Jump to content
Login with your Gmail HERE and start posting in seconds! ×
Don't just read! Be part of the Community! Join the conversation ×

National Cathedral To Perfom Gay Weddings

MrRealDeal

By MrRealDeal
in Gay People in Thailand

 Share

Recommended Posts

MrRealDeal Gold Member

MrRealDeal

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

I should say not especially earth shattering to normal people , But I would imagin the far right christians who view this as sort of the honorary American church are freaking out wondering if Americas favored nation status from god will be revoked ! lol

Edited by MrRealDeal
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jingthing Legendary Member

Jingthing

Posted
Posted

I got a question. Seriously.

If they perform marriages for bisexuals, does that mean that they increase the number of people in the marriage or would a bisexual have to choose one or the other?

Huh? Marriages in the U.S. are only between TWO people. You're thinking Mormons maybe? Now illegal for them too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tombkk Ruby Member

tombkk

Posted
Posted

I got a question. Seriously.

If they perform marriages for bisexuals, does that mean that they increase the number of people in the marriage or would a bisexual have to choose one or the other?

Huh? Marriages in the U.S. are only between TWO people. You're thinking Mormons maybe? Now illegal for them too.

I know two guys who are (or were, at the time) living together with two women and had children with both. One in England, the other in Thailand. It was consensual with all involved in both cases. Whether or not they should have a right to marry is a valid discussion.

Not my fight, though, and not directly related to gay marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jingthing Legendary Member

Jingthing

Posted
Posted

I got a question. Seriously.

If they perform marriages for bisexuals, does that mean that they increase the number of people in the marriage or would a bisexual have to choose one or the other?

Huh? Marriages in the U.S. are only between TWO people. You're thinking Mormons maybe? Now illegal for them too.

I know two guys who are (or were, at the time) living together with two women and had children with both. One in England, the other in Thailand. It was consensual with all involved in both cases. Whether or not they should have a right to marry is a valid discussion.

Not my fight, though, and not directly related to gay marriage.

It sort of IS related to gay marriage. Because enemies of gay marriage equality use that kind of argument quite a lot. If we let two men marry, what next? Man marries dog? Man marries pencil? Three people marry? Ten people marry? So yes if there is a movement of people who think it should be legal for men to marry pencils, let them organize. Back to real world, there isn't going to be any international movement for marriages of more than two. We all know that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tombkk Ruby Member

tombkk

Posted
Posted

I got a question. Seriously.

If they perform marriages for bisexuals, does that mean that they increase the number of people in the marriage or would a bisexual have to choose one or the other?

Huh? Marriages in the U.S. are only between TWO people. You're thinking Mormons maybe? Now illegal for them too.

I know two guys who are (or were, at the time) living together with two women and had children with both. One in England, the other in Thailand. It was consensual with all involved in both cases. Whether or not they should have a right to marry is a valid discussion.

Not my fight, though, and not directly related to gay marriage.

It sort of IS related to gay marriage. Because enemies of gay marriage equality use that kind of argument quite a lot. If we let two men marry, what next? Man marries dog? Man marries pencil? Three people marry? Ten people marry? So yes if there is a movement of people who think it should be legal for men to marry pencils, let them organize. Back to real world, there isn't going to be any international movement for marriages of more than two. We all know that.

"Man marries pencil"? Come on.

But about your point about the real world: As I said, it's not my fight. Frankly, I'm too old for that, I might have cared and gone to the streets a few decades ago but not any more . Let the concerned fight for their own interests, let me concentrate on gay rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jingthing Legendary Member

Jingthing

Posted
Posted (edited)

Back to real world, there isn't going to be any international movement for marriages of more than two. We all know that.

Joseph Smith begs to differ biggrin.png

There are pockets for that. Renegade Morons and whatever is going on in parts of the Muslim world. Other than that, there is no indication there is any international movement for marriages with more than two and I don't think there ever will be. Again, enemies of gay rights always bring up the slippery slope argument. It's not a valid argument. Edited by Jingthing
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrRealDeal Gold Member

MrRealDeal

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I should say not especially earth shattering to normal people , But I would imagin the far right christians who view this as sort of the honorary American church are freaking out wondering if Americas favored nation status from god will be revoked ! lol

...by 'normal people' you pobably mean non-religious...

...because it is an abomination to most religions.

No I meant exactly what I said ...... I don't think a normal religous person would find it earth shattering , I think a far right Christian would.

I may very well be against the intrepretation of other religous peoples doctrine ..... but I don't think they would find it earth shattering that iit was being done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrRealDeal Gold Member

MrRealDeal

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Back to real world, there isn't going to be any international movement for marriages of more than two. We all know that.

Joseph Smith begs to differ biggrin.png

There are pockets for that. Renegade Morons and whatever is going on in parts of the Muslim world. Other than that, there is no indication there is any international movement for marriages with more than two and I don't think there ever will be. Again, enemies of gay rights always bring up the slippery slope argument. It's not a valid argument.

I'm not sure it not a valid argument at all , it's just as you point out their is no movement to perpetuate it ...... ..... Don't you think when people were discussing interracial marriages someone said the same thing about Gay marriage and another said how invalid the slope argument was ? I would point out the "slope" is not slopeing in the wrong direction but the correct one in the first place.

It's not really all that slippery a slope anyhow ..... Why should a bisexual 3some be denied the same rights as a Gay couple ? Why should a hetrosexual woman be deined the same rights as a bisexual 3some ? ........ The answer would generally revolve around the same nonsense argument ...... it would effect all the other people not doing it somehow, so it would be against the public intrest ..... pretty much the same nonsense argument you have fought against for what I think is a long part of your life.

Now naturally some other things that are generally given to married people that are not a right in the first place would be modified , for example a husband might have to chose one wife for insurance not claim their rights are being denied because all the other married people's wives get insurance so their 20 should be free as well. And so on .... However like it or not people who want to marry more than 1 person's rights are being denied in the same fashion, for the same basic set of reasons that Interacial and Gay people's were. Religion and personal opposition.

I am not arguing so much that people have some Right to marry in the first place , but am arguing that Governments through the personal pregeduce or bias of the people don't have the right to stop them. The people only have a right to stop it if 3 bisexual people being married actually was harmfull to the overall population...... which it's not.

The arguments that plural marriages involve abuse or financial ruin for some of them, is not a valid reason to deny them all. Abuse and financial problems are the number one cause of hetrosexual divorce. And probabbly Gay divorce someday as well .

The people who use the slope argument are not just the enemy of Gay marriage , they are the enemy of everything other than what they want.

The argument that it's harmfull to Women is also not valid , lots of things have the potential to be harmfull we don't ban them because a few wackjobs do things that are wrong , the main reason that Plural marriage is sometimes harmfull to Women is that people don't generally call the police to intervene in matters where they are breaking the law, and the abusers know that ..... make it legal and that would change.

The logical conclution to the slope people is ..... What about somone who wan't to marry his Dog or a Cow or perhaps even his or her Pet Rock ...... The reason you can''t marry an animal is they can't cosent to it or say no. The reason you can't marry an inantimate object is the same.......... Let's fast foward to 4013 where animals can talk ...... Where do you get off telling me I can't accept a marriage proposal from my Cow ? And how would the 50 nuts who said yes effect the well being of the other 400 million people ? Once again it's simply personal bias and repugnance for it, not that it's so harmfull to the person or public the government should be involved ...... assuming their are no medical issues , which I suppoose their might be. The ovbious one being psycological,! but thats for a Psychiatrist not for me to decide.

Same old tired arguments ..... you shouldn't be allowed to do it because I don't like it, not because it's so bad for you or so bad for the innocent public that ther is actually a valid reason to protect them from their own behavior or protect the public from the consequesces of their behavior.

PS ..... when I say "you" I am reffering to the reader not to you Jing and this is not an argument towards you, just my overall opinion

Edited by MrRealDeal
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jingthing Legendary Member

Jingthing

Posted
Posted (edited)

Look if there is an organized movement of people in the U.S. (where I have the vote) who want to legalize multiple person marriage, sure, I don't have a problem with it. But staying with reality, I am certain there will be no such movement and it isn't something I think pro gay rights people need to do to start such a movement. Let the people who care start it. I know they won't so this is academic. You can act like they might but I just don't believe it. Now if a group wants to lobby to legalize marriage between humans and animals, call me old fashioned, I will not support it. Again, I find the slippery slope argument a complete crock.

Edited by Jingthing
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrRealDeal Gold Member

MrRealDeal

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I guess sometimes I was refeing to you others I was not , I don't want to re write it , I just didn't want you to think it was directed at your personal stance or opinion even though it looks that way .... It's just opinion not an argument directed at anyone in particular

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jingthing Legendary Member

Jingthing

Posted
Posted

Fine.

But back to the slippery slope.

In countries where gay marriage is legal, I do not believe that means easier or instant legalization for polygamous marriage in the unlikely event that it becomes a cause. That would need to be fought for as a totally SEPARATE issue.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrRealDeal Gold Member

MrRealDeal

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Look if there is an organized movement of people in the U.S. (where I have the vote) who want to legalize multiple person marriage, sure, I don't have a problem with it. But staying with reality, I am certain there will be no such movement and it isn't something I think pro gay rights people need to do to start such a movement. Let the people who care start it. I know they won't so this is academic. You can act like they might but I just don't believe it. Now if a group wants to lobby to legalize marriage between humans and animals, call me old fashioned, I will not support it. Again, I find the slippery slope argument a complete crock.

Well it would seem that you would support multiple partner marriage ..... doesn't that kind of support the slope argument ? Well animals have to be able to talk first ! lol

I really can't see it as a crock since thats how it's working factually, marriage has evolved over the years giving more and more people the freedom to do it I fail to see anything that shows me that will reverse direction ..... hence the slope is working along it's course.

Sure it's somewhat seperate and sure it's not happening now but if\when it does happen I think it will happen in part because of the "slope" or the direction it's been going in.

But I can agree to disagree over this small point .....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jingthing Legendary Member

Jingthing

Posted
Posted (edited)

I'm a liberal within limits. I think if you polled right now in most countries, the majority would be against legal polygamous marriages. They would have to start from scratch. No, the slippery slope is just used by enemies of gay marriage as a scare tactic. If it was true, interracial marriage would have been a slippery slope in the US for gay marriage. Decades later we are still fighting for gay marriage equality. The slippery slope people usually DO suggest even more outrageous things will happen if gay marriage is legal, like men allowed to marry horses and dogs. Again, classic red baiting. Let the enemies of gay marriage have their slippery slope weapon. That doesn't mean that advocates of gay equality need to buy into that game!

Edited by Jingthing
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tombkk Ruby Member

tombkk

Posted
Posted

Back to real world, there isn't going to be any international movement for marriages of more than two. We all know that.

Joseph Smith begs to differ biggrin.png

Link?

http://en.wikipedia...._Smith#Polygamy

Thanks for the link. This does seem to support a man married to several women in a one-to-many heterosexual relationship. I can't see anything gay-related in the whole idea.

Are we venturing off-topic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.








×
×
  • Create New...
""