Gay Marriage.

Post Reply New Topic

You weren't.

You know, I sort of don't like getting too involved in these sorts of discussions. I don't want to upset people.
My views on this subject aren't as strong as perhaps my posts make out.
And, in case anyone's wondering, I don't carry a Bible with me wherever I go.

I would just expect, at least, to see more acknowledgement on this thread of what a revolutionary idea gay marriage is. It's not just like raising and/or cutting the tax rate or something.

Come to the US sometime, Codarac. Liberals are treated literally like vermin here. You'd love it.

No, you don't. I'm a loud-mouthed schmuck, and I sometimes forget to think about the feelings of others when I am adressing an issue. I'm cantankerous, pedantic, arrogant and obnoxious. If you wished to make a sitcom portraying a seriously negatively stereotyped atheist, just have a crew follow me around all day with recording equipment. However, I suggest that you seriously contemplate what I have to say. I spend a great deal of time thinking these issues through, and I'm very skilled at lending new and interesting perspectives on them. Even if you do not always agree with what I have to say, I do make some very strong points.

to yourself.

without bringing in religion (gay marriage can't be forced on churches...the first amendment protects the churches like that).

without implying that homosexuals are child molesters (it's statistically and in real life practice entirely untrue and heterosexual males are more likely to be child molesters).


give me a real reason why gay marriage shouldn't be legal and yet straight marriage should be legal.


and you can't just say you believe that a familiy is a man and a woman because what you believe doesn't matter. reason why i say this...people believed 50 years ago that a black and a white person shouldn't get married...that interracial dating and marriage was unnatural and was not the natural family. now, we just know it's racist garbage. same goes with the whole family is a man and a woman thing...it's homophobic garbage by people who have no reason other than their personal fears and bigotry.

i'm let down that you'd think that about women........but then again, i bet that 10% who said they wouldn't vote a woman in as president were mostly females.

Sorry, sorry. It's what I think.

it's a bad habbit with women to be catty with each other and competative and look to tear each other down. ya shouldn't do that!!


but then again, if you're just saying you wouldn't vote for hillary clinton, i agree...i would never vote for that worthless human being either.

Haha! I'd like women more if they weren't so mean like me.

you're mean? damn...had me fooled for a second. the truth always comes out!!

Yeah, I say too much.

I'm not against same-sex marriages. I'll do my best to keep this post as logical and ad-hominem free as possible.

I don't think I really need to explain how this is a flawed and irrelevant argument. But I guess I will briefly anyway. First of all the concept of a person marrying his or herself is just ludicrous. Secondly, a person lacking the social skill to form a relationship with someone is a far cry from the topic at hand. We're talking about what certain people are or aren't -allowed- to do.


Similar thing here. The risk of a poor surgeon killing a patient is utterly different from the risk of someone not liking that two people of the same sex are getting married.


But -how- does it undermine the whole institution? How does it harm your alternate-sex marriage that two streets down there's a same-sex married couple?


This is just plain untrue. Adding HDTV technology didn't destroy tradition of television. Regular ass TV is still alive and well. This is just the classic example of a conservative being threatened by change. Do you understand how it's possible (and not all that unreasonable) for me to A) agree that the institution of marriage works and has worked, and B) believe it could use expansion, both at the same time? Liberals do not want to destroy these institutions; They want to refine them.

I'll explain this point with a made up, but realistic story:
One day, Frank was making his favorite, long standing recipe of blackberry cobbler. His roommate Steve walked into the kitchen and saw Frank putting the tasty dessert together.
"You know, we have blueberries in the fridge that are gonna go bad soon, if you wanna make it a bit of a berry medley," said Steve.
Frank snapped back, "I'll have you know I've been making this dish for decades. It's a recipe that was handed down by my grandmother, and her mother before that. It's not broke, so why fix it?"
"Who said anything about it being broke?" replied Steve, "I'm sure it's a wonderful recipe. I'm just saying these blueberries aren't being put to their potential, and could possibly make a nice addition."
After a bit of persuasion, Frank decided to put the blueberries into his cobbler. And it turned out to be quite delicious.


So?


The Wonk didn't say that society prevents same sex couples from procreating. He said that society makes it harder for homosexuals to live openly as their real selves.


While adoption isn't the ideal for just any child, it -is- the ideal for an orphan, in that it is the only alternative for them besides an orphanage, which does not provide the same type of care on an individual level that parents (well, legal parents) can.

And the whole thing you keep on saying about people caring more about their own children, I think really is more an argument about adoption in general, and not about homosexuality. So if you want to take a swing at adoption itself, be my guest, but I don't see why anyone would want to.


Why think so divisively and binarily? Think of it this way instead: Heterosexuality and homosexuality can both exist -with- each other--and do.


You seem to be very cynical and skeptical about the intentions of liberals. True, we don't have nearly as big a base of circumstantial evidence on the result of children being brought up by same-sex couples as it'd be helpful to, but what evidence there is shows little to no reason to believe that same-sex couples raise bad children. Here's a citation: http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cg ... ;109/2/341

There are real differences, generally speaking, between men and women. But those differences are exaggerated and divided perhaps two-fold by gender roles and circularity.

As far as legal benefits go.. people always seem to focus on the tax breaks thing. And while that is an important part to note, it's just the tip of the iceberg. There are literally over a thousand federal laws that treat married people differently from unmarried people. There's family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital. There's joint adoption and foster care, lots of little things that help solidify and stabilize the union, and to help with any raising of children that may or may not take place, etc.

But you know, a huge chunk of people in love, getting married, probably don't know the half of what a marriage legally entails. What they do know, is that they get to celebrate the onset of their (hopefully) lifelong union in the company of family and friends, they get to sign some paperwork that magically makes them part of the same legal family, everyone eats cake, and the most romantic evening of their lives ensues.

It's easy to look for and find all the ways of logically describing why you think it same sex marriages shouldn't be allowed, if you have no personal connection or empathy for a homosexual perspective on it. But the truth is, these innocent people who want to get married to their loved one feel excluded, tossed in the gutter. They are forbidden to get genuinely married like their straight friends (or foes), and can only watch as the others cruise away in bliss with the words 'just married' displayed.

Of course they can still have unmarried, committed relationships, but something as simple as being 70, and not being allowed into the hospital room to see your dying partner, can be like a knife through your heart.

All because the rest of the world thought that being able to reproduce should be required for marriage (yet turned a blind eye to the infertile straight couples whom that kind of thinking should have applied to as well).

Not all are. I'm certain that we're getting a woman president fairly soon.

Well, if it is going to happen, it will be a while before a lot of people can come to terms with it.

And just so you know, even though I'm arguing for gay marriage, I don't actually believe in marriage . I just think that everyone has the right to the same privileges, even if it means having to go with this flawed system instated by the government.

I think that many people are still hung up on the notion of viewing homosexuality as a social impropriety, rather than a virtually irreversible aspect of a person. I think that people are just taking a while to process the idea that the social niceties regarding this are an injustice to those who are gay or lesbian. When those who are gay and lesbian demand that society discard this social nicety, some members of that society feel that all of their social niceties and traditions are under attack, and they become defensive. It's hard in the first place to get them to understand that all that is in progress is the correction of an injustice. It is made more difficult when immoral politicians decide to exploit it to their own ends.

What is immoral? Avarice.

What is immoral? Cruelty.

What is immoral? Unconcern.

What is immoral? Dishonesty.

What is immoral? Hubris.

What is immoral? Defraudment.

What is immoral? Wastefulness.

These are the root of evil, not social taboo.

it also doesn't help that it's seen as an immoral act of choice rather than something natural.



viewed as the choice to sin and perform homosexual acts.


but that goes back to one of those jewish competitive sins. similar to "thou shall have no gods before me." many rival religions at the time saw homosexuality as a sacred act. so...one of the best ways to go against it? discourage homosexuality. it's also a great way to get your followers to breed more kids who'll follow you.....force 'em to have straight sex and brainwash them into thinking it's a choice.


competitive sins have ruined the world and turned society into the hateful place it is today (see: islamic and christian fundamentalists for further review of the term "hateful").