[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I actually think if a “cure” was found a good percentage of people wouldn’t even use it. [/quote]
Drop the emotional wishful thinking. It would be one of the most routinely requestedscreens and treatments. Atheist, liberal, conservative, religious alike.
[/quote]
Any pro gay marriage people here agree with Sloth?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Sorry, I guess the better word would be “form.” The general function or form, of a marriage allows for children, though it does not require it. After all that is the primary purpose of marriage, the raising and protecting biological children.[/quote]
Your next post is basically this same idea so I am only replying to this one. I mentioned at least 1 case that has no primary purpose according to you that is still a valid marriage. Marriage is “based” on a man and women but that doesn’t limit it to that. So I have yet to hear a good reason why it MUST be limited to a man and women.[/quote]
Because it’s the only match that can produce children…the purpose of marriage. Exceptions just prove the rule.[/quote]
Now we are going in circles. I gave you 2 examples of a “match” that cannot produce children yet is still a valid marriage. So children are not a requirement so lets not bring it up anymore.[/quote]
No, children are not a requirement. When did I say that? I said “allows” and has the “form.” Now, you’re just making shit up since I never said that children are a requirement, being as allowing for children and children are not the same thing.[/quote]
Well, neither did he, if you actually pay attention to what he said, Chris. He’s also talking about the ability to have children. You can’t dodge his argument by leeching onto semantics. But, I want to talk about the merits of your argument:
It is the single weakest argument I’ve heard. Old people can’t have kids, but at one point they could, so it’s okay for them to marry! Just like how children can’t have kids, but they will at some pint, so it’s okay for them to marry too! Oh wait, it’s not? Why? Because that’s a bullshit argument?
No, you’d never admit that. You would say it’s because they don’t meet the legal requirements to be eligible for such a thing (their age being the most prominent legal restriction). Which is a much stronger argument because, as we all know, what your country considers ‘legal rights’ is unchangeable. Oh, that’s not true either? Well then I suppose it’s largely arbitrary, which means your argument is rooted in the arbitrary, which means either you are retarded, or this isn’t actually what you’re basing your decision on.
This is nothing more than ex-post facto justifications for what you already believe so you can bring more to the table than just “The God I like to think exists hates fags, therefore everyone else should too.”
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I actually think if a “cure” was found a good percentage of people wouldn’t even use it. [/quote]
Drop the emotional wishful thinking. It would be one of the most routinely requestedscreens and treatments. Atheist, liberal, conservative, religious alike.
[/quote]
Any pro gay marriage people here agree with Sloth?[/quote]
Almost to the man, I guarantee. Will they admit it? Will they acknowledge what ole righty-conservative-mean-Sloth said? Will they give him that much? That’s a different thing.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
…you would be surprised of how many (hint: not 0) people would even prefer a gay child.[/quote]
‘Not zero.’ There’s a confident statement. And, you’d be shocked at how many “I’m cool with homosexuality” folks would opt for a hormonal therapy that would align their child-in-the-womb’s reproductive organs with reproduction. Greater likely hood of grandchildren in an intact home is a mighty powerful incitement for expectant moms and dads already daydreaming about what kind of father or mother their offspring will be. As they think about what it will be like to watch their future grandchildren playing in the yard, from their rocking chairs. I don’t have to meekly state “not zero.” By the droves. I know it, you know it, we all know it.
[/quote]
The only gay person in my extended family does have a biological child, so having grandchildren isn’t really thrown out the window either.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
…you would be surprised of how many (hint: not 0) people would even prefer a gay child.[/quote]
‘Not zero.’ There’s a confident statement. And, you’d be shocked at how many “I’m cool with homosexuality” folks would opt for a hormonal therapy that would align their child-in-the-womb’s reproductive organs with reproduction. Greater likely hood of grandchildren in an intact home is a mighty powerful incitement for expectant moms and dads already daydreaming about what kind of father or mother their offspring will be. As they think about what it will be like to watch their future grandchildren playing in the yard, from their rocking chairs. I don’t have to meekly state “not zero.” By the droves. I know it, you know it, we all know it.
[/quote]
The only gay person in my extended family does have a biological child, so having grandchildren isn’t really thrown out the window either.[/quote]
Do you know what ‘odds’ are?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
…you would be surprised of how many (hint: not 0) people would even prefer a gay child.[/quote]
‘Not zero.’ There’s a confident statement. And, you’d be shocked at how many “I’m cool with homosexuality” folks would opt for a hormonal therapy that would align their child-in-the-womb’s reproductive organs with reproduction. Greater likely hood of grandchildren in an intact home is a mighty powerful incitement for expectant moms and dads already daydreaming about what kind of father or mother their offspring will be. As they think about what it will be like to watch their future grandchildren playing in the yard, from their rocking chairs. I don’t have to meekly state “not zero.” By the droves. I know it, you know it, we all know it.
[/quote]
The only gay person in my extended family does have a biological child, so having grandchildren isn’t really thrown out the window either.[/quote]
Do you know what ‘odds’ are?
[/quote]
Yes, when its illegal to get married the odds of choosing to have a child go down.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]optheta wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Obama is pure evil, no doubt – he hates freedom, intelligence, science, technology. Now the POS even betrays his religion. He is pure scum.[/quote]
Ohh look at you mr cherry picker.
Joke you are headhunter.[/quote]
Damn, I thought he was talking about me…then I re-read what he wrote because he said he betrayed his religion. I was like, wait us Catholics hate freedom, intelligence, science and technology. Then I was like, oh he’s talking about Obama…he probably hates freedom, intelligence, science, and technology because he hangs out with Catholics.
Lawls. We also genuflect and kneel in mass because we’re too drunk to stand up and we eat cookies. [/quote]
You are both mystics. He is a Mystic of Muscle (robbing by thuggery) while you are a Mystic of Faith (destroying by shortcircuiting the mind of Man using faith). Both of you are united against man as the thinking and independent being, the free being using his mind to the utmost.
He (Obama) wants everyone to be a slave to everyone else. You want everyone to be a slave to a magical being who sends His orders down only to you, so that you can issue orders.
One of the central tenets of Faith is that some people are ‘special’, God speaks only to them, and then they can issue ‘God’s’ orders to the rest of us.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Sorry, I guess the better word would be “form.” The general function or form, of a marriage allows for children, though it does not require it. After all that is the primary purpose of marriage, the raising and protecting biological children.[/quote]
Your next post is basically this same idea so I am only replying to this one. I mentioned at least 1 case that has no primary purpose according to you that is still a valid marriage. Marriage is “based” on a man and women but that doesn’t limit it to that. So I have yet to hear a good reason why it MUST be limited to a man and women.[/quote]
Because it’s the only match that can produce children…the purpose of marriage. Exceptions just prove the rule.[/quote]
Now we are going in circles. I gave you 2 examples of a “match” that cannot produce children yet is still a valid marriage. So children are not a requirement so lets not bring it up anymore.[/quote]
No, children are not a requirement. When did I say that? I said “allows” and has the “form.” Now, you’re just making shit up since I never said that children are a requirement, being as allowing for children and children are not the same thing.[/quote]
Well, neither did he, if you actually pay attention to what he said, Chris. He’s also talking about the ability to have children. You can’t dodge his argument by leeching onto semantics. But, I want to talk about the merits of your argument:
It is the single weakest argument I’ve heard. Old people can’t have kids, but at one point they could, so it’s okay for them to marry! Just like how children can’t have kids, but they will at some pint, so it’s okay for them to marry too! Oh wait, it’s not? Why? Because that’s a bullshit argument?
No, you’d never admit that. You would say it’s because they don’t meet the legal requirements to be eligible for such a thing (their age being the most prominent legal restriction). Which is a much stronger argument because, as we all know, what your country considers ‘legal rights’ is unchangeable. Oh, that’s not true either? Well then I suppose it’s largely arbitrary, which means your argument is rooted in the arbitrary, which means either you are retarded, or this isn’t actually what you’re basing your decision on.
This is nothing more than ex-post facto justifications for what you already believe so you can bring more to the table than just “The God I like to think exists hates fags, therefore everyone else should too.”
[/quote]
I find all these justifications amusing. We both know the reason for 99% of the people against gay marriage vote that way. But that doesn’t work in real arguments so they have to beat around the bush with other reasons that justify the conclusion they were told to believe many years ago.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
…you would be surprised of how many (hint: not 0) people would even prefer a gay child.[/quote]
‘Not zero.’ There’s a confident statement. And, you’d be shocked at how many “I’m cool with homosexuality” folks would opt for a hormonal therapy that would align their child-in-the-womb’s reproductive organs with reproduction. Greater likely hood of grandchildren in an intact home is a mighty powerful incitement for expectant moms and dads already daydreaming about what kind of father or mother their offspring will be. As they think about what it will be like to watch their future grandchildren playing in the yard, from their rocking chairs. I don’t have to meekly state “not zero.” By the droves. I know it, you know it, we all know it.
[/quote]
The only gay person in my extended family does have a biological child, so having grandchildren isn’t really thrown out the window either.[/quote]
Do you know what ‘odds’ are?
[/quote]
Yes, when its illegal to get married the odds of choosing to have a child go down.[/quote]
And just how many children will anal sex, fellatio, and cunnilingus produce?
Hey Cortes,
I just kinda scanned for your posts. So sorry if this is covered elsewhere. There are only a few people on here who can disagree civilly, so it’s always good talking with you.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Kinda a wishy-washy answer that skipped his point though.
Question one: How long have you been here? (why do you speak Japanese?)
Question two: When are you going home?
lol
[/quote]
It’s only wishy washy if you do what you and raj are apparently doing and read into my original statement meanings that were never intended.
I am speaking in purely utilitarian terms, for the moment. In this case, “socially favored” would be that marriage arrangement that serves to replenish and regrow the population, provide new, productive taxpayers to support the upside down triangle of a welfare based infrastructure we have here, and has the highest likelihood of producing a child that will turn into a law-abiding, productive member of society who goes on to form a family of his own and not a criminal baby-daddy or similar who will tend to drain resources rather than augment them.
Speaking honestly, I really do not understand what you and raj are trying to demonstrate.[/quote]
Perhaps it’s simply a disagreement about the role of law in society. You seem to be arguing for an ideal. I think laws should exist to help “us” to muddle through a very complex and un-ideal world. Does that make sense? Let me know if I’ve misunderstood you.
[quote] Is this society racist? Youbetcha. Do I care? Sure as hell do, particularly with a son being born into it. Does it have anything at all to do with my point? Not one thing. The nuclear family unit of a single mother and a father happens to be the most beneficial arrangement overall, for this society or America, racist or not racist.
Let’s turn this on its head for a second, you guys that are arguing for the “right” of gays to be married to be officially recognized, do you disagree with this statement:
The superior familial arrangement for a stable, healthy society, and the most beneficial environment for a child to be raised in, is that of a single mother and a single father, married and living together.
If not, how so? [/quote]
[edit] well, I tried to write up a response twice and couldn’t get it out in a way that didn’t make me want to make this a PM rather than a public post.
Basically though, two points: 1) I’m not sure government should be most interested or only interested in the ideal/model you are suggesting. 2) The implication seems to be that “other than ideal” situations don’t have value or enough value to be recognized, I don’t agree with that and can easily see how it could be construed as offensive.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
You’ve conveniently defined “socially favoured” in a manner to fit your argument. If we were to define the “greater good” as maintaining a homogeneous population and preventing the dilution of Japanese bloodlines, then your argument falls apart.
Why is it okay for you to acknowledge certain societal preferences while ignoring others?[/quote]
Stop, please. This isn’t 1941. I live in a country with a genuine welfare crisis on its hands. They care enough about the problem to subsidize the birth and health of my children, and to provide a monthly stipend for each child that increases for every child born. [/quote]
But they don’t care enough to allow your son to have dual citizenship nor increase immigration. If my wife ever decides to get American citizenship, she must give up “being” Japanese.
I was tempted to post the “turning Japanese” song here. “The nail that sticks up, gets hammered down” as they say. This is essentially your argument here, no?
[not sure if my tone is coming out here, I’m trying to be funny-ish here, not offensive.]
I tried to answer above, not sure if we’ll ever agree though. The basic point is that I’m not sure government should be creating laws based upon ideals. Especially since one man’s ideal is another man’s hell.
Good talking with you. I tried to answer honestly. In retrospect, I wish I had copied and pasted the response I deleted into a PM, but it’s time to pick up the wife and go to sleep, work, then the weekend. I’ll try to get back to this, but I’m not sure when, and I’m kinda afraid I won’t be able to find your posts in the sea of anger and foolishness that this thread will undoubtedly bring.
If you do see this, I hope you’re doing well. Have a good one.
EDIT: I think another entire page was posted in the time it took me to type and post this…lol Well, hopefully you catch this.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
…you would be surprised of how many (hint: not 0) people would even prefer a gay child.[/quote]
‘Not zero.’ There’s a confident statement. And, you’d be shocked at how many “I’m cool with homosexuality” folks would opt for a hormonal therapy that would align their child-in-the-womb’s reproductive organs with reproduction. Greater likely hood of grandchildren in an intact home is a mighty powerful incitement for expectant moms and dads already daydreaming about what kind of father or mother their offspring will be. As they think about what it will be like to watch their future grandchildren playing in the yard, from their rocking chairs. I don’t have to meekly state “not zero.” By the droves. I know it, you know it, we all know it.
[/quote]
The only gay person in my extended family does have a biological child, so having grandchildren isn’t really thrown out the window either.[/quote]
Do you know what ‘odds’ are?
[/quote]
Yes, when its illegal to get married the odds of choosing to have a child go down.[/quote]
And just how many children will anal sex, fellatio, and cunnilingus produce?
[/quote]
Oh…Oh (raises hand)…NONE!
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
I’m curious as to whether or not the anti-gay-marriage crowd would be opposed to gay marriage even if their God didn’t oppose it.[/quote]
The public policy of marriage - i.e., why we enshrine marriage in law - has zilch to do with religion.
Why have so few gay marriage advocates actually sat back and considered the point of having a public policy of marriage in the first place?
[quote]optheta wrote:
I still have yet to hear a good reason as to why gay marriage should be illegal. Somebody give one decent one at least.[/quote]
Because gay marriage is a solution in search of a problem - there is no compelling public welfare problem that gay marriage solves.
Do a search - there are countless threads on this. If you haven’t heard a good reason why gay marriage should be illegal, it’s not because there aren’t any, it’s because you remain ignorant of them.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Stop pretending like you have any good secular arguments because you don’t. Just say “God is against homosexuality so I cannot support gay marriage.”[/quote]
There are plenty of good secular arguments against gay marriage - in fact, most of the “good ones” are secular.
Like many gay marriage advocates, you attempt to deflect the arguments with a series of non-sequiturs - and you try to impugn the motives of people giving you ironclad reasons for not having gay marriage as public policy by claiming they are just given to religious fits against the lifestyle.
It’s cheap and it’s lazy, and it saves the gay marriage proponents from having to engage the merits of criticism against gay marriage. But, it’s obvious.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
What the hell is so special about homosexuals that they need government recognition of their private relationship?
[/quote]
What is so special about heterosexuals that they need government recognition? It is really a matter of differentiating between the 2 groups that is the problem, regardless of what is or isn’t recognized.[/quote]
Babies.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Stop pretending like you have any good secular arguments because you don’t. Just say “God is against homosexuality so I cannot support gay marriage.”[/quote]
There are plenty of good secular arguments against gay marriage - in fact, most of the “good ones” are secular.
Like many gay marriage advocates, you attempt to deflect the arguments with a series of non-sequiturs - and you try to impugn the motives of people giving you ironclad reasons for not having gay marriage as public policy by claiming they are just given to religious fits against the lifestyle.
It’s cheap and it’s lazy, and it saves the gay marriage proponents from having to engage the merits of criticism against gay marriage. But, it’s obvious.[/quote]
Nice assertion filled post. Feel free to actually list some arguments.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
What the hell is so special about homosexuals that they need government recognition of their private relationship?
[/quote]
What is so special about heterosexuals that they need government recognition? It is really a matter of differentiating between the 2 groups that is the problem, regardless of what is or isn’t recognized.[/quote]
Babies.[/quote]
Adoption. What’s your next argument?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
What is so special about heterosexuals…[/quote]
The propagation of the citizenry. Hell, the species.
The next person that asks this gets put on ignore. I will not pretend you’re actually this stupid. You’re not. So, stop stalling the discussion, and act like an adult. If this has to be argued (yet again, so soon), it’s going to be an honest argument this time. I’m tired of the emotional blabbering, with zero justification, over state recognized homosexual marriage. Stop pretending.[/quote]
So we need state recognized marriage and tax breaks in order to propagate the species?
As I said earlier:
Some of us see marriage as nothing more than a contract between two people who want to tether their lives together. If marriage disappeared tomorrow people would still couple, reproduce and rear children. State recognition and tax benefits wouldn’t make or break that. You see committed parents and monogamous relationships in non-rational animals as well.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Sorry, I guess the better word would be “form.” The general function or form, of a marriage allows for children, though it does not require it. After all that is the primary purpose of marriage, the raising and protecting biological children.[/quote]
Your next post is basically this same idea so I am only replying to this one. I mentioned at least 1 case that has no primary purpose according to you that is still a valid marriage. Marriage is “based” on a man and women but that doesn’t limit it to that. So I have yet to hear a good reason why it MUST be limited to a man and women.[/quote]
Because it’s the only match that can produce children…the purpose of marriage. Exceptions just prove the rule.[/quote]
Now we are going in circles. I gave you 2 examples of a “match” that cannot produce children yet is still a valid marriage. So children are not a requirement so lets not bring it up anymore.[/quote]
No, children are not a requirement. When did I say that? I said “allows” and has the “form.” Now, you’re just making shit up since I never said that children are a requirement, being as allowing for children and children are not the same thing.[/quote]
What exactly do you mean by “allows” and has the “form”? And please show me an agreed upon secular definition of marriage that says it MUST “allow” and have the “form” or it fails to meet the definition.[/quote]
Do I really have to explain that only when a penis and a vagina comes together can a baby be made?
We need public recognition of gay relationships as much as I need a government subsidy for birth control pills - which is to say, they/I don’t need them, because the policy is not designed to deal with a problem that applies to them/me.
I am a man that cannot give birth, and I therefore cannot use birth control pills. The policy - a subsidy for birth control pills that addresses some perceived public health issue - isn’t designed for me, it’s only designed for those who given birth and can use birth control pills: women.
Should I demand subsidized birth control pills as a matter of “equality”? Of course not - the policy of subsidized birth control pills have nothing to do with me. There is no point, such a policy serves no purpose for me, nor does it regulate any behavior on my end.
Same with marriage and gay relationships. Marriage is designed - as a public policy matter - to deal with procreation, and by logical extension, relationships that procreate. Gay relationships do not procreate, and they never will.
Gay marriage is about one thing, and nothing else - cultural symbolism that gay relationships are finally “equal” to heterosexual ones. But with respect to the public policy of marriage, they aren’t equal, and they can’t be.