Question for anti-gay marriage people.

[jonks]

Originally posted by: gururu2

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: gururu2

Originally posted by: sirjonk
You know, it seems like the large majority of people in this thread don't seem to have a problem with gay marriage, at least not to the point that they'd go out and vote for a state constitutional amendment banning it. Kinda scary that 42 states had enough people so concerned about it that they did just that.

well its almost as bad when those who are for it are attacking others who are for it because they don't share the same ideologies.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you don't have any (close) gay friends. Even die hard Cheney came around on this one.

i have had gay friends, but personal feelings cloud objectivity. so what part of me defending gay marriages has led to this assault?

Didn't mean it to be an 'assault.' You had stated that you are against gay adoption because you believed "it" was unnatural. I think if you had close gay friends or a gay couple who you associated with you'd see they could be just as capable a parental couple as any hetero couple. It wouldn't be about personal feelings clouding your objectivity as much as first hand experience providing a viewpoint not based on gut feelings about who is capable of parenting.

If your calculation is :
Husband & Wife > Single Parent > foster care

where would you put a gay couple in that, or would you not put them anywhere? Would you consider being raised in a group home without ANY parents "natural"?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I just don't get why what 2 people do in the privacy of their own home, who love each other affects you and your family at all. Why not allow 2 people, man and man, or woman and woman to legally marry and recieve the same benefits that a man and woman have who are married. I believe that is the catalyst here for gays. I don't know for sure, but I think that's really the whole point. Legal benefits and being recognized as a couple household.
I am sure I have gay neighbors across the street from me and I couldn't care less, they are kind, wave and talk to me, like, well, regular people, because they are just that. People. Some of the trumped up arguments that have been against gay marriage would be laughable if they weren't so pathetic. Sanctity of marriage?!?! are you kidding me? There is no sanctity, there's the perception of sanctity, but that's about it. Divorce is common, no more til death do us part, good times and bad times, etc. I am just as guilty of that, I am divorced once myself, and my wife too.
What harm would come to your house or your community if 2 men shared a house next to you, were able to file joint tax returns, use one of thier companies health benefits rather both using their own, be able to visit them in the hospital as a spouse should be able to and when the time comes reap the same benefits a 'normal' couple would when one of the spouses die. I'll answer that for you. No harm would come, no harm has come because whether you like it or not, it's the future. I believe the same things were being argued about letting blacks in 'white' schools and 'white' neighborhoods. Both are equally appalling and totally inhumane.
You and your opposite sex spouse deserve no more legal recognition of your marriage than a gay couple does. You are no better, you work, they work, you get sick, they get sick, you get spousal benefits, they get... oh wait.. they don't. And for no other reason than close minded bigotry and fear. No matter what you do, no matter what you say this will happen, it will be done whether this generation or the next, it's the future, so embrace it, open your mind and realize that we are all god's children.

 

[gururu2]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Didn't mean it to be an 'assault.' You had stated that you are against gay adoption because you believed "it" was unnatural. I think if you had close gay friends or a gay couple who you associated with you'd see they could be just as capable a parental couple as any hetero couple. It wouldn't be about personal feelings clouding your objectivity as much as first hand experience providing a viewpoint not based on gut feelings about who is capable of parenting.

If your calculation is :
Husband & Wife > Single Parent > foster care

where would you put a gay couple in that, or would you not put them anywhere? Would you consider being raised in a group home without ANY parents "natural"?

i support a lot of unnatural things. unnatural does not mean bad as I see it. i didn't know using the term 'unnatural' would have people crawling out of their skin.
i also don't appreciate the way people start putting words into my own or other peoples mouths. it isn't appropriate, its kind of rude, and it gives the idea that a point is not completely understood.

i already said that i support gay marriage. i already said that i do so even though it will provide such couples with a stronger opportunity to adopt children. i am not going to support legislation that will strip this right. when i bought the package, i accepted the positives AND the negatives.

so why are folks not satisfied with that? my guess is that they will not come to terms with their own feelings until everyone feels the exact same way. if i'm against anything, i'm against that.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: gururu2

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Didn't mean it to be an 'assault.' You had stated that you are against gay adoption because you believed "it" was unnatural. I think if you had close gay friends or a gay couple who you associated with you'd see they could be just as capable a parental couple as any hetero couple. It wouldn't be about personal feelings clouding your objectivity as much as first hand experience providing a viewpoint not based on gut feelings about who is capable of parenting.

If your calculation is :
Husband & Wife > Single Parent > foster care

where would you put a gay couple in that, or would you not put them anywhere? Would you consider being raised in a group home without ANY parents "natural"?

i support a lot of unnatural things. unnatural does not mean bad as I see it. i didn't know using the term 'unnatural' would have people crawling out of their skin.
i also don't appreciate the way people start putting words into my own or other peoples mouths. it isn't appropriate, its kind of rude, and it gives the idea that a point is not completely understood.

i already said that i support gay marriage. i already said that i do so even though it will provide such couples with a stronger opportunity to adopt children. i am not going to support legislation that will strip this right. when i bought the package, i accepted the positives AND the negatives.

so why are folks not satisfied with that? my guess is that they will not come to terms with their own feelings until everyone feels the exact same way. if i'm against anything, i'm against that.

I think at this point it's probably just confusion over how you support something that you find unnatural and unholy

I think vampires are unnatural and unholy, and if I see one of those mofos, I'll stake his ass. hehe.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: gururu2

Originally posted by: Craig234

I understand what you're saying, and you're right to the extent that I'm addressing their error in the use of the natural, rather than what they're trying to convey by the word ...The Gay (the biology appear to have a pretty constant percent of people born gay all the time) is part of debunking their fallacies so they can deal with the issue.

you can wax philosophical until the sun goes down, but the reality is that your argument won't help men grow vaginas. why don't men grow vaginas? because its not natural.

You can wax philosophical that men should all fit your simplistic idea of heterosexual, but the fact is that your argument won't change that nautre makes about 5% of men homosexual.

Why are they born homosexual? Because it's natural.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: gururu2

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Didn't mean it to be an 'assault.' You had stated that you are against gay adoption because you believed "it" was unnatural. I think if you had close gay friends or a gay couple who you associated with you'd see they could be just as capable a parental couple as any hetero couple. It wouldn't be about personal feelings clouding your objectivity as much as first hand experience providing a viewpoint not based on gut feelings about who is capable of parenting.

If your calculation is :
Husband & Wife > Single Parent > foster care

where would you put a gay couple in that, or would you not put them anywhere? Would you consider being raised in a group home without ANY parents "natural"?

i support a lot of unnatural things. unnatural does not mean bad as I see it. i didn't know using the term 'unnatural' would have people crawling out of their skin.
i also don't appreciate the way people start putting words into my own or other peoples mouths. it isn't appropriate, its kind of rude, and it gives the idea that a point is not completely understood.

i already said that i support gay marriage. i already said that i do so even though it will provide such couples with a stronger opportunity to adopt children. i am not going to support legislation that will strip this right. when i bought the package, i accepted the positives AND the negatives.

so why are folks not satisfied with that? my guess is that they will not come to terms with their own feelings until everyone feels the exact same way. if i'm against anything, i'm against that.

Well, the truth isn't something to compromise on. It's not 'ok, you agree 1+1=2, and 2+2=4 so I'll let you slip on 3+3=8.'

For gay marriage? great.

Willing but reluctant on gay adoption? Partly ok, but why the reluctance? Justified?

Still holding out for this undefined 'unnatural' word for gays? Wrong. Unusual? Yes. We don't know the cause yet; it's too common to fit biology's normal 'aberrations'.

We do know we have a choice to act like the witch trial leaders and persecute the people born gay or that we can be reasonable and not persecute them.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: gururu2
i support a lot of unnatural things. unnatural does not mean bad as I see it. i didn't know using the term 'unnatural' would have people crawling out of their skin.
i also don't appreciate the way people start putting words into my own or other peoples mouths. it isn't appropriate, its kind of rude, and it gives the idea that a point is not completely understood.

i already said that i support gay marriage. i already said that i do so even though it will provide such couples with a stronger opportunity to adopt children. i am not going to support legislation that will strip this right. when i bought the package, i accepted the positives AND the negatives.

so why are folks not satisfied with that? my guess is that they will not come to terms with their own feelings until everyone feels the exact same way. if i'm against anything, i'm against that.

I, for one, am glad that you support gay people's right to marry even though you find the behavior offensive and are opposed to gays adopting children. I am not satisfied because you are clearly against gays adopting children, which, in my mind, attacks my upbringing, my family and me personally. I am not satisfied that you continue to use the word "unnatural," which is simply incorrect from any scientific standpoint (it may be unusal and you may find it immoral, but that is not the same as unnatural). So while I am truly glad that despite some obvious homophobia on your part, you support equal rights for gays, I'm never going to be "satisfied" with someone who calls my family unnatural.

But I agree with you, we shouldn't all be forced to think the same. So rock on with your (in my opinion misguided) views. So long as you aren't trying to strip away my rights, or the rights of the people I love, you and I are cool.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: gururu2
i support a lot of unnatural things. unnatural does not mean bad as I see it. i didn't know using the term 'unnatural' would have people crawling out of their skin.
i also don't appreciate the way people start putting words into my own or other peoples mouths. it isn't appropriate, its kind of rude, and it gives the idea that a point is not completely understood.

i already said that i support gay marriage. i already said that i do so even though it will provide such couples with a stronger opportunity to adopt children. i am not going to support legislation that will strip this right. when i bought the package, i accepted the positives AND the negatives.

so why are folks not satisfied with that? my guess is that they will not come to terms with their own feelings until everyone feels the exact same way. if i'm against anything, i'm against that.

I, for one, am glad that you support gay people's right to marry even though you find the behavior offensive and are opposed to gays adopting children. I am not satisfied because you are clearly against gays adopting children, which, in my mind, attacks my upbringing, my family and me personally. I am not satisfied that you continue to use the word "unnatural," which is simply incorrect from any scientific standpoint (it may be unusal and you may find it immoral, but that is not the same as unnatural). So while I am truly glad that despite some obvious homophobia on your part, you support equal rights for gays, I'm never going to be "satisfied" with someone who calls my family unnatural.

But I agree with you, we shouldn't all be forced to think the same. So rock on with your (in my opinion misguided) views. So long as you aren't trying to strip away my rights, or the rights of the people I love, you and I are cool.

The problem with Guru's post is that he's trying to spin advocating for morality and justice as denying the freedom for him to have an opinion. That's wrong.

Imagine someone posted they are for the return of slavery for blacks. Many would respond telling them they were wrong, advocating an immoral law. That poster could then say that all those people are demanding that everyone has to have the same opinion on slavery - see how the claim spins the issue away, making any argument for a position somehow an attack on freedom of opinion, whan that's nonsense?

Does freedom of opinion mean that a political message board should be people posting opinions and no raising of criticisms by others? I don't think so.

What is the proper response to an expression of bigotry? Seems to me it's to try to help the bigot - I think most are unaware of their own bigotry, and I speak for myself in the past (hopefully) - to realize their bigotry and improve their opinion. Is the proper response to say nothing to challenge it? I don't think so.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: chucky2
In the end, gays should just pick a term - civil union is fine, whatever works for them - excluding the word "marriage" (straights got here first for the past couple thousand years gays, too bad, pick another word) and that should be the end of that.

It seems the real issue is not whether gays should enjoy all the rights a married couple enjoys (I believe most reasonable non-holy book brainwashed people would agree with this), it's whether or not gays who are joined should be able to adobt kids (or in a lesbian join, whether one/both should be able to be artificially inseminated).

I can see how a lesbian could make the case that it is her body to choose whether she will artificially inseminate herself, however, I have a very hard time getting my head around allowing two gay males joined to adopt a child.

Something about nature (lets forego the whole, Well what about medical drugs/proceedures then? arguments, no one seriously can support that argument in good faith) not allowing two gay men to reproduce seems too much like a natural check for us to just rush out and interfere with just to satisfy PC arguments...

The kids part makes this issue so much tougher really....

Chuck

Only if you accept the idea that gay couples are somehow less capable of raising kids than straight couples or even single people. And again, it's hard to make an argument for that position without being at least a little bit homophobic.

I wouldn't characterize myself as homophobic at all, I'm just leery on letting two males adopt kid(s) without some types of larger credible analysis (of which the only choice is to let many samples of gay male and gay female unions raise kids) and look at what the outcome's are. Rushing into something for the sake of PC'ness isn't homophobic, it's prudent. It's hard enough for traditional marriages to raise kids, let alone the added social and internal pressures gay unions are going to encounter. We then have the aforementioned going against nature thing...I believe in evolution (or that aliens seeded earth, both hold some type of weight), and there is absolutely 0 natural way two gay females or 2 gay males can produce offspring. F'ing with mother nature should not be discounted....

I think the vast majority of the problems from a child raised by gay parents would come from the absolutely despicable way society treats gay people (imagine the teasing the kid would face in school), but I suppose that's a valid point...at least for adoption. But since we apply zero screening to straight parents who want to have kids, it doesn't seem fair to apply a rigid standard to gay couples. Gay women can use artificial insemination, a procedure that is applied without any limits at all to straight women. As far as adoption, there seem to be plenty of kids who need adopting, certainly gay parents can't do worse than some of the terrible straight parents out there...or no parents at all?

As for the "pick a new word" approach, why should they have to? Gay relationships are every bit as valid as straight ones...it seems really silly to allow anyone to "claim" a particular term for it. A new word assumes there is something fundamentally different (and worse) about a gay relationship, and I don't think that's at all true. Sexual preference is a non-starter issue for dividing people, in my opinion. People are people, if they love each other and want to commit to spend the rest of their lives with each other, that seems WAY more important than what equipment they have below the waist.

I never said they weren't as valid, they certainly are. The simple fact is that straight couples have been using the term marriage for a few thousand years now. Straights by a massive margain outnumber gays. I think it's unreasonable for straights to have to change their definition of marriage just because gays don't like it....that's just to d@mn bad for gays. They have the advantage of coming up with whatever term - other than marriage - they want to use for their joining into a life committment with each other. The can call it Supercalifaggotlesbialidocious for all I care, but straights got to "marriage" before gays - by a couple thousand years at least.

Chuck

Again, that sounds way too much like "separate but equal" for my comfort. Nobody is saying black people shouldn't have rights, but they shouldn't be "mixing" with whites...the whites were here first, and there's more of them than black people. How is that not exactly the same argument?

And please, for the love of God, would you stop with the "forcing people to change their definition of marriage"? Nobody is forcing YOU to do a damn thing. You can feel free to personally think gay marriage isn't real marriage. But we're also talking about the rights the government gives people, and things other than your personal belief should come into play there. The whole point of a system like ours is that we DON'T all have to get together and decide what beliefs we should collectively hold. In a perfect world, the government wouldn't define marriage at all. But since it IS defining marriage, it seems like equal rights principles should have more weight than what people believe.

Of course maybe that's a better solution. If you want the absolute right to define marriage however you like, go right ahead. Maybe the best solution is to, instead of applying equal rights in favor of marriage, apply equal rights to NOT recognizing marriage. The government could just get out of the marriage business, no legal rights for married couples, no tax breaks, no nothing. If you can find some shaman to bless your union, more power to you..but maybe we're all better off if the government just ignores the whole damn thing. After all, then it would be fair, AND you could define marriage however narrowly you choose.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: gururu2
i support a lot of unnatural things. unnatural does not mean bad as I see it. i didn't know using the term 'unnatural' would have people crawling out of their skin.
i also don't appreciate the way people start putting words into my own or other peoples mouths. it isn't appropriate, its kind of rude, and it gives the idea that a point is not completely understood.

i already said that i support gay marriage. i already said that i do so even though it will provide such couples with a stronger opportunity to adopt children. i am not going to support legislation that will strip this right. when i bought the package, i accepted the positives AND the negatives.

so why are folks not satisfied with that? my guess is that they will not come to terms with their own feelings until everyone feels the exact same way. if i'm against anything, i'm against that.

I, for one, am glad that you support gay people's right to marry even though you find the behavior offensive and are opposed to gays adopting children. I am not satisfied because you are clearly against gays adopting children, which, in my mind, attacks my upbringing, my family and me personally. I am not satisfied that you continue to use the word "unnatural," which is simply incorrect from any scientific standpoint (it may be unusal and you may find it immoral, but that is not the same as unnatural). So while I am truly glad that despite some obvious homophobia on your part, you support equal rights for gays, I'm never going to be "satisfied" with someone who calls my family unnatural.

But I agree with you, we shouldn't all be forced to think the same. So rock on with your (in my opinion misguided) views. So long as you aren't trying to strip away my rights, or the rights of the people I love, you and I are cool.

The problem with Guru's post is that he's trying to spin advocating for morality and justice as denying the freedom for him to have an opinion. That's wrong.

Imagine someone posted they are for the return of slavery for blacks. Many would respond telling them they were wrong, advocating an immoral law. That poster could then say that all those people are demanding that everyone has to have the same opinion on slavery - see how the claim spins the issue away, making any argument for a position somehow an attack on freedom of opinion, whan that's nonsense?

Does freedom of opinion mean that a political message board should be people posting opinions and no raising of criticisms by others? I don't think so.

What is the proper response to an expression of bigotry? Seems to me it's to try to help the bigot - I think most are unaware of their own bigotry, and I speak for myself in the past (hopefully) - to realize their bigotry and improve their opinion. Is the proper response to say nothing to challenge it? I don't think so.

You are absolutely correct. However, given that there are pages of responses to Guru's posts in this very thread, not to mention the (literally) millions of pages on the internet debating Guru's point of view, I am left to consider that if his mind isn't changed now, nothing I offer on this forum at this point will change that. As long as he is ready to admit that denying gays the right to marry or adopt is wrong, he can hold whatever view of morality he wants to. He's specifically said, regardless of his views on homosexuality, he supports the rights of gays to marry. He could be a moderator at godhatesfags, but as long as he doesn't vote against my rights or the rights of my family, I support his right to hold bigoted views. When his bigotry stands in opposition to the rights of significant segment of the population, he has crossed the line.

And hey, better to befriend him and make him realize that perhaps gays and lesbians are better parents than he gave them credit for once he gets to know me than try and take an antagonistic position from the get go, right? Yes, I think his views are wrong, and I would love to see him change them. I don't think an anonymous voice on the internet will do it. But even if he and I can't see eye to eye on this issue, as long as he isn't voting to suppress the rights of people, he is fine in my book.

 

[thraashman]

It comes down to this. So long as the government regulates marriage in any way and gives benefits to people who are married, then they have to allow gay marriage. People saying that gays are as free to marry as anyone else are blatantly WRONG! Because straight people are free to marry WHO THEY WANT! Gay people have no such freedom. And if the government is gonna give people who are married any sort of privelege, then it is unconstitutional to not allow gay marriage as set forth in the 14th amendment. That's all there is to it. Anyone who says differently is simply full of shit and they know it.

So if you are against gay marriage, then by your own arguments, you should be for the goverment forcing you to marry someone based on other standards they choose such as race, religion, or socio-economic condition. Don't be a self-righteous asshole about it and let people do what makes them happy.


Edit: I should also note that as far as I'm concerned, gay marriage doesn't have to be made legal. But one of two things does need to happen to make everyone equal. Either A) the government should stop allowing any benefits to married couples. Or B) same-sex couples should be allowed to enter into some form of union that allows ALL the same benefits of being married (this includes things like hospital visitation rights that are usually restricted to family only).

 

[Butterbean]

Homosexuals are banned from giving blood because they are more prone to disease - no surprise anyone gets sick putting their organ in a sewer. Trying to eat a hot dog with your nose is weird - same goes for men having sex with each others bottoms. Absolutely no way homosexuals should be allowed to have faux marraiges for sake of health benefits. Since they can't have families in any natural way that also crushes the main reason for getting married.

Marriage is not a romantic gesture. The fact so many think it is is a reason marriage is failing as an instituion. People have just become selfish and superfical and a sham culture and liberal excess have eroded it. Homosexuals getting married would just be the next step down. The main reason some homosexuals militate against the natural order to "get married" is because they are outside that order and cant stand the contrast and want to obliterate it. Once they could be married they won't care anymore. Its already happened in Europe.

Families and society have been deteriorating and identity conflicts are proliferting - homosexuality is one of them. Just like a cancer destroys the body that contains it we have an unhealthy society producing people who are so far from their own true identities they are compelled to attack anything that is a contrast to them. Homosexual marriage will never go very far because the rise in homosexuality takes place historically on massive tides of decay and we don't have much more time before a disease worse than AIDS or a huge war etc comes along and pushes the reset button.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Butterbean
Homosexuals are banned from giving blood because they are more prone to disease - no surprise anyone gets sick putting their organ in a sewer. Trying to eat a hot dog with your nose is weird - same goes for men having sex with each others bottoms. Absolutely no way homosexuals should be allowed to have faux marraiges for sake of health benefits. Since they can't have families in any natural way that also crushes the main reason for getting married.

Marriage is not a romantic gesture. The fact so many think it is is a reason marriage is failing as an instituion. People have just become selfish and superfical and a sham culture and liberal excess have eroded it. Homosexuals getting married would just be the next step down. The main reason some homosexuals militate against the natural order to "get married" is because they are outside that order and cant stand the contrast and want to obliterate it. Once they could be married they won't care anymore. Its already happened in Europe.

Families and society have been deteriorating and identity conflicts are proliferting - homosexuality is one of them. Just like a cancer destroys the body that contains it we have an unhealthy society producing people who are so far from their own true identities they are compelled to attack anything that is a contrast to them. Homosexual marriage will never go very far because the rise in homosexuality takes place historically on massive tides of decay and we don't have much more time before a disease worse than AIDS or a huge war etc comes along and pushes the reset button.

Well, you sure hold a lot of the problem views on the issue.

Regarding your hot dogs and noses, take your argument to Mother Nature, who made the people have that sexual orientation - and while you're chatting ask her to explain the many heterosexual couples who have enjoyed anal sex for thousands of years, while others don't care for it.

Homosexuals are human beings. They form loving romantic relationships with the same gender. What else do you need to know to recognize they have rights?

You're blathering about a natural order, unable to actually debate the point like anyone who has fallen for such important sounding catch phrases.

They are part of the natural order, period. You are using bad facts, and bad logic, to stay blind and comfortable.

Gay marriage is not the 'next step down', it's the next ste up for society to stop the bigotry against about 5% of our population.

It's terrible logic to take broad issues in society and blame them irrationally on the demon of the day, as you do with gays. It's just nonsense, the same sort we heard with racism.

There is no 'rise in homosexuality', only a reduction in its being hidden, and your apocalyptic predictions if bigotry is ended are crazy.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

I think the vast majority of the problems from a child raised by gay parents would come from the absolutely despicable way society treats gay people (imagine the teasing the kid would face in school), but I suppose that's a valid point...at least for adoption. But since we apply zero screening to straight parents who want to have kids, it doesn't seem fair to apply a rigid standard to gay couples. Gay women can use artificial insemination, a procedure that is applied without any limits at all to straight women. As far as adoption, there seem to be plenty of kids who need adopting, certainly gay parents can't do worse than some of the terrible straight parents out there...or no parents at all?

Yes, not only the way society is going to treat the kid, but also societal pressures on the gay parents themselves. Like I said, we already have a serious problem in this country with straight parents raising quality kids, much less staying married. I highly doubt the stats for gay unions are going to be close to a straight marriage, and that's a problem when you're talking about a lesbian union and articifial insemination, or an either sex gay marriage adopting.

I'm absolutely sure there are gay couples that can raise better kids than straight couples, but if we're going to be talking about policy here, we can't look and compare extremes. What are the median stats and lets compare those, then make some valid reasoning. If I have some time, I'll do some research on gay unions...I'm curious what their median duration for union is.

I totally agre

Again, that sounds way too much like "separate but equal" for my comfort. Nobody is saying black people shouldn't have rights, but they shouldn't be "mixing" with whites...the whites were here first, and there's more of them than black people. How is that not exactly the same argument?

And please, for the love of God, would you stop with the "forcing people to change their definition of marriage"? Nobody is forcing YOU to do a damn thing. You can feel free to personally think gay marriage isn't real marriage. But we're also talking about the rights the government gives people, and things other than your personal belief should come into play there. The whole point of a system like ours is that we DON'T all have to get together and decide what beliefs we should collectively hold. In a perfect world, the government wouldn't define marriage at all. But since it IS defining marriage, it seems like equal rights principles should have more weight than what people believe.

You are forcing me to change my view of marriage if the state is going to redefine marriage as a union between any two people. It has nothing to do with seperate but equal, it has everything to do with the vast vast majority thinking marriage is one man and one woman having to change their opinion for what Craig is calling a massive 5% of the population...to say nothing of tradition (and this isn't Whip darkie because it's Friday night, so No, don't play the race card here, it doesn't apply).

Of course maybe that's a better solution. If you want the absolute right to define marriage however you like, go right ahead. Maybe the best solution is to, instead of applying equal rights in favor of marriage, apply equal rights to NOT recognizing marriage. The government could just get out of the marriage business, no legal rights for married couples, no tax breaks, no nothing. If you can find some shaman to bless your union, more power to you..but maybe we're all better off if the government just ignores the whole damn thing. After all, then it would be fair, AND you could define marriage however narrowly you choose.

That's certainly a valid option, and one that would definitely work. Another is for the 5% of the population that wants to get hitched to pick another term other than marriage and us hetero's will back that to have the same exact rights as marriage. Call it garriage, we don't give a F. Seriously, where do we draw the line here? What happens when .0000005% of the population - but still part of the population none the less - wants to marry their loving pet monkey? Do we change the definition of marriage then to go from a marriage between two humans to two loving mammals? What's the problem with that? I mean, it's his/her right, right?

It's a total SWAG, but I bet gays would get 70% backing if they pushed for equal rights as straight couples and either stuck with civil union terminology, or, made up their own gay equivalent to marriage.

Chuck

 

[gururu2]

Originally posted by: Butterbean
Homosexuals are banned from giving blood because they are more prone to disease - no surprise anyone gets sick putting their organ in a sewer. Trying to eat a hot dog with your nose is weird - same goes for men having sex with each others bottoms. ... Homosexual marriage will never go very far because the rise in homosexuality takes place historically on massive tides of decay and we don't have much more time before a disease worse than AIDS or a huge war etc comes along and pushes the reset button.

It's cool that you have an opinion and that it really does articulate how the majority of the population feels. There is evidence to support some of what you say, particularly that taboo sexual practices can help escalate stds (related to the incidence and number of microdermal abrasions).

In any regard, you hold a most common sense view.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: gururu2

Originally posted by: Butterbean
Homosexuals are banned from giving blood because they are more prone to disease - no surprise anyone gets sick putting their organ in a sewer. Trying to eat a hot dog with your nose is weird - same goes for men having sex with each others bottoms. ... Homosexual marriage will never go very far because the rise in homosexuality takes place historically on massive tides of decay and we don't have much more time before a disease worse than AIDS or a huge war etc comes along and pushes the reset button.

It's cool that you have an opinion and that it really does articulate how the majority of the population feels. There is evidence to support some of what you say, particularly that taboo sexual practices can help escalate stds (related to the incidence and number of microdermal abrasions).

In any regard, you hold a most common sense view.

You both do realize that homosexual activity occurs commonly outside of the human species, right?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Butterbean
Homosexuals are banned from giving blood because they are more prone to disease - no surprise anyone gets sick putting their organ in a sewer. Trying to eat a hot dog with your nose is weird - same goes for men having sex with each others bottoms. Absolutely no way homosexuals should be allowed to have faux marraiges for sake of health benefits. Since they can't have families in any natural way that also crushes the main reason for getting married.

Marriage is not a romantic gesture. The fact so many think it is is a reason marriage is failing as an instituion. People have just become selfish and superfical and a sham culture and liberal excess have eroded it. Homosexuals getting married would just be the next step down. The main reason some homosexuals militate against the natural order to "get married" is because they are outside that order and cant stand the contrast and want to obliterate it. Once they could be married they won't care anymore. Its already happened in Europe.

Families and society have been deteriorating and identity conflicts are proliferting - homosexuality is one of them. Just like a cancer destroys the body that contains it we have an unhealthy society producing people who are so far from their own true identities they are compelled to attack anything that is a contrast to them. Homosexual marriage will never go very far because the rise in homosexuality takes place historically on massive tides of decay and we don't have much more time before a disease worse than AIDS or a huge war etc comes along and pushes the reset button.

Gays are the harbinger of the downfall of a given society?

I know your capacity for self delusion and willful ignorance on this topic seemingly know no bounds, but come on.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: gururu2

Originally posted by: Butterbean
Homosexuals are banned from giving blood because they are more prone to disease - no surprise anyone gets sick putting their organ in a sewer. Trying to eat a hot dog with your nose is weird - same goes for men having sex with each others bottoms. ... Homosexual marriage will never go very far because the rise in homosexuality takes place historically on massive tides of decay and we don't have much more time before a disease worse than AIDS or a huge war etc comes along and pushes the reset button.

It's cool that you have an opinion and that it really does articulate how the majority of the population feels. There is evidence to support some of what you say, particularly that taboo sexual practices can help escalate stds (related to the incidence and number of microdermal abrasions).

In any regard, you hold a most common sense view.

Sure, if by common sense you mean the sense of the common idiot. Putting your organ in a sewer? And hetero couples don't have anal sex? According to results of a federal study released two years ago, 40 percent of men and 35 percent of women surveyed in 2002 said they have had anal sex with an opposite-sex partner. I'm not gonna get into a post war with butterbean, but it's useful that he shows up in every thread about homosexuality to rant his bigotry so that the rest of us can remember why we need to keep fighting for equality.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: gururu2

Originally posted by: Butterbean
Homosexuals are banned from giving blood because they are more prone to disease - no surprise anyone gets sick putting their organ in a sewer. Trying to eat a hot dog with your nose is weird - same goes for men having sex with each others bottoms. ... Homosexual marriage will never go very far because the rise in homosexuality takes place historically on massive tides of decay and we don't have much more time before a disease worse than AIDS or a huge war etc comes along and pushes the reset button.

It's cool that you have an opinion and that it really does articulate how the majority of the population feels. There is evidence to support some of what you say, particularly that taboo sexual practices can help escalate stds (related to the incidence and number of microdermal abrasions).

In any regard, you hold a most common sense view.

Sure, if by common sense you mean the sense of the common idiot. Putting your organ in a sewer? And hetero couples don't have anal sex? According to results of a federal study released two years ago, 40 percent of men and 35 percent of women surveyed in 2002 said they have had anal sex with an opposite-sex partner. I'm not gonna get into a post war with butterbean, but it's useful that he shows up in every thread about homosexuality to rant his bigotry so that the rest of us can remember why we need to keep fighting for equality.

Poppycock. Everyone knows that females don't defecate, so their anuses are naturally cleaner than those of vile, vile men. Anal sex with females is great because it prevents pregnancy, the spread of STDs and premarital loss of virginity (because butt sex doesn't count). It also gives the male phallus a rosy glow, and the healthy aroma of rose petals and vanilla. Truly, the female anus is a marvel, and to suggest otherwise makes you a communist.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Rainsford

I think the vast majority of the problems from a child raised by gay parents would come from the absolutely despicable way society treats gay people (imagine the teasing the kid would face in school), but I suppose that's a valid point...at least for adoption. But since we apply zero screening to straight parents who want to have kids, it doesn't seem fair to apply a rigid standard to gay couples. Gay women can use artificial insemination, a procedure that is applied without any limits at all to straight women. As far as adoption, there seem to be plenty of kids who need adopting, certainly gay parents can't do worse than some of the terrible straight parents out there...or no parents at all?

Yes, not only the way society is going to treat the kid, but also societal pressures on the gay parents themselves. Like I said, we already have a serious problem in this country with straight parents raising quality kids, much less staying married. I highly doubt the stats for gay unions are going to be close to a straight marriage, and that's a problem when you're talking about a lesbian union and articifial insemination, or an either sex gay marriage adopting.

I'm absolutely sure there are gay couples that can raise better kids than straight couples, but if we're going to be talking about policy here, we can't look and compare extremes. What are the median stats and lets compare those, then make some valid reasoning. If I have some time, I'll do some research on gay unions...I'm curious what their median duration for union is.

My informal observations on my upbringing. I grew up around a large number of lesbian couples (roughly 15-20 couples that I saw with any frequency). In my 24 years of life, exactly two of these couples broke up. The majority have stayed with one partner for over 2 decades. In fact, more relationships in this circle ended because of the death of one partner (breast cancer most frequently, which is how one of my own mothers died), rather than a break up. So my informal observations indicate that roughly 10-15% of lesbian couples end in "divorce."

By comparison, the majority of my family is heterosexual. Of my eight aunts and uncles, one is immediately excluded because she is a lesbian, one has been happily married to his high school sweetheart for 35 years, and the other six have all had at least one failed marriage. Both my mothers had a failed heterosexual marriage as well. Those aren't encouraging odds, especially compared to the loving relationships I have seen in the lesbian community. To suggest that gays are unfit to raise children because their relationships are less stable is an absolutely preposterous conclusion that is not supported by any facts beyond your own perception (and I'm guessing you haven't been quite as exposed to the queer culture as I have).

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Again, that sounds way too much like "separate but equal" for my comfort. Nobody is saying black people shouldn't have rights, but they shouldn't be "mixing" with whites...the whites were here first, and there's more of them than black people. How is that not exactly the same argument?

And please, for the love of God, would you stop with the "forcing people to change their definition of marriage"? Nobody is forcing YOU to do a damn thing. You can feel free to personally think gay marriage isn't real marriage. But we're also talking about the rights the government gives people, and things other than your personal belief should come into play there. The whole point of a system like ours is that we DON'T all have to get together and decide what beliefs we should collectively hold. In a perfect world, the government wouldn't define marriage at all. But since it IS defining marriage, it seems like equal rights principles should have more weight than what people believe.

You are forcing me to change my view of marriage if the state is going to redefine marriage as a union between any two people. It has nothing to do with seperate but equal, it has everything to do with the vast vast majority thinking marriage is one man and one woman having to change their opinion for what Craig is calling a massive 5% of the population...to say nothing of tradition (and this isn't Whip darkie because it's Friday night, so No, don't play the race card here, it doesn't apply).

For over a hundred years after slavery was abolished, it was illegal for blacks to marry whites. The arguments against miscegenation included "you are forcing me to change my view of marriage," or "it's tradition." Ultimately, these are retarded arguments. Orthodox Jews definition of marriage includes provisions that Jews are not to marry Gentiles. Should we add that to the national definition of marriage? Absolutely not. The Jews are just going to have to deal with it, as are the racists who don't want whites marrying non-whites, as are the homophobes who don't want men marrying men or women marrying women. Definitions change. Traditions change. If you don't like it, don't marry a man.

And it's not just the gay population (you may scoff, but 5% of 300 million is 15 million people; seems fairly massive to me) that is in favor of gay marriage. I'm not gay. Craig isn't. I don't think a single person in this thread who has come out in favor of gay marriage is gay. And yet, we all support it. Now how could that be? By your estimation, it's a binary opposition, where you are either gay and in favor of gay marriage, or in a population of 285 million straight people that don't want gays to marry. But that's wrong. Obviously gay marriage has support from outside the gay community. This isn't about the gays vs. the straights, it's about supporting equality and ending discrimination.

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Of course maybe that's a better solution. If you want the absolute right to define marriage however you like, go right ahead. Maybe the best solution is to, instead of applying equal rights in favor of marriage, apply equal rights to NOT recognizing marriage. The government could just get out of the marriage business, no legal rights for married couples, no tax breaks, no nothing. If you can find some shaman to bless your union, more power to you..but maybe we're all better off if the government just ignores the whole damn thing. After all, then it would be fair, AND you could define marriage however narrowly you choose.

That's certainly a valid option, and one that would definitely work. Another is for the 5% of the population that wants to get hitched to pick another term other than marriage and us hetero's will back that to have the same exact rights as marriage. Call it garriage, we don't give a F. Seriously, where do we draw the line here? What happens when .0000005% of the population - but still part of the population none the less - wants to marry their loving pet monkey? Do we change the definition of marriage then to go from a marriage between two humans to two loving mammals? What's the problem with that? I mean, it's his/her right, right?

It's a total SWAG, but I bet gays would get 70% backing if they pushed for equal rights as straight couples and either stuck with civil union terminology, or, made up their own gay equivalent to marriage.

Chuck

So it's not "separate but equal," you just want them to use a "separate" word for "equal" protection? Think about that position logically for a minute.

And why is it that whenever gay marriage is brought up, people immediately jump to bestiality? Do you really think there is no difference between consenting adults and a guy with a monkey? This argument has never been based in reality. It is an irrational argument that appeals to a twisted sense of logic that suggests that homosexuals are no better than people who have sex with animals. It is pure bigotry, an unfounded hatred based on little more than your own prejudice against gays. I mean, I hate speaking in absolutes, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that, if gay marriage is passed, no one, not one single person, will go into a courtroom with a monkey and say "You've got men marrying men, I want to marry this monkey!" Preposterous.

OK, back to the separate but equal argument. Have you thought that over? Have you realized how you contradict yourself within 2 paragraphs? Trying to force gays to use a different term for the same rights is a textbook example of separate but equal. Perhaps you should read up on why this is wrong.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

For over a hundred years after slavery was abolished, it was illegal for blacks to marry whites. The arguments against miscegenation included "you are forcing me to change my view of marriage," or "it's tradition." Ultimately, these are retarded arguments. Orthodox Jews definition of marriage includes provisions that Jews are not to marry Gentiles. Should we add that to the national definition of marriage? Absolutely not. The Jews are just going to have to deal with it, as are the racists who don't want whites marrying non-whites, as are the homophobes who don't want men marrying men or women marrying women. Definitions change. Traditions change. If you don't like it, don't marry a man.

To clarify, it was illegal in some states that long. I'm not sure when it first became legal, but it was overturned nationally by the Supreme Court (love the 'liberal' court) in perhaps the best-named case ever, "Loving v. Virginia" in 1967. I wonder how our righty 'states' rights' members here feel about that.

And it's not just the gay population (you may scoff, but 5% of 300 million is 15 million people; seems fairly massive to me) that is in favor of gay marriage.

I don't argue against his 'only 5%' claim by trying to say 5% is a lot, even tough it is a lot.

I argue against it by saying that the number is unimportant. Letting albinos be enslaved (or denied marriage) is wrong on principle for one of them, not because of the number of them.

That number game is just one more fallacious argument (why are we bothering to give justice for so few people) needing to be shot down.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

You both do realize that homosexual activity occurs commonly outside of the human species, right?

Another argument I think is accurate but unnecessary; if there was no homosexual activity outside the human species, it wouldn't change the issue for homosexual people.

They'd still be people born homosexual with the legitimate need for equality.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

My informal observations on my upbringing. I grew up around a large number of lesbian couples (roughly 15-20 couples that I saw with any frequency). In my 24 years of life, exactly two of these couples broke up. The majority have stayed with one partner for over 2 decades. In fact, more relationships in this circle ended because of the death of one partner (breast cancer most frequently, which is how one of my own mothers died), rather than a break up. So my informal observations indicate that roughly 10-15% of lesbian couples end in "divorce."

This is the type of data we really need, however it's got to be bigger than one persons sample size. See below for why:

By comparison, the majority of my family is heterosexual. Of my eight aunts and uncles, one is immediately excluded because she is a lesbian, one has been happily married to his high school sweetheart for 35 years, and the other six have all had at least one failed marriage. Both my mothers had a failed heterosexual marriage as well. Those aren't encouraging odds, especially compared to the loving relationships I have seen in the lesbian community.

That's all well and good (well, bad that they had so much bad luck), however if you just contrast it with my own exteneded family - same size actually - I've had 1 person divorced, then remarried now for over a decade. I'm not saying gays divorce more than straights or vice versa...what I'm saying is I haven't seen any real data on it...which would be nice to have.

To suggest that gays are unfit to raise children because their relationships are less stable is an absolutely preposterous conclusion that is not supported by any facts beyond your own perception (and I'm guessing you haven't been quite as exposed to the queer culture as I have).

Then provide me facts otherwise. The simple fact is nature has decided that it takes a female egg and male sperm to create human life. If 5% of the population is born gay, and all that % wanted to adopt, why would we go against nature's own limitation? I know the straight couple having invitro/whatever else will be used here, and I agree that's a halfway valid rebuttal...but, it's only halfway since in that case, it's still a female and male trying to have kids.

For over a hundred years after slavery was abolished, it was illegal for blacks to marry whites. The arguments against miscegenation included "you are forcing me to change my view of marriage," or "it's tradition." Ultimately, these are retarded arguments. Orthodox Jews definition of marriage includes provisions that Jews are not to marry Gentiles. Should we add that to the national definition of marriage? Absolutely not. The Jews are just going to have to deal with it, as are the racists who don't want whites marrying non-whites, as are the homophobes who don't want men marrying men or women marrying women. Definitions change. Traditions change. If you don't like it, don't marry a man.

And yet in all those examples you listed, it's still a black male marrying a white female, or vice versa. It's still a Jewish woman marrying a male Gentile. In none of those examples were the movements about black males having the right to marry white males, or female Jews being able to marry female Gentiles. This is why playing the race/religion card with the gay marriage issue doesn't work, because it's not the same thing.

And it's not just the gay population (you may scoff, but 5% of 300 million is 15 million people; seems fairly massive to me) that is in favor of gay marriage. I'm not gay. Craig isn't. I don't think a single person in this thread who has come out in favor of gay marriage is gay. And yet, we all support it. Now how could that be? By your estimation, it's a binary opposition, where you are either gay and in favor of gay marriage, or in a population of 285 million straight people that don't want gays to marry. But that's wrong. Obviously gay marriage has support from outside the gay community. This isn't about the gays vs. the straights, it's about supporting equality and ending discrimination.
So it's not "separate but equal," you just want them to use a "separate" word for "equal" protection? Think about that position logically for a minute.

No, that's not what I said at all. I realize there are many millions just straight out (no pun intended) against gay marriage, gay unions, and even gays themselves. I don't consider these people to make up a large enough percentage though. Probably most American's are OK with gays having civil unions, which should/do come with all the rights straight married folks have. Where the normal person is going to draw the line is redefining their believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Again, this isn't one man and one woman with different skin colors, or one man and one woman with different imaginary person in the sky faiths...this is two men or two women.

And why is it that whenever gay marriage is brought up, people immediately jump to bestiality? Do you really think there is no difference between consenting adults and a guy with a monkey? This argument has never been based in reality. It is an irrational argument that appeals to a twisted sense of logic that suggests that homosexuals are no better than people who have sex with animals. It is pure bigotry, an unfounded hatred based on little more than your own prejudice against gays. I mean, I hate speaking in absolutes, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that, if gay marriage is passed, no one, not one single person, will go into a courtroom with a monkey and say "You've got men marrying men, I want to marry this monkey!" Preposterous.

It gets brought up because we keep creeping and creeping more and more each time to make sure every demographic - no matter how small or how much the majority disagrees - agenda is accepted. If gays today want the term marriage - which forever (and that's a reeeeaaaalllly long forever) now has been understood by all to be one man and one woman - to be redefined to be two people that want to get hitched, why is it wrong for say a man (who is a citizen of the United States, just as much as those two gays are) to want marriage redefined so he can marry his monkey? Why are we to tell him No? What's the problem with redefining marriage to be the loving committed relationship of two mammals? What's the problem with that?

OK, back to the separate but equal argument. Have you thought that over? Have you realized how you contradict yourself within 2 paragraphs? Trying to force gays to use a different term for the same rights is a textbook example of separate but equal. Perhaps you should read up on why this is wrong.

See above on why your link has no meaning in this discussion...

Chuck

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: chucky2

And yet in all those examples you listed, it's still a black male marrying a white female, or vice versa. It's still a Jewish woman marrying a male Gentile. In none of those examples were the movements about black males having the right to marry white males, or female Jews being able to marry female Gentiles. This is why playing the race/religion card with the gay marriage issue doesn't work, because it's not the same thing.

Are you that analogy-challenged?

They're the same in the issues being discussed - bigotry by the majority preventing marital rights for a minority group being discriminated against, with the same false reasons.

And why is it that whenever gay marriage is brought up, people immediately jump to bestiality? Do you really think there is no difference between consenting adults and a guy with a monkey? This argument has never been based in reality. It is an irrational argument that appeals to a twisted sense of logic that suggests that homosexuals are no better than people who have sex with animals. It is pure bigotry, an unfounded hatred based on little more than your own prejudice against gays. I mean, I hate speaking in absolutes, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that, if gay marriage is passed, no one, not one single person, will go into a courtroom with a monkey and say "You've got men marrying men, I want to marry this monkey!" Preposterous.

It gets brought up because we keep creeping and creeping more and more each time to make sure every demographic - no matter how small or how much the majority disagrees - agenda is accepted. If gays today want the term marriage - which forever (and that's a reeeeaaaalllly long forever) now has been understood by all to be one man and one woman - to be redefined to be two people that want to get hitched, why is it wrong for say a man (who is a citizen of the United States, just as much as those two gays are) to want marriage redefined so he can marry his monkey? Why are we to tell him No? What's the problem with redefining marriage to be the loving committed relationship of two mammals? What's the problem with that?


Chuck

Because, to your argument where it actually makes sense, Chuck, a gay man is not a monkey, however much you believe otherwise.

People with brains use them to understand that marriage has some meaning - that it involves two adults who want a partnership - and that that meaning is missing in the case of mammals who are not human and cannot have the same sort of relationship qualitiatively, however nice of pets they can be - and it's damned insulting, and you make a fool of yourself, for you to say there's a comparison between two human beings among those 5% or so born gay, and non0-humans. It's outrageous bigotry on your part.

And equal justice for each person and group is not an 'agenda' in the sense you use the word. Renaming Washington "Gays are equalville" is an agenda. Equal rights is an agenda only in the 'good' sense of the word, as in saying that blacks 'have an agenda' for slavery to remain illegal, not in the bad sense of the word as if it's some 'special treatment' they want rather than justice, an end to unjust discrimination and second class treatment. "Agenda" is no more than rhetoric to defend injustice by you.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

You both do realize that homosexual activity occurs commonly outside of the human species, right?

Another argument I think is accurate but unnecessary; if there was no homosexual activity outside the human species, it wouldn't change the issue for homosexual people.

They'd still be people born homosexual with the legitimate need for equality.

Thanks, I think, but I was just trying to prove that it wasn't against natures will for homosexual activity to happen. Which furthers the point that it should be live and let live.