Post a topic about the long-term implications of entitlement spending, or the deficit, or the Federal Reserve, or any other issue that will eventually result in the destruction of the U.S. as we know it if they are not addressed and you’ll get 10 replies.
Post a topic on gay marriage, or abortion, or “Is there a God?”, or any other topic that doesn’t matter one fucking shit and you’ll get 500 replies.
I agree - I’d only add that these are the only things we can get Left-liberals to debate are these topics. Start a thread about economics, Obamanomics, or how treasury auctions are weakening (a very big deal), and tumbleweeds blow past.
lol. Says the man (tool) who couldn’t even follow my argument on the econ thread. Let’s start another conversation about how it’s “all Obama’s fault!!1!!” or perhaps we can “grade him” a “complete failure” again…those threads are always so productive and intellectually stimulating! [/quote]
Ironic since Bush had a fiscal policy that was extremely “left-wing”. That is unless massive deficits are now considered “right-wing”.
I’m not surprised by your attitude and I think that type of thinking is probably more popular among your age group than mine. What you and many in your generation fail to realize is that just about everything effects everything else eventually. It’s a matter of what sort of society that you want to live in isn’t it? What happened to something called “the greater good” of society?
Says the diehard conservative? Since when did you give a fuck about the greater good?[/quote]
Wow, that was sort of harsh. I think if you look at what true conservatism is you’ll find that conservatives are in fact the care takers of “the greater good”. We could start with actually wanting people to keep their own money instead of turning it over to the government that squanders it quite quickly. But then you are not foolish enough to think otherwise are you? No, no of course not.
[quote]Society can sanction all sorts of evils (including homosexuals getting married) instead of asking “how does that effect my life” at this moment, what you should be asking is how does that improve society and the greater good in the long term? Eventually anything that does not help society could ultimately harm it.
I am still not seeing how it affects society. And no one seems to want to answer that.[/quote]
Perhaps because you don’t yet have children or even a wife as far as I know. When you do you’ll think again. Infecting our society with acceptance of homosexual marriage would be a very bad idea. Keep in mind it has never been proven to be genetic and in fact could very well be environmental.
Homosexual billboards, magazines, books etc. shaping childrens beliefs and sexuality?
Grade school teachers teaching that homosexuality is something to explore?
The further spread of the HIV virus because there is nothing holding the line on male/male sex? Have you seen the CDC statistics? I’ve posted them many times. Almost 70% of all new HIV cases are homosexual men. Should we be promoting this type of behavior? I don’t think so.
Your health costs going up because of the rise in homosexuality and the disease that it spreads?
The list is endless, I’ve only touched on a few direct consequences there are many, many indirect as well. But, you won’t get it until you have your own wife and kids then you will understand.
[quote]
Ahh… so there was no polygamy in the Bible?[/quote]
Are we going to talk religion now? Okay, you brought.
God ended polygamy.
Now we’re off to the history books. Homosexuality was always looked down upon and never accepted in any successful civilized society. There have been volumes posted on this site demonstrating this.
[quote]
There will always be a section of people who live like this. It’s not a big segment, but it’s there. Let them live.[/quote]
Here is where we agree. I want to let them live and I do not hold with any discrimination against them in any way relative to work etc. However, they have no right to literally change a 5000 year old institution to fit their own desires. Since when does 1% of the population have this opportunity?
And in 1979 most thought that homosexuality was perverse, disgusting, immoral and depraved (did I leave anything out? Ha). But the magic of 30 years of lobbying by various homosexual groups has changed public opinion. Just as 10 or 20 more years will change public opinion regarding a long list of non-traditional marriage ideas. I want you to tell me where this ends? Do you have any idea? No, no one can know this.
I don’t want to be insulting Irish, I like you in fact, but you have not lived long enough to see exactly how opinions are formed and how society can be shaped by a constant drum beat from an overly accepting media and powerful lobby groups with a dead aim on the target of molding public opinion. Back in the 80’s we’d have laughed if anyone even suggested that homosexual be allowed to marry. What you are laughing at today will most certainly be promoted as an open minded new idea fro equal rights in 10 or 20 years.
Today homosexuality, something else after that. You can bet on it!
I’m not surprised by your attitude and I think that type of thinking is probably more popular among your age group than mine. What you and many in your generation fail to realize is that just about everything effects everything else eventually. It’s a matter of what sort of society that you want to live in isn’t it? What happened to something called “the greater good” of society?
Society can sanction all sorts of evils (including homosexuals getting married) instead of asking “how does that effect my life” at this moment, what you should be asking is how does that improve society and the greater good in the long term? Eventually anything that does not help society could ultimately harm it.
It was not that long ago that homosexuals were simply asking for tolerance? Now they demand marriage. Funny how one thing leads to another and the slippery slope argument is proven true time and again. What about the following should this be accepted too?
A person marrying their dog?
Polygamy?
Incestuous marriage?
