Man I just looked at the messed up votes on that CNN web site it makes me so happy not to be from that so called state of liberty and freedom
I have little time, and this will be my last reply for some time:
…says the man that ignored an entire post of mine to change the subject for fear of “verbal diarrhea” or somesuch. More to the point, I answered your questions.
Basically the end of it. And this is exactly what I argued above - enact gay marriage, and more children will be raised by gay couples, and that does not square with the goal of marriage.
Completely and irrefutably false. Marriage is designed to foster the longevity of the union of a man and a woman - gender orientation has always mattered, because the primary goal is to preserve the union of biological parents. This notion that marriages “sends that message” to anyone regardless of gender orientation is something you fabricated.
We have reached the endgame. Here is the crux of the entire thing - you can’t/won’t admit that the biological family is superior to all other arrangements. You attempt to bolster this inane argument by stating an exception - that certainly some biological parents would be horrible - should replace the rule - that on the whole, this arrangement is superior.
It isn’t a “crass overgeneralization”, because marriage has been designed with that “crass overgeneralization” as its underpinning since before the birth of our country. If you are right, then marriage has been wrong for centuries.
Preposterous, and now we have seen all your cards.
Asked and answered above.
Because it is an attempt at sentimental distraction - it is also is couched in terms that the child would be a “happy accident”. It wouldn’t. It would be a deliberate choice.
As such, if a pair of 12 year olds made the deliberate choice they wanted to bring a child into this world at 12 years of age, I would discourage it (and our public policy shouldn’t encourage or subsidize it), even as I would welcome the child into the world if the pregnancy came to pass.
Artificial surrogacy by gays will likely happen as a deliberate choice, but as a broader policy measure, we as a society have no reason to subsidize and encourage it.
What is interesting is that I have never suggested the “shifting” would move the math around - in fact, I deliberately stated that the math “right now” wouldn’t change. That was never the argument. My arguments have always centered on what happens in the future in terms of affecting behavior.
You’d do well to counter against what is being argued instead of inventing positions you like better. But, as we see from some information in this post, you have underlying assumptions that prohibit you from making much headway - you won’t even admit the biological family is best for the children.
I am gone for a while.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
forlife and some of the other liberals on this thread just don’t get it. We don’t want gays to marry, it’s a perversion which should not be embraced by the state.
You guys are thick … ha ha.
[/quote]
Hey TB, I thought it was only homosexuals and gay rights activists who saw the issue as a matter of gay rights? What happened there?
The whole issue is about money. It always has been and it always will be.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
The whole issue is about money. It always has been and it always will be. [/quote]
Because god knows marriage doesn’t provide any emotional benefits, and that children and society aren’t better off due to the stability that marriage provides.
[quote]forlife wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
The whole issue is about money. It always has been and it always will be.
Because god knows marriage doesn’t provide any emotional benefits, and that children and society aren’t better off due to the stability that marriage provides.[/quote]
Then start a religion and get married no one is stopping you, but you want the federal government to recognize your marriage 2 different things.
Marriage=Religion
Union=Government
I have no problem with gays being a part of a union, but call it what it is. It is for the monetary benefits of marriage. Homosexuals cannot reproduce so they will have to rely on others for children and you do not need to be married to reap emotional benefits. If you truly believe you and your boyfriend are spiritually one then you are. No one can take that away from you, but at the end of the day all the gay community is arguing about is money.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
forlife and some of the other liberals on this thread just don’t get it. We don’t want gays to marry, it’s a perversion which should not be embraced by the state.
You guys are thick … ha ha.
Perversion according to who? You?
Most of our country…you know…the one you’re NOT from.[/quote]
Ooh, good one. So you speak for most of your country, do you? You’ve actually spoken to all of the country?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
forlife wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
The whole issue is about money. It always has been and it always will be.
Because god knows marriage doesn’t provide any emotional benefits, and that children and society aren’t better off due to the stability that marriage provides.
Then start a religion and get married no one is stopping you, but you want the federal government to recognize your marriage 2 different things.
Marriage=Religion
Union=Government
I have no problem with gays being a part of a union, but call it what it is. It is for the monetary benefits of marriage. Homosexuals cannot reproduce so they will have to rely on others for children and you do not need to be married to reap emotional benefits. If you truly believe you and your boyfriend are spiritually one then you are. No one can take that away from you, but at the end of the day all the gay community is arguing about is money.
[/quote]
Even if the final argument is a financial one, why should we discriminate against gay people? Don’t you think the ability of any couple to partake in survivors benefits, informed medical consent and certain tax advantages strengthens that union and society as a whole?
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
forlife and some of the other liberals on this thread just don’t get it. We don’t want gays to marry, it’s a perversion which should not be embraced by the state.
You guys are thick … ha ha.
Perversion according to who? You?
Most of our country…you know…the one you’re NOT from.
Ooh, good one. So you speak for most of your country, do you? You’ve actually spoken to all of the country?
Pay attention now.
Gay marriage was voted down in many states. Gay adoption also voted down recently. Every poll I’ve read the majority are against Gay marriage.
As I said MOST of the country is against the particular perversion of homosexuality.
Don’t like that huh? Matters not you’re not from here anyway.
[/quote]
And if most of the country supports it in 20 years, will you accept the defeat gracefully?
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
forlife and some of the other liberals on this thread just don’t get it. We don’t want gays to marry, it’s a perversion which should not be embraced by the state.
You guys are thick … ha ha.
Perversion according to who? You?
Most of our country…you know…the one you’re NOT from.
Ooh, good one. So you speak for most of your country, do you? You’ve actually spoken to all of the country?
Pay attention now.
Gay marriage was voted down in many states. Gay adoption also voted down recently. Every poll I’ve read the majority are against Gay marriage.
As I said MOST of the country is against the particular perversion of homosexuality.
Don’t like that huh? Matters not you’re not from here anyway.
And if most of the country supports it in 20 years, will you accept the defeat gracefully?[/quote]
Oh… my… God…I can see the gay future. Semen…everywhere…
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
And if most of the country supports it in 20 years, will you accept the defeat gracefully?[/quote]
That won’t happen. It’s a perversion, remember? Just like interracial marriage, women’s rights and black peoples rights.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
And if most of the country supports it in 20 years, will you accept the defeat gracefully?
That won’t happen. It’s a perversion, remember? Just like interracial marriage, women’s rights and black peoples rights.[/quote]
Haha that is such a flawed argument.
But I know you were only joking so it’s ok.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
And if most of the country supports it in 20 years, will you accept the defeat gracefully?
That won’t happen. It’s a perversion, remember? Just like interracial marriage, women’s rights and black peoples rights.
There is no comparison, one only need to ask the current group of black leaders. They’ll tell you the same thing. In fact, that’s the most asinine argument that has ever been tried regarding two homosexuals having the right to marry.[/quote]
You used to annoy me. Then I started to pity you. Now you just amuse me.
Why are we supposed to shut up and just accept Obama’s victory, yet the lib/gay/mental case maniacs aren’t supposed to shut up and accept a vote?
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
forlife and some of the other liberals on this thread just don’t get it. We don’t want gays to marry, it’s a perversion which should not be embraced by the state.
You guys are thick … ha ha.
Perversion according to who? You?
Most of our country…you know…the one you’re NOT from.
Ooh, good one. So you speak for most of your country, do you? You’ve actually spoken to all of the country?
Pay attention now.
Gay marriage was voted down in many states. Gay adoption also voted down recently. Every poll I’ve read the majority are against Gay marriage.
As I said MOST of the country is against the particular perversion of homosexuality.
Don’t like that huh? Matters not you’re not from here anyway.
And if most of the country supports it in 20 years, will you accept the defeat gracefully?
Of course the original argument is what do people want now, and I think that’s obvious as I’ve stated, Americans don’t want it currently. Also, I don’t think there’s an “if” about it, it will be accepted in 20 years or so. The country is only going one way morally and that’s down hill. Two homo’s getting married won’t be any big deal by then. But, I also think that Polygamy will be also have to be legalized sometime after homosexuals have the right to marry. How can they possibly be denied by then? Then of course an entire host of other meaningless perverse combinations.
[/quote]
America is going to hell morally. If only we could go back in time to went women couldn’t vote, we could kill people and take their land, and we could own slaves.
/sarcasm(obviously)