Homosexual Marriage

[whydoumockme]

Well honestly, the thing is i am against homesexual marriage and the people themselves. I'm not gonna crucify them but try and explain to them why what their doing is morally wrong. If they don't want to listen or take anyting i want to say into consideration then i can't force them to. But whether you like it or not the gay population is only about 1% and no matter what happens when you give rights to one group of people another group loses theirs. What about taking prayer out of school? Or the bible? Or trying to remove the word "under God" in the pledge? To tell you the truth i say go ahead. America is bascially Babylon and Sadom & Gamora in one big package. The quicker they give them their right the quicker the Lord will come and destroy this place and i go live in the kingdom forver

[Son of Belial]

Wow man, that's deep. Let people go nuts so that the spook in the sky will come and inflict holy ass-kicking and make everything better.

[Walmas]

i dont understand homophobia. or mabye i do. The bible says to hate gays and people do. The reason people are scared is because gays are an anomoly. People are scared when things are different.
But gays are normal people with a different sexual orrientation. They were born with that and they cant help it. why persecute them for that? lets go after the people who break other parts of the bible like the murders and the warmakers.

[Walmas]

say that people can choose not to be gay?
animals in the wild who arent extremely complex like humans can also be gay. Thus it appears that it is something people cant control.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Dirty Name Wonderful! Thanks for sharing. But NOBODY ASKED. That's the key. The government doesn't CARE. You are the exception to the rule.

Having read your responses to my incomplete post, I see there is little point in arguing this with you. You have made up your own standards, and you are arguing from those. For you, marriage is nothing but the state's attempt to make life easier for couples who will have children; therefore, the only people who get to have "marriages" are the people who will have children. QED. This is why you keep demanding my definition of marriage, and ignoring everything I posit as a partial definition; yours starts, and stops, with procreation. Marriage to you is the environment that makes it most likely that egg will meet sperm, and a child will survive to 18 years old.
Your definition of marriage is not mine. I think your definition is sad, and so I will stick with mine. I chose not to have children, as did my wife, before we even met, because we do not want to give our lives up for our kids. We admire people who do, but we are too selfish to do this.
You are welcome to it, if that is all marriage is. Keep the tax breaks, keep the social security death benefits. I'll stick with my loving relationship with my wife -- and you probably got irritated with me for saying that, didn't you? Because you didn't ask, and you don't care? That's why this is sad.
And since your definition of marriage is not the one the governemnt recognizes, there's no point in continuing this argument with you. The government recognizes my marriage, so whether you do or not is irrelevant to me.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: whydoumockme But whether you like it or not the gay population is only about 1% and no matter what happens when you give rights to one group of people another group loses theirs. What about taking prayer out of school? Or the bible? Or trying to remove the word "under God" in the pledge? forver

So what rights would you lose if gay people could get married? What would that take away from you? Does the existence of gay people impinge on your freedom of religion?

I've never understood this, not really. I know I'm oversimplifying, but somebody, please explain to me why we care about this at all? Why we have laws about this at all? What's the debate? Everyone should have the same rights, or we should all have the same freedom from government restriction; why is this hard for people to understand, in this situation, with something that so clearly doesn't have an impact on anyone but those involved? I just don't get it.

[italiangm]

Quote by: whydoumockme But whether you like it or not the gay population is only about 1%

I don't like it because it's not true. In the US, homosexuals are somewhere between 4 and 6 percent of the population. That's 12 to 16 million people.

Quote by: whydoumockme and no matter what happens when you give rights to one group of people another group loses theirs.

Not in the case of same sex marriage. Rights get granted. No one loses.

Quote by: whydoumockme What about taking prayer out of school? Or the bible? Or trying to remove the word "under God" in the pledge? To tell you the truth i say go ahead. America is bascially Babylon and Sadom & Gamora in one big package. The quicker they give them their right the quicker the Lord will come and destroy this place and i go live in the kingdom forver

Yawn.

[Dirty Name]

Ah, yes... I finally found what I was looking for. And I had to go all the way back to page 88 to get it. For the record, italiangm joined this debate around page 81, and I joined around page 82...

