The consequences of gay marriage

[CharleyH]

I really am impressed with this:

http://www.hewnandhammered.com/files/chart_the_consequences_of_gay_marriage.gif

I get what you are saying and you are absolutely correct.

Shame on any of you who think that allowing gay marriage will change a damn thing in your life, let alone the world.

 

[vrosej10]

Real conservatives arent reactionaries opposed to everything. The root word in conservative is CONSERVE. I may be the militant conservationist on this board or anywhere. If I could make it happen there would be no condos on the beaches or any habitation lower than 25 feet above mean sea level.

Real conservatives pretty much believe that humanity has been around long enough to sort out what works and what doesnt work in terms of social/economic interactions. Better mousetraps are as likely as new planets. The universe wasnt formed when I was born. There are more ways to fuck something up than get it right.

Whilst I agree with you about the condos and the habitation below 25ft, that which does not change, dies. In all systems, stagnation leads to decay. The status quo will work in the situations it arose from but shit continuously changes. Conservative tend to fail to move with the times and that's where they get in trouble.

 

[matriarch]

I know some consequences of gay marriage. Their houses look nicer and improve property values. I've never seen an old car sitting in the driveway for years. The gardens are usually very beautiful. More children are adopted. Less crime happens in areas they live in. And they throw great parties. Sounds okay to me.

I love you. and if she was awake and read this, I'm sure my wife would love you too.

 

[matriarch]

I would like to see honest stats on the incidence of child abuse in gay families vs. het families. I'll bet that each side has a few disgusting bad apples but that the vast majority do the best they can. And as a parent and a teacher, I can tell you that it is often under very trying circumstances!

I work in a prison dedicated soley to sex offenders. I can tell you that there are very few gay guys in there, a handful, and probably one or two of those are in there for abusing children.

The largest proportion of the prisoners are child molesters and rapists, and they are all straight men, and mostly married.

But, that said, assuming that all gay men abuse boys is the same as saying that all straight men abuse girls, all straight women abuse boys and all lesbians abuse girls.

Patently nonsense, and ultimately insulting to everyone.

Generalisations don't work.

 

[matriarch]

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?

Minsue and I are a legal couple, with all the rights and rules inherent to 'married' couples, including the requirement to divorce legally if the partnership breaks down, here in UK where we have a civil partnership, and throughout Europe. But, we cannot move back to States to live as a couple, because our partnership is not recognised. I could still only visit the States for 3 months as a visitor, before I would have to leave. Min, on the other hand, now has full residential rights in UK, and can come and go as she pleases.

Go figure.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I work in a prison dedicated soley to sex offenders. I can tell you that there are very few gay guys in there, a handful, and probably one or two of those are in there for abusing children.

The largest proportion of the prisoners are child molesters and rapists, and they are all straight men, and mostly married.

But, that said, assuming that all gay men abuse boys is the same as saying that all straight men abuse girls, all straight women abuse boys and all lesbians abuse girls.

Patently nonsense, and ultimately insulting to everyone.

Generalisations don't work.

No, they don't. At the same time, we have to consider the definition of "child." In CA, for the purpose of Age of Consent laws, it is 18. In other states, it is 16. If a 30 year old man had consensual sex with a 16 year old girl, it would be illegal, and he could go to San Quentin for it. Technically, the same law would apply to sex with a 16 year old boy, but the man probably wouldn't even be prosecuted for it. The cops and the courts have better things to do than that.

The statutory rape laws are intended to be for the protection of children, and girls have always been considered to need protection more than boys, which is why the two cases would probably treated differently.

 

[Epmd607]

I don't know if anyone's mentioned this because I haven't read all the posts, but why shouldn't polyamorous marriage be recognized by the gov?

There's zero reason why three adults can't marry if two can, whether straight or gay. There's no reason why five, six, or a whole commune of consenting adults can't get all the rights of the marriage of a couple. That's the thing, marriage shouldn't be recognized by the gov. Adoption rights, medical rights, legal rights for partners should be dealt with differently, have nothing to do with marriage.

I think the consequences of gay marriage is ultimately the nullification of marriage as an institution recognized by government. Why is marriage an institution regulated by government? Individual rights should have nothing to do with marriage as recognized by government. Civil Rights in marriage should ultimately destroy the legal institution. If you're for civil rights in marriage you should support polyamorous and certain incestuous bonds...marry yer first cousin.

 

[vrosej10]

I work in a prison dedicated soley to sex offenders. I can tell you that there are very few gay guys in there, a handful, and probably one or two of those are in there for abusing children.

The largest proportion of the prisoners are child molesters and rapists, and they are all straight men, and mostly married.

But, that said, assuming that all gay men abuse boys is the same as saying that all straight men abuse girls, all straight women abuse boys and all lesbians abuse girls.

Patently nonsense, and ultimately insulting to everyone.

Generalisations don't work.

Sing it sister!!! This is exactly what I've been saying, but everyone here is so set in their position that they won't even listen to reason.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I don't know if anyone's mentioned this because I haven't read all the posts, but why shouldn't polyamorous marriage be recognized by the gov?

There's zero reason why three adults can't marry if two can, whether straight or gay. There's no reason why five, six, or a whole commune of consenting adults can't get all the rights of the marriage of a couple. That's the thing, marriage shouldn't be recognized by the gov. Adoption rights, medical rights, legal rights for partners should be dealt with differently, have nothing to do with marriage.

I think the consequences of gay marriage is ultimately the nullification of marriage as an institution recognized by government. Why is marriage an institution regulated by government? Individual rights should have nothing to do with marriage as recognized by government. Civil Rights in marriage should ultimately destroy the legal institution. If you're for civil rights in marriage you should support polyamorous and certain incestuous bonds...marry yer first cousin.

Marriage is regulated because of property. But to the point, every society can and does define itself via the political process. Child marriage is legal most places. You can even same-sex marry in every state I know of if you were born with the exterior physiology of the female.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Whilst I agree with you about the condos and the habitation below 25ft, that which does not change, dies. In all systems, stagnation leads to decay. The status quo will work in the situations it arose from but shit continuously changes. Conservative tend to fail to move with the times and that's where they get in trouble.

You understand nothing I write.

Conservatives enjoy indoor plumbing and all the conveniences of modern life; we dont feel glee when people are hungry or homeless or chronically ill or die on the gallows. If our school is falling down upon our heads we want it repaired or replaced.

But we're not gullible rubes when it comes to change; we're dont accept your claim for anything until we see your mousetrap work better than the mousetrap we have.

 

[lance gt]

I love you. and if she was awake and read this, I'm sure my wife would love you too.

I made that statement based on personal observation Matriarch. I have friends who are Gay and Lesbian that live in my neighbourhood and that is what I see. Stats don't mean a damn thing to me when the evidence is in my face to consider the reality. I've never denied there aren't bad ones out there, I just haven't seen it.

I do volunteer work at a Child Centre and see all kinds of kids coming in with their parents for counselling. The biggest problem the kids face is discrimination by their peers because of their parents sexual orientation. They are happy, healthy kids with no leanings toward being Gay or Lesbian, because their parents are. I still can't understand for the life of me, why people get upset about S-S couples adopting unwanted children. The mother gave her own child up because she didn't want it and these people are offering a loving home to them. It behooves me to understand why there is opposition just because of that, when it's costing the Gov't millions to take care of them and here is a way to not only reduce the cost and burden of the State, but provide the necessary means for a loving family unit. Makes no sense, but how many things in life do?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I made that statement based on personal observation Matriarch. I have friends who are Gay and Lesbian that live in my neighbourhood and that is what I see. Stats don't mean a damn thing to me when the evidence is in my face to consider the reality. I've never denied there aren't bad ones out there, I just haven't seen it.

I do volunteer work at a Child Centre and see all kinds of kids coming in with their parents for counselling. The biggest problem the kids face is discrimination by their peers because of their parents sexual orientation. They are happy, healthy kids with no leanings toward being Gay or Lesbian, because their parents are. I still can't understand for the life of me, why people get upset about S-S couples adopting unwanted children. The mother gave her own child up because she didn't want it and these people are offering a loving home to them. It behooves me to understand why there is opposition just because of that, when it's costing the Gov't millions to take care of them and here is a way to not only reduce the cost and burden of the State, but provide the necessary means for a loving family unit. Makes no sense, but how many things in life do?

LANCE youre biased in the other direction. I have gay friends who are dear to me; so far as I know theyre dandy people, and I'm surprised when some of them go to jail for pedophilia.

The average heterosexual wonders what in Hell gays want kids for, cuz straight males are notorious for abandoning their natural children after a split-up.

 

[xssve]

No, they don't. At the same time, we have to consider the definition of "child." In CA, for the purpose of Age of Consent laws, it is 18. In other states, it is 16. If a 30 year old man had consensual sex with a 16 year old girl, it would be illegal, and he could go to San Quentin for it. Technically, the same law would apply to sex with a 16 year old boy, but the man probably wouldn't even be prosecuted for it. The cops and the courts have better things to do than that.

The statutory rape laws are intended to be for the protection of children, and girls have always been considered to need protection more than boys, which is why the two cases would probably treated differently.

There is also the question of force and/or coercion that is related to age differences, i.e., abuse of authority, etc. and some of your more progressive age of consent laws specify age differences - i.e., a Sixteen year old engaging in otherwise proscribed sexual activity with a Fifteen year old (or 18:17) is considered a lesser offense than a 30:17 or 15 age ratio.

 

[lance gt]

LANCE youre biased in the other direction. I have gay friends who are dear to me; so far as I know theyre dandy people, and I'm surprised when some of them go to jail for pedophilia.

The average heterosexual wonders what in Hell gays want kids for, cuz straight males are notorious for abandoning their natural children after a split-up.

You are so wrong in that statement Jimmy. I'm not biased at all. I'm stating what I've seen and what I am presented with as evidence from stats collected by the agency I deal with. I'm quite capable of understanding the relationship between Gay males and children.
If a Gay male assaults a child, it's a rare thing and never should be taken into context that this is the norm for Gay males. If there was a high enough percentage of incidents, there would have been an immediate investigation into the liklihood of Gays adopting and abuse occuring.
To date, that has never been the case. Yes, there are incidents, I'll admit, but compared to abuse by Hetero males, it's a ratio of 1500 -1 by Het males that do the abuse.
You answered your own statement with the fact you talk about Hetero guys abandoning their kids. Gays don't think the same way. It's very obvious that they are more in tune with their feminine side and as such, adopt a more female approach to child-rearing.
As I said, I make my conclusions and statements based on personal observation, not some biased stats by a Gay-bashing Hetero. Facts are facts and I won't be dissuaded by anti-Gay comments by those who can't come to grips with the reality of things.

 

[Epmd607]

Marriage is regulated because of property. But to the point, every society can and does define itself via the political process. Child marriage is legal most places. You can even same-sex marry in every state I know of if you were born with the exterior physiology of the female.

Marriage was and is regulated because of property rights. But the old property rights included wife and children as part of property. Under our current views on civil liberties the only thing government should regulate in terms of marriage is the age of consent and incest.

A living will could take care of any disputes over property, children, and medical relationships for homosexual, straight, or polyamorous marriages. Taxes is the last issue, abolish breaks in income tax for being married, you can still have child credits, but I'd like to see those go too.

Gay marriage and Gay adoption are two different issues. Gay marriage won't make Gay adoption that much easier, because it's not exactly easy now when you have someone who marries into a family and wants to adopt their step-child.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Marriage was and is regulated because of property rights. But the old property rights included wife and children as part of property. Under our current views on civil liberties the only thing government should regulate in terms of marriage is the age of consent and incest.

A living will could take care of any disputes over property, children, and medical relationships for homosexual, straight, or polyamorous marriages. Taxes is the last issue, abolish breaks in income tax for being married, you can still have child credits, but I'd like to see those go too.

Gay marriage and Gay adoption are two different issues. Gay marriage won't make Gay adoption that much easier, because it's not exactly easy now when you have someone who marries into a family and wants to adopt their step-child.

Youre arguing what YOU want rather than what society has ordained. Thruout the history of Earth few, if any, societies sanctioned homosexual marriage. Its an idea, like communes and kibbutzes, that dont work in practice.

 

[xssve]

If your argument consists of nothing but an appeal to authority, please define "society".

 

[lance gt]

Youre arguing what YOU want rather than what society has ordained. Thruout the history of Earth few, if any, societies sanctioned homosexual marriage. Its an idea, like communes and kibbutzes, that dont work in practice.

Jimmy, that's so far off the mark, even for you. Homosexuality has been an accepted practice for eons. It's only now that they want parody with Hetero couples in rights and freedoms. The church has declared it a vile abomination and the believers flock to that belief, so they can save their souls from damnation.

Can you honestly say that any Gay or Lesbian couples you've met are children of Satan? How ridiculous do the statements have to get before you see that someone's life is held in your hands with those statements. I found it easier to accept when I thought from their perspective and what Homophobia did to them.

I can't find a speck of discrimination in me to warrant any adverse thoughts toward them. I'm not threatened in any way by them and have been shown that LOVE is a word that is casually used, but seldom meant, by people who profess to be good and decent. I've seen more love shown by them than most Hetero-couples and I'm not talking sexually. They love themselves, their loved ones, their neighbours, their community and country.

