Polygamy - Time for it to be legalized?

[Angelsjunky]

Juan Savage, you're living proof with what Bill Clinton once said, in paraphrase: If you think the 60s (cultural revolution) was generally good thing, you're probably a Democrat, if you think it was generally negative, you're probably a Republican.

 

 

I used to tell people the only good reasons for marriage are children and religion. Gay marriage people have neither. 

 

 

 

Umm, really? Are you saying that there are no religious gay people or gay people who have children?

 

Maybe it is time to just give it up - you've lost this culture war, and will continue losing it. We are moving forward, not back to the 1950s.

 

Edited July 3, 2015 by Angelsjunky

[nate]

First, we're not arguing the aesthetic or social merits of Rock. I like Rock and probably rock harder than you and any two of your friends.

So, let's look at what conservatives said at the time about Rock and what effect it ended up having on young people.

Lol!!! Rock n roll pissing contest... Go!

I, for one, am glad that we have evolved as humans and aren't still stuck in the 1700s dying of disease and serfdom

[Kevin]

Damn, where did he find those hotties....at the petting zoo?

So bestiality is going to happen. Have at it libs.

[juansavage1]

Lol!!! Rock n roll pissing contest... Go!

I, for one, am glad that we have evolved as humans and aren't still stuck in the 1700s dying of disease and serfdom

This just in: Elvis cures disease.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

Damn, where did he find those hotties....at the petting zoo?

 

They look like they could bring down a tree with no tools.

[juansavage1]

 

Juan Savage, you're living proof with what Bill Clinton once said, in paraphrase: If you think the 60s (cultural revolution) was generally good thing, you're probably a Democrat, if you think it was generally negative, you're probably a Republican.

 

 

 

 

Does this mean that we're OK now with generalizations and simplifications?

 

Yes. I agree with Clinton that there'd be a strong correlation.

 

 

Umm, really? Are you saying that there are no religious gay people or gay people who have children?

 

Maybe it is time to just give it up - you've lost this culture war, and will continue losing it. We are moving forward, not back to the 1950s.

 

 

There are gay people with custody of children. The children may be related to one of the couple. You have to admit that it's more of a logistical problem for gay people to have children, however, and, for that alone, more rare.

 

I'd say the average gay dude is less religious than the average dude who likes chicks. There are people attracted to the same sex who nonetheless strive for a life in accordance with their faith and those people exhibit great bravery and are probably more authentically religious than the average person.

[juansavage1]

As for the culture war, the left lives in constant anxiety of losing ground in the culture war, which it why it mostly relies on judges to advance it and then try to shut down debate to consolidate gains. If McCain had won, the left would have lost this battle as well as battles on abortion. If the next president nominates a couple of justices, this marriage tragedy can be undone and maybe 25 states would restore marriage to its natural meaning. The rest would too, eventually, as they figure out that they lost something for nothing in return.

 

If you look at history, culture goes up and down. Communists especially loved to say how they were on the right side of history. It's what motivated men like Whittaker Chambers who became depressed when he left communism because he felt that he was joining the losing side.

 

We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

C. S. Lewis

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/c/c_s_lewis.html#lGHPtQ3hsboOOsKQ.99

 

There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/c/c_s_lewis.html#lGHPtQ3hsboOOsKQ.99

Edited July 3, 2015 by Juan Savage

[TobiasFunke]

I like Rock and probably rock harder than you and any two of your friends.

The fact that you actually said this makes me think otherwise

[Angelsjunky]

Does this mean that we're OK now with generalizations and simplifications?

 

Yes. I agree with Clinton that there'd be a strong correlation.

 

 

There are gay people with custody of children. The children may be related to one of the couple. You have to admit that it's more of a logistical problem for gay people to have children, however, and, for that alone, more rare.

 

I'd say the average gay dude is less religious than the average dude who likes chicks. There are people attracted to the same sex who nonetheless strive for a life in accordance with their faith and those people exhibit great bravery and are probably more authentically religious than the average person.

 

Do you see the irony here, Juan? You deplore generalizations then make sweeping ones in the very same post.

 

You also do realize, I hope, that there are gay people who are both deeply religious and who embrace their Nature/God-given sexuality? That worshiping God and enjoying anal aren't inherently antithetical?

[Angelsjunky]

As for the culture war thing, Juan, you are fighting against the tide of history - which could be another version of "thy will be done." Actually, I could argue that folks that are against gay marriage are actually the ones struggling against "God's will," because it seems clear now that homosexuality is natural - people are born gay, which makes it "God's will."

 

I highly doubt any Republican will be voted into office anytime soon. The country is moving forward, not backward.

 

Time to realize, Juan, you are on the wrong side of history - not unlike the white racists in the 50s and 60s who fought against integration. I hate to say it, amigo, but you are the 21st century version of those folks if you are fighting against gay equality.

[juansavage1]

I don't deplore them. You guys got on me about it earlier. You can't have a discussion of any aspect of society without generalizations.

Do you see the irony here, Juan? You deplore generalizations then make sweeping ones in the very same post.

You also do realize, I hope, that there are gay people who are both deeply religious and who embrace their Nature/God-given sexuality? That worshiping God and enjoying anal aren't inherently antithetical?

[Spirit]

I disagree. Every prediction conservatives make on social issues comes true. Pick one and I'll tell you what was said at the time and what happened.

 

 

When gay marriage was initially being discussed, it was often said by conservatives that it would endanger marriage in the United States.  So, how has gay marriage put my marriage in danger?  

 

I'll hang up and take your comments off the air. 

[AngelsLongBall]

When gay marriage was initially being discussed, it was often said by conservatives that it would endanger marriage in the United States. So, how has gay marriage put my marriage in danger?

I'll hang up and take your comments off the air.

Well, now you and Glen are legally able to act out on your fantasies, so I'm sure that will leave your wife pissed? Unless you're planning to petition for polygamy?

[HeavenlyHalos]

I think I know what Juan is saying: "I am right and you are wrong and stupid. Stooopid." Full disclosure, I have stopped reading his actual posts but feel confident in my analysis. 

 

 

****ing liberals.

[juansavage1]

The fact that you actually said this makes me think otherwise

I'm more of an pre-mid 70s R&B guy when it comes to popular music in English. When called upon, I can rock pretty hard, however.

[juansavage1]

As for the culture war thing, Juan, you are fighting against the tide of history - which could be another version of "thy will be done." Actually, I could argue that folks that are against gay marriage are actually the ones struggling against "God's will," because it seems clear now that homosexuality is natural - people are born gay, which makes it "God's will."

 

I highly doubt any Republican will be voted into office anytime soon. The country is moving forward, not backward.

 

Time to realize, Juan, you are on the wrong side of history - not unlike the white racists in the 50s and 60s who fought against integration. I hate to say it, amigo, but you are the 21st century version of those folks if you are fighting against gay equality.

Your argument is already old. The latest thing, if you look it up, is that gayness doesn't have to be inborn. It was an argument that served it's purpose, but is now dead.

 

I've also heard the analogy that gays are the new blacks. Needless to say, that's a very deficient analogy. I can say that anti-religious people are the new racists. I can say that anti-natural law people are the new racists.

 

The whole forward backward thing is itself dumb unless you have an end goal. What is that? Now that marriage is between any two people, what would be the next forward step, or is that the end of the advance?

 

Reflect upon your assumptions.

[juansavage1]

When gay marriage was initially being discussed, it was often said by conservatives that it would endanger marriage in the United States.  So, how has gay marriage put my marriage in danger?  

 

I'll hang up and take your comments off the air. 

Support for gay marriage correlates with very low esteem for marriage.

 

First, look at who pushed it. Hollywood, leftists who actually state that their eventual goal is the elimination of marriage, and people who have never done any societal action that hasn't harmed the institution of marriage (no fault divorce, acceptance of unwed parents, cohabitation, "piece of paper," etc.).

