What does the "gay" lobby plan to do about the fact that "gay marriage" currently discriminates against bisexuals?

  • Thread starter Thread starter livingwordunity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It also discriminates against anyone who chooses to marry his dog or cat. 👍
 
Maso said:
It also discriminates against anyone who chooses to marry his dog or cat. 👍
Click to expand...
It’s not. Before you can even get to that point they would need to have personhood, the ability to engage in contracts, ability to understand the terms of a contract, ability to express consent for the terms of the contract, and meet some other requirements. Note that there are humans that don’t satisfy all of these. There are many more rivers to cross before legal animal human marriage could occur in most of the western world. Most of the human-animal marriages I can find referenced seemed to have only been ceremonial or religious. Though there were a few cases that didn’t meet either category.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human%E2%80%93animal_marriage
 
Well… “Same Sex Marriage” makes about as much sense to me as “Square Circles”…
 
I thought it was a good question. What if a guy has a boyfriend and a girlfriend and wants to marry them both? Why doesn’t the “gay” lobby support those people?
 
They don’t simply because the time is not right for them to. Eventually they will. Also NAMBLA is standing by on a back burner too. Do you understand the term “Subversion”…???

That’s their ultimate agenda… I’m not saying they’ll succeed, just that they will if they can. That’s what we’re up against.
 
white_sheep said:
I thought it was a good question. What if a guy has a boyfriend and a girlfriend and wants to marry them both? Why doesn’t the “gay” lobby support those people?
Click to expand...
They don’t simply because the time is not right for them to. Eventually they will. Also NAMBLA is standing by on a back burner too. Do you understand the term “Subversion”…???

That’s their ultimate agenda… I’m not saying they’ll succeed, just that they will if they can. That’s what we’re up against.
 
white_sheep said:
I thought it was a good question. What if a guy has a boyfriend and a girlfriend and wants to marry them both? Why doesn’t the “gay” lobby support those people?
Click to expand...
Why does the state discriminate against transubstantiation by treating communion wine that has been transfigured into the body and blood of Christ as though it contained alcohol?
 
Joie_de_Vivre said:
Why does the state discriminate against transubstantiation by treating communion wine that has been transfigured into the body and blood of Christ as though it contained alcohol?
Click to expand...
Seems like a non-sequitur. I’ve never heard of the state ‘discriminating’ against the consecrated species in this way. It’s a non issue, certainly a lot less likely than other types of non-traditional couples demanding that marriage equality be applied to them by granting civil marriage.
 
JimG said:
Seems like a non-sequitur. I’ve never heard of the state ‘discriminating’ against the consecrated species in this way. It’s a non issue, certainly a lot less likely than other types of non-traditional couples demanding that marriage equality be applied to them by granting civil marriage.
Click to expand...
The state treats the consecrated liquid specie as if it were still wine despite Catholics believing it is no longer wine and is instead the body and blood of Christ. The state might treat it as if it were still wine because it is too damn hard legally otherwise, similarly gay people might not attempt to extend marriage to more than two partners because it is too damn hard legally otherwise.

Secular society has already changed marriage to “societal recognition of a relationship with legal benefits attached between two people, one male and the other female, that is used to express love until said two people decide to terminate said relationship.” Gay people want to have it as “societal recognition of a relationship with legal benefits attached between a couple, -]one male and the other female,/-] that is used to express love until said two people decide to terminate said relationship.”

If you want to get angry at people for change what marriage means you should get angry at those darn pernicious heterosexuals who debased marriage in the first place.
 
Joie_de_Vivre said:
The state treats the consecrated liquid specie as if it were still wine despite Catholics believing it is no longer wine and is instead the body and blood of Christ. The state might treat it as if it were still wine because it is too damn hard legally otherwise, similarly gay people might not attempt to extend marriage to more than two partners because it is too damn hard legally otherwise.

Secular society has already changed marriage to “societal recognition of a relationship with legal benefits attached between two people, one male and the other female, that is used to express love until said two people decide to terminate said relationship.” Gay people want to have it as “societal recognition of a relationship with legal benefits attached between a couple, -]one male and the other female,/-] that is used to express love until said two people decide to terminate said relationship.”

If you want to get angry at people for change what marriage means you should get angry at those darn pernicious heterosexuals who debased marriage in the first place.
Click to expand...
Well yes, I’m not angry, but it was certainly heterosexuals who began the debasement of marriage. It began with Catholic rejection of Humanae Vitae. That acceptance of contraception virtually guaranteed that same sex marriage would be on the horizon.
 
I’ve wondered this myself. In defending their definition, it really seems to me that advocates for SSM sound very much like advocates of marriage between one man and one woman. It sounds as unjustly arbitrary. If the current definition of marriage really is discrimination against a class of people, is SSM the right thing to do, or not? Why is legality a concern when it comes to polyamory, if it’s the right thing to not discriminate? I was under the impression that SSM was more about being the right thing to do.
 
JimG said:
Well yes, I’m not angry, but it was certainly heterosexuals who began the debasement of marriage. It began with Catholic rejection of Humanae Vitae. That acceptance of contraception virtually guaranteed that same sex marriage would be on the horizon.
Click to expand...
And yet, surely you have noted that the vitriol by Christians directed at homosexuals – even chaste homosexuals – is far more severe than the language directed at those who use contraception. We bent over backward not to offend the latter group, but we are quite comfortable offending the former group.

Why not be really deeply honest and say that it is perfectly understandable for a person to WANT to contracept, just as it’s perfectly understandable for a person to WANT to have sex with someone of the same sex. The point is that *doing *these things is wrong.

When people live as homosexuals, we should send the message to them that, Hey, we understand that. It’s a very human thing to do. But it’s not in accordance with the way that human beings thrive, and its not in accordance with the conjugal meaning of the body.

Nothing violent, just truth.

But we wouldn’t whisper the truth to the contraceptors, and now we want to shout the truth to the gay people. Can’t we learn to speak in a reasonable tone for once?
 
Prodigal_Son said:
And yet, surely you have noted that the vitriol by Christians directed at homosexuals – even chaste homosexuals – is far more severe than the language directed at those who use contraception. We bent over backward not to offend the latter group, but we are quite comfortable offending the former group.

Why not be really deeply honest and say that it is perfectly understandable for a person to WANT to contracept, just as it’s perfectly understandable for a person to WANT to have sex with someone of the same sex. The point is that *doing *these things is wrong.

When people live as homosexuals, we should send the message to them that, Hey, we understand that. It’s a very human thing to do. But it’s not in accordance with the way that human beings thrive, and its not in accordance with the conjugal meaning of the body.

Nothing violent, just truth.

But we wouldn’t whisper the truth to the contraceptors, and now we want to shout the truth to the gay people. Can’t we learn to speak in a reasonable tone for once?
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree with you entirely.

Nobody made a big deal out of the fact that Anglicans became the first Protestants to allow for contraception in the Lambeth Conference of 1930, thereby breaking consistent Protestant tradition going back to the original reformers. Up till then Protestants had the exact same view as the Catholic Church on the issue.

Many Catholics of the academic and political classes did make a big deal of dissenting from Humanae Vitae when it was issued by Pope Paul VI, and taught others to dissent as well.

What followed was the sexual revolution, the detachment of the idea of procreation from the concept of marriage, and a host of other sexual ills. Paul VI listed a host of adverse consequences to be expected from contraception, all of which have come about with a vengeance. But even he did not foresee the full extent of the devastation. In hindsight, one can see that gay marriage was to be one of the foregone conclusions of the sexual revolution. (I’ve recommended it before, but Eberstadt’s book "Adam and Eve After the Pill, sums up how we got here.)
 
JimG said:
Yes, I agree with you entirely.

Nobody made a big deal out of the fact that Anglicans became the first Protestants to allow for contraception in the Lambeth Conference of 1930, thereby breaking consistent Protestant tradition going back to the original reformers. Up till then Protestants had the exact same view as the Catholic Church on the issue.

Many Catholics of the academic and political classes did make a big deal of dissenting from Humanae Vitae when it was issued by Pope Paul VI, and taught others to dissent as well.

What followed was the sexual revolution, the detachment of the idea of procreation from the concept of marriage, and a host of other sexual ills. Paul VI listed a host of adverse consequences to be expected from contraception, all of which have come about with a vengeance. But even he did not foresee the full extent of the devastation. In hindsight, one can see that gay marriage was to be one of the foregone conclusions of the sexual revolution. (I’ve recommended it before, but Eberstadt’s book "Adam and Eve After the Pill, sums up how we got here.)
Click to expand...
I will definitely look at the book, when I get a chance. 👍
 
DaddyGirl said:
How is same-gender marriage discriminating against bi-sexuals? With same-sex marriage, bi-sexuals can choose to marry either gender.
Click to expand...
Let me get this straight. Are you saying that so-called same-sex “marriage” allows bisexuals to marry one of each sex?
 
DaddyGirl said:
How is same-gender marriage discriminating against bi-sexuals? With same-sex marriage, bi-sexuals can choose to marry either gender.
Click to expand...
SaturnMoon said:
Let me get this straight. Are you saying that so-called same-sex “marriage” allows bisexuals to marry one of each sex?
Click to expand...
DaddyGirl said:
I said “either”…either.
Click to expand...
And bisexuals have no problem with giving up their bisexual identity and going all the way homosexual in order to have a so-called so-called same-sex “marriage”? How is that different than when we say that traditional marriage doesn’t discriminate against homosexuals since they have always been free to marry the opposite sex?
 
SaturnMoon said:
And bisexuals have no problem with giving up their bisexual identity and going all the way homosexual in order to have a so-called so-called same-sex “marriage”?
Click to expand...
A bisexual person isn’t necessarily giving up self identity in having a civil marriage with either someone of the same gender or someone of opposite gender. In either case the person can continual to identify as bisexual.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top