View Poll Results: How do you feel about Gay marriage/relationships?

Voters
67. You may not vote on this poll
  • I'm involved in a Gay marriage/relationship, or plan to be

    0 0%
  • Heterosexual and think Gay marriage should be legal

    46 68.66%
  • Heterosexual and think Gay marriage should be outlawed

    21 31.34%
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 53
  1. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    159
    Who gives a sh!t?! It doesn't affect me or my life, and it shouldn't affect anyone else's, unless you're gay.

  2. #27
    Rep Power: Infinity
    Reputation: NateHawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,911
    Quote Originally Posted by Flying-Monkey View Post
    I suppose mine is a variation on your option b.
    My wife and I got married because it was a social norm and it was the expected next step and all of that. Neither of us had ever really considered not getting married. We would like a kidling, and that was a factor. I have an older cousin in a long term committed relationship and no desire for marriage. I spoke with her at length about it after my own wedding, at her brother's wedding. I totally get it.

    since our wedding, my wife and I both agree that the ceremony wasn't all it was cracked up to be. if we were going to do it over, we'd skip the fancy ceremony and just have a party for friends and family afterward. it cost too much. that $hit is damn expensive.

    but with that said, I am glad that I am married and I would do it again, and it's because I was on the OTHER end of Flying-Monkey's situation. I was the sick one. I was in school, so I was not able to afford a respectable plan on my own. My wife added me to hers and it went into effect just 6mo before I got sick. Then, when I got sick, I was UNABLE to make medical decisions. I was in a coma. Someone else had to make those decisions for me, and I am glad that I had a wife who was able to do it. When I left the hospital and went into long-term treatment and recovery mode, I was still mentally unable to wrap my head around the billing issues. My wife was there to take care of those things for me. My job was recovering. I doubt recovery for me would have been possible without my wife being there for every step.

    I do not think that marriage is an outdated institution. Because some things in life require a TEAM to accomplish and no other legal contract you enter can provide all of the benefits of a marriage.

  3. #28
    Registered text offender
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,146
    I supported Gray Davis on domestic partnerships, but I do not support gay marriage.

    I read an article written in Lesbian Life magazine in an effort to make an objective decision on the subject wherein the author openly stated that the goal of legalizing gay marriage is to effect a societal change instituting homosexuality as normal, moral behavior.

    Governments exist for the benefit of their citizens making laws and setting standards in hopes of promoting health and prosperity. I've read a great deal more that suggests the homosexual lifestyle is more often detrimental to health, happiness, and long life, thus I do not believe our society would do well to embrace gay marriage in the legal sense.

    On moral grounds people, when citing separation of Church and State, generally have a problem with religion determining the legal definition of right and wrong, but if this is one's position then it would be hypocritical to hold that it is acceptable to allow this group to legislate morality.

    The issue of gay marriage is a great topic for the talking heads to further polarize the nation amidst war, famine, and genocide.

  4. #29
    Suckin wind like a boss
    Reputation: big terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    2,062
    you missed an option on the poll- hetero and dont give 2 sh!ts what gay people do.

    i know some gay guys who are cooler and act more hetero than some of my hetero friends. at the same time i know some flaming faggots who absolutely perpetuate the negative stereotypes of gay men, and continue to do so despite knowing exactly what they are doing (assless chaps in public? come on man, grow up already). do i care what either group does? nope, not one bit, so long as it doesnt involve me.

    the only gay guys i truly dislike are the ones that dont get it when i tell them nope, im not gay and certainly do not want you touching my ass or my junk. worked with a couple like that over the years, and really made it hard for me to not hate gay guys for a long time, just because they were gay.

    does the government have any business in the issue? not a damn bit. will the government back off? not likely. just another avenue for it to exercise control over the people.

    homosexuality aint my thing, i dont get it...never have and never will understand how one man can be aroused by the sight of another mans hairy ass. but it aint my place to dictate what one person does in the privacy of their own lives and own homes, so long as it isnt interfering with my own. have at it.

  5. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jmmorath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,092
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Richard View Post
    I supported Gray Davis on domestic partnerships, but I do not support gay marriage.

    I read an article written in Lesbian Life magazine in an effort to make an objective decision on the subject wherein the author openly stated that the goal of legalizing gay marriage is to effect a societal change instituting homosexuality as normal, moral behavior.

    Governments exist for the benefit of their citizens making laws and setting standards in hopes of promoting health and prosperity. I've read a great deal more that suggests the homosexual lifestyle is more often detrimental to health, happiness, and long life, thus I do not believe our society would do well to embrace gay marriage in the legal sense.

