|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
blah blah blah
So, after all of those studies, they still give the mother children nine times out of ten and restrict a father's visitation rights. And you forget that men would be getting married as well. You know, father figures.
Christianity is not something that should ever be considered, in the United States, when deciding what is and is not a law. We are not a Christian nation, sorry. The Founding Fathers did not create a Christian nation.
As to what has been "historically true" over the ages, who cares? Slavery was the norm until the middle of the Nineteenth Century, should we return to that? Marriage was defined as between two people of the same race until the 1960s in much of this country, should we return to that? In fact, though, civilization hasn't considered racism, slavery, genocide, subjugating other people, war, human sacrifice, and a host of other things "civilized" people consider barbaric anything other than normal until very recently, historically speaking. Not a good argument.
And Jesse Jackson is an idiot. Name checking that jackass seriously weakens your argument. Coretta Scott King despised the man as an opportunist and a liar (she has publicly stated her husband thought he was a sycophantic buffoon). The dude has no credibility with serious people.
Um, when you make a statement like "Scandinavian counties legalized same sex marriage and the effects have been devastating", you really should include documentation. The conversation I had with a Danish lass the other day and her wife seems to indicate the opposite. And "devastated"? And institution with a 50% chance of failure in most Western nations? Seriously? Kim Kardashian has done more damage to the institution's foundation than Adam and Steve ever could.
As to the "child bearing" argument. I guess we should pass a law that if a couple doesn't produce spawn within a reasonable time their marriage is annulled. If you're seriously saying that children is a valid argument. Otherwise you're just saying stuff to say stuff.
We've already "failed our children". We let them be raised in foster homes that, by and large, are horrible places for kids to be raised. We allow any jackass to have kids. We let kids go to schools that don't teach them anything. We have pretty much across the board outlawed disciplining children. Letting gay people marry and adopt isn't going to fail our children. I think you are afraid that if kids see homosexuality as normal, more kids that are born gay won't be ashamed of themselves and may actually have happy lives.
But that's just a guess. Because nothing you've posted here informs me that you're anything other than a typical homophobe.
|
Well I'm not defending that, just the fact that the CA Constitution and the fact that Marriage is a States vs Fed issue. Also I would go with precedent - States decide and have decided historically that specific class or race (more recent) are not being discriminated against, just the same-sex unions.
If the feds took it as an issue and allowed any kind of civil union with full rights then none of this would be an issue and rights wouldn't be dependent on the State you were married in, got sick or died in. I'm sure as time goes by and this is brought/challenged as a legitimate civil rights issue States are going to either cave or continue lock down their definition of marriage (as we see it happening) until the Feds get in on the scene.
You do have a good point about it being a States vs Fed issue. However, I don't think your "precedent" argument holds up. Homosexuals are not a 'race', but they have been labeled and set aside as a class of people and are being discriminated against, based on who they are (their classification: homosexuals). States do have the precedent that they have been discriminating against homosexuals all along, but that doesn't make it right, or acceptable.
Regarding the Feds-- yes, I think the Federal Government (with that "Defense of Marriage" Act) is entirely in the wrong, and is in violation of the United States Constitution. Wouldn't be the first time that the Federal Government has been in the wrong, and it wouldn't even be the first time (or the last, either, unfortunately) that the Supreme Court has made and continued to uphold Unconstitutional decisions for extended periods of time. Anyone who thinks that the Supreme Court is infallible and always gets it right should go look at the "Dred Scott decision" (1857-- when the Supreme Court insisted that Blacks, even free Blacks, were not and never could be American citizens, based on race-- among other mistakes in that decision). They should also look at the fact that the Supreme Court upheld "Separate but Equal" laws for close to 100 years before finally realizing that those prior decisions upholding that doctrine were wrong, and overturning the idea that segregation was okay at all.
I expect that eventually (hopefully in our lifetimes) the Federal Government (whether through Courts, Congress, or the people ramming through a Federal Constitutional Amendment) will finally overturn the Federal discriminatory laws and doctrines and stop discriminating against people based on sexuality. But, if what you're getting at is that the States probably will not end discrimination on the basis of sexuality until the Federal Government does, you're probably right. We, the people, will have to force the Federal Government to wake up and fix its house, before we can get the states to wake up and fix their issues.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is a very crude and inaccurate statement. Religious reasons are perfectly fine for people in the US to decide things. If someone's religion teaches them that all people should be treated fairly, then they can use those religious reasons to support policies that treat people fairly. The constitution does not require people to shed their religion at the church/mosque/temple/whatever door. The constitutional issue is more about having the government come in and force religions to teach specific policies, not about forcing people to abandon their faith when discussing social policy. You can't have a state religion, but that doesn't stop individuals from using their own religious beliefs to decide what they can and can not support policy wise.
Pres Man--
People are welcome to keep their religious beliefs and make decisions (and cast votes) based on those beliefs. People can even mention their beliefs as part of their personal, private reasons for supporting a given position. However, religious reasons cannot be used as public justifications for any law, civil code, or government action. If any law is passed based on religious beliefs but has no rational non-religious reasons for passing and enforcing it, it's Unconstitutional (1st Amendment; and 14th Amendment if a State action). The Constitutional issue is about preventing government from interfering with individual's religions, and is about preventing any particular religion from interfering with government, because the United States includes many different faiths among its people.
You not only can't have a state religion; you also can't use government to push any religious beliefs on other people at all. Freedom for religion is also freedom from religion and freedom for all religions.
|
|
Well, again, there are reasons for that, and it’s tied to childrearing.
(plus Aretas wrote a whole lot of other stuff in that post, which also applies, but that's one of the key statements)
Aretas--
There's an enormous problem I have with you making this argument, which I've already been raising on this board. While I don't think there's good evidence showing that homosexual couples can't be good parents, that's not the real problem with your ideas here. However, for the purposes of this argument, let's say (hypothetically) that there is good evidence showing that only 2-person heterosexual couples make good parents, or perhaps go back to the idea that only the biological parents can be good at child-rearing.
You have just made the perfect argument for justifying the denial of ALL marriage benefits to everyone who does not have children. So-- lemme ask you this: If marriage is all about children and the family, why are we giving any benefits to childless couples? Because giving them benefits cannot be supported according to your non-religious reasons in this post. Since it's all about the children, you could probably even make this argument, and make it with purely secular justifications (rather than religious ones, which are illegal as a foundation for public law), and have it deemed Constitutional and non-discriminatory.
But you can't give benefits and the civil title of marriage to heterosexual couples without children, and not still run into the discrimination problem if you deny those benefits and that title to homosexual couples.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People are derailing all over the place in this thread. So has anyone actually given a reason why there should be a discrimination between heterosexual couples and homosexuals not fueled by a religious agenda?Nope. Isn't going to happen, either. There are none.Your an aggressive proponent of gay marriage. Here are some reasons....
{wall of text}...
Your wall of text is just that, a wall of text. Nothing of what you posted is persuasive if one were to examine the facts of history. While I don't have the time to respond to everything you wrote, I know one thing for certain: marriage, like the nuclear family, is nothing but a social construct that has zero to do with human nature. There is absolutely nothing "natural" about marriage -- what a utterly ridiculous notion!
It wasn't until the Victorian Era that marriage in the West stopped being a socio-economic construct and everyday people began to value romantic love as a reason to marry. For centuries beforehand, is was all about family wealth, social prestige, and money -- basically money and power for men. Plenty of romantic folklore about love, all a con job to keep the sorry masses happy, but the reality was very different. Before the 18-19th century, marriage was just a business deal -- one was lucky if attraction ever had anything to do with it. And, as a vehicle for child rearing? Pfffft! Weakest argument of all. If anything, progeny were part of business too.
In truth procreation does not, and never had, any need for social and/or political encouragement. Collectively, human beings *will* have sex, and will produce offspring regardless, like all Life on Earth does. Barring environmental disaster, humans will happily continue existence with or without any "church assistance".
And whatever is best for people, is typically the line of thinking of busy-bodies who stick their nose in everyone's business. People who want to "manage" society, demanding conformity, and assuming authority, are, as far I am concerned, people with major psychological problems regarding control and security. I mean the hubris of assuming one knows what is best for others? What appalling disrespect for the lives and privacy of one's peers!! (Never trust leaders who are desperate to lead...)
Oh and that bit about fathers being important... well since you deliberately didn't mention the value of mothers I take it then a gay male couple adopting kids is double the value? :-)
Honestly, if you don't want gay marriage, then don't have one.
Well, again, there are reasons for that, and it’s tied to childrearing.(plus Aretas wrote a whole lot of other stuff in that post, which also applies, but that's one of the key statements)
Aretas--
There's an enormous problem I have with you making this argument, which I've already been raising on this board. While I don't think there's good evidence showing that homosexual couples can't be good parents, that's not the real problem with your ideas here. However, for the purposes of this argument, let's say (hypothetically) that there is good evidence showing that only 2-person heterosexual couples make good parents, or perhaps go back to the idea that only the biological parents can be good at child-rearing.
You have just made the perfect argument for justifying the denial of ALL marriage benefits to everyone who does not have children. So-- lemme ask you this: If marriage is all about children and the family, why are we giving any benefits to childless couples? Because giving them benefits cannot be supported according to your non-religious reasons in this post. Since it's all about the children, you could probably even make this argument, and make it with purely secular justifications (rather than religious ones, which are illegal as a foundation for public law), and have it deemed Constitutional and non-discriminatory.
But you can't give benefits and the civil title of marriage to heterosexual couples without children, and not still run into the discrimination problem if you deny those benefits and that title to homosexual couples.
Hey Finky!
Question:(Some marriages do not produce children)
Yes, but that is the exception rather than the rule. The state recognizes marriage because marriage in general procreates and provides the most stable and nurturing environment for children. But by the facts of nature, no homosexual act can do this.
Second, sterile heterosexual marriages still affirm the connection to childbearing because sterility is not generally known on the wedding day. And on those few instances where sterility is known (e.g. with older couples), the man-woman union still symbolizes what is generally a procreative relationship.
Furthermore, since it would not be possible or desirable for the state to attempt to determine which men and women are capable of procreation and which are not, it allows all men and woman to marry. But since no homosexual relationship produces children, no homosexual relationship deserves to be called a marriage.
On a side note, I really wish I didn't have to choose a side man.
@Aretas: Nobody is "taking fathers away" (or mothers). We are talking about families that never had a parent of that gender. Yes, there are statistics showing children raised in single parent households, most often without the father out of the picture, have severe challenges they have to face. Money and education of the parents are often extremely strong indicators for these children. Homosexuals on average are more wealth and better educated than the average heterosexual. Motivating multi-parent households can only help children rather than allowing homosexuals to set up households with children that have a higher chance to end up with a single parent due to not putting place a marriage/union option.
@thejeff: Yes, religious groups of people tend to be the most vocal. Of course people that think ideas are "icky" don't tend to form groups about opposing the "icky"ness.
@Finn K: Actually, it is more that it must have a "reasonable" ... reason, than "rational". It is not unreasonable for someone like Aretas to believe that human history shows that mixed-sex couples are the best way to set up marriages/unions. Due to the convergence in similar styles across wide areas and wide groups of people with very different social and (un-)religious mores.
@Winterthorn: There is a difference between child-rearing and child-bearing. Yes, there is no need for government support of children being born, but there might be a need for government support in creating stable homes for those children to be raised. Of course same-sex couples can provide that as well, but I don't think there is no reason to think child-rearing and marriage don't have any relation (how many negatives were there in that sentence? well whatever).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just a general word from the The Great White North: up here in Canada we legalized same-sex marriage. Canadian society hasn't fallen apart despite shrill cries to the contrary. Only a small fraction of the population is gay or lesbian, and only a fraction of them actually married, so extending the same rights to homosexual couples has, logically speaking, no influence on heterosexually dominant society where the vast hordes of heterosexuals are getting married, and divorced, and married again, and divorced again, and so on...
|
You do have a good point about it being a States vs Fed issue. However, I don't think your "precedent" argument holds up. Homosexuals are not a 'race', but they have been labeled and set aside as a class of people and are being discriminated against, based on who they are (their classification: homosexuals). States do have the precedent that they have been discriminating against homosexuals all along, but that doesn't make it right, or acceptable.Well I'm not defending that, just the fact that the CA Constitution and the fact that Marriage is a States vs Fed issue. Also I would go with precedent - States decide and have decided historically that specific class or race (more recent) are not being discriminated against, just the same-sex unions.
If the feds took it as an issue and allowed any kind of civil union with full rights then none of this would be an issue and rights wouldn't be dependent on the State you were married in, got sick or died in. I'm sure as time goes by and this is brought/challenged as a legitimate civil rights issue States are going to either cave or continue lock down their definition of marriage (as we see it happening) until the Feds get in on the scene.
