Long Lines At Chick Fil A.

Quote: heather

(And it strikes me as a particularly base and uninteresting thing to build your entire life around, anyway -- if you can't even reproduce, why form a "lifestyle" shaped around your sexuality? Aren't you deeper than that?)
.

Thats what eventually got to me when I had the
bar and got the overflow traffic from the Gay
bar down the block. Most of these guys were
obsessed with sex. With having sex with as many
partners as was humanly possible. Its all they
talked about, they were constantly on the make.

Yes, not all of them are that way. But even the Gay
couples I knew later, in the antique business, were
not just with each other. They were always out
cruising too. Doesn't it get old? Whats the fascination?
Its like they're stuck in adolescence or something.

The Gay antique dealers would hang out in groups
at the antique shows, the 2 day shows where you
had to stay overnight on Saturday. I swear, they
had all 'been' with each other at one time or another.
What other groups of people hang out like that,
where they've all had sex with each other. Its just
weird. And more than a little creepy.

Quote: heather

Gay-Pride Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance Of Gays Back 50 Years

I remember that well. Its all parody, but they were
parodying a subject that most Americans don't
understand, so they took the parody at face value.

Oops.

I wondered whether I should have couched the link in <satire></satire> tags, but figured that The Onion was probably well-known enough that it wouldn't be necessary. Pretty funny when people sometimes seem to think that their articles are real. What was that quote about nobody ever losing an election as a result of underestimating the voting public?

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: heather

Gay-Pride Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance Of Gays Back 50 Years

I remember that well. Its all parody, but they were
parodying a subject that most Americans don't
understand, so they took the parody at face value.

It is a parody, but actually true. If you act like a freak you will be treated like a freak. If you associate with weirdos you will be considered a weirdo. If gays just went to work and lived a normal life few people would notice much less care. But even the ones that do not participate do not denounce the "gay pride parade" crowd-types.

For a good prespective on this see an early episode of "All in the Family." Archie has a buddy, Steve, who is believed to be just some confirmed bachelor who owns a camera shop. Friendly guy who doesn't bother anybody and nobody bothers him. Mike has a friend named Roger come to visit who is not into "manly" things like the boxing match on TV that day, so the guy is thought to be gay.

They shift to Kelsey's Bar (Archie had not bought the place yet) and Roger and Steve know each other, as Roger is a customer at Steve's camera shop. Mr Kelsey calls Mike over and asks if Roger is "OK." Mike is upset about this because he has to defend Roger as straight yet again. But it is not Roger's manner that makes Kelsey question him, it is bacause he is buddy-buddy with Steve.

Kelsey says that he lets Steve in the bar because he is a known local, stops in for just a drink or two, and doesn't "camp it up." Mike cannot believe what he is hearing to the point that Kelsey states quite clearly he does not want his bar becoming a "gay bar" and if his buddy is gay and going to "camp it up" then he needs to take his adult beverage business elsewhere.

Archie drives Mike to the point that Mike says to the effect, "My buddy Roger is not gay, but your friend Steve is!" Archie cannot believe it, even confronts Steve and implores him not to want to "bust Mike up" for saying this. Steve tells Archie it is true, and Archie still will not beleive it. The show then closes.

Steve clearly is not "closeted" in that the neighborhood bartender knows about him, but he is not going around telling every person he sees, "Hey, I'm gay by the way!" He isn't calling the mayor to close a business that does not support him. And he isn't holding a "kiss-in" to force acceptance of his choice of lifestyle.

Quote: heather

Like EvenBob said, if you want tolerance and acceptance, just leave your sexuality in the bedroom like the rest of us do and you'll get it.

The straight porn producing industry has protested the same way, they put it right out there in your face. Straight women prostitutes, also.

In fact, most protests operate that way.

Quote: rxwine

The straight porn producing industry has protested the same way, they put it right out there in your face. Straight women prostitutes, also.

I can't recall many large protests by the straight-porn industry nor female prostitutes. They both just seem to go about their business.

I get what you're saying, for instance if Tea Party protesters weren't shown on TV at Town Meetings, shouting at their elected representitives they would've been more effective.

Quote: rxwine

I get what you're saying, for instance if Tea Party protesters weren't shown on TV at Town Meetings, shouting at their elected representitives they would've been more effective.

That was not an organized Tea Party protest, that was a town meeting held by the politician(s.)

In any case, shouting is hardly violence or unusual behavior. It is not OWS destroying property, or gay-pride parades where they walk around like they are in some kind of fetish club.

Shouting, yeah, that is terrible.

Quote: AZDuffman

, or gay-pride parades where they walk around like they are in some kind of fetish club.

Shouting, yeah, that is terrible.

Yeah, makes you look like a rude ass. So I've heard.

Back in my high school days, I knew a couple people who were known by some as gay though I don't remember them announcing it ever. Other people I didn't know of for years. If two guys in my high school were caught even one time holding hands, something straight couples took for granted, I'm sure they'd have risked getting their ass kicked.

Assuming gays were here and keeping quiet the entire time since the founding fathers, it appears that trying to act normal wasn't working too well.

Be still and know that I am truth. God has put his law in all men's heart that they will know what is right and wrong. No one had to tell you stealing is wrong, nor murder, or coveting another men's wife.

Do not tell me up is down and down is up. Do not tell me there is such thing as a gay marriage.

The media has brainwashed people to say tolerence is good. Tolerate all things. So I will ask you if you support gay marriage, do you support incestual marriage. Any answer you give for one will apply to the other. If you do not support incestual marriage and gay marriage, why?

Quote: 24Bingo

We've come to understand that the connection between two of the same sex is not dissimilar to those of the opposite sex. We've evolved beyond the bestial need for the tribal custom of marriage, making it a union of partnership rather than of subjugation and inheritance. With these two facts in mind, how could it be anything but contempt to deny gay couples legal sanction, or even to enforce a legal distinction, however meaningless?



Unlike whatever homophobic folderol you wish to spout, this is objective BS, and I'm not even going to bother to explain why, because I'm pretty sure you know damn well you're lying.

24Bingo has resorted to calling me names and a liar. These people will first call me
1. homophobic
2. liar
3. say that since I do tolerate an idiotic position, they who preach all tolerence can be nontolerent of me.

My views are defined by Christ. God did not make Rob for Adam.

So i issue this challenge once again, tell me how you can support same sex marriage but not incestual marriage. Any reason you give for one can apply to the other.
Also, what about poly marriage?

Quote: AceCrAAckers

The media has brainwashed people to say tolerence is good. Tolerate all things. So I will ask you if you support gay marriage, do you support incestual marriage. Any answer you give for one will apply to the other. If you do not support incestual marriage and gay marriage, why?

I would be terribly uncomfortable if my older brother and sister hooked up. Got it on.

But you must go where the facts lead you no matter how disturbing, and basically, that would be none of my fucking business.

There is incest of child abuse nature, but that is not consenting adults.

Quote: rxwine

I would be terribly uncomfortable if my older brother and sister hooked up. Got it on.

But you must go where the facts lead you no matter how disturbing, and basically, that would be none of my fucking business.

There is incest of child abuse nature, but that is not consenting adults.

If you are against incest of child abuse nature, then you are also against gay relation of child abuse nature. So if you are OK will consenting adults, you have to be OK will consenting adults in an incestual relation?

Quote: weaselman

This is priceless!
Do you think you are unworthy of wearing a bra simply because you are a man? If so, would you say you may be a little fearful of yourself too?

Although I do have the moobs, they haven't yet reached the point where they need that type of support. If I did reach the point where I needed a bra, I would be far more fearful of the heart attack that I'm about to have.

If you are in a long term relationship like I am, then calling that relationship anything but what it is, a marriage, is a pointless exercise in semantics. Since it is a marriage by any secular measure, it deserves to be recognized as such by the secular laws under which the Unites States of America are founded.

Quote: AceCrAAckers

If you are against incest of child abuse nature, then you are also against gay relation of child abuse nature. So if you are OK will consenting adults, you have to be OK will consenting adults in an incestual relation?

If you're talking about two underage kids, the standard is already set there. If one of the kids is 18 and one is 16, the judges take issue with that in many states, and that's for the heterosexual.

If both are underage, they usually don't get in trouble -- except with their parents/

I think most parents don't want their minor children in sexual relationships of any kind. Not that it always works out. Not sure what the break down is on kids having sex these days percentage wise.

Quote: rxwine

If you're talking about two underage kids, the standard is already set there. If one of the kids is 18 and one is 16, the judges take issue with that in many states, and that's for the heterosexual.

If both are underage, they usually don't get in trouble -- except with their parents/

Let's stop with the misdirection. I am not talking about a 17 y.o with an 18 y.o.

If you support gay marriage, you have to support incestual marriage. Whatever reason you give to support one can be applied to the other. Whatever reason you give for being against can be applied to the other. Your first point is about pedophiles being wrong in incest, so it is wrong in gay relation also.

Why can't all gay marriage supporters come out and say they support incestual marriage. I am pushing the boundary of what is tolerable to a point you have not gone yet and has not been accpeted by the main strean media as being ok.

I don't support incest because it is bad for the gene pool mainly. The Amish have problems because they both have lots of children and they don't marry far from the tree. That's a good enough reason for me. Though I don't know that I would legislate against it -- at least not in all cases.

But I have no such reason for gay marriage.

Quote: AceCrAAckers

Why can't all gay marriage supporters come out and say they support incestual marriage.

Because we're generally not interested in marrying our siblings. If at some point a brother and sister want to get hitched then who the #%*$ am I to stand in their way?

Quote: rxwine

I don't support incest because it is bad for the gene pool mainly. The Amish have problems because they both have lots of children and they don't marry far from the tree. That's a good enough reason for me. Though I don't know that I would legislate against it -- at least not in all cases.

But I have no such reason for gay marriage.

Who said they had to have children. What about father and son, or brother and brother. So if there is chance that the gene pool is fine, then you can support incestual marriage.

Quote: s2dbaker

Because we're generally not interested in marrying our siblings. If at some point a brother and sister want to get hitched then who the #%*$ am I to stand in their way?

Just say that you support it loud and clear like you do for gay marriage. I wanted to add that second type of marriage, poly marriage also. Who said it had to be a brother and sister, there are other types of incest.

Quote: AceCrAAckers

Let's stop with the misdirection. I am not talking about a 17 y.o with an 18 y.o.
.

When I first came into contact with Gay men in the bar,
I noticed they constantly joked about finding underage
boys. It was a running gag, with lots of joking around.
I listened to this talk for 3 years and actually got used
to it. I could see their point of view, almost. Hey, the
kids not protesting, he wants to crash at their house
where the drugs/booze/cars are. Where they're
treated like men and not boys. I never saw any of it,
you had to be 21 to come into the bar. But they sure
as heck talked about it a lot. The bus station and train
station was the best place to hunt these runaway kids,
apparently. It was a way of life with a lot of the older
successful men. They kept one car for themselves and
a hot sports car for the underage 'tricks' to drive.

Quote: s2dbaker

Because we're generally not interested in marrying our siblings. If at some point a brother and sister want to get hitched then who the #%*$ am I to stand in their way?

and frankly (afaict) it does't appear to be a giant lurking issue. A lot of us unsuccessfully can't get our siblings to get out our rooms and leave our stuff alone, and things like that, much less want to have sex with them.

Quote: AceCrAAckers

So i issue this challenge once again, tell me how you can support same sex marriage but not incestual marriage. Any reason you give for one can apply to the other.

It's an interesting analogy. There are 19 states that permit marriage between first cousins. The other 31 define it as incest and make it illegal. Out of those 31, a total of 6 permit the marriage if it is under a special circumstance (i.e. both cousins are infertile). To the best of my knowledge it is not illegal anywhere in the USA to have sex with your first cousin, just not to get married.

The issue of cousins who marry in a state where it is legal, and then move to a state where it is illegal, are obviously closely watched by people interested in the legality of gay marriage.

While most Americans were at one point widely against first cousin marriage as unnatural, advocacy groups are calling into question the prohibition. Much of it is motivated by Muslims, many who follow Mohammed's example of marrying his first cousin.

==========
However, if you are defining "incestual marriage" as between and uncle and a niece or even closer, then I disagree with you that "reasons for these marriages apply equally to gay marriage". These type of incestual marriages have a high probability of producing a child with a debilitating genetic disease, while gay marriage would not produce such a disease.

But if two Pakistani immigrants want to marry and they are first cousins, I think we should be open to debate. Since it does increase the probability of genetic defects, then I believe prior genetic testing should be mandatory. The marriage should be dependent on these tests. Also I would favor mandatory education to discourage the marriage, even though such education could be perceived to be of contrary to their religions and culture.