A person marrying their television sets.
Adult/child marriages.
Certainly the sky will not fall if homosexuals are allowed to marry it never happens that way does it? It’s simply one more step in the wrong direction which will absolutely lead to other even more perverse groups asking, no demanding that same right. How foolish to think that the the institution of marriage, once tampered with will never be changed again? All of this will in fact effect you your future children and all of society as it continues to chisle away at the basic family structure which has served mankind so very well for the past 5000 years.
The greater good is not a very popular. It doesn’t have it’s own lobby group and asks nothing from the government. However, I assure you if we continue to ignore it we as a society will suffer a great deal of damage as a result.
You do realise that the “instituion of marriage” has been tampered with before right? I haven’t seen any threads arguing for the banning of divorces though.
Couples have always had the desire and means to part that’s nothing new.
it was not that long ago that homosexuals were simply asking for tolerance? Now they demand marriage. Funny how one thing leads to another and the slippery slope argument is proven true time and again. What about the following should this be accepted too?
A person marrying their dog?
A dog can’t enter a legal contract so this won’t ever be an issue.
Don’t be foolish enough to frame your entire argument around the debate that rages today. A new debate can begin with it’s premise rooted in the fact that a man can do with his own property what he likes and that may include marriage.
Polygamy?
Already allowed in many parts of the world, and by many religions (how many wives did King Solomon have?). As long as there is no coersion or abuse, I don’t see why this is so bad.
As long as the knife thrower doesn’t hit the person I don’t anything wrong with that either. YIKES.
Incestuous marriage?
I’m not sure why someone would want to do this,
Most of the country still doesn’t quite get why one man would want to marry another man, so I guess we have to look beyond our personal preferences.
A person marrying their television sets.
A television can’t enter a legal contract so this won’t ever be an issue.
Remember that personal property argument? Okay, enough said.
Adult/child marriages.
A child can’t enter a legal contract so this won’t ever be an issue.
But it will be an issue eventually. NAMBLA is working on it as we speak. All they have to do is get the legal age of consent lowered and POOF, kids will be able to marry adults.
Furthermore, I’ve yet to be convinced that recognizing (and in fact rewarding) gay people in stable relationships would somehow hurt society.
I think you need to look at the facts. There are very, very few “stable gay relationships”. In fact one study has shown that even those gays who claim to be in a stable relationship have occasional sex outside of that relationship.
The point of the list of non-traditional marriages was show people that once the boundary lines are moved they can be moved again and again and it matters not what the perverse relationship is.
[/quote]
You may want to do some reading on Henry VIII. It might interest you to know that divorce wasn’t always allowed.
[quote]
What about the following should this be accepted too?
A person marrying their dog?
A dog can’t enter a legal contract so this won’t ever be an issue.
Don’t be foolish enough to frame your entire argument around the debate that rages today. A new debate can begin with it’s premise rooted in the fact that a man can do with his own property what he likes and that may include marriage.[/quote]
Uh no. Marriage requires consent of two people (perhaps more in the future). It also requires a signature on the contract. Until a dog, or TV or child is given the legal right to enter a binding contract, we don’t have to worry about this. It has nothing to do with gay marriage.
I take it you object to circus performers then? What about people using guns for target practice? Does that elicit a “YIKES” from you too?
Frankly, I don’t see a problem with someone throwing knives as long as they don’t hit anyone.
Now back on topic: do you have a better rebuttal?
I’m glad we agree. Good to see you growing and starting to become a more accepting person.
So start a thread about the age of consent if this concerns you. This has nothing to do with gay people (except of course gay people who want to marry children).
Says the diehard conservative? Since when did you give a fuck about the greater good?
Wow, that was sort of harsh. I think if you look at what true conservatism is you’ll find that conservatives are in fact the care takers of “the greater good”. We could start with actually wanting people to keep their own money instead of turning it over to the government that squanders it quite quickly. But then you are not foolish enough to think otherwise are you? No, no of course not.
[/quote]
You’re such a condescinding pric. Care takers of the greater good is laughable. More like the caretakers of the establishment that you’ve benefitted from, nothing more. Progressives are far more caring about the “Greater good.”
Oh right! The “you’re too young” argument!
Infecting society with believes such as the one you hold is th real danger to society. It always has been, and always will.
And I know you Jesus freaks hate science, but don’t you think that if it were environmental, there would be some kind of test model? Like, “A kid born to an effeminate father and strong mother is always gay?” But there’s none of that.
YOU should be shaping your child’s beliefs. If you lose to a billboard and a commercial, I’d say you’re a pretty shitty parent.
Propaganda. Blatant propaganda. Grade school teacher don’t push homosexuality.
I think Africa’s got the big problem with AIDS, and it’s not because of the gays. More often then not, it’s caused by unsafe sexual practices, none of which the churches help through their damning of contraceptives.
I think I’ll worry more about the 70 percent of the popualtion that is obese, or the percent that are smokers and drunks.
The only thing that is endless is your audacious idiocy. There’s plenty of married men who don’t give a shit if the gays marry. It’s just the bitter old Biblethumpers like you that can’t get over it. But your generation is on it’s way out, and not a moment too soon- before you spread more of your reckless hatred.
Where? Just asking.
I haven’t seen them. What I’ve read is that the Spartans were not against homosexuality at all.
You’re not worth resonding to. I did this years ago with you, and I know you’ll just go on and on and on and on, spreading the viciousness directed towards people that never wronged you.
The only possible thing I can think of is that you’re like the neighbor from American Beauty… and it wouldn’t surprise me at all.
And, as always, when someone gives me the “You’re too young” argument- fuck yourself with that one. I don’t know if you try to come off as some wise old man, but in reality you come off as a bitter old member of a school of thought that is quickly dying out.
Nope, I started with a pretty basic argument. Others clarified it. You missed it again and again. I figured some 101 might come in handy…and you still didn’t figure it out. You obviously were (are) missing some basics. Apparently you still don’t know what I was saying. But that’s okay. I’m sure you feel good about yourself by closing your eyes and ears.
Hilarious. You started trying to defend the stimulus without knowing anything about it, got pressed with questions you couldn’t answer, and started the histrionics in lieu of an argument.[/quote]
Right here is where we see you didn’t follow my argument at all. I wasn’t really defending it. Instead I was showing how your argument was flawed. I’m not sure if you can’t understand this because of bias or inability…not really my problem. But your posting style is entertaining to a point.
[quote]
Here is a hint - I supported a stimulus packages, Einstein, just not the non-stimulus package that Obama sub-contracted out to the partisan, unserious Nancy Pelosi without a blink.
My criticism is and always has been - it was never a stimulus package, it was merely a partisan spending package. More Democrats voted against than Republicans voted for it, and now economists are lining up to denounce it. [/quote]
I realize this was your argument. It’s just that you’re completely wrong is all. That’s why I posted the 101 for you. “here is a hint” when you say extreme, stupid stuff, you have to back that up at least a little. Remember before I realized you were missing the basics and I sent the OECD, IMF, and Brookings links? That was when I thought we could actually have a conversation. As it is, you’re as biased and blind as lifty. Not much I can do about it.
[quote]
Oh, I’m pretty sure I know just how that conversation would go: “It’s all obama’s fault!!!11!!!” right? “The economy would have straightened itself out, if not for those damn liberals! And btw, it was he damn liberal’s fault the economy was bad too. I’ll defend this with page after page of BS.” right? If you were actually interested in a discussion of economics, we could talk. But you either lack the basics or the capacity to put down your biases. I used to think the later, but now I’m pretty sure it’s the former.
Well, it is Obama’s fault for refusing to put Pelosi on a leash. And, yes, the economy would have straightened istelf out - President Obama even said so himself. The stimulus package was not to “fix” the economy, but ratehr to mitigate the downturn until the economy readjusted.
Obama’s package was never mehcanically designed to “stimulate” very much - how do we know? Most of the spending is scheduled to occur when Obama’s own numbers show the economy to be growing/ A stimulus isn’t needed if the economy is growing, genius.[/quote]
This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what a stimulus package is/should be. Go read that 101 link I gave and you’ll start to understand. I can’t do the learning for you. “genius”
from the 101 link:
[i]There are many different forms of potential economic stimulus and they work in different ways. Tax cuts for individuals generally encourage short-term spending. Tax cuts for companies encourage both spending and investment. Expenditures on public works create contracts for firms and provide short- to medium-term employment opportunities. Investments in research and development take a longer-term approach under the theory that businesses will thrive in the future (and thus provide jobs) if they have the money to make intelligent investments in their operations now.
Finally, some forms of economic stimulus seek to make investments that will pay off in the long run by making consumption cheaper for everybody. An example is investing in the U.S. energy grid. [/i] http://www.cfr.org/publication/18348/
Once again, you can argue against the theory if you’d like, but you seem to not even understand that it is part of the theory.
[quote]
It was simply an appropriations bill marketed as an “emergency spending” package to deal with a sick economy, because such a spending bill otherwise would have never been passed. It was dishonest politics, and we see the wages of this brand of politics right now, as support for it - as well as confidence in Obama’s ability to manage economic affairs - plummets.
You don’t have an argument. You didn’t then. You are an ankle-biting terrier at best who wants to inject partisan stupidity into every thread. Not my problem to fix, and your posts are better skipped, lest I become dumber while reading them.[/quote]
As you skipped my “guess” and just started calling names, can I then assume I was right?
The real question is whether gay marriage does more good than harm for society.
I’ve already shown in other threads that this is the case. It provides numerous benefits to the relationship itself (visiting partner in hospital, social security benefits, etc.). It benefits any children the couple may have; do you think these children would actually be better off if their parents were NOT married? Nobody in their right mind would argue that. Finally, it benefits society by adding social stability through the inherent legal responsibilities/benefits, reduces the incidence of STDs, etc.
Contrast that with the supposed “harm” caused by gay marriage. People crow about how gay marriage encourages more people to be gay, but this is based on a misunderstanding of sexual orientation. People don’t choose their sexual orientation. No matter how many gay couples get married, a straight guy is not going to magically turn gay.
Post a topic about the long-term implications of entitlement spending, or the deficit, or the Federal Reserve, or any other issue that will eventually result in the destruction of the U.S. as we know it if they are not addressed and you’ll get 10 replies.
Post a topic on gay marriage, or abortion, or “Is there a God?”, or any other topic that doesn’t matter one fucking shit and you’ll get 500 replies.
I agree - I’d only add that these are the only things we can get Left-liberals to debate are these topics. Start a thread about economics, Obamanomics, or how treasury auctions are weakening (a very big deal), and tumbleweeds blow past.
lol. Says the man (tool) who couldn’t even follow my argument on the econ thread. Let’s start another conversation about how it’s “all Obama’s fault!!1!!” or perhaps we can “grade him” a “complete failure” again…those threads are always so productive and intellectually stimulating!
Ironic since Bush had a fiscal policy that was extremely “left-wing”. That is unless massive deficits are now considered “right-wing”.[/quote]
Yeah, this stuff isn’t really a surprise. Who would have guessed that the conservatives would have blamed everything on Obama within the first 6 months of his presidency? What a surprise! Everything would be okay now, if it weren’t for those godless liberals!
[quote]forlife wrote:
The real question is whether gay marriage does more good than harm for society.
I’ve already shown in other threads that this is the case. It provides numerous benefits to the relationship itself (visiting partner in hospital, social security benefits, etc.). It benefits any children the couple may have; do you think these children would actually be better off if their parents were NOT married? Nobody in their right mind would argue that. Finally, it benefits society by adding social stability through the inherent legal responsibilities/benefits, reduces the incidence of STDs, etc.
Contrast that with the supposed “harm” caused by gay marriage. People crow about how gay marriage encourages more people to be gay, but this is based on a misunderstanding of sexual orientation. People don’t choose their sexual orientation. No matter how many gay couples get married, a straight guy is not going to magically turn gay. [/quote]
This is too true. The “con” argument is simply flat. We have those who believe “it’s just yucky and immoral!” on the surface, those who take the “natural law” bent, those who claim it’ll soon lead to the end of society, and those who claim that the Illuminati are trying to foster an end to society. Yet, strangely enough, almost all of those on the “con” side, despite what “type” they are, end up exposing that the first is actually their primary concern.
Personally, I enjoy reading about the Illuminati’s use of gay marriage and hope Zeb and HH can post some more about this.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Ok, question. Why do we even have state recognized marriage? Surely it’s not to pat lovers on the head as to say, ‘you love each other (be it 2 or a 50 person poly), so let’s give you these “You’re in love and screwing benefits.”’
Why not scrap the whole thing? Why not extend all benefits to every adult as an individual. The individual can assign all presently existing medical, death, legal benefits to a mother, a lover (though it won’t be under the title of a marriage any longer), a roommate, a co-worker, or even a total stranger (if that’s your thing). Why not?
I want YOUR reason to even recognize marriage, discriminating against single people, the libertarian, the anarchist, who’d prefer the above arrangement of these benefits? Why do you even support a recognition of marriage? What is it’s, absolute, vital, and indespinsable function, so important to society at large, that we’d single out those involved for a set of benefits? Seperating out the “married” from the unmarried?
Anarchists need not apply, we already know your answer. I’m interested in how many non-anarchists are actually of the mind-set to tear the whole thing down. It certainly would be a hidden motive.[/quote]
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Personally, I enjoy reading about the Illuminati’s use of gay marriage and hope Zeb and HH can post some more about this. [/quote]
We just acquired Citibank and have our eyes set on Bank of America next. Shhhhh, it’s a secret.
I’m not surprised by your attitude and I think that type of thinking is probably more popular among your age group than mine. What you and many in your generation fail to realize is that just about everything effects everything else eventually. It’s a matter of what sort of society that you want to live in isn’t it? What happened to something called “the greater good” of society?
Society can sanction all sorts of evils (including homosexuals getting married) instead of asking “how does that effect my life” at this moment, what you should be asking is how does that improve society and the greater good in the long term? Eventually anything that does not help society could ultimately harm it.
It was not that long ago that homosexuals were simply asking for tolerance? Now they demand marriage. Funny how one thing leads to another and the slippery slope argument is proven true time and again. What about the following should this be accepted too?
A person marrying their dog?
Polygamy?
Incestuous marriage?
A person marrying their television sets.
Adult/child marriages.
Certainly the sky will not fall if homosexuals are allowed to marry it never happens that way does it? It’s simply one more step in the wrong direction which will absolutely lead to other even more perverse groups asking, no demanding that same right. How foolish to think that the the institution of marriage, once tampered with will never be changed again? All of this will in fact effect you your future children and all of society as it continues to chisle away at the basic family structure which has served mankind so very well for the past 5000 years.
The greater good is not a very popular. It doesn’t have it’s own lobby group and asks nothing from the government. However, I assure you if we continue to ignore it we as a society will suffer a great deal of damage as a result.
You do realise that the “instituion of marriage” has been tampered with before right? I haven’t seen any threads arguing for the banning of divorces though.
Couples have always had the desire and means to part that’s nothing new.
it was not that long ago that homosexuals were simply asking for tolerance? Now they demand marriage. Funny how one thing leads to another and the slippery slope argument is proven true time and again. What about the following should this be accepted too?
A person marrying their dog?
A dog can’t enter a legal contract so this won’t ever be an issue.
Don’t be foolish enough to frame your entire argument around the debate that rages today. A new debate can begin with it’s premise rooted in the fact that a man can do with his own property what he likes and that may include marriage.
Polygamy?
Already allowed in many parts of the world, and by many religions (how many wives did King Solomon have?). As long as there is no coersion or abuse, I don’t see why this is so bad.
As long as the knife thrower doesn’t hit the person I don’t anything wrong with that either. YIKES.
Incestuous marriage?
I’m not sure why someone would want to do this,
Most of the country still doesn’t quite get why one man would want to marry another man, so I guess we have to look beyond our personal preferences.
A person marrying their television sets.
A television can’t enter a legal contract so this won’t ever be an issue.
Remember that personal property argument? Okay, enough said.
Adult/child marriages.
A child can’t enter a legal contract so this won’t ever be an issue.
But it will be an issue eventually. NAMBLA is working on it as we speak. All they have to do is get the legal age of consent lowered and POOF, kids will be able to marry adults.
Furthermore, I’ve yet to be convinced that recognizing (and in fact rewarding) gay people in stable relationships would somehow hurt society.
I think you need to look at the facts. There are very, very few “stable gay relationships”. In fact one study has shown that even those gays who claim to be in a stable relationship have occasional sex outside of that relationship.
The point of the list of non-traditional marriages was show people that once the boundary lines are moved they can be moved again and again and it matters not what the perverse relationship is.
You may want to do some reading on Henry VIII. It might interest you to know that divorce wasn’t always allowed.[/quote]
Couples have always been able to split, live elsewhere and otherwise indeed no longer be a “couple”. There are no laws that can or ever will change that. Simple.
[quote]
What about the following should this be accepted too?
A person marrying their dog?
A dog can’t enter a legal contract so this won’t ever be an issue.
Don’t be foolish enough to frame your entire argument around the debate that rages today. A new debate can begin with it’s premise rooted in the fact that a man can do with his own property what he likes and that may include marriage.
Uh no. Marriage requires consent of two people (perhaps more in the future). It also requires a signature on the contract. Until a dog, or TV or child is given the legal right to enter a binding contract, we don’t have to worry about this. It has nothing to do with gay marriage.[/quote]
Um yes. You want to change marriage right? What makes you think that it cannot be changed further? There will be people who take it one more step. If you own the property then it should be your right to marry that property.
Why do you want to discriminate?
Why don’t you want these people to be happy?
Sniff, sniff.
Yea, it will happen at some level.
[quote]Polygamy?
Already allowed in many parts of the world, and by many religions (how many wives did King Solomon have?). As long as there is no coersion or abuse, I don’t see why this is so bad.
As long as the knife thrower doesn’t hit the person I don’t anything wrong with that either. YIKES.
I take it you object to circus performers then? What about people using guns for target practice? Does that elicit a “YIKES” from you too?
Frankly, I don’t see a problem with someone throwing knives as long as they don’t hit anyone.
Now back on topic: do you have a better rebuttal?[/quote]
Polygamy has been shown to be very detrimental to women. Your statement that “if there is no harm done” is foolish and demonstrates that you do not understand the inherent problem with polygamy.
As with the knife thrower there is never a problem if YOU are the one throwing the knives.
You’ll get it, hang in there.
[quote]Incestuous marriage?
I’m not sure why someone would want to do this,
Most of the country still doesn’t quite get why one man would want to marry another man, so I guess we have to look beyond our personal preferences.
I’m glad we agree. Good to see you growing and starting to become a more accepting person.[/quote]
I’ve always been accepting, but I draw the line when it comes to accepting something that will change the face of society for the worse. Two homosexuals marrying is not a good thing for society. Changing a 5000 year old institution for about 1% of the population is not needed and a very bad idea. But I do tolerate homosexual couples and have every desire to protect their rights from those who would discriminate against them relative to a job etc.
[quote]Adult/child marriages.
A child can’t enter a legal contract so this won’t ever be an issue.
