Gay Marriage.

Post Reply New Topic

Nanny state, anyone?

How do you get "nanny state" from someone talking about how the government doesn't have the right to legistlate based upon religious beliefs?

Or is it that you agree and you're offering an explanation for why the government does that?

We can't let people decide for themselves what's right and wrong, because if they do that, then they'll get it wrong!

Otherwise known as a nanny state.

Like healthy eating. 'We have to ram it down people's throats 'cos they may choose not to otherwise'

I told yous what I had to say star! morality without science is weak and irrational

Gay marriage? It's not my business what two other people do or say. In fact. It is morally wrong of me to try to manipulate and change others. It is not my business and I should have no say.

In this way I am technically for gay marriage. In reality, however, I am against anti-gaymarriage. Leave the people alone, it's not your place to bother them. You aren't their parents, and you haven't got the right to boss them around. End. Of. Argument. : ]

- Mr. Wizard: Conservative Moderate Jewish Southerner

What about people with Asperger Syndrome who long to have a family but can’t find a partner? Should they be allowed to marry themselves?

What if I “long” to practise medicine but can’t pass a medical exam? Do I still have the “right”? Maybe I could say, “hey, if you don’t like it, don’t come to my surgery!”

You see, marriage is not a “right” but an institution, as is medical school. People have been indoctrinated to believe that all “discrimination” is evil, but discrimination is the basis for every social institution.

Marriage is an institution that has helped society to function for millennia. It is simply human nature for people, on the whole, to care more for their own children than for other people’s children, and children on the whole do better when raised by both parents. Marriage then binds the man and the woman – they make a commitment, and are thus granted certain rights. Gay marriage undermines the whole institution.

Incidentally, this helps explain why the far left are so in favour of gay marriage. Their raison d’etre is to destroy all the institutions and traditions of the West that they so despise.

Of course, it’s not just the West that has limited marriage to male-female unions, but probably every society you could think of.



But it is not “society” that prevents gay couples from procreating, it’s nature. Many gay rights arguments are founded on the fact that homosexuality is “natural”, but what is also natural – and statistically far more common than homosexuality – is that people care more for their own children than for other people’s children. We should not pretend that adoption is an ideal, although of course sometimes it is necessary. And when it is necessary, the set-up should be close to the socially desirable set-up, i.e., adoption by a married heterosexual couple.

Similarly, just because homosexuality is natural (in that it occurs in nature), we should not pretend it is “normal”. Look at it this way – heterosexuality could survive without homosexuality, but homosexuality couldn’t survive without heterosexuality.

With regards to gay adoption, it seems some people are prepared to see a great social experiment carried out on a generation of children just so they can feel good about themselves.

And “homophobe” is often just an ad hominem attack used to silence any dissenting views. File it with “bigot” and “racist”.

I can sympathize with this view, which might surprise anyone who's read what I've posted above. I don't think it's my business if people want to have gay sex. That doesn't mean I agree with gay marriage or with 8 year old kids being taught about gay sex.

In reality it is the liberal elite - the ones who drone on and on about "tolerance" - who love to dictate to the rest of us. In their drive to abolish "discrimination" they are destroying freedom of association. For instance, a new law has been proposed in the UK that would make it illegal for any adoption agency to refuse to have gay couples on its books.

It's typical of spoilt bohemians to think that what works for them should work for everyone else in society.

If the adoption agency takes government money it cannot deny service to anyone on grounds of race, political party or sexual orientation. If the agency is completely private then they are free to deny them.

@coderac:

The whole issue is similar to early views on children being raised by interracial couples - that it's some big evil liberal experiment and that the child will grow up confused.

Also, before you go off just calling me some "left wing beatnik" or whatever the young folks are saying nowadays (I'm libertarian, Nolan chart, and such), I would like to say that I am a guy who also likes guys, and being as such, if wanted to raise a child with my hypothetical partner some time in the future, who are you to tell us that we're unqualified just because we're both dudes? We're both nice, generous guys (well, I would assume so, because I don't think I'd never go out with some total arsewipe or do a 180 on my own personality ), so what's wrong with us, other than we don't fit the majority biological role? Adoption may not be as ideal for a child as being raised by its own parents, but is it worse than being raised by no parents?

There's no doubt that homosexuality could exist without heterosexuality, but perhaps you could think of homosexuality as sort of a "compliment" rather than an alternative - homosexuality keeps the population down, and can take care of offspring who have been abandoned.

However, I think I can see what you're saying about that UK adoption thing - affirmative action is a no-no (reverse discrimination). Otherwise, like Flagg said, private agencies can do whatever the hell they want. But please, try not to be so harsh on your opponents by using labels and such. It's kind of hurtful and stressful (but at least you didn't say "fags", so I can appreciate that much ).

If I got your statement wrong...could you dumb it down a shade for me?

Hi Peops. If we as a society are going to subject Gays to the same legal responsibilities & same taxation as straight people, they must have the same rights & privileges under the law. Whether or not some legislator's religion forbids it is not the issue. There can be no second class citizens in a democracy!A legislator's religion likely forbids lying or associating with liars too but that doesn't prevent him from working with politicians on a regular basis! Do you want Jewish politicians to outlaw club sandwiches because of the forbidden bacon? How about Muslim politicians trying to outlaw women driving?why is it 'okay' in the name of Christianity? THAT is where the slippery slope is! As far as marrying a prairie chicken or a platypus, animals cannot give consent, make vows, swear oaths, or understand the nature of marital commitment (actually, neither do a lot of people!) so that is not a realistic fear. People who are 'into' animals, the dead, inanimate objects etc., are going to do what they're going to do despite religion, politics or law. What do you care if a Gay couple marries? How does this limit your rights? What makes us straight folks think we have a right to determine all morality, law and sociology as we see fit? Look at the stats on child/spousal abuse and divorce & the question becomes 'should Gay people allow straight people to marry?' We've made a total botch job of it!

I’ve explained why I disagree with gay marriage. You are just questioning my right to voice such an opinion instead of addressing the points I made. Plus, there is a touch of emotional blackmail about your response.



I explained that – as far as I’m concerned – when adoption is necessary it should be by a married heterosexual couple, such an arrangement being as close as possible to the ideal.



What I meant was this: if there were no homosexuality, the human race would carry on. If there were no heterosexuality, there would soon be no humans, heterosexual or homosexual.
That is unless you construct a society that resembles something out of a dystopian science fiction novel, with whole generations of children bred in test tubes.



You’re right, I didn’t say “fags”. So why mention the word at all? Do you want readers to think that’s the sort of language people like me usually use?

All I did was refer to “spoilt bohemians”, by which I mean the sort of people (often influential in society) who – in addition to supporting gay marriage - support things like multiculturalism, legalising drugs and “hugging hoodies” (google it) because they are ignorant of the negative impact such things have on people who are poorer than them.

And that brings me to a broader point. I’ve given some reasons for disagreeing with gay marriage, but the broader point is this: some people are far too quick to condemn conservative opinions as bigotry without even stopping to consider that there might be some reasoning behind them, backed up by evidence from the real world – ironic for people who pride themselves on their open-mindedness.

There's nothing wrong with gay marriage. It pisses me off when people say mean things about homosexuals. Today a friend told me that if he could turn straight, he'd do it in a heartbeat. But it's not a choice. And that's fine. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH HOMOSEXUALITY

You know, I really take exception over being compared to a person who has sexual relations with animals. I find that very insulting, I consider it intensely derogatory, and it's just plain hateful.

the general population would rather a gay guy be president than an atheist...so at least you got that going for you.

I didn't know that. Would be nice having an atheist as a president in my eyes.