Gay marriage hate ad - wow really?

[Retro Rob]

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to misrepresent your position. It's just that people who argue about "changing the definition" are usually arguing from the position of "historically it has been this, therefore this is better," which is an appeal to tradition, and a logical fallacy. I'm tired of hearing that same old argument which makes no sense.

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.

 

[zinfamous]

Was it really? That would be rich. When I have my own Super-PAC (which should be approximately any minute now or alternately never), I'm going to put out blatantly awful propaganda for the "other side" just to energize my base (note that my base consists entirely of people who like beer and whiskey and fuck all the dumb shit).

dude.








can I be in your Super PAC?

 

[nehalem256]

Ah, I see you're unfamiliar with language. Let me help.

re·de·fine
1: to define (as a concept) again : reformulate <had to redefine their terms>
2a : to reexamine or reevaluate especially with a view to change
2b : transform

Something being "redefined" changes its definition. There's no "true" definition that stays current as something is redefined; there's just the definition that's been changed.

So you are admitting you are redefining marriage. That at least is a start.

That said, what does the historic definition of marriage matter in regards to this issue? Is your only argument against gay marriage that it wasn't done in the past?

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

Equal rights for women wasn't done in the past either; should we go back to traditional values on that as well? Democratic government wasn't done much in the past either. Perhaps we should get rid of that as well? An appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy that presumes that because something has been done a certain way in the past, that way is preferable. If someone can come up with demonstrable evidence that the old way is not preferable, the appeal to tradition is moot.

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

Restricting gay marriage prevents homosexual partners from enjoying government benefits that straight couples have access to, including tax incentives, next of kin delineation rights, visitation rights, insurance and retirement package benefits, and numerous other rights afforded straight married couples. Why is it OK to give these additional rights to heterosexual couples but not homosexual couples?

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

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.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

dude.








can I be in your Super PAC?

For a million dollars or a case of beer, you can run it.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

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

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.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

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

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.

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

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.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

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

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?

 

[sandorski]

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

 

[zinfamous]

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.

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.

 

[shadow9d9]

It's ok for Obama to be anti-gay, but rage rage rage when the Conservatives are.

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.

 

[DCal430]

How can these people be full of so much. Sad really.

 

[nehalem256]

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.

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

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?

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?

 

[nehalem256]

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.

Pro-creation is the reason marriage exists in the first place.

 

[shira]

Pro-creation is the reason marriage exists in the first place.

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.

 

[classy]

I did not realize that test tube babies have existed since the "dawn of mankind".

And even today 2 men cannot procreate no matter how much science you throw at the problem.

lol

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

 

[nehalem256]

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.

How is the law suppose to determine every couple that has zero chance of reproducing?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

How is the law suppose to determine every couple that has zero chance of reproducing?

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.

 

[zinfamous]

Pro-creation is the reason marriage exists in the first place.

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.

 

[nehalem256]

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.

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.

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.

So you concede that a woman is necessary for marriage.

EDIT: And why was the woman considered a value piece of property?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

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.

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."

 

[nehalem256]

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.

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.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

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.

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.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Pro-creation is the reason marriage exists in the first place.

No it isn't.

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

 

[shira]

How is the law suppose to determine every couple that has zero chance of reproducing?

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.

 

[shira]

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.

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.