 

Second, where there's support for gay marriage, marriage rates are very very low. We now have or are approaching (Scandinavia who pioneered non-conjugal marriage leads the way) a society where a minority of adults are married. After gay marriage, you'd think that more people would marry. Wrong, less people marry, probably demoralized from the ludicrousness of marriage.

 

I can't speak to your particular marriage, but if you're married to a woman and you were able to have childen and welcomed some into the world, their prospects for marriage will be worse, as there will be less people who feel that it's the right thing to do. They have a greater chance of just living with somebody.

 

Again, these are specific harms. It's not persuasive as an argument for any definition of marriage. After all, what definition would hurt marriage? Would letting people marry rocks or sheep harm your marriage?

[HaloMagic]

I'm more of an pre-mid 70s R&B guy when it comes to popular music in English. When called upon, I can rock pretty hard, however.

This post is extremely gay.

[HaloMagic]

We now have or are approaching (Scandinavia who pioneered non-conjugal marriage leads the way) a society where a minority of adults are married.

I know it's not your thing but do you have any sources for this claim?

[Spirit]

So, what I hear Juan saying (in a nutshell) is that gay marriage has in no way put my marriage in danger.  Thus confirming the fact that not every prediction conservatives make on social issues comes true.  

 

Not that conservatives don't have a great history with the art of fortune telling.  

 

 

[Glen]

Just imagine if Moochelle Obummer consulted an astrologist. Hoo boy.

[Angelsjunky]

I don't deplore them. You guys got on me about it earlier. You can't have a discussion of any aspect of society without generalizations.

 

 

I have no problem with generalizations, as long as they're realized as such and used in moderation.

 

When gay marriage was initially being discussed, it was often said by conservatives that it would endanger marriage in the United States.  So, how has gay marriage put my marriage in danger?  

 

I'll hang up and take your comments off the air. 

 

Because, because....the anal!

[Angelsjunky]

Your argument is already old. The latest thing, if you look it up, is that gayness doesn't have to be inborn. It was an argument that served it's purpose, but is now dead.

 

I've also heard the analogy that gays are the new blacks. Needless to say, that's a very deficient analogy. I can say that anti-religious people are the new racists. I can say that anti-natural law people are the new racists.

 

The whole forward backward thing is itself dumb unless you have an end goal. What is that? Now that marriage is between any two people, what would be the next forward step, or is that the end of the advance?

 

Reflect upon your assumptions.

 

What are you basing the "latest thing" on? Is it actual non-biased research, or are we talking about Christian views?

 

As far as I know, gayness being inborn is still what is generally accepted to be inborn.

 

Now the problem with your argument about "anti-natural law people are the new racists" is that so-called "anti-natural law" people aren't trying to dictate your lifestyle or not give you equal rights.

 

This is very simple, Juan: Are gay people equal? Should they be given equal rights as straight people? I think that Christians and "natural law" people should be given equal rights, just that their religious beliefs shouldn't dictate the lives of people who don't believe in their religious beliefs.

 

And yes, it is about going forward, about being progressive. Abolishing slavery was progress. Women getting the right to vote was progress. De-segregation was progress. And gay marriage is progress. Why? Because it is granting equal rights to more people and giving them greater freedom.

[Spirit]

Just imagine if Moochelle Obummer consulted an astrologist. Hoo boy.

 

 

Oh, come on.  Everyone knows that muslims don't believe in astrology. 

[Angelsjunky]

Another way to put it, Juan, is that if you don't believe in gay people's equal rights to marriage then you're doing so out of your own religious beliefs which they don't share (and yes, your "natural law" is religious). This doesn't mean they aren't religious (although it is beside the point of equal rights to marriage) but that they don't share your particular beliefs.

 

So the question is: Why should your religious belief dictate the lives, decide what is legal or not, of those who don't share the same beliefs? Let's say Glen and Geoff are gay and want to get married. Why should your religious beliefs have anything to do with that?