[quote]forlife wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Why would society want to encourage something like homosexuality? Its obviously a defect in the people doing it (sex is, afterall, meant for procreation).
Because god knows that all straight couples stop having sex once past their childbearing years.
Infertile couples never have sex at all.
And of course people never masturbate.
Sex serves no purpose whatsoever beyond procreation.
Gotcha.[/quote]
Obviously you were not listening in metaphysics class. ;>
Objects are defined by their primary, defining characteristic. For ex, the defn of ‘human’ is ‘the rational animal’ (Aristotle), the animal that thinks using conceptual formation. Things like hair colour and skin colour are secondary characteristics.
The primary defining characteristic of sex is an action whose goal is procreation. A secondary characteristic is that it brings pleasure.
Homosexuals use sex for a secondary characteristic and claim that we should recognize their ‘union’ in the same way as we recognize marriage. Using sex for pleasure AS ITS PRIMARY PURPOSE is a perversion — hence the term homosexual perverts.
Just as we don’t recognize marriage between humans and barnyard animals, or between adults and young children (all perversions), we cannot recognize gay marriage.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
If you are going to bring it up there are 2 sides to that coin; or most who support immorality are those who fell out of grace.
Can you debate the secular side with them, they are not using religion. sorry for barging in.
Oh horseshit. The world is not divided between the religious and the atheist. Both have assholes and you know it.[/quote]
I was just stating it because if I use religious debate I get told not everyone is religious so that isn’t acceptable, when I try to debate not using religion, someone, not to mention any names always brings up the the religious argument to change it back over.
It is like make up your mind your being fickle like a girl.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
If you can prove that gay marriage will not harm the institution then I’m for gay marriage, simple. If you cannot demonstrate how it will help the institution of marriage then I am certainly not for it.
[/quote]
Did the removal of the anti-miscegenation laws require proof that mixed race marriage “would not harm the institution”? Please.
If you can come up with a logically compelling reason for why my partner and I marrying would hurt your marriage, I’m all ears. Is your relationship with your wife really that unstable?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Correct - as a going concern, if we enact gay marriage, more children will be raised by gay couples than they have been in the past.[/quote]
You are again ignoring the simple math. Your argument was that gay marriage would increase the number of children not raised by both biological parents. That is a flat out lie, because you know as well as I do, and have even admitted, that those children would not have been raised by both biological parents even if gay marriage didn’t exist. Get it yet?
Quit saying that gay marriage would increase the children raised by gay couples, while ignoring that those same children would not be raised by both biological parents regardless of whether or not gay marriage was allowed. Your math doesn’t add up.
However, you continue to ignore that gay marriage similarly does nothing to decrease the chance that future children would be born or raised in a situation outside of the biological parents. It is ridiculous to insinuate that straight couples with children would be less likely to marry if gays were allowed to marry.
Bottom line: gay marriage has no effect on the chance of existing or future children being raised by both biological parents. Gay marriage does, however, offer existing children a more stable and healthy home environment than would be available in a foster care facility. As such, it serves society and is in the best interest of these children.
Wrong. I said that gay marriage would be in the best interest of children raised by same sex parents, not that gays would be more likely to adopt if they were able to marry. However, even in the latter scenario it is still a net plus for society, since those children would otherwise be worse off in a public facility.
Are you actually arguing that just because someone is gay, they wouldn’t desire children and make a good parent? Seriously?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Using sex for pleasure AS ITS PRIMARY PURPOSE is a perversion — hence the term homosexual perverts.
[/quote]
So infertile couples, older couples beyond their childbearing years, and single people that masturbate are all perverts? Obviously the primary purpose in all of these cases is to enjoy sex, not to procreate.
By the way, you might want to consider that sex serves the purpose of emotional bonding and is an expression of the love people have for each other.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Using sex for pleasure AS ITS PRIMARY PURPOSE is a perversion — hence the term homosexual perverts.
So infertile couples, older couples beyond their childbearing years, and single people that masturbate are all perverts? Obviously the primary purpose in all of these cases is to enjoy sex, not to procreate.
By the way, you might want to consider that sex serves the purpose of emotional bonding and is an expression of the love people have for each other.[/quote]
Not from scientific point of view.
It was developed to ensure the growth and safety of the offspring.
anyone here ever read “The Moral Animal: Why We Are the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology” it was one of the side books suggested for our behavioral neuroscience class. For those using evolution to support homosexual behavior as being not deviant it could be informative.
[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
The future for gays in the West is dim indeed.
By your doom and gloom prognistication of Muslim dominance, the future of women in the West is dim too.
There will always be bigots. The question is whether or not the American people will have the wisdom and courage to stand up to them.[/quote]
The future of women is indeed dim. I find it ironic that the biggest feminist cause celebre these days in the West is abortion on demand, rather than the plight of Muslim women everywhere, who are actually oppressed. The biggest oppression women face in the West, at the moment, is in their own minds.
As far as courage goes, you’ll find that Western values are currently dying the death of a thousand paper cuts for lack of any courage to defend them, or for willful identification of Westerners with the values of the “oppressed non-Westerners” (read: Muslims).
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
I was just stating it because if I use religious debate I get told not everyone is religious so that isn’t acceptable, when I try to debate not using religion, someone, not to mention any names always brings up the the religious argument to change it back over.
It is like make up your mind your being fickle like a girl.[/quote]
Fickle like a girl? Why would you think that?
Is it because you’re stupid? Or are you trying to be mean to me?
“You’re a girl!”
We’re not in kindergarten.
We don’t use your religious debate here because it has no place in these matters. If you want to use religious arguments, then cover ALL religions or shut the fuck up. Every time someone brings up religion, it is invariably a Christian argument. Guess what? You don’t have dominion over marriage. OTHER faiths and beliefs exist too.
Potential solutions have been brought up in this debate which the more intelligent debaters appear ready to accept (i.e. PRCal, TB23) but somehow we ALWAYS get sidetracked.
Oh, but I forget, it’s all a plot by the gay army.
In case it’s not plainly obvious, yes I’m pissed off.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
The future of women is indeed dim. I find it ironic that the biggest feminist cause celebre these days in the West is abortion on demand, rather than the plight of Muslim women everywhere, who are actually oppressed. The biggest oppression women face in the West, at the moment, is in their own minds.
As far as courage goes, you’ll find that Western values are currently dying the death of a thousand paper cuts for lack of any courage to defend them, or for willful identification of Westerners with the values of the “oppressed non-Westerners” (read: Muslims).
You should really read Bruce Bawer. [/quote]
Most “feminists” are self-absorbed whores who don’t really want equality. Suggest in all seriousness that men should be second class and women should run the world and see what happens.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
ZEB wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
ZEB wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I understand what you’re saying forlife, however as I’ve said so many times before; most normal healthy heterosexual men do not have sex with other men.
Most normal heterosexual men are not raised in a culture/religion that demonizes their sexual orientation. It is impossible for you to understand that, because you haven’t been on the other side.
Are you claiming that if homosexuality were not demonized every man would want to have sex with another man? I’m sure you really don’t believe that forlife.
I’m close to believing you actually read that in his post.
I think what he meant was more along the lines of: if a heterosexual man was in a society that pressured him to be gay, that demonized heterosexuality, that heterosexual man would be far far more likely to have sexual activity with a man at some point in his life.
It’s all pure conjecture on forlifes part.
Similar to the downfall and threat gay marriage poses to traditional marriage.
Your argument has no merit as that can be said of any long standing institution. Why not tear it down if a tiny fraction of people want it torn down?
Makes no sense.
No, the point is that it’s pure conjecture that it would tear it down or threaten it. Whatever. It’s Monday now, and I won’t have time to really post again till the weekend.
And my response is that you can say that about any institution as well. Where is the proof that gay marriage will not harm the institution of marriage? The real answer is something that I suggested a while ago when debating this very topic with forlife. First prove that it will actually help the institution of marriage. How does it strengthen this long standing institution?
Certainly the promiscuity in the gay community speaks to the inherent problem of offering up our marriage institution as an experiment.
If you can prove that gay marriage will not harm the institution then I’m for gay marriage, simple. If you cannot demonstrate how it will help the institution of marriage then I am certainly not for it.
Even before we change a driving age we have to prove that it is safe, why not the same standard for marriage?
Is it because gays simply want their way and will whine and protest if they don’t get it?
Not a good enough reason in my book, and not good enough reason for those who voted it down in four states.
Some things are not that complicated. There is no amount of gay militancy that will change this.
[/quote]
The driving age is not a fundamental right. Marriage has been held to be. If marriage is a fundamental right, the burden is on the government to prove a compelling reason not to afford it. Such as a true and legitimate threat to traditional marriage and families. The burden is not on proponents to prove thtat it’s not. But incidentally, I just attended a CLE on this issue today, and there is a book coming out this spring called When Gay People Get Married that produces a mountain of evidence that gay marriage does not do so.
Alternatively, there is the argument that the scope of the fundamental right of marriage does not encompass same-sex unions and there is accordingly no equal protection issue. Under the ensuing rational basis review, any bans on gay marriage would almost certainly pass constitutional muster.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
I was just stating it because if I use religious debate I get told not everyone is religious so that isn’t acceptable, when I try to debate not using religion, someone, not to mention any names always brings up the the religious argument to change it back over.
It is like make up your mind your being fickle like a girl.
Fickle like a girl? Why would you think that?
Is it because you’re stupid? Or are you trying to be mean to me?
“You’re a girl!”
We’re not in kindergarten.
We don’t use your religious debate here because it has no place in these matters. If you want to use religious arguments, then cover ALL religions or shut the fuck up. Every time someone brings up religion, it is invariably a Christian argument. Guess what? You don’t have dominion over marriage. OTHER faiths and beliefs exist too.
Potential solutions have been brought up in this debate which the more intelligent debaters appear ready to accept (i.e. PRCal, TB23) but somehow we ALWAYS get sidetracked.
Oh, but I forget, it’s all a plot by the gay army.
In case it’s not plainly obvious, yes I’m pissed off.[/quote]
The comment was not directed towards you, so sorry if it insulted you or pissed you off. It was directed to the one that throws bible verses at me when I use evolution or behavioral norms in an argument.
And Christianity isn’t the only religion that does not condone homosexuality. There is one religion sweeping the globe that will be much more intolerant to homosexuality and females.
If you would like I will drag forlife into this he is the one that will throw verses at me even if I open a statement saying that I am not using religion as my point of debate. So then I will go back him about the verses or his claims.
now you can be mad because I used a derogatory statement to engage his witty banter.
You are again ignoring the simple math. Your argument was that gay marriage would increase the number of children not raised by both biological parents. That is a flat out lie, because you know as well as I do, and have even admitted, that those children would not have been raised by both biological parents even if gay marriage didn’t exist. Get it yet?
Quit saying that gay marriage would increase the children raised by gay couples, while ignoring that those same children would not be raised by both biological parents regardless of whether or not gay marriage was allowed. Your math doesn’t add up.[/quote]
It isn’t a matter of the math right now, because I have said over and over and over that the current crop of children have already been failed and likely won’t ever be reunited in any family arrangement with their real parents.
The concern is - and always has been - in the future.
Your argument consists of saying “there are X number of children not being raised by their real parents right now, and enacting gay marriage would merely shift those children into a different category, and X would be static”. True, and I never said otherwise.
But the concern is having ever more kids raised in the future outside the traditional family relationship - how do I know? Look no further than your own words:
"Are you actually arguing that just because someone is gay, they wouldn’t desire children and make a good parent?
So, what do we learn from nearly every word you type? That gays (a) naturally desire children, and (b) are presumed to be good parents.
Now, add your arguments to that basic idea: gay marriage makes child raising easier and more palatable to gay couples because of the benefits.
The end result: gays naturally desire raising children, and gay marriage would make it easier to do, thus incentivizing doing more of it. As such, more children being raised by more gay couples in the future if we enact gay marriage. Easy peasy.
Now to your vaunted “math” - even if you hold that the number of children going forward not being raised by their real parents - “X” - remains unaffected by the enactment of gay marriage (and I argue that it ooes affect it), then X will be increased by the number of gay couples that choose to engage in surrogacy, and we know - based on what you said - that gays desire children and gay marriage would make raising them a more attractive proposition.
Therefore, even if X remains the same, it will always be X + (number of surrogacies encouraged by gay marriage), thus increasing the number of children being raised by gay couples in the future.
Your math, same result as I stated pages ago.
Essentially, your argument is that gay marriage is nothing more than a patch for a broken situation we have provided our children. You basically argue that gay marriage, for unwanted kids, is “less worse” than foster care.
Not much of an argument for equality, but that aside, as I have stated, the trade-offs aren’t worth whatever “patching” you suggest exists.
We are back to the beginning, as well - if we should enact “marriages” or at a minimum provide marriage benefits to every arrangement that provides a “patch” to adopt kids in foster care, single parents that adopt deserve all the tax benefits, etc., afforded married couples as well as any other non-traditional family arrangement that could be argued is “less worse” than foster care.
No thanks - the more “equal” arrangements we set up, the more children that will be raised in those capacities, and that, again, is the opposite of what marriage is trying to accomplish.
We want fewer children being raised outside non-traditional family arrangements - if a policy stands in contrast to that overriding goal, it must yield. Gay marriage does, even if we entertain your “math” argument.
Children in foster facilities is not an “equal” non-traditional family arrangement - it is a systemic mistake we need to repair. It is a failure of the children on the whole.
If you, as you have suggested, think that foster facility care qualifies as the kind of non-traditional family relationship as a gay family - which you do, on the basis that they are both outside the union of biological parents for purposes of your “math” argument - then children being adopted in gay families are of the same type of mistake that we, as a society, need to rectify.
You equate the two for purposes of your “math” argument - and so have I. And we don’t fix that mistake by enacting gay marriage.
You write the above, only to write below:
You say (1) gays want children, and (2) gay marriage would make child raising easier, but then argue that gays wouldn’t be more likely to adopt or do surrogacy if afforded gay marriage?
Marriage is, at its core, a set of incentives to get heterosexuals to engage in certain behavior as it pertains to creating and raising children - but gays are not moved by any such incentives…
…they will do whatever they had planned on doing with children regardless of whether gay marriage exists or not.
Sure thing. You are positively schizophrenic, and you will say anything, no matter how incoherent, in defense of your Crusade.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
The comment was not directed towards you, so sorry if it insulted you or pissed you off. It was directed to the one that throws bible verses at me when I use evolution or behavioral norms in an argument.
And Christianity isn’t the only religion that does not condone homosexuality. There is one religion sweeping the globe that will be much more intolerant to homosexuality and females.[/quote]
And not all religions are anti-homosexuality. It’s like saying “Oh, but that guy is worse”.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
ZEB wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
ZEB wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
ZEB wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I understand what you’re saying forlife, however as I’ve said so many times before; most normal healthy heterosexual men do not have sex with other men.
Most normal heterosexual men are not raised in a culture/religion that demonizes their sexual orientation. It is impossible for you to understand that, because you haven’t been on the other side.
Are you claiming that if homosexuality were not demonized every man would want to have sex with another man? I’m sure you really don’t believe that forlife.
I’m close to believing you actually read that in his post.
I think what he meant was more along the lines of: if a heterosexual man was in a society that pressured him to be gay, that demonized heterosexuality, that heterosexual man would be far far more likely to have sexual activity with a man at some point in his life.
It’s all pure conjecture on forlifes part.
Similar to the downfall and threat gay marriage poses to traditional marriage.
Your argument has no merit as that can be said of any long standing institution. Why not tear it down if a tiny fraction of people want it torn down?
Makes no sense.
No, the point is that it’s pure conjecture that it would tear it down or threaten it. Whatever. It’s Monday now, and I won’t have time to really post again till the weekend.
And my response is that you can say that about any institution as well. Where is the proof that gay marriage will not harm the institution of marriage? The real answer is something that I suggested a while ago when debating this very topic with forlife. First prove that it will actually help the institution of marriage. How does it strengthen this long standing institution?
Certainly the promiscuity in the gay community speaks to the inherent problem of offering up our marriage institution as an experiment.
If you can prove that gay marriage will not harm the institution then I’m for gay marriage, simple. If you cannot demonstrate how it will help the institution of marriage then I am certainly not for it.
Even before we change a driving age we have to prove that it is safe, why not the same standard for marriage?
Is it because gays simply want their way and will whine and protest if they don’t get it?
Not a good enough reason in my book, and not good enough reason for those who voted it down in four states.
Some things are not that complicated. There is no amount of gay militancy that will change this.
The driving age is not a fundamental right. Marriage has been held to be. If marriage is a fundamental right,[/quote]
Marriage between two men is not a fundamental right. Where did you come up with this?
Since when? Why would it be the governments duty to prove that any other variation other than male and female is dangerous? That is just plain silly. Do you want the government to prove that marriage between a dog and a person is a bad idea? We can now open the door to proving Polygamy is harmful as well. How about marriage between a chair and a person. The list of ridiculous combinations is virtually endless. Keep in mind this is your idea not mine.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
ZEB wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
ZEB wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
ZEB wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I understand what you’re saying forlife, however as I’ve said so many times before; most normal healthy heterosexual men do not have sex with other men.
Most normal heterosexual men are not raised in a culture/religion that demonizes their sexual orientation. It is impossible for you to understand that, because you haven’t been on the other side.
Are you claiming that if homosexuality were not demonized every man would want to have sex with another man? I’m sure you really don’t believe that forlife.
I’m close to believing you actually read that in his post.
I think what he meant was more along the lines of: if a heterosexual man was in a society that pressured him to be gay, that demonized heterosexuality, that heterosexual man would be far far more likely to have sexual activity with a man at some point in his life.
It’s all pure conjecture on forlifes part.
Similar to the downfall and threat gay marriage poses to traditional marriage.
Your argument has no merit as that can be said of any long standing institution. Why not tear it down if a tiny fraction of people want it torn down?
Makes no sense.
No, the point is that it’s pure conjecture that it would tear it down or threaten it. Whatever. It’s Monday now, and I won’t have time to really post again till the weekend.
And my response is that you can say that about any institution as well. Where is the proof that gay marriage will not harm the institution of marriage? The real answer is something that I suggested a while ago when debating this very topic with forlife. First prove that it will actually help the institution of marriage. How does it strengthen this long standing institution?
Certainly the promiscuity in the gay community speaks to the inherent problem of offering up our marriage institution as an experiment.
If you can prove that gay marriage will not harm the institution then I’m for gay marriage, simple. If you cannot demonstrate how it will help the institution of marriage then I am certainly not for it.
Even before we change a driving age we have to prove that it is safe, why not the same standard for marriage?
Is it because gays simply want their way and will whine and protest if they don’t get it?
Not a good enough reason in my book, and not good enough reason for those who voted it down in four states.
Some things are not that complicated. There is no amount of gay militancy that will change this.
The driving age is not a fundamental right. Marriage has been held to be. If marriage is a fundamental right,
Marriage between two men is not a fundamental right. Where did you come up with this?
[/quote]
There is no concensus on this. There are courts and people at large that say that the fundmental right of marriage encompasses the right to choose the gender of the partner. This is largely the basis for legal gay marriage in the states where it does exist. (by the way, why do you automatically go to two men? what about two women?)
[quote]ZEB wrote:
the burden is on the government to prove a compelling reason not to afford it. Such as a true and legitimate threat to traditional marriage and families.
Since when? Why would it be the governments duty to prove that any other variation other than male and female is dangerous? That is just plain silly. Do you want the government to prove that marriage between a dog and a person is a bad idea? We can now open the door to proving Polygamy is harmful as well. How about marriage between a chair and a person. The list of ridiculous combinations is virtually endless. Keep in mind this is your idea not mine.
[/quote]
Been covered ad nauseum. Plain and simple, government recognition that every committed monogomous relationship is the same and deserves the same benefits irrespective of the participants’ genders does not compell recognition of a relationship with the dog or the lampshade. Nor does a determination that gay marriage does not pose a threat to traditional heterosexual marriage compell the conclusion that polygamous marriages do not.
You are somehow ignoring the rest of my post in which I stated that this analysis and burden of proof on the goverment would not be required upon a holding that the scope of the fundamental right of marriage is limited to those of opposite genders. Except that the universal concensus implied by you that this is the case does not exist.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
The comment was not directed towards you, so sorry if it insulted you or pissed you off. It was directed to the one that throws bible verses at me when I use evolution or behavioral norms in an argument.
And Christianity isn’t the only religion that does not condone homosexuality. There is one religion sweeping the globe that will be much more intolerant to homosexuality and females.
And not all religions are anti-homosexuality. It’s like saying “Oh, but that guy is worse”.
now you can be mad because I used a derogatory statement to engage his witty banter.
You did?[/quote]
Yes you seemed to be upset about it, so I am assuming even though it was meant in humor it must have been derogatory.
I don’t believe true christians are intolerant, but parts of every sect is intolerant of anyone not like them, even those who are part of “Gay and Lesbian Groups”.
I have a lot of friends that do things I don’t approve of they are still my friends and I love and care for them as people even though I don’t approve of some of the things they do.
I enjoy arguing, it is the best way to learn from others perspectives. If I didn’t I would simply ignore certain people or not engage these forums at all. Sometimes my temper gets the best of me but I try to ammend anything mean I may say.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Been covered ad nauseum. Plain and simple, government recognition that every committed monogomous relationship is the same and deserves the same benefits irrespective of the participants’ genders does not compell recognition of a relationship with the dog or the lampshade. Nor does a determination that gay marriage does not pose a threat to traditional heterosexual marriage compell the conclusion that polygamous marriages do not.
You are somehow ignoring the rest of my post in which I stated that this analysis and burden of proof on the goverment would not be required upon a holding that the scope of the fundamental right of marriage is limited to those of opposite genders. Except that the universal concensus implied by you that this is the case does not exist.
[/quote]
But the people have spoken the government doesn’t have a right to overrule the people that was the whole premise of America. Not the perversion we see today.