Any Dudes Wanna Get Married?

[therajraj]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Because you don’t have to open the floodgates and allow EVERYTHING simply because you changed one thing. As I said in the previous post we are allowed to draw arbitrary lines.

[/quote]

Then you can arbitrarily exclude homosexuals, along with all other arrangments, in favor of the status quo. So, what’s the issue?[/quote]

That’s true and perhaps for the longest time it was best homosexual marriages were not recognized by the state. But if popular opinion heads towards approval of gay marriage would it be so bad if we move the line a little?

[/quote]

So, basically, to carry this question to it’s logical conclusion, should we go along with defining married as “adult citizen” if that’s popular opinion?

[/quote]

You’re just taking my argument to absurd levels. Marriage = adult citizen? Give me a break

Can you provide an example where the changing of a popular opinion on a major issue led to negative social change?

[ZEB]

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Because you don’t have to open the floodgates and allow EVERYTHING simply because you changed one thing. As I said in the previous post we are allowed to draw arbitrary lines.

[/quote]

Then you can arbitrarily exclude homosexuals, along with all other arrangments, in favor of the status quo. So, what’s the issue?[/quote]

That’s true and perhaps for the longest time it was best homosexual marriages were not recognized by the state. But if popular opinion heads towards approval of gay marriage would it be so bad if we move the line a little?

[/quote]

So, basically, to carry this question to it’s logical conclusion, should we go along with defining married as “adult citizen” if that’s popular opinion?

[/quote]

You’re just taking my argument to absurd levels. Marriage = adult citizen? Give me a break

Can you provide an example where the changing of a popular opinion on a major issue led to negative social change?

[/quote]

When they lowered the drinking age to 18 in some states. They saw traffic fatalities climb along with other undesirable events. However, you have it all wrong as homosexual marriage is not something that the people are for. Most survey’s still indicate that the majority of Americans are against gay marriage. And this has been proven in referendums across the country. I don’t believe to date that gay marriage has ever won on a referendum. It is the politicians and mostly various liberal judges that have brought us gay marriage.

As to Sloth’s point he is spot on. Once marriage is redefined it is open season. What separates homosexual marriage from polygamous, or incestuous marriage? The real difference is that neither of those are popular with state houses or at the judicial level. Could be because neither has the money or organization compared to the various homosexual groups. But other than that once the door is opened they will in fact walk right in, eventually.

[therajraj]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Because you don’t have to open the floodgates and allow EVERYTHING simply because you changed one thing. As I said in the previous post we are allowed to draw arbitrary lines.

[/quote]

Then you can arbitrarily exclude homosexuals, along with all other arrangments, in favor of the status quo. So, what’s the issue?[/quote]

That’s true and perhaps for the longest time it was best homosexual marriages were not recognized by the state. But if popular opinion heads towards approval of gay marriage would it be so bad if we move the line a little?

[/quote]

So, basically, to carry this question to it’s logical conclusion, should we go along with defining married as “adult citizen” if that’s popular opinion?

[/quote]

You’re just taking my argument to absurd levels. Marriage = adult citizen? Give me a break

Can you provide an example where the changing of a popular opinion on a major issue led to negative social change?

[/quote]

When they lowered the drinking age to 18 in some states. They saw traffic fatalities climb along with other undesirable events. However, you have it all wrong as homosexual marriage is not something that the people are for. Most survey’s still indicate that the majority of Americans are against gay marriage. And this has been proven in referendums across the country. I don’t believe to date that gay marriage has ever won on a referendum. It is the politicians and mostly various liberal judges that have brought us gay marriage.

As to Sloth’s point he is spot on. Once marriage is redefined it is open season. What separates homosexual marriage from polygamous, or incestuous marriage? The real difference is that neither of those are popular with state houses or at the judicial level. Could be because neither has the money or organization compared to the various homosexual groups. But other than that once the door is opened they will in fact walk right in, eventually.

[/quote]

I never said gay marriage was the popular opinion. I’m saying if popular opinion on a major issue changes there’s nothing wrong with making social change along with that opinion.

Do you have proof that the lowering of the drinking age caused an increase in vehicle related fatalities?

Even if you do, there are multiple examples where the changing of popular opinion spurred positive social change.

A prime example already used in this thread - miscegenation.

[Sloth]

[quote]therajraj wrote:

You’re just taking my argument to absurd levels.[/quote]

Of course, I’m the one treating your argument consistently. To actually follow your position, is absurdity. Since this ends up not being a principled position, I assume it acceptance of the fad.

[quote] Can you provide an example where the changing of a popular opinion on a major issue led to negative social change?

[/quote]

Well, marriage…Sexual norms…Children out of wedlock…etc.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

However well intentioned they may be, believers are hurting people due to their own misguided beliefs. This is why I say that I have nothing against religion if it makes people happy, as long as believers don’t push their beliefs on others. Unfortunately, sometimes they do just that.

it has nothing to do with religion, per se.
it’s a political issue. no more, no less.

the State is meant to protect and promote the “res publica”, the “general interest”.

as such, it should NOT endorse, promote, prescribe or privilege anything that can’t be generalized.
homosexuality can’t be generalized, for obvious reasons.
Therefore it should NOT be endorsed, promoted, prescribed or privileged by the State.

Tolerated yes. Protected maybe. but that’s it.

[/quote]

I was addressing the negative effects of homophobic religious beliefs on people’s lives in that post, aside from the political question.

On your point, being black can’t be generalized, believing in Allah can’t be generalized, being disabled can’t be generalized etc. yet it would be discriminatory to offer marriage only to whites, Christians, and people without disabilities.
[/quote]You are NOT this simple elder forlife.

[Sloth]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Further, even in infertile couples, most likely one of the individuals is fertile, and their marriage continues to support the traditional mission of marriage by discouraging that the fertile-but-married individual from getting in the business of illegitimate children.

[/quote]

Yep! And even when both are infertile, what the child sees is that men and women grow up, take vows, and marry. Nature and numbers fullfills the actual purpose. Infertile couples still exhibit the desired model, period. They support the frequency to which this arrangment is encountered, making it a deeply ingrained norm. I for one won’t go over this point, again. I just will not play these stupid games on this forum anymore.[/quote]

How about addressing my point that what the child sees are people getting the benefits of marriage with no intention to ever have children? This directly threatens your model of marriage, because it removes the motivation to have children and offers a CONFLICTING model, whereby people can marry without ever having children.

If people can get married without having children, why the hell would they be motivated and incented to follow your model?

They wouldn’t, and you know it as well as I do.[/quote]

Knock it off. Your question implies that it’s better to have THOSE men and women ordering sex outside of marriage. As if THAT would be a preferable model to those same children…

The model, one last time, is that men and women come together as opposite sexes, ordering sex within a committed relationship. Nature and numbers, regardless of private intent or biological dysfunction, ensure the purpose. In the meantime, the better model is that the infertile, or the not ready, or the never, are ordering sex within committed relationships with the opposite sex (that smallest unit). The only alternative (which you should have realized) is that we make a model of sex outside of marriage for the opposite sexes. That’s it forlife, I mean it. There’s only so much trolling a debate I’ll tolerate.

[ZEB]

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I never said gay marriage was the popular opinion. I’m saying if popular opinion on a major issue changes there’s nothing wrong with making social change along with that opinion.[/quote]

I don’t know, I guess that depends on the topic and the amount of change. People want to change the 5000 year old institution of marriage for what? Less than 1% of the population (the percentage of gays who are interested in marriage)? How does that help society? While I can think of a number of ways it can hurt it and the institution of marriage. And many of them has been discussed on this thread.

o you have proof that the lowering of the drinking age caused an increase in vehicle related fatalities?

Yeah, look up the Justice Department statistics on age group vehicular traffic accidents due to alcohol. But this should be no surprise to any of us. If 18 year olds are allowed to drink then there are obviously going to be more alcohol related traffic accidents in this age group. Just as if alcohol were banned completely you’d see less alcohol related traffic accidents. And no I am not for prohibition.

[quote]Even if you do, there are multiple examples where the changing of popular opinion spurred positive social change.
[/quote]

I’m not saying that popular opinion cannot bring about positive change. In fact, I wish that popular opinion could determine gay marriage. Instead we have a host of liberal judges and weak kneed spineless politicians who are making these decisions. Like they’ve done so well in the past.

[ZEB]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

However well intentioned they may be, believers are hurting people due to their own misguided beliefs. This is why I say that I have nothing against religion if it makes people happy, as long as believers don’t push their beliefs on others. Unfortunately, sometimes they do just that.

it has nothing to do with religion, per se.
it’s a political issue. no more, no less.

the State is meant to protect and promote the “res publica”, the “general interest”.

as such, it should NOT endorse, promote, prescribe or privilege anything that can’t be generalized.
homosexuality can’t be generalized, for obvious reasons.
Therefore it should NOT be endorsed, promoted, prescribed or privileged by the State.

Tolerated yes. Protected maybe. but that’s it.

[/quote]

I was addressing the negative effects of homophobic religious beliefs on people’s lives in that post, aside from the political question.

On your point, being black can’t be generalized, believing in Allah can’t be generalized, being disabled can’t be generalized etc. yet it would be discriminatory to offer marriage only to whites, Christians, and people without disabilities.
[/quote]You are NOT this simple elder forlife.
[/quote]

Trib, it’s not that forlife is simple, not at all. He’s simply devious. In addition to that when he’s called out on it he throws a tantrum and refuses to talk to the person(s) who called him out. Therefore, he gets to take his devious act on the road with yet more posters. Until those posters call him out and then he moves on to others. Keep in mind I’ve watched his act for several years.

[Cortes]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Further, even in infertile couples, most likely one of the individuals is fertile, and their marriage continues to support the traditional mission of marriage by discouraging that the fertile-but-married individual from getting in the business of illegitimate children.

[/quote]

Yep! And even when both are infertile, what the child sees is that men and women grow up, take vows, and marry. Nature and numbers fullfills the actual purpose. Infertile couples still exhibit the desired model, period. They support the frequency to which this arrangment is encountered, making it a deeply ingrained norm. I for one won’t go over this point, again. I just will not play these stupid games on this forum anymore.[/quote]

How about addressing my point that what the child sees are people getting the benefits of marriage with no intention to ever have children? This directly threatens your model of marriage, because it removes the motivation to have children and offers a CONFLICTING model, whereby people can marry without ever having children.

If people can get married without having children, why the hell would they be motivated and incented to follow your model?

They wouldn’t, and you know it as well as I do.[/quote]

Forlife, the next time you bring up confirmatory bias in one of the religious threads I’m going to throw up the link to this thread. You clearly are not exempt.

You mind telling us just what the purpose of marriage is, if it aint what Sloth and TB here posit?

[Makavali]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You are NOT this simple elder forlife.[/quote]

Oh shut up you condescending prick. This bullshit coming from a guy who got confused to the meaning of “your interpretation of Christianity”.

[Makavali]

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Forlife, the next time you bring up confirmatory bias in one of the religious threads I’m going to throw up the link to this thread. You clearly are not exempt.

You mind telling us just what the purpose of marriage is, if it aint what Sloth and TB here posit?[/quote]

Marriage doesn’t have a single purpose, despite what people might think. Marriage has multiple purposes, which don’t all have to be fulfilled.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Oh shut up you condescending prick. This bullshit coming from a guy who got confused to the meaning of “your interpretation of Christianity”.[/quote]

Mak, there might be a number of people on this site who can claim enough intellectual superiority to chastise someone else for being dumb - but you aren’t one of them.

The adults are talking here - and the Cartoon Channel awaits your undivided attention.

[Makavali]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Oh shut up you condescending prick. This bullshit coming from a guy who got confused to the meaning of “your interpretation of Christianity”.[/quote]

Mak, there might be a number of people on this site who can claim enough intellectual superiority to chastise someone else for being dumb - but you aren’t one of them.

The adults are talking here - and the Cartoon Channel awaits your undivided attention.[/quote]

Please, you can hardly talk. Disguising your prose as substance when in reality you know if you said what you mean plainly you know people would ignore you.

And it’s hilarious that you insist on replying to forlife when he has stated he is done listening to your trite condescension.

[Grneyes]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

They are not “long time pals”, they are LIFE PARTNERS! Just like you and your spouse are LIFE PARTNERS. What’s wrong with wanting the same privileges?[/quote]

So? You completely avoided the question. Who cares if they’re life partners? Does that make them better than John Doe and his pal? Are they a higher form of human being?

EDIT: Equating a gay relationship to a friendship is ignorant.

Nope. The reality is, you can’t answer my question without discriminating. Ok, so in the gay relationship they have sex. Um, and? We’re supposed to put them on a pedestal above other forms of human relationships because they’re having sex? Bigotry.

They love just like you and your wife love. We’re not talking about your best buddy you’ve known since you were 5, we’re talking about the person you want to spend the rest of your life with

Again, why are you discriminating against one relationship as oppossed to the other? Great you love/have sex with someone in contrast to the love/no sex of a different relationship. Whoopdie-doo, bigot.

What the hell is so special about homosexuals having sex that they’re afforded priviledges above and beyond that of two drinking buddies? WHY are you discriminating?! Why are you carving out a special little niche for homosexual relationships, legaly stamping an approval on it, granting it special privilidges and telling us that this is anti-discrimination when it isn’t?!

Pro-gay marriage folk are so bass-ackwards in thought. In their little quest to stamp out bigotry, inequality, and discrimination the fools have singled out one human relationship to also privilidge above others! And they thought they were doing the opposite the whole damn time, lol.

Why? Because for many of you, it’s a fad. You were tricked into using the state to priviledge yet another group to the exclusion of other forms of human relationship. Lady Gaga said so, it must be done. You folks never stopped to think. Never caught on that you weren’t fighting discrimination. You were instead discriminating all along.

Unless, of course, you’re simply using gay marriage as a launching pad for ‘undefining’ marriage to the point of absurdity. That is, you’d extend ‘marriage’ to whatever imaginative arrangment consenting adults might come up with. Even if it’s John Doe and his best pals/roommates.

Why don’t we really fight bigotry and have the congress classify every american as a married person, no matter sex or lack of it, relationships or lack of ‘em. Marriage could just be redefined to mean, "person.’ Oh, sweet, sweet, progressive utopia.

Geeze.[/quote]

Again, a gay relationship is just like any other ROMANTIC relationship. They are not friends having sex. I don’t understand your persistence in assuming a ROMANTIC gay relationship is just a friendship with benefits. They’re not just two guys or two women banging. They are in a committed long-term relationship, just like any other heterosexual ROMANTIC relationship. Are you assuming that because they are gay, they cannot have such a relationship and have just relegated it to a friendship with benefits?

I can ask you the same question you asked me: what’s so special about a man and woman having sex that they get special benefits? Huh? Answer me that question!!! They’re just a man and woman banging, right? No deep love, romantic committed relationship there, right?

[Grneyes]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Why put mixed-marriages on a pedestal?

[/quote]

Because they can fullfill the most basic and critical role for civilized humanity just a well as a racially homogeneous couple. Rearing children in intact homes, with both biological parents present in a committed relationship. Humanity goes on without missing a beat if homosexuality disappeared. If heterosexuality vanished, humanity would disappear.

Not one person supporting gay marriage, yet denying an even larger agenda for marriage, has ever friggen explained why they choose to privilege a mere one other form of relationship above every other imaginative possibility. What is this special function and role of the homosexual that justifies discriminating against other human relationships? What critical role to humanity as whole, and US perpetuity, justifies it being raised above John Doe and his bestfriend-roommate, polyamorous relationships, a social network of single mothers/fathers/widows, etc.

Why does the ‘bigotry’ end with the whopping addition of a mere one form of human relationship to a privileged status? How has ‘bigotry’ even ended by discriminating yet again, which is matter-of-fact what transpires when you privilege one over others? It’s like saying you’re not a ‘bigot’ because you decided the Irish are white enough to join your golf club. What gives?

I’ll repeat myself again.

1. Pro-GAY marriage is a position taken up by faddish cultural drones. It’s a position which doesn’t have a single hour of actual thought put into it. I know this because it falls apart instantly when they agree that they’d not want the polyamorous-or whatever-afforded the same state status and privileges. They turn into stuttering fools when they realize they’re still discriminating, and doing so without any critical justification for it. The whole “consenting adults,” anti-‘bigotry,’ anti-inequality act goes out the window in a blubbering display of contradicitions and foot-shooting.

2. Pro-GAY marriage is a position taken up by the anti state marriage folks. They do have a logical reason for supporting gay marriage, consistent with a philosophy. It’s the first step in throwing state marriage into an irreversible tailspin, where it now must recognize any and all imaginative human relationship to be just as privileged, and to even carry the same label if they choose. After all, every single pro-gay argument will be easily recycled for the new novel arrangment being considered. And when it becomes unmanageable for it (the state), it’ll get out of the marriage business completely. We’ve seen them on this here board.[/quote]

Ahhh…I get it now. You think marriage is for CHILD REARING!!! What about all those couples that get married that do NOT want kids? Should we refuse to let them marry? Should I tell my friends David and Julie, because they don’t want kids, they shouldn’t have been allowed to marry? That they should “live in sin” for the rest of their lives? Or maybe they should have remained virgins? Where did having kids become a REQUIREMENT for marriage? Please, point out the statute for me.

I am not anti-state gov’t. I am for gay marriage because I don’t understand why two people, who love each other and want to commit to each other for life should be denied the same rights and benefits my husband and I have just because they are the same sex. What harm does it to me? To my husband? To allow those same benefits to a long-term committed homosexual couple?

[Grneyes]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
2. It’s the launching pad for a much broader goal. That being redefining marriage to mean pretty much nothing to society.
[/quote]

I’ve said it before and repeat it again, it has already been done, by good heterosexual married couples, there is nothing left for you to save. That somebody somewhere has a lasting relationship is nothing more but an anachronism. Maybe the western world should introduce iranian style temporary marriages as an alternative to lifelong committment.[/quote]

Maybe you better check the statistics on that one. The divorce rate is not as high as you may think for those who have been married only only once. Those who have been married multiple times drive up the divorce rate for everyone. Taking away those who have been married multiple times the divorce rate is only something like 25%.

If gay marriage is allowed in all 50 states the divorce rate will skyrocket. It has been demonstrated in multiple studies and survey’s that homosexual men are quite promiscuous. And even those who consider themselves in a long lasting relationship have two to three sexual encounters outside their partner on a yearly basis.
[/quote]

So do lots of heterosexual men and women…what’s your point?

[Grneyes]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Seriously, it’s time to stop. Over a population, it DOES mean biological children will be produced. That’s natural and historical reality. This is getting ridiculuous. There is no need for micromanagement of hetersexual marriages to that degree, reproduction will happen. In the meantimes, an infertile couple still is a model of one man and one woman, in a committed relationship. One man and one woman, in a committed relationship, the smallest unit capable of bearing an rearing it’s own children in an intact household. The more marriages, the more of a norm. The more of a norm, the more it is aspired toand emulated. That this requires more than one explanation is beyond me. That it requires any, really.[/quote]

Further, even in infertile couples, most likely one of the individuals is fertile, and their marriage continues to support the traditional mission of marriage by discouraging that the fertile-but-married individual from getting in the business of illegitimate children.

[/quote]

LOL…you think marriage to an infertile person is going to stop a fertile person from possibly having children outside that marriage? No, that fertile person is going to try his or her damnedest to have kids, if they want kids. They might even, wait for it…DIVORCE that infertile person!!! Marriage, we should know by now, will not and does not stop a person from having sex with someone NOT his/her spouse.

I can’t believe we still use the term “illegitimate” for kids born out of wedlock. Like, it some how makes them less real or less important than kids born to a married couple.

[therajraj]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
An interesting fact, gay marriage has been legal in the Netherlands now for over ten years. And statistics indicate that the average duration of a homosexual union to be one and a half years!

They are a promiscuous bunch. But then we all know that and most homosexuals will not deny it. In fact,

Here are just a few statistics for those who have bought into the pro homosexual media slant:

In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research (1997), Paul Van de Ven et al. found that �?�¢??the modal range for number of sexual partners ever (of homosexuals) was 101�?�¢??500.�?�¢?? In addition, 10.2 to 15.7 % had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 15.7% reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners! Source �?�¢?? Paul Van de Ven et al., A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men, Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354.

This study revealed that homosexual men have to a great extent separated sexuality from relationships. The survey showed 79% of the respondents saying that over half of their sexual partners were strangers. 70% said that over half of their sexual partners were people with whom they had sex only once!

According to Dr. Robert Kronemeyer, author of Overcoming Homosexuality, �?�¢??Nearly two thirds of gay men are constantly on the hunt for instant sex.�?�¢?? A typical attitude is expressed in the statement: �?�¢??If I don�?�¢??t score in 20 minutes after hitting the bar, I start to fall apart.�?�¢?? Kronemeyer indicates further that �?�¢??30% of homosexual men have never had a relationship that survived a one-night stand.�?�¢?? This stands in stark contrast with the average heterosexual male who has on average five to nine sexual partners throughout his life, and who would thus appear considerably more monogamous by comparison.

The failure of gay marriage in the few states that allow it will in all likely hood be caused by their own actions.

[/quote]

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Ontario for 8 years. Divorce rates have not changed in that time period.
[/quote]

In Ontario, like other places that have legalized homosexual unions, there is a big rush to get married when gay marriage laws are passed. Then it slows down to a trickle and in Ontario’s case it practically stopped. Ontario is one of those areas where not many homosexuals have actually gotten married. So I guess that wouldn’t effect the divorce rate would it? [/quote]

I can’t find a statistic for the divorce rate between same sex marriages, but there were 6,524 same sex marriages in Ontario between 2003 and 2006 (the most of any province).

In any case the divorce rates of same sex marriage will never have a large effect on the divorce rate because as you said they make up less than 1% of the population (I actually didn’t realize that until you pointed it out).

If those interested in gay marriage account for only 1% of the population, how can divorce rates ever skyrocket from the result of high divorce rates in the gay community?

[Makavali]

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I can’t find a statistic for the divorce rate between same sex marriages, but there were 6,524 same sex marriages in Ontario between 2003 and 2006 (the most of any province).

In any case the divorce rates of same sex marriage will never have a large effect on the divorce rate because as you said they make up less than 1% of the population (I actually didn’t realize that until you pointed it out).

If those interested in gay marriage account for only 1% of the population, how can divorce rates ever skyrocket from the result of high divorce rates in the gay community?[/quote]

Steady on there cowboy, one might think you were using that there logic of yours.

[Tiribulus]

Not surprisingly almost nobody gets this.