Ohio ban on recognizing out-of-state gay marriages to fall

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Now, now now, the subject is about being on the right side of history... and how people can apply that to their lives.

Of course in the confusion I gave some of the endless examples of when it might not be a good idea to be on the RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY... so I ask you to clarify what that even means.

Do you suppose that at no point going forward Gays will not be ostracized again..... would one then have to agree with that to "be on the right side of history?"

Thank you for your attention.

No, Danno, you're trolling and you are putting your confused state of mind on display again. Agreeing with the Nazis was NEVER being on the right side of history. Nor was supporting or fighting for slavery or racial segregation. Nor was, is or ever will be the oppression of women or of any group of people count as being on the right side of history. Only in confused minds might that appear to be the case.

[Danno 1,228]

No, Danno, you're trolling and you are putting your confused state of mind on display again. Agreeing with the Nazis was NEVER being on the right side of history. Nor was supporting or fighting for slavery or racial segregation. Nor was, is or ever will be the oppression of women or of any group of people count as being on the right side of history. Only in confused minds might that appear to be the case.

So then you agree with me, history often does take wrong turns.

Swimming with the current has often been the wrong thing to do.

I knew we would finally get there even if though you refused to explain what the bumper-sticker phrase meant.

[TBoneTX 43,536]

Folks, please stick closer to the issue in the OP itself, and avoid accusations and bickering. Doing both might enable some good conversation. Don't risk closure of the thread.

[Danno 1,228]

In this case, I want to be on the right side of history, seeing as how what the OP called the right side of history is a movement that is giving rights to ordinary people. I fail to see how this could in any way relate back to the people who see themselves on the right side of history who are committing violent acts. There's no violence in allowing same sex unions equal rights. It's sort of the exact opposite of the Nazis. Why? Because same sex couples are doing no one any harm.

Why do you only only speak out for gays or couples?

There are many domestic arraignments which would like the right to marry.

We currently have all sorts of laws which prevent all sorts of marriages.... why is your quest toward freedom so limited?

For instance If brothers cousins or uncles and nieces wish to wed, how does that effect you?

I know a guy who lives with two women with kids from both... why no interest in his plight?

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Why do you only only speak out for gays or couples?

There are many domestic arraignments which would like the right to marry.

We currently have all sorts of laws which prevent all sorts of marriages.... why is your quest toward freedom so limited?

For instance If brothers cousins or uncles and nieces wish to wed, how does that effect you?

I know a guy who lives with two women with kids from both... why no interest in his plight?

Your chain of thought makes no sense whatsoever. Just want to point that out.

[Danno 1,228]

Your chain of thought makes no sense whatsoever. Just want to point that out.

Do you believe all people should have the freedom to decide for themselves what a marriage is to them?

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Do you believe all people should have the freedom to decide for themselves what a marriage is to them?

Define all people, since you correlate gay people in the same boat as folks that are genetically related.

[Not a Tailor 1,370]

Why do you only only speak out for gays or couples?

There are many domestic arraignments which would like the right to marry.

We currently have all sorts of laws which prevent all sorts of marriages.... why is your quest toward freedom so limited?

For instance If brothers cousins or uncles and nieces wish to wed, how does that effect you?

I know a guy who lives with two women with kids from both... why no interest in his plight?

I actually have no personal problem with polygamy and see no reason why it should be illegal. My country actually nearly legalized it in BC, but of course a bunch of abusive jerks who wanted child-brides had to attach their names and the court system couldn't see that the problem was with people being abusive and wanting to marry people who were incapable of consent rather than with plural marriage itself. Polygamy itself actually isn't problematic, so long as both the (adult) guy who lives with two (adult) women AND the (adult) woman who lives with two (adult) men and the two (adult) women and two (adult men who live together all have the same rights to plural marriage and the marriage is required to have informed consent by all parties.

As for the rest, well, cousin marriages are legal in many parts of the world, including parts of the US. And those marriages have to be recognized at the federal level. Sibling marriage is more problematic because it is nearly always a reflection of abuse by the parents causing a codependency between the siblings. Uncle and niece (or aunt and nephew) represents a power imbalance where one party has, generally speaking, been in a position of authority over the other since the niece or nephew was a child. This lends itself to an inherent issue of grooming. So sibling marriages and aunt/uncle with nephew/niece marriages represent an issue of damage to the ability of informed consent. Again with the abuse. Being unable to give informed consent is the issue at hand.

So stop trying to compare consenting adults to actual abusive issues where informed consent is impossible. It's a pretty big leap, unless you honestly believe that my wife and I have an inherently abusive relationship. And if that's the case, I pity you, because you clearly have such a narrow-minded view of love that the love in your life is limited to very few sources and that's no way for a human being, a social primate, to live.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Not a Tailor

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So then you agree with me, history often does take wrong turns.

Swimming with the current has often been the wrong thing to do.

I knew we would finally get there even if though you refused to explain what the bumper-sticker phrase meant.

No, I don't agree with you. Your belief is that those that agreed with the Nazis were at some point on the right side of history. That's a rather revealing point of view that I most certainly do not share.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

It's inevitable. When the topic of gay marriage comes up, one ignorant fool will always attempt to compare it to incest, child abuse or bestiality. No one's surprised at who it came from in this thread.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

It's inevitable. When the topic of gay marriage comes up, one ignorant fool will always attempt to compare it to incest, child abuse or bestiality. No one's surprised at who it came from in this thread.

As you can see, he hasn't come back since Not a Tailor came in and e-smacked the ish out of this thread.

[Danno 1,228]

I actually have no personal problem with polygamy and see no reason why it should be illegal. My country actually nearly legalized it in BC, but of course a bunch of abusive jerks who wanted child-brides had to attach their names and the court system couldn't see that the problem was with people being abusive and wanting to marry people who were incapable of consent rather than with plural marriage itself. Polygamy itself actually isn't problematic, so long as both the (adult) guy who lives with two (adult) women AND the (adult) woman who lives with two (adult) men and the two (adult) women and two (adult men who live together all have the same rights to plural marriage and the marriage is required to have informed consent by all parties.

As for the rest, well, cousin marriages are legal in many parts of the world, including parts of the US. And those marriages have to be recognized at the federal level. Sibling marriage is more problematic because it is nearly always a reflection of abuse by the parents causing a codependency between the siblings. Uncle and niece (or aunt and nephew) represents a power imbalance where one party has, generally speaking, been in a position of authority over the other since the niece or nephew was a child. This lends itself to an inherent issue of grooming. So sibling marriages and aunt/uncle with nephew/niece marriages represent an issue of damage to the ability of informed consent. Again with the abuse. Being unable to give informed consent is the issue at hand.

So stop trying to compare consenting adults to actual abusive issues where informed consent is impossible. It's a pretty big leap, unless you honestly believe that my wife and I have an inherently abusive relationship. And if that's the case, I pity you, because you clearly have such a narrow-minded view of love that the love in your life is limited to very few sources and that's no way for a human being, a social primate, to live.

What is the obsession you have with changing marriage laws.. to require people to now be adults when you know perfectly well in many parts of the country (and world) no such age of 18 or 21 or whatever you define it is traditionally or currently chiseled in stone.

Even in places where adulthood) 18 or 21 is the law... there are often exceptions.

With that as your foundation, you better come up with more than "consenting adult" as your foundation.

And by they way, who are you to decide if two brothers love each other enough to be married?

[sharky-rex 76]

Nothing is currently chiseled in stone Danno, we have this thing called paper now.

[JohnR! 5,495]

In the end, those on the right side of history always prevail.

In this matter it is only natural that the law of reciprocity should apply to all marriages.

[Danno 1,228]

-Adulthood is not required now.

-Adulthood has no historically fixed age... Obama has even demonstrated that emancipation should begin at 26.

-Not one person defended the unfairness of treating people different just because they share a blood line.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Kathryn41
to remove quoted personal attack