Not just that though I'm not sure that homosexuals are considered a "suspect class" that is required for "strict scrutiny" via the courts. Race, national origin, legal resident status and religion. I'm sure that there is extra scrutiny involved when it comes to discrimination cases but as it stands they are not in any of those categories. I think lumping them into the race aspect of suspect class is a reach at best and they should create another category altogether.
Doesn't "make it right or acceptable" is a view that varies depending on what side of the fence you are on. As it stands it is 100% legal from the purview of States Constitution, it falls in their area of control and by some definitions of suspect class it is not discriminatory. Considering the definition of suspect classes and the fact that gays can still get married, just not to each other (lame yes). So it comes down to two things:
A) Re-/defining suspect class to include sexual orientation (even if i doesn't hit all the markers/qualifiers for a suspect class)
B) Fed takes over marriage - can get messy for a bunch of reasons but this would clear the way for gay marriage in each state.
Anyway, I'm going to step out of this one. The crowd here is too close and invested to the issue for rational thought without launching attacks on anyone with a differing view. It's also unfortunate that this turned into a silly religious debate instead of serious discussion on rights, legality, views and possible solutions. You are either on their side, or you are shouted down as a bigoted homophobe - or other snide and immature slurs that are tossed around so easily with little moderation on the part of the board. What people want here is an echo chamber, so I'll comply.
I was nice having an exchange with you Finn K even if we don't agree on methodology or even the morality of the issue. Sorry I can't say that about everyone else here.
Good luck to all invested if this goes to the SCOTUS.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
blah blah blah
Actually, the Constitution doesn't mention marriage at all. Hetero or homosexual.
People who keep saying homosexuality is a choice do so to marginalize their opponents. I can't think of any credible medical or psychological professionals who think homosexuality is a learned or chosen behavior. Biology doesn't work that way, and it doesn't explain gay monkeys, apes, dolphins, etc...
Furthermore, nothing indicates that any of the problems European countries or Canada are experiencing have anything to do with gay marriage. You're completely talking out of your ass there, sorry.
And, wisdom? Seriously? You think that respecting the historical premise that an institution that, until within 120 years ago, was basically a swap of property (a dowry for a brood mare), is wisdom? The history of marriage isn't exactly rosy and wonderful to women. Most marriages in history were arranged, the woman had zero choice in the matter, and she was kept pregnant, squeezing out puppies until her uterus fell out. Yeah, something to find sanctity in there, huh. Our past is nothing to admire. Humans are basically messed up animals who have the ability to rationalize their basest behaviors. There is little to admire in much of our history, let alone the specific institution of marriage.
And, again, get back to me when the divorce rate is zero, and Kim Kardashian is forbidden by law to marry.
Evidence from 5,000 years of human history, the self-evident design of the human body, and the documented-beneficial results of traditional marriage to individuals and our society, prove that the most valuable sexual relationship to any civilization is the union of a man and a woman in the bonds of matrimony.
In Rome, one of the greatest empires in history, men were allowed to participate in homosexual activity (though for upper class, it was only considered appropriate if they were the 'dominant' member of the relationship). They ruled all of Europe and the Mediterranean quite well.
The Spartans are known to have fostered male-male relationships. King Leonidas probably had sex at one point or another with a significant number of the men who stood with him at Thermopylae (some have theorized it was with all of them).
A little known fact about 12th-15th century Japan is that male-male relationships were common in the warrior caste. It was a mentor-mentee relationship, passing on martial skills, etiquette and honorable behavior.
History has examples of cultures that allowed homosexuality and came to great power. All civilizations fall eventually though, even the ones that have shunned homosexuality.
Also, male homosexuality has been linked to fraternal birth order. Specifically, the number of male children a woman has, the more male children, the more likely the next male child will be gay. The presence of step-brothers, or half-brothers by the same father has no effect. Neither does being separated from the older brothers their entire lives.
blah blah blahActually, the Constitution doesn't mention marriage at all. Hetero or homosexual.
People who keep saying homosexuality is a choice do so to marginalize their opponents. I can't think of any credible medical or psychological professionals who think homosexuality is a learned or chosen behavior. Biology doesn't work that way, and it doesn't explain gay monkeys, apes, dolphins, etc...
Furthermore, nothing indicates that any of the problems European countries or Canada are experiencing have anything to do with gay marriage. You're completely talking out of your ass there, sorry.
