[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Gay marriage serves no compelling purpose. You haven’t provided one, and the question has been asked a number of ways. Until someone can come up with a reason why gay marriage should exist independent of the institution of heterosexual marriage, the integrity of the idea is dead in the water.[/quote]
Putting your fingers in your ears and saying “la la la I can’t hear you” doesn’t mean arguments haven’t been presented.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Until someone can come up with a reason why gay marriage should exist independent of the institution of heterosexual marriage, the integrity of the idea is dead in the water.[/quote]
The issue isn’t gay marriage independent of heterosexual marriage, its gay marriage within the context of a society already granting marriage priviledges ad libitum to any heterosexual pairing.
I still disagree that defining marriage as two people, which can be two men or two women, instantly destroys the institution, especially considering the perception of marriage the vast majority of our society holds. I just dont see evidence that everyone will throw up their hands and say “Well if marriage isn’t about procreation anymore, what the hells the point?”
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
No, they aren’t “more” detrimental (parental consent laws is a dead end for your point, btw) - no-fault divorce has weakened marriage, but it doesn’t threaten to nullify it.[/quote]
Implying gay marriage will nullify hetero marriage.
LOLWUT[/quote]
Super - one of the dimmest bulbs at PWI has decided to weigh in. Tell me, Makavali - isn’t there a coloring book somewhere for you to finish? The adults are talking.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Putting your fingers in your ears and saying “la la la I can’t hear you” doesn’t mean arguments haven’t been presented.[/quote]
Read the thread, Einstein. I am certainly not “putting my fingers in my ears” - far from it, I’ve made my case and repeatedly I have posed the question over and over, and no one has provided a satisfactory answer.
Seriously, add something of value - the next time you do will be the first time you do.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
The issue isn’t gay marriage independent of heterosexual marriage, its gay marriage within the context of a society already granting marriage priviledges ad libitum to any heterosexual pairing.[/quote]
Well, I would disagree, it has to - gay marriage needs some independent basis for which to be enacted. Merely saying “hey, we need gay marriage because we have traditoinal marriage and no other reason” is nothing more than a ploy to pass legislation for reasons of self-esteem, as I noted earlier.
This speaks directly to my point, which you have never adequately addressed - gay marriage is nothing more than a self-esteem project to make homosexuals “feel” validated in their relationships “as much” as heterosexuals. You can’t seem to escape this basic weakness despite going through the analysis, and you;ve made no progress on this front.
I don’t think gay marriage “instantly” destroys gay marriage either, and I am unaware of anyone else making that argument.
The worry isn’t that people will throw their hands up as you say - the worry is that more and more people will seek to define marriage their own way and seek the same kind of individual validation gay marriage advocates seek. Such a scenario leads to one conclusion - defining marriage out of existence.
You see, marriage exists for a particular reason - it exists to frankly say “hey, this kind of relationship is, in fact, better than all the rest”. What you urge is to reverse that concept, and you haven’t proven any reason why any relationship other than the union of one man, one woman deserves the same status of privilege and reversal is required.
The easy answer as to why you can’t, of course, is that alternative relationships (don’t focus on gay relationships, use any combination}) are not as good as the traditional union marriage is designed to protect for the benefit of society. More plainly stated, society directly benefits from the permanent union of one man, one woman, but not the other alternatives.
It’s that simple. You haven’t made the case. You’ve made no argument of any weight that society would be better if it had gay marriage. Until you do, you haven’t met the burden.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Where is the “Anti-No Fault Divorce” act then?
[/quote]
I don’t have names of bills, &c. However, the Catholic faithful are currently focusing on other atrocities besides such things as No Fault Divorces, like abortion and gay marriage.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
No, they aren’t “more” detrimental (parental consent laws is a dead end for your point, btw) - no-fault divorce has weakened marriage, but it doesn’t threaten to nullify it.[/quote]
Implying gay marriage will nullify hetero marriage.
LOLWUT[/quote]
Super - one of the dimmest bulbs at PWI has decided to weigh in. Tell me, Makavali - isn’t there a coloring book somewhere for you to finish? The adults are talking.[/quote]
Uh huh, stunning how you dodge the point. You imply homosexual marriage will nullify heterosexual marriage. The married you people you know must be terrible people.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
No, they aren’t “more” detrimental (parental consent laws is a dead end for your point, btw) - no-fault divorce has weakened marriage, but it doesn’t threaten to nullify it.[/quote]
Implying gay marriage will nullify hetero marriage.
LOLWUT[/quote]
Super - one of the dimmest bulbs at PWI has decided to weigh in. Tell me, Makavali - isn’t there a coloring book somewhere for you to finish? The adults are talking.[/quote]
Uh huh, stunning how you dodge the point. You imply homosexual marriage will nullify heterosexual marriage. The married you people you know must be terrible people.[/quote]
Only in the world of the moronic Makavali is filling page after page of explanation on my point that gay marriage would ultimately lead to defining marriage out of existence “dodging the point”.
Go back to staring at your navel. It seems to be the one thing you’re good at.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Gay marriage serves no compelling purpose. You haven’t provided one, and the question has been asked a number of ways. Until someone can come up with a reason why gay marriage should exist independent of the institution of heterosexual marriage, the integrity of the idea is dead in the water.[/quote]
Putting your fingers in your ears and saying “la la la I can’t hear you” doesn’t mean arguments haven’t been presented.[/quote]
Actually Thunderbolt is one of the best debators I’ve encountered on the topic, and most fun, specifically because I’m having such a hard time with his arguments.
Thunderbolt, you’ll get a kick out of this. Actually made me chuckle when I thought of it.
Ok, so, your argument seems to focus on the idea that marriage laws are in place to control reckless procreating, right? Well, guess what gay people don’t do – recklessly procreate! So wouldn’t gay marriage reduce reckless procreation if (given that who a person couples with is just a choice) people enter into homosexual couplings instead of heterosexual couplings?
But that aside,
Your last post does put me off a bit, because your argument has been that heterosexual coupling is the most dangerous to society, therefore society should give incentives to control the behavior of heterosexual couples. That marriage “fixes a problem”.
Now you’re making the point that heterosexual coupling is “better” than any other (thanks to the risky behavior they engage in?), and that people somehow need legal encouragement to form them?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Thunderbolt, you’ll get a kick out of this. Actually made me chuckle when I thought of it.
Ok, so, your argument seems to focus on the idea that marriage laws are in place to control reckless procreating, right? Well, guess what gay people don’t do – recklessly procreate! So wouldn’t gay marriage reduce reckless procreation if (given that who a person couples with is just a choice) people enter into homosexual couplings instead of heterosexual couplings?[/quote]
I am not following - are you saying gay marriage would help prevent homosexuals from the random engagement of heterosexual activity that might cause unwanted pregnancies?
Not quite, my argument is not that heterosexual coupling is the “most dangerous”. Heteroseuxal coupling that results in procreation is one of the best things for society, but can be quite dangeous if these energies are not channeled properly controlled.
We fix the problem of unchanneled procreative activity, but we aren’t trying to stop it as inherently bad for society.
It is better, and there is no contradiction. We don’t dislike heterosexual activity - far from it, it’s the only thing that propagates our species. But we like a certain kind of heterosexual activity better than the rest - the biological parents of the children permanent coupling and forming nuclear families, which is not only good for the children produced from the union, but it also orders reproduction within that family and prevents irresponsible reprouction outside that union.
The union of one man, one woman is better than all the alternatives. Recall that bigamy/polygamy once existed in good standing (to a certain extent), but we turned our back on it, because we don’t like it. So, we privilege that preferred union above all others - yes, it is, in fact, “better”.
And the same would be true with gay relationships. Heterosexual coupling and homosexual coupling are not the same - the are very different, and they are not equal. To pretend that they are equal is to ignore common sense. That’s no reason to demonize homosexual relationships, miind you, and I don’t. But this inherent inequality between the two types of relationships - one is extremely important (really, crucial) to society, the other, not really, in any overriding social sense - is the reason why they are treated (and should be treated) differently.
In short, they aren’t equal. And we shouldn’t pretend they are.
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]jre67t wrote:
It wont happen forlife. Also technically the JOD still has to defend the bill. It will just be put at the back of the line. And like Orion said why do the Homos want to marry so bad? Like I told you before I have nothing against you nor the gay community.
