The future if "gay marriage" becomes widely accepted - just imagine

[EasterJoy]

If people only wanted to give single adults who cannot marry the right to give each other benefits that would help them care for each other and any children they bring into their homes, I would not have a problem with that. What irks me is that homosexuals in our state expressly resisted an arrangement that would have done that.

That says to me that this isn't about civil rights so that people can love and take care of each other and hold up their heads. It is about giving homosexuality and homosexual sex a status that is not only equal but the same as heterosexuality, totally ignoring that relationships between the so-called "breeders" really are significantly different.

Even from a secular and natural standpoint, that seems hypocritical to me.

Actually, the next civil rights struggle I see is single people who don't want to see married people with no children getting any tax breaks just because they share their property.

[Crescentinus]

Originally Posted by EasterJoy

Actually, the next civil rights struggle I see is single people who don't want to see married people with no children getting any tax breaks just because they share their property.

We have that now. It's the Occupy Movement!

[EasterJoy]

Originally Posted by Crescentinus

We have that now. It's the Occupy Movement!

So far, though, they're still getting thrown in jail for that. They are given a great deal of leeway when they're making a political protest on public property, but the ones that have been found squatting in bank-owned houses have been summarily thrown out, and usually charged with trespass.

The "new definition" of marriage does leave it open to charges by single people that the institution gives unjust preference to people who co-habit for the purpose of having a sexual partner. Once it is un-moored from the rearing of children conceived by natural means, the whole reason society ought to support it over other adult living arrangements become less and less compelling.

Homosexual "marriage rights", combined with no-fault divorce on demand and the rising proportion of children born and raised outside of marriage, may kill secular marriage altogether. When marriage is defined strictly in terms of sexual relationships over which society can compel nothing in terms of either duration or type (what remains, save incest and pedophilia?), disproportionately in favor of benefits enjoyed by the married and away from any responsibilities that the married give to anyone outside the marriage, there gets to be a point where the institution becomes an injustice to those who choose to remain single. I certainly see no reason that a court that finds bans on homsexuality inherently unjust could find a reason to uphold bans on plural marriage.

[Crescentinus]

Originally Posted by EasterJoy

So far, though, they're still getting thrown in jail for that. They are given a great deal of leeway when they're making a political protest on public property, but the ones that have been found squatting in bank-owned houses have been summarily thrown out, and usually charged with trespass.

Indeed. They have failed when it comes to protests and preparation.

Does the Occupy Movement support so-called same-sex marriage?

[EasterJoy]

Originally Posted by Crescentinus

Does the Occupy Movement support so-called same-sex marriage?

They are a very ill-defined movement, but they're not that ill-defined!! The Occupy Movement is about calling the justice of laws concerning wealth distribution into question, not about sexual mores. The movement is well-defined with regards to saying that the present laws leading to high concentrations of wealth in the hands of a few is unfair, but in terms of saying what exactly is wrong and how the perception of injustice is to be remedied, they don't have a well-defined policy that they're trying to enact.

As far as I know, Occupy doesn't address same-sex marriage at all.

[JillianRose]

Originally Posted by meltzerboy

I'm sure one day people will be getting married to their siblings, parents, children, and pets, first in twos, then in threes and fours. And finally we'll discover we're all married to each other. That sounds about right, doesn't it?

I got a new Dyson Vacuum!! I swear with 3 boys its a miracle!! I wish I could marry my vacuum...lol

[EasterJoy]

Originally Posted by JillianRose

I got a new Dyson Vacuum!! I swear with 3 boys its a miracle!! I wish I could marry my vacuum...lol

If you've produced 3 boys with your vacuum cleaner, yes, that's a miracle.
(Didn't I see a headline about you in the check-out line? )

[JillianRose]

Originally Posted by EasterJoy

If you've produced 3 boys with your vacuum cleaner, yes, that's a miracle.
(Didn't I see a headline about you in the check-out line? )

It is a miricle on what I have been able to vacuum up..

