So Why No Gay Marriage?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

EmptyForceOfChi:

Thank you. I recognize that I still owe you some statistical links. I actually took some time to look through them, but the source studies are buried under ever-increasing layers of related discussion. I'm still working back toward them, and confess to not having given those notes much time recently.

The "traditional marriage" of The Long Decade can be seen as the culmination of an historical process. Interestingly, the rise of the Long Decade marriages came about against a conservative outcry in favor of "traditional marriage". Additionally, nearly every, if not every culture surveyed--including obscure tribal cultures--tend to view the marriages of prior generations as somehow better than the current generation. It is as if there is some Golden Age everyone looks back to. Curiously, in one tribal example, not only did the current generation consider their parents' generation something "traditional" and more appropriate than the contemporary institution, but anthropological and ethnological studies done in the past reflect not only the same sentiments, but nearly the same words in the parents' and grandparents' telling of things.

As to pretty much all of this, I would refer you to:

Coontz, Stephanie. Marriage, A History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage. Viking, 2005.​

(The first chapter is offered at the link above. Or you can click here to get straight to it. Anyway, it's one of the best books I've read in the last couple years. On any subject.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So if the pedophiles want to change the age of consent laws so they can marry the person of their choice, you have no problem with that, James?

I mean, all their doing is what gays are wanting to do ....change a law and the basic concept of "adult". Ain't no big deal, right?

And remember, in places like India, Pakistan and other Asian nations, girls are married at 13 regularly. So ...American pedophiles would be happy. Ain't that what you want, for people to be happy?

You keep saying things like that, James, but just saying it doesn't make it true or factual.

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So the rest is fine?

And how do you know the animal does not consent? Or the broomstick? Or what if I want to marry my hand with a smiley face drawn on it? (It wants it I promise)

Obviously I am exaggerating but I am merely trying to show the concept that If you are going to use the consent argument, then polygamy and consentual incest should be legalized as well (and bestiality maybe to talking parrots or something)

So gay marriage, polygamy, incest, and bestiality are all on the same ticket for me

 

dont rush or give it too much of your time, thanks for the link and information i will be sure to check it out fully and save the link, i doubt i can study it properly now because it is late here.


i have never really looked into any of this before to be honest, im interested in learning about the origins of marriage from different cultural backgrounds. and how each tradition differs from the next.


peace.

 

It's simple, Baron... NO. You don't change those laws... but DO change the ones that DO effect the adults.

DON'T change the ones that hurt those who have not matured (obviously) and DO change the ones that stop TWO consenting ADULTS from marrying.

Easy. Even your simplistic logic can grasp that.

Kids, NO. Adults, YES.

I know for you everything on earth boils down to the slippery slope effect, but in countries like Netherlands where gay marriage is a reality, there IS NOT legal pedophilia nor a marching-in-the-streets cry for it. Get over it and come up with something a little more tangible.

~String

 

Hmm, ain't that exactly what most people are saying about changing laws for special interest groups like gays? NO!

Yeah, Sring, ye're right ....it is simple, isn't it? Thanks.

No, no! I don't want to go all the way down the slippery slope, I just want to change the age of consent laws so some special interest groups can enjoy the same freedoms that you're touting for the gays. What's wrong with that?

Baron Max

 

Hmm, let me get this straight, James ....we raise goats and sheep, we fatten them up, then we kill them and eat them, and that's okay. But if we fuck them, it's illegal because they didn't consent to being fucked? Is that right? Is that how you see it, too?

Baron Max

 

He can answer this for himself, but I'm going to say what I feel on the subject, as well.

There is very big difference between gay marriage and all of the other things you've bunched together in the same group (bestiality, pedophilia) is that gay marriage isn't illegal. It is simply unrecognized in most places. If two men live together in a homosexual relationship, they aren't going to get arrested. If two women get married in Massachusetts, then move to New York, they don't get pulled over and thrown in jail once they cross the state line.

If you're an adult, and have sex with someone under the legal age of consent, you have committed a crime, and are subject to jail time. If you fuck a sheep, you can be arrested for animal cruelty.

See the difference? Homosexuality isn't considered a crime, while the other things you've mentioned are.

Being gay was considered a disease for a long time; a mental disability. But in recent times, it has been more widely considered as a personal choice (which it really isn't), and has reached a level of acceptance in our society.

Your argument, Baron, that legalizing gay marriage will lead to the legalization of some of the world's worst crimes is outrageous, and false. It isn't even the argument being made by those against it! It's a moral issue more than anything, not a criminal issue. Nobody is claiming that gay marriage will open the proverbial flood gates for society's dregs to come in and start changing laws to suit their needs.

And if you look around (Massachusetts, and 12 nations around the world) the legalization of it hasn't opened a Hell-Mouth, or brought pedophiles to city hall to argue their side. The world isn't ending, Baron.

 

That's the most moronic logic I've ever heard. You're comparing changing a law that prohibits two consenting adults from marrying to changing the laws that stop predators from hurting unwitting individuals. Only in your twisted world are they the same Baron.

~String

 

Then why are we having this discussion?? Now I'm really confused ...and the title of the thread is all fucked up, too. And a whole bunch of people on this thread are confused. Why didn't you just tell this to us all at the beginning ...and none of this argument would have happened?

Yeah, but if we change the age of consent, then it would make the pedos really, really happy ...just like changing the laws to make homos happy. You seem to want homos to be happy with their pervert sexual practices, but you don't like me fuckin' my sheep and goats, nor do you like the pedos fuckin' little, willing girls. Geez, you ain't very tolerant, are you?

Baron Max

 

I'm not comparing them and you know it, String. It's the simple principle that I'm comparing .....YOU want to change laws for the gays, OTHERS want to change the age of consent laws.

Get it? Change laws = change laws.

But see, you want to change laws that affect you, but you DON'T want others to be able to do the same. That makes you a hippo-fickin'-critter.

Baron Max

 

So ...start a thread, ask the question. But this thread isn't the place for it.

Baron Max

 

Because I wanted to know what the members of this forums thought of the subject. You know, hear opposing viewpoints and all that jazz?

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, or really uninformed.

But it's not just like allowing gay marriages. It's nothing like it. I know where you're coming from, but you just can't seem to understand that homosexuals and pedophiles are not the same.

What don't you understand about this? Beastiality and pedophilia have victims, Baron. Even if the 14 year old girl is willing, she's not old enough to make a reasonable decision regarding that subject. And animals can't consent! Adults can, and do. And as long as the homosexual couple is of consenting age, then why should there be any problem?

Your issue here is a moral one. Morality is a personal belief, and not something that should be forced upon people. The idea that an adult should not have sex with a minor is a common sense law. Obviously, due to the changes occurring in a person's body and mind during puberty and adolescence, and the vulnerability of the person during those times, a person who hasn't gotten to a certain age (18 or better) can't be held accountable for certain decisions. That's why most punishments are different for minors when they commit a crime, and why they aren't allowed to drink legally, or allowed to vote. It's why adults--meaning people beyond the stages of physical and mental development--aren't allowed to have sexual relationships with them. It's not because some group or even government thinks it's wrong, but because there is evidence that a child or an adolescent wouldn't be able to make a sound decision regarding those things.

I know you see sex as kind of a "no big deal" thing (unless it's between two men, that is) but in reality, if one person is too young, it can be very damaging for him or her. This is why the legal age doesn't go below...I think 17 is as low as it gets in the States...and nobody is going to change that.

And these "perverted sexual practices" are no more perverted than anything a heterosexual couple does. Have you ever had anal sex with a woman? Have you ever gone down on a woman? Have you ever let your woman put her fingers in YOUR ass? These are typical sexual practices.

 

But even the principal isn't comparable. If you want to compare gay marriage laws to something, compare them to women not having the right to vote, or blacks only being considered 2/3 of a citizen. They are civil rights issues. If you wanted to make a comparison, compare those issues, not the idea of pedophiles changing the age limit, because that's not even in the same ballpark.

And again, I ask you, if what you say is true, then why haven't the age of consent laws in those 12 nations (and one American State) that do recognize gay marriage changed? Why aren't 12 year olds allowed to marry in Massachusetts? Why aren't the pedophiles winning the battle there?

Because it's not going to happen. Changing the law for homosexuals is akin to changing the laws to give women or blacks equal rights, not to changing laws for pedophiles.

 

Hmm, really? And who is it to make that judgement? We let them drive 2 ton cars around the highways at high speeds, yet we claim that they can't make reasonable decisions about sex. Pretty odd behavior of us adults, don'tcha think? See? Damned good reason to change the age of consent laws, huh? I'll be sure to tell the pedos about that, I'm sure they'll be happy.

We can kill 'em and butcher 'em and eat 'em ....and that's okay to do without their consent. But fuckin' 'em is ...not okay?? Hmmm?

So now it's down to ...comparing perverted sex acts?! What is it, like a contest? And group that's the most perverted gets to chose what laws to change?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Baron Max

 

"We can kill 'em and butcher 'em and eat 'em ....and that's okay to do without their consent. But fuckin' 'em is ...not okay?? Hmmm?"

lol...thats a classic.

 

Well, you do make a good point about the inconsistencies in age-related laws. In New York, you're old enough to drive at 16, but not old enough to buy a pack of smokes. At 18, you're old enough to fight for your country, but not old enough to buy a beer. At 21, you're old enough to drink, but not old enough to get a break on your auto insurance rates (that doesn't come until 25, at least in NY).

So I get what you're saying. I don't agree that you should be able to be drafted into a war, yet not considered responsible enough to have a beer...BUT...that ties into the driving age. And when you combine the fact that you can drive at 16, I don't think alcohol should be right around the corner. Taken in context, the law makes sense.

Same goes for the age of consent law. Consider the decision-making capability of a teenager, Baron. The National Highway Traffic Administration says that motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of youth deaths, ages 15-20. Also consider that %40 of all alcohol-related fatal traffic accidents involved teenagers driving intoxicated.

And consider that it's not even legal to drink under the age of 21. So what does that tell you about a young person's decision-making capability?

And that is why there are age of consent laws. It's to help young people from being taken advantage of by predatory adults. There are no arguments that could convince anyone who isn't a pedophile that the consent age should be lowered. If anything, the minimum age for things should be raised.

Try all you want, but that isn't a logical argument. I know you're broken up that the state won't recognize your relationship with Dolly, but that law is never going to change. Every law regarding the killing of animals either has to do with controlling the population, or feeding ourselves. And you can be arrested for animal cruelty.

I take it you're a standard, missionary-position kind of guy. Your must be a wild ride in bed...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!