or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Ignorance about what "harms children"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ignorance about what "harms children" - Page 2

post #41 of 248
Quote:
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.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #42 of 248
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.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #43 of 248
Quote:
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?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #44 of 248
Thread Starter 
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
post #45 of 248
Thread Starter 
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
post #46 of 248
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

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #47 of 248
Thread Starter 
Quote:
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.
post #48 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
That is complete and utter bullshit when that change affects you in no way whatsoever! It's honestly not your business.

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.

Quote:
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.

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

Quote:
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.

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.

Also we've been over this before. They have the EXACT same rights I have. 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.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #49 of 248
Thread Starter 
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
post #50 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
Excuse me? that's exactly my reasoning. No one has the (moral) right to object to something that affects them in no way whatsoever.

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.

Quote:
Read my signature again.

You've obviously overestimated your own importance again.

Quote:
Please. If someone wants to claim that gay marriage does harm society, go aheand and explain how, and object on that basis.

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.

Quote:
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).

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.

Quote:
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.

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.

Quote:
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.

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.

Quote:
So tell me, how DO gays exercise their right to visit their loved one in hospital in the exact same manner that you do?

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

I'll hit the rest in the morning.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #51 of 248
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #52 of 248
Quote:
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.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #53 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
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.

It's not a way of dodging the issue. The reasoning behind his dismissal of the very fundamental right to self-govern is nothing more than pure nonsense. It is simply a ruse to dismiss a person by claiming they don't have a right to be in the debate instead of actually addressing them.

African hunger doesn't affect me. Shut down or not is irrelevent. By the REASONING of Tonton, we shouldn't even be allowed to weigh in or attempt to deal with the matter.(Shut up and go away, this doesn't affect you) By my standard, which are the interests of more than yourself, but those of society as well, and the right via self-government and democracy to act on those interests, acting on African hunger makes total sense.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #54 of 248
I don't understand how having gay parents could possibly harm a child.
post #55 of 248
Quote:
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'.
post #56 of 248
Quote:
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.
post #57 of 248
Quote:
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?
post #58 of 248
Quote:
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.
post #59 of 248
Quote:
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?
post #60 of 248
Quote:
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)."

Quote:
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.")
post #61 of 248
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.
post #62 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Chris, is it possible that having gay parents is better for children than having straight parents?

Yes.

Quote:
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.
post #63 of 248
Quote:
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.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #64 of 248
Quote:
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.

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

Of course you do.
post #65 of 248
Quote:
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?
post #66 of 248
Quote:
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.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #67 of 248
Quote:
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.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #68 of 248
Quote:
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.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #69 of 248
Quote:
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.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #70 of 248
Thread Starter 
Quote:
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.
post #71 of 248
Quote:
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.
post #72 of 248
Quote:
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.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #73 of 248
Quote:
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?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #74 of 248
Quote:
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 ".
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #75 of 248
Quote:
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.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #76 of 248
Quote:
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 ".

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."
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #77 of 248
Quote:
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.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #78 of 248
Quote:
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.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #79 of 248
Thread Starter 
Quote:
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.
post #80 of 248
Quote:
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?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Ignorance about what "harms children"