Gay Marriage to the Rescue!

[LuvRPgrl]

As hard as I find it to believe, you obviously have never been in a "Gay" bar.

:rotflmao:

Its amazing how liberals have to ignore things that are so blatantly obvious. Then they hide behind terms like "generalization" "prejudice" and "discriminate", like as thought ITS ALWAYS BAD to do those things. By using those terms they try to win the debate by taking it into the "emotional" arena rather than the logical, rationale arena.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

It doesnt. The Declaration of Independence comes out and states it. The Bill of Rights, and many of the other Amendments though do assert that one of the basic principles behind the Constitution was to secure the rights of the minority, and to protect every individual from the tyranny of government..

so, Im suppose to believe that cuz you say its like that? READ your next response.
THE DOA does NOT assert a securing of rights for the minority. It secures their right to be represented, but not anything else. They do that by having two senators from each state regardless of the states population, hence smaller populated (minority) states have as much say so as the larger ones (majority). Im also wondering if you even know that onlly land owners were allowed to vote?

Cite?.

see below response about exit polls.

Let me play devils advocate here for a second. They may be born black, but they can marry another black person without problem. Why then should they want to marry a white? After all it is about CHOICE. Should they have the right to CHOOSE who they marry? The analogy does hold water, because the analogy is about the right to choose who you can marry (before you come in with the typical slippery slope argument, I mean consenting adult). The supreme court upheld that you have the right to choose who you marry..

If you want to talk about the legality of it, its simple. Its illegal right now, so you lose.
If you want to talk about the spirit of the purpose of marriage, it is to give KIDS a better enviorment to grow up in. Homosexuals, for the most part, dont have kids to raise, so giving them marriage is irrelevant.
The tax breaks and benefits married couples get is to help them with the costs of raising kids. Again, since homosexuals by and large dont raise kids, why should they get a tax break over single people?

Bill of Rights? 14th Amendment? Really now... If the majority rules so much, why the hell did the Federal Marriage Amendment just get shot down so hard? Seems to me like there isnt as great a majority as you would like us to believe. Come on now... .

You are either ignorant, or disengenuous about this. The FEDERAL marriage amendment didnt get shot down because a majority think same sex marriage is ok, it got shot down because a majority want to see the issue stay in the hands of the states. PROOF? ALL the states that had the issue come up on STATE elections, overwhelmingly voted to oppose same sex marriage. The black community, in exit polls, supported the ban on same sex marriage at a greater percentage than whites. Ultimately, in a democracy, which we ARE A FORM OF DEMOCRACY, Majority rules.

Did I say anything to that effect? Unfortunately for you, you are not in the majority... It doesn't look like you will be stripping anyone of their rights anytime soon..

Nope, Im in the majority. I never try to strip anyone of their rights. Marriage is a privledge, an institution created to make stronger families. Its sanctioned by the govt in the form of a license. The govt has the responsability to regulate it just as they do the same with drivers liceneses. They are allowed to discriminate on many things. It just so happens that in marriage, a persons gender is very instrumental in whether or not a marriage is beneficial to the country. SO sorry

Temper, temper.

Are you upset???

 

[LuvRPgrl]

As I have stated many times on this board, I have had many homosexual friends, both male and female. I also dated a woman who worked with a couple of guys who felt most comfortable at their favorite "gay" bar. When invited to join them, we would go. The bartenders(male, kind of) would almost always be wearing nothing but a g string and would kiss each of the guys that would approach the bar to order a drink.....my girlfriend would order our drinks for us because I wasn't interested in being anywhere near the bar. The guys in there wearing poorly applied makeup and extraordinarily drugged and drunk were the most disgusting after of course the bartenders.

This was 30 years ago and the AIDS epidemic hadn't hit the homosexual community yet. It was amazing to see the incredible contrast between one of these bars and a straight bar. What a joke to hear someone say that "gays" are nodifferent from straight(normal) people, if straight women acted the way "gay" men act they would be accussed of being whores and sluts. If straight men acted the way homosexuals act, they would be called promiscuous, sexually deviant jerks.[/QUOTES]
Statistics support your conclusion. Homosexuals have many physical as well as emotional problems at a much higher rate than the general population. Of course liberals will claim thats because of societies rejection of them, etc, etc, but of course they have NOTHING to PROVE that assertation. Then they will go on to claim their arguement is based on facts.
Why is it only homosexual parades are allowed to get away with the deviant behavior they exhibit. Like you say, if an all heterosexual group behaved like the homosexuals do at times, they would be called all kinds of things and brought out on the carpet, so to speak.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Well, when you decide to release your extremely reliable sources so that others can verify them, please let me know.

