- This topic has 14 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 7 months ago by
scaredyclassic.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 11, 2012 at 12:54 PM #20118September 11, 2012 at 5:43 PM #751349
lindismith
ParticipantUrbanrealtor, I’m glad you have friends that make films like that!
From the pic, the kids look incredibly happy. Isn’t that what really matters?
I’m so over the ISSUE of gay marriage. I just want the state to grant everyone their equal rights, and let them get married already.
And then let’s talk about stuff that’s really important, like climate change, or healthcare, or the economy or ?
(Hi Piggs – I’ve been lurking recently. That thread about kicking briansd1 off is one reason I don’t check in too much, but I thought I’d let you know I’m checking in every now and then. Mostly reading Rich, and linking through to CR, etc.)
September 11, 2012 at 6:59 PM #751352scaredyclassic
ParticipantI want to see it. Not on netflix save list. Why not?
Documentaries are the best.
I can’t handle the fiction.
September 11, 2012 at 9:47 PM #751355no_such_reality
Participant[quote=lindismith]
From the pic, the kids look incredibly happy. Isn’t that what really matters?
[/quote]One would hope so. That and having their basic needs taken care of, which is pretty easy to assume based on the picture.
Frankly it’s a shame it’s a divisive issue. In the end the picture says it all, just a middle aged couple doing the best they can for their kids.
September 12, 2012 at 4:41 PM #751381CA renter
ParticipantMaybe Bryan is a SAHP these days?
Not sure why this should be a divisive topic. For those who don’t want to be gay parents, nobody’s forcing them to enter into gay marriages or raise children with gay partners.
We have lesbian friends who are married (at least that’s how they see it) and are raising their children in a very warm, wonderful environment with two of the most caring, stable parents any kid could ever want. I just don’t see why anyone would have a problem with this.
September 12, 2012 at 5:31 PM #751384Allan from Fallbrook
Participant[quote=CA renter]Maybe Bryan is a SAHP these days?
Not sure why this should be a divisive topic. For those who don’t want to be gay parents, nobody’s forcing them to enter into gay marriages or raise children with gay partners.
We have lesbian friends who are married (at least that’s how they see it) and are raising their children in a very warm, wonderful environment with two of the most caring, stable parents any kid could ever want. I just don’t see why anyone would have a problem with this.[/quote]
CAR: When you allow ideology or theology to dictate your actions and to replace your ability to be open-minded and accepting of others and their choices, well, then you get those people that do have a problem with this.
September 12, 2012 at 6:28 PM #751387Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=CA renter]Maybe Bryan is a SAHP these days?
Not sure why this should be a divisive topic. For those who don’t want to be gay parents, nobody’s forcing them to enter into gay marriages or raise children with gay partners.
We have lesbian friends who are married (at least that’s how they see it) and are raising their children in a very warm, wonderful environment with two of the most caring, stable parents any kid could ever want. I just don’t see why anyone would have a problem with this.[/quote]
CAR: When you allow ideology or theology to dictate your actions and to replace your ability to be open-minded and accepting of others and their choices, well, then you get those people that do have a problem with this.[/quote]
True. What’s funny is that the people we know who are like this tend to be extremely offended when laws are passed that affect their “freedoms,” like smoking, or not wearing seatbelts, for instance. They claim that they are defenders of “freedom” but don’t have a problem trying to take away the “freedoms” and rights of others. It’s ironic.
September 12, 2012 at 8:44 PM #751392Participantit’s all pretty clear to a lot of us right now. But it was also pretty clear to lots of folks i knew back in the 70s that gay sex was immoral. period.
for people who want to exclude gays from marriage, it probably isn’t framed as a “freedom” issue. It’s just plain immoral. they do have quite a bit of history on their side. Government does get to legislate on these types of issues–moral issues–so long as the government has a rational basis to do so…
but doesn’t it kinda make you wonder what we’re blind to now? It’s unlikely we’ve reached the apex of an understanding, humane society. Far from it. So what are we repulsed by now, that in 30 years, will be clearly worthy of inclusion and understanding?
September 12, 2012 at 9:07 PM #751393njtosd
Participant[quote=squat250]it’s all pretty clear to a lot of us right now. But it was also pretty clear to lots of folks i knew back in the 70s that gay sex was immoral. period.
for people who want to exclude gays from marriage, it probably isn’t framed as a “freedom” issue. It’s just plain immoral. they do have quite a bit of history on their side. Government does get to legislate on these types of issues–moral issues–so long as the government has a rational basis to do so…
but doesn’t it kinda make you wonder what we’re blind to now? It’s unlikely we’ve reached the apex of an understanding, humane society. Far from it. So what are we repulsed by now, that in 30 years, will be clearly worthy of inclusion and understanding?[/quote]
My guess is that the next step is polygamy. Don’t know whether it’s worthy of inclusion/understanding. But it was banned for the same moralistic reasons that gay marriage was. Who are we to say how many people can be in a marriage?
September 12, 2012 at 10:15 PM #751397Participanti doubt it. there’s only a tiny percentage of people out there who’d like multiple concurrent spouses. i would guess the demand for acceptance is close to zero percent.
September 13, 2012 at 2:22 AM #751399ParticipantTrue, but even though I would certainly not want to be in a polygamous marriage, there’s no reason for me (or others who do not personally want to be in polygamous relationships) to exert control over those who *do* want to have a polygamous marriage. My only condition for “legalizing” it would be that ALL parties have to willingly consent to it.
Quite frankly, I think outright polygamy is often more humane than (legal) serial polygamy where spouses completely abandon previous wives/husbands and kids via divorce.
September 13, 2012 at 7:17 AM #751400UCGal
Participant[quote=njtosd][quote=squat250]it’s all pretty clear to a lot of us right now. But it was also pretty clear to lots of folks i knew back in the 70s that gay sex was immoral. period.
for people who want to exclude gays from marriage, it probably isn’t framed as a “freedom” issue. It’s just plain immoral. they do have quite a bit of history on their side. Government does get to legislate on these types of issues–moral issues–so long as the government has a rational basis to do so…
but doesn’t it kinda make you wonder what we’re blind to now? It’s unlikely we’ve reached the apex of an understanding, humane society. Far from it. So what are we repulsed by now, that in 30 years, will be clearly worthy of inclusion and understanding?[/quote]
My guess is that the next step is polygamy. Don’t know whether it’s worthy of inclusion/understanding. But it was banned for the same moralistic reasons that gay marriage was. Who are we to say how many people can be in a marriage?[/quote]
Yes but polygamy is nice and biblical. Lots of examples of it in the bible. And other forms of “traditional” marriage that might raise a few eyebrows.
This graphic was sent to me recently
http://www.upworthy.com/the-top-8-ways-to-be-traditionally-married-according-to-the-bible
September 13, 2012 at 7:28 AM #751401NotCranky
ParticipantI always figured poligamy came from some sort of survival of the fittest thing. It was probably originally socially engineered out of some attempt to elevate care of nurturing of replacement humans. Now we have welfare.
September 13, 2012 at 10:00 AM #751407urbanrealtor
ParticipantFunny:
I don’t have any sort of problem with a polygamous relationship but I do see logistical problems in making a legal union more than 2 people.
Specifically, if it is like say 5 people, wouldn’t that get weird as far as taxes and visitation rights?
I think once we get north of three we should start using other entity designators (eg: trust, or corp or what have you).Thoughts?
September 13, 2012 at 6:43 PM #751424Participantthere should be a limit. let’s say no more than 7 wives/husbands at one time.
there’s just an awesome polygamy sketch from Portlandia involving a chicken farmer….keep your eye open for it.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.