To all New yorkers who had the guts to speak out their vote out of their hearts instead of human-invented moral codes or social anitpathy: thank you for lettting love prevail! Greetings from a heterosexual in the Netherlands. And yes, I have gay friends which I may count to the best I have!
In all honesty, whoever is against gay marriage, get with the 21st century and get a life because love has no boundaries. Love is love, no matter who you love, regardless of what gender they are.
@thetruegladiator I am interested in seeing you opinion again when a child of yours will appear to be gay or lesbian....then you will see that love says more than those so-called morals.
@sendanor Children become gay because parents don't raise them correctly. My child is a top football star at his school and has a wonderful gf. I raised my children like men, not like open minded parents who think it's ok to be gay.
@thetruegladiator ??????? This is unbelievable, I thought your branch of Americans only existed in movies....well, if that remains your opinion, hope reality won't crush you too hard when it starts to overrun you. Blessings by the God and Goddess anyway.
@thetruegladiator Unfortunately the people of New York don't have the freedom to decide this issue for themselves. The rat bums in the state government decided for them, and the only way the people can vote on this issue is if that same government allows them to. Which means, the people must first eject all bums from the state government and then elect moral represetatives who will correct this mistake.
The US is not a tyranny of the majority. Basic rights cannot be subject to majority whim.
"moral represetatives who will correct this mistake."
There's nothing moral or smart about your ignorance.
"the next hurricane."
What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Do you think the hurricane occurred because of gay marriage? If so, what about the 83 other tropical or subtropical cyclones that have affected the state of New York since the 17th century?
@Mattyb88ful "Basic rights cannot be subject to majority whim."
The problem here is what is a basic right? Our American Civil rights originate with God, and they are codified in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution does not give anyone the right to redefine marriage to mean whatever they want it to mean. Therefore the only ones allowed to redefine it are the people or their elected reps through the voting process. Simple as that.
@Mattyb88ful "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
The Declaration of Independence makes this perfectly clear that our rights come from God.
Yes those reps in NY did redefine it for their state. So are you saying that you don't have a problem with the government's policy on marriage recognition being determined by the elected representatives?
You can't compare homosexuality to incest. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Incest is not. No one is born with a 'I'm only attracted to biological siblings' orientation. There are people, however, who are only attracted to members of their own gender. Denying them the right to marry those they love means you're basically taking away their right to marry.
@Mattyb88ful Lets put the sexual aspect of all this aside for a moment. If a brother and a sister love each other very much, shouldn't they be allowed to marry each other? They would be marrying the one they love. Isn't taking away their "right" to "marry" their sibling the same as taking away their "right" to "marry" the one they love?
Technically, you're right. But you can't ignore the sexual aspects. Obviously, Julianne Moore, in this video, is using 'soft' language and trying to appeal to people's emotions, which is why she is saying things like 'the right to marry the person we love'. She is not going to go into a 'logical', scientific debate about the issue.
@Mattyb88ful I'm not ignoring the sexual aspects. I just put it aside for that moment. So you agree that the language is deceptive. She isn't for the "right" to "marry" the one they love. She is for expanding marriage to include same-sex couples only. My complaint with her on this is, if you're for that then that's up to you, but don't go invoking equality and fairness because you're only seeking to expand marriage to the line you have drawn, not to all people of all sexual preferences.
Actually, you are, by equating homosexual with incest and et cetera. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Incest, polygamy and et cetera are not. There is no such thing as an incest preference/orientation. Have you ever heard of someone who has said, 'I'm only attracted to members of my biological family'? I think not. Because incest is not a sexual orientation. Homosexuality is, however, a sexual orientation.
@Mattyb88ful Why don't you read what I write? I said I was only putting the sexual aspects to the side for a moment.
There is no such thing as an incest sexual preference? Uh, yeah there is. Incestuous people exist. Does a group of shrinks have to announce to you that incestuous is a sexual "orientation" before you accept it as such?
@Mattyb88ful Well guess what? There's no such thing as a homosexual sexual preference. How's that?
I have never heard of someone claiming to be only attracted to the same sex.
And what if I have heard of such people who are only attracted to one of their family members? What if they do exist? Do you support "marriage equality" for them, or are you a hateful bigot full of prejudice?
"There's no such thing as a homosexual sexual preference."
Well, there is. There are, firstly, millions of gay people in the world who say they are only attracted to members of the same sex.
As I said before, I have never come across someone who claims that he or she is only attracted to members of his or her biological family. if you know of such a person then please name him or her.
"What if they do exist?"
If you can show they exist then we can talk about it.
"there's millions of incestuous people in the world who say they are only attracted to members of their family."
Where are these people? Show us where they are.
"I have never come across someone who claims that he or she is only attracted to members of the same sex."
So, you have never met a gay person? You need to get out more. Here is just a few gay men I can think off the top of my head: George Michael, Peter Tatchell, George Takei and Gareth Thomas.
@Mattyb88ful They're all around you. They make up about 10% of the population. The problem is incestophobes like you keep them in the closet with your prejudices.
I have met plenty of homosexuals. They all say they can change if they want to, or that they have changed from heterosexual to homosexual.
@Mattyb88ful Well incest is illegal, so forgive them for not jumping up and raising their hands all at once. If they tried to have an incest pride parade they'd be blasted with water canons and have the dogs let slip on them.
But incest actually dates back to before homosexuality. In fact, King Tut was the product of an incestuous relationship. Indeed many royal family practiced incest in order to keep their bloodline "pure", including British and Roman royal families.
Once again, this is not about whether incest occurs. It does. I'm not disputing that. What I'm disputing is your ridiculous claim that there exists people who are solely or predominantly only attracted to members of their own biological family. Such a thing doesn't exist. If it did, we would have heard about such people.
And, by the way, incest isn't illegal everywhere. In France, for example, it's not illegal.
If you can't prove that people who are only capable to be attracted to members of their own biological family exist then I'm going to continue to assume they don't exist.
"Unlike homosexuals, they keep their private lives to themselves."
What about heterosexuals? Do they keep their private lives to themselves?
@Mattyb88ful If you can't prove homosexuals are only capable of being attracted to members of their own sex, then I'm going to assume they don't exist.
I'm not here to talk about heterosexuals. I'm using your arguments to argue in favor of incestuous and human/animal "marriage".
"If you can't prove homosexuals are only capable of being attracted to members of their own sex, then I'm going to assume they don't exist."
It's already proven. Ask any heteosexual man whether they are also attracted to men. If they say no, you have your proof.
If heterosexual men (and women) cannnot be attracted to members of the same sex (in fact, some heterosexual people would find the idea repulsive), how can it be a 'choice' for anyone?
For example, imagine a man who is in (romantic/sexual) love with his sister. This man is heterosexual. That's his sexual orientation. The fact that the woman he is in love with happens to be his sister is incidental. This man is not incapable of being attracted to other woman (just as no heterosexual man is incapable of loving just one woman).
Now, imagine a gay man in love with another man. In this case, the fact that the other man is gay is NOT incidental.
@Mattyb88ful A man who is in (romantic/sexual) love with his sister is an incestuous heterosexual. Just like how a man in "love" with a little girl is a heterosexual pedophile. Or do you need a term for it? Incesexual! There. You now have a term for it.
How do you know the man can be attracted to women other than his sister? By the same token I can claim that all homosexuals are capable of loving the opposite sex.
"How do you know the man can be attracted to women other than his sister?"
Where is the evidence to the contrary? There is no evidence that there exists such a thing as 'I'm only attracted to members of my own biological family' preference.
"The man himself says he can't be attracted to anyone but his sister."
There is no one in the world who is only attracted to one person. If you want to continue to claim that incest is a sexual preference then you need to bring some evidence in support of that position.
@Mattyb88ful "There is no one in the world who is only attracted to one person."
All the more reason to legalize polygamist "marriage". Also, some married people would disagree with you here, as they claim to love only their spouse and no other.
The fact that some people have sex with their own family members is proof that it is a sexual preference.
Saying you love only one person at anyone one time doesn't conflict with what I said. These people are not incapable of finding other members of the opposite sex attractive.
"that some people have sex with their opwn family members is proof that it is a sexual preference."
No, it's not. Have you ever heard of the proverd: one swallow doesn't make a summer?
@Mattyb88ful You said yourself, "There is no one in the world who is only attracted to one person". Therefore you agree that restricting marriage to only two people contradicts nature and everyone's sexual orientation. And so the only thing to do is allow polygamist "marriage".
Sure they are. Many people who lose their spouse refuse to remarry. Furthermore, the point is that the incestuous WANT to "marry" their family member, just like a homosexual wants to "marry" the ONE they love.
@Mattyb88ful Now as for the sexual aspects, science has shown that sexuality is not inborn. It is a choice based on how one is raised and what one experiences in life. Science has also shown that siblings raised apart and who don't meet each other until adulthood are usually very attracted to each other sexually because of similar facial characteristics and similar personas. The reason siblings raised together typically don't show this is because they learn that family is off limits for sex.
@Mattyb88ful Yes it has. Twin studies show that identical twins rised apart can show one to be homosexual and the other to be heterosexual. If sexuality were biological, both siblings would be either homosexual or heterosexual.
My evidence is from studies done on homosexuals who have; changed sexual preference over the course of their lives, have identified a common experience of their childhood that influences them to be homosexual, or have freely admitted that they chose to be homosexual.
Twin studies show that if one half of an identical twin is gay then the other is far more likely to be gay. This shows that homosexuality is, at least partly, genetic.
Secondly, genetics is far more complicated than you imply. Environment has a significant impact on whether and how a gene manifests itself. I think it's called epigenetics.
Thirdly, there could be other ways, apart from genes, for homosexuality to be from birth, like prenatal hormones.
the difference between not allowing incest marriage and not allowing gay marriage is like the difference between telling a (heterosexual) man (a) 'you can't marry these ten women in the world' and (b) 'you can't marry any woman in the world'.
@Mattyb88ful You prove my point. Telling a polygamist that he can't "marry" 10 women is like telling a homosexual he can't "marry" someone of the same sex.
YOU are discriminating against the polygamists! What are you a bigot?
@Mattyb88ful Now then, the fact that a person can marry someone other than their sibling is irrelevant. After all, homosexuals can marry someone of the opposite sex, but I doubt you would propose that as a valid option for them. The point is that the person would choose to "marry" their sibling, and they would be denied that. Why? Because marriage does not apply to close blood relatives. Marriage does not apply to same-sex couples either.
"homosexuals can marry someone of the opposite sex"
No, they can't. They are not attracted to members of the opposite sex. That's like saying herbivores can eat.. as long as they are willing to eat meat.
@Mattyb88ful What do you mean no they can't? A homosexual male and homosexual female cannot marry?
Or are you saying they don't WANT to marry someone of the opposite sex and should therefore be allowed to "marry" the same sex?
Well in that case incestuous couples can't marry outside their family since they don't WANT to. Therefore they should be allowed incestuous "marriage". Yes?
@Mattyb88ful Two heterosexual men cannot "marry" because same-sex "marriage" is not recognized. A homosexual male and a homosexual female CAN marry each other though. So your point is moot.
Of what would they consist? You want me to say "two people", right? Well then why just two people? Why not three? Also, if only two people, why not a brother and sister?
Why MUST we accept the "right" of homosexuals to "marry" however they want but not incestuous or polygamists to "marry" who they want?
"A homosexual male and a homosexual female CAN marry each other though."
ON paper, yes. Not, however, in reality. As I said before, it's like giving meat to a herbivorous animal.
"but not incestuous or polygamists"
There are no such thing as 'incestuous' people. I have already made that point. As for polygamist, well, they can get married. It's just that they can only get married to one person.
@Mattyb88ful On paper and in reality. I didn't say they would want to or that they would be happy in said marriage, but legally speaking they can marry, and THAT is the issue were are talking about here. What the LAW allows.
If that is like giving meat to a vegetarian, then so is giving non-family marriage to incestuos couples.
There's no such thing as incestuous people? Well then there's no such thing as homosexual people. Again, polygamist married to one person = meat to vegitarian.
There is no one who is ONLY attracted to members of their own biological family. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN INCESTUOUS ORIENTATION/PREFERENCE.
AND, you have done NOTHING to prove otherwise. You say there are millions of people who have this incestuous orientation - yet, however, you can't list me a couple of people who are ONLY attracted to members of their own family.
@Mattyb88ful Even if what you say were true, how does that justify you denying incestuous people their "civil right" to "marry" the person they love? Why must they choose someone else?
That would be like me saying that homosexuals cannot "marry" the person they love, rather a complete stranger who is also a homosexual of the same sex.
Incest is all over the place. It's just the social stigma perpetuated by bigots like you that keeps it hidden in the shadows.
It changes everything. A man who wants to marry his sister (and, therefore, is heterosexual) can marry ANY woman in the world - just not his sister (or mother etc). Gays don't have the right to marry ANY one of the same sex. Marriage is off the table for them.
Banning incest marriage is LIKE telling meat eaters: you can eat every animal EXCEPT other humans
Banning gay marriage is like telling meat eaters: you can't have any meat.
@Mattyb88ful Here's the flaw with your counter argument that you keep failing to address. A homosexual can marry almost anyone of the opposite sex and be married. You say this is unacceptable because he or she is not attracted to the opposite sex, whatever. Fine. In that case, it is unacceptable to demand that an incestuous couple marry someone else, because for them it means the same thing. You would be prohibiting them from marrying the ONE they love.
"A homosexual can marry almost anyone of the opposite sex..."
Irrelevant. That's like saying a herbivorous animal can eat any meat it wants. The point is that it doesn't eat meat.
"because for them it means the same thing."
No, it doesn't. I've said this countless times before and your stupid repetition of it is getting tedious. There is no such thing as an incestuous orientation/preference. If you want to claim there is provide some EVIDENCE.
@Mattyb88ful Then you refuted your own argument. Incestuous people could marry someone outside their family, but they don't want to. Therefore you must accept their right to "marry" the one they love.
The fact that incestuous people exist is proof that incest is a sexual preference. You accepted the fact that they exist, therefore you must accept their claim of having said preference. Otherwise, we have no reason to accept homosexuality as a sexual preference either.
Incestuous people could marry someone outside their family, but they don't want to."
They are capable of being attracted to people outside their biological family. As I said, there is no such thing as an incestuous orientation/preference. A man who is sexually/romatically attached to his sister is heterosexual. He likes women. This particular attraction he has just happens to be to his sister. He can, and will be, attracted to other women, just like all heterosexual men.
@Mattyb88ful Homosexuals are capible of being attracted to people outside their own sex (gender).
Besides this, marriage is not defined based on sexual preference. So your argument is moot to begin with.
The fact of the matter is that you are denying incestous people the "civil right" of "marrying" the one they love. Just as people are denying homosexuals the "civil right" to "marry" the one they love now.
@Mattyb88ful Better yet, let me put it another way. It would be like you finding the one you really love, and then me telling you that you cannot marry that person because there are plenty of other people out there that you can marry instead. Get it?
Also, your argument does not take into consideration that these incestuous people may not be attracted to anyone except their family member. So asking them to marry outside their family would be like asking a homosexual to marry the opposite sex.
"your argument does not take into consideration that these incestuous people may not be attracted to anyone except their family member."
Where is the EVIDENCE that such people exist? You can't just claim such people exist without providing a shred of EVIDENCE. Who are these people who can ONLY be attracted to members of their biological family? People who can ONLY be sexually/romatically attracted to their parents, siblings and children and no one else?
@Mattyb88ful Where is YOUR evidence that homosexuals cannot choose to be attracted to the opposite sex?
Besides, this isn't about sexual preference. I disproved this already. Marriage is not defined by sexual preference of those involved. It is defined by sex (gender). Something you say should be taken out. Therefore, why can I not demand the consanguinity stipulation be removed also?
The testimony of all those I know, heterosexual and homosexual, who didn't choose their sexual orientation, not to mention the massive research evidence that has built up, which has convinced the APA and etc that sexual orientation isn't a choice.
It's also common sense. Why would someone choose to be gay? There's anything wrong with being gay but gay people are the most victimised and maltreated minority in the world.
@Mattyb88ful Prove that your research is true. My research also shows that biological siblings raised apart and who meet later in life can be attracted to each other in a much more powerful way than is the case with non-family members. This is because they are attracted to the many similarities they have and because they were raised apart, never developed a sense of their family member being off limits for sex.
Why would someone choose to be incestous? Unlike gays, they face legal punishment!
@Mattyb88ful I have looked everywhere and can't find any of your "research".
None of what you said proves that people who are only attracted to the same sex exist. Unless you can find a homosexual "gene", your claims are invalid.
Well I think it would be hard to choose any sexual orientation assuming orientation is set during fetal development. I said no one can choose to be incestuous because who would choose a preference that can get you thrown in jail? So why would anyone choose that?
Check the American Psychological Association's website.
"None of what you said proves that people who are only attracted to the same sex exist."
That there are heterosexual people and homosexual people is a fact. Ask a heterosexual man whether he is also attracted to men. Let us see what sort of response you get.
"So why would anyone choose that?"
No one chooses an incestuous orientation because such a thing doesn't exist.
@Mattyb88ful That there are incestuous people is a fact. Ask an incestuous person if he or she is capable of being attracted to someone outside his or her family and see what kind of a response you get.
What do you mean it doesn't exist? People engage in incest. Therefore it exists. Or are you saying you need the AMA to tell you it exists before you accept it as so?
And besides, how does a brother and sister "marrying" each other harm you or your marriage?
I'm not saying incestuous relationships have not/do not occur. What I am disputing is the existence of an incestuous orientation, the existence of people who are solely or primary attracted to members of their own family. There are, of course, homosexuals and heterosexuals. People who are solely or primarily attracted to members of the same sex or opposite sex. There is no evidence, however, that there exists an incestuous orientation.
@Mattyb88ful By your argument, if people engage in it, then the orientation for it must exist. Especially if those who do it face social ridicule for it. Also, we must absolutely take a person's word for it, because there is no possible way they could be lying. So if one says they are attracted to only one thing, that must be the truth.
By your counter argument I could say that no homosexual orientation exists, and that since there is no racial orientation, interracial marriage can be banned.
I've asked you to find me people who say they are only attracted to their family - no, not someone who says, "I'm in love with my sister," because that's not what I am asking. There are hunreds of millions of gays, billions of heterosexuals who say they are attracted to members of their own sex and the oppositve sex, respectively. If an incest orientation exists, you should be able to find people who say that they are only attracted to their family.
@Mattyb88ful You have shown those who say they are attracted only to whatever, but that doesn't prove their sexuality is inborn. People are that way by choice.
Finding those who claim to be attracted to only one thing serves no purpose. I already said, limiting marriage based on who else a person can be attracted to is like telling an interracial couple they can't get married because there are others they can be attracted to in their own race.
There's no evidence for this. You go up to a heterosexual man and ask whether he chose to be attracted to women, ask him whether he is also attracted to men but just chooses to be with women. If the answer is no, then you have been proven wrong. Orientation is not a choice.
@Mattyb88ful What of a fertile couple that chooses not to have children? Do I think that's wrong. Yes, I do. I think people should at least replace themselves. However, their choice does not in any way harm or change the definition of marriage. They simple fail to live up to marriage's full meaning. Same-sex couples destroy marriage's meaning because same-sex relationships cannot produce children.
I chose to be heterosexual. Therefore by your own standard you have been proven wrong.
@Mattyb88ful Wait a sec, who are you to tell me about what I am or what I chose to be? This is why discussion with your type is impossible. You tell us that we must accept that people are born homosexual because that is what homosexuals claim, and yet in the case of those who claim they did choose their sexuality, they are to be disregarded wether they're heterosexual or homosexual.
I most certainly was NOT born heterosexual. I remember a time when I disliked girls and thought they were gross.
"Wait a sec, who are you to tell me about what I am or what I chose to be?"
Fine. Where is the fucking EVIDENCE that you choose to be heterosexual? Where is the EVIDENCE that you had sexual feelings towards men and women but decided to get rid of your sexual and romantic attraction towards men? Let us see some EVIDENCE!
"I remember a time when I disliked girls and thought they were gross."
@Mattyb88ful Well now who needs evidence? I thought all you needed was someone claiming to be something. That's all you require of the homosexuals after all, isn't it?
I never said I was ever attracted to the same sex. I said I chose my heterosexuality. So when I was a kid I was asexual, that is, having no sexual preference. Then in my early teenage years I decided that I should seek out a female companion for romantic relationship purposes. So I did. Thus, "EVIDENCE" that I chose my sexuality.
"That's all you require of the homosexuals after all"
It's not just their testimony. It's also research which has led organisations such as the American Psychological Association to conclude that there's no solid evidence that people choose to be gay or heterosexual.
"I decided that I should seek out a female"
You decided to seek out a female companion because you were attracted to women.
"there are others they can be attracted to in their own race."
That's right. The ban on interracial marriage was less severe than the ban on gay marriage. At least heterosexuals who were around when interracial marriage was banned could marry someone of the opposite sex within their own 'race'. For gays marriage is completely denied.
I would, however, oppose a ban on interracial marriage because, for example, (1) what's the point? (2) it's discrimination.
@Mattyb88ful The ban on interracial marriage was more severe because that was an actual ban. There is no ban on same-sex couples marrying because marriage simply does not and has never applied to same-sex couples. Marriage has always applied to couples regardless of race however. Marriage is denied to same-sex couples because marriage does not apply to two people of the same sex. It only applies to 1 man and 1 woman. That's how it's always been.
@Mattyb88ful No, banning same-sex "marriage" is like telling the meat eaters that they can have tacos but not hotdogs. Or vice-versa depending on the sex of the meat eater. :p
No, gay people are not attracted to members of the oppiste sex. So, if you deny them the rifght to marry members of the same sex, you have taken away from them the right to marry, which the US Supreme Court has ruled on a number of occasions to be a fundamental right.
@Mattyb88ful Well then by your illogic, interracial marriage can be banned too, since well, a white can marry someone of the same race. There's no such thing as a racial sexual preference.
Also, in all seriousness, I reject your claim that homosexuals cannot possibly be attracted to the opposite sex. Sexuality is chosen. Homosexuals can and HAVE changed and become heterosexual.
But this is beside the point and it is irrelevant to the issue. This is about who they WANT to MARRY.
"Sexuality is chosen. Homosexuals can and HAVE changed and become heterosexual."
No, that's a lie refuted by thew American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, Royal College of Physicians and et cetera, not to mention billions of heterosexual and homosexual people who testify that they did not choose to be heterosexual or homosexual.
@Mattyb88ful This had never been refuted. Ex-gays exist, whether you admit it or not. Unless your homosexuals can prove to me that they are unable to change their sexual preference, then they can just marry someone of the opposite sex.
@BelieveIt1051 the term "ex-gays" makes no sense to me. as a gay person it would seem you were either referring to bisexuals or homosexuals who have felt the need to conform to what society deems "normal sexual behaviour" - if it makes people happy to marry a member of the same-sex and it doesn't cause harm to anyone else then I don't see what the problem is.
@fdnlt The term "ex-gay" refers to a person who was once homosexual or bisexual and has since chosen to become heterosexual or asexual. Whatever their reasons for changing, the fact remains that change is possible.
If it makes people happy to marry a member of their own bloodline and it doesn't cause harm to anyone else then I don't see what the problem is.
@BelieveIt1051 maybe on the surface change is possible, and in bisexual people sure, but i don't believe a person who is born homosexual can become heterosexual in the same way a black person can't become white - they can put make-up on or what have you but the fact remains that they have been born a certain way. anyway, by that that logic it becomes a fact that sexuality is fluid, (gay to straight, straight to gay) so i don't see how that supports the argument against gay marriage
@fdnlt Well I never touted it as an argument against same-sex "marriage", but it would in any case refute Mattyb88ful's argument. He thinks that since homosexuals are not able to change, that means marriage must be changed to suit them. In other words, they can't just marry someone of the opposite sex because they aren't attracted to the opposite sex. As flawed as his argument is, if people can change sexual preference, it negates his argument completely.
@BelieveIt1051 even if all homosexuals were capable of becoming straight, does that mean that same-sex marriage shouldn't be allowed? it is a clear fact that same-sex love occurs, whether or not a homosexual can turn heterosexual. before 1967 in the southern states you could say to a woman in love with a black man, sorry since you are capable to marrying another white person you cannot marry the black man that you love. isn't this the same situation we're in with homosexuality?
@fdnlt No, same-sex "marriage" should not be allowed in any case. Though sexuality is chosen.
It is not the same situation because marriage has never been defined by race. It has always been defined by gender. Also, the "laws" passed in some states to ban interracial marriage were in direct violation of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits government from creating laws based on race.
i agree that marriage has never been defined by race-it has been defined by love & commitment & the legal rights each party can secure for each other. the 14th amendment was introduced to stop bigotry and discrimination, any racist law before that was therefore unjust. who's to say the current law isn't as bigoted and discriminatory. if the only appeal for keeping marriage as is is due to tradition/law and it's clear that homosexuals can fall in love & many want to get married, why not?
@fdnlt ...okay marriage has always been defined as a one man one woman union. That's what we're talking about here. Society defines what marriage is. The law merely states what the government recognizes within that public domain.
The 14th was made to stop skin color prejudice in the government.
Who is to say the current definition of marriage isn't as bigoted and discriminatory? The voters.
Marriage should be preserved as is because it is the foundation of a civilization.
@BelieveIt1051 sure, but you agree that a polygamist should have the right if it's a free and consenting marriage, that' s not one man one woman either. yes marriage is traditionally defined as being about a one man one woman union- but it was created to bind people to a committed relationship that should ultimately be based on love, and love isn't always between one man and one woman. people would've screwed up their faces about interracial marriage at one time, definitions change...
@fdnlt Actually no I don't agree that people have or should have a right to marry whoever they want or how ever many people they want. Also I don't think love does exist between people of the same sex. At least, not the kind of love that exists between a happily married husband and wife. Maybe a sibling, family, or friend type love, but not a romantic, spiritual, or natural love. Quite frankly I think what they share is a perversion to love, and that's why marriage shouldn't be redefined at all.
@BelieveIt1051 cont... of course, the voters should make the final decision but it is important that voters have really thought through what it means to society to support loving and committed relationships whatever the sexual orientation of the parties involved. i wouldn't say marriage was the foundation of a civilisation but it's certainly important to cultivate ideas about love, trust, support and commitment, and i don't see why gay marriage wouldn't continue to promote that
@fdnlt As the voters should also consider the consequences of redefining marriage to mean anything and everything. When it means anything, it ultimately means nothing at all. It becomes nothing but a common fad.
Same-sex "marriage" would destroy the basic concepts of love and commitment because homosexuality itself is incompatible with those concepts. Homosexuality is about rejecting social norms and having a deviant form of sex. Nothing more. Marriage should not be used to promote that.
@BelieveIt1051 i don't really buy into the slippery slope idea because a marriage between a man and a woman will always mean the same thing, whether or not homosexuals are invited to also celebrate their love in the same way. fear is the root of hate, and there is nothing to fear about accepting other people for who they are and allowing them happiness. social norms are malleable and relative to culture and history, deviation is difficult to define.
@fdnlt You shouldn't buy into any idea. You should examine all ideas closely using logic. The Slippery Slope argument can be true or it can be false. It depends if the person can prove that A leads to B and so on.
Redefining marriage to be gender neutral, that is allow people to marry either sex, will destroy the definition and purpose of marriage. The third most primary reason for marriage is to provide a stable basis for a couple to have and raise children. Same-sex couples can't do this.
@BelieveIt1051 let's look at it logically then, legalising consensual marital relationships between homosexuals will perhaps lead to other consensual marital relationships between individuals. but can there be any other such marital unions? as this does not include zoophilia and paedophilia, and probably not polygamy, as I do not believe this is what truly free and consenting individuals want (i may be wrong). can a good christian man and woman not marry if they are infertile then?
@fdnlt How does two people of the same sex "marrying" lead to others "marrying"? If anything it will lead to less, since the meaning of marriage will be destroyed.
A man and woman can marry even if one or both are sterile/infertile because procreation is possible in the one man one woman relationship type. So this couple's marriage does not contradict the procreation aspect of marriage's purpose.
@BelieveIt1051 i don't think it does lead to others marrying, it is you who seems to think that same-sex marriage will lead to zoophilic marriage etc. of course it contradicts the procreation aspect - they can't procreate! and what of a straight, fertile married couple who choose not to have children - would you say that was wrong? how does it destroy the meaning of marriage? i'm sure you've heard that divorce rates are higher in states that have banned gay marriage!
@fdnlt Same-sex "marriage" has only been allowed in the U.S. for 8 years or so. Of course we wouldn't see much of a push for other perverse deathstyles being recognized by marriage. However we have already seen the case being made for polygamy in the states. In Canada where it was allowed earlier, the courts are now hearing the merits of redefining marriage to include polygamy. In The Netherlands where it was first allowed, polygamy is recognized. All thanks to same-sex "marriage".
@BelieveIt1051 secondly, i don't know if you're using this incest talk as an ad absurdum argument but apart from my knee-jerk reaction of disgust to the idea of incestual relationships i do not see a problem with family members falling in love and marrying, if it is a consensual relationship. when you investigate the matter it's hard to pinpoint anything morally wrong with it. but if you are in fact arguing for incestual marriage then a similar logic applies to homosexuals doesn't it?
@fdnlt Okay then, thanks for being honest. Under your argument for same-sex "marriage" you would also allow incestuous "marriage". Now lets move to the next issue. Polygamy. Why just two people married to each other? Why not three? Also, don't forget bisexuals. They love both sexes. Therefore shouldn't they be allowed to "marry" one of each sex?
@BelieveIt1051incest is different from homosexuality in that it is not a sexual pref. but sure the same argument applies. again if it is between free & consenting individuals i don't see a problem. note: bisexuals in general do not want 2 life-partners, in the same way that a heterosexual generally doesn't, they are just able to love both sexes- sure they should be able to but it's unlikely i think that they would or that people would engage in polygamy as it generally is harmful to some party
@BelieveIt1051 if it is between free & consenting individuals i don't see a problem. unless there is coercion involved (as there often is with polygamous marriage) then fine. at the same time i don't see a high demand for polygamous marriage (or incestuous marriage) to be legalised. the government to a certain extent has to respond to public demands in a changing society - and there are millions of gays wanting to get married and clearly millions of straight people who support the cause.
@fdnlt Well a polygamist couple that goes before a justice of the peace or a preacher will have to prove consent just like everyone else.
I don't see high demand for same-sex "marriage" either. They are only 5% of the population, at most. Plus most of them don't even want to get "married" in the first place.
If so many people support it then let the people vote on it. We'll have our debate and then we can vote. Then let the side with the most votes prevail.
@BelieveIt1051 yeah, then it's fine. i suppose what i meant to say is many gay people want to get married or the human right to commit to a relationship that is recognised by the law. maybe that constitutes a minority of the population because only a minority are homosexual, but a lot more people (I should hope), support equal rights, tolerance and respect to all people who do not intend to harm or pose a threat to anyone else
@fdnlt I think everyone supports equal rights, but come on, no one in America has the right to redefine marriage to fit their own relationship type, and no one has the right to marry whoever they want to. Marriage only means one thing. If you want redefine marriage, be honest about it. Don't go crowing about "rights", because the incestuous, polygamists, zoophiles, pedophiles, and all the rest will be crowing about their "rights" too, and they'll have you to thank for blazing the trail for them.
@BelieveIt1051 zoophiles & paedophiles would not be permitted to marry as it does not involve two free & consenting individuals, which is my main argument. here in the UK, we have something called a civil partnership-would a different term (though it is essentially the same thing) make you more comfortable?as i think you seem to fear change because youre worried about it destroying an institution - it's not destroying it, there is no reason that these two types of marriage can't co-exist
@fdnlt Who says it doesn't involve two free consenting individuals? The law? Oh well the law must be changed then. After all, the law once said that blacks were not free or able to consent to anything either.
Also, child/adult and human/animal "marriage" has a history dating back to ancient Greece. Same-sex "marriage" only dates back to 2001!
So why shouldn't those "marriages" be recognized as well? How does it hurt you? Why do you fear this change?
@BelieveIt1051 animals cannot consent to anything and children ought to be protected from exploitation. your slippery slope argument is analogous to: "giving women voting rights? it'll be kids or animals next!" this hasn't happened as we can recognise the differences in both situations! and in places where same-sex unions are legal, there have been no follow-ups in legalising other unions. those marriages shouldn't be recognised as they do not encourage a consensual loving committed relationship
@fdnlt Animals can initiate sex, but that's irrelevant. Animals can be owned by people and made to do things without consent. Marriage would be the LEAST of an animal's concerns. As for kids, I don't think "exploitation" is what they'd call it. They'd call it "equality", same as the homosexuals do. Child/adult and human/animal "marriage" already exists in other countries. The slippery slope is real because same-sex "marriage" reduces the meaning of marriage, thus allowing more redefinitions.
A few years ago she made a TV ad in support of gay marriage. Anyone know where I can view that again? I can't find it here on YouTube. Someone should upload it if they find it.
phildrice our new feature presentation FOR 3/23/11 / 10:55 p.m. I WENT BACK TO SAY GOODBYE 2 Mrs. GREEN. I HAVE KEPT MY VISITS TO SEE HER A SECRET FOR OVER 5 YEARS. I DO NOT WANT TO GO BACK. LOOK PEOPLE I AM BEGINNING TO THINK I WASTED MY LIFE FOR THE PAST 8 YEARS 4 PEOPLE LIKE A FREAKING IDIOT & IF SHE HAD DIED BECAUSE I NEVER INTERFEERED ABOUT HER MONEY OR HER BEING LEFT TO GASS HERSELF 2 DEATH I WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER OFF BY NOW & WOULD HAVE MY GREAT LIFE UN-INTERRUPTED!!! LOOK AT ME NOW?
In Canada where they have had gay marriage for quite a while now there is an interesting unintended consequence . Hetrosexuals are not choosing to marry and their marriages are at a record low since they opened up marriage to gays . Really if they are going to let anything marry anything why bother .
@strafrag1 You have not been paying attention ,the Polygamists in Brittish Columbia Canada are on the cusp of winning a landmark trial allowing polygamy based on the fact homosexuals can marry in Canada lobbies for groups that want age laws made illegal (ie) pedophiles and those that would like beastilality laws changed say this opens the door for a favorable judgement from the courts . It truly will be anything with anything very soon .
@hanksnow82: Those alleged polygamists were just making a very irrelevant point in order to defend their illegal activity that should be prohibited in the first place. Supporters of gay marriage only promote a healthy, monogamous, marital realionship between the deeply committed same-sex couples. We are looking forward to the federal legalization of a monogamous same-sex marriage which decreases the high risk of divorce and STDs, not the "archaic" polygamy.
@Theclowcard As i said those admitted polygamists are on the cusp of winning their case and the pedophiles are up next to challange the law . Look for the decision to come down in this case in the next couple of weeks .
"the Polygamists in Brittish Columbia...based on the fact homosexuals can"
There is no comparison between polygamy and homosexuality. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Polygamy is not. Polygamists are not denied the right to marry. A (heterosexual) polygamist man can marry a woman. It's just that he can only marry one woman, but at least he has the right to marry one woman . A gay man, however, cannot marry at all.
@Mattyb88ful There certainly is a comparison as the Brittish Columbia polygamists have filed a court claim that since the Canadian government says the state can't dictate what sex you marry it can't dictate how many people you marry or how old they must be . Polygamists and some muslims want to be able to marry a girl as soon as she has her first menstrual cycle 10 - 12 in many cases . The ruling on this case is expected next week and will be based on the homo marriage law .. aka slippery slope
Saying, 'if we allow gay marriage we're gona to have to legalise polygamous marriage' is like saying 'if we give women the vote then we will also have to give it to horses'. What do women have to do with horses? Also, what does homosexuality have to do with polygamy? Not much. So, the slippery slope argument doesn't work. Gay people don't ahve the right to marry. These polygamists do. They are just greedy, however - they want to marry more than one person.
@Mattyb88ful The "slippery slope" argument has come to fruition in the Bountiful polygamy case . GOOGLE (Lawyer in Bountiful polygamy case uses gay marriage defence)Granting homosexuals the right to marry in Canada has created the very scenario "slipper slope" that people warned about and there is no denying that anymore . The pedophiles and zoophiles are going to line up next to exploit the laws that made homosexual marriage legal in Canada next . The slippery slope has become an avalanche .
There is no connection between gay marriage and poygamy, pedophilia and zoophilia. The last two (pedo and zoo) are nonconsensual, so they can't get married because marriage is a contract and you have to be a consenting adult to sign a contract, which obviously a child and a non-human animal is not.
As for polygamy, it's not a sexual orientation, therefore, not comparable to homosexuality.
@Mattyb88ful The truth is there are a bunch of lawyers arguing that the law in Canada that allows homosexual marriage also allows polygamy , pedophilia and perhaps zoophilia . Will see what the court rules next week .
@hanksnow82 Marriage rates have been declining for a long time (long before same-gender marriage equality), what data can you point to that shows the rate of marriage in Canada has decelerated faster since marriage-equality was enacted. The divorce rate in Canada is 3% higher since 2003, but their population has increased 5% during that time. This is statistically insignificant. Same-gender marriage equality was enacted in 2005. In America... (cont.)
@hanksnow82 (cont.) In America, States which have enacted marriage equality for same-gender couples the divorce rates are remarkably lower (in Massachusetts it's been a 20% decline in divorces). As a matter of fact, in the States which enacted Constitutional Amendments to deny same-gender marriage equality, their divorce rates have INCREASED by .9%, even while states which didn't have legal same-gender marriage but enacted no Constitutional Amendment against it, also saw a lower divorce rate.
She is ravishing.
calaftheeast 4 days ago
Fucking miserable old slut.
devilsandqueens 2 months ago
@devilsandqueens Nope.
pezdeaguaturbia 2 months ago 2
Comment removed
19880706V 8 months ago
Comment removed
19880706V 8 months ago
Thank you Julianne!
AndyZaturno 8 months ago
Viva USA!!!
Pespito100 8 months ago
To all who opposed: may you find the wisdom to find the way to your hearts, and have a good life too!
sendanor 8 months ago
To all New yorkers who had the guts to speak out their vote out of their hearts instead of human-invented moral codes or social anitpathy: thank you for lettting love prevail! Greetings from a heterosexual in the Netherlands. And yes, I have gay friends which I may count to the best I have!
sendanor 8 months ago 9
In all honesty, whoever is against gay marriage, get with the 21st century and get a life because love has no boundaries. Love is love, no matter who you love, regardless of what gender they are.
CdnBacon13 8 months ago 2
I hope NEW YORK has morals and values and says NO to gay marriage!
thetruegladiator 8 months ago
@thetruegladiator I am interested in seeing you opinion again when a child of yours will appear to be gay or lesbian....then you will see that love says more than those so-called morals.
sendanor 8 months ago 4
@sendanor Children become gay because parents don't raise them correctly. My child is a top football star at his school and has a wonderful gf. I raised my children like men, not like open minded parents who think it's ok to be gay.
thetruegladiator 8 months ago
@thetruegladiator ??????? This is unbelievable, I thought your branch of Americans only existed in movies....well, if that remains your opinion, hope reality won't crush you too hard when it starts to overrun you. Blessings by the God and Goddess anyway.
sendanor 8 months ago
@thetruegladiator ...and friend: love keeps existing anyway without regards of physical form or gender.
sendanor 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thetruegladiator And men in your opinion are..?
sendanor 8 months ago
@thetruegladiator But the problem is: Not everyone has a father
petithibou54 8 months ago
@thetruegladiator Unfortunately the people of New York don't have the freedom to decide this issue for themselves. The rat bums in the state government decided for them, and the only way the people can vote on this issue is if that same government allows them to. Which means, the people must first eject all bums from the state government and then elect moral represetatives who will correct this mistake.
Or just wait for the next hurricane.
BelieveIt1051 6 months ago
@BelieveIt1051
"the people"
The US is not a tyranny of the majority. Basic rights cannot be subject to majority whim.
"moral represetatives who will correct this mistake."
There's nothing moral or smart about your ignorance.
"the next hurricane."
What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Do you think the hurricane occurred because of gay marriage? If so, what about the 83 other tropical or subtropical cyclones that have affected the state of New York since the 17th century?
Mattyb88ful 6 months ago
@Mattyb88ful "Basic rights cannot be subject to majority whim."
The problem here is what is a basic right? Our American Civil rights originate with God, and they are codified in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution does not give anyone the right to redefine marriage to mean whatever they want it to mean. Therefore the only ones allowed to redefine it are the people or their elected reps through the voting process. Simple as that.
BelieveIt1051 6 months ago
@BelieveIt1051
"Our American Civil rights originate with God"
No, it does not.
"Therefore the only ones allowed to redefine it are.., their elected reps"
Which is what they did in New York.
Mattyb88ful 6 months ago
@Mattyb88ful "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
The Declaration of Independence makes this perfectly clear that our rights come from God.
Yes those reps in NY did redefine it for their state. So are you saying that you don't have a problem with the government's policy on marriage recognition being determined by the elected representatives?
BelieveIt1051 6 months ago
Its a good thing I don't give a damn about Hollywood's opinions.
N2CChaos 8 months ago
can you find more bangable 50year old ?
povilasbacevicius 9 months ago
Two men should not marry because as we have known since the begining of time and in every society its an abomination
hanksnow82 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hanksnow82
"Two men should not marry because as we have known since the begining of time and in every society its an abomination"
Every society expect modern Western civilisation, among the native Americans, the ancient Greeks and et cetera.
Mattyb88ful 9 months ago
If we all deserve the right to marry the person we love, as Julianne says, does that include our own biological siblings?
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051
You can't compare homosexuality to incest. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Incest is not. No one is born with a 'I'm only attracted to biological siblings' orientation. There are people, however, who are only attracted to members of their own gender. Denying them the right to marry those they love means you're basically taking away their right to marry.
Mattyb88ful 9 months ago
@Mattyb88ful Lets put the sexual aspect of all this aside for a moment. If a brother and a sister love each other very much, shouldn't they be allowed to marry each other? They would be marrying the one they love. Isn't taking away their "right" to "marry" their sibling the same as taking away their "right" to "marry" the one they love?
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051
Technically, you're right. But you can't ignore the sexual aspects. Obviously, Julianne Moore, in this video, is using 'soft' language and trying to appeal to people's emotions, which is why she is saying things like 'the right to marry the person we love'. She is not going to go into a 'logical', scientific debate about the issue.
Mattyb88ful 9 months ago
@Mattyb88ful I'm not ignoring the sexual aspects. I just put it aside for that moment. So you agree that the language is deceptive. She isn't for the "right" to "marry" the one they love. She is for expanding marriage to include same-sex couples only. My complaint with her on this is, if you're for that then that's up to you, but don't go invoking equality and fairness because you're only seeking to expand marriage to the line you have drawn, not to all people of all sexual preferences.
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051
"I'm not ignoring the sexual aspects."
Actually, you are, by equating homosexual with incest and et cetera. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Incest, polygamy and et cetera are not. There is no such thing as an incest preference/orientation. Have you ever heard of someone who has said, 'I'm only attracted to members of my biological family'? I think not. Because incest is not a sexual orientation. Homosexuality is, however, a sexual orientation.
cont...
Mattyb88ful 9 months ago
@Mattyb88ful Why don't you read what I write? I said I was only putting the sexual aspects to the side for a moment.
There is no such thing as an incest sexual preference? Uh, yeah there is. Incestuous people exist. Does a group of shrinks have to announce to you that incestuous is a sexual "orientation" before you accept it as such?
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051
"Uh, yeah there is."
No, there isn't. There are people in incestuous relationships. There is no such thing, however, as an incest sexual preference.
I have never heard of someone claiming to be only attracted to members their biological family. Have you?
Mattyb88ful 9 months ago
@Mattyb88ful Well guess what? There's no such thing as a homosexual sexual preference. How's that?
I have never heard of someone claiming to be only attracted to the same sex.
And what if I have heard of such people who are only attracted to one of their family members? What if they do exist? Do you support "marriage equality" for them, or are you a hateful bigot full of prejudice?
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051
"There's no such thing as a homosexual sexual preference."
Well, there is. There are, firstly, millions of gay people in the world who say they are only attracted to members of the same sex.
As I said before, I have never come across someone who claims that he or she is only attracted to members of his or her biological family. if you know of such a person then please name him or her.
"What if they do exist?"
If you can show they exist then we can talk about it.
Mattyb88ful 9 months ago
@Mattyb88ful Well there's millions of incestuous people in the world who say they are only attracted to members of their family.
I have come across MANY who say they are only attracted to their family members.
As I said, I have never come across someone who claims that he or she is only attracted to members of the same sex.
Let's talk about it. After all, we are discussing those who wish to MARRY. Isn't that proof enough that they want only each other and no one else?
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051
"there's millions of incestuous people in the world who say they are only attracted to members of their family."
Where are these people? Show us where they are.
"I have never come across someone who claims that he or she is only attracted to members of the same sex."
So, you have never met a gay person? You need to get out more. Here is just a few gay men I can think off the top of my head: George Michael, Peter Tatchell, George Takei and Gareth Thomas.
Mattyb88ful 9 months ago
@Mattyb88ful They're all around you. They make up about 10% of the population. The problem is incestophobes like you keep them in the closet with your prejudices.
I have met plenty of homosexuals. They all say they can change if they want to, or that they have changed from heterosexual to homosexual.
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051
"They're all around you."
Yet, however, you can't name me handful of them. It's because they do not exist.
Mattyb88ful 9 months ago
@Mattyb88ful Well incest is illegal, so forgive them for not jumping up and raising their hands all at once. If they tried to have an incest pride parade they'd be blasted with water canons and have the dogs let slip on them.
But incest actually dates back to before homosexuality. In fact, King Tut was the product of an incestuous relationship. Indeed many royal family practiced incest in order to keep their bloodline "pure", including British and Roman royal families.
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051
Once again, this is not about whether incest occurs. It does. I'm not disputing that. What I'm disputing is your ridiculous claim that there exists people who are solely or predominantly only attracted to members of their own biological family. Such a thing doesn't exist. If it did, we would have heard about such people.
And, by the way, incest isn't illegal everywhere. In France, for example, it's not illegal.
Mattyb88ful 9 months ago
@Mattyb88ful You may not have heard of incestuous people. Unlike homosexuals, they keep their private lives to themselves.
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051
If you can't prove that people who are only capable to be attracted to members of their own biological family exist then I'm going to continue to assume they don't exist.
"Unlike homosexuals, they keep their private lives to themselves."
What about heterosexuals? Do they keep their private lives to themselves?
Mattyb88ful 9 months ago
@Mattyb88ful If you can't prove homosexuals are only capable of being attracted to members of their own sex, then I'm going to assume they don't exist.
I'm not here to talk about heterosexuals. I'm using your arguments to argue in favor of incestuous and human/animal "marriage".
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BelieveIt1051
"If you can't prove homosexuals are only capable of being attracted to members of their own sex, then I'm going to assume they don't exist."
It's already proven. Ask any heteosexual man whether they are also attracted to men. If they say no, you have your proof.
If heterosexual men (and women) cannnot be attracted to members of the same sex (in fact, some heterosexual people would find the idea repulsive), how can it be a 'choice' for anyone?
Mattyb88ful 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051
cont....
For example, imagine a man who is in (romantic/sexual) love with his sister. This man is heterosexual. That's his sexual orientation. The fact that the woman he is in love with happens to be his sister is incidental. This man is not incapable of being attracted to other woman (just as no heterosexual man is incapable of loving just one woman).
Now, imagine a gay man in love with another man. In this case, the fact that the other man is gay is NOT incidental.
Mattyb88ful 9 months ago
@Mattyb88ful A man who is in (romantic/sexual) love with his sister is an incestuous heterosexual. Just like how a man in "love" with a little girl is a heterosexual pedophile. Or do you need a term for it? Incesexual! There. You now have a term for it.
How do you know the man can be attracted to women other than his sister? By the same token I can claim that all homosexuals are capable of loving the opposite sex.
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051
"How do you know the man can be attracted to women other than his sister?"
Where is the evidence to the contrary? There is no evidence that there exists such a thing as 'I'm only attracted to members of my own biological family' preference.
Mattyb88ful 9 months ago
@Mattyb88ful The man himself says he can't be attracted to anyone but his sister. He wants to "marry" her. What say you?
BTW, how does incestuous "marriage" affect you or your marriage? Hmm?
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051
"The man himself says he can't be attracted to anyone but his sister."
There is no one in the world who is only attracted to one person. If you want to continue to claim that incest is a sexual preference then you need to bring some evidence in support of that position.
Mattyb88ful 9 months ago
@Mattyb88ful "There is no one in the world who is only attracted to one person."
All the more reason to legalize polygamist "marriage". Also, some married people would disagree with you here, as they claim to love only their spouse and no other.
The fact that some people have sex with their own family members is proof that it is a sexual preference.
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051
"more reason to legalize polygasmist "marriage".
WTF?
"some married... claim to love only their spouse"
Saying you love only one person at anyone one time doesn't conflict with what I said. These people are not incapable of finding other members of the opposite sex attractive.
"that some people have sex with their opwn family members is proof that it is a sexual preference."
No, it's not. Have you ever heard of the proverd: one swallow doesn't make a summer?
Mattyb88ful 9 months ago
@Mattyb88ful You said yourself, "There is no one in the world who is only attracted to one person". Therefore you agree that restricting marriage to only two people contradicts nature and everyone's sexual orientation. And so the only thing to do is allow polygamist "marriage".
Sure they are. Many people who lose their spouse refuse to remarry. Furthermore, the point is that the incestuous WANT to "marry" their family member, just like a homosexual wants to "marry" the ONE they love.
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@Mattyb88ful Now as for the sexual aspects, science has shown that sexuality is not inborn. It is a choice based on how one is raised and what one experiences in life. Science has also shown that siblings raised apart and who don't meet each other until adulthood are usually very attracted to each other sexually because of similar facial characteristics and similar personas. The reason siblings raised together typically don't show this is because they learn that family is off limits for sex.
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051
"science has shown that sexuality is not inborn"
It has shown no such thing.
"It is a choice based on how one is raised and what one experiences in life."
Where is the evidence for this claim?
Mattyb88ful 9 months ago
@Mattyb88ful Yes it has. Twin studies show that identical twins rised apart can show one to be homosexual and the other to be heterosexual. If sexuality were biological, both siblings would be either homosexual or heterosexual.
My evidence is from studies done on homosexuals who have; changed sexual preference over the course of their lives, have identified a common experience of their childhood that influences them to be homosexual, or have freely admitted that they chose to be homosexual.
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051
"Twin studies"
Twin studies show that if one half of an identical twin is gay then the other is far more likely to be gay. This shows that homosexuality is, at least partly, genetic.
Secondly, genetics is far more complicated than you imply. Environment has a significant impact on whether and how a gene manifests itself. I think it's called epigenetics.
Thirdly, there could be other ways, apart from genes, for homosexuality to be from birth, like prenatal hormones.
Mattyb88ful 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051
the difference between not allowing incest marriage and not allowing gay marriage is like the difference between telling a (heterosexual) man (a) 'you can't marry these ten women in the world' and (b) 'you can't marry any woman in the world'.
Mattyb88ful 9 months ago
@Mattyb88ful You prove my point. Telling a polygamist that he can't "marry" 10 women is like telling a homosexual he can't "marry" someone of the same sex.
YOU are discriminating against the polygamists! What are you a bigot?
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@Mattyb88ful Now then, the fact that a person can marry someone other than their sibling is irrelevant. After all, homosexuals can marry someone of the opposite sex, but I doubt you would propose that as a valid option for them. The point is that the person would choose to "marry" their sibling, and they would be denied that. Why? Because marriage does not apply to close blood relatives. Marriage does not apply to same-sex couples either.
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051
"homosexuals can marry someone of the opposite sex"
No, they can't. They are not attracted to members of the opposite sex. That's like saying herbivores can eat.. as long as they are willing to eat meat.
Mattyb88ful 9 months ago
@Mattyb88ful What do you mean no they can't? A homosexual male and homosexual female cannot marry?
Or are you saying they don't WANT to marry someone of the opposite sex and should therefore be allowed to "marry" the same sex?
Well in that case incestuous couples can't marry outside their family since they don't WANT to. Therefore they should be allowed incestuous "marriage". Yes?
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051
"A homosexual male and a homosexual female cannot marry?"
No, they can't, just like two heterosexual men can't get married.
Of what would a marriage of a homosexual and a homosexual woman or a marriage of two heterosexual men consist?
Mattyb88ful 9 months ago
@Mattyb88ful Two heterosexual men cannot "marry" because same-sex "marriage" is not recognized. A homosexual male and a homosexual female CAN marry each other though. So your point is moot.
Of what would they consist? You want me to say "two people", right? Well then why just two people? Why not three? Also, if only two people, why not a brother and sister?
Why MUST we accept the "right" of homosexuals to "marry" however they want but not incestuous or polygamists to "marry" who they want?
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051
"A homosexual male and a homosexual female CAN marry each other though."
ON paper, yes. Not, however, in reality. As I said before, it's like giving meat to a herbivorous animal.
"but not incestuous or polygamists"
There are no such thing as 'incestuous' people. I have already made that point. As for polygamist, well, they can get married. It's just that they can only get married to one person.
Mattyb88ful 9 months ago
@Mattyb88ful On paper and in reality. I didn't say they would want to or that they would be happy in said marriage, but legally speaking they can marry, and THAT is the issue were are talking about here. What the LAW allows.
If that is like giving meat to a vegetarian, then so is giving non-family marriage to incestuos couples.
There's no such thing as incestuous people? Well then there's no such thing as homosexual people. Again, polygamist married to one person = meat to vegitarian.
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051
"There's no such thing as incestuous people?"
There is no one who is ONLY attracted to members of their own biological family. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN INCESTUOUS ORIENTATION/PREFERENCE.
AND, you have done NOTHING to prove otherwise. You say there are millions of people who have this incestuous orientation - yet, however, you can't list me a couple of people who are ONLY attracted to members of their own family.
Mattyb88ful 9 months ago
@Mattyb88ful Even if what you say were true, how does that justify you denying incestuous people their "civil right" to "marry" the person they love? Why must they choose someone else?
That would be like me saying that homosexuals cannot "marry" the person they love, rather a complete stranger who is also a homosexual of the same sex.
Incest is all over the place. It's just the social stigma perpetuated by bigots like you that keeps it hidden in the shadows.
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051
"Even if what you say were true"
It changes everything. A man who wants to marry his sister (and, therefore, is heterosexual) can marry ANY woman in the world - just not his sister (or mother etc). Gays don't have the right to marry ANY one of the same sex. Marriage is off the table for them.
Banning incest marriage is LIKE telling meat eaters: you can eat every animal EXCEPT other humans
Banning gay marriage is like telling meat eaters: you can't have any meat.
Mattyb88ful 9 months ago
@Mattyb88ful Here's the flaw with your counter argument that you keep failing to address. A homosexual can marry almost anyone of the opposite sex and be married. You say this is unacceptable because he or she is not attracted to the opposite sex, whatever. Fine. In that case, it is unacceptable to demand that an incestuous couple marry someone else, because for them it means the same thing. You would be prohibiting them from marrying the ONE they love.
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051
"A homosexual can marry almost anyone of the opposite sex..."
Irrelevant. That's like saying a herbivorous animal can eat any meat it wants. The point is that it doesn't eat meat.
"because for them it means the same thing."
No, it doesn't. I've said this countless times before and your stupid repetition of it is getting tedious. There is no such thing as an incestuous orientation/preference. If you want to claim there is provide some EVIDENCE.
Mattyb88ful 9 months ago
@Mattyb88ful Then you refuted your own argument. Incestuous people could marry someone outside their family, but they don't want to. Therefore you must accept their right to "marry" the one they love.
The fact that incestuous people exist is proof that incest is a sexual preference. You accepted the fact that they exist, therefore you must accept their claim of having said preference. Otherwise, we have no reason to accept homosexuality as a sexual preference either.
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051
Incestuous people could marry someone outside their family, but they don't want to."
They are capable of being attracted to people outside their biological family. As I said, there is no such thing as an incestuous orientation/preference. A man who is sexually/romatically attached to his sister is heterosexual. He likes women. This particular attraction he has just happens to be to his sister. He can, and will be, attracted to other women, just like all heterosexual men.
Mattyb88ful 9 months ago
@Mattyb88ful Homosexuals are capible of being attracted to people outside their own sex (gender).
Besides this, marriage is not defined based on sexual preference. So your argument is moot to begin with.
The fact of the matter is that you are denying incestous people the "civil right" of "marrying" the one they love. Just as people are denying homosexuals the "civil right" to "marry" the one they love now.
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@Mattyb88ful Better yet, let me put it another way. It would be like you finding the one you really love, and then me telling you that you cannot marry that person because there are plenty of other people out there that you can marry instead. Get it?
Also, your argument does not take into consideration that these incestuous people may not be attracted to anyone except their family member. So asking them to marry outside their family would be like asking a homosexual to marry the opposite sex.
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051
"your argument does not take into consideration that these incestuous people may not be attracted to anyone except their family member."
Where is the EVIDENCE that such people exist? You can't just claim such people exist without providing a shred of EVIDENCE. Who are these people who can ONLY be attracted to members of their biological family? People who can ONLY be sexually/romatically attracted to their parents, siblings and children and no one else?
Mattyb88ful 9 months ago
@Mattyb88ful Where is YOUR evidence that homosexuals cannot choose to be attracted to the opposite sex?
Besides, this isn't about sexual preference. I disproved this already. Marriage is not defined by sexual preference of those involved. It is defined by sex (gender). Something you say should be taken out. Therefore, why can I not demand the consanguinity stipulation be removed also?
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051
"YOUR evidence that homosexuals cannot choose"
The testimony of all those I know, heterosexual and homosexual, who didn't choose their sexual orientation, not to mention the massive research evidence that has built up, which has convinced the APA and etc that sexual orientation isn't a choice.
It's also common sense. Why would someone choose to be gay? There's anything wrong with being gay but gay people are the most victimised and maltreated minority in the world.
Mattyb88ful 9 months ago
@Mattyb88ful Prove that your research is true. My research also shows that biological siblings raised apart and who meet later in life can be attracted to each other in a much more powerful way than is the case with non-family members. This is because they are attracted to the many similarities they have and because they were raised apart, never developed a sense of their family member being off limits for sex.
Why would someone choose to be incestous? Unlike gays, they face legal punishment!
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051
"your research."
The research is out. Read it.
"My research also shows that biological siblings"
That doesn't prove that people who are solely/mainly attracted to members of their own biological family exist.
"choose to be incestuous?"
No one chooses to have an incestuous orientation because, as I have shown, there's no such thing as an incestuous orientation.
"they face legal punishment!"
Gays face legal punishment in around 70-80 countries.
Mattyb88ful 9 months ago
@Mattyb88ful I have looked everywhere and can't find any of your "research".
None of what you said proves that people who are only attracted to the same sex exist. Unless you can find a homosexual "gene", your claims are invalid.
Well I think it would be hard to choose any sexual orientation assuming orientation is set during fetal development. I said no one can choose to be incestuous because who would choose a preference that can get you thrown in jail? So why would anyone choose that?
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051
"can't find any of your "research"."
Check the American Psychological Association's website.
"None of what you said proves that people who are only attracted to the same sex exist."
That there are heterosexual people and homosexual people is a fact. Ask a heterosexual man whether he is also attracted to men. Let us see what sort of response you get.
"So why would anyone choose that?"
No one chooses an incestuous orientation because such a thing doesn't exist.
Mattyb88ful 9 months ago
@Mattyb88ful That there are incestuous people is a fact. Ask an incestuous person if he or she is capable of being attracted to someone outside his or her family and see what kind of a response you get.
What do you mean it doesn't exist? People engage in incest. Therefore it exists. Or are you saying you need the AMA to tell you it exists before you accept it as so?
And besides, how does a brother and sister "marrying" each other harm you or your marriage?
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051
I'm not saying incestuous relationships have not/do not occur. What I am disputing is the existence of an incestuous orientation, the existence of people who are solely or primary attracted to members of their own family. There are, of course, homosexuals and heterosexuals. People who are solely or primarily attracted to members of the same sex or opposite sex. There is no evidence, however, that there exists an incestuous orientation.
Mattyb88ful 9 months ago
@Mattyb88ful By your argument, if people engage in it, then the orientation for it must exist. Especially if those who do it face social ridicule for it. Also, we must absolutely take a person's word for it, because there is no possible way they could be lying. So if one says they are attracted to only one thing, that must be the truth.
By your counter argument I could say that no homosexual orientation exists, and that since there is no racial orientation, interracial marriage can be banned.
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051
"a person's word for it"
I've asked you to find me people who say they are only attracted to their family - no, not someone who says, "I'm in love with my sister," because that's not what I am asking. There are hunreds of millions of gays, billions of heterosexuals who say they are attracted to members of their own sex and the oppositve sex, respectively. If an incest orientation exists, you should be able to find people who say that they are only attracted to their family.
Mattyb88ful 9 months ago
@Mattyb88ful You have shown those who say they are attracted only to whatever, but that doesn't prove their sexuality is inborn. People are that way by choice.
Finding those who claim to be attracted to only one thing serves no purpose. I already said, limiting marriage based on who else a person can be attracted to is like telling an interracial couple they can't get married because there are others they can be attracted to in their own race.
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051
"choice."
There's no evidence for this. You go up to a heterosexual man and ask whether he chose to be attracted to women, ask him whether he is also attracted to men but just chooses to be with women. If the answer is no, then you have been proven wrong. Orientation is not a choice.
cont....
Mattyb88ful 9 months ago
@Mattyb88ful What of a fertile couple that chooses not to have children? Do I think that's wrong. Yes, I do. I think people should at least replace themselves. However, their choice does not in any way harm or change the definition of marriage. They simple fail to live up to marriage's full meaning. Same-sex couples destroy marriage's meaning because same-sex relationships cannot produce children.
I chose to be heterosexual. Therefore by your own standard you have been proven wrong.
BelieveIt1051 6 months ago
@BelieveIt1051
"I chose to be heterosexual."
No, you don't. You didn't choose to be heterosexual. That's how you were born. Similarly, gay people are born gay.
Mattyb88ful 6 months ago
@Mattyb88ful Wait a sec, who are you to tell me about what I am or what I chose to be? This is why discussion with your type is impossible. You tell us that we must accept that people are born homosexual because that is what homosexuals claim, and yet in the case of those who claim they did choose their sexuality, they are to be disregarded wether they're heterosexual or homosexual.
I most certainly was NOT born heterosexual. I remember a time when I disliked girls and thought they were gross.
BelieveIt1051 6 months ago
@BelieveIt1051
"Wait a sec, who are you to tell me about what I am or what I chose to be?"
Fine. Where is the fucking EVIDENCE that you choose to be heterosexual? Where is the EVIDENCE that you had sexual feelings towards men and women but decided to get rid of your sexual and romantic attraction towards men? Let us see some EVIDENCE!
"I remember a time when I disliked girls and thought they were gross."
That doesn't mean you weren't heterosexual.
Mattyb88ful 6 months ago
@Mattyb88ful Well now who needs evidence? I thought all you needed was someone claiming to be something. That's all you require of the homosexuals after all, isn't it?
I never said I was ever attracted to the same sex. I said I chose my heterosexuality. So when I was a kid I was asexual, that is, having no sexual preference. Then in my early teenage years I decided that I should seek out a female companion for romantic relationship purposes. So I did. Thus, "EVIDENCE" that I chose my sexuality.
BelieveIt1051 6 months ago
@BelieveIt1051
"That's all you require of the homosexuals after all"
It's not just their testimony. It's also research which has led organisations such as the American Psychological Association to conclude that there's no solid evidence that people choose to be gay or heterosexual.
"I decided that I should seek out a female"
You decided to seek out a female companion because you were attracted to women.
Mattyb88ful 6 months ago
@BelieveIt1051
cont....
"there are others they can be attracted to in their own race."
That's right. The ban on interracial marriage was less severe than the ban on gay marriage. At least heterosexuals who were around when interracial marriage was banned could marry someone of the opposite sex within their own 'race'. For gays marriage is completely denied.
I would, however, oppose a ban on interracial marriage because, for example, (1) what's the point? (2) it's discrimination.
Mattyb88ful 9 months ago
@Mattyb88ful The ban on interracial marriage was more severe because that was an actual ban. There is no ban on same-sex couples marrying because marriage simply does not and has never applied to same-sex couples. Marriage has always applied to couples regardless of race however. Marriage is denied to same-sex couples because marriage does not apply to two people of the same sex. It only applies to 1 man and 1 woman. That's how it's always been.
BelieveIt1051 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BelieveIt1051
"Marriage has always applied to couples regardless of race however."
Not in the US till a couple of decades ago.
"marriage does not apply to two people of the same sex."
That's your opinion.
"It only applies to 1 man and 1 woman. That's how it's always been."
I think Muslims and Mormons would disagree with that.
Mattyb88ful 6 months ago
@Mattyb88ful No, banning same-sex "marriage" is like telling the meat eaters that they can have tacos but not hotdogs. Or vice-versa depending on the sex of the meat eater. :p
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051
No, gay people are not attracted to members of the oppiste sex. So, if you deny them the rifght to marry members of the same sex, you have taken away from them the right to marry, which the US Supreme Court has ruled on a number of occasions to be a fundamental right.
Mattyb88ful 9 months ago
@Mattyb88ful Well then by your illogic, interracial marriage can be banned too, since well, a white can marry someone of the same race. There's no such thing as a racial sexual preference.
Also, in all seriousness, I reject your claim that homosexuals cannot possibly be attracted to the opposite sex. Sexuality is chosen. Homosexuals can and HAVE changed and become heterosexual.
But this is beside the point and it is irrelevant to the issue. This is about who they WANT to MARRY.
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051
"Sexuality is chosen. Homosexuals can and HAVE changed and become heterosexual."
No, that's a lie refuted by thew American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, Royal College of Physicians and et cetera, not to mention billions of heterosexual and homosexual people who testify that they did not choose to be heterosexual or homosexual.
Mattyb88ful 9 months ago 2
@Mattyb88ful This had never been refuted. Ex-gays exist, whether you admit it or not. Unless your homosexuals can prove to me that they are unable to change their sexual preference, then they can just marry someone of the opposite sex.
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051 the term "ex-gays" makes no sense to me. as a gay person it would seem you were either referring to bisexuals or homosexuals who have felt the need to conform to what society deems "normal sexual behaviour" - if it makes people happy to marry a member of the same-sex and it doesn't cause harm to anyone else then I don't see what the problem is.
fdnlt 9 months ago
@fdnlt The term "ex-gay" refers to a person who was once homosexual or bisexual and has since chosen to become heterosexual or asexual. Whatever their reasons for changing, the fact remains that change is possible.
If it makes people happy to marry a member of their own bloodline and it doesn't cause harm to anyone else then I don't see what the problem is.
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051 maybe on the surface change is possible, and in bisexual people sure, but i don't believe a person who is born homosexual can become heterosexual in the same way a black person can't become white - they can put make-up on or what have you but the fact remains that they have been born a certain way. anyway, by that that logic it becomes a fact that sexuality is fluid, (gay to straight, straight to gay) so i don't see how that supports the argument against gay marriage
fdnlt 9 months ago
@fdnlt Well I never touted it as an argument against same-sex "marriage", but it would in any case refute Mattyb88ful's argument. He thinks that since homosexuals are not able to change, that means marriage must be changed to suit them. In other words, they can't just marry someone of the opposite sex because they aren't attracted to the opposite sex. As flawed as his argument is, if people can change sexual preference, it negates his argument completely.
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051 even if all homosexuals were capable of becoming straight, does that mean that same-sex marriage shouldn't be allowed? it is a clear fact that same-sex love occurs, whether or not a homosexual can turn heterosexual. before 1967 in the southern states you could say to a woman in love with a black man, sorry since you are capable to marrying another white person you cannot marry the black man that you love. isn't this the same situation we're in with homosexuality?
fdnlt 9 months ago
@fdnlt No, same-sex "marriage" should not be allowed in any case. Though sexuality is chosen.
It is not the same situation because marriage has never been defined by race. It has always been defined by gender. Also, the "laws" passed in some states to ban interracial marriage were in direct violation of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits government from creating laws based on race.
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
i agree that marriage has never been defined by race-it has been defined by love & commitment & the legal rights each party can secure for each other. the 14th amendment was introduced to stop bigotry and discrimination, any racist law before that was therefore unjust. who's to say the current law isn't as bigoted and discriminatory. if the only appeal for keeping marriage as is is due to tradition/law and it's clear that homosexuals can fall in love & many want to get married, why not?
fdnlt 9 months ago
@fdnlt ...okay marriage has always been defined as a one man one woman union. That's what we're talking about here. Society defines what marriage is. The law merely states what the government recognizes within that public domain.
The 14th was made to stop skin color prejudice in the government.
Who is to say the current definition of marriage isn't as bigoted and discriminatory? The voters.
Marriage should be preserved as is because it is the foundation of a civilization.
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051 sure, but you agree that a polygamist should have the right if it's a free and consenting marriage, that' s not one man one woman either. yes marriage is traditionally defined as being about a one man one woman union- but it was created to bind people to a committed relationship that should ultimately be based on love, and love isn't always between one man and one woman. people would've screwed up their faces about interracial marriage at one time, definitions change...
fdnlt 9 months ago
@fdnlt Actually no I don't agree that people have or should have a right to marry whoever they want or how ever many people they want. Also I don't think love does exist between people of the same sex. At least, not the kind of love that exists between a happily married husband and wife. Maybe a sibling, family, or friend type love, but not a romantic, spiritual, or natural love. Quite frankly I think what they share is a perversion to love, and that's why marriage shouldn't be redefined at all.
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051 cont... of course, the voters should make the final decision but it is important that voters have really thought through what it means to society to support loving and committed relationships whatever the sexual orientation of the parties involved. i wouldn't say marriage was the foundation of a civilisation but it's certainly important to cultivate ideas about love, trust, support and commitment, and i don't see why gay marriage wouldn't continue to promote that
fdnlt 9 months ago
@fdnlt As the voters should also consider the consequences of redefining marriage to mean anything and everything. When it means anything, it ultimately means nothing at all. It becomes nothing but a common fad.
Same-sex "marriage" would destroy the basic concepts of love and commitment because homosexuality itself is incompatible with those concepts. Homosexuality is about rejecting social norms and having a deviant form of sex. Nothing more. Marriage should not be used to promote that.
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051 i don't really buy into the slippery slope idea because a marriage between a man and a woman will always mean the same thing, whether or not homosexuals are invited to also celebrate their love in the same way. fear is the root of hate, and there is nothing to fear about accepting other people for who they are and allowing them happiness. social norms are malleable and relative to culture and history, deviation is difficult to define.
fdnlt 9 months ago
@fdnlt You shouldn't buy into any idea. You should examine all ideas closely using logic. The Slippery Slope argument can be true or it can be false. It depends if the person can prove that A leads to B and so on.
Redefining marriage to be gender neutral, that is allow people to marry either sex, will destroy the definition and purpose of marriage. The third most primary reason for marriage is to provide a stable basis for a couple to have and raise children. Same-sex couples can't do this.
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051 let's look at it logically then, legalising consensual marital relationships between homosexuals will perhaps lead to other consensual marital relationships between individuals. but can there be any other such marital unions? as this does not include zoophilia and paedophilia, and probably not polygamy, as I do not believe this is what truly free and consenting individuals want (i may be wrong). can a good christian man and woman not marry if they are infertile then?
fdnlt 9 months ago
@fdnlt How does two people of the same sex "marrying" lead to others "marrying"? If anything it will lead to less, since the meaning of marriage will be destroyed.
A man and woman can marry even if one or both are sterile/infertile because procreation is possible in the one man one woman relationship type. So this couple's marriage does not contradict the procreation aspect of marriage's purpose.
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051 i don't think it does lead to others marrying, it is you who seems to think that same-sex marriage will lead to zoophilic marriage etc. of course it contradicts the procreation aspect - they can't procreate! and what of a straight, fertile married couple who choose not to have children - would you say that was wrong? how does it destroy the meaning of marriage? i'm sure you've heard that divorce rates are higher in states that have banned gay marriage!
fdnlt 9 months ago
@fdnlt Same-sex "marriage" has only been allowed in the U.S. for 8 years or so. Of course we wouldn't see much of a push for other perverse deathstyles being recognized by marriage. However we have already seen the case being made for polygamy in the states. In Canada where it was allowed earlier, the courts are now hearing the merits of redefining marriage to include polygamy. In The Netherlands where it was first allowed, polygamy is recognized. All thanks to same-sex "marriage".
