Opinion?

D_Sal_Manilla

Account Disabled
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Posts
1,022
Media
0
Likes
22
Points
73
Sexuality
No Response
what is your opinion on two homosexuals getting married?

but between a gay guy and a lesbian?


nothing sexual goes on between them but they do it for the benefits of getting married.
 

tamati

Sexy Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Posts
1,875
Media
7
Likes
94
Points
308
Location
NorCal
Verification
View
Gender
Male
no harm, no foul.
The only issue id have would be a closeted gay/bi/trans who wants to mary a str8 without coming clean about it first.
Honesty is more important than anything to me.
 

Young

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Posts
171
Media
32
Likes
136
Points
63
Location
Ireland
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
what is your opinion on two homosexuals getting married?

but between a gay guy and a lesbian?


nothing sexual goes on between them but they do it for the benefits of getting married.

I'd be fine with it. For all I care a guy marries his car, or a cactus... whatever floats your boat. Though the idea of a "lavender marriage" is so 1950s... :rolleyes::1244:
 

D_Sal_Manilla

Account Disabled
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Posts
1,022
Media
0
Likes
22
Points
73
Sexuality
No Response
Though the idea of a "lavender marriage" is so 1950s... :rolleyes::1244:

i didn't mean it like that. More like it's publicly known that the man is gay and the woman is lesbian.

i guess the scenario would be of two best friends getting married for financial benefits along with being able to have a blood child and eventually they divorce if one or both find love.
 

D_Percy_Prettywillie

Account Disabled
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Posts
748
Media
0
Likes
22
Points
53
I think, ultimately, that is the dumbest thing I've expended brain power to think about today (and that's saying something since I've been reading articles on Cracked.com most of the day.)

My axiom boils down to this; All people, everywhere, should be free to do whatever they want so long as what they're doing doesn't hurt anyone and isn't infringing upon someone else's ability to do the same thing.

That includes marriage. Arguments about "societal degradation" and "moral impurity" cannot be qualified through any meaningful metric and so I dismiss them and illogical and irrelevant. With that applied to every scenario I come across in terms of being asked what I think about this or that... the world is a less complex place in terms of the way I interact with it.

This particular query struck me as particularly silly based on the fact that it is extremely unlikely to ever be a significant issue and secondly, would be perfectly legal and thus unstoppable in the eyes of the law, as they are written. So there isn't likely to be much of a kerfuffle here and even if there were, socially speaking, there wouldn't be one legally.

So, in at least three ways, this (to me personally) is completely moot. This reply has more substance that my actual opinion on the matter.



JSZ​
 

D_Sal_Manilla

Account Disabled
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Posts
1,022
Media
0
Likes
22
Points
73
Sexuality
No Response
I think, ultimately, that is the dumbest thing I've expended brain power to think about today (and that's saying something since I've been reading articles on Cracked.com most of the day.)

My axiom boils down to this; All people, everywhere, should be free to do whatever they want so long as what they're doing doesn't hurt anyone and isn't infringing upon someone else's ability to do the same thing.

That includes marriage. Arguments about "societal degradation" and "moral impurity" cannot be qualified through any meaningful metric and so I dismiss them and illogical and irrelevant. With that applied to every scenario I come across in terms of being asked what I think about this or that... the world is a less complex place in terms of the way I interact with it.

This particular query struck me as particularly silly based on the fact that it is extremely unlikely to ever be a significant issue and secondly, would be perfectly legal and thus unstoppable in the eyes of the law, as they are written. So there isn't likely to be much of a kerfuffle here and even if there were, socially speaking, there wouldn't be one legally.

So, in at least three ways, this (to me personally) is completely moot. This reply has more substance that my actual opinion on the matter.



JSZ​



the question was based on the fact that in some places, homosexual are still not allowed to get married. and yes homosexuals can adopt but they still wont get the same benefits as a hetero couple. nonetheless, thank you for your insightful comment.
 
Last edited:

Young

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Posts
171
Media
32
Likes
136
Points
63
Location
Ireland
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
i didn't mean it like that. More like it's publicly known that the man is gay and the woman is lesbian.

i guess the scenario would be of two best friends getting married for financial benefits along with being able to have a blood child and eventually they divorce if one or both find love.

The idea of having a child with someone is a good reason.
That way the kid will know both his parents, have a male and female role model and be related by blood. It's probably easier then for two male or female couples to have a kid.
 

D_Percy_Prettywillie

Account Disabled
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Posts
748
Media
0
Likes
22
Points
53
Where can two people of opposite gender not get married? I am aware of no state that has taken it to the extreme of defining marriage as the union of one heterosexual man and one heterosexual woman. Even if they had and a couple was hellbent on getting married for the benefits (and again, we're in Alice in Wonderland territory with this hypothetical already) and were gay, who would be the arbiter/decision maker that judged whether or not they were both truly straight? Is their a straight litmus test?


This could be complete ignorance on my part but I wasn't aware extremes of that magnitude had been legally implemented... anywhere. Clarify?


JSZ​
 

D_Sal_Manilla

Account Disabled
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Posts
1,022
Media
0
Likes
22
Points
73
Sexuality
No Response
Where can two people of opposite gender not get married? I am aware of no state that has taken it to the extreme of defining marriage as the union of one heterosexual man and one heterosexual woman. Even if they had and a couple was hellbent on getting married for the benefits (and again, we're in Alice in Wonderland territory with this hypothetical already) and were gay, who would be the arbiter/decision maker that judged whether or not they were both truly straight? Is their a straight litmus test?


This could be complete ignorance on my part but I wasn't aware extremes of that magnitude had been legally implemented... anywhere. Clarify?


JSZ​

your talking about a whole different subject.

the question is about whether a marriage between a gay man and lesbian woman is okay.

this is not a question about the right to marry who you want.

its a social hypothetical question on whether or not you think its okay for a gay and lesbian to get married to each other for the sole purpose of having a blood child and spouse benefits.

I either have poor communication skills or you can't read. Maybe both.
 
Last edited:

D_Percy_Prettywillie

Account Disabled
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Posts
748
Media
0
Likes
22
Points
53
Well, no, then my first post pretty accurately sums up how I feel about it. You implied that there is some where two people of opposite gender can't get married if either or both of them are homosexual. I know of no such place and was thus anxious to learn something new.

Since that isn't the case, to re-state, the act of a lesbian marrying a gay man is not going to be common enough for their to ever be a major social outcry about it nor is it illegal anywhere for a man and a woman to marry one another based on their orientation. So an uncommon occurrence happening within the bounds of the law seems like a rather... you know, silly thing to expend much brain power on. Why would anyone, anywhere have a problem with that? Even conservatives ultimately want the scenario you just described; a man and a woman marrying each other and having a "blood child" (what a gross term) in one house hold.



JSZ​
 
Last edited:

blazblue

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2010
Posts
1,195
Media
0
Likes
35
Points
73
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
I'm indifferent, but I would be curious as to why a gay guy and a lesbian would get married though...
 

twoton

Superior Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2011
Posts
7,865
Media
1
Likes
8,301
Points
268
Location
Mid Atlantic
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
The way I see it, why can't a son marry his mother? Son has a job with health benefits, mom needs healthcare, they "marry" for the benefits. Or two straight guys "marry" for the same reason. Or a woman "marries" her dog so it can get her retirement benefits after she dies. It's all the same. Just a legal contract.
 

twoton

Superior Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2011
Posts
7,865
Media
1
Likes
8,301
Points
268
Location
Mid Atlantic
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
cannot be qualified through any meaningful metric and so I dismiss them and illogical and irrelevant. With that applied to every scenario I come across in terms of being asked what I think about this or that... the world is a less complex place in terms of the way I interact with it.

Yeah, but...seriously? Life is made of abstractions. Philosophers and psychologists spend $millions on trying to quantify love, for example. (I happen to know one who earns his living on that) How can you measure courage? Or malevolence? What's the utility of happiness? In real terms--not in the bullshit economists pretend to calculate.

What do you think of Music? Of Art?
 

D_Percy_Prettywillie

Account Disabled
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Posts
748
Media
0
Likes
22
Points
53
or the Federal Government could discontinue giving benefits for those that partake in what started as a religious practice. Why do married people get benefits in the first place? Health insurance, survivor benefits, automotive plans, home loans etc... how is it better to engage with a potential client who married rather than one who has lived with someone else for five years but isn't?

We're supposed to be governed by laws absent religion in the United States. Already less than half the population is married and something like 60% of all marriages end in divorce within the first two years. So rather than shoehorning more people to what is obviously a broken ideology (or at least one that isn't compatible with the current morays of our society, good or bad) why not take the government out of marriage completely and give equal rights to everyone regardless if they're gay or straight, married or single?



JSZ​
 

twoton

Superior Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2011
Posts
7,865
Media
1
Likes
8,301
Points
268
Location
Mid Atlantic
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
or the Federal Government could discontinue giving benefits for those that partake in what started as a religious practice. Why do married people get benefits in the first place? Health insurance, survivor benefits, automotive plans, home loans etc... how is it better to engage with a potential client who married rather than one who has lived with someone else for five years but isn't?

Off the top of my head, it probably started as incentive for people to get married and establish stable relationships, have children, etc.