How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Mr. and Mr.   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Mr. and Mr.

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


0 posted 11-06-2004 02:07 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi



“According to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, there are roughly 2 million people in those states who live in households headed by same-sex couples and could be harmed by the amendments — including state university employees whose domestic partnership benefits could be in jeopardy in Michigan, Ohio and Utah.”

http://images.trafficmp.com/tmpad/content/webdate/720x300_ad08_200482411137.htm


Is that the issue regarding gay marriage;
some employee or Social Security
benefits cost that opponents are trying to avoid?
It’s not like they’re not together; so what’s another
real problem, if they want it, to legally recognizing
the fact?

John

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137713,00.html


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


1 posted 11-07-2004 06:49 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I think if there really were 2 million people in those states who are gay and lesbian, and they went out to vote, they would have defeated the proposed amendments.

I personally don't know anyone who is against their having civil guarantees regarding their relationships, whether it be health care, legal considerations, etc. They just don't want marriage redefined.  
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


2 posted 11-07-2004 08:34 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi


Denise,

"They just don't want marriage redefined."

Why?  What real difference
would that make as would have
so many so opposed?

John
  
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


3 posted 11-07-2004 08:48 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I believe that if it is allowed to be redefined, John, it will be able to be defined to accommodate any type of relationship/relationships imaginable. In the wake of the gay marriage activism, there are already law suits filed by polygamists asserting that they should have the right to have their relationships deemed a marriage.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


4 posted 11-07-2004 09:56 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

Denise,

And what is wrong with that?
Remember the Mormons.   Islam
allows for polygamy.  Native American
cultures at one time did also.

John

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


5 posted 11-12-2004 09:07 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I guess the majority of us just aren't ready for such enlightened progressive societal views, John.

hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


6 posted 11-13-2004 01:29 PM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Yeah, they never should have let blacks marry white either. I mean, what next?
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


7 posted 11-14-2004 12:18 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Past bans on interracial marriages in some States is a different issue entirely, Hush. The striking down of those laws did not change the basic meaning of marriage as between one man and one woman. But you know that.

So I guess your point is that since such prohibitions relating to marriage were wrong regarding racial makeup, it must then follow that all prohibitions regarding the institution must also be wrong, and it is fair game to change its core definition to accommodate any imaginable relationship.

We disagree. I won't change your mind or the minds of those who agree with you and you won't change my mind or the minds of those who agree with me. We've been down this road in the past, so I really don't see that it would be productive to discuss it further. Sometimes harmony dictates that we just agree to disagree.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


8 posted 11-14-2004 12:43 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
So I guess your point is that since such prohibitions relating to marriage were wrong regarding racial makeup, it must then follow that all prohibitions regarding the institution must also be wrong, and it is fair game to change its core definition to accommodate any imaginable relationship.

Why is that the only argument against human rights is to throw extremism into the hat?

No one wants any imaginable relationship accommodated, Denise. We just think it would be fair if all people were accommodated.
hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


9 posted 11-14-2004 01:13 PM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Actually, my point was that even though we accepted interracial marriages, there was no vast slippery slope after that, either. I think people just eventually saw that a black man marrying a white woman (or vice versa) really didn't hurt anyone. Hopefully they'll see that someday about gay marriages, too.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


10 posted 11-14-2004 08:21 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Ron, I can't see how changing the definition of marriage to accommodate all people would not lead to the accommodation of any imaginable relationship/relationships that some of the all could possibly come up with.

Hush, the slippery slope scenario didn't happen with the repeal of the laws against interracial marriage because it was still kind for kind, one man/one woman. Marriage itself was not redefined by that. That's different than the demands being made today. Changing the meaning of marriage to include same sex unions or multiple same sex or opposite sex unions would create a slippery slope into total chaos eventually as one group after another demanded that their idea of "marriage" also be acknowledged and sanctioned. A precedent would be set and it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to deny anyone's interpretation and not grant it sanction, in my opinion.

If rights are the issue, those same rights can be gotten other than through the redefining of marriage. Marriage isn't intended to be a doorway through which people can make claim to "rights". I didn't marry either time for what I thought I could legally get from the union, and I don't think that most people go into marriage with that mindset, although there are some who misuse marriage for that purpose, like the gold-digger types.

But I think the proposed amendments that we saw in some of the states, which probably won't be enacted, and even if they are would be overturned, was more of a backlash against activist judicaries than anything else. I think most people are tired of what they perceive as judges playing games with the Constitution and shoving their progressive societal worldview down their throats. I think that is what fueled the passion that led to the overwhelming vote for the proposed amendments, even thought most people are aware that it won't go anywhere.

bbent
Senior Member
since 01-07-2001
Posts 534
Alaska


11 posted 11-14-2004 11:33 PM       View Profile for bbent   Email bbent   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit bbent's Home Page   View IP for bbent

personally i feel marriage is a commitment between the parties involved and whatever concept of a god they wish to have consumate it...there should be no goverment intervention. a civil union of any sort seems like it ought to be any couples constitutional right.why should the goverment have the right to deny anybody the right to leave there estate,insurance or anything involving there life to that persons own personal choice...keep goverment out of religion and the bedroom,there are plenty of other issues for it to regulate and screw up.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


12 posted 11-15-2004 12:29 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Hush, the slippery slope scenario didn't happen with the repeal of the laws against interracial marriage because it was still kind for kind, one man/one woman.

Had you espoused that sentiment some fifty years ago, Denise, you would have met pretty much the same reaction we're seeing from you today.

Gay marriage is still the same kind for kind: one person/one person.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


13 posted 11-16-2004 01:11 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Do we really want to do this same thread all over again?

Here's a preview: http://piptalk.com/pip/Forum8/HTML/000497.html


Hush & Ron,


Y'all know the fallacy involved with comparing the morality of interracial marriage with that of homosexuality.


One is a trait one is born with, an amoral incident.  The other is a behavior and lifestyle (considered to be immoral by most in the nation even today), by no means proven to be genetically predetermined.


One is not censured in the pages of sacred scripture.  The other is.


And repealing segregation laws did not change the definition of what marriage is, any more than letting black people and white people sit together in bus, changed what a bus is.  In short, there WAS no slope, in this case.  Only a repeal of laws that really did violate equal treatment and protection under the law.  


Stephen.


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


14 posted 11-16-2004 03:34 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Are you sure about that, Stephen? Maybe blacks get that way because they see their parents being black? I'll bet they could be white if they just tried a little harder.


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


15 posted 11-18-2004 02:29 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Ron,

Nah... they're just like pedophiles, murderers, smokers, and overeaters ... bound by the tyranny of a double helix molecule.





Stephen
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


16 posted 11-18-2004 06:56 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

You still seem to be unable, Stephen, to make a distinction between what people are and what people do. A man who has never smoked in his life is not a smoker. A man who has never killed in his life is not a murderer. But a man who has never had sex in his life is STILL a hetero- or homosexual (albeit a lonely one).

True sexual orientation (as opposed to experimentation or choices led by love) isn't defined by acts, but by chemicals.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


17 posted 11-18-2004 05:59 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Ron,

So is a pedophile, born a pedophile?


Stephen.


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


18 posted 11-18-2004 07:23 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Depends on your definition of pedophile, but probably not. It's not a sexual orientation, nor is it a constant throughout one's life, at least as far as I know.

But, then, I don't know a great deal about pedophiles, either. Never sat down and really talked to one, let alone talked to many.
Skyfyre
Senior Member
since 08-15-99
Posts 1966
Sitting in Michael's Lap


19 posted 11-18-2004 11:03 PM       View Profile for Skyfyre   Email Skyfyre   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Skyfyre

quote:
So is a pedophile, born a pedophile?


Quite possibly.  I'm curious how this relates to homosexuality, however.

Pretty much anything we become in life is somewhat influenced by our biology ... after all, even our emotions are chemically expressed in the body and can be chemically altered.

However, I don't think the validity of homosexuality lies in biological predisposition any more than pedophilia would suddenly become socially acceptable if we found a gene that coded for it.

Pedophilia is an injurious practice that involves the exploitation of unwilling - and even if willing, underage - victims.  Homosexuality, provided it is between consenting adults, injures no one.

Legal marriage by definition is a secular union - or at least, the recognition of said marriage and the issuance of pertinent rights and responsibilities is secular.  Why, then, is there such an outcry against homosexual marriage violating a clearly religious tenet of traditional marriage?  Whatever happened to separation of Church and State?
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


20 posted 11-19-2004 05:46 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

"Pedophilia is an injurious practice that involves the exploitation of unwilling - and even if willing, underage - victims."

