Gay Prop 8 protestors attack Christian Cross.

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

I'll bite. These are my reasons for which I disagree with gay marriage. I'll argue as if I represent society.

Question: What is the real purpose of marriage? If we don't define this, then we can't argue for whom it should be granted and whom it should not.

My opinion, which is backed up in the field, is that marriage's highest purpose is to provide a stable environment for the raising of children, which is good for society. Studies have proven that children born out of wedlock, or at least without one of the parents, are born behind the 8 ball. Surely, marriage is about partnership, but I believe this to be secondary to child-bearing, especially as far as a society is concerned. I bet Darwin would agree with me on that.

From this I conclude that a gay relationship, which is naturally unable to produce children (although they may adopt), is useless to society. Now, in the case of adopted children....

Question #2: What is the real purpose of sex?

My opinion, which is again backed up in the real world, is that from a strictly societal viewpoint, sex is good for only one thing: propogation of the species and expansion of society, in that sex produces offspring. If this is true, then it's very easy to classify not just gay marriage, but gay behavior itself as useless, and hence a detrimental attitude to be passed onto adopted children. Now, no one can prove that gay parents will produce a gay child, but it seems reasonable to assume that the parents lifestyle will certainly project itself onto the child in some manifestation.

You may dismiss this and ask the same question I like to ask to abortionists: "On what basis do you deny a right to some and not to others?" The answer to me is plain. For the reasons made above, marriage is not a right. It is something that society creates in its own interest.

1. So they are useless to society? Are infertile people useless to society? Handicapped? When classifying people as useless, you tread on scary ground. Society isn't about having childern, its about the people in it. Gay people can adopt, they can have children, they can raise children, they can do everything straight parents can do, and studies have proven that children raised by gay parents benefit from having two parents just as much as straight. Not really sure what Darwin has to do with it.

2. In the strictest biological sense, sex is about propagation of the species. In the sense that normal humans use it, its about many other things, mainly fun. What real detrimental attitude is passed onto children of gay couples? Things like "People may be different, but they are still people.", or "Discrimination is bad, don't do it." You also believe that being gay is something you catch, which is cute.

Here is an important thing many people like yourself are having a problem with understanding. They want to get married in the eyes of the government, not your church. The word marriage has been co-opted from being strictly religious into a word for the joining of two people together. When they want to be married, they want the benefits it provides, things like the ability to visit a spouse in the hospital, the ability to handle legal affairs like traditionally married couples do, and the various other benefits that provides. What they don't want is your definition of marriage. I know, everyone uses "your" word for it, but that's how it goes. That is what society chose.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The USSC has restricted every right guaranteed in the bill of rights, what's your point? If the government can show sufficiently compelling interest in restricting one of those rights, it's out the window. While I think women should be drafted the same as men, I can also see how the USSC would find the case for gender specific military regulations a reasonable and compelling one.

I'm still waiting to hear the one for gay marriage. In fact, why don't you try and make it? Give me an argument for banning gay marriage that does not rely on religious prohibition, junk science, or bigotry. Show me empirical evidence for a negative effect on society from it. (feel free to use states/countries where it has been legalized for test cases) If you can show me a compelling reason to deny gays that right, I'll be there with you.

bump for the crickets on a response here.

I'll bite. These are my reasons for which I disagree with gay marriage. I'll argue as if I represent society.

Question: What is the real purpose of marriage? If we don't define this, then we can't argue for whom it should be granted and whom it should not.

My opinion, which is backed up in the field, is that marriage's highest purpose is to provide a stable environment for the raising of children, which is good for society. Studies have proven that children born out of wedlock, or at least without one of the parents, are born behind the 8 ball. Surely, marriage is about partnership, but I believe this to be secondary to child-bearing, especially as far as a society is concerned. I bet Darwin would agree with me on that.

From this I conclude that a gay relationship, which is naturally unable to produce children (although they may adopt), is useless to society. Now, in the case of adopted children....

Question #2: What is the real purpose of sex?

My opinion, which is again backed up in the real world, is that from a strictly societal viewpoint, sex is good for only one thing: propogation of the species and expansion of society, in that sex produces offspring. If this is true, then it's very easy to classify not just gay marriage, but gay behavior itself as useless, and hence a detrimental attitude to be passed onto adopted children. Now, no one can prove that gay parents will produce a gay child, but it seems reasonable to assume that the parents lifestyle will certainly project itself onto the child in some manifestation.

You may dismiss this and ask the same question I like to ask to abortionists: "On what basis do you deny a right to some and not to others?" The answer to me is plain. For the reasons made above, marriage is not a right. It is something that society creates in its own interest.

Color me impressed. You got all that from common sense . Remarkable. Just to add to what your saying . Men are sinners. Now thats out of the way. Did you know its a sin to have sex with your wife. If its not for propogation. Its a fact . So when I say its a sin for gays to have sex. I mean it. But I not let self off hook. If I have sex with wife just for sex . Its the same sin . How about that.

Your pretty smart man . But this is 1 nation under GOD. Did ya see the remake of Mircle on 34 street. At the End what was it that won the judge over. They were clever and truethful words.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: Atreus21

I'll bite. These are my reasons for which I disagree with gay marriage. I'll argue as if I represent society.

Question: What is the real purpose of marriage? If we don't define this, then we can't argue for whom it should be granted and whom it should not.

My opinion, which is backed up in the field, is that marriage's highest purpose is to provide a stable environment for the raising of children, which is good for society. Studies have proven that children born out of wedlock, or at least without one of the parents, are born behind the 8 ball. Surely, marriage is about partnership, but I believe this to be secondary to child-bearing, especially as far as a society is concerned. I bet Darwin would agree with me on that.

From this I conclude that a gay relationship, which is naturally unable to produce children (although they may adopt), is useless to society. Now, in the case of adopted children....

Question #2: What is the real purpose of sex?

My opinion, which is again backed up in the real world, is that from a strictly societal viewpoint, sex is good for only one thing: propogation of the species and expansion of society, in that sex produces offspring. If this is true, then it's very easy to classify not just gay marriage, but gay behavior itself as useless, and hence a detrimental attitude to be passed onto adopted children. Now, no one can prove that gay parents will produce a gay child, but it seems reasonable to assume that the parents lifestyle will certainly project itself onto the child in some manifestation.

You may dismiss this and ask the same question I like to ask to abortionists: "On what basis do you deny a right to some and not to others?" The answer to me is plain. For the reasons made above, marriage is not a right. It is something that society creates in its own interest.

1. So they are useless to society? Are infertile people useless to society? Handicapped? When classifying people as useless, you tread on scary ground. Society isn't about having childern, its about the people in it. Gay people can adopt, they can have children, they can raise children, they can do everything straight parents can do, and studies have proven that children raised by gay parents benefit from having two parents just as much as straight. Not really sure what Darwin has to do with it.

2. In the strictest biological sense, sex is about propagation of the species. In the sense that normal humans use it, its about many other things, mainly fun. What real detrimental attitude is passed onto children of gay couples? Things like "People may be different, but they are still people.", or "Discrimination is bad, don't do it." You also believe that being gay is something you catch, which is cute.

Here is an important thing many people like yourself are having a problem with understanding. They want to get married in the eyes of the government, not your church. The word marriage has been co-opted from being strictly religious into a word for the joining of two people together. When they want to be married, they want the benefits it provides, things like the ability to visit a spouse in the hospital, the ability to handle legal affairs like traditionally married couples do, and the various other benefits that provides. What they don't want is your definition of marriage. I know, everyone uses "your" word for it, but that's how it goes. That is what society chose.

What are the odds of a child raised in a gay home . Becoming gay. Is it higher than normal . Your argument is based on ideas that lack moral fiber.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: Atreus21

I'll bite. These are my reasons for which I disagree with gay marriage. I'll argue as if I represent society.

Question: What is the real purpose of marriage? If we don't define this, then we can't argue for whom it should be granted and whom it should not.

My opinion, which is backed up in the field, is that marriage's highest purpose is to provide a stable environment for the raising of children, which is good for society. Studies have proven that children born out of wedlock, or at least without one of the parents, are born behind the 8 ball. Surely, marriage is about partnership, but I believe this to be secondary to child-bearing, especially as far as a society is concerned. I bet Darwin would agree with me on that.

From this I conclude that a gay relationship, which is naturally unable to produce children (although they may adopt), is useless to society. Now, in the case of adopted children....

Question #2: What is the real purpose of sex?

My opinion, which is again backed up in the real world, is that from a strictly societal viewpoint, sex is good for only one thing: propogation of the species and expansion of society, in that sex produces offspring. If this is true, then it's very easy to classify not just gay marriage, but gay behavior itself as useless, and hence a detrimental attitude to be passed onto adopted children. Now, no one can prove that gay parents will produce a gay child, but it seems reasonable to assume that the parents lifestyle will certainly project itself onto the child in some manifestation.

You may dismiss this and ask the same question I like to ask to abortionists: "On what basis do you deny a right to some and not to others?" The answer to me is plain. For the reasons made above, marriage is not a right. It is something that society creates in its own interest.

1. So they are useless to society? Are infertile people useless to society? Handicapped? When classifying people as useless, you tread on scary ground. Society isn't about having childern, its about the people in it. Gay people can adopt, they can have children, they can raise children, they can do everything straight parents can do, and studies have proven that children raised by gay parents benefit from having two parents just as much as straight. Not really sure what Darwin has to do with it.

2. In the strictest biological sense, sex is about propagation of the species. In the sense that normal humans use it, its about many other things, mainly fun. What real detrimental attitude is passed onto children of gay couples? Things like "People may be different, but they are still people.", or "Discrimination is bad, don't do it." You also believe that being gay is something you catch, which is cute.

Here is an important thing many people like yourself are having a problem with understanding. They want to get married in the eyes of the government, not your church. The word marriage has been co-opted from being strictly religious into a word for the joining of two people together. When they want to be married, they want the benefits it provides, things like the ability to visit a spouse in the hospital, the ability to handle legal affairs like traditionally married couples do, and the various other benefits that provides. What they don't want is your definition of marriage. I know, everyone uses "your" word for it, but that's how it goes. That is what society chose.

What are the odds of a child raised in a gay home . Becoming gay. Is it higher than normal . Your argument is based ideas that lack moral fiber.

No, my ideas come from common sense and not having all my thinking done for me.

 

[TridenT]

Originally posted by: Corbett
This is just sickening. Protesting is one thing, but stealing a lady's Cross and destroying it while spitting on and intimidating her is a whole different issue.

Video 1
Video 2

Link FAIL! Fixing...FIXED

That bitch needs to die already. Fucking old hag. Hope she burns in her own hell.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: Atreus21

I'll bite. These are my reasons for which I disagree with gay marriage. I'll argue as if I represent society.

Question: What is the real purpose of marriage? If we don't define this, then we can't argue for whom it should be granted and whom it should not.

My opinion, which is backed up in the field, is that marriage's highest purpose is to provide a stable environment for the raising of children, which is good for society. Studies have proven that children born out of wedlock, or at least without one of the parents, are born behind the 8 ball. Surely, marriage is about partnership, but I believe this to be secondary to child-bearing, especially as far as a society is concerned. I bet Darwin would agree with me on that.

From this I conclude that a gay relationship, which is naturally unable to produce children (although they may adopt), is useless to society. Now, in the case of adopted children....

Question #2: What is the real purpose of sex?

My opinion, which is again backed up in the real world, is that from a strictly societal viewpoint, sex is good for only one thing: propogation of the species and expansion of society, in that sex produces offspring. If this is true, then it's very easy to classify not just gay marriage, but gay behavior itself as useless, and hence a detrimental attitude to be passed onto adopted children. Now, no one can prove that gay parents will produce a gay child, but it seems reasonable to assume that the parents lifestyle will certainly project itself onto the child in some manifestation.

You may dismiss this and ask the same question I like to ask to abortionists: "On what basis do you deny a right to some and not to others?" The answer to me is plain. For the reasons made above, marriage is not a right. It is something that society creates in its own interest.

1. So they are useless to society? Are infertile people useless to society? Handicapped? When classifying people as useless, you tread on scary ground. Society isn't about having childern, its about the people in it. Gay people can adopt, they can have children, they can raise children, they can do everything straight parents can do, and studies have proven that children raised by gay parents benefit from having two parents just as much as straight. Not really sure what Darwin has to do with it.

2. In the strictest biological sense, sex is about propagation of the species. In the sense that normal humans use it, its about many other things, mainly fun. What real detrimental attitude is passed onto children of gay couples? Things like "People may be different, but they are still people.", or "Discrimination is bad, don't do it." You also believe that being gay is something you catch, which is cute.

Here is an important thing many people like yourself are having a problem with understanding. They want to get married in the eyes of the government, not your church. The word marriage has been co-opted from being strictly religious into a word for the joining of two people together. When they want to be married, they want the benefits it provides, things like the ability to visit a spouse in the hospital, the ability to handle legal affairs like traditionally married couples do, and the various other benefits that provides. What they don't want is your definition of marriage. I know, everyone uses "your" word for it, but that's how it goes. That is what society chose.

What are the odds of a child raised in a gay home . Becoming gay. Is it higher than normal . Your argument is based ideas that lack moral fiber.

No, my ideas come from common sense and not having all my thinking done for me.

Common sense tells me that gays cann't survive without Straights . Simple true fact.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: Atreus21

I'll bite. These are my reasons for which I disagree with gay marriage. I'll argue as if I represent society.

Question: What is the real purpose of marriage? If we don't define this, then we can't argue for whom it should be granted and whom it should not.

My opinion, which is backed up in the field, is that marriage's highest purpose is to provide a stable environment for the raising of children, which is good for society. Studies have proven that children born out of wedlock, or at least without one of the parents, are born behind the 8 ball. Surely, marriage is about partnership, but I believe this to be secondary to child-bearing, especially as far as a society is concerned. I bet Darwin would agree with me on that.

From this I conclude that a gay relationship, which is naturally unable to produce children (although they may adopt), is useless to society. Now, in the case of adopted children....

Question #2: What is the real purpose of sex?

My opinion, which is again backed up in the real world, is that from a strictly societal viewpoint, sex is good for only one thing: propogation of the species and expansion of society, in that sex produces offspring. If this is true, then it's very easy to classify not just gay marriage, but gay behavior itself as useless, and hence a detrimental attitude to be passed onto adopted children. Now, no one can prove that gay parents will produce a gay child, but it seems reasonable to assume that the parents lifestyle will certainly project itself onto the child in some manifestation.

You may dismiss this and ask the same question I like to ask to abortionists: "On what basis do you deny a right to some and not to others?" The answer to me is plain. For the reasons made above, marriage is not a right. It is something that society creates in its own interest.

1. So they are useless to society? Are infertile people useless to society? Handicapped? When classifying people as useless, you tread on scary ground. Society isn't about having childern, its about the people in it. Gay people can adopt, they can have children, they can raise children, they can do everything straight parents can do, and studies have proven that children raised by gay parents benefit from having two parents just as much as straight. Not really sure what Darwin has to do with it.

2. In the strictest biological sense, sex is about propagation of the species. In the sense that normal humans use it, its about many other things, mainly fun. What real detrimental attitude is passed onto children of gay couples? Things like "People may be different, but they are still people.", or "Discrimination is bad, don't do it." You also believe that being gay is something you catch, which is cute.

Here is an important thing many people like yourself are having a problem with understanding. They want to get married in the eyes of the government, not your church. The word marriage has been co-opted from being strictly religious into a word for the joining of two people together. When they want to be married, they want the benefits it provides, things like the ability to visit a spouse in the hospital, the ability to handle legal affairs like traditionally married couples do, and the various other benefits that provides. What they don't want is your definition of marriage. I know, everyone uses "your" word for it, but that's how it goes. That is what society chose.

What are the odds of a child raised in a gay home . Becoming gay. Is it higher than normal . Your argument is based ideas that lack moral fiber.

No, my ideas come from common sense and not having all my thinking done for me.

Common sense tells me that gays cann't survive without Straights . Simple true fact.

...and?

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: Corbett
This is just sickening. Protesting is one thing, but stealing a lady's Cross and destroying it while spitting on and intimidating her is a whole different issue.

Video 1
Video 2

Link FAIL! Fixing...FIXED

That bitch needs to die already. Fucking old hag. Hope she burns in her own hell.

You need to take a time out. No need for that kind of talk. Is this the ugly side of the left.

 

[Nemesis 1]

And what . Do ya need a pic. GAys exist solely by accident . That can't breed . That can't sustain life without feeding off others. Gays are alsorts of suckers. Blood sucker being one of the biggest.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
And what . Do ya need a pic. GAys exist solely by accident . That can't breed . That can't sustain life without feeding off others. Gays are alsorts of suckers. Blood sucker being one of the biggest.

Many can't Breed or choose not to Breed and are not Gay at all. Are they Bloodsuckers too?

What is the overwhelmiing need to Breed these days anyway? Certainly we can't totally stop Breeding, but we have reached numbers where constant unencumbered Breeding is unsustainable.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Show me empirical evidence for a negative effect on society from it. (feel free to use states/countries where it has been legalized for test cases) If you can show me a compelling reason to deny gays that right, I'll be there with you.[/b]

I'll bite. These are my reasons for which I disagree with gay marriage. I'll argue as if I represent society.

Question: What is the real purpose of marriage? If we don't define this, then we can't argue for whom it should be granted and whom it should not.

My opinion, which is backed up in the field, is that marriage's highest purpose is to provide a stable environment for the raising of children, which is good for society. Studies have proven that children born out of wedlock, or at least without one of the parents, are born behind the 8 ball. Surely, marriage is about partnership, but I believe this to be secondary to child-bearing, especially as far as a society is concerned. I bet Darwin would agree with me on that.

From this I conclude that a gay relationship, which is naturally unable to produce children (although they may adopt), is useless to society. Now, in the case of adopted children....

Question #2: What is the real purpose of sex?

My opinion, which is again backed up in the real world, is that from a strictly societal viewpoint, sex is good for only one thing: propogation of the species and expansion of society, in that sex produces offspring. If this is true, then it's very easy to classify not just gay marriage, but gay behavior itself as useless, and hence a detrimental attitude to be passed onto adopted children. Now, no one can prove that gay parents will produce a gay child, but it seems reasonable to assume that the parents lifestyle will certainly project itself onto the child in some manifestation.

You may dismiss this and ask the same question I like to ask to abortionists: "On what basis do you deny a right to some and not to others?" The answer to me is plain. For the reasons made above, marriage is not a right. It is something that society creates in its own interest.

I don't see anything in your answer that could be considered a compelling reason as to why gays should be denied marriage. You also pose a few troubling positions.

1) Marriage is a stable environment for raising children.

I guess so, though plenty of single parents succeed and there's no law preventing adoption by single parents if they are financially able to care for a child (EDIT: actually Arkansas just passed a referendum that only married couples could adopt children, and combined with the ban on gay marriage, the goal was to prevent gay couples from adopting. Congratulations Arkansas, you just consigned orphans and adopted children to foster homes and orphanages rather than to a couple who wants a child and is willing to go through a government process to get one. Meanwhile, countless children are born to accidental parents and couples who don't want them in the first place.)

Still, how does this argue against 2 gay people who want to get married and provide such a "stable environment" so they can raise a child? Seems to me that by preventing gay marriage you are also limiting the number of stable homes that could raise a child. Unless you are arguing that a married gay couple cannot provide a stable home environment, something that has been refuted by every independent study.

2) Sex is only for procreation

I'm not sure where you are going with that. "From a societal point sex is only good for procreation." Really? I think the reason so many people blow themselves up in the ME is because they are sexually repressed. Happy people getting laid regularly generally do not blow themselves up. I'd say a healthy sexual relationship is a net benefit to society because it keeps people sane. Mankind has been having sex for pleasure and celebration since the beginning of our existence. Fundamentalist types may claim religion dictates otherwise, but most reasonable clergy will tell you that sex is a gift from god, and they don't mean only for the babymaking. And you've lost me on how this point relates at all to gay marriage. Something about gay people being useless?

Eskimo's question is basically rhetorical because while it invites rational answers on how gay marriage contributes anything negative to society, let alone anything negative enough to pass laws preventing it, it anticipates that there are no such rational answers. After watching this debate for the past several months and god knows how many threads on here, we still haven't seen one compelling thing, not one freaking thing, that makes you sit back and say "huh, yeah, that IS bad, maybe we need to take a serious look at stopping that." If I'd never heard of abortion before and someone said, "you know they want to kill unborn babies?" I might really be interested in hearing that side of the argument. But there is no "there" there with gay marriage. It relies solely on cultural and generation uncomfortableness with homosexuality (and a healthy dose of religious intolerance and ignorant bigotry), and it is on the losing side of history, as all repressive movements are.

I agree to some extent. Gay Marriage is nowhere close to the societal ill, IMO, that abortion is. I don't think I'll lose sleep if it's legalized worldwide.

I admit, part of my resistance to gay marriage lies in a deep-seeded disgust with gay activity. Although, I'm sure there was similar disdain for blacks, and women.

Nonetheless, I don't think I'm being wholly enslaved to my upbringing, or religion when I hold this opinion.

Other groups of people are withheld from marrying for the same reason gays are: because it's not what society in general calls marriage, nor would it serve the purpose of the conventional marriage.

In regards to your objection about the "sex without procreation" argument. Yes, sex is a whole helluva good time (coming from a man engaged to a hot asian chick, I can attest to this.) But sex is not the sole provider of pleasure. People can get gratification elsewhere. Sex is, on the other hand, the sole provider of humans, and it is on that that I root my argument. Gay people aren't useless to society, but gay sex is.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Common sense tells me that gays cann't survive without Straights . Simple true fact.

Ok, and that means what? That has nothing to do with what I said.

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
You need to take a time out. No need for that kind of talk. Is this the ugly side of the left.

Not fun to look into a mirror is it.

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Sex is, on the other hand, the sole provider of humans, and it is on that that I root my argument. Gay people aren't useless to society, but gay sex is.

Not anymore it isn't. Thanks to technology, procreation is a simple test-tube and 9 month waiting period away.

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: Corbett
This is just sickening. Protesting is one thing, but stealing a lady's Cross and destroying it while spitting on and intimidating her is a whole different issue.

Video 1
Video 2

Link FAIL! Fixing...

Because a few protestors committing an act of vandalism, is equivalent to an entire state voting away a group's rights?

Round number, what percent of gay people commited this act?

How is marriage a "right" when civil unions do the same thing?

Why don't we just get rid of marriage as an institution entirely. Maybe that'll shut everyone up.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: filetitan
causing traffic and abnormal behavior is sure not going to change my mind towards where I stand on this issue. Atreus21 good post, I completely agree with you.

You demand your right to dictate to others their rights.:roll:

**sigh** We've already gone over this. You and your side do the same thing.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: filetitan
causing traffic and abnormal behavior is sure not going to change my mind towards where I stand on this issue. Atreus21 good post, I completely agree with you.

You demand your right to dictate to others their rights.:roll:

**sigh** We've already gone over this. You and your side do the same thing.

Yes, give people equal rights and protect the majority from trampling the minority.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: filetitan
causing traffic and abnormal behavior is sure not going to change my mind towards where I stand on this issue. Atreus21 good post, I completely agree with you.

You demand your right to dictate to others their rights.:roll:

**sigh** We've already gone over this. You and your side do the same thing.

Yes, give people equal rights and protect the majority from trampling the minority.

Some other crazy people had that Idea once. I woonder whatever happened to them?

 

[her209]

Is marriage a right or a privilege? If you're convicted of a felony, do you lose your marital status?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

I agree to some extent. Gay Marriage is nowhere close to the societal ill, IMO, that abortion is. I don't think I'll lose sleep if it's legalized worldwide.

I admit, part of my resistance to gay marriage lies in a deep-seeded disgust with gay activity. Although, I'm sure there was similar disdain for blacks, and women.

Nonetheless, I don't think I'm being wholly enslaved to my upbringing, or religion when I hold this opinion.

Other groups of people are withheld from marrying for the same reason gays are: because it's not what society in general calls marriage, nor would it serve the purpose of the conventional marriage.

In regards to your objection about the "sex without procreation" argument. Yes, sex is a whole helluva good time (coming from a man engaged to a hot asian chick, I can attest to this.) But sex is not the sole provider of pleasure. People can get gratification elsewhere. Sex is, on the other hand, the sole provider of humans, and it is on that that I root my argument. Gay people aren't useless to society, but gay sex is.

While I don't think you've been able to provide a rational answer for banning gay marriage, I do appreciate you at least trying.

One thing to think about, are you so sure gay sex is useless to society? Doesn't sex serve other purposes than procreation? Sexual contact brings people together, forms social bonds, etc. This is certainly valuable as well. As others have mentioned, there are plenty of marriages that are incapable of providing children from them, but we certainly don't discriminate on basis of fertility. Would you be in favor of banning marriage for infertile couples? If not, what are you basing the difference on?

 

[Deeko]

Who were the "tollerant" ones again?

I really hate when people pull crap like this.

Listen, obviously this act is despicable, but if you're trying to insinuate that the gays are the intolerant ones treading on the rights of the heterosexual family or something stupid like that....just GTFO.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner
How is marriage a "right" when civil unions do the same thing?

Why don't we just get rid of marriage as an institution entirely. Maybe that'll shut everyone up.

1. civil unions are not the exact same thing, in name or in status, locally or federally, and separate but equal = inequal. Also, civil unions are only permitted in a couple of states, so the root problem remains almost everywhere.

2. that'd be fine because then everyone would be treated equally, which is what this whole thing is about.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Deeko

Who were the "tollerant" ones again?

I really hate when people pull crap like this.

Listen, obviously this act is despicable, but if you're trying to insinuate that the gays are the intolerant ones treading on the rights of the heterosexual family or something stupid like that....just GTFO.

You seem to have missed the point completly. Gay's are protesting and calling the Mormon church intolerant, but when someone brings out a Christian cross to counter-protest, the gays show how tolerant they really are. Its just another case of hypocracy that you and others here don't seem to understand.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Originally posted by: her209
Is marriage a right or a privilege? If you're convicted of a felony, do you lose your marital status?

"Gay marriage" is not "creating a new right." It's extending the right to marry, as people have been doing since time immemorial, to gay couples. Same thing as with women's suffrage. There's not a new "right to women's votes" created - women were accorded or extended the exact same franchise as men had previously exclusively enjoyed. There's no inherent difference between a woman's vote and a man's vote. And there is no inherent difference in a marriage between two people just because of the sexes of the people involved. It's a specific form of legal contract entered into by two people and recognized (or not) by the state, which may or may not accord the couple or its members specific rights vis-a-vis each other or the body politic.

Now:

- The Founding Fathers are on record as being aghast at the idea that one could exhaustively enumerate the Rights of Man. That's why the Ninth Amendment is there. That the courts may not use it as the source of a newly recognized right is at the moment settled law (though all it takes is one opinion to change that). But it's contrary to American jurisprudence to pretend that the American people have only those rights specifically guaranteed in an enumerated list.

- Marriage is a fundamental right. In terms of jurisprudence, established by a dictum in Loving. In terms of constitutional law, it is an unenumerated right demonstrable as such by showing the absurdity of a state totally abolishing marriage (not just refusing to recognize it, but forbidding it).

- Like some other rights, marriage may validly be regulated by the state. Example: The state may deem that Lolita McNubile is too young to consent with marriage with Humbert Humbert.

- It's established law that when rights are being regulated, the regulation may not be arbitrary or capricious, but must be tied to a specific government purpose. The Dopers-at-law may get into levels of scrutiny and what they call for in terms of what sort of government purpose is required for each, but take the above as a broad generalized statement of law. To look at the previous example, the state's interest in not seeing young persons be led astray by their hormones or inexperience leads them to set a minimum age of consent.

- Any two people may enter into a contract unless their doing so is prohibited by law. For example, I may contract with any store selling it to buy sugar, I may contract only with a licensed pharmacist and on condition of having a valid prescription from a doctor if I wish to legally buy a regulated medical drug; and I may not legally buy heroin from anyone.

Therefore:

Gay people are entitled to contract marriage and have that marriage licensed and recognized by the state, unless there is a valid governmental purpose rising to meet the proper level of scrutiny restricting them from doing so.

It's necessary to demonstrate such a valid governmental purpose in order to restrict or prohibit gay marriages, or else permit them to occur and be recognized.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Deeko

Who were the "tollerant" ones again?

I really hate when people pull crap like this.

Listen, obviously this act is despicable, but if you're trying to insinuate that the gays are the intolerant ones treading on the rights of the heterosexual family or something stupid like that....just GTFO.

You seem to have missed the point completly. Gay's are protesting and calling the Mormon church intolerant, but when someone brings out a Christian cross to counter-protest, the gays show how tolerant they really are. Its just another case of hypocracy that you and others here don't seem to understand.

Yep it's not the first time the Cross has been a symbol of oppression

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: Corbett
You seem to have missed the point completly. Gay's are protesting and calling the Mormon church intolerant, but when someone brings out a Christian cross to counter-protest, the gays show how tolerant they really are. Its just another case of hypocracy that you and others here don't seem to understand.

The act of bringing out a huge cross in the midst of a political confrontation and using that as a cover is itself hypocritical and deserves rebuke, and it's a real shame that you don't recognize that.

It's much easier to see hypocrisy in others than yourself; to use religion as a tool for oppression and political power, than to live up to Christ's teaching of love and tolerance.

Christians should be the first to see this and be ashamed of it, but many instead use their claims of religion as a political tool and try to enforce the standards that they themselves fail to live up to onto others.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Deeko

Who were the "tollerant" ones again?

I really hate when people pull crap like this.

Listen, obviously this act is despicable, but if you're trying to insinuate that the gays are the intolerant ones treading on the rights of the heterosexual family or something stupid like that....just GTFO.

You seem to have missed the point completly. Gay's are protesting and calling the Mormon church intolerant, but when someone brings out a Christian cross to counter-protest, the gays show how tolerant they really are. Its just another case of hypocracy that you and others here don't seem to understand.

And you're missing the difference between a few isolated jackasses at a protest (which will always exist) and a structured, large scale effort, planned in advance by a major group.