And, wisdom? Seriously? You think that respecting the historical premise that an institution that, until within 120 years ago, was basically a swap of property (a dowry for a brood mare), is wisdom? The history of marriage isn't exactly rosy and wonderful to women. Most marriages in history were arranged, the woman had zero choice in the matter, and she was kept pregnant, squeezing out puppies until her uterus fell out. Yeah, something to find sanctity in there, huh. Our past is nothing to admire. Humans are basically messed up animals who have the ability to rationalize their basest behaviors. There is little to admire in much of our history, let alone the specific institution of marriage.
And, again, get back to me when the divorce rate is zero, and Kim Kardashian is forbidden by law to marry.
Why do I have to get back to you about this? What does this have to do with me or the debate? I'm beginning to believe your just arguing.
Your exaggerated rant about Marriage in the old days did not really contribute anything.Auxmaulous: I'm starting to believe that this thread is a sounding board for those with like minds/lifestyles. It was never meant to be a discussion.
As it stands opponents of prop 8 are looking to put another ballot initiative out to repeal prop 8 but will bypass the 2012 election because they know the overwhelming minority democratic vote that comes out for BO will probably get their ballot initiative defeated (smartest move yet IMO). So they will have to wait for an off-year cycle to get it out to be voted on.
I...wait...what? 80% of self-described Democrats voted against Prop 8. There is no evidence to support the idea that the sort of people who will vote for Obama are the sort of people who will vote to keep Prop 8. That's just ridiculous.
*The idiotic stance on this is that they are not being discriminated against. In effect a gay man or woman can marry and have the same rights as straight people, they just can't marry people of the same sex and get those rights. This all implying that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice vs. nature
"In effect, a black man or woman can marry and have the same rights as white people, they just can't marry people of a different race and get those rights!"
Welcome to the wrong side of history.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Vote no to gay marriage.
Do I get to vote on your marriage, too? I think it would be fun to hold a public vote on how valid your relationship is.
|
|
I...wait...what? 80% of self-described Democrats voted against Prop 8. There is no evidence to support the idea that the sort of people who will vote for Obama are the sort of people who will vote to keep Prop 8. That's just ridiculous.
Actually, 70% of one typically Democratic demographic, one that voted for Obama by well over 90%, did vote for Prop 8. As did 49% of Asians, 53% of Latinos and 50% of whites. 63% of a state that went for a Democrat in the presidential election voted for Prop 8.
Blacks and Hispanics tend to be very socially conservative on a lot of issues, even though they tend to vote Democrat in national elections. Union members, mostly being blue collar middle class types, also tend to be socially conservative.
Social liberals aren't even the majority in the Democrat party, honestly.
It isn't that a lot of people who would specifically vote for Obama would vote for Prop 8, it's that a lot of people who vote Democrat for whatever reason aren't necessarily as socially liberal as the media like to make out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your an aggressive proponent of gay marriage. Here are some reasons....
They’ve argued that denying them marriage is denying them the ability to have a loving commitment with another person.
No, they haven't. They've argued that denying them marriage is denying them the societal (and sometimes legal) status that committed heterosexual couples are able to enjoy. It has nothing to do with the ability to love another person; they're plenty capable of that without society's approval. But marriage is a symbol of the commitment to each other that two people share, and you are denying them that incredibly important symbol.
So I'm genuinely curious. This presents us with two possibilities.
1. You're woefully ignorant of the reasons people want to legalize gay marriage, which means you really have no business talking about it like you are any authority on the issue.
or
2. You know the real reasons people want to legalize gay marriage, but you're willing to lie about it in order to bolster your rhetoric.
Which is it?
Advocates often argue that they are being denied a civil right. There are two problems with this. First, laws have already been established defining certain conditions under which people may marry. The would-be spouse must be an adult, cannot already be married to another, cannot be closely related to the person he or she is marrying, and they must marry another human. In other words, restrictions have always existed. No one has ever been able to marry anyone simply because they loved them. Second, many civil rights leaders, including Rev. Jesse Jackson, have rejected the comparison between the fight for same-sex marriage and the fight for civil rights. As Jackson said, “Gays were never declared 3/5 human by the Constitution, and they never needed a Voting Rights Act.”
You're right. They've only been the target of institutionalized discrimination, become a protected class in federal law, suffered at the hands of bigots and homophobes for years and years, been driven to suicide (in many cases as teenagers), and been generally seen as lesser people by a huge chunk of the American population for decades.
They do not have the same history of abuse that African Americans have, but no one really does. That doesn't make their plight any less urgent or worthy.
You're trying to argue that it's okay to continue to marginalize gay people because they don't have it as bad as black people had it. Stop being awful.
In fact, the historic moral precepts of Western civilization generally—and Christianity specifically—are based on that very question: What is best for people? And I believe that the reasons for restricting marriage are, indeed, tied to human well-being and the common good. In other words, it’s precisely because same-sex marriage is not in the best interests of society that we oppose it.
So it's okay to marginalize good citizens, as long as it's in the best interest of society.
Help me out here - should I be labeling you a fascist, or a socialist?
First, though, let’s be clear about what this issue is not about. This issue is not about whether homosexuals are equal citizens who deserve to be treated with dignity. They are, and they do.
Then shape up. They feel like they've been treated like lesser citizens with something far less than dignity. Be part of the solution, or get the hell out of the way.
Right now, you're in the way.
The issue is about the public purpose of marriage. And, if that public purpose of marriage has served us well, can it—or should it—accommodate the desires of those espousing same-sex marriage and same-sex families as the social equivalent of natural marriage?
Yes.
So, on every land mass, throughout human history, marriage between a man and a woman has been the social norm. There are simply no exceptions! And in each of those societies, the public purpose has centered on the well-being of children.
"On every land mass, throughout human history, marriage between those of the same race has been the social norm."
Again, welcome to the wrong side of history.
Remember what’s being proposed here: same-sex marriage advocates are asking all of us to commit our society and coming generations to an untested social experiment where gender—shown in the irreplaceable value of male and female—is not essential to the family. How do we know if this will be good for children, adults, and the community? No society has ever reared a generation of children in same-sex homes, so we can’t really know how it will affect children.
I don't really give half a damn. We humans are resilient, and if there's one thing we're good at it's eventually adjusting to societal shifts. There is no danger that society will collapse because gay marriage is legalized, and you should be utterly ashamed of yourself to be resorting to that half-assed argument.
Paul Nathanson, a professor at McGill University in Canada and a practicing homosexual, says that “advocates of gay marriage have made no serious attempt to consider the possible harms, and object to those who want more time to assess the evidence from other periods or other cultures.”
Well I'm a practicing heterosexual, and I don't really care what Paul Nathanson says on the subject.
In fact, though humanity has not considered homosexual marriage until very recently, there is a culture we can examine for understanding this issue. Scandinavian countries approved same-sex marriage about 10 years ago and the impact on marriage has been devastating.
Really.
Please, tell us how devastating it has been.
I'm just itching to know more.
On a side note, I really wish I didn't have to choose a side man.
You don't. Get out of the way, and let the grown-ups handle the important issues.
Actually, 70% of one typically Democratic demographic, one that voted for Obama by well over 90%, did vote for Prop 8. As did 49% of Asians, 53% of Latinos and 50% of whites. 63% of a state that went for a Democrat in the presidential election voted for Prop 8.
When you break it down into demographic groups, certain specific groups will run counter to the trend. But if the issue were left up to Obama voters, Prop 8 never would have passed.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Auxmaulous: I'm starting to believe that this thread is a sounding board for those with like minds/lifestyles. It was never meant to be a discussion.
You're right. We're finished with the actual debate over gay marriage. That was done years ago. We had our reasoned discussions, and most of us came to the same conclusion: Denying gay people the right to marry is an awful thing to do and serves no benefit at all. So that's that. We threw our support behind it then, and everything we've been doing since has been fighting to fix the problem.
So no, we're not here to discuss anything with you. Not really. We're here to show everyone else how ridiculous the arguments against gay marriage are. We're here to put you on display. That's what all of this is. We're giving you the opportunity to tell everyone exactly what you believe (or at least what you say you believe) because we know that the more we can get you to say, the weaker your position gets.
When your opponent's argument is ridiculous, you don't bother trying to reason him into a better argument.
You turn up his mic.
Yes very interesting. Also interesting is this.
The ancient Greeks & Romans considered homosexual relationships among equals to be problematic. The predominant man was considered masculine while the one playing the female role was considered inferior. Everything gets skewed b/c we look at the subject through modern eyes not ancient ones.
Pedarasty was something the upper class of society...
The point is that these societies existed and thrived, even while finding homosexuality to be acceptable. So the argument that history shows us that homosexuality will be the downfall of civilization is false. It has been present in many cultures and so far there is nothing even close to a consensus of historians who would conclude that it has lead to one of their downfalls.
You can't argue with 5000 years of history.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You really are that selective with the facts to suit the agenda!
You are one to speak. I'm not sure whether to laugh at the irony or shake my head.
Here I'll list the stated reasons of why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry:
1) There are even Christians that point out that this is a selective law from the old testament, many of those laws are flat out ignored (not cutting hair, stoning kids for talking back at their parents, etc) This is often an example of someone taking words from the bible out of context to justify their beliefs
2) Religious reasoning is not enough to apply laws. There must be a societal reason, and saving people from burning in Hell (if that's what you truly believe happens for having sex with one of the same gender), does not affect society in the US.
Preventing same-sex marriage isn't going to suddenly make everyone go straight. Allowing same-sex marriage isn't going to suddenly make everyone gay. Unless you're so insecure with your sexuality that you think you'll become gay without a law enforcing you otherwise... There are even heterosexual couples who don't want to have children. This point is pretty moot.
Also I'm not sure birthrate declining is a bad thing at this point in time.
Sorry, but have you noticed the amount of single parents and parents that leave their kid alone? I'm not sure what apocalyptical world you're imagining where having two parents is worse than having one. I'm not sure why you think that all fathers are strict enforcers or why you believe that a mom can be one. It also ignores the fact that what a child may need depends case by case based on their tolerance, any disabilities, household income, etc. I don't believe anyone can pull off trying to prove this without being subjective.
So we'll remove their rights so we can ride this downward spiraling economic system further? Funny, because if we're worried about the economy, why don't we just go back to slavery. We might as well take over a countries while were at it.
Even the reasons for why allowing same sex marriage would corrupt our economy are faulty and apply just as well to heterosexual marriage.
So we should never make progress? We should never ammend a law? At one point women weren't allowed to vote, so are you saying that's enough of a reason to go right back to removing the right to vote. Should the only ones to vote be white males who own land?
Why can't it just be two consensual people? Why must homosexual couples be discriminated from heterosexual couples?
This argument is circular reasoning. You're using what we're questioning in the first place as your argument.
This is side stepping the issue. Not only do they have to go through hurdles to get something similar they don't get all the benefits (such as visiting their loved one in the hospital) and are easily exploited.
Canada has legalized same sex marriage, I haven't seen any fires on the Northern border, have you?
Who cares about the word? First off no one owns the word. Second off, it's not the word that people want, it's the legal status.
So... anything I missed? I'm curious how many varied reasons you can pull out of that hat of yours.
Oh also I'll post an unstated reason, that no one on this board will say but I'm sure might be relevant to some.
But really though. Preventing them from getting married does not prevent them from getting together in the first place. Preventing their marriage will not gain you anything. You will still see the same amount of homo-eroticism with or without their ability to marry.
Why do I have to get back to you about this? What does this have to do with me or the debate? I'm beginning to believe your just arguing.
Your exaggerated rant about Marriage in the old days did not really contribute anything.
It contributed a lot.
You claimed that marriage hasn't changed in 5,000 years. He's pointed out that it means something very different than it did just 200 years ago.
If I claimed that America is essentially the same today as it was 5,000 years ago, you would point out various things in American history that make it different. Like the arrival of white men, the founding of our country, etc.
He is using history to point out the same thing about marriage.
Did you know, that for the first 900 years of the Christian religion, there isn't a single written record of a Christian wedding? And that one matches customs we know that date back to ancient (pre-christian) Rome. So for almost HALF (45%) of the Christian churches existence, they didn't even perform weddings!
|
|
If the issue were left up to only Obama voters, it would have been close, but it would have probably been defeated. But, it wasn't, and enough voters "crossed the aisle", so to speak, to make it a slam dunk.
Only about 31% of voters who registered with a party in California in '08 registered Republican. Democrats actually had a spike in registrations leading up to the election.
So, again, and local and state elections across the country on referendums and stuff tend to bear it out, being socially liberal is a minority position for much of America, and California is no exception.
The Democratic Party is a much more diverse group than the Republicans. A lot of minorities vote for the Dems for a couple of reasons, the Republicans rhetoric tends to piss them off (in the case of Hispanics, who, generally speaking, should be a natural fit for the right: socially conservative, business oriented, family oriented, etc), or Republicans threaten the safety net they need after years of systematic disenfranchisement. A lot of African Americans who get involved in the political process also tend to be fairly religious (usually Baptist, Pentecostal, Muslim, none of which are known to be terribly enlightened on gay issues).
Union members aren't exactly the "fight for gay rights" demographic. They vote Democratic generally for economic and union protection reasons. Joe Sixpack isn't going to bat for gay rights.
And a lot of people vote Dem because they have their whole lives. A lot of Southern Democrats, rural Democrats and older Democrats fit here. And the AARP isn't exactly hip to gay issues either.
The hip, enlightened, urban liberal isn't as large a part of the rank and file in the party as people would think. They represent a disproportionate percentage of the leadership, though, so people can forget there are a ton of diverse groups under that umbrella.
If the issue were left up to only Obama voters, it would have been close, but it would have probably been defeated. But, it wasn't, and enough voters "crossed the aisle", so to speak, to make it a slam dunk.
I'm not sure that I'd call barely hitting the 50%+1 requirement a "slam dunk". But yes, McCain voters decided to overwhelmingly support Prop 8.
"On every land mass, throughout human history, marriage between those of the same race has been the social norm."
Again, welcome to the wrong side of history.
Of course it is the norm, I mean if 99.999% of the people in your area are the same race as you, you are very likely to marry a person of your race. Durrrr.
Now if the implication you were going for was that marriage was culturally/legally restricted to only people of the same race, well I don't think it has actually be as institutionalized as all that. Hell, one of the earliest stories of the founding of this country specifically involves a native woman involved with white settlers and ultimately marrying one. The idea that people of different races couldn't or shouldn't marry isn't as nearly universal as the idea that people of the same sex shouldn't marry.
Again, that doesn't mean we can't change it or that we should stick to it. But let's at least give an intellectually honest argument.
|
|
If the issue were left up to only Obama voters, it would have been close, but it would have probably been defeated. But, it wasn't, and enough voters "crossed the aisle", so to speak, to make it a slam dunk.I'm not sure that I'd call barely hitting the 50%+1 requirement a "slam dunk". But yes, McCain voters decided to overwhelmingly support Prop 8.
52% isn't barely hitting something. It's a comfortable number. And, again, only 31% of the voters in Cali that year registered Republican. That was a bipartisan pooch screwing.
I was bored so I looked up the aforementioned Paul Nathanson, the Practicing Homosexual cited by, I think, Aretas, the former heterosexual. It transpires this practicing homosexual is a religious studies expert. Good for him.
I admit I almost lost interest right there because I don't see any reason his opinion on the matter should be taken at all seriously. His credentials don't suggest he has special or advanced knowledge on the topic any more than I, also a homosexual, would have. We are doubtless not authorities on quantum physics either, but then I don't go around giving depositions about the subject when it comes up in litigation either.
Paul Nathanson is quoted saying the following:
“advocates of gay marriage have made no serious attempt to consider the possible harms, and object to those who want more time to assess the evidence from other periods or other cultures.”
Here is some of his deposition for the Prop 8 trial. Therein is this exchange:
Q – Yes. Are you aware of any peer-reviewed studies published as to whether permitting gay people to marry affects the rearing of children?
A – Yes.
Q – And what peer-reviewed studies of that type are you aware of?
A – Sociological and psychological ones.
Q – And those are sociological and psychological studies published by the various associations we’ve identified?
A – Yes.
Q – And what do those peer-reviewed studies conclude, to your understanding?
A – They don’t detect problems and they don’t predict problems.
So, there's that.
"On every land mass, throughout human history, marriage between those of the same race has been the social norm."
Again, welcome to the wrong side of history.
Of course it is the norm, I mean if 99.999% of the people in your area are the same race as you, you are very likely to marry a person of your race. Durrrr.
Now if the implication you were going for was that marriage was culturally/legally restricted to only people of the same race, well I don't think it has actually be as institutionalized as all that. Hell, one of the earliest stories of the founding of this country specifically involves a native woman involved with white settlers and ultimately marrying one. The idea that people of different races couldn't or shouldn't marry isn't as nearly universal as the idea that people of the same sex shouldn't marry.
Again, that doesn't mean we can't change it or that we should stick to it. But let's at least give an intellectually honest argument.
I'm on the thread to learn and contribute in a intellectually honest discussion Pres man. Just want you to know.
