What about heterosexual couples who will only ever engage in anal sex?
Should they be allowed to marry? Why or why not?
[quote]Aggv wrote:
This whole issue is bullshit and killing the gop. They need to get over it, let people have their legal rights as a couple, and move on to issues that effect everyone.
I hope the SC rules in favor of gay marriage just to let the issue die, and we can stop hearing about it. [/quote]
Agreed!
Believe it or not, gay people, for the most part, don’t actually enjoy fighting for the right to marry. I know I don’t. And I know we’re a very small percentage of a country with much bigger problems… which is why I don’t understand why people with no dog in this fight keep vehemently opposing it, when they could be working on issues that actually affect them.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
What about heterosexual couples who will only ever engage in anal sex?
Should they be allowed to marry? Why or why not?[/quote]
I give zero fucks about the private actions of 2 consenting adults so long as nobody is getting hurt, or hurt without consent.
If 2 people want to deal marriage and willing to put up with the bullshit that comes with it, god speed.
[quote]Ironskape wrote:
Agreed!
Believe it or not, gay people, for the most part, don’t actually enjoy fighting for the right to marry. I know I don’t. And I know we’re a very small percentage of a country with much bigger problems… which is why I don’t understand why people with not dog in this fight keep vehemently opposing it, when they could be working on issues that actually affect them.
[/quote]
Most people don’t realize this, but it is so true. I keep telling a lot of my straight friends this, but they see it as some sort of last ditch effort for those of us who are gay to keep ourselves in the spotlight or throw it in everyone’s face.
As I’ve said before, I trust a more neo-liberal, conservative approach to governance, including foreign policy and fiscal affairs, so I’ll also be glad when this issue is laid to rest so it doesn’t keep destroying otherwise more competent, conservative candidates in future elections. It is my wholehearted belief that the Democrats will continue to win some key elections in certain districts on this issue alone, perhaps combined with a few other provisional social issues on a case by case basis, if the GOP doesn’t wake up. I meet an alarmingly high number of people who seem to cast their votes based mostly on social issues, as egregious as that is to me personally.
[quote]JR249 wrote:
I meet an alarmingly high number of people who seem to cast their votes based mostly on social issues, as egregious as that is to me personally.[/quote]
Ack. I fear this is me. I would like to not have my voting decisions based on such issues. But when it gets right down to it, I just cannot bring myself to vote for a candidate who opposes such issues as gay rights and bases opinions on religious principles that are exclusionary to certain classes of people. It’s a pity, really, because I think there are many like me who could swing more conservatively if the GOP weren’t so hung up on such issues.
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
[quote]JR249 wrote:
I meet an alarmingly high number of people who seem to cast their votes based mostly on social issues, as egregious as that is to me personally.[/quote]
Ack. I fear this is me. I would like to not have my voting decisions based on such issues. But when it gets right down to it, I just cannot bring myself to vote for a candidate who opposes such issues as gay rights and bases opinions on religious principles that are exclusionary to certain classes of people. It’s a pity, really, because I think there are many like me who could swing more conservatively if the GOP weren’t so hung up on such issues.[/quote]
Suppose the gay marriage debate is settled and it’s upheld federally in every way against the States’ constitutional rights - let’s just say they win. Will you support the next agitation effort they take on? Because they will take up more you realise surely? All these people who’ve built their careers and even invested their identity and self to the cause; they’re not just going to stop are they? Some will try to hammer away at age of consent laws. There will be(and are) all kinds of radical legislative proposals for people(including children) who have delusions about their “gender” and so. The drag queens want to use the ladies’ bathrooms alongside your wife and daughter or your sister or mother. You okay with that? But where do you draw the line? It never ends and each new proposal is more radical and subversive than the past one.
And nice job trying to undermine the morale of the only authentic conservatives left in the GOP. It’s particularly ironic hearing this stuff from people who like to claim the heritage of conservatism. An authentic conservative could never accept something as radical and subversive as a legislative effort to destroy/transform the institution of marriage and allow homosexuals to cynically mock it.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
[quote]JR249 wrote:
I meet an alarmingly high number of people who seem to cast their votes based mostly on social issues, as egregious as that is to me personally.[/quote]
Ack. I fear this is me. I would like to not have my voting decisions based on such issues. But when it gets right down to it, I just cannot bring myself to vote for a candidate who opposes such issues as gay rights and bases opinions on religious principles that are exclusionary to certain classes of people. It’s a pity, really, because I think there are many like me who could swing more conservatively if the GOP weren’t so hung up on such issues.[/quote]
Suppose the gay marriage debate is settled and it’s upheld federally in every way against the States’ constitutional rights - let’s just say they win. Will you support the next agitation effort they take on? Because they will take up more you realise surely? All these people who’ve built their careers and even invested their identity and self to the cause; they’re not just going to stop are they? Some will try to hammer away at age of consent laws. There will be(and are) all kinds of radical legislative proposals for people(including children) who have delusions about their “gender” and so. The drag queens want to use the ladies’ bathrooms alongside your wife and daughter or your sister or mother. You okay with that? But where do you draw the line? It never ends and each new proposal is more radical and subversive than the past one.
And nice job trying to undermine the morale of the only authentic conservatives left in the GOP. It’s particularly ironic hearing this stuff from people who like to claim the heritage of conservatism. An authentic conservative could never accept something as radical and subversive as a legislative effort to destroy/transform the institution of marriage and allow homosexuals to cynically mock it.[/quote]
I don’t see things your way. My cousin is gay, married, and has a child. They are a lovely family. I don’t see that in any way mocking my 26-year heterosexual marriage. I see the philanderer (whether male or female, assuming a marriage that is not mutually agreed upon as open) as more of a mocking of the institution.
Are you married? If so, how has your marriage been negatively affected by homosexuals being granted a piece of paper by the state that gives them shared benefits and eases inheritance issues?
[quote]Ironskape wrote:
[quote]Aggv wrote:
This whole issue is bullshit and killing the gop. They need to get over it, let people have their legal rights as a couple, and move on to issues that effect everyone.
I hope the SC rules in favor of gay marriage just to let the issue die, and we can stop hearing about it. [/quote]
Agreed!
Believe it or not, gay people, for the most part, don’t actually enjoy fighting for the right to marry. I know I don’t. And I know we’re a very small percentage of a country with much bigger problems… which is why I don’t understand why people with no dog in this fight keep vehemently opposing it, when they could be working on issues that actually affect them.
[/quote]
All of the problems of postmodernity stem from a breakdown of the family unit and the civil society. The normalisation of homosexuality is a symptom of decline. We have not moved “forward” or “progressed” by normalising homosexuality. On the contrary it has done immeasurable harm. You can’t absolve homosexuality by saying it doesn’t measurably and quantifiably harm someone else directly. That’s a poor attempt to muddy the waters on something that couldn’t be more simple. We are in a state of moral decline; cultural decline; an age in which all traditional values, norms and mores have been annihilated and a hedonistic, aimless mindset pervades. To ask traditional/conservative men to accept this effort to undermine the institution of marriage is to ask them to go against their [b]fundamental beliefs]/b]. No serious conservative in his right mind would give in on an issue like this.
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
I don’t see things your way. My cousin is gay, married…
[/quote]
To his gay partner?
Two gay men raising a child? Very far from ideal. And alarming incidents of heinous child abuse by celebrated “gay” couples who pretend to be married and then adopt a child.
http://www.rt.com/news/pedophile-syndicate-russian-boy-481/comments/page-6/
Incidents like this alone justify a serious reconsideration about these arrangements. I can’t understand how people can allow children to be harmed in order to conduct social experiments and prove their theory that gays aren’t more likely to molest children than heterosexual men. I say they are. I’ve posted stats and explained the hugely disproportionate number of homosexuals involved in child molestation. But even if I’m wrong, where do you get the right to experiment with children and families like they’re Guinea pigs? But children getting molested doesn’t directly harm me does if so why should I care? / sarcasm. That’s the basic (flawed) argument about gay marriage isn’t it? Because I can’t directly and quantifiably show harm to myself it we should allow the radical transformation of the institution of marriage and allow ever more radical and creepy legislative “reforms” right? It’s the wave of the future.
If they’re two homosexual men raising a child/children then it’s creepy and unnatural and you’ll never convince me otherwise.
It’s an insult to the sacred institution of marriage.
A philanderer is making a mockery of marriage yes, but I don’t see what that has to do with the issue.
Heck no!
[quote]
If so, how has your marriage been negatively affected by homosexuals being granted a piece of paper by the state that gives them shared benefits and eases inheritance issues? [/quote]
Firstly, there’s no reason a gay man can’t leave his estate to his gay partner in his will. There’s no need to marry in order to inherit so there is no “inheritance issues”. Secondly, I don’t support most kinds of “benefits” but I have no problem with the state giving special benefits to married couples for social reasons(encourage reproduction for example) in principle. And as I mentioned, I’m not married. And I have no problem in theory with married women getting benefits that my girlfriend doesn’t get. Gay men should feel the same way, the institution of marriage is sacred and we shouldn’t mess with it.
And in relation to direct and quantifiable effect on my marriage if I was married - I’ve demolished that argument above. It’s a nonsense argument.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
I don’t see things your way. My cousin is gay, married…
[/quote]
To his gay partner?
Two gay men raising a child? Very far from ideal. And alarming incidents of heinous child abuse by celebrated “gay” couples who pretend to be married and then adopt a child.
http://www.rt.com/news/pedophile-syndicate-russian-boy-481/comments/page-6/
Incidents like this alone justify a serious reconsideration about these arrangements. I can’t understand how people can allow children to be harmed in order to conduct social experiments and prove their theory that gays aren’t more likely to molest children than heterosexual men. I say they are. I’ve posted stats and explained the hugely disproportionate number of homosexuals involved in child molestation. But even if I’m wrong, where do you get the right to experiment with children and families like they’re Guinea pigs? But children getting molested doesn’t directly harm me does if so why should I care? / sarcasm. That’s the basic (flawed) argument about gay marriage isn’t it? Because I can’t directly and quantifiably show harm to myself it we should allow the radical transformation of the institution of marriage and allow ever more radical and creepy legislative “reforms” right? It’s the wave of the future.
If they’re two homosexual men raising a child/children then it’s creepy and unnatural and you’ll never convince me otherwise.
It’s an insult to the sacred institution of marriage.
A philanderer is making a mockery of marriage yes, but I don’t see what that has to do with the issue.
Heck no!
My cousin is female.
No need to continue this conversation with you. My mind is made up. So is yours.
[quote] kpsnap wrote:
My cousin is female.
[/quote]
When you said “gay” I thought you meant gays as in “G”. It gets so confusing with the L’s and the all the Bs and the GTs with the this and the that and everything always “transitioning” and fluid like gender. That’s what they teach children now. No wonder their minds are warped.
Okay. Well, as you have no response to any of the points I’ve made I can only assume you have no argument. Indeed, as I have shown your entire argument is built upon false premises and logical flaws. I have detailed many of them and as I said you have been unable to respond. Even smh - one of the smartest posters here - dropped off because they can’t sustain their arguments. He might pop back and try to challenge something here or there but essentially he has no argument and no one else has made a serious argument. You’ll get a lot of people who claim to be conservative who’ll come along and insist that we must accept gay marriage as a fait accompli otherwise we can never get enough votes to sustain any “conservative” agenda. A nonsense argument as well. It’s a fundamental principle and also state after state, including liberal states like California, the people have voted time and again against gay marriage. We don’t want to destroy the institution of marriage and normalise homosexuality. You may have a run of victories but we’re going to fight it all the way and whenever we can turn back the tide. We’re not going to lay down to some radical sexually deviant agenda by less than 2% of the population.
And yet you have been unable to sustain any of your arguments. How…um…quaint I suppose.
And rightly so. I’ve laid out a very sound argument.
Edited
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Indeed, as I have shown your entire argument is built upon false premises and logical flaws. I have detailed many of them and as I said you have been unable to respond. Even smh - one of the smartest posters here - dropped off because they can’t sustain their arguments.
[/quote]
I stopped responding to you because your responses to my last post were so laughably inadequate that they didn’t warrant a response. As was your response to kpsnap.
You lay out the same illogical and bigoted arguments over and over, responding to legitimate points with fallacious and fatalistic “if the gays get married it will destroy society” bullshit. This is in direct opposition to the evidence of that exact thing not happening.
And your “evidence” that gay people (who now, it seems, are only men) only want children so they can molest them, and are incapable of providing an adequate and loving home to children?
Neil Patrick Harris and David Burtka.
There, one example of gays being better parents than you, and probably me too. In accordance with your research and argumentative tactics thus far, this is sufficient evidence to conclude that all gay parents will be good, forever.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Ironskape wrote:
[quote]Aggv wrote:
This whole issue is bullshit and killing the gop. They need to get over it, let people have their legal rights as a couple, and move on to issues that effect everyone.
I hope the SC rules in favor of gay marriage just to let the issue die, and we can stop hearing about it. [/quote]
Agreed!
Believe it or not, gay people, for the most part, don’t actually enjoy fighting for the right to marry. I know I don’t. And I know we’re a very small percentage of a country with much bigger problems… which is why I don’t understand why people with no dog in this fight keep vehemently opposing it, when they could be working on issues that actually affect them.
[/quote]
All of the problems of postmodernity stem from a breakdown of the family unit and the civil society. The normalisation of homosexuality is a symptom of decline. We have not moved “forward” or “progressed” by normalising homosexuality. On the contrary it has done immeasurable harm. You can’t absolve homosexuality by saying it doesn’t measurably and quantifiably harm someone else directly. That’s a poor attempt to muddy the waters on something that couldn’t be more simple. We are in a state of moral decline; cultural decline; an age in which all traditional values, norms and mores have been annihilated and a hedonistic, aimless mindset pervades. To ask traditional/conservative men to accept this effort to undermine the institution of marriage is to ask them to go against their fundamental beliefs]. No serious conservative in his right mind would give in on an issue like this.[/quote]
Please enlighten us.
When, exactly, were we at our moral peak? This ethereal and yet often brought-up time period is lost on us hedonistic perverts.
The traditional family unit -1 man, 1 woman, 2.5 kids- works. Or, at least, it can, and it has been the foundation of countless loving homes. I have never denied that. However, non-traditional family units can work, too. They must, if society is to function.
Same-sex households have proven to be as effective in raising well-adjusted children as their heterosexual counterparts: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/07/children-of-same-sex-couples-are-happier-and-healthier-than-peers-research-shows/
From the article, the single biggest problem facing same-sex households with children is stigma. It seems that you, SexMachine, might be the problem, not me.
[quote]Ironskape wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Indeed, as I have shown your entire argument is built upon false premises and logical flaws. I have detailed many of them and as I said you have been unable to respond. Even smh - one of the smartest posters here - dropped off because they can’t sustain their arguments.
[/quote]
I stopped responding to you because your responses to my last post were so laughably inadequate that they didn’t warrant a response. As was your response to kpsnap.
You lay out the same illogical and bigoted arguments over and over, responding to legitimate points with fallacious and fatalistic “if the gays get married it will destroy society” bullshit. This is in direct opposition to the evidence of that exact thing not happening.
And your “evidence” that gay people (who now, it seems, are only men) only want children so they can molest them, and are incapable of providing an adequate and loving home to children?
Neil Patrick Harris and David Burtka.
There, one example of gays being better parents than you, and probably me too. In accordance with your research and argumentative tactics thus far, this is sufficient evidence to conclude that all gay parents will be good, forever.
[/quote]
I have a hard time believing any celebrity / show business person is a better parent than the average parent. At best they can afford to pay someone else to be a good parent when they are busy working.
[quote]Ironskape wrote:
I stopped responding to you because your responses to my last post were so laughably inadequate that they didn’t warrant a response.
[/quote]
Generally when that’s the case you point out why some of their arguments are “inadequate” before stopping responding. You have not explained why any of my arguments are “inadequate”. But that’s your prerogative. I don’t envy you having to explain support for such a ridiculous thing as gay “marriage”.
Okay, so you still haven’t responded to a single one of my points and now you are building a straw man. Contrary to saying gay marriage will “destroy society” I have specifically pointed out in this thread several times that homosexuality is a symptom of decline not a cause. So call me bigoted and so on without explaining how. Check. Still not responded to a single point. Check. And denounce all my points that you haven’t responded to. Check.
Where the hell did I say that? I didn’t say that. I said there are an “alarming number of incidents” of such things happening. You’re building a strawman again.
Gay men cannot be “mothers” for children and again, an alarming number of gay men lead dysfunctional lifestyles and have drug and alcohol problems and so on. Why on earth would we want to engage in a social experiment with children given the above? These are some of the points you haven’t responded to. You just denounce me as a bigot and build straw men.
Who?
Never heard of them. Good mothers…er mother and father…er whatever are they? And that’s a reason we should experiment with children’s lives and upbringing? I’ve posted a link here from a man who was raised by gay parents and he said it was terrible and he vehemently opposes letting gay couples marry. So that would put us back to where we started with even less reason to experiment with children and their lives like they’re guinea pigs or something.