I say let people enjoy life to their standards and not what a majority feel is a moral way to live. You don't live yours to anyone's but your own, why can't they?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

LANCE

Society doesnt want same-sex marriage. If you do then you have your work cut-out for you to change hearts and minds. If same-sex marriage had a prayer of a chance in the Supreme Court it woulda happened already. I suspect some clever lawyer will get the issue before the court and set same-sex marriage back 50 years its happened twice before, with slavery and then equal rights.

 

[lance gt]

LANCE

Society doesnt want same-sex marriage. If you do then you have your work cut-out for you to change hearts and minds. If same-sex marriage had a prayer of a chance in the Supreme Court it woulda happened already. I suspect some clever lawyer will get the issue before the court and set same-sex marriage back 50 years its happened twice before, with slavery and then equal rights.

But we no longer have slavery and we have equal rights, so it stands to reason that eventually, whether society wants it or not, we'll all have Same-Sex marriages. It's an inevitability that if something this important is an issue, it will happen.

Many countries and States are adopting it into their constitutions and have found it to be a benefit beyond measure in making things right for its citizens. The people are happy, society hasn't fallen apart and benefits from it are being noticed now that weren't present before.

The religious Zealots who oppose it are dwindling, as the number of people adopting a Gay lifestyle increase. They work with you, sit beside you on a bus, cheer the kids on at soccer with you, make and serve your food, cut your hair and so on. They have become such an intregal part of society, their rights will be heard, whether you oppose them or not. Acceptance of differences leads to a path of Enlightenment and awareness.

 

[Epmd607]

Youre arguing what YOU want rather than what society has ordained. Thruout the history of Earth few, if any, societies sanctioned homosexual marriage. Its an idea, like communes and kibbutzes, that dont work in practice.

Strangely, almost five percent of Israelis still live on Kibbutzim. That's fifty plus years of continuous communal living for a sector of one society.

Our society has ordained that Gay Marriages will be recognized the same as hetero. That's why the question keeps coming up in every state of the union. New York State isn't worried about running out of money, we're pushing Same Sex Marriage through in special legislative sessions. When a rights issue keeps coming up, like slavery and apartheid, eventually the issue will be resolved. If it takes fifty years for gay marriage and polyamorous marriage, it's still a fact that the society has accepted such things.

Polyamorous marriage will show that marriage shouldn't have anything to do with government and property rights. Polyamorous marriage is the consequence of Gay Marriage and what our society has accepted as viable living situations. Poly Marriage will take longer, but it's a direct consequence of our modern view on civil rights, and it should eventually nullify the governmental recognition of marriage.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

LANCE

More than Christians oppose it, and gays wont compromise on other political issues. If gays want my vote I want repeal of the Internal Revenue Amendment or at least the restoration of duelling. Maybe the abolishment of the National Endowment for the Arts.

 

[lance gt]

LANCE

More than Christians oppose it, and gays wont compromise on other political issues. If gays want my vote I want repeal of the Internal Revenue Amendment or at least the restoration of duelling. Maybe the abolishment of the National Endowment for the Arts.

Now you're just being facetious and mocking, Jimmy. I thought we were by that stage now. I am making a valid point and statement and hope you can voice the same. Don't quote speculation or superlatives, you know as well as anyone else, there's nothing wrong with Same-Sex marriages.
All the disdain shown towards them is all because of a feeling of threat arising from a difference. Blacks were shunned, now they're not. Women were treated as chattels, now they're not. Slaves were the norm, now they're not.
If amendments to Tax laws need to take place, so be it.

As the saying goes Jimmy, "They're here, they're queer, They won't go away."
Acceptance is all that's needed to end all of this, not dragging everything through the muck before we resolve it. It will only take society longer to accept it. No one likes a stain on them that is unwarranted. Not you, not me, not them.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Lance, thank you for your level and reasoned arguments with Mister Malice there.

Me, I'm flushing this thread.

 

[lance gt]

Lance, thank you for your level and reasoned arguments with Mister Malice there.

Me, I'm flushing this thread.

Aww Jimmy's okay. he's just voicing the opinions of the nay-sayers. He accepts Gays and Lesbians and understands the need to allow it into our culture. He's just making a point of contention that society doesn't want it or agree with it, but the time is now and nothing will stop its progress. If he voiced his honest opinion here, no one would believe it was him saying it. I would, because I can read past the words and know the man. I admire Jimmy for his reasoned statements to fortify the beliefs we hold, by arguing against them.