Gay News

scotchandcigar said:
People can live any way they'd like, but the legal rights of being married cannot be applied to more than one couple.
Click to expand...
As a civil union, I don't see why people couldn't be married to more than one person.
I mean, businesses can enter into contracts with more than one party. So why not people? I understand why religions wouldn't be for it.
 
My parents never divorced. We all might have been happier if they had.

The first Mrs. Bag and I split up shortly after Memegirl was born. We're both much happier, and Memegirl now has two sets of parents who love her.

My guess is the divorce rate for gays and lesbians will be a little lower at first, just because so many people who have been living together for a long time are finally getting to make it official, and those people will tend to stay married longer than most.

After that? Who knows.
 
memebag said:
My parents never divorced. We all might have been happier if they had.

The first Mrs. Bag and I split up shortly after Memegirl was born. We're both much happier, and Memegirl now has two sets of parents who love her.

My guess is the divorce rate for gays and lesbians will be a little lower at first, just because so many people who have been living together for a long time are finally getting to make it official, and those people will tend to stay married longer than most.

After that? Who knows.
Click to expand...

I believe in Canada it has pretty much settled at similar statistics between gay and straight marriages. I think it may be a bit less because quite frankly, women can be crazy. And I am sure the feeling is mutual. If I was married to a guy (if I were wired that way) I would imagine it would be easier to read his feelings or lack of them. Same for 2 women.
 
HecticArt said:
As a civil union, I don't see why people couldn't be married to more than one person.
I mean, businesses can enter into contracts with more than one party. So why not people? I understand why religions wouldn't be for it.
Click to expand...
Do any of you understand the meaning of equal rights? Equal rights means "equal", not "changed" or "different". Married couples can file taxes jointly - that means 2 people, namely you and your spouse, not you and a baseball team. Being married allows your spouse to be covered by your employer's health insurance - not your spouse and all your neighbors.

Polygamy was outlawed like 100 years ago, and frankly it's insulting to imply that, if same-sex marriage is legal, one might as well make polygamy legal, as it insinuates that they're comparable.
 
blyons200 said:
Women are all crazy. Just some are crazier than others.
Click to expand...
Having long-ago divorced a certified mental case (the details of which I'd rather not discuss), I can see where you're coming from. However, 100% of spousal murder is committed by men; it embarrasses me to say that they're one of us. This is a serious problem; a close friend of my wife was bludgeoned to death by her deranged husband, who then committed suicide, leaving their 4 young kids without parents.
 
There's nothing insulting about the idea. It's just a different perspective. I think it relates more to the civil union side of the discussion than the marriage title. 1 broad is plenty for me. I don't know why a guy would want to subject himself to any more than that, but what's the difference? So they adjust the tax laws. Insurance already addresses multiple children, so the greedy insurance companies are sure to find a way to make more money off of multiple spouses. Was outlawing polygamy done for moral/religious purposes? Or was it a way to protect guys from having all of those women in the house?

Mrs Hectic watches a lot of those real life murder investigation shows on TV. They drive me nuts, but there are always shows about wives that kill their husbands. Sure, men do most of it, but it's not exclusively theirs.

Edit: I'm not trying to downplay how ugly and serious domestic violence is.
Click to expand...

My folks split when I was 11 or 12. We were old enough to know it it was for the best. They got along better for a while, at least until they each started dating again. It was interesting to see that they still cared enough to get a little snarky when someone else entered the scene. The little bits of jealousy taught me a lot about relationships.
 
Last edited:
scotchandcigar said:
Having long-ago divorced a certified mental case (the details of which I'd rather not discuss), I can see where you're coming from. However, 100% of spousal murder is committed by men; it embarrasses me to say that they're one of us. This is a serious problem; a close friend of my wife was bludgeoned to death by her deranged husband, who then committed suicide, leaving their 4 young kids without parents.
Click to expand...

Its not 100%. There are plenty of women who kill their husbands. I do think a vast majority are likely men.
 
scotchandcigar said:
People can live any way they'd like, but the legal rights of being married cannot be applied to more than one couple.
Click to expand...

Why not? Since we're redefining the "traditional" definition of marriage, why limit it to two people?

Why do you find slippery slopes insulting? Is it not wise to consider all possible consequences?

What's wrong with polygamy? It's been practiced by plenty of perfectly respectable cultures for time immemorial.
 
Casual Fan said:
Why not? Since we're redefining the "traditional" definition of marriage, why limit it to two people?
Click to expand...
First, we're not redefining anything. The state laws and forms were exclusionary, and now they're not. Polygamy is a different topic, unrelated to marriage equality, and was ruled-upon a long time ago. Furthermore, it's a social status, not a right. And I already outlined the legal reasons, see my comments above.
Casual Fan said:
Why do you find slippery slopes insulting? Is it not wise to consider all possible consequences?
Click to expand...
How is it not insulting to say that a gay man marrying a gay man is just like a man marrying a dolphin, or a man marrying a gang of people? I don't think that's wise.
 
scotchandcigar said:
First, we're not redefining anything. The state laws and forms were exclusionary, and now they're not. Polygamy is a different topic, unrelated to marriage equality, and was ruled-upon a long time ago. Furthermore, it's a social status, not a right. And I already outlined the legal reasons, see my comments above.

How is it not insulting to say that a gay man marrying a gay man is just like a man marrying a dolphin, or a man marrying a gang of people? I don't think that's wise.
Click to expand...

Because it's insulting for you to define who can marry whom or what. You're drawing another arbitrary line after the Supreme Court just struck one down. And whatever the court decided in the past on polygamy can certainly be overturned. It's happened a whole bunch of times.

Also, there's this:

Montana Trio Applying for Marriage License - Hit & Run : Reason.com
 
Casual Fan said:
Because it's insulting for you to define who can marry whom or what. You're drawing another arbitrary line after the Supreme Court just struck one down. And whatever the court decided in the past on polygamy can certainly be overturned. It's happened a whole bunch of times.
Also, there's this:
Montana Trio Applying for Marriage License - Hit & Run : Reason.com
Click to expand...
I think we're arguing 2 different things here. You want a variety of other marriage situations to be considered, which is OK I guess (although the ones you mention don't have much of a groundswell). I'm saying something completely different. Some people think that being gay and wanting same-sex marriage is a silly, made-up contrivance, which people are doing either to be rebellious, or weird, or because Hollywood brainwashed them to think this way. For those people, marrying a person of the same sex is just as ridiculous as marrying a child, or an animal, or a gang of people. See what I'm saying?
 
It should be up to the people that want to do it. Not the people that don't understand why they want to do it.

Sure, marrying Dolphins is a silly comparison. Marrying children is obviously about protecting people that are too young to protect themselves.

Where consenting adults are concerned, the courts should be objective enough to separate the subjective opinions from people's rights to live their own lives.
 
I brought up divorce because evangelicals make such a big deal over same sex marriage.

If you don't believe in God, then by all means, divorce all you want to.

Marriage is just like Christmas. It's a reason to go out, get dressed up, & spend lots of money.
 
scotchandcigar said:
I think we're arguing 2 different things here. You want a variety of other marriage situations to be considered, which is OK I guess (although the ones you mention don't have much of a groundswell). I'm saying something completely different. Some people think that being gay and wanting same-sex marriage is a silly, made-up contrivance, which people are doing either to be rebellious, or weird, or because Hollywood brainwashed them to think this way. For those people, marrying a person of the same sex is just as ridiculous as marrying a child, or an animal, or a gang of people. See what I'm saying?
Click to expand...

Ah, gotcha. Thanks. Thumbup2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom