Your stance on gay marriage

[Tekania]

if people want to live together in some form of union for a time that's their business (and i say people as apposed to couple quite deliberately). i have issue with the fact that it is assumed that you are going to want to stay like that for the rest of your life though. people change, grow, don't grow and let's face it most of the partnering choices are made when people are teenagers. now how well is that supposed to work

If someone entered into a particular legal system which entails certain right and responsibilities, and some people fail to honor that because they enter into with little thought or concern or out of inexperience and later must suffer particular penalties in termination said legal agreement; that isn't indicative of a fault with the agreement.

[Grave_n_idle]

The weird thing... most of America's legal oddness about marriage is because of eugenics. The idea of mixing pure heritages, the idea of genepool compromise through incest, etc. Which makes homosexuality a weird candidate for the same treatment, when you think about it.

Who knows what manner of unholy butt-babies gay marriage might unleash upon us?

Good point. Some risks just aren't worth taking.

[Bydlograd]

I don't have an issue with polygamy personally. Wouldn't engage in it myself. But yes valid viewpoint.

Incest has more to do with the impact of health upon offspring. As such in many states incest is perfectly legal under certain criteria.

The weird thing... most of America's legal oddness about marriage is because of eugenics. The idea of mixing pure heritages, the idea of genepool compromise through incest, etc. Which makes homosexuality a weird candidate for the same treatment, when you think about it.

Probably time to ditch those laws as well? The French got rid of anti-incest laws like 200 years ago. Not sure about marriage with these cases though.

Especially polygamy, since marriage laws are open to potential abuse, having multiple spouses might break the system. Especially gay polygamist incest marriages. Basically having an entire family of old rich folks sending in a single joint tax return. I mean, there doesn't need to be any sex at all for a marriage to be valid and they can all be "adulterers" without legal penalty or invalidating the marriage unless they want it to.

Which is basically why I'm questioning the purpose of state-sponsored marriage such as they are. I think it might make sense to just be able to create these types of legal arrangements to accommodate any sort of wacky combination of consenting adults without exactly calling it "marriage" unless they want to.

[The New Gaula Reich]

In favour because they're people, goddamnit. And damn marriage!

[Johz]

The weird thing... most of America's legal oddness about marriage is because of eugenics. The idea of mixing pure heritages, the idea of genepool compromise through incest, etc. Which makes homosexuality a weird candidate for the same treatment, when you think about it.

Probably time to ditch those laws as well? The French got rid of anti-incest laws like 200 years ago. Not sure about marriage with these cases though.

Especially polygamy, since marriage laws are open to potential abuse, having multiple spouses might break the system. Especially gay polygamist incest marriages. Basically having an entire family of old rich folks sending in a single joint tax return. I mean, there doesn't need to be any sex at all for a marriage to be valid and they can all be "adulterers" without legal penalty or invalidating the marriage unless they want it to.

Which is basically why I'm questioning the purpose of state-sponsored marriage such as they are. I think it might make sense to just be able to create these types of legal arrangements to accommodate any sort of wacky combination of consenting adults without exactly calling it "marriage" unless they want to.

You get a lot of marriages in Britain between illegal immigrants and citizens that allow the immigrants right of stay. I can see this being abused like that.

[Singularly]

if people want to live together in some form of union for a time that's their business (and i say people as apposed to couple quite deliberately). i have issue with the fact that it is assumed that you are going to want to stay like that for the rest of your life though. people change, grow, don't grow and let's face it most of the partnering choices are made when people are teenagers. now how well is that supposed to work

If someone entered into a particular legal system which entails certain right and responsibilities, and some people fail to honor that because they enter into with little thought or concern or out of inexperience and later must suffer particular penalties in termination said legal agreement; that isn't indicative of a fault with the agreement.

it would have to be the fault of the system that fails to take into account the development of the human animal and its psychology

[Life and Progress]

I think it's funny how people always come up with "stances" involving matters which do not concern them. If you are not gay, you should let people who are decide what policies they will abide by. It's called mind your own business.

[Tekania]

You get a lot of marriages in Britain between illegal immigrants and citizens that allow the immigrants right of stay. I can see this being abused like that.

Don't see the issue, makes perfect sense for a spouse to gain citizenship.

[Tekania]

it would have to be the fault of the system that fails to take into account the development of the human animal and its psychology

We do take that into account. Which is why there are particular restrictions relating to capacities to give legal consent, and why there is a system in place to terminate that type of agreement via civil contest.

[Tekania]

I think it's funny how people always come up with "stances" involving matters which do not concern them. If you are not gay, you should let people who are decide what policies they will abide by. It's called mind your own business.

By that logic it would make straight people wrong to support same-sex marriage initiatives.

[Dazchan]

I'm just going to throw this out there, after reading about a dozen or so pages of this drivel: why are you guys discussing this?

Because discussing current issues is really what NSG is about

The vast majority of you watch more porn than hitting the real thing,

Source?

assuming you have ever had some fuzz, and I'd bet my left testicle that virtually all of you debating the issue (for or against gay marriage) have little idea what is involved in a committed relationship.

Is six years committed enough for you?

For fuck's sake, it just seems bizarre for y'all to be debating an institution that you have no idea what it is about.

I suppose next you'll be telling me that I can't have an opinion about football because I've never played for Manchester United.

[Ifreann]

I think it's funny how people always come up with "stances" involving matters which do not concern them. If you are not gay, you should let people who are decide what policies they will abide by. It's called mind your own business.

What we choose to discuss and what opinions we choose to hold are none of your business.

[Dyakovo]

Well, are you equally against all other marriage as well? Because that's really the only way that opinion isn't homophobic.

Nope, I have no problem with gays. I have a problem with them trying to ruin the sanctity of marriage. Which is between a man and a woman. Not destroyed by two guys making a mockery of God's holy covenant.

No problem then since marriage isn't a holy covenant.

[Soheran]

I don't think the problem with incest is the procreative risk. The risk seems exaggerated to me, and we really shouldn't be in the business of controlling people's reproduction on the basis of genetic fitness, anyway.

I think incest is problematic mainly because it messes up the integrity of family ties. Family relationships play an important role in people's lives, and their character and norms are specific to the family relationship at issue: how I regard a spouse, how I regard a sibling, how I regard a parent, how I regard a child, how I regard an aunt or uncle are all distinct. But incest disrupts the coherence of these relationships. If my parents were to divorce and I married my father, my mother would have an ex-husband who was her son-in-law and a son who was the spouse of her ex-husband. This is hardly conducive to healthy family relationships.

It is one thing to say, and I think it's true, that generally marriage ought to be thought of as a matter for the individual discretion of the parties. But while marriage has within it important components of individual liberty, it also establishes a social family relationship between spouses. And so close family members who are not parties, whose family relationships will be affected by a decision to marry of two of their relatives, have a stake in that decision that the law can consider--a stake they would not have if, say, those relatives merely decided to have sex, which would be in my view a purely private matter (except insofar as it involved exploitation.)

[Dyakovo]

As a Christian I oppose it. God created marriage to be between a man and a woman. That should be the end of it. I don't have anything against gay people personally, but marriage should just not be available to homosexuals.

Marriage existed before Christianity did, so try again.

[Dyakovo]

Marriage has existed long before Christianity. It is, and always has been, a legal contract. Nothing sacred about it.

Who said anything about Christianity? Before Christianity, there was Judaism. So in conclusion you are an idiot. The Jewish God of the Old Testament, Jehovah is just Jesus of the New Testament, and therefore it is the same God that instituted marriage as before. Marriage has always been a legal contract for a man and a woman to be able to procreate and replenish the earth. Now for some stupid reason, sex is too open and is basically encouraged outside of marriage. That ruined its sanctity. Allowing gays to get married is even worse!

Sorry, but you're the idiot here, since you apparently don't know that marriage existed before Judaism as well...

[Wikkiwallana]

As a hardcore Christian, it saddens me to see how debauched our society is. These... filthmongers that play on the sanctity of marriage should all be hanged, or quartered, whatever floats your boat. And all these evidence for this Sodomistic depravity are nothing but wretched and rotten lies! Destroy homosexuality! Hail Satan!

Would it be too much to ask to give me time to engage the clutch before shifting gears like that?

[Wikkiwallana]

Not necessarily, but it increases the chances.

Ehh... if you continue line-breeding for generations, maybe. But then, that's also true in any other limited genepool situation. Those little towns in rural Lincolnshire or Alabama where everyone has the same last name, even though it's theoretically not strictly incest? Yeah...

Reminds me of Rock Ridge in Blazing Saddles.

[Wikkiwallana]

Assuming they're in it for the children. How will the child cope with it?

You have to teach kids hate.

You know what kids hate?

Naps.

And veggies.

[Dyakovo]

Quite simply, you're wrong.

How so?

The government having a position on marriage is not unconstitutional. If you had ever actually read the constitution you'd realize that.

[Make up your own mind]

The weird thing... most of America's legal oddness about marriage is because of eugenics. The idea of mixing pure heritages, the idea of genepool compromise through incest, etc. Which makes homosexuality a weird candidate for the same treatment, when you think about it.

Probably time to ditch those laws as well? The French got rid of anti-incest laws like 200 years ago. Not sure about marriage with these cases though.

Especially polygamy, since marriage laws are open to potential abuse, having multiple spouses might break the system. Especially gay polygamist incest marriages. Basically having an entire family of old rich folks sending in a single joint tax return. I mean, there doesn't need to be any sex at all for a marriage to be valid and they can all be "adulterers" without legal penalty or invalidating the marriage unless they want it to.

Which is basically why I'm questioning the purpose of state-sponsored marriage such as they are. I think it might make sense to just be able to create these types of legal arrangements to accommodate any sort of wacky combination of consenting adults without exactly calling it "marriage" unless they want to.

You just blew my mind.

[Johz]

You get a lot of marriages in Britain between illegal immigrants and citizens that allow the immigrants right of stay. I can see this being abused like that.

Don't see the issue, makes perfect sense for a spouse to gain citizenship.

But they aren't spouses, they carry out the marriage to get citizenship, then the couple go their seperate ways. It's a sham marriage to give illegal immigrants a right to stay in the country.

[Keronians]

Don't see the issue, makes perfect sense for a spouse to gain citizenship.

But they aren't spouses, they carry out the marriage to get citizenship, then the couple go their seperate ways. It's a sham marriage to give illegal immigrants a right to stay in the country.

Why not give them a right to stay in the country?

[Dyakovo]

I have never once understood this nonsensical need to try and define things as “natural” only to then bring up this bizarre proposition that “natural” must mean “good” in such a way to define homosexuality as “not natural” thus being “not good”.

We see it taken to the utmost extreme of “oh, so if anything a human being does is natural, that means the Holocaust was natural, so you like the holocaust, huh? HUH??”

It’s fucking stupid. A more general and proper definition of “natural” would be “occurring without intelligent intervention”. Sexuality thus is perfectly natural in that it occurs without specific intervention, we are who we are. A house is not “natural”, it doesn’t occur without intelligent intervention, i.e. someone fucking building it.

But so what? The chemotherapy that saved my life is certainly not natural. It was developed by the good men and women of Glaxo Smith-Klein in a lab using compounds that do not occur in nature. It was purely a human made invention. Nothing “natural” about it, unless we stretch the word “natural” to the obscene limits of “but it’s made of molecules!”

On the other hand, cyanide is perfectly natural. As was the tornado that killed a dozen people in Springfield last month. As is the Plague. All very natural things. All very deadly things. All things I’d just as soon avoid.

So let’s get over this obsessive need to categorize things as “not natural” and “natural” in order to somehow laud the “natural”. It’s stupid. Nature will fucking kill you.

Since when do you write long posts Neo?

[Dyakovo]

Morality is real, and important. Prejudice dressed up as "morality," however, is unworthy of deference.



DOMA is unconstitutional, so I'm not sure what point you're making here.

So it's indeed about my morals are more worth than yours?

DOMA is unconstitutional? Aren't you mixing reality with wishful thinking?

Yes, DOMA is unconstitutional.