What will be the next Great Progressive Cause™ now that same-sex marriage is common?

[fskimospy]

Opposition to gay marriage is not about affecting me personally. It is about impact on society.

This is so blindingly obvious to anyone with a brain I don't know why I need to explain this to you.

But lets make it clear for some of our lefty friends:

If siblings were allowed to get married, how would that affect you?
If object-sexual people were allowed to get married, how would that affect you?
If polygamists were allowed to get married, how would that affect you?

Would you run out and get a polygamist marriage with your sister and toaster?

As already noted, you just claimed your opposition was based on impact to society. Feel free to explain that one.

 

[Oldgamer]

Cleaning up P&N.

LOL

I went ahead and started reading the P&N rules and am amazed at how much has been ignored by moderators..

I was looking at the Pyramid they have listed.. and ad hominen attacks abound.

But hey it keeps this forum lively..lol

 

[lotus503]

You just contradicted yourself there.

You are all for people having to justify marriage equality when it comes to types of marriage you don't approve of.

This makes you both a bigot and a hypocrite.

Not at all, if you want to not allow equality you have to make a case, I can make several for not allowing marriage of inanimate objects, society makes the call.

 

[thraashman]

Not at all, if you want to not allow equality you have to make a case, I can make several for not allowing marriage of inanimate objects, society makes the call.

And he'll ignore every case for why his dumb ideas about inanimate objects is wrong like he has the entire thread. EVERY argument he's made in this thread has been torn apart worse than a 18 month old in a backyard full of pit bulls, yet he's not addressed a single one because he knows they're weak.

 

[nehalem256]

Not at all, if you want to not allow equality you have to make a case, I can make several for not allowing marriage of inanimate objects, society makes the call.

There is none beyond it does not fit your definition of marriage. In short you are a bigot.

 

[nehalem256]

And he'll ignore every case for why his dumb ideas about inanimate objects is wrong like he has the entire thread. EVERY argument he's made in this thread has been torn apart worse than a 18 month old in a backyard full of pit bulls, yet he's not addressed a single one because he knows they're weak.

Because the only argument made is it does not fit your definition of marriage and you are too much of a bigot to change it.

In short the exact same argument you accuse same-sex marriage opponents of making.

 

[nehalem256]

As already noted, you just claimed your opposition was based on impact to society. Feel free to explain that one.

It turns marriage from being an institution that serves a societal purpose into being nothing more than a benefits grabbing circle-jerk.

 

[lotus503]

It turns marriage from being an institution that serves a societal purpose into being nothing more than a benefits grabbing circle-jerk.

58% of the country thinks you're wrong.

 

[fskimospy]

It turns marriage from being an institution that serves a societal purpose into being nothing more than a benefits grabbing circle-jerk.

Explain exactly how.

 

[nehalem256]

58% of the country thinks you're wrong.

Doesn't like 45% of the country think the Earth is 6000 years old?

And how many of those 58% really care if same-sex marriage is legal. And how many have just said "fuck it" I am tired of listening to the whining?

 

[lotus503]

Doesn't like 45% of the country think the Earth is 6000 years old?

And how many of those 58% really care if same-sex marriage is legal. And how many have just said "fuck it" I am tired of listening to the whining?

It doesn't matter, what matters is the majority of the country choosing to allow marriage equality.

Which on some level means they don't agree with your views of marriage.

 

[jackstar7]

It turns marriage from being an institution that serves a societal purpose into being nothing more than a benefits grabbing circle-jerk.

Still waiting for you to explain how...

 

[Retro Rob]

I just wish the "Civil Rights" movement comparisons would end because they aren't fair and are play on people's emotions to paint proponents of traditional marriage as racists equivalents.

This mischaracterization only feeds more intolerance into the gay community.

-No one's telling gays and lesbians how to live their lives.
-There is no "Straghts Only" bathrooms (that I've saw, anyway)
-Gays don't have to give up their seats on crowded buses for striaghts.
-Interracial gay "relationships" are not forbidden.
-There is no KKK equivalent hate group allowed to run rampant and kills gays at will and get away with it.
-Gays can eat in the same resturants as straight people and aren't told to "pick it up out back"...
-Gays were never treated like slaves and subjugated to straights. There were never any "gay" slave owners that only owned gays. (that I am aware of)

...and the list goes on.

 

[michal1980]

Still waiting for you to explain how...

it was already pointed out too you.

You just refuse to listen to the reasoning because it doesn't support your cause

 

[Incorruptible]

it was already pointed out too you.

You just refuse to listen to the reasoning because it doesn't support your cause

Thats standard for liberals and progressives.

 

[jihe]

Atheism.

 

[nehalem256]

Still waiting for you to explain how...

What do you mean how? The people arguing for same-sex marriage are straight up saying that marriage exists only to grant government benefits to people. That is how.

Although I guess in addendum I should say that it is really to make marriage MORE about being a benefits grabbing circle-jerk as legalizing no-fault divorce is really about the same thing.

 

[CitizenKain]

it was already pointed out too you.

You just refuse to listen to the reasoning because it doesn't support your cause

Pot calling the kettle black right there.

 

[jackstar7]

it was already pointed out too you.

You just refuse to listen to the reasoning because it doesn't support your cause

When was this? Please link to post.

 

[jackstar7]

What do you mean how? The people arguing for same-sex marriage are straight up saying that marriage exists only to grant government benefits to people. That is how.

Although I guess in addendum I should say that it is really to make marriage MORE about being a benefits grabbing circle-jerk as legalizing no-fault divorce is really about the same thing.

You didn't explain how that negatively impacts society. I'm not sure what's happening in your head, but you should articulate the whole path from a to b if you want people to have some understanding of your perspective beyond superficial.

 

[nehalem256]

You didn't explain how that negatively impacts society. I'm not sure what's happening in your head, but you should articulate the whole path from a to b if you want people to have some understanding of your perspective beyond superficial.

So according to liberals marriage serves no societal purpose.

You then grant people benefits for serving no purpose. Benefits cost money to society.

Not to mention increasing problems of having bastard children that need to be paid for by the government which is a problem caused by the liberal conceptualization of marriage.

 

[jackstar7]

So according to liberals marriage serves no societal purpose.

You then grant people benefits for serving no purpose. Benefits cost money to society.

Not to mention increasing problems of having bastard children that need to be paid for by the government which is a problem caused by the liberal conceptualization of marriage.

I've explained the societal benefits of marriage repeatedly: stability and order. Neither is contingent on heterosexuality.

You have yet to explain the harm of including homosexual couples in society's definition of marriage.

 

[IGBT]

rest assured what ever they turn their liberal "feelings" toward it will be the usual liberal unprincipled tact.

 

[WHAMPOM]

It turns marriage from being an institution that serves a societal purpose into being nothing more than a benefits grabbing circle-jerk.

Marriage is just a property contract as proven in any divorce court. Though a wife is no longer considered the property of the husband anymore. Gay marriage is about getting the same properety rights as same sex. Besides with gender being a surgical (with a little advance in cloning a fertile change) choice, what is the big deal?

Next cause? How about the equal rights for Women Amendment?

 

[nehalem256]

I've explained the societal benefits of marriage repeatedly: stability and order. Neither is contingent on heterosexuality.

You have yet to explain the harm of including homosexual couples in society's definition of marriage.

Stability and order could be considered a benefit of traditional marriage. However, given that liberals believe a person should be able to divorce for any reason at any time "stability and order" not found. Take a look at

Marriage is just a property contract as proven in any divorce court. Though a wife is no longer considered the property of the husband anymore. Gay marriage is about getting the same properety rights as same sex.

Pretty sure unmarried people are allowed to own property together.

What gay people want is things like tax-free inheritance(cost to society), access to a partners SS benefits (cost to society), etc.

EDIT: So the question is if "marriage" is just a way to give you a way to get benefits from the government for the person you are screwing (or not screwing as that is not a requirement) why should such an institution exist?

Besides with gender being a surgical (with a little advance in cloning a fertile change) choice, what is the big deal?

Marriage is based on biological sex. Not the whatever I feel like I want to call myself "gender" idea.

Next cause? How about the equal rights for Women Amendment?

Why would liberals fight for women to have fewer rights? :hmm: