Poll: Most Americans Oppose Gay Marriage

[mattskramer]

I changed my mind about going to sleep now.

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

OCA said - "Please explain how homosexuality is normal then find a definitive genetic link that says beyond a shadow of a doubt that people are born this way."

I do not know if homosexuality is "normal". I don't know of a genetic link that says that people are born this way. Your challenge is irrelevant to the issue. I have already explained the fallacy of "natural law". Read my message titled "Gay Marriage". Many behaviors by many people may not be considered "normal". Yet, it does not follow that such behavior should be outlawed or that people who engage in such behavior should not be allowed to marry. Is it "normal" to dye your hair? Is it "normal" to use the bridge of your nose as a place to rest reading glasses? Is it "normal" to pierce your navel?

You are again making assumptions about me. I am a moderate Libertarian. I support the "Conservative" position on various issues (particularly issues that support individual freedom). I also support "Liberal" positions on issues that support individual freedom.

-----------

OCA said - "...they [homosexuals] already have every right the same as you and I."

Please correct me if I am wrong but I do not think that the survivor of a homosexual union has Social Security benefits as a surviving partner. A homosexual often does not have the right to visit their partner in the public hospital (as a family member) or the right of custody of the deceased partner's children (even when the deceased had stated that he wishes, in the event of his death, that his partner receive custody of the children). Homosexuals also don't have the right to designate that their partners be heirs to their estates.

 

[mattskramer]

"As far as your continued analogy that those who do not believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry are the equivalent of those who wish to murder people, you deserve no response."

I did not say that those who don't believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry are the equivalent of those who wish to murder. On the other hand, that is practically what you said, based on deduction from your statement that it is majority rule. You are again guilty of appealing to the masses. Popular opinion does not make the opinion right.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by mattskramer
Please correct me if I am wrong but I do not think that the survivor of a homosexual union has Social Security benefits as a surviving partner.

And neither does a heterosexual who marries another person of the same sex. But both the homosexual and heterosexual will have that right if they marry someone of the opposite sex.

A homosexual often does not have the right to visit their partner in the public hospital (as a family member)

See above

or the right of custody of the deceased partner's children (even when the deceased had stated that he wishes, in the event of his death, that his partner receive custody of the children). Homosexuals also don't have the right to or designate that their partners be heirs to their estates.

See above

 

[Reilly]

Mattskramer,
If you are feeling frustrated at your inability to make any headway on this issue, I sympathise. I have had this discussion in previous threads, even going so far as to point out studies that suggest (but not prove) a biological basis for homosexuality, and I have never gotten anywhere.
Jimmy is right. To the extent that others believe homosexuality is a wrong and deviant (an opinion that will not change of the basis of logical argument) behavior that the majority of the population disagrees with (at least with respect to marriage), that is the basis for their call to outlaw it. There is currently (at least until the law or Supreme Court is changed) no federal basis on which ground a right to equal protection for gays on the basis of being gay. You will never, no matter how hard you try, change the minds of most (if any, while not singling out anyone in particular) of the persons on this message board that gay marriage is acceptable, because you will never convince them that homosexuality is not wrong or deviant. I appreciate and commend you on your efforts, but felt that I should let you know what the results of those efforts will be.
I apparently really enjoy using parenthesis.

 

[mattskramer]

Allowing homosexuals to marry people of their same sex would allow them all the rights (and responsibilities) that heterosexuals married to people of the opposite sex enjoy and face.
------------------------

Reilly - Thanks. I see how pointless it is to try to use logic and reason with people but I still find it fun and entertaining to read the fallacious, erroneous, and irrelevant points and counterpoints made by people who FEEL so strongly against homosexual marriage.

 

[Hobbit]

Please correct me if I am wrong but I do not think that the survivor of a homosexual union has Social Security benefits as a surviving partner. A homosexual often does not have the right to visit their partner in the public hospital (as a family member) or the right of custody of the deceased partner's children (even when the deceased had stated that he wishes, in the event of his death, that his partner receive custody of the children). Homosexuals also don't have the right to designate that their partners be heirs to their estates.