In the meantime, you might find that the the Human Development Index contradicts many of the claims you made about European countries.


I'm afraid that fantasy scenarios about life in Europe do not quite measure up to the hard facts.

Speaking of delusional. You do realize the stats you quoted are for 2003 and older. Sorry to inform you, but thats getting close to being three years old. THe real facts show the direction things are going in western europe is down. Also, your HDI doesnt embed immigration of muslims and their refusal to adapt to the culture of the country they emigrate to. Their are many other factors that it doesnt include.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Moral acceptance is not the issue with gay marriage. There was a time when people believed in witches and they burnt them at the stake. Not so long ago, rock and roll was considered by some as "the devil's music" and Elvis Presley was not "family entertainment", according to a certain Ed Sullivan. .

ahhh, the old, since we were wrong about some things that changed, we must be wrong about all of them. Sorry, there is no connection of witch burnings and homosexual marriage. People TODAY are not prone to witch burning, but still reject homosexuality as normal.

There is a distinction between what some find "morally acceptable" and what others consider to be basic human rights and equality before the law. Americans no longer burn their fellow human beings at the stake. They no longer try to outlaw artistic expression they do not understand or appreciate. The Constitution has prevented them from doing so..

And yet at the same time those people still continue to reject homosexuality as normal, and reject the idea of same sex marriage.

By any realistic measure, there is no base of support for a constitutional amendment against gay marriage in the USA. Those who wish to impose their subjective moral views on others, as history has shown repeatedly, are doomed to fail.

so you think its wrong for you to impose your subjective moral view that raping a woman is wrong?
again, being disengenuous. The lack of support for a Constitutional amendment is only a states vs federal rights issue, and is NOT an indication that people dont want to see homosexual marriages to be illegal. THEY VOTED AT THE STATE LEVELS, whereever it was on the ballot, to overwhelmingly reject the legalization of same sex marriage.

 

[Emmett]

I personally always have had just a bit of homophobia. I find that I have nothing in common with homo's and am very uncomfartable when they are around, acting all girly and silly. However I am a tolerant sort and have concluded the following:


If you are at the beach and a drop dead gorgeous chick walks up to you in a bikini with the curves to kill, has an awesome beautiful face and is very friendly, you notice her calm demeanor, lovely personality and chrm but you still would rather fuck the lifeguard, you are gay!

 

[LuvRPgrl]

You didn't think this one through very carefully, LuvRPgrl. Same-sex marriages are not limited to two men, but also include two women.

According to your logic, then, lesbian marriages would not fail to the same extent as marriages between two men. Does this mean that, in order to save face, you are willing to cut off your nose?

Oh certainly I thought it through. What does the nose have to do with anything?

If you have half of your pool going repeatedly through marriage/divorce/marriage/divorce/marriage/divorce, it will most definately cause the entire groups percentages of divorces vs. succesful marriages, to be much higher. Do the math.

Oh, and my nose is fine.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Interesting points, BP.

It seems clear that many people want to believe certain things, based on pre-conceived notions..

Well, is your belief (about pre conceived notions) also a culprit of being based on pre conceived notions? Or are you immune?

On the topic of homosexual marriage, for example, many seem to feel threatened..

WOW, now we can really talk about pre conceived notions. Your data to support such an accusation? Odd how you know how others "feel".

As a result, they disconnect from the basic issue of whether all humans should have equal rights and project the argument into a "definition of marriage" detour..

No, your group keeps on claiming we dont want equal rights for everyone, cuz it makes us sound like the meanies, but fact is denying a marriage cert isnt denying equal rights. There is a specific purpose of marriage between a man and a woman. Can you tell me of a specific purpose for a marriage union between two members of the same sex?

It seems clear to me that the federal government has no role to play in deciding the rules for issuing marriage licenses -- apart from the 14th amendment. It is therefore up to the states. But the states are bound by the same constitutional rules. The only question is whether they can deny equal rights to homosexual partners..

Sorry, thats not the only question. You are bound and determined to define the arguement in a way that totally distorts it. In doing so, you have to ignore many aspects of the discussion. What is the purpose of marriage is a more legitimate question than your accusation of denial of rights. And if you are going to bring in the 14th amendment, then why cant I apply that to letting someone who is 18 drink alcohol? BECAUSE THE GOVT has a legitimate role in regulating certain aspects of our society. And that doesnt equate into denying equal rights. Air waves, marriage certificates, drivers licenses, business licenses, etc, etc, are all regulated by the govt. Get used to it, it aint gonna change, and get used to same sex marriage never being accepted by the majority of Americans.

And make no mistake about it, the proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit some people from marrying simply because of gender would be a denial, not an affirmation, of rights.

Again, its not an issue of rights. Its an issue of what is best for society. And make no mistake about it, the issue of majority rule is also at play here.

 

[Emmett]

I am amused by the argument for right to gay marriage. First of all, there is no such thing as a gay marriage.

Most importantly is the understanding that gays are NOT normal. Their belief that they can co-exist in a NORMAL society in their civil union and not feel different is hallobalu. Everywhere from schools to the grocery store there will always be resistance to the ideaology of gay marriage or civil unions being accepted. That is not to say that gays should not have the "right" to indulge in this behavior. Personally, I am a Libertarian and believe a person should be able to do whatever they want so as long as it does not cause a direct and immediate danger to another person.

Now, that said, it does not mean I have to accept this behavior. I do not have to accept it. I have the "right" not to accept it. No one does. In the same token I have no right to stop it from taking place behind closed doors. I gotta tell you, keep it behind closed doors or I'll render an opinion about it NOT being behind closed doors. It is really that simple.

We continually see people debating rather it should be accepted behavior. Our government can't determine this. We could as a country decide to make murder legal, but that would not make it right. In the same regard I do not believe government should be able to declare homosexual behavior illegal. It just should not matter. Asking people to pay the death benefits to surviving members of these civil unions IS a matter of concern. As was stated by LuvRGirl earlier tonight, benefits in the tax code and related laws were designed to help married folks raise children and suppliment the economy of that family in a manner condusive with providing a more lucritive budget. Gays should expect NO added benefit from their civil unions. Benefit for what! I respect certain parts of the other sidxes argument limited only to the part of their right to engage in whatever relationship they like. Fine......but don't ask me to suppliment your income after your partner dies prematurely of a disease they contracted while discovering their true sexual identity back a few years before they met you.

I have enjoyed following the argument tonight though. Final score" LuvRGirl 2 Martix 1

Ya'll have a nice day!

 

[Matrixx8]

Speaking of delusional. You do realize the stats you quoted are for 2003 and older. Sorry to inform you, but thats getting close to being three years old. THe real facts show the direction things are going in western europe is down. Also, your HDI doesnt embed immigration of muslims and their refusal to adapt to the culture of the country they emigrate to. Their are many other factors that it doesnt include.

Unless I missed something, the source I cited stated the following:

2005 report
The report for 2005 shows that, in general, the HDI for countries around the world is improving, with two major exceptions: Post-Soviet states, and Sub-Saharan Africa, both of which show steady decline. Worsening education, economies, and mortality rates have contributed to HDI declines amongst countries in the first group, while HIV/AIDS and concomitant mortality is the principal cause of decline in the second group.

The stats for that year are as follows:

1. Norway (=)
2. Iceland (↑ 5)
3. Australia (=)
4. Luxembourg (↑ 11)
5. Canada (↓ 1)
6. Sweden (↓ 4)
7. Switzerland (↑ 4)
8. Ireland (↑ 2)
9. Belgium (↓ 3)
10. United States (↓ 2)
11. Japan (↓ 2)
12. Netherlands (↓ 7)
13. Finland (=)
14. Denmark (↑ 3)
15. United Kingdom (↓ 3)
16. France (=)
17. Austria (↓ 3)
18. Italy (↑ 3)
19. New Zealand (↓ 1)
20. Germany (↓ 1)

Note that 7 of the first 10 countries are European; along with 8 of the next 10.

These facts suggest that 15 of the 20 countries in the world with a high quality of life are European. That does not jive with your previous assertions about European countries.

This is where the Mark Twain quote about "getting one's facts straight" usually comes in, but I'll spare you the embarrassment.

 

[Matrixx8]

ahhh, the old, since we were wrong about some things that changed, we must be wrong about all of them. Sorry, there is no connection of witch burnings and homosexual marriage. People TODAY are not prone to witch burning, but still reject homosexuality as normal.

I certainly won't claim that this is typical behavior on the part of homophobes, but I do think this particular politician may speak for many Americans, if the truth were known.

Of course, I hope I'm wrong about this.

And yet at the same time those people still continue to reject homosexuality as normal, and reject the idea of same sex marriage.

If you're asking me to speculate on motives here, I'll decline.

so you think its wrong for you to impose your subjective moral view that raping a woman is wrong?

It's embarrassing to have to reply to such a statement. You'll accuse me of everything from elitist behavior to intellectual snobbery. But I would point out that rape, murder, theft, etc. are crimes because they violate individual rights. Homosexual marriages do not violate anyone's rights. In fact, as I have indicated, there is good reason to think that banning homosexual marriage is a violation of equality before the law.

again, being disengenuous. The lack of support for a Constitutional amendment is only a states vs federal rights issue, and is NOT an indication that people dont want to see homosexual marriages to be illegal. THEY VOTED AT THE STATE LEVELS, whereever it was on the ballot, to overwhelmingly reject the legalization of same sex marriage.

True, but that does not mean that the decision was rational or constitutional.

Since the recent attempt by the Federal Government to prohibit states from adopting gay marriage laws failed in the senate, several states have passed laws allowing gay marriages. Considering the fact that the rest of the civilized world is doing the same, including America's closest neighbor, Canada, it looks very much like it is only a matter of time before good sense and fair play take told in state legislators.

Remember, there was a temporary flair up of fundamentalism in the US during the 1920s. It passed quickly, as all irrational ideas are wont to do, and I would expect the same thing to happen in contemporary America. Basically, Americans are too smart and too fair minded to be guided by prejudice.

 

[Matrixx8]

If you have half of your pool going repeatedly through marriage/divorce/marriage/divorce/marriage/divorce, it will most definately cause the entire groups percentages of divorces vs. succesful marriages, to be much higher. Do the math.

As far as I know there are few reliable statistics about homosexual divorce. How do you get your information?

 

[Matrixx8]

Well, is your belief (about pre conceived notions) also a culprit of being based on pre conceived notions? Or are you immune?

Not at all. We all share the same Belief Engine That's where education and the scientific method come in. To some extent, we are all capable of putting aside our pre-conceived notions and examining the facts objectively. You have to ask yourself how often you do and do not do so.

WOW, now we can really talk about pre conceived notions. Your data to support such an accusation? Odd how you know how others "feel".

Now you open a chapter of psychology that seems beyond the scope of this discussion. I'll let you ponder the words of the late great Stephen Jay Gould:

“The fundamentalists, by 'knowing' the answers before they start (examining evolution), and then forcing nature into the straitjacket of their discredited preconceptions, lie outside the domain of science-or of any honest intellectual inquiry.”

No, your group keeps on claiming we dont want equal rights for everyone, cuz it makes us sound like the meanies, but fact is denying a marriage cert isnt denying equal rights. There is a specific purpose of marriage between a man and a woman. Can you tell me of a specific purpose for a marriage union between two members of the same sex?

Love.

Sorry, thats not the only question. You are bound and determined to define the arguement in a way that totally distorts it. In doing so, you have to ignore many aspects of the discussion. What is the purpose of marriage is a more legitimate question than your accusation of denial of rights.

No doubt you're right about this. However, the discussion about abstract values that lead to love and marriage does not preclude people of the same sex. Reproduction is a simplistic argument. It is a completely programmed process. Women who become pregnant turn into machines whose only purpose is to ensure the healthy arrival of their offspring. Marriage, as a concept, seems to entail more than mere reproduction.

And if you are going to bring in the 14th amendment, then why cant I apply that to letting someone who is 18 drink alcohol? BECAUSE THE GOVT has a legitimate role in regulating certain aspects of our society. And that doesnt equate into denying equal rights. Air waves, marriage certificates, drivers licenses, business licenses, etc, etc, are all regulated by the govt. Get used to it, it aint gonna change, and get used to same sex marriage never being accepted by the majority of Americans.

True. But again, the information available for governments to make decisions changes.

The institution of marriage has been in a state of flux for centuries:
• It was only after the civil war that African-Americans were allowed to marry in all areas of the U.S.
• It was only after a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1967 that mixed race couples could marry anywhere in the U.S.
• But, until recently, same-sex couples could not marry anywhere in the world.
This final restriction was lifted during 2001-APR, when Holland expanded its definition of marriage to include both opposite-sex and same sex couples. Belgium followed suit during 2003-JAN. Next came Ontario, a province in Canada in 2003-JUN. By 2004-NOV, same-sex marriage had become available in most Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Ontario, Quebec & Saskatchewan) and in one territory (Yukon). Over 82% of Canadian same-sex couples were able to marry in their own province. When federal law C-38 was signed into law on 2005-JUL-20, SSM theoretically became available across all of Canada. However Prince Edward Island ignored the civil rights of same-sex couples, and refused to issue marriage licenses to them for almost a month.
Spain passed a law allowing same-sex couples to marry on 2005-JUN-29.
Some political jurisdictions have special legislation that allows gay and lesbian couples to register their committed relationship and gain some benefits, However, they do not receive all of the advantages that opposite-gender couples automatically acquire when they marry. These areas include most of the Scandinavian nations, England, and a number of states in the U.S.: Vermont, California, Hawaii, etc.
Same-sex marriage, or its equivalent, is being actively discussed in a few countries of the world, including Ireland and Switzerland.
This web site uses the term "same-sex marriage" (abbreviation: SSM) in place of the more commonly used "homosexual marriage" because it is more precise and inclusive. Some individuals with a bisexual orientation form loving committed same-sex relationships and want to marry. The term "SSM" covers them as well as homosexuals.
Many people believe that same-sex marriage -- or its equivalent under another name -- will become available to all loving, committed adult couples throughout North America and western Europe sometime in the future whether they be same-sex or opposite-sex spouses.

The times they are a changin'.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Quote:
Originally Posted by LuvRPgrl
Speaking of delusional. You do realize the stats you quoted are for 2003 and older. Sorry to inform you, but thats getting close to being three years old. THe real facts show the direction things are going in western europe is down. Also, your HDI doesnt embed immigration of muslims and their refusal to adapt to the culture of the country they emigrate to. Their are many other factors that it doesnt include.

MATRIX REPLIESUnless I missed something, the source I cited stated the following:


Quote:
2005 report
The report for 2005 shows that, in general, the HDI for countries around the world is improving, with two major exceptions: Post-Soviet states, and Sub-Saharan Africa, both of which show steady decline. Worsening education, economies, and mortality rates have contributed to HDI declines amongst countries in the first group, while HIV/AIDS and concomitant mortality is the principal cause of decline in the second group.


LUVRPGRL STRIKES BACK !!!
WELL YEA, APPARENTLY YOU FORGOT TO READ ALLOF YOUR OWN STUDY, OR YOU ARE BEING INTENTIONALLY DECEIVING. HOW DID YOU MANAGE TO LEAVE THIS OUT?:
"Most of the data used for the 2005 report, indicating country HDIs for 2003, are derived largely from 2003 or earlier."


AGAIN, MATRIX, REELING FROM THE RECENTLY INFLICTED FATAL WOUNDS, ATTEMPTS TO THROW IN IRRELEVANT DATA:
The stats for that year are as follows:


Quote:
1. Norway (=)
2. Iceland (↑ 5)
3. Australia (=)
4. Luxembourg (↑ 11)
5. Canada (↓ 1)
6. Sweden (↓ 4)
7. Switzerland (↑ 4)
8. Ireland (↑ 2)
9. Belgium (↓ 3)
10. United States (↓ 2)
11. Japan (↓ 2)
12. Netherlands (↓ 7)
13. Finland (=)
14. Denmark (↑ 3)
15. United Kingdom (↓ 3)
16. France (=)
17. Austria (↓ 3)
18. Italy (↑ 3)
19. New Zealand (↓ 1)
20. Germany (↓ 1)



Note that 7 of the first 10 countries are European; along with 8 of the next 10.

These facts suggest that 15 of the 20 countries in the world with a high quality of life are European. That does not jive with your previous assertions about European countries.

HOWEVER, LUV WILL HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ALLOWING SUCH INANITY

NICE ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE TOPIC. THE DEBATE WAS ON THE DIRECTIONTHAT THE EUROPEAN COUNTRIES ARE HEADED, NOT WHAT THEIR CURRENT STANDING ARE.

AND FINALLY, MATRIX MAKES THE SAYING "POT, KETTLE, BLACK" RING MORE TRUE THAN EVER BEFORE !!!!!!!

This is where the Mark Twain quote about "getting one's facts straight" usually comes in, but I'll spare you the embarrassment.

FINAL RESPONSE BY THE EVER MERCIFUL LUVRPGRL:

SPARE ME THE EMBARRASMENT? HAHHAHAHHA, YEA, YOU DID READ THAT ABOUT HOW THE DATA IS FROM 2003? HOW RED IS YOUR FACE NOW?

 

[PsuedoGhost]

If you want to talk about the legality of it, its simple. Its illegal right now, so you lose.
If you want to talk about the spirit of the purpose of marriage, it is to give KIDS a better enviorment to grow up in. Homosexuals, for the most part, dont have kids to raise, so giving them marriage is irrelevant.
The tax breaks and benefits married couples get is to help them with the costs of raising kids. Again, since homosexuals by and large dont raise kids, why should they get a tax break over single people?

Why do sterile heterosexual couples get tax benefits? Why do couples that are capable, but never conceive get tax benefits? Why should these benefits be denied to people who are physically in a similar boat to sterile couples? Why?

You are either ignorant, or disengenuous about this. The FEDERAL marriage amendment didnt get shot down because a majority think same sex marriage is ok, it got shot down because a majority want to see the issue stay in the hands of the states. PROOF? ALL the states that had the issue come up on STATE elections, overwhelmingly voted to oppose same sex marriage. The black community, in exit polls, supported the ban on same sex marriage at a greater percentage than whites. Ultimately, in a democracy, which we ARE A FORM OF DEMOCRACY, Majority rules.

Try again. United States is a FEDERAL REPUBLIC!!!!!!!!!

Nope, Im in the majority. I never try to strip anyone of their rights. Marriage is a privledge, an institution created to make stronger families. Its sanctioned by the govt in the form of a license. The govt has the responsability to regulate it just as they do the same with drivers liceneses. They are allowed to discriminate on many things. It just so happens that in marriage, a persons gender is very instrumental in whether or not a marriage is beneficial to the country. SO sorry

Try again. The whole, female + male = kids argument does not hold water when we allow sterile couples to marry. Try again.

Are you upset???

I'm enjoying this quite thoroughly. You come back when you have a good argument.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I certainly won't claim that this is typical behavior on the part of homophobes, but I do think this particular politician may speak for many Americans, if the truth were known.

Of course, I hope I'm wrong about this..

YOU ARE

If you're asking me to speculate on motives here, I'll decline..

AND YET YOU ARE ALWAYS SO QUICK, AS ALL LIBERALS ARE, TO CALL THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH YOU "HOMOPHOBES"

It's embarrassing to have to reply to such a statement. You'll accuse me of everything from elitist behavior to intellectual snobbery. But I would point out that rape, murder, theft, etc. are crimes because they violate individual rights. Homosexual marriages do not violate anyone's rights. In fact, as I have indicated, there is good reason to think that banning homosexual marriage is a violation of equality before the law..

ISNT IT MORE EMBARRASSSING TO NOT BE ABLE TO STAY ON TOPIC???
FIRST, HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE ISNT BANNED, IT JUST ISNT INCLUDED. CITE ME A BAN ON HOMOSEXUAL, SAME SEX MARRIAGE THAT EXISTED BEFORE THIS CENTURY.
SECOND, YOU NEED TO LEARN TO FOLLOW A TRAIN OF THOUGHT. YOU MADE A CLAIM, AS I RECALL, ABOUT SOME OF US ATTEMPTING TO IMPOSE OUR VIEW OF MORALITY VIA THE LAW, ON OTHERS. NOW, YOU FAILED TO RESPOND TO THAT, INSTEAD YOU MENTIONED THAT RAPE IS VIOLATING SOMEONES RIGHT, NOW, YOU DO REALIZE THAT MAKING SUCH A STATEMENT IS MERELY STATING YOUR MORAL POINT OF VIEW? WHICH YOU CLAIMED IS DOOMED TO FAILURE. NOW, DO YOU BELIEVE THE LAWS OPPOSING RAPE ARE DOOMED TO FAILURE?

True, but that does not mean that the decision was rational or constitutional..

AND ONCE AGAIN, THAT WASNT THE POINT OF THE SUB DISCUSSION. THE POINT WAS YOU ATTEMPTED TO MAKE IT SEEM AS THOUGH A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS ARE OPPOSED TO LAWS PREVENTING SAME SEX MARRIAGE BY CITING THEIR REJECTION OF A FEDERAL BAN, BUT, AND I WILL REPEAT MYSELF, THE REJECTION OF THE IDEA OF A FEDERAL BAN ON SAME SEX MARRIAGE IS NOT BASED ON THE IDEA OF BANNING SAME SEX MARRIAGE, BUT ONLY THAT AMERICANS PREFER TO SEE THAT ISSUE DEALT WITH AT A STATE LEVEL. SORRY, YOU AINT GONNA PULL THAT LIBERAL SIDE TRACKING DEBATING CRAP ON ME.

Since the recent attempt by the Federal Government to prohibit states from adopting gay marriage laws failed in the senate, several states have passed laws allowing gay marriages. Considering the fact that the rest of the civilized world is doing the same, including America's closest neighbor, Canada, it looks very much like it is only a matter of time before good sense and fair play take told in state legislators..

HUH???????????
WOW,,,FIRST, THE ATTEMPT TO PASS THE MARRIAGE ACT ON A FEDERAL LEVEL IS NOT AN ATTMEPT TO PROHIBIT STATES FROM ADOPTING SAME SEX MARRIAGE LAWS, ITS AN ATTEMPT TO STOP ACTIVIST COURTS FROM SELF IMPOSING SAME SEX MARRIAGE LAWS ON AN UNWILLING PUBLIC.
PLEASE, PLEASE TELL ME WHICH STATES HAVE SAME SEX MARRIAGE LAWS PASSED BY THE PEOPLE?

Remember, there was a temporary flair up of fundamentalism in the US during the 1920s. It passed quickly, as all irrational ideas are wont to do, and I would expect the same thing to happen in contemporary America. Basically, Americans are too smart and too fair minded to be guided by prejudice.

YOU MEAN LIKE YOUR PREJUDICE THAT FUNDAMENTALISM IS IRRATIONAL?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Not at all. We all share the same Belief Engine That's where education and the scientific method come in. To some extent, we are all capable of putting aside our pre-conceived notions and examining the facts objectively. You have to ask yourself how often you do and do not do so.


Now you open a chapter of psychology that seems beyond the scope of this discussion. I'll let you ponder the words of the late great Stephen Jay Gould:



Love.


No doubt you're right about this. However, the discussion about abstract values that lead to love and marriage does not preclude people of the same sex. Reproduction is a simplistic argument. It is a completely programmed process. Women who become pregnant turn into machines whose only purpose is to ensure the healthy arrival of their offspring. Marriage, as a concept, seems to entail more than mere reproduction.

DISCUSSING THE PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE DOES NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM DENEGRATE WOMEN INTO THE ROLE OF BABY MACHINES. THATS JUST A RED HERRING.

True. But again, the information available for governments to make decisions changes.


The times they are a changin'.

RELYING ON "YOU WERE WRONG ABOUT SOME THINGS, HENCE YOU WERE WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING" IS AN EXTREMELY EMBARRASSING AND WEAK POSISTION. TRY PROVIDING SOMETHING OF SUBSTANCE.

EXAMPLE, "IT WAS WRONG TO IMPOSE HARSH PENALTIES FOR STEALING BREAD CIRCA 1450'S ENGLAND, THEREFORE IT IS WRONG TO IMPOSE HARSH PENALTIES FOR TERRORISM WHICH INCLUDES BLOWING LITTLE CHILDRENS BODIES INTO PIECES OF OBLIVION" IS A BOGUS ARGUEMENT.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Why do sterile heterosexual couples get tax benefits?. Why do couples that are capable, but never conceive get tax benefits? Why should these benefits be denied to people who are physically in a similar boat to sterile couples? Why?.

oh brother. this is such a weak arguement on so many levels. TRULY, if this is what you have to throw out, it surely PROVES how weak your posistion is.
I would be embarrased to provide such an arguement in a debate.
sterile couples often become fertile.
couples without kids who are married could become with child at any time. it would obviously be way too complicated, involved and full of fraud to try to have different tax codes for married couples with children vs married couples without. But you already knew that.
marriage is intended to encourage having families, homosexuals cannot biologically procreate. hence they are automatically precluded from any attempt by any human, or any human organization of being able to be inticed to "create" children.
All other couples, may or may not be able to, we cannot always say for certain, so to attempt to slice up the remaining pool is a waste of time and creating a complication within the tax code which would be burdensome and counterproductive.

Try again. United States is a FEDERAL REPUBLIC!!!!!!!!! .

which is a sub set of DEMOCRACY
which is a FORM of a democracy.
No true pure forms of democratic governments exist, or could exist.
semantics.
try again !

Try again. The whole, female + male = kids argument does not hold water when we allow sterile couples to marry. Try again.

nope, read above. red herring.
or, ok, go ahead and try to come up with a code that will exempt sterile couples, old couples, etc. you wouldnt be able to
TRY AGAIN !

I'm enjoying this quite thoroughly. You come back when you have a good argument.

what, You're a masochist?

 

[PsuedoGhost]

oh brother. this is such a weak arguement on so many levels. TRULY, if this is what you have to throw out, it surely PROVES how weak your posistion is.
I would be embarrased to provide such an arguement in a debate.
sterile couples often become fertile.
couples without kids who are married could become with child at any time. it would obviously be way too complicated, involved and full of fraud to try to have different tax codes for married couples with children vs married couples without. But you already knew that.
marriage is intended to encourage having families, homosexuals cannot biologically procreate. hence they are automatically precluded from any attempt by any human, or any human organization of being able to be inticed to "create" children.
All other couples, may or may not be able to, we cannot always say for certain, so to attempt to slice up the remaining pool is a waste of time and creating a complication within the tax code which would be burdensome and counterproductive.







which is a sub set of DEMOCRACY
which is a FORM of a democracy.
No true pure forms of democratic governments exist, or could exist.
semantics.
try again !

Try again. The whole, female + male = kids argument does not hold water when we allow sterile couples to marry. Try again.

nope, read above. red herring.
or, ok, go ahead and try to come up with a code that will exempt sterile couples, old couples, etc. you wouldnt be able to
TRY AGAIN !







what, You're a masochist?

Aha... ahahahahahahahahaha... Sterile couples often become fertile... Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha... Wow. I completely won this debate. Perhaps you'd like to tell that to the thousands of couples who had to resort to invitrofertilization to conceive. Ahahaha... Wow. Someone who obviously knows nothing about what they're talking about. That's a big insert foot in mouth comment right there.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

After my initial reaction, I have decided to further debate your points, so that some people may see the logical position in this debate afterall.

oh brother. this is such a weak arguement on so many levels. TRULY, if this is what you have to throw out, it surely PROVES how weak your posistion is. I would be embarrased to provide such an arguement in a debate.

Ad hominem.

sterile couples often become fertile.

OK, Doctor LuvRPGRL :rotflmao:

couples without kids who are married could become with child at any time. it would obviously be way too complicated, involved and full of fraud to try to have different tax codes for married couples with children vs married couples without. But you already knew that.
marriage is intended to encourage having families, homosexuals cannot biologically procreate. hence they are automatically precluded from any attempt by any human, or any human organization of being able to be inticed to "create" children.
All other couples, may or may not be able to, we cannot always say for certain, so to attempt to slice up the remaining pool is a waste of time and creating a complication within the tax code which would be burdensome and counterproductive.

The argument is very relevant to this debate. You said that we grant marriage licenses so that couples can raise kids in a healthy environment. I asked why do we grant licenses to those who do not want kids, or are incapable of having kids? Can you not see the connection.

which is a sub set of DEMOCRACY
which is a FORM of a democracy.
No true pure forms of democratic governments exist, or could exist.
semantics.
try again !

Try again, ms nub. You can cry semantics all you want, but the truth is a federal republic is not a form of democracy. They share related concepts, but are not the same types of government. Learn2play k thx.

nope, read above. red herring.
or, ok, go ahead and try to come up with a code that will exempt sterile couples, old couples, etc. you wouldnt be able to
TRY AGAIN !

I like how you "red herring" something that is in direct context to the argument at hand, and yet completely ignore the fact that the whole "democracy" debate is a red herring attempt in and of itself, but you know thats ok. I've come to accept that you have very little actual knowledge about what you are talking about, the scientific, political or philsophical thoughts behind what you are saying. Its ok, you can acknowledge that you dont know what you're talking about.