Powerful people aren’t afraid of gays, single mothers or children. They are afraid of proud strong men who have families to protect. This is behind the degradation of men and degradation of heterosexual marriage.
[quote]forlife wrote:
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.
After trading a few hundred posts with him, I’ve reached exactly the same conclusion.[/quote]
This coming from someone who refused to answer three very basic questions that were posed on several occasions. Then claiming that social workers and other public employees were major medical health care professionals. I’m sure that anyone who has been truly neutral who has followed your posts is by now solidly against gay marriage. For that I can thank you.
You have shown yourself to be disingenuous and a coward at heart. Apparently your shame has no bounds.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
My objection is that the entire point of “marriage” is to exalt/set aside/privilege one superior relationship over all the others. We formally recognize marriage because we want more of it - we want more unions of one man, one woman, and the where that ultimately leads - them raising their children.
Marriage is a Means, not an End.
[/quote]
I agree that the traditional straight definition of marriage is best for society and raising children. Divorce law is destroying the institution of marriage. A couple of faggots getting married is irrelevant, a red-herring.
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Divorce law is destroying the institution of marriage. A couple of faggots getting married is irrelevant, a red-herring. [/quote]
There we go.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Ideally, I would say the biological parents, yes. But we never deal in the ideal, because that’s not what happens in real life. The best arrangement would be for two level headed and loving parents to raise kid- and given that this world is never perfect, I’d say that sex of the parents is secondary to how much they love the kid.[/quote]
Of course we never deal in the ideal - that is precisely the reason we have marriage: to encourage people toward the best situation.
You have it exactly backwards. We don’t have the public institution of marriage because we are perfect - we have it because we are not.
It is the test model - you have even agreed to that. What is irrelevant is letting the exception define the rule. There will always be some bad bioloigcal parents - that doesn’t defeat the rule that in society we want to do everything in our power to encourage children being raised by their biological parents.
You are confused again - generally, the “bloodlines” if the child are going to be the ones most interested in loving the child. Even more importantly, we want the “bloodlines” to not only love the child, but take full responsibility for them.
Marriage isn’t just about showing children “love” - it is also about ordering the creation of children responsibly in the first place.
Predictable. No, it isn’t about married people feeling “special”, it is about making a distinct policy preserving and encouraging the best option.
Has nothing to do with “feeling” a certain way. I never claimed it would make couples “feel bad” - that has never been the issue, never been argued. Keep up.
Marriage exists for a reason. By your (made up) theory, it is some useless relic or quirk that serves no purpose other than to make non-traditional relationships feel less than equal. Well, I can do everything for you - maybe you should consider why we have marriage and the purposes it has served Western civilization.
Oh, super - more relativistic jibberish. Nope, it’s not just my idiosyncratic hobby to think marriage serves important functions related to child ordering.
“Broad strokes” is exactly why we have the policy, Irish. It’s based on a general rule. You want to create so many exceptions to the rule that the rule gets eviscerated.
And you have made clearly the point I wanted to raise with the original post - that if each person is entitled to define marriage his/her/their own way and have that definition recognized…which you unequivocally support…then we effectively negate marriage entirely.
No thanks. I don’t want to see the tragedy of the destruction of marriage and family we see in inner cities writ large.
Oh, and the unfinished business of the original post - why are so many gay marriage advocates backing away from any association with polyamorists?
I’ve been told that such behavior constitutes unalloyed bigotry.
It seems that the slope is pretty slippery in Canada:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Oh, and the unfinished business of the original post - why are so many gay marriage advocates backing away from any association with polyamorists?
I’ve been told that such behavior constitutes unalloyed bigotry.[/quote]
Well, what IS wrong with polyamorists? Assuming they stick to the laws regarding age of consent, I’m at a loss as to why that is banned as well as gay marriage.
And before someone decides to play the bestiality card, animals can’t give informed consent. Until we can understand them (aka translate their growling and barking into plain English) that is and should remain illegal.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Well, what IS wrong with polyamorists? Assuming they stick to the laws regarding age of consent, I’m at a loss as to why that is banned as well as gay marriage.[/quote]
A fabulous, dissembling non-answer to my question.
Why are gay marriage advocates not being supportive of polyamorists’ marriage rights? Why are they avoiding association? I mean, not standing up for the marriage rights of polyamorists is plain bigotry.
Mak, do you have an answer?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Well, what IS wrong with polyamorists? Assuming they stick to the laws regarding age of consent, I’m at a loss as to why that is banned as well as gay marriage.
A fabulous, dissembling non-answer to my question.
Why are gay marriage advocates not being supportive of polyamorists’ marriage rights? Why are they avoiding association? I mean, not standing up for the marriage rights of polyamorists is plain bigotry.
Mak, do you have an answer?[/quote]
If I had to guess, it’s because they don’t need the association with the somewhat pedophilia-based nature of the cults that have promoted polygamy in the past.