Maggie Gallagher giving up on optimism

[s0me0nesmind1]

Sorry, but yes, they do. Not often, but regularly.

....Aaaaaaaaaaaand this, my friends, is why we should have mandatory vasectomy and stripped of voting rights

 

[Charles Kozierok]

....Aaaaaaaaaaaand this, my friends, is why we should have mandatory vasectomy and stripped of voting rights

Hey, now there's a compelling response.

Your concession of the argument is noted.

 

[nehalem256]

I'm saying we aren't in agreement. Not being equal and not being more important are not mutually exclusive.

We are discussing the value/importance of homosexual/heterosexual relationships to society.

You said they weren't equal. Was your statement about homosexual/heterosexual relationships not being equal in reference to something else?

Society has reasons to care about more things than just procreation, and doesn't need to cling to "that's the way it's been done in the past" as the reason to continue choosing to not care about anything other than procreation.

Pro-creation is something society has a great deal of interest in.

This interest is completely lacking in homosexual relationships.

 

[Retro Rob]

Don't misquote me. It makes you look like an irrational jerk (instead of merely irrational).

Say something worth quoting, next time, and stop deflecting.

Bottom line, it isn't discrimination. But keep trying, though.

 

[sandorski]

Laws do not (and should never) modernize with what is fashionable at a given time. If the people deem it worthy of changing, than get out there and try to change it amongst the people and voting.

And no - it is not discrimination. Shouldn't you be off pulling some more race cards or something?

Incorrect.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Say something worth quoting, next time, and stop deflecting.

Um, I respond directly to your comments. You don't respond to mine, instead you misquote me. I think it's pretty clear who's deflecting.

Bottom line, it isn't discrimination.

Repeating something false doesn't make it any less false.

Your statement -- "My contention was that marriage was never offered to persons of the same sex, so its not discrimination, period" -- could well be the single most idiotic remark I've ever encountered in a SSM debate. And that's saying something.

 

[Retro Rob]

Your statement -- "My contention was that marriage was never offered to persons of the same sex, so its not discrimination, period" -- could well be the single most idiotic remark I've ever encountered in a SSM debate. And that's saying something.

Yeah, probably the first time you heard it, eh? Its saying you only "debate" with people who don't think. Not very comfortable for you. I get it.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Yeah, probably the first time you heard it, eh? Its saying you only "debate" with people who don't think. Not very comfortable for you. I get it.

Arguing with opponents of equal rights is, by definition, debating with people who don't think.

However, even most of those are clever enough not to try to use so transparently stupid an argument as "since group X never had the same rights as group Y, this proves that group X wasn't subject to discrimination".

 

[Retro Rob]

Arguing with opponents of equal rights is, by definition, debating with people who don't think.

...yet you're still here.

How stupid do you look?

 

[zsdersw]

We are discussing the value/importance of homosexual/heterosexual relationships to society.

You said they weren't equal. Was your statement about homosexual/heterosexual relationships not being equal in reference to something else?

Their equality or inequality has no relevance to the level of their importance.

Homosexual relationships are not equal to heterosexual relationships, but both are very important.

Pro-creation is something society has a great deal of interest in.

This interest is completely lacking in homosexual relationships.

Procreation is not the only thing society has a great deal of interest in and is not the only thing society makes incentives for.

 

[zsdersw]

How stupid do you look?

Less than you do.

 

[Retro Rob]

Less than you do.

Touché!

 

[Jaskalas]

The founder of the antigay National Organization for Marriage, Maggie Gallagher, wrote her last syndicated advice column on Wednesday and announced she was giving up optimism.

Gallager's column has run in various publications for 17 years, where she espoused her conservative, and often antigay, beliefs. Gallagher has long been the face of the anti-marriage equality movement, appearing on talk shows and news programs. In her final column, Gallagher admits much of her work has proved fruitless. "On every key measure, marriage is weaker," she writes. "The consequences are more obviously unsustainable, yet culturally powerful voices are less willing to engage, and the power of porn and Hollywood to create our norms for family life is more triumphant than ever."

Fascinating.

I'd attribute the greatest "attack on marriage" to being the stress and hardship of two full time employees, lending no one left dedicated to raising children or maintaining a home.

Maybe young men and women should examine the depths of their own failures with healthy long term relationships. Maybe they should stop being so selfish. Maybe they should stop pointing fingers at others.

I'd "give up optimism" too, if my head was planted squarely up my !@#.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Pro-creation is something society has a great deal of interest in.

This interest is completely lacking in homosexual relationships.

You keep bringing up procreation, but procreation is not a legal requirement for marriage now, so it seems absolutely unnecessary to bring it up in this debate. It's like saying, "Well, you have to be 18 to vote and to buy cigarettes, therefore only smokers can vote." It's simply not true. And society really doesn't have a vested interest in procreation as much as they have a vested interest in the raising of children, on which point homosexual couples are just as able to function as heterosexual couples.

 

[nehalem256]

Their equality or inequality has no relevance to the level of their importance.

If they are unequal, then one is more valuable than the other.

Homosexual relationships are not equal to heterosexual relationships, but both are very important.

So how are you not saying that heterosexual relationships are more valuable?

Procreation is not the only thing society has a great deal of interest in and is not the only thing society makes incentives for.

But procreation is something that is very important to society and clearly lacking in homosexual relationships.

 

[nehalem256]

You keep bringing up procreation, but procreation is not a legal requirement for marriage now, so it seems absolutely unnecessary to bring it up in this debate. It's like saying, "Well, you have to be 18 to vote and to buy cigarettes, therefore only smokers can vote." It's simply not true.

Pro-creation is the reason marriage exists.

And society really doesn't have a vested interest in procreation as much as they have a vested interest in the raising of children,

It has a vested interest in making sure that people who are unable to raise children do not procreate

on which point homosexual couples are just as able to function as heterosexual couples.

You mean except for the fact that they need heterosexuals to acquire said children to raise.

And I would bet that most adopted children do not come married couples.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

...yet you're still here.

How stupid do you look?

Well, sometimes people who aren't thinking don't realize they aren't thinking. When it is pointed out, they can change.

Until this thread, I thought you might be one of them, though it's now becoming more likely that you are either too brainwashed by your religion to be logical, or you're just a troll/bot like nehalem, here only to repeat claims endlessly while ignoring all counter-arguments.

 

[Retro Rob]

And society really doesn't have a vested interest in procreation as much as they have a vested interest in the raising of children, on which point homosexual couples are just as able to function as heterosexual couples.

This.

This is why I question, sometimes, the so-called "natrualness" and normality of SS relationships.

Ok -- humans have an inherited need or "want" to raise childern, even homosexual couples. If homosexuality is so natural, then why do homosexuals feel the need to raise families (full knowing that they can't procreate)?

My guess would be that along with the desire to be with someone whom you can't bear kids with, would NOT be the want or need to do so.

In short, why the desire for kids and not the desire for the opposite sex?

Serious question.

 

[Retro Rob]

Well, sometimes people who aren't thinking don't realize they aren't thinking. When it is pointed out, they can change.

Until this thread, I thought you might be one of them, though it's now becoming more likely that you are either too brainwashed by your religion to be logical, or you're just a troll/bot like nehalem, here only to repeat claims endlessly while ignoring all counter-arguments.

Neither. Just don't agree with you. Simple. Is that allowed?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Pro-creation is the reason marriage exists.

And yet we let heterosexual couples marry who cannot or will not procreate. We have not made procreation a requirement for heterosexual marriage, so using it as an argument against gay marriage doesn't make sense.

It has a vested interest in making sure that people who are unable to raise children do not procreate

What does this even mean? How does this point relate to gay marriage at all? How does the government currently discourage people who are unable to raise children from procreating? Would allowing gay marriage suddenly see an increase in birth rates for people who have no business raising children? And who determines who is capable of raising children at the government level?

 

[zsdersw]

If they are unequal, then one is more valuable than the other.

Wrong.

So how are you not saying that heterosexual relationships are more valuable?

Because I don't judge value by whether they're equal or not.

But procreation is something that is very important to society and clearly lacking in homosexual relationships.

You keep saying that as if it is the only important thing. It isn't.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Neither. Just don't agree with you. Simple. Is that allowed?

Of course it's allowed.

There are no laws forcing anyone to be rational.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

In short, why the desire for kids and not the desire for the opposite sex?

Serious question.

I don't fully know the answer to this (since I'm not gay), but let me hazard a guess: what we find sexually invigorating doesn't generally involve children unless someone is a pedophile. I don't have children yet, although I imagine I will at some point in the future, but when I see a naked lady, my immediate thought is not "I want to put a baby in that." The desire to be a parent and the desire to achieve orgasm have basically nothing to do with each other except that one sometimes leads to the other.

 

[zsdersw]

In short, why the desire for kids and not the desire for the opposite sex?

Serious question.

In short, because desires are complicated and often contradictory. Human beings are complicated and often contradictory.

Those who reduce the choices and the options to black-and-white, yes-or-no, 1 or 0, and other binary states will forever be frustrated by how few fit into their categories and compartments.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Fascinating.

I'd attribute the greatest "attack on marriage" to being the stress and hardship of two full time employees, lending no one left dedicated to raising children or maintaining a home.

Maybe young men and women should examine the depths of their own failures with healthy long term relationships. Maybe they should stop being so selfish. Maybe they should stop pointing fingers at others.

I'd "give up optimism" too, if my head was planted squarely up my !@#.

It could be made a valid point that bringing women into the workforce has also caused more suffrage through reduction in pay (hence more competition, supply/demand, etc...) The obvious result being more hardship for Mom AND Dad - and less time devoted to children, hence how retarded kids come out these days.