BelieveIt1051 6 months ago
@BelieveIt1051 secondly, i don't know if you're using this incest talk as an ad absurdum argument but apart from my knee-jerk reaction of disgust to the idea of incestual relationships i do not see a problem with family members falling in love and marrying, if it is a consensual relationship. when you investigate the matter it's hard to pinpoint anything morally wrong with it. but if you are in fact arguing for incestual marriage then a similar logic applies to homosexuals doesn't it?
fdnlt 9 months ago
@fdnlt Okay then, thanks for being honest. Under your argument for same-sex "marriage" you would also allow incestuous "marriage". Now lets move to the next issue. Polygamy. Why just two people married to each other? Why not three? Also, don't forget bisexuals. They love both sexes. Therefore shouldn't they be allowed to "marry" one of each sex?
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051incest is different from homosexuality in that it is not a sexual pref. but sure the same argument applies. again if it is between free & consenting individuals i don't see a problem. note: bisexuals in general do not want 2 life-partners, in the same way that a heterosexual generally doesn't, they are just able to love both sexes- sure they should be able to but it's unlikely i think that they would or that people would engage in polygamy as it generally is harmful to some party
fdnlt 9 months ago
@fdnlt But shouldn't polygamy be open to those who do want to be "married" in that way?
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051 if it is between free & consenting individuals i don't see a problem. unless there is coercion involved (as there often is with polygamous marriage) then fine. at the same time i don't see a high demand for polygamous marriage (or incestuous marriage) to be legalised. the government to a certain extent has to respond to public demands in a changing society - and there are millions of gays wanting to get married and clearly millions of straight people who support the cause.
fdnlt 9 months ago
@fdnlt Well a polygamist couple that goes before a justice of the peace or a preacher will have to prove consent just like everyone else.
I don't see high demand for same-sex "marriage" either. They are only 5% of the population, at most. Plus most of them don't even want to get "married" in the first place.
If so many people support it then let the people vote on it. We'll have our debate and then we can vote. Then let the side with the most votes prevail.
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051 yeah, then it's fine. i suppose what i meant to say is many gay people want to get married or the human right to commit to a relationship that is recognised by the law. maybe that constitutes a minority of the population because only a minority are homosexual, but a lot more people (I should hope), support equal rights, tolerance and respect to all people who do not intend to harm or pose a threat to anyone else
fdnlt 9 months ago
@fdnlt I think everyone supports equal rights, but come on, no one in America has the right to redefine marriage to fit their own relationship type, and no one has the right to marry whoever they want to. Marriage only means one thing. If you want redefine marriage, be honest about it. Don't go crowing about "rights", because the incestuous, polygamists, zoophiles, pedophiles, and all the rest will be crowing about their "rights" too, and they'll have you to thank for blazing the trail for them.
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051 zoophiles & paedophiles would not be permitted to marry as it does not involve two free & consenting individuals, which is my main argument. here in the UK, we have something called a civil partnership-would a different term (though it is essentially the same thing) make you more comfortable?as i think you seem to fear change because youre worried about it destroying an institution - it's not destroying it, there is no reason that these two types of marriage can't co-exist
fdnlt 9 months ago
@fdnlt Who says it doesn't involve two free consenting individuals? The law? Oh well the law must be changed then. After all, the law once said that blacks were not free or able to consent to anything either.
Also, child/adult and human/animal "marriage" has a history dating back to ancient Greece. Same-sex "marriage" only dates back to 2001!
So why shouldn't those "marriages" be recognized as well? How does it hurt you? Why do you fear this change?
BelieveIt1051 9 months ago
@BelieveIt1051 animals cannot consent to anything and children ought to be protected from exploitation. your slippery slope argument is analogous to: "giving women voting rights? it'll be kids or animals next!" this hasn't happened as we can recognise the differences in both situations! and in places where same-sex unions are legal, there have been no follow-ups in legalising other unions. those marriages shouldn't be recognised as they do not encourage a consensual loving committed relationship
fdnlt 9 months ago
@fdnlt Animals can initiate sex, but that's irrelevant. Animals can be owned by people and made to do things without consent. Marriage would be the LEAST of an animal's concerns. As for kids, I don't think "exploitation" is what they'd call it. They'd call it "equality", same as the homosexuals do. Child/adult and human/animal "marriage" already exists in other countries. The slippery slope is real because same-sex "marriage" reduces the meaning of marriage, thus allowing more redefinitions.
BelieveIt1051 6 months ago
I'm so happy to find Julianne Moore, my all-time favorite actress, in a video like this. You're awesome! Keep up the great work!
VCECOOPD 10 months ago 2
God bless you, Julianne, for all your wonderful work!
ScottyDoug 10 months ago
A few years ago she made a TV ad in support of gay marriage. Anyone know where I can view that again? I can't find it here on YouTube. Someone should upload it if they find it.
MikeScott21 10 months ago
I love this woman. She's so intelligent and talented.
MikeScott21 10 months ago
Well said, Julianne. There's so much truth in this!
Bliss4Love 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
phildrice our new feature presentation FOR 3/23/11 / 10:55 p.m. I WENT BACK TO SAY GOODBYE 2 Mrs. GREEN. I HAVE KEPT MY VISITS TO SEE HER A SECRET FOR OVER 5 YEARS. I DO NOT WANT TO GO BACK. LOOK PEOPLE I AM BEGINNING TO THINK I WASTED MY LIFE FOR THE PAST 8 YEARS 4 PEOPLE LIKE A FREAKING IDIOT & IF SHE HAD DIED BECAUSE I NEVER INTERFEERED ABOUT HER MONEY OR HER BEING LEFT TO GASS HERSELF 2 DEATH I WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER OFF BY NOW & WOULD HAVE MY GREAT LIFE UN-INTERRUPTED!!! LOOK AT ME NOW?
phildrice 11 months ago
Thank you, Julianne Moore! Gay Rights = Civil Rights = Human Rights.
luguicastro 1 year ago 2
In Canada where they have had gay marriage for quite a while now there is an interesting unintended consequence . Hetrosexuals are not choosing to marry and their marriages are at a record low since they opened up marriage to gays . Really if they are going to let anything marry anything why bother .
hanksnow82 1 year ago
@hanksnow82 it's not anything marrying anything fool! It's two human beings in love.
strafrag1 1 year ago
@strafrag1 You have not been paying attention ,the Polygamists in Brittish Columbia Canada are on the cusp of winning a landmark trial allowing polygamy based on the fact homosexuals can marry in Canada lobbies for groups that want age laws made illegal (ie) pedophiles and those that would like beastilality laws changed say this opens the door for a favorable judgement from the courts . It truly will be anything with anything very soon .
hanksnow82 1 year ago
@hanksnow82 sorry about that. i did not read every comment before.
strafrag1 1 year ago
@hanksnow82: Those alleged polygamists were just making a very irrelevant point in order to defend their illegal activity that should be prohibited in the first place. Supporters of gay marriage only promote a healthy, monogamous, marital realionship between the deeply committed same-sex couples. We are looking forward to the federal legalization of a monogamous same-sex marriage which decreases the high risk of divorce and STDs, not the "archaic" polygamy.
Ban polygamy permanently.
Theclowcard 11 months ago 2
@Theclowcard As i said those admitted polygamists are on the cusp of winning their case and the pedophiles are up next to challange the law . Look for the decision to come down in this case in the next couple of weeks .
hanksnow82 11 months ago
@hanksnow82 don't worry, the muslims will fix the problem.
denisonM 10 months ago
@denisonM
"the muslims will fix the problem."
Yeah, by oppressing and even killing gays, atheists, free thinkers, religious minorities and et cetera.
Mattyb88ful 9 months ago
@hanksnow82
"the Polygamists in Brittish Columbia...based on the fact homosexuals can"
There is no comparison between polygamy and homosexuality. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Polygamy is not. Polygamists are not denied the right to marry. A (heterosexual) polygamist man can marry a woman. It's just that he can only marry one woman, but at least he has the right to marry one woman . A gay man, however, cannot marry at all.
Mattyb88ful 9 months ago
@Mattyb88ful There certainly is a comparison as the Brittish Columbia polygamists have filed a court claim that since the Canadian government says the state can't dictate what sex you marry it can't dictate how many people you marry or how old they must be . Polygamists and some muslims want to be able to marry a girl as soon as she has her first menstrual cycle 10 - 12 in many cases . The ruling on this case is expected next week and will be based on the homo marriage law .. aka slippery slope
hanksnow82 9 months ago
@hanksnow82
"slippery slope"
Saying, 'if we allow gay marriage we're gona to have to legalise polygamous marriage' is like saying 'if we give women the vote then we will also have to give it to horses'. What do women have to do with horses? Also, what does homosexuality have to do with polygamy? Not much. So, the slippery slope argument doesn't work. Gay people don't ahve the right to marry. These polygamists do. They are just greedy, however - they want to marry more than one person.
Mattyb88ful 9 months ago
@Mattyb88ful The "slippery slope" argument has come to fruition in the Bountiful polygamy case . GOOGLE (Lawyer in Bountiful polygamy case uses gay marriage defence)Granting homosexuals the right to marry in Canada has created the very scenario "slipper slope" that people warned about and there is no denying that anymore . The pedophiles and zoophiles are going to line up next to exploit the laws that made homosexual marriage legal in Canada next . The slippery slope has become an avalanche .
hanksnow82 9 months ago
@hanksnow82
There is no connection between gay marriage and poygamy, pedophilia and zoophilia. The last two (pedo and zoo) are nonconsensual, so they can't get married because marriage is a contract and you have to be a consenting adult to sign a contract, which obviously a child and a non-human animal is not.
As for polygamy, it's not a sexual orientation, therefore, not comparable to homosexuality.
Mattyb88ful 9 months ago
@Mattyb88ful The truth is there are a bunch of lawyers arguing that the law in Canada that allows homosexual marriage also allows polygamy , pedophilia and perhaps zoophilia . Will see what the court rules next week .
hanksnow82 9 months ago
@hanksnow82
well those lawyers are stupid and I highly doubt the court will be convinced.
Mattyb88ful 9 months ago
@hanksnow82 Marriage rates have been declining for a long time (long before same-gender marriage equality), what data can you point to that shows the rate of marriage in Canada has decelerated faster since marriage-equality was enacted. The divorce rate in Canada is 3% higher since 2003, but their population has increased 5% during that time. This is statistically insignificant. Same-gender marriage equality was enacted in 2005. In America... (cont.)
EmeraldView 1 year ago
@hanksnow82 (cont.) In America, States which have enacted marriage equality for same-gender couples the divorce rates are remarkably lower (in Massachusetts it's been a 20% decline in divorces). As a matter of fact, in the States which enacted Constitutional Amendments to deny same-gender marriage equality, their divorce rates have INCREASED by .9%, even while states which didn't have legal same-gender marriage but enacted no Constitutional Amendment against it, also saw a lower divorce rate.
EmeraldView 1 year ago