Nude_IHB
New member
[quote author="4walls4me" date=1211872834]Hi Lawyleriz!
Here's how I interpret the "hurting your marriage" thing. Family is the heart of our culture. Take the polygamy example instead. All of a sudden, now it's legal and your husband comes home and wants to add a nice little college student to your family. It's not a mid-life crisis anymore, the law says that's fine and normal. My guess is you would be none too happy. I DO believe that if anything and everything goes, family and society do fall apart. People would stupidly do whatever feels good (a la the housing market) and everything falls to crap (a la the housing market). To you and I gay marriage may not constitute a step in the direction of chaos, but to others it does. I think that's seen as the "harm".
I don't see gay marriage as a step towards chaos, but I do think it's unfortunate that good people with good intentions for all involved can't have these discussions without being villified. It helps no one, least of all the nice, hard-working gay couples just trying to have regular life. I truly believe most people really do just want what's best, but can't have reasonable discussions w/o being labeled anti-gay or a religious whacko. I think that's why you only hear the extreme religious opinions and arguments.
I 100% believe the marriage system in the Moon is a Harsh Mistress would never, ever work in reality. I love that book. But Heinlein is a pervert. In other books (yes, books plural) he goes on about how great father-daughter sex would be and how that should be A-okay in society. Yuck. Heinlein himself went on to have an "open" marriage his second marriage and guess how that worked out. Great book though. It's my favorite along with Starship Troopers. I never understood why Stranger in a Strange Land is considered a classic. I thought is was definition of lame.</blockquote>
Before things get too stupid around here, I'm going to opine on this post.
In reverse-order... Heinlein was simply taking state-regulated marriage to it's logical conclusion: contracts. His examples were pure speculation in a world where he created the stimuli that resulted in whatever mutation of the marriage law he happened to be portraying. But they were always based on the idea that logic and reason would dictate changes, not custom. This line of speculation was also applied to the incest taboo as it relates to genetics rather than superstition. Futhermore, he had 3 wives and zero children... and there isn't one shred of evidence that he ever had an open marriage so I invite you to provide a link that backs up your claim.
Reasonable discussion requires reasonable people that debate honestly and stick to the facts. It has been my experience that the only people who open speak about gay marriage are those who either want to be married or want to use the issue to advance their own political agenda. I think the majority of people could give a fuck one way or the other because they have more pressing issues. Often those same people define "what's best" as whatever directly benefits them with the least effort possible. That being said, if someone came up to me and began a conversation about gay marriage rights with "what's next, polygamy?" I would laugh at them until they crawled back into their cave.
You opened with a sterotypical older male bringing home a younger woman and saying "look what we're going to marry!" to his middle-aged wife. What you failed to do is think it through. Just because the man wants to add a third, it doesn't mean the wife has to stick around. A marriage is a legal entity and each member has rights, including the right to petition for divorce. In other words, even if multi-partner marriages were legal if the wife was not happy with her husbands intentions, she could get a divorce... just as she would today if her husband decided he wanted a mistress against his wife's wishes. If things would be the same either way, then your definition of "harm" is bogus. In case you haven't noticed, this entire country's history has been a slow and steady migration along the "anything and everything goes" road. From royal subjects to self-rule, from slaves to free men, from being legally barred from owning property to running for President, from "whites only" restrooms to the (probable) Democratic nomination, from Sandra Dee to Pamela Lee, this country evolves as we strip away a custom of inequality and replace it with an equal guarantee of freedom. It can not result in chaos unless those wishing to restrict those rights become chaotic themselves in an effort to suppress the rights of others. Not only is that anti-thetical to what this country is, it's in direct conflict with the content of the U.S. Constitution and the intentions of those who signed it.
[quote author="Trooper" date=1211887792] I'm not sure where the idea that "Mom and Dad" raising a child was the best way to go. I realize it's the "normal" course of action, the accepted practice, but again...who says it's best and why? Plenty of single Moms (and Dads!) have done just fine. In fact, the last Democratic President of the United States of America was the product of a single parent household ! One Mom. No Dad. Not too shabby. (ok, ok....I know).
Most of my lesbian friends have children. They make conscious efforts to have male role models interact as much as possible...but THEY are the parents. Two loving, capable, respectable soccer moms. My perception is that a family revolves around love and there is plenty of that happening. These are well adjusted children and to my knowledge, every last one of them is heterosexual. (Myth # 458 debunked) In time studies will be done comparing them to the children raised heterosexuals parents. Until then, I'll just see the living examples I have in front of me and dare anyone to consider them less fortunate. I would laugh if you said you felt sorry for them. They are spoiled little brats !