Quote: AceCrAAckers

Just say that you support it loud and clear like you do for gay marriage. I wanted to add that second type of marriage, poly marriage also. Who said it had to be a brother and sister, there are other types of incest.

Why would I say that I support it loud and clear when I don't care about it enough it say anything at all about it? That would be lying.

Good points pacomartin. Well thought out and very reasonable post.

I started out with two alternative types of marriage. Incest, and poly.

1. People are still having a hard time thinking about gay incest. They always assume the non-gay incest.
2. When I am talking incest, I am talking closer to the gene pool, like father and daughter, brother and sister, brother and brother etc...
This is to make one feel uncomfortable about their position. Let say that there no chance of having children, is incest marriage ok?
3. What about poly marriage. Now we can talk about the gene pool and not have reason against it for incest.

Media says tolerence is good and all else is bad. What a load of crock. If the answer to gay marriage is simple, then these other type of marriage should be simple too.

I don't like poly marriage, because of what I've read about --isolation of boys.

I generally don't like the idea of teen pregnancy. Or single teen pregnancy.

I don't like marriages where women and men are imbelcilic tools and end up on episodes of COPS.


What, what we gonna outlaw stuff I don't like, and you don't like.

i can only hope
there will also be a long line at the pearly gates
while saint peter tells the "christians"
that instead of waiting in line for subpar shitty "food"
to make a cheap political statement,
they should have stayed in the airconditioning
and asked themselves
WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?

because if i remember correctly,
he wasn't a guy who was much for
persecuting the powerless,
making moral stands
when one is on shaky ground oneself,
appearing to be self righteous,
judging others,
nor indulging in gluttonous behavior
while innocent children are starving to death
to the tune of fifteen million a year worldwide,...

but i know how people like them chikken sammiitches.

so
eat up,
judge,
deny,
persecute,
attack,
villify,
and look out for number one.
cause when you die
and the shoe is on the other foot,
and your turn comes
to be judged
i certainly hope
that all your cards are in order,
and all of your deeds have been virtuous,
and all of your thoughts have been pure,
because
up yonder,
in "heaven",
what if?
when you DIE,
all of your words,
and all of your thoughts,
and all of your little sins,
for which you have forgiven yourself,
are written,
in a book
on a table
in a house
with many many rooms.
and in that book
is a list
of all the people
who will be getting a room
for eternity,
but somehow, someway,
almost all
of those rooms
have been given to people
who were just
ever so slightly
more like jesus,
than YOU were,
in their thoughts and deeds and actions and words,
and it has been decided that
when you ask,
"is there room in the house for me, LORD?"
the answer comes down that
NO,
no there is not.
the house is full.
ya know...
like at a hot club
when the doorman says
"there is no guest list tonight"
or
at a hot casino
when the casino host says
"you haven't earned
enough tier points
for a room comp, sorry..."

now,
shut up
and eat your
factory-raised,
hormone-enhanced,
pharmaceutical-injected,
pesticide-laden,
amtiboitic-laced
"chicken"
and,
um...
GET A FUCKING LIFE

Quote: AceCrAAckers

Be still and know that I am truth. God has put his law in all men's heart that they will know what is right and wrong. No one had to tell you stealing is wrong, nor murder, or coveting another men's wife.

And eating she- okay, that's not fair, that's only for the Jews.

Eating blood, then. God put that law into the hearts of everyone descended from Noah, that animals' blood should under no circumstances be eaten, at least according to the Talmud, and implicitly, according to Paul when he passes it onto the Greeks.

And it seems quite telling that you say "to covet another man's wife" is the sin. That verse, quite sensibly separated out as the "ninth commandment" by some, but in the Bible Belt and the Bible itself crammed right in there with coveting his house, his slaves, his oxen, or any other of his possessions. So that's traditional marriage, then - voluntary sex slavery. If that's what Cathy's so keen on, any inclination I had to go to Chick-Fil-A just went right out the window.

But people did have to tell me stealing is wrong, and murder, and explain to me the distinction between murder, manslaughter, and justifiable homicide, and explain to me what even "covet" and "wife" meant, and you as well. Do you know what happens when someone's not told that? Google "feral child." And hell, didn't Jesus specifically warn his disciples against coveting another man's wife, as if it was new information?

Quote: AceCrAAckers

Do not tell me up is down and down is up. Do not tell me there is such thing as a gay marriage.

