What’s sorta funny is I feel like we have both exhausted all of our ammo on this topic together more times than one.
I can’t tell if we are stupid or just bored in thinking the other one will change their mind 
I still love ya (in a hetero way don’t worry 
even though I think you are crazy on this topic.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Ideally no one would get certain benefits simply because of who they are “with.” Since this is not happening anytime soon we should stop having the government pick and choose who gets benefits based on sexual orientation. [/quote]
So, ultimately you would tear down state recognition of marriage. Including for homosexuals who are now also beneficiaries due to your efforts. And, for the poly-amorous you must undoubtedly support in their cause (for now). And, hey, I suppose the non-romantically involved of indeterminate number. And since marriage is defined by the individual (or it’s bigoted) even for a single adult individual if he so chooses to have the state bestow him the title “married.”
[/quote]
I have laid out what I think would be the best. This is irrelevant to the discussion because MARRIAGE is not going anywhere anytime soon. The definition is just changing yet again.
I don’t actively fight to tear down marriage because frankly that is a losing battle. I have laid out why I don’t believe the government should give special treatment to me in June simply because I said “I do.”
You seem to be really pissed about homosexuals receiving benefits so why not get rid of benefits for all?
Could it be…because you like special treatment for what you think is correct, but are against it for those who think you are wrong? I think you were right when you picked bigoted. Gay people aren’t taking anything away from you. You still can marry any woman you want. You’re the one attempting to establish your authority via the government as the decider of right and wrong. [/quote]
So next you’ll be posting often about STATE recognition all other imaginative consenting adult relationships still not included, correct?
[quote]H factor wrote:
What’s sorta funny is I feel like we have both exhausted all of our ammo on this topic together more times than one.
I can’t tell if we are stupid or just bored in thinking the other one will change their mind
I still love ya (in a hetero way don’t worry even though I think you are crazy on this topic.
[/quote]
I vote bored.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Ideally no one would get certain benefits simply because of who they are “with.” Since this is not happening anytime soon we should stop having the government pick and choose who gets benefits based on sexual orientation. [/quote]
So, ultimately you would tear down state recognition of marriage. Including for homosexuals who are now also beneficiaries due to your efforts. And, for the poly-amorous you must undoubtedly support in their cause (for now). And, hey, I suppose the non-romantically involved of indeterminate number. And since marriage is defined by the individual (or it’s bigoted) even for a single adult individual if he so chooses to have the state bestow him the title “married.”
[/quote]
I have laid out what I think would be the best. This is irrelevant to the discussion because MARRIAGE is not going anywhere anytime soon. The definition is just changing yet again.
I don’t actively fight to tear down marriage because frankly that is a losing battle. I have laid out why I don’t believe the government should give special treatment to me in June simply because I said “I do.”
You seem to be really pissed about homosexuals receiving benefits so why not get rid of benefits for all?
Could it be…because you like special treatment for what you think is correct, but are against it for those who think you are wrong? I think you were right when you picked bigoted. Gay people aren’t taking anything away from you. You still can marry any woman you want. You’re the one attempting to establish your authority via the government as the decider of right and wrong. [/quote]
So next you’ll be posting often about STATE recognition all other imaginative consenting adult relationships still not included, correct?
[/quote]
Strawman.
See this again Sloth:
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.
But, yeah, it’s getting circular. We’re starting to argue what we’ve already argued.
Later H!
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Ideally no one would get certain benefits simply because of who they are “with.” Since this is not happening anytime soon we should stop having the government pick and choose who gets benefits based on sexual orientation. [/quote]
So, ultimately you would tear down state recognition of marriage. Including for homosexuals who are now also beneficiaries due to your efforts. And, for the poly-amorous you must undoubtedly support in their cause (for now). And, hey, I suppose the non-romantically involved of indeterminate number. And since marriage is defined by the individual (or it’s bigoted) even for a single adult individual if he so chooses to have the state bestow him the title “married.”
[/quote]
I have laid out what I think would be the best. This is irrelevant to the discussion because MARRIAGE is not going anywhere anytime soon. The definition is just changing yet again.
I don’t actively fight to tear down marriage because frankly that is a losing battle. I have laid out why I don’t believe the government should give special treatment to me in June simply because I said “I do.”
You seem to be really pissed about homosexuals receiving benefits so why not get rid of benefits for all?
Could it be…because you like special treatment for what you think is correct, but are against it for those who think you are wrong? I think you were right when you picked bigoted. Gay people aren’t taking anything away from you. You still can marry any woman you want. You’re the one attempting to establish your authority via the government as the decider of right and wrong. [/quote]
So next you’ll be posting often about STATE recognition all other imaginative consenting adult relationships still not included, correct?
[/quote]
Strawman.
See this again Sloth:
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.[/quote]
Ooooooooh. Suddenly fighting discrimination, and treating all individuals the the same, is a straw-man. “More than two is yucky! Non-romantic arrangements are yucky!”
See you on the 'morrow!
[quote]Sloth wrote:
But, yeah, it’s getting circular. We’re starting to argue what we’ve already argued.
Later H![/quote]
You can’t honestly be arguing that you get to decide when the circular argument we have had more than once gets to end. I don’t know why you think your opinion on when we can stop arguing trumps mine on when I believe we can stop arguing.
Er…had to stop myself there…habit and all. Have a great night man.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Ideally no one would get certain benefits simply because of who they are “with.” Since this is not happening anytime soon we should stop having the government pick and choose who gets benefits based on sexual orientation. [/quote]
So, ultimately you would tear down state recognition of marriage. Including for homosexuals who are now also beneficiaries due to your efforts. And, for the poly-amorous you must undoubtedly support in their cause (for now). And, hey, I suppose the non-romantically involved of indeterminate number. And since marriage is defined by the individual (or it’s bigoted) even for a single adult individual if he so chooses to have the state bestow him the title “married.”
[/quote]
I have laid out what I think would be the best. This is irrelevant to the discussion because MARRIAGE is not going anywhere anytime soon. The definition is just changing yet again.
I don’t actively fight to tear down marriage because frankly that is a losing battle. I have laid out why I don’t believe the government should give special treatment to me in June simply because I said “I do.”
You seem to be really pissed about homosexuals receiving benefits so why not get rid of benefits for all?
Could it be…because you like special treatment for what you think is correct, but are against it for those who think you are wrong? I think you were right when you picked bigoted. Gay people aren’t taking anything away from you. You still can marry any woman you want. You’re the one attempting to establish your authority via the government as the decider of right and wrong. [/quote]
So next you’ll be posting often about STATE recognition all other imaginative consenting adult relationships still not included, correct?
[/quote]
Strawman.
See this again Sloth:
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.[/quote]
Ooooooooh. Suddenly fighting discrimination, and treating all individuals the the same, is a straw-man. “More than two is yucky! Non-romantic arrangements are yucky!”
See you on the 'morrow!
[/quote]
I was trying to say it is a strawman to assume I must accept every romantic situation possibly simply because I accept the above. I’m sure cases exist where I would be against recognition. Sexual preference is not one of them. I don’t think a good case exists for why benefits for a minority of people like homosexuals needs to be different than heterosexual people.
Anti gay marriage people always want to go down the “what about a man and a tree” route and frankly I think that is as lazy as lazy gets.
We are talking about a fairly large number of people here.
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
“NAMBLA is strongly opposed to age-of-consent laws and all other restrictions which deny men and boys the full enjoyment of their bodies and control over their own lives.”
NAMBLA’s goal is to end the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships by:
*building understanding and support for such relationships;
*educating the general public on the benevolent nature of man/boy love;
*cooperating with lesbian, gay, feminist, and other liberation
movements;
*supporting the liberation of persons of all ages from sexual prejudice
and oppression.
I am a member of NAMBLA and I support these efforts to reach out to our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.
[/quote]
Captain Obvious?
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]IamMarqaos wrote:
…intolerance towards gays is often much more culturally based than based on religion.[/quote]
Some would say that religion is a culturally driven phenomenon. The problem for religion, is that for most of them, intolerance towards homosexuality is formally adopted and practiced within that religion.
Perhaps Buddhism is the only major religion that hasn’t formally declared homosexuality to be “icky”.
[/quote]
No. Your use of the word intolerance belies your attitude. And the phrase: “Some would say…” is so intellectually lazy. Religion is not a culturally driven phenomenon. Man is a religious animal.
Oh, and you’re quite wrong on the Buddhism thing too. Buddhists don’t ‘formally’ declare anything because there are too many teachers within Buddhism with differing opinions. And quite a few of them think homosexuality is indeed “icky”. Quite a few teachers feel that to achieve enlightenment the homosexual has to be reincarnated again as a ‘normal’ person first…
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]IamMarqaos wrote:
You guys paint the world in black and white, like there’s only two sides to this; the religious who hate gays and the rest of the world who wants them to be free to be who they want to be. The truth is very different and intolerance towards gays is often much more culturally based than based on religion.[/quote]
I don’t think anyone is actually doing this in this thread. Or if they are I haven’t seen it. I’m fully aware that it is not just the religious who don’t want consenting adults to be free to do as they please.
Most of it in this country though starts and ends with “homosexuality” is a sin and therefore government should make sure gay people can’t get married because the Bible.
Sure many of them will make other arguments so they don’t come off as just using religion, but all of those arguments are highly flawed logically. Which is one reason you are seeing gay marriage start becoming an “old” issue. Logically it doesn’t make sense to oppose it on a lot of the grounds brought up. Although the but gay people can’t make babies one has to be my favorite. [/quote]
I was addressing the poster. He identifies a certain way. He, undeservedly, is getting a lot of grief for it. Many who are going through what the poster is, paint the world with their black and white brush.
For the rest of your statements, dude, I don’t know where to begin. “Most of it in this country” , “highly flawed logically”, “logically it doesn’t make any sense…”. It reveals that you look down upon those who do not share your opinion.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
When Rome wanted to divine the future they traveled to Delphi to consult the oracle as they had no auspices of their own. [/quote]
That isn’t true. [/quote]
Yes it is. In the early days they used Etruscan augurs and afterwards augurs from Greece. I’m using my phone now but will provide evidence tomorrow.[/quote]
The Roman equivalent of an augur. Confusing as they are usually referred to as augurs or auspices: Haruspex - Wikipedia [/quote]
Augur and auspice are not interchangeable and cannot be confused with one another. An auspice is what an augur interprets. Romans could become augurs. A Roman would not travel to Greece to find an augur since they already had them there. A Roman might go to Greece to consult an oracle. An oracle is not an augur.
[/quote]
You’re missing the point. In the early days of the Republic Etruscan priests made predictions to the Romans. The Etruscan Gods are older than the Roman just as are the Greek Gods. Later there was a significant Greek population in Rome who were useful at watching birds fly east or west and detecting abnormalities in sheep offal(particularly the liver.) The Roman priests were political appointees and vestal virgins who did not perform these ceremonies with few exceptions like when they were to decide on an architectural plan. I will try to find sources for this. As you can imagine it is a laborious and time consuming task.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
When Rome wanted to divine the future they traveled to Delphi to consult the oracle as they had no auspices of their own. [/quote]
That isn’t true. [/quote]
Yes it is. In the early days they used Etruscan augurs and afterwards augurs from Greece. I’m using my phone now but will provide evidence tomorrow.[/quote]
The Roman equivalent of an augur. Confusing as they are usually referred to as augurs or auspices: Haruspex - Wikipedia [/quote]
Augur and auspice are not interchangeable and cannot be confused with one another. An auspice is what an augur interprets. Romans could become augurs. A Roman would not travel to Greece to find an augur since they already had them there. A Roman might go to Greece to consult an oracle. An oracle is not an augur.
[/quote]
You’re missing the point. In the early days of the Republic Etruscan priests made predictions to the Romans. The Etruscan Gods are older than the Roman just as are the Greek Gods. Later there was a significant Greek population in Rome who were useful at watching birds fly east or west and detecting abnormalities in sheep offal(particularly the liver.) The Roman priests were political appointees and vestal virgins who did not perform these ceremonies with few exceptions like when they were to decide on an architectural plan. I will try to find sources for this. As you can imagine it is a laborious and time consuming task.[/quote]
I suggest you don’t waste your time trying to teach an Italian about his own history.
[quote]IamMarqaos wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]IamMarqaos wrote:
You guys paint the world in black and white, like there’s only two sides to this; the religious who hate gays and the rest of the world who wants them to be free to be who they want to be. The truth is very different and intolerance towards gays is often much more culturally based than based on religion.[/quote]
I don’t think anyone is actually doing this in this thread. Or if they are I haven’t seen it. I’m fully aware that it is not just the religious who don’t want consenting adults to be free to do as they please.
Most of it in this country though starts and ends with “homosexuality” is a sin and therefore government should make sure gay people can’t get married because the Bible.
Sure many of them will make other arguments so they don’t come off as just using religion, but all of those arguments are highly flawed logically. Which is one reason you are seeing gay marriage start becoming an “old” issue. Logically it doesn’t make sense to oppose it on a lot of the grounds brought up. Although the but gay people can’t make babies one has to be my favorite. [/quote]
I was addressing the poster. He identifies a certain way. He, undeservedly, is getting a lot of grief for it. Many who are going through what the poster is, paint the world with their black and white brush.
For the rest of your statements, dude, I don’t know where to begin. “Most of it in this country” , “highly flawed logically”, “logically it doesn’t make any sense…”. It reveals that you look down upon those who do not share your opinion.
[/quote]
I have already stated I would much rather see people against gay marriage talk about their faith instead of use poor logical arguments to try and defend their opinion.
It IS bad logic to argue against gay marriage in some of the ways presented (which is why these arguments are losing). “Think about the children. What if everyone was gay. Oh so I guess you think a man and a tree should get married.”
These are logically flawed arguments that are frankly easy to dismiss. Dr. Pepper tastes delicious is an opinion. Gay marriage should be banned because what if everyone was gay is a logically flawed argument to make to support something. So if gays get married then a man and a tree need benefits as well is a logically flawed argument.
Somehow pointing this out is my problem? Why? I would far rather someone simply talked about their religion in opposing it than bring up certain arguments that I feel are ridiculous strawman attempts. “Ya know, if gays can get married then a man marrying his phone should get benefits as well.”
What is logically flawed is the systematic inversion of perspective.
Gay marriage was never banned : it is/was not recognized.
You’re not fighting to lift a ban here. You’re fighting to extend a privilege.
It’s perfectly legitimate to ask “if we are going to extend this privilege, why not extend it even more ?”.
Now, if you don’t want to hear that anymore, it’s easy. Give it a definitive answer.
Explain why heterosexual and gay monogamous unions equally deserves the privilege of being called “marriages”, and why other unions don’t deserve this.
[quote]kamui wrote:
What is logically flawed is the systematic inversion of perspective.
Gay marriage was never banned : it is/was not recognized.
You’re not fighting to lift a ban here. You’re fighting to extend a privilege.
It’s perfectly legitimate to ask “if we are going to extend this privilege, why not extend it even more ?”.
[/quote]
Oh I’m not saying it isn’t legitimate to ask, it’s just flawed. Well if we are going to let gay people get married we may as well let a guy marry a tree is a logically flawed argument. Surely you see why. If not I will explain it.
Yes, it IS time to extend that privilege UNLESS we would like to get rid of special treatment for all couples. Having the government decide that certain people can’t have benefits because of the sex they are attracted to does not make sense and I believe I have pointed out why. I have no interest in playing silly semantic based games either when all they really do is waste our time. It is perfectly clear what I meant.
I’m not married right now and will be married in June. I don’t feel I deserve special treatment because I was born attracted to women and not men.
My girlfriend is attracted to both men and women, why doesn’t she deserve the same special treatment you’ll get in June ?
Why does she have to mutilate her sexual preferences in order to get these privileges ?
Why do you think you’re entitled to force her to choose when every hormones in her body tell her to NOT choose ?
[quote]kamui wrote:
Now, if you don’t want to hear that anymore, it’s easy. Give it a definitive answer.
Explain why heterosexual and gay monogamous unions equally deserves the privilege of being called “marriages”, and why other unions don’t deserve this.
[/quote]
Here we go down the prove God doesn’t exist road. YOU’RE the one insisting that the government needs to pick and choose who gets special treatment. Why don’t you explain why you have a problem with the below instead of me trying to prove why you should accept it. That seems far easier. I have laid out my position numerous times in this thread and frankly lack the desire to spell it out yet again.
Why is the below something to fear and fight against? And if the below came into effect would the results REALLY be awful? It’s not like we don’t have places where that is the case that seem to be doing ok.
[quote]kamui wrote:
My girlfriend is attracted to both men and women, why doesn’t she deserve the same special treatment you’ll get in June ?
Why does she have to mutilate her sexual preferences in order to get these privileges ?
Why do you think you’re entitled to force her to choose when every hormones in her body tell her to NOT choose ?
[/quote]
In a perfect world your girlfriend would have no special government privileges either way. Like I said I’ve pointed this out numerous times. Why would your girlfriend need special treatment if she was just attracted to you and not you and women?
You support denying people privileges based on who they are born attracted to? Why?
i support giving some privilege to people who make the choice and the sacrifice required to become members of a fundamental social institution.
People who choose to not become members doesn’t qualify.
People who are born in such a way they can’t become members of this institution doesn’t qualify.
I’m “polyamorous” ( even if i don’t like this term).
As such, I don’t qualify.
And for this reason, i won’t marry.
It doesn’t matter if i’m “born that way” or if it’s my choice. It’s probably both, and it’s ultimately irrelevant.
In any case : i don’t qualify.