Homosexual Marriage

[Logjam]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Now it's my turn to disagree with you, beleverron. I consider anti-discrimination laws a violation of our liberty.

Do you mean that we should have a right to discriminate? Of course we should be able to discriminate. We have a right to select people for whatever we want to. Except when it comes to certain things. We cannot discriminate when it comes to sex, religion, sexual orientation....aren't there some other things?

One can argue that we should have a right to discriminate when ever we want to. It used to be that way. I can see how one can argue that point of view.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Logjam We cannot discriminate when it comes to sex, religion, sexual orientation....aren't there some other things?

It's illegal to discriminate based on these things, if that's what you mean.
And I think it's wrong. If I don't want to hire a black person, that's my business.

[Dirty Name]

I generally agree. Calling someone a bigot is not productive. But can someone call someone a pervert if they are indeed perverts. It can be a discripter, can't it?

What's most amusing about this particular line of discussion is that NO ONE called ANYONE a bigot or homophobe. I was just warning a fellow conservative that it might happen.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Dirty Name What's most amusing about this particular line of discussion is that NO ONE called ANYONE a bigot or homophobe. I was just warning a fellow conservative that it might happen.

OK, you are a bigot. Feel better?

Just trying to help.

[Athena]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman It's illegal to discriminate based on these things, if that's what you mean. And I think it's wrong. If I don't want to hire a black person, that's my business.

Not any more. If it can be proven you have discriminated against someone, you can be sued. This is true if you are hiring people or rent housing.

[italiangm]

Since a few outspoken folks are certain that gay marriage will trigger the collapse of society, I have a suggestion. Let a couple more states approve gay marriage, then agree to monitor the results for a period of time.

By monitor results, I mean agree on a set of secular attributes that define the areas of concern related specifically to the gay marriage issue, then measure them. The period of observation should be reasonable, let's say 5-10 years.

By the end of the observation period, there should be enough data collected to help citizens understand the impact of gay marriage, if any.

[Dirty Name]

Since a few outspoken folks are certain that gay marriage will trigger the collapse of society, I have a suggestion. Let a couple more states approve gay marriage, then agree to monitor the results for a period of time. By monitor results, I mean agree on a set of secular attributes that define the areas of concern related specifically to the gay marriage issue, then measure them. The period of observation should be reasonable, let's say 5-10 years. By the end of the observation period, there should be enough data collected to help citizens understand the impact of gay marriage, if any.

A noble suggestion, but that can't really tell us the impact on societal attitudes across the entire country. Instead, we need only to observe Scandanavia for another generation. Can you live without married filing jointly status until then?

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name A noble suggestion, but that can't really tell us the impact on societal attitudes across the entire country. Instead, we need only to observe Scandanavia for another generation. Can you live without married filing jointly status until then?

No. Ten years max. That should be enough to figure out the mechanics and do the projections.

[Morgan_Freeman]

.... still waiting for you to answer my posts, Dirty Name.

[mr.perfecto]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...2/939pxiqa.asp

[italiangm]

http://www.eugenemirman.com/showandtell.html

[mr.perfecto]

Notice how the man who answered the call switched to calling it gay marriage instead of same-sex marriage?

[Livemike]

Quote by: Logjam Do you mean that we should have a right to discriminate? Of course we should be able to discriminate. We have a right to select people for whatever we want to. Except when it comes to certain things. We cannot discriminate when it comes to sex, religion, sexual orientation....aren't there some other things? One can argue that we should have a right to discriminate when ever we want to. It used to be that way. I can see how one can argue that point of view.

Discrimination is making a choice based on criterion. Now if the choice is one that
legally or morally you have no right to make, e.g. who should live in a house you
don't own and don't rent, whether someone else should eat meat or become
vegatarian, there's no problem with the criterion you use to choose. Whatever
criterion you use is invalid because it's not the criterion of the one who wants to
make the choice. If you are making a choice you do have the right to make then
again, what criterion you use is irrelevent to whether you should be allowed to
make it. You are by virtue of whatever allowed you to make the choice in the
first place. Whether that criterion involves sex, religion or religious orientation
is nobody else's business. If it was then you'd have no choices at all because
any choice could be overruled.

[Dirty Name]

Notice how the man who answered the call switched to calling it gay marriage instead of same-sex marriage?

Only because you pointed it out...

[mr.perfecto]

http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn_353/p...nforcegay.html

[belverron]

Quote by: The Real Reason Americans Are Opposed to Gay Marriage 1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning. 2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall. 3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. 4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal. 5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed. 6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children. 7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children. 8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America. 9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children. 10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

What do you think?

[Dirty Name]

I think I could come up with 10 "real reasons" gays want to be married, giving 10 totally made-up, nonsensical "reasons" in a similar effort at lame humor, but, like your list, such things are only funny to folks on the lunatic fringe who don't have a grasp on the facts.

[Jack]

What do you think?

Not caring what it might indicate to DN, I thought it was good satire.

[Protostar]

What does everyone think of this? How about we get the government out of marriage altogehter? Why recognize anyone's marriage? I never intend to get married, so my partner and I will not be able to reap the benefits that the government offers married folks. Will that make our relationship worth any less than married folks? No, so why should they get perks and not everyone? I don't feel the government should be involved in marriage on any level, federal, state, or local.

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: Definition of "satire" Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.

Since the real, underlying reasons for opposing gay marriage were misrepresented in Belverron's post, it doesn't really qualify as "satire."

If the real arguments were used, well, then you might have something funny.