Any Dudes Wanna Get Married?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
543

[quote]forlife wrote:

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.[/quote]

Assume whatever you want. I’m not interested in being pulled into an irrelevant point over and over again because you know you don’t have an answer to the actual issue. Which is, as Chris said and I’ve been saying for pages now: You guys don’t make babies together and your familial pairing is not ideal for child rearing. Deal with this or find a new angle.

A crude example: A kid with no arms tries out for a baseball team. Not surprisingly, he doesn’t make it past the first cut. Most of us would find it absurd enough that he even wanted to try out in the first place (why the hell not soccer, at least?) Now, though, there is a cringe-worthy scene. He refuses to leave, and he is screaming: "But I CAN PROVIDE MANY OTHER VALUABLE SERVICES TO THE TEAM! AND IT’S NOT LIKE MY ARMLESSNESS IS GOING TO BE CONTAGIOUS TO THE OTHER PITCHERS! WHY CAN’T I BE ON THE TEAM, TOO?!?!

544

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

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.[/quote]

Assume whatever you want. I’m not interested in being pulled into an irrelevant point over and over again because you know you don’t have an answer to the actual issue. Which is, as Chris said and I’ve been saying for pages now: You guys don’t make babies together and your familial pairing is not ideal for child rearing. Deal with this or find a new angle.

A crude example: A kid with no arms tries out for a baseball team. Not surprisingly, he doesn’t make it past the first cut. Most of us would find it absurd enough that he even wanted to try out in the first place (why the hell not soccer, at least?) Now, though, there is a cringe-worthy scene. He refuses to leave, and he is screaming: "But I CAN PROVIDE MANY OTHER VALUABLE SERVICES TO THE TEAM! AND IT’S NOT LIKE MY ARMLESSNESS IS GOING TO BE CONTAGIOUS TO THE OTHER PITCHERS! WHY CAN’T I BE ON THE TEAM, TOO?!?![/quote]

YOU’RE THE ONE THAT KEEPS INSISTING ALLOWING GAY COUPLES TO MARRY IS SOMEHOW, MAGICALLY GOING TO HURT STRAIGHT MARRIAGE.

It’s obvious that when called out on this point, you’re completely unable to defend it. You have no supporting logic whatsoever for your insistence that gay marriage hurts straight marriage in any way.

STRAIGHT COUPLES AREN’T GOING TO HAVE MORE ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN BY ALLOWING GAY COUPLES TO MARRY.

It’s nothing but a smokescreen to justify discriminating against gay couples.

You asked for proof that allowing gay couples to marry would benefit society. I delivered on that proof, by showing how the adopted children of gay couples clearly benefit from their parents being married.

It’s ridiculous to insist that only biological children would benefit from having married parents. Obviously, adopted children benefit significantly as well.

So what are you left with?

NOTHING BUT YOUR MORAL AVERSION TO HOMOSEXUALITY

Just admit it already. Your opposition to equality for gays has nothing to do with any logical arguments. It’s entirely driven by your moral revulsion against homosexuality.

No argument I provide will make any difference to you, because at the end of the day you find gay marriage disgusting, unnatural, and morally reprehensible.

It doesn’t matter that gay marriage has no impact whatsoever on straight couples having illegitimate children.

It doesn’t matter that gay marriage benefits adopted children.

Because despite all of that, nobody is going to change your mind on homosexuality being morally corrupt.

You’re no different than Tiribulus. He’s just more straightforward about his reason for opposing gay rights.

545

again
it hurts the MEANING of “straight” marriage.
It change the MEANING of a social institution
without any necessity nor legitimity.

which is largely enough to be a problem in itself.

Straight couples already have less and less children. less than ever before in history.
we will very soon and very predictably face a huge demographic crisis.

the more liberal this world get, the more old, lonely and creepy it become.

we don’t need more promotion of infertility.
we need more life. not more morbidity.

[quote]It doesn’t matter that gay marriage has no impact whatsoever on straight couples having illegitimate children.