The media has brainwashed people to say tolerence is good. Tolerate all things. So I will ask you if you support gay marriage, do you support incestual marriage. Any answer you give for one will apply to the other. If you do not support incestual marriage and gay marriage, why?

Because I was born in the eighties, and came of age in the noughties, where we had come to recognize the nature of homosexual love, and recognize that we were defining marriage as something other than voluntary sex slavery, and that these things seemed to work. Incest, for the most part, still seems not to work. Maybe this will change; at the end of the day, unlike your lies about this nation's founders, it's ultimately subjective. But for now, it seems like a partnership based on intimate love is the best route to take with that anachronistic custom, and to deny the legal structures built around it to gays is foul bigotry.

But what I wasn't taught was tolerance. Tolerance was a nice little buzzword in the nineties, but we've learned better now; what tolerance is is complacency. Some tolerance makes the world go round, but enough will stop it entirely. There should be no tolerance for such hateful rhetoric as comparing homosexuality to incest. There should be no "tolerance" for gays, either; "tolerance" was DADT. The days when DADT was the best compromise possible are over. Maybe the winds will change again someday, but today, "tolerance" implies that there's something unacceptable, something that can only be "tolerated," like a petty crime. We've evolved beyond that.

Quote: AceCrAAckers

24Bingo has resorted to calling me names and a liar. These people will first call me
1. homophobic
2. liar
3. say that since I do tolerate an idiotic position, they who preach all tolerence can be nontolerent of me.

If I called you a liar, it's because you lied. You cannot say such things on the Internet and not know of the Treaty of Tripoli, passed unanimously by the Senate, saying "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." You cannot not know that Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and Thomas Paine all, especially the last, wrote strongly to the effect that the Jewish God was not the Supreme Being, and Jesus not divine, and while it is true that most of the rest were Christian, I challenge you to find one whose writings, not military or political history, but writings, are more prominent. You cannot not know that the values that separated this country from the UK, to the extent any existed, were inspired by polytheists of centuries before Christ was born, and frequently called ungodly ideas in the Christian millennium.

And again, yes, there should be no tolerance for repeated comparisons of homosexuality to incest. "Tolerance" as an end unto itself is an old idea destined for history's garbage barrel.

Quote: 24Bingo

And eating she- okay, that's not fair, that's only for the Jews.

Eating blood, then. God put that law into the hearts of everyone descended from Noah, that animals' blood should under no circumstances be eaten, at least according to the Talmud, and implicitly, according to Paul when he passes it onto the Greeks.

And it seems quite telling that you say "to covet another man's wife" is the sin. That verse, quite sensibly separated out as the "ninth commandment" by some, but in the Bible Belt and the Bible itself crammed right in there with coveting his house, his slaves, his oxen, or any other of his possessions. So that's traditional marriage, then - voluntary sex slavery. If that's what Cathy's so keen on, any inclination I had to go to Chick-Fil-A just went right out the window.

But people did have to tell me stealing is wrong, and murder, and explain to me the distinction between murder, manslaughter, and justifiable homicide, and explain to me what even "covet" and "wife" meant, and you as well. Do you know what happens when someone's not told that? Google "feral child." And hell, didn't Jesus specifically warn his disciples against coveting another man's wife, as if it was new information?



Because I was born in the eighties, and came of age in the noughties, where we had come to recognize the nature of homosexual love, and recognize that we were defining marriage as something other than voluntary sex slavery, and that these things seemed to work. Incest, for the most part, still seems not to work. Maybe this will change; at the end of the day, unlike your lies about this nation's founders, it's ultimately subjective. But for now, it seems like a partnership based on intimate love is the best route to take with that anachronistic custom, and to deny the legal structures built around it to gays is foul bigotry.

But what I wasn't taught was tolerance. Tolerance was a nice little buzzword in the nineties, but we've learned better now; what tolerance is is complacency. Some tolerance makes the world go round, but enough will stop it entirely. There should be no tolerance for such hateful rhetoric as comparing homosexuality to incest. There should be no "tolerance" for gays, either; "tolerance" was DADT. The days when DADT was the best compromise possible are over. Maybe the winds will change again someday, but today, "tolerance" implies that there's something unacceptable, something that can only be "tolerated," like a petty crime. We've evolved beyond that.



