Exactly as I thought. No one can give me a good reason. How interesting…[/quote]
Directly behind your post is 22 pages of reasons, dipshit. Help yourself.[/quote]
Exactly, 22 pages of crap. Let me know when a good reason comes up.[/quote]
This is how the discussion that I had with him went:
TB: Heterosexual Marriage as public policy provides benefits and Homosexuals unions don’t
Me: They would help create more stable homes for children as 40 years worth of studies show LGBT parents are just as capable as biological parents in raising children. There is consensus in the medical field on this issue, here’s a wiki link with citations from credible sources.
TB: Non sense, go do some real research.
Me: Do you have any evidence to prove that biological parents are superior to LGBT parents?
TB: Yes, the institution of marriage has been around for 5000 years and it’s just common sense that biological parents are always best suited in raising their own children.
Me: …
The first half of his argument is a fallacy, specifically the appeal to age/tradition fallacy. So to sum up his argument as to why LGBT marriages would serve no public purpose: “it’s common sense”
…The idea of marriage has already made its way into our laws so its a little to late to take that back, now its time to extend them to cover everyone.
[/quote]
Yes, even for polygamists. Right?
[/quote]
Actually, Utah had to outlaw Mormon polygamy to be considered for statehood way back when.
I doubt any one objects to polygamy . I would bet the objection comes from cults that run off the young men and monopolize the young females for a perversely coerced lopsided marriage
[/quote]
Why do we allow those who will not have children, to marry?
What about those who cannot reproduce?[/quote]
Asked and answered, in previous pages. At length.
Yet again, we have an advocate who demands that we hit “reset!” whenever he wants in order to spoonfeed him.[/quote]
Well let me quote you back on page 12
"…infertile couples support the model that we want. It affirms the arrangement we want heterosexual couples to follow. It supports the legitimate public policy aim, even if it isn’t directly impacting the infertile couple viz-a-viz kinds of their own. "
"…infertile couples support the model that we want. It affirms the arrangement we want heterosexual couples to follow. It supports the legitimate public policy aim, even if it isn’t directly impacting the infertile couple viz-a-viz kinds of their own. "
THat is a poor argument. [/quote]
No, it isn’t, made obvious by the fact that you didn’t explain why.
We want heterosexual couples to see marriage and want to emulate it for themselves - that is a public policy good, that’s why we have marriage in the first place: to encourage heterosexual couples to get married. Anything that encourages that - including seeing married couples without kids - is a good idea.
Why do we allow those who will not have children, to marry?
What about those who cannot reproduce?[/quote]
Asked and answered, in previous pages. At length.
Yet again, we have an advocate who demands that we hit “reset!” whenever he wants in order to spoonfeed him.[/quote]
Well let me quote you back on page 12
"…infertile couples support the model that we want. It affirms the arrangement we want heterosexual couples to follow. It supports the legitimate public policy aim, even if it isn’t directly impacting the infertile couple viz-a-viz kinds of their own. "
THat is a poor argument. [/quote]
On the contrary, it’s a great argument. The more pairings of the reproductive sexes encountered in every daily life, the more it’s reinforced as the norm for the reproductive sexes. A particular infertile couple does not make the reproductive sexes…non-reproductive. It is still the biological rule of human-kind. The alternative, otherwise, is to maintain a larger population of non-married men and women (the infertile) who are sexually active. Reinforcing THAT norm, and conflicting with the desired goal…The pairing of the reproductive sexes into lifelong committed relationships, so as to provide the orderly bearing and rearing of our future citizenry, within, intact homes, having both biological parents home.
"…infertile couples support the model that we want. It affirms the arrangement we want heterosexual couples to follow. It supports the legitimate public policy aim, even if it isn’t directly impacting the infertile couple viz-a-viz kinds of their own. "
THat is a poor argument. [/quote]
No, it isn’t, made obvious by the fact that you didn’t explain why.
We want heterosexual couples to see marriage and want to emulate it for themselves - that is a public policy good, that’s why we have marriage in the first place: to encourage heterosexual couples to get married. Anything that encourages that - including seeing married couples without kids - is a good idea.[/quote]
So are you implying, that if you grew up seeing gays marry, that you wouldnt know if you should marry a man or woman?
Have you caught the gay my friend?
Seriously, How will gay people marrying each other discourage heteros from marrying, as you so eloquently implied?
So are you implying, that if you grew up seeing gays marry, that you wouldnt know if you should marry a man or woman?[/quote]
Nope.
I said it was good for heterosexuals to see marriages so they would be inclined to appreciate marriage and get married themselves. Thus, even childless marriages promote the public good of encouraging heterosexuals to get married and stay married.
"…infertile couples support the model that we want. It affirms the arrangement we want heterosexual couples to follow. It supports the legitimate public policy aim, even if it isn’t directly impacting the infertile couple viz-a-viz kinds of their own. "
THat is a poor argument. [/quote]
No, it isn’t, made obvious by the fact that you didn’t explain why.
We want heterosexual couples to see marriage and want to emulate it for themselves - that is a public policy good, that’s why we have marriage in the first place: to encourage heterosexual couples to get married. Anything that encourages that - including seeing married couples without kids - is a good idea.[/quote]
So are you implying, that if you grew up seeing gays marry, that you wouldnt know if you should marry a man or woman?
Have you caught the gay my friend?
Seriously, How will gay people marrying each other discourage heteros from marrying, as you so eloquently implied?[/quote]
So are you implying, that if you grew up seeing gays marry, that you wouldnt know if you should marry a man or woman?[/quote]
Nope.
I said it was good for heterosexuals to see marriages so they would be inclined to appreciate marriage and get married themselves. Thus, even childless marriages promote the public good of encouraging heterosexuals to get married and stay married.
Have you caught the stupid?[/quote]
Again, i need supporting reasons for this. You cant just say it will cause people to not want to marry,. Please provide me with the hows and whys. Right now, there is still no legitimate reason on the table.
Explain how gays marrying will cause a decrease in hetero marriages? Im off to the gym, you have a while to come up with some things.
So are you implying, that if you grew up seeing gays marry, that you wouldnt know if you should marry a man or woman?[/quote]
Nope.
I said it was good for heterosexuals to see marriages so they would be inclined to appreciate marriage and get married themselves. Thus, even childless marriages promote the public good of encouraging heterosexuals to get married and stay married.
Have you caught the stupid?[/quote]
Again, i need supporting reasons for this. You cant just say it will cause people to not want to marry,. Please provide me with the hows and whys. Right now, there is still no legitimate reason on the table.
Explain how gays marrying will cause a decrease in hetero marriages? Im off to the gym, you have a while to come up with some things.[/quote]
Again, i need supporting reasons for this. You cant just say it will cause people to not want to marry,. Please provide me with the hows and whys. Right now, there is still no legitimate reason on the table. [/quote]
I didn’t say it will “cause people to not want to marry.” You said the point that letting childless couples marry helped promote marriage was a bad argument, and I said you were wrong and showed you why in two posts. You keep bouncing around and can’t keep your arguments straight. You’re incoherent.
Read the thread, Einstein - if you want the arguments, you know where to find them. The only thing you’ve done so far is get laughed at.
Yeah, it gets old after awhile. He asked a very specific question, of a very specific point among many. When answered, he acted as if he had asked a very different question. “Are you implying…” Well, no, T-bolt wasn’t even dealing with THAT question. Honestly, as far I’m concerned, he can read the thread from here on out. Heck, the narrow question he DID ask (and which narrowly answered, rightfully) has already been gone over multiple times in this one thread, with multiple responses back and forth each time. At 24 pages, I’ve said my piece on this topic (again).
So are you implying, that if you grew up seeing gays marry, that you wouldnt know if you should marry a man or woman?[/quote]
Nope.
I said it was good for heterosexuals to see marriages so they would be inclined to appreciate marriage and get married themselves. Thus, even childless marriages promote the public good of encouraging heterosexuals to get married and stay married.
Have you caught the stupid?[/quote]
Again, i need supporting reasons for this. You cant just say it will cause people to not want to marry,. Please provide me with the hows and whys. Right now, there is still no legitimate reason on the table.
Explain how gays marrying will cause a decrease in hetero marriages? Im off to the gym, you have a while to come up with some things.[/quote]
Gay marriage will give everyone twice as many options for people to marry, obviously this will decrease hetero marriage when people switch to the other side after seeing how cool and accepted gay people now are.
[quote]colt44 wrote:<<< Explain how gays marrying will cause a decrease in hetero marriages? Im off to the gym, you have a while to come up with some things.[/quote]The argument is that traditional marriage provides vital and unique benefits to the society as a whole thus warranting legal recognition to preserve and promote those benefits. The fact of some specimens not providing said benefits is no more an argument against that institution than is a car that won’t start a valid argument against owning an automobile. To use a very imperfect analogy.
[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
Pedophiles aren’t gay and vice versa. This link isn’t really helpful at all. Do you really think this is what’s going on, or are you using a spoon made of hate and misunderstanding to stir this pot of shit?[/quote]
You didn’t read the article did you?[/quote]
Actually I did read the article. I just thought it was bogus.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Watch the Western World collapse…oh…wait. Guess not.[/quote]It has been since the 60’s. In case you haven’t noticed.
[/quote]
The collapse is always being highly exaggerated and a matter of perspective. In case you hadn’t noticed. [/quote]
Seeing as China’s GDP surpassed the U.S.'s and they are in the process of taking control of the financial system by buying up U.S. debt, I’d say it’s caving in for the West at least. [/quote]
China only owns about 9% of our debt. American banks hold the vast majority.
