DOMA Struck Down

[NorrinRadd 0]

Personally I swing both ways. That isn't a choice, by the way. The choice for me exists not in which gender I am attracted to, but to which individuals I am attracted to.
This whole debate about choice is really rather silly. Look at the logic of it. Let us start with the assumption that straights are straight not by choice, but by nature. Which is really the assumption most straights I know make.
If straight is not a choice, then gay is not a choice. Because if you choose to be gay, you have chosen to not be straight. Which renders the argument that straight is not a choice, but being gay IS a choice, invalid. It is one or the other. Either being straight or gay is a choice, or being straight or gay is not a choice.
For those who are straight, but feel they could be gay if they chose to be, put it to the test: Go out, pick up a hot guy (Yes... YOU have to choose which guy is hot, and which guy is not hot... that is part of the whole being gay process), then have sex. Not prison style, 'I'm putting up with this' sex, but jungle-sweaty, used condoms everywhere, bite-and-nail marks sex.. the kind where you are really having fun. Then stop figuring out which dudes are hot, and go back to just liking women.
Remember.. this will involve you going down on the guy, 'crossing swords', possibly even some back-door action. Some of you straight fellows may think this actually sounds interesting. If you do... take it from me, a tried and tested bi-guy, you are bi (assuming you still like women). And if you are really turned off by it, or even if you say 'naw... that just doesn't do anything for me', then you are straight. There was no choice.

Why drive myself crazy trying to be normal, when I am already at crazy?

[Opie 0]

NorrinRadd

Personally I swing both ways. That isn't a choice, by the way. The choice for me exists not in which gender I am attracted to, but to which individuals I am attracted to.
This whole debate about choice is really rather silly. Look at the logic of it. Let us start with the assumption that straights are straight not by choice, but by nature. Which is really the assumption most straights I know make.
If straight is not a choice, then gay is not a choice. Because if you choose to be gay, you have chosen to not be straight. Which renders the argument that straight is not a choice, but being gay IS a choice, invalid. It is one or the other. Either being straight or gay is a choice, or being straight or gay is not a choice.
For those who are straight, but feel they could be gay if they chose to be, put it to the test: Go out, pick up a hot guy (Yes... YOU have to choose which guy is hot, and which guy is not hot... that is part of the whole being gay process), then have sex. Not prison style, 'I'm putting up with this' sex, but jungle-sweaty, used condoms everywhere, bite-and-nail marks sex.. the kind where you are really having fun. Then stop figuring out which dudes are hot, and go back to just liking women.
Remember.. this will involve you going down on the guy, 'crossing swords', possibly even some back-door action. Some of you straight fellows may think this actually sounds interesting. If you do... take it from me, a tried and tested bi-guy, you are bi (assuming you still like women). And if you are really turned off by it, or even if you say 'naw... that just doesn't do anything for me', then you are straight. There was no choice.

This type of common sense and logic will not be tolerated here in the speakers corner!

-

[NorrinRadd 0]

Opie

This type of common sense and logic will not be tolerated here in the speakers corner!

-

.. oh.. my bad!
Umm... judge judge judge, grudge grudge grudge. There! :D :P

Why drive myself crazy trying to be normal, when I am already at crazy?

[turtlespeed 212]

NorrinRadd

Personally I swing both ways. That isn't a choice, by the way. The choice for me exists not in which gender I am attracted to, but to which individuals I am attracted to.
This whole debate about choice is really rather silly. Look at the logic of it. Let us start with the assumption that straights are straight not by choice, but by nature. Which is really the assumption most straights I know make.
If straight is not a choice, then gay is not a choice. Because if you choose to be gay, you have chosen to not be straight. Which renders the argument that straight is not a choice, but being gay IS a choice, invalid. It is one or the other. Either being straight or gay is a choice, or being straight or gay is not a choice.
For those who are straight, but feel they could be gay if they chose to be, put it to the test: Go out, pick up a hot guy (Yes... YOU have to choose which guy is hot, and which guy is not hot... that is part of the whole being gay process), then have sex. Not prison style, 'I'm putting up with this' sex, but jungle-sweaty, used condoms everywhere, bite-and-nail marks sex.. the kind where you are really having fun. Then stop figuring out which dudes are hot, and go back to just liking women.
Remember.. this will involve you going down on the guy, 'crossing swords', possibly even some back-door action. Some of you straight fellows may think this actually sounds interesting. If you do... take it from me, a tried and tested bi-guy, you are bi (assuming you still like women). And if you are really turned off by it, or even if you say 'naw... that just doesn't do anything for me', then you are straight. There was no choice.

So what would you prefer to happen in the scenario I put forth two posts back?

What if you were in love with one male and one female.
Should you be able to marry Both of them?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[NorrinRadd 0]

turtlespeed

***Personally I swing both ways. That isn't a choice, by the way. The choice for me exists not in which gender I am attracted to, but to which individuals I am attracted to.
This whole debate about choice is really rather silly. Look at the logic of it. Let us start with the assumption that straights are straight not by choice, but by nature. Which is really the assumption most straights I know make.
If straight is not a choice, then gay is not a choice. Because if you choose to be gay, you have chosen to not be straight. Which renders the argument that straight is not a choice, but being gay IS a choice, invalid. It is one or the other. Either being straight or gay is a choice, or being straight or gay is not a choice.
For those who are straight, but feel they could be gay if they chose to be, put it to the test: Go out, pick up a hot guy (Yes... YOU have to choose which guy is hot, and which guy is not hot... that is part of the whole being gay process), then have sex. Not prison style, 'I'm putting up with this' sex, but jungle-sweaty, used condoms everywhere, bite-and-nail marks sex.. the kind where you are really having fun. Then stop figuring out which dudes are hot, and go back to just liking women.
Remember.. this will involve you going down on the guy, 'crossing swords', possibly even some back-door action. Some of you straight fellows may think this actually sounds interesting. If you do... take it from me, a tried and tested bi-guy, you are bi (assuming you still like women). And if you are really turned off by it, or even if you say 'naw... that just doesn't do anything for me', then you are straight. There was no choice.

So what would you prefer to happen in the scenario I put forth two posts back?

What if you were in love with one male and one female.
Should you be able to marry Both of them?
Personally I tried that marriage thing, and even with one person it really didn't work out too well. But my feeling is that so long as everyone in the situation is in love with one another, and is happy to be with each other, and is willing to commit to each other in a relationship...and it is all consensual acts between adults, then I am fine with it!

Why drive myself crazy trying to be normal, when I am already at crazy?

[turtlespeed 212]

NorrinRadd

******Personally I swing both ways. That isn't a choice, by the way. The choice for me exists not in which gender I am attracted to, but to which individuals I am attracted to.
This whole debate about choice is really rather silly. Look at the logic of it. Let us start with the assumption that straights are straight not by choice, but by nature. Which is really the assumption most straights I know make.
If straight is not a choice, then gay is not a choice. Because if you choose to be gay, you have chosen to not be straight. Which renders the argument that straight is not a choice, but being gay IS a choice, invalid. It is one or the other. Either being straight or gay is a choice, or being straight or gay is not a choice.
For those who are straight, but feel they could be gay if they chose to be, put it to the test: Go out, pick up a hot guy (Yes... YOU have to choose which guy is hot, and which guy is not hot... that is part of the whole being gay process), then have sex. Not prison style, 'I'm putting up with this' sex, but jungle-sweaty, used condoms everywhere, bite-and-nail marks sex.. the kind where you are really having fun. Then stop figuring out which dudes are hot, and go back to just liking women.
Remember.. this will involve you going down on the guy, 'crossing swords', possibly even some back-door action. Some of you straight fellows may think this actually sounds interesting. If you do... take it from me, a tried and tested bi-guy, you are bi (assuming you still like women). And if you are really turned off by it, or even if you say 'naw... that just doesn't do anything for me', then you are straight. There was no choice.

So what would you prefer to happen in the scenario I put forth two posts back?

What if you were in love with one male and one female.
Should you be able to marry Both of them?
Personally I tried that marriage thing, and even with one person it really didn't work out too well. But my feeling is that so long as everyone in the situation is in love with one another, and is happy to be with each other, and is willing to commit to each other in a relationship...and it is all consensual acts between adults, then I am fine with it!

Its against the law though.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[NorrinRadd 0]

Yes it is. Not sure why it is a law, but, yep, there is a law against it. But then, as I was mentioning in another thread, I don't listen to the law when it goes against my common sense.
In this case, though, my common sense tells me that if I couldn't manage a marriage with one person, perhaps it is better if I don't try and get married to two people. But then, that is just me.

Why drive myself crazy trying to be normal, when I am already at crazy?

[billvon 2,404]

>Should you be able to marry Both of them?

Can you marry both of them? No. Just like you can't marry two women.

SHOULD you be able to marry both of them? Yes. You should be able to marry whoever you want. The state should restrict itself to recognizing legal civil unions between two people and let people marry whoever they like in whatever manner they like. Get government out of the process.

[RonD1120 58]

Bolas

***I did not reach this position because I am a Christian but rather I agreed to have my child aborted when I was a liberal, for convenience and the avoidance of responsibility, in 1971. That decision tormented me for years.

...

I wasn't a Christian when I agreed to abort my child. The Lord used that to convict me and bring me to the foot of the cross, along with many other bad choice convictions.

Ron, I'm sorry you still feel so much guilt but also feel you're not being honest with yourself as to how and why you and the mother came to this difficult decision, but it was ultimately her decision.

That said, if the thought process was as simple as you stated, do you feel you would have been good parents had abortion not been a legal option?

I'm sure in your work as a substance abuse counselor you saw many children with unfit parents and thought "these children don't deserve this."

Have you had any contact with the mother since?

Jesus absolved my guilt in 1981. No I have not seen my ex-wife since.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[Southern_Man 0]

billvon

>Should you be able to marry Both of them?

Can you marry both of them? No. Just like you can't marry two women.

SHOULD you be able to marry both of them? Yes. You should be able to marry whoever you want. The state should restrict itself to recognizing legal civil unions between two people and let people marry whoever they like in whatever manner they like. Get government out of the process.

Why should the state recognize that, Bill?

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[billvon 2,404]

>Why should the state recognize that, Bill?

For legal purposes - inheritance, visitation rights, custody etc.

However to your point there's no reason to call that a "civil union" rather than do all those things separately via contract. It's convenient to package a lot of that under one heading but not at all required.

[labrys 0]

Quote

Jesus absolved my guilt in 1981. No I have not seen my ex-wife since.

Were you married when she had the abortion?

Owned by Remi #?

[Southern_Man 0]

billvon

>Why should the state recognize that, Bill?

For legal purposes - inheritance, visitation rights, custody etc.

However to your point there's no reason to call that a "civil union" rather than do all those things separately via contract. It's convenient to package a lot of that under one heading but not at all required.

That is only part of the point, but you do know me well. Why should inheritance, visitation, custody, etc. be limited to two people? Why privilege two person coupling?

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[billvon 2,404]

>Why should inheritance, visitation, custody, etc. be limited to two people? Why
>privilege two person coupling?

?? It does not need to be; the details should be called out in the contract, which would be enforceable provided none of the terms of the contract were illegal.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

billvon

>Why should inheritance, visitation, custody, etc. be limited to two people? Why
>privilege two person coupling?

?? It does not need to be; the details should be called out in the contract, which would be enforceable provided none of the terms of the contract were illegal.

Out of curiosity, if Tom was married to both Bob and to Alice, would Bob and Alice be assumed to be married to each other as well? Suppose Bob didn't care much for Alice, but decided to marry Bruce, who was already married to Susan. Now we have five people linked by various combinations of married/not married, or else we have five people all assumed to be married to one another even though each of them have not entered a direct marriage contract with most of the members of the group. I can't begin to imagine the fun the courts would have handling a divorce/division of assets, or an inheritance issue, under such circumstances.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[billvon 2,404]

>Out of curiosity, if Tom was married to both Bob and to Alice, would Bob and Alice be
>assumed to be married to each other as well?

Currently or in a future where government gets out of the picture?

If government was out of the picture, whatever was in the contract would stand. I imagine law firms would very quickly create contracts that cover the most common issues like the ones you mention above.

If there's nothing there that specifies what happens in that case, then a judge/jury would decide the legal issues surrounding any dispute.

[davjohns 1]

billvon

>Why should the state recognize that, Bill?

For legal purposes - inheritance, visitation rights, custody etc.

However to your point there's no reason to call that a "civil union" rather than do all those things separately via contract. It's convenient to package a lot of that under one heading but not at all required.

Personally, I would prefer that government get out of it completely. Inheritance can be determined by a will. Didn't have a will? I guess you wanted your stuff to go to the state. Visitation? You certainly don't need a marriage or civil union to decide custody and visitation.

And why are homosexual rights superior to polygamist rights? I don't think they are. Shouldn't we do away with those anti-polygamy laws? Afterall, there is great historical precedent for polygamy. Who does it hurt?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[RonD1120 58]

labrys

Quote

Jesus absolved my guilt in 1981. No I have not seen my ex-wife since.

Were you married when she had the abortion?

The divorce had been granted a month or so before.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[RonD1120 58]

GeorgiaDon

***>Why should inheritance, visitation, custody, etc. be limited to two people? Why
>privilege two person coupling?

?? It does not need to be; the details should be called out in the contract, which would be enforceable provided none of the terms of the contract were illegal.

Out of curiosity, if Tom was married to both Bob and to Alice, would Bob and Alice be assumed to be married to each other as well? Suppose Bob didn't care much for Alice, but decided to marry Bruce, who was already married to Susan. Now we have five people linked by various combinations of married/not married, or else we have five people all assumed to be married to one another even though each of them have not entered a direct marriage contract with most of the members of the group. I can't begin to imagine the fun the courts would have handling a divorce/division of assets, or an inheritance issue, under such circumstances.

Don

Which is exactly what will happen now that DOMA has been overturned. Marriage should be one man and one woman. Otherwise only the law profession benefits. Which, if I remember correctly, Andy9o8 refers to as the silver lining in the cloud.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[davjohns 1]

GeorgiaDon

***>Why should inheritance, visitation, custody, etc. be limited to two people? Why
>privilege two person coupling?

?? It does not need to be; the details should be called out in the contract, which would be enforceable provided none of the terms of the contract were illegal.

Out of curiosity, if Tom was married to both Bob and to Alice, would Bob and Alice be assumed to be married to each other as well? Suppose Bob didn't care much for Alice, but decided to marry Bruce, who was already married to Susan. Now we have five people linked by various combinations of married/not married, or else we have five people all assumed to be married to one another even though each of them have not entered a direct marriage contract with most of the members of the group. I can't begin to imagine the fun the courts would have handling a divorce/division of assets, or an inheritance issue, under such circumstances.

Don

Standard marriage contract categories would be modified by anyone entering into a union. Things would work themselves out pretty quickly. Contracts were very common in history. Dividing kids is pretty well covered in existing law. Division of assets isn't too hard.

The fun part is going to be watching insurance companies figure out how to define a family unit and how this will integrate with ACA.

Pass the popcorn, please.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Marriage should be one man and one woman.

Your marriage can be whatever you want. But when the government is handing out benefits, you can't let religious concepts enter into the computation.

Which is why getting government out of the marriage business is a win-win for everyone.

- Dan G

[RonD1120 58]

DanG

Quote

Marriage should be one man and one woman.

Your marriage can be whatever you want. But when the government is handing out benefits, you can't let religious concepts enter into the computation.

Which is why getting government out of the marriage business is a win-win for everyone.

I agree.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[Gravitymaster 0]

DanG

Quote

Marriage should be one man and one woman.

Your marriage can be whatever you want. But when the government is handing out benefits, you can't let religious concepts enter into the computation.

Which is why getting government out of the marriage business is a win-win for everyone.

Lets get them out of the insurance business, too.

[RonD1120 58]

Gravitymaster

***

Quote

Marriage should be one man and one woman.

Your marriage can be whatever you want. But when the government is handing out benefits, you can't let religious concepts enter into the computation.

Which is why getting government out of the marriage business is a win-win for everyone.

Lets get them out of the insurance business, too.

I agree.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[billvon 2,404]

>Lets get them out of the insurance business, too.

Sure. Their function there should be to support a justice system to adjudicate disputes and an administrative system to require insurance in some cases (as in drivers) - not to provide insurance to people or companies.