"and even if willing, underage - victims."

Seems a particular society’s declaration not
a statement supported by science or history:

‘but the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), noted that "the American Psychiatric Association already set the stage ... [in] the latest diagnostic manual (DSMIV), a person no longer has a psychological disorder simply because he molests children." Thus the APA created psychologically normal" paedophiles.

The NARTH article concludes, "If psychology indeed recognizes consensual pedophilia as harmless, then civil law and social norms will be under pressure to follow the lead of social science as indeed they did on the issue of homosexuality."’

http://mysite.users2.50megs.com/coverups/reisman.html

"Homosexuality, provided it is between consenting adults, injures no one."

And on another thread we determined that
a “consenting adult” could be 13 or even 9.

http://piptalk.com/pip/Forum8/HTML/000552.html


“VILNIUS, March 1, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Lithuanian government led by Prime Minister Algirdas Brazauskas has accepted a proposal pushed by the international Gay and Lesbian Association to lower the age of consent for homosexual sex acts with boys to 14.”


http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/mar/04030105.html


[This message has been edited by Huan Yi (11-19-2004 06:21 AM).]

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


21 posted 11-19-2004 07:28 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Uh? How does "no longer a psychological disorder" translate into "recognizes consensual pedophilia as harmless?" There is absolutely no relationship between the two.

quote:
And on another thread we determined that a “consenting adult” could be 13 or even 9.

You weren't listening, John. We decided on fifty.

hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


22 posted 11-19-2004 10:35 AM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

'a “consenting adult” could be 13 or even 9.'

Not in this society, they can't. When I was 13 years old, I was all too willing and consensual to hanging out down the street and smoking cigarettes with my friends. But I wasn't allowed to buy them. Too young and all that.

Hell, I live on my own, work and go to school, pay bills, and I could go to war if I wanted, but I'm still a couple months shy of being able to buy booze.

We Americans are a bit strict on what constitutes an adult.

Stephen-

'Y'all know the fallacy involved with comparing the morality of interracial marriage with that of homosexuality.


One is a trait one is born with, an amoral incident.  The other is a behavior and lifestyle (considered to be immoral by most in the nation even today), by no means proven to be genetically predetermined.'

Well, they might not be able to help their color, but they can help who they decide to marry. I don't see how it's genetically predetermined what color of person they will like... yet society has come to accept that choice.

What's the difference, if homosexuality is a choice or an inborn trait? How does it being a choice make it any worse, or any more harmful or threatening to us nice straight folks?
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


23 posted 11-19-2004 11:26 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

A man and a woman are the same gender too: human. Therefore if a man and a man, or woman and a woman shouldn't be allowed to marry, nor should a woman and a man, participating in such samesexness as being Human!
Mysteria
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Laureate
since 03-07-2001
Posts 19652
British Columbia, Canada


24 posted 11-19-2004 08:50 PM       View Profile for Mysteria   Email Mysteria   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Mysteria

I am not usually active in these discussions but read them each and every one.  However, I know a lot of gay couples that finally got married in Vancouver this year, and I attended a few of the ceremonies when laws changed here, and made that possible. The couples (2 females, and 4 same sex males) had been together 10 years, 16 years, and 21 years.  What getting married did for them I can't tell you entirely from their point of view, but I do know that they are allowed to finally be covered by their spouse's medical benefits, get their retirement pension, or survivor death pension, and feel like thier life together has been validated in the way "they" wanted it to be.  Don't you think that after all that time together they are entitled to the security they are due?  

People don't wake up planning to be gay, nor practice to become one, they are born that way.  I see nothing wrong with Mr. and Mr. or Mrs. and Mrs., and some of the best parents I know are same sex couples.  Just like any minority they are subject to discrimation by those not bothering to even trying to understand them, or those that fear change of something not fitting into their pariticular norm.  Since the law has changed here in Canada, we have had many American gay couples coming up here to get married, and had both opposition and support naturally.  The one thing I noticed were a lot of tears of happiness being shed, and in my opinion if someone felt happy today, then how can it be such a bad thing?  We have to change with the times, and if we don't, this fear only gets transferred onto the next generation, which is a very sad thing.  They are people just like anyone else, and deserve to be respected as such, but then that's just one person's opinion.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Mr. and Mr.   [ Page: 1  2  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors