ERDoc Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 How many of your straight friends have had multiple multiple straight partners? I think at first you will see a high divorce rate but it will come in line with straight people divorce rates. Right now, many gay couples still have to hide and sneak around. I think it makes them work a little harder to stay together but once that pressure is off of them they will realize that maybe the person they are with is not what they thought and move on. Once, as a group, they have that sorted out I think their rates will be comparable to others.
tniuqs Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 As long as they invite me to the reception .. lots of free food and booze is all good, and I still have 4 extra fondue sets that have never been out of the boxes in 22 years. In Nigeria they execute gays ... WTF over ? Nigeria (if you have ever vacationed there) is one of the most corrupt places in the WORLD.
HERBIE1 Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 Herbie, no flaming from me, just a good discussion. I agree with you about stuff on television. It is difficult to find something that you can really call a family show anymore. There are quite a few shows on at 8pm that I find uncomfortable watching with my 6 and 9 year olds. As for the gay marriage issue, where do you see it deteriorating to? Could it be any worse than Kim Kardashian, Britney Spears, et al? I think one of the biggest hurdles for the gay community is overcoming the stigma created by the 1970s San Francisco community. There are plenty of gay people who are not out there flaunting their "gayness." Most that I know what to live a quiet, normal life. They identify themselves as people who are gay, not gays who are people. It's not the gay marriage issue itself, as much as it's what we accept as being the new norm. Someone mentioned polygamy- to me, it's the same argument. Why not legalize it- a man who has multiple wives does not affect me, so why not let it happen? It's the exact same argument most everyone here has used to justify gay marriage, isn't it? I'm not advocating a return to the Scarlet Letter days when you became a societal pariah for any transgression outside the day's norms, but should the "Well, it doesn't affect me directly, so why not do it" mentality really be the yardstick we use to measure acceptable behavior and/or adopt new standards? Is that all we really should expect from our fellow citizens? To me that's setting the bar pretty damned low. The celebrity "marriages" are a symptom of the problem, not the cause. I also suspect the divorce rate for gays would be no different than for hetero couples- and for the same reasons. We have trivialized the notion of marriage to the point where to many, a divorce is about as traumatizing as ruining a pair of new shoes- irritating, inconvenient, and will probably cost you more than you want to spend to fix the problem. 1
Just Plain Ruff Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 How many of your straight friends have had multiple multiple straight partners? I think at first you will see a high divorce rate but it will come in line with straight people divorce rates. Right now, many gay couples still have to hide and sneak around. I think it makes them work a little harder to stay together but once that pressure is off of them they will realize that maybe the person they are with is not what they thought and move on. Once, as a group, they have that sorted out I think their rates will be comparable to others. that was just my point, not on the partners but on the divorce rate. Since Gay marriage is still so new the divorce rates haven't had a chance to equal out or actually even be nationally tracked. 55% of marrages end in divorce, I'm suspecting that after 10 years of gay marriage that number will be similar What I meant to say on the partners part is that several of the gay people I know have had multiple partners while in a relationship with someone else. I have one lesbian friend who was in a marriage with her "life partner" all the while seeing several other women at the same time. The life partner found out and she's now without a life partner. That seems to be the trend with the gays I know, I'm sure it's not the norm but these are highly educated and paid professional women/men and I'm not sure of their reasoning behind having the multiple partners. Is it because they are not married that the commitment isn't there? Probably not since some of my married friends also have had multiple partners while married. But I do see more partners in my gay friends than in my hetero friends. Not saying it's the norm but it's my experience.
HERBIE1 Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 As long as they invite me to the reception .. lots of free food and booze is all good, and I still have 4 extra fondue sets that have never been out of the boxes in 22 years. In Nigeria they execute gays ... WTF over ? Nigeria (if you have ever vacationed there) is one of the most corrupt places in the WORLD. Well, it's also difficult to apply our ideas of right or wrong to entirely different cultures. Think fundamental religious groups- from Jews to Muslims. Each group has very strict sects within their ranks who adhere to ideas many of us think are excessive or extreme. Restrictions on food, behavior, clothing, hair, dating, religion, marriage, work, etc. There are many places who think the US is puritanical in our views on not allowing topless women on beaches, or enforcing a 21 year old rule for consuming liquor. On the other hand, the radical Muslims think we are infidels and hedonists, and this nation is just one large den of iniquity. Point is, I think we need to be careful about who we view as being barbaric, wrong, or primitive. There are many who would say the exact same thing about this country.
tniuqs Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) Point is, I think we need to be careful about who we view as being barbaric, wrong, or primitive. There are many who would say the exact same thing about this country. And which country would you be referring to ? In Canada between 2002 and 2005, court rulings in Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, and Yukon ruled the prohibition of same-sex marriage to be contrary to the Charter of Rights, thus legalizing it in those jurisdictions. In response to these rulings, the governing Liberal party minority government introduced legislation to allow same-sex couples to marry. On 20 July 2005, the Canadian Parliament passed the Civil Marriage Act, defining marriage nationwide as "the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others." This was challenged on 7 December 2006 by a motion tabled by the newly elected Conservative party, asking the government to introduce amendments to the Marriage Act to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples; it was defeated in the House of Commonsby a vote of 175 to 123. Canada does not have a residency requirement for marriage; consequently, many foreign couples have gone to Canada to marry, regardless of whether that marriage will be recognized in their home country. In fact, in some cases, a Canadian marriage has provided the basis for a challenge to the laws of another country, with cases in Ireland and Israel. As of 11 November 2004, the Canadian federal government's immigration department, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC), considers same-sex marriages performed in Canada valid for the purposes of sponsoring a spouse to immigrate.[32] Canadian immigration authorities previously considered long-term, same-sex relationships to be equivalent to similar heterosexual relationships as grounds for sponsorship. Edited November 30, 2011 by tniuqs
HERBIE1 Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 And which country would you be referring to ? Sorry- referring to the USA. Not speaking for the folks up north. Everyone knows you guys are much more civilized than us barbarians to your south. LOL As for Robin Williams- one of the funniest guys on the planet.
JPINFV Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 I love my wife and admit that she wears the pants (I get to wear the scrubs). To be fair, though, I've never fully understood why skirts are seen as divinely feminine. If skirts/tunics were good enough for the roman legions, and robes good enough for Jesus... We've gone from a more conservative norm all the way to a "if it feels good, do it, anything you say or do is OK, and nobody has the right to disagree with you" attitude. Examples include- what we accept as appropriate language in public today, on the airwaves, in a business or social setting, or interpersonal communications. Relaxing of dress standards in the work place, relaxing of proper manners in formal and/or casual settings, etc. Sexting, sending dirty pictures via your phone or lap top, forwarding dirty jokes to a dozen people at a time- this is pretty damned bold and would be considered perverse compared to just a few years ago. I think that there's a difference between how society should view things and what should be legal/illegal. I think that adultery is morally and ethically wrong. However, I don't believe that it should be a crime or anything that the government should regulate. Most of the examples that you used are a failure of the individuals in society to enforce their views, determine who their employees are, and determine who their associates are. Dress standards? Set and maintain a dress code and fire those who don't conform. People don't have proper manners? Don't associate with them. Forwarding dirty jokes to coworkers who you don't know for certain has a similar sense of humor? That should get discipline up to, and including, termination. However, when dealing with what the -government- should regulate through the legal system, we now have to determine what rights individuals have. Just because someone has a right to do something doesn't mean they should, however if someone has a right to do something then they have to enjoy -legal- protection for the exercise of those rights. Otherwise they aren't rights. However, having protection from legal consequences and having protection from community consequences (boycotts, isolation, etc) are two drastically different things. but should the "Well, it doesn't affect me directly, so why not do it" mentality really be the yardstick we use to measure acceptable behavior and/or adopt new standards? Is that all we really should expect from our fellow citizens? To me that's setting the bar pretty damned low. I do think it's the bar that should be set for legal regulation. I think there needs to be a compelling reason for actions to be considered illegal, and many of the vice laws don't really meet that standard. Government should be in the business of protecting rights and administering public goods, not enforcing morality. There needs to be something more than religion or "I find it icky" to justify banning something. If you don't find that polygamy affects you, why should it be banned?
Happiness Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) I come from a very open minded community. We have a alot of people in the "gay" community and I am friends with most of them. Some are married with kids, some are single, and some are married w/o kids. They are all awsome contributors to our community and they do deserve to be married if that is what they so choose. I have no problem with gay couples getting married and really I dont care if their divorce rate is higher, or if they have outside partners and actually its none of my bussiness. Kind of its none of my bussiness what any one does as per sex, marriage, and family. I was very fortunante to have a good friend in high school that was gay. He was awsome and everyone liked him, he didnt suffer the gay bashing that some other kids did. But with that being said he never shoved it in our faces either, he partied and just had fun like any other teenager. One guy here is 6ft 6 and a bit flamming (if i can use that term), when he gets tormented by the fishermen that come to town he just beats the crap out of them. Probably not the best way to go but the looks on the homophobic fishermen is priceless and it is kind of funny to watch. Those who are completly against probably dont know that chances are a few of their freinds are still in the closet, because they think of gay people as liberacies, because most media is focused on that type of gay person. Its like when years a go I saw a news story on welfare wednesday and they showed only drunk indians and one white guy. No wonder society thinks that all indians are drunks. Well there is my speil Im just glad that those from Alberta are NOT allowed to date or marry those from BC they would be called Balbertans Edited November 30, 2011 by Happiness
Recommended Posts