[/quote]
Yeah, who likes being able to visit their partner in the hospital? Or have power of attorney?
What are they thinking, really.[/quote]
You can do that now, it’s called paper work.[/quote]
This is a common misperception. My partner and I have done everything we can possibly do through our attorney, but we are still second class citizens in many ways. We don’t have social security survivorship, can’t file joint tax returns, can’t adopt children in some states, can’t immigrate our partners into the country, etc. [/quote]
Can’t procreate… I don’t understand how this makes you second class citizens. Originally, marriage benefits were given because it is in the states best interest to have more people (children), so if you can’t do that then why should you benefit like a married couple?[/quote]
If procreation were the sole purpose of marriage, infertile straight couples wouldn’t be allowed to marry.
Gay couples have children (I have 2 kids), and those children are better off with the stability and support of married gay parents than if they were unmarried.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
convictions against homosexuality[/quote]
I’ve told you over and over again, I do not have anything against homosexuals. I have a problem with those that act on that, as well I vote equal benefits for gay couples and straight couples…nothing from the State.[/quote]
Which is why I said, “convictions against homosexuality”, and not “convictions against homosexuals”. In the end though, either conviction results in discriminatory policies and laws.[/quote]
Mere semantics, I have convictions against homosexual acts, homosexuality describes an inclination or orientation of a person who is inclined to do evil just like the rest of us, don’t try to bullshit me.
[quote]
It’s true that if the State were to stop granting any benefits for marriage, the discrimination would go away. But until that happens (and we both know it won’t), the current laws are in fact discriminatory.[/quote]
How are they discriminatory? Marriage is between a man and woman, fundamentally that has been the case, forever. I’m not one to fore sake good and just laws and morals for the idea of “progress.”[/quote]
You’re the one doing the bullshitting. You think people are going to be content with being told that their natural attraction for someone is an abomination, but that god still loves them, as long as they stay celibate the rest of their lives, and forsake any hope of being in a loving relationship? I’ve lived that shit, and have seen personally how damaging it is. There are many conflicted gays who end up committing suicide because they buy into what people like you tell them. Believe whatever you want, but stop telling others how to live their lives.
And by the way, you might try reading the old testament. You’d quickly realize that marriage between one man and one woman hasn’t “been the case, forever”.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]jre67t wrote:
It wont happen forlife. Also technically the JOD still has to defend the bill. It will just be put at the back of the line. And like Orion said why do the Homos want to marry so bad? Like I told you before I have nothing against you nor the gay community.
[/quote]
Yeah, who likes being able to visit their partner in the hospital? Or have power of attorney?
What are they thinking, really.[/quote]
You can do that now, it’s called paper work.[/quote]
This is a common misperception. My partner and I have done everything we can possibly do through our attorney, but we are still second class citizens in many ways. We don’t have social security survivorship, can’t file joint tax returns, can’t adopt children in some states, can’t immigrate our partners into the country, etc. [/quote]
Can’t procreate… I don’t understand how this makes you second class citizens. Originally, marriage benefits were given because it is in the states best interest to have more people (children), so if you can’t do that then why should you benefit like a married couple?[/quote]
It’s hard to understand that most people view marriage as an expression of love and commitment, centered around companionship. Its only the narrative we see every day, in every media outlet, all the time.
If you want to run with the point that marriage is a “procreation orderer”, go ahead. Don’t play dumb on why a gay couple might want to adopt or a gay person might want to immigrate a partner into the country.[/quote]
No, the fruits of marriage are children, not adopted children, but procreated children. Just because people have this twisted view of marriage, doesn’t mean that’s not what is expected of those that are married.[/quote]
Children are children, regardless of how they come into the world. Gay couples already have children, and they will continue having children regardless of whether or not they’re allowed to marry. Those children would benefit from having married gay parents just like children benefit from having married straight parents.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Prcoreation isn’t the “sole” purpose of marriage, but in any event, your statement is untrue. But you knew that. It has been explained to you time and again - your refusal to provide a reliable counterargument to the rebuttal doesn’t mean your original flawed argument is somehow tru just because you repeat it over and over.
The law is overinclusive - all laws are - and thus, infertile couples will be part of the relationships marriage is designed to capture, because the efficiency of onverinclusiveness outweighs the resources required to vet every couple for fertility (even if that were a desirable policy, which it’s not for all sorts of reasons, but any rate, it defeats the point you desperately want to make).
Moreover, rarely is it the case that both members of an “infertile couple” are both truly infertile, so the function of marriage is still served by keeping the “procreator” in an “infertile couple” from getting involved in unwanted pregancies outside of the marriage.
Thus, your argument still wrecks up against the shoals, but like a squawking parrot, you just repeat the same line over and over.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
convictions against homosexuality[/quote]
I’ve told you over and over again, I do not have anything against homosexuals. I have a problem with those that act on that, as well I vote equal benefits for gay couples and straight couples…nothing from the State.[/quote]
Which is why I said, “convictions against homosexuality”, and not “convictions against homosexuals”. In the end though, either conviction results in discriminatory policies and laws.[/quote]
Mere semantics, I have convictions against homosexual acts, homosexuality describes an inclination or orientation of a person who is inclined to do evil just like the rest of us, don’t try to bullshit me.
How do you know what I tell them, since you have yet to repeat anything I have said.
[quote]Believe whatever you want, but stop telling others how to live their lives.
[/quote]
Stop telling me how to live my life.
[quote]
And by the way, you might try reading the old testament. You’d quickly realize that marriage between one man and one woman hasn’t “been the case, forever”.[/quote]
You should read the Bible again Genesis 2:22-23.
Ok Chris, so as not to put words in your mouth please tell me specifically what you expect gays to do. If it’s not to live celibately for the rest of our lives, are you suggesting we marry women instead? Been there, buddy.
Tell me what you would prefer, if the shoes were on your feet. Would you rather live celibately the rest of your life, without being in a long term loving relationship? Or would you go contrary to your nature and marry another man? Either option sounds pretty exciting, eh?
I’m not telling you how to live your life, but you are doing exactly that to me.
Oh, and I guess Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, etc. didn’t know about Genesis 2.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Ok Chris, so as not to put words in your mouth please tell me specifically what you expect gays to do. If it’s not to live celibately for the rest of our lives, are you suggesting we marry women instead? Been there, buddy.[/quote]
Words in my mouth in the sense that you were claiming I condemn homosexuality, which I don’t. I think it’s disordered, but not an abomination. There is two things this country is afraid of homosexuals and alcoholics, and neither is a sin but are treated as if they were.
I expect EVERYONE to live a chaste life. Gays aren’t stuck with celibacy, everyone is commanded to live a chaste life, now this whole suicide thing is a little fallacious, if that was the case how come you don’t have priests killing themselves because they don’t have a sexual outlet? How about religious brothers and sisters?
Well, I have been commanded to live a chaste life, both inside and outside of marriage. Living a chaste life is commanded of everyone, both married and not married. So, “exciting” isn’t a determent of what is right to do. However, to your question, I would have no problem living celibate.
By telling me not to tell others how to live, you’re telling me how to live. 
It’s kind of like that don’t judge statement.
[quote]
Oh, and I guess Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, etc. didn’t know about Genesis 2.[/quote]
G-d allowed it because their hearts were hard.
You would have no problem being celibate and alone for the rest of your life? That’s a little unusual, but can you at least understand why most people would be offended if they were told they must either be celibate or marry someone contrary to their orientation? That is not happiness, by most people’s definition.
So…god allowed polygamy because their hearts were hard? Abraham and Jacob were paragons of virtue…where does the bible say they had hard hearts?
More to the point, they clearly illustrate that marriage has not always been about the union of one man and one woman.
[quote]forlife wrote:
You would have no problem being celibate and alone for the rest of your life? That’s a little unusual, but can you at least understand why most people would be offended if they were told they must either be celibate or marry someone contrary to their orientation? That is not happiness, by most people’s definition.[/quote]
No, if that is what I was supposed to do. I can understand what they are feeling, but the fact that they are called to live a chaste life does not change.
Jesus says in Matthew 19:8, “Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart.” After the fall, the hearts of man became hard. Noah got drunk (although not against the rules), Moses killed, Abraham lied and encouraged his wife to marry the Pharaoh instead of being killed, &c.
[quote]
More to the point, they clearly illustrate that marriage has not always been about the union of one man and one woman.[/quote]
So the exception proves the rule?