If I called you a liar, it's because you lied. You cannot say such things on the Internet and not know of the Treaty of Tripoli, passed unanimously by the Senate, saying "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." You cannot not know that Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and Thomas Paine all, especially the last, wrote strongly to the effect that the Jewish God was not the Supreme Being, and Jesus not divine, and while it is true that most of the rest were Christian, I challenge you to find one whose writings, not military or political history, but writings, are more prominent. You cannot not know that the values that separated this country from the UK, to the extent any existed, were inspired by polytheists of centuries before Christ was born, and frequently called ungodly ideas in the Christian millennium.

And again, yes, there should be no tolerance for repeated comparisons of homosexuality to incest. "Tolerance" as an end unto itself is an old idea destined for history's garbage barrel.

So I understand where you are coming from.
1. Marriage between a man and a woman is "voluntary sex slavery."
2. "But for now, it seems like a partnership based on intimate love is the best route to take with that anachronistic custom, and to deny the legal structures built around it to gays is foul bigotry." Partnership based on poly relationship is ok to you? Incest is ok? Don't want to take a firm stand do you. These "partnership can be based on intimate love" also.

Why can't you just state that you are for
1. "gay marriage"
2. "incest marriage" between consenting adults
3. "poly marriage"

Any reason for gay marriage also applies to the others also.

Since the 80's when you, 24Bingo was born, we have evolved to a new state. Good to know this. I grew up when 2+2=4 and marriage is between man and a woman. When 2+2 does not equal 4 let me know. maybe we can evolve beyond this simple idea also.

I think, we should just call any group of people a "marriage". That would satisfy everyone.

I'm finding this debate fascinating.

I find the argument that "if you're for gay marriage, what possible objection could you have to incestuous marriage, or poly marriage?" quite compelling. I think the shirking away from answering is quite telling. The response that goes something like "I don't really care about that so I don't have an opinion/I won't say I agree" would be considered homophobic by many (most?) if instead of incest or poly we were just talking about gay marriage. I know this is true because I read this same logic being used earlier in this very thread.

As for me, as I've said before I think state sanctioned "marriage" should be done away with and everyone should be entitled to civil unions. And to show I'm no hypocrite, I think it should be granted to any group of consenting adults. All the shrill retorts that poly marriage or incestuous marriage isn't in demand so it isn't an issue needing to be addressed or whatever are just another way of saying, "Ok, now you've found the line where I say 'ick'." Just because an idea doesn't appeal to you doesn't make it any less valid to those who do want it. I know this argument very well because I've heard it so many times from supporters of gay marriage, and apparently they've convinced me to be even more tolerant than many (most?) of them are.

Now, just to make sure I piss off everyone... :)

Here's something else to consider if you believe the concept and definition of marriage comes from the Judeo/Christian/Islamic faith(s): In the Old Testament it was ok for a man to have multiple wives. And, just to prove that things hadn't changed much over a few thousand years Muhammad had multiple wives and one of them he married when she was 6 years old (with the marriage "consummated" when she was 9 years old).

So when did the definition of marriage change to one man and one woman?*

*I'm taking the meaning of man and woman here to apply to adults, thus the above reference to child brides.

Quote: AceCrAAckers

The media has brainwashed people to say tolerence is good. Tolerate all things.

Tolerane is the virtue of believing in nothing.

Quote: AceCrAAckers

1. Marriage between a man and a woman is "voluntary sex slavery."
.

It is? There's supposed to be sex in marriage? I think
there was some in mine at one time, but I don't remember.

The kiss-in was a big bust. Nobody showed up at most
of the restaurants and only few were at the ones where
they did show up. So much for the outrage of the Gay
community. It was just a few of the more hysterical
ones, as usual.

Quote: AceCrAAckers

1. Marriage between a man and a woman is "voluntary sex slavery."
.


I , for one, enjoy being a sex slave. Pay sucks, but the benefits are GREAT.

Quote: MonkeyMonkey

I think it should be granted to any group of consenting adults.

Yeah. Finally, someone would be able to tell you that you are married to your work, and really mean it!
And the word "group", could then be repurposed to mean something else ... perhaps, a special kind of marriage, involving just two people of opposite sex?

Quote: weaselman

I think, we should just call any group of people a "marriage". That would satisfy everyone.

I think that the state should set up some ground rules about people's obligation to each other based on longevity, children, and various promises made to each other. I am all for the law requiring people to sign documents at different stages in their lives together, attesting to their relationship. I don't think that the state as a non-religious institution has any business defining things more complex than legal status.


David Letterman & Regina Lasko were dating since 1986, they has a son in 2003 and were married in 2009.

Ellen Degeneres and Portia's De Rossi (4 years married, dating before that)
Elton John and David Furnish

Length of some short celebrity marriages

• 8 Months - Elizabeth Taylor and Nicky Hilton
• 5 Months - Carmen Electra and Dennis Rodman
• 4 Months, 24 Days - Charlie Sheen and Donna Peele
• 3 Months, 23 Days - Pamela Anderson and Kid Rock
• 3 Months, 15 Days - Lisa Marie Presley and Nicolas Cage
• 72 Days - Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries
• 60 Days - Pamela Anderson and Rick Salomon
• 32 Days - Ernest Borgnine and Ethel Merman
• 30 Days - Drew Barrymore and Jeremy Thomas
• 9 Days - Cher and Gregg Allman
• 55 Hours - Britney Spears and Jason Alexander

Quote: AceCrAAckers

So I understand where you are coming from.
1. Marriage between a man and a woman is "voluntary sex slavery."
2. "But for now, it seems like a partnership based on intimate love is the best route to take with that anachronistic custom, and to deny the legal structures built around it to gays is foul bigotry." Partnership based on poly relationship is ok to you? Incest is ok? Don't want to take a firm stand do you. These "partnership can be based on intimate love" also.

The first is nothing like what I said, and like this country's secularism at its founding, you know it damn well.

As for the second, there would be legal and social hurdles in poly marriage that there aren't in gay marriage, but I can't say I'm against it per se. I am against incestuous marriage. I can't justify this objectively, and I don't feel I have to, since it's not an objective issue, only one of whether gay relationships are comparable to incest, as you so flagrantly state again and again. So I ask you, how can you say that and balk when I call your statements homophobic? Do you have contempt for homosexuals, or do you consider incest acceptable? If you do not draw a moral distinction between the two types of relationships, one of these must be true.

Quote: AceCrAAckers

Since the 80's when you, 24Bingo was born, we have evolved to a new state. Good to know this. I grew up when 2+2=4 and marriage is between man and a woman. When 2+2 does not equal 4 let me know. maybe we can evolve beyond this simple idea also.

You have just demonstrated that you do not actually understand why 2 + 2 = 4. It's not unusual - I'm guessing like most theists, if I asked, your response would be "DEUS LE VOLT!" Hint: that ain't it. Statements of fact, such as "2 + 2 = 4" and "there is no God," are fundamentally different in character from moral statements, such as "marriage is between one man and one woman" or "homosexuality is the moral equivalent of incest." I know that lifelong perpetual dilution of the concept of existence to shoehorn in a supersized tribal deity has blurred the distinction, but do try to rekindle the embers of reality in your head.

Quote: pacomartin

55 Hours - Britney Spears and Jason Alexander

Its amazing anybody could be married to that
empty headed twit for that long without killing
her.

Quote: 24Bingo

As for the second, there would be legal and social hurdles in poly marriage that there aren't in gay marriage,

Sure. But on the upside, there are hurdles in gay marriage, that aren't in poly.

Quote:

I am against incestuous marriage. I can't justify this objectively, and I don't feel I have to, since it's not an objective issue, only one of whether gay relationships are comparable to incest, as you so flagrantly state again and again. So I ask you, how can you say that and balk when I call your statements homophobic? Do you have contempt for homosexuals, or do you consider incest acceptable? If you do not draw a moral distinction between the two types of relationships, one of these must be true.

Why do you find it surprising? Especially after noting that you cannot justify your opposition to incest yourself. Your position in this matter is actually very xenophobic. You realize that there is nothing objectively wrong with people who want to have a sexual relationship with a blood relative, yet you condemn their behaviour simply because it does not match stereotypes you are used to. How is it any better than any basic homophob? It is not.

Quote: 24Bingo

The first is nothing like what I said, and like this country's secularism at its founding, you know it damn well.

The last thing you want is to be quoted because, you will "deny that it is nothing like what you said".

Quote: 24Bingo

"So that's traditional marriage, then - voluntary sex slavery."

You are not against poly marriage. You are against incestuos marraige but "can't justify this objectively."

Any justification for "gay marriage" stands for the other two types. Just so that gene pool being corrupt is not a factor, lets just say it is incestuous gay marriage, or incestuous marriage with no chance of having children.

Once again, 24Bingo, just go with the flow and what the media has brainwashed you to accepting. Give one reason to support gay marriage and I say it can be used to support the other two types also. Give one reason against the other two types of marriage and I say it can also be used against gay marriage also.

Just side step the issue and keep attacking me. I make the statement above and until you can prove me wrong, I stand by it.

I cannot justify my opposition to anything objectively. All "objective" moral systems are fatuous. I only know that you use incest as a shock tactic, and yet balk at the word "homophobic." It's my understanding that the taboo of incest (other than mothers with their children, which likely predates the Homo/Pan split) came about as a means to perpetuate tribal unity, by keeping individual lines from getting too insular. Genetics kept it alive, and even where sterile or gay couples are concerned, it remains a taboo today, and that seems to be working in just the way making a taboo of homosexuality wasn't. That's really all I can say.

And what I said, as you quoted, was that "traditional marriage" was voluntary sex slavery. I give you too much credit to think you don't recognize that I meant this in a sort of contrast to your definition of "marriage between one man and one woman," because you'd brought out the ninth commandment, which in the Bible and in the Philonic division of the commandments, is mixed right in with slaves and other property one should not covet.

(And weaselman: such as...?)

This is one hella thread about chicken sandwiches. Can hardly wait for ham sandwiches.

I'm definitely NOT a biblical scholar, but I guess I
would ask, What Would Jesus Do ?

- I apologize if this comment was already made.
I didn't read all umpteen pages.

And of course I think everyone is entitled to the
benefit of my opinion !

To me ( again, I'm no biblical scholar ) the answer
is clear and it would be on the tolerance side.

But I'm sure others could and will have a different
opinion, citing Jesus as well.

So even though our founding fathers oftentimes
did not mean what they said / wrote, I'll go with
the "pursuit of happiness" approach as long as
it is consenting adults and it doesn't hurt anyone
else.

ps:

I like Chick-Fil-A sandwhiches. Was that what
this was all about ?

Quote: AZDuffman

What is funny is that gays cry about wanting "tolerance" yet are happy when a person is threatened to have his business destroyed not because he discriminates in the workplace but because he just does not believe in their cause.

It has just proven my oft-repeated stance that gays are the most untolerant populaion out there right now and that they demand tolerance but offer none.

And lets take it another step. Earlier in the week people with conservative, libertarian, and constitutionalist views joined together in a cause. They did not like what is said so they decided to peacefully patronize a business. Today gays will have their demonstration. But simply saying, "I do not like the views of the owner so I will not eat there" is not enough. No, they are having a "kiss-in" to help drive away customers and destroy the business as best they can.

Kind of shows you which side is the tolerant one, and it is not the homophiles.

Yup its those merciless intolerent heterophiles.
We Have a Winner.

Quote: 98Clubs

Yup its those merciless intolerent heterophiles.
We Have a Winner.

Trying to be more intolerant than the people you consider even more intolerant is not the way to move the ball forward.

The GLBT lobby has done many things to move the ball forward and I applaud them. Having government folks (mayors and others) trying to restrict investment and the free speech of a business owner with a hugely unsuccessful boycott is not going to help the cause. The GLBT folks would have been better to condemn those mayors and make sure everyone knew that the restriction of free speech was not at all their purpose.

Make a list of all the business owners, what they are known to believe in, and don't put your money in the hands of those who do things you don't like. Publicize it. Just don't try to shut them down--let public opinion do that, as needed.

I'm betting there won't be very many places for ANY of us to do business if we hold strict standards on the actions of the owners.

Quote: 98Clubs

Yup its those merciless intolerent heterophiles.
We Have a Winner.

Trying to be more intolerant than the people you consider even more intolerant is not the way to move the ball forward.

The GLBT lobby has done many things to move the ball forward and I applaud them. Having government folks (mayors and others) trying to restrict investment and the free speech of a business owner with a hugely unsuccessful boycott is not going to help the cause. The GLBT folks would have been better to condemn those mayors and make sure everyone knew that the restriction of free speech was not at all their purpose.

Make a list of all the business owners, what they are known to believe in, and don't put your money in the hands of those who do things you don't like. Publicize it. Just don't try to shut them down--let public opinion do that, as needed.

I'm betting there won't be very many places for ANY of us to do business if we hold strict standards on the actions of the owners.