It doesn’t matter that gay marriage benefits adopted children. [/quote]

many groups and minorities do beneficial and innocuous things.
we doesn’t make global institution about it. nor change global institution for them.

explain how homosexual marriageis a viable social model (which marriage is meant to be), and we will speak.
being an arguably innocuous individual lifestyle is NOT enough.

(on the other hand, i have absolutely nothing against gay civil unions. It’s legal in France, and, for the record, back in the days it wasn’t, i fought for it).

546

I’ll tell you what, forlife, why don’t I just give you my password and you can log in and write my posts for me?

547

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< It doesn’t matter that gay marriage benefits adopted children.

Because despite all of that, nobody is going to change your mind on homosexuality being morally corrupt.

You’re no different than Tiribulus. He’s just more straightforward about his reason for opposing gay rights.[/quote]Here, allow me to be straightforward yet again. Gay marriage benefits no one. Not society, not the children it would horrifically corrupt, not you and not your “partner” because IT IS morally repugnant because IT IS an abominable perversion of the created order of the holy designer. Even plain human anatomy testifies to this. Programs written for Unix do not run in Windows. Emulation can force the issue, but it still ain’t Windows. (imperfect analogy as are they all).

I’ll hand you this outright so you can wail and moan along with the rest of the God haters around here. My standard is unabashedly and unapologetically the Word of God. It would not matter to me if gay marriage made us the singular unchallenged superpower for the next thousand years. It is an abomination in the sight of the one and only true and living God and I would take a slow agonizing death before declaring right what He has so clearly and forcefully called an affront to his holiness.

See THAT is the ONLY POSSIBLE actually Christian position regardless of what some of these post modern reprobates try to pawn off in His name. Marriage, sex and family are not open to ambiguity or nuance like some lesser doctrines are.

If it were me I’d go have sex with my “partner” in celebration of the great victories being won for our side and not care one bit about what anybody else thought, especially some faceless phantoms on an internet forum. But you have a more sensitive conscience than mine if left to myself. Here you are, like Kamui of all people is saying, whining and sniveling like a little girl that some religious fanatics refuse to see the virtue in your depravity. Please accept me, PLEASE accept me and I’m callin you a liar ahead of time for when you deny that this is primarily what this is about for you.

I stand by everything I’ve said to and about you. I would risk my own life to save yours and would even give you mouth to mouth if it meant delaying your death. If it meant saving your soul I’d do it ten times, but as of today your are a walking stench in the nostrils of a holy God to whom you owe comprehensive obedience and indeed your very existence. His judgment and curse rests upon you while you persist in this rebellion and you are bringing that same judgment and curse to my country by foisting your perversion into the foundation of marriage and family. The adulterers and fornicators are faaaar ahead of ya, but they’ve paved your way just beautifully.

WOWEEE!!! If that ain’t right wing extremist Christian fundamentalism I don’t what is huh? Do a little peeking if you dare. I was a mainstream common American man at the founding of this nation and that’s why we roared forward and upward. This website is what the common “american” is today which fully explains our loud grotesque and ever accelerating tragic decline.

548

[quote]Cortes wrote:

your familial pairing is not ideal for child rearing. Deal with this or find a new angle. [/quote]

1st) Are you really concerned about ideal situations. I wish we as a society were at that point. I’m not sure public policy should only allow the ideal.

2nd) I’m not sure if I buy the premise, personally.

I’ll try to back out again now…lol… I just keep coming back!

549

[quote]Cortes wrote:
I’ll tell you what, forlife, why don’t I just give you my password and you can log in and write my posts for me?

[/quote]

Man, you don’t want that. People around here would then be accusing you of dishonesty

550

[quote]forlife wrote:

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?[/quote]

You have already been provided a response to this question, but as is customary, you feign amnesia and hit the “reset” button. In short, just because I am bored:

As a society, we have too many children out of wedlock, and that is a bad thing we need to correct. Thus, we need to reverse the attitude that children out of wedlock is tolerable - doing so would reduce the amount of kids born this way.

In order to do so, we have to (there is no other alternative) double down on insisting on the strictures of traditional marriage (not just passing laws, but cultural affirmation of this idea). We must re-convince people that the only (proper) way to bring children into this world is in a marriage between the parents.

Enactment of gay marriage, as has been explained, undermines the doubling-down effort. It sends the exact opposite message we have to send - it affirms that marriage is only about a couple’s affections for one another, and effectively states that marriage is agnostic as to how children are born or raised.

Stated another way, enacting alternative marriages says this - “it’s ok to bring children into this world any way you want, doesn’t really matter one way or another, and we’ve got ‘marriages’ out there to absorb all the children who happen to be born out of wedlock that no one happens to want. But it’s ok - all these alternative arrangements are equal, so it doesn’t matter if kids are in one kind of marriage or another.”

We don’t think that. We’ve never thought that. And the last thing we want to do in a society that continues to turn a blind eye this issue is affirm that some “equal alternative” exists that can “help” with out of wedlock children.

Nope. We need to do the opposite - end this sloppy and silly thinking and recommit to the concept that marriage exists for a very important reason and try and reduce the amount of children born out of wedlock. As long as we keep erecting “alternatives”, we keep sending the wrong message.

So, yes, gay marriage has a negative impact on the mission of marriage and would not help in any way to improve the problem of out of wedlock chidlren. That numbers needs to be reduced, and can’t be as long as we keep goofing off with the concept of marriage for therapeutic reasons.

Or, as a friend of mine wryly noted as a fake headline, “Gay Marriage Enacted In New York; Therapists Hardest Hit.”

551

[quote]smh23 wrote:
The institution of marriage doesn’t exist. It’s an idea. [/quote]

A 5000 year old idea. And by the way how many long term successful nations in history have included homosexual marriage?

Uh huh.

552

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< It doesn’t matter that gay marriage benefits adopted children.

Because despite all of that, nobody is going to change your mind on homosexuality being morally corrupt.

You’re no different than Tiribulus. He’s just more straightforward about his reason for opposing gay rights.[/quote]Here, allow me to be straightforward yet again. Gay marriage benefits no one. Not society, not the children it would horrifically corrupt, not you and not your “partner” because IT IS morally repugnant because IT IS an abominable perversion of the created order of the holy designer. Even plain human anatomy testifies to this. Programs written for Unix do not run in Windows. Emulation can force the issue, but it still ain’t Windows. (imperfect analogy as are they all).

I’ll hand you this outright so you can wail and moan along with the rest of the God haters around here. My standard is unabashedly and unapologetically the Word of God. It would not matter to me if gay marriage made us the singular unchallenged superpower for the next thousand years. It is an abomination in the sight of the one and only true and living God and I would take a slow agonizing death before declaring right what He has so clearly and forcefully called an affront to his holiness.

See THAT is the ONLY POSSIBLE actually Christian position regardless of what some of these post modern reprobates try to pawn off in His name. Marriage, sex and family are not open to ambiguity or nuance like some lesser doctrines are.

If it were me I’d go have sex with my “partner” in celebration of the great victories being won for our side and not care one bit about what anybody else thought, especially some faceless phantoms on an internet forum. But you have a more sensitive conscience than mine if left to myself. Here you are, like Kamui of all people is saying, whining and sniveling like a little girl that some religious fanatics refuse to see the virtue in your depravity. Please accept me, PLEASE accept me and I’m callin you a liar ahead of time for when you deny that this is primarily what this is about for you.

I stand by everything I’ve said to and about you. I would risk my own life to save yours and would even give you mouth to mouth if it meant delaying your death. If it meant saving your soul I’d do it ten times, but as of today your are a walking stench in the nostrils of a holy God to whom you owe comprehensive obedience and indeed your very existence. His judgment and curse rests upon you while you persist in this rebellion and you are bringing that same judgment and curse to my country by foisting your perversion into the foundation of marriage and family. The adulterers and fornicators are faaaar ahead of ya, but they’ve paved your way just beautifully.

WOWEEE!!! If that ain’t right wing extremist Christian fundamentalism I don’t what is huh? Do a little peeking if you dare. I was a mainstream common American man at the founding of this nation and that’s why we roared forward and upward. This website is what the common “american” is today which fully explains our loud grotesque and ever accelerating tragic decline.

[/quote]

You don’t get it, my Calvanist friend. My comment to Cortes was a compliment to you. I appreciate that you unabashedly declare your opposition to homosexuality on moral grounds, without the sham histrionics. I think Cortes recognizes, but refuses to admit, that adopted children would actually benefit from the stability and security marriage would provide to their gay parents. I think he knows very well that heterosexual couples aren’t going to start having more illegitimate children in protest of gays being allowed to marry.

Fundamentally, he is morally opposed to gay marriage just like you are. He just won’t admit it.

Sloth was right a while back when he said that this is ultimately, fundamentally, a moral war. People like Cortes should stop putting up flimsy arguments as a smokescreen for the real issue, which has everything to do with what people consider to be morally correct and appropriate.

553

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

your familial pairing is not ideal for child rearing. Deal with this or find a new angle. [/quote]

1st) Are you really concerned about ideal situations. I wish we as a society were at that point. I’m not sure public policy should only allow the ideal.

[/quote]

It’s not ideal now. I’m worried about its further de-idealization more than anything.

Which premise?

554

I’ll restate the point (since rain is preventing me from playing golf):

In order to remedy the children of wedlock problem, we need to say:

Having children out of wedlock is not good, and you should stop doing it. You should only have kids in a marriage, because that is the best way (“best” meaning it has no equal) for children to be born and raised.

If we want to address this problem, we have to commit to this statement (and thinking) and stop there.

If we want to commit to this statement, we cannot have the addendum:

Oh, and should you think differently from the above, it’s cool - we have an “alternative” arrangement that is “equal” that can raise those kids.

The addendum undermines the original point. The original point is premised on the unassailable idea that there is no equal alternative. Once you try and suggest that an “equal alternative” exists, you’ve contradicted yourself, if you believe in the original point.

Now, the idea that children will be born out of wedlock no matter how hard we press the idea of the strictures of marriage is largely irrelevant - we can’t make the Perfect the enemy of the Good. Even if doubling down on traditional marriage can’t provide a perfect solution, it provides the best solution to the problem, and ideas to the contary must yield to this best solution.

If, however, you don’t believe in the original point - that the best arrangement for kids is to be born and raised by their biological parents in a binary marriage - then there’s no worry arguing about it. Such an idea is hopelessly flawed and foolish, but in any event, it suggests that no such thing as legally recognized marriage need exist at all.

555

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
The institution of marriage doesn’t exist. It’s an idea. [/quote]

A 5000 year old idea. And by the way how many long term successful nations in history have included homosexual marriage?

Uh huh.[/quote]

That’s interesting, will have to research. Of course, few nations have survived under ANY circumstances for a long term unchanged. What’s the definition of success?

556

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< It doesn’t matter that gay marriage benefits adopted children.

Because despite all of that, nobody is going to change your mind on homosexuality being morally corrupt.

You’re no different than Tiribulus. He’s just more straightforward about his reason for opposing gay rights.[/quote]Here, allow me to be straightforward yet again. Gay marriage benefits no one. Not society, not the children it would horrifically corrupt, not you and not your “partner” because IT IS morally repugnant because IT IS an abominable perversion of the created order of the holy designer. Even plain human anatomy testifies to this. Programs written for Unix do not run in Windows. Emulation can force the issue, but it still ain’t Windows. (imperfect analogy as are they all).

I’ll hand you this outright so you can wail and moan along with the rest of the God haters around here. My standard is unabashedly and unapologetically the Word of God. It would not matter to me if gay marriage made us the singular unchallenged superpower for the next thousand years. It is an abomination in the sight of the one and only true and living God and I would take a slow agonizing death before declaring right what He has so clearly and forcefully called an affront to his holiness.

See THAT is the ONLY POSSIBLE actually Christian position regardless of what some of these post modern reprobates try to pawn off in His name. Marriage, sex and family are not open to ambiguity or nuance like some lesser doctrines are.

If it were me I’d go have sex with my “partner” in celebration of the great victories being won for our side and not care one bit about what anybody else thought, especially some faceless phantoms on an internet forum. But you have a more sensitive conscience than mine if left to myself. Here you are, like Kamui of all people is saying, whining and sniveling like a little girl that some religious fanatics refuse to see the virtue in your depravity. Please accept me, PLEASE accept me and I’m callin you a liar ahead of time for when you deny that this is primarily what this is about for you.

I stand by everything I’ve said to and about you. I would risk my own life to save yours and would even give you mouth to mouth if it meant delaying your death. If it meant saving your soul I’d do it ten times, but as of today your are a walking stench in the nostrils of a holy God to whom you owe comprehensive obedience and indeed your very existence. His judgment and curse rests upon you while you persist in this rebellion and you are bringing that same judgment and curse to my country by foisting your perversion into the foundation of marriage and family. The adulterers and fornicators are faaaar ahead of ya, but they’ve paved your way just beautifully.

WOWEEE!!! If that ain’t right wing extremist Christian fundamentalism I don’t what is huh? Do a little peeking if you dare. I was a mainstream common American man at the founding of this nation and that’s why we roared forward and upward. This website is what the common “american” is today which fully explains our loud grotesque and ever accelerating tragic decline.

[/quote]

You don’t get it, my Calvanist friend. My comment to Cortes was a compliment to you. I appreciate that you unabashedly declare your opposition to homosexuality on moral grounds, without the sham histrionics. I think Cortes recognizes, but refuses to admit, that adopted children would actually benefit from the stability and security marriage would provide to their gay parents. I think he knows very well that heterosexual couples aren’t going to start having more illegitimate children in protest of gays being allowed to marry.

Fundamentally, he is morally opposed to gay marriage just like you are. He just won’t admit it.

Sloth was right a while back when he said that this is ultimately, fundamentally, a moral war. People like Cortes should stop putting up flimsy arguments as a smokescreen for the real issue, which has everything to do with what people consider to be morally correct and appropriate.[/quote]

You are losing points in my book fast.

557

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< It doesn’t matter that gay marriage benefits adopted children.

Because despite all of that, nobody is going to change your mind on homosexuality being morally corrupt.

You’re no different than Tiribulus. He’s just more straightforward about his reason for opposing gay rights.[/quote]Here, allow me to be straightforward yet again. Gay marriage benefits no one. Not society, not the children it would horrifically corrupt, not you and not your “partner” because IT IS morally repugnant because IT IS an abominable perversion of the created order of the holy designer. Even plain human anatomy testifies to this. Programs written for Unix do not run in Windows. Emulation can force the issue, but it still ain’t Windows. (imperfect analogy as are they all).

I’ll hand you this outright so you can wail and moan along with the rest of the God haters around here. My standard is unabashedly and unapologetically the Word of God. It would not matter to me if gay marriage made us the singular unchallenged superpower for the next thousand years. It is an abomination in the sight of the one and only true and living God and I would take a slow agonizing death before declaring right what He has so clearly and forcefully called an affront to his holiness.

See THAT is the ONLY POSSIBLE actually Christian position regardless of what some of these post modern reprobates try to pawn off in His name. Marriage, sex and family are not open to ambiguity or nuance like some lesser doctrines are.

If it were me I’d go have sex with my “partner” in celebration of the great victories being won for our side and not care one bit about what anybody else thought, especially some faceless phantoms on an internet forum. But you have a more sensitive conscience than mine if left to myself. Here you are, like Kamui of all people is saying, whining and sniveling like a little girl that some religious fanatics refuse to see the virtue in your depravity. Please accept me, PLEASE accept me and I’m callin you a liar ahead of time for when you deny that this is primarily what this is about for you.

I stand by everything I’ve said to and about you. I would risk my own life to save yours and would even give you mouth to mouth if it meant delaying your death. If it meant saving your soul I’d do it ten times, but as of today your are a walking stench in the nostrils of a holy God to whom you owe comprehensive obedience and indeed your very existence. His judgment and curse rests upon you while you persist in this rebellion and you are bringing that same judgment and curse to my country by foisting your perversion into the foundation of marriage and family. The adulterers and fornicators are faaaar ahead of ya, but they’ve paved your way just beautifully.

WOWEEE!!! If that ain’t right wing extremist Christian fundamentalism I don’t what is huh? Do a little peeking if you dare. I was a mainstream common American man at the founding of this nation and that’s why we roared forward and upward. This website is what the common “american” is today which fully explains our loud grotesque and ever accelerating tragic decline.

[/quote]

You don’t get it, my Calvanist friend. My comment to Cortes was a compliment to you. I appreciate that you unabashedly declare your opposition to homosexuality on moral grounds, without the sham histrionics. I think Cortes recognizes, but refuses to admit, that adopted children would actually benefit from the stability and security marriage would provide to their gay parents. I think he knows very well that heterosexual couples aren’t going to start having more illegitimate children in protest of gays being allowed to marry.

Fundamentally, he is morally opposed to gay marriage just like you are. He just won’t admit it.

Sloth was right a while back when he said that this is ultimately, fundamentally, a moral war. People like Cortes should stop putting up flimsy arguments as a smokescreen for the real issue, which has everything to do with what people consider to be morally correct and appropriate.[/quote]

You are losing points in my book fast.
[/quote]

Ditto.

558

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I’ll restate the point (since rain is preventing me from playing golf):

In order to remedy the children of wedlock problem, we need to say:

Having children out of wedlock is not good, and you should stop doing it. You should only have kids in a marriage, because that is the best way (“best” meaning it has no equal) for children to be born and raised.

If we want to address this problem, we have to commit to this statement (and thinking) and stop there.

If we want to commit to this statement, we cannot have the addendum:

Oh, and should you think differently from the above, it’s cool - we have an “alternative” arrangement that is “equal” that can raise those kids.

The addendum undermines the original point. The original point is premised on the unassailable idea that there is no equal alternative. Once you try and suggest that an “equal alternative” exists, you’ve contradicted yourself, if you believe in the original point.

Now, the idea that children will be born out of wedlock no matter how hard we press the idea of the strictures of marriage is largely irrelevant - we can’t make the Perfect the enemy of the Good. Even if doubling down on traditional marriage can’t provide a perfect solution, it provides the best solution to the problem, and ideas to the contary must yield to this best solution.

If, however, you don’t believe in the original point - that the best arrangement for kids is to be born and raised by their biological parents in a binary marriage - then there’s no worry arguing about it. Such an idea is hopelessly flawed and foolish, but in any event, it suggests that no such thing as legally recognized marriage need exist at all.[/quote]

I don’t know how many times now you, Sloth, me and others have said this exact same thing in just this one thread. For page after page after page.

Instead of once acknowledging this and attempting to deal with it, though, forlife has decided, at least in my case, that it is easier to twist my words, intentions, and motivations, invent entirely new lines of argument which better support his own and then attribute them to me,subtly shift the scope of the argument to something that sounds like the point, but isn’t, bludgeon the meanings of concepts until there is hardly anything left of their original meaning,and throw around words like bigot and intolerance and moral repugnance and leave them lying there as latent warnings, lest anyone else have the gall to hold him accountable to his arguments.

559

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< It doesn’t matter that gay marriage benefits adopted children.

Because despite all of that, nobody is going to change your mind on homosexuality being morally corrupt.

You’re no different than Tiribulus. He’s just more straightforward about his reason for opposing gay rights.[/quote]Here, allow me to be straightforward yet again. Gay marriage benefits no one. Not society, not the children it would horrifically corrupt, not you and not your “partner” because IT IS morally repugnant because IT IS an abominable perversion of the created order of the holy designer. Even plain human anatomy testifies to this. Programs written for Unix do not run in Windows. Emulation can force the issue, but it still ain’t Windows. (imperfect analogy as are they all).

I’ll hand you this outright so you can wail and moan along with the rest of the God haters around here. My standard is unabashedly and unapologetically the Word of God. It would not matter to me if gay marriage made us the singular unchallenged superpower for the next thousand years. It is an abomination in the sight of the one and only true and living God and I would take a slow agonizing death before declaring right what He has so clearly and forcefully called an affront to his holiness.

See THAT is the ONLY POSSIBLE actually Christian position regardless of what some of these post modern reprobates try to pawn off in His name. Marriage, sex and family are not open to ambiguity or nuance like some lesser doctrines are.

If it were me I’d go have sex with my “partner” in celebration of the great victories being won for our side and not care one bit about what anybody else thought, especially some faceless phantoms on an internet forum. But you have a more sensitive conscience than mine if left to myself. Here you are, like Kamui of all people is saying, whining and sniveling like a little girl that some religious fanatics refuse to see the virtue in your depravity. Please accept me, PLEASE accept me and I’m callin you a liar ahead of time for when you deny that this is primarily what this is about for you.

I stand by everything I’ve said to and about you. I would risk my own life to save yours and would even give you mouth to mouth if it meant delaying your death. If it meant saving your soul I’d do it ten times, but as of today your are a walking stench in the nostrils of a holy God to whom you owe comprehensive obedience and indeed your very existence. His judgment and curse rests upon you while you persist in this rebellion and you are bringing that same judgment and curse to my country by foisting your perversion into the foundation of marriage and family. The adulterers and fornicators are faaaar ahead of ya, but they’ve paved your way just beautifully.

WOWEEE!!! If that ain’t right wing extremist Christian fundamentalism I don’t what is huh? Do a little peeking if you dare. I was a mainstream common American man at the founding of this nation and that’s why we roared forward and upward. This website is what the common “american” is today which fully explains our loud grotesque and ever accelerating tragic decline.

[/quote]

You don’t get it, my Calvanist friend. My comment to Cortes was a compliment to you. I appreciate that you unabashedly declare your opposition to homosexuality on moral grounds, without the sham histrionics. I think Cortes recognizes, but refuses to admit, that adopted children would actually benefit from the stability and security marriage would provide to their gay parents. I think he knows very well that heterosexual couples aren’t going to start having more illegitimate children in protest of gays being allowed to marry.

Fundamentally, he is morally opposed to gay marriage just like you are. He just won’t admit it.

Sloth was right a while back when he said that this is ultimately, fundamentally, a moral war. People like Cortes should stop putting up flimsy arguments as a smokescreen for the real issue, which has everything to do with what people consider to be morally correct and appropriate.[/quote]

You are losing points in my book fast.
[/quote]

Ditto.[/quote]

Okay.

560

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This isn’t addressed to me, but I agree. You are one of the politest and easiest to get along with guys around here.
[/quote]

Missed this earlier. Thanks Tirib, I appreciate the compliment. Of course, like pretty much everything in this forum, not everyone shares the same opinion on this :wink:

561

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I’ll restate the point (since rain is preventing me from playing golf):

In order to remedy the children of wedlock problem, we need to say:

Having children out of wedlock is not good, and you should stop doing it. You should only have kids in a marriage, because that is the best way (“best” meaning it has no equal) for children to be born and raised.

If we want to address this problem, we have to commit to this statement (and thinking) and stop there.

If we want to commit to this statement, we cannot have the addendum:

Oh, and should you think differently from the above, it’s cool - we have an “alternative” arrangement that is “equal” that can raise those kids.

The addendum undermines the original point. The original point is premised on the unassailable idea that there is no equal alternative. Once you try and suggest that an “equal alternative” exists, you’ve contradicted yourself, if you believe in the original point.

Now, the idea that children will be born out of wedlock no matter how hard we press the idea of the strictures of marriage is largely irrelevant - we can’t make the Perfect the enemy of the Good. Even if doubling down on traditional marriage can’t provide a perfect solution, it provides the best solution to the problem, and ideas to the contary must yield to this best solution.

If, however, you don’t believe in the original point - that the best arrangement for kids is to be born and raised by their biological parents in a binary marriage - then there’s no worry arguing about it. Such an idea is hopelessly flawed and foolish, but in any event, it suggests that no such thing as legally recognized marriage need exist at all.[/quote]

I don’t know how many times now you, Sloth, me and others have said this exact same thing in just this one thread. For page after page after page.

Instead of once acknowledging this and attempting to deal with it, though, forlife has decided, at least in my case, that it is easier to twist my words, intentions, and motivations, invent entirely new lines of argument which better support his own and then attribute them to me,subtly shift the scope of the argument to something that sounds like the point, but isn’t, bludgeon the meanings of concepts until there is hardly anything left of their original meaning,and throw around words like bigot and intolerance and moral repugnance and leave them lying there as latent warnings, lest anyone else have the gall to hold him accountable to his arguments. [/quote]

Actually, to his credit, he addressed my point in a way that you never did. Not that I don’t have a response to his rebuttal, but he at least addressed what I was saying directly, instead of dancing around the issue like you seemed to be doing. You admitted yourself that you were being evasive.

You’re not normally like this, and I don’t know why you’ve been doing it in this thread.

I don’t know why I let myself get pulled into these discussions. They’re never productive, nobody ever changes their mind, and it only results in negative feelings.

If I offended you, I apologize. I’m done with the thread.

562

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I’ll restate the point (since rain is preventing me from playing golf):

In order to remedy the children of wedlock problem, we need to say:

Having children out of wedlock is not good, and you should stop doing it. You should only have kids in a marriage, because that is the best way (“best” meaning it has no equal) for children to be born and raised.

If we want to address this problem, we have to commit to this statement (and thinking) and stop there.

If we want to commit to this statement, we cannot have the addendum:

Oh, and should you think differently from the above, it’s cool - we have an “alternative” arrangement that is “equal” that can raise those kids.

The addendum undermines the original point. The original point is premised on the unassailable idea that there is no equal alternative. Once you try and suggest that an “equal alternative” exists, you’ve contradicted yourself, if you believe in the original point.

Now, the idea that children will be born out of wedlock no matter how hard we press the idea of the strictures of marriage is largely irrelevant - we can’t make the Perfect the enemy of the Good. Even if doubling down on traditional marriage can’t provide a perfect solution, it provides the best solution to the problem, and ideas to the contary must yield to this best solution.

If, however, you don’t believe in the original point - that the best arrangement for kids is to be born and raised by their biological parents in a binary marriage - then there’s no worry arguing about it. Such an idea is hopelessly flawed and foolish, but in any event, it suggests that no such thing as legally recognized marriage need exist at all.[/quote]

I don’t know how many times now you, Sloth, me and others have said this exact same thing in just this one thread. For page after page after page.

Instead of once acknowledging this and attempting to deal with it, though, forlife has decided, at least in my case, that it is easier to twist my words, intentions, and motivations, invent entirely new lines of argument which better support his own and then attribute them to me,subtly shift the scope of the argument to something that sounds like the point, but isn’t, bludgeon the meanings of concepts until there is hardly anything left of their original meaning,and throw around words like bigot and intolerance and moral repugnance and leave them lying there as latent warnings, lest anyone else have the gall to hold him accountable to his arguments. [/quote]

Actually, to his credit, he addressed my point in a way that you never did. Not that I don’t have a response to his rebuttal, but he at least addressed what I was saying directly, instead of dancing around the issue like you seemed to be doing. You admitted yourself that you were being evasive.

You’re not normally like this, and I don’t know why you’ve been doing it in this thread.

I don’t know why I let myself get pulled into these discussions. They’re never productive, nobody ever changes their mind, and it only results in negative feelings.

If I offended you, I apologize. I’m done with the thread.[/quote]

I don’t agree as to your characterization of my actions here but whatever.

That’s cool, I’m not offended and honestly don’t like starting fights with people here, particularly those I consider my friends.

Take care.