Gay Marriage.

Post Reply New Topic

You know, you really shouldn't tempt fate, old chap. I've been meaning to summon the energy to wade through your barely-comprehensible litany of ad hominem argument, but I'm afraid amusing as I find you, I really haven't, up to this point, been able to find the strength. As for reflection, that's fine, but try not to mix it up with delusion. Is that clear?

Anyway, I've just taken a look at your last two masterpieces of reasoned argument that you directed at codarac. Do you think you might be able to consider addressing either the point he made in the post of his you quoted, or the general point being discussed? I know that's a tall order, but lots of us do manage to do just that.

i said people...not necessarily just you.


and please point out which issue i didn't address.

Yes, science can do many things, and I do now recall the lesbian thing you mention. However, most people would consider that ethically dubious. It's certainly not the default position: man and woman copulating and producing offspring. And I'd suggest that most married heterosexual couples do have children.


Marriage is universally symbolic; the definition is very clear, people know what it means and it doesn't involve gay couples. As for homosexuality being natural, I agree, although something being natural does not equate with it being good for society. And why are you so sure that gay marriage does no harm to society? Aren't you forcing heterosexual couples to have their relationships constrained by the same laws that gay couples do? Aren't you forcing heterosexuals with very different priorities (raising their own children) to have to bend to the whims of the gay lobby? Isn't it the thin end of the wedge in that once we're forced to accept gay marriage, we're forced to accept kids being adopted by gay couples? Why can't you make do with a civil partnership arrangement? Why do you have to hijack something that means a great deal to other people just to score political points?

You quoted my post. Clearly it was aimed partly at me. As for your last sentence, in the two posts I referred to I can't find a relevant point you did address!

Tip of the day: stick to the point, avoid words like BS, moron, nazis and Hitler. You may, then, have a fighting chance.

Don't hold your breath, anyone...

and this post is clearly a distraction. it doesn't call attention to the points of the mass of my post but rather certain words and takes them out of the context of what i've said.

and: quit using moronic nazi BS arguments and i'll stop using those descriptors. it's pretty simple. you argue tradition and family values but both are myths and nothing more than what's happened in the past or, in essense, BS. hitler used the image of germany's former greatness, family values, and tradition as major points when he was trying to get power and convincing others to follow him. and to distract from the debate by focusing on semantics and arguing that the word discrimination is biased against or arguing that because i refuse to change my diction then you won't engage me is the acts of an 8 year old...by goddard's scale....the act of a moron.


and no, i don't expect a real response at this point because you've already proven that you don't want to actually engage but rather avoid.

a response where i don't use the word or derivatives of the words moron, BS, or nazi. ascan doesn't bother responding and just cites other posts where i did.

Allowing gay marriage has absolutely zero impact on straight marriages. Straight marriage and the nature thereof does not change in any way by allowing same-sex marriage. If you are going to claim otherwise, you're going to have to back it up.



You say that like it's a bad thing.



Why should gay people be forced to take something less just because others don't want them to have it? Back in the day, it was called "separate but equal". It was wrong then, it's wrong now.

It's common sense, Xenon. Once you allow gay marriage you obviously then have gays as stakeholders in marriage. As has been described previously, generally speaking, gay couples and heterosexual couples have different priorities; the two relationships are different. So, you'll end up with a politically-active gay lobby then shaping marriage to suit its own selfish ends.


It's not a good thing. Kids aren't fashion accessories gay couples should be able to acquire to complete their delusion.


And why should others be forced to change the definition of something they attach importance to, just to please a selfish minority? Like I said, call it what you want, but not marriage. Marriage is specifically for heterosexual couples. The definition is very clear, and has been so for hundreds of years.

Oh, going back to what I said earlier, do you feel the urge to walk into the female toilets to take a piss just because society chooses to make a distinction between males and females, and so discriminates against men using certain facilities? There again, maybe in crazy Canada you don't have sex-specific toilet facilities. But can you see the point I'm making? There are toilets for men, and toilets for women. These arrangements reflect our individual anatomical configuration, as well as less tangible social conventions. Should be the same with partnerships: marriage for heterosexuals, and then some additional arrangement for gay and other couples. That doesn't have to imply one arrangement is inferior to the other, only that each arrangement suits different circumstances.

Do you want a prize?

How do you know that gay couples and straight couples have different priorities? What do you know about another person's relationship? Nothing.
And gay couples don't want kids as some kind of fashion accesory. Do you really think that, if that was all it was about, they would be going through the whole adoption process etc JUST for a 'fashion accessory?' I've seen plenty of examples of straight couples using kids this way as well...

In a UK context, I know that most children will be raised by heterosexual couples. This isn't going to change as it normally takes a man and a woman to have a child, and that is a fundamental biologically driven part of most male/female relationships. Moreover, I know that there's plenty of evidence to suggest that the best way for children to be raised is by their own parents in a stable family environment; marriage is an arrangement that contributes to that. Therefore, it's not too difficult to conclude that the priorities of gay couples are likely to be somewhat different to those of heterosexual couples, and the two types of relationship should be treated separately.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World

Followed by:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borg_(Star_Trek)

Is TM1's solution to raising kids.

No.
Not all heterosexual couples have kids.
Some gay couples do have kids.
How does the sex of the people involved make that much difference?

That makes no sense whatsoever. Heterosexual couples will outnumber gay couples by at least 1000 to 1. (Probably more like 100,000 to 1.) Straight marriage will be unaffected. You claim otherwise, give me some specific examples of how.



So, gays are deluded, and are so shallow that children would be nothing more than a fashion accessory to them. Thank you for saying that out loud. Now we know where you *really* stand. You oppose gay marriage because you're anti-gay. It's that simple. And your statements make that perfectly clear.



In other words, "Separate But Equal". This is the 21st century. It's really sad to see hatred and bigotry still alive in this world.



The toilet argument is so absurdly irrelevant that it boggles the mind. We're talking apples and oranges here.

So what? Nearly all kids are conceived as part of a heterosexual relationship that involves a man copulating with a woman. No kids whatsoever are conceived by two people of the same sex performing a sex act together. Producing offspring is the fundamental biological reason why we enter into relationships that involve sex. Given the importance of reproduction to the survival of the species, then that makes a clear distinction between the two types of relationship.