The two of us exchange a few ideas, and then, on page 88, after I finally clarified italiangm's ridiculous position, I point out what I believe to be the major flaw:

And yet, can a gay couple experience pregnancy within the relationship? NO. But a heterosexual couple certainly can. And pregnancy typically leads to some significant life changes, such as quitting a career, for example. Pregancy does not always result in a child, but it certainly has a profuound impact on the couple. So how can you continue to claim that a gay couple is the legal equivalent of a heterosexual couple? It's ridiculous to assert that the two should be treated equally.

And here, for the first time, we see italiangm's canned response:

Repeating the same mantra over and over again without any new support for your opinion doesn't further this debate. Each of your claims has been countered repeatedly and successfully, whether you agree or not. If I see something worth debating, I'll jump right in and advise my worldview on the issue. Otherwise, my participation ends with an agreement to disagree.

So it would seem that italiangm is in the habit of claiming victory when in fact no substantive response has ever been provided.

Here's the link directly to the post in question:

Homosexual Marriage

[italiangm]

And yet we continue to disagree because the basis of your argument is flawed. Quelle surprise. LOL! :)

[intel295]

I think they should be allowed to have relationships, live together, etc. but marrage legal documents are not given, and I don't think it is proper for gay couples to adopt children, just for the adopted child's sake. You need to understand that child will face many MANY social problems when in school, when friends find out that your parents are actually gay.

[italiangm]

Society's prejudice is to blame for the problems kids with gay parents experience. Teach yourselves and your children not to hate and the problem will disappear.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: intel295 I think they should be allowed to have relationships, live together, etc. but marrage legal documents are not given, and I don't think it is proper for gay couples to adopt children, just for the adopted child's sake. You need to understand that child will face many MANY social problems when in school, when friends find out that your parents are actually gay.

That's not true. The social problems will be no worse than kids face when other kids find out their parents are:
*dead
*in jail
*hooked on drugs
*alcoholics
*abusive
*stupid
*ugly
*short
*fat
*poor
*old

And so on. Kids pick on other kids. they use their families as things to make fun of. Having gay parents would make little difference -- though it might teach the child some tolerance, which sounds like it is sorely needed.

[Dirty Name]

The bible says to hate gays and people do.

No, the Bible doesn't say that. It condemns the act, not the person commiting the act. And it's this sort of half-assed stuff that gives real Christians a bad name.

[Dirty Name]

Teach yourselves and your children not to hate and the problem will disappear.

That particular problem.

[Dirty Name]

it might teach the child some tolerance, which sounds like it is sorely needed.

Sure. People always want a little more "tolerance." Until one day, there is nothing left to be intolerant of except intolerance itself.

[Dirty Name]

And yet we continue to disagree because the basis of your argument is flawed.

Sadly, you have never pointed out the basis of my flawed argument. Even if you tried, you surely haven't pointed to the post where you attempted to do so. That's all I'm really asking here. This is a discussion forum. You are claiming I have been debunked. I don't recall any of your posts that have even tried to explain to me why same-sex couples should be considered literally equal to opposite sex couples due to the obvious potential of the latter to experience pregnancy and childbirth - within the relationship.

Regardless of same-sex couples ability to acquire a child, such a thing does not happen within their relationship.

You can claim it's all irrelevant if you wish, but we have a disconnect here and I'm asking you to make an effort instead of flippantly claiming my position is flawed.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Dirty Name Sure. People always want a little more "tolerance." Until one day, there is nothing left to be intolerant of except intolerance itself.

This sort of meaningless tautology is about all that keeps this pointless thread alive. If I were you, I wouldn't worry about running out of intolerance. Your supply appears both rich and deep.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name Sadly, you have never pointed out the basis of my flawed argument.

What's laughable is that you refuse to acknowledge said refutation.

Quote by: Dirty Name I don't recall any of your posts that have even tried to explain to me why same-sex couples should be considered literally equal to opposite sex couples due to the obvious potential of the latter to experience pregnancy and childbirth - within the relationship.

How convenient for you. Let me summarize:

[1] This country's founding documents reflect no need to engage in your wholly ridiculous need to prove potential or equality.

[2] Every act of law that attempts to codify your silly philosophy runs completely counter to the concepts of personal liberty and equality this country was founded on. Such laws impose restrictions without compelling interest.

[3] The fact that such laws exist doesn't make them any less wrongheaded and worthy of elimination. The fact that you claim that marriage benefits are effective is entirely laughable in view of a 50% divorce rate and the number of kids receiving welfare.

Quote by: Dirty Name Regardless of same-sex couples ability to acquire a child, such a thing does not happen within their relationship.

Again, you attempt to hijack the debate by magically claiming government interest in an area where none exists.

I won't argue against existing tax credits that encourage child support, but only to parents who've produced children. Not before. Your assertion that opposite sex married couples deserve benefits based on the potential for giving birth is a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money bordering on criminal and should cease immediately.

Quote by: Dirty Name You can claim it's all irrelevant if you wish, but we have a disconnect here and I'm asking you to make an effort instead of flippantly claiming my position is flawed.

There. It's done. Better bookmark it. I won't repeat it again.

And furthermore, if you unprovokedly disparage another poster's remarks with your smarmy, immature chest thumping, I'll call you on it. Expect more flippancy. It's what you deserve.

Have a nice day. :)

[Dirty Name]

Having read your responses to my incomplete post, I see there is little point in arguing this with you. You have made up your own standards, and you are arguing from those. For you, marriage is nothing but the state's attempt to make life easier for couples who will have children; therefore, the only people who get to have "marriages" are the people who will have children. QED. This is why you keep demanding my definition of marriage, and ignoring everything I posit as a partial definition; yours starts, and stops, with procreation. Marriage to you is the environment that makes it most likely that egg will meet sperm, and a child will survive to 18 years old. Your definition of marriage is not mine. I think your definition is sad, and so I will stick with mine. I chose not to have children, as did my wife, before we even met, because we do not want to give our lives up for our kids. We admire people who do, but we are too selfish to do this. You are welcome to it, if that is all marriage is. Keep the tax breaks, keep the social security death benefits. I'll stick with my loving relationship with my wife -- and you probably got irritated with me for saying that, didn't you? Because you didn't ask, and you don't care? That's why this is sad. And since your definition of marriage is not the one the governemnt recognizes, there's no point in continuing this argument with you. The government recognizes my marriage, so whether you do or not is irrelevant to me.

So utterly clueless. I don't mean to be rude, but you continue demonstrate that you don't seem to get it.

For starters, your marriage is fine. I believe if you go back and read the last few pages, you will see that I have said so as many as 10 or more times. I'm stunned you still cling to the notion that I believe your marriage doesn't count.

Further, you still fail to make the distinction between marriage between two people and the legal recognition bestowed on two people who wish to be joined in that way. After all, would it prevent you from living and loving your wife if the government didn't recognize your marriage? I bring this up to clarify my statements that the government doesn't care about "love." Of course most successful marriages are based on just that. But the state doesn't have any way to measure, define or enforce any standard of love. If two people come forward and present themselves for marriage, the government looks only at biological potential.

You can believe all day in your heart that this is not the motivation behind the legal recognitions of marriage. But a quick look the context and history of the institution will confirm my claims. Sure, it's not explicitly stated that way in the law, because back in the good old days, it was just obvious. People got married and they had children. That's the way society survived.

I'll finish this post later. My loving wife is on my case about cleaning up a mess before some guests come over.

Your claims that my views are sad are simply out of order. You haven't a clue about me and my wife and family.

[M.M.Knox]

If two people come forward and present themselves for marriage, the government looks only at biological potential.

I disagree.

Marriage does not aid or supplement in any way the actual creation of children, but the health and care of children.

Thusly, I feel that your position would be better suited that the state only allow only couples who have children, biological or otherwise, to get married, and that upon the disappearance of their offspring, at the point in your reasoning when marriage no longer serves any purpose, marriages should be legally dissolved.

In this scenario, couples having 'biological potential' can't take advantage of the marriage system. Also, the incentive to concieve or adopt a child is increased, as the emphasis of marriage is now placed purely on attaining children.

The state gets more members and everyone is happy, except for the infertile or child-disliking couples who get tottally fucked don't recieve all that legal bullshit that had nothing to do with marriage in the first place, right?