You see, here's what I think. I think you should be able to designate these benefits to whoever you want, no matter what your relationship, sexual or not. I think two old widows living in the same house should be able to designate these benifits, as should two best friends who are living together before hooking up and settling down. Then again, that's just what I think. I still don't condone homosexual marriage for the same reason I don't condone England knighting performers. It tends to make the status of those who came before and genuinely earned it seem less prestigious.

Another thing I think is that what gays actually want is civil unions, but they're haggling. If you have a goat and you want to trade it for a pig, you don't go over and ask to trade for the pig, since the other guy will bid you down. You go and demand the cow, then you'll get bid down to the pig. Gays asked for civil unions and were turned down outright. Then they got some radical activists like Gavin Newsom and the Massachussetts state supreme court to start demanding gay marriage, and, lo and behold, the conservatives and ready to give them civil unions.

 

[Big D]

Thank you God for Aids,

please infect as many homosexuals as you can.

Amen

---------------------------------------------------------------
translation: I hate life and all who are in it. please spread death and desolation everywhere. My life sucks and everybody elses should also.
------------------------------------------------------------------


by DKSuddeth

thank you for showing more of your ignorance Big D. lets all of us know how idiotic your notions are.

 

[Reilly]

Did I mention you are a nut case? Your parents aren't also siblings by chance?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by mattskramer

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

Reilly - Thanks. I see how pointless it is to try to use logic and reason with people but I still find it fun and entertaining to read the fallacious, erroneous, and irrelevant points and counterpoints made by people who FEEL so strongly against homosexual marriage.

Hey jackass.

Try one of your irrefutable mental masturbational exercises on me if you have the intestinal fortitude, or take your apologetic posterior back to hades where it belongs.


This garbage about being the only one using logic is insulting to everyone on this board, and it is especially insulting to those of us who can prove 6 ways from sunday on any point you make even RELATING to this topic that all you care about is promoting a gay agenda and outing heterosexual moral upbringing.

Quit shooting off your mouth with useless vocabulary skills and prove your point that homosexuality BELONGS in society the way you say it does, and then I will blow your piont so far out of the water you will regret your previous comment about this "logic" crap.

 

[Reilly]

New Guy,

I wish you had taken the large bold "Reilly" out of your last message. To the casual reader, it makes it look like I was suggesting that the people on the board don't use logic - which I did not.

While I disagree with you on the issue, I do applaud your use of the phrases "mental masturbational exercises," "intestinal fortitude," and "apologetic posterior." Well done.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by mattskramer
I see how pointless it is to try to use logic and reason with people but I still find it fun and entertaining to read the fallacious, erroneous, and irrelevant points and counterpoints made by people who FEEL so strongly against homosexual marriage.

And yet you completely ignore my last post. And why? Because I was right and you have no argument.

I think it's fun to read posts from a prick who thinks he's superior to everyone else on the board. I've got news for you, you're just another idiot in a long line of idiots that thinks he has an argument. You've offered nothing. You have no valid argument. Your logic is lacking. Your dismissal of others just makes you look like a smug, pretentious asshole. In other words, your logic and reason are only in your ego inflated head.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by mattskramer
I changed my mind about going to sleep now.

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

OCA said - "Please explain how homosexuality is normal then find a definitive genetic link that says beyond a shadow of a doubt that people are born this way."

I do not know if homosexuality is "normal". I don't know of a genetic link that says that people are born this way. Your challenge is irrelevant to the issue. I have already explained the fallacy of "natural law". Read my message titled "Gay Marriage". Many behaviors by many people may not be considered "normal". Yet, it does not follow that such behavior should be outlawed or that people who engage in such behavior should not be allowed to marry. Is it "normal" to dye your hair? Is it "normal" to use the bridge of your nose as a place to rest reading glasses? Is it "normal" to pierce your navel?

You are again making assumptions about me. I am a moderate Libertarian. I support the "Conservative" position on various issues (particularly issues that support individual freedom). I also support "Liberal" positions on issues that support individual freedom.

-----------

OCA said - "...they [homosexuals] already have every right the same as you and I."

Please correct me if I am wrong but I do not think that the survivor of a homosexual union has Social Security benefits as a surviving partner. A homosexual often does not have the right to visit their partner in the public hospital (as a family member) or the right of custody of the deceased partner's children (even when the deceased had stated that he wishes, in the event of his death, that his partner receive custody of the children). Homosexuals also don't have the right to designate that their partners be heirs to their estates.

You do not know if homosexuality is normal or not? What is so hard to understand? YOU DO NOT HAVE SEX WITH YOUR MALE BUDDIES FROM THE SOFTBALL TEAM! Go back and take biology 101, you need a refresher course. You are correct they don't have the right to S.S. benefits, gonna have to marry someone of the opposite sex I guess. Have never heard of one being denied the right to visit a butt buddy in the hospital, show me some examples. The children deal is just common sense don't think that one needs explaining, you know the mommy and daddy thing. Heirs to their estates, gonna have to marry opposite sex again and have her give it to the butt buddy, just the way it is when you CHOOSE to live this lifestyle, which is what it all boils down to, shouls we as a society reward horrible lifestyle choices? NO!

The fact that you can't refute any of my arguments, and the burden of proof does lie with your position, and that you compare homosexuality with people who wear their glasses on the bridge of their nose or dyed hair makes your arguments on this subject irrelevant and quite frankly laughable. Homosexuality is more comparable to heroin or crack use in its detrimental effects to ones health. Haven't ever heard of one catching AIDS from a purple dye job.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by OCA
You do not know if homosexuality is normal or not? What is so hard to understand? YOU DO NOT HAVE SEX WITH YOUR MALE BUDDIES FROM THE SOFTBALL TEAM! Go back and take biology 101, you need a refresher course.

OCA, I bet his biology course teaches that male-male sex is reproduction and produces offspring.

Either that or it teaches that the human race doesn't deserve to exist.

After all, if it were "normal" he wouldn't even be here.

It is the promotion of such that, if carried out, would kill us all.

Therefore he himself could quite clearly labeled a domestic threat.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Reilly
I protest that vicious slander obviously directed at the good people of the state of Nevada, and its Queen city, Las Vegas. Shame on you.

It was intended as a separate thought- in response to the inane comment about outlawing poker playing. The fact is, it's already outlawed!

I love Las Vegas - go there every year!

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by mattskramer
"As far as your continued analogy that those who do not believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry are the equivalent of those who wish to murder people, you deserve no response."

I did not say that those who don't believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry are the equivalent of those who wish to murder. On the other hand, that is practically what you said, based on deduction from your statement that it is majority rule. You are again guilty of appealing to the masses. Popular opinion does not make the opinion right.

Oh darn, I missed this last night. Oh well, to whit:

any analogy using the deaths of countless people is absurd. If you are so logical you would know that logic does not make inferences which is what you admit to doing when you say that is "practically what said".

It is not practically nor implicicitly stated anywhere in my post. The fact of the matter is that one is an illegal action (murdering people) against a specific right contained in the constitution. The other, homosexuality, is not a right at all. Therefore, there is clearly no constitutionally valid reason for preventing regulations surrounding it such as marriage. Hence, the reason that men's and women's rooms are allowed in public places. There is no constitutional right that both sexes use the facilities together.

Furthermore, there is no difference in the treatment of anyone unmarried vis a vis social security. I cannot receive social security from my stepfather although my stepfather cared for me my entire life. I am not entitled to his pension either. Nor, I might add, are my two 90 year old great aunts who've lived together longer than they lived with their husbands entitled to each other's social security or pension. So you see, logically, your argument is complete smoke.

And I don't smoke.

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Hey jackass.

Try one of your irrefutable mental masturbational exercises on me... This garbage about being the only one using logic...

Okay. Name-calling, a form of, Ad Hominem, attacking the speaker rather than the speaker's argument, is a fallacy. I never said that I am the only one using logic. Please don't imply otherwise. "Putting words into the mouths of debaters" is also a fallacy.

As I said before, gay marriage should be allowed in all states. They should be allowed to marry so that they may enjoy all the rights, and face the responsibilities, that those engaged in heterosexual marriages experience.

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

jimnyc - (1) I don't have the time to go over each of your posts. (2) You previously stated that "I don't need any argument." Therefore debate with you is not possible. (3) In my opinion, your comments are often the most flawed and erroneous. They are easily knocked down when confronted by clear reason. Some of them don't warrant a reply. I might, from time to time, give a reply to one of your posts if I find that it is sufficiently thought provoking. I might miss a comment by you that is sound and fit for logical debate. It is true that a blind dog can stumble upon an acorn once in a while.

You said "Your logic is lacking." If so, prove it. As for your previous post, upon close examination, it is surprisingly sound and logical comment.

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

OCA said "YOU DO NOT HAVE SEX WITH YOUR MALE BUDDIES FROM THE SOFTBALL TEAM!" Who said that I don't have sex with my male buddies? Provide me with a physics book that proves it to be an impossible act.

For one example concerning hospital visitation being denied, read "Flanigan v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation". I'll summarize: Bill Flanigan loved his partner Robert of five years with all his heart. Yet, because University of Maryland hospital staff did not recognize them as a family, Bill was not allowed to be with Robert for his last hours of consciousness.

The "mommy AND daddy" thing is irrelevant. There are surrogate parents, sperm donors, and adoption centers. It is possible for a child to be raised by a gay couple. Yet, since such unions are not recognized as marriages by government, at least in some locations, custody rights are denied.

You say "horrible lifestyle choices" -- provided the individuals that are engaged in such lifestyles with others are doing so by mutual consent from those involved, who are you to be the judge?

You say that I can't refute any of your arguments. You are wrong. I have done so. It is possible for a male to have sex with a male from a softball team. Your comment or question "I'm guessing that mattskramer is queer?" was particularly easy to criticize. (1) It lacked proper grammar. (2) It was irrelevant. (3) Assuming that you claimed that I am queer, it was wrong.

My criticism of the "natural law" argument against gay marriage is sound. Just because something is not "normal" or "natural" does not make it wrong. If we are to outlaw behavior that is not natural or normal I think that bellybutton piercing should be outlawed.

Now you are subtly bringing in a different argument: HEALTH. Are we to outlaw items and behavior that may be unhealthy? To what degree would you have government be your baby-sitter. Smoking is a health risk. Sexual promiscuity is a health risk. There are even risks with intimate heterosexual relationships (including disease). At any rate, I don't support the idea that government should protect adults from the choices they make. If you want to smoke, smoke. If you want to have sex with a man, have sex with a man.

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

MOI - I never said anything about gamboling. Whether poker is legal or not is beside the point. The original comment was "I may think that playing poker is immoral. You might consider it to be amoral or even moral." The issue was concerning whether or not "morality" is subjective or objective.

I may have used the wrong word when I said that it is "practically" what you said. Yet, one can make logical conclusions by applying deductive reasoning to another's comments. Based on your comment that majority rules, it follows that if the majority wants to change the constitution to make such murder legal, so be it.

If gay couples were allowed to marry (man marries man and woman marries woman) they would be entitled to such marital benefits as social security.

 

[jimnyc]

What a fucking idiot.

 

[jimnyc]

Thread over. Seems as if everything is dismissed anyway, so no point in continuing to poke sticks at the turd.