Support for same-sex marriage reaches record high

[Cerpin Taxt]

So I take it you missed the threads where gay people were suing private businesses into supporting their gay marriages?

That never happened.

 

[Victorian Gray]

No one has ever claimed it would directly have an impact on you.

But then neither does:
A man marrying a 13 year old girl
A man marrying his sister
A man marrying his dog
A man marrying his porn filled apple computer.
A man marrying a corporation.

Yet you don't see mainstream support for those marriages.

 

[nehalem256]

Say that all you want, it won't make it true.

Your views are outdated and are going the way of the dodo. Time to get over it, lest it eat at you for the rest of your life.

Truth is truth.

Homosexual love isn't equal to heterosexual love. It is object truth.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Truth is truth.

Homosexual love isn't equal to heterosexual love. It is object truth.

the objective truth is that you should probably look at emigrating to someplace like Uganda where the prevailing views on homosexuality would seem to be a better fit for you than those of your present country of residence.

You stay in the US and you'll simply have to deal with the fact that YOU LOST!

 

[nehalem256]

the objective truth is that you should probably look at emigrating to someplace like Uganda where the prevailing views on homosexuality would seem to be a better fit for you than those of your present country of residence.

You stay in the US and you'll simply have to deal with the fact that YOU LOST!

So you have no argument against what I said.

Not a surprise. Its awfully hard to argue against reality. Why even try when you can just engage in ad hominems?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

So you have no argument against what I said.

Not a surprise. Its awfully hard to argue against reality. Why even try when you can just engage in ad hominems?

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions" ~ Thomas Jefferson.

 

[Victorian Gray]

So you have no argument against what I said.

Not a surprise. Its awfully hard to argue against reality. Why even try when you can just engage in ad hominems?

There are no arguments against what you say because what you write (over and over and over and over and over) is utter nonsense. *THAT* is reality.

Anyway, the bottom line is that you have already lost and it doesn't mater how many empty words you write here. Although, I suppose you might find a new home someplace like Uganda where the prevailing attitudes about homosexuality would seem to be more agreeable to a wee troll like yourself. Doubt that they will be all that supportive of your love for toasters though.

So, feel free to continue to make a fool of your self on the internet. It provides some mild amusement watching you work so hard at being a clown.

 

[Cozarkian]

Truth is truth.

Homosexual love isn't equal to heterosexual love. It is object truth.

That's just your assumption. Honestly, we don't know. Unless you experience both, you can't know if they are equal. In my experience, even bisexuals tend to prefer one sex over the other, so I doubt there is anyone who can truly state whether they are equal or not.

 

[shira]

As long as the government doesn't arbitrarily discriminate (by which I mean doesn't have a truly rational and compelling reason for making distinctions) then I have no trouble with "marriage benefits" and "marriage penalties" being given to or withheld from ALL marital unions by the government.

That would cause a lot of problems though. We'd have to rework all our tax and inheritance laws, for instance. Practically speaking it would be very difficult for government to back out of recognizing marriage in a modern society.

Yes, it would cause problems to eliminate all benefits granted by the state to married couples. But the essence of my point is that as long as the state doesn't make arbitrary distinctions about what is or isn't a "valid" marriage - distinctions that cannot be defended on any rational weighing of benefits versus losses, then at least everyone would be being treated fairly.

And the reason why that anti-SSM side is losing is that - increasingly - people are understanding that the "arguments against" don't provide a compelling justification as to why same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry.

A typical dialog:

"What's the harm in allowing same-sex couples to marry?

"Marriage is intended to foster procreation."

"But lots of married heterosexuals don't have children, so what is the harm in allowing same-sex couples to marry and not have children?"

"Marriage is intended for one man and one woman."

"But how does it harm anyone to allow one man and one man, or one woman and one woman, to marry? Why is state recognition of the committed love relationship of a same-sex couple a bad thing?"

"Heterosexual couples have sex in a different way than same-sex couples."

"But plenty of heterosexual couples perform some of the same sex acts as same-sex couples. So what's the harm if a same-sex couple in the privacy of their own home performs those practices but not penis-in-vagina sex?"

And on and on and on. Nowhere does the "against" side EVER tell us why allowing same-sex marriages is bad. The argument against is essentially: "Same-sex couples are different from heterosexual couples, so the state must treat them differently." Is it any wonder that this "argument" is losing badly?

 

[shira]

Homosexual love isn't equal to heterosexual love. It is object truth.

You're contradicting yourself. You keep telling us that marriage is about sex, not love. So why are you now making comparisons of love?

Furthermore, any differences between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples are irrelevant for the simple reason that people get married for all sorts of reasons. And as long as they're willing to make the marriage vows, no one seems to care. So even on the assumption that there are differences between the reasons why gays ans straights want to marry, why do you care?

All you do in all your posts on this topic is point out differences between gay couples and heterosexual couples. That's your argument: "They're different."

But you NEVER explain why these differences amount to a hill of beans with regard to allowing or not allowing same-sex couples to marry. Again, WHY DO YOU CARE how same-sex couples have sex, or how they love each other? And how do you JUSTIFY opposing same-sex marriage simply because you observe differences?

 

[mikeymikec]

Truth is truth.

Homosexual love isn't equal to heterosexual love. It is object truth.

Since you made a statement that is utterly meaningless when subjected to even the tiniest bit of scrutiny*, I think your idea of what 'truth' means is quite far removed from what most people think the word 'truth' means.

* - Whose love, to begin with. There's a required level of love for a marriage to be officially validated? How would love be scientifically measured? If love could be measured in a way that was generally accepted to be true/accurate, and if homosexual couples were generally found to love each other more than heterosexual couples, would you argue that heterosexual couples should lose the right to marry (which would be logical if you're going to argue that one couple shouldn't be allowed to marry because their love isn't 'equal' to another couple's)?

All of these questions are rhetorical, nehalem256. You flip-flop your arguments to suit the immediate response you wish to give, you give no evidence for any claims and dodgy insinuations you make, you purposefully avoid tackling a point when it suits you, when your logic fails to stand up to scrutiny you'll evade conceding the flaw and try to shift the focus of the discussion, you ignore counter-points because acknowledging the truth in them doesn't suit your argument, yet you somehow think that you have a point of view that deserves any consideration whatsoever.

 

[alzan]

Libs are trying to blur the lines between man and woman -- I'm saying let's save the trouble and make "baby" the office term of newborns.

"Being" would be even better...at least, to designate a human.
Gender can come later.

So, no Conservs agree with published data or view gender as more than a physical characteristic?

People use many terms to refer to babies. "Being" could be used but using the child's name would be better.

Glad to know you agree that gender can and indeed does come later.

 

[zinfamous]

Homosexual love isn't equal to heterosexual love though. Just like platonic love isn't equal to heterosexual love. Which is why there is no government acknowledgment of BFFships.

You just dropped a lot of fallacy bombs right there.

congrats

 

[zinfamous]

Truth is truth.

Homosexual love isn't equal to heterosexual love. It is object truth.

love is love.

that is objective truth.

take out the love component of your statement, and we would agree; as any rational person understands that sex is merely one component of love.


toaster.

 

[MrPickins]

love is love.

that is objective truth.

take out the love component of your statement, and we would agree; as any rational person understands that sex is merely one component of love.


toaster.

Don't bother.

Both you and I know that Nehalem has never experienced requited love before, and thus does not fully grasp the concept.

 

[alzan]

You just dropped a lot of fallacy bombs right there.

congrats

And like other bombs, most of his are duds.