• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Marriage is for a man and a woman," HE believes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: "Marriage is for a man and a woman," HE believes

RamFel said:
refusing to answer shows you know nothing.
Click to expand...

Speaking of which - Roger Stone just plead the 5th. Why oh why would someone plead the 5th when NOTHING WRONG happened???
 
TheParser said:
"He" is the president of Grindr, the app for gay men in the world to meet other gay men.

He immediately explained that he supports gay rights, including gay marriage.

But he said that as a straight man with a wife and two children, his personal opinion clashes with his support for gay rights.

He respects everyone's view on this subject.

He has since deleted his controversial remarks.


*****

You can read the whole article on the British newspaper Guardian's website. It was posted on November 29, 2018. Just google the newspaper's title and the words "Grindr president." (I learned about this matter when checking the Drudge Report this morning.)
Click to expand...

Same-sex marriage is legal. Deal with it.
 
Dragonfly said:
Just out of curiosity, why should it only be for "two" consenting adults?

Why not three, or more consenting adults?
Click to expand...

Even where polygamy is legal, it's still uncommon due to financial obligations. Even when it's stable and works, it is not equal and there's a hierarchy of which spouse has more rights than the others. Remember that these are cultures who still stone women for having been raped. We probably shouldn't try to emulate them.
 
Dragonfly said:
Just out of curiosity, why should it only be for "two" consenting adults?

Why not three, or more consenting adults?
Click to expand...
At the moment, legally speaking, all the current laws are based upon two, whether or.not is should have been that way. Allowing interracial, same sex, and even, eventually, incest (again two adults ) marriage requires no change to all those laws. It only required or requires the removal of the banning law(s). While polygamy will eventually enter into the playing field, it will take a restructuring of many laws first. Religiously and socially speaking polygamy has been happening for millennia. Over the last few decades, it has become more and more open and not hidden. I myself have two wives and a husband.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
Wayne Jr said:
Even where polygamy is legal, it's still uncommon due to financial obligations. Even when it's stable and works, it is not equal and there's a hierarchy of which spouse has more rights than the others. Remember that these are cultures who still stone women for having been raped. We probably shouldn't try to emulate them.
Click to expand...

Absolutely no suggestion we emulate anything.

Key word here is "consenting".

Why can't three women marry?
Why can't three men marry?
Why can two women and one man marry?

We're talking in the USofA here. Not Pakistan.

We're also talking consenting. Minimum age requirements. The whole American ball of wax.

If all parties consent and agree, why not?
 
Wayne Jr said:
Same-sex marriage is legal. Deal with it.
Click to expand...
At one point it was said, "slavery is legal. Deal with it."

I don't support slavery, and I do support SSM, but it does go to show how stupid that argument is.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
Dragonfly said:
Absolutely no suggestion we emulate anything.

Key word here is "consenting".

Why can't three women marry?
Why can't three men marry?
Why can two women and one man marry?

We're talking in the USofA here. Not Pakistan.

We're also talking consenting. Minimum age requirements. The whole American ball of wax.

If all parties consent and agree, why not?
Click to expand...
Asking "why" is the wrong question. Asking "why" frames you as a victim, when in fact you aren't a victim. Instead, pose the question behind the question; what are you really asking.
 
maquiscat said:
At one point it was said, "slavery is legal. Deal with it."
Click to expand...
Right, and then we had a huge war and wrote the 13th Amendment.

Please link to the exact text of the very real Act to create an Amendment regarding marriage which makes your very presence on this website relevant.

Exactly zero amendments today regard marriage which means you have no so-called "natural right" to marriage upon which to file a grievance. Marriage is a social privilege and no one has a right to privileges. If you don't want to conduct your life within the confines of a legal marriage license, then don't. Have your many husbands and draft a Power Of Atturney and a Living Will to assign property rights. No problem.
 
Last edited:
Wayne Jr said:
Right, and then we had a huge war and wrote the 13th Amendment.

Please link to the exact text of the very real Act to create an Amendment regarding marriage which makes your very presence on this website relevant.
Click to expand...
The point remains, that just because something is legal, does not mean it will not be made illegal in the future. For that matter an Amendment does not guarantee that what it made legal or illegal will remain so. Prohibition was an Amendment and it got repealed. So the argument that such and such is legal deal with it, is a sad and useless argument.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
Wayne Jr said:
Exactly zero amendments today regard marriage which means you have no so-called "natural right" to marriage upon which to file a grievance. Marriage is a social privilege and no one has a right to privileges. If you don't want to conduct your life within the confines of a legal marriage license, then don't. Have your many husbands and draft a Power Of Atturney and a Living Will to assign property rights. No problem.
Click to expand...

So this part is an edit from after I responded. What exactly does this have to do with my point of how pointless the argument of "x is legal. Deal with it" is?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
Wayne Jr said:
Asking "why" is the wrong question. Asking "why" frames you as a victim, when in fact you aren't a victim. Instead, pose the question behind the question; what are you really asking.
Click to expand...

You, me, and 15 other people can get together and form a corporation.
Have employees, legal contracts, insurance contracts, and financial aspects that effect many others besides just the business partners.

Why can't three consenting, legal adults form a legal marriage?

Why is it only two?

What's the "real reason" two is a magical number that shouldn't ever be changed?

Divorce is messy? Divorce is complicated? Is that the reason?

Suppose three of our 17 business partners decides they want out? Does that kill the business? Or do we just buy them out and continue on?

Now don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly happy in my traditional two person marriage. I have no desire to have another spouse.

But why should I care if some other trio wants to get group married?

Just like why should I care if two guys, or two girls want to get married?

Misery loves company doesn't it? :lol:
 
RamFel said:
Because they are. What you need to do is ask why they're gay.
Click to expand...

Most are, but why? Yes, the gay question is asked too. Most logical people, especially those with a science background, can understand that by understanding one there's an excellent chance they'll have a fuller understanding of the other.
 
JoanDavis said:
Lets ask what far right conservative - and screaming gay - Milos Yiannopolous - thinks about all of this.

And throw in the closeted lesbians Anne Coulter and Condaleeza Rice as well.
Click to expand...

What did they have to say?....not that I'd give them much credence as Constitutional scholars nor psychologists, I'm just curious.
 
Dragonfly said:
Absolutely no suggestion we emulate anything.

Key word here is "consenting".

Why can't three women marry?
Why can't three men marry?
Why can two women and one man marry?

We're talking in the USofA here. Not Pakistan.

We're also talking consenting. Minimum age requirements. The whole American ball of wax.

If all parties consent and agree, why not?
Click to expand...

Agreed. The main reason for restrictions on bigamy has nothing to do with the Constitution but the forcing of religious views upon American citizens. This is why such hatred was expressed against the Mormons and Muslims who practice plural marriages. It is not the government's place to dictate to citizens what they should believe or what consenting adults can do with each other as long as no harm is involved.
 
Rickeroo said:
I agree, but note that being born with a tendency doesn't automatically grant acceptance. The behavior itself must be accepted. I have no choice on whether I am turned on by a 3 year old.
Click to expand...

In the decent world, people don't compare the actions of consenting adults with the actions of people who prey on innocent children.
 
Dragonfly said:
You, me, and 15 other people can get together and form a corporation.
Have employees, legal contracts, insurance contracts, and financial aspects that effect many others besides just the business partners.

Why can't three consenting, legal adults form a legal marriage?

Why is it only two?

What's the "real reason" two is a magical number that shouldn't ever be changed?

Divorce is messy? Divorce is complicated? Is that the reason?

Suppose three of our 17 business partners decides they want out? Does that kill the business? Or do we just buy them out and continue on?

Now don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly happy in my traditional two person marriage. I have no desire to have another spouse.

But why should I care if some other trio wants to get group married?

Just like why should I care if two guys, or two girls want to get married?

Misery loves company doesn't it? [emoji38]
Click to expand...
The answer to your question really depends on what it is you are looking for. If it is how we got to this point, that because we started with a religious tenant (from multiple religions) that was enacted wrongly into law and then all the other laws we're built around it.


If you are asking why does it remain this way, that is a different issue, but still stemming from the first. Because all these laws based upon two person marriages exist, it is not logistically feasible to return to legal polygamy (which is NOT only one husband multiple wives. That's polygyny). Allowing interracial marriage, SSM, and even incest marriage is doable because the two person structure is already in place. Many laws would have to be modified before polygamy could be made legal.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
TheGoverness said:
It's always the slippery slope.
Click to expand...

If we let black people marry white people we're gonna have to let frogs marry furniture. Nothing in between is possible.
 
Rising Sun said:
Have psychologists figured out why people are straight yet?
Click to expand...
Biologists have... and by extension the psychologists have as well...
 
maquiscat said:
Have you anything to show that those who claim to be gay were definitively straight to begin with?
Click to expand...

Biology... a guy born a guy is a guy meant to fit with a chick.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom