- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,575
- Reaction score
- 6,767
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
That's neither here nor there, cheating is cheating in my eyes. They are all sinful.
The discussion is not whether heteros can marry or how many get divorced, it's about Gays.
Yes, but there is a difference in being MARRIED and being a COUPLE. In fact, other studies have proven you wrong in the fact that married gay couples are in fact monogamous more than non-married gay couples which is the same as heterosexuals.
And no a sin is not a sin to you because you go after one, but not the other. So you are quite hypocritical in your comments.
No I only referred to MY OWN MARRIAGE
I wouldn't mind seeing a law against adultery.
Is that what they are? You do realize that the same can be said about your opinion, which is the result on doubt of a lack of understanding of rights and the Constitution.I first spun out an analogy to public nudity to poke fun at the vapid, uninformed assertions I've seen on various threads that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right.
It's amazing how many times WCH can be proven wrong, yet he'll still post the same damn links to the same pathetically ignorant "studies" and crap he just can't bring himself to understand.
I'm glad some people still take the time to "out" his ignorance. [pun intended] :lol:
For me, the "terrorists win" part was the give-away that his post was in jest.
'
I know what it says. It also lays out all the possibilities. And yes it is just one person's opinion.
This is the study. Relationship Characteristics and Motivations behind Agreements among Gay Male Couples: Differences by Agreement Type and Couple Serostatus
Those who take their vows (before God or not) seriously are the 50% who stay married. That's quite a lot of people.
I already posted an article stating homosexuals who are married don't take monogamy (nor the marriage itself) seriously. Here's another.
Were Christians Right About Gay Marriage All Along? - The Daily Beast
As I said before I don't think his comments are homophobic because I don't think they are based on fear, but they are definitely ignorant in regards to gays and the gay community.
That's exactly how the Progressive LBGQT community feels..
Were Christians Right About Gay Marriage All Along? - The Daily Beast
The Heritage Foundation is a notorious extreme right wing organization that has no credibility in a legitimate discussion. Therefore, anything they say is irrelevant.
Good. I'm not debating this for my purposes either, but to make sure that any unsuspecting person who wanders in this thread recognizes just how invalid anything you say actually is, so they won't fall under the same non-credible (religious) belief system that you are professing.
And if you don't like my public nudity analogy, feel free to substitute adult incest, bigamy, bestiality, or any of the other acts Justice Scalia mentioned in his Lawrence dissent.
After more than two hundred years during which, in every state of this country, continuously, it was assumed that promoting the moral convictions of a majority was a legitimate government interest--and during which two hundred years the Supreme Court never even suggested anything to the contrary--that Court has arbitrarily decreed that it is not.
What you don't want to admit is that the only reason for laws that make a number of sex-related acts crimes is that the majorities that made those laws believe those acts are immoral and unacceptable. If promoting that belief through laws is no longer a legitimate government interest, I'd like to know just what constitutional grounds those laws--thousands of them, in every state--rest on. Please tell us that.
But if most people in your state think there should be no laws against masturbating on the street in broad daylight, or buggering your dog in front of city hall, or entering into an incestuous homosexual marriage with your son, or God knows what else, that's your lookout. As you seem to suggest (for the most part, at least--your remark about "need to demonstrate a legit govt interest" is confused) those things are just not constitutional issues.
There is no constitutional reason to prevent it or require it or anything else, because it is simply not a constitutional issue. And it is not same-sex marriage that needs to serve a legitimate government purpose. That is part of the standard ordinary state laws have to meet in order to survive a Fourteenth Amendment due process or equal protection challenge. A garden-variety state law has to be rationally related to furthering a legitimate government interest.
Why does any personal freedom that harms no one need to demonstrate a legit govt interest? Does skateboarding? That's a freaking nuisance. Causes alot of harm to those individuals. How about motorcycles? How about pot? Prostitution?
Anything for which there is NOT any legitimate govt or social harm should be legal. Period. And let's face it....things like cigarettes and alcohol DO cause social harm. Increase public health costs.
