Gay marriage is legal nationwide in the US

That seems a little bit redundant. "You're allowed to be a lesbian as long as you're not married and you don't go outside, apart from that you're fine"

What if they run out of milk? How do they go outside if they need to be accompanied by men? Elaborate disguises?

???

SavageCorona said:

That seems a little bit redundant. "You're allowed to be a lesbian as long as you're not married and you don't go outside, apart from that you're fine"

That's pretty much the opinion in Iran. Just keep it in the house is the government's opinion, or better yet, get a sex change. I also heard an Iranian say "we have high fences" which implies a lot goes on inside the home.

Also, looking at Islamic history, lesbianism isn't entirely absent.

I'm assuming the marriage part refers also to 2 wives being in the same polygamous marriage can't do the lesbian thing right?

No, they can't get married, the men just get off to it despite God's word. Of course God only said man should not lie with a man as one would a woman. Didn't say anything about women specifically.

SYS said:

I lol at Twitter posts from Americans saying they're moving to Canada because of legalization. It's been legal in Canada for 10 years already. Try Uganda instead.

Or Russia.

Great news.

It's a strange thing to legalize in the first place given that no one should have any say in other peoples lives.

Technician said:

Of course God only said man should not lie with a man as one would a woman. Didn't say anything about women specifically.

Eh, not quite. The Old Testament never specifically mentions female homosexuality, but Romans in the New Testament refers to "their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature" which could be taken to mean homosexuality.

For whatever reason, the Bible isn't as clear-cut about female homosexuality as it is male homosexuality. Most likely because in quite a few cultures from that time period, female-female intimacy wasn't considered sex at all, and the Hebrews cobbled together their value system & myths from cultures they'd interacted with. For example, Moses' life in its entirety seems to have been mostly plagiarized from Hammurabi. The myth of the parting of the red sea was taken from the Egyptian myth about a pharaoh parting the Nile to let one of his maidens recover a turquoise necklace, etc.

Alternatively, those who wrote the books just didn't focus on Women at all, since well, women weren't a huge focus back then, I don't think. Just sort of a thing of the times, I'd imagine.

You gotta love the "what's next, beastiality?!" arguments. Like what happens between two consenting adults is somehow comparable to forcing an animal against it's own will.

As soon as someone makes a connection like that, I know to ignore everything else they say, as they are clearly incapable of thought..

Doomkid said:

Like what happens between two consenting adults is somehow comparable to forcing an animal against it's own will.

Implying it's not the dog fucking me.

Doomkid said:

You gotta love the "what's next, beastiality?!" arguments. Like what happens between two consenting adults is somehow comparable to forcing an animal against it's own will.

Are you referring to the dumb shit Pat Robertson said recently?

Doomkid said:

You gotta love the "what's next, beastiality?!" arguments. Like what happens between two consenting adults is somehow comparable to forcing an animal against it's own will.

As soon as someone makes a connection like that, I know to ignore everything else they say, as they are clearly incapable of thought..

No, but there are people that now want polygamy legalized. Also pedophiles.

Doomkid said:

You gotta love the "what's next, beastiality?!" arguments. Like what happens between two consenting adults is somehow comparable to forcing an animal against it's own will.

But the furries will be all over that shit.

It's up for debate how the financial policies among more than 2 people should be implemented, but there's nothing ethically wrong with polygamous marriage.

Usually people that use the slippery slope examples are controlling and manipulative people.

Ichor said:

No, but there are people that now want polygamy legalized. Also pedophiles.

I don't see a problem with polygamy if it's consentual.

Pedophilia can't be consentual so I have no idea why anyone even brings it up. 18 is the age of consent, 16 in some places. Period.

Sodaholic said:

Could you elaborate why?

First of all, if your immediate reaction is that I'm some kind of a religious fundie, perish the thought. I'm a Catholic, but I don't personally feel the same way as my Church in a variety of topics, and it doesn't really have that much of a meaning in my views. I don't condemn anybody for whatever's going on in their heads and libidos. It would be dumb to criticize someone for something beyond their control. However. I've developed a healthy dislike of the LGBT movement, and the way it's influencing culture right now.

