The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums
-
Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community
In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
If you do not have an account, please register.
REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your InfoTo register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.
Gay Marriage Question
- Thread starter Treborf
- Start date
"Redefine" is also a laugh. How has marriage been defined in history anyway? Polygamy was there before monogamy, so how traditional could monogamous marriage be?
"Marriage" or domestic partnerships in general are about tax breaks and power of attourney. Why wouldn't you already have 'power of attourney' over your dog? What tax breaks do you legitimately need for owning a pet or 'being' with a pet?
Polygamy is simply excluded because the power of attourney should only be a single mutual exhange in that contract and the tax breaks are because you're a functioning body and have the possibility of raising a child. The case against legalizing polygama is rough suffice to say that marriage would be defined as existing between two people, not several.
"Marriage" or domestic partnerships in general are about tax breaks and power of attourney. Why wouldn't you already have 'power of attourney' over your dog? What tax breaks do you legitimately need for owning a pet or 'being' with a pet?
Polygamy is simply excluded because the power of attourney should only be a single mutual exhange in that contract and the tax breaks are because you're a functioning body and have the possibility of raising a child. The case against legalizing polygama is rough suffice to say that marriage would be defined as existing between two people, not several.
No, not animals. Animals can't give consent.
If we can redefine marriage to include two men, why shouldn't we redefine it to include two men and a women?
bigbott
On the Prowl
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2006
- Posts
- 51
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
My understanding of marriage in the biblical sense is between two people, a man and a woman.
That said I am not religious. Civil marriage in the UK I understand to be between two people regardless of gender. Why should'nt two people openly declare their commitment to each other, as well as gain legal recognition for their partnership. Their are issues of property, care etc too.
By offering the opportunity for gays to marry or have legal partnerships should not necessarily open the 'floodgates' for polygamy etc here.
In other parts of the world polygamy is practised, that's fair enough. However, in my mind the only people who really benefit from such an arrangment are men. Marriage should be an equal and loving partnership.
That said I am not religious. Civil marriage in the UK I understand to be between two people regardless of gender. Why should'nt two people openly declare their commitment to each other, as well as gain legal recognition for their partnership. Their are issues of property, care etc too.
By offering the opportunity for gays to marry or have legal partnerships should not necessarily open the 'floodgates' for polygamy etc here.
In other parts of the world polygamy is practised, that's fair enough. However, in my mind the only people who really benefit from such an arrangment are men. Marriage should be an equal and loving partnership.
CuriousMonkey
Porn Star
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2005
- Posts
- 392
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
Slippery Slope to Polygamy?
There is no evidence of same sex unions being a slippery slope to polygamy, and hard data from the 16-year history of same sex unions in Scandanavia points this out brilliantly. Gay marriage has absolutely no relationship to ploygamy, zero, they are two separate concerns that have nothing to do with each other.
Should same-sex unions be legal?
My two brothers chose their partners and married them, and the law played no part in denying them their freedom to choose their partners. ( other than requiring legal age, unmarried status, no close blood relationship ) Had he been born fifty years earlier, my oldest brother would not have had that freedom, as his interracial marriage would have been illegal. But the law has thankfully advanced, recognizing that there is no justification to deny an interracial couple the same rights enjoyed by couples of the same race. Why should the law care who my brother chooses to marry, after all, to the extend that nobody but my brother and his partner are affected by that choice !
It is shameful that a society would ever deny its citizens the freedom to choose their partners, where that choice causes no demonstrable harm. Marriage requires the partners be of legal age FOR A REASON - so that children are not exploited. Marriage requires that partners be of no significant blood relations FOR A REASON - to avoid the risks of inbreeding. Marriage requires the partners to be unmarried FOR A REASON - so that the vast array of property laws ... and the rights of any other current spouses ... can be upheld.
But, what would be the reason for denying same-sex couples the right to the legal status & contract we call marriage? (hint: its not fear of polygamy) I think the two major factors are:
1) Religious Brainwashing - it is so much easier to let somebody else do the thinking and tell us what to believe, yes?
2) Class - the majority has a selfish interest in imposing and maintaining inequities that work to their advantage, and marriage carries economic benefits they would rather keep for themselves than share with the minority.
We ought to allow no restrictive laws where no risk of harm to others has been shown - and even in those cases we ought to be careful to measure the risk and the magnitude of harm before we start denying people their equal and inalienable rights.
There is no evidence of same sex unions being a slippery slope to polygamy, and hard data from the 16-year history of same sex unions in Scandanavia points this out brilliantly. Gay marriage has absolutely no relationship to ploygamy, zero, they are two separate concerns that have nothing to do with each other.
Should same-sex unions be legal?
My two brothers chose their partners and married them, and the law played no part in denying them their freedom to choose their partners. ( other than requiring legal age, unmarried status, no close blood relationship ) Had he been born fifty years earlier, my oldest brother would not have had that freedom, as his interracial marriage would have been illegal. But the law has thankfully advanced, recognizing that there is no justification to deny an interracial couple the same rights enjoyed by couples of the same race. Why should the law care who my brother chooses to marry, after all, to the extend that nobody but my brother and his partner are affected by that choice !
It is shameful that a society would ever deny its citizens the freedom to choose their partners, where that choice causes no demonstrable harm. Marriage requires the partners be of legal age FOR A REASON - so that children are not exploited. Marriage requires that partners be of no significant blood relations FOR A REASON - to avoid the risks of inbreeding. Marriage requires the partners to be unmarried FOR A REASON - so that the vast array of property laws ... and the rights of any other current spouses ... can be upheld.
But, what would be the reason for denying same-sex couples the right to the legal status & contract we call marriage? (hint: its not fear of polygamy) I think the two major factors are:
1) Religious Brainwashing - it is so much easier to let somebody else do the thinking and tell us what to believe, yes?
2) Class - the majority has a selfish interest in imposing and maintaining inequities that work to their advantage, and marriage carries economic benefits they would rather keep for themselves than share with the minority.
We ought to allow no restrictive laws where no risk of harm to others has been shown - and even in those cases we ought to be careful to measure the risk and the magnitude of harm before we start denying people their equal and inalienable rights.
gotdimples77
JUB Addict
I still think marriage should be seen as a sacramental ritual subject to religious considerations only and government should have no say one way or the other on who should be allowed to marry. However, all marriages are also a civil union... a legally binding contract acknowledged by the state to aid in the raising of children and ordering society through celibacy. Denying civil unions to homosexuals and not to heteros seems contradictory- especially so when gays are now able to have/raise children and are more able to live together acceptably.
People are born with the propensity to love more than one person. Why shouldn't they have the right to marry who they love?
Why must it be two people? Isn't that just as arbitrary as saying marriage must be between a man and a woman?
Re: Slippery Slope to Polygamy?
It's not so much about people all of the sudden wanting to be polygamists once gay marriage is approved. It's about whether there is a basis to deny certain other forms of marriage once gay marriage is approved.
So on what basis do we deny polygamy?
S
slobone
Guest
Obviously you've never had a horny ewe come on to you....
kinkikiki
On the Prowl
Hey...I dont give a damn what they wanna call it...I am "married" to my partner...but I just want the god damn right is all...
Marriage is a human institution, not an institution limited to members of the christian religion.
Jews, Hindus, Muslims, atheists all marry... to have a government exclude a minority group like ours is absurd... as absurd as saying black people couldn't marry white people as people in your government once said 50 years ago.
L
-live-
Guest
i dont think gays should get married personally, 1. i dont think anyone needs paper to sayt hey love someone, 2 i just think tis wrong for same sex to get married. cant really explain just dont think it should be allowed. but then again each to there own.
SFMusic
Porn Star
No, but it doesn't matter either. The other side always trots out this horse when talking about letting gays get married. It is a Red Herring meant to distract us from the real issue which is letting gays get married. Letting gays marry has nothing to do with letting 3 or more people get married, it's a totally different issue. I don't have anything against it, but I'm not going to fight for it either.
On the other hand, I'm almost relieved that the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled the way it did. It would have been a disaster for the Nov. elections if the NJSC had ruled that the state MUST allow gays to get married. It would have 2004 all over again.
MadeUpName27
Delusions of Adequacy
On what basis SHOULD we resist?
How does this non-issue effect anyone not in a multi-partner relationship?
CuriousMonkey
Porn Star
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2005
- Posts
- 392
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
Absurd! Why should society dictate my morals and ehtics? The ONLY objection society could defend is that the current laws are ill suited to handling the property & children as partners leave the marriage through death or divorce.
If we start legislating morals, you'll find sites like justusboys.com being closed down due to moral objections.
Anyone besides me see the irony in so called "Christian" people working so hard to take away our freedom to choose - which they themsleves would admit is god-given?
CuriousMonkey
Porn Star
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2005
- Posts
- 392
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
What a shock, you can't explain your idiotic ideas? Try this ...
I work hard every day, earn a solid income, pay taxes, contriubte to social security, and put money into a 401k. (I've done this for about 25+ years now) My spouse is retired and does a million different things in a week, including making sure I am well cared for and free to focus on work priorities.
If I were to become ill, the law would automatically protect my spouse's right to visit me in the hospital, and to mae decisions for me if I were unable to do so myself.
If I were to pass away, my spouse would automatically become the owner of any of my accounts, plus social security benefits as a survivng spouse - with little to no tax exposure.
Great protections for a couple sharing their lives together ... but one small problem ...
Like me, my spouse has a penis, and that means that none of the legal rights and protections afforded to other spouses are availabe to him. In this example, a PWV (person with vagina) would be entitled to rights and privledges unavailable to a PWP (person with penis).
What part of that makes sense to you, sebbles? Anyone?
JackFTwist
no custom user title
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Posts
- 3,828
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 38
why do I have the feeling that you are closed to whatever answers you receive, you think you have a "gotcha" question that no can answer and thus you have trumped everyone with the brilliant insight of your question.
Boring.
Come back to this when you are open to listening to what has been said.
L
-live-
Guest
Well i just dont think its right, thats all, i think it for moral reasons, not for money reasons.
RenaissanceMan
On 'Sabbatical'
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2005
- Posts
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
Looks like polygamous marriage is just around the corner...
Not that that makes a difference (positive or negative) in my life. I think there's relatively few people who can make relationships like that work long enough to make it into marriage...and the if the few that DO want that and CAN make it work, well, why stop them? Unless we deny same-sex couples marriage, which I'm completely against.
Not that that makes a difference (positive or negative) in my life. I think there's relatively few people who can make relationships like that work long enough to make it into marriage...and the if the few that DO want that and CAN make it work, well, why stop them? Unless we deny same-sex couples marriage, which I'm completely against.
