Non religious reasons to oppose gay marriage

[GarfieldtheCat]

Because you willfully or accidentally forgot your post where you claimed the edited quote was an insult or personal attack towards Incorruptible.

That would be post 381.

cybrtroll owned again

 

[cybrsage]

Because you willfully or accidentally forgot your post where you claimed the edited quote was an insult or personal attack towards Incorruptible.

That would be post 381.

It is an insult.

 

[Ninjahedge]

cybrtroll owned again

Stop insulting Cyber-Trolls.

 

[cybrsage]

Wow, the courage needed to talk smack about someone on your ignore list is amazing! WOW! ....dur....

 

[alzan]

It is an insult.

Only to you. The mods and Incorruptible don't seem to agree.

Go ahead and reply to this using the same edited quote as Pr0d1gy, only directed at me. I'll even give you head start:

Thanks, I report the truth whenever I can


I won't report it because:

I won't feel attacked.

I won't be insulted.

You'd have to exhibit more intelligence then your overall post content thus far for me to even begin to feel insulted. Right now you're at about third grader level.

 

[Ninjahedge]

C'mahn alzan!

He is much better than a 3G!!!

He uses MUCH bigger words!!! 😱

 

[alzan]

C'mahn alzan!

He is much better than a 3G!!!

He uses MUCH bigger words!!! 😱

True. Of course he could have someone older helping him.

I'd really just like to see him directly reply to my post without going off on one his usual tangents or alternate realities. I know that I won't get an honest reply but meh, it's worth a giggle or two.

 

[Carfax83]

OK, after some soul searching, I have decided that I no longer oppose gays becoming married.

It's true that bigotry is the only reason to oppose gay marriage, as gays do not choose to be gay, and marriage as an institution does not confine itself to reproduction so there's no reason it should be limited to heterosexuals only.

I still will always consider homosexuality to be abnormal and unequal to heterosexuality, but abnormality should not be grounds for discrimination.

I'm still against gay adoption though, because I think every child should have both a mother and a father if at all possible.

 

[Abraxas]

I'm still against gay adoption though, because I think every child should have both a mother and a father if at all possible.

That is not the available alternative. For the most part, when it comes to gay adoption, the child either gets two moms or two dads on the one hand or an orphanage or foster parents or nobody on the other. Even if you don't accept two same sex parents as the equal to two opposite parents, will you tell me they are as a rule worse than leaving the kid in the system to be kicked back and forth until they come of age?

 

[shira]

OK, after some soul searching, I have decided that I no longer oppose gays becoming married.

It's true that bigotry is the only reason to oppose gay marriage, as gays do not choose to be gay, and marriage as an institution does not confine itself to reproduction so there's no reason it should be limited to heterosexuals only.

I still will always consider homosexuality to be abnormal and unequal to heterosexuality, but abnormality should not be grounds for discrimination.

I'm still against gay adoption though, because I think every child should have both a mother and a father if at all possible.

I'm glad you've changed your views, but I would question one of the reasons you've given in support of your change of mind.

I happen to agree with you that gays do not choose to be gay. But why should the reason that someone is gay matter? If, for example, a woman somehow "chose" to be a lesbian, and then fell in love with another woman, why would you deny those two women woman the right to marry?

Consider another example: Suppose two elderly heterosexual widowers are close friends. They spend all of their time together and truly love and trust each other. They have no sexual desire for each other, but because of their age and various medical problems they have no sexual desire anymore even for women. These two men decide that they want to marry. Why on earth would anyone oppose their marriage?

This is why I believe the proper term is "same sex" marriage, not "gay marriage." And this is why I believe that any two adults should be allowed to marry.

Yes, there are people who want to use marriage to defraud the state, solely to obtain benefits (such as immigration status or health benefits). But that is the case even if marriage is restricted to a man and a woman, and there are procedures currently in place to combat such fraud. The same procedures could be applied to combat fraudulent same-sex marriages.

 

[nehalem256]

It's true that bigotry is the only reason to oppose gay marriage, as gays do not choose to be gay, and marriage as an institution does not confine itself to reproduction so there's no reason it should be limited to heterosexuals only.

No the reason to oppose gay marriage is if you believe that marriage exists for a purpose other than extorting benefits from the government.

Liberals believe that marriage is no fundamental definition or purpose, which why they have no problems extending it to their support groups.

 

[richaron]

Opposed: because i don't like the idea of "marriage" being changed. It's a centuries/millennia old tradition & has pre-defined meanings. I don't like change.

So saying... of course any life-long, commited, loving couple should have the same legal/financial rights as any other. Just call it something else so you don't bother my OCD.

 

[alzan]

No the reason to oppose gay marriage is if you believe that marriage exists for a purpose other than extorting benefits from the government.

Liberals believe that marriage is no fundamental definition or purpose, which why they have no problems extending it to their support groups.

It was the government that offered benefits to people who chose/choose to be married; people did not extort benefits from the government. You choose to frame the argument as people extorting benefits from their government; not exactly honest nor conducive to meaningful discussion.

Perhaps you should direct your issues with marital benefits and your belief that they should be ended towards your elected representatives. Good luck with that.

Liberals believe that marriage has no fundamental definition or purpose? Proof please (other than your own opinion).

 

[alzan]

OK, after some soul searching, I have decided that I no longer oppose gays becoming married.

It's true that bigotry is the only reason to oppose gay marriage, as gays do not choose to be gay, and marriage as an institution does not confine itself to reproduction so there's no reason it should be limited to heterosexuals only.

I still will always consider homosexuality to be abnormal and unequal to heterosexuality, but abnormality should not be grounds for discrimination.

I'm still against gay adoption though, because I think every child should have both a mother and a father if at all possible.

It takes courage and an open mind to change one's fundamental views on sensitive/divisive topics, for that I and others commend you.

Labels such as abnormal are not very helpful though. I tend to see them as mental comforts; akin to an "us vs them" outlook, which has it's own bias/discrimination.

I think every child should have both a mother and father as well, but that's my own bias showing simply because I was raised that way. However I haven't seen any properly conducted study of sufficient sample size that shows male/female parenting to be better then male/male or female/female. The few anecdotal examples I'm personally aware of have shown me that genders of the parents to not be a factor as far as child-raising is concerned. There are factors with same-sex parents that are not present with opposite-sex parents of course but they are for the most part external; society and it's views make same-sex parenting more difficult. The external factors can be overcome but with a lot of extra work, for both parents and child(ren).

 

[nehalem256]

Liberals believe that marriage has no fundamental definition or purpose? Proof please (other than your own opinion).

Notice how you did not say what you belief the fundamental definition and purpose of marriage is? Funny how that would seem to be a MUCH more effective to refute huh?

Now let us look at the the liberal argument for gay marriage we can basically be summed as "Since straight couples can get married, so should gay couples.

The liberal definition of marriage is a relationship between 2 people for any reason that lasts until one them no longer wants to be married.

For liberals marriages is all about benefits, never about obligations.

 

[alzan]

Notice how you did not say what you belief the fundamental definition and purpose of marriage is? Funny how that would seem to be a MUCH more effective to refute huh?

Now let us look at the the liberal argument for gay marriage we can basically be summed as "Since straight couples can get married, so should gay couples.

The liberal definition of marriage is a relationship between 2 people for any reason that lasts until one them no longer wants to be married.

For liberals marriages is all about benefits, never about obligations.

I asked you to prove your statement Liberals believe that marriage is no fundamental definition or purpose, which why they have no problems extending it to their support groups. If you're incapable of proving it just say so. Oh that's right you did with your response. What's funny is your method of debate or discussion.

That's a fairly good summation. I see no reason why same-sex couples should not be able to receive a marriage license and be married.

Seems to me that that is a conservative definition of marriage as well since conservative couples get divorced all the time.

Your last statement applies to conservatives as well.

You seem to frame discussions as liberal vs. conservative a lot, even though people cannot be completely pigeon-holed as one or the other. Many people have conservative/liberal/libertarian and other principles that define their ideology.

Is your need to frame or define people as liberal vs conservative a tool you use to keep keep the discussion simple so that you can better process the information you receive?

 

[nehalem256]

I asked you to prove your statement Liberals believe that marriage is no fundamental definition or purpose, which why they have no problems extending it to their support groups. If you're incapable of proving it just say so. Oh that's right you did with your response. What's funny is your method of debate or discussion.

Ok lets look at purposes for marriage existing.

1.) Societal Stability. Hmm except liberals support no-fault divorce. So that does not work.
2.) Having children. Hmm, liberals see no problem with bastard children. And support gay couples marrying. So that does not work.

Below you seem to agree with my liberal definition of marriage. It seems no different from having a girlfriend except you need a lawyer to break up.

That's a fairly good summation. I see no reason why same-sex couples should not be able to receive a marriage license and be married.

And of course you also have no real reason why they should. Because you have no fundamental reason for the existence of marriage.

Seems to me that that is a conservative definition of marriage as well since conservative couples get divorced all the time.

No, it would seem to me that the culture has shifted so far to the left that even "conservatives" are really liberals now.

 

[epidemis]

Whole OP is bullshit.

Marriages in human history proceed any known religion and span through every culture. Even cultures that ACCEPTED gay marriages.

What cultures has accepted gay marriages?

 

[alzan]

Ok lets look at purposes for marriage existing.

1.) Societal Stability. Hmm except liberals support no-fault divorce. So that does not work.
2.) Having children. Hmm, liberals see no problem with bastard children. And support gay couples marrying. So that does not work.

Below you seem to agree with my liberal definition of marriage. It seems no different from having a girlfriend except you need a lawyer to break up.




And of course you also have no real reason why they should. Because you have no fundamental reason for the existence of marriage.



No, it would seem to me that the culture has shifted so far to the left that even "conservatives" are really liberals now.

1) Conservatives don't support or use no-fault divorce? Are you sure about that? If so, please provide proof. After all it's your contention that only liberals support no-fault divorce. Also, I am currently in a 17+ "liberal" relationship and marriage, my brothers and their wives in 20+ & 24+ marriages. Prior to my father's death he and my mother were married for 55 years. So these "liberals" do believe in obligations and responsibilities. Sorry to have blown a mile-wide hole in your theory.

2) Liberals see no problem with bastard children? So no conservative couple has ever produced a child? Once again, proof please. And remember, just one conservative couple producing a "bastard" child shreds your theory.

Sorry. Your belief that I or any other liberal has no fundamental reason for the existence of marriage does not make it fact.

You know, I really think it would be in your best interest to seek professional counseling about this constant need to view/define discussions in a strict liberal vs conservative fashion.

 

[sandorski]

Opposed: because i don't like the idea of "marriage" being changed. It's a centuries/millennia old tradition & has pre-defined meanings. I don't like change.

So saying... of course any life-long, commited, loving couple should have the same legal/financial rights as any other. Just call it something else so you don't bother my OCD.

So you're sayin you want to Marry a 12 year old? :\

 

[nehalem256]

1) Conservatives don't support or use no-fault divorce? Are you sure about that? If so, please provide proof. After all it's your contention that only liberals support no-fault divorce. Also, I am currently in a 17+ "liberal" relationship and marriage, my brothers and their wives in 20+ & 24+ marriages. Prior to my father's death he and my mother were married for 55 years. So these "liberals" do believe in obligations and responsibilities. Sorry to have blown a mile-wide hole in your theory.

2) Liberals see no problem with bastard children? So no conservative couple has ever produced a child? Once again, proof please. And remember, just one conservative couple producing a "bastard" child shreds your theory.

So you are saying that conservatives are imperfect or hypocrites.

on 1.) Just because a liberal couple stays together in no way takes away from their support of no fault divorce. Liberalism has so infiltrated the culture that even "conservatives" get divorced.

2.) No it does not. People are imperfect. But look at how historically out-of-wedlock births were 5% vs >40% now. And remember that birth control has significantly advanced since then.

Sorry. Your belief that I or any other liberal has no fundamental reason for the existence of marriage does not make it fact.

No. But your refusal to give a fundamental reason for the existence of marriage is indicative

 

[child of wonder]

Ok lets look at purposes for marriage existing.

1.) Societal Stability. Hmm except liberals support no-fault divorce. So that does not work.
2.) Having children. Hmm, liberals see no problem with bastard children. And support gay couples marrying. So that does not work.

There's more reasons to marry than that. Without the legal backing of a "marriage" a couple cannot ensure medical decisions are left to the spouse by default should something happen to the other. Property ownership, custody of children, etc. are all legal matters that are resolved by two people entering into a legal contract we know as "marriage."

 

[richaron]

So you're sayin you want to Marry a 12 year old?

I had to try my very hardest not to make this reply a joke.

There are some common sense rules which need to be followed (like the age of consent), these are the ideas political fanbois -see above- should be debating the wording of.

To claim any one group "respects" marriage more than another is stupid. To even claim marriage is a life-long union is a stupid, antiquated idea (whether you think it should be or not). To claim hetero' couple in the same mature, commited, long-term relationship has more legal/financial rights: stupid, antiquated bigotry.

 

[nehalem256]

There's more reasons to marry than that. Without the legal backing of a "marriage" a couple cannot ensure medical decisions are left to the spouse by default should something happen to the other.

Because there way to name someone to make medical decisons for you. *cough* medical proxy *cough*

Property ownership, custody of children, etc. are all legal matters that are resolved by two people entering into a legal contract we know as "marriage."

Because unmarried people cannot own property? :hmm:

And I am confused about how resolving issues of child custody is anyway a refutation of saying that marriage is about having children?

 

[nehalem256]

So you're sayin you want to Marry a 12 year old? :\

Would you mind pointing out when marriage was define as being between a man and a 12 year old girl?

Or why you think marrying a 12 year old girl vs an 18 year old girl fundamentally changes marriage?