Question for those of you who do not support same sex marriage:
If the government decided that anyone who laid out a prayer rug, knelt facing mecca, and prayed five times a day was eligible special benefits not afforded to those who did not… would you consider this fair?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Would you be for going through each individual right afforded by marriage and allowing certain ones to be given to homosexual marriages (or civil unions)? Such as medical decisions, the right to sue if one partner is unlawfully killed, etc. etc ?
You’d be interested to know that in 2004, the state where I resided had an amendment to ban gay marriage and related issues. I voted against it, because I thought it went too far - it prohibited too much beyond marriage.[/quote]
So you would allow for the inclusion of Civil Unions where certain rights, individually assessed, were granted to homosexual couples?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
If the government decided that anyone who laid out a prayer rug, knelt facing mecca, and prayed five times a day was eligible special benefits not afforded to those who did not… would you consider this fair? [/quote]
If the government decided that anyone who never finished high school and made little money was eligible for special benefits not afforded to those who are worth over seven figures… would you consider this fair?
Setting aside your religion example - which is a poor analogy because religion and matters of conscience are treated very differently in our society - you start with assumption that, for matters of public policy, homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are equal. They are not, never have been, and never will be.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
So you would allow for the inclusion of Civil Unions where certain rights, individually assessed, were granted to homosexual couples?[/quote]
I wouldn’t go that far, but I wouldn’t restrict certain contractual rights that I think should be afforded between the partners.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
So allowing same sex marriages would presumably have the same effect, in decreasing infidelity within the gay community?[/quote]
The goal of marriage is to promote fidelity for the purpose of minimizing children out of wedlock - when homosexuals cat around on their partners, we aren’t worried about unwanted children arising from the transaction.
As for “improving fidelity in the gay community” - you’ll need to square that with your fellow gay marriage advocates, who just a few pages ago posted info that said that gay relationships weren’t inherently unstable.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
So you would allow for the inclusion of Civil Unions where certain rights, individually assessed, were granted to homosexual couples?
I wouldn’t go that far, but I wouldn’t restrict certain contractual rights that I think should be afforded between the partners.
[/quote]
What exactly do you mean by “go that far”?
I’m assuming a lot of the concern in this debate is over certain points that shouldn’t be allowed (in your opinion) to be carried over to gay marriage. I can certainly understand them wanting medical decisions, child custody etc. I think it is cruel that homosexual relationships are denied that sort of thing.
But is there anything in particular that you consider to be out of bounds for homosexual marriage? What is it in particular that heterosexual marriage should have over homosexual marriage?
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Here are only a few of the startling statistics on the previous page:
"In 1993, a study (9) of 428 gays in San Francisco found that only 14% reported just a single sexual partner in the previous year. The vast majority had multiple sex partners.
In 1994, the largest national gay magazine reported that only 17% of its sample of 2,500 gays claimed to live together in a monogamous relationship.
Even gays who do have long-term partners do not play by the typical rules. Only 69% of Dutch gays with a marriage-type partner actually lived together. The average number of “outside partners” per year of “marriage” was 7.1 and increased from 2.5 in the first year of the relationship to 11 in the 6th year." [/quote]
[i]At least 10% of Australian and Canadian children are conceived in an affair. Some DNA studies put it as high as 15%.
In 2003 more than 3,000 DNA paternity tests were commissioned by Australian men, and in almost a quarter of those cases, the test revealed that ‘their’ child had been fathered by someone else. In 30% of paternity tests by the American Association of Blood Banks the father was not the true biological parent.[/i]
People cheat. What’s your point?
Oh my god! Men like to have sex!
[quote]makkun wrote:
Clearly homosexuality, per se, does not meet the requirements for a psychiatric disorder since, as noted above, many homosexuals are quite satisfied with their sexual orientation and demonstrate no generalized impairment in social effectiveness or functioning
Makkun[/quote]
Well if the criteria is whether the person has distress or is satisfied with their ‘orientation’ than a child molester, beastiality, would meet this criteria as well.