You ignore one sin but go after another. Pretty Hypocritical.
a Fundamentalist I'm not. I don't want Gays corrupting the sanctity marriage and would like cheaters [in a relationship] to pay some sort of price for their indiscretions and you make me out to be a tyrant. 8)
Assumptions
Keep it in your F-n bedroom, stop trying to tear down tradition and quit making a spectacle of yourselves and you'll be surprised how accepted you'll be.
Those who take their vows (before God or not) seriously are the 50% who stay married. That's quite a lot of people.
I already posted an article stating homosexuals who are married don't take monogamy (nor the marriage itself) seriously. Here's another.
Were Christians Right About Gay Marriage All Along? - The Daily Beast
This was the study in question. Relationship Characteristics and Motivations behind Agreements among Gay Male Couples: Differences by Agreement Type and Couple Serostatus
I'm happy for your marriage but, there's nothing I can do about the ones that fail.
This is pretty close to personal attack. Within this thread he is attacking what the subject of this thread is about. Can you show that he is not tackling these other sins, either in other thread about those "sins" or outside of DP altogether. I might be willing to call him seemingly hypocritical, but not as an absolute.
Well before you go playing mod, re-read my statements, I'm attacking his comments which IS allowed. Also, yes, I can prove his comments hypocritical because he had stated that three is nothing he can do about divorce, adultery, etc. yet he goes after SSM. That IS hypocritical when he says a sin is a sin.
So if you don't like my statements you have some choices. Report them, ignore them, or go pound sand.
Well before you go playing mod, re-read my statements, I'm attacking his comments which IS allowed. Also, yes, I can prove his comments hypocritical because he had stated that three is nothing he can do about divorce, adultery, etc. yet he goes after SSM. That IS hypocritical when he says a sin is a sin.
So if you don't like my statements you have some choices. Report them, ignore them, or go pound sand.
The things you mention are public policy questions that you or anyone else who lives in your state is free to debate to your heart's content. I happen to believe it's reasonable for a majority to enforce its view that certain acts are immoral and unacceptable by making those acts crimes. And I defend the right of the majority in a state to pass laws to do that, however ridiculous I personally may consider their moral views. If the people of the state of Miasma think the sight of animals' genitals is indecent, and pass a law requiring owners to diaper their pets in all public places, that's simply no damned business of anyone who's not a resident of Miasma.
But if most people in your state think there should be no laws against masturbating on the street in broad daylight, or buggering your dog in front of city hall, or entering into an incestuous homosexual marriage with your son, or God knows what else, that's your lookout. As you seem to suggest (for the most part, at least--your remark about "need to demonstrate a legit govt interest" is confused) those things are just not constitutional issues.
There is no constitutional reason to prevent it or require it or anything else, because it is simply not a constitutional issue. And it is not same-sex marriage that needs to serve a legitimate government purpose. That is part of the standard ordinary state laws have to meet in order to survive a Fourteenth Amendment due process or equal protection challenge. A garden-variety state law has to be rationally related to furthering a legitimate government interest.
It doesn't take much to pass that "rational basis" test. Out of respect for the separation of powers, courts defer strongly to the legislature that made the law when they apply this test. Just as a person charged with a crime starts out being presumed innocent, duly enacted state laws are presumed constitutional.
The party claiming the law somehow violates due process or equal protection bears the burden of proving the law is not rationally related to furthering any conceivable legitimate government interest. That's usually hard to do, because in most cases the Supreme Court has been very reluctant to tell the people of a state that their policy decisions are not legitimate and have to be changed.
Yes, but there is a difference in being MARRIED and being a COUPLE. In fact, other studies have proven you wrong in the fact that married gay couples are in fact monogamous more than non-married gay couples which is the same as heterosexuals.
And no a sin is not a sin to you because you go after one, but not the other. So you are quite hypocritical in your comments.
In post #874, you said specifically
Laws apply to everyone, not just you.
As I said before I don't think his comments are homophobic because I don't think they are based on fear, but they are definitely ignorant in regards to gays and the gay community.
That link does what to refute the fact that Homosexual married couples clearly do take their marriages seriously. What does HIV prevention have to do with anything we are discussing? My links effectively established that not only do homosexuals enjoy monogamous relationships they thrive in them.
In places where gay men and women are constantly accosted by ridicule and intolerance and marriage is not an option. In places where being able to facilitate a healthy relationship is not possible, because one or both partners are afraid of alienation from their community. In these such places, which exists on a large scale, many homosexuals do turn to easier flighty relations, because it's easier to hide. They are effectively forced into the shadows of night living. Clubbing and racing through people, because having a real relationship isn't a feasible option for every homosexual. Especially the ones that live in hostile territory.
That is where the dubious behavior takes place. In the utopia you dream of where homosexuals are forced to stay hidden they, in turn, can not possibly form meaningful relationships if any relationship they do pursue is marred by the ever looming fear of being outed and judged. It creates a handicap in their judgement. humans, by and large, need to form intimate connections - so expecting homosexuals to stay hidden and simultaneously be scrupulous in their sexual behavior is a ridiculous standard.
You want to see gay men form better relationships then stop trying push them out of societies. Fight for a society where gay men and women can walk proudly in the open without fear. Be a part of the movement that will allow real gay relationships to be formed. Because as long as people like you exist in surplus homosexuals will continue to have issues with healthy relationships whilst your kin continues to breathe down their neck.
I agree with you 100% with one exception.
Fear is a huge part of WCH's stance on this.
He's posted as such about a million times.
Okay. And I don't consider it a bad thing. Just as I don't consider it a bad thing that divorce is now legal. I don't consider it a bad thing that we no longer consider a legal marriage continuous consent to sex. I don't consider it a bad thing that women are not sold or given away into marriage by their fathers. I don't consider it a bad thing that we choose who we marry instead of our families. I don't consider it a bad thing that interracial and interfaith couples are allowed to legally marry and face very little (comparative to before) persecution for their relationships. These are all parts of "traditional marriage" that have gone away, just as soon "marriage is only between a man and a woman" as a legal belief of this land will be gone. Some people may still hold this belief, as some still hold all those beliefs on those things above being traditionally right.
I find it very funny that so many want to denounce homosexuals for not being monogamous in their marriages, especially Christians, when Abraham himself had sexual relations outside of his marriage.
I thought you weren't Gay?
read this closely:
I DENOUNCE ANYONE WHO CHEATS ON THEIR MARRIAGE PARTNER!
No assumptions here. Re: businesses closed on Sunday's, I didn't assume that such was part of what you wanted imposed which is why I asked the question instead of saying that was something you wanted. As to the rest you have openly stated here on DP and in this thread that you do not want SSM made legal, indeed having it illegal. You are directly saying that you want your particular set of morality, or at least part of it, placed into law. The sanctity of marriage is obviously a subjective view as shown by the many short lived OSM that have occurred over the last few decades.
And now it seems that you want to add to that by also imposing legal penalties upon how a couple (or greater) view and treat their relationship. I am married. I have girlfriends on the side and each and everyone of them are approved by my wife before I start dating them. Are you saying that there should be some sort of legal penalty imposed upon me for this?
If marriage was about keeping it in the f-n bedroom then we wouldn't have OSM either. False argument.
But there are many within that 50% staying married that never took the vows you want to believe that they took. As a matter of fact you have no clue who took what vows unless you have personally attended their marriage ceremony (be it civil or a full fledged wedding) or you have a certified transcript of said event. So please don't even bother with who is taking what vow seriously.
There it is again. The focus on males. Has anyone else noticed that when these types of studies come up they only focus on "gay males"? And even then they never really focus on gay males, but MSM (males having sex with males) which could cover any number of situations. Show me a study that looks at homosexuality and SSM as a whole with both male and females included and then you might have a solid foundation for an argument.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?