Good lord. refusing gay couples the same rights as straight couples is simple discrimination, using the argument that it isn’t because if two straight men married they would be denied the the same rights (even though they are straight) is ridiculous.
[/quote]
Why is it ridiculous? I made an analogy before: alcohol is legal, cocaine is illegal. Some guy has doesn’t like alcohol and has a preference for cocaine. Are you saying he is being discriminated against, treated unequally before the law and that the law should be changed to accomodate his tastes?
I never mentioned any scams or the reason why some hypothetical couple gets married. I just explained that everyone is being treated equally before the law.
[quote]
Your argument seems like nothing more than an excuse to discriminate against something/someone you don’t like.[/quote]
Nonsense. We don’t have to change the law to accommodate everyone’s tastes, preferences and desires - it would never end for starters.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Funny cartoon, but I really only know one flamboyant gay guy and about 8 that aren’t. Heck more than a couple are more manly than any hetero’s I’ve ever met. Still funny though :)[/quote]
I donno, I have met a lot of gay people in my life and I’d really cut it to 50/ 50. Of course that’s just personal experience.[/quote]
Definitely personal experience. When I met my girlfriends cousin for the first time he was with another guy at the time. He had tattoos of fire on his legs. We were at his cabin in the woods where he hunts and fishes. The other guy was even more redneck than he was. It was until AFTER we had hung out that I said something about them being cool guys and my fiance said yeah they have been together for like 3 years. She thought she had told me earlier he was gay or something and I either forgot or she did. I was shocked [/quote]
Well that’s what I meant. I have met people who I wouldn’t have had a clue they were gay unless I was told. Then others are really in your face with it. The ratio of my experience is around 50/ 50. I worked with a guy that when he introduced himself, the first thing he told you about himself was that he was a homosexual. He would literally introduce himself thusly, “Hi my name is Joe and I am a homosexual.” Now other than the fact that his name isn’t ‘Joe’, that was his literal introduction. I thought it a little weird. I don’t go around saying, “Hey I am Pat and love me some pussy.”. But whatever, otherwise he was a nice guy, easy to work with.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Funny cartoon, but I really only know one flamboyant gay guy and about 8 that aren’t. Heck more than a couple are more manly than any hetero’s I’ve ever met. Still funny though :)[/quote]
I donno, I have met a lot of gay people in my life and I’d really cut it to 50/ 50. Of course that’s just personal experience.[/quote]
Definitely personal experience. When I met my girlfriends cousin for the first time he was with another guy at the time. He had tattoos of fire on his legs. We were at his cabin in the woods where he hunts and fishes. The other guy was even more redneck than he was. It was until AFTER we had hung out that I said something about them being cool guys and my fiance said yeah they have been together for like 3 years. She thought she had told me earlier he was gay or something and I either forgot or she did. I was shocked [/quote]
Well that’s what I meant. I have met people who I wouldn’t have had a clue they were gay unless I was told. Then others are really in your face with it. The ratio of my experience is around 50/ 50. I worked with a guy that when he introduced himself, the first thing he told you about himself was that he was a homosexual. He would literally introduce himself thusly, “Hi my name is Joe and I am a homosexual.” Now other than the fact that his name isn’t ‘Joe’, that was his literal introduction. I thought it a little weird. I don’t go around saying, “Hey I am Pat and love me some pussy.”. But whatever, otherwise he was a nice guy, easy to work with.[/quote]
There are really three categories: guys who are literally up front about it, like the guy you’re describing; guys who are just so effeminate that it’s obvious even though they don’t explicitly address it; and guys who you’d never guess were gay.
I’ve known far more people from groups two and three than from group one. Lesbians, on the other hand, tend to fall more heavily into the first category in my experience.
In my opinion, as a gay man, gay marriage has nothing to do with tradition, religion, or laws. It has to do, as do most things, about how far we want the government in our lives. Weather you are for or against gay marriage, or even traditional marriage, do you really want the federal government to define, in law, the relationship between individuals? If you do, then gay marriage should be allowed because the federal government is already in the “marriage” business and it would only be fair to treat all people equally. But in my opinion, the federal government should have no say in what arraignments two people decide to enter into. That goes for heterosexual relationships as well as homosexual ones.
[quote]pat wrote:
Anybody prove ‘gay marriage’ is the same as a marriage between man and woman? I haven’t seen it. If you are claiming it deserves the same status, you should first prove it’s the same thing. Otherwise you don’t really have an argument.[/quote]
Anybody prove black people are the same as white people? I haven’t seen it. If you are claiming they deserve the same status, you should first prove they’re the same. Otherwise you don’t really have an argument.
The changes I’ve made illustrate the faulty logic at the heart of your argument. Two things don’t need to be literally identical in order to enjoy the same legal privileges.[/quote]
Except you are talking about persons here, which makes you a racist and a bigot. And, offensive for comparing blacks to a sexually deviant relationship.
We are talking about relationships and activities. Persons are equal, they are never right or wrong. Actions (in this case) are right or wrong/deserving of respect or not by the state.
Your equivocation almost makes you delightfully dumb.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Anybody prove black people are the same as white people? I haven’t seen it. If you are claiming they deserve the same status, you should first prove they’re the same. [/quote]
White guy and black girl, or vice versa, it’s still a heterosexual marriage. See, this couple is made up of a member of each reproductive sex, male and female. Black and white members of the opposite sexes are capable of bearing viable offspring.[/quote]
Not if they are sterile. And fertility is not a legal or essential requirement of marriage. [/quote]
How does this negate his argument? Just because you say something, doesn’t mean you refuted anything you just showed that you can type on your keyboard.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I said I was getting out of here, and now I’m back.
Sloth–the argument you’ve been making throughout this thread is essentially that gay marriage is unnecessary. That is, that marriage is a specific institution with a specific aim and benefit and that homosexual relationships do not need/cannot take advantage of this specific benefit and should therefore not be granted marriage licenses.
This is very different from saying that gay marriage is a threat to society or immoral or a legitimization of a disgusting/abhorrent lifestyle (I’m not going to attach the word “choice” to lifestyle because we all know that in most cases that is complete bullshit).
Would you say you don’t subscribe to the latter belief?[/quote]
Why would you not say the lifestyle is a choice? Are they just humanoids who can’t help themselves From falling into other people’s beds?
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Anybody prove black people are the same as white people? I haven’t seen it. If you are claiming they deserve the same status, you should first prove they’re the same. [/quote]
White guy and black girl, or vice versa, it’s still a heterosexual marriage. See, this couple is made up of a member of each reproductive sex, male and female. Black and white members of the opposite sexes are capable of bearing viable offspring.[/quote]
Not if they are sterile. And fertility is not a legal or essential requirement of marriage. [/quote]
How does this negate his argument? Just because you say something, doesn’t mean you refuted anything you just showed that you can type on your keyboard.[/quote]
Because the black and white viewpoint put forward is that it’s all about the offspring.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I’ll reply to specific points later when I have time, but let me make two quick assertions here:
I am talking about Gay marriage, nothing more. As an institution dreamed up and sustained by human beings, of course the parameters are to some degree arbitrary. I don’t have any desire or any obligation to say why a man shouldn’t be able to marry two men, or a baboon, or a tree. Imagine the following scenario: a group of primitive men and women are sitting around a campfire. One proposes that the community officially recognize the paired unions that have sprung up all over the cave. Let’s call it marriage, he says. We will officially recognize that these men and women are a unit. Then someone stands up and objects: but if we are going allow two people–a man and a woman–to officially pair up, what’s to stop us from allowing a man to pair up with a Rhesus Macaque?
The argument was just as potent then as it is now. The leap from man/woman to man/Macaque can be made about as plausibly as the leap from man/man to man/Macaque. And even if it isn’t made as plausibly, it is still clearly capable of being made. Considering that inter-lineage sex between our ancestors and Chimpanzees produced fertile offspring for more than one million years after the lineages split from their last common ancestor, though, it may well be even less of a leap.
But let’s ignore that last suggestion for a moment, and think about what arguments the pro-marriage crowd would have come up with. But men and women are of the same species, and Macaques are not. Arbitrary distinction. But men and women bear children, and men and Macaques do not. Arbitrary distinction. Any distinction you’d like to make–arbitrary distinction.
So let’s just get past that particular point.
This is by far the most important point I’d like to make:
If you want to bar a group of people from doing something that they want to do, there has to be a compelling reason for it. The doing of that thing has to pose some sort of threat to the safety and/or well-being of others. The default setting of a liberal government–and I mean liberal in its old sense–is to treat restrictions of freedom as sometimes necessary but always distasteful (no, I’m not saying that I find it distasteful that rape is illegal). Restriction should always be shunned unless it is absolutely necessary. If we’re talking about expanding a certain right or privilege, the ONLY argument against expansion is one that proves it to be some sort of threat. Otherwise, we in the civilized world choose expansion by default.
So yes, the burden of proof is most definitely on the people who are arguing for marriage inequality. I can’t and won’t attempt to prove a negative–namely, that gay marriage doesn’t threaten anyone. But in order for you to convince me that gay marriage should be illegal, you will absolutely have to convince me that it poses some sort of threat to someone somewhere.[/quote]
20 pages. Your post has not been addressed with anything substantive. Props!
Good lord. refusing gay couples the same rights as straight couples is simple discrimination, using the argument that it isn’t because if two straight men married they would be denied the the same rights (even though they are straight) is ridiculous.
[/quote]
Why is it ridiculous? I made an analogy before: alcohol is legal, cocaine is illegal. Some guy has doesn’t like alcohol and has a preference for cocaine. Are you saying he is being discriminated against, treated unequally before the law and that the law should be changed to accomodate his tastes?
I never mentioned any scams or the reason why some hypothetical couple gets married. I just explained that everyone is being treated equally before the law.
[quote]
Your argument seems like nothing more than an excuse to discriminate against something/someone you don’t like.[/quote]
Nonsense. We don’t have to change the law to accommodate everyone’s tastes, preferences and desires - it would never end for starters.[/quote]
SexMachine,
Your argument is ridiculous Alcohol and Cocaine are both “bad” for you, we regulate drugs and alcohol because they pose a threat to the health and welfare of society on some level. While marriage is destructive for many people, it is not necessarily by its’ nature, bad for you. Studies show that married couples are happier, healthier and more productive (socially and economically) than their non-married counterparts. How is gay marriage a bad thing?
Gay couples are not being treated equally, they are no being allowed to marry and receive the benefits that institution confers, that is discrimination.
The happy truth is that in 5-10 years gay marriage will be legal across the US and you guys can start protesting that instead of throwing eggs at scared teenage girls heading into planned parenthood.
Good lord. refusing gay couples the same rights as straight couples is simple discrimination, using the argument that it isn’t because if two straight men married they would be denied the the same rights (even though they are straight) is ridiculous.
[/quote]
Why is it ridiculous? I made an analogy before: alcohol is legal, cocaine is illegal. Some guy has doesn’t like alcohol and has a preference for cocaine. Are you saying he is being discriminated against, treated unequally before the law and that the law should be changed to accomodate his tastes?
I never mentioned any scams or the reason why some hypothetical couple gets married. I just explained that everyone is being treated equally before the law.
[quote]
Your argument seems like nothing more than an excuse to discriminate against something/someone you don’t like.[/quote]
Nonsense. We don’t have to change the law to accommodate everyone’s tastes, preferences and desires - it would never end for starters.[/quote]
SexMachine,
Your argument is ridiculous Alcohol and Cocaine are both “bad” for you, we regulate drugs and alcohol because they pose a threat to the health and welfare of society on some level. While marriage is destructive for many people, it is not necessarily by its’ nature, bad for you. Studies show that married couples are happier, healthier and more productive (socially and economically) than their non-married counterparts. How is gay marriage a bad thing?
Gay couples are not being treated equally, they are no being allowed to marry and receive the benefits that institution confers, that is discrimination.
The happy truth is that in 5-10 years gay marriage will be legal across the US and you guys can start protesting that instead of throwing eggs at scared teenage girls heading into planned parenthood.[/quote]
I think another point is, the comparison assumes one marriage is worse than another, or one type of person is deserving and another is not. In my own mind it’s similar to comparing a convict to a citizen who was never convicted of any crime. You look to the convict and say they lost their right to vote because of some wrong they did. But with homosexuals there is nothing wrong unless someone says there is something intrinsically wrong with being homosexual.
In reality the situation is a lot more similar to times when women weren’t allowed to vote. It was argued that they weren’t as intelligent as men, and all sorts of other bullshit. Who knows, maybe there are those who still don’t want women to vote on the same old premises.
Can’t say it isn’t natural to be homosexual. There are animals that are total flamers… There are environmental and genetic factors that are linked to homosexuality in men which are quite interesting. Understanding that the probability for your son to be born homosexual is increased exponentially with every prior son was a pretty fun eye opener for me in college. Also finding out that certain groups of women who average more offspring by default tend to carry genetic information on their x chromosome which passes on homosexuality in males, which is why some females give birth to multiple homosexual males and this still leaves room to explain why homosexuality is viable due to traits being hooked up to the x chromosome (if it doesn’t make sense I can explain it, but if you think about the mechanics of sex, it should be obvious) We are still learning new shit all the time. Homosexuality, well it’s gross, but you can’t say it isn’t natural. You can’t decline people rights/ dehumanize people simply because you believe they are gross, unless you are like Hitler or something. Really, think about it.
[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< unless someone says there is something intrinsically wrong with being homosexual. >>>[/quote]It is an abomination in the sight of the holy God who created us male and female and ordained that a marriage is one man and one woman for life before the entrance of sin. We didn’t use to have to “impose” that on anybody because people knew it already. There is not now nor will there ever be any such thing as a “marriage” between members of the same sex and no corrupt God hating human institution can make it so except in their own perverse minds. We are paying with our country for having forsaken God’s first and most foundational societal construct of marriage sex and family as normative. Once again. The blame is with the THE CHURCH whose job it is in the earth to lift up a standard of righteousness according to the revealed Word of God. She is now every bit as pickled in filth as those making no claim to even a belief in the existence of God at all.
The presence and influence of THE CHURCH, meaning those calling themselves by the name of Jesus, is THE definition of a society with NO exceptions. It cannot be otherwise. The United States is a loud blaring neon object lesson of what happens when a society begins in the right direction and ends, as we are, in the wrong one. Gay “marriage” is just a symptom.
[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< unless someone says there is something intrinsically wrong with being homosexual. >>>[/quote]It is an abomination in the sight of the holy God who created us male and female and ordained that a marriage is one man and one woman for life before the entrance of sin. We didn’t use to have to “impose” that on anybody because people knew it already. There is not now nor will there ever be any such thing as a “marriage” between members of the same sex and no corrupt God hating human institution can make it so except in their own perverse minds. We are paying with our country for having forsaken God’s first and most foundational societal construct of marriage sex and family as normative. Once again. The blame is with the THE CHURCH whose job it is in the earth to lift up a standard of righteousness according to the revealed Word of God. She is now every bit as pickled in filth as those making no claim to even a belief in the existence of God at all.
The presence and influence of THE CHURCH, meaning those calling themselves by the name of Jesus, is THE definition of a society with NO exceptions. It cannot be otherwise. The United States is a loud blaring neon object lesson of what happens when a society begins in the right direction and ends, as we are, in the wrong one. Gay “marriage” is just a symptom.
[/quote]
Yeah, religious guys said this in the 1990’s (Beavis and Butthead!), and the 1980’s, and the 1970’s (disco devils!), the 1960’s (fucking Beatles), the 1950’s, the 1940’s. Every generation has been more morally reprehensible than the one before it as we have moved away from religion. It’s scary, I mean things were SO FREAKING AWESOME when everyone pretty much bought into the Catholic Church. Society was great back then guys. For all. And we have gotten away from that and look at things now. Free black people. No kings here. Not putting people to death for not believing. Letting women have a place in society. These have been awful things as we have become more secular.
Luckily, the religious fraud we had during the Protestant Reformation still exists with people like Ted Haggard making tons of money off the blind religious masses.
Anyways, this is all going to be moot in ten to fifteen years as society moves past this. Pick another fight for the world. This one’s already decided. Then again a lot of people thought the polls were wrong for Obama as well.
[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< unless someone says there is something intrinsically wrong with being homosexual. >>>[/quote]It is an abomination in the sight of the holy God who created us male and female and ordained that a marriage is one man and one woman for life before the entrance of sin. We didn’t use to have to “impose” that on anybody because people knew it already. There is not now nor will there ever be any such thing as a “marriage” between members of the same sex and no corrupt God hating human institution can make it so except in their own perverse minds. We are paying with our country for having forsaken God’s first and most foundational societal construct of marriage sex and family as normative. Once again. The blame is with the THE CHURCH whose job it is in the earth to lift up a standard of righteousness according to the revealed Word of God. She is now every bit as pickled in filth as those making no claim to even a belief in the existence of God at all.
The presence and influence of THE CHURCH, meaning those calling themselves by the name of Jesus, is THE definition of a society with NO exceptions. It cannot be otherwise. The United States is a loud blaring neon object lesson of what happens when a society begins in the right direction and ends, as we are, in the wrong one. Gay “marriage” is just a symptom.
[/quote]
How would an all good God make something that is an abomination to himself that he would pitch to hell anyhow? What’s the point? He makes gay dogs, that roll around and try to copulate with other male dogs to serve as some sort of example and tantalizing thing for homosexual Homo sapiens to watch and learn from or something?
It’s just such a stretch… I can’t for the life of me make any sense of this anymore. I see it and I just see the same sort of hate and ignorance I see in racism. Maybe the Church got this one wrong, just like they got so many other things wrong through the course of history. You know, Galileo, deciding who has a soul, who is a savage, and who is a peon/innocent/partial soul simpleton. I don’t mean to rub it in, just the way I see it.
Also, if God is going to judge at the end of the day, assuming God exists and the rules were somehow passed on correctly and not manipulated by evil dudes looking to bend people’s will… Wouldn’t he just want you to let people know, and not impose your ways on them? Isn’t the point of life a test according to your religion? If so, then why get in the way of God’s test?
[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< unless someone says there is something intrinsically wrong with being homosexual. >>>[/quote]It is an abomination in the sight of the holy God who created us male and female and ordained that a marriage is one man and one woman for life before the entrance of sin. We didn’t use to have to “impose” that on anybody because people knew it already. There is not now nor will there ever be any such thing as a “marriage” between members of the same sex and no corrupt God hating human institution can make it so except in their own perverse minds. We are paying with our country for having forsaken God’s first and most foundational societal construct of marriage sex and family as normative. Once again. The blame is with the THE CHURCH whose job it is in the earth to lift up a standard of righteousness according to the revealed Word of God. She is now every bit as pickled in filth as those making no claim to even a belief in the existence of God at all.
The presence and influence of THE CHURCH, meaning those calling themselves by the name of Jesus, is THE definition of a society with NO exceptions. It cannot be otherwise. The United States is a loud blaring neon object lesson of what happens when a society begins in the right direction and ends, as we are, in the wrong one. Gay “marriage” is just a symptom. [/quote]
How would an all good God make something that is an abomination to himself that he would pitch to hell anyhow? What’s the point? He makes gay dogs, that roll around and try to copulate with other male dogs to serve as some sort of example and tantalizing thing for homosexual Homo sapiens to watch and learn from or something? It’s just such a stretch… I can’t for the life of me make any sense of this anymore. I see it and I just see the same sort of hate and ignorance I see in racism. Maybe the Church got this one wrong, just like they got so many other things wrong through the course of history. You know, Galileo, deciding who has a soul, who is a savage, and who is a peon/innocent/partial soul simpleton. I don’t mean to rub it in, just the way I see it. [/quote]I have addressed this constantly for years now here. I have directed YOU to those conversations. Listen to me closely now. Please? I beg of thee. I’ve really tried to get this through to you. When I say “church” I DO NOT MEAN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. This has nothing to do with Galileo or any other idiotic error perpetrated by the Catholic church. Pretend with me a for a second there never was one.
The scriptures report the creation of one man and one woman, before sin and God declaring all that He had made “very good”. Homosexuality in the Levitical law of theocratic Israel was punishable by stoning to death. The New Testament reiterates in simply impossible to misunderstand terms that it is a damnable perversion of the created order of God and that those who practice it are under His curse and wrath. Unlike the old covenant, it also says they can be saved. Not IN it, but FROM it and that happens. I personally know some.
Hear me on this too please for the one millionth time. God does indeed decree that which He hates. ALL of creation is now languishing under the curse of Adam’s sin. He has rendered EVERYTHING, including Adam’s sin AND the curse of homosexuality an utter certainty while preserving His holiness from the stain of it’s evil by divine mechanisms known only to Himself. He does this for His own purposes to His own Glory because He says so. EveryTHING and everyONE belongs to HIM. Even if He did not tell us the point, He would still be absolutely right in doing it. He does however tell us the point.
He designed a reality wherein HE would be celebrated for both His holiness wrath and judgement upon everything not holy as He Himself is on one hand AND His love, mercy and grace in saving a people from that wrath for Himself on the other. Yes yes YES, how well I do know the response I will get to this. It’s the very response I’m SUPPOSED to get to this. The one the bible guarantees me I’ll get and tells me to expect. ESPECIALLY from “religious” people.
Before you poo poo me away as an anachronistic imbecile without whom the earth would be very much better off, allow me to promise you, AGAIN, that EVERY last thing I’ve said was boringly mainstream belief at the founding of this once great nation. It was THAT foundational Christian faith and it’s corresponding morality that made freedom and limited government possible.
Also, you underestimate my humble God given abilities to defend the philosophical foundations of my faith at your own peril. I have not heard an argument new to me against my God and His Christ in over 20 years. If you want to get into that, it should be elsewhere.
[quote]
How would an all good God make something that is an abomination to himself that he would pitch to hell anyhow? What’s the point? He makes gay dogs, that roll around and try to copulate with other male dogs to serve as some sort of example and tantalizing thing for homosexual Homo sapiens to watch and learn from or something?
It’s just such a stretch… I can’t for the life of me make any sense of this anymore. I see it and I just see the same sort of hate and ignorance I see in racism. Maybe the Church got this one wrong, just like they got so many other things wrong through the course of history. You know, Galileo, deciding who has a soul, who is a savage, and who is a peon/innocent/partial soul simpleton. I don’t mean to rub it in, just the way I see it.
Also, if God is going to judge at the end of the day, assuming God exists and the rules were somehow passed on correctly and not manipulated by evil dudes looking to bend people’s will… Wouldn’t he just want you to let people know, and not impose your ways on them? Isn’t the point of life a test according to your religion? If so, then why get in the way of God’s test? [/quote]
[/quote]