Same-Gender Marriage

[Mr. P]

You equate criminal behavior with homosexuality? How primitive.

oh no, not at all. I do equate criminal behavior with the acceptable "NORMS" of society though,
it's goes against them, just as gay Marriage does.

As for the line I draw, it is where one's actions lead to the harm of oneself, another or both. There is no demonstrable harm in permitting same-gender couples to marry.

No harm yet...but if "legal" it will just be another leak in the ship of society, another tear in the moral fabric of the sail, which eventually will result in a being dead in the water and sinking into the abyss.

 

[OCA]

As I hope you relish being a fossil. Were the points valid, I would cheerfully acknowledge them. Since you have nothing genuinely useful to add to the conversation, you are dismissed.

Check my status on this board asswipe, you don't dismiss me, I dismiss you. Consider this a friendly warning, my finger is just itching for my first banishment.

 

[dmp]

Thread moved to the "I'm for Homo-Marriage because I haven't read any of the BILLIONS of K of text written in this forum which shows homosexuality is a harmful practice to the individuals AND society. Since I don't like reading how homosexual lifestyles destroy people, I won't allow the evidence, thus I'll post ANOTHER crappy thread saying there is 'NO' evidecne - FORUM"

 

[Bullypulpit]

HA HA HA!!! The only post pulit DIDN'T respond to was MINE! LMAO! Tells me he can't debate the point that people would like him and his queer agenda ilk to just SHUT THE FUCK UP already.

The more people get this sick shit thrown at them, the more they dislike it, and that includes people who may have been indifferent about it, until they had it shoved at them time after time. Now they dislike it, and it's all the queer loving "you all MUST ACCEPT it" crowds fault. They're shooting themselves in the foot on this issue, and they're too fucking stupid to realize it.

Had your post merited a response, I would have done so. As it was OCA's post was in the same vein, so I didn't waste my time repeating myself.

There now...I hope you don't feel left out. Hugs and kisses. :teeth:

 

[Bullypulpit]

Check my status on this board asswipe, you don't dismiss me, I dismiss you. Consider this a friendly warning, my finger is just itching for my first banishment.

Hmmm...can't debate the issues so you ban those you diagree with. Feeling a bit insecure are we?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Seems to me as if your argument was invalidated on Nov 2nd. And I'm quite sure it'll continue down that path as more states have an opportunity to vote on the issue. So whine, cry, bitch & swear the arguments are invalid - but homosexual marriages will not be accepted. I have no need to have you validate mine and so many others beliefs, we'll speak with our votes.

No, that was simply fear and ignorance overwhelming common sense.

 

[fubar]

Two men can't be married. because it doesn't fit in the definition of the word. You want to redefine the word. America doesn't want to redifine the word. That doesn't make us homophobic or mean. Find another word.

 

[Bullypulpit]

You're showing your spineless, yellow bellied, coward, snake in the grass attributes pulit.

But I don't care. I know I'm right about what I've written... TWICE! And so do you. That's why you won't go near it.

Your stupidity is staggering. You're shaking the bee hive here and getting stung, but you're too ignorant to let it go.

Well... just keep at it then. Turn more people off about it. You're only hurting yourself.

And you, sir, show nothing but your ignorance. Dismissed.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Two men can't be married. because it doesn't fit in the definition of the word. You want to redefine the word. America doesn't want to redifine the word. That doesn't make us homophobic or mean. Find another word.

Why?

 

[musicman]

Why?

Because we had it first.

How about, "farried"?

 

[jimnyc]

No, that was simply fear and ignorance overwhelming common sense.

They don't scare me in the slightest bit. They offend me. Call me ignorant if you like, I really don't care anymore. As long as I know these freaks aren't getting married I'm cool.

 

[Gem]

Bully,

How do you respond to the statistics of other nations who have legalized gay marriage, and seen an almost immediate and significant drop in marriages after the initial wave of gay marriages, and sharp rises in divorces, children born out of wedlock, single parent families, and people living together without marriage? (See the Netherlands for examples and statistics)

There are many people who feel that when you remove the original, ancient, and even, arguably, symbolic reason for marrying - the creation of a stable unit of male and female with which to create and raise children - that the institution loses meaning and falls by the wayside.

And then when marriage falls by the wayside, people stop marrying...which has devestating consequences on a society...for example:

1. If the vast majority of single parents married someone in an identical financial situation....they would be brought above the poverty level.

Marriage benefits peoples economic status...creating a stable and more healthy life for everyone involved. If, the originial premise is correct, and gay marriage leads to marriage being discarded...we would have a larger and growing number of people living singlely...with or without children...and therefore would have an increasing number of people living below the poverty level....that would mean higher amounts of money being spent on welfare...homelessness...poverty assistance...etc.....causing harm to all of society as the society attempted to deal with the issues it casued.

2. Studies have shown time and time again...children born in single family homes, and also, although not as significantly...into homes with unmarried partners...have higher levels of highschool dropout, illness, mental problems, emotional problems, criminal habits...school problems, malnutrition, child abuse, etc etc etc. A dissolving of marriage would mean a drastic increase in the already increasing number of children being raised by one parent...this would mean more problems for our already struggling education system...healthcare system....legal system....as the increased numbers of children with problems grew....

There are, of course...even more areas we could go into...the legal realm of custody battles between unmarried people with children...the healthcare realm of benefits to changing partners...blah blah blah...

So there you go, Bully...I have read several other reasons that I think have some merit...but I will simply start with one...so to phrase it as a one sentence question...

How do you respond to the evidence emerging from other nations that gay marriage leads to a dissolving of all marriages which would cause irrevocable damage to any society?

 

[nakedemperor]

Bully-- as far as I am concerned, the debate is largely semantic. I'm a proponent of "civil unions" for gay couples who wish to have the same rights as "married" couples (and for those of you who for some reason believe gays are asking for "special rights", well, they're not, they're asking for "equal rights").

Marriage has religious connotations. It is for that reason that so many people are opposed to the term being applied to homosexual couples. I, personally, if I chose to enter into a union with another man, wouldn't WANT to be "married", as in the eyes of the Christians' god, that is sinful. Well, frankly, I don't need that. If I were legally able to enter into a civil union with another man which granted me the *same exact* rights as a "marriage" does, I would be more than satisfied. I hardly believe the Christians' god's blessing is necessary to validate my union. If Christianity wants to exclude the Gays, then so be it. Maybe they'll change their position. As it is, slavery is certainly at least passively acceptable in the Old Testament, but isn't necessarily a core tenet of the religion's practicioners in this day and age.

Maybe someday the majority will agree that marriage is acceptable for homosexuals. It was once the majority view that slavery should be legal. It was once the majority view that women shouldn't have the right to vote. These things changed, and I'm confident the perception of homosexuality will change over the course of time as well. If the concept of marriage doesn't, well, that's fine. But I think that acceptance will prevail in the long run.

 

[jimnyc]

and for those of you who for some reason believe gays are asking for "special rights", well, they're not, they're asking for "equal rights").

Sorry, NE, but they have 100% identical rights to heterosexual couples right now. They want the rights changed to support their lifestyle. Even though marrying a minor is illegal, are you saying those that want to do so just want "equal" rights?

 

[nakedemperor]

Sorry, NE, but they have 100% identical rights to heterosexual couples right now. They want the rights changed to support their lifestyle. Even though marrying a minor is illegal, are you saying those that want to do so just want "equal" rights?

In most states homosexuals cannot even procure a civil union, let alone one that has the same benefits as a state-recognized marriage. That's not equal rights. If rights were equal, you could get a civil union in every state that had the same benefits as marriage.

 

[jimnyc]

In most states homosexuals cannot even procure a civil union, let alone one that has the same benefits as a state-recognized marriage. That's not equal rights. If rights were equal, you could get a civil union in every state that had the same benefits as marriage.

You're arguing 2 different things. I wouldn't argue against civil unions. I'm not engaged in a civil union and therefore won't be categorized in the same breath.

Let them have the civil unions with the same benefits that heterosexuals enjoy as married couples. They're pushing too hard for the marriage and they're just pushing people further away.

 

[Merlin1047]

I'm sorry, but my wife would object most strenuously. You, like so many others, wrongly conclude that my advocacy for same-gender marriage implies that I am gay. I'm simply secure enough in my own sexuality that I am not threatened by homosexuality.

Once again you're full of crap. I assumed nothing regarding your preferences. Had I assumed anything about you, I would have assumed you had a penchant for barnyard animals.

I was simply suggesting that since you were such an enthusiastic advocate of homosexual unions that you should gain a little first hand experience - you know - just to give your opinions a little more credibility.

 

[Trinity]

Because we had it first.

How about, "farried"?

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

 

[007]

And you, sir, show nothing but your ignorance. Dismissed.

Tell ya what pulit, why don't you "prove" to everyone here, why we "should" allow queers to marry, instead of us proving to you why NOT. Since YOU are the one insisting, hell, DEMANDING that we all embrace this sick shit you call "gay".

OK boy... start "PROVING". Otherwise, YOU are DISMISSED.

 

[Mariner]

but even though I support gay marriage (and attended a gay wedding this summer), I can understand that expanding the definition of the word to apply to same-sex couples is a big leap for many people.

The problem is, marriage is currently defined and administered by government. Having a government-administered right which is not available to one group of people is discriminatory, period. In order to get to civil unions, government would first have to get out of the business of marriage (leave that to the churches), and give everyone--different and same-sex couples both--equal rights to a civil union. Since some churches would choose to marry gay couples anyway, this solution isn't really much of a solution. Conservatives still have to come face to face with the reality that there are large numbers of gay people who would like to be married, and there's no good argument against them (if you want to say the Bible says so, then you also have get your rocks ready in order to stone the next adulterer you meet).

I also agree with Bullypulpit that tradition will lose out in this instance. We've given up many traditions over the years (owning our wives, slavery, miscegenation laws) in the interests of fairness, and we'll give up keeping committed same-sex couples apart. It's just a matter of how long it takes.

Mariner