A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate

[Vidi]

So two babies that want to be married should have the same benefits? Does this mean, I can claim welfare because money is being given to someone that doesn't have the same income that I do (under the 14th ammendment)? Can I claim Social security because I have enough quarters, but am being discrimminated against because I do not meet the qualifications of age? Your argument is ridiculous.

now youve fallen into the realm of complete ridiculousness.

Homosexuals wishing to have the same rights as married couples are consenting adults, not babies, nor are they commiting fraud, as in your welfare example, nor are they asking for privileges to be given to them that are not already theirs by law.

By reaching into the realm of crazy crackpot what ifs you have just lost the debate.

Oh, wait a minute, equal treatment under the 14th ammendment.....
Oh, I get it, that doesn't fall under "your" agenda.
So you really do believe in special "rights" when it fits your agenda.
Marriage has been a contract between a man and a woman for eons. That was the qualifications to form a marriage, along with other things depending on the culture.

Now "you" are telling me that those qualifications are discrimminitory according to the 14th ammendment. I used your argument to point out how easily it would be to abuse other systems using your logic. Now you want to call me names? Are you a heterophobe?

And yes, they are committing fraud. They are claiming that two of the same sex are the same as two people of the opposite sex. They do not meet the qualification for the long standing meaning of marriage. They are willing to corrupt a society to push their agenda and force legitimization of their acts by usurping a respectable relationship to protect their destructive behavior. And that is FRAUD.

WRONG. Utterly false.

the church even had a rite specifically for same sex union. I even posted a link.

here it is again:

Internet History Sourcebooks Project

And then you have your "corrupt society" argument. Thats blatant crazy talk. You may as well be talking about blacks and whites getting married, its the same exact argument that was defeated decades ago. You have NO argument other than your own prejudice.

There is no evidence that same sex unions can or would corrupt anything other than your prejudice against it.

 

[koshergrl]

The intent of the privileges is irrelevant ( also, extending those privledges to same sex couples wont change the outcome of the intent as those same sex couples wouldnt be reproducing anyway. )

The 14th amendment states:



Once the privileges are given to one group of citizens, they MUST Constitutionally be extended to all.

So two babies that want to be married should have the same benefits? Does this mean, I can claim welfare because money is being given to someone that doesn't have the same income that I do (under the 14th ammendment)? Can I claim Social security because I have enough quarters, but am being discrimminated against because I do not meet the qualifications of age? Your argument is ridiculous.

now youve fallen into the realm of complete ridiculousness.

Homosexuals wishing to have the same rights as married couples are consenting adults, not babies, nor are they commiting fraud, as in your welfare example, nor are they asking for privileges to be given to them that are not already theirs by law.

By reaching into the realm of crazy crackpot what ifs you have just lost the debate.

Uh, no, he didn't.

He made his point. You resort to ad hominem. You lose and you get demerits for being painfully, literally...PAINFULLY stupid.

 

[logical4u]

If you don't consider marriage a right, then the government shouldn't be granting special privileges to those who are married.

However, since they do, then they must also do so with those of same sex marriages (see Amendment 14 as Vidi previously stated).

The gov't (the people) encourages behavior that will make a productive society. Married couples "usually" have children. They are more likely to establish a home, a community, a state, a country. It is important to them to have a "safe" place to raise their children. It is important for them to have a community that supports child raising/educating. Those children, raised properly, in a good community are likely to continue the same type of community building their parents did.

Homosexuals cannot conceive a child by each other. Their relationships have not been shown to be community builders.

The 14th ammendment does not apply, equally, across the board: there are restrooms for women and men (seperate and not equal, women's restrooms usually have more stalls and more room), women do not serve in the military in the same capacity as men do, workplaces do not require the same work from people that do physical labor jobs because people have different strengths and weaknesses, children are treated differently than adults. Your 14th ammendment is weak; there are too many examples of different treatment under the law, that is perfectly justifiable, just as marriage qualifications are not met by homosexual couples.

 

[Cenotaph]

So two babies that want to be married should have the same benefits? Does this mean, I can claim welfare because money is being given to someone that doesn't have the same income that I do (under the 14th ammendment)? Can I claim Social security because I have enough quarters, but am being discrimminated against because I do not meet the qualifications of age? Your argument is ridiculous.

now youve fallen into the realm of complete ridiculousness.

Homosexuals wishing to have the same rights as married couples are consenting adults, not babies, nor are they commiting fraud, as in your welfare example, nor are they asking for privileges to be given to them that are not already theirs by law.

By reaching into the realm of crazy crackpot what ifs you have just lost the debate.

Uh, no, he didn't.

He made his point. You resort to ad hominem. You lose and you get demerits for being painfully, literally...PAINFULLY stupid.

It's a bit hypocritical to call him on using ad hominem and then proceed to use them yourself.

 

[Cenotaph]

The gov't (the people) encourages behavior that will make a productive society. Married couples "usually" have children. They are more likely to establish a home, a community, a state, a country. It is important to them to have a "safe" place to raise their children. It is important for them to have a community that supports child raising/educating. Those children, raised properly, in a good community are likely to continue the same type of community building their parents did.

How is that relevant? I don't really see how it's fair to say it's not a right defined by the government (and yourself) and then say they should should receive governmental benefits.

Homosexuals cannot conceive a child by each other. Their relationships have not been shown to be community builders.

... but they can adopt (or through artificial insemination if they are a lesbian couple). Also, how are their relationships any more or less beneficial to society than that of heterosexual ones? They both potentially produce the same outcomes.

The 14th ammendment does not apply, equally, across the board: there are restrooms for women and men (seperate and not equal, women's restrooms usually have more stalls and more room), women do not serve in the military in the same capacity as men do, workplaces do not require the same work from people that do physical labor jobs because people have different strengths and weaknesses, children are treated differently than adults. Your 14th ammendment is weak; there are too many examples of different treatment under the law, that is perfectly justifiable, just as marriage qualifications are not met by homosexual couples.

How is not allowing same sex couples to marry justified?

 

[Artevelde]

You mean like how African Americans did in the 60s? First off, yes, it is for a small percentage of the population, but the majority of the population agrees with it (not that that should be important). It's not forcing YOU to marry those of the same sex, it is merely allowing that option to exist.

Uhm... if I have to explain how the church has and have been oppressing people in this country throughout its history then there is something wrong. BUT I feel that this instance would be the best example. Those of the Christian faith are pushing their own beliefs towards homosexuality onto the public. Simple as that.



Uhm, yes, I believe that it's the most efficient way of understanding the population's opinion on various situations, issues, etc. Unless you have a more efficient way of going about this. Do you?



They're not written differently at all... If you consider marriage a right, then same sex marriage should be legal (seeing that the US Constitution does not define what marriage is).

So... you see, you wouldn't be able to marry those of the same gender either!

You do not meet the "qualifications" of marriage if you WANT to marry the same sex (like a person wanting to marry their car does not meet the qualifications of marriage).

The church pushing their opinion on the public? How is that forcing? How is that any different from you, pushing your opinion on the public? Sorry, that is really LAME.

You did not answer the questions about the polls. Were they taken in cities with large homosexual populations or were they taken, randomly from households all over the USA?

No where in the Constitution does it say that each citizen has a "right" to be married. There has always been a chunk of the population that did not/could not marry.

I guess the writers of the original laws knew that marriage had been defined for thousands of years, and under estimated how deceitful people would be in the future, re-defining words to "force" confusion, and manipulate society to "their beliefs".

EVERY argument youve made is a faklse argument.

The "natural argument" is defeated by the fact that
1) Thats the same argument "they" made against interracial marriage.
2) the thousands of species of animals that display homosexuality

The Church argument is defeated by the Constitution.

The definition of marriage ( and therefore the qualifications ) is defeated by the reality of history in that Rome and Greece both provided for same sex unions. Hell, theres even a gay couple who were made saints! The Passion of SS. Serge and Bacchus

Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that "we should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in life." More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of their lives, St. Serge is openly described as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus.

Internet History Sourcebooks Project


The right to marry not being in the Constitution is defeated by the 14th amendment

what else you got?

All you have is lies.

 

[Artevelde]

How is not allowing same sex couples to marry justified?

Because such a union is not a marriage.

and because other adult couples are also not allowed to marry.

 

[Cenotaph]

How is not allowing same sex couples to marry justified?

Because such a union is not a marriage.

and because other adult couples are also not allowed to marry.

How is it not marriage? By contemporary standards, gay marriage fits the definition and its qualifications perfectly.

Two people (potentially):

• Sharing a bond on an intellectual, emotional, and physical level.
• Having the desire to live their lives together.

Seems legitimate to me.

Here's another question: why do you care?

 

[Artevelde]

How is not allowing same sex couples to marry justified?

Because such a union is not a marriage.

and because other adult couples are also not allowed to marry.

How is it not marriage? By contemporary standards, gay marriage fits the definition and its qualifications perfectly.

Two people (potentially):

• Sharing a bond on an intellectual, emotional, and physical level.
• Having the desire to live their lives together.

Seems legitimate to me.

Here's another question: why do you care?

If that were indeed a true definition than brothers and sisters and parents and their adult children would be able to marry too.

A marriage is a union between a man and a woman. The current hysterical fad to change this into someting else is very stupid and short-sighted.

 

[Cenotaph]

Because such a union is not a marriage.

and because other adult couples are also not allowed to marry.

How is it not marriage? By contemporary standards, gay marriage fits the definition and its qualifications perfectly.

Two people (potentially):

• Sharing a bond on an intellectual, emotional, and physical level.
• Having the desire to live their lives together.

Seems legitimate to me.

Here's another question: why do you care?

If that were indeed a true definition than brothers and sisters and parents and their adult children would be able to marry too.

A marriage is a union between a man and a woman. The current hysterical fad to change this into someting else is very stupid and short-sighted.

1. Children are not consenting adults in the eyes of the state.
2. Yes, brothers and sisters could marry if they met the qualifications listed. However, sexual intercourse and having children would be strongly discouraged due to birth defections, etc.
3. Homosexuality and gay marriage is not a fad. The desire for homosexuals to marry has existed since the 19th Century, and homosexuality itself has existed for as long as recorded history has.
4. Short-sighted and stupid? How?

You also didn't answer my question. Why do you care? How is this going to impact you in anyway?

 

[Cenotaph]

(Logical answer: I shouldn't care, and it won't impact me in anyway).

 

[Artevelde]

How is it not marriage? By contemporary standards, gay marriage fits the definition and its qualifications perfectly.

Two people (potentially):

• Sharing a bond on an intellectual, emotional, and physical level.
• Having the desire to live their lives together.

Seems legitimate to me.

Here's another question: why do you care?

If that were indeed a true definition than brothers and sisters and parents and their adult children would be able to marry too.

A marriage is a union between a man and a woman. The current hysterical fad to change this into someting else is very stupid and short-sighted.

1. Children are not consenting adults in the eyes of the state.
2. Yes, brothers and sisters could marry if they met the qualifications listed. However, sexual intercourse and having children would be strongly discouraged due to birth defections, etc.
3. Homosexuality and gay marriage is not a fad. The desire for homosexuals to marry has existed since the 19th Century, and homosexuality itself has existed for as long as recorded history has.
4. Short-sighted and stupid? How?

You also didn't answer my question. Why do you care? How is this going to impact you in anyway?

So somebody's child who has reached the age of 18 is still not legally an adult according to you? Logic isn't your strong suit I guess.

The idea that the push for gay marriage dates back to the 19th century is a ludicrous lie.

 

[BDBoop]

If that were indeed a true definition than brothers and sisters and parents and their adult children would be able to marry too.

A marriage is a union between a man and a woman. The current hysterical fad to change this into someting else is very stupid and short-sighted.

1. Children are not consenting adults in the eyes of the state.
2. Yes, brothers and sisters could marry if they met the qualifications listed. However, sexual intercourse and having children would be strongly discouraged due to birth defections, etc.
3. Homosexuality and gay marriage is not a fad. The desire for homosexuals to marry has existed since the 19th Century, and homosexuality itself has existed for as long as recorded history has.
4. Short-sighted and stupid? How?

