View Poll Results: What types of alternative lifestyles do you also support?

Voters
39. You may not vote on this poll
  • Polygamy (One man several wives)

    24 61.54%
  • Polyandry (One wife several husbands)

    23 58.97%
  • Polyamory (One or more men, one or more women)

    25 64.10%
  • Open Marriage

    25 64.10%
  • None of the above

    13 33.33%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 77

Thread: For those who support gay marriage

  1. #61
    Global Moderator
    Sinister
    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    133,668

    Re: For those who support gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Slippery Slope View Post
    You may see no evidence that it is beneficial but you also must see no evidence that it is detrimental. Therefore taking a position against something must be either stupidity, which I don't think you are or simply an emotional response. I think you'd agree, that is a dangerous reason to be for or against something that effects others.
    Neither. In the question of marriage, I have no reason to support something that shows no clear benefit.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    Mace Windu: Then our worst fears have been realized. We must move quickly if the Jedi Order is to survive.

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  2. #62
    R.I.P. Léo
    bub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    05-17-12 @ 01:54 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,649

    Re: For those who support gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Do you also support polygamy, polyandry, open marriages, and other non-traditional family structures?
    It's a question of values.

    In certain societies, polygamy/andry are OK

    I support all the things you mentioned, the only condition being that the 2 adults are consentings.

    As for kids, it's OK too: I don't see why gays would be less good at educating children than heterosexuals. I know many heterosexuals who would be much less good at it (alcoholics, drug consumers...) and who are not prevented from educating their kids.

    That's why I support gay marriage & adoption of kids by gays

  3. #63
    R.I.P. Léo
    bub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    05-17-12 @ 01:54 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,649

    Re: For those who support gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Neither. In the question of marriage, I have no reason to support something that shows no clear benefit.
    Do you see more benefits in heterosexual marriage?

  4. #64
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 06:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: For those who support gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Freedom and security is the pre-eminent civic interest. Without the second, we have anarchy.
    This is where you're wrong. There is no inherent civic interest in security. Society does not protect because there may be harm, but because there is specific and articulable reason to believe there will be harm, or that there has been harm done.

    With security as a default, we have repression, oppression, totalitarianism, tyranny....take your pick.

    Freedom is the default. Security is applicable only when there is clear demonstrable harm.

    Your whole position boils down to that an alternative family structure must be shown to be beneficial to children. Simply put, this is the wrong position to take.

    It is wrong because it demands of plural marriage advocates they show their way not merely to be adequate to the demands of raising children, but in fact superior to monogamous marriage; such argument derives directly from the requirement you would impose of plural marriage that it demonstrate a distinct demonstrable benefit to children.

    In order for such benefit to be demonstrated, it would necessarily have to be a benefit not obtainable within a family structure defined by monogamous marriage. Further, if such a benefit were to be had at the expense of a distinct demonstrable benefit of monogamous marriage, that benefit would need to be of sufficient worth to outweigh the loss of the other, else the exchange of benefits would be argued as being the equivalent of harm. If that benefit stands alone and not in exchange for a benefit of monogamous marriage, it necessarily follows that such benefit is in addition to those supplied by monogamous marriage.

    Thus, per your standard, for plural marriage to be permissible, it must yield either superior benefits to monogamous marriage or additional benefits to monogamous marriage. Per your standard, if plural marriage cannot be shown to offer such superior or additional benefits, it must be disallowed.

    In no other aspect of family life is this requirement imposed, not as operation of law nor as operation of actual practice. For example, in the Texas Family Code, Chapter 161, §001, the law sets the following threshold for the termination of parent-child relationships:
    Sec. 161.001. INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION OF PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP. The court may order termination of the parent-child relationship if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence:

    (1) that the parent has:

    (A) voluntarily left the child alone or in the possession of another not the parent and expressed an intent not to return;

    (B) voluntarily left the child alone or in the possession of another not the parent without expressing an intent to return, without providing for the adequate support of the child, and remained away for a period of at least three months;

    (C) voluntarily left the child alone or in the possession of another without providing adequate support of the child and remained away for a period of at least six months;

    (D) knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the child to remain in conditions or surroundings which endanger the physical or emotional well-being of the child;

    (E) engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the child with persons who engaged in conduct which endangers the physical or emotional well-being of the child;

    (F) failed to support the child in accordance with the parent's ability during a period of one year ending within six months of the date of the filing of the petition;

    (G) abandoned the child without identifying the child or furnishing means of identification, and the child's identity cannot be ascertained by the exercise of reasonable diligence;

    (H) voluntarily, and with knowledge of the pregnancy, abandoned the mother of the child beginning at a time during her pregnancy with the child and continuing through the birth, failed to provide adequate support or medical care for the mother during the period of abandonment before the birth of the child, and remained apart from the child or failed to support the child since the birth;

    (I) contumaciously refused to submit to a reasonable and lawful order of a court under Subchapter D, Chapter 261;

    (J) been the major cause of:

    (i) the failure of the child to be enrolled in school as required by the Education Code; or

    (ii) the child's absence from the child's home without the consent of the parents or guardian for a substantial length of time or without the intent to return;

    (K) executed before or after the suit is filed an unrevoked or irrevocable affidavit of relinquishment of parental rights as provided by this chapter;

    (L) been convicted or has been placed on community supervision, including deferred adjudication community supervision, for being criminally responsible for the death or serious injury of a child under the following sections of the Penal Code or adjudicated under Title 3 for conduct that caused the death or serious injury of a child and that would constitute a violation of one of the following Penal Code sections:

    (i) Section 19.02 (murder);

    (ii) Section 19.03 (capital murder);

    (iii) Section 19.04 (manslaughter);

    (iv) Section 21.11 (indecency with a child);

    (v) Section 22.01 (assault);

    (vi) Section 22.011 (sexual assault);

    (vii) Section 22.02 (aggravated assault);

    (viii) Section 22.021 (aggravated sexual assault);

    (ix) Section 22.04 (injury to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual);

    (x) Section 22.041 (abandoning or endangering child);

    (xi) Section 25.02 (prohibited sexual conduct);

    (xii) Section 43.25 (sexual performance by a child);

    (xiii) Section 43.26 (possession or promotion of child pornography); and

    (xiv) Section 21.02 (continuous sexual abuse of young child or children);

    (M) had his or her parent-child relationship terminated with respect to another child based on a finding that the parent's conduct was in violation of Paragraph (D) or (E) or substantially equivalent provisions of the law of another state;

    (N) constructively abandoned the child who has been in the permanent or temporary managing conservatorship of the Department of Family and Protective Services or an authorized agency for not less than six months, and:

    (i) the department or authorized agency has made reasonable efforts to return the child to the parent;

    (ii) the parent has not regularly visited or maintained significant contact with the child; and

    (iii) the parent has demonstrated an inability to provide the child with a safe environment;

    (O) failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that specifically established the actions necessary for the parent to obtain the return of the child who has been in the permanent or temporary managing conservatorship of the Department of Family and Protective Services for not less than nine months as a result of the child's removal from the parent under Chapter 262 for the abuse or neglect of the child;

    (P) used a controlled substance, as defined by Chapter 481, Health and Safety Code, in a manner that endangered the health or safety of the child, and:

    (i) failed to complete a court-ordered substance abuse treatment program; or

    (ii) after completion of a court-ordered substance abuse treatment program, continued to abuse a controlled substance;

    (Q) knowingly engaged in criminal conduct that has resulted in the parent's:

    (i) conviction of an offense; and

    (ii) confinement or imprisonment and inability to care for the child for not less than two years from the date of filing the petition;

    (R) been the cause of the child being born addicted to alcohol or a controlled substance, other than a controlled substance legally obtained by prescription, as defined by Section 261.001;

    (S) voluntarily delivered the child to a designated emergency infant care provider under Section 262.302 without expressing an intent to return for the child; or

    (T) been convicted of the murder of the other parent of the child under Section 19.02 or 19.03, Penal Code, or under a law of another state, federal law, the law of a foreign country, or the Uniform Code of Military Justice that contains elements that are substantially similar to the elements of an offense under Section 19.02 or 19.03, Penal Code; and

    (2) that termination is in the best interest of the child.
    All the criteria ennumerated require intentional, willful, and demonstrably harmful conduct of the parent. Further, for temporary removal, Chapter 262 §101 sets the standard of an "immediate danger":
    (1) there is an immediate danger to the physical health or safety of the child or the child has been a victim of neglect or sexual abuse and that continuation in the home would be contrary to the child's welfare;
    Similar standards are set for emergency removal of a child without a court order (Chapter 262 §104):
    Sec. 262.104. TAKING POSSESSION OF A CHILD IN EMERGENCY WITHOUT A COURT ORDER. (a) If there is no time to obtain a temporary restraining order or attachment before taking possession of a child consistent with the health and safety of that child, an authorized representative of the Department of Family and Protective Services, a law enforcement officer, or a juvenile probation officer may take possession of a child without a court order under the following conditions, only:

    (1) on personal knowledge of facts that would lead a person of ordinary prudence and caution to believe that there is an immediate danger to the physical health or safety of the child;

    (2) on information furnished by another that has been corroborated by personal knowledge of facts and all of which taken together would lead a person of ordinary prudence and caution to believe that there is an immediate danger to the physical health or safety of the child;

    (3) on personal knowledge of facts that would lead a person of ordinary prudence and caution to believe that the child has been the victim of sexual abuse;

    (4) on information furnished by another that has been corroborated by personal knowledge of facts and all of which taken together would lead a person of ordinary prudence and caution to believe that the child has been the victim of sexual abuse; or

    (5) on information furnished by another that has been corroborated by personal knowledge of facts and all of which taken together would lead a person of ordinary prudence and caution to believe that the parent or person who has possession of the child is currently using a controlled substance as defined by Chapter 481, Health and Safety Code, and the use constitutes an immediate danger to the physical health or safety of the child.
    Contrary to your assertions, the "default" position regarding a child's welfare is not "safety", but rather demonstrable danger. Absent immediate and demonstrable harm, the "default" is for society to let parents raise their children as they will. Extending that practice to plural marriage, an opposing argument predicated on the safety and welfare of the child can only succeed if a specific, demonstrable harm can be shown arising from plural marriage.

    Thus your challenge is wrong as a matter of practical application, and, as a matter of practical application, the challenge is on you to articulate the demonstrable harms plural marriage would have on children.

  5. #65
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!
    stevenb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Gilbert, Az
    Last Seen
    11-28-09 @ 07:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,560

    Re: For those who support gay marriage

    tbh, I could care less who wants to get married.

    Marriage is an institution of the church, not the government... and they should have absolutely no say in it.
    George Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to win the war with Britain... He shot them.

  6. #66
    Sage
    Dav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    04-16-16 @ 12:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,539

    Re: For those who support gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by stevenb View Post
    tbh, I could care less who wants to get married.

    Marriage is an institution of the church, not the government... and they should have absolutely no say in it.
    People keep saying this, but that means I can't get married because I don't belong to any religion or church.

  7. #67
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 06:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: For those who support gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    People keep saying this, but that means I can't get married because I don't belong to any religion or church.
    If marriage is defined solely as a religious sacrament, then, if your religious beliefs do not include that sacrament, it follows that no, you would not be getting married.

    But if your religious beliefs do not include the sacrament of marriage, what is it about marriage that you desire it so?

  8. #68
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    in a neocon's craw
    Last Seen
    06-29-09 @ 11:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,801

    Re: For those who support gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Disagree all you want. You initiated this by responding to this statement of mine, which you posted in this thread: "Please show some evidence that polygamous marriage rears children as healthy and able to function as children of hetero- and homosexual marriage. There is plenty of data on both of those. I do not see why the government should support something unless there is some data showing it is helpful."

    I asked first. If you have no evidence of your position, just say so and we can move on.
    Ok, I have no evidence that polygamous marriage rears children as healthy and able to function as children of hetero- and homosexual marriage.

    Do you have some evidence that polygamous marriage does not rear children as healthy and able to function as children of hetero- and homosexual marriage?

  9. #69
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    in a neocon's craw
    Last Seen
    06-29-09 @ 11:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,801

    Re: For those who support gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Neither. In the question of marriage, I have no reason to support something that shows no clear benefit.
    Do you think 2 parents are better for child rearing than 1 parent?

    Do you think 3 parents are better for child rearing than 2 or 1 parent?

    Do you think 4 parents are better for child rearing than 3, 2 or 1 parent?

  10. #70
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    in a neocon's craw
    Last Seen
    06-29-09 @ 11:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,801

    Re: For those who support gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    People keep saying this, but that means I can't get married because I don't belong to any religion or church.
    My wife and I were together for 12 years before we got "married". The only thing that changed thereafter was the view the government took of our union. Oh, and we got a piece of paper from the justice of the peace.

    Create a piece of paper on your computer that says "marriage" on it. Print it out and hang it on the wall so you can feel good.

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •