[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
IMHO Gay marriage is wrong. IT should be called something else…like same sex union. Because it will never, ever in a million years be marriage by definition. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Give em rights all day long, but to disgrace the meaning of marriage is unacceptable. [/quote]
I couldn’t care less what you call it. I just want equal legal rights with my partner.
[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
IMHO Gay marriage is wrong. IT should be called something else…like same sex union. Because it will never, ever in a million years be marriage by definition. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Give em rights all day long, but to disgrace the meaning of marriage is unacceptable. [/quote]
I don’t get it. It’s just a freaking word.
If we started calling gay-marriage shmarriage and gay people got shmarried would this appease you?
Why is everyone focusing on JUST gay men and the amount of butt fucking going on? There are lesbians out there too, you know.
Also, it’s pointless to debate this since both sides are equally entrenched in their views and nothing anyone says will change anyone’s views on this or any other subject.
From what I’ve read, some of you believe the downfall of society started in the 60s with the Civil Rights movement and if we just went back to separate but equal (if not true slavery) we would be okay and this slippery slope would level out.
Gay marriage has nothing to do with the lack of morality or the decline in our education or anything else. It’s the attitude of the adults of parental age that allow their kids to do whatever they want, and adults who blame their childhood as an excuse to commit crimes and people who provide trophies for losers of Little League games so feelings don’t get hurt, that are the problem. This has nothing to do with HIV/AIDS, STDs, or gay marriage. It has to do with Americans turning into idiots who believe nothing is their fault. The question then, is where did this thinking come from? And please don’t say crazy left-wing liberals. It’s more than that.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
IMHO Gay marriage is wrong. IT should be called something else…like same sex union. Because it will never, ever in a million years be marriage by definition. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Give em rights all day long, but to disgrace the meaning of marriage is unacceptable. [/quote]
I couldn’t care less what you call it. I just want equal legal rights with my partner.[/quote]
You have equal rights already. Each of us have the option of marrying any women who will say yes. That is EQUAL rights. What you want are special rights.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
IMHO Gay marriage is wrong. IT should be called something else…like same sex union. Because it will never, ever in a million years be marriage by definition. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Give em rights all day long, but to disgrace the meaning of marriage is unacceptable. [/quote]
I couldn’t care less what you call it. I just want equal legal rights with my partner.[/quote]
You have equal rights already. Each of us have the option of marrying any women who will say yes. That is EQUAL rights. What you want are special rights. [/quote]
No, no he doesn’t. In a hospital situation, he does not have the right to be with his partner or make choices for him if the partner is incapacitated. They will go to his IMMEDIATE family, which would be the partner’s parents. A heterosexual’s IMMEDIATE family is considered their spouse, which he would not be considered. He’s just a lover or a partner. The word “spouse” has a lot more power than those words. That is not equal rights.
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
IMHO Gay marriage is wrong. IT should be called something else…like same sex union. Because it will never, ever in a million years be marriage by definition. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Give em rights all day long, but to disgrace the meaning of marriage is unacceptable. [/quote]
I couldn’t care less what you call it. I just want equal legal rights with my partner.[/quote]
You have equal rights already. Each of us have the option of marrying any women who will say yes. That is EQUAL rights. What you want are special rights. [/quote]
No, no he doesn’t. In a hospital situation, he does not have the right to be with his partner or make choices for him if the partner is incapacitated. They will go to his IMMEDIATE family, which would be the partner’s parents. A heterosexual’s IMMEDIATE family is considered their spouse, which he would not be considered. He’s just a lover or a partner. The word “spouse” has a lot more power than those words. That is not equal rights.
[/quote]
This is easily fixed with a medical power of attorney. Technically, even a spouse needs a medical POA because a medical professional cannot assume that the non-hospitalized spouse is competent to make decision. However, in practice, yes, they will go to the spouse even without a POA.
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
IMHO Gay marriage is wrong. IT should be called something else…like same sex union. Because it will never, ever in a million years be marriage by definition. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Give em rights all day long, but to disgrace the meaning of marriage is unacceptable. [/quote]
I couldn’t care less what you call it. I just want equal legal rights with my partner.[/quote]
You have equal rights already. Each of us have the option of marrying any women who will say yes. That is EQUAL rights. What you want are special rights. [/quote]
No, no he doesn’t. In a hospital situation, he does not have the right to be with his partner or make choices for him if the partner is incapacitated. They will go to his IMMEDIATE family, which would be the partner’s parents. A heterosexual’s IMMEDIATE family is considered their spouse, which he would not be considered. He’s just a lover or a partner. The word “spouse” has a lot more power than those words. That is not equal rights.
[/quote]
It’s the same crap logic that interracial marriage bigots used:
[quote]The apologists for these laws insisted that they were not “discriminatory,” as one Republican congressman from Illinois phrased it, because it “applies equally to men and women.”
Legal arguments used claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral in order to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendmentâ??s guarantee of “equal protection under the laws.”
How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites “equally.” This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.[/quote]
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
IMHO Gay marriage is wrong. IT should be called something else…like same sex union. Because it will never, ever in a million years be marriage by definition. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Give em rights all day long, but to disgrace the meaning of marriage is unacceptable. [/quote]
I couldn’t care less what you call it. I just want equal legal rights with my partner.[/quote]
You have equal rights already. Each of us have the option of marrying any women who will say yes. That is EQUAL rights. What you want are special rights. [/quote]
No, no he doesn’t. In a hospital situation, he does not have the right to be with his partner or make choices for him if the partner is incapacitated. They will go to his IMMEDIATE family, which would be the partner’s parents. A heterosexual’s IMMEDIATE family is considered their spouse, which he would not be considered. He’s just a lover or a partner. The word “spouse” has a lot more power than those words. That is not equal rights.
[/quote]
This is easily fixed with a medical power of attorney. Technically, even a spouse needs a medical POA because a medical professional cannot assume that the non-hospitalized spouse is competent to make decision. However, in practice, yes, they will go to the spouse even without a POA.[/quote]
And that’s where the discrimination occurs, in this case by placing an undue burden on gay couples over what is required of straight couples. A friend of mine was with his partner for 25 years and had medical power of attorney. But because they didn’t grab the documentation in the middle of his partner’s heart attack, my friend wasn’t allowed to visit his partner on his death bed until the parents arrived and granted permission.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
AIDS was not around in 1962 because it wasn’t even a disease then. And you cannot blame gays or any group for starting AIDS unless you can prove that an evil homosexual scientist created the virus in a lab. Starting and spreading are different things.[/quote]
Mike you’re using a straw man argument. Come on you’re better than that. I never once said that homosexuals STARTED AIDS. What I said was that according to the CDC about 60% of all new HIV positive’s come from male homosexuals. That is a FACT. Not politically correct in any way, but nonetheless still a fact. They S P R E A D it…okay?
Yeah, that’s always a cute argument tactic. But when challenged those who use that prhase can’t come up with reasons why we’re currently on the slide. Just look at history, one can draw conclusions regarding what happened from various actions taken. Henry Ford invented the assembly line. Then what happened? Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, then what happened? Prayer was taken out of school, then what happened? Lot’s of good things! People started respecting one another more. There were less teen pregnancy’s, less school violence, less AIDS, less STD’s less of everything that was bad—Well now taking prayer out of public school sure did help our country—Oh wait…the opposite happened.
As I challenged the other poster who came up with this cutsie phrase “correlation does not equal causation” YOU TELL ME WHAT CAUSED THE SLIDE- Go ahead.
And none of this has to do with anything “gay”.
Like I said, if you have the time T Nation has the space. Please post your theory on why this country is falling apart. I’d love to hear it. YOU tell me where it began and why and how we got to this place.
Oh please, I am not saying we are not technologically superior. But what happened morally? What happend to two parents raising their children? What happened to …read the list above.
Come up with the answer my friend I’d love to read it. [/quote]
I started typing out a response when I realized I couldn’t condense it into a nice talking point. But I will say this - I am cynical and skeptical that things are so much worse now than they were before the 60s. In the 1950s, marital problems were not something anyone talked about. If a woman’s spouse beat her, she was supposed to use make up in a creative way to cover up the bruise, then smile and be pleasant at the company cocktail party. A lower divorce rate does not mean that there were happier marriages.
Thunderbolt hits himself another homer here. There is no meaningful correlation between race and homosexuality whatsoever, regardless of what some very wrong people attempted to say in the past. One is a morally neutral state of self and one is THE most morally charged of all human issues.
ZEB is correct here too. I go to a Christian church full of black people where the people I love most in all this world are and know some interracial couples there. Go ahead n tell them that their godly union is the moral equivalent of elder forlife and his “partner”. You may be shortly introduced to the ministry of the laying on of hands =] (jist kiddin) You would however get a very sound biblical exposition on the matter. My very black pastor has denounced this argument many times from the pulpit.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Thunderbolt hits himself another homer here. There is no meaningful correlation between race and homosexuality whatsoever, regardless of what some very wrong people attempted to say in the past. One is a morally neutral state of self and one is THE most morally charged of all human issues.
ZEB is correct here too. I go to a Christian church full of black people where the people I love most in all this world are and know some interracial couples there. Go ahead n tell them that their godly union is the moral equivalent of elder forlife and his “partner”. You may be shortly introduced to the ministry of the laying on of hands =] (jist kiddin) You would however get a very sound biblical exposition on the matter. My very black pastor has denounced this argument many times from the pulpit.[/quote]
And, again, I would say, why does religion have to be brought in to this? Homosexuality happens. It’s genetic. Heterosexual people create and give birth to them. If homosexuality wasn’t supposed to exist, then it wouldn’t happen since your God wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah. If your God had done it the right way the first time, we wouldn’t still have this “problem”, would we?
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Thunderbolt hits himself another homer here. There is no meaningful correlation between race and homosexuality whatsoever, regardless of what some very wrong people attempted to say in the past. One is a morally neutral state of self and one is THE most morally charged of all human issues.
ZEB is correct here too. I go to a Christian church full of black people where the people I love most in all this world are and know some interracial couples there. Go ahead n tell them that their godly union is the moral equivalent of elder forlife and his “partner”. You may be shortly introduced to the ministry of the laying on of hands =] (jist kiddin) You would however get a very sound biblical exposition on the matter. My very black pastor has denounced this argument many times from the pulpit.[/quote]
And, again, I would say, why does religion have to be brought in to this? Homosexuality happens. It’s genetic. Heterosexual people create and give birth to them. If homosexuality wasn’t supposed to exist, then it wouldn’t happen since your God wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah. If your God had done it the right way the first time, we wouldn’t still have this “problem”, would we?[/quote]
Pedophilia “happens,” too.
I am NOT equating the two, but your argument certainly does not seem to allow for the distinction.
So is there a valid non-religious argument against gay marriage?
I haven’t seen one presented in this thread yet.
EDIT: If we re-name gay marriage to shmarriage (since marriage is a heterosexual union) is there any other non-religious reason to withhold these rights?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Thunderbolt hits himself another homer here. There is no meaningful correlation between race and homosexuality whatsoever, regardless of what some very wrong people attempted to say in the past. One is a morally neutral state of self and one is THE most morally charged of all human issues.
ZEB is correct here too. I go to a Christian church full of black people where the people I love most in all this world are and know some interracial couples there. Go ahead n tell them that their godly union is the moral equivalent of elder forlife and his “partner”. You may be shortly introduced to the ministry of the laying on of hands =] (jist kiddin) You would however get a very sound biblical exposition on the matter. My very black pastor has denounced this argument many times from the pulpit.[/quote]
And, again, I would say, why does religion have to be brought in to this? Homosexuality happens. It’s genetic. Heterosexual people create and give birth to them. If homosexuality wasn’t supposed to exist, then it wouldn’t happen since your God wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah. If your God had done it the right way the first time, we wouldn’t still have this “problem”, would we?[/quote]
Pedophilia “happens,” too.
I am NOT equating the two, but your argument certainly does not seem to allow for the distinction.
[/quote]
Yes, but that is a crime against someone who does not have the understanding of what is going on or the ability to say yes or no (which makes the answer automatically NO). Homosexuality is done between consenting adults who know what’s going on. Yes, homosexuality used to be a crime and I think still is in some jurisdictions that have all those old laws on the books, but again, it’s done between consenting adults.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
IMHO Gay marriage is wrong. IT should be called something else…like same sex union. Because it will never, ever in a million years be marriage by definition. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Give em rights all day long, but to disgrace the meaning of marriage is unacceptable. [/quote]
I couldn’t care less what you call it. I just want equal legal rights with my partner.[/quote]
You have equal rights already. Each of us have the option of marrying any women who will say yes. That is EQUAL rights. What you want are special rights. [/quote]
No, no he doesn’t. In a hospital situation, he does not have the right to be with his partner or make choices for him if the partner is incapacitated. They will go to his IMMEDIATE family, which would be the partner’s parents. A heterosexual’s IMMEDIATE family is considered their spouse, which he would not be considered. He’s just a lover or a partner. The word “spouse” has a lot more power than those words. That is not equal rights.
[/quote]
This is easily fixed with a medical power of attorney. Technically, even a spouse needs a medical POA because a medical professional cannot assume that the non-hospitalized spouse is competent to make decision. However, in practice, yes, they will go to the spouse even without a POA.[/quote]
And that’s where the discrimination occurs, in this case by placing an undue burden on gay couples over what is required of straight couples. A friend of mine was with his partner for 25 years and had medical power of attorney. But because they didn’t grab the documentation in the middle of his partner’s heart attack, my friend wasn’t allowed to visit his partner on his death bed until the parents arrived and granted permission.[/quote]
And this is the stuff I’m talking about when I say that civil marriage only grants rights. Gay marriage won’t suddenly allow one gay partner to make medical decisions for another partner, possibly against the wishes of the partner’s family, because this is already allowed provided that a POA is in place. A civil union/marriage just makes this a bit easier in emergency situations. I don’t see society crumbling because gay partners will be recognized as having the right to make medical decisions for each other, among other things.
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
And, again, I would say, why does religion have to be brought in to this?
[/quote]
Because marriage has been historically a religious institution. A better question is why did the State butt into the marriage business.
[quote]
Homosexuality happens. It’s genetic. [/quote]
Maybe. But then, maybe alcoholism, pedophilia, and breast cancer is genetic, too. Genetic does not mean “good.”
[quote]
If homosexuality wasn’t supposed to exist, then it wouldn’t happen since your G-d wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah. If your God had done it the right way the first time, we wouldn’t still have this “problem”, would we?[/quote]
G-d lets lots of bad things happen. People have lots of explanations why. I defer to G-d’s answer to Job, which was “where were you when I created the Heavans and the Earth.”
In short, His ways are way above our pay scale
(Also, G-d made no pretense of whiping out ALL homosexuals in S&G. There were lots and lots of things wrong in S&G.)
[quote]therajraj wrote:
So is there a valid non-religious argument against gay marriage?
I haven’t seen one presented in this thread yet.
EDIT: If we re-name gay marriage to shmarriage (since marriage is a heterosexual union) is there any other non-religious reason to withhold these rights?[/quote]
Ummm…nope! Not unless you bring kids into it, if the couple either wants to have them biologically or adopt, then you get the whole argument about parents needing both a mom and a dad or they’ll grow up to be some homicidal psychopath or, Goddess forbid, completely fucked up about sexuality. Which could, and does happen when a kid is raised with a mom and a dad in suburbia.
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Thunderbolt hits himself another homer here. There is no meaningful correlation between race and homosexuality whatsoever, regardless of what some very wrong people attempted to say in the past. One is a morally neutral state of self and one is THE most morally charged of all human issues.
ZEB is correct here too. I go to a Christian church full of black people where the people I love most in all this world are and know some interracial couples there. Go ahead n tell them that their godly union is the moral equivalent of elder forlife and his “partner”. You may be shortly introduced to the ministry of the laying on of hands =] (jist kiddin) You would however get a very sound biblical exposition on the matter. My very black pastor has denounced this argument many times from the pulpit.[/quote]
And, again, I would say, why does religion have to be brought in to this? Homosexuality happens. It’s genetic. Heterosexual people create and give birth to them. If homosexuality wasn’t supposed to exist, then it wouldn’t happen since your God wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah. If your God had done it the right way the first time, we wouldn’t still have this “problem”, would we?[/quote]
Pedophilia “happens,” too.
I am NOT equating the two, but your argument certainly does not seem to allow for the distinction.
[/quote]
Yes, but that is a crime against someone who does not have the understanding of what is going on or the ability to say yes or no (which makes the answer automatically NO). Homosexuality is done between consenting adults who know what’s going on. Yes, homosexuality used to be a crime and I think still is in some jurisdictions that have all those old laws on the books, but again, it’s done between consenting adults. [/quote]
Haha, see my edit. Of course 10 seconds was not enough time to get that in there.
Never mind, damnit. Edit didn’t go through at all.
What I said was that you would respond that pedophilia does not involve consenting adults, to which numerous other distasteful arrangements which do could be substituted without changing the substance of my point.
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Thunderbolt hits himself another homer here. There is no meaningful correlation between race and homosexuality whatsoever, regardless of what some very wrong people attempted to say in the past. One is a morally neutral state of self and one is THE most morally charged of all human issues.
ZEB is correct here too. I go to a Christian church full of black people where the people I love most in all this world are and know some interracial couples there. Go ahead n tell them that their godly union is the moral equivalent of elder forlife and his “partner”. You may be shortly introduced to the ministry of the laying on of hands =] (jist kiddin) You would however get a very sound biblical exposition on the matter. My very black pastor has denounced this argument many times from the pulpit.[/quote]
And, again, I would say, why does religion have to be brought in to this? Homosexuality happens. It’s genetic. Heterosexual people create and give birth to them. If homosexuality wasn’t supposed to exist, then it wouldn’t happen since your God wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah. If your God had done it the right way the first time, we wouldn’t still have this “problem”, would we?[/quote]
Pedophilia “happens,” too.
I am NOT equating the two, but your argument certainly does not seem to allow for the distinction.
[/quote]
Yes, but that is a crime against someone who does not have the understanding of what is going on or the ability to say yes or no (which makes the answer automatically NO). Homosexuality is done between consenting adults who know what’s going on. Yes, homosexuality used to be a crime and I think still is in some jurisdictions that have all those old laws on the books, but again, it’s done between consenting adults. [/quote]
And this goes to the nature and function of government. The function of government is to protect people from harm, especially those who cannot protect themselves. Even if pedophilia has a biological component, the act harms a child. A child is deemed not to have the emotional majority to consent to any sexual act, so any argument regarding consent is not valid. Very different from what two consenting adults do. And yes, consent is a huge factor in our laws. For instance, what’s the difference between sex and rape? What’s the difference between a boxing match and a guy beating the crap out of someone in the street? Anyone, anyone?