ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
It's a logical development, after all, even if it seems far-fetched.
Ten or 15 years ago one would have been hardpressed not to have agreed with that on homosexual marriage, which wasn't even on the public's radar screen then.
(Interspecie marriage is on deck.)
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
It's a logical development, after all, even if it seems far-fetched.
Ten or 15 years ago one would have been hardpressed not to have agreed with that on homosexual marriage, which wasn't even on the public's radar screen then.
(Interspecie marriage is on deck.)
Polygamists have a long way to go and face a different challenge than gays. After all, while one's sexual preference is not a choice (you're either born gay or not), I think polygamy is a choice. Given that, the right of government to outlaw religious practices (such as smoking weed or engaging in animal sacrifice) has long been established.
Those who favor interspecie marriage have an even longer way to go. The problem that the US Constitution refers to "people" will be difficult to overcome.
Thus neither polygamy nor interspecie marriage seem to be logical developments, except in the fact that people who believe in such things are minorities and perhaps feel a little more confident in pursuing their beliefs.
If you allow perversions of marriage you do so across all variations of perversions. It's only right.
Regarding being "gay" as a choice, I do agree that attraction to the opposite sex likely isn't a choice; however I don't believe that most gays when presented with an attractive, naked woman wouldn't find something pleasing to do. I believe being bi-sexual isn't a choice - however I think it's a distinct minority of "gays" who are truly gay and not bi-sexual.
If you allow perversions of marriage you do so across all variations of perversions. It's only right.
That's simplistic. As society has evolved, it's become more tolerant of different types of marriage and less tolerant of others. Interfaith, interracial, and gay my marriage seem to me to be part of a trajectory towards liberalization. On the other hand, 100 or so years ago, incestuous marriages and marriages between young teens were far more prevalent. Mores change; they will never be locked into place, but the trajectory so far makes sense.
Regarding being "gay" as a choice, I do agree that attraction to the opposite sex likely isn't a choice; however I don't believe that most gays when presented with an attractive, naked woman wouldn't find something pleasing to do. I believe being bi-sexual isn't a choice - however I think it's a distinct minority of "gays" who are truly gay and not bi-sexual.[/QUOTE]
I lean more towards the view that sexual attraction is a continuum, where no one is really 100% one thing or another, but everyone has a leaning. We all fall somewhere the curve, but nature directs most people towards the straight side and society reinforces that. I bet mostly people who are 60% gay live straight, but anyone who's 70% gay or more is going to pay more attention to the same sex and, in terms of relationship building, naturally be drawn into that culture.
If the Gisele Bundchen of my teenage years had stood naked in front of me and wanted to form a relationship, it probably would have worked for awhile, but that didn't happen
I lean more towards the view that sexual attraction is a continuum, where no one is really 100% one thing or another, but everyone has a leaning. We all fall somewhere the curve, but nature directs most people towards the straight side and society reinforces that. I bet mostly people who are 60% gay live straight, but anyone who's 70% gay or more is going to pay more attention to the same sex and, in terms of relationship building, naturally be drawn into that culture.
Interesting admission that it's not all of nothing - I mean that sincerely, not intending to sound like a jerk - and that's why I don't like gay marriage or acceptance of being gay, I think there are levels, from "not attracted to women at all" to "slight interest in men" for those who are gay; and I think it's better to discourage it so all but the "not attracted to women at all" group are not gay. It's what I've said here for a long time, it's not all or nothing and encouraging good, intelligent people to reproduce is a good thing for society.
Interesting admission that it's not all of nothing - I mean that sincerely, not intending to sound like a jerk - and that's why I don't like gay marriage or acceptance of being gay, I think there are levels, from "not attracted to women at all" to "slight interest in men" for those who are gay; and I think it's better to discourage it so all but the "not attracted to women at all" group are not gay. It's what I've said here for a long time, it's not all or nothing and encouraging good, intelligent people to reproduce is a good thing for society.
Many gay couples have children, and I've read a number of studies that show that children of gay parents are just as well adjusted as children of straight parents and are no more likely to be gay.
As far as encouraging good, intelligent people to reproduce, I basically agree with that, and support tax incentives for families as well as lower cost higher education to promote that. Of course, there is no way of encouraging good, intelligent people to reproduce without also encouraging bad, stupid people to do so. Is there?
Many gay couples have children, and I've read a number of studies that show that children of gay parents are just as well adjusted as children of straight parents and are no more likely to be gay.
That's different because they're adopted. They aren't bringing anything new into the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patters
Of course, there is no way of encouraging good, intelligent people to reproduce without also encouraging bad, stupid people to do so. Is there?
That's another issue where we could have an "interesting" discussion
That's different because they're adopted. They aren't bringing anything new into the world.
Actually, I couldn't find any statistics, but there are a lot of gay parents who do not adopt. They had kids from previous marriages, or make arrangements through clinics or friends or other organization to have their own kids. Also, is it necessary to bring something new into this world with so many kids around the world and nation in need of good homes.
Also, is it necessary to bring something new into this world with so many kids around the world and nation in need of good homes.
One of the reasons for our continued demise is "smart people" having too few kids relative to "dumb people". Sure, kids being dumped then adopted helps there a little (not that I encourage kid dumping) but in general, yes, the more intelligent kids that are born the better.
From Same-Sex to Polygamy?
Linear Mode
