S.S.M. And L.U.N.C.

[wenglund]

So allowing people who are in open relationships in marriage is harmful. Can we then please, in starting somewhere, stop marriages of all those who insist on having an open marriage whether gay or straight?

Have at it...and good luck with that.

The argument appears to be that allowing gays to marry will lessen the meaning of marriage in the long term because more gay people see relationships as open percentage-wise, of course that is without considering that they have continued on without the promotion of marriage in their relationships. Yet we all know there is currently a great deal of infidelity in many a heterosexual union. If it is argued that the infidelity is what ruins the concept of marriage then it's not gay people that are ruining it currently.

This has been explained to you before, but evidently you are as resistant as several others on this thread to getting it. So, in the posts to follow, I will take great pains to clear the fog, though I can't promise to clear the fog from minds determined to be foggy.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 30, 2013 by wenglund

[stemelbow]

though I can't promise to clear the fog from minds determined to be foggy.

Hows about you just get back to me when you can promise to do this?

[stemelbow]

Have at it...and good luck with that.

Kind of my point. You can't legislate that.

[Calm]

So allowing people who are in open relationships in marriage is harmful. Can we then please, in starting somewhere, stop marriages of all those who insist on having an open marriage whether gay or straight?

Can you figure up a legal argument that could take care of this issue? If not, it would seem to rely on getting society to disapprove of it in some fashion and to publicize their disapproval effectively as was done with smoking.

[stemelbow]

Can you figure up a legal argument that could take care of this issue? If not, it would seem to rely on getting society to disapprove of it in some fashion and to publicize their disapproval effectively as was done with smoking.

I'm certain I wasn't very clear, so I'll try again. I can't think of a rational way to legislate such an initiative. But that's my point. If adults want to marry, they should, in the eyes of the law, since law is having a say in this, be allowed to. Whose to say healthy adults can't make the decision to marry for themselves?

[wenglund]

The first step to comprehending what I and others are suggesting about the LUNCs of SSM, is to understand that we are speaking in a macro sense and not a micro sense. We are looking at societies and cultures as a whole, and not at selective individuals. Think of it as analogous to looking at a regional or national weather map as opposed to isolated readings from select weather stations.

Any questions so far?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Kind of my point. You can't legislate that.

Your point is meaningless and irrelevant to what is being suggested on this thread. Stay tuned.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I'm certain I wasn't very clear, so I'll try again. I can't think of a rational way to legislate such an initiative. But that's my point. If adults want to marry, they should, in the eyes of the law, since law is having a say in this, be allowed to. Whose to say healthy adults can't make the decision to marry for themselves?

You seem to be suggesting that laws are set up to allow people to do what they want, rather than to serve the interest of the people as a whole. It's like asking, "Whose to say that healthy adults cant make decision about how fast to drive for themselves?" This is ridiculous. Please, put a little more thought into your posts.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 30, 2013 by wenglund

[Calm]

Whose to say healthy adults can't make the decision to marry for themselves?

The ones the adults are asking money from because they've made that decision.

[wenglund]

The second thing to understand about LUNCs and SSM is that not everyone or everything has equal influence when it comes to determining the nature and direction of cultures and societies. For example, I have far less influence in the formulation of public sentiment and policies with my posts at MaDB than President Obama has when making a speech or proposing federal legislation. Think of it as analogous to the difference in effect on the weather between my SUV's emissions and the eruption of a volcano.

Are you with me so far?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 30, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

The third thing to understand about LUNCs and SSM is that we are talking about ADDITIONAL effects and not sole effects. Think of SSM as one of many straws pilled onto the cultural camel's back.

Comprehend?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

With these three important principles now in place, let's look more in-depth into the indirect/longterm LUNCs of SSM, specifically its ADDITIONAL impact on the fundamental institution of society, and thus on society as a whole.

In light of the third principle, it may prove wise to put the in-depth study into proper context by looking back to see from whence we have come culturally, which will then give us a useful perspective in determining where we may be headed as a culture. Think of it as analogous to tracking weather patterns for years or watching time-laps regional videos of cloud formations so as to forecast the weather for the next 7 days.

Sound fair?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 30, 2013 by wenglund

[stemelbow]

You seem to be suggesting that laws are set up to allow people to do what they want, rather than to serve the interest of the people as a whole. It's like asking, "Whose to say that healthy adults cant make decision about how fast to drive for themselves?" This is ridiculous. Please, put a little more thought into your posts.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I can only invest so much thought. I have other things on my mind, for one. And, my ability to think is limited by my finite-ness which differs from yours. With taht said, I'll do what I can.

I don't see how I'm suggesting laws are set up to allow people to do what they want. I'm suggesting if the law has a say in marriage, then the law should take into account the needs and desires of the constituents.

[stemelbow]

The ones the adults are asking money from because they've made that decision.

So are there any other marriages that are in essence asking money because they've made that decision?

[stemelbow]

I"m curious if anyone knows the homosexual divorce rate?

[Chaos]

This general topic seems to become contentious, uncivil, and generates too many complaints. Been there done that seems apt. Those who continually open similar topics to argue again and again are risking losing their ability to open threads at all.