just another sexual orientation just like heterosexuality and homosexuality.
Click to expand...
Not that I condone, support, or otherwise agree to SSM–but I don’t think pedophilia will be ‘legalized.’ The argument supporting ‘alternative’ lifestyles has always rested on the ideas of consenting adults, and ‘no one gets harmed.’ Neither of those is true with pedophilia.
 
on_the_hill said:
Not that I condone, support, or otherwise agree to SSM–but I don’t think pedophilia will be ‘legalized.’ The argument supporting ‘alternative’ lifestyles has always rested on the ideas of consenting adults, and ‘no one gets harmed.’ Neither of those is true with pedophilia.
Click to expand...
I think polygamists, though, will feel they have much more secure legal footing.

It’s funny because I’ve seen all sorts of assertions that to be against SSM is to be a religious bigot, that I need to keep my religious views to myself, that my voice has no place in the public square. And there are lots and lots of arguments to be made against SSM without invoking religion at all (and when I would discuss this issue with non-Catholics those are the arguments I would stick to).

But I really can’t say the same for polygamy. You can make an argument about practicality, but the best arguments against polygamy that I know are moral ones - which are apparently not good enough. After all, polygamy involves conjugal unions and has a historical basis that SSM does not.

I don’t know about the contortionist act people will have to pull to suggest that somehow SSM is OK, but polygamy is not. I suspect they won’t really care. Many LGBT people I know, even who want to get married, are not particularly interested in monogamy.
 
It seems, though that polygamous marriages are prone to abusive relationships. The polygamous sects in the western U.S. tend to develop into underage women (girls) being betrothed and married to much older men, with no choice in who or how or when, there’s abuse, etc.

So you could argue from a civil perspective that our practical experience with polygamy is that most of it ( in the U.S.) is bad.
 
on_the_hill said:
Not that I condone, support, or otherwise agree to SSM–but I don’t think pedophilia will be ‘legalized.’ The argument supporting ‘alternative’ lifestyles has always rested on the ideas of consenting adults, and ‘no one gets harmed.’ Neither of those is true with pedophilia.
Click to expand...
There is a lot going on behind the scenes.

In 1998 The American Psychiatric Association issued a report claiming “that the ‘negative potential’ of adult sex with children was ‘overstated’ and that ‘the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from childhood sexual abuse experiences.”

Earlier this year two psychologists in Canada declared that pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality or heterosexuality…
 
on_the_hill said:
It seems, though that polygamous marriages are prone to abusive relationships. The polygamous sects in the western U.S. tend to develop into underage women (girls) being betrothed and married to much older men, with no choice in who or how or when, there’s abuse, etc.

So you could argue from a civil perspective that our practical experience with polygamy is that most of it ( in the U.S.) is bad.
Click to expand...
And abusive relationships are bad because…???
Says who?
Based on what?

You can’t build a house on quicksand and expect it to stand.
 
The commoditization of children will continue. Male homosexuals will contract with surrogates and egg donors to provide babies to them. As contract owners of the children, they will have control whether the child is carried to term or aborted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top