[Crescentinus]

Originally Posted by EasterJoy

They are a very ill-defined movement, but they're not that ill-defined!! The Occupy Movement is about calling the justice of laws concerning wealth distribution into question, not about sexual mores. The movement is well-defined with regards to saying that the present laws leading to high concentrations of wealth in the hands of a few is unfair, but in terms of saying what exactly is wrong and how the perception of injustice is to be remedied, they don't have a well-defined policy that they're trying to enact.

As far as I know, Occupy doesn't address same-sex marriage at all.

It's just that, I've seen homosexualists in at least 2 Occupations - Occupy Philadelphia and Occupy Oakland.

[EasterJoy]

Originally Posted by Crescentinus

It's just that, I've seen homosexualists in at least 2 Occupations - Occupy Philadelphia and Occupy Oakland.

Well, OK, but there are gays in the Pentagon, too. That doesn't mean that warfare is all of a sudden about gay marriage. There are transvestite Oakland Raiders fans and transsexual Scrabble experts, too, I'm sure.

Not to be flippant, but gays do have other interests in life besides promoting gay marriage.

[FurtherSuntime]

Not really interested in this but will say a good look at CDC and prof analysis re everything including all of it, also including all access to this information and there is only one answer with respects not to a div re state and religion but tone in handeling something which is past a religious situation....there is only one realization sadly...

intentional societal depopulation

the subject is depressing so thats all ive got to say.

[Crescentinus]

Originally Posted by EasterJoy

Well, OK, but there are gays in the Pentagon, too. That doesn't mean that warfare is all of a sudden about gay marriage. There are transvestite Oakland Raiders fans and transsexual Scrabble experts, too, I'm sure.

Not to be flippant, but gays do have other interests in life besides promoting gay marriage.

Indeed. I am just saying that at least some homosexualists are in the Occupy Movement.

[edwest2]

Originally Posted by DaddyGirl

Change isn't always seamless and easy.
I'm guessing that for decades, many people felt uncomfortable going to a female lawyer or female doctor...or voting for a female politician...because they were so rare. Now, we accept it as the norm and it is odd to think it any other way.
In the same way that this generation today is very used to same-sex couples and having gay friends, the next will be used to SS marriage and not blink an eye.
It just takes a little getting used to. Change for each generation is a process.

Change is not always for the best. In this case, it will not be for the best. There will be no "getting used to" this. The family, as undeerstood across all cultures, is one man and one woman. This is a social experiment. Nothing more. It will show its negative consequences quite quickly.



Peace,
Ed

[edwest2]

Originally Posted by Apologista

Already we see things like wedding cake toppers that you can order with two brides or two grooms. At the library the other day I saw a book on "gay etiquette" that had things like how to word a gay wedding invitation. It also gave advice what to do with those backward members of the family who object to the "marriage."

What if we had a time machine and could go into the future - what would it look like, what would we hear?

Imagine . . .

Parent Jones: "So, Smith, gotten your daughter married off yet, ha ha?"
Parent Smith: "I guess Sally just hasn't met the right person yet . . ."
Jones: "Is she looking for a male or a female?"

and other scenarios like this - how confusing it already is, how confusing could it potentially get?

It's easy.

Your honor. I can't decide which one of these wonderful women I want to marry, so why can't I marry them both?

(Gay) Dad? What's wrong with two men getting married?
Answer: Nothing.
Then why do some kids say it's wrong?

Your Honor. I want to marry my sister, so why not?

And here's evidence of what's coming:

http://www.firstthings.com/onthesqua...yond-gay-marri




Peace,
Ed

[JharekCarnelian]

Originally Posted by Veritas Et Vita

If you want an answer to that, just look at Europe where all that (and more) is legal.

Which parts of Europe are you referencing? Europe is a set of countries with vastly varying laws and not some homogenous entity.