The consequences of gay marriage

[xssve]

Here ya go:

For the present discussion, the important point is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women.

Using the fixated-regressed distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as "fixated;" 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that "in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women....There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males..." (p.180).

Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation

They mainstream scientific view is that pedophiles are characterized by an attraction to children, period, and really have no preference in terms of adult relationships, presumably mimicking whatever gender orientation appears convenient.

 

[sr71plt]

The joke's a cute one liner. All the pontificating gas floating in the air afterward is sort of funny too.

 

[Recidiva]

Here's a very American solution.

Gay folks, get organized. Boycott straight marriages. That cuts out a large part of organizers and party planners available.

Form a new church. Our Lady of Teh Ghey. Perform the most amazing ceremonies available, you have the resources.

After two years of attrition straight marriages will be shabby, ugly things doing their best to copy the gay marriage ceremonies.

Some day, some Senator is going to have a spoiled daughter who wants a wedding "just like the gay people have!" and a law will be born.

 

[Fantasies_only]

Here ya go:

Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation

They mainstream scientific view is that pedophiles are characterized by an attraction to children, period, and really have no preference in terms of adult relationships, presumably mimicking whatever gender orientation appears convenient.

OMG, when was that written?
Pedophilia isn't the same as child molestation nor does it have to be exclusively with children, however one gender is usually perfered over another.
Take NAMBLA, this isn't just a "No girls allowed" club.
All of it's members enjoy young boys not young girls (although a few members are women).

 

[Safe_Bet]

Can we get a grip here?

Stats are irrelevant, the thread start was a hoot and Safe called it right.

Our problem is we need a new word. Do we give 'marriage' to the religios and keep 'civil partnership' for a federal statement of rights under the constitution.

I just ordered a whole semi-truck full of stewed prunes delivered to the AH... there obviously is some SERIOUS constipation going on around here!

I have no problem letting religious ceremonies conducted in churches, mosques, temples or asherahs to be marriages. I don't see a reason to force something on the faithful. Seems kinda rude and is kinda missing the point of the word "faith."

However, civil union or whatever it is, wherever it's performed, must have the same rights as those in a religiously-sanctioned marriage.

Two things:

"Religious" rites (marriage or otherwise) shouldn't have ANY legal standing. If they want to stand around and wave chicken feet (holy wafers, holy water, relics, etc.) then more power to 'em. But that SHOULDN'T give them any legal standing to "sanction" legal civic actions or duties. They can exclude anyone they want from their "rite", but that excludes them from any legal standing (including being tax exempt).

As to your statement "kinda missing the point of the word "faith.""... It's their faith; they can keep it in their churches, etc., but it has to STAY there. Respect is SUPPOSE to be a two way street. The fundie asshats seem to think that they can intrude into MY life and bedroom, but scream bloody freak'in murder if people even mention taking away authority THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE IN THE FIRST PLACE!

P.S. They didn't invent the word/meaning of marriage. I personally find them "kinda rude" when they try to "own" the meaning of a committed relationship. As far as I'm concerned, if I can't use the word for what I have, neither can they.

 

[Recidiva]

[4COLOR="Purple"]I just ordered a whole semi-truck full of stewed prunes delivered to the AH... there obviously is some SERIOUS constipation going on around here! [/COLOR]

Two things:

"Religious" rites (marriage or otherwise) shouldn't have ANY legal standing. If they want to stand around and wave chicken feet (holy wafers, holy water, relics, etc.) then more power to 'em. But that SHOULDN'T give them any legal standing to "sanction" legal civic actions or duties. They can exclude anyone they want from their "rite", but that excludes them from any legal standing (including being tax exempt).

As to your statement "kinda missing the point of the word "faith.""... It's their faith; they can keep it in their churches, etc., but it has to STAY there. Respect is SUPPOSE to be a two way street. The fundie asshats seem to think that they can intrude into MY life and bedroom, but scream bloody freak'in murder if people even mention taking away authority THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE IN THE FIRST PLACE!

P.S. They didn't invent the word/meaning of marriage. I personally find them "kinda rude" when they try to "own" the meaning of a committed relationship. As far as I'm concerned, if I can't use the word for what I have, neither can they.

Mmm! Prunes!

I agree with all your points as well. I think people should have a legal base - the rights you get when the state recognizes a state of being married.

The marriage itself, involving chicken bones, athames, jumping over a broomstick or catering, I don't really care.

I don't care how it's done particularly, just when and after it's done, and there should be a "civil" authority able to perform the ceremony if a church or mosque or coven won't take you, everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.

Oh c'mon, be generous, you're more fabulous than that. You gave us prunes!

I've never qualified for a "church wedding." Okay, my first wedding was in a cult, and the second two at the justice of the peace.

There's no way, and I'm straight, that I'd walk into any church and ask a minister of that church or temple or mosque or whatever to marry me if I didn't fully embrace their faith. And I don't embrace any faith particularly. Maybe in general, but not particularly. I view it as anthropological and cultural influence. Not something with a real impact on my life.

That's fine, they can condemn me and hate me and all that stuff (and they do!) as long as I CAN legally get married, I don't really care.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Here's a very American solution.

Gay folks, get organized. Boycott straight marriages. That cuts out a large part of organizers and party planners available.

Form a new church. Our Lady of Teh Ghey. Perform the most amazing ceremonies available, you have the resources.

After two years of attrition straight marriages will be shabby, ugly things doing their best to copy the gay marriage ceremonies.

Some day, some Senator is going to have a spoiled daughter who wants a wedding "just like the gay people have!" and a law will be born.

There are churches all over the place tat will gladly officiate gay marriages, that's one of the ironies. Its not the wedding, it's the marriage rights.

Taxes.
Next of kin issues in illness and death.
Power of attorney.
Custody of children.
Not being lynched in your home.

them kindsa things

 

[voluptuary_manque]

There are churches all over the place tat will gladly officiate gay marriages, that's one of the ironies. Its not the wedding, it's the marriage rights.

Taxes.
Next of kin issues in illness and death.
Power of attorney.
Custody of children.
Not being lynched in your home.

them kindsa things

The entire Lutheran Evangelical Church of Sweden just announced that they will marry gay couples and that's just one national example. Here, we've got legions of them.

 

[Stella_Omega]

The entire Lutheran Evangelical Church of Sweden just announced that they will marry gay couples and that's just one national example. Here, we've got legions of them.

Church wedding? No problem.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

"Religious" rites (marriage or otherwise) shouldn't have ANY legal standing. If they want to stand around and wave chicken feet (holy wafers, holy water, relics, etc.) then more power to 'em. But that SHOULDN'T give them any legal standing to "sanction" legal civic actions or duties. They can exclude anyone they want from their "rite", but that excludes them from any legal standing (including being tax exempt).

As far as I know, the religious marriage service doesn't have any legal meaning. It's the granting of the marriage license that actually makes the union legally binding, and in most states, a couple is considered married in a certain period of time following the granting of the license whether any sort of ceremony happens or not, be it religious or secular or just just dinner at KFC.

At least, that's what I was told when I got married.

When you have to prove you're married, they want to see a copy of the license, not the album of pictures from the reception.

 

[john-the-author]

exactly.

The only consequence of gay marriage is gays marrying-- despite the caterwauling of the homophobic.

B'zackly. I got it immediately.

 

[john-the-author]

DAMN! Y'all need to get a sense of humor! That chart is funny as hell!

I thought so, too!

 

[TheeGoatPig]

As much as I would like that to be true...
Gays marry (obviously)
Russia invades - By invades I assume the person meant takes over American control. This is not likely to happen. If something disasterous were to happen with Russia, it would be World War 3.
Judgement day begins - According to some people, it really will in 2012.
Families are destroyed - There are too many anti-gays out there to say this isn't likely to happen.
Ice-caps melt - When was this pie chart made anyway? It's already happening.

All of this is happening as a direct result of gays marrying? Shocking!

__

I thought it was very clever and funny, john.

 

[john-the-author]

Can we get a grip here?

Stats are irrelevant, the thread start was a hoot and Safe called it right.

Our problem is we need a new word. Do we give 'marriage' to the religios and keep 'civil partnership' for a federal statement of rights under the constitution.

Fuck the religious with chain saws. "Marriage" is as good a word as anything. If they don't like it, they can come up with something new.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

'Coupled' comes to mind.

 

[Recidiva]

Fuck the religious with chain saws. "Marriage" is as good a word as anything. If they don't like it, they can come up with something new.

Some places have:

Covenant Marriage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_marriage

But you can call it extra secret special marriage with top top extra special rating. As long as it has the same legal rights. This one gets its distinction through signing certain rights away, like an easy divorce.

 

[cantdog]

Can we get a grip here?

Stats are irrelevant, the thread start was a hoot and Safe called it right.

Our problem is we need a new word. Do we give 'marriage' to the religios and keep 'civil partnership' for a federal statement of rights under the constitution.

You'd have to write one almighty thorough law, inserting and deleting phrases in tons of other statutes, ordinances, tax codes, and whatnot. Think it through.

As a married person, I stand to inherit my wife's goods when she dies. I stand unquestioned as her next of kin, the one they will ask about her wishes when she might have her life prolonged by heroic measures when the clay is no longer viable. I can name her as my beneficiary for insurances without making anyone raise an eyebrow. She can name me beneficiary, and stand as my next of kin, and inherit from me. We both have parental rights and responsibilities for our minor children, and can sign permissions on those minor children's behalf. We enter mortgage contracts jointly without a lot of static about it. I can opt to have my retirement cover her, if she should survive me, and vice versa. We file joint tax returns. There's a whole raft of things our marriage makes it ordinary and usual for us to do, both jointly and mutually, that same-sex couples did not get to do before this law passed.

If we had been a lesbian couple, every one of those things would have been a problem, and some of them impossible, like the retirement options and the joint tax returns, for example.

If I were her lesbian partner, unconscious and brain-dead, they would not ask her what measures I would have wanted done to prolong my life artificially, but probably some cousin or aunt somewhere, whom they'd have had to research to find. This relative, likely as not, might have disapproved of our lesbian household, though our union had lasted, as mine actually has, for almost forty years, because of her church. And that church would not have had to be Pat Robertson's church, but only one like my asshole brother's.

That cousin would have had little contact with me, since I would have been an abomination to the Lord. But she'd be my legal next of kin, just the same. Who knows what she'd want done, on my helpless body? She would surely not want my lesbian partner's wishes to govern. I could be kept alive, contrary to my will, in a welter of medical torture. Is torture too strong a word? Listen. My wife works in an emergency room. Any family member who asks that "everything be done" should be forced to watch.

Inheritance, tax codes, next of kin status, insurance and retirement codes-- there are scores of things that marriage does. To re-word all that shit to include "civil whatsit" would take a lot of research and finicky legalese.

Get it into your head. If you want it to act exactly like marriage, the only sensible thing is to just say so. Call it marriage. A marriage contracted in one state is required to be recognized by all other states. Write that one into a civil unions law!

 

[cantdog]

As much as I would like that to be true...
Gays marry (obviously)
Russia invades - By invades I assume the person meant takes over American control. This is not likely to happen. If something disasterous were to happen with Russia, it would be World War 3.
Judgement day begins - According to some people, it really will in 2012.
Families are destroyed - There are too many anti-gays out there to say this isn't likely to happen.
Ice-caps melt - When was this pie chart made anyway? It's already happening.

Dude, the heading. The heading. "Consequences," it says.

 

[Boxlicker101]

'Coupled' comes to mind.

That's another word for fucked. I have coupled with prostitutes, and that word won't do for this purpose.

I like the word "Marriage" under whatever form is grammatically correct. This is a civil process, getting the license and doing what is necessary, and going through the ceremony, which is conducted by either a member of the clergy or certain government officials, including judges and justices of the peace, who then register the marriage with the civil authoritiesl.

The clergy members could refuse to conduct the ceremony if it is contrary to their religious beliefs, but the official would not be able to do so as long as all the legal requirements had been taken care of. These would include age and not already being married, but gender would not be a restriction.

 

[TE999]

"A rose by any other name..." and all that.

