Homosexual Marriage

[Dirty Name]

An excellent article about the mess going on in Massachusetts with regard to birth certificates being altered to accomodate the selfish desires of homosexual couples.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...utlook/3288619

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name An excellent article about the mess going on in Massachusetts with regard to birth certificates being altered to accomodate the selfish desires of homosexual couples.

Actually, this birth certificate crap is something Mitt Romney designed to cast a negative light on gays. Most gayfolk in MA want nothing to do with it.

[Jack]

Oh fun, a new inanity to address in this thread.
That's not an article, it's an opinion piece by a columnist who doesn't even attempt to disguise his obvious bias. A bias which, amazingly, coincides with your own. This is as worthless as the christians proving god by using the bible.
If I had any doubts before, this thread has definately exhausted all its debate-worthiness now.

[Dirty Name]

I posted it for discussion, Isherwood. But there's certainly no obligation. Smell you later.

[Dirty Name]

Incidentally, I take great delight in the fact that most of my opponents get frustrated and leave the discussion. Especially since I can offer a sound response to any challenge posted by the gay rights crowd, but they cannot do the same for their own position.

Case in point:

1) Whether you agree with my position or not, I have offered a sound explanation as to why heterosexual couples have a special status in this country. You don't have to agree for those reasons to be legitimate, in fact, I'm sure most gays soundly reject my logic as surely as a pro-choice abortion advocate will not admit that a human embryo is worthy of protection, no matter how much evidence stares them in the face. It's OK. I know why you will never admit I am right. But I also know why you give up and leave this discussion when you cannot answer the challenges. You can post all the alternative excuses, personal attacks, or simple blowoffs you wish, but the one thing that would shock me beyond all else is a valid answer to the difficult questions I have posed to you.

2) I have repeatedly asked what makes a homosexual relationship substantially different from any two people desiring to form a "domestic partnership." I have not received an answer.

3) I have asked why a father and son should be prevented from forming a domestic partnership. Sexual intimacy should not be a requirement for such a partnership. Why couldn't such an entity be allowed to adopt a child and raise it? If gays can do that, why not the father/son combination. I'm not even talking about incest. I'm just talking about a lifelong commitment to one another for mutual assistance.

4) I have asked why we limit relationships to just two people. Some gay rights folks don't seem to care about the limit, others do.

5) I have suggested that the role of biological parents (naturally limited to just two opposite sex people) is the reason why marriage exists as it does. This logic has been rejected, without offering any logical alternative explanation as to why it exists the way it does (with the exception of someone saying it's a religious instistution - this despite the fact that legal recognition of marriage has been completely sanitized of religion).

So yes, I sit here at the top of this thread, having soundly trounced all comers and sent them away grumbling and mumbling about their perception of the debate-worthiness of this thread.

I may be arrogant. I may be smug. You may not like my choice of words. But the real reason you aren't having any fun is because nobody likes to lose, and it's just easier to quit.

But I'll be here in case you change your mind, ever-ready to help you understand the finer points of the case against gay marriage.

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name Incidentally, I take great delight in the fact that most of my opponents get frustrated and leave the discussion.

You have an extraordinary determination, Dirty Name. I can't say I care to match you. Over five hundred posts have been made in this debate since I joined it, and it's time for me to move on.

Of course you frustrate your opponents, Dirty Name. After you refute their case initially, you pretend they have made none at all. You ask us to admit the validity of your arguments even if we do not agree with them when you will not grant us the same favor. I refuse to deal with that double-standard any more.

[Dirty Name]

I don't ask for you to admit the validity of anything, Belverron. In fact I already said quite clearly that I knew you would never do that.

What I am asking for, quite simply, is a RESPONSE. Instead, what I get is an attack on my position where my argument is compressed or stripped of the original points in order to make it easier to invalidate.

I posed three very basic questions above, all centered around the gay demand for "equality" and asking why other such "domestic partnerships" shouldn't also be valid.

To date, the responses have been rather dismissive...

We aren't talking about polygamy, we're talking about gay marriage!

...as though polygamy couldn't possibly be considered during a debate about gay marriage. Well, that's total crap and you know it. A change in marriage laws based on the notion of "equality" is not so simple that we can just ignore other groups just because you "weren't talking about polygamy."

The fact is, that any change in the law should require a reason. Your best (only?) reason has been that gays deserve "equality." Thus, what is to prevent polygamists from demanding recognition based on the exact same reasoning? Since "love" cannot be defined legally, nor tested for by the government, and certainly not differentiated between a familial type of love and something more, ah, lustful, then on what basis do you exclude family members from forming domestic partnerships as well?

The easiest answer is to say that all forms of domestic partnerships should be legally recognized, or that no forms of domestic partnership should be legally recognized. If that is your position, then what you are truly arguing for is NOT homoexual marriage, but rather the deconstruction of "marriage" as we currently know it, and my point that in the long-run gay marriage (and other forms of marriage) would destroy heterosexual marriage is proven.

These are the difficult questions that no gay-marriage advocate seems willing to answer, and until such time that those questions are resolved, I will smugly declare victory.

[belverron]

Questions asked, answers ignored.... What's the point?

[Jack]

What I am asking for, quite simply, is a RESPONSE

Then define your terms. This is a debate forum. That means you present your opinion, then we present ours, then we commense to picking apart the other side. That's exactly what's been going on here. We refuse to acknowledge you as correct as you do us. We're not here to change minds, just present and debate opposing viewpoints.
Where it becomes boring is when the same fine points get reposted over and over again with nothing new being added to the debate. Don't flatter yourself that your superior debating style is driving us away. Rather it's the repetitive posting without any new thought that is boring us to death. We know where you stand, we know what you think. There's really nothing more for you to add, and no one new has joined the debate in quite some time. Thus, we're tired and have lost interest.

[belverron]

Isher makes me embarrassed that I've stuck around so long *blushes*

[Dirty Name]

Perhaps you could point me in the right direction. I am unaware of any response to the questions I just outlined. I'm being sincere here, the only response I've seen is the one I posted regarding the acceptance of any form of marriage.

[belverron]

Look yourself. I'm not digging through forty pages to find responses only to have you re-refute them. They were offered, whether or not you liked them.

[Dirty Name]

Then define your terms. This is a debate forum.

My terms would be that you respond to the question without attempting to recast my position first. That is all. It's quite simple, really. If you have grown bored with trying, then leave, as you said you were going to do.

[Dirty Name]

Look yourself. I'm not digging through forty pages to find responses only to have you re-refute them

That's what I thought. Let the record show that you admit your arguments were refuted. Now please bring me something new or just go away like you promised.

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name Let the record show that you admit your arguments were refuted.

Well, so were yours. Doesn't mean they don't exist, now does it?

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name I don't ask for you to admit the validity of anything, Belverron. In fact I already said quite clearly that I knew you would never do that.

You're wrong about that, by the way.

[Jack]

Let the record show

Now that's funny. We must be on the Starship Enterprise.
This isn't your thread to suggest people leave. I am indeed leaving off discussing the topic. But I feel perfectly free to return when I wish to debate particular new points you may make that I don't agree with.
I bring you nothing new. There's nothing new to bring at the moment.
So while you're busy patting yourself on the back, I've got to get to work.

[Dirty Name]

Are you still here, Isherwood? Funny, 'cause I thought you said you were leaving.

[Dirty Name]

Belverron, I admit you have not always clung blindly to your position, and I respect that. But I don't seek to change your mind. My goal is to simply sharpen my own argument, test it for flaws in logic, and find out how it holds up to the opposition. To date, I've not read any argument which represents a threat to my position, despite my continued request for someone to give me one.

To that end, I did a search on your responses to the question of polygamy. Here is the only response you have offered in the past month (according to the Volconvo Search Engine):

I would hope that decency and body chemistry would preclude most such relationships*, but, no, I do not believe it should be legislated. I have nothing against polygamy, though I doubt its practicality.

So it seems as though your position is that polygamy should also be legalized. Is this correct?

[belverron]

For clarification, the first sentence was aimed at incestual relationships. I have nothing against polygamy, no, but I do believe that is a distinct argument, albeit with some overlapping concepts. I have been trying to fit my argument into your concept of marriage to a certain extent. In truth I have come to believe, much as Prometheus does, that government should absolve itself of that responsibility altogether (or nearly).