Gangrene
Guide
Love Love Love
Posts: 107
|
Post by Gangrene on Nov 25, 2005 11:57:14 GMT -5
Polytheist: I have rarely been so impressed! Sound logic and a quick wit.
I totally agree with him.
I don't know what I have to add after reading these 3 pages.
I know from my classes in business law that marriage in this country is a contract and that the engagement ring is an offer. If the marriage is canceled then the ring must be returned because the contract has been broken.
That is the way the government must view issues like this, legally. If it has any more meaning, that is imposed by the people involved. I think it is much more than a contract, but I don't put my feelings of god and marriage on everyone else.
Marriage stems from this basic legal contract: Gays should be able to be married! Not some "Civil Union". By saying gays should be able to have a civil union you are in fact saying that they don't have the equal rights provided in this country and are a second rate citizen not able to be "married". That is why it will eventually be called by one name and be used universally in this country. "Civil Union" is being used now as just a first step to legalizing it before making it the same.
Another note from way back in the thread... We have a country where the Majority Rule? What about Freedom and Equality? Does this mean if the majority of the country were homosexual and didn't like heterosexual marriage we would be out of luck? Looking at it from that perspective do you think this is the way to run a country? Our country is built on Freedom for all and Equality for all.
On the same subject: Murder is illegal for ALL. Rape is illegal for ALL. Marriage is Legal for SOME?
|
|
|
Post by Tara on Nov 25, 2005 16:18:45 GMT -5
Marriage stems from this basic legal contract: Gays should be able to be married! Not some "Civil Union". By saying gays should be able to have a civil union you are in fact saying that they don't have the equal rights provided in this country and are a second rate citizen not able to be "married". That is why it will eventually be called by one name and be used universally in this country. "Civil Union" is being used now as just a first step to legalizing it before making it the same. Ok. I was about to discuss why I still think marriage is a religious thing. I do think that when talking in legal matters, "civil union" should be used. My only problem with that is that... we all know that not everyone would be excited about getting both a marriage and a civil union. So I guess tyhe state has to get so close to religion that if one gets married, they've got to call it civil union somehwere along the line... Why do things have to be so complicated?
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Nov 25, 2005 17:33:16 GMT -5
The thing is that it isn't complicated.
Marriage is a legal contract, at bare minimum. Many people, myself included, put much more meaning into a marriage.
Do the majority of people put all the Biblical ceremony, tradition, etc. into marrige? Not according to the divorce rate.
Mind what people do, not only what they claim, for actions may betray a lie.
If all these people who claim to believe in some holy sanctity of marriage, the same sanctity that they claim same sex marriage will destroy, why is there such a high divorce rate? Why is there so much adultry? Why are there sa many sexually oriented 'scandals' have been exposed that involve those who hold the sanctity of marriage so dear?
seems to me that there is a whole lot of "Do as I say, not as I do" attitude going on here.
|
|
|
Post by Tara on Nov 25, 2005 17:41:27 GMT -5
Ooh, sanctity of marriage, that reminds me... What about people who's visas are about to run out and they can get their green card as long as they're married? (Know what I'm talking about? Naturalizations into the U.S. and all that mess?) I was just saying, how sanctified would that kind of marriage be? There are people out there that are looking to get married so they can become citizens. But if legally, it's nothing but a contract, then why are politicians out there trying to promote these faith-based communities with perfect families and stuff? Meh.
|
|
moonchain
Guide
It raises a fever of intense apathy.
Posts: 595
|
Post by moonchain on Nov 25, 2005 17:54:20 GMT -5
Therein lies the problem with green card marriages - some people who move to this country and get married are *actually* getting married for love. That happened to my grandfather. When he married my grandmother, he was in the country illegally (he was a Danish merchant marine engineer). They actually tried to deport him, thinking his marriage wasn't a sanctimonious one (even though my grandmother was preggers with my dad at the time). But he managed to stay in the country. It requires proof. Although, in this modern era, when a woman can declare that she doesn't want a child just now, she can marry a man either for her or his green card and they have to provide other proof, such as spending time together or joint ownership of something. And a weird little confession of my own: I dated a guy who was "married" to a Russian woman so she could get her green card. They had married because at the time it had seemed beneficial financially to him. But he has recently gotten the divorce all settled because they were able to prove to the feds that they had some sort of relationship going, even though they were both dating other people. This kind of thing goes on all the time, but it's hard to weed out the "actual" marriages from the purely contractual ones.
|
|
|
Post by Tara on Nov 26, 2005 9:16:33 GMT -5
That's another thing. What if someone uses that "Oh, we just got married so they can get their naturalization," as an excuse for cheating. I'm not saying that everyone who gets married for the green card are true lovers, but it was a thought.
|
|
moonchain
Guide
It raises a fever of intense apathy.
Posts: 595
|
Post by moonchain on Nov 26, 2005 13:05:22 GMT -5
Uh... they can use that as an excuse to other people, but not the feds. It is an arrestable offense, in truth, if the feds find out that someone just got married for naturalization.
|
|
|
Post by cenk on Nov 26, 2005 14:33:28 GMT -5
If I decide to live in the USA I wouldn't mind marrying someone for perminant residence if its much quicker than waiting many many years for residence.
Or I could just get Canadian residence - I heard its much easier.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Nov 27, 2005 15:17:37 GMT -5
i know a russian guy who got married to stay in the UK. he's still married to his (english) wife and they act like a couple, but my mates who know them better all say that their marriage is a complete farce. the girl's parents don't even know about it, for instance ...
it shouldn't be overly difficult to get residence in north america with a british passport, i imagine, the main problem for the russian guy was that he had a russian passport and the UK is still a bit suspicious after the cold war (as is the US, presumably).
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Nov 30, 2005 17:38:45 GMT -5
I'm opposed to green card and I'm a movie star and board so let's get married for the weekend crud as well. They are however much harder to regulate.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Nov 30, 2005 18:32:01 GMT -5
Okay I’ve not gotten that LA Times article scanned in yet, but I did find this in the Journal of Sex Research “Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Erotic Age Preference” 26(1):107-117 Feb 1989. (Okay I tried to past a text picture because the document is in PDF and it is not working sorry). Anyhow Freund Watson and Rienzo found similar stats to the LA times report. (I suppose there is a chance they both where looking at the same report) Anyway they are published in a Journal which gets reviewed a bit better than news paper. They said about 1 in 20 guys like other guys, but only about half of the child molestations in one of the reports they reviewed where male/female. So we get about a 10X more little boys being gay raped than there are gay men. "Perhaps the negative results of the present study supports an alternative hypothesis which focuses on homosexual pedophilia instead of androphilia, namely, that the development of pedophilia is more closely linked with homosexuality than with heterosexuality."
They did point out that that is still speculation and that research should be done in that area. Taking this and the information I’ve posted before about the high rates of homosexuals having been gay molested 46% vs. 7% of straight persons.
I think that a full in-depth research project in needed. If there is a link between homosexuality and child molestation (for which there are suggestive indicators) Than that should be discovered and proper action taken. Just what that would be I’m not too sure as you don’t want to lock up all gay people, but a 10X greater chance of molesting a child is a major concern (this would mean the boy scouts had the right idea all along) This would also place the wisdom of letting male homosexuals be adopting parents under review.
Frankly I can see why such a project would be very hard to carry out.
1. Any information that shows gays as being a higher risk to children will be pounced on. Which may make the pro gay camp less than willing to participate 2. Getting the real story about who has molested how many kids is not like asking a person for their age or marital status 3. Because the project would be so politically charged it is unlikely that a major reputable research center would take on the project because they would lose face if people do not like the results.
Personally I think we should check this out and if there is a problem we should make that public. If gay males are much more likely to molest children than that needs to be understood and dealt with. If they are not than there is something else going on that is causing a lot of boys to be molested and in turn be much more likely to be gay. Either way molesting kids is a bad thing and we should do whatever (with in a little reason) we can do to stop it.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Nov 30, 2005 19:25:21 GMT -5
one response to that could be that pedophilia has little to do with the sex of the child - this would make the 50-50 divide between molestations on boys and girls immediately obvious.
to link the statistics like you do works on the presumption that gay men will only molest boys and straight men will only molest girls, but i have a feeling that's not how it works (i couldn't quote you any sources for that, however).
|
|
moonchain
Guide
It raises a fever of intense apathy.
Posts: 595
|
Post by moonchain on Nov 30, 2005 21:54:25 GMT -5
teancum: I'm assuming that's a reply to the sexuality thread, where we were actually talking about pedophilia. Could you repost there?
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Dec 1, 2005 9:52:32 GMT -5
It is not a 50/50 split it runs about 1/3 male 2/3 female. Given that over 90% of the molesters are male it raises a red flag. I've not made a big study of pedophilia as of yet, but if as was suggested in the article “the development of pedophilia is more closely linked with homosexuality than with heterosexuality." Than that must be researched. There are a lot of questions I don’t have answers for, but child molestation is a problem.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Dec 1, 2005 14:37:00 GMT -5
Out of idle curiosity:
What does the gay vs. straight molestation statistics have to do with Texas banning same sex marriage?
Something tells me that it is religion that prompted the ban and religion that pushed the issue. In fact, since there is no real legit legal reason to ban same sex marriage, I will even go on record to say that religion is the main force behind the ban.
Besides which: I am still waiting for the list of places in the USA where animals are allowed to enter into legal contracts.
I am also awaiting the list of places in the USA where children are allowed to enter into legal contracts.
I am still awaiting the list of same sex couple only issues that would warrant the banning of same sex marriage.
I am still awaiting even one legit legal reason to ban same sex marriage.
|
|