Any Dudes Wanna Get Married?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
523

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
In other words, there are all sorts of societal ills that could use righting, but we have to decide if one is really so compelling that it requires us to radically redefine the core familial structure of our society. We’re not talking about breaking a few eggs here. We’re actually talking about tinkering with an institute that has withstood, relatively unchanged, 5000 years of human societal upheavals across all continents and circumstances.[/quote]

I didn’t ask for generalized abstract henny-penny catastrophizing. I asked for a specific logical argument on WHY allowing adoptive gay couples to marry would have any effect whatsoever on the birth rate of out of wedlock heterosexual unions.

Please help me out here, because every time I ask this question nobody can provide a real answer.

It’s completely illogical. It makes no sense. It’s nothing but scare tactics to insist that straight couples are suddenly going to have more children out of wedlock because we allow gays to marry. Seriously?

There are many thousands of children out there just like your close friend. Do you not agree those children with gay parents are better off with the stability and security that marriage provides? It is a real social issue, and gay marriage offers a real solution to that issue.[/quote]

Oh boy. Better use fewer words:

It. Doesn’t. Matter. That. Gay. Marriage. Solves. A. Social. Problem.

Marriage benefits are granted because they encourage a situation we want more of and because the reciprocal benefits to society at large are so significant as to be fundamental.

Please read that last sentence again, because I’ve followed these threads and seen it written at least a hundred times now and every time I watch you transform the meaning to: Gay marriage will cause hetero marriage to Swamp Thing!

Gay marriage might keep 10,000 puppies from being fed tail first into a slow moving meat grinder, that doesn’t mean we have to go changing our whole system around to accommodate it.

This entire line of reasoning is a dead end and it certainly hurts your cause to bullheadedly pursue it. Because reasonable people can agree that hetero pairings, on the whole, provide far more in the way of benefits and necessities to our society than do gay pairings.

524

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I’m a bit drunk now, so bear with me…

Cortes, are you saying that you believe state marriage is equivalent to religious marriage in your mind? And I apologize, but did you answer about civil unions? [/quote]

Not equivalent by any means, but hopelessly intertwined.

Again, due to the benefits issue discussed above, I don’t really see a compelling interest in the government, particularly the federal government, sanctioning either gay marriage or civil unions. However, I’d probably be a whole lot less vocal if the word marriage never entered the discussion and the term civil unions was employed.

And no, that is NOT just a semantic distinction, it is a conceptual one. [/quote]

Thanks for your response. I am going to try to type up what I understand your argument to be, and perhaps ask a question (if that is okay). I’m trying to better understand your perspective. Please let me know if I understand you properly.

…

I do understand that you are now arguing for “justified discrimination.” For you, proponents of gay marriage must show, unequivocally, how gay marriage would be a “net benefit” for society. Further, you believe that expanding the word marriage to include even more couples with no capacity to have children is a huge negative for the reasons you’ve stated above. As such, for you, you must see a logical demonstration of a huge benefit before you could support gay marriage or civil unions. However, because of your conception of marriage (that many others share), you are extremely vocal about gay marriage. If the discussion were simply civil unions, you believe you would still disagree, but wouldn’t feel compelled to comment so much.

[/quote]

That’s a pretty decent summary of my position. And then they are going to have to answer Sloth’s question way, way, way back at the start of this thread that never really got addressed except maybe by Grneyes. That question being: What makes your relationship so special that it warrants discrimination against other partnerships, trios, human-real doll relationships, etc.? What is so particularly special about homosexual love?

If it were just about civil unions, I’d view it more as one more special interest minority group trying to get theirs, neither better nor worse than the next group.

As it is, though, there definitely appears to me to be a push to make this thing MARRIAGE, BITCHES, not civil unions. Then again, perhaps it is precisely because I don’t really care as much about civil unions that I just don’t notice the discussions when they come up.

[quote]
Further, you are not against gay families adopting children. Is this true for some of the other “extreme” things we’ve heard on this forum (such as banning the very word gay from public junior high schools)? Would you say being gay is immoral? Are gay acts immoral?

Thanks again for your time. I hope you enjoy the day, looks like its going to be hot as hell. [/quote]

I’m not going to get into these other questions at this point because I feel there is a tendency by one side to use this kind of information as a cudgel (BIGOT!) when the truth is it’s neither here no there. Whether or not I think being gay is immoral (I don’t) is beside the point.The point, again,is that traditional marriage works, and now somebody wants to fuck with that. If I’m wrong, then tell me why. That simple.

You have a good day, too. Don’t know if you are stuck in a place that adheres to the dreaded “Cool-Biz,” but I am lucky enough to own my own business, so my A/C is going full blast most of the time. Nine years now I’ve been here and the one, final aspect of Japanese culture I have not and may never come to terms with is the insane obsession with NOT using the freaking air conditioner in the summer!

525

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Oh My!

http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php/76249-Experts-Worldwide-Find-Gay-Adoption-Harmful-for-Children
[/quote]

In light of a pending vote in the Spanish Senate on same-sex marriage HazteOir, together with the Spanish Forum for the Family and the Institute for Family Policy, has published and distributed an in-depth report

Just once, you should link a study done when there is no pending vote or policy shift, and try to make it a study done by people who don’t have a vested interest in skewing results one way or the other.

I’m not going to trust the word of the Spanish equivalent of Focus on the Family or some other kooky group, just like I’m not going to trust the word of a gay rights group publishing a similar study.
[/quote]

Don’t like what you read huh? He he. I’ve not seen one unbiased legitimate study in the USA which can contradict this.[/quote]

There is nothing to contradict. Anti-gay movement publishes study bashing the ability of gay parents to raise children. As to be expected, not to be trusted.

526

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
In other words, there are all sorts of societal ills that could use righting, but we have to decide if one is really so compelling that it requires us to radically redefine the core familial structure of our society. We’re not talking about breaking a few eggs here. We’re actually talking about tinkering with an institute that has withstood, relatively unchanged, 5000 years of human societal upheavals across all continents and circumstances.[/quote]

I didn’t ask for generalized abstract henny-penny catastrophizing. I asked for a specific logical argument on WHY allowing adoptive gay couples to marry would have any effect whatsoever on the birth rate of out of wedlock heterosexual unions.

Please help me out here, because every time I ask this question nobody can provide a real answer.

It’s completely illogical. It makes no sense. It’s nothing but scare tactics to insist that straight couples are suddenly going to have more children out of wedlock because we allow gays to marry. Seriously?

There are many thousands of children out there just like your close friend. Do you not agree those children with gay parents are better off with the stability and security that marriage provides? It is a real social issue, and gay marriage offers a real solution to that issue.[/quote]

Oh boy. Better use fewer words:

It. Doesn’t. Matter. That. Gay. Marriage. Solves. A. Social. Problem.

Marriage benefits are granted because they encourage a situation we want more of and because the reciprocal benefits to society at large are so significant as to be fundamental.

Please read that last sentence again, because I’ve followed these threads and seen it written at least a hundred times now and every time I watch you transform the meaning to: Gay marriage will cause hetero marriage to Swamp Thing!

Gay marriage might keep 10,000 puppies from being fed tail first into a slow moving meat grinder, that doesn’t mean we have to go changing our whole system around to accommodate it.

This entire line of reasoning is a dead end and it certainly hurts your cause to bullheadedly pursue it. Because reasonable people can agree that hetero pairings, on the whole, provide far more in the way of benefits and necessities to our society than do gay pairings.
[/quote]

Come on, Cortes. Will you please just answer the question:

I asked for a specific logical argument on WHY allowing adoptive gay couples to marry would have any effect whatsoever on the birth rate of out of wedlock heterosexual unions.

527

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Oh My!

http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php/76249-Experts-Worldwide-Find-Gay-Adoption-Harmful-for-Children
[/quote]

In light of a pending vote in the Spanish Senate on same-sex marriage HazteOir, together with the Spanish Forum for the Family and the Institute for Family Policy, has published and distributed an in-depth report

Just once, you should link a study done when there is no pending vote or policy shift, and try to make it a study done by people who don’t have a vested interest in skewing results one way or the other.

I’m not going to trust the word of the Spanish equivalent of Focus on the Family or some other kooky group, just like I’m not going to trust the word of a gay rights group publishing a similar study.
[/quote]

Don’t like what you read huh? He he. I’ve not seen one unbiased legitimate study in the USA which can contradict this.[/quote]

There is nothing to contradict. Anti-gay movement publishes study bashing the ability of gay parents to raise children. As to be expected, not to be trusted.[/quote]

If you cannot attack the evidence then attack those who have supplied it. How is it normal for a child to be raised by two homosexuals? I know, I know in your little world it’s perefectly normal. Now tell me something Mak do you question studies that reach the conclusions that you agree with? Um, nope.

528

[quote]Cortes wrote:

If it were just about civil unions, I’d view it more as one more special interest minority group trying to get theirs, neither better nor worse than the next group. [/quote]

I’d say this is essentially correct. Most of the discussion I’ve seen is about extending rights/benefits to same-sex unions. I’m sure they would word it slightly differently, but essentially correct: a minority group asking for the same treatment as the majority group.

Most of the discussion swirls around obtaining benefits/rights. Check out the human rights campaign for example.

[quote] [quote]
Further, you are not against gay families adopting children. Is this true for some of the other “extreme” things we’ve heard on this forum (such as banning the very word gay from public junior high schools)? Would you say being gay is immoral? Are gay acts immoral?

Thanks again for your time. I hope you enjoy the day, looks like its going to be hot as hell. [/quote]

I’m not going to get into these other questions at this point because I feel there is a tendency by one side to use this kind of information as a cudgel (BIGOT!) when the truth is it’s neither here no there. Whether or not I think being gay is immoral (I don’t) is beside the point.The point, again,is that traditional marriage works, and now somebody wants to fuck with that. If I’m wrong, then tell me why. That simple. [/quote]

I think a minority group is arguing that it doesn’t work, at least for them.

As far as the cudgel, I think that both sides have a tendency of having somewhat dishonest debates. I would wager a good sum that the majority arguing against same-sex unions believes either that homosexual existence is sinful, or that the act of homosexual love is sinful. Some on this very board have admitted it and said they could never be happy if they weren’t actively fighting against homosexuals. Many (both proponents and opponents) believe this is the crux of the argument and should be.

LOL. Some day I may have to give you a call and ask for some advice on just how to start a business in this country, depending on how things work out in the next few years. I’m lucky enough to be somewhat cool (at least for now…haha).

529

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Oh My!

http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php/76249-Experts-Worldwide-Find-Gay-Adoption-Harmful-for-Children
[/quote]

In light of a pending vote in the Spanish Senate on same-sex marriage HazteOir, together with the Spanish Forum for the Family and the Institute for Family Policy, has published and distributed an in-depth report

Just once, you should link a study done when there is no pending vote or policy shift, and try to make it a study done by people who don’t have a vested interest in skewing results one way or the other.

I’m not going to trust the word of the Spanish equivalent of Focus on the Family or some other kooky group, just like I’m not going to trust the word of a gay rights group publishing a similar study.
[/quote]

Don’t like what you read huh? He he. I’ve not seen one unbiased legitimate study in the USA which can contradict this.[/quote]

There is nothing to contradict. Anti-gay movement publishes study bashing the ability of gay parents to raise children. As to be expected, not to be trusted.[/quote]

If you cannot attack the evidence then attack those who have supplied it. How is it normal for a child to be raised by two homosexuals? I know, I know in your little world it’s perefectly normal. Now tell me something Mak do you question studies that reach the conclusions that you agree with? Um, nope.[/quote]

If a study released by GLAAD said the opposite, I would still question it. They are just as biased as the freaks who published your study.

530

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
In other words, there are all sorts of societal ills that could use righting, but we have to decide if one is really so compelling that it requires us to radically redefine the core familial structure of our society. We’re not talking about breaking a few eggs here. We’re actually talking about tinkering with an institute that has withstood, relatively unchanged, 5000 years of human societal upheavals across all continents and circumstances.[/quote]

I didn’t ask for generalized abstract henny-penny catastrophizing. I asked for a specific logical argument on WHY allowing adoptive gay couples to marry would have any effect whatsoever on the birth rate of out of wedlock heterosexual unions.

Please help me out here, because every time I ask this question nobody can provide a real answer.

It’s completely illogical. It makes no sense. It’s nothing but scare tactics to insist that straight couples are suddenly going to have more children out of wedlock because we allow gays to marry. Seriously?

There are many thousands of children out there just like your close friend. Do you not agree those children with gay parents are better off with the stability and security that marriage provides? It is a real social issue, and gay marriage offers a real solution to that issue.[/quote]

Oh boy. Better use fewer words:

It. Doesn’t. Matter. That. Gay. Marriage. Solves. A. Social. Problem.

Marriage benefits are granted because they encourage a situation we want more of and because the reciprocal benefits to society at large are so significant as to be fundamental.

Please read that last sentence again, because I’ve followed these threads and seen it written at least a hundred times now and every time I watch you transform the meaning to: Gay marriage will cause hetero marriage to Swamp Thing!

Gay marriage might keep 10,000 puppies from being fed tail first into a slow moving meat grinder, that doesn’t mean we have to go changing our whole system around to accommodate it.

This entire line of reasoning is a dead end and it certainly hurts your cause to bullheadedly pursue it. Because reasonable people can agree that hetero pairings, on the whole, provide far more in the way of benefits and necessities to our society than do gay pairings.
[/quote]

Come on, Cortes. Will you please just answer the question:

I asked for a specific logical argument on WHY allowing adoptive gay couples to marry would have any effect whatsoever on the birth rate of out of wedlock heterosexual unions. [/quote]

Your question has been answered. Multiple times now.

Just scroll up a few posts and start reading again.

531

The institution of marriage doesn’t exist. It’s an idea. You live with some woman, you spend all your time with her and share your possessions with her and have kids with her. Do you do this because of a piece of paper you got from the government, or a goofy, antiquated ceremony that you both took part in a decade ago? No. You do it because you love her. And allowing two dudes to also take part in this goofy, antiquated ceremony is not going to change that.

Families will still exist, happy ones and shitty ones. Please save the doomsday bells for something that matters.

532

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

If it were just about civil unions, I’d view it more as one more special interest minority group trying to get theirs, neither better nor worse than the next group. [/quote]

I’d say this is essentially correct. Most of the discussion I’ve seen is about extending rights/benefits to same-sex unions. I’m sure they would word it slightly differently, but essentially correct: a minority group asking for the same treatment as the majority group.

Most of the discussion swirls around obtaining benefits/rights. Check out the human rights campaign for example.
[/quote]

Yeah, I don’t know. I have no way to prove it, but there certainly seems to be a concerted effort to usurp the definition of marriage itself and to make it into something it never has been throughout all human history. Words are very powerful. Definitions and symbols and concepts have more power over human society than any weapon that has ever been created.

Well when they start producing children in the manner of heterosexual pairings and providing an ideal family unit in which to raise those children, they may have a point.

Doesn’t matter what either side believes. I’m taking an entirely logical,secular approach to this. Whether or not I agree with the religious arguments against homosexual partnerships have absolutely no bearing upon the majority of the points that have been made in this thread so far.

[quote]

LOL. Some day I may have to give you a call and ask for some advice on just how to start a business in this country, depending on how things work out in the next few years. I’m lucky enough to be somewhat cool (at least for now…haha). [/quote]

PM me anytime, I’m always happy to talk about business!

I’ll give you the most important piece of advice right now, though: Get married. To a Japanese. Female. (hahah)

Foreigners have close to zero rights in this country until they are married to a Japanese national. After that, if you plan on staying, get your Permanent Residence Visa as soon as possible to secure the rest of your rights. This place aint the US, that’s for sure.

533

[quote]smh23 wrote:
The institution of marriage doesn’t exist. It’s an idea. You live with some woman, you spend all your time with her and share your possessions with her and have kids with her. Do you do this because of a piece of paper you got from the government, or a goofy, antiquated ceremony that you both took part in a decade ago? No. You do it because you love her. And allowing two dudes to also take part in this goofy, antiquated ceremony is not going to change that.

Families will still exist, happy ones and shitty ones. Please save the doomsday bells for something that matters.[/quote]

Sure, that’s why every major society across every continent from the beginning of human history has taken such a hands off, ambiguous view of the institution, right? Dude?

534

[quote]forlife wrote:
I asked for a specific logical argument on WHY allowing adoptive gay couples to marry would have any effect whatsoever on the birth rate of out of wedlock heterosexual unions. [/quote]

Okay, I’ll do it. Red herring. The benefit of marriage is that traditional marriage is open to life. Homosexual relationships have no openness to life without going outside the marriage.

I’ll explain it into simpler terms.

Traditional marriage: mama can give birth to little Juniors and Princesses
Homosexual marriages: mama (or, daddy) cannot give birth to little Juniors and Princesses.

Yes, they can adopt. However, so can foster homes.

However, since the latter cannot do that which the former can (on top of fostering a well functioning institute that provides for the child and the spouses themselves), that is a reason for the “society” or government not allowing ssm. It’s not because we hate gays, although I am sure there is some that do, the truth of the matter has nothing to do with that.

535

[quote]smh23 wrote:
The institution of marriage doesn’t exist. It’s an idea. You live with some woman, you spend all your time with her and share your possessions with her and have kids with her. Do you do this because of a piece of paper you got from the government, or a goofy, antiquated ceremony that you both took part in a decade ago? No. You do it because you love her. And allowing two dudes to also take part in this goofy, antiquated ceremony is not going to change that.

Families will still exist, happy ones and shitty ones. Please save the doomsday bells for something that matters.[/quote]

Obviously someone needs to research the word institute. I guess with the moral decay, which brought no fault divorce, contraception, on demand abortion, &c. it doesn’t seem like much of an institute, but it is.

536

I can’t understand why some of you are so interested in what society wants from your family. It’s self-evident, society wants taxpayers, workers and soldiers. There is no moral aspect in it at all, it’s purely utilitarian. And suddenly all people who find gay love morally reprehensible, because it’s where the line truly goes, are also the most ardent utilitarians.

A gay marriage will never be a marriage in the traditional sense anyway, it’ll always be a gay marriage and it’ll will always be either kind of funny or slightly repulsive. That’s the burden you have to carry when you differ too much from the crowd.

If I was 10 years older I would be clumsy with my hands, because I would have been forced to become right-handed by society, in school.

537

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
If I was 10 years older I would be clumsy with my hands, because I would have been forced to become right-handed by society, in school.
[/quote]

Bullocks! Irrelevant.

538

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
If I was 10 years older I would be clumsy with my hands, because I would have been forced to become right-handed by society, in school.
[/quote]

Bullocks! Irrelevant.[/quote]

Aargh you got me, great manoeuvre. But it is true, I would have been forced to become righthanded and more clumsy than I’m now. All for my best.

539

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Traditional marriage: mama can give birth to little Juniors and Princesses[/quote]

Except when mama and papa are either infertile or uninterested in children.

540

When I saw this thread pop up on the feed from the main page, I thought it was going to be an offer to be gay wed. “Any dudes wanna get gay married?” That sounds like an offer to me. So, I click on the link expecting some hot gay honeymoon sex pics only to find people arguing about state rights and whether or not gay marriage will negatively impact society. The 10th amendment is good. People having the choice to get married is good. Jeez. Now, if you will excuse me, I have to mourn the loss of my erection.

541

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
In other words, there are all sorts of societal ills that could use righting, but we have to decide if one is really so compelling that it requires us to radically redefine the core familial structure of our society. We’re not talking about breaking a few eggs here. We’re actually talking about tinkering with an institute that has withstood, relatively unchanged, 5000 years of human societal upheavals across all continents and circumstances.[/quote]

I didn’t ask for generalized abstract henny-penny catastrophizing. I asked for a specific logical argument on WHY allowing adoptive gay couples to marry would have any effect whatsoever on the birth rate of out of wedlock heterosexual unions.

Please help me out here, because every time I ask this question nobody can provide a real answer.

It’s completely illogical. It makes no sense. It’s nothing but scare tactics to insist that straight couples are suddenly going to have more children out of wedlock because we allow gays to marry. Seriously?

There are many thousands of children out there just like your close friend. Do you not agree those children with gay parents are better off with the stability and security that marriage provides? It is a real social issue, and gay marriage offers a real solution to that issue.[/quote]

Oh boy. Better use fewer words:

It. Doesn’t. Matter. That. Gay. Marriage. Solves. A. Social. Problem.

Marriage benefits are granted because they encourage a situation we want more of and because the reciprocal benefits to society at large are so significant as to be fundamental.

Please read that last sentence again, because I’ve followed these threads and seen it written at least a hundred times now and every time I watch you transform the meaning to: Gay marriage will cause hetero marriage to Swamp Thing!

Gay marriage might keep 10,000 puppies from being fed tail first into a slow moving meat grinder, that doesn’t mean we have to go changing our whole system around to accommodate it.

This entire line of reasoning is a dead end and it certainly hurts your cause to bullheadedly pursue it. Because reasonable people can agree that hetero pairings, on the whole, provide far more in the way of benefits and necessities to our society than do gay pairings.
[/quote]

Come on, Cortes. Will you please just answer the question:

I asked for a specific logical argument on WHY allowing adoptive gay couples to marry would have any effect whatsoever on the birth rate of out of wedlock heterosexual unions. [/quote]

Your question has been answered. Multiple times now.

Just scroll up a few posts and start reading again.

[/quote]

I asked for a SPECIFIC LOGICAL ARGUMENT. You haven’t provided any supporting logic whatsoever. All you’ve done is throw out generalities without EXPLAINING HOW MARRIED GAY COUPLES THAT ADOPT CHILDREN COULD POSSIBLY HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THE BIRTH RATE OF OUT OF WEDLOCK HETEROSEXUAL UNIONS.

I don’t get it. It’s a crap argument with no supporting logic.

This is the last time I’ll ask. If you can’t provide even a single substantive reason why, I’ll assume you don’t have one.

542

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
I asked for a specific logical argument on WHY allowing adoptive gay couples to marry would have any effect whatsoever on the birth rate of out of wedlock heterosexual unions. [/quote]

Okay, I’ll do it. Red herring. The benefit of marriage is that traditional marriage is open to life. Homosexual relationships have no openness to life without going outside the marriage.

I’ll explain it into simpler terms.

Traditional marriage: mama can give birth to little Juniors and Princesses
Homosexual marriages: mama (or, daddy) cannot give birth to little Juniors and Princesses.

Yes, they can adopt. However, so can foster homes.

However, since the latter cannot do that which the former can (on top of fostering a well functioning institute that provides for the child and the spouses themselves), that is a reason for the “society” or government not allowing ssm. It’s not because we hate gays, although I am sure there is some that do, the truth of the matter has nothing to do with that.[/quote]

Are you actually going to answer the question?

Why are straight couples going to suddenly start having children outside of marriage, because we allow adopting gay couples to marry?

How does gay couples marrying affect THEIR DECISIONS in any way whatsoever?

Are John and Mary going to say, “Well damn, if the gay couple down the road is getting married, there’s no way in hell we’re going to get married. Oh, and let’s have children out of wedlock too, just to spite them!”

Lol, right.