Question for anti-gay marriage people.

[Craig234]

Well, thanks for proving me right, Guru.

In my first post, about the difficulty of fundamentalists to reason on the issue and reach any conclusion different than their church, I said:

You can argue well against that, but it's hard to get through - there's a lot of inertia in favor of their view on the issue. How can they face the congregation with another view?

You later wrote:

as well, i am not going to cherry-pick verses from the bible in an attempt to argue that sodomy is unholy. understanding this only requires one to consider the strong religious front against gay unions. if you believe that these large religious institutions have interpreted the bible incorrectly, that is your right....but at the end of the day you still don't represent these institutions.

So, what the bible says counts for less with you than what your church says it says.

Many churches used to practice segregation, too; does that make them right for it?

Originally posted by: gururu2
however, i am not here to twist truths or make an argument. i am simply saying its not natural.

Based on nothing, and it's wrong. You fail to answer the questions above on this - making this not a discussion at all with you, just you repeating the same nonsense.

people will argue for days about how fit gay parents can be. but at the end of the day, biologically speaking the fact remains...its not natural.

Translation: informed people will argue that gays are fit parents based on studies, with ignorant bigots who say otherwise based on nothing.

The same nothing I have to back up my falsehood that homosexuality is not natural.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Coldkilla
Hey if I said it's against my religion for ANYONE have red curtains, what right do I have to come into your house, rip them down, burn them, say your going to hell, and fine you for thousands of dollars that you would have to pay?

Marriage is a tradition. So why does it have to me everyone's tradition? You have no right to impede on the privacy of other people. Thats written in the constitution. If you don't approve of the constitution, you can geeeeeetttttttt out, go live in Cuba or Russia... or something.

Marriage is not a house. It is, as you said a tradition. A tradition between a man and a woman. For it to possibly apply to gays means the tradition is being re-written to anew meaning. Second, there is nothing private about dealings with the state. It's the state's recognition of a marriage that defines it, not weather you're capable of living together privately in your house.

What right does the state have to force us to recognize their re-designed and shoved down our throats version of marriage?

Originally posted by: gururu2
lets be honest about a few things. does the institution of marriage get any respect nowadays?

Yes, we need to kick people when they're down. Finish them off for the good ol'KO.

What right does the state have to recognize any religious ceremony? What right does the state have to apply special benefits to people engaging in the religious ceremony (including tax breaks and the ability to enter into contracts as a joint entity)? What right does the state have to recognize only the heterosexual versions of said ceremony? Clearly, this is a violation of either the first amendment or the fourteenth, take your pick.

 

[gururu2]

Originally posted by: BradAtWork

Infertile couples having IVF is unnatural. Why is that fine?

"A child should have a mother and a father" - What about the millions of single mothers raising children?

did i say it was fine?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
I'm not against gay/lesbian marriage, if they feel like it, who am I to stand in between.

It's the idea of children being raised by a gay/lesbian couple that makes me uncomfortable. I doubt that would be a healthy environment for a kid.

Every credible study proves your doubt unfounded. Do you want to listen to facts?

No, he's absolutely right. I grew up with a slew of children raised by lesbians, and we're all totally fucked up. Naturally we're all gay, and we molest children and small animals because we don't know any better. Amidst our satanic practices involving ritual slayings and drinking the blood of virgins, we find time for a good scat orgy. Most of my friends shoot meth into their penises (even the women), and I know at least one mass murderer. Also, one of my oldest friends is a werewolf and voted for Pat Buchanan.

Arrrrr, scary lesbian-raised men-beasties abound!

I'm sorry, but shooting meth is wrong.

 

[BradAtWork]

Originally posted by: gururu2

Originally posted by: BradAtWork

Infertile couples having IVF is unnatural. Why is that fine?

"A child should have a mother and a father" - What about the millions of single mothers raising children?

did i say it was fine?

So you're saying it's not fine?

How sick can you be to deny a couple the right to IVF? The fact that they're sterile has no affect on their ability to be good parents.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: gururu2

Originally posted by: Vic
Not to break up the fun here, but there are several mainstream churches that are accepting of gays and/or gay marriage.

as long as the vatican and the muslims forbid it....

Well, the Episcopalians are gay-friendly and have reconciled (to "full communion") with the Vatican...

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Coldkilla
Hey if I said it's against my religion for ANYONE have red curtains, what right do I have to come into your house, rip them down, burn them, say your going to hell, and fine you for thousands of dollars that you would have to pay?

Marriage is a tradition. So why does it have to me everyone's tradition? You have no right to impede on the privacy of other people. Thats written in the constitution. If you don't approve of the constitution, you can geeeeeetttttttt out, go live in Cuba or Russia... or something.

Marriage is not a house. It is, as you said a tradition. A tradition between a man and a woman. For it to possibly apply to gays means the tradition is being re-written to anew meaning. Second, there is nothing private about dealings with the state. It's the state's recognition of a marriage that defines it, not weather you're capable of living together privately in your house.

What right does the state have to force us to recognize their re-designed and shoved down our throats version of marriage?

Slavery had centuries, millenia, of tradition. Was that reason not to change it?

The government got involved in slaveowners' property rights to protect the individual rights of slaves.

The government should get involved in marriage laws to protect the individual rights of gays. No need to get in the churches - just the civil law.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
What right does the state have to recognize any religious ceremony? What right does the state have to apply special benefits to people engaging in the religious ceremony (including tax breaks and the ability to enter into contracts as a joint entity)? What right does the state have to recognize only the heterosexual versions of said ceremony? Clearly, this is a violation of either the first amendment or the fourteenth, take your pick.

I agree. Which is why it is my opinion that the state should get out of the marriage business entirely, except for census and other recordkeeping.

 

[gururu2]

Originally posted by: BradAtWork

So you're saying it's not fine?

How sick can you be to deny a couple the right to IVF? The fact that they're sterile has no effect on their ability to be good parents.

lmao. stick to your beliefs, i'll stick to mine. i'm not trying to convert you, why are you trying to convert me.

i'm ok with gay marriage, but agree with the religious establishment that it is unholy.
i'm against gay parents adopting children because I believe it is unnatural.

enough said.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: gururu2

Originally posted by: BradAtWork

So you're saying it's not fine?

How sick can you be to deny a couple the right to IVF? The fact that they're sterile has no effect on their ability to be good parents.

lmao. stick to your beliefs, i'll stick to mine. i'm not trying to convert you, why are you trying to convert me.

i'm ok with gay marriage, but agree with the religious establishment that it is unholy.
i'm against gay parents adopting children because I believe it is unnatural.

enough said.

A good reason to be trying to convert you is that your beliefs involve denying gay parents a right to adopt children... so a live and let live stance doesn't work here so well.

 

[BradAtWork]

Originally posted by: gururu2

Originally posted by: BradAtWork

So you're saying it's not fine?

How sick can you be to deny a couple the right to IVF? The fact that they're sterile has no effect on their ability to be good parents.

lmao. stick to your beliefs, i'll stick to mine. i'm not trying to convert you, why are you trying to convert me.

i'm ok with gay marriage, but agree with the religious establishment that it is unholy.
i'm against gay parents adopting children because I believe it is unnatural.

enough said.

Answer the question. Is it ok of infertile couple to get IVF?

You don't even know what my beliefs are, i'v been asking rhetorical
questions only. So how am I trying to convert you?

I'm just trying to get a legitamte reason for your beleives. Based on facts, not magic books.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Coldkilla
Hey if I said it's against my religion for ANYONE have red curtains, what right do I have to come into your house, rip them down, burn them, say your going to hell, and fine you for thousands of dollars that you would have to pay?

Marriage is a tradition. So why does it have to me everyone's tradition? You have no right to impede on the privacy of other people. Thats written in the constitution. If you don't approve of the constitution, you can geeeeeetttttttt out, go live in Cuba or Russia... or something.

Marriage is not a house. It is, as you said a tradition. A tradition between a man and a woman. For it to possibly apply to gays means the tradition is being re-written to anew meaning. Second, there is nothing private about dealings with the state. It's the state's recognition of a marriage that defines it, not weather you're capable of living together privately in your house.

What right does the state have to force us to recognize their re-designed and shoved down our throats version of marriage?

Slavery had centuries, millenia, of tradition. Was that reason not to change it?

The government got involved in slaveowners' property rights to protect the individual rights of slaves.

The government should get involved in marriage laws to protect the individual rights of gays. No need to get in the churches - just the civil law.

I thought you guys wanted the gov't out of the bedroom? Why are you saying they "should get involved" all of a sudden? Can't have it both ways....

I'd support the gov't removing all "marriage" language from laws. Let people enter legal contracts for things they deem necessary.

 

[gururu2]

Originally posted by: BradAtWork

Answer the question. Is it ok of infertile couple to get IVF?

You don't even know what my beliefs are, i'v been asking rhetorical
questions only. So how am I trying to convert you?

I'm just trying to get a legitamte reason for your beleives. Based on facts, not magic books.

i'm a scientist, and I very much support the very unnatural use of in vitro fertilization to provide couples with the opportunity to have children.

 

[glenn1]

Well, the Episcopalians are gay-friendly and have reconciled (to "full communion") with the Vatican...

To be fair, this is only partially true for the U.S. wing of the Episcopal Church, and is far from settled in other regions of that denomination. Link

 

[gururu2]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

A good reason to be trying to convert you is that your beliefs involve denying gay parents a right to adopt children... so a live and let live stance doesn't work here so well.

meh, i already stated that I have accepted this possibility as a result of accepting gay unions.

 

[BradAtWork]

Originally posted by: gururu2

Originally posted by: BradAtWork

Answer the question. Is it ok of infertile couple to get IVF?

You don't even know what my beliefs are, i'v been asking rhetorical
questions only. So how am I trying to convert you?

I'm just trying to get a legitamte reason for your beleives. Based on facts, not magic books.

i'm a scientist, and I very much support the very unnatural use of in vitro fertilization to provide couples with the opportunity to have children.

So its unnatural for gays to have children because they are biologically unable?

People who use IVF are biologically unable to have children, why is that ok?

 

[gururu2]

Originally posted by: BradAtWork


So its unnatural for gays to have children because they are biologically unable?

People who use IVF are biologically unable to have children, why is that ok?

do you understand IVF?

 

[BradAtWork]

Originally posted by: gururu2

Originally posted by: BradAtWork


So its unnatural for gays to have children because they are biologically unable?

People who use IVF are biologically unable to have children, why is that ok?

do you understand IVF?

Yes.

Do you understand 'logical, fact based reasoning?'

 

[gururu2]

Originally posted by: BradAtWork

Originally posted by: gururu2

Originally posted by: BradAtWork


So its unnatural for gays to have children because they are biologically unable?

People who use IVF are biologically unable to have children, why is that ok?

do you understand IVF?

Yes.

Do you understand 'logical, fact based reasoning?'

ok, because candidates for IVF are biologically able to have children, they just need some assistance in 'conceiving'.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Coldkilla
Hey if I said it's against my religion for ANYONE have red curtains, what right do I have to come into your house, rip them down, burn them, say your going to hell, and fine you for thousands of dollars that you would have to pay?

Marriage is a tradition. So why does it have to me everyone's tradition? You have no right to impede on the privacy of other people. Thats written in the constitution. If you don't approve of the constitution, you can geeeeeetttttttt out, go live in Cuba or Russia... or something.

Marriage is not a house. It is, as you said a tradition. A tradition between a man and a woman. For it to possibly apply to gays means the tradition is being re-written to anew meaning. Second, there is nothing private about dealings with the state. It's the state's recognition of a marriage that defines it, not weather you're capable of living together privately in your house.

What right does the state have to force us to recognize their re-designed and shoved down our throats version of marriage?

Slavery had centuries, millenia, of tradition. Was that reason not to change it?

The government got involved in slaveowners' property rights to protect the individual rights of slaves.

The government should get involved in marriage laws to protect the individual rights of gays. No need to get in the churches - just the civil law.

I thought you guys wanted the gov't out of the bedroom? Why are you saying they "should get involved" all of a sudden? Can't have it both ways....

I'd support the gov't removing all "marriage" language from laws. Let people enter legal contracts for things they deem necessary.

Well, first, don't try the childish word games with generalities about the government being involved in the bedroom. There's a difference between arresting people for gay sex and the law for gay marriage - you don't have to be for or against both. You are not helping the discussion at all with such games instead of dealing with the issue.

Second, you get into a semantic discussion over what 'interference' is, if it matters - was the government interfering by having laws allowing slavery? Or was it interfering by outlawing slavery? Is the government having laws for only heterosexual marriage interfering, or would the government banning discrimination be interfering?

Who cares - the issue is doing what's right, just as with banning other forms of unjustified discrimination.

I'm not in favor of your position to not have any laws on marriage, but it would end legal discrimination; if we keep marriage laws, though, you need to oppose discrimination, IMO.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: gururu2

Originally posted by: BradAtWork

So you're saying it's not fine?

How sick can you be to deny a couple the right to IVF? The fact that they're sterile has no effect on their ability to be good parents.

lmao. stick to your beliefs, i'll stick to mine. i'm not trying to convert you, why are you trying to convert me.

i'm ok with gay marriage, but agree with the religious establishment that it is unholy.
i'm against gay parents adopting children because I believe it is unnatural.

enough said.

Are you familiar with the concept of a political discussion board?

It's for more than posting the policy you like followed by 'enough said'.

You have repeatedly ignored the request to justify your claim that homosexuality is "unnatural."

Please do take into account the rebuttals already posted to the common baseless 'reasons' for such a claim.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: gururu2

Originally posted by: BradAtWork

Originally posted by: gururu2

Originally posted by: BradAtWork


So its unnatural for gays to have children because they are biologically unable?

People who use IVF are biologically unable to have children, why is that ok?

do you understand IVF?

Yes.

Do you understand 'logical, fact based reasoning?'

ok, because candidates for IVF are biologically able to have children, they just need some assistance in 'conceiving'.

Homosexuals are biologically capable of raising children.

Next?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Slavery had centuries, millenia, of tradition. Was that reason not to change it?

The rights of human beings were at stake.

Everyone has the right to marry the opposite sex and call it "marriage", or to enter into an equal union under a different name.

The government got involved in slaveowners' property rights to protect the individual rights of slaves.

I want to smack you, for comparing owning a human being as property to do with as you please, VS your forcing us to accept your redefined version of a tradition that has no rights associated with it and telling us the two both fit equally under the banner of human rights.

I?m not telling you not to screw who you want, I?m telling you not to trash our tradition which has no bearing on human rights.

 

[gururu2]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Are you familiar with the concept of a political discussion board?

It's for more than posting the policy you like followed by 'enough said'.

i'm not going to ask you to prove to me why you believe certain things. i am going to respect the fact that you might know what you are talking about. and appreciate that you have extended the same courtesy.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
I?m not telling you not to screw who you want, I?m telling you not to trash our tradition which has no bearing on human rights.

Yes it does. Any couple can have a civil union but only straight couples can get married. In other words a special class exists for heterosexual couples with no equivalent special class for homosexual couples. It is not only a totally unnecessary differentiation (it's much simpler to just use "marriage" and "gay marriage") but it is also inherently polarizing. It is segregation in a less obvious form. The concept of "separate but equal" was already struck down for racial segregation. I don't see why it's suddenly become acceptable again.

Btw, the fact that it is traditional is totally irrelevant to the actual issue.