So, none of points addressed. As I said I don’t envy you having to defend something so patently wrong. But thanks for dropping by.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I have a hard time believing any celebrity / show business person is a better parent than the average parent. At best they can afford to pay someone else to be a good parent when they are busy working.[/quote]
A fair point, though I’d argue in their favor. My point was that this was one example of a gay couple doing, by all accounts, a good job raising their children, in opposition to SexMachine’s example of a horrible and inexcusable abuse of adoption. I’m fully aware case studies aren’t a viable measure of social outcomes, which is why I hate when people point to one instance of disgusting human beings who happen to be gay as the reason we should be barred from adopting children. If one instance can condemn, then by the same logic one instance should redeem.
[quote] Ironskape wrote:
Please enlighten us.
When, exactly, were we at our moral peak?
[/quote]
Peak? It’s too complex to talk about a peak as when we were better in some ways and worse in others. However, the 1950’s was a great time and I think if I had to choose a “peak” it would be the 50’s. Of course in my country we didn’t have the added complexities of slavery/segregation and so on. As I said it’s difficult to speak of a “peak”.
They must? We must have gay marriage even though we’ve never had it before? Pray tell, why must we have gay marriage and gays raising children to survive?
Yes, I’ve seen lots of “studies”. And I can show you lots of studies too which leaves us with even less reason to experiment with children’s lives like they’re guinea pigs…something we should never do right? Oh, that’s right. You’re in favour of letting gays raise children but you can’t explain why. We just need it to survive…okay…
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Generally when that’s the case you point out why some of their arguments are “inadequate” before stopping responding. You have not explained why any of my arguments are “inadequate”. But that’s your prerogative. I don’t envy you having to explain support for such a ridiculous thing as gay “marriage”.
[/quote]
I did. You stopped presenting new arguments to address and resorted to your sophmoric rantings of “societal decline” instead of producing hard evidence to support your position. I don’t want to address the same points over and over.
Fair enough, I’ll admit to reversing your order of “destruction of society” and “gay marriage”.
However, you’ve just typed that exact line over and over without elaboration. It’s the desperate mantra you keep repeating like it will make all of the evidence of gay marriage’s benefits to society go away. I don’t think it’s unfair to say that checking off “gay marriage” as evidence of society’s decline a far reach from saying it’s part of the cause.
And…come on. I’m one of the few people stupid enough to quote you point for point. Don’t say I haven’t addressed your individual arguments. I have. I proved several of them scientifically false.
You assumed the gay couple kpsnap was talking about was two men, then proceeded to announce your ignorance of the LGBT community. And your “alarming number” is based on prejudice, not fact, and it’s a discussion I feel has been played out against your favor. Don’t bring up “gay men are more likely to molest children” and expect it to be taken at your word.
Oh, honey. www.google.com
Then don’t you think it might be too complex an issue to definitively say that a society is in “decline”? More so, do you think someone who truly understood societal trends would be flexing his knowledge in a bodybuilding R&P section?
The 50’s in the US were only a “peak” if you were white, male, straight, and Christian. That’s a lot of stipulations for success for a country that supposedly values freedom. A society that dictates you are free as long as you are this religion, this race, act this way, and possess this set of genitals is not truly free, and I think we are better for progressing from that.
I’ve lumped all of your children-related points into one for convenience.
We experiment with children’s lives every time we raise them. No one has any idea how to perfectly raise a child. Ask any parent. Ask your own. Good parents do the best they can with what they have, and there’s still no guarantee their kid will grow up the “right” way.
But gay parents? We’ve done that experiment, and it came out in our favor. You say I can’t explain why gays should raise children, but I’ve shown you examples and studies that say we can. You don’t acknowledge them in such a way I would hope should be painfully self-aware, given your latest rhetoric. You claim to have plenty to the contrary, much in the same internet way I can claim to have a 545lb bench. Cite or it didn’t happen, pal.
EDIT: You know what? Fuck quotes. Fuck their stupid faces.
EDIT 2: Fixed stupid quotes, which are still stupid.
[quote]Ironskape wrote:
EDIT: You know what? Fuck quotes. Fuck their stupid faces.
[/quote]
Just change the “}” to “]” in the “[/quote}” right after “we just need it to survive…okay…” and all should be well.
Cheers.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Ironskape wrote:
EDIT: You know what? Fuck quotes. Fuck their stupid faces.
[/quote]
Just change the “}” to “]” in the “[/quote}” right after “we just need it to survive…okay…” and all should be well.
Cheers.
[/quote]
Thanks!