The looming war over gay marriage

[Douger]

Excellent !
Once "they" declare a war on anything, it's sure to be a complete failure !

 

[FA_Q2]

logical4u
You are the one that is saying that it is all about 'prying' into other peoples' sex lives.
There are 'legitimate' reasons for heterosexual marriage, many listed previously in this post. I have asked repeatedly for 'legitimate' reasons for homosexual marriage. The only reasons listed are the ones that people use for 'living together' and adoption (of which, neither requires marriage).

Interracial marriages are a totally different matter, as society mixed, so did the peoples. Homosexuality has a very deceptive side, one cannot tell a person is homosexual by looking at them the way you can with people of vastly different races. It is not the same thing.

And EVERY ONE OF THOSE DOES NOT ‘REQUIRE’ MARRIAGE EITHER. There have been advantages listed here and you have ignored them. If it is a benefit of a straight marriage then it is the same benefit of a gay marriage except the ability to bear children (which a lesbian couple actually still has). Since marriage between people that cannot have children or do not want them are not barred from marriage then that benefit to society had obviously not been deemed paramount in marriage. You have yet to provide even ONE reason that marriage should be denied to gay couples. “It has always been this way’ and ‘it is against MY morals’ are not valid points.

What the heck does ‘tell by looking at them’ have anything to do with discrimination and this thread? I cannot ‘see’ your religion but it is still illegal to discriminate against you based on that.

Face it, there is no real argument here so you have to resort to empty suit points like ‘it will mean an end to morality/marriage’ when there is no meat behind the statements.

You are right, none of the above "requires" marriage. Marriage is not about "love". Love is a historically recent developement; traditionally, marriage benefited "both" families, and made the woman "secure", physically and financially. While 'those' aspects of marriage are not discussed, they are still important. Can you explain to me how two 'men' can need physical and financial protection? Can you explain to me how two women can offer physical and financial protection? Can you explain to me how one person pretending to be the opposite sex benefits 'either' family of the 'couple'? And while you want to pretend children are not an important part of most marriages, I can tell you they are. I know very few married couples that do not have children [conceived the 'green' (no extra fossil fuels burned or doctor visits required) way]. And while it is true, that occasionally a married couple does not have children, the statistic is probably smaller than the percentage of homosexuals in the country. Marriage is about 'growing' a community. Can you demonstrate how homosexuals, being "true" to their sexual nature can grow a community?
Can you demonstrate on any scale how homosexual marriage would benefit society?

Marriage was not about love for the upper echelons in times past but we have evolved. Your statements here are nothing short of sexist. Women do not need protection or to be provided for anymore and as others have pointed out, many times provide these things to the men. Today, marriage is not about protection or finical needs, it is about building a future together and fostering a relationship also known as love. Do not hide behind the misguided past. As I have already stated, gay marriage results in the same benefits as hetro marriage. It is you who have failed to demonstrate that it does not. It appears that pro was correct, you argue against marriage in general to fight gay marriage.

Marriage should be 'denied ' to homosexual couples because:
they hurt one or both families by 'pretending' to be something other that they really are: male or female.
they hurt the family that is hoping their family member will be a contributing member to the family's stability (with children, emotionally, financially, etc)
they hurt society by promoting promiscuity and encourage others to participate
they set an example that members of society do not have to live by honored traditions (act dishonorably).

Demonstrate where ANY of this is true. Families are not hurt by gays because people are gay, they are hurt because people still hold on to ridiculous prejudice and hate. It would be the same thing for parents that were racist and claim they were hurt because their daughter brought home a black guy. Not allowing gay marriage actually perpetuated this kind of crap and continually brings people down.

Act dishonorably! Once again, check your bigotry at the door. There is nothing ‘wrong’ with a gay individuals morality, it is you that have labeled them evil.

PROMISCUITY!!!!!! Holy crap, NOT ALLOWING GAYS TO MARRY PROMOTES PROMISCUITY! Can you not see what is in front of you?

They are not pretending to be something they are not. That is what you are trying to force on them by not allowing them to have legal status together. You are telling them to not be gay when, in fact, they are and it is causing pain and perpetuating bigotry.

The "looking at them" comment was to demonstrate the difference between interacial marriage and homosexual marriage. The supporters want to say that it is the 'same' thing. It is not. If you are of a different race, you cannot pretend to 'fit in' when it is to your benefit (the way homosexuals can deceive people about their 'true' selves). That makes the two comparisons, vastly different.
Your mention of 'benefits' of homosexual marriage is a one way street, society sacrifices for the homosexuals, but homosexuals sacrifice....nothing, just take. In the end it boils down to a 'social experiment' with very predictable results. The homosexual marriage supporters are telling us "trust us", it will turn out okay. They sound like DC politicans promising to have 'citizens' best interests at heart when they are voting away the same citizens' rights.

Once again, the benefits to society are the same from any marriage and you have yet to demonstrate why that would not be true. What marks a hetro marriage that a gay marriage would not have? Even gays can still have children through adoption/insemination/surrogacy. To say it is the children that matter still puts you in a bind when it comes to infertility or people that choose not to bear children.

All that you have brought to light is that being gay is against your morality. Try and understand that your morality is not what writes law. No one’s morality writes law. It is not the purpose of law to take christen morals and force others to follow them.

 

[Father Time]

Homosexuality has a very deceptive side, one cannot tell a person is homosexual by looking at them the way you can with people of vastly different races.

So that's what happened to make you so uncomfortable around gays...


So women are weak and can't fend for themselves?


I think Cris Cyborg could make an effective bodyguard.

These women could offer plenty of financial protection

1)

2)It doesn't have to



I know lots of single people with kids and married couples without. What's your point?

Doesn't need to. How does letting you exist benefit society? It doesn't. You're an obvious detriment to our societal progress. And yet we let you live.



Only in your case.

So is the single person. Try again. People have no obligation to provide grandkids.

Wrong. That's single people and people who get divorces.

they set an example that members of society do not have to live by honored traditions (act dishonorably).

Like keeping slaves, beating your wife, or giving your child an exorcism?

thank you for providing those stunning answers of how homosexual marriage benefits society. I am sold, I think the next time a small part of the population wants to re-define a long-held tradition, we should just give them free rein; maybe when the radical islamists want to change the law in this country to Sharia, we should just say okay (under the guise of giving them 'equal' rights).

I can think of a several ways Sharia law would hurt society.
Name one way gay marriage would.

 

[logical4u]

And EVERY ONE OF THOSE DOES NOT ‘REQUIRE’ MARRIAGE EITHER. There have been advantages listed here and you have ignored them. If it is a benefit of a straight marriage then it is the same benefit of a gay marriage except the ability to bear children (which a lesbian couple actually still has). Since marriage between people that cannot have children or do not want them are not barred from marriage then that benefit to society had obviously not been deemed paramount in marriage. You have yet to provide even ONE reason that marriage should be denied to gay couples. “It has always been this way’ and ‘it is against MY morals’ are not valid points.

What the heck does ‘tell by looking at them’ have anything to do with discrimination and this thread? I cannot ‘see’ your religion but it is still illegal to discriminate against you based on that.

Face it, there is no real argument here so you have to resort to empty suit points like ‘it will mean an end to morality/marriage’ when there is no meat behind the statements.

Your statement: marriage is not "required" for heterosexual traditions demonstrates you have not intention of approaching this with any logic....you want it.
There have been no 'sound' rationalizations for homosexual marriage. There have been no benefits to society listed.
It comes down to homosexual marriage supporters attempting to 'force' society into a huge social experiment with no evidence, no practical theory. They are telling us, trust me, they sound like the politicians in DC telling citizens they really care about them, and then go behind closed doors and vote to ruin the citizens' lives.

That was YOUR statement and you prove my point quite well. That statement is not using logic at all. There are sound rationalizations for gay marriage, namely the same reasons there are hetro marriages.
You still have yet to provide anything even remotely pointing to what ‘terrible’ things would happen if gays marry. Give me a bone here, what is it that you so fear. Remember that simply stating that Nazis riding dinosaurs will take over the world without some sort of evidence to back your claims up is not going to fly. I keep hearing that hetro marriages will be somehow affected without any actual vehicle for that to happen. If gays can marry there will be no difference except in the lives and relationships of the gays themselves.

"Terrible things"
Married homosexuals will:
Have protection under the law to "educate" children at a very influencial age to the 'absolute' (anything else will be discrimmination) acceptance (that is not tolerance) of homosexuality
Harrass parents of prospective partners (even more than they do now), and telling them 'disagreeing' with their intentions is the same as discrimmination (and punishable by law)
Have every form printed by every gov't for married couples to be "edited" and "changed" at enormous costs to the taxpayer (lawyers will have to review and authorize the forms).
Change the definition of a word that has eons of traditions behind it (making a mockery of those respecting the tradition)
Will cause the "homosexual activities" done in public to increase and claim discrimmination if anyone asks them to stop.
etc., etc., etc.

Earlier in this thread, I asked if those supporting homosexual marriage could find anything "evil" in the 10 Commandments. I saw nothing to state there was evil in those laws. Let me ask you: how can something that breaks three of those commandments be "good"?
If it is not good, then it must be evil. If it is evil, why would we (as citizens) want to promote it by legalizing it?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

^^ I call Poe's Law ^^

 

[Father Time]

^^ I call Poe's Law ^^

Seconded.

Also for a little comic relief

[youtube]YzEs2nj7iZM[/youtube]