Gay marriage hate ad - wow really?

Discussion in 'Politics and News' started by gothamhunter, Nov 4, 2012.

  1. Retro Rob

    Retro Rob Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    7,611
    Likes Received:
    0
    I take the position similarly to, like... child abuse for instance. I mean, nowadays it can be interpreted or is "redefined" as a light spanking for crying out loud and kids can actually call the freaking police on their parents.

    ???

    With marriage, I take more of a historical view, but not that it's better. But it's has worked!

    The definition of marriage has never changed, but the interpretation to amend it has. Traditionally, it only included those of the opposite sex, that hasn't changed. People have simply added to it to include same sex persons.
     
  2. zinfamous

    zinfamous No Lifer

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2006
    Messages:
    74,430
    Likes Received:
    174
    dude.








    can I be in your Super PAC?
     
  3. nehalem256

    nehalem256 Lifer

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    Messages:
    15,670
    Likes Received:
    1
    So you are admitting you are redefining marriage. That at least is a start.

    Well the only argument for it is that straight people can.

    You are the one advocating for change. It is on you to prove that change should happen.

    I find it funny that liberals use tax advantages as a reason to allow gay marriage :p

    Visitation rights has to be about the most BS reason. Hey lets redefine marriage so they can visit in the hospital. Its not like we could not come up with any other solution :\

    IRAs and 401K allow you to name a beneficiary. As does life insurance.

    Sorry, but providing health insurance for your AIDS ridden partner is not a good reason.

    Heterosexual couples can pro-create. Homosexual ones cannot. Fundamental difference.
     
  4. Atomic Playboy

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    16,439
    Likes Received:
    0
    For a million dollars or a case of beer, you can run it.
     
  5. Atomic Playboy

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    16,439
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pro-creation is not required for a federally recognized marriage. If you are going to disallow gays the opportunity to have access to marriage, your argument can't hinge on something that heterosexual marriages are not required to do.
     
  6. Cerpin Taxt

    Cerpin Taxt Lifer

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    11,314
    Likes Received:
    6
    False. The argument is that prohibiting women from marrying women is to deny women the rights that men enjoy, in violation of the equality guaranteed to everyone in the 14th Amendment.

    If one believes in the the equality of liberty, then they are in favor of same-sex marriage. Anyone who claims to be in favor of the former but against the latter is a liar.
     
  7. Cerpin Taxt

    Cerpin Taxt Lifer

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    11,314
    Likes Received:
    6
    In dubio pro libertate, you authoritarian moron. Rights are not granted -- they are inherent and subsequently limited in order to protect the rights of everyone equally. If you cannot supply a compelling reason to deny a person a right (particularly, evidence that it violates the rights of another person), then the right is theirs to enjoy. That's how freedom works.

    Why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate America?
     
  8. sandorski

    sandorski No Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 1999
    Messages:
    61,168
    Likes Received:
    18
    Perhaps we should just change the idea of Same Sex Marriage? How about we only Marry the same sex that we prefer??

    Same Sex Marriage, better than Unpreferred Sex Marriage
     
  9. zinfamous

    zinfamous No Lifer

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2006
    Messages:
    74,430
    Likes Received:
    174
    well, not only that, but if infertile opposite sex couples can, today, procreate due to the wonders of science and medicine, and this is "a beautiful thing that these things are possible" according to all christians and anyone that gives a dick about such things....then it is intellectually dishonest to make such an argument against same-sex couple when they can, in fact, procreate under the exact same circumstances that allow such wonders for heterosexual couples.
     
  10. shadow9d9

    shadow9d9 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2004
    Messages:
    8,133
    Likes Received:
    1
    1. Obama was never "ANTI-gay."

    2. Sometimes you need to take a conservative stance in order to win an election of a country filled with mouth breathers like you... I always laughed when he said he "position" in 2008. Funny that people like you believed it.
     
  11. DCal430

    DCal430 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Messages:
    5,961
    Likes Received:
    0
    How can these people be full of so much. Sad really.
     
  12. nehalem256

    nehalem256 Lifer

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    Messages:
    15,670
    Likes Received:
    1


    So a fancy way of saying "Because straight people can"

    Marriage is something created and granted by society. You have clearly shown that marriage cannot be a right. And by not creating same-sex marriage no one can have their rights violated.

    EDIT: Or perhaps you clear to explain how someone has an inherent right to others recognizing their relationship?
     
    #112 nehalem256, Nov 6, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2012
  13. nehalem256

    nehalem256 Lifer

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    Messages:
    15,670
    Likes Received:
    1
    Pro-creation is the reason marriage exists in the first place.
     
  14. shira

    shira Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    9,558
    Likes Received:
    1
    Even if this were true, it's clearly not the reason that many, many people actually marry in 2012 America. Two 75-year-olds don't marry to have babies, and couldn't have a baby even if they wanted to. If the law allows people to marry who have zero possibility of reproducing, your argument is null and void.

    Not to mention that MANY gay couples do have babies. I have a lesbian first cousin; she and her partner got a sperm donation from a friend, and her partner administered it using a turkey baster. My niece (or is she my first cousin once removed?) is now 21 and just finishing college.

    Arguments like yours are just rationalizations for bigotry.
     
  15. classy

    classy Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 1999
    Messages:
    15,218
    Likes Received:
    1
    lol

    Neither can two women, without the help of a man.
     
  16. nehalem256

    nehalem256 Lifer

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    Messages:
    15,670
    Likes Received:
    1
    How is the law suppose to determine every couple that has zero chance of reproducing?
     
  17. Atomic Playboy

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    16,439
    Likes Received:
    0
    Which includes lesbians who can use sperm donors and in vitro fertilization and gay men who can use surrogates, not to mention either could adopt. But you seem content to say that it is absolutely impossible for gays to have children but we have no way of knowing whether straight couples can or not, which is demonstrably false.
     
  18. zinfamous

    zinfamous No Lifer

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2006
    Messages:
    74,430
    Likes Received:
    174
    lolhorseshit. marriage exists as a means to foster fortunes, maintain wealth, bridge peace and such between nations. It was only ever conceived as an exchange of property (The woman) to bring two often warring families and/or nations/tribes together.

    no one has ever needed to be married to procreate.
     
  19. nehalem256

    nehalem256 Lifer

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    Messages:
    15,670
    Likes Received:
    1
    A man and a man cannot pro-create.

    A woman and a woman cannot pro-create.

    Technically I could get a surrogate and pro-create by myself. But that does not mean I should be allowed to marry myself.

    So you concede that a woman is necessary for marriage.

    EDIT: And why was the woman considered a value piece of property?
     
    #119 nehalem256, Nov 6, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2012
  20. Atomic Playboy

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    16,439
    Likes Received:
    0
    A man and man can pro-create through the use of a surrogate. A woman and a woman can pro-create through the use of a sperm donor. They are just as able to pro-create as a man who has had a vasectomy marrying a woman who has had a hysterectomy or is menopausal or both are sterile for any other reason. You have not been able to sufficiently explain why sterile heterosexual couples should have the right to marry but not homosexual couples who intend to have children. You fall back on procreation as though it is the end-all, be-all, but it isn't; marriage does not require procreation (at least in this country). If your only argument against gay marriage boils down to "they can't do something that is not required," well, that's a stupid argument.

    As for marrying yourself, no, you can't, but that's because you aren't two distinct people. What's the point of entering into a contract between two people if you're the only signatory? Are you looking for tax benefits, visitation rights, next-of-kin delineation? All of that stuff would still just be "you." Congratulations, you've married yourself, literally nothing has changed because that's not how that contract is structured. Two people who want to establish next-of-kin delineation and other rights afforded by marriage have a legitimate interest in access to those rights; it's not comparable to one person babbling like a buffoon saying "I WANT TO MARRY MYSELF SO I CAN FILE JOINTLY."
     
  21. nehalem256

    nehalem256 Lifer

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    Messages:
    15,670
    Likes Received:
    1
    2 men cannot pro-create though the use of a surrogate. One of the men can pro-create with the surrogate.

    2 woman cannot pro-create with a sperm donor. One of the woman can pro-create with the sperm donor.
     
  22. Atomic Playboy

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    16,439
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's true of heterosexual couples as well if the woman is unable to produce viable eggs or the man is unable to produce potent sperm, so that's a wash in terms of the "marriage is for procreation" argument.
     
  23. RightIsWrong

    RightIsWrong Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2005
    Messages:
    5,650
    Likes Received:
    0
    No it isn't.

    The securing of property rights are the reason that marriage was created in the first place.
     
  24. shira

    shira Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    9,558
    Likes Received:
    1
    This is your justification of marriage, not mine. I think you would agree that two 75-year-olds cannot reproduce; are you saying that since the state knows for certain in this scenario that the prospective newlyweds cannot possibly reproduce (no 75-year-old woman in the history of the world has ever given birth) the two would not be allowed to marry?

    You see, you've been hoist by your own petard.
     
  25. shira

    shira Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    9,558
    Likes Received:
    1
    A man and his wife who's had a hysterectomy can reproduce through the use of the husband's sperm and a surrogate.

    A woman and her husband who has bad sperm can reproduce through the use of a sperm donor.

    Surely you wouldn't deny in either of these cases that the wife is the mother and the husband is the father. So what's you issue with two married women or two married men using these methods to reproduce.

    I can hear it now:

    Two women: "We want to have child, not a bastard, let us marry."

    nehalem256: "We won't let you marry to have a child because marriage is for procreation."

    Yeah, you make perfect sense.