But it will be an issue eventually. NAMBLA is working on it as we speak. All they have to do is get the legal age of consent lowered and POOF, kids will be able to marry adults.
So start a thread about the age of consent if this concerns you. This has nothing to do with gay people (except of course gay people who want to marry children).[/quote]
This has everything to do with the slippery slope which we are on. I have no idea how old you are but I can only guess that you are in your 20’s and either in college or just out of college (I do not mean that in an insulting way just as a point of fact). You have not lived long enough to see first hand where we were and how fast we got to this place. The things that you find offensive, or unrealistic such as child/adult marriage, incestuous marriage etc. will most likely follow should gay marriage gain a strong foothold. Things always progress, forward, sometimes for the good, other times for the bad.
Tell me what gives you the right to say to polygamists, adult/child marriages or incestuous couples that they do not have the right to marry? What makes you think that they are already not in line watching patiently for the outcome of the gay marriage debate? In fact that is exactly what many of these more diverse groups are doing. What’s next on the horizon? I am against gay marriage on its own merits. However, it will usher in a land slide of copy cat and otherwise even more perverse marriage ideas. If this 5000 year old institution is changed once it will be changed again and again to accommodate everyone. If you are for this then by all means continue your support for gay marriage. But, do not deny the likely possibility that it will occur if you do then you better brush up on your history as to how we got where we are today.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Ok, question. Why do we even have state recognized marriage? Surely it’s not to pat lovers on the head as to say, ‘you love each other (be it 2 or a 50 person poly), so let’s give you these “You’re in love and screwing benefits.”’
Why not scrap the whole thing? Why not extend all benefits to every adult as an individual. The individual can assign all presently existing medical, death, legal benefits to a mother, a lover (though it won’t be under the title of a marriage any longer), a roommate, a co-worker, or even a total stranger (if that’s your thing). Why not?
I want YOUR reason to even recognize marriage, discriminating against single people, the libertarian, the anarchist, who’d prefer the above arrangement of these benefits? Why do you even support a recognition of marriage? What is it’s, absolute, vital, and indespinsable function, so important to society at large, that we’d single out those involved for a set of benefits? Seperating out the “married” from the unmarried?
Anarchists need not apply, we already know your answer. I’m interested in how many non-anarchists are actually of the mind-set to tear the whole thing down. It certainly would be a hidden motive.
Anyone?[/quote]
Who wants to tear the whole thing down? We’re talking about extending the rights and benefits of marriage to a segment of the population who wants them. Just because it doesn’t fit into YOUR definition of normal doesn’t mean that it’s tearing the whole thing down.
They probably said the same thing about blacks and whites marrying once. Hell, even Muhammud Ali did. It doesn’t mean he was right, and it certainly didn’t bring down the system.
Your post characterizes the massive overreation to this issue that is, frankly, not all that crazy.
Who wants to tear the whole thing down? We’re talking about extending the rights and benefits of marriage to a segment of the population who wants them. Just because it doesn’t fit into YOUR definition of normal doesn’t mean that it’s tearing the whole thing down.
They probably said the same thing about blacks and whites marrying once. Hell, even Muhammud Ali did. It doesn’t mean he was right, and it certainly didn’t bring down the system.
Your post characterizes the massive overreation to this issue that is, frankly, not all that crazy.
[/quote]
Well, I’m interested in your answer.
[quote]
Why not scrap the whole thing? Why not extend all benefits to every adult as an individual. The individual can assign all presently existing medical, death, legal benefits to a mother, a lover (though it won’t be under the title of a marriage any longer), a roommate, a co-worker, or even a total stranger (if that’s your thing). Why not?
I want YOUR reason to even recognize marriage, discriminating against single people, the libertarian, the anarchist, who’d prefer the above arrangement of these benefits? Why do you even support a recognition of marriage? What is the absolute, vital, and indespinsable function, so important to society at large, that we’d single out those involved for a set of benefits? Seperating out the “married” from the unmarried?[/quote]
Says the diehard conservative? Since when did you give a fuck about the greater good?
Wow, that was sort of harsh. I think if you look at what true conservatism is you’ll find that conservatives are in fact the care takers of “the greater good”. We could start with actually wanting people to keep their own money instead of turning it over to the government that squanders it quite quickly. But then you are not foolish enough to think otherwise are you? No, no of course not.
You’re such a condescinding pric. Care takers of the greater good is laughable. More like the caretakers of the establishment that you’ve benefitted from, nothing more. Progressives are far more caring about the “Greater good.”[/quote]
You know Irish, I’ve always tolerated your ignorance and chalked it off to immaturity. But blaming people who have worked hard to get ahead is even low for you. The fact that you are wasting your life working for minimum wage (or something close) should not make you so jealous of the fact that others who have actually tried harder and might be a tad smarter earn more money. You must be thrilled that the great class warfare President is now in office and equally disappointed that his programs are being harpooned by his own Congress.
Makes me smile though.
[quote]I am still not seeing how it affects society. And no one seems to want to answer that.
Perhaps because you don’t yet have children or even a wife as far as I know. When you do you’ll think again. Infecting our society with acceptance of homosexual marriage would be a very bad idea. Keep in mind it has never been proven to be genetic and in fact could very well be environmental.
Oh right! The “you’re too young” argument![/quote]
You’re making me laugh now, thank you.
How many times do world leaders seek out the advice of a teenager when they want to solve a real problem?
You can’t drive a vehicle until a certain age depending on your state.
You can’t vote until you’re 21.
You can’t drink until you’re 21.
You can’t run for President until you’re 35.
But you keep believing that age is irrelevant, it continues to demonstrate your immaturity.
Really? Here are my core beliefs what are yours?
I believe that marriage is for one man and one woman.
I think that children should be raised to respect their elders.
I believe in God.
I believe that hard work and persistence leads to success.
I believe that everyone regardless of race, creed, gender or sexual orientation deserves an equal opportunity for a job.
Tell me Irish how does any of this make me a danger to society? Have you lost touch with reality? I hope not.
Now tell me some of your core beliefs Irish.
I see you’re stereotyping all Christians. I would expect as much from an ignorant kid like you and I got it, so I’m not disappointed.
The fact is there is as much if not more evidence that it is almost totally environmental as it is genetic. But, you don’t know this because you’ve convinced yourself otherwise from the various pop culture nonsense.
It’s okay I understand it’s much more difficult to think for yourself open your mind and read about alternative ideas.
You are like most liberals, you say your against stereotyping and then immediately stereotype every single person who speaks against you, just as you’ve done to me.
You say you’re open minded but then shut out anything that conflicts with your preconceived notions. Nothing new here (I’m yawning).
[quote]
Homosexual billboards, magazines, books etc. shaping childrens beliefs and sexuality?
YOU should be shaping your child’s beliefs. If you lose to a billboard and a commercial, I’d say you’re a pretty shitty parent. [/quote]
Spoken like a young kid who has never married or had children. Good job Irish, you’re not letting me down!
Surprise, my children actually spend time away from me and their mother. They are exposed to what their friends see, and what is printed in society. They play on sports teams and travel. They watch TV and read things that I cannot control. If we lived in a better society it would be much easier to raise children properly. But people like you who use such foolish excuses don’t understand this.
[quote]Grade school teachers teaching that homosexuality is something to explore?
Propaganda. Blatant propaganda. Grade school teacher don’t push homosexuality. [/quote]
Try to keep up Irish, I know I’m going fast but this one should be easy for you.
We are talking about a future society that has accepted gay marriage, remember? You asked how it would effect your life. Any of this sound remotely familiar?
If it becomes mainstream these are the things that you will have to put up with. But wait this won’t effect you or any future children that you have right? And if it did you don’t care do you? If your son comes home one day and introduces you to his new boyfriend you don’t mind, right?
So, no problem.
[quote]
The further spread of the HIV virus because there is nothing holding the line on male/male sex? Have you seen the CDC statistics? I’ve posted them many times. Almost 70% of all new HIV cases are homosexual men. Should we be promoting this type of behavior? I don’t think so.
I think Africa’s got the big problem with AIDS, and it’s not because of the gays. More often then not, it’s caused by unsafe sexual practices, none of which the churches help through their damning of contraceptives. [/quote]
Are you even paying attention this debate that we’re having? WOW.
We are talking about what homosexuality has brought to OUR society, not Africa, but the USA.
Here I’ll make it easy for you as I know you don’t like to research anything that might contradict your beliefs:
[quote]
Your health costs going up because of the rise in homosexuality and the disease that it spreads?
I think I’ll worry more about the 70 percent of the popualtion that is obese, or the percent that are smokers and drunks. [/quote]
Oh I see some things are just as bad so you won’t pay any attention to something that is as bad and will get worse if promoted, is that it?
Your logic along with your ability to follow along SUCK.
[quote]The list is endless, I’ve only touched on a few direct consequences there are many, many indirect as well. But, you won’t get it until you have your own wife and kids then you will understand.
The only thing that is endless is your audacious idiocy. There’s plenty of married men who don’t give a shit if the gays marry. It’s just the bitter old Biblethumpers like you that can’t get over it. But your generation is on it’s way out, and not a moment too soon- before you spread more of your reckless hatred.[/quote]
I think you have plenty of reckless hatred yourself my young, ignorant and very, very stupid friend.
My generation is now in power and will be there for at least another 20 years. But society is indeed on the down fall because of people like you. My point is that I think your side will indeed eventually win.
What you end up with you will deserve.
[quote]
There will always be a section of people who live like this. It’s not a big segment, but it’s there. Let them live.
Here is where we agree. I want to let them live and I do not hold with any discrimination against them in any way relative to work etc. However, they have no right to literally change a 5000 year old institution to fit their own desires. Since when does 1% of the population have this opportunity?
And homosexuality is far from incest, beastilaity, or child abuse. Two consenting adults is enough for me… I don’t care what sex they are. [/quote]
Are you also for polygamy and incest? Both will surely follow.
[quote]
And in 1979 most thought that homosexuality was perverse, disgusting, immoral and depraved (did I leave anything out? Ha). But the magic of 30 years of lobbying by various homosexual groups has changed public opinion. Just as 10 or 20 more years will change public opinion regarding a long list of non-traditional marriage ideas. I want you to tell me where this ends? Do you have any idea? No, no one can know this.
I don’t want to be insulting Irish, I like you in fact, but you have not lived long enough to see exactly how opinions are formed and how society can be shaped by a constant drum beat from an overly accepting media and powerful lobby groups with a dead aim on the target of molding public opinion. Back in the 80’s we’d have laughed if anyone even suggested that homosexual be allowed to marry. What you are laughing at today will most certainly be promoted as an open minded new idea fro equal rights in 10 or 20 years.
Today homosexuality, something else after that. You can bet on it!
You’re not worth resonding to. I did this years ago with you, and I know you’ll just go on and on and on and on, spreading the viciousness directed towards people that never wronged you.[/quote]
Once again you’ve made me chuckle. You are one of the nastiest posters on this board. At times you seem filled with a venom that can only come from the most unhappy heart. How you got this way is not up to me to figure out. One suggestion, learn to tolerate the views of those who may think differently than you. This may come with age and experience, I hope for your sake it does. In the mean time try to stay away from the liberal PC koolaide dispenser you seem about to explode.
[quote]
The only possible thing I can think of is that you’re like the neighbor from American Beauty… and it wouldn’t surprise me at all.
And, as always, when someone gives me the “You’re too young” argument- fuck yourself with that one. I don’t know if you try to come off as some wise old man, but in reality you come off as a bitter old member of a school of thought that is quickly dying out.[/quote]
Well there is a lot to be said for what you have, but immaturity and ignorance are nothing to be proud of so I’ll leave it alone.
I could politely ask you to stop spouting profanity and actually make sense but I’ve seen others far smarter than I try this with you to no avail so I’ll forgo this exercise in futility.
Since you think your generation is full of answers and great wisdom I’ll simply end by asking you this: show me some examples where youth and inexperience have created better more insightful decision makers.
Contrast that with the supposed “harm” caused by gay marriage. People crow about how gay marriage encourages more people to be gay, but this is based on a misunderstanding of sexual orientation. People don’t choose their sexual orientation. No matter how many gay couples get married, a straight guy is not going to magically turn gay. [/quote]
Wrong again forlife.
You and I have no idea how people become gay. The environmental factor is just as possible as a genetic cause. The fact that you and yours will not accept this does not make it untrue. If gay marriage were to be accepted it would not be a positive thing for society.
Need I post more statistics regarding what passes for a solid gay relationship? The facts are not pretty and nothing I’d want even more people exposed to.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I learned long ago that you argue with complete disregard for logic.
I’m not wasting more time of my life arguing about this with you. All I can say is that it’s on the way, and it makes me happy that it’s going to keep people like you up all night while damning the gays for being evil.[/quote]
After trading a few hundred posts with him, I’ve reached exactly the same conclusion.
"In 2005, a Washington state man died after having sex with a horse. The 45-year-old suffered a perforated colon after being penetrated, according to police.
â??It piqued the attention of the legislators,â?? Bell said.
The state now has a law making sex with an animal a felony."
From your link.
I guy actually had a horse fuck him in the ass. I thought I seen some crazy shit but that is outside the bounds of imagination. I’m still shocked by that. Words escape me.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
A bunch of crybaby bullshit
I learned long ago that you argue with complete disregard for logic. [/quote]
Yet you are unable to give any solid examples of this lack of logic. But it’s as good a way as any for you to run away, so you might as well take it.
[quote]I’m not wasting more time of my life arguing about this with you. All I can say is that it’s on the way, and it makes me happy that it’s going to keep people like you up all night while damning the gays for being evil.
I like that one alot. [/quote]
This final statement of yours clearly demonstrates that you’ve once again used stereotyping in your response. I think this is three times if memory serves. It’s funny how liberals always do what they don’t want others to do. It sort of reminds me of the conundrum that is “hate speech”. You see Mr. closed minded liberal When I read statements like “people like you” or “all you Bible thumpers” I know I’m not speaking with anyone who has an open mind or can even deal with those who have differing opinions. That not only shows immaturity on your part (something that you could not rebut earlier) but ignorance as well. but then those two things have been your hallmark on this board for quite a few years now haven’t they?
One more point, I never lie awake worrying about things that are out of my control. I know that there is someone much wiser and far more powerful who is in control and I’m not talking about your hero, Obama.
