Ignorance about what "harms children"

[tonton]

Originally posted by SDW2001
When school age children watch videos that tell them it's perfectly "normal" to be gay, that's not tolerance. I'm not talking about helping a teenager accept his sexuality mind you, I'm talking about these kinds of things aimed at 5 year olds. It happens all the time. Gays are in the minority by a huge number. It is not normal whatsoever to have them in the majority or even equal in number. Sexuality exists for the purpose of human procreation. It is a fact that some people (and for that matter animals) are gay and therefore "different" in a manner of speaking. Trying to pretend that being gay is natural and normal as being straight is ludicrous. By the very laws of nature, it's not.

That said, I know many gay people and I have no, I repeat no ill will towards them based on their sexuality. However, I think that because of certain aspects of our culture, some do in fact choose to live as gay. While we can debate whether being gay is a choice or not, we cannot debate that being a minority race is not a choice in any capacity. So your comparison there is somehwhat flawed.

Once again, the only right I oppose for gays is the right to marry. It changes the definition of marriage. Since we're willing to change it for being gay, why not change it in other ways? Why can't we marry more than one person, for example? Maybe that's a genetic difference too. I mean, after all, some animal species have multiple mates. Maybe we should have a tolerance campaign and marriage rights for those folks too.

I have an 8 year-old daughter. The day that she can go to school and the INSTANT she is faced with questions about sexuality (whether that be at 5 years old or 15), she either knows nothing about it, or everything about it, is the day the "gay agenda" is a success in terms of education.

It is a fact that children from a very young age are taught by society that being gay is WRONG. Until that is no longer a fact, there needs to be someoene else out there pointing out that such claims are bullshit. You cannot have equality at any age when only one side has a voice. The difference in the "sides", however, is that the anti-gay side states that being gay is WRONG WRONG WRONG! while the tolerance side makes no such claims about heterosexuality.

So at this point, if an 8 year-old is given a book called "My Two Daddies", then it is a good thing. It does not tell them that being gay is wrong or right, just that it is acceptable and a part of life, and a part of society, which it is, no matter whether it's 10% or 2%.

There is absolutely no pretense whatsoever, that being gay is not a minority trait. Just like ther is no pretense that being American Indian is not a minority trait. Yet we are bombarded with the anti-gay message constantly, whereas we have finally progressed enough that most people no longer claim that black people or Mexicans (well except illegal immigrants) are bad (they used to - we just grew up as a society).

"Sexuality exists for the purpose of human procreation."

Only someone completely non-sexual in nature can make such an ignorant statement. You must either be really, really fat, or really really ugly in this day and age to not admit that sex has much more social importance than procreation.

"It is a fact that some people (and for that matter animals) are gay and therefore 'different' in a manner of speaking. Trying to pretend that being gay is natural and normal as being straight is ludicrous."

Um... is it just me, or does everybody welse not notice that those two sentences are completely contradictory?

Is being American Indian not as natural and normal as being white? No one is pretending anything. It is natural, as you admit. It is therefore normal. Or do you not understand the meaning of those two words?

"However, I think that because of certain aspects of our culture, some do in fact choose to live as gay."

Fact: You cannot "choose" be gay if you're not gay. However, bisexuality does exist. A bisexual CAN choose... and (get this) SHOULD HAVE THAT RIGHT. But a homosexual cannot choose. Nor can a heterosexual. I know because I'm a heterosexual man and would choose to be bisexual if I could, but I can't. I am just biologically not attracted to men sexually.

All of these are... NORMAL. And even kids need to either know this, or be ignorant of sexuality altogether. I don't think the latter is possible in this information age.

"Once again, the only right I oppose for gays is the right to marry. It changes the definition of marriage."

Liar... for one, you just said that you oppose the right to teach tolerance in schools. How about adoption? I bet you oppose that as well. Am I wrong?

And no, it does not change the definition of marriage. It changes YOUR definition of marriage. Marriage is, and will always be a sacred and legal union of two persons. That is the most basic definition. It is only in recent times and in religious context that any further "definition" has been made, by people with an obvious "anti-gay" agenda.

Now in times of poor prosperity and high mortality, there is a reason to promote heterosexuality. This is why it was once adopted as part of society. In addition, every religion wants to grow its ranks as fast as possible, to increase revenue and power. This is the reason religions frown on homosexuality.

Whenever you look ad social opinion, you should look into the reason behind social opinion, and consider whether such ideas might no longer be beneficial in the current context.

In a rich society, where birth rates are not just satisfactory for growth, but excessive, there is no reason to promote procreation. There is no social benefit to having as many babies as possible. So a non-reproductive relationship, which can provide other benefits, should be welcomed. We are no longer in the "bad old days". We can now afford the luxury of the tolerance of homosexuality.

I'm seriously saddened by the lack of thought you put into your position here, and I hope you can reconsider the following ideas:

1) In a period of prosperity, homosexuality harms neither society nor any individual.

2) No one is trying to convert straight people to become gay.

3) No one is forcing you as an individual, to change your own beliefs, just your actions which may harm others.

4) Gay marriage would be the only way to allow the same level of sanctity in genuine loving relationships between two consenting adults, who, as you admit, were born different.

5) Integration of homosexuality into society can accurately be compared to integration in terms of gender (sex) or race.

Please take a moment to ask yourself, "Who does being gay actually HARM?"

The answer should be "no one". If it is not, then something has to be fixed so that it is.

[tonton]

I'll take the time to go through this later. But first, a thought... who clearly wants to "impose their agenda"? The pro-tolerance (of being gay) or the anti-gay? One of those groups is trying to change others' behavior, not just their beliefs.

[BR]

There's a couple of different issues here...

First, if there is a single religion that accepts gay marriage, denying it at the state level is making a law preventing the free practice of said religion.

Second, if people want to argue that marriage is so sacred and religious, government shouldn't have any hand in it at all. NO OFFICIAL STATE MARRIAGE FOR ANYONE! Civil Unions should be for ALL instead.

Either way, it's bullshit to deny people the same rights. Separate but equal should NEVER fly.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by trumptman
First, I'm going to do you a favor and pretend that the above sentence makes some sort of sense.

That said most children at the age of five or eight know very little about heterosexual sex and understand even less about relationship forms.

My son is six and within the last year I was informed he started crying when he found out my wife and I were married. The reason...nothing agenda driven by any group... he wanted to marry his mom. This year year he has mentioned he wanted to marry his first grade teacher. The fact that she is already married and in fact has is clearly showing that a child is on the way is apparently of no consequence to the six year old.



How is this a fact? I live in a family in which two out of five children on my mother's side are gay. I was never taught even one time that they were wrong. I was told that their significant others were "roomates" but I still called them aunt or uncle and absolutely still loved them as family. No one explained to me how my aunt and uncle were screwing so no one felt compelled to explain how my uncle and uncle were screwing either.



Sorry but equality does not equal the right to scream in someone's ear or inject their agenda into anothers family.



Nonsense. Children encounter alternative family forms all the time and it doesn't mean schools can or should teach every possible combination nor does it mean that teaching one makes them hate all others.



Don't you feel a bit idiotic comparing genetic traits that govern appearance to genetic traits that govern behavior?

You are right that it is wrong to legislate against someone merely for being an American Indian. However it is not wrong to legislate against drunk driving. The fact that the American Indian might have a genetic prediposition toward alcoholism or drinking excessively wouldn't make such a law wrong, racist or any other term of hate you care to tack on.

We legislate against behavior, genetically based or not, all the time. We legislate against excessive violence, excessive risk-taking, even bad vision.

You also neglect to mention that if sexual behavior is purely genetic, then that means bad sexual behavior is also purely genetic and we have no qualms about legislating against that behavior.



I'm sorry but the "you are fat and ugly and thus wrong" argument is not very persuasive.



Something can still occur in nature and still be abnormal. Being albino for example is something that occurs within nature but is still abnormal.



I went ahead and explained this to you. Please read it slowly and carefully. Repeat until comprehension kicks in.



If sexual studies that have attempted to destigmatize homosexuality have shown anything it is that the sort of black and white reasoning you apply above does not exist. According to such studies there are indeed shades of homosexuality and heterosexuality. Just because you cannot choose does not mean somene else can't. Also there is a range of touch well before sex. Could you hug a man? How about kiss for greetings? How about kiss for affection? Etc.



They might exist. You might not consider them negative or wrong but that does not mean they are normal. Normal does mean conforming to the standard, typical or expected.



Isn't it nice to just claim a word.... like tolerance...

Claiming you promote tolerance allows you to avoid thought or reasoning. I could claim to be promoting tolerance when promoting almost any agenda. Disagree with me and you are simply intolerant.



The definition of marriage has changed countless times. Marriage hasn't always been two people. It hasn't always been people over 18. The definition has changed over time and religion hasn't been the only force driving that change.



So the fact that the little part of the globe you live on happens to, by some standards have more prosperity and lower morality means you can do as you wish and impose your agenda on others? Does it mean that if those two traits don't exist that you are full of shit? What if they exist now and change later. Does that mean that homosexuality becomes wrong again?



Perhaps we aren't looking at social opinion. Perhaps we are looking at evolutionary traits, or natural law.



Your view is profoundly ignorant. We are basically watching as rich, tolerant societies kill themselves off. The immigrants that are replacing the lack of off-spring in such societies are more than willing to impose the views that give them a higher reproductive rate.

You can dismiss this reality. However no one is above nature.



Regardless of prosperity and regardless of harm, people have the right to legislate bahavior.



Conversion is irrelevent. We retain the right to legislate behavior even if no one else is trying to get one to partake in that behavior. I don't have to have someone trying or not trying to convince me to drive drunk, slap a woman or anything else to know they are worth dealing with via legislation.



No one has undertaken actions to harm homosexuals. Voting is a right and exercising that right is not harming others.



Polygamy would be the only way to allow the same level of sanctity for three, five or twenty consenting adults. Yet we still do not allow this.



Anyone who can understand the difference between a physical attribute and behavior understands you are not comparing the same types of items.

Nick

I'll take on one for right now.

We are taught from every direction that gay is bad.

It's latest incarnation " That's so gay " makes me cringe everytime I hear it.

It's usually used to denote weakness or sensitivity as a negative.

It's just one example of a negative spin being put on the concept of gay.

This attitude comes from somewhere Trumpy.

It's been around in one form or another for a long time.

[Outsider]

Originally posted by BR
Second, if people want to argue that marriage is so sacred and religious, government shouldn't have any hand in it at all. NO OFFICIAL STATE MARRIAGE FOR ANYONE! Civil Unions should be for ALL instead. Or take the other side, no DIVORCE for anyone. If marriage is so sacred and all. Make adultery a felony or at least a misdemeanor.

[Outsider]

Originally posted by jimmac
It's latest incarnation " That's so gay " makes me cringe everytime I hear it. I've seen the term being spelled on the internets thusly "That's so ghey" lately. I don't know if it's much better but it's taking the bad connotation away from 'gay'.

[southside grabowski]

It is not the place of government to push the homosexual agenda on children.

[FormerLurker]

It is not the place of government to push the religious right's agenda of hatred on children.

[Fellowship]

We all know what the "government" does,,,

They continue to "fix" things until they are broken..

Gotta love our leaders and the sheep who vote for them.

Fellows

[dmz]

tonton, in general, you are insisting absolutely that there are no absolutes on the issue of sexuality; that's a fairly bold statement. Now, you might wish that to be so, but it's just not something you can personally guarantee.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
It is not the place of government to push the religious right's agenda of hatred on children.

And there you have it. That kind of statement is the very reason I even mentioned the "gay issue" at all. If I don't want gay marriage, I suddenly am hate filled. It's a lot easier to scream "HATER!" than it is to actually defend you position.

[MarcUK]

Im going to say something now that will piss off both sides of the argument. hehe!

I have no evidence of it, its just a thought i had.

have you considered that an 'anti-gay stance' is just a natural evolutionary instinct to ensure the proliferation of the species?

[Northgate]

Originally posted by SDW2001
And there you have it. That kind of statement is the very reason I even mentioned the "gay issue" at all. If I don't want gay marriage, I suddenly am hate filled. It's a lot easier to scream "HATER!" than it is to actually defend you position.

It is, isn't it. And you say this without the least bit of irony.

Remember that next time you decide to use that slur against liberals.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by MarcUK
Im going to say something now that will piss off both sides of the argument. hehe!

I have no evidence of it, its just a thought i had.

have you considered that an 'anti-gay stance' is just a natural evolutionary instinct to ensure the proliferation of the species?

It's funny. Whenever a pro-tolerance individual uses nature as an example of homosexuality in the animal kingdom, the usual counter argument from the Anti-Gay group is, "We're human beings, we're different than 'animals'".

Which is why I find the above argument hilarious.

[Northgate]

I noticed that Tonton offered a reasoned, level-headed argument.

I also noticed that within a few short paragraphs of Trumpt's response, the hostility was instant and provocative.

"Don't you feel a bit idiotic comparing genetic traits that govern appearance to genetic traits that govern behavior?"

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by trumptman
I still don't see how mentioning this would piss me off. I've already mentioned that just because something occurs naturally does not mean we consider it normal or that it is beyond the realm of society to address.

...

Nick

well, it would probably piss off the Cretinists a bit more ;)

see, the problem is, is that homosexuality is a normal natural trait, and (perhaps) the distaste of homosexuality is a normal natural state aswell.

Just like 'racism' is a natural evolutionary trait. We are naturally wary of 'different' people because they could pose a threat. It seems we like to protect our genes, but at the same time, we like to spread them around. A bit of a paradox.

So, while those of us who are not homo's naturally find it distasteful, the essense of us being mature educated humans is that we recognise that both homosexuality, and the distaste of it, are both natural states.

I've been a bit 'racist' and 'gay bigotted' in my time, which is just a natural expression of my evolution. However, what seperates 'me' from the animals is that I am 'conscious' of the fact that I am an animal, and not all the natural traits of 'animals', ie racism and bigotry are beneficial.

Its what makes humans a 'special' animal.

Bigots are just acting out the consequences of evolutionary animal urges,(perversely the very thing they are rallying against) - you cant blame them, but you might wonder why it is they havn't grown wise to the fact that they are 'human' animals.

[addabox]

Whatever.

Ya'll can do your usual song and dance, fretting about "agendas" and beating your chest about the sanctity of marriage and attempting to move the conversation to endless parsings of nurture vs. nature and how many biblical injunctions can dance on the head of a pin.

And maybe if you put enough intricate legalistic/christian gymnastics between yourselves and the source of all the trouble, you can convince yourselves that it's really not about finding gay sex, most specifically male gay sex, to be nasty and disease ridden and precious bodily fluids sapping.

That it's really about being logical and truthful about the nature of human sexuality, or that it's really about adhering to the dictates of a just and loving God, or that it's really about defending the fabric of the culture from unraveling chaos and never--how dare you even think it!-- about those womanish faggots and the ugly things they do, and the creeping horror of letting then walk around in full view of God and everybody, touching each other, I mean, possibly kissing, just shoving it in our faces, what will we tell the children about this skin-crawling affront?

It's a bit of a trick, of course, this strenuous denial of bigotry while grimly laying out the demise of western civilization at the hands of these not-hated agents.

Sort of "It has nothing to do with "hatefulness", it's all about the objective truth that gays are handmaidens to the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse! Boy, you fag lovers can't help but resort to name calling, can you?"

And to be fair, I think some of you are just on reflexive "Liberals want it so I'm against it" mode, and you haven't ever really thought very hard about the lives affected by your posturing.

Anyway, as I say, whatever. Homophobia, no matter how dressed, no matter how denied, is a tough nut to crack. Ya'll just stick to your guns.

Because you're wrong, and the world is changing, and you'll end up like the elderly sons of the south, bitter in your rest homes about the how the niggers got the upper hand and ruined the world.

The battle is already over. Queers are at large, and nothing kills prejudice like knowledge. Knowledge of real people living their lives, who turn out to be not at all like the mincing AIDS monsters daddy told me about. Knowledge that Uncle Bob, who once would have sooner killed himself than let his horrible secret become known, is a gay man living with another gay man and, huh, that's funny, he doesn't seem to be cruising bathrooms on the interstate, looking for unattended eight years olds, he seem to be in a committed relationship and not a bad guy, really. Go figure.

Prejudice requires ignorance. For a very long time it was possible to make of homosexuals whatever the fevered imaginations of the hateful wanted, because violence and the threat of violence kept them from speaking for themselves, and living lives open to scrutiny. That's over, and you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

They're here, they're queer, and you're never going to get used to it, but that really is your problem.

[southside grabowski]

These are moral issues and should be taught in the home. This should be taught by neither right nor left wing educators.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
These are moral issues and should be taught in the home. This should be taught by neither right nor left wing educators.

so if your parents are bigots, your children are too - and vice versa. Nice argument.

[southside grabowski]

There is a huge difference between taking a moral stand and being a bigot. It is not necessary to hate and discriminate against another because you feel that they are morally wrong. Why must the left always make accusations of hate and bigotry?

[SDW2001]

tonton:



I have an 8 year-old daughter. The day that she can go to school and the INSTANT she is faced with questions about sexuality (whether that be at 5 years old or 15), she either knows nothing about it, or everything about it, is the day the "gay agenda" is a success in terms of education.

What if I as a parent don't want my daughter discussing sexuality in school, particularly when she's 5?

It is a fact that children from a very young age are taught by society that being gay is WRONG. Until that is no longer a fact, there needs to be someoene else out there
pointing out that such claims are bullshit. You cannot have equality at any age when only one side has a voice. The difference in the "sides", however, is that the anti-gay side states that being gay is WRONG WRONG WRONG! while the tolerance side makes no such claims about heterosexuality.

I disagree. How do you support that assertion? The children that I teach don't seem to think so. Their previous music teacher was openly gay. I really don't hear much about that. When it does come up, it's just a fact. He was gay. That's all.

So at this point, if an 8 year-old is given a book called "My Two Daddies", then it is a good thing. It does not tell them that being gay is wrong or right, just that it is acceptable and a part of life, and a part of society, which it is, no matter whether it's 10% or 2%.

It's a good thing for you. Some consider homosexuality immoral, and they don't want their children exposed to the concept of having two daddies...at least until they are really old enough to comprehend it.


There is absolutely no pretense whatsoever, that being gay is not a minority trait. Just like ther is no pretense that being American Indian is not a minority trait. Yet we are bombarded with the anti-gay message constantly, whereas we have finally progressed enough that most people no longer claim that black people or Mexicans (well except illegal immigrants) are bad (they used to - we just grew up as a society).

You cannot compare being a minority race to being gay. See below.



quote:Originally posted by SDW2001
When school age children watch videos that tell them it's perfectly "normal" to be gay, that's not tolerance. I'm not talking about helping a teenager accept his sexuality mind you, I'm talking about these kinds of things aimed at 5 year olds. It happens all the time. Gays are in the minority by a huge number. It is not normal whatsoever to have them in the majority or even equal in number. Sexuality exists for the purpose of human procreation. It is a fact that some people (and for that matter animals) are gay and therefore "different" in a manner of speaking. Trying to pretend that being gay is natural and normal as being straight is ludicrous. By the very laws of nature, it's not.

That said, I know many gay people and I have no, I repeat no ill will towards them based on their sexuality. However, I think that because of certain aspects of our culture, some do in fact choose to live as gay. While we can debate whether being gay is a choice or not, we cannot debate that being a minority race is not a choice in any capacity. So your comparison there is somehwhat flawed.

Once again, the only right I oppose for gays is the right to marry. It changes the definition of marriage. Since we're willing to change it for being gay, why not change it in other ways? Why can't we marry more than one person, for example? Maybe that's a genetic difference too. I mean, after all, some animal species have multiple mates. Maybe we should have a tolerance campaign and marriage rights for those folks too.



I have an 8 year-old daughter. The day that she can go to school and the INSTANT she is faced with questions about sexuality (whether that be at 5 years old or 15), she either knows nothing about it, or everything about it, is the day the "gay agenda" is a success in terms of education.

It is a fact that children from a very young age are taught by society that being gay is WRONG. Until that is no longer a fact, there needs to be someoene else out there pointing out that such claims are bullshit. You cannot have equality at any age when only one side has a voice. The difference in the "sides", however, is that the anti-gay side states that being gay is WRONG WRONG WRONG! while the tolerance side makes no such claims about heterosexuality.

So at this point, if an 8 year-old is given a book called "My Two Daddies", then it is a good thing. It does not tell them that being gay is wrong or right, just that it is acceptable and a part of life, and a part of society, which it is, no matter whether it's 10% or 2%.

There is absolutely no pretense whatsoever, that being gay is not a minority trait. Just like ther is no pretense that being American Indian is not a minority trait. Yet we are bombarded with the anti-gay message constantly, whereas we have finally progressed enough that most people no longer claim that black people or Mexicans (well except illegal immigrants) are bad (they used to - we just grew up as a society).

"Sexuality exists for the purpose of human procreation."

Only someone completely non-sexual in nature can make such an ignorant statement. You must either be really, really fat, or really really ugly in this day and age to not admit that sex has much more social importance than procreation.

Sexuality DOES exist for the purpose of procreation. That is the SOLE reason for its existence. Yes, it feels good and people have sex for pleasure alone. That doesn't change it's purpose.



Um... is it just me, or does everybody welse not notice that those two sentences are completely contradictory?

Is being American Indian not as natural and normal as being white? No one is pretending anything. It is natural, as you admit. It is therefore normal. Or do you not understand the meaning of those two words?

...more quotes on the "choice" debate follow....



It's just you. You can't pretend that 5-10% of the population represents a huge majority or even equal amount. This issue also ties into the issue of choice. There are, in fact, some people that choose to follow homosexual urges and some that don't. For others, it's not a choice...they are created gay and will always be gay. But I have personally known those who have been "gay" for a period, then "straight", then bi, then straight again. In other words, there is sometimes an element of choice involved. This stands in stark contrast to being black or asian or for that matter white. There is no choie whatsoever involved.

Liar... for one, you just said that you oppose the right to teach tolerance in schools. How about adoption? I bet you oppose that as well. Am I wrong?

I don't oppose teaching true tolerance, as in "it's wrong to hate gays for their sexuality, wrong to mock them, wrong to do any number of things." I also do not oppose adoption rights, though I personally morally disagree with it.

And no, it does not change the definition of marriage. It changes YOUR definition of marriage. Marriage is, and will always be a sacred and legal union of two persons. That is the most basic definition. It is only in recent times and in religious context that any further "definition" has been made, by people with an obvious "anti-gay" agenda.

Yes it does. Western civilation has defined marriage as being between one man and one woman for thousands of years. If we can change that for gays, what else can it be changed for? Why even have marriage at all? It destroys all meaning of the term.

Now in times of poor prosperity and high mortality, there is a reason to promote heterosexuality. This is why it was once adopted as part of society. In addition, every religion wants to grow its ranks as fast as possible, to increase revenue and power. This is the reason religions frown on homosexuality.

This is really not where I'm coming from. I'm not talking about promoting anything, you are. If you listen to yourself, you make it sound like if gays just had a better marketing campaign, there'd be more of them. ;) Hetero orientation is by far the majority and always will be, otherwise the human species will go out of existance.


1) In a period of prosperity, homosexuality harms neither society nor any individual.

2) No one is trying to convert straight people to become gay.

3) No one is forcing you as an individual, to change your own beliefs, just your actions which may harm others.

4) Gay marriage would be the only way to allow the same level of sanctity in genuine loving relationships between two consenting adults, who, as you admit, were born different.

5) Integration of homosexuality into society can accurately be compared to integration in terms of gender (sex) or race.

Please take a moment to ask yourself, "Who does being gay actually HARM?"

The answer should be "no one". If it is not, then something has to be fixed so that it is.


1. Again, not what I'm arguing. People have every right to be gay.

2. I would disagree with that.

3. Disagree here too. If my child has to learn that it is totally normal and acceptable morally to live in a gay home and I don't want her believing that at the age of 5, 6 or whatever, that does plenty to my family morally.

4. That's correct, and that's why it should not be legal.

5. No it can't. People do not choose gender at birth, nor their race. Some DO choose their orientation, whether you will admit it or not.

"What does being gay harm", you ask? Nothing in and of itself. However, when we start changing laws and thousand year old standards and challenging people's moral beliefs without their consent, yes, it can be harmful.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Northgate
It's funny. Whenever a pro-tolerance individual uses nature as an example of homosexuality in the animal kingdom, the usual counter argument from the Anti-Gay group is, "We're human beings, we're different than 'animals'".

Which is why I find the above argument hilarious.

"Pro-tolerance".

LOL.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Northgate
It is, isn't it. And you say this without the least bit of irony.

Remember that next time you decide to use that slur against liberals.

That's cheap. Sometimes people are filled with hate. Take Harry Reid for example. ;)

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
There is a huge difference between taking a moral stand and being a bigot. It is not necessary to hate and discriminate against another because you feel that they are morally wrong. Why must the left always make accusations of hate and bigotry?

Most all human emotions are centered on fear. Even love. Yet there comes a point when you have to ask, "What am I afraid of - Why am I afraid?"

Hatred and Bigotry are unconscious expressions of fear, yet what exactly is there to be afraid of? That you might suddenly turn Gay, because there are Gay people?

[MarcUK]

ps, i've been saving this one for CC, but what the hell...

humans shagging animals (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/evolution/mg19025525.000-did-humans-and-chimps-once-interbreed.html)

It is work-safe!

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by trumptman
I've never read such a thing. Are compassion and empathy also based on fear? If all emotions are based on fear, why trust some over others?

yep, fear of screwing up.


Not being willing to cater to the demands of a certain group does not make one filled with hatred and bigotry. There doesn't have to be any sort of fear involved.

Nick

denial is a state of fear too.

[southside grabowski]

Originally posted by MarcUK
Most all human emotions are centered on fear. Even love. Yet there comes a point when you have to ask, "What am I afraid of - Why am I afraid?"

Hatred and Bigotry are unconscious expressions of fear, yet what exactly is there to be afraid of? That you might suddenly turn Gay, because there are Gay people?

Fear? No

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by trumptman
Apparently so is your frustation.:lol: :lol:

Nick

well done, 'the man can be taught' :D

[BR]

I'm still waiting for someone who is against gay marriage to address my points:


There's a couple of different issues here...

First, if there is a single religion that accepts gay marriage, denying it at the state level is making a law preventing the free practice of said religion.

Second, if people want to argue that marriage is so sacred and religious, government shouldn't have any hand in it at all. NO OFFICIAL STATE MARRIAGE FOR ANYONE! Civil Unions should be for ALL instead.

Either way, it's bullshit to deny people the same rights. Separate but equal should NEVER fly.

[tonton]

Originally posted by trumptman
Not being willing to cater to the demands of a certain group does not make one filled with hatred and bigotry. There doesn't have to be any sort of fear involved.

Why do you have to "cater" to anything? Just let it be.

I repeat that:

WHY DO YOU HAVE TO "CATER" TO ANYTHING?

I don't have to "cater" to Mormon missionaries, for instance, even though I much of Mormon beliefs due to my opinion of the harm it does to society. I can just ignore them and tolerate them.

Trumpt, why is it causing you any inconvenience to let people just be, and choose to live how they want to live when it doesn't affect you in any way whatsoever?

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by BR
I'm still waiting for someone who is against gay marriage to address my points:


There's a couple of different issues here...

First, if there is a single religion that accepts gay marriage, denying it at the state level is making a law preventing the free practice of said religion.

Second, if people want to argue that marriage is so sacred and religious, government shouldn't have any hand in it at all. NO OFFICIAL STATE MARRIAGE FOR ANYONE! Civil Unions should be for ALL instead.

Either way, it's bullshit to deny people the same rights. Separate but equal should NEVER fly.

1. I don't think you can argue that point. I can have a religion that accepts polygamy (someone just made this point, if I recall) and that doesn't mean polygamy is going to be legal. Religions can "accept" lots of things that the government doesn't have to. And let me ask you this, what about the other 80% whose religion DOES NOT accept homosexuality? Should they be forced to accept laws that allow it...even sanction it? You'd have to show that a law prevents people from engaging in homosexual relationships and behavior as part of their religous customs. Disallowing gay marriage doesn't do that. Remember, it's a slippery slope. If I can show that my religion allows me to screw dogs, then by all means I should be able to marry a dog. Sorry for the comparison in advance! : )

2. If we have civil unions instead of marriage, then you do in fact prevent people from living their religious beliefs.
No religion that I know of declares that sexual relations are the exclusive domain of married gay couples. Any attempt to create one would be a cheap legal trick and nothing more...and would probably be exposed as such. However, major religions declare the very same with regard to hetero relationships. I think what you're saying is that government should not recognize any coupling, be it civil unions or marriage. Calling it something different won't change what it really is.

[BR]

1. I don't find anything wrong with polygamy. The slippery slope argument also is just a cop-out. You can try to slippery slope any situation with ridiculous notoins. By the way, we're supposed to be trying to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. So 80% of religions don't like gay marriage. Whoop-dee-doo. The point is that 80% doesn't have the right to PREVENT the other 20% from doing something. The 80% are still free to *gasp* not get gay married. Thing is, by making gay marriage illegal, it is legislating a RELIGIOUS point of view. That ain't cool.

2. Bullshit. The government should only recognize civil unions for the purposes of taxes and all the other fun legal stuff that currently comes with marriage. That doesn't say mean that the people can't get married anymore. Of course they can: in their church or synagogue or mosque or basement; the government simply won't make judgments about any marriage. See, getting government out of the business of marriage puts it back into the holy hands of the religious. It's giving marriage back to the people.

And for crying out loud, how the hell does gay marriage hurt YOU? If you claim it makes your marriage mean less, you are a douche with a crappy marriage who needs to learn to mind his own business. Sorry.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by BR
1. I don't find anything wrong with polygamy. The slippery slope argument also is just a cop-out. You can try to slippery slope any situation with ridiculous notoins. By the way, we're supposed to be trying to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. So 80% of religions don't like gay marriage. Whoop-dee-doo. The point is that 80% doesn't have the right to PREVENT the other 20% from doing something. The 80% are still free to *gasp* not get gay married. Thing is, by making gay marriage illegal, it is legislating a RELIGIOUS point of view. That ain't cool.

2. Bullshit. The government should only recognize civil unions for the purposes of taxes and all the other fun legal stuff that currently comes with marriage. That doesn't say mean that the people can't get married anymore. Of course they can: in their church or synagogue or mosque or basement; the government simply won't make judgments about any marriage. See, getting government out of the business of marriage puts it back into the holy hands of the religious. It's giving marriage back to the people.

And for crying out loud, how the hell does gay marriage hurt YOU? If you claim it makes your marriage mean less, you are a douche with a crappy marriage who needs to learn to mind his own business. Sorry.

You obviously haven't read the thread or followed the specific points I was responding to.

Polygamy is illegal, whether you find something wrong with it or not. I agree that slippery slope arguments can be overused, but in this case it's worth pointing one out. At what point do we draw the line on marriage? So we allow polygamy and gay marriage on religous freedom grounds. You don't see how easy it would be, by that same justification, to have someone claim the right to marry anything or anyone on those same grounds?

I don't really know where you're going with #2. You want the government to not be involved in marriage...to only allow civil unions for it's purposes and to leave "marriage" to religion? So I would have to get married and then get separate civil union for government purposes? You don't really want that, do you?

[tonton]

Originally posted by SDW2001
I don't really know where you're going with #2.
Because you choose to ignore the point. It's not difficult at all, really. It just doesn't fit in with your own selfish perspective.

You want the government to not be involved in marriage...to only allow civil unions for it's purposes and to leave "marriage" to religion? So I would have to get married and then get separate civil union for government purposes? You don't really want that, do you?
Of course we want that, silly. We already have to apply for a "marriage license", which is basically the exact civil union thing we're talking about. there would be no furter steps necessary. Just change "marriage license" to "civil union" without any endorsement requirement, and everything is set.

I honestly believe that you STILL think that allowing gays to "marry" will somehow make your own marriage less special/valuable/sacred/whatever, and that's the only reason you oppose it.

[tonton]

Originally posted by trumptman
When being asked to accept a change that is not just letting it be. Your command of English seems to be slipping lately.

That is complete and utter bullshit when that change affects you in no way whatsoever! It's honestly not your business.

You wouldn't consider it to be "letting them be" if instead of ignoring them, they were attempting to get the legislature to pass their own views as law and demand that if you spoke against such views it was a hate crime. They would be much harder to ignore then.
Mormons already have the right to exclude women from certain areas of worship, promote overpopulation and deny people economic freedom, among other things. If they push for tolerance of polygamy, I would argue that polygamy can only be acceptable if it is not sexist in nature, i.e. women can marry more than one husband.

I already let them be. I'm not the one seeking change. Those who do seek change though have to be persuasive to the majority.

You clearly don't understand the concept. Letting them change things that have NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU AND DON'T AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS IN ANY WAY is letting them be. Refusing to do so is controlling them. You want to control them in matters that are none of your business.

[tonton]

Originally posted by trumptman
Is it really a conversation or discussion if the person only deals with what they believe is the other person's pespective instead of actual engaging their thoughts and words?

Do you want to discuss with people Ton or yell at them?

Nick

Ok, sorry Nick, I apologize.

Please let me know how letting gays marry affects you personally. Thanks.

[tonton]

Originally posted by trumptman
Nothing to do with me? I'm married. By your reasoning no one has a right to express an opinion and seek to insure their views are law. Your views are the anti-thesis of self-government and democracy.
Excuse me? that's exactly my reasoning. No one has the (moral) right to object to something that affects them in no way whatsoever. Read my signature again. Please. If someone wants to claim that gay marriage does harm society, go aheand and explain how, and object on that basis. But you don't appear to be saying that (maybe you actually believe that it does harm society, but you're avoiding making that claim explicit, because you can't back it up with facts).

But clearly you agree with me that you think allowing gays to marry will somehow affect your own marriage. Please explain exactly how that is.

Also we've been over this before. They have the EXACT same rights I have.
Really? Can gays have a sacred recognition of their union? Can they have a LEGAL recognition of their union? Those things are rights. Can gays or lesbians adopt a child and start a family? Can they visit their loved one in hospital? Can they inherit their loved one's property if no sepcific instructions have been left? These are ALL rights YOU have that gay couples do not. "They have the EXACT same rights I have." is a lie. Plain and simple.

The fact that they do not desire to exercise them in the exact same manner is not my fault nor does it mean that they should freely be able to rearrange the right from societies liking to their own.
So tell me, how DO gays exercise their right to visit their loved one in hospital in the exact same manner that you do?

You seem to neglect the whole part where it becomes law, you have to follow it, and speaking against it is a hate crime.

You keep saying that there's some threat that speaking against gay marriage will be considered hate crime if gays are allowed to marry. Please explain. I'm not neglecting this, because it's simply false. Claiming that all of a sudden saying you don't believe gays should marry will become illegal is either a lie manufactured to scare people, or it is ignorance of the truth, which is that you will still be able to say whatever you want.

Going out on the street and saying "Blacks and whites should not be allowed to marry! It's against God." is not illegal in any part of the country. Just because there are laws that prohibit the denial of allowing blacks and whites to marry eachother, saying you are against that law is not illegal, anywhere. show me where, in any proposed pro gay marriage law it says that you can't speak out against it.

Don't pretend there's a threat, and refer to that imaginary threat for justification of oppression, when there absolutely is none.

Societal interest is indeed my interest. I might be quite capable of driving at 100 mph on the freeway, but society chooses to restrict my driving to 65 mph. Your brand of individualism is so strident as to make all laws and attempts to govern impossible. The criteria isn't simply what an indivual wants, desires or happens to be affected by. It is a societal interest.

My children and I would not be affected in any way whatsoever by a lack of public schools. However society acts in the interest of more than just what you or I want.

I agree with you 100% on social interest. So please explain how allowing gays to marry is against social interest. Thanks.

[BR]

Originally posted by SDW2001
You obviously haven't read the thread or followed the specific points I was responding to.

Polygamy is illegal, whether you find something wrong with it or not. I agree that slippery slope arguments can be overused, but in this case it's worth pointing one out. At what point do we draw the line on marriage? So we allow polygamy and gay marriage on religous freedom grounds. You don't see how easy it would be, by that same justification, to have someone claim the right to marry anything or anyone on those same grounds?
Polygamy shouldn't be illegal. And as soon as you start stepping into the anything realm you've already gone beyond to the ridiculous.

I don't really know where you're going with #2. You want the government to not be involved in marriage...to only allow civil unions for it's purposes and to leave "marriage" to religion? So I would have to get married and then get separate civil union for government purposes? You don't really want that, do you?

Umm, that's exactly what I want. You get married with your religion: have your ceremony and be married in front of god. Then, instead of getting a marriage license with the gov't you can just sign the civil union papers. I don't see how that's any harder than signing a marriage license now.

[BR]

Originally posted by trumptman
So since lack of gay marriage affects you in now way whatsover you can't voice an complaint about it.

Enjoy your own asinine reasoning applied toward you? Good enjoy.
Nick
That's just a way to dodge the issue. Fighting to protect the rights of an oppressed minority is a noble cause. African hunger doesn't directly affect you either but I doubt you'd use the same reasoning to shut tonton down if we were talking about that instead.

[Placebo]

I don't understand how having gay parents could possibly harm a child.

[Outsider]

Originally posted by Placebo
I don't understand how having gay parents could possibly harm a child. They might molest the children. Straight parents never do that. And, they might contract 'teh ghey'.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Placebo
I don't understand how having gay parents could possibly harm a child.

OK.

But let's be very clear about something...just because you don't understand how, doesn't mean it doesn't or cannot.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
OK.

But let's be very clear about something...just because you don't understand how, doesn't mean it doesn't or cannot.
OK. Let's all be clear. What exactly do you mean by this?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
OK. Let's all be clear. What exactly do you mean by this?

Just because you don't understand how (having gay parents could possibly harm a child), doesn't mean it doesn't or cannot.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Just because you don't understand how (having gay parents could possibly harm a child), doesn't mean it doesn't or cannot.
Yes, yes. By writing what you wrote, did you mean to say that having gay parents is likely to be harmful to a child or not?

Or were you making a more abstruse point about the limits of human knowledge, which would not have been relevant to the subject of this thread?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Yes, yes. By writing what you wrote, did you mean to say that having gay parents is likely to be harmful to a child or not?

I'm saying that just because a particular person "can't think of reason" doesn't have any bearing on the factual nature of the question. This is a (very) common argument (and misperception) that is used. "Well, I can't think oif any reason why it's bad (therefore it must be OK)."

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Or were you making a more abstruse point about the limits of human knowledge

No. I was trying avert a very common (egocentric) logical fallacy ("Gee, I cannot think of a reason why something shouldn't be...so it must be OK.")

[BRussell]

Chris, is it possible that having gay parents is better for children than having straight parents? After all, just because you don't understand how that could possibly be the case doesn't mean it can't be true.

As a side note, da wife got a phone survey yesterday asking whether she thought a marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman (she said no). Our 7-year-old asked what we were talking about, and I let da wife do the talking. She said that sometimes boys like boys and girls like girls, and want to get married, but some people don't want to let them. Our 1st-grader immediately said that people should be allowed to marry who they want, and other people should mind their own business. Funny. I wonder what parents who are against gay marriage would have said, and how thei child would have responded.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by BRussell
Chris, is it possible that having gay parents is better for children than having straight parents?

Yes.

Originally posted by BRussell
After all, just because you don't understand how that could possibly be the case doesn't mean it can't be true.

Correct.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I'm saying that just because a particular person "can't think of reason" doesn't have any bearing on the factual nature of the question. This is a (very) common argument (and misperception) that is used. "Well, I can't think oif any reason why it's bad (therefore it must be OK)."



No. I was trying avert a very common (egocentric) logical fallacy ("Gee, I cannot think of a reason why something shouldn't be...so it must be OK.")

This question has been out there for a long time.

So then the burden of proof is on people like yourself to come up with something real to look at it as a threat.

Until then I think it's safe to assume otherwise.;)

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by jimmac
So then the burden of proof is on people like yourself to come up with something real to look at it as a threat.

How clever. Isn't interesting that the "burden of proof" is always on the opposite side. Ad Ignorantiam.

Originally posted by jimmac
Until then I think it's safe to assume otherwise.;)

Of course you do.

[Placebo]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
OK.

But let's be very clear about something...just because you don't understand how, doesn't mean it doesn't or cannot.
How could there possibly be a correlation between a child's mental health and their parents' sexual orientation?

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by tonton
Because you choose to ignore the point. It's not difficult at all, really. It just doesn't fit in with your own selfish perspective.


Of course we want that, silly. We already have to apply for a "marriage license", which is basically the exact civil union thing we're talking about. there would be no furter steps necessary. Just change "marriage license" to "civil union" without any endorsement requirement, and everything is set.

I honestly believe that you STILL think that allowing gays to "marry" will somehow make your own marriage less special/valuable/sacred/whatever, and that's the only reason you oppose it.

Selfish? Where are you getting that from? You can "honestly believe" all you want, but my position has little, if anything to do with my marriage.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by BR
Polygamy shouldn't be illegal. And as soon as you start stepping into the anything realm you've already gone beyond to the ridiculous.



Umm, that's exactly what I want. You get married with your religion: have your ceremony and be married in front of god. Then, instead of getting a marriage license with the gov't you can just sign the civil union papers. I don't see how that's any harder than signing a marriage license now.

Is it ridiculous? Of course. But I was just making a point. If we change the definition of marriage on religous freedom grounds (which is highly dubious in itself as no religion I'm aware of calls for gay marriage as a required part of its doctrine), then we must accomodate all religous grounds. I can easily say that I want to marry 100 women, 16 men and because he needs health benefits, my dog. If my religion allows it, you must grant my request or be guilty of violating my religous expression. Call it whatever you want...civil union, whatever...it's the same concept.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Placebo
How could there possibly be a correlation between a child's mental health and their parents' sexual orientation?

Well since tonton claims that kids are taught that being gay is wrong, that child could develop serious issues resulting from his/her own moral judgement of the parents.

[BR]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Is it ridiculous? Of course. But I was just making a point. If we change the definition of marriage on religous freedom grounds (which is highly dubious in itself as no religion I'm aware of calls for gay marriage as a required part of its doctrine), then we must accomodate all religous grounds. I can easily say that I want to marry 100 women, 16 men and because he needs health benefits, my dog. If my religion allows it, you must grant my request or be guilty of violating my religous expression. Call it whatever you want...civil union, whatever...it's the same concept.

Nothing wrong with the 100 women and 16 men. The difference is a dog can't consent. Stop taking the argument into the ridiculous on purpose just to derail things.

Do you realize how stupid you sound when you say "Whoa, if you can like marry another guy then like you could totally like marry your dog!" You sound like a retarded stoner.

Or you just want to screw your dog and if you have to accept gay marriage you might as well slip that in with it...it's just as plausible as anything else you've said.

By the way, do you like Lesbian porn? As a heterosexual male, the only correct answer to that is yes.

[tonton]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Well since tonton claims that kids are taught that being gay is wrong, that child could develop serious issues resulting from his/her own moral judgement of the parents.

EXACTLY! So what needs to be changed here?

Fortunately, those children would be more likely to be taught right and wrong mainly by their parents than other children might.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by BR

Do you realize how stupid you sound when you say "Whoa, if you can like marry another guy then like you could totally like marry your dog!" You sound like a retarded stoner.



Actually, he's just spouting off fundie Christian propaganda. If you're Gay, you also desire to shag animals and children.

More of a brainwashed retarded stoner really.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by BR
Nothing wrong with the 100 women and 16 men. The difference is a dog can't consent. Stop taking the argument into the ridiculous on purpose just to derail things.

Do you realize how stupid you sound when you say "Whoa, if you can like marry another guy then like you could totally like marry your dog!" You sound like a retarded stoner.

Or you just want to screw your dog and if you have to accept gay marriage you might as well slip that in with it...it's just as plausible as anything else you've said.

By the way, do you like Lesbian porn? As a heterosexual male, the only correct answer to that is yes.


It's amazing that you choose to insult me rather than address the logic behind what you yourself are proposing. If the grounds for changing the definition of marriage are those of religious freedoms, then anyone can change the definition of marriage for any religion he sees fit. I realize I used an absurd example, but I did it to illustrate the broader point.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by tonton
EXACTLY! So what needs to be changed here?

Fortunately, those children would be more likely to be taught right and wrong mainly by their parents than other children might.


What? How do you support that?

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
How clever. Isn't interesting that the "burden of proof" is always on the opposite side. Ad Ignorantiam.



Of course you do.


" is always on the opposite side. "

Of course it's not. You've asked for proof plenty of times.


" Of course you do. "

Well until you come up with some
real evidence to support your ideas I think I'll go with what the experts are saying. Especially since there's more evidence on " The other side ".:lol:

[BR]

Originally posted by SDW2001
It's amazing that you choose to insult me rather than address the logic behind what you yourself are proposing. If the grounds for changing the definition of marriage are those of religious freedoms, then anyone can change the definition of marriage for any religion he sees fit. I realize I used an absurd example, but I did it to illustrate the broader point.
I'm not changing the definition of marriage. I'm getting the government out of it and allowing each individual's religion to define it however that religion likes. And since the government will no longer endorse one particular religion's definition, that seems to fall in line with what the founding fathers outlined in our constitution.

Absurd examples to illustrate broad points just make you look absurd and don't illustrate shit.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
" is always on the opposite side. "

Of course it's not. You've asked for proof plenty of times.


" Of course you do. "

Well until you come up with some
real evidence to support your ideas I think I'll go with what the experts are saying. Especially since there's more evidence on " The other side ".:lol:

But your "evidence" from your "experts" proves my point, not yours! We have to competing statments:

Homosexuality is never a choice

Homosexuality is sometimes a choice

Your links show clearly that statement number two is more accurate. Yet you keep dancing and playing semantics with the word "significant."

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by BR
I'm not changing the definition of marriage. I'm getting the government out of it and allowing each individual's religion to define it however that religion likes. And since the government will no longer endorse one particular religion's definition, that seems to fall in line with what the founding fathers outlined in our constitution.

Absurd examples to illustrate broad points just make you look absurd and don't illustrate shit.

Yes you are. The government defines marriage as between a man and a woman. If the government allows gay marriage (or civil unions..whatever you want the name to be for official purposes) to be recognized, it has...wait for it....changed the definition. And if that change is based on what someone's religous beliefs are, we have a problem. You can attack my example, but I challenge you to show why it couldn't happen.

[BR]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Yes you are. The government defines marriage as between a man and a woman. If the government allows gay marriage (or civil unions..whatever you want the name to be for official purposes) to be recognized, it has...wait for it....changed the definition. And if that change is based on what someone's religous beliefs are, we have a problem. You can attack my example, but I challenge you to show why it couldn't happen.
The government shouldn't be defining marriage in the first place as you keep arguing that it is religious in nature. The very idea of marriage right now is ENTIRELY based on religious beliefs. You can't have it both ways. The government has no right defining marriage AT ALL.

[tonton]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Yes you are. The government defines marriage as between a man and a woman. If the government allows gay marriage (or civil unions..whatever you want the name to be for official purposes) to be recognized, it has...wait for it....changed the definition. And if that change is based on what someone's religous beliefs are, we have a problem. You can attack my example, but I challenge you to show why it couldn't happen.

So. looking at this from a different perspective, if the definition of something is OPPRESSIVE, then that definition needs to be changed.

When Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, remember, "All men are created equal" excluded blacks, because according to the definition at the time, blacks were not men. Somewhere along the line, that definition, fortunately got changed. It's time to change the (govenrnment's) definition of marriage then. Your religion can define it however the fuck they want. And so can mine.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by BR
The government shouldn't be defining marriage in the first place as you keep arguing that it is religious in nature. The very idea of marriage right now is ENTIRELY based on religious beliefs. You can't have it both ways. The government has no right defining marriage AT ALL.

Now you're switching argument topics because you've seen you can't win the first. The point we were arguing was the government allowing gay marriage recognition based on a hypothetical religion that required it. I've clearly shown that 1) No such religion exists, beyond mere "tolererance" of homosexuality and 2) It would create the mother of all slippery slopes.

But now you want to argue that the government should have nothing to do with religion. Fine. We still have to call the legal process of marriage something, be it Civil Union or be it "Two Person Cohabitation with Rights of Survivorship." It still has to be defined as something. So let's say we have a law that says "any two persons" can be engaged in this committment? This creates some problems.

First, by removing religion, you've now removed the committment before God, family and friends. Any two people can now show up at a courthouse, declare that they want to be "married" or "unionized" or whatever, and that's that. They can then get all benefits from "marriage." You want to become a legal citizen? No problem! You want to get medical benefits from your "spouse?" No problem! You don't even need to be a member of the opposite sex! I can marry my friend Dave, and still live with my "wife and family." After all, maybe Dave makes less money than my "wife" does, which will help me tax wise. We already have a high divorce rate. What do you think it will be like when this goes through? Those are just a few examples. We shouldn't take religion out of "marriage." The government now and has always legally sanctioned the holy unity between a man and woman...from any religion. Now what you want to do is extend that right to any two people, regardless of gender AND regardless of relgious committment? I realize two members of the opposite sex can now get a purely legal marriage, but now we want to go a step further?

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by tonton
So. looking at this from a different perspective, if the definition of something is OPPRESSIVE, then that definition needs to be changed.

When Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, remember, "All men are created equal" excluded blacks, because according to the definition at the time, blacks were not men. Somewhere along the line, that definition, fortunately got changed. It's time to change the (govenrnment's) definition of marriage then. Your religion can define it however the fuck they want. And so can mine.

Oh stop. "Oppressive?" No one is being oppressed. For one thing, making gay marriage legal is surely not going to change the majority of the population's opinion on the topic. It might even increase anti-gay sentiment. It might actually increase real oppression in this country.

Secondly, and hear me well: Being gay is not comprable to being a minority race because...at least for some people...there is an element of choice involved..

Have a nice day.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh stop. "Oppressive?" No one is being oppressed. For one thing, making gay marriage legal is surely not going to change the majority of the population's opinion on the topic. It might even increase anti-gay sentiment. It might actually increase real oppression in this country.

Secondly, and hear me well: Being gay is not comprable to being a minority race because...at least for some people...there is an element of choice involved..

Have a nice day.


Oh SDW! Do you notice how many of my posts begin with that?

You're going to break the needle on the idiotometer with this one.

-----------------------------------------------------------

" making gay marriage legal is surely not going to change the majority of the population's opinion on the topic. It might even increase anti-gay sentiment. It might actually increase real oppression in this country. "

-----------------------------------------------------------

Only in your " Bizzaro World ".
:no:


You know. The one where there are really WMD somewhere in the sands of Iraq. George Bush's numbers aren't really that bad. And we should feel good about him because he's just a nice man out to help us. Selling snake oil door to door.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by trumptman
So since lack of gay marriage affects you in now way whatsover you can't voice an complaint about it.

Enjoy your own asinine reasoning applied toward you? Good enjoy.



You've obviously overestimated your own importance again.



Think about the fact that you, Mr. Tolerant in your own overinflated stature, have to use the phrase gay marriage because you, I, and everyone else understand that marriage means man and woman. You have to apply gay to modify the word marriage to a new understanding.

Also you apply the criteria of harm to justify keeping the definition of marriage I already have instead of substituting another. I don't have to prove harm. I don't believe homosexual people are going to harm me. That criteria is your own. I've stated quite clearly that my criteria is the right to self-govern. I don't have to prove harm to receive that right. I don't even have to prove an interest. It is an inalienable right.



You are correct that I am not saying that. As I mentioned earlier, I don't have to piss to mark some territory of interest to be able to express my views about how society should run. I also don't have to be afraid, claim harm or express some sort of fear. Your views are the antithesis of democracy. The right to self-govern isn't granted in instances where you have an interest or don't or where someone wants to claim you shouldn't have a say because they think it isn't about you.



First it has nothing to do with me or my marriage.

I've stated clearly in this thread and others that taking one form, especially one with so much historical and religious baggage and trying to make it one size fits all is very unproductive. Heterosexual couples are abandoning marriage already for the exact reason that many of them no longer fit in nor desire the traditional constraints it demands. They don't want man as breadwinner, woman as caregiver and these roles assigned for life. Yet watch the marriage break-up and watch the family courts attempt to impose those exact roles.

It is more productive to discuss how to get the government to accept multiple relationship types rather than arguing that everyone should find a way to be stuffed into one word.



I have known many gay people who were married. When they married, they had to follow the exact same criteria I did when I got married. As for adopting a child, last I checked only Florida totally bans gay adoption. California allows joint adoption and most others allow adoption by a single gay parent with a secondary process to add the partner as a second parent. It isn't illegal but does involve a bit more work. I can't imagine someone not being allowed to see their loved one in a hospital. So many people simply live together now who are hetero as well as homosexual that there are loads of domestic partner laws.

You can leave your property to whomever you want with a will. You don't have to be married. You can leave it to your cat. As for if specific instructions, estates can be contested even if married and even with a will. Marriage wouldn't resolve that matter, but estate planning would.

As for your rights, you may have overestimated them. Try dying and watch as your girlfriend and ex-wife both fight over your estate.



Yes. I think you must be watching too many early 80's movies or something.

I'll hit the rest in the morning.

Nick

God another one of those long posts.

Well :

-----------------------------------------------------------

" I've stated clearly in this thread and others that taking one form, especially one with so much historical and religious baggage and trying to make it one size fits all is very unproductive. Heterosexual couples are abandoning marriage already for the exact reason that many of them no longer fit in nor desire the traditional constraints it demands. They don't want man as breadwinner, woman as caregiver and these roles assigned for life. Yet watch the marriage break-up and watch the family courts attempt to impose those exact roles. "
-----------------------------------------------------------

So the situation must fit the individual? Well we are in agreement with that.

As long as the same options are available to everyone.

That means marriage also.
;)

[BR]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Now you're switching argument topics because you've seen you can't win the first. The point we were arguing was the government allowing gay marriage recognition based on a hypothetical religion that required it. I've clearly shown that 1) No such religion exists, beyond mere "tolererance" of homosexuality and 2) It would create the mother of all slippery slopes.
Excuse me? Required? Allows is the word. And, you haven't shown that no such religion exists. You've proclaimed that none do without any evidence.
http://www.religious-coalition.org/
They represent a number of denominations. Ouch. What's that sound? Oh yeah, your entire argument falling apart.

And don't start in with your slippery slope dog bullshit argument again. DOGS CANNOT CONSENT! DOGS CANNOT CONSENT! GET THAT THROUGH HEAD! DOGS CANNOT CONSENT!

But now you want to argue that the government should have nothing to do with religion. Fine. We still have to call the legal process of marriage something, be it Civil Union or be it "Two Person Cohabitation with Rights of Survivorship." It still has to be defined as something. So let's say we have a law that says "any two persons" can be engaged in this committment? This creates some problems.

First, by removing religion, you've now removed the committment before God, family and friends. Any two people can now show up at a courthouse, declare that they want to be "married" or "unionized" or whatever, and that's that. They can then get all benefits from "marriage." You want to become a legal citizen? No problem! You want to get medical benefits from your "spouse?" No problem! You don't even need to be a member of the opposite sex! I can marry my friend Dave, and still live with my "wife and family." After all, maybe Dave makes less money than my "wife" does, which will help me tax wise. We already have a high divorce rate. What do you think it will be like when this goes through? Those are just a few examples. We shouldn't take religion out of "marriage." The government now and has always legally sanctioned the holy unity between a man and woman...from any religion. Now what you want to do is extend that right to any two people, regardless of gender AND regardless of relgious committment? I realize two members of the opposite sex can now get a purely legal marriage, but now we want to go a step further?

You think people would flock to get civil unions? Are you fucking kidding me? As it stands guys often get financially fucked for getting married. You think just friends Dave and Bob really want community property? Yeah, right.

[Placebo]

Originally posted by BR

By the way, do you like Lesbian porn? As a heterosexual male, the only correct answer to that is yes.
Since nobody else has answered that, I'll say "yes".


Originally posted by SDW2001
Well since tonton claims that kids are taught that being gay is wrong, that child could develop serious issues resulting from his/her own moral judgement of the parents.
Do you really think the human psyche is that malleable? Dysfunctional families don't produce dysfunctional children, and there's no reason to believe that a gay family would be any more than a little bit disfunctional.

[Placebo]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh stop. "Oppressive?" No one is being oppressed. For one thing, making gay marriage legal is surely not going to change the majority of the population's opinion on the topic. It might even increase anti-gay sentiment. It might actually increase real oppression in this country.

Secondly, and hear me well: Being gay is not comprable to being a minority race because...at least for some people...there is an element of choice involved..

Have a nice day.
I'm sure tons of gays would choose to be heterosexual if they could be. It sure brings a lot less trouble into your life.

[BR]

Originally posted by Placebo
I'm sure tons of gays would choose to be heterosexual if they could be. It sure brings a lot less trouble into your life.
Yeah, with people like SDW in this world, I don't know why anyone would choose to be gay.

[Placebo]

Originally posted by BR
Yeah, with people like SDW in this world, I don't know why anyone would choose to be gay.
Suicidals, I guess.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by jimmac
As long as the same options are available to everyone.

That means marriage also.

The same options for marriage are available to everyone.

Duh.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
The same options for marriage are available to everyone.

Duh.


Don't play coy Chris. You know what I meant.


Duh!;)

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by jimmac
You know what I meant.

Say what you mean. You want there to be additional options.

[tonton]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
The same options for marriage are available to everyone.

Duh.

100% false.

A heterosexual can marry the one they are in love with.

A homosexual cannot.

Don't ignore that difference, (I'll ignore the "i" word here)!!!!!

Is marriage not about love?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by tonton
100% false.

You are, yes.

Originally posted by tonton
A heterosexual can marry the one they are in love with.

Within the bounds (restrictions) of the law, yes.

If I loved my 1st cousin enough to want marry her, can I?
If I loved my sister enough to want marry her, can I?
If I loved my mother enough to want marry her, can I?
If I loved my daughter enough to want marry her, can I?
If I loved my mother enough to want marry her, can I?
If I loved a married woman enough to want marry her, can I?
If I am 10 years old and I loved a woman enough to want marry her, can I?
If I am 10 years old and I loved a girl enough to want marry her, can I?
If I loved a minor girl enough to want marry her, can I?
(I am currently married) If I loved another woman enough to want marry her, can I?

A person cannot simply marry anyone they love.

Originally posted by tonton
A homosexual cannot.

They certainly can, within the bounds (restrictions...the very same restrictions that everyone else lives under) of the law.

[BR]

That's like saying back in the early 1900s women could participate in the election process just like everyone eles within the bounds of the law or that black people in the 40s could attend school just like everyone else within the bounds of the law...except in both of those cases as well as homosexuals today, you have to be something you aren't in order to be equal. Women would have had to be men, blacks would have had to be white, and gays now have to be straight to be treated equally (but the restrictions were the same for everyone so it has to be fair!!)


Get off your bigoted high horse, Chris. Bounds of the law my ass.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by BR
Bounds of the law my ass.

What I illimunated was simply that the right to marry a particular person is not simply predicated on one person's love for another. There are boundaries and restrictions (for all persons). You can whine and cry all you want. But that is a simple fact of the law. If you don't like it change it (through the normal, legal, legislative processes at the disposal of all citizens).

P.S. From a legal perspective, "love" really has nothing to do with marriage.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by BR
Excuse me? Required? Allows is the word. And, you haven't shown that no such religion exists. You've proclaimed that none do without any evidence.
http://www.religious-coalition.org/
They represent a number of denominations. Ouch. What's that sound? Oh yeah, your entire argument falling apart.

And don't start in with your slippery slope dog bullshit argument again. DOGS CANNOT CONSENT! DOGS CANNOT CONSENT! GET THAT THROUGH HEAD! DOGS CANNOT CONSENT!



You think people would flock to get civil unions? Are you fucking kidding me? As it stands guys often get financially fucked for getting married. You think just friends Dave and Bob really want community property? Yeah, right.

BR...try and listen here. Please. I specifically pointed out that we were NOT talking about religions that "allow" gay marriage. We were talking about hypothetical religions that *require* gay marriage as part of church doctrine. If such a religion existed, and it does not, the government would be preventing the practice of said religion.

You can also dismiss the problems with a civil union scenario of you like, but it's irresponsible to do so. Anyone could "marry" anyone else legally. There are certain advantages of marriage that anyone could then partake in...whether they wanted to spend their lives together or not.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Placebo
Since nobody else has answered that, I'll say "yes".



Do you really think the human psyche is that malleable? Dysfunctional families don't produce dysfunctional children, and there's no reason to believe that a gay family would be any more than a little bit disfunctional.

He asked. I was just pointing out the possiblity.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by BR
That's like saying back in the early 1900s women could participate in the election process just like everyone eles within the bounds of the law or that black people in the 40s could attend school just like everyone else within the bounds of the law...except in both of those cases as well as homosexuals today, you have to be something you aren't in order to be equal. Women would have had to be men, blacks would have had to be white, and gays now have to be straight to be treated equally (but the restrictions were the same for everyone so it has to be fair!!)


Get off your bigoted high horse, Chris. Bounds of the law my ass.

Being gay is not like being black. I'll keep saying it until you get it through your head.

[BR]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Being gay is not like being black. I'll keep saying it until you get it through your head.
A religion doesn't have to REQUIRE something for it to fall under the 1st amendment. Get it through your head. And being gay makes very little sense being a choice. Sure, someone theoretically could choose to be with only someone of the same sex but why on earth would anyone choose to be discriminated against? The attraction is simply something people are born with. So, in that sense, yes it is like being black.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by BR
And being gay makes very little sense being a choice. Sure, someone theoretically could choose to be with only someone of the same sex but why on earth would anyone choose to be discriminated against?

Still using this tired old (poor) argument? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by BR
The attraction is simply something people are born with. So, in that sense, yes it is like being black.

That is an unproven hypothesis held by some. Regardless though, the government has clearly demonstrated its willingness, ability and "right" regulate certain behaviors and relationships.

[BR]

And the government has previously displayed a willigness to kill native americans, steal land, start preemptive wars, condone slavery, and consider a person to be 3/5th of a person. Great justification there, Chris.

[BR]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Still using this tired old (poor) argument? :rolleyes:


No, really. Tell me why anyone would choose a life like that.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by BR
A religion doesn't have to REQUIRE something for it to fall under the 1st amendment. Get it through your head. And being gay makes very little sense being a choice. Sure, someone theoretically could choose to be with only someone of the same sex but why on earth would anyone choose to be discriminated against? The attraction is simply something people are born with. So, in that sense, yes it is like being black.

In a sense, it does. The government cannot prevent you from practicing your religion. If you can demonstrate that a particular religion requires one to practice gay marriage as part of that religion's doctrine, then the argument becomes a bit different.

I have a good example. My religion (baptized Lutheran, practicing non-denominational) allows the euthanization of animals (others do not, from my understanding). If the government outlaws such a practice, it's not interfering. However, if my religion *required* me to euthanize an animal at a certain age for whatever reason, and the government outlawed it, it would be violating my religious freedom. My religion can allow many things. That doesn't mean I have to practice them to be truly faithful to that religion.

Even if your argument holds up, you're back to advocating gay marriage on religous freedom grounds. Interesting how you started there, switched arguments and then came back to this one. I say again, absurd arguments aside: If we allow gay marriage on religous grounds, we're going to have to allow the definition of marriage to change for anyone who has a "religous" justification. That applies or potentially applies to bigamy, polygamy, incestual relationships and perhaps even adults marrying minors.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by BR
No, really. Tell me why anyone would choose a life like that.

You don't get it, do you?

It doesn't really matter if I cannot come up with such a reason. The absense of such a reason is not proof that it is not a choice.

[BR]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
You don't get it, do you?

It doesn't really matter if I cannot come up with such a reason. The absense of such a reason is not proof that it is not a choice.
Why do you get to decide that it's a choice?

[BR]

Originally posted by SDW2001
In a sense, it does. The government cannot prevent you from practicing your religion. If you can demonstrate that a particular religion requires one to practice gay marriage as part of that religion's doctrine, then the argument becomes a bit different.

I have a good example. My religion (baptized Lutheran, practicing non-denominational) allows the euthanization of animals (others do not, from my understanding). If the government outlaws such a practice, it's not interfering. However, if my religion *required* me to euthanize an animal at a certain age for whatever reason, and the government outlawed it, it would be violating my religious freedom. My religion can allow many things. That doesn't mean I have to practice them to be truly faithful to that religion.

Even if your argument holds up, you're back to advocating gay marriage on religous freedom grounds. Interesting how you started there, switched arguments and then came back to this one. I say again, absurd arguments aside: If we allow gay marriage on religous grounds, we're going to have to allow the definition of marriage to change for anyone who has a "religous" justification. That applies or potentially applies to bigamy, polygamy, incestual relationships and perhaps even adults marrying minors.

No, I haven't switched arguments at all. I'm saying that your arguments don't hold up on two fronts. Anyway, we are going in circles at this point. It really does sicken me that people like you can't just fucking live and let live.

[FormerLurker]

++

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by BR
Why do you get to decide that it's a choice?

I don't.

Why do you get to decide it isn't a choice?

[BR]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I don't.

Why do you get to decide it isn't a choice?
Deciding it is a choice results in discrimination.

Deciding it either is a choice or that it doesn't matter if it's a choice or not results in equality.

Do the math. Bigot.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by BR
Deciding it is a choice results in discrimination.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. But you cannot start backwards ("well if we say it is a choice then people might discriminate") to arrive at your conclusions ("therefore we shouldn't say it is a choice").

The "choice-ness" exists independent of wether people may or may not discriminate based on it.

Originally posted by BR
Deciding it either is a choice or that it doesn't matter if it's a choice or not results in equality.

You are so completely confused on this, I don't even know where to begin.

I'll simply say that the government clearly) does not treat all choices equally and (clearly) does discriminate about certain choices, and (clearly) does not allow liberty for all choices.

Originally posted by BR
Bigot.

You just can't argue the issue can you? It is easier to go ad hominem. You just lost.

[BR]

I didn't lose. Gay people lost thanks to bigots like you who simply can't come up with a reason other than "IT'S A MAN AND A WOMAN OMG YOU MIGHT MARRY A DOG!"

You still can't quantify how gay marriage infringes upon the rights of anyone.

[BR]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh stop. "Oppressive?" No one is being oppressed. For one thing, making gay marriage legal is surely not going to change the majority of the population's opinion on the topic. It might even increase anti-gay sentiment. It might actually increase real oppression in this country.

Secondly, and hear me well: Being gay is not comprable to being a minority race because...at least for some people...there is an element of choice involved..

Have a nice day.

You can choose to marry a brunette or a redhead or a blonde. But as soon as you want to marry someone with the same plumbing all of a sudden you don't have choice anymore. People make choices all the time and frankly even if being gay was a choice it still shouldn't make a lick of difference. Gay marriage doesn't infringe upon your rights. However, disallowing gay marriage infringes upon theirs.

[tonton]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
If I loved my 1st cousin enough to want marry her, can I?
No, because there is an extremely high probability that offspring produced from such a union will have life-threatening mutations, and there is a good possibility that a union between such persons would produce offspring, even if that wasn't the intention.

NEXT...

If I loved my sister enough to want marry her, can I?
See above.

NEXT...

If I loved my mother enough to want marry her, can I?
See above.

NEXT...

If I loved my daughter enough to want marry her, can I?
(Do you detect a pattern here? Repetition just makes you look like an idiot... repeatedly.)

NEXT...

If I loved my mother enough to want marry her, can I?
Um... I think you said that one already.

NEXT...

If I loved a married woman enough to want marry her, can I?
If they can iron out the difficulty in polygamy laws to account for economic and psychological concerns, you should be able to. There are no economic or psychological concerns in a same sex union.

NEXT...

If I am 10 years old and I loved a woman enough to want marry her, can I?
No, because there is a high probability that at that age a person has not developed the independent decision-making ability to consent, and there's no way to prove that they have, so statistically speaking we have to assume that they have not.

NEXT...

If I am 10 years old and I loved a girl enough to want marry her, can I?
See the above.

NEXT...

If I loved a minor girl enough to want marry her, can I?
More repeated idiocy.

NEXT...

(I am currently married) If I loved another woman enough to want marry her, can I?

A person cannot simply marry anyone they love [if there are no scientific reasons to prohibit such a union -- unless they are gay].

So it's time to make the change.

[tonton]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Being gay is not like being black. I'll keep saying it until you get it through your head.

And you'd keep missing the point.

In terms of genetics, yes it is. It is not something someone who is gay can control. Bisexuals can control it, but they shouldn't have to under a system of equality.

[BR]

Originally posted by tonton
And you'd keep missing the point.

In terms of genetics, yes it is. It is not something someone who is gay can control. Bisexuals can control it, but they shouldn't have to under a system of equality.
I still don't understand why it's such an affront to people like Chris or SDW. How the hell does it hurt them so much that they vehemently fight against it?

[MarcUK]

I think Chris, you would win more supporters if you just told-the-truth™

We know you follow the Bible strictly. We also know, that as parallels the ancient pagan religions, Christianity is an update to the religions of solar worship AND fertility.

Fertility was a much reverred gift from the Gods, women were special, wombs were special, sperm was special, birth was special and life was special.

Your bigotry towards Gays, if you're ignorant of the origins and history of the Bible, stems from the fact, that homosexuality does not produce life.

Its the same reason Christians have strong opinions on birth-control, stem cell research, abortion, marriage etc.

And the reason its offensive to God, is because God personifies qualities that lead to the creation of life. A cycle of regeneration. Its exactly the only possible meaning to everlasting life.

There is no fucking bigger reward for people who shout their gobs off for Gods (supposed bigotrous) message. The only eternal life you'll get is by having children.

GO READ REVELATIONS 22.

Its a fucking celebration of the Ejaculation. Not in a perverse sence, but in the sense that it is the final process before life is created. If you want to find out what happens after REV 22, you just go back to the beginning of the book. God is infinte right? So is the account of life. The Bible is an account of the life cycle. Not an excuse to pour hatred or judgement on people.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by BR
bigots like you

And again. Just admit that you have run out of "arguments" are now down to name calling.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by tonton
A person cannot simply marry anyone they love

Originally posted by tonton
A heterosexual can marry the one they are in love with.

A homosexual cannot.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by tonton
And you'd keep missing the point.

In terms of genetics, yes it is. It is not something someone who is gay can control.

1. This is an unproven hypothesis. You should stop asserting it as indisputable fact.

2. "Black" (gender, eye color, hair color, height, etc.) is not a behavioral characteristic.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by BR
No, I haven't switched arguments at all. I'm saying that your arguments don't hold up on two fronts. Anyway, we are going in circles at this point. It really does sicken me that people like you can't just fucking live and let live.

First you injected yourself into a point that I was debating with tonton. That point was that no religion requires gay marriage as a matter of doctrine. Secondly, we were discussing the point about government redefining marriage on those hypothetical religious grounds. When you realized that you couldn't win either of those arguments, you switched the argument to "we should separate marriage as a religous act, and allow civil unions as a legal act." Then you started back on religon allowing gay marriage as opposed to requring it, Simultaneously, you returned to attacking the slippery slope argument I posed, the very same one that said government redefining marriage on religous grounds would create many 1st amendment problems.


It really does sicken me that people like you can't just fucking live and let live.

Ahh. Finally. That is really what this is about. It would be a lot easier if you just came out and said that. But no...you chose to try and make a legal and logical argument for gay marriage, and lost. That's because your argument was intellectually dishonest to begin with. You want gay marriage and you don't care how it happens, so long as it becomes legal.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by BR
I didn't lose. Gay people lost thanks to bigots like you who simply can't come up with a reason other than "IT'S A MAN AND A WOMAN OMG YOU MIGHT MARRY A DOG!"

You still can't quantify how gay marriage infringes upon the rights of anyone.

And the BR argument wheel turns again. Now you're trying to flip flop the burden of proof. You're also back to delibrately absurd argument I made, which I've already explained was posed for the sole reason of discussing religous freedom as it pertains to marriage. You know the point I was making and you know I delibrately posed that absurd example. Yet, because you're losing the debate soundly, you make that argument into a strawman to be knocked down---all for the purpose of diverting attention away from the fact that you have no real legal or logical argument to back your position.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by BR
Deciding it is a choice results in discrimination.

Deciding it either is a choice or that it doesn't matter if it's a choice or not results in equality.

Do the math. Bigot.

Wow. It just keeps getting better. You see that you've clearly lost the argument and you're furious you can't prove that being gay is always genetically determined. In fact, the evidence presented thus far shows just the opposite of your position...that while a significant portion of gays are "born that way," there are also other factors that are not biological. That comes from someone who holds the same ideological position on gay marriage as you do (jimmac), but is too lazy to read his own links.

So now, in an act of utter desperation and exasperation resulting from your own intellecutally dishonest argument, you scream "bigot!" as you fall precipitously from the Cliff of All Reason.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by tonton
And you'd keep missing the point.

In terms of genetics, yes it is. It is not something someone who is gay can control. Bisexuals can control it, but they shouldn't have to under a system of equality.

You're wrong. Absolutely, 100% dead wrong.

[Chris Cuilla]

Cue: someone accusing Nick of saying that "being gay" is the same as a being a drug addict, a smoker, a prostitute, obese.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Cue: someone accusing Nick of saying that "being gay" is the same as a being a drug addict, a smoker, a prostitute, obese.

Cue: Being gay is like being black. Oh, and we're bigots.

[thuh Freak]

i still don't understand why someone would oppose gay marriage. if you're straight, what do you lose, and how are you affected? Or are there unintended circumstances that I haven't spotted?

[thuh Freak]

I'm not saying you can't oppose it, man. I just don't know/understand why. The only reasons I can think of are unflattering. It appeared that a few conservatives here and elsewhere have some strong feeling on the issue, and I'm trying to see why they feel so strongly. if i can see how it bugs you, i can understand your position more clearly.

[BRussell]

You know, you conservatives wouldn't have to be so defensive about your motivations if you wouldn't take positions that leave you open to these kinds of charges.

Either 1) liberals simply take advantage of the fact that conservative positions coincidentally parallel that of bigots, or 2) conservatism simply provides cover and rationalization for the nastier human impulses.

• Is it a genuine, principled stand against illegal immigration, or just a prejudice against brown-skinned people?
• Is it a genuine, principled stand against affirmative action, or just prejudice?
• Is it a genuine, principled stand against the "gay agenda," or just a prejudice against gays?

And the list goes on. Maybe these and others are all genuine, principled stands. But when the correlation between conservatism and the nastier human impulses repeats itself so consistently, don't blame the rest of us for beginning to wonder.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by BRussell
You know, you conservatives wouldn't have to be so defensive

Ummm...I don't see any conservatives here getting defensive.

Originally posted by BRussell
Either 1) liberals simply take advantage of the fact that conservative positions coincidentally parallel that of bigots, or 2) conservatism simply provides cover and rationalization for the nastier human impulses.

I guess 1 3rd option is that liberals (your choice of label) simply refuse to argue/debate/discuss the issue and feel some complusion to assign intent and motivation to the opposition setting up a run for ad hominem attacks of various forms.

Originally posted by BRussell
• Is it a genuine, principled stand against illegal immigration

Yes.

Originally posted by BRussell
• or just a prejudice against brown-skinned people?

No.

Originally posted by BRussell
• Is it a genuine, principled stand against affirmative action


Yes.

Originally posted by BRussell
• or just prejudice?


No.

Originally posted by BRussell
• Is it a genuine, principled stand against the "gay agenda,"

Yes.

Originally posted by BRussell
• or just a prejudice against gays?

No.

Originally posted by BRussell
don't blame the rest of us for beginning to wonder.

Where I would begin to level any blame is when the actual issue cannot/won't be discussed, but instead names must be called as a substitute for reasoned, rational, logical, adult discussion.

[thuh Freak]

My understanding is that you oppose gay marriage because (a) some homosexuals oppose it, (b) it will fuck with social security, (c) forces a continuation of an already broken household structure, (d) your own vows would be weakened by it, (e) more (?).

i, personally, don't find these arguments convincing.

[thuh Freak]

i think i understand it, short as i may be. i can still dis