So perhaps this is not as scientific and unbiased as you may want to believe?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
So allowing same sex marriages would presumably have the same effect, in decreasing infidelity within the gay community?
The goal of marriage is to promote fidelity for the purpose of minimizing children out of wedlock - when homosexuals cat around on their partners, we aren’t worried about unwanted children arising from the transaction.
[/quote]
But “we” are certainly quick to site the high incidence of sexually transmitted infections in the gay community to justify bigotry against them.
Also, to go back to the “poisoning the well” theory, lower incidence of STIs in the gay community means less overspill into the straight community (by those damn dirty bisexuals).
Hold on just a second. You just said that marriage in the straight community serves to improve fidelity… does this mean that heterosexual relationships are inherently unstable (the only difference being that straights get ‘incentivized’ while gays do not)?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
If the government decided that anyone who laid out a prayer rug, knelt facing mecca, and prayed five times a day was eligible special benefits not afforded to those who did not… would you consider this fair?
If the government decided that anyone who never finished high school and made little money was eligible for special benefits not afforded to those who are worth over seven figures… would you consider this fair?
Setting aside your religion example - which is a poor analogy because religion and matters of conscience are treated very differently in our society - you start with assumption that, for matters of public policy, homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are equal. They are not, never have been, and never will be.[/quote]
I disagree, I think it’s a good example. So answer the question: Would you be ok with that?
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Ha ha you nut the choice that I was talking about was the choice that people like you make…[/quote]
In other words, when you drill down to the facts it’s not choice that drives your homophobia. You support choice when it comes to mixed race marriages, but you deny choice when it comes to gay marriages. Choice has nothing to do with your aversion to gays, so quit pretending that it does.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
At the time, the data may have supported the idea that there was no “generalized impairment” as it may not have been studied very well. The data today says otherwise.[/quote]
Not only are you misrepresenting the data, but you are ignoring the fact that not all gays fit your stereotype of disturbed, drug pushing, sex crazed, love starved, militant fanatics.
If even one exception to your stereotype exists, it proves that the problem is not endemic to homosexuality itself.
Are you going to address this? How do you explain the gays that actually are well balanced, healthy, contributing members of society? Do you not believe they are entitled to equal rights?
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Just because a small percentage of “heterosexual” men might have sex with other men…[/quote]
Just calling you on your lie that it is impossible for a hetero man to have sex with another man. Glad you admit that your statement was incorrect, it is a start at least.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The exception isn’t the basis for the rule.[/quote]
The exception shows your argument for the sham it is. If you really believed marriage was appropriate for couples with children, you would support marriage for gays with children. Since you don’t, it’s obvious you have a different reason for hating gays.
Besides, with marriage and child adoption available to gays, for all you know the exception may become the rule. Many of my gay friends would love to have children, and are no different from straight couples in that regard.
How about the value of disincentivizing males from engaging in risky sexual behavior and spreading disease?
All of which ignores the fundamental benefit of mental health and happiness to the gay couple, irrespective of the benefit to society at large.
[quote]forlife wrote:
The exception shows your argument for the sham it is. If you really believed marriage was appropriate for couples with children, you would support marriage for gays with children. Since you don’t, it’s obvious you have a different reason for hating gays.[/quote]
I dont think TB hates gays.
[quote]forlife wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
The exception isn’t the basis for the rule.
The exception shows your argument for the sham it is. If you really believed marriage was appropriate for couples with children, you would support marriage for gays with children. Since you don’t, it’s obvious you have a different reason for hating gays.
.[/quote]
That would only be logical if gays could have children through natural procreation. But as they have incompatible reproductive organs that is not possible.
Actions speak louder than words. I couldn’t care less what he thinks about me, what I do care about is fighting the legislation of his views and those of people like him.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
That would only be logical if gays could have children through natural procreation. But as they have incompatible reproductive organs that is not possible. [/quote]
So children only benefit from having married parents when they are the biological offspring of both parents? Adopted children and children with only one biological parent don’t also benefit from the stability of marriage?
Please.