Gay Marriage Discussion

[SexMachine]

Edited to fix quotes

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

I have never called you hateful, I just don’t agree that such a narrow definition is appropriate WHEN THE STATE IS INVOLVED.[/quote]

No idea how state involvement affects anything.

[quote]

I don’t think my arguments about christianity are infantile[/quote]

They’re infantile because you’re stating the obvious. You haven’t delivered a subtle, considered attack on Christianity you’ve presented a very simplistic attack. The historian Edward Gibbon gave an interesting critique of Christianity based upon it being too soft and moralistic. This is a legitimate criticism in my opinion, especially in relation to the direction it has taken since the Middle Ages. But your critique is just silly and shows a poor understanding. But anyway, that’s off topic.

Your opinion on the matter isn’t going to change that. You may never change your opinion, I don’t care. But I think your opinion is wrong. And MOST of the population agrees with me.

You’re taking a very generous definition of “most”. There’s a reason why such a considerably number of people oppose it and it’s not just because the bible says so. To think that reveals a poor understanding of the issue.

[quote]
I’m sure that while those historical milestones might bore you, they were rather important to the people they affected[/quote]

My point was that slavery and gay marriage are not comparable. This isn’t a human rights issue.

[quote]
Because I have a twisted sense of justice[/quote]

Come on, you really think this is a human rights issue that gay men can’t marry each other? It’s not.

Because I believe in equality under the law. That concept is important to me.

Gays have equality under the law. I’ve explained that time and again and no one has even attempted to refute it. People just ignore what I said and go on pretending I haven’t said it.

[quote]
If by “activism” you mean typing on keyboard in my free time, I guess that makes me an “activist”. That’s about the extent of my involvement.[/quote]

You feel so strongly about it which is strange. There are many real human rights issues; I don’t understand why so many people are attached to this.

How is what I wrote idiotic?

It’s idiotic because gays aren’t being disenfranchised. On the contrary they are given special privileges as are all identity groups(except white males of course).

[quote]

The feminist movement started WAY before the gay marriage movement… That’s what started the downward spiral of political correctness and the decline of morality in our society[/quote]

We’re not really talking about political correctness; we’re talking about gay marriage.

[quote]

Systematically" as in the existing SYSTEM of marriage between a man and a woman and those cultural stereotypes. “Disenfranchised” as in married heterosexual couples have rights granted to them BY THE STATE that homosexual couples do NOT have. Classic definition of each word… What’s the problem?[/quote]

We’re never going to agree because you believe that marriage is not only a right but that people who don’t want to get married have a “right” to actually change what marriage is. That’s the point of contention here and I do not accept that people have a right to change what marriage actually is.

I don’t listen to gay activists or what they say. In fact, I’ve not sought another homosexual’s opinion on this matter at all. I see the facts and I’m offering MY opinion. That’s it.[/quote]

You’ve taken the same position as them and you’re making the same argument.

[quote]No, but if I did, what would that matter?

No but I was curious. Maybe you see it as sticking it to the Christians.

[quote]
Right is right, wrong is wrong and fair is fair…[/quote]

I agree. And it’s not fair to change what marriage is.

Who’s party line?

The gay marriage party line.

[quote]

Society is changing in many negative ways, but becoming more accepting of people and their differences is a POSITIVE change.[/quote]

On the contrary, pluralism and relativism are a sign of decline.

The fact of the matter is that gay marriage WILL be a reality soon. They WILL win that battle because of the existing laws in our society that give special privileges to married heterosexual couples.

That’s no reason to accept it.

Now, who’s building the strawman? I have always maintained that you don’t need MORE laws to enforce EXISTING laws. If assault is assault, I don’t think that the motivation for that assault matters - punish the assault. I think “hate crime” legislation is bullshit.[quote]

But hate crime legislation and affirmative action are part and parcel of the radical gay activist agenda.

I didn’t write these laws, but they are there. And those laws and implied rights effectively disenfranchise homosexuals.

Again, we agree on a fundamental point; namely, that a right exists to change what marriage is.

The FUNDAMENTAL problem is that the GOVERNMENT got involved in what is essentially a RELIGIOUS matter. I would be perfectly fine if the government regulated that ALL unions that wish to have fiduciary rights and responsibilities be labeled as “civil unions”. And let whatever churches want to do what they want regarding their policy of who “marries”.

That would never satisfy the radicals. For them it’s not about rights it’s about agitating and attacking traditionalism.

I think many people get hung up on the word. But the word is misleading. What gay couples WANT and should be ALLOWED TO HAVE is the rights of inheritance, the right to pull the plug, the right to be privy to medical information and all those INHERENT rights that the STATE grants married couples.

That can all be granted by written consent from the partners. I have no problem with gays granting their partners such rights. There’s no need to change the definition of marriage to achieve these things.

[quote]

It isn’t about RELIGION at that point, it’s about respect and equality under the LAW. If a hetero couple is together for 30 years, and can not produce offspring and a gay couple is together for 30 years and do not produce offspring, why on earth should the surviving member of the hetero couple be entitled to an inheritance, while the surviving member of the homosexual couple get to take a back seat the decieced member’s surviving family? They put in the same time, melded their finances, had their ups and downs, but at the end of the day their commitment to one another kept them together… WHY SHOULD THAT NOT BE HONORED?[quote]

See above. There’s no reason why a gay man can’t grant that to his partner in his will.

Will there be a small percentage of “abusive” people who adopt these children? Of course there will. Just like there is a small percentage of “abusive” people who are STRAIGHT and end up adopting kids.

It’s a much larger percentage amongst gays. I can see you won’t accept that though. You’re engaging in relativism; pretending there’s no difference when there is.

[quote]

Statistically, young black men are likelier to commit crimes than any other race. Should be preemptively curtail any of their civil rights? OF COURSE NOT!!! You are succumbing to the logical fallacy of generalizing from the particular to the general. YOU ARE BETTER THAN THAT…[/quote]

Only it’s not a “right” to adopt children it’s a privilege. And the “rights” of the children are far more important than the rights of the adoptive parents. I’m only concerned with what’s best for the child. The “right” of someone to adopt a child pales into insignificance in relation to what’s best for the child.

It is a sad reality, but it is not one that is UNIQUE to the homosexual community. Will there be small statistical anomalies? Of course there will! There are many people fighting gay marriage and they will use statistical lies to back up their position. But in REALITY, the vast, overwhelming majority of PEOPLE (hetero and homo sexual alike) are NOT pedophiles.

They’re not equal numbers though and you can’t pretend otherwise. There is a much higher percentage of child molesters in the gay community.

Essentially, the disagreement between us is that a right exists to actually change what marriage is.

[SexMachine]

Sorry about the quotes. As I said, a lot of time can be saved by identifying the fundamental point of contention which is the “right” to actually change what marriage is.

[SexMachine]

[quote]Ironskape wrote:

For all of your long-winded diatribes against “active nihilism” and quotes by Edmond Burke, you seem genuinely oblivious to the actual nature of society. Society is never stagnant; it’s constantly evolving, and usually for the better. If you want strict traditionalism, put down your computer and go be Amish.

[/quote]

I’ve considered something along those lines. And yes, I am an anti-modernist. Not a Luddite, but I’m against modernity.

It would certainly not go against previous iterations of marriage throughout history. Polygamy used to be the norm, but then someone changed the definition of marriage.

Firstly, it wasn’t polygamy it was marriage + concubines. Secondly, Judaism and Christianity both opposed such unions around a thousand years ago. We have a thousand years of tradition behind us.

Marriage has never been just “man + woman, bride + groom = marriage”.

13 Facts on the History of Marriage | Live Science

See above.

You have this amazing ability to go on and on without saying anything, and you still didn’t answer my question. I’ll ask again: what would you be doing differently in a world where gay marriage is legal?

Homeschooling my kids. Keeping them away from radical sex activists. De-programming them. That for starters.

Marriage is not a zero-sum game. Gay marriages do not take the place of straight marriages, and straight marriages would continue in the same way with the same rights they do now. Nothing is being taken away from them.

Wrong. Changing what marriage is annihilates the institution of marriage and transforms it into something entirely different from what it is now and what it has been for a thousand years. As I’ve said before, the institution itself has value. Before the 60’s marriage was something that was expected of everyone. Most gay men were actually married with children because they were expected to do so.

Saying that gay marriage “radically transforms” traditional marriage is like saying that a restaurant “radically transformed” its menu by adding an appetizer 3% of the population is interested in eating. You can still order your usual, buddy, don’t let an extra option freak you out.

Not a meaningful comparison. Marriage is not a menu item it’s the praxis for the continuation of the human species.

There is no “special treatment”. If I had the option to marry a man, so would you. Don’t want to marry a man? No one is forcing you to.

See above. Marriage is the formalisation of an essential process whereby the human species perpetuates itself. It’s not just a “choice” or a menu item.

Gay people. This seems to be a concept you refuse to understand.

And betcha I know a lot more members of the gay community. Not everyone wants to get married, no, but most of us want the option.

You shouldn’t have the “option” to actually transform marriage into something radically new.

I do respect marriage. It means something to me, and I want it to be part of my life. That’s the exact opposite of nihilism. Stop using terms you don’t understand because you think big words make you sound smarter.

As far as I’m aware I’ve never had any contact with you on this forum before. What would you know about what I understand and what I don’t. If you disagree with something I’ve said then address it.

It’s literally the only way gay marriage would, theoretically, cause you undue harm. The issue isn’t about forcing anyone to do anything, and yet you think that tax benefits for a couple with matching genitals is a direct threat to your way of life.

I believe gay marriage is actually a deliberate assault on the civil society. I believe radical gays actually hate traditionalism and wish to transform society itself. This is not about tax benefits. It’s much more than that.

[quote]

So when, during marriage’s tumultuous history, did it finally reach the definition of “un-redefinable”?

To transform marriage is to destroy what it currently is and replace it with something else.

Marriage has never been about gay relationships. It’s always been about procreation and the continuation of the species.

You’re making the same point you did earlier, only it sounds even less based in reality.

If something is being destroyed, you should be able to point out concrete examples. Show me how a man and woman suffer in their union if I marry my boyfriend. Are they no longer allowed to file for joint adoption, because the gays took them all? Will the wife have no claim to the husband’s affairs in the event of his passing because we only let gay couples do that now?

You are wrong. It doesn’t require “concrete examples”. It’s an abstract concept. We’re not talking about concrete entities here.

I’ll ask again, what rights are being taken away from straight couples when gays are allowed to marry?

I never said rights were being taken away. I said the institution of marriage is destroyed in its transformation. The institution of marriage is no longer a child producing and rearing proposition.

You think that a mother is incapable of teaching the value of accepting responsibility and protecting your family?

Yes. A mother is not capable of providing an example of masculinity.

Your claim that you can only learn certain things from a father assumes that all men have the same innate masculine characteristics, and women have completely separate feminine characteristics. They don’t.

The very fact that we have attributes we describe as masculine and feminine is demonstrative of the fact that they come from men and women respectively.

That’s not how humans work. I have complimentary characteristics to my boyfriend: I’m more “feminine” in some ways, more “masculine” in others.

Neither of you are capable of teaching a girl how to be a woman and the fact that you think you are capable of this reveals a total lack of understanding of these things.

You can learn how to be tough from your mom, and how to be empathetic from your dad. Deal with it.

Well there it is. It’s not a “declining” of western society, then, but a “darkening”. Way to show your true colors, pun totally intended.

I wonder if you’d feel the same way if say, black people were dying out as a race. I see the differences between races as valuable. The black race is worth preserving as is the white race.

An entire paragraph devoted to describing Japan’s crisis of identity following their defeat in World War II.

It’s amazing what you do and do not deem relevant to this topic of gay marriage.

It’s the reason we’re in decline. As I said, I don’t blame the normalisation of homosexuality for decline. It’s a symptom of decline not a cause.

Spoken like a true honest intellectual. Don’t ask you for evidence, because you’re not interested in scientific consensus.

The hard sciences have been subverted by ideology that’s why. Homosexuality used to be defined as a mental illness. The reason it changed was due to radical gay activists pressuring the psychiatric community. This demonstrates that ideology shapes medical opinion on such matters and it invalidates much of the data.

It has absolutely not been around for a millenia, especially as the “institution” you describe as traditional.

See above. It most certainly has. And it’s always been a child producing proposition.

Tradition is not a good enough reason to keep something as is. It must be constantly questioned and revised when presented with new information. That’s how society evolves.

I fundamentally disagree. Society has been devolving since the High Middle Ages through the undermining of traditionalism and traditional institutions.

Tradition wasn’t good enough when blacks weren’t full human beings,

Slavery was a brief episode in American history. It’s not a traditional aspect of European civilisation. Agricultural labour was the work of peasants and serfs not slaves.

it wasn’t good enough when a woman’s place was silent in the kitchen, and it isn’t good enough now.

See above.

You seem to have a hard time finding studies outside of blatantly anti-gay Christian blogs.

So you quote the high end of a statistic “in which homosexual acts are involved” in…a study. What study? You didn’t cite, and neither did the article.

You’re not intellectually honest, you don’t even bother to cite your sources.

I thought the references were at the bottom of the page? No? I’ll dig it up then.

The vast majority of rapists in prison identify as heterosexual, and engage in exclusively heterosexual acts outside of prison.

No Escape: Male Rape in U.S. Prisons - Predators and Victims

I don’t care what they “identify” as. I identify someone who has sex with another man a “homosexual”.

You need look no farther for proof that rape can about power over an individual rather than physical attraction.

You’ve discovered a preference for different body types in the gay community. Are you saying that youth is not a very common and valued aspect of physical attraction for straight men?

It’s not a fundamental aspect of “straight” culture that’s why we don’t have the equivalent of “twinks” and “bears”.

I announced I’m gay. You consider that sexual deviancy. But of course, you’re not homophobic.

Deviant can be understood without negative implications - ie, to deviate from the norm. However, yes it’s true that I see homosexuality in a negative light. If that makes me a “homophobe” then so be it. But I don’t have any enmity towards gay people. I don’t have any ill will towards them. As I said, I consider myself quite liberal on the matter. I don’t advocate any legislation that specifically targets gay people.

God forbid you expose children to different viewpoints and teach them not to physically or verbally harm other children.

Come off it. It’s immensely harmful to target prepubescent kids and encourage them to “explore” their “gender identity” and so on. It’s a recipe for confusing and sexualising children.

And weren’t you just chastising other posters for using Christianity as a defense against gay marriage?

No. No one used Christianity as “evidence” against gay marriage. Norcal just said Christianity was the basis of his belief system. This was misinterpreted by the gay rights posters as proffering “evidence”.

I thought religion didn’t matter in this debate, so who cares if homosexuality goes against the Bible?

See above.

You’re flagrantly bringing this guy’s lack of gayness as a reason he shouldn’t care about gay marriage, when you’ve repeatedly told me not to bring up my sexuality because it doesn’t pertain to this discussion.

I can accept a certain level of hypocrisy. We’re only human, after all. But this is ridiculous.

I just think it’s strange that people seem so personally invested in the issue.

[SexMachine]

^^

Again, sorry about the quotes. As I said, our fundamental point of disagreement is the idea of a “right” to actually transform marriage into something radically new. This is what I don’t accept.

[NorCal916]

The unraveling on the family unit is a brick by brick process. Equate deviant sexual practices with traditional civil rights. Then brand anyone who opposes as a bigot and a homophobe.

They love diversity lads. Except diversity of opinion.

When the family unit dissolves, morals and ethics involving relationships gets muddled. Where do gay marriage supporters stand on the rights of these gender neutrals/transgenders or whatever? You by default must support their rights of expression and love. We cannot date to put constraints on their practices! That would be bigoted. 20 years ago this would be sheer comedy. The slippery slope has made them a protected class today. Where will we be in another 20 years? Huh? I’ll wait for an answer.

So we would never oppose MY RIGHT as a transgender man, with a penis, who identifies himself as a woman, to use the restroom beside your 8 year old daughter.

That would be oppression.

[anon50325502]

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
deviant sexual practices [/quote]

What is your definition of deviant sexual practices?

[NorCal916]

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
deviant sexual practices [/quote]

What is your definition of deviant sexual practices? [/quote]

I endorse sexual practices the way intended. Just because it feels good doesn’t make it natural.

[NorCal916]

1. Sex is used for procreation.

2. Procreation is done through sex with males and females.

3. Pleasure is a simple byproduct of the act.

4. This would be the norm.

5. Sex between males or females would be a deviation from the norm.

[anon50325502]

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
deviant sexual practices [/quote]

What is your definition of deviant sexual practices? [/quote]

I endorse sexual practices the way intended. Just because it feels good doesn’t make it natural.
[/quote]

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

1. Sex is used for procreation.

2. Procreation is done through sex with males and females.

3. Pleasure is a simple byproduct of the act.

4. This would be the norm.

5. Sex between males or females would be a deviation from the norm. [/quote]

I’m just trying to understand here.

So are certain positions okay/not okay? What if you wear a condom or use birth control (to avoid the main purpose of sex)? Are female to male blow jobs okay? Can I go down on my wife?

[NorCal916]

That’s all in the act of “sex”. Intercourse is the consummation.

Of course that’s totally good.

[smh_23]

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

1. Sex is used for procreation.[/quote]

“Used for”?

By whom? You?

I use it for fun.

So, “sex is used for both procreation and fun.”

Proceed from there.

[NorCal916]

Foreplay is shown through a wide range of male and female behavior.

Personally, I prefer blowjobs.

[NorCal916]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

1. Sex is used for procreation.[/quote]

“Used for”?

By whom? You?

I use it for fun.

So, “sex is used for both procreation and fun.”

Proceed from there.

[/quote]

What is sex designed for? Simple.

AGAIN, pleasure is a secondary byproduct.

[smh_23]

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

1. Sex is used for procreation.[/quote]

“Used for”?

By whom? You?

I use it for fun.

So, “sex is used for both procreation and fun.”

Proceed from there.

[/quote]

What is sex designed for? Simple.
[/quote]

Sex is “designed”?

[NorCal916]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

1. Sex is used for procreation.[/quote]

“Used for”?

By whom? You?

I use it for fun.

So, “sex is used for both procreation and fun.”

Proceed from there.

[/quote]

What is sex designed for? Simple.
[/quote]

Sex is “designed”?[/quote]

Really? What is the primary function of intercourse?

[SexMachine]

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

1. Sex is used for procreation.[/quote]

“Used for”?

By whom? You?

I use it for fun.

So, “sex is used for both procreation and fun.”

Proceed from there.

[/quote]

What is sex designed for? Simple.

AGAIN, pleasure is a secondary byproduct.
[/quote]

Exactly. This is a common argument you get from the LGBT nihilists. It is beyond obvious that the teleology of sex is procreation. And foreplay is a part of this function.

[anon50325502]

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
That’s all in the act of “sex”. Intercourse is the consummation.

Of course that’s totally good. [/quote]

I guess I’m still confused by your position. A blow job is definitely not consummation and it isn’t intercourse in my book either. If you use a condom you are actively avoiding procreation. So shouldn’t these things be labeled deviant using your definition?

[NorCal916]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

1. Sex is used for procreation.[/quote]

“Used for”?

By whom? You?

I use it for fun.

So, “sex is used for both procreation and fun.”

Proceed from there.

[/quote]

What is sex designed for? Simple.
[/quote]

Sex is “designed”?[/quote]

Yes. By our Creator. Or Nature. Mother Earth. Et Cetera.

[NorCal916]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

1. Sex is used for procreation.[/quote]

“Used for”?

By whom? You?

I use it for fun.

So, “sex is used for both procreation and fun.”

Proceed from there.

[/quote]

What is sex designed for? Simple.

AGAIN, pleasure is a secondary byproduct.
[/quote]

Exactly. This is a common argument you get from the LGBT nihilists. It is beyond obvious that the teleology of sex is procreation. And foreplay is a part of this function.
[/quote]

I mean, it’s really all that simple. The Left just believes in smoke in mirrors not to put constrains on behavior.

[anon50325502]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

1. Sex is used for procreation.[/quote]

“Used for”?

By whom? You?

I use it for fun.

So, “sex is used for both procreation and fun.”

Proceed from there.

[/quote]

What is sex designed for? Simple.

AGAIN, pleasure is a secondary byproduct.
[/quote]

Exactly. This is a common argument you get from the LGBT nihilists. It is beyond obvious that the teleology of sex is procreation. And foreplay is a part of this function.
[/quote]

Again though, what if you actively avoid procreation through birth control, is that deviant?

Forepaly isn’t necessary for procreation. It’s necessary for fun though.