    On moral grounds people, when citing separation of Church and State, generally have a problem with religion determining the legal definition of right and wrong, but if this is one's position then it would be hypocritical to hold that it is acceptable to allow this group to legislate morality.

    The issue of gay marriage is a great topic for the talking heads to further polarize the nation amidst war, famine, and genocide.
    The state has already instituted morality by making being married a valued thing.

    In our society, both socially and legally, marriage gives you benefits that a single person does not get. By then saying to about 10% of the population who may very well want to be in that valued and prized standing that they can't participate in it, and then to use the excuse that you don't want to legislate morality, is a faulty argument.

    Marriage throughout history has always been under the governance of the church. The state even taking on the act of regulating marriage is a vestige of when the church governed morality. If a government is going to regulate and acknowledge marriage through benefits, etc., then it is putting it's hand in morality.

    I am very well versed in the research regarding this due to what I do for a living and I can guarantee you that the detriment to health, happiness, and a long life that you speak comes from the stressors and the uphill battle that non-heterosexual people face daily and the way they cope with it.

    For example, about 10% of the population identifies and non-heterosexual. About 30-40% (50% in my conservative state) of the homeless youth identify as non-heterosexual. You're right their "lifestyle" does cause all sorts of bad things. Why? Because they are kicked out of their home by their parents, and it's perfectly legal in most of my state and most others to both evict and fire people for not being straight without repercussion.

    The fact that life sucks for them is all the more reason why our society needs to help instead of insisting on withholding civil liberties.

    Also "lifestyle" is an insulting term as it implies choice. Tell me, when did you "choose" to become straight? If you "chose" to do so, then you certainly had to have considered another option, much like the troll that posted right after you certainly is struggling with.

    And yes, bigger fish to fry... Why would you bother brushing your teeth, when you have grocery shopping to do? Equally valid argument.

    I'll end my TLDR tirade with a paraphrase that came from Shepard Smith on Fox News actually supporting marriage rights. "Don't be on the wrong side of history on this."

  6. #31
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,500
    Marriage should be outlawed along with income taxes.

    Gay has nothing to do with that.

  7. #32
    Suckin wind like a boss
    Reputation: big terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    2,062
    how in the hell am i a troll by voicing an opinion that largely appears to support what you do- because i presented it in a non-politically correct fashion? or because i refused to say i support gay marriage?

  8. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brewtality's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    5,411

    Playing The Devil's Advocate Here....

    ...
    So if you legalize gay marriage, where is the boundary? What is the next accepted moral boundary?
    Why not allow polygamy?
    What if two bi-sexual men want to marry one woman? Is that allowed?
    Why not allow pedaphiles marry young boys or girls?
    At what point does beastiality become 'normal'?

    Just questions here, thats all.
    Its all Shits and Giggles until somebody Giggles and Shits

  9. #34
    Rep Power: Infinity
    Reputation: NateHawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,911
    Quote Originally Posted by Brewtality View Post
    ...
    So if you legalize gay marriage, where is the boundary? What is the next accepted moral boundary?
    does the boundary have to be moral? can it not be a logical one?

    Quote Originally Posted by Brewtality View Post
    Why not allow polygamy?
    why not? if all parties equally consent, what is the argument against it? with that said, I don't see a very large demand for this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brewtality View Post
    What if two bi-sexual men want to marry one woman? Is that allowed?
    same as before. why not, if all parties equally consent? again, I also do not see much demand for this. maybe at some point in the future, there might be more than half a dozen people who want that kind of legally recognized relationship.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brewtality View Post
    Why not allow pedaphiles marry young boys or girls?
    this one makes sense to prohibit logically. why? children's brains are inadequately developed to make a serious decision such as this. there is some debate as to when they reach that point, which is why state laws vary according to the age of consent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brewtality View Post
    At what point does beastiality become 'normal'?
    can't say I've ever heard of a case where the animal provided consent to the activity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brewtality View Post
    Just questions here, thats all.
    and a few more returned to you.

  10. #35
    I married a witch.
    Reputation: Flying-Monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    474
    Quote Originally Posted by Brewtality View Post
    ...
    So if you legalize gay marriage, where is the boundary? What is the next accepted moral boundary?
    Why not allow polygamy?
    What if two bi-sexual men want to marry one woman? Is that allowed?
    Why not allow pedaphiles marry young boys or girls?
    At what point does beastiality become 'normal'?

    Just questions here, thats all.

    On the polygamy question, let me ask you this...

    Why is it not legal for one man to marry two or more women, to stand up and say he'll legally and financially support them, yet it's perfectly legal to be the father of several children, with several women, as long as you pay the government your child support payment?


    As to the next point, the pedophile one is a non argument. Pedophilia is illegal, and if we're talking about marriage as a legal contract, you'd have to be 18 to enter into such a contract.

    On your final question, I'm not sure what beastiality has to do with two (or more) adults, who want to have a legal arrangement for whatever relationship they've decided to enter.
    Be respectful to the disrespectful, wise to the unwise, caring to the uncaring, courteous to the uncourteous.
    My Riding Blog

  11. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brewtality's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    5,411
    Quote Originally Posted by NateHawk View Post
    why not? if all parties equally consent, what is the argument against it? with that said, I don't see a very large demand for this.
    20 - 30 years ago, there was not much demand for gay marriage rights. But as society has adjusted, it has become more of an issue.
    So how about in another 20 - 30 years? With the constant errosion of what used to be societal norms, maybe polygamy, beastiality and yes, even pedaphilia will become 'normal'.
    And before I get hammered for this, remember, homosexuality used to be overwhelmingly considered immoral, sinful and shameful. Similar to how the other behaviors I listed are veiwed now.

    Again, just asking a few questions, looking for thoughts and discussion.
    Its all Shits and Giggles until somebody Giggles and Shits

  12. #37
    I married a witch.
    Reputation: Flying-Monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    474
    Quote Originally Posted by Brewtality View Post
    20 - 30 years ago, there was not much demand for gay marriage rights. But as society has adjusted, it has become more of an issue.
    So how about in another 20 - 30 years? With the constant errosion of what used to be societal norms, maybe polygamy, beastiality and yes, even pedaphilia will become 'normal'.
    And before I get hammered for this, remember, homosexuality used to be overwhelmingly considered immoral, sinful and shameful. Similar to how the other behaviors I listed are veiwed now.

    Again, just asking a few questions, looking for thoughts and discussion.
    If you're a scifi reader, and haven't picked up a book by Heinlein yet, you might want to give him a try.

    He had several stories that use this as their very premise. Incest, polygamy, homosexuality, and other "taboo" topics were often brought up in his stories, in a culture where they had become the norm.

    It's interesting how we consider the current societal values, in our part of the world to be what has been, is, and should be forever. There's plenty of cultures around the world that do not practice the same social behaviors that we do, and without falling into some moral ruin. I imagine that while we look at some societies at how "lax" they are, other's view us as the uncivilized and undisciplined culture.
    Be respectful to the disrespectful, wise to the unwise, caring to the uncaring, courteous to the uncourteous.
    My Riding Blog

  13. #38
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Brewtality View Post
    homosexuality used to be overwhelmingly considered immoral, sinful and shameful.
    Not in ancient Greece.

    But I do not think Greece is the best example to follow.

  14. #39
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Brewtality View Post
    ...
    So if you legalize gay marriage, where is the boundary? What is the next accepted moral boundary?
    Why not allow polygamy?
    What if two bi-sexual men want to marry one woman? Is that allowed?
    Why not allow pedaphiles marry young boys or girls?
    At what point does beastiality become 'normal'?

    Just questions here, thats all.
    Boundary is where we are here and now. When we get somewhere else, we will figure it out. One divisive and controversial issue at a time.

    People had been changing what is acceptable for thousands of years. Observe the relative lack of chaos on the streets.

    What annoys me is how much of an issue all this is. As if we do not have any other stuff to worry about.

  15. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brewtality's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    5,411
    Quote Originally Posted by Flying-Monkey View Post
    On the polygamy question, let me ask you this...

    Why is it not legal for one man to marry two or more women, to stand up and say he'll legally and financially support them, yet it's perfectly legal to be the father of several children, with several women, as long as you pay the government your child support payment?
    I absolutely love this point.

    As to the next point, the pedophile one is a non argument. Pedophilia is illegal, and if we're talking about marriage as a legal contract, you'd have to be 18 to enter into such a contract.
    Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it is legal for children as young as 15 or 16 to marry in some states. Probably have to have a parent's permission, but maybe not. A teenage girl can get an abortion without a parental consent, why not get married?

    On your final question, I'm not sure what beastiality has to do with two (or more) adults, who want to have a legal arrangement for whatever relationship they've decided to enter.
    It has to do with what society consideres normal and acceptable. Once upon a time, homosexuality was not condidered acceptable. Now it is, for atleast part of our society. Beastiality, pedaphilia and polygamy are now in the same position homosexuality was many years ago. Fringe behaviors that are frowned upon by mainstream society.
    On our current course of continued acceptance of what was once considered fringe activities, there may be a day when society finds these other so-called deviant behaviors also acceptable.
    Its all Shits and Giggles until somebody Giggles and Shits

  16. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brewtality's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    5,411
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    Not in ancient Greece.

    But I do not think Greece is the best example to follow.
    It was also accepted in ancient Rome, but again, not a great role model for shaping a society (the gladiator games might be fun to watch though ).

    My thoughts were more towards modern, western countries and values.
    Its all Shits and Giggles until somebody Giggles and Shits

  17. #42
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Brewtality View Post
    My thoughts were more towards modern, western countries and values.
    There is a lot of weird stuff going on in those countries. Look at me. Look at all the f&cks I give.

  18. #43
    Rep Power: Infinity
    Reputation: NateHawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,911
    Brew, there's a distinct line between some of the different things in your list I commented on, but you have not addressed (or acknowledged that I addressed).

    It is the issue of consent. Children cannot consent to sexual relationships as their brains are not completely developed and they lack the decisionmaking skills that adults possess. I think the youngest age of consent is 16, IIRC, and a number of states have it. UT, several states in the SE. Animals, well, they just cannot give consent, either. not much different than saying you want to marry your refrigerator.

    but when it's consenting adults that enter into an agreement, I fail to see the problem from a legal standpoint whether it's a man and a woman, two women, or two men and a woman, or whatever mix you want to mention. in some respects, poly relationships have advantages - there's more resources available for a family to raise children (possibly multiple breadwinners PLUS one or more to keep the home and raise children or whatever division of labor they decide, or possibly they all hold part time jobs and alternate spending time raising the children). there's a certain logic to the arrangement. now, it will never work on a large scale basis for a lot of people because not everyone wants that kind of arrangement.

    saying that because we have recently been changing our ideas of what equality means and how it should be reflected in law does not mean that everything once considered unacceptable will eventually be decided as acceptable. "age of consent" isn't going anywhere as a concept. and for that matter, I don't see a push anywhere to change that age. and as long as the other species we interact with are unable to give consent to contracts, there will also not be any significant acceptance of bestiality. most states prosecute that as animal abuse, anyway, AFAIK.

  19. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: snowdenn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    406
    i think those that are against gay marriage have a difficult time coming up with reasons acceptable to anyone outside their paradigm. and i think the pro-gay marriage side tends to present better arguments. but even still, it seems like both sides of the gay marriage debate mostly keep talking past each other. just like every other political debate.

    but i think the pedophilia question presents an interesting challenge.

    most people defending gay marriage believe that the absence of a victim is what makes homosexuality ethically okay. so you might find gay sex repulsive but still be okay with it morally (some of you have said as much).

    but does that kind of thinking apply to pedophiles? pedophilia is typically rejected as immoral because of the victimization of children. but suppose theres a pedophile who doesnt act on his impulses. so he has no victim. are we, ethically speaking, okay with his impulses? that is, do we think there is something morally wrong with the way he thinks about children?

    i mean, we cant go and criminalize his thoughts, but can we say they are immoral? my guess is that most people (for or against gay marriage) would agree that even the desires of a pedophile are immoral, despite the lack of victimization. but if you can have victimless immorality with pedophilia, then you have to give up the argument that with homosexuality, the absence of victims prevents it from being immoral.

    although it still remains a question, even if you found homosexuality immoral, whether it should be legislated against, since we clearly dont want to legislate against all immoral activity. nonetheless, the pedophilia argument seems challenging because if it works, then even if you think that homosexual activity is not immoral you cant say this is because no one is getting hurt.



    Quote Originally Posted by NateHawk View Post
    does the boundary have to be moral? can it not be a logical one?



    why not? if all parties equally consent, what is the argument against it? with that said, I don't see a very large demand for this.



    same as before. why not, if all parties equally consent? again, I also do not see much demand for this. maybe at some point in the future, there might be more than half a dozen people who want that kind of legally recognized relationship.



    this one makes sense to prohibit logically. why? children's brains are inadequately developed to make a serious decision such as this. there is some debate as to when they reach that point, which is why state laws vary according to the age of consent.



    can't say I've ever heard of a case where the animal provided consent to the activity.



    and a few more returned to you.

  20. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: One Pivot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    4,123
    The gay marriage topic brings out two types of people. People who are wrong, and people who understand what "equal protection under the law" means.

    Im not gay. Why would i remotely care who marries who?

    The people who voted no are on the same page with the people who thought that black people shouldnt be free and that women shouldnt vote. In a few decades, that decision will be an embarrassing dark spot in US history.
    but does that kind of thinking apply to pedophiles? pedophilia is typically rejected as immoral because of the victimization of children. but suppose theres a pedophile who doesnt act on his impulses. so he has no victim. are we, ethically speaking, okay with his impulses? that is, do we think there is something morally wrong with the way he thinks about children?
    Thats entering the realm of SERIOUSLY damaging people, physically and psychologically, for life. Yes, there is something wrong with pedophiles. Theres something wrong with people who think about it, and dont act. Same goes for people who dream about violent rape but dont act on it. These people need help before it becomes a reality. I dont think that conversation belongs in a conversation about two consenting adults marrying. That goes far beyond morality, and into a realm of just pure abuse.

  21. #46
    banned
    Reputation: Spinning Lizard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,487
    Quote Originally Posted by One Pivot View Post
    The gay marriage topic brings out two types of people. People who are wrong, and people who understand what "equal protection under the law" means.

    Im not gay. Why would i remotely care who marries who?

    The people who voted no are on the same page with the people who thought that black people shouldnt be free and that women shouldnt vote. In a few decades, that decision will be an embarrassing dark spot in US history.

    Thats entering the realm of SERIOUSLY damaging people, physically and psychologically, for life. Yes, there is something wrong with pedophiles. Theres something wrong with people who think about it, and dont act. Same goes for people who dream about violent rape but dont act on it. These people need help before it becomes a reality. I dont think that conversation belongs in a conversation about two consenting adults marrying. That goes far beyond morality, and into a realm of just pure abuse.
    That is not true and complete slander. I am against gay marriage because it is against GOD. I have no problem with civil unions so their partner can get benefits. I am also against hetro's getting married if it is not GODS's way. GOD created marriage, not us. GOD joined man and woman and created them for that purpose. It is that simple. I think the word marriage gets used way out of context most of the time. Especially by our government. And I also believe most people have no idea what marriage truly is.

  22. #47
    Registered text offender
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,146
    Quote Originally Posted by jmmorath View Post
    The state has already instituted morality by making being married a valued thing.

    In our society, both socially and legally, marriage gives you benefits that a single person does not get. By then saying to about 10% of the population who may very well want to be in that valued and prized standing that they can't participate in it, and then to use the excuse that you don't want to legislate morality, is a faulty argument.
    I fail to see where in my above statements I argue against the legislation of morality. The role of laws against acts such as murder and theft are to prohibit immoral conduct. My comments were addressing the idea that it’s not OK for group A to influence the legislative process, but it is OK for group B to do so.

    And 10% of the population? try 2%.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmmorath View Post
    I am very well versed in the research regarding this due to what I do for a living and I can guarantee you that the detriment to health, happiness, and a long life that you speak comes from the stressors and the uphill battle that non-heterosexual people face daily and the way they cope with it.
    If gay marriage is legalized prejudice and discrimination will continue, no amount of legislation will cure the human condition and while societal pressures do have a role, to attribute 100% of these problems to such stressors is a misrepresentation. Please do not ignore the internal struggle many homosexuals deal with as it is a very real issue for people in this position.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmmorath View Post
    Also "lifestyle" is an insulting term as it implies choice. Tell me, when did you "choose" to become straight? If you "chose" to do so, then you certainly had to have considered another option, much like the troll that posted right after you certainly is struggling with.
    Your reading something into my comments that I simply did not say nor imply.

    And way to go, great irony championing gay is OK while implying someone has homosexual tendencies as an insult.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Richard View Post
    The issue of gay marriage is a great topic for the talking heads to further polarize the nation amidst war, famine, and genocide.
    Quote Originally Posted by jmmorath View Post
    And yes, bigger fish to fry... Why would you bother brushing your teeth, when you have grocery shopping to do? Equally valid argument.
    A quip about mass medias irresponsible handling of news and information shouldn’t elicit a retort that depicts my comment as an argument against gay marriage unless setting up a straw man.


    Quote Originally Posted by jmmorath View Post
    I'll end my TLDR tirade with a paraphrase that came from Shepard Smith on Fox News actually supporting marriage rights. "Don't be on the wrong side of history on this."
    Pretty brazen to assume this couldn’t possibly apply to those that agree with you.

  23. #48
    I married a witch.
    Reputation: Flying-Monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    474
    Quote Originally Posted by Brewtality View Post
    I absolutely love this point.
    Thanks. It's one that's been nagging me for a few years now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brewtality View Post
    Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it is legal for children as young as 15 or 16 to marry in some states. Probably have to have a parent's permission, but maybe not. A teenage girl can get an abortion without a parental consent, why not get married?
    No, I believe you're correct that a few states still allow this. It is partly what each government agency decides is the legal age of consent, or under what conditions that age can be modified with an adult guardian's permission.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brewtality View Post
    It has to do with what society consideres normal and acceptable. Once upon a time, homosexuality was not condidered acceptable. Now it is, for atleast part of our society. Beastiality, pedaphilia and polygamy are now in the same position homosexuality was many years ago. Fringe behaviors that are frowned upon by mainstream society.
    On our current course of continued acceptance of what was once considered fringe activities, there may be a day when society finds these other so-called deviant behaviors also acceptable.
    This is very true. Out of those, I think pedophilia is the one which will most likely keep the stigma that it has. The age of the person that is considered a child might vary, depending on societies' view of what the age of consent is. I'd say it would be a fair bet that pretty much any society would say an adult and an infant sexual relationship is a crime. Yet you can look around the world and see that some cultures overlook relations between adult men, and girls as young as pre teens. Thailand comes to mind. Although I believe even there it's not legal, just often over looked.

    Hmmm... there's three countries listed here with age of consent at 12 for females.

    Worldwide Ages of Consent

    This one has it broken down by sexual orientation.

    LEGAL AGE OF CONSENT* (ageofconsent.com)***** Age du consentement l’acte sexuel


    Polygamy as I pointed out, is "legal" as long as you don't try to make it legally binding with more than one person. You can be in a sexual relationship with as many people as you want as long as you don't try to marry more than one of them. Not only is this socially accepted, but in some cases encouraged, although mostly only for men. We have terms for women who sleep around, such as "****", but there is no such derogatory word for a man.

    As to the bestiality point. I imagine that this could become a socially accepted behavior, yet I feel it will continue to be a fringe activity. At best, something that's over looked, while still looked down upon. But in that case, who can say where society will go? There are currently large groups of people who dress up as animals and engage in "sexual" activities. (No, it's true, I saw it on CSI Las Vegas once... ) As well as a large following of cartoon porn that has half human, half animal "people" as the characters. Such a mixing, were it to become more popular, could lead to a trend that removes the negative views of mixed species sexual acts.
    Be respectful to the disrespectful, wise to the unwise, caring to the uncaring, courteous to the uncourteous.
    My Riding Blog

  24. #49
    see me rollin, they hatin
    Reputation: NicoleB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,406
    in the end, the biggest hurdle is that many people believe you CHOOSE to be gay, which is not true. So to have a sexual orientation thats towards the same sex, cant really be called sinful.

    we're only talking about 5% percent or so of the population. Gay is not contagious, and allowing marraige will not make more people gay. thats the big problem some people still have....assuming that gay is contagious.

    for 5% of the population, gay IS normal....for them. We need to accept that some poeple are just gay and you cannot cure it. So let them live with what comes naturally, as long as it hurts nobody else.

    i do believe polygamy is hurtful, in the sense that many polygamous relationships are in the strictest Mormon faith, where young girls often dont have a say. they end up being forced to marry uncles. i dont think the women REALLY feel good about it in most of those marriages. Even if they say they do...its often a religious thing that is pushed onto them.

  25. #50
    see me rollin, they hatin
    Reputation: NicoleB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,406
    Quote Originally Posted by Spinning Lizard View Post
    That is not true and complete slander. I am against gay marriage because it is against GOD. I have no problem with civil unions so their partner can get benefits. I am also against hetro's getting married if it is not GODS's way. GOD created marriage, not us. GOD joined man and woman and created them for that purpose. It is that simple. I think the word marriage gets used way out of context most of the time. Especially by our government. And I also believe most people have no idea what marriage truly is.
    thats a personal feeling of yours, but it cant really be used in an argument concerning the law. Because while you feel so strongly about your God....there is somebody across the country who feels super strongly about what THEIR God is. And that might be wildly different than how you feel. Or you have people like me...who well....i'm on science's side and i feel very strongly about that. So we cant prove who and what is true based on religion alone, because so many people throughout the world have a different view of what the truth (God) is. Thats why you cant mix religion and politics.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •