Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No, you're saying that a general argument for gay marriage was that it would strengthen the institution of marriage. Before now, I had never heard this claim, and the examples you managed to provide can only be said to support your position with, to say the least, some twisting of the context. Then again, I don't care enough to be dragged into such a minor debate beyond this point. This is all you'll hear from me on the subject.Karl Marx said:No generalization was made. I claimed that it was an argument for gay marriage and provided some links. The authors of each of the links I supplied made the same argument in one form or another (among others), i.e., gay marriage would help marriage in general.
Marriage probably would be a personal thing, except for the fact that marriage involves issues of property and inheritance (and as I said before taxes). And if the truth were told, marriage has always been about property and inheritance.Nuc said:I guess my point is that neither state nor federal government should be involved in this. Marriage should be a personal thing.
Unfortunately it says a lot about our society that issues of divorce are actually more relevant than issues of marriage.
Regarding divorce I think couples should negotiate their divorce before getting married. If they had to go through this process it would stop a lot of unsuitable couples from getting married in the first place.
Mr.Conley said:No, you're saying that a general argument for gay marriage was that it would strengthen the institution of marriage. Before now, I had never heard this claim, and the examples you managed to provide can only be said to support your position with, to say the least, some twisting of the context. Then again, I don't care enough to be dragged into such a minor debate beyond this point. This is all you'll hear from me on the subject.
That's all well and good, but whether or not gay marriage is an issue that can help the Democrats regain office doesn't impact the debate on whether gay marriage should or should not be allowed.red states rule said:Libs were so sure gay marrage would sweep them back into power in 04.
Instead it helped defeat them. Please libs, keep gay marrage as one of your priorities in 06 and 08. Please keep telling folks who oppose gay marrage they are bigoted hate filled racists. Please keep comparing gay marrage to the civil rights act.
Keep reminding folks why they did not vote for Dems in 2000, 2002, and 2005. The streak will continue in 06 and 08.
Mr.Conley said:I think that he's trying to claim that you've made an invalid generalization, and based on the evidence you've shown, I agree with him. Three links, none of which directly support what you're claiming, are, in my opinion, insufficient proof for your claim that a major pro-gay marriage argument is/was that same-sex marriage would strengthen the institution of marriage.
dmp said:So sickening to see they consider 'raising their daughter' a priority, when they are harming their daughter to untold lengths by simply living such a selfish, destructive, mind-fuck lifestyle.
Dept of Health and Soc. Services should remove from custody ANY child living with practicing homosexuals.
Mr.Conley said:That's all well and good, but whether or not gay marriage is an issue that can help the Democrats regain office doesn't impact the debate on whether gay marriage should or should not be allowed.
KarlMarx said:The big deal is that one of the arguments given for gay marriage was that it would save the institution of marriage. Apparently, whoever made this argument thought that gays would take their marriage vows more seriously than heteros. I think that, if gay marriage becomes legal, in the long run, gays won't have a better track record than straights, and may even have a worse one.
Pale Rider said:Well ya know what? You damn liberals are professionals at pretending evidence doesn't exist, EVEN WHEN IT'S THROWN IN YOUR FACE! So you and missleprick playing your little, "we don't see it" game goes over here like a turd in a punch bowl. You BOTH look like a couple of MORONS denying the OBVIOUS! So keep up your denial, you're knocking your own image in the dirt.... where it belongs.
MissileMan said:Hey Pole Rider! Nice of you to throw your 2 cents into the mix. You're always good for a laugh...thanks! It's obvious that you haven't read the thread or the links thrown in here, it's just more of your jumping to conclusions. Why don't you stick you nose where you like it...in the crotch of some f-male, harley hog.
What's the difference between Pole Rider's harley and the last chick he woke up with?
About 5 pounds! :rotflmao:
Nuc said:Anybody from another planet reading this board would get the impression that homosexuality is the most important subject on planet earth. Wonder why so many people here are obsessed with it?
Pale Rider said:You must be the only one "obsessed" with it. A skunk smells his own stink first.
Most others here are "opposed".
jillian said:The anti's are an obsessed little minority. Otherwise, they wouldn't run out and vote because the issue is on the ballot. The majority of normal folk really couldn't care less. You know, the whole "live and let live" thing"...
Oh right.. you don't know. :teeth:
Pale Rider said:You must be the only one "obsessed" with it. A skunk smells his own stink first.
Most others here are "opposed".
At last! A liberal who understood what I was saying! I was beginning I must be posting in Chinese! thanks!liberalogic said:I think the more prevalent argument was that it would tame gay culture to a greater extent. Many conservatives used the point that homosexuals were naturally promiscuous, which they believed to be detrimental to society. Liberals countered that by saying that marriage could limit (to some extent)that promiscuity.
MissileMan, are you here to debate or are you trolling? Which is it? First you start on me, then when I don't give you the satisfaction, you have to start with someone else!!!MissileMan said:Hey Pole Rider! Nice of you to throw your 2 cents into the mix. You're always good for a laugh...thanks! It's obvious that you haven't read the thread or the links thrown in here, it's just more of your jumping to conclusions. Why don't you stick you nose where you like it...in the crotch of some f-male, harley hog.
What's the difference between Pole Rider's harley and the last chick he woke up with?
About 5 pounds! :rotflmao:
KarlMarx said:MissileMan, are you here to debate or are you trolling? Which is it? First you start on me, then when I don't give you the satisfaction, you have to start with someone else!!!
I swear, I've seen 2 year olds behave with more intelligence!
KarlMarx said:At last! A liberal who understood what I was saying! I was beginning I must be posting in Chinese! thanks!
Yes, I've heard that argument, too. I think the reasoning was, if I recall correctly, that if gays were allowed to be married, many of them would "settle down" into monogamous relationships and help slow the spread of HIV and other diseases.
