Homosexuality, Incest, Polygamy

[Townhallsavoy]

The push for validating gay marriage seems to still be a hot topic.  I don't know why; people should be able to marry who they want to marry as long as both people are consenting adults. 

Thinking on those terms, however, I wonder why there isn't a push to validate all marriage as long as both parties are consenting adults. 

Want to marry your sister?  She's cool with it?  You can get married.

Want to have five wives?  Five husbands?  Everyone's cool with it?  You can get married. 

A Facebook friend who is a staunch supporter for gay rights recently posted some article about a Mormon polygamist and used it to lambast all religion.  I wonder why gays get more rights than polygamists?

[JR4AU]

The push for validating gay marriage seems to still be a hot topic.  I don't know why; people should be able to marry who they want to marry as long as both people are consenting adults. 

Thinking on those terms, however, I wonder why there isn't a push to validate all marriage as long as both parties are consenting adults. 

Want to marry your sister?  She's cool with it?  You can get married.

Want to have five wives?  Five husbands?  Everyone's cool with it?  You can get married. 

A Facebook friend who is a staunch supporter for gay rights recently posted some article about a Mormon polygamist and used it to lambast all religion.  I wonder why gays get more rights than polygamists?

Let anybody marry who wants.  Marry your dog, your chickens, your pigs, I don't give a shit.  The problem is the government forcing private entities (insurance companies for instance) to recognize it, and give the same benefits.

[Kaos]

Let anybody marry who wants.  Marry your dog, your chickens, your pigs, I don't give a shit.  The problem is the government forcing private entities (insurance companies for instance) to recognize it, and give the same benefits.

Exactly. 

It's the distinction between the legal institution of marriage and the philosophical (moral) institution. 

The religious/moral aspects are being wrongly used to legitimize the legal by branding those who object as lunatics. 

Live with whoever you want.  Do whatever you want. But don't tell me about it. Don't try to pass off your own fucked up values as normal (and yes, I consider being a real fag, not just one for the movies, fucked up).

Don't tell me I have to accept it.  Don't tell me I am required as an employer to ignore the fact that you fuck goats.  Don't tell me as a landlord that I must be blind to the fact that you choose to mutilate cats as part of your sexual ritual. 

If the people of a community get together and determine jointly that it isn't in the best interests of them or their children to employ gay teachers then that community should have that right.  The state nor the federal government should have any power to interfere with that decision. Those who disagree with the decision can -- in the words of those who reject complaints about vulgar TV/radio content -- turn the channel.  They can move. They can set up their own community elsewhere and allow gays or pumpkin worshipers to be principals. 

To me the gap between enforcing gay as normal opens the door to eventually declaring all sexual perversion as a form of normalcy (even child porn).  Don't agree?  Please, please, please study Roman history. 

The barbarians are already at our gates.  They're called Muslim Extremists.  And we're following the same head-up-the-ass frivolity as the Roman Empire. 

We've fucked this whole thing up by deciding that the rights of the one always trump the rights of the many. 

Except with smoking.  Smokers have no rights which I find strange. 

[JR4AU]

Exactly. 

It's the distinction between the legal institution of marriage and the philosophical (moral) institution. 

The religious/moral aspects are being wrongly used to legitimize the legal by branding those who object as lunatics. 

Live with whoever you want.  Do whatever you want. But don't tell me about it. Don't try to pass off your own fucked up values as normal (and yes, I consider being a real fag, not just one for the movies, fucked up).

Don't tell me I have to accept it.  Don't tell me I am required as an employer to ignore the fact that you fuck goats.  Don't tell me as a landlord that I must be blind to the fact that you choose to mutilate cats as part of your sexual ritual. 

If the people of a community get together and determine jointly that it isn't in the best interests of them or their children to employ gay teachers then that community should have that right.  The state nor the federal government should have any power to interfere with that decision. Those who disagree with the decision can -- in the words of those who reject complaints about vulgar TV/radio content -- turn the channel.  They can move. They can set up their own community elsewhere and allow gays or pumpkin worshipers to be principals. 

To me the gap between enforcing gay as normal opens the door to eventually declaring all sexual perversion as a form of normalcy (even child porn).  Don't agree?  Please, please, please study Roman history. 

The barbarians are already at our gates.  They're called Muslim Extremists.  And we're following the same head-up-the-ass frivolity as the Roman Empire. 

We've fucked this whole thing up by deciding that the rights of the one always trump the rights of the many. 

Except with smoking.  Smokers have no rights which I find strange.

Being gay in the booth next to me in the restaurant doesn't have any direct impact on me or my meal.  At least not until you start packing fudge, and spraying jiz on me and my table.  Being a smoker in the booth next to me has no impact on me or my meal.  Smoking in the booth next to me directly impacts me, and my meal. 

[Townhallsavoy]

Let anybody marry who wants.  Marry your dog, your chickens, your pigs, I don't give a shit.  The problem is the government forcing private entities (insurance companies for instance) to recognize it, and give the same benefits.

That I understand, but that's not what I'm talking about.

Companies should not have to give benefits to straight married couples either.  I agree with all of that.

I'm more concerned with the people who shout for gay marriage yet say nothing about marriage reformation.  They don't really care about who gets married; it's more about having a say-so and seeing people follow their "say-sos". 

Anyone out there who is a proponent and supporter of gay marriage want to chime in?  Where's the outcry that polygamy is illegal?  Where's the protest that incest is taboo?  Why aren't advertisers using a family of ten (three kids, six wives, one husband) in their commercial?

[DnATL]

Thought this might be an artcile announcing that , AWK, and Chizzad are brothers..........

[JR4AU]

That I understand, but that's not what I'm talking about.

Companies should not have to give benefits to straight married couples either.  I agree with all of that.

I'm more concerned with the people who shout for gay marriage yet say nothing about marriage reformation.  They don't really care about who gets married; it's more about having a say-so and seeing people follow their "say-sos". 

Anyone out there who is a proponent and supporter of gay marriage want to chime in?  Where's the outcry that polygamy is illegal?  Where's the protest that incest is taboo?  Why aren't advertisers using a family of ten (three kids, six wives, one husband) in their commercial?

Neither of the other to are politically popular subjects. 

[GarMan]

Just my 2 cents on some of the points in the thread so far...
- From a historical perspective, marriage started off as a religious union.  The government shouldn't even be involved.
- Political Correctness has paved the way for the acceptance of homosexuality.  Unfortunately, acceptance isn't enough.  We're also supposed to celebrate it, endorse it and reward it. 
- As for benefits, that's just something else that the government should get away from...  If a company wants to provide insurance benefits for gay SOs-of-the-moment, it's their choice.  The gubme't shouldn't have any authority over this. 

[wreckingball]

The push for validating gay marriage seems to still be a hot topic.  I don't know why; people should be able to marry who they want to marry as long as both people are consenting adults. 

Thinking on those terms, however, I wonder why there isn't a push to validate all marriage as long as both parties are consenting adults. 

Want to marry your sister?  She's cool with it?  You can get married.

Want to have five wives?  Five husbands?  Everyone's cool with it?  You can get married. 

A Facebook friend who is a staunch supporter for gay rights recently posted some article about a Mormon polygamist and used it to lambast all religion.  I wonder why gays get more rights than polygamists?

Gays contribute to society with their ability to revamp impoverished areas with their innate ability to decorate and accessorize. On the other hand, Mormons do not really bring that much to the table.

[Townhallsavoy]

Neither of the other to are politically popular subjects.

Which is why I'm bringing up this thread.  It's total bullshit.  A total lie.  A scam if you may. 

If people are going to ask for gay marriage to be recognized by the state, they have to ask for the state to recognize all marriages between consenting adults.  Morality is left at the curb. 

[Townhallsavoy]

Gays contribute to society with their ability to revamp impoverished areas with their innate ability to decorate and accessorize. On the other hand, Mormons do not really bring that much to the table.

Apparently you missed out on the fashion contribution of Joseph Smith. 

[Townhallsavoy]

Just my 2 cents on some of the points in the thread so far...
- From a historical perspective, marriage started off as a religious union.  The government shouldn't even be involved.

Would you join a political group that was fighting against all government benefits for straight married couples?

- Political Correctness has paved the way for the acceptance of homosexuality.  Unfortunately, acceptance isn't enough.  We're also supposed to celebrate it, endorse it and reward it. 

I really don't see too much celebration of homosexuality.  That's another part of the problem.  These activists are putting on a face because it's not about gays.  It's about an agenda.  Actually, agenda isn't really the right word.  It's a food fight between two groups of people falsely labelled liberals and conservatives. 

ABC tries to be the network that is cutting edge when it comes to homosexuality.  It's normal!  Just an everyday part of life as seen in shows like Modern Family, Brothers and Sisters, and Happy Endings.  Except you never actually see them being gay.  You see plenty of guy-girl make out scenes even some risque sex scenes for cable television.  The homosexual characters?  Maybe a peck on the lips to show the "celebration of gay people!" 

Or how about the characters themselves?  The characters are slightly flamboyant save for Modern Family's Cam who is a satirical caricature.  The Happy Endings character is even described as "a non-stereotypical homosexual character on prime time television."  The two characters from Brothers and Sisters were more like two buddies who had intimate conversations in the evenings. 

My point is that true homosexuality is not celebrated.  It's not really endorsed.  It's just part of an agenda.  Part of a hot topic that active people want to be involved in.

It's no different from the Civil Rights Movement in the 60s.  White supporters of the black movement never had any intention of actually promoting all black people as equal in their lives.  Don't believe me?  Drive to any street named Martin Luther King Jr. 

Further, the CRM wasn't about true equality.  Where was the Asian support?  The voice for Middle Eastern citizens?  The voice for whites living in Appalachia?  The voice for hispanics? 

- As for benefits, that's just something else that the government should get away from...  If a company wants to provide insurance benefits for gay SOs-of-the-moment, it's their choice.  The gubme't shouldn't have any authority over this.

I do question one thing about this.  Can a company provide benefits to a straight married couple but not a homosexual married couple?  Lawyers may have to weigh in on this, but to me, that sounds like discrimination, which as we all know, would never fly in court.

[GarMan]

Would you join a political group that was fighting against all government benefits for straight married couples?

Of course not...  But, that brings up another point along the lines of "benefits" versus personal responsibility.  Why should the government even be in the business of providing "benefits" to anyone? 

I really don't see too much celebration of homosexuality. 

What about all of the Pride celebrations and other recognition events for the LBGT movement? 

That's another part of the problem.  These activists are putting on a face because it's not about gays.  It's about an agenda.  Actually, agenda isn't really the right word.  It's a food fight between two groups of people falsely labelled liberals and conservatives. 

Agree...  Gay marriage did not even pass in the great Liberal state of California during the last go-round, but Conservatives are labeled as the discriminatory hate-group on the issue... 

ABC tries to be the network that is cutting edge when it comes to homosexuality.  It's normal!  Just an everyday part of life as seen in shows like Modern Family, Brothers and Sisters, and Happy Endings.  Except you never actually see them being gay.  You see plenty of guy-girl make out scenes even some risque sex scenes for cable television.  The homosexual characters?  Maybe a peck on the lips to show the "celebration of gay people!" 

HBO, Starz and Skin-emax seem to be pushing an awful lot of gay scenes in recent years.  Perhaps, it hasn't quite made it to ABC, CBS and whatever else, but it's out there.  And, how much of it do you really expect?  They only represent around 5% of society. 

Or how about the characters themselves?  The characters are slightly flamboyant save for Modern Family's Cam who is a satirical caricature.  The Happy Endings character is even described as "a non-stereotypical homosexual character on prime time television."  The two characters from Brothers and Sisters were more like two buddies who had intimate conversations in the evenings. 

My point is that true homosexuality is not celebrated.  It's not really endorsed.  It's just part of an agenda.  Part of a hot topic that active people want to be involved in.

It's no different from the Civil Rights Movement in the 60s.  White supporters of the black movement never had any intention of actually promoting all black people as equal in their lives.  Don't believe me?  Drive to any street named Martin Luther King Jr. 

You've completely lost me on that one...  What about MLK streets?  What are you saying?  You can't blame me for not wanting to live in high-crime neighborhoods, but you could blame the culture that tolerates that sort of crime on their streets. 

Further, the CRM wasn't about true equality.  Where was the Asian support?  The voice for Middle Eastern citizens?  The voice for whites living in Appalachia?  The voice for hispanics? 

Well, the CRM was primarily for African Americans... 

I do question one thing about this.  Can a company provide benefits to a straight married couple but not a homosexual married couple?  Lawyers may have to weigh in on this, but to me, that sounds like discrimination, which as we all know, would never fly in court. 

Companies have been caught up in the SO benefits issue for years, and it has been a mess.  The marriage thing just makes it messier... 

[DnATL]

Thought this might be an artcile announcing that , AWK, and Chizzad are brothers..........

Wrong answer?


Homosexuality, Incest, Polygamy

What is the name of Chizzad's new band
Also acceptable would be what are the hobbies / areas of personal interest and focus at law firm of AWK/VV