Chicks News

calexico · Post by **calexico** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 5:12 am

So what is the problem really? Let people marry whoever the hell they want if it isn't hurting anyone or exploiting anyone.

ShuckOwens · Post by **ShuckOwens** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 5:08 am

trousersnakeandlarry · Tue Jun 06, 2006 4:37 am

warren outwood wrote: i do love the "gay = nambla" stuff though.

I knew you were a perv.

warren outwood · Post by **warren outwood** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 1:34 am

i agree.
the way i tried to explain this to my homophobe friends is:

a priest has sex with a 6 year old boy.

a priest has sex with a 6 year old girl.

a priest has sex with a 25 year old guy who wants him to.

to me, the last one if fine. the other two are illegal for a good reason and the gender has nothing to do with it.

calexico · Post by **calexico** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 1:15 am

A lot of homphobia around this place. Who cares what 'the gays' do? Why should them getting hitched in a civil union worry anyone? It's not like you have been asked to marry one of them. And the way the whole thing has descended here into a being gay=being a kiddie fiddler is just laughable and sad.

Fenrisinho · Post by **Fenrisinho** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 11:14 pm

To compare gay marriage to anything but marriage is half-witted.

warren outwood · Post by **warren outwood** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 10:51 pm

it aint gonna pass. it's just an election year thing. just like mexicans.

i do love the "gay = nambla" stuff though. puttin all things we personaly don't wanna watch in one big catagory is fun. for me: male gay sex = celine dion live = 2,500 soldiers killed for no reason.

Linwood Thorpe · Post by **Linwood Thorpe** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:58 pm

The argument all stems from mutual consenting adults. Minors, under our system of laws, do not have the ability to consent until they reach the age of 16 or 17, depending on the state. Age of consent isn't a antiquated notion, and it never will be in this country.

Its funny though...kids can be tried as "adults" for crimes at the age of 14...yet, statuatory rape ends at 16. There doesn't seem to be a problem with that. I am more worried about this country's penchant for punishing children with adult sentencing than I am worried about NAMBLA. Nice try though.

As for the whole gay marriage debate Shuck, the argument you are using is the same argument that was used during the women's sufferage movement, the civil rights movement, the supreme court debate on pornography, and pretty much any moral debate. Instead of considering the actual debate at hand, you are just using hyperbole and chicken-little rhetoric to scare people into thinking the moral fabric of the world is going to be permanently destroyed if this issue is accepted...or you are just using partisan politics and hot-button issues to rile up the churchy members of your party. Its the same crap the Democrats or liberals do, so its not surprising.

Equating homosexual relationships with deviant relationships between adults and minors, adults and animals is pretty archaic and stupid if you ask me. Its not even the same debate. Consent is the key. The polygamist aspect is more relevant though, although it presents a huge legal problem of dividing property and custody if a divorce occurs.

Why shouldn't two consenting adults of the same sex have the same rights to mutual property, inheritance, and tax benefits as heterosexual couples? I can't see any other reason other than moral grounds, so fine...lets STOP calling it marriage (which is contextually a church or religious term) and start calling them civil unions...that sounds like a compromise to me.

(sorry for the spelling and bad grammar)

ShuckOwens · Post by **ShuckOwens** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:30 pm

dcarter · Post by **dcarter** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 7:57 pm

ShuckOwens wrote:Once same-sex marriage is approved, can you explain to me why the folks I mentioned above should be denied as well? Because you're going to have to turn them away apparently... as their "rights" are specious, silly and illogical.

As I said above, because only consenting adults should be entitled to enter into a legal contract which is what government-sanctioned legal marriage is.

I am still waiting for you to present something other than this "break down the barrier" argument. Can you do it ?

ShuckOwens · Post by **ShuckOwens** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 7:53 pm

dcarter · Post by **dcarter** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 7:48 pm

ShuckOwens wrote:Here's the deal. The example of inter-species is an extreme example... yet one that does not seem so unlikely once the "barrier" of heterosexuality is removed. Let me pose the same questions to you:

I suspect there are some perfectly wonderful, intelligent loving people in your state whose hearts would be broken for being denied. What? You're better than the woman who loves her chorkie that much? You're better than the man and three women who want their chance? You look down upon the Elderly man who wants to take a twelve year old boy as his bride?

Tell me you're not that judgemental. Tell me how these people aren't just as capable of providing a loving, nuturing environment to grow a beautiful marriage... or provide a home for a child. Tell me how these people can't be loving, mature, secure and sincere partners capable of these things... and much more.

I want to know how these people getting married is going to take away from you? How is their ability to file an insurance claim, buy a house, adopt a child going to harm you? How does this chip away at your life, personally?

As you can see, my belief in traditional marriages stems from the "kicking down the door" angle that I have painstakingly, ad-nauseum scribed here. I don't believe the people I mentioned above should be allowed to enter into a marriage. If you don't agree, so be it... I just don't give a shit. Go ahead and feel better about yourself for being my intellectual superior.

I look down at any marriage that is not between consenting adults with a clear and logical argument. As i stated previously legal marriage, as oppossed to religious marriage, is a legal contract. Therefore only consenting adults should be entitled to it. Simple really.

Do you have any reasons other than this specious, silly and illogical "kicking down the door angle" argument. Other than that why do you believe that 2 consenting adults of the same gender should not be allowed the right to legal marriage ?. It is a simple question. Can you answer it?

ShuckOwens · Post by **ShuckOwens** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 7:31 pm

dcarter · Post by **dcarter** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 7:14 pm

ShuckOwens wrote:DC, you lay out what you believe should constitute a logical argument in your opinion, and I'll try my best to explain myself to you better than I already have here. Why don't you do the same with your belief that anything with a face is entitled to this wonderous institution.

I do not believe " that anything with a face is entitled to this wonderous institution". I never said that I did. I said that I believe that consenting adult humans should be entitled to government-sanctioned legal marriage because marriage is a basic human right.