My basic complaint is this: there's nothing criminal about being a pervert per se (long as you don't harm others), but keep it private. When you're constantly waving your perversion in the face of people who really aren't interested in it, it's not at all surprising they'll get damn fed up with you. Right now, homosexuality is becoming an increasingly "mainstream" thing, inundating culture to an obnoxious degree. Imagine if it was a different sort of sexuality; imagine if, one day, the world became obsessed with diaper fetishists. Now every other TV series must include a diaper fetishist character, and a story arc about their acceptance of their kink. Video games now include a "wear diaper" option for added demographic appeal. Half of the Internet culture is obsessed with diapers, diaper fetish stories constitute half of any fandom's fanfiction; even kids' shows include increasingly blatant references to diapers, and kids' books begin popping up which educate the little tykes about why their uncle Mitch wears diapers all day and why it's so heartwarming. It gets... annoying. Especially when they insist that you must enjoy regularly looking at them and reading about their particular kink. If you don't enjoy that, you're everybody's favorite dirty word, "homophobe".

And they aren't going to accept you thinking differently than they do. If you're a public person, it might be genuinely dangerous to express a sentiment against gay marriage; just ask Brendan Eich or Phil Robertson. Normal folks like me don't run that risk, but still... I've been a member of a couple of social websites and never actually seen someone come to a gay person's profile just to insult their sexuality. But I've seen my share of people stating that they don't support gay marriage, or even that they don't like slash fan-art, etc. and getting flamed (not in the "I disagree" way, but rather "Kill yourself, you worthless cunt").

So, under different conditions, I'd be indifferent to the court decision. But right now, I basically perceive it as a victory for a bunch of - let's put it mildly - greatly unsympathetic people, who want way more from society than it's acceptable to give them. I do not believe we need to specifically legitimize gay marriage, and therefore essentially forcibly reconstruct the culture and social mores just because our civilization right now happens to be overtly obsessed with the less than 4% of people whose sexuality is out of normal; they can already coexist with straight people and cohabitate with each other with nobody interfering, they're already accepted in most parts of society.

Doomkid said:

Period.

15 in CZ, 14 in Germany, 13 in Spain. If a 30yo fucks a 14yo in Germany, he's okay. If he does it in Murca, he's a paedophile. Does he magically turn into a deviant predator as he crosses border? Can an American go to Germany, fuck an "underage kid" considered legal there and return with no remorse? Is an 18yo fucking a 17 yo a paedophile?

Not to mention that paedophiles are only attracted to sexually undeveloped children. Shit is called hebephilia. I'm not trying to split words here, but it's funny how you consider the discussion over, because you feel outraged by the very mention.

Sodaholic said:

It's up for debate how the financial policies among more than 2 people should be implemented, but there's nothing ethically wrong with polygamous marriage.

Not just the financial policies, everything else.

Suppose Anna, Bernard, and Charlie are all in a polygamous marriage. Turns out that Charlie cheated on his spouses, and now Anna wants to divorce him but Bernard is more forgiving and doesn't want to. What happens?

Suppose Alfred marries Barbara, and then later he also marries Caroline. Are Barbara and Caroline married too? What if Barbara doesn't want to marry Caroline? Can Barbara prevent Alfred and Caroline from marrying by saying "I don't"? What if Alfred sneaked out for the ceremony so Barbara isn't there?

A contract between two parties is simple; a contract between more than two is a lot more complicated. And yes I have no objections to people having ménages à trois, or even à quatre, if everybody is aware of the implications, consenting to them, and happy with the situation. But that might have to stay outside of the boundaries of marriage because it gets far too complicated pretty soon.

JudgeDeadd said:

First of all, if your immediate reaction is that I'm some kind of a religious fundie, perish the thought. I'm a Catholic, but I don't personally feel the same way as my Church in a variety of topics, and it doesn't really have that much of a meaning in my views. I don't condemn anybody for whatever's going on in their heads and libidos. It would be dumb to criticize someone for something beyond their control. However. I've developed a healthy dislike of the LGBT movement, and the way it's influencing culture right now.

[whining about your group not running everyone's lives...]

Yeah, whining. Why the hell should people keep their preferences to themselves when you don't have to? Straight people post about their relationships and sexual fantasies all the time. Why not gays?

Expressing an opinion that gays shouldn't be permitted to marry should be as dangerous to your reputation as suggesting Catholics shouldn't be able to marry. Catholics marrying each other doesn't affect me and gays marrying doesn't affect you. Hierarchies and control seem to be built into your religion. So you have to live in a world where people do things you like. Tough. It's ridiculous for you to talk about "perversion" when you support an organization that routinely covers for rapists.

Why shouldn't we change our culture so gays can be happy too? If you can't use theology as an argument then what argument could there possibly against it? Let's mainstream everything that doesn't hurt people and make a happier world! The Catholic way of letting some guys in robes lie about what's always been a tradition has been tried. It just causes tears and suffering for anyone different.

dew said:

15 in CZ, 14 in Germany, 13 in Spain. If a 30yo fucks a 14yo in Germany, he's okay. If he does it in Murca, he's a paedophile. Does he magically turn into a deviant predator as he crosses border? Can an American go to Germany, fuck an "underage kid" considered legal there and return with no remorse? Is an 18yo fucking a 17 yo a paedophile?

Not to mention that paedophiles are only attracted to sexually undeveloped children. Shit is called hebephilia. I'm not trying to split words here, but it's funny how you consider the discussion over, because you feel outraged by the very mention.

Truth be told I had no idea the age of consent was so low in those countries. That's kind of ridiculous.

I mean to say that "pedophilia is not comparable to homosexulaity, period", not that there's no more discussion worth having about it. I feel like people aren't really developed enough to give consent until they're 18 - That's my personal view, although I'm sure the science is out there that shows parts of our brain aren't really sexually developed enough to make a proper decision until the 16-18 age range. Probably varies for some people of course, but a benchmark has to be set somewhere.

Anyway my overall point was that comparing homosexuality to pedophilia is astonishingly retarded.

dew said:

15 in CZ, 14 in Germany, 13 in Spain. If a 30yo fucks a 14yo in Germany, he's okay. If he does it in Murca, he's a paedophile. Does he magically turn into a deviant predator as he crosses border? Can an American go to Germany, fuck an "underage kid" considered legal there and return with no remorse? Is an 18yo fucking a 17 yo a paedophile?

Not to mention that paedophiles are only attracted to sexually undeveloped children. Shit is called hebephilia. I'm not trying to split words here, but it's funny how you consider the discussion over, because you feel outraged by the very mention.

I believe it's 16 in Romania.

dew said:

Not to mention that paedophiles are only attracted to sexually undeveloped children. Shit is called hebephilia. I'm not trying to split words here, but it's funny how you consider the discussion over, because you feel outraged by the very mention.

Oh no, not this topic again.

JudgeDeadd said:

Stuff

You know, when I make an argument, I tried to boil it down to very simple, direct points. I'm having trouble doing that here though, there's too much to address. So instead, I'm going to explain why people respond badly to opposing gay marriage.

Even if your comparison to a fetish was legitimate, you're still essentially saying that certain people shouldn't have the same rights as others based on harmless traits because you don't like them. If you're not gay, it doesn't even have anything to do with you. Now, telling others to kill themselves is going too far, but I'm not sure what else you expected. For example, if you told a black man he couldn't marry a white woman, you'd likely be told off at best, and in surgery at worst. It's not acceptable to have somebody to hospitalize you, but it's not like you didn't play a part in it.

Basically, whenever you tell somebody that they don't deserve the same rights as others because they're not exactly like you, that's dehumanizing. You're saying they're lesser than you, and therefore less deserving of those rights. If they respond negatively because of that, you're not going to get any sympathy. If you want to view that as being victimized, that's your right, but don't expect to be taken seriously.

Time for my two cents: I believe the institution of marriage is archaic and silly, and really, in modern times, is just a legal contract and a way for the government to have an extra track record on you. I personally feel that the love between two people has nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with...well, love! I've been living with my woman for a couple years and we've been together for a decade; but people keep asking, "When will you get married?" For fuck's sake, what's it matter to you? We're not in a financial position where it's economically beneficial, so we're not doing it yet. So basically, the gay marriage thing, I hope, is a stepping stone towards removing the facade of this outdated practice, and turning it into a strictly legal thing, so that people can love one another without feeling socially pressured into getting married.

Please don't turn this into a fucking pedophilia/legal age of consent thread. We don't need that. Just celebrate the fact America is making gay marriage legal and that it's a good thing.

W-What about the Trans-Pacific Partnership...

GoatLord said:

Time for my two cents: I believe the institution of marriage is archaic and silly, and really, in modern times, is just a legal contract and a way for the government to have an extra track record on you. I personally feel that the love between two people has nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with...well, love! I've been living with my woman for a couple years and we've been together for a decade; but people keep asking, "When will you get married?" For fuck's sake, what's it matter to you? We're not in a financial position where it's economically beneficial, so we're not doing it yet.

Besides, you can't get married - you won't consummate the partnership after you sign the certificate.

I always find it hilarious that when some people talk about gay marriage or homosexuality, they always take it like 30 steps further; "what's next, BEASTIALITY? LEGALIZING RAPE? Diaper fetishes, anyone?" Comparing relationships or marriages or sex between two consenting human beings regardless of their gender is not at all similar to a person trying to get it on with an alligator or a paper bag. People are people.

If you don't like it, that's perfectly fine and you are entitled to your opinion. Just please don't try to compare it to something extreme or ridiculous.

Feels good, man. I love this country, and I'm seeing a bright future ahead of us.