Michelle Bachmann - gays can marry, but only the opposite sex....

No one needs to get married but for many people it is seen as the ultimate sign of commitment to another i certainly viewed it as that although that point may be somewhat diminshed by the seemingly ever increasing divorce rate lol.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by devilincarnate

Can I just ask what may be a stupid question?

But why do people need to get married?

I'm getting married as I kind of like the idea of being in a formal union before kids come along, neither myself or the future Mrs S are religious so it'll be a humanist service but we both think it's the obvious next step in a relationship.

Plus it'll be a good excuse to get properly stuck into the beer, rum and whisky!

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

No one needs to get married but for many people it is seen as the ultimate sign of commitment to another

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

Had your parents not consumated their relationship (married or otherwise) you would simply not be here to post.

You don't need to be married or even in a relationship to reproduce. If you did, the Jeremy Kyle show would have a lot fewer guests..

Marriage is a concept belonging to Society and Religion, but has no basis in Science.

A question I would like to see answered and answered truthfully beyond any baggage of dissassociation disorder and have yet to have seen asked is what is this sudden infatuation within the gay comunity to marry ?

A question I would like to see answered is why you appear so against gay marriage?

Yes, you can argue that it a gay couple can't produce kids without outside assistance, but neither can an infertile heterosexual couple. Do we ban those as well?

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Hugh

And another one.....

She's obviously in good company in the Republican nomination race, as Rick Perry comes out with a cracker....
A) why shouldn't gays serve openly in the military
B) you would have thought he would have known that it is the US Constitution which doesn't allow teacher-led prayer in public schools (the First Amendment, which Thomas Jefferson stated erected "a wall of separation" between the church and the state)

Speaking of Rick Perry...

https://twitter.com/#!/richardmarcj/...501504/photo/1

Originally Posted by Richard Johnson's Twitter feed

Rick Perry uses Leviticus to dictate sexual morality but not his own fashion decisions http://pic.twitter.com/w0b2ZXxH

[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Matt D

Speaking of Rick Perry...

https://twitter.com/#!/richardmarcj/...501504/photo/1

Remember these are Republicans, the ones that gave us George W Bush, the less said the better

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Russ

I'll marry in a church but nobody is holding a gun to my head.

If they did, that would literally be a shotgun wedding..

Originally Posted by Stuart

If they did, that would literally be a shotgun wedding..

Not if they use a rifle.

[NitroNutter]

Originally Posted by Hugh

That may be because you fail to understand that the laws of man (I think you may mean society, because we gave the pesky distaff side equivalence (mostly) quite some time ago) are based on societal norms, not on Judeo-Christian writings of over 2000 years ago, otherwise we would be banning the teaching of evolution in schools, keeping slaves, and not wearing wool/linen mixed fabrics (but that is the subject for another thread).

You appear to be conflating the laws of science (reached through the scientific method) with your prejudices, which appear to have no scientific rationale whatsoever...

In the past I have always been open about being a survivor and knowing several other survivors and victims of indecent assault whereby one of my assailants is now serving a minmum 10 year sentence and therefore my opinions are based on my personal experience and nothing else whereas you have to my knowledge never backed up your opinions with anything other than personal attacks, which on this topic I find highly offensive making it clear to me you most likely have a hidden agenda your not prepared to disclose.

Further more you are not the only member of staff here who deploys such bullying tactics knowingly against survivors of indecent assault as I have in the past in a similarly topicalised thread here had it admitted by an openly gay female member of staff the wider gay community will knowingly be bullying victims of gay assault till all who do not conform to the will of the gay community victims or otherwise are silent.

If survivors are not entitled to a point of view based on life experience without being attacked, ridiculed and further bullied then just exactly who is ?

Besides the fact I still believe you cannot redefine a formal mariage due to its inherent relationship with kinship from a hopefully stable heterosexual partnership without compromising its previous definition despite having always believed the commitment to you partner should be beyond a slip of paper:

@ Danielf please accept my apologies I had not realised IVF had made such advances that two women could become a birth parent to a child, nor was I aware you were female, I mean no disrespect to you, your parents or any one from the female gender regardless of sexuality as it is not possible for me to form an experienced point of view in regards to any of the problems you all may face, the picture may well be as rosy and heavenly on the female side of this issue as is commonly portrayed however I believe this as far from the truth as you can get on the male side.

Various rape and sexual violence organisations around the country primarily setup for women are becoming gravely concerned as reports are now showing in excess of 10% of men are being sexually assaulted as children and teenagers. This is causing major funding problems and the organisations are struggling to cope with demand.

There is also growing concern this may well be a grossly innaccurate number due to the fact that many of the reported male incidents are coming in years later due to a natural male inability to report such an incident. This is related to and part of the PTSD suffered by the victim, in many cases the victim will dissassociate the assault making them more vulnerable to further attacks. It is also common for victims to become withdrawn and/or rely on a variety of habitual escapes ie drink and drugs making them further vulnerable to future assaults. There is also all the other risks associated with such substances like health and in many cases crime to feed habitual escapes not to mention the ripple effect on others lives and the countries economy itself as many victims find it impossible to work even when physically fit.

As I have seen it mentioned of being of a "sound state of mind" which I have to say is a very good point I have to wonder just what exactly would constitute falling outside of this category and just exactly how could it be monitored especially in light of the fact that PTSD as a result of male indecent assault is perhaps one of the most severe forms of PTSD known and a common sympton for men is to bury the truth as deep as possible within themselves ?

My own personal opinion as a survivor is far too much has already changed legally in the last quarter century in particular with male homosexuallity and I believe with such high figures of assault amongst men and younger males and their natural inability to disclose such incidents to anyone for so long has left us with grossly insufficent data available to make a sound judgement so we should refrain from rushing into any further changes in law that may make it even harder for male victims to come forward, or in worse case scenarios find themselves in a same sex marriage whilst suffering any number of indecent assault related PTSD symptons not excluding suffering further indecent assaults and be left feeling like they have no way out.

Also due to the nature of these assaults and the severe phsycological impact it has on the victims the 16-20 year age group has in my opinion been left totally unprotected with some of the recent changes in law which should be considered a gross oversight as this age group has been left inexplicably exposed to exploitation from older generations by those who should have had the wisdom to foresee at least some of these problems with already existing research and there is no doubt in my mind this urgently needs to change for both genders and both sexualities.

"hidden agenda" - got to love it.

My unhidden agenda is that two people who love each other should be granted the same rights as everyone else - not extra rights, the same rights.

I have straight friends, I have gay friends, and I have attended my straight friends wedding ceremonies, and my gay friends civil partnership ceremonies - I just want them to have the same choices.

I am sorry to hear that you have been hurt in the past, but women have been hurt in the past (and men and women still are being hurt) - that doesn't stop heterosexual marriages continuing, why should it be a reason for homosexual marriages not to happen? You appear to be using the fact that someone hurt you to castigate an entire group of people, 99.99% of whom would not act that way, imho.

btw "openly gay"? Why the hell shouldn't someone be "openly gay" - it's nothing to hide, it's just who they are; it's like saying someone is "openly black" or "openly British" or "openly straight".

[Tezcatlipoca]

That was way too long, and seemingly irrelevant, so I only skimmed it, but...

What does indecent assault have to do with whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry?

Why do you think Hugh has a "hidden agenda" or is engaging in bullying? He simply thinks that people should be allowed to marry regardless of sexuality. He's not bullying you or anyone else - he's trying to debate with you...Which is hard as your previous attempts at supporting your position were IMO nonsensical (e.g. "purpose of the formal union known as marriage" is "the state of being married"? What?) and you keep avoiding questions and avoiding explaining your statements.

No one is bullying you or attacking you. This is a discussion forum. If you post things with nothing to back them up (e.g. saying it's scientifically absolute that marriage cannot involve only one sex etc. etc.) then expect people to debate those points with you and ask you why...

As I asked before...

How is it clear that marriage cannot involve only one sex?

How is it scientifically absolute that marriage cannot involve only one sex?

How is it physically impossible for marriage to involve only one sex?

What law are you talking about and why is it "beyond the scope of mankind"? Ideology does not sound irrelevant for you...

As for "it should not need to be said the dangers that exist should this status quo change." I think it should be said... Please, enlighten us...

So what if the original definition is "compromised"?

What risk?

So marriage is purely for procreation?

My wife and I have no intention of having children. We married each other because we love each other and wanted a formal commitment. Is our marriage not real simply because we have no desire to procreate?

My maternal grandfather re-married many years after my maternal grandmother died. His second wife was too old to have children. Does that invalidate their marriage?

What about other opposite-sex couples who marry but either do not want to have children or can not have children? People who just don't want kids, people who are infertile, people who are too old, etc. Are they not really married? Should they not be allowed to get married?


As for the "sudden infatuation" of the gay community with marriage... I don't believe it is "sudden", and I don't see an issue with gay people simply wanting the same rights as everyone else.

---------- Post added at 20:37 ---------- Previous post was at 20:34 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

I am sorry to hear that you have been hurt in the past, but women have been hurt in the past (and men and women still are being hurt) - that doesn't stop heterosexual marriages continuing, why should it be a reason for homosexual marriages not to happen? You appear to be using the fact that someone hurt you to castigate an entire group of people, 99.99% of whom would not act that way, imho.

Indeed.

The existence of heterosexual indecent assault, heterosexual rape, and heterosexual spousal abuse doesn't mean that heterosexual marriage should not be allowed. Why should the existence of homosexual assault prohibit homosexual marriage?

Originally Posted by Matt D

Indeed.

The existence of heterosexual indecent assault, heterosexual rape, and heterosexual spousal abuse doesn't mean that heterosexual marriage should not be allowed. Why should the existence of homosexual assault prohibit homosexual marriage?

To me it just proves that gays ,straights ,whatever the sexuality are all essentially the same with the same character flaws .

[Tezcatlipoca]

Yup.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Damien

Not if they use a rifle.

True..

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

Further more you are not the only member of staff here who deploys such bullying tactics knowingly against survivors of indecent assault as I have in the past in a similarly topicalised thread here had it admitted by an openly gay female member of staff the wider gay community will knowingly be bullying victims of gay assault till all who do not conform to the will of the gay community victims or otherwise are silent.

If survivors are not entitled to a point of view based on life experience without being attacked, ridiculed and further bullied then just exactly who is ?

You are entitled to a point of view. We just ask that any opinions expressed in a thread have something to do with that thread.

Besides the fact I still believe you cannot redefine a formal mariage due to its inherent relationship with kinship from a hopefully stable heterosexual partnership without compromising its previous definition despite having always believed the commitment to you partner should be beyond a slip of paper:

I've seen nothing to suggest that two gay partners cannot be as devoted to each other as two straight partners.

Various rape and sexual violence organisations around the country primarily setup for women are becoming gravely concerned as reports are now showing in excess of 10% of men are being sexually assaulted as children and teenagers. This is causing major funding problems and the organisations are struggling to cope with demand.

There is also growing concern this may well be a grossly innaccurate number due to the fact that many of the reported male incidents are coming in years later due to a natural male inability to report such an incident. This is related to and part of the PTSD suffered by the victim, in many cases the victim will dissassociate the assault making them more vulnerable to further attacks. It is also common for victims to become withdrawn and/or rely on a variety of habitual escapes ie drink and drugs making them further vulnerable to future assaults. There is also all the other risks associated with such substances like health and in many cases crime to feed habitual escapes not to mention the ripple effect on others lives and the countries economy itself as many victims find it impossible to work even when physically fit.

As I have seen it mentioned of being of a "sound state of mind" which I have to say is a very good point I have to wonder just what exactly would constitute falling outside of this category and just exactly how could it be monitored especially in light of the fact that PTSD as a result of male indecent assault is perhaps one of the most severe forms of PTSD known and a common sympton for men is to bury the truth as deep as possible within themselves ?

My own personal opinion as a survivor is far too much has already changed legally in the last quarter century in particular with male homosexuallity and I believe with such high figures of assault amongst men and younger males and their natural inability to disclose such incidents to anyone for so long has left us with grossly insufficent data available to make a sound judgement so we should refrain from rushing into any further changes in law that may make it even harder for male victims to come forward, or in worse case scenarios find themselves in a same sex marriage whilst suffering any number of indecent assault related PTSD symptons not excluding suffering further indecent assaults and be left feeling like they have no way out.

Also due to the nature of these assaults and the severe phsycological impact it has on the victims the 16-20 year age group has in my opinion been left totally unprotected with some of the recent changes in law which should be considered a gross oversight as this age group has been left inexplicably exposed to exploitation from older generations by those who should have had the wisdom to foresee at least some of these problems with already existing research and there is no doubt in my mind this urgently needs to change for both genders and both sexualities.

The thing is that you are talking about assault. This is a nasty part of life, but it is not limited to men assaulting men. Men assault women, and women are quite capable of assault as well.

By your reasoning, we should probably ban heterosexual marriage as well..

[thenry]

US Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann has ended her White House campaign.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-16416324

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by thenry

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-16416324

YES!