What's important is that the state acknowledges the union for legal purposes. Period.

Blessing the union is a formality.

 

[lance gt]

If most states recognize a marriage licence from any country as legitimate, why can't S-S couples come to Canada, get married and have the licence to show they deserve benefits under the law. It would be discrimination if they weren't. Or do the States have unilateral right to decide what licence is valid and which ones aren't?

 

[Boxlicker101]

You'd have to write one almighty thorough law, inserting and deleting phrases in tons of other statutes, ordinances, tax codes, and whatnot. Think it through.

As a married person, I stand to inherit my wife's goods when she dies. I stand unquestioned as her next of kin, the one they will ask about her wishes when she might have her life prolonged by heroic measures when the clay is no longer viable. I can name her as my beneficiary for insurances without making anyone raise an eyebrow. She can name me beneficiary, and stand as my next of kin, and inherit from me. We both have parental rights and responsibilities for our minor children, and can sign permissions on those minor children's behalf. We enter mortgage contracts jointly without a lot of static about it. I can opt to have my retirement cover her, if she should survive me, and vice versa. We file joint tax returns. There's a whole raft of things our marriage makes it ordinary and usual for us to do, both jointly and mutually, that same-sex couples did not get to do before this law passed.

If we had been a lesbian couple, every one of those things would have been a problem, and some of them impossible, like the retirement options and the joint tax returns, for example.

If I were her lesbian partner, unconscious and brain-dead, they would not ask her what measures I would have wanted done to prolong my life artificially, but probably some cousin or aunt somewhere, whom they'd have had to research to find. This relative, likely as not, might have disapproved of our lesbian household, though our union had lasted, as mine actually has, for almost forty years, because of her church. And that church would not have had to be Pat Robertson's church, but only one like my asshole brother's.

That cousin would have had little contact with me, since I would have been an abomination to the Lord. But she'd be my legal next of kin, just the same. Who knows what she'd want done, on my helpless body? She would surely not want my lesbian partner's wishes to govern. I could be kept alive, contrary to my will, in a welter of medical torture. Is torture too strong a word? Listen. My wife works in an emergency room. Any family member who asks that "everything be done" should be forced to watch.

Inheritance, tax codes, next of kin status, insurance and retirement codes-- there are scores of things that marriage does. To re-word all that shit to include "civil whatsit" would take a lot of research and finicky legalese.

Get it into your head. If you want it to act exactly like marriage, the only sensible thing is to just say so. Call it marriage. A marriage contracted in one state is required to be recognized by all other states. Write that one into a civil unions law!

I think you are mistaken about that last paragraph. As a result of Prop. 8, a same sex marriage would not be recognized in CA even if it had been legally entered into in another state, such as MA.

 

[cantdog]

Clergy are parasitic, and they can go ahead and do whatever they want about the issue. Marriage isn't a sacrament in most Protestant churches, but that doesn't stop their clergy from getting heated about it. Clergy supported slavery. Let them foam! History will once again show their irrelevance.

My brother is slightly to the right of Genghis Khan, and when he read his Bible, it informed him that God agreed with his views. He preaches that tripe in his church. I notice that with most stamps of Christians-- somehow God himself is in their camp. Whatever views they bring to the Bible they find in it. Tons of preachers believe you need a penis to do the pastor job, too. They take offense when you ask what use, specifically, a pastor makes of his penis that is so essential to the position. Clergy suck farts from dead chickens.

 

[Boxlicker101]

If most states recognize a marriage licence from any country as legitimate, why can't S-S couples come to Canada, get married and have the licence to show they deserve benefits under the law. It would be discrimination if they weren't. Or do the States have unilateral right to decide what licence is valid and which ones aren't?

Individual states can choose to recognize or not those marrriages that are legally contracted in other places. In some places, polygamous marriages are legal as are marriages to very young children, but individual states can refuse to recognize them. In those states that have specifically outlawed SS marriages, they would usually have language that refuses to recognize such marriages from other jurisdictions.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Plus we have this damned stupid Defense of Marriage Act that allows any state to refuse to recognize marriages from another. That is one of the things that is supposed to go away under the current administration but I'm not holding my breath.