How to Explain Gay Rights to Dummies

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I bet if I dug around a bit I could post some quotes from some of these folks here declaring how special marriage is and the need for gays to be included in the sacredness, where they discount marriage as a useful institution altogether. I jist betcha[/quote]

They either have, or will, by the time I’m done with them.

They will either

a) Rescind their support for homosexual marriage

or

b) Feeling cornered in their own ‘bigotry,’ declare they support state recognition of any and all imaginative arrangements of consenting adults, regardless of number, romance or none, presence or absence of sexual intentions, etc. Basically, become absurd.

or

c) Admit to wanting to ultimately end state recognized marriage

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

I suppose I should have specified “romantic” love and affection. [/quote]

Bigot.[/quote]

I’ve given reason to why gays should be alowed to marry. If you’d like to give reason why a girl and her mother should be wed, by all means enlighten me.[/quote]

No, no. Let’s deal with that later. You just discriminated against non-romantic human relationships in that quote. Explain your bigotry, please.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
Again, these are multiple choice, yes or no questions. Dodging questions is not the same as answering them. In any event how does not permitting gays (who aren’t going to take a woman regardless), and lesbians (who aren’t going to take a man regardless) from marrying each other create more heterosexual unions? [/quote]

How does it (or any other, and I mean any other) create more heterosexual unions, is the question. It’s another man, marrying a man. Or a woman, marrying a woman. They aren’t special. They are no more special than Joe and his fishing buddy. But a man, marrying a woman…well yeah, that does serve to fill the model. I’m not going to hold your hand on this anymore. Homosexual unions serve no critical, irreplaceable function. Now you explain to me why you’re only slightly less ‘bigoted’ than me. Or, as I’d argue, the actual bigot between us. You unjustifiably put homosexual relationships above friendships. That’s not your call. That a private decision.
[/quote]

Neither do heterosexual marriages serve a critical function.

Your argument basically is this:

Heterosexual couples should be allowed to marry because you like a society where heterosexual couples are allowed to marry.

That is a bit light on the content side.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Circular. It IS a fundamental right as I keep saying. And it’s important to protect that right when it comes under attack.
[/quote]

I wholeheartedly agree.

Whenever someone wants to abolish heterosexual marriages he must be stopped. [/quote]

Thing is, Emperor, no one is trying to abolish homosexual marriages.[/quote]

Not the point. [/quote]

Then don’t raise it. I was responding to you.[/quote]

I did not raise a thing, except maybe one or two eyebrows.

Letting gay people marry is in no way, shape or form an attack on anybody elses right to marry. [/quote]

Regardless of whether it’s an attack or not, it’s foolish.[/quote]

People are not free to do foolish things?

You being the arbiter on what is “foolish” of course.

Oh my, some people might not approve of your lifestyle.

Should you be free to live it anyway?[/quote]

You really are as stupid as I’ve mentioned many times before. We’re not talking about lifestyles or whether people should be able to do foolish things. We’re talking about the legalities of marriage.

You’re completely off track, Jose.

When I said “foolish” I was not talking about the individuals; I was talking about the government radically changing laws in regards to this subject. [/quote]

Oh my, GOVERNMENTS should not be allowed to do foolish things!

And I am the one being stupid ?

Well Sir, I have no words…

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

I dont have to.

Straight people are allowed to marry.

Marriages as far as governments are concerned are a contract between two consenting adult.

Denying two consenting adults to enter into the very same contract everyone else can because of their sexual orientation is discrimination…

[/quote]

Explain your position on Olee marrying her mom.
[/quote]

I dont have to.

I did not get governments in the marriage business, I will not waste a minute trying to drain the swamp that produces. [/quote]

C’mon, chickenshit, answer the question.[/quote]

Why would I?

It is really up to you to answer it, this is not a clusterfuck of my making, this is the inevitable result of wanting a) government subsidized heterosexual marriages and b) wanting a republic.

Choose. [/quote]

Chickenshit thou art.

Then again I don’t blame you for dancing. Your position is untenable.[/quote]

My position is consistent.

Yours isnt, which is why you drag in things that you found on your porch.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Now, explain your unjustifiable bigotry against every other form of human relationship, having adopted the homosexual cause. Your whopping inclusion of homosexuals is marginally less ‘bigoted’ than my own position. By a mere one other form of human relationship. And I can justify why hetero marriage is crucial to the nation. Crucial.[/quote]

What other forms of human relationship seek a life long partnership based on the same foundation of love and affection? So long as they involve consensual adult human beings, I really don’t care.[/quote]

So…Olee and her mom?[/quote]

I suppose I should have specified “romantic” love and affection. In any event, incest is a no fly zone as there is too much potential for preadulthood influence, and sexual interference. There are laws against incest, and there are laws against sexual interference, but there are no laws against homosexuality. There are however laws which exclude homosexuals.[/quote]

Sorry. I can shoot this one down with both eyes closed.

Using the logic of those espousing homosexual marriage there is NO reason to deny Olee and her mom the “right” to marry.[/quote]

Except for the afformentioned protection of minors.[/quote]

OLEE AND HER MOM ARE NOT MINORS. They’re not even close.

C’mon, people, many of you are too frickin thick in the head to play in this sandbox. Good grief, wake the fuck up.[/quote]

PREADULTHOOD INFLUENCE AND SEXUAL INTERFERENCE. Olena was at one point a child, in her mother’s care, and allowing her mother mould her into her ideal spouse while raising her and waiting for her “consent” is forbidden. To ensure this doesn’t take place, they are not allowed to marry.

[quote]orion wrote:

Neither do heterosexual marriages serve a critical function.

Your argument basically is this:

Heterosexual couples should be allowed to marry because you like a society where heterosexual couples are allowed to marry.

That is a bit light on the content side. [/quote]

x2

Orion is cool and has a cool avatar.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Neither do heterosexual marriages serve a critical function.

[/quote]

The class dunce gets the first gold of this thread.[/quote]

The class dunce is taking you apart right now.

Which raises the question what that makes you.

So, the critical role of marriage is?

And please point out how no other arrangements could possibly provide the same benefits and use reasoning that is not circular.

Or post another stupid picture, oh, please do.

[quote]Oleena wrote:<<< I looked those up and did not get a definition of the purpose of marriage at all. If you can find it, please copy and paste the definition of the purpose of marriage according to US law into this thread.

That goes for anyone who can find it.[/quote]I’ll type this real slow. Jist fer you. Our founders did not feel the need to define marriage legally because they accepted the church’s definition and never dreamed THEY would need a legal one. (although adultrey and homosexuality were both illegal at the state level all over.) Listen carefully now. They relied on the preponderance of people to act like Christians on their own for their country to be strong and prosper. Are ya in there? Limited civil government made possible by Christian self government. You will make an absolute idiot of yourself if you deny that. You can hate it all ya want, but that’s how it was.
The following was a VERY widely accepted view and one which was vital to our founding and survival. Hence our present decline.

The Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646:

[quote]CHAPTER XXIV.
Of Marriage and Divorce.

I. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband at the same time.

II. Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife; for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and of the Church with an holy seed; and for preventing of uncleanness.

III. It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry who are able with judgment to give their consent. Yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord. And, therefore, such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, Papists, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies.

IV. Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden in the Word; nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man, or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together, as man and wife. The man may not marry any of his wife’s kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own, nor the woman of her husband’s kindred nearer in blood than of her own.

V. Adultery or fornication, committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce, and after the divorce to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.

VI. Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments, unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage; yet nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage; wherein a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it, not left to their own wills and discretion in their own case. [/quote]

I would tell you to some diggin but you won’t. Just like you probably won’t even really read this post.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Neither do heterosexual marriages serve a critical function.

[/quote]

The class dunce gets the first gold of this thread.[/quote]

I’m done for the night. I can’t take anymore of these kind of responses. Funny thing is? Strong, up on a pedestal, high-esteemed, heterosexual marriages make smaller governments most possible, within a strong civil society. Liberaltarians, their own worst enemy.

[quote]krazykoukides wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Neither do heterosexual marriages serve a critical function.

Your argument basically is this:

Heterosexual couples should be allowed to marry because you like a society where heterosexual couples are allowed to marry.

That is a bit light on the content side. [/quote]

x2

Orion is cool and has a cool avatar.[/quote]

Dammit, PWI has not prepared me for this…

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

I suppose I should have specified “romantic” love and affection. [/quote]

Bigot.[/quote]

I’ve given reason to why gays should be alowed to marry. If you’d like to give reason why a girl and her mother should be wed, by all means enlighten me.[/quote]

No, no. Let’s deal with that later. You just discriminated against non-romantic human relationships in that quote. Explain your bigotry, please.[/quote]

This should be obvious to you. Non-romantic human relationships do not have the investment of a life long romantic relation, and as such the parties involved in them are unsuitable to be burdened with the responsabilities marriage involves. Again, you’re friend is not your wife for a reason, and that reason is not limited to reproductive compatability.

Also, marriage traditionally was not about all the benefits AC pointed out.

It was not about tax benefits, inheritance laws, the right to make medical decisions as defined by the state.

If you got rid of all those, the point of gay marriage would almost, almost, be moot, but that would most certainly end the non traditional marriage the people here are defending would it not.

This is not about tradition, this is about wanting their life style choice to be subsidized.

You could easily replace most of the traditional marriage crowd with corn farmers and the outrage would be just about the same.

I’m out for the weekend. This PWI is an interesting place.

[quote]orion wrote:

So, the critical role of marriage is?

[/quote]

Providing the orderly rearing of children in intact homes, with both biological parents present. You know the socio-economic arrangement best suited to have and raise children independent of the welfare state. To care more for the elderly (since they have better adjusted, non-felon, working, children and grandchildren) in the presence of a smaller, perhaps even absent (just for you), welfare state. To provide well adjusted youthful workers to take their place in the economy as others leave. Etc.

I’m done for the night.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

So, the critical role of marriage is?

[/quote]

Providing the orderly rearing of children in intact homes, with both biological parents present. You know the socio-economic arrangement best suited to have and raise children independent of the welfare state. To care more for the elderly (since they better adjusted, non-felon, working, children and grandchildren) in the presence of a smaller, perhaps even absent (just for you), welfare state. To provide well adjusted youthful workers to take their place in the economy as others leave. Etc.

I’m done for the night.[/quote]

Once you are back, answer me this:

A) Are there no other social arrangements that could provide the same benefits?

B) Are there not homosexual couples raising children right now doing exactly what you want married couples to do? Would their children not benefit from the legal framework marriage provides?

C) Is it really your point that marriages are good because they serve the greater glory of Rome?