You also didn't answer my question. Why do you care? How is this going to impact you in anyway?

So somebody's child who has reached the age of 18 is still not legally an adult according to you? Logic isn't your strong suit I guess.

The idea that the push for gay marriage dates back to the 19th century is a ludicrous lie.

Oh, look at you moving the goal posts. How quaint.

I'm pretty sure you know what she meant by 'children,' and you changed it to 'somebody's child.'

 

[Artevelde]

1. Children are not consenting adults in the eyes of the state.
2. Yes, brothers and sisters could marry if they met the qualifications listed. However, sexual intercourse and having children would be strongly discouraged due to birth defections, etc.
3. Homosexuality and gay marriage is not a fad. The desire for homosexuals to marry has existed since the 19th Century, and homosexuality itself has existed for as long as recorded history has.
4. Short-sighted and stupid? How?

You also didn't answer my question. Why do you care? How is this going to impact you in anyway?

So somebody's child who has reached the age of 18 is still not legally an adult according to you? Logic isn't your strong suit I guess.

The idea that the push for gay marriage dates back to the 19th century is a ludicrous lie.

Oh, look at you moving the goal posts. How quaint.

I'm pretty sure you know what she meant by 'children,' and you changed it to 'somebody's child.'

Look at my original posting where I clearly wrote "adult children".

Reading too difficult for you?

 

[Cenotaph]

So somebody's child who has reached the age of 18 is still not legally an adult according to you? Logic isn't your strong suit I guess.

Fair enough. I must have skipped over the word "adult" (my mistake). I would suggest you use the word "offspring" next time because the phrase "adult child" is an oxymoron and can be rather misleading.

However, my opinion still stands. If two people meet the qualifications that I listed, then why shouldn't they marry? Albeit, it's very unlikely to happen. In fact... I don't think it has ever genuinely happened without the aid of some delusion caused by a damage psyche.

The idea that the push for gay marriage dates back to the 19th century is a ludicrous lie.

Not really. Anyone with a bit of research under his or her belt would tell you the same. A rather credible source comes to mind... a PBS documentary called Before Stonewall which discusses this specifically (as well as the struggle for homosexuals during the first half of the 20th Century).

I'm sure that the desire to marry (or share a lifetime bond with) someone you love has existed for as long as humans have (homosexuals included).

 

[koshergrl]

Yeah why don't you provide some of that research.

There are wackos in every generation that push for the marginalization of traditional values, and the degradation of women and children. That doesn't mean those values are embrace, common, or worthy of support.

Aleister Crawley comes to mind. Kinsey was a fan of his, too...and from Kinsey we get the modern day model of sex ed in school.

 

[Cenotaph]

Yeah why don't you provide some of that research.

I listed Before Stonewall as an example of a credible resource. I felt that that was adequate enough.

It hasn't been until recently that we have been able to tackle this issue.

 

[koshergrl]

Nope.

 

[koshergrl]

"This documentary by Greta Schiller takes a look at the sometimes oblique American acknowledgment of homosexuals in the decades before a historical flashpoint in 1969. Late that year, the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in Greenwich Village was stormed by police and its patrons arrested -- resulting in two days of rioting. Allen Ginsberg and other celebrities talk about past police tactics, witch-hunts, censorship, and historical "cleansing" operations that violated human rights and civil liberties -- such as routing gays and lesbians out of the State Department. A certain openness about sexual preferences started appearing in the 1920s and accelerated during World War II, eventually culminating in the organized movements of the 1960s and later demanding an end to discrimination."

It's a fluff piece that uses the comments of celebrities and gay folk, and it primarily focuses on an incident in 1969, with some commentary about what led up to it.

It's nothing like research, and the information isn't verified.

This is what happens when people are educated by the tube.

Plus it was made in 1984, and it's done *humorously* in order to hook straight people.

Before Stonewall - Rotten Tomatoes

 

[Gadawg73]

8,934 posts here in thelast few years on gay marriage.
Not one to date that has any evidence whatsoever any negative effects to heterosexual marriage.
Gays are getting married now.
How has it affected ANYONE?
Gay marriage=non issue. Waste of time.