The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[TenEightyOne]

I must say, going back and reading some of my earlier post, I am a bit embarrassed at my opinion. While my convictions are the same, my attitude is much, much different towards same sex marriages.

To that, I sincerely apologize to anyone I have offended in the past, present, or future who read those early posts.

That's quite an admission to make, good on ya! What do you think changed your mind over the years?

 

[Johnnypenso]

This discussion is still going strong I see.

I must say, going back and reading some of my earlier post, I am a bit embarrassed at my opinion. While my convictions are the same, my attitude is much, much different towards same sex marriages.

To that, I sincerely apologize to anyone I have offended in the past, present, or future who read those early posts.

So what do you guys think about other marriage combos? A man in Billings Montana is trying to get married to his 3 girl friends. He says the new ruling by the supreme court supports polygamy. They're still not sure what to do about him. What shall we have tolerance for next, and what will their flag look like? Wait and see, it's just around the corner.

Polygamy, incestual marriage and just about anything else you can think of should be allowed, there is no logical reason to deny it. IMO though, the whole institution of marriage needs a revamp. Prenups should be mandatory for anyone getting married, spelling out financial obligations within the marriage and after it ends, if that happens.

 

[Pako]

That's quite an admission to make, good on ya! What do you think changed your mind over the years?

A lot of it was questioning my own faith and what it really meant to be Christ like. I have a niece who has a female partner that she will someday get married to, that I have no doubt. While I still believe that it isn't God's plan, what I know to be his plan is for me to love them. God's convictions are between them and God, much like my convictions are between me and God. Who am I to be judge and jury. It is my job to love, not to pass judgment. Honestly, I am a much happier person because of this realization.

 

[Rage Racer]

Oh Russia. Colour me surprised.


Dear Heterosexual People,

Your flag is a little sombre. It should be an event.

No glitter/10.

Thanks,
Danny

Why can't straights have their own flag? We're for equal rights here

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I must say, going back and reading some of my earlier post, I am a bit embarrassed at my opinion. While my convictions are the same, my attitude is much, much different towards same sex marriages.

Look at it the other way around - your attitude has evolved.

 

[Danoff]

So what do you guys think about other marriage combos? A man in Billings Montana is trying to get married to his 3 girl friends. He says the new ruling by the supreme court supports polygamy. They're still not sure what to do about him. What shall we have tolerance for next, and what will their flag look like? Wait and see, it's just around the corner.

It won't fly under the equal protection clause the way gay marriage did. The big test for equal protection is whether there are material differences that warrant different protection. The legal structure of marriage would need to be different for polygamous relationships. You'd need to establish a hierarchy of medical guardianship, or just one guardian in case of disputes. You'd also need to establish how a third person can enter an existing marriage. Is the third person marrying the existing marriage or the two individuals? This would result in different divorce arrangements. For example:

Person A marries person B.
Person C marries the AB entity.

B divorces A.

The following scenarios are possible:
- B takes 1/3 of the assets.
- B takes 1/4 of the assets.
- A and C are no longer married.
- AC are still married and BC are still married.

This is what I would call "material differences" when it comes to equal protection. It requires its own contract.

 

[Johnnypenso]

It won't fly under the equal protection clause the way gay marriage did. The big test for equal protection is whether there are material differences that warrant different protection. The legal structure of marriage would need to be different for polygamous relationships. You'd need to establish a hierarchy of medical guardianship, or just one guardian in case of disputes. You'd also need to establish how a third person can enter an existing marriage. Is the third person marrying the existing marriage or the two individuals? This would result in different divorce arrangements. For example:

Person A marries person B.
Person C marries the AB entity.

B divorces A.

The following scenarios are possible:
- B takes 1/3 of the assets.
- B takes 1/4 of the assets.
- A and C are no longer married.
- AC are still married and BC are still married.

This is what I would call "material differences" when it comes to equal protection. It requires its own contract.

I don't see why this can't be arranged via a marriage contract. So long as all parties are satisfied with the terms and the children are protected, I see no reason not to allow polygamous relationships to go forward.

 

[Danoff]

I don't see why this can't be arranged via a marriage contract. So long as all parties are satisfied with the terms and the children are protected, I see no reason not to allow polygamous relationships to go forward.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying this is a reason to bar polygamous relationships. I'm saying that they don't fit under equal protection for marriage licenses because there are material differences. It's a legal test, not a political one.

 

[FoolKiller]

Person A marries person B.
Person C marries the AB entity.

I don't agree. I can enter into a legal agreement with an entity that has a similar legal agreement with another entity. Person C could freely marry Person A or Person B alone.

Now that I think about it, the idea of my wife taking on a wife that I have no ties with could either be fun or very troublesome.

 

[Danoff]

I don't agree.

Agree with what? That's just a scenario.

Here's another scenario:

Person A marries person B
Person B marries person C
Person C marries person A

B divorces A but not C.
C and A are still married. B and C are still married.

B demands 1/2 of the marital assets due to marriage to person A.

B then subsequently divorces person C.
B demands 1/2 of the marital assets due to marriage to person C.

B now has 3/4 of the marital assets while AB have 1/4.

Material difference, requires a separate contract.

 

[FoolKiller]

I still don't see why all three have to be connected together.

But in your scenario: B divorces A and demands half of marital assets. They get half of the BA partnership, but not half of the cumulative ABC partnership. Then when B divorces C they get half of the BC partnership only. B should never wind up with more than 2/6 of the cumulative value (assuming we are ignoring other factors can come into play during court).

You are applying traditional two-partner marriage and divorce logic to the divorce. You a wife leaving her husband doesn't get half of the business he is a majority stakeholder in. Just half of his share, or its value. The same would be true of his share in another marriage.

This all also assumes that divorces are even splits, but they aren't and no decent lawyer will ever allow your version of the scenario to occur.



I'm not disagreeing that these create substantial differences to distinguish it differently than the way this legal decision played out, but I don't see why every partner must be legally linked to every other partner. If my wife and I had a polygamous relationship and she married another man I don't have to marry him.

 

[Pako]

It won't fly under the equal protection clause the way gay marriage did. The big test for equal protection is whether there are material differences that warrant different protection. The legal structure of marriage would need to be different for polygamous relationships. You'd need to establish a hierarchy of medical guardianship, or just one guardian in case of disputes. You'd also need to establish how a third person can enter an existing marriage. Is the third person marrying the existing marriage or the two individuals? This would result in different divorce arrangements. For example:

Person A marries person B.
Person C marries the AB entity.

B divorces A.

The following scenarios are possible:
- B takes 1/3 of the assets.
- B takes 1/4 of the assets.
- A and C are no longer married.
- AC are still married and BC are still married.

This is what I would call "material differences" when it comes to equal protection. It requires its own contract.

I would agree and seems to get exponentially complicated from a legal perspective regardless of the increase complications of the relationship(s).

 

[Danoff]

I'm not disagreeing that these create substantial differences to distinguish it differently than the way this legal decision played out, but I don't see why every partner must be legally linked to every other partner. If my wife and I had a polygamous relationship and she married another man I don't have to marry him.

Without a change to the marriage contract, you kinda do - which is my point - it needs its own contract.

Imagine what happens when you have a marriage that looks like this:

(((AB)C)D(EF))

 

[Touring Mars]

Imagine what happens when you have a marriage that looks like this:

(((AB)C)D(EF))

I'm trying to picture this right now... I think at the very least you're going to need a king-size bed ... and a very good lawyer....

 

[Danoff]

I'm trying to picture this right now... I think at the very least you're going to need a king-size bed.

Seriously.

Let's see:

Ann Marries Bob. 2 years later they (together) marry Cathy.

Elizabeth and Frank marry. 2 years later they marry the Ann/Bob/Cathy group and Doug at the same time.

1 year later, Bob wants out. All hell breaks loose.

 

[Touring Mars]

I can see why people might have a hard time accepting such an arrangement as a 'marriage'...

Perhaps I've been watching too many Rodney Dangerfield movies (and yes, one probably counts as too many), but I'm arguably guilty of considering polygamy too simplistically i.e. one man marrying several women - call me a traditionalist, but that's what I picture when someone says 'polygamy'.

That said, I can't see why such a complex situation couldn't be made possible/legal, so long as everyone agrees and signs up to the contract. I personally wouldn't call it or consider it marriage though - it sounds more like a cult or Fleetwood Mac in the 1970's.

 

[Imari]

That said, I can't see why such a complex situation couldn't be made possible/legal, so long as everyone agrees and signs up to the contract.

Absolutely. But it's different enough to marriage that to attempt to bang it through under the same rules as current marriage, like was done for gay marriage, would be a disaster.

Gay marriage works by using existing legal structures and simply ignoring the sex of the parties. No problem. Polygamous relationships can't do it, there are too many potential legal minefields. Either someone needs to formally set down rules for polygamous "marriages", or they need to continue to do what they presumably do now, make custom contracts that explicitly designate where the wealth and power in the group goes.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I'm a big fan of Ray Comfort's entertaining idiocy but sadly I've been banned from commenting on his Facebook page for about 2 years now.

If I wasn't I'd be able to join in the commiserations for the flop of Audacity, his film about the evils of homosexuality.

Despite a two-star rating and a run time of less than an hour, Ray Comfort’s Audacity is still $19.99 to download — which might be relevant to the title.

 

[Carbonox]

When in need of religious voters, play the gay marriage opposition card.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Perhaps I've been watching too many Rodney Dangerfield movies (and yes, one probably counts as too many)

I'm going to have to ask you to take that back.

 

[Danny]

'5,000 naked anti-gay protesters to greet President Obama in Kenya'

The anti-gay party plans to supplement its numbers to reach "5,000 totally naked men and women" by teaming up with volunteer sex workers, who are afraid they will lose work if homosexuality is legalized in Kenya.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Sex workers in Kenya are afraid that if homosexuality is made legal then they'll have less work. Right. I know that education in Kenya isn't quite what it is in the developed world, but come on guys.

 

[Touring Mars]

'5,000 naked anti-gay protesters to greet President Obama in Kenya'

come on guys.

That's what they are worried about.

 

[Dennisch]

So, there will be a market for male on male sexworkers.

Hmmm.

What's the Kenyan currency?

 

[Dan]

'5,000 naked anti-gay protesters to greet President Obama in Kenya'

Can't argue with that logic.

 

[Lucas]

Sex workers in Kenya are afraid that if homosexuality is made legal then they'll have less work. Right. I know that education in Kenya isn't quite what it is in the developed world, but come on guys.

Why would they even have sex with female prostitutes in the first place? It's not like it's an obligation... or is it?

 

[Johnnypenso]

That's what they are worried about.

So, there will be a market for male on male sexworkers.

Hmmm.

What's the Kenyan currency?

Buffalo chips?

 

[Imari]

Why would they even have sex with female prostitutes in the first place? It's not like it's an obligation... or is it?

You wouldn't want to be the only one on your block without AIDS, would you?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Lesbian Asian left-leaning senator Penny Ping-Pong takes on conservative demagogue Cory Blowhard in televised debate on marriage equality (read from the bottom up):

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-29/bernardi-and-wong-debate-same-sex-marriage/6656380

Spoiler alert: the demagogue shows up with empty, impassioned rhetoric as his weapon of choice and seems surprised when his opponent uses the questionable tactic of using facts and logic to support her case.

 

[Swift]

This discussion is still going strong I see.

I must say, going back and reading some of my earlier post, I am a bit embarrassed at my opinion. While my convictions are the same, my attitude is much, much different towards same sex marriages.

To that, I sincerely apologize to anyone I have offended in the past, present, or future who read those early posts.

I have to echo this. Honestly, still not a fan of gay marriage. But I have zero right to tell two consenting adults how to live. That being said, I think the feds need to stop discriminating against non-married couples. But that's a different thread.

Incest needs to be illegal for simple genetic reasons. But the other combos, meh, whatever. Have fun trying to keep 5 women happy. It's more than enough of a challenge with one!