They want for nothing !</blockquote>
Trooper, here's some unsolicited advice. Find a new argument to support gay parenting, because this one sucks. The idea of "a mom and dad being the best way to go" came from over FIVE THOUSAND years of recorded history. As much as I support the right of gay people to get married and have kids, they are not nor have they ever been a majority in any society or time on this planet and procreation between to gay lovers was out of the question until relatively recently. Since the population keeps growing at such a rapid rate, it's a safe bet that the whole man/woman thing has the approval of Mother Nature. The best that can be said is that there isn't much more than anecdotal evidence on gay parent's either way. But questioning the success/result of the tradtional family in raising children is like questioning if farming is a good idea; the results have been in for a while already.
Look... single parent homes are at a major disadvantage and account for the majority of the youth that end up in legal trouble. You are a cop, you know I'm right. While there may be a few hundred examples of success, the prisons are filled with a few million examples of failure. The economic disadvantage is staggering, and the time the parent is required to work leaves the child in the care of the schools, the cops, or themselves. Bill Clinton's mom did it in a poor state over a generation ago, but if Bill hadn't been a brilliant student he would be living in a trailer in Hope to this day. A college-educated single parent with a job and regular child-support checks might be at less of a disadvantage, but unfortunately that is the exception in single-parent households, not the rule. Most single parents weren't given much of a choice on the "single" part.
If you want to argue in support of gay parents, focus your efforts on what they have in common with straight parents: every new mom starts off with the same instruction manual (meaning none), they also had parents to learn from, homosexuality isn't a disease so the children have just as much of a chance of growing up straight as every other child on the planet, etc. Homosexual people are on the verge of equality in all things, but the danger of backlash is going to be increased if their arguments remain couched in emotional arguments because those kinds of arguments cannot be won. Sticking to the facts, arguing rights and responsibilities, and insisting on equality will go along way to the kind of acceptance we all, as human beings, want from those arounds us.
Here's how I interpret the "hurting your marriage" thing. Family is the heart of our culture. Take the polygamy example instead. All of a sudden, now it's legal and your husband comes home and wants to add a nice little college student to your family. It's not a mid-life crisis anymore, the law says that's fine and normal. My guess is you would be none too happy. I DO believe that if anything and everything goes, family and society do fall apart. People would stupidly do whatever feels good (a la the housing market) and everything falls to crap (a la the housing market). To you and I gay marriage may not constitute a step in the direction of chaos, but to others it does. I think that's seen as the "harm".
I don't see gay marriage as a step towards chaos, but I do think it's unfortunate that good people with good intentions for all involved can't have these discussions without being villified. It helps no one, least of all the nice, hard-working gay couples just trying to have regular life. I truly believe most people really do just want what's best, but can't have reasonable discussions w/o being labeled anti-gay or a religious whacko. I think that's why you only hear the extreme religious opinions and arguments.
I 100% believe the marriage system in the Moon is a Harsh Mistress would never, ever work in reality. I love that book. But Heinlein is a pervert. In other books (yes, books plural) he goes on about how great father-daughter sex would be and how that should be A-okay in society. Yuck. Heinlein himself went on to have an "open" marriage his second marriage and guess how that worked out. Great book though. It's my favorite along with Starship Troopers. I never understood why Stranger in a Strange Land is considered a classic. I thought is was definition of lame.</blockquote>
Before things get too stupid around here, I'm going to opine on this post.
In reverse-order... Heinlein was simply taking state-regulated marriage to it's logical conclusion: contracts. His examples were pure speculation in a world where he created the stimuli that resulted in whatever mutation of the marriage law he happened to be portraying. But they were always based on the idea that logic and reason would dictate changes, not custom. This line of speculation was also applied to the incest taboo as it relates to genetics rather than superstition. Futhermore, he had 3 wives and zero children... and there isn't one shred of evidence that he ever had an open marriage so I invite you to provide a link that backs up your claim.
Reasonable discussion requires reasonable people that debate honestly and stick to the facts. It has been my experience that the only people who open speak about gay marriage are those who either want to be married or want to use the issue to advance their own political agenda. I think the majority of people could give a fuck one way or the other because they have more pressing issues. Often those same people define "what's best" as whatever directly benefits them with the least effort possible. That being said, if someone came up to me and began a conversation about gay marriage rights with "what's next, polygamy?" I would laugh at them until they crawled back into their cave.
You opened with a sterotypical older male bringing home a younger woman and saying "look what we're going to marry!" to his middle-aged wife. What you failed to do is think it through. Just because the man wants to add a third, it doesn't mean the wife has to stick around. A marriage is a legal entity and each member has rights, including the right to petition for divorce. In other words, even if multi-partner marriages were legal if the wife was not happy with her husbands intentions, she could get a divorce... just as she would today if her husband decided he wanted a mistress against his wife's wishes. If things would be the same either way, then your definition of "harm" is bogus. In case you haven't noticed, this entire country's history has been a slow and steady migration along the "anything and everything goes" road. From royal subjects to self-rule, from slaves to free men, from being legally barred from owning property to running for President, from "whites only" restrooms to the (probable) Democratic nomination, from Sandra Dee to Pamela Lee, this country evolves as we strip away a custom of inequality and replace it with an equal guarantee of freedom. It can not result in chaos unless those wishing to restrict those rights become chaotic themselves in an effort to suppress the rights of others. Not only is that anti-thetical to what this country is, it's in direct conflict with the content of the U.S. Constitution and the intentions of those who signed it.
[quote author="Trooper" date=1211887792] I'm not sure where the idea that "Mom and Dad" raising a child was the best way to go. I realize it's the "normal" course of action, the accepted practice, but again...who says it's best and why? Plenty of single Moms (and Dads!) have done just fine. In fact, the last Democratic President of the United States of America was the product of a single parent household ! One Mom. No Dad. Not too shabby. (ok, ok....I know).
Most of my lesbian friends have children. They make conscious efforts to have male role models interact as much as possible...but THEY are the parents. Two loving, capable, respectable soccer moms. My perception is that a family revolves around love and there is plenty of that happening. These are well adjusted children and to my knowledge, every last one of them is heterosexual. (Myth # 458 debunked) In time studies will be done comparing them to the children raised heterosexuals parents. Until then, I'll just see the living examples I have in front of me and dare anyone to consider them less fortunate. I would laugh if you said you felt sorry for them. They are spoiled little brats !
They want for nothing !</blockquote>Trooper, here's some unsolicited advice. Find a new argument to support gay parenting, because this one sucks. The idea of "a mom and dad being the best way to go" came from over FIVE THOUSAND years of recorded history. As much as I support the right of gay people to get married and have kids, they are not nor have they ever been a majority in any society or time on this planet and procreation between to gay lovers was out of the question until relatively recently. Since the population keeps growing at such a rapid rate, it's a safe bet that the whole man/woman thing has the approval of Mother Nature. The best that can be said is that there isn't much more than anecdotal evidence on gay parent's either way. But questioning the success/result of the tradtional family in raising children is like questioning if farming is a good idea; the results have been in for a while already.
Look... single parent homes are at a major disadvantage and account for the majority of the youth that end up in legal trouble. You are a cop, you know I'm right. While there may be a few hundred examples of success, the prisons are filled with a few million examples of failure. The economic disadvantage is staggering, and the time the parent is required to work leaves the child in the care of the schools, the cops, or themselves. Bill Clinton's mom did it in a poor state over a generation ago, but if Bill hadn't been a brilliant student he would be living in a trailer in Hope to this day. A college-educated single parent with a job and regular child-support checks might be at less of a disadvantage, but unfortunately that is the exception in single-parent households, not the rule. Most single parents weren't given much of a choice on the "single" part.
If you want to argue in support of gay parents, focus your efforts on what they have in common with straight parents: every new mom starts off with the same instruction manual (meaning none), they also had parents to learn from, homosexuality isn't a disease so the children have just as much of a chance of growing up straight as every other child on the planet, etc. Homosexual people are on the verge of equality in all things, but the danger of backlash is going to be increased if their arguments remain couched in emotional arguments because those kinds of arguments cannot be won. Sticking to the facts, arguing rights and responsibilities, and insisting on equality will go along way to the kind of acceptance we all, as human beings, want from those arounds us.
I do NOT mean to offend. But I think you understand that (I hope). I threw out hypotheticals because someone asked for speculation as to why this bothers some people. I'm not actually equating gay marriage to polygamy at all. I'm saying some people are concerned if the court has the power to invoke one, why not the other. It's a fair point (not that I think polygamy is happening any time soon). The statement is about the inherent problems of tolerating judicial activisim. If we let 4 guys decide one issue and let it go, what's to stop them from doing it again. I understand the concern. I think it would be better for everyone if the voters eventually repealed 22, rather than have it happen this way. And I believe they would have, but now we may get stuck with this stupid amendment which will be that much harder to undo. If it weren't for the "judicial activism" component, I would not have even brought up the stupid polygamy thing. Does that clarify my meaning? 
