Michele Bachmann endorses homosexual "reparative therapy"

[Wio]

Except that a marriage between two consenting and willing adults who love each other is totally different than having sex (or watching someone) with a child who probably has no idea what is happening and is scared, screaming and/or crying for them to stop. Plus it already breaks the law of underaged sex where a child does not have the ability to consent to such a thing (because their brains aren't nearly developed enough to make such a decision). o.O Terrible comparison.

Ridiculous. Child porn laws isn't meant to protect coerced minors. We already have laws that would protect adults from being coerced into porn. Child porn take a way an otherwise consenting child's ability to consent, under the premise that it is fraudulent under all circumstances. In many (perhaps most) states you could consent to marriage before you can consent to be in porn.

Marriage is a right that so many people have the power to take advantage of and abuse (divorce, adultry, etc.). Yet the only reason a couple that loves one another, and just happen to be gay, can't marry one another is because it conflicts against ones religion (it's the only defense I've seen)? That's pathetic. Especially when those people probably don't follow everything their religion says to begin with. For example, I bet some of those people eat shellfish or cut their hair - all things in the same area of the bible that says it's sinful for a man to lay with a man.

The problem with the gay marriage thing is that it's spraying Febreze on a pile of crap. The legal institution of marriage is inherently bigoted and inefficient, and people want to keep it around so long as it isn't discriminatory against them. It's always going to attempt to define what kind of relationship is acceptable and not acceptable.

[Anoleis]

Except that a marriage between two consenting and willing adults who love each other is totally different than having sex (or watching someone) with a child who probably has no idea what is happening and is scared, screaming and/or crying for them to stop. Plus it already breaks the law of underaged sex where a child does not have the ability to consent to such a thing (because their brains aren't nearly developed enough to make such a decision). o.O Terrible comparison.

You said that because someone is not affected by something, they should have no say in it. I am not affected by child porn; so, by your logic, I should have no say opposing it.

Marriage is a right that so many people have the power to take advantage of and abuse (divorce, adultry, etc.). Yet the only reason a couple that loves one another, and just happen to be gay, can't marry one another is because it conflicts against ones religion (it's the only defense I've seen)? That's pathetic. Especially when those people probably don't follow everything their religion says to begin with. For example, I bet some of those people eat shellfish or cut their hair - all things in the same area of the bible that says it's sinful for a man to lay with a man.

Marriage is a government benefit that people take advantage of any chance they can. The right to family, that I can see. If we simply treated everyone as individuals or loosely contracted couples, we could completely by-pass all this ridiculous pandering.

Also, you keep beating the religious horse, I'm not going to stop you.

[wolfgirl90]

Except that a marriage between two consenting and willing adults who love each other is totally different than having sex (or watching someone) with a child who probably has no idea what is happening and is scared, screaming and/or crying for them to stop. Plus it already breaks the law of underaged sex where a child does not have the ability to consent to such a thing (because their brains aren't nearly developed enough to make such a decision). o.O Terrible comparison.

And your explanation isn't much better. Sure, gays getting married shouldn't really affect anybody but the parties involved, but shoving the concerns of the opposing party (regardless of how convoluted they may be) doesn't help much. It's the reason why conservatives believe that their rights are going to stepped on, because it appears that no one is listening (or if they are, they don't give a damn).

The "Shut-the-hell-up-and-get-over-it" defense doesn't help the issue much and can honestly be turned around in a myriad of ways (crackheads don't bother me, I've never been raped, and my car hasn't been stolen; so why should I care about either of these?). The better position is that our country doesn't (or rather, shouldn't) be based on religious laws and the majority religion shouldn't run this country.

Marriage is a right that so many people have the power to take advantage of and abuse (divorce, adultry, etc.).

Marriage is not a right and never has been (people throw that word around more times than monkeys throw poop). Marriage is an institution, a social union between people. There is no inherent "right" to get married.

 

I'm not about to get into the issues of our institution of marriage because I have honestly beaten that horse to death, but in summary, the attitudes of the people need to changed, not the institution; destroying a building full of diseased rats is overkill and is not guaranteed to kill all the rats.

[Android 18]

You said that because someone is not affected by something, they should have no say in it. I am not affected by child porn; so, by your logic, I should have no say opposing it.

Not my logic, though. It's your convoluted view of my logic. You see, my logic works in parameters. The parameters you presented in your "child porn" leap are completely different. Gay Marriage has the parameters of two consenting, of age, adults who are in love and wish to join their lives together and possibly even spend the rest of their lives together. Child porn has the parameters of a non-consenting, coerced minor being raped (essentially) by another, older adult despite screams of pain and begging for them to stop. See the different parameters? Yea. Not my logic. It is for THAT situation, which is why I said it for the topic of gay marriage.

Ridiculous. Child porn laws isn't meant to protect coerced minors.

It's a crime against children, much like kidnapping and child abuse is - and all those laws are in effect to help protect children. When I read over the laws, what I read was that anyone who coerced, watched, etc. (many circumstances were listed that I don't recall at the present) such acts were to serve time. MY interpretation, is that by putting those people away, we're helping to clear the streets of people who like to do these things to children; destroying their lives or making it difficult to overcome the struggles they introduce into their lives. Thereby protecting minors everywhere from this. Much like kidnapping, child abuse and even the child trafficking laws do.

In many (perhaps most) states you could consent to marriage before you can consent to be in porn.

Yes, but in many states it requires a court order along with parental consent under 16, parental consent only from 16 to 18. By 18 - in most states - you can marry whom you please without any consent. So it's not just the child involved, it's a whole group of adults as well. In the cases I've seen it done at my high school, it was for religious purposes since the daughter was married off her sophomore year. Another couple just wanted to get married super early, and since their parents thought they would go far they consented and went on with the wedding.

The better position is that our country doesn't (or rather, shouldn't) be based on religious laws and the majority religion shouldn't run this country.

I agree and I do take that position. But not only the majority religion, any religion in general. It's great for self guiding and inspiration, just not for guiding others who don't wish to listen or believe the same thing.

Don't think that I'm the "Shut-the-hell-up-and-get-over-it" type of person in my dealings with anyone; I'm not. I'm willing to listen to anyone and their points of view, no matter if I agree with them or not (and did so everyday at my old job, where I talked politics during the elections with democrats, republicans and independents; we all found we had some basic agreements along with disagreements). That's not my place to judge; everyone has their opinions on everything. It's what makes human beings fascinating and each individual unique. Just because I posted a sliver of my own beliefs and opinions on here doesn't mean that it's a representation of who I am as a whole. Yes, I do believe that gay marriage should be legalized no matter what, but look at other countries - there are 10 that have it legalized and one that doesn't but recognizes it if done in other countries. I'm sure they're perfectly healthy nations where they see more good come from it than bad (like the predicted income to be had for the state of New York after the bill was passed). I only posted that it shouldn't matter if no one else is affected because of that particular situation, it's my justification on the matter; only one I need for gay marriage. But